Connect with us

Editorial

Difference between how ministers under late LKY and his son answer about development cost for HDB flats

Published

on

“It won’t be helpful or meaningful to” provide the breakdown of the development cost for flats built by the Housing Development Board (HDB), said Ms Indranee Rajah.

This shocking answer was provided by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for Finance in response to a Parliamentary Question filed by the Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh on Monday (7 Nov).

The Workers’ Party Secretary-General had asked if HDB will provide a clear breakdown of the total development cost of all new flats and the value of the “generous subsidies” applied to the assessed market price of these new flats, in light of the POFMA Correction Directions issued on 14 October 2022 to an individual for his Facebook posts dated 4 October 2022.

Ms Indranee noted, “So Mr Singh’s question was, would we give a breakdown for all new flats henceforth.”

“It’s not meaningful because you will be just comparing this one with this one. And, you know, prices in one area may not be the same as the other. So that is the answer. My straightforward answer is it won’t be helpful or meaningful to do so.” said Ms Indranee.

Explaining to Ms Indranee why it would be meaningful to do so, Mr Singh said:

“So since the introduction of the prime location housing (PLH) of bleached flats last year, it suggests to me at least or provides an example why a detailed publication of HDB subsidies actually warranted. A HDB PLH flat buyer upon selling his PLH flat after ten-year MOP (Minimum Occupancy Period), will have to return the quantum of additional subsidies provided as a percentage of the original assessed market value of the flat and the subsidy recovery will apply to the resale price.”

He added, “That is a reflection of the prevailing market value regardless if the flat is sold at a gain or loss. Another reason I would suggest to the Minister to publish the dollar value of the subsidy is to scrutinise and track the amount of subsidies being diverted for homeownership purposes.”

“This is particularly in view of the Ministry of National Development’s 2011 decision to delink BTO prices from the rising resale market than the median price of a 4 room and larger HDB resale flats has increased 26% between 2017 and 2022, with resale prices reaching record highs today and therefore pushing up the market price of land. Increasing the size of the subsidies under the current HDB policy would appear to be the main way through which BTO prices will be kept affordable.”

In view of these new reasons, Mr Singh asked what is preventing HDB from publishing the dollar value of HDB subsidies for new BTO flats.

Ms Indranee retorted saying, “With respect to prime location housing. It actually doesn’t really change my answer because at the end of the day, the question is what is affordable to the person who’s buying? And in that, we have made no secret of the fact that for prime location housing, you will have to have a greater subsidy.”

“So that’s the key thing. So it comes back to the same question, why would you have to disclose or put out the development costs of every single project? It’s just not meaningful.”

“The key thing is to the buyer, is this affordable? And that’s what HDB does.”

Last Breakdown Of HDB Cost In 1988

The last time that HDB revealed its construction costs — including the subsidies provided to flat buyers, appears to be in 1988 when former MP for Potong Pasir SMC, Chiam See Tong asked the then-Minister for National Development, S. Dhanabalan if he will give the breakdown cost of unit flat including land cost incurred by the Housing and Development Board of flats constructed at six constituencies.

At this point, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the then-Prime Minister of Singapore.

In response, Mr S. Dhanabalan provided exact details of the breakdown in a written reply and said that the cost incurred by HDB in building its flats can be broken down into construction cost and land cost.

“Construction cost relates to the cost of the building itself, the cost of piling, the installation of electrical supply, sanitation, lifts, water supply, etc, as well as the cost of earthworks, ancillary roads, sewers and drains. Construction cost is determined by the prices of contracts tendered out by HDB.”

“Land cost is determined by the Chief Valuer based on the market values of comparable land. Land cost attributed to the flats does not include the land for commercial premises, town gardens and other non-residential uses in the HDB estate.”

The former minister also noted that cost data in detail is only available since the HDB introduced the new accounting system in 1985.

21 years later, Mr Chiam asked again for the cost, this time addressed to then-Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan under the PAP government headed by Mr Lee Hsien Loong, son of late LKY.

In his parliamentary question in 2009, Mr Chiam asked how much it costs the Government to build a 3-room, 4-room and 5-room HDB flat; what is the profit margin which HDB adds to the cost for each of these categories of flats when it sells them to the public; and whether HDB bases the selling price of flats on the prevailing market price of these flats.

However, Mr Chiam did not get a detailed breakdown from Mr Mah as he did from Mr S. Dhanabalan.

Without providing any breakdown of the cost components, Mr Mah said, “The total cost varies depending on when we build, where we build and what we build. It includes the cost of land as well as the cost of construction of the flats and ancillary services.”

“It varies from $230,000 for a 3-room flat in Punggol today, to $530,000 for a 5-room flat in Tiong Bahru. He also asked the profit margin HDB adds on. Let me explain that HDB does not price its flats based on cost plus profit, but on market price less a generous discount. Together with the additional Housing Grant, which various from $5,000 to $40,000, depending on household income, on average, the subsidies amount to about 20% of the market price for a 4-room flat. It will be even more for smaller flats.”

“Sometimes, HDB’s selling price is more than the total development cost to build the flats. Other times, it is less than the cost, especially when construction costs are high, as in the last few years. Overall, HDB incurs a large deficit in building and selling flats every year, and this is reflected in its audited annual accounts.” added Mr Mah.

A quick search online suggests no other instance of HDB providing the breakdown of costs and subsidies for its flats apart from the response in 1988.

With Ms Indranee’s answer to Mr Singh, we can safely say that it would be very unlikely to see a response from the government like what we got from the minister under late LKY under the current PAP government.

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

Editorial

Undying Phoenix: TOC navigates regulatory restrictions with a revamped approach

Despite new regulations hindering operations, The Online Citizen Asia (TOC) views this as a chance to return to its roots, launching Gutzy Asia for Greater Asian news, while refocusing on Singapore. Inviting volunteer support, TOC’s commitment to truth and transparency remains unshakeable amidst these constraints.

Published

on

On 21 July 2023, the Ministry of Communications and Information, under the leadership of Minister Josephine Teo, declared The Online Citizen Asia’s (TOC) website and social media platforms as Declared Online Locations (DOL) according to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA).

This decision follows a series of alleged false statements propagated by TOC, with the most recent incident reported on 2 May.

Amidst a politically charged environment characterized by scandals involving the People’s Action Party and increasing public mistrust towards the ruling government, TOC will continue to operate, albeit under significant constraints, despite the regulatory restrictions imposed.

The DOL declaration mandates that TOC must carry a public notice on its online platforms, which indicates its alleged history of disseminating misinformation.

The POFMA Office, however, clarified that TOC can continue its operations, retaining its website and social media pages under stringent regulations, particularly concerning monetization.

According to Part 5 of the POFMA, TOC is prohibited from gaining financial or material benefits from its operations. Additionally, offering financial support to TOC is equally unlawful. For the next two years, TOC will be compelled to self-sustain, relying solely on its resources without any public backing.

It strikes TOC as notably ironic that the Singapore government, eager to stymie our operations to prevent the spread of “fake news”, simultaneously demonstrates a fervour to invest S$900 million of taxpayer funds into the SPH Media Trust, currently embroiled in a data misrepresentation scandal. This dichotomy indeed presents a masterclass in cognitive dissonance.

Despite these significant constraints, TOC views this as an opportunity to revert to its roots, replicating the enthusiasm and drive that characterized our operation following our establishment in 2006.

Our existing staff will transition to a new publication, Gutzy Asia, focusing on news from Greater Asia, while TOC will refocus on its primary subject, Singapore, hence dropping the Asia subtext.

In this transition, we invite volunteers passionate about journalism and holding power to account to join us in our mission. We also welcome contributions from Singapore’s political parties, offering them a platform to express their perspectives and provide updates.

While this change may result in a decrease in content volume and frequency, we assure our supporters that our commitment to truth and transparency remains steadfast. We are legally obliged not to seek financial aid, but we hope our supporters will provide us with manpower and information support.

We are resolute in our decision to continue TOC’s operations, standing in defiance against attempts to silence dissent through lawsuits and intimidating regulations. We are here to serve the people, and we will continue our mission with determination and resilience.

To keep up to date with the publication: Follow The Online Citizen via telegram (Gutzy Asia’s posts are included)

Continue Reading

Editorial

Shanmugam, Balakrishnan, and the Code of Conduct: A Demand for Straight Answers

Editorial: Amid the recent controversy involving Singaporean ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan regarding the tenancy of two state properties, serious questions have surfaced about potential breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Despite being renowned for high standards of governance, the lack of a clear response from the ministers themselves and the decision to pass the issue to a review committee chaired by a fellow party member has raised eyebrows. The crucial question remains: does leasing property from the Singapore Land Authority, an organization overseen by the minister in question, breach the Code of Conduct?

Published

on

In a country renowned for its high standards of governance, the recent controversy surrounding the tenancy of two state properties by Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has raised some perplexing questions.

Both ministers, tasked with the important responsibility of upholding the integrity of Singapore’s laws and foreign affairs, respectively, find themselves under scrutiny following allegations of a potential breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Mr Shanmugam claimed in his statement on Tuesday (23 May) to have “nothing to hide” and encouraged questions.

However, the irony is palpable when we consider the simple question that remains unanswered: Does leasing from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), an organization he oversees, breach the Ministerial Code of Conduct?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s decision to initiate a review is commendable and necessary to maintain the high standards of integrity that are a cornerstone of the Singapore government.

However, having a fellow People’s Action Party Senior Minister, Teo Chee Hean, chair the review does raise some questions. Furthermore, it remains puzzling why a straightforward answer isn’t forthcoming from the ministers implicated in this issue.

Under Section 3 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, it’s stipulated that a Minister must avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.

While we should refrain from jumping to conclusions before the review concludes, the public certainly has the right to question whether a Minister leasing public property could conceivably conflict with his public duty.

This predicament reflects an unprecedented evasion of responsibility, particularly from Mr Shanmugam, who has been vocal in demanding clear and direct responses from political opponents.

Now that the tables have turned, the nation awaits his clear and direct answer – does leasing the property at 26 Ridout Road contravene the Code of Conduct for ministers?

Instead of a straightforward response, we see the matter deferred to a review committee and promises of addressing the issue in Parliament, where the ruling People’s Action Party holds a supermajority. This is far from the accountability and directness we expect from a Minister, especially one overseeing Law and Home Affairs.

The question is simple and direct, yet the absence of a clear answer has inevitably raised eyebrows and triggered skepticism about our leaders’ transparency and accountability. It is incumbent upon Mr Shanmugam and Mr Balakrishnan to clear the air and restore public confidence by providing a simple “Yes” or “No” answer.

Do the two ministers not think that the average person will likely perceive a conflict of interest when ministers rent from a government agency under the Law Minister’s purview? Once such a perception exists, how can there be no breach of Clause 3 of the Ministerial Code?

Clause 3, analogous to the maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, requires a Minister to avoid actual conflict of interest and apparent or perceived conflict of interest.

Parliamentary privilege and safe environments shouldn’t be an excuse for evading direct answers. Singaporeans deserve more than opaque explanations and bureaucratic deferrals; they deserve straightforward, honest responses from their public servants. This is a matter of trust, transparency, and, above all, integrity.

If there’s anything the public can perceive from the actions of the ministers so far, it’s how out of touch they appear to be with common folks – both in the matter of principle and the need for accountability – from atop their massive ivory towers on Ridout Road.

Continue Reading

Trending