Current Affairs
Minister Desmond Lee faces online criticism for blaming psychological factors for HDB price hikes
SINGAPORE: While National Development Minister Desmond Lee blamed psychological factors for the HDB resale price hikes, the online community expressed disagreement, arguing that the government’s failure to address the underlying structural and economic issues driving housing prices makes it appear out of touch with the realities faced by its citizens.
Additionally, some netizens voiced frustration that the HDB has strayed from its original mission of providing affordable public housing, calling for a reassessment of the government’s approach to monitoring the HDB market.
Detailing the government’s latest announcement of new property cooling measures on Tuesday (20 August), Mr Lee explained that tightening the loan-to-value (LTV) limit for HDB housing loans aims to temper demand at the higher end of the public housing resale market.
Effective from 20 August, the LTV limit has been reduced from 80% to 75%, aligning it with the mortgages offered by financial institutions.
He assured that the adjustment in the LTV limit is not expected to significantly impact the majority of HDB loan applicants, as nearly 90% of home buyers already borrow at LTV ratios of 75% or less.
“That 10 per cent disproportionately buy the larger flat types, which drive up the overall market … They also disproportionately pay much higher prices,” the minister noted.
Regarding the rise in HDB resale prices, Mr Lee attributed it to strong, broad-based demand across all buyer groups, partly driven by robust income growth over the last two years.
He also noted that rising private property prices have led more second-time buyers to the HDB resale market for upgrading. With the same budget, these upgraders can generally acquire a comparable-sized resale flat with better attributes than some condominiums.
Additionally, Mr Lee pointed out that a decrease in the number of flats reaching their Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) this year has contributed to tighter resale supply.
“There is also some Market psychology at work here,” Mr Lee said, referring to recent high-profile transactions and record resale prices that have attracted significant media attention.
However, he defended that in the past one and a half years, flats selling for over a million dollars have comprised about 2% of all resale transactions.
For smaller flats, such as room and four-room units, the most expensive ones are typically located in central HDB estates with strong transport connectivity and comprehensive amenities.
“More than half (of these flats) are located on very high floors about 30 stories and have good views, such transactions may come only 0.5% of all four room or smaller Flats transacted in the last two years .”
Mr Lee acknowledged that sellers, influenced by media coverage of record prices, have raised their price expectations, while buyers have become anxious to secure flats before prices increase further.
“if we are not careful, such market dynamics can cause the resale market to run out of line with economic fundamentals and cause a bubble.”
Call for Govt action on structural and economic factors driving housing price increases
Comments on The Straits Times Facebook post reveal that many netizens find Mr Lee’s attribution of the HDB resale price hike to psychological factors unconvincing.
Notably, Marcus Neo, a boxing coach, pointed out that while psychological factors can influence market behaviour, focusing solely on them without addressing the underlying structural and economic issues driving rising housing prices can make the government appear disconnected from the realities faced by its citizens.
“This perspective resonates particularly in societies with a growing perception of inequality and where the cost of living is a significant concern.”
While a netizen attributed the lack of housing funds to financial mismanagement by some Singaporeans and defended the government’s current policies, Marcus Neo countered by highlighting that this perspective overlooks the realities of income inequality and high living costs.
The netizen suggested that Singaporeans travel to Johor Bahru (JB) for shopping and argued that opportunities are plentiful, seemingly dismissing the significant cost of living concerns faced by locals.
Neo noted that while some individuals might afford holidays, many others, particularly lower-income groups, face significant economic strain, including untreated health issues and limited access to essential services.
“The argument that opportunities abound ignores systemic barriers, including gaps in education and skills development, which limit social mobility. ”
Additionally, he noted that cross-border shopping reflects the high cost of living in Singapore rather than affluence.
Concerns arise that million-dollar HDB flats could become the norm
While Minister Lee assured that million-dollar HDB flat only comprised small portion in the market, some raised worries over if the current rate of price increases for both new and old HDB flats continues, million-dollar flats could soon become the norm.
A netizen argued that the overall increase in market prices has driven up resale prices further, and pointed out that the rate of increase in resale prices closely mirrors the increase in new flat prices, which are regulated by the government.
HDB urged to refocus on affordable housing
There are also netizens expressed frustration that HDB has strayed from its original mission of providing affordable public housing for Singaporeans.
Some suggested that HDB flats should not be part of the resale market but instead be bought back by the government to maintain affordability.
They believe that the current approach, including offering grants, fails to address the core issue of high resale prices and that the government should focus on reclaiming and reselling older HDB flats to provide more affordable housing options.
Netizens warn of socioeconomic imbalances in prime areas
A netizen suggested to government to reconsider building high-end flats in prime locations, suggesting instead to sell these areas to private developers and use the funds to subsidize more affordable flats in less central locations.
By shifting the focus from building high-end flats in prime areas to developing flats in Outside Central Region (OCR) areas, the netizen believed the government could allocate more resources to subsidize these more affordable flats.
The netizen is concerned that if only younger and wealthier residents occupy these prime areas, it could lead to socioeconomic imbalances. They advocate for policies that ensure a more diverse population in desirable locations.
The post Minister Desmond Lee faces online criticism for blaming psychological factors for HDB price hikes appeared first on Gutzy Asia.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Current Affairs
Reforming Singapore’s defamation laws: Preventing legal weapons against free speech
Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong, linked to the financial stress from a defamation lawsuit, raises a critical issue: Singapore’s defamation laws need reform. These laws must not be weaponized to silence individuals.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/27020206/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg)
by Alexandar Chia
This week, we hear the tragic story of the suicide of Geno Ong, with Ong citing the financial stress from the defamation lawsuit against her by Raymond Ng and Iris Koh.
Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, this Koh/Ng vs Ong affair raises a wider question at play – the issue of Singapore’s defamation laws and how it needs to be tightened.
Why is this needed? This is because defamation suits cannot be weaponised the way they have been in Singapore law. It cannot be used to threaten people into “shutting up”.
Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution may permit laws to be passed to restrict free speech in the area of defamation, but it does not remove the fact that Article 14(1)(a) is still law, and it permits freedom of speech.
As such, although Article 14(2)(a) allows restrictions to be placed on freedom of speech with regard to the issue of defamation, it must not be to the extent where Article 14(1)(a)’s rights and liberties are not curtailed completely or heavily infringed on.
Sadly, that is the case with regard to precedence in defamation suits.
Let’s have a look at the defamation suit then-PM Goh Chok Tong filed against Dr Chee Soon Juan after GE 2001 for questions Dr Chee asked publicly about a $17 billion loan made to Suharto.
If we look at point 12 of the above link, in the “lawyer’s letter” sent to Dr Chee, Goh’s case of himself being defamed centred on lines Dr Chee used in his question, such as “you can run but you can’t hide”, and “did he not tell you about the $17 billion loan”?
In the West, such lines of questioning are easily understood at worse as hyperbolically figurative expressions with the gist of the meaning behind such questioning on why the loan to Suharto was made.
Unfortunately, Singapore’s defamation laws saw Dr Chee’s actions of imputing ill motives on Goh, when in the West, it is expected of incumbents to take the kind of questions Dr Chee asked, and such questions asked of incumbent office holders are not uncommon.
And the law permits pretty flimsy reasons such as “withdrawal of allegations” to be used as a deciding factor if a statement is defamatory or not – this is as per points 66-69 of the judgement.
This is not to imply or impute ill intent on Singapore courts. Rather, it shows how defamation laws in Singapore needs to be tightened, to ensure that a possible future scenario where it is weaponised as a “shut-up tool”, occurs.
These are how I suggest it is to be done –
- The law has to make mandatory, that for a case to go into a full lawsuit, there has to be a 3-round exchange of talking points and two attempts at legal mediation.
- Summary judgment should be banned from defamation suits, unless if one party fails to adduce evidence or a defence.
- A statement is to be proven false, hence, defamatory, if there is strictly material along with circumstantial evidence showing that the statement is false. Apologies and related should not be used as main determinants, given how many of these statements are made in the heat of the moment, from the natural feelings of threat and intimidation from a defamation suit.
- A question should only be considered defamatory if it has been repeated, after material facts of evidence are produced showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the message behind the question, is “not so”, and if there is a directly mentioned subject in the question. For example, if an Opposition MP, Mr A, was found to be poisoned with a banned substance, and I ask openly on how Mr A got access to that substance, given that its banned, I can’t be found to have “defamed the government” with the question as 1) the government was not mentioned directly and 2) if the government has not produced material evidence that they indeed had no role in the poisoning affair, if they were directly mentioned.
- Damages should be tiered, with these tiers coded into the Defamation Act – the highest quantum of damages (i.e. those of a six-figured nature) is only to be reserved if the subject of defamation lost any form of office, revenue or position, or directly quantifiable public standing, or was subjected to criminal action, because of the act of defamation. If none of such occur, the maximum amount of damages a plaintiff in a defamation can claim is a 4-figure amount capped at $2000. This will prevent rich and powerful figures from using defamation suits and 6-figure damages to intimidate their questioners and detractors.
- All defendants of defamation suit should be allowed full access to legal aid schemes.
Again, this piece does not suggest bad-faith malpractice by the courts in Singapore. Rather, it is to suggest how to tighten up defamation laws to avoid it being used as the silencing hatchet.
Current Affairs
Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun
A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/03132151/PHONE3.jpg)
SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.
The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.
The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.
Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.
The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.
The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.
If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.
They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.
The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.
The investigation is ongoing.
Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.
Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.
The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.
Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.
However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.
The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.
-
Singapore5 days ago
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
-
Diplomacy1 week ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Opinion1 week ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Parliament2 days ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Singapore13 hours ago
Minister K Shanmugam transfers Astrid Hill GCB to UBS Trustees for S$88 Million following Ridout Road controversy
-
Parliament3 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
Politics7 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Food1 week ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal