Not for love of money, but of Humanity. "Greater is he who works for the good of all, then he who works for the good of himself only" ~ Matthew 25:40: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"- (NIV). I live in Singapore where the Emperor must not be disturbed.

Monday, September 20, 2010

PAP unethically supports the avarice of public housing exploiters.

PAP unethically supporting the avarice of public-housing (PH) exploiters.

The more egalitarian way of handling the "3 per cent of HDB flat owners - or 24,000 flat owners - own both private property and HDB flats" is as follows:

  1. ALL who own HDB MUST reside in the flat (or in another HDB flat subject rental rules mentioned in point 4). [any pte ppty owned can be rented out/ for investment- subject usual 'non-owner occupied' property taxes etc]
  2. NO SGporean (SC)/ PR should so distance himself from National interest that public housing is not used as a personal abode but misused as a vehicle of personal avarice.
  3. No person(s) should own a public property > [800sq FT + X (300sqFT)], where X is the number of registered Singaporeans/PR living in such public property. i.e. a couple can own UP TO a [800 + 2(300)]= 1400sqFT HDB unit. - this is so that no SC/PR consumes in excess of his equitable share of public property in a state where land is limited and new couples postpone marriage due to 'homelessness' and that large 'granny' units remain available to multi-tier families and not the fiefdom of landlords or other shady uses. {'[800 + 2(300)]' is a strict guideline, the numbers may be adjusted as appropriate.} This new guideline would give married couples (and those with larger families) an upper hand over smaller families and singles by banning 'subsidised' ownership of more then one needs. A person can only have ONE main address- so all persons living in HDB properties would have to pay full property taxes on any other pte properties owned ('non-owner occupied' rate). An apt. too big for the number of registered occupants is given between 6 months to 2 yrs, as circumstances permit to be disposed of as the case may be- case by case basis.
    - The address to which such occupant is registered shall be listed on the person's NRIC and shall be the address to which all government and legal correspondence be directed.
  4. Should the owner of the HDB still want to rent out the whole flat [only situation of such would be where owner resides for sometime abroad/ owner resides in a nursing home], then the flat may only be rented out in accordance to 'minimal required number of SC/PRs tenants rules' as specified in point 3. Any excess may be filled by foreigners but subject to HDB crowd limits. Proper registration with HDB about the details of this arrangement are necessary, 'non-owner occupier' prop. tax payable for such arrangements >6mths duration.
    - in this regard and having complied with Pt.3, only HDB rooms may be rented out on a pte/ personal basis (e.g. to foreigners), in accordance to existing HDB rules.
    - this is to ensure efficient utilization of HDB apartments and that only SC/PR have the privilege to own/ occupy them.
  5. As a side pointer, the requirement that only rooms (and NOT full HDB apts) can be rented out liberally (subject to Pt 1-4 above) will ensure that all foreigners to Singapore staying in HDB flats would interact daily with the SC/PR flat owner- a very good way to ensure that foreigners (the ones we see daily) can fit into SG society and if they accept it, become PRs or SC themselves.
Minister Mah's new rules are NOT equitable as it privileges the current HDB owners who have had (and continue to have) their cake and eat it. Whom whilst enjoying the privileged lifestyle of pte property living (shunning HDB option), insist on monopolizing a HDB flat for the purpose none other than personal financial avarice- this at a time where engaged couples are unable to marry for the simple reason that public housing has been exploited for personal gain by these privileged 24,000 PRs and SCs- those who continue to enjoy private luxuries yet inappropriately misuse public housing policies to fund their avarice.
Do PAP 'grassroots leaders' happen to form a majority of these 24,000 privileged people such that young couples have to wait in line for housing whilst they indulge in avarice?- for those who deem HDB living not to their standards, let them NOT use public housing for private financial gain. HDB flats are abodes for SC/PRs, not vehicles to bring in more foreigners to help line the pockets of manipulative SC/PR.
Mr Mah is wrong to condemn HDB dwellers - greater is the sin of those who use HDB for profit rather than those who appropriately invest in pte property/ equity for profit whilst 'correctly' utilizing their citizen's access to public housing - that said, no one should own a HDB flat too large/ many for his own use.
This way, unlike the pte housing market, HDB flat prices would much less affected by foreigner rental demand (which seems to be the current problem).
There would be no need for a min. occupancy period because HDB flats would be solely for the use of SC/PR, and remain so. TCs and HDB would also then not have to be overloaded with issues regarding the housing of foreigners- that would be best dealt with via a flexible pte housing mkt- for "that is the way it should be in the digital age".
Until and unless the needs of citizens for public housing are met, foreigners shouldn't be candidates for public housing; less so should irresponsible SC/PRs be lining their own pockets at the expense of SC who have to queue for PH flats in unpopular locations.
May equality return to this country; may the casino days of these unconscionable exploiters of public housing end.
Majulah Singapura.

Comments/ Responses?

- 'Not penalising private home owners': "About 3 per cent of HDB flat owners - or 24,000 flat owners - own both private property and HDB flats." [TDY 16Sept2010]
- 'YPAP leader and new citizen Sinha Shekhar complains about low rent of his resale HDB flat': "Mr Sinha also revealed that he owns a private property, implying that he bought the resale HDB flat NOT for staying but for renting and making money." [TR22June2010]
- 'Don't deny investors a choice': "Over the years, this "sandwiched" class of private property owners worked hard to pay for their homes with the intention to move to an HDB flat during retirement. The private property could then be rented out to provide a stream of retirement income. The new requirement has effectively killed the hopes of many such people." [ST 1Sept2010]

Posted to/ related posts:
20Sept2010: Not penalising private home owners
20Sept2010: Indonesian took up Singapore PR so he can buy resale HDB flat
20Sept2010: Gen Y here just can't settle down
20Sept2010: New measures to cool property market are dissappointing
20Sept2010: Mah Bow Tan - Demand due not just to immigration
SG forums:
20Sept2010: Ridiculous HDB Prices
20Sept2010: HDB flats – S’poreans come first?
SG club:
20Sept2010: It's not fair, says private home owner
REACH forum:
20Sept2010: On HDB resale prices and temporary home for the newly-weds
20Sept2010: Re: New Rules on HDBs 5 yr MOP and Private Property
20Sept2010: HDB Valuation Prices is the Root Cause !!!
20Sept2010: Housing Prices affect Birth Rates as well... !!!
18Jan2011: Fertility Rate falls to disastrous low

No comments:

Post a Comment