There are rules in Singapore for everything from the race of a GRC minority candidate (pre-specified as either Malay/ Indian and not interchangeable) to the minimum 6 months rental period for residential units so that neighbours are not inconvenienced/distressed seeing short stay strangers loitering around.
Likewise, it is a social good that freehold properties should be freely available on the open market rather than be horded by for profit companies. In the event of an enblock, who should grant permission to rebuild and at what lease period???!!! Would it be considered like a 99yr rental period whereby the lessors are at the total mercy of freehold title landlords who can agree/ disagree based on whim and fancy? What protection does the layman home owner have against cooperate greed???!!!
Would the freehold title owner then also have the puppet-master ability to control market sentiment regarding the said leasehold just by making malicious announcements that management was against extending the lease only to reverse the announcement : as a puppet master directs as he wants his puppet to do.
For all the legal inconvenience foreseeable, the gahmen should charge developers involved in such rent-seeking scheme a high levy and an annual capital gains tax/ better still, BAN THE PRACTISE ALTOGETHER.
Allowing such schemes to prevail might temporarily depress property prices as leaseholds costs slightly less, however, the shortage of freehold properties in the long run will make freehold properties out of reach of the average citizen even if it reaps great rewards for (e.g. Far East share holders): many of who may be foreign investors to profit by unleashing misery on unsuspecting Singaporean home buyers.
If the gahmen indeed serves the interest of 'natural person' citizens, it should overrule this nasty corporate manipulation of the residential housing market before it is too late (and probably the commercial property market too).
Quote:
| StraitsTimes. Published on Jul 09, 2014 Act against selling of freehold sites as leasehold PRIVATE property developers should not be allowed to develop freehold land to sell as leasehold residential units ("Homes sold as leasehold tenures on freehold sites"; June 14). This prevents a much larger number of ordinary folk from ever owning freehold properties. It will also unfairly concentrate ownership of freehold properties in the hands of a few big developers and perpetuate wealth in a few families. In time, the price of existing freehold properties would likely be driven much higher than the current premium. If a developer can parcel out its freehold land as leasehold, then it would be only fair to allow individuals who own freehold properties, especially landed properties, to sell them as leasehold as well. But I can see many obstacles to this. One concession to those who wish to develop freehold land into leasehold residential properties could be for the Government to allow only two leases of 100 years each. At the end of this period, the land reverts back to the Government. Only the Government should be allowed to develop freehold land to sell as leasehold tenures. Land in Singapore is too scarce for large quantities to be hoarded in perpetuity by a few private vehicles. The appropriate authorities should act soon to stop this unhealthy development. Leong Chee-Hong Copyright © 2014 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Act against selling of freehold sites as leasehold |
__________________
-_-------------
No comments:
Post a Comment