By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “895 HDB flats repossessed since 2003” (TODAY, Feb 28).

It states that “seven per cent of those who took HDB mortgage loans were in arrears of at least 3 months”.

As at the end of last year, banks have completed the mortgagee sale of 895 HDB flats financed with bank loans since the start of bank origination in January 2003. In recent months, the rate is about 60 cases a month.

Seven per cent of the 89,000 HDB flats with bank loans means that about 6,230 HDB flat owners have not been able to pay for more than 3 months. Some of these may become foreclosures.

As more Singaporeans have no choice but to take bank loans, because they have used up the two HDB concessionery loans allowed by just upgrading once by themselves or with their parents, more may lose their flats.

If there is a shortfall between the foreclosure sale proceeds of the flat and the housing loan outstanding, banks have sued such flat-owners for bankruptcy.

Banks have repossessed 1,445 flats since HDB bank loans started in January 2003, and have sold 895 of them. This means that 1.6 per cent of HDB flats on bank loans have been foreclosed.

As I understand that there are about 800,000 HDB flat-owners, if they had all been with bank loans, just imagine the amount of misery in Singapore with about 12,800 flat-owners having been foreclosed (1.6% foreclosure rate). If the average number of members in a flat is four, it translates to about 51,200 people who may be adversely affected. We should be concerned that every month, about 60 families are losing their homes.

In countries like the United States, which is arguably the highest credit-consuming country in the world, the delinquency rate is 2.11 per cent, the highest in four years, for real estate home loans which are over 90 days post-due or in foreclosure.

Singapore’s current rate of over seven per cent (seven per cent in arrears over three months plus 1.6 per cent foreclosure) may be about three times that of the United Sates.

How do we compare with other countries, particularly our neighbours ? I think at the rate that we are going, we may chalk up another top world ranking in this regard.

As to “from 2002 to 2006, some 360 households voluntarily surrendered their flats after defaulting on their mortgage loan repayments”, can the HDB please clarify what do they mean by “voluntarily surrendered”? Are they implying that no one has ever been forced to vacate a flat ? I am somewhat puzzled as to why anyone would “voluntarily” give up the family home, all the CPF life savings of the owners, and maybe continue be in debt to the HDB for any shortfall between the market valuation and loan outstanding ?

A key finding of a research paper by Associate Professor Ong Seow Eng, Research Director of the Centre for Real Estate Studies at the National Univesity of Singapore, is that protecting the CPF utilised in a mortgage, reduces significantly the tendency of borrowers to be delinquent on their mortgages. Why are HDB concessionary loan mortgages not on a non-recourse basis, like practically all residential mortgages in the United States ?

On non-recourse mortgages, the borrowers are not liable for any shortfall between the repossessed flat’s market value and the outstanding loan balance.

Perhaps the only salvation for the thousands who are in arrears (HDB’s annual report said that it provided financial assistance to 28,386 flat-owners in its last financial year), is for their flats’ value to increase at a rate higher than the 2.6 per cent accruing on their indebtedness, into the future.

How many more Singaporeans have to lose their homes and CPF, before we continue to describe a 1.6% foreclosure rate as being not very high?

——————————

About the author:

Sze Hian has 5 degrees and 13 professional qualifications. A Wharton Fellow, alumnus of Harvard University and the United Nations University International Leadership Academy, he has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, Representative of the Inter-American Economic Council, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding Advisor to the Financial Planning Association of Indonesia. He has been invited to speak more than 100 times in over 15 countries on 5 continents, authored 3 books and quoted over 700 times in the media.

Sze Hian’s website is here.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

分析指王瑞杰和陈振声成下任总理人选呼声高

人民行动党预计两周內宣佈新干部职务,谁担任该党第一助理秘书长,最有可能是下任总理人选?受访观察家认为,財政部长王瑞杰和贸工部长陈振声呼声高,担任第一助理秘书长。 根据马来西亚媒体《东方日报》报导,有消息指关键在于谁担任第一助理秘书长,就最有可能成为下任总理。目前备受关注的,分別是財政部长王瑞杰及贸工部长陈振声。 新加坡国立大学政治系副教授比尔维尔星受访时分析,他认为王瑞杰的形象被视为“慈父”,陈振声则像是“多面手”,两人最有可能担任第一助理秘书长。 他解释, 以王瑞杰来说,他所进行的任务都是能够凝聚人民。例如曾经统筹新加坡独立50週年庆祝活动,获得人民热烈的反应,接下来他也將担任开埠200年工作组的顾问等。 陈、王各有优势 “所以他给人的感觉彷彿就像是团结人民的”磁铁“,很有亲和力、隨和。” 至于陈振声,他认为,对方从政后,就有许多尝试各领域的机会,如同“多面手”,这些年来也明显看到了他有所进步。 “总理人选必须懂得如何与內阁同事相处、领导新加坡和行动党。在这两方面,他们都证实能够做得很好。” 也有观察家分析,王瑞杰和陈振声的背景各有多种优势,无法以单层面来形容。 新加坡管理大学法律系副教授陈庆文说,王瑞杰有公共领域经验,对政府运作方式也十分瞭解。 “王瑞杰之前担任金融管理局局长时,也曾在环球金融危机扮演重要角色。”…

马印度庙骚乱考验希盟政府处理基层问题能力

马来西亚苏邦再也一间拥有百年历史的印度庙,在本月26日因拆迁事件引发骚乱,骚乱造成10多人受伤、暴徒出现攻击印度庙也触动当地印裔社群神经,考验执政逾半年的希盟政府,应对危机和处理基层问题的能力。 据悉,逾50名手持武器且身穿黑色上衣的不明人士,於本周日(26日)清晨2时30分,突然冲入苏邦再也USJ25区的斯里马哈马里安曼印度庙,喝令在场人士离开,甚至挟持庙祝和数名信徒,期间更有人动手破坏庙內的设施。 不久后,另一批庙宇信徒相信是接获消息后赶抵现场,与这批人发生肢体冲突,消息指当时至少有10人在此事件中被砍伤,当中包括妇女和老年人。 当时警方甚至调派超过300名警察前往现场支援,当中包括轻型镇暴部队,以免发生骚乱事件。 事件造成两名男子受伤,现场20辆交通工具遭暴徒放火烧毁,包括18辆轿车和两辆摩多。一名信徒拍摄现场情况: 隔日两千信徒聚集庙外 该庙於本月26日凌晨发生骚乱后,27日凌晨逾2000名护庙者聚集在印度庙外,期间发生多起火烧车事件,更有部分集会者移步至约一公里外的One City综合商场,以石头砸毁建筑的落地玻璃窗,以及停放在商场外的轿车和旅游巴士。 警方在骚乱升级后, 立刻出动约30名普通行动部队(PGA)前往现场维持秩序。 骚乱中, 一名值勤的消拯员遭人殴打,以致严重负伤,目前被转至国家心臟中心接受治疗。警方目前逮捕了21人调查。…

Blogger Roy Ngerng dismissed from job at Tan Tock Seng Hospital

Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) has announced via a press statement that…

毕丹星回应《一条无障碍坡道》评论 点评“P.A.(P)式”民主

在上月26日,《联合早报》发布一篇由高级记者黄伟曼撰写的评论《一条无障碍坡道》,其中提及: “以目前围绕这起事件的舆论来评断,多数选民估计不太懂,也不太在乎在反对党区内市镇会与人协之间微妙的相处模式。 他们的思考逻辑很简单,即一条应惠及老弱残病等有需要者的无障碍通道的建造被拖延了,而若这背后可能有基层政治操作,那必然违反公平原则,在这过程中也牺牲了人民的利益,不能被接受。” 对此,工人党秘书长暨阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星回应,针对上述第一段的说法,或许作者就已忽略,败选行动党候选人,仍能被委任为人民协会基层顾问,本身就有违民主。 至于是否公平原则,毕丹星认为,要探究人协在反对党选区的立场,不仅仅限于讨论对坡道建设的冷漠态度。他解释,败选行动党基层顾问不仅掌控纳税人的钱,他们的影响力更为深远和政治化,早已不是什么秘密。 他在昨日发布的脸书贴文列举其中一些例子:包括公民权仪式,由行动党政府委任的基层顾问主持,而在反对党选区,新公民是从败选行动党候选人手上领过身份证的,“难道总统旗下的公务员,或非政治人物来主持这类仪式,不是更妥当吗?” 至于市镇理事会靠“两条腿”:民选议员和基层领袖方能成事。市镇会不仅把建屋局权限赋予议员,也交予基层领袖。然而,如果不是在人协旗下的基层代表,行动党政府是不会予以承认的,反对党志愿者也不会得到基层身份。 故此,毕丹星指出在反对党选区,市镇会无基层代表;而基层领袖是由败选行动党候选人委任、受基层顾问管理的。 其三,社区设施改进委员会(CIPC)审批拨款,在人协缺席的情况,反对党市镇会只好依靠自己的盈余来支撑惠民项目,他指阿裕尼-后港市镇会多年来都是这么做;但与此同时行动党市镇会却可以透过CIPC拨款进行项目,而得以保持财政盈余。 即便如此,当阿裕尼-后港市镇会在2011年出现赤字,《海峡时报》甚至还质问“市镇会此前的300万盈余去了哪?” 最后,毕丹星反问,行动党在管理人协上,究竟政治和国人利益孰轻孰重? “答案或许不言而喻,我希望更多记者和政治观察员,可以超越国内目前最著名坡道议题,看得更为深远,去分析拖延建设的政治机制。诚如“选民的逻辑”,建设性政治岂非更应着重公平吗?”