Connect with us

Current Affairs

HDB should focus on building basic, functional flats

Published

14 years ago

on

Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan, in a letter published in the Today newspaper on 15 October, touched on several points about public housing. One of these was that “some may overstretch their budgets to buy these flats.”

Gerald Giam, a member of the Workers’ Party’s Central Executive Committee but writing in his personal capacity, responded to Mr Mah’s letter on 19 October, also published in the Today newspaper.

Mr Giam asks if a public housing agency should strive to “set new benchmarks for waterfront living for public housing”, or to build flats in prime downtown locations?”

“How does this achieve the purpose of providing affordable housing for the masses?” he asks.

We publish both letters below and welcome your views and comments.

———————

Letter by Mr Mah Bow Tan:

Buying a flat? Choose wisely

“Shall we apply for an HDB flat?” This is how Singaporean men propose to their beloved. So we are told – I am not sure how common this is. However, this uniquely Singaporean marriage proposal reflects a common aspiration among many young couples intending to wed – getting an HDB (Housing and Development Board) flat.

This desire to own a marital home has remained unchanged over the years. But what buyers want from a home has changed. As our nation and people progressed, their hopes and dreams for housing have risen and become more diverse. How has HDB’s housing programme responded to these changing aspirations?

Responding to Rising Aspirations

Providing housing to the masses. The Government’s core commitment – to provide affordable housing for the masses to build an inclusive home – remains firm and clear. But housing the masses is no longer just about providing a basic shelter. People ask me: Why doesn’t HDB stick to providing basic housing? The answer is simple: Our people have changed and they no longer want only basic housing.

The proportion of HDB residents with tertiary education, for example, has increased five times over the last 20 years, from 6 per cent in 1987 to 31 per cent in 2008. Average household incomes have also increased almost four times over the same period, from $1,500 in 1987 to $5,700 in 2008.

Offering a wider range of flat types. In the early days, when we faced a huge housing shortage, HDB focussed on building simple and functional one-, two- and three-room flats as quickly as possible.

But in the 1980s, with rising affluence, there were few takers for smaller flats. Therefore, HDB had to build more four-room, five-room and Executive flats. With economic growth becoming more volatile in the late 1990s and 2000s, HDB resumed the building of three-room flats (in 2004) and two-room flats (in 2006). These flats provided options for lower income households and those wanting to right-size their homes as they age.

Offering a wider range of designs. Buyers of new HDB flats range from those earning less than $1,500 a month to those earning up to $10,000 a month. To provide greater choice and variety for higher income buyers, HDB allowed private developers to participate in public housing projects, first through the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme in the 1990s, and later through the Design Build and Sell Scheme in the 2000s.

Several new HDB developments also feature innovative designs and test new concepts for public housing. The award-winning The Pinnacle @ Duxton, HDB’s first 50-storey development featuring seven blocks linked by skybridges, is particularly close to my heart.

The project is historically significant as it stands on the site of HDB’s first flats in the area – two slab blocks completed in the 1960s. It visibly symbolises the transformation of Singapore and our public housing programme over the past 50 years.

To turn this project into reality, I had to persuade my Cabinet colleagues to keep this prime downtown location for public housing, instead of selling it to private developers. I also asked HDB to organise an international design competition to attract the best designs for the project.

The Waterway Terraces at Punggol is another example of unique design, setting new benchmarks for waterfront living for public housing.

Making Choices within Our Means

Staying focused on standard flats. More flat choices inevitably mean a wider range of flat prices. The old days – when HDB flats were all uniform slab blocks sold at similar prices – can no longer remain.

The premium flats, with better designs, better finishes and at better locations, will command a premium. However, these form only a fraction of new flats offered. The bulk of HDB’s supply will remain good quality standard flats, offered in a wide variety of locations and more affordable for Singaporeans.

Buying within our means. It is natural for all of us to want a better home. I am encouraged that HDB’s premium developments such as The Pinnacle@Duxton and Waterway Terraces at Punggol have been popular and have kept pace with Singaporeans’ aspirations. But I also worry that as we provide greater choices to meet diverse aspirations, some may overstretch their budgets to buy these flats.

HDB offers a range of flat choices for every budget. For example, a household earning $5,000 a month can choose a more centrally located 3-room flat in Toa Payoh, a 4-room flat in Bedok, or a 5-room flat further away in Woodlands (see table). I urge home buyers to consider the trade-offs between the price, size and location of the flat, and carefully choose one that best suits their needs and budgets.

I know young flat buyers will want to find the perfect first home. It is entirely understandable. At the same time, I would encourage them to be prudent and start with a flat within their means. They should not overstretch themselves when they are not ready to get their dream flat.

HDB provides different flat options and up to two subsidised loans; these will help young couples to right-size their homes as their incomes improve. With their whole lives ahead of them, they should take it one step at a time.

—————-

Response by Mr Gerald Giam;

What do newlyweds want in a flat?

I REFER to the commentary by Mr Mah Bow Tan (“Buying a flat? Choose wisely”, Oct 15).

His quip about how some Singaporean men propose to their future spouses with the offer of an application for an HDB flat aptly reflects the strong desire among couples to own a home of their own once they get married. It is therefore regrettable that in the past few years, public housing prices – and hence these dreams – have soared out of reach from so many young couples.

Mr Mah contended that with growing affluence and education levels, Singaporeans no longer want only basic housing. He defines basic housing as simple and functional one- to three-room flats, as opposed to larger four-room, five-room and Executive flats. Mr Mah also distinguished between standard flats and premium flats – the latter referring to flats with better designs, better finishes and in better locations, such as the Pinnacle@Duxton and Waterway Terraces at Punggol.

Although Mr Mah stated that that premium flats form only a fraction of the new flats offered, it begs the question of whether there is the need for the Housing and Development Board to build premium flats in the first place.

Should a public housing agency strive to “set new benchmarks for waterfront living for public housing”, or to build flats in prime downtown locations? How does this achieve the purpose of providing affordable housing for the masses?

While Mr Mah is right that Singaporeans’ expectations have changed, they have not changed so drastically that they are now expecting condo-style living in a HDB flat. This is evidenced by the fact that every new development launched by HDB in the past year has been significantly oversubscribed, even for those offering only standard flats. Also, resale flat buyers are paying huge cash-over-valuation premiums for even old, basic flats in mature estates like Queenstown.

Perhaps the HDB should reconsider its aims and focus on building more basic, functional flats in order to meet the urgent housing demands of many young couples.

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

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

5 days ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

7 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending