Connect with us

Current Affairs

HDB: Homelessness is not a housing issue

Published

on

By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to National Development Minister, Mah Bow Tan’s letter “Pricing flats according to their value” (Today, Oct 29).

On the same day, the New Paper had a 5-page feature containing four articles about the homeless in Singapore.

What struck me most, was the insensitivity of the HDB spokesman, who told the New Paper, “Homelessness is not just a housing issue, but a reflection of deeper personal and social issues – It cannot be resolved simply by granting homeless persons rental flats”.

For one of the homeless families – a divorced mother and her two 11 and 13 year old children, who have been living in HDB lift lobbies and on cardboard boxes in void decks and corridors, the HDB said that they were not eligible for a HDB rental flat until 30 months after she sold her previous flat, and are also not eligible to buy a three-room flat directly from the HDB as she had bought and sold two flats before.

The most important measure of affordability of public housing is arguably, the number of flat owners who cannot pay for their flats. This may also be the least desirable outcome, that every country’s public housing agency try to avoid most.

In this regard, I would like to refer to the HDB’s reply “Reduce default risk” (Today, Oct 9) to my letter “No choice but take bank loans” (Today, Sep 23).

It states that “The HDB does not have information on bank loans that are in arrears over three months”.

In reply to a question in Parliament in February 2007, it was disclosed that as at the end of 2006, seven per cent of the 89,000 HDB flats with bank loans, were in arrears for more than three months.

Since the HDB was able to give the “in arrears” statistics in 2007, why is it that it does not have the information now?

In this regard, the HDB seems to have a habit of reporting statistics that “disappear”?

For example, the HDB’s Annual Report used to publish the statistic for the number of flat dwellers whose applications for financial assistance (because they could not pay for their HDB flats) were approved.

However, this statistic has “disappeared” since the HDB’s 2005/2006 Annual Report.

This figure was 28,386, 39,308, 25,168 and 16,475, for FY 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively.

Of course, it may also have been helpful to publish the statistics on the number of applications that were not approved.

As a concerned citizen who has been volunteering to provide financial counseling for needy and bankrupt Singaporeans for many years, I have encountered countless people who had difficulty in paying for their HDB flats.

Hence, HDB whose mission is to provide affordable public housing for Singaporeans, and being the ultimate owner of all HDB flats when the 99 years lease on HDB flats expire, should not just brush aside my question with “The HDB does not have information on bank loans that are in arrears over three months”.

With about seven per cent of HDB concessionary loans in arrears over three months as of June, at 26,000 out of 393,000 loans, and about 3 in 10 of total HDB loans being HDB bank loans totalling 153,000, surely it is in the public interest to know how many HDB bank loans are in arrears, given that last year was the worst recession in Singapore’s history.

As to “The coverage of HDB’s concessionary loans is very generous by any measure”, I would like to point out that the following categories are not eligible for a HDB loan :-

– permanent residents, taken at least 2 HDB loans, singles scheme earning above $3,000 a month, monthly household income above $8,000, owners of any private residential property (including an HUDC flat / Executive Condominium) in Singapore or overseas, private property owners who sold their property within 30 months of the HDB loan application, own one market / hawker stall or commercial / industrial property and operate the business themselves, own more than one market / hawker stalls or commercial / industrial property in Singapore or overseas, etc

Moreover with the new policy of the HDB reducing the quantum of the second concessionary loan by the full CPF refund and up to half of the cash proceeds from the disposal of the existing or immediate past HDB flat, which could have been many years ago, even more people may not be able to take HDB loans, because they may have utilised their part cash proceeds or CPF for education, retirement, insurance premiums, etc.

Finally, the nearly 2.000 cases of mortgagee sale of HDB flats since banks started giving HDB loans in 2003 may not be truly reflective of the magnitude of the problem, as those who can’t pay, would have been forced to sell in the open market at valuation plus Cash-over-valuation (COV), instead of waiting for a bank mortgagee sale which typically derives much lower sale proceeds near or at valuation.

Leong Sze Hian

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

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

on

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

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

on

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending