By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “Slower take-up for build-to-order flats in Yishun” (ST, Feb 8).

Source: ST

The article states that “the two projects at Yishun, featuring 1,548 flats ranging from two-room to five room units, got 1.8 times as many applicants as there were flats on offer…this showing pales in comparison to a December BTO launch for Punggol Topaz that received six times more applicants than there were flats on offer”.

Well, does that mean that the flats’ take-up rate has dropped by 70 per cent?

One reason to explain why the take-up rate has slowed may be that Singaporeans are realizing that the ever increasing BTO flat prices may not be affordable.

In the last three years, whilst HDB prices sky-rocketed, the real median wage growth registered in 2008 and 2009 was negative and clocked only 0.5 per cent last year.

Rising cost of living

So, your income is not going up, and yet the cost of living continues to accelerate. For example, the average surgery bill in six of the seven public hospitals increased by at least 50 per cent to as much as double over the last four years. In addition, you also have to take into account the rising electricity tariffs, increase in public transport fares, child-care fees, university fees, etc.

In such an environment, wouldn’t you think twice before committing to a flat purchase?

The uncertain future

When your flat comes in about five years time, wouldn’t you be afraid that your circumstances may change such that you may not be able to afford the flat, not to mention the risks and uncertainties of job losses, pay cuts, illness, etc, over a 30-year mortgage loan?

Experiencing a problem getting a loan?

Another reason why less people may be applying for the flats may be also tied with the new rule on a second HDB concessionary loan.

How many people can cough up 50 per cent of the cash profits from their last HDB flat sold, regardless of how long ago, and also have their entire CPF utilized plus accrued interest from the previous flat to pay for the new flat?

No demand for two-room flats?

With reference to the statement “The two-room units were the only ones that were under subscribed, with just 138 applicants for the 192 units available,” one of the primary reasons may be the $2,000 household income ceiling eligibility which has not changed for many years, whilst the two-room price has escalated to the typical selling price of $105,000 as of date.

After the HDB announced on 3 March 2006, after it had stopped building two-room flats in the early 1980s, that it would resume the building of the flats from June 2006, the average price of a two-room flat in November 2007 in Compassvale Beacon (Sengkang), was only $78,000 for example.

I estimate that the prices of two-room BTO flats may have increased by about over 30 per cent over the last four years or so. Since two-room flats are the cheapest option for lower-income Singaporeans, why have their prices been allowed to increase by so much?

If your household income is below $2,000, you may be finding it hard to make ends meet in the first place.

So, with the lower income group’s arguably greater incidence and fear of job security, declining wages (over the last decade, it is estimated that 30 per cent of workers have had negative real wage growth), rising cost of living, etc, would you commit to a flat purchase?

Cross referencing to the article “Most two-room BTO flats taken up eventually” (ST, Feb 8) which said that “The Housing Board explained that this happens as buyers who first pass up on these one-bedroom units for their lack of size eventually buy them when they realise these units can still meet their needs”, some of these eventual buyers may be those who were forced to vacate HDB rental flats because their incomes had gone up, or those who failed to get a bigger BTO flat after applying umpteen times etc, who did not even think about applying for a two-room in the first place.

Is it really affordable?

According to the HDB’s web site, “Affordability of a Typical Flat”, Applicants’ Median Household Income for two-room is $1,400.

If half of the two-room applicants’ household income was less than $1,400, how on earth can they afford to buy anything, including a flat?

Using $260 as the typical monthly installment for a 30-year loan, after the first-timers’ $40,000 eligible additional CPF housing grant (which is the highest possible grant for those with income of not more than $1,500; applicants must also have been in continuous employment over the last 24 months at the date of the flat application), at 19 per cent installment to income ratio which then seems to suggest that flats are affordable, how then is a family struggling with $1,400 a month can afford to squeeze $260 out from their already miserably low income to buy a flat?

Down-payment problems

Finally, many lower-income households may not even be able to come up with the initial 10 per cent down-payment for the flat.

Also, if you are not eligible for a HDB concessionary loan, your down-payment will be increased to 20 per cent from 20 February 2010 for HDB bank loans.

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

阻断措施期间要员工上班?16非必要服务公司接人力部罚单!

有民众申诉,一些非必要服务公司仍在未获准运营前,仍执意要求员工上班。 而根据人力部于本月8日发表文告,当局在4月7日至5月5日期间进行稽查,有170家非必要服务公司,在阻断措施期间,在未获得任何运营批准下,仍照常营业。 对此,当局采取行动,对16家公司被罚款,共1万6000元。其余涉事商家也接到严厉警告。 人力部文告也指出,上月期间,人力部对1万5000工作场所进行检查,大多公司都遵守阻断措施规定,包括安全距离措施。 不过,也有29个工作场所,因违反社交距离措施,总共被罚款2万9000元。他们未能做好人群管控、进行体温检测、以及追踪上班职员和工作场所的访客。 人力部强调,当局将会严正以待,也呼吁员工或民众若发现非必要服务正在运营,可到SnapSAFE手机应用程序或发电邮到[email protected]申诉。

MOH urges individuals who visited KTV lounges, interacted with Vietnamese social hostesses to attend free swab tests

The Ministry of Health (MOH) said on Monday (12 July) that it…

At least 10 people in SG got COVID-19 from those without symptoms at point of infection

It was reported in the media today (3 Apr) that at least…

保险公司遭凯发拖欠 竟向诊所讨回诊金

本地水务公司凯发集团,因在前年首次陷入赤字、并在去年五月突然宣布停牌,令投资者震惊。 凯发在去年5月22日,向高庭申请法院监督程序,以重组债务和业务,并寻求“白武士”解救。 据《联合早报》前日报导,指莱佛士医疗保险(Raffles Health Insurance,RHI),宣称无法从凯发集团收回代该集团员工缴付的诊所看诊款项,反而向诊所追回诊金。 该公司为凯发集团提供第三方支付服务,为凯发员工看诊时代为支付诊金,之后才向凯发索讨。 根据莱佛士医疗保险发给相关合作诊所的电邮,该保险公司先是“感谢各诊所为提供保户们专业医疗服务”,并且从该公司保户得到良好的反馈。 不过随之话锋一转,“如您所知,年前本公司的客户之一凯发无力偿债,并且已与本公司终止合约。” 该公司在电邮中续指,只要索偿申请完整,RHI代看诊病患即时付款给诊所。即便未能从凯发那里收到任何款项,该保险公司仍继续提供服务。 而如今,他们要索回此前代凯发公司支付的款项。 另一方面,《海峡时报》也跟进报导此事,并引述RHI母公司莱佛士医疗集团发言人说法,后者辩称是为受影响各造“寻求友好解决方案”。 不过,他们未透露具体所欠款项,和受影响的合作诊所数量。…