Connect with us

Current Affairs

Reflecting on “Reflections” – A review of Mah Bow Tan’s book (Part 8 of 9)

Published

on

This is a review from a statistical perspective, wherever possible, of the book “Reflections on housing a nation”, launched on 22 March. (You can read it here for free and save yourself ten dollars. – Editor)


Leong Sze Hian

In Part Eight (“Seeking truth from facts in the housing debate”), the Minister for National Development wrote:

“Dr Goh Keng Swee used to quote the Chinese saying, “Seek truth from facts (实事求是)”. Let us heed these words of wisdom as we address the people’s concerns”.

Lower-income can afford HDB flats? Truth or fact?

The truth of the matter in the context of public housing, is that for many Singaporeans, particularly the lower-income, their real income has hardly gone up, over the last five, 10 years.

Moreover, the cost of living continues to accelerate. For example, the average surgery bill in the Class C wards of six of the seven public hospitals increased by at least 50 per cent to as much as double over the last four years, electricity tariffs keep going up, increase in public transport fares, child-care fees, university fees, etc.

In such an environment, how many lower-income Singaporeans cannot afford to buy a HDB flat ?

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?

HDB creates new problem – getting a loan?

The other truth and fact is the issue of 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?

Nobody wants two-room flats because they can afford bigger ones?

The $2,000 household income ceiling eligibility for two-room flats has not changed for many years, whilst the two-room price has escalated to the typical selling price of $105,000 now.

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, the truth and fact is that many cannot afford to buy a flat purchase.

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 can a family struggling with $1,400 a month  afford to squeeze $260 out from their already miserably low income to buy a flat?

Let us not forget, that there are hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans who are self-employed, and thus do not have any CPF contributions to help pay for a HDB flat. So, if you are a lower-income self-employed, the truth of the matter is that you may not be able to afford a HDB flat at today’s sky-rocketing prices.

If you are a lower-income worker, you have CPF contributions to help you pay for a HDB flat – but, your CPF Ordinary Account contribution rate declines as you get older, and what if you lose your job, get a pay-cut, etc, in the next 30 years?

Also, not everyone lower-income family who buys a smaller HDB flat, meets the eligibility criteria for CPF Housing Grants.

How many of those who buy HDB flats do not qualify for grants? Without these statistics,  how can the HDB keep saying that flats are affordable by giving examples of affordability assuming Housing Grants?

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

End of Part 8

Also read Part 7 here

Mr Leong has beaten Mr Mah by publishing a book in 2008. It has no pictures but at 186 pages (with Chinese translation), is more value for money. You can buy it here!

 

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

on

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

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

Trending