Ho HW –

Why has there been an 80% rise in HDB flat pricing between two sale launches (direct from HDB) of Havelock View? The construction costs are the same, and the flats get handed over at the same time.

At the first sale launch during SERS (2006/07), a 4-room flat cost an average of $250k (inclusive of compensation). At the 2nd sale launch during the Balance of Sale balloting exercise (2009), a 4-room flat was going at an average of $450k. The 3-room flats also had an 80% raise in price.

Some may conclude that SERS projects get a special price, thus the big difference, but I would like to add that my friend got his Membina Court flat direct from HDB at a neighbouring estate in 2006/07 (not from SERs) at $270k for a mid-floor unit. It had the same price hike in the subsequent Balance of Sales launch direct from HDB and I do not think that Membina Court is a SERS project.

Why has the government/HDB allowed such sudden rises in pricing for its housing?

The government has made it look like a good buy, as the balloted flats seem slightly cheaper than the resale market. But the resale market valuation has been jacked up too! Why should HDB flats direct from HDB be pegged to market resale price in the first place? These are not private flats.

Where is the initial commitment to provide affordable housing for Singaporeans?

Every Singaporean is given a chance to purchase a HDB-subsidized flat from the government. So why the 80% raise in pricing?

Did the government/HDB suddenly realize that they have been missing out on reaping profits from good locations like Havelock View? Is that why they raised the price of HDB flats by 80% at one go, instead of a more gradual raise?

Are there not lucrative proceeds from the Zion Road land sale by relocating the residents to Havelock View? Is that not enough?

Can the 80% raise in HDB pricing for flats direct from HDB be justified when the flats are in the same estate, have same construction cost and are handed over at the same time?

A 20-30% rise perhaps within 2 to 3 years for a flat direct from HDB may have been more reasonable or justifiable if HDB flats cannot be pegged to our national inflation rates. Our wages have not increased by 80% in 2 to 3 years time.

The prospects of paying $200k more over 30 years than your neighbours who got same the flats at the same time as you is rather daunting, especially when it is NOT A RESALE FLAT but flats direct from HDB amidst periods of such economic uncertainty.

The Government needs to justify the ridiculous price hike. If not, they should be reviewing the price of the Havelock View balloted flats or do something at least.

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

PM Lee says that the Government will “do more if necessary” and continue to monitor the Wuhan virus situation in Singapore

On Tuesday (28 January), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took to his…

赞潘群勤提建设性政策 杨南强:有效社会安全网需国家资源参与

在本月的国会会议上,前进党非选区议员潘群勤在现有政府扶助措施上,再建议两项提案,希望能减轻国民面对疫情的负担。 她呼吁,应允许因疫情影响而失业的国民,能从公积金户头中借出款项,解燃眉之急。再者,探讨公积金终身入息,与通货膨胀挂钩。 政府投资公司(GIC)前首席经济师杨南强,赞扬国会在野党议员也能提出建设性的政策提案! 他解释,退休金与通货膨胀挂钩,乃是确保退休入息充足的一项重要改革,且大多数先进国家采用的标准大体一致。 随着寿命延长,大多数人退休生活可能还会延长20年,这使得退休金额入息实则比实际价值减少近半。 为了弥补这损失,公积金入息至少与两巴仙通膨值挂钩,但对于许多退休后仰赖公积金入息的人士,这意味着退休金额不足,或可能面对绝对贫穷、晚年无法满足基本需求的窘境。 更糟糕的是,好些贫困者的退休户头(RA)基本存款,少过6万元。杨南强也提醒,一些低收入者通常也难有应急的储蓄,特别是在面对此次疫情时,许多人都从事零工、不稳定的工作(如送餐员、私召车司机等)。 他认为,这些群体会更需要失业时可借款的机制,搭配基本风险共担(pooled)的失业保险制度。 要保护贫困者的公积金储蓄,例如上述失业借款机制,可限制在借三个月薪资,找到工作后再逐步还款。再者,也应了解他们经济情况,再给予补贴。而这些补贴应来自公共资源,而不仅仅是由穷人自己承担。 早在10年前,包括他本人、许荣达教授和刘浩典,都曾就此提呈给政府内部研究机构和政府接受反馈的阻止REACH,但迄今似乎都未有任何成果。 杨南强认为,有效和可持续的社会安全网,不仅仅是依靠风险分担或个体的财力资金,而且还需要适当整合国家资源。 Excellent…

OCBC调查:逾半民众面对不时之需捉襟见肘 三分二退休生活积蓄未达标

尽管大部分新加坡人都有储蓄和坚守自己的预算过日子,但若说要认真规划退休生活,仍有多数人未有妥善规划。 据《今日报》报导,华侨银行昨日(15日)公布最新金融幸福指数发现新加坡人普遍不清楚如何透过投资和其他方式聚积足够财富,近三分一的人民仍认为投资就如同赌博。 该网络调查于5月份执行,邀请了2000名在职人士,年龄介于21-65岁,以一系列的问题试图画出他们整体的金融健康状况。受试者平均每月工资为6300新元,其每月工资中位数则落在3500新元。 尽管新加坡人在每月存款、支付医疗保险以及日常开销上都拥有良好的表现,但结果发现,近一半以上的人民都无法维持自己的积蓄超过6个月,另有逾一半以上的人民在面临不时之需时,则出现捉襟见肘的状况。 三分二受访者退休储蓄未达标 另一方面,对于储蓄钱财来维持退休后生活,有三分二受访者未达标。大部分打算依赖一般储蓄维持退休后的生活。 其中有40巴仙受访者在,受访时反映面对财务困扰状况。 研究以10项金融幸福的指标为基准,由银行内的财务专家实施测验,旨在了解新加坡人的金融健康状况。 10项指标包含储蓄习惯、金融危机的保障、定期投资、退休规划、定期的检讨、赌博习惯、过度投机、向亲密的人借钱、超出一人的开销、可控范围的债务。该研究则按照以上指标进行测试。 许多本国人虽已开始计划退休但却仍落后 研究以0-100分打分,0-24分表示“未开始计划”;75-100表示“已开始计划并超前”。据整体平均显示,新加坡人民的分数是落在63之间,表示“已开始但却落后”。 结果显示,不同年龄曾的新加坡人民,其金融差距相差甚大,其中20几岁比起其他年龄层更认真储蓄与规划开销,但近一半的20岁人士依赖家人或朋友的规划和贴士进行理财规划。尽管并没有太多研究支持,但结果显示发现这已是影响投资表现的主要原因。…

What a mother really needs during the postnatal period

A group of final-year students from the Wee Kim Wee School of…