Connect with us

Current Affairs

MP Dr Lily Neo urges for HDB’s Joint Singles Scheme to be reviewed to offer more privacy and flexibility

Published

on

Conflicts between co-tenants under the Housing and Development Board’s (HDB’s) Joint Singles Scheme (JSS) is “a problem more than reported” with some co-tenants falling into depression as their well-being is affected by the arrangement, said Jalan Besar GRC MP Dr Lily Neo in parliament on Wednesday (4 March).

“It is difficult for complete strangers compelled to stay together,” she said, adding that many co-tenants end up living “miserably with frequent quarrels”. She claimed that community mediation doesn’t work for them due to many reasons.

As such, Dr Neo asked the Ministry of National Development (MND) if it screens potential tenants for mental illness and medical conditions before pairing people up under the scheme, suggesting that such assessments should be implemented if it isn’t already.

She also asked if HDB could offer rental flats with more partitions in order to provide more privacy to each co-tenant and if HDB could provider newer models of rental flats with better use of space and cost geared towards providing more privacy.

Dr Neo pointed out, “Those that seek rental flats are usually the disadvantaged and more vulnerable members of our society that our government can assist with more of their housing needs.”

As such, she also urged for the 30-year-old policy to be reviewed, saying that “it is time for Singapore to be more gracious towards the most disadvantaged group in our society in providing them the basic needs of roofs over their heads.”

“It is time to tweak this policy for humane reasons,” Dr Neo stressed.

The JSS was introduced in 1990 to allow Singaporean singles to jointly purchase or rent HDB flats.

Dr Neo went on to ask if MND would also allow flexibility under the scheme to offer single tenancy, especially for those with no family members to share with, while also giving tenants the option to share with a co-tenant companionship and support if they so chose.

She explained that there are many needy families with children living in HDB flats, many of whom have been there for over six to 10 years, thus showing “signs of entrenchment”.

As such, Dr Neo asked if there are schemes in place to help such people in looking for better housing options and to help them get out of their predicament. She also asked for the success rates of such schemes.

Later in the parliamentary session, Dr Neo asked MND Minister Lawrence Wong why the JSS can’t be tweaked to facilitate just the most vulnerable groups in Singapore in addressing their housing needs.

In response, Mr Wong pointed out that the JSS has been tweaked and has evolved over the years.

“JSS today is different from what it used to be because today we have more partitions, we provide more privacy, we give flexibility,” said the minister.

He explained that his ministry is prepared to consider the needs of anyone who comes to them with medical conditions that require them to stay on their own, adding that “it is not a blanket no”.

However, he further explained, “The reason why we can depart from this and say everyone live on their own now is the real constraint which I mentioned earlier. If we are going to double, triple the number of rental units that we have in order to accommodate because every JSS tenant wants to split up, we do not have land. That’s a real constraint.”

He reiterated, “So there is no land available to build more, you’ve got to build new flats, we’ve got to build new rental flats. There is no land.”

Mr Wong is referring to his earlier response to a separate question by Nominated MP Anthea Ong who asked about the problem of overcrowding in HDB flats and the maximum occupancy cap for rental flats.

In his reply to Ms Ong, Mr Wong said that despite the government’s effort in providing bigger HDB units for larger families, land supply is one of the key constraints as it is important to ensure the demand for flats in the country can be met on a sustainable basis in the long run.

He hinted, “That’s actually getting harder and harder to do, as our island gets more built up.”

Mr Wong said in his reply to Dr Neo, “I hope members understand we are not trying to stop or be hard-hearted about this. There is just not enough space to build so many more new housing units. So we try to optimise where we can.”

He also addressed Dr Neo’s point on a majority of co-tenants facing conflicts. He said that a survey of JSS tenants shows that a majority of them actually do get along. Mr Wong explained that it is a minority that face these conflicts and the ministry “can manage that” if the co-tenants do not get along or if there’s a medical condition.

“If they do not get along in the first instance, let us try to find ways to pair you up with somebody else. If there are medical conditions, then we will look at your case and we will consider allowing you to stay on your own if there is a need to,” he asserted.

Continue Reading
1 Comment
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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

Comments

Redditors question support for PAP over perceived arrogance and authoritarian attitude

Despite Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s warning that slimmer electoral margins would limit the government’s political space “to do the right things”, many Redditors questioned their support for the ruling PAP, criticising its perceived arrogance. They argued that SM Lee’s remarks show the party has ‘lost its ways’ and acts as if it alone can determine what is right. Others noted that the PAP’s supermajority allows for the passage of unfavourable policies without adequate scrutiny.

Published

on

In a recent speech, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that “if electoral margins get slimmer, the government will have less political space to do the right things.”

Mr Lee, who served as Prime Minister for 20 years, highlighted the risks associated with increasingly competitive politics.

“It will become harder to disregard short-term considerations in decision-making. The political dynamics will become very different,” he stated during his speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony 2024 on 17 September.

“Singaporeans must understand the dangers this creates, and so must the public service,” SM Lee stressed.

SM Lee pointed out that Singapore faces formidable internal and external challenges in the years ahead, with rising expectations and demands from citizens.

As growth becomes harder to achieve and politics becomes more fiercely contested, he warned, “Things can go wrong for Singapore too.”

He urged vigilance in preparing for an uncertain future, noting, “As the world changes, and as the generations change, we must do our best to renew our system – to ensure that it continues to work well for us, even as things change.”

Critique of PAP’s Arrogance and Disconnect from Singaporeans

The People’s Action Party (PAP) experienced a notable decline in its vote share during the 2020 General Election, securing 61.24% of the votes and winning 83 out of 93 seats, a drop from 69.9% in 2015.

A significant loss was in Sengkang GRC, where the PAP team, led by former Minister Ng Chee Meng, was defeated by the Workers’ Party (WP).

In discussions on Reddit, some users questioned why they should support the ruling PAP, criticising the party’s perceived arrogance.

They pointed out that SM Lee’s recent remarks illustrate that the party has strayed from effectively serving Singaporeans and seems to believe it has the sole authority to decide what is right.

Others highlighted that the PAP’s super-majority in Parliament enables the passage of unfavourable policies without sufficient scrutiny.

One comment acknowledged that while many older Singaporeans remain loyal to the PAP due to its past achievements, younger generations feel the party has failed to deliver similar results.

There is significant frustration that essentials like housing and the cost of living have become less affordable compared to previous generations.

The comment emphasised the importance of the 2011 election results, which they believe compelled the PAP to reassess its policies, especially concerning foreign labor and job security.

He suggested that to retain voter support, the PAP must continue to ensure a good material standard of living.

“Then, I ask you, vote PAP for what? They deserve to lose a supermajority. Or else why would they continue to deliver the same promises they delivered to our parents? What else would get a bunch of clueless bureaucrats to recognise their problems?”

Emphasising Government Accountability to the Public

Another Redditor argued that it is the government’s responsibility to be accountable to the people.

He further challenged SM Lee’s assertion about having less political space to do the right things, questioning his authority to define what is “right” for Singapore.

The comment criticised initiatives like the Founder’s Memorial and the NS Square, suggesting they may serve to boost the egos of a few rather than benefit the broader population. The Redditor also questioned the justification for GST hikes amid rising living costs.

“Policies should always be enacted to the benefit of the people, and it should always be the people who decide what is the best course of action for our country. No one should decide that other than us.”

The comment called for an end to narratives that present the PAP as the only party capable of rescuing Singapore from crises, stating that the country has moved past the existential challenges of its founding era and that innovative ideas can come from beyond a single political party.

Another comment echoed this sentiment, noting that by stating this, SM Lee seemingly expects Singaporeans to accept the PAP’s assumption that they—and by extension, the government and public service—will generally do the “right things.”

“What is conveniently overlooked is that the point of having elections is to have us examine for ourselves if we accept that very premise, and vote accordingly.”

A comment further argued that simply losing a supermajority does not equate to a lack of political space for the government to make the right decisions.

The Redditor express frustration with SM Lee’s rhetoric, suggesting that he is manipulating public perception to justify arbitrary changes to the constitution.

Concerns Over PAP’s Supermajority in Parliament

Another comment pointed out that the PAP’s supermajority in Parliament enables the passage of questionable and controversial policies, bypassing robust debate and discussion.

The comment highlighted the contentious constitutional amendments made in late 2016, which reserved the elected presidency for candidates from a specific racial group if no president from that group had served in the previous five terms.

A comment highlighted the contrast: in the past, the PAP enjoyed a wide electoral margin because citizens believed they governed effectively. Now, the PAP claims that without a substantial electoral margin, they cannot govern well.

Continue Reading

Trending