trulysingapore

the figures quoted are not taken from the big mac index. they are taken from the UBS wage and price comparison which does a pretty good job of comparing both wages and cost of a basket of goods. with this two, i think the comparison is pretty valid. there is nothing else that comes close so far. definitely not tourists' opinions.

if you have read as much as kalidor did, you wouldn't have come to this conclusion. so no need to apologise, just give it a proper read and you'd understand where i m coming from.

Already posted in other sites. Anyway, people can always choose not to read. there are limitless postings possible. my postings doesn't deny another of posting. the letters can't be shorter or the essence cannot be brought out effectively. if people read and benefit from it, why not? if people read and don't like it, they can choose not to read it. so should be ok right?

feedback already, like what someone said, not published. i cannot do politics. can't think on feet, can't relate to people, can't talk well ... only when the issue is really tu lan until i cannot take it then the thoughts pour forth ...

that's the problem you see? many people simply don't understand that whatever they are enjoying now will eventually be paid for manifold by their children. let's say their HDB went up by $200,000. So they sell their HDB, use the money to upgrade to condo. someone else will end up picking up the tab. of course the seller doesn't mind and doesn't care too. but because resale flats are now up by $200,000. new flats, being pegged to old flats, would be up too, say $150,000. so all new buyers have to pay the govt $150,000 more - for absolutely nothing. if you compound this increase upon increase upon increase, ultimately, it's gonna boomerang right back to ourselves in the form of much more expensive housing for our next generation. people only think of their gains now. i don't know why they don't have the capacity to think or to realise that their children will end up poorer instead.

thanks folks. i know this isn't exactly the place to complain about high flat prices but at least it is forum about flats. pardon me please because i really see a need to educate as many people as i can about the inaccuracies, half truths and misrepresentations that the HDB and ST are spewing in such copious volumes.

that's a good one. just like build to order citizens from all over the world to make up for our falling birth rates. at least BTO brides take only one weekend to choose. BTO flats take three years ...

that is possible. but mr huss is saying that in general, life is much better here, cost of living is lower here while salaries are higher. that's bull**** and our national newspaper is very fond of making use of foreigners to make a statement about life here which is so, so untrue. we have to expose these lies.

I have a point, but you need to build up your case convincingly, otherwise people won't believe you. no political agenda. just hope to educate as many people as i can. have come across too many people who are die hard govt fans who think that the govt can do no wrong and even high housing prices is good for us citizens. if only they can think a bit deeper and realise their own follies. if only they realise that the govt's here to suck the marrow out of our bones ...

Hey, why don't you read everything. i'm trying to explain something that a lot of people would find hard to believe. so hopefully, more people can mull over the logic and see some light.

try to go through the other parts too. they make sense too. you can check their annual reports yourself. the figures are all there for us to see.

this is not long, it's good stuff. take some time to read through it. it's not nonsense.

thanks. my point is, HDB is bull****ting and i have a hard time convincing die hard govt supporters otherwise. to them, govt is always kind and doing the right thing for the good of singaporeans.

I refer to the HDB’s letter “Within a family’s reach” dated 12 Sept 2009. The HDB claims that one of its key responsibilities is to sustain flat values over the long term. The first of HDB’s four mission statements is to “provide affordable homes of quality and value”. There is nothing in that statement that says that it is HDB’s responsibilty to sustain flat values over the long term. In fact, none of the four mission statements or even the vision statement remotely suggests that it is the HDB’s duty to sustain flat prices over the long term. So where did HDB get its mission of sustaining flat prices over the long term? Next, sustaining flat prices over the long term is different from letting it rise faster than salary increases because clearly, salary increases hasn’t been keeping up with increases in flat prices. The notion of generous housing subsidies is unconvincing. In the span of months, HDB prices shot up by $100,000 easily across the island. Can the $30,000 HDB subsidy make up for $100,000 increase in flat prices? Affordability The HDB claims that it is reasonable for a couple earning $4,000 to pay for a flat costing $300,000 with a monthly instalment of $920 + $81 = $1,001. Let’s see if this sum is truly reasonable by taking into consideration the daily as well as retirement needs of a family of four. Suppose each member in a family of four requires $500 for basic sustenance. That will take $2,000 away from the monthly income. Take $1,001 HDB housing loan away from the remaining sum of $2,000 and we are left with $999. If both husband and wife were to set aside $500 each for retirement purposes, they would have perpetually nothing left for utilities, education and all other purposes. Is this HDB’s so called “affordable”? Seems like HDB’s so called “below the international benchmark of 30%” means having absolutely nothing left over for spending. No wonder Singaporeans have little to spend or if they spend, have insufficient funds for retirement. Only new flats count HDB says that the figures quoted by me is not reflective of Singapore’s situation. According to the HDB, the true figure should only be based on the price of new HDB flats. In other words, HDB is saying is that housing affordability in Singapore should solely be judged by the price of new HDB flats only, the prices of resale flats and condominiums don’t count. Is this a reasonable assumption? According to the HDB website, there were 16,630 resale flat transactions in the first half of the year. Assuming the same number will be transacted in the later half of the year, the total number of resale flats to be bought this year would amount to 33,260 units. This is more than four times the number of new flats that will be built this year. In other words, HDB’s definition is only confined to less than 20% of Singaporeans’ needs for HDB flats. Yet HDB is claiming that that this 20% reflects the true housing affordability in Singapore. This is akin to picking out the poorest 20% of Singaporeans and saying that that they represent the general income situation in Singapore. While no one is disputing that DSR is simple, no one can appreciate where Singapore stands unless Singapore is ranked against other developed countries using the DSR. Also, HDB shouldn’t only compare the DSR of the cheapest 20% of Singapore’s houses against the DSR of all houses in other countries. That simply wouldn’t be comparing apple to apple. If HDB is bent on comparing so-called new HDB flats only, then comparison should be made against similarly “subsidised” housing in other countries. Flat supply HDB claims that it is responsive to rising demand due to immigration and new marriages. But it still hasn’t shown us how the 8,000 new flats to be built this year is sufficient for Singaporeans when the number of resale flats bought in the first half of this year is already 16,630. Having admitted that the HDB cannot build sufficient flats where and when citizens want them, the HDB should then refrain from always saying that resale flat prices are determined by “willing buyer, willing seller” since the willingness of buyers will always be constrained by the inability of the HDB to build new flats where and when citizens want them. The HDB says there are plenty of resale flats available in mature estates which are affordable. This is again another myth. Are there hundreds of thousands of empty resale flats waiting for people to buy and occupy? Obviously not. For every resale flat that is sold, another house has to be provided for unless the occupant is emigrating from Singapore. So the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of HDB flats in Singapore doesn’t mean that there are hundreds of thousands of HDB flats available for people’s choosing. Just like there are 400,000 cars in Singapore doesn’t mean that there are 400,000 second hand cars available for people to choose and buy from.

I refer to the letter “People should be free to decide what a flat is worth: HDB” dated 14th Sept 2009. HDB claims to be responsible for sustaining flat prices over the long term. Looking at resale flat prices from 1990 to the present, sustenance of flat prices hardly needs worrying about as increases in flat prices have far outstripped increases in peoples’ incomes. Conversely, shouldn’t it be HDB’s responsibility instead to ensure that increases in flat prices do not outstrip the people’s capactity to pay for them? The title of the letter itself suggests a misconception surrounding the myth of “willing buyer, willing seller” so often perpetuated by the HDB. The fact that HDB is claiming to be responsible for sustaining flat prices means that it has the means to influence the overall price level of HDB flats. That is the crux of the issue. While people are free to decide how much to price their flats, their decision cannot deviate significantly from market conditions that are largely controlled by the HDB itself, through such mechanisms as controlling the amount of land that it releases to the public and the number of new flats that it builds. Ask ourselves, how can we sell our flats at a premium when the govt is building one exactly the same right next door to be sold at cost? It is because the govt isn’t building them or isn’t pricing them at cost or is choosing to release the land for private condominimums for example that resellers are able to command the premium that they are getting. The situation is not unlike the case of a sole importer monopolising the rice trade. If he opens up all his warehouses and distributes the rice to all the shop keepers, there will be plenty of rice for everyone and no one will have to pay a premium for rice. But the moment the importer restricts his supply of rice such that supply barely meets demand, people will start to fight over rice and the shop keepers will now be able to command a high price for rice. That is exactly what is happening to our HDB resale market. By not supplying enough new flats, the HDB creates the conditions for the resale market to heat up. The HDB claims that the total number of bookings for HDB flats with grants amounts to 13,000 to 15,000 units each year, which far exceeds the 8,000 new flats HDB is building this year. So isn’t this clear evidence that the HDB is not building enough new flats to satisfy demand? The HDB claims to have enabled 80% of the population to own their own homes. But going by the exhorbitant price people have to pay for house ownership, house ownership becomes a terrible liability rather than a proud asset that the people can be proud of.