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.

I refer to the letter “How family’s fortunes have grown over the years” by Ms Mabel Tan dated 26 Sept 2009. Ms Tan’s bemusement is understandable. She is bemused because she and her family are totally unencumbered by the recent sharp increases in property prices. Like the person watching a fire from the safety of the opposite bank of a river, she feels neither anxiety nor pain. She shares with us her good example of being able to stay with her in-laws for 8 years and so she expects everyone else to be able to do so. But I know of a colleague whose husband slept in the living room of his parents’ flat before their marriage because his family was too big. Does Ms Tan expect my colleague to sleep in the living room of her parents-in-laws’ flat? Ms Tan shouldn’t have moved out after 8 years but should have continued to stay with her in-laws to uphold the example she had been setting. Ms Tan claims that her family’s fortunes have ‘grown’ over the years, but she provides no details as to how it has actually grown. Let’s see, there is no doubt that from a one-room flat to a four-room flat, Ms Tan’s parents have benefitted from asset inflation. But has Ms Tan’s extended family benefitted as a whole? Let’s say for simplicity’s sake, Ms Tan’s parents’ flat appreciated from $30,000 to $300,000, that’s a cool $270,000 that Ms Tan’s parents pocketed over the years without doing anything. But what about Ms Tan and her siblings? If the price had stayed at $30,000, Ms Tan and her siblings would have been able to snap up units at $30,000 each only. But because of asset inflation, Ms Tan and her siblings now have to fork out $300,000 each. In fact, Ms Tan and her two siblings would have to fork out a total of $900,000 instead of $90,000. Collectively, they would have paid $810,000 more. The extra burden of $810,000 that Ms Tan’s generation has to bear far outweighs the gain of $270,000 that her parents pocketed. So that is the truth behind the fallacy of asset appreciation. We can of course adjust all prices for inflation but what this simple example illustrates is this: the so-called gain from asset appreciation of one generation will be borne by the future generation. It becomes a debt for the future generation to bear. Unless salaries can keep up, that debt will keep increasing and increasing until it becomes totally unbearable.

I refer to the letter “Why we peg to market rates” published in Today on 25 Sept 2009. Mr Lourdesamy wrote that the HDB incurred an average deficit of $1,045 million a year on home ownership programmes. However, if we refer to Page120 of HDB’s 2008 annual report, $625,102,000 was spent on “upgrading, improvements and demolition”. Surely upgrading doesn’t count as home ownership but perhaps home improvement instead? It gives the false impression that the HDB is subsidising new homes at a cost of $1,045 million when in actual fact the amount is much less. On the same page is another $783,757,000 item called “provision for loss for properties under development / for sale”. Presumably, HDB foresees the price of unsold HDB flats to fall short of construction costs by $783,757,000. But by claiming to price HDB flats at market levels, its hard to imagine how HDB can foresee prices of unsold HDB flats to dip below costs by so much. If we put these two items aside, HDB actually made a profit of $363,859,000 instead. Instead of repeating its market pricing rationale yet again, it would be more helpful if HDB can address the issue of positive feedback between resale flat price and new flat price. As market price of resale flats soar, so too does the price of new HDB flats since the latter are pegged to market prices. But the increasing price of new flats makes them less attractive to buyers and does nothing to abate the demand for resale flats and so demand for resale flats continues and the whole cycle repeats itself. The price of many resale flats have jumped by $100,000 in a matter of one, two years. Can HDB explain why the $30,000 government subsidy is considered ’significant’ compared to a typical $100,000 rise in flat prices? HDB claims that market pricing allows all to receive similar subsidies regardless of market movements. But the $30,000 subsidy is not even enough to make up for the loss incurred by a would be buyer when the market goes up by $100,000. HDB claims it is illogical for Mr See to attribute property price increases to the HDB because the recent asset appreciation is not unique to Singapore. This is like saying that the banks in Singapore are not responsible for losses arising out of the recent Lehmann Brothers collapse since similar losses have occurred elsewhere too. But banks here have been ordered to put their houses in order. Surely there is something that the HDB can do as well? HDB should explain what being below the international benchmark of 30% means in terms of how much one gets to keep in one’s pockets. For example, HDB has demonstrated that a 3-room flat costing $150,000 and sold to a household with income of $2,000 only requires a monthly instalment of $460 and a resulting ratio of 23%. But for a typical family of four with a monthly sustenance need of $500 each perhaps, the total cash required is already $2,000. Where is the family going to find money for the $460 monthly instalment? So the 23% ratio is meaningless as far as one’s own pockets are concerned.

I refer to the Straits Times report “Mah: Make meaningful comparisons” dated 2 Oct 2009. Mr Mah reportedly said that it is “not meaningful” to compare prices of flats today with those 20 years ago because that would mean going back 20 years. But MM Lee said in a speech on 12 Sept 1965: “Over 100 years ago, this was a mud flat, swamp. Today, this is a modern city”. Is Mr Mah going to tell MM Lee that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back 100 years? In his 2006 National Day message, PM Lee said that “many years ago, Singapore was just a fishing village …” Is Mr Mah going to tell PM Lee that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back to a fishing village? In the Straits Times report “How much is a burger worth” dated 26 Sept 2009, MP Seah Kian Peng was reported to have said that the key consideration in deciding how affordable or less affordable goods have become in Singapore is to see if life is better now compared to that in the past. Is Mr Mah going to tell MP Seah that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back to life in the past? So Mr Mah is not being very meaningful when he says that it is “not meaningful” to compare with the past. Because everyone compares with the past, even our leaders do so. While our leaders readily compare with the past to show progress and achievement, comparisons that show price increases or deteriorating levels of affordability is deemed “not meaningful”. Mr Mah brushes off “all sorts of arguments” about prices being too high today, not with sound counter arguments, but by simply saying that this is part and parcel of our system. In that case, he and the HDB might as well not give any explanations to the public. They can just answer any query from citizens with the phrase “this is part of our system”. No further explanations needed. Wouldn’t that be eaiser? Mr Mah says that our HDB can be monetised by selling it or leasing it back to the HDB for retirement funds. But what is the point of paying for an HDB all our lives only to give it up at the end of the day? Mr Mah says that our HDB remains affordable because it does not exceed the 30% international benchmark. But he and the HDB always insist on saying that our HDB is heavily subsidised. How can the HDB flat be simultaneously heavily subsidised and priced according to the international benchmark? That would mean that everywhere in the world that adopts the international benchmark enjoys heavily subsidised housing.

I refer to the Straits Times report “Hard to get that first flat? Not so” dated 8 Oct 2009. Mr Mah reportedly said that some of the assertions made by home seekers are “not entirely truthful”. According to Mr Mah, it is not that buyers aren’t getting their flats but rather buyers have gotten them but have rejected them. To support his case, Mr Mah cited HDB figures which showed 8 in 10 first time buyers of build-to-order flats getting their flats on their first try. However, a Straits Times report on 7 Oct 2009 showed 12,728 bids for 2,132 flats with analysts predicting the number of bids to hit 20,000. How can 8 in 10 buyers get their flats first time round when there are 10 buyers for every flat on sale? More likely than not, 9 in 10 buyers will be left disappointed instead. So it is probably Mr Mah himself who is “not being entirely truthful” by focusing only on build-to-order flats which forms only a fraction of the total demand for new flats. Mr Mah also highlighted the case of Mr Soh Say Kiat, who claimed to have applied 18 times since 2001 but HDB records since 2002 showed only 12 applications. Since HDB records is from 2002 onwards, is it not possible that the 6 unaccounted applications were filed in 2001? So it may be Mr Mah rather than Mr Soh who is “not being entirely truthful”. Furthermore, in the case of Mr Soh, out of 12 “recorded” applications, only 3 resulted in invitations for viewing. So the success rate is only 3 out of 12, hardly the 8 out of 10 depicted by Mr Mah. So again it seems like it is Mr Mah who is “not being entirely truthful” rather than Mr Soh. To Mr Mah, as long as a flat has been allocated to you, it means his job is done, never mind if the unit is facing a rubbish dump or on the second floor. Mr Mah should set a good example by choosing one of those unwanted units for himself to show us what it means to be “not choosy”. And in the spirit of “willing buyer, willing seller”, as far as Mr Mah is concerned, whether you’re willing or not you better “take it”. “Leaving it” would be tantamount to giving up your opportunity to a flat. Mr Mah also advised couples to plan ahead to cut waiting time as though people can plan when to meet their future spouse and when to fall in love. Perhaps we should have build-to-order brides and grooms too.

I refer to the Straits Times article “Singapore cheaper than Stockholm” dated 26 Sept 2009 which featured Mr Mikael Huss from Stockholm telling us how much cheaper Singapore is compared to Stockholm. Mr Huss vouched that back in Stockholm, it is nearly impossible for a household to survive on a single income, so he found it ’surprising’ that his family could get by on a single income after moving to Singapore. He concludes that “Stockholm’s living cost is much higher”. But according to the UBS comparison on prices and wages, which is the subject of the accompanying Straits Times report “How much is a burger worth?”, the price level in Stockholm excluding rent is only 87.0, not “much higher” than Singapore’s 82.0, contrary to what Mr Huss says. Mr Huss added that “everything is cheaper here except maybe rent and childcare”. The question we want to ask Mr Huss is, what is the point of counting the price of everything except rent? Will that exclude Mr Huss from paying rent? Certainly not! So if we consider rent as well, UBS’s findings tell us that the price level in Stockholm is actually 65.5, lower than Singapore’s 70.7. Therefore, Singapore is in fact more expensive than Stockholm, contrary to what Mr Huss or the title the article would like you to believe. Furthermore, what is the point of comparing price levels without also comparing wages? The UBS findings show that Stockholm’s wage level is 74.5, way above Singapore’s wage level of 26.8. In other words, while prices of goods are similar between the two countries, Stockholmers earn three times as much as us! So it is indeed unthinkable how Mr Huss should find it nearly impossible to survive in Stockholm yet finds it easy to do so here when the average wage in Stockholm is three times that in Singapore! Mr Huss also claims that taxes in Stockholm were higher. But according to UBS findings, the net wage level (that is net of taxes) in Stockholm is 71.0 while the corresponding figure for Singapore is 31.3. In other words, despite Stockholm’s higher taxes, their take home pay is still much higher than those in Singapore, more than two times that of Singapore’s in fact. All in all, it is hard to believe what Mr Huss says. And that is the problem with personal anecdotal evidences, they are not necessarily reflective of the general situation at large.

I refer to the Straits Times editorial “Watching HDB price behaviour, sensibly” dated 23 Sept 2009. The writer wonders why buyers don’t exercise their democratic right to avoid paying a premium by looking at towns less “prime”. Because towns less “prime” aren’t exactly cheap either. The writer doesn’t understand that the rise in property prices is across the board, prime and not-so-prime. So whether one is looking at prime or not-so-prime, one cannot avoid paying a “premium” for nothing. The writer denigrades the people’s concerns as being “grouses” while applauding Mr Mah’s address of those concerns as being timely. As has always been the case, the wretched people’s concerns are always grouses in the eyes and ears of our elites who have long taken for granted their million dollar salaries and can never understand let alone appreciate the citizens’ fear and panic of watching the cost of buying a flat increase by $100,000 overnight. The statement “affordability influences supply” tells us that the writer knows absolutely nothing about what he is saying for there is one and only one pre-eminent supplier, the HDB, who monopolises and hence determines the overall price and affordability of flats. The writer has chosen to parrot Mr Mah’s 30% rule for housing loan payment but fails to justify the use of such a rule. We are left to wonder why the government chooses to follow international benchmarks when it comes to extracting money from its citizens but when it comes to paying themselves, they choose not to follow international norms, but to pay themselves obscene and astronomical millions instead? Under what circumstances are international benchmarks adhered to becomes arbitrary at best. The writer has little doubt that state housing is affordable. Nevertheless, many old folks have to sell their houses now for retirement funds despite having poured all their hard earned money into their homes all their lives. And that’s what “affordable” means in Singapore, you can “afford” to pay all your life and still end up with nothing in the end. The writer is sure that HDB has every conceivable flat type and location for every budget. If only the writer can explain what that means in light of the expected 20,000 applications for the 2,000 flats released recently. The writer puts the blame squarely back on us wretched citizens for creating problems for ourselves by buying biggers places than we can afford. But would banks or the HDB have lent us money if there had been serious doubts about loan repayment in the first place? Sounds just like the US sub-prime crisis isn’t it? Whereas in the US, banks are being blamed for lending money to folks who can’t afford housing, here in Singapore, we the wretched citizens are being blamed instead. The writer blames us wretched citizens for selfishly wanting to stay near parents for child minding convenience. But as far as child minding convenience is concerned, nothing beats having a maid. With maids, what need is there to stay near parents? So surely there must be something altogether different for wanting to stay near parents? But the writer probably wouldn’t understand. He probably doesn’t care if his children stays in Siberia or Zimbabwe as long as there is Internet connection for him to see them via facebook. The writer reasons that the farthest points on this island are reachable inside an hour by public transport. I wonder if the writer has ever used public transport in his entire life. I take more than an hour to travel to my workplace via public transportation and that’s not even half the distance from Changi to Tuas South. This must be the loudest bull**** the writer has managed so far. Or he could be thinking that every spot in Singapore is within 2 min of walking to the nearest MRT. But the writer would go even further, by chastising us wretched citizens to stop hectoring the HDB for impossible concessions due to our own obstinance. Of course concessions are impossible, since when has it been possible for the government to give concessions? Bus concession for children and old folks perhaps but little else. Notice that the writer uses the word “hectoring” which means “bullying”? Wow, we wretched citizens of Singapore have started bullying the authorities. Now that is something new, like lambs bullying the big, bad wolf. But lambs will never be smart enough to come together to bully the wolf. Lambs can only scream for help when being pushed into a tight corner.

I refer to the Straits Times report “The great public housing debate” dated 17 Oct 2009. PRs In her report, Ms Tan concluded that the PR effect on resale flat price is not strong because only one in five resale flats are bought by PRs. There were a total of 30,928 resale flat transactions from third quarter last year to second quarter this year. One fifth of that number is 6,186 flats bought by PRs. So out of the 55,000 newly minted PRs, only 6,186 supposedly bought flats. What happened to the remaining 48,814 PRs? Did they disappear into thin air? The remaining 48,814 PRs and many more foreigners must have either bought a condo or have been renting a flat or condo. All else being equal, this large influx of buyers or renters would have taken a huge chunk off the supply of available units from the housing market leaving less for Singaporeans. For example, when PRs or foreigners buy condo units, they help to prop up condo prices so Singaporeans who could otherwise have bought condos would end up buying resale flats instead which tends to push up the price of resale flats in turn. The same goes for PRs or foreigners renting flats or condos. Renting provides good income to the investor / owner who then has no need to sell his flat or condo. So all the housing units that are profitably rented out becomes unavailable for sale to the masses and with the depletion of supply comes price increases. Therefore, we cannot isolate the HDB resale market and examine it on its own since all segments of the property market are invariably linked to one another like a jigsaw puzzle. We cannot appreciate the larger picture just by looking at one small piece of the jigsaw puzzle. Flats heavily subsidised? Economist Liu Yunhua from NTU reportedly said that it is fair that the capital gain from land price appreciation goes to the govt and not to individuals. But land price appreciation is not some bag of gold that drops from the sky. It will invariably be borne by new buyers who would then have to cough out even larger sums of money for the same living space. This would have been acceptable if land price appreciates slowly over time in tandem with inflation and salary increases. But now, under the “sensibly watchful eyes” of the HDB and its minister, the price of flats has gone up by $100,000 to $200,000 overnight. Where is the fairness to new buyers? Prof Kim Kying-Hwan says that the HDB hands out real subsidies. But he is only considering a snapshot view of the price situation at any particular time while ignoring the wider price considerations over time. Because when the price of a flat goes up by $100,000 overnight while the subsidy remains at $30,000, the subsidy becomes as good as no subsidy. HDB has chosen to compare the sale price of new 4-room Punggol flats with their 7-year old resale counterparts that range from $310,000 to $357,000. With this comparison, there appears to be a 10% to 15% discount on the sale price of new flats compared to old flats. But as mentioned earlier, such a snapshot comparison fails to capture significant price increases over time. Consider instead that from the second quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, the median price of a 4-room resale flat in Punggol increased from $252,500 to $334,500, an increase of 33%. So even though the HDB gives a 10% to 15% discount on new flats sold, this discount is based on the price of old flats that are now 33% higher than two years ago. So on the whole, the buyer of a new flat doesn’t get a discount but a net price increase of 13% to 20% instead. This is the good old business trick of increasing the price first and then giving a discount to make people feel good about buying a discounted product that is actually more expensive than before. Income ceiling distorts buying decisions Ms Tan also says that raising the income ceiling now will introduce even more competition for subsidised home seekers. But Mr Mah has been proudly proclaiming that 8 in 10 applicants for BTO flats are successful first time round. With such good performance, I see no reason why a little bit more competition in the BTO market would hurt. NUS professors Fu Yiming and Lum Sau Kim reportedly found that households nearing the $8,000 income ceiling “over consumed” by buying bigger flats directly from the govt compared to similar households that bought from the resale market. But think about it, is a household that earns $7,500 and buys a 5-room flat directly from the HDB for $300,000 “over consuming” compared to another household that also earns $7,500 but buys a 4-room flat from the resale market for $400,000? It is obvious who is “consuming more” and it isn’t the couple who bought directly from the HDB. So what the professors found does not seem out of the ordinary. It simply refects the exhorbitant prices charged by the HDB resale market that needs reining in. Ms Tan also sounded alarm bells by pointing out that while only 20% of first time resale flat buyers bought 5-room flats in 2007, that percentage has increased to 30% by 2009. Similarly, first time buyers of resale executive flats increased from 13% to 21%. But does that necessary show that first time buyers are throwing caution to the wind and “over consuming”? We first note from the HDB website that demand for 4-room flats is much higher than 5-room or executive flats. Even demand for 3-room flats is higher than that for 5-room flats. The greater demand for smaller flats is understandable given the steep rise in HDB prices since 2007. This greater demand for smaller flats has led to steeper price increases for smaller flats resulting in bigger flats becoming more ‘worthwhile’ compared to smaller flats. So it’s no surprise that first time buyers who can afford it would go for the more ‘worthwhile’ flats. So once again, what we see is rational consumer behaviour, not irrational “over consumption” to the steep rise in resale flat prices caused by inadequate HDB supply.

Forgot to mention, the mover is Advance Services and Transport. Absolutely cannot be trusted anymore. Thank you

Hello, This topic may seem out of place, but there is no place here that talks about moving house and since moving house can be integral to the setting up of a new home (upgraders for example), I feel obligated to share my experiences for the benefit of anyone who migh learn from the episode. We engaged a mover contractor that is listed on the yellow pages and which has many stars to boost its image. The contractor came and told us that two truck loads is sufficient to move all the big furniture with sufficient space left for only thirty boxes. We thought to save cost, we only need the contractor to move the furniture and we can move the rest ourselves. So we got 30 boxes and packed whatever we could in them. 30 boxes is definitely not a lot. For an average family, 50 boxes is minimum and 70 or even 90 boxes would have been more comfortable. Anyway, the day of moving arrived, the first truck load was fully loaded and ok. But the second truck load was only half full. We felt cheated so we asked the mover to fill up the gaps with as many of our other stuff which are packed into luggage bags, plastic bags and so on. We didn't supervise them, didn't tell them what to take, what not to take as we were inexperienced and we trusted them to be professionals. In the end, we realised that they chose to take some of the lighter plastic bags and ignored the heavier luggage bags. Worse still, when everything was finally moved and we started to unpack, we realised that things went missing. Some of my wife's expensive merchandise like handbag went missing. We asked the contractor for an explanation but they simply ignored us. We are not saying that they stole our things, because we have no proof. All we are saying is that things, expensive things, were defnitely lost when they were shifting our stuff. If it is not their responsibility, whose is it? But then again, we also don't have proof that we have lost things, so they can faint ignorance. We are left with no discourse and can only warn you guys out there to be careful about movers. Some good practices are as follows: 1. Lock up precious things. Precious things don't just include jewellery or laptops, they also include expensive handbags. 2. Everything must be packed into carton boxes. You only pay $1 deposit for each box which you will be refunded to you eventually so take minimum 50 boxes, preferably 70 boxes 3. Supervise the work, by having one person at the old house and one person at the new house. 4. Don't disconnect the telephone in the old house until a couple of days after your move so that you can coodinate between old and new house. Thank you