Prs Not Allowed To Buy Public Housing?

[RimBlock 0]

The subject of PRs and property comes up time and time again so lets get some facts out there....

Firstly figures. These are taken from the Singapore 2010 Advance preview census here (pdf). If anyone knows of a more recent set of reliable figures then please let me know.

Of a population totalling 5,076.7 thousands (ie. just over 5 million) there are;

Citizens: 3,230.7 (3.2 mil)

PRs: 541 (1/2 mil)

Non-residents: 1,305 (1.3 mil) - These include temporary residents like employment pass holders, foreign students but not tourists or visitors.

PRs account for 10% of the resident population.

Ok, lets now move on to property.

Taken from the Census of Population 2010 - Households and Housing (pdf)

There are 1,145,920 households made up of;

HDB: 943,859

• 1 & 2 room flats: 52,275
  
• 3 room flats: 229,718
  
• 4 room flats: 365,423
  
• 5 room and executive flats: 293,336
  

Condo & Private: 128,854

Landed: 64,908

Other: 8298

Of these properties there are;

Owned: 998,875 - 87.7% (of those: (823k) 82.45% HDB, (175.7k) 17.6% private / condo)

Tenanted: 132,535 - 17.6% (of those: (106.3k) 20.2% HDB, (26.2k) 19.8% private / condo)

Using a quick and dirty assumption that there are two and a half people per PR household then that would give a rough figure of 204,800 PR households.

If PRs could not purchase HDB properties then they would need to rent or purchase private properties. If they rented all available properties meaning there would be none left for Singaporeans, that would still leave around 702,000 PR households and only 106.3k private properties. So with the current population there would only be around 304k private properties available to Singaporeans. Oh, by the way, where do the non residents live, all 1.3 million of them now all the rented and most the private properties are no longer available ?.

Sure, statistics can be tailored to any goal with a bit of creative accounting which is why I have tried to 'process' them as little as possible.

So in essence;

You have 0.5 mil PRs to house,

You have 1.3 mil temp residents to house,

You have 3.2 mil Citizens to house,

You have 950k HDB apartments,

You have 200K Private / condos.

You have 3.7 mil of the population at a workable age (73%)

You have 203k Unemployed (4%)

You have 720k in education

You have 2.8 mil jobs to fill.

Note: The last 3 are based on the 2009 census here as I have not found any more recent figures.

Fit them all in and keep all the jobs filled...

Now consider the age demographic currently in Singapore. Using the charts in the Census 2010 on page 26/27 we can get quick and dirty figures for working population (retire at 65, start work at 20 - taking in to account national service and 50% population are female). The figures are very rough as the age is not separated by residency status / type.

In the next 5 years the workforce will;

Lose 213

Gain: 264

10 years;

Lose: 463

Gain: 509

15 years;

Lose: 768k

Gain: 764k

20 Years;

Lose: 1.181 mil

Gain: 959k

So in 20 years Singapore will most likely be loosing more workforce than you are gaining. You are now on a downward spiral if you cannot get your birthrate up as you will have less citizens to give birth from that point onwards.

One other question for the pro 'ban PRs from buying HDB crowd'.... What is a citizen and a PR marry as in my case. Should they also be banned from buying an HDB, should only the Citizens income be allowable for home loan calculations (meaning most PR/citizen couples would only be able to afford the smallest properties) or should they be allowed as if both were citizens (as now).

My personal view.... build more affordable housing, rather than reduce the prices of current housing and destroy peoples equity in their properties (especially devastating if they purchased in the last couple of years), provide bonuses / grants for citizens so they have to borrow less to afford the same property, take the full cost of the property in to account with regards to HDB loans, not just the valuation amount as the COV being fully paid in cash is, in my view, the biggest barrier for people being able to purchase a property. PRs should not be able to get a HDB loan, should not be eligible for any HDB grants. No-one should be able to own more than one residential property in Singapore of any type. HDB should be the only person / organisation able to rent out HDB properties and they should rent at market rates with any proceeds above admin costs to manage the rentals going towards grants for Citizens to purchase apartments. If people have spare rooms they are renting then they should downgrade. It is about space and providing homes not about people having a regular income whilst others cannot afford a place to live.

Hopefully that has given some food for thought. I have deliberately stayed away from why Singapore is currently in this position .

RB

[gimz63251073 0]

wah Rimblock make me see numbers till i blur...

taking a step back, the numbers might not be as useful.

Reason being, most PRs currently are already renting/own a house. Save for those camping in parks or what nots.

Hence, there would not be a huge number of people being made homeless if "No HDB for PR" is implemented. No laws would apply retrospectively, at least not in Singapore.

Numbers which are more useful, but we do not have access to:

- quota for PR / work permits in future. - This would make an impact on the already tight supply of transport/housing/personal space.

Having said that, it is really not easy for anyone who does not save up via CPF to pay for the downpayment of the house. The high price itself sets a high barrier of entry for many PRs already.

And single citizens have kept lobbying for the right to buy HDB before they reach 35yrs old, another batch of demand we are seeing here!

[chang2 0]

Gov is trying to divert attention of their failure by blaming the PR buying up HDB (of course thru their 'dogs' and spread this in unofficial channel)

The reason for HDB price skyrocketing lies in:

1) Under supply - 1 mil increase in population (local n foreign) only 280K housing provided

2) Price increase by Gov themselves on new HDB (price increased by 230% compared to 10 years ago) fyi: my salary only go up by 12% for the same period (due to salary cut along the way (bird flu, economy crisis)

Solution:

If housing is developed at the same rate of population increase and offered at reasonable price ($120K for a 4 room flat) we can see a less drastic increase in housing price and the new generation could afford with their low income. (not everyone in Singapore earns 20-30K a month as a secretary (PM office) like Tin Pei Ling's husband)

[RimBlock 0]

wah Rimblock make me see numbers till i blur...

taking a step back, the numbers might not be as useful.

Reason being, most PRs currently are already renting/own a house. Save for those camping in parks or what nots.

The numbers give an idea of the scope and various considerations.

Hence, there would not be a huge number of people being made homeless if "No HDB for PR" is implemented. No laws would apply retrospectively, at least not in Singapore.

If it was not retrospectively enforced. If this was the case then the issues would not be fixed any time soon which is what a lot of people are complaining about (not necessarily here).

Numbers which are more useful, but we do not have access to:

- quota for PR / work permits in future. - This would make an impact on the already tight supply of transport/housing/personal space.

But if these decisions are not made yet then how ?. If companies keep coming to Singapore and setting up their Asia base of operations here but the Government cuts the number of workers who can come and stay here and cannot supply the manpower to fill the jobs with citizens then the companies will rethink their strategy and possibly move out to Hong Kong.

Having said that, it is really not easy for anyone who does not save up via CPF to pay for the downpayment of the house. The high price itself sets a high barrier of entry for many PRs already.

Not if they sell up property in their own country. The young may have issues or people from countries who only rent and have no savings.

And single citizens have kept lobbying for the right to buy HDB before they reach 35yrs old, another batch of demand we are seeing here!

Yeah, have heard that one. Build more studio apartments and base eligibility for certain apartments on number of occupants. Two people then max two bedrooms. 4 people then max three bedrooms if the two youngest are children and of different sexes. Having a couple stay in a 3 bedroom HDB is very extravagant for a country with very limited space. HDBs should be to meat demand for housing, not for meeting peoples desire to have two spare rooms for a games room and a study room. Doing that with a condo is fine but not with government housing.

RB

[RimBlock 0]

Solution:

If housing is developed at the same rate of population increase and offered at reasonable price ($120K for a 4 room flat) we can see a less drastic increase in housing price and the new generation could afford with their low income. (not everyone in Singapore earns 20-30K a month as a secretary (PM office) like Tin Pei Ling's husband)

So what happens to the people how have just had to pay 400k for a 4 room flat. You are happy to wipe out 280k of their equity just like that and basically have them paying a 30 year loan when only the last 10 years will be them paying off the value of their home, the other 20 years will be paying money for nothing ?

Reducing housing prices punishes everyone who bought their apartment above those prices. Thousands of voters would suffer. The only way to avoid this would be to buy up all the HDBs and resell them back at the new price which would cost the government billions. There goes your CPF they have been looking after for you.

Surely a better way would be to offset the price by grants for citizens to allow them to compete more favourably with PRs or others. COVs and peoples greed have contributed greatly to the current transaction prices. We had to pay 50k COV to get our place. Problem is that if the government banned COV then it would just go 'under the table' again.

RB

[gimz63251073 0]

The numbers give an idea of the scope and various considerations.

but is it relevant at all? If not its just GIGO.

If it was not retrospectively enforced. If this was the case then the issues would not be fixed any time soon which is what a lot of people are complaining about (not necessarily here).

Retrospective -> Implement rule today, PR cannot buy flat from today. Those who already own flats are not affected.

But if these decisions are not made yet then how ?. If companies keep coming to Singapore and setting up their Asia base of operations here but the Government cuts the number of workers who can come and stay here and cannot supply the manpower to fill the jobs with citizens then the companies will rethink their strategy and possibly move out to Hong Kong.

im sure they have a number on their side, which is not revealed to public.

Not if they sell up property in their own country. The young may have issues or people from countries who only rent and have no savings.

Maybe. I guess it really depends on the individual case itself.

Yeah, have heard that one. Build more studio apartments and base eligibility for certain apartments on number of occupants. Two people then max two bedrooms. 4 people then max three bedrooms if the two youngest are children and of different sexes. Having a couple stay in a 3 bedroom HDB is very extravagant for a country with very limited space. HDBs should be to meat demand for housing, not for meeting peoples desire to have two spare rooms for a games room and a study room. Doing that with a condo is fine but not with government housing.

as of now, studio apartments are just a nice name for flats. Most view it as flats for the old and poor. Singaporeans especially Chinese, love their "face" very much, hence showing people that you are poor is a real bad thing to do. Every single relative of mine came to ask why i chose a 3 room flat. In their minds, 3 room flats are meant for the poor. Its hard to change mindsets, it takes time.

RB

[MSlovers 0]

Hi Rimblock, is there a reason why you aren't taking up Sg citizenship?

[RimBlock 0]

The numbers give an idea of the scope and various considerations.

but is it relevant at all? If not its just GIGO.

Of course unless you believe history has no relevance on current times. Just looking at the 'quick and dirty' figures for workforce you can see that the government will need to either loose 200,000 jobs in Singapore, import at least 200,000 more workers (PR or non-perm resident), or train their citizens to a level that they can fill all the jobs and then attract the bodies to fill in the other jobs. They could abolish NS and lower the workforce age which is unlikely or they could raise the retirement age. Looking at the trends can give an indication of the future.

Retrospective -> Implement rule today, PR cannot buy flat from today. Those who already own flats are not affected.

Yes I am well aware of what this word means. I am also well aware that it was not included in the OPs initial question and that you have added this from your presumption that it was implied although not stated. The point I was trying to make was that if it was implemented from the start then it would not be feasible knowing what we now know.

im sure they have a number on their side, which is not revealed to public.

Over what timeframe are you sure they have a figure for ?

as of now, studio apartments are just a nice name for flats. Most view it as flats for the old and poor. Singaporeans especially Chinese, love their "face" very much, hence showing people that you are poor is a real bad thing to do. Every single relative of mine came to ask why i chose a 3 room flat. In their minds, 3 room flats are meant for the poor. Its hard to change mindsets, it takes time.

Flats and apartments are widely interchangeable terms. Studio apartments are apartments without a separate bedroom.

I appreciate your point about 'face' in Chinese culture but we are talking about a country with very limited housing and what you seem to be suggesting is that if HDB built 3 room apartments to ease some pressure on housing then people would not purchase them as it would not give good 'face' for them to their family and friends. Seriously, surely it is worse face to have to live with the family than to be able to purchase your own property regardless of the size ?.

If PRs were banned from buying HDB properties I would imagine this would include people who need to upgrade from a HDB they already own. So if a family with 2 kids in a two room had another child then they would have to stay in the 3 room HDB or buy a condo and so go from a property worth around 300k to a property costing a minimum of around 750k, or of course rent at a highly inflated cost.

If PRs are are not allowed to buy HDB apartments and cannot afford Condos then they will not be able to use their CPF contributions towards housing costs. This means that they need to find the rental costs, which are currently very high in Singapore, as well as their CPF contribution. To avoid subjecting PRs to a major drop in standard of living, the wages of PRs would need to increase which would in turn make Singapore a lot less attractive. The other option would be for companies to bring back Expat packages as their workers would not want to move and work in Singapore as they would take a hit in their quality of life to do so.

What the figures originally posted show is that Singapore does not have the workforce available to fill all the jobs available. Putting PRs in a significantly worse position than they would be in their home countries would result in either Singapore loosing jobs to other countries like Hong Kong or more non-perm resident people having to be brought in who are by the very nature transitory and so a hiring company always needs to rotate staff to fill the position.

When people are calling for PRs being banned from purchasing HDB housing or PRs being banned from this or that they only see the benefits for themselves or family etc but either do not understand or are deliberately ignoring the knock on effect for the country. The statistics above are intended to highlight some of the links. Are these links relevant.... only if you have any interest in looking at the big picture rather than just trying to find a cheaper house regardless of the consequences.

RB

[RimBlock 0]

Hi Rimblock, is there a reason why you aren't taking up Sg citizenship?

Hi MSlovers

I am British, please let me know what Singapore Citizenship will give to me that will make up for what I would loose from renouncing my British citizenship.

I am not saying that as a PR, why would I need to change to a citizen as there are sizeable differences, regardless of what some people would like to think, but more a case of what pluses along with the minuses would I get ?

With British citizenship I have access to free healthcare if I choose to go back to the UK, access to easier international travel (visa free). The ability to live and work in any European (EU) city without approval from that country.

If dual nationality was available then I probably would apply although NS requirements would have to be confirmed as at my age, why would I put myself up to fight and possibly die for a country I have only just moved to.

I will also be going back to the UK with my family at some point to look after my parents as they get older as I am an only child and they have no-one else to care for them. My wife has a brother and sister to look after her parents.

I moved to Singapore as I married a Singaporean and she expressed a preference to live in Singapore for the time being. I had no objection and a job offer here so I moved. I moved to be with my wife, not because Singapore was a place I felt I had to live in. I am a PR based on my experience in my chosen field of work and not due to being married to a Singaporean.

Now, to be clear, I very much enjoy living here, I love the safety for my kids, the schooling is pretty good and the people, on the whole, are pretty friendly and agreeable. There are many plus points to living in Singapore. I do enjoy living here and now we have a bigger apartment (3 room -> EM) our family can feel a bit more comfortable (soon to be 3 kids). All of our children are Singaporean but we will have to see what the future brings. If I no access to HDBs, as my wifes income is low we would not be able to afford a condo and so would have to rent and what with 1k to CPF, 2.5k for rental there is little left to support a family of 5, I would have no collateral in my property building up and my CPF is at the whim of the Government as to whether I would get it back if I chose to leave. Singapore suddenly becomes a lot less appealing. Singapore is also not only plus points, there are a few minuses as well.

I do however understand where Singaporeans are coming from with regards to house prices and sympathise. My wifes family is also affected but I think the HDB ownership needs to be cleaned up (people owning HDB for profit and living in condos for example) before any more drastic measures are taken.

RB

[gimz63251073 0]

Of course unless you believe history has no relevance on current times. Just looking at the 'quick and dirty' figures for workforce you can see that the government will need to either loose 200,000 jobs in Singapore, import at least 200,000 more workers (PR or non-perm resident), or train their citizens to a level that they can fill all the jobs and then attract the bodies to fill in the other jobs. They could abolish NS and lower the workforce age which is unlikely or they could raise the retirement age. Looking at the trends can give an indication of the future.

thats why there is a productivity drive, to reduce reliance on quantity of workers. Cheap labour stiffens productivity growth and well its a bit too late to start now. But better late than never. Though at the end of the day, u still need one driver to drive a bus. I not sure how anyone can measure the productivity of such labour? Drive faster or drive with less accidents?

Trends may or may not give an indication of future. "just because it rained 2 days ago, does not lead one to believe that it might rain 2 days later". One such example was how firmly HDB prices held during the worst financial crisis faced in almost 10yrs.

Yes I am well aware of what this word means. I am also well aware that it was not included in the OPs initial question and that you have added this from your presumption that it was implied although not stated. The point I was trying to make was that if it was implemented from the start then it would not be feasible knowing what we now know.

Till date, to the best of my knowledge, no law in Singapore had been passed to apply retrospectively. The reason is simple enough to do away with the need for explanation.

Over what timeframe are you sure they have a figure for ?

if i am the party in control, i would surely have the next 5yrs plans in place. They being scholars, a minimum of 10yrs. Since the figures are never revealed, we would never be sure. I could be totally wrong. They might decide to approve applications by tossing a coin even.

Flats and apartments are widely interchangeable terms. Studio apartments are apartments without a separate bedroom.

I appreciate your point about 'face' in Chinese culture but we are talking about a country with very limited housing and what you seem to be suggesting is that if HDB built 3 room apartments to ease some pressure on housing then people would not purchase them as it would not give good 'face' for them to their family and friends. Seriously, surely it is worse face to have to live with the family than to be able to purchase your own property regardless of the size ?.

Singapore have lots of under-developed land and have old estates with many flats below 15 storeys. The lack is therefore the speed of building. As of now, people can still "afford" housing with a 30yr loan. As of now, price difference between a 3 room to 4room is not that huge when u spread it over 30yrs. Regardless, people look at "the cost of your house" as a reflection of your economic ability. For example, someone probably gets more "face" if he lives in a condo (size of 3rm HDB) vs someone who lives in a 4rm HDB (but cheaper in price).

If PRs were banned from buying HDB properties I would imagine this would include people who need to upgrade from a HDB they already own. So if a family with 2 kids in a two room had another child then they would have to stay in the 3 room HDB or buy a condo and so go from a property worth around 300k to a property costing a minimum of around 750k, or of course rent at a highly inflated cost.

If PRs are are not allowed to buy HDB apartments and cannot afford Condos then they will not be able to use their CPF contributions towards housing costs. This means that they need to find the rental costs, which are currently very high in Singapore, as well as their CPF contribution. To avoid subjecting PRs to a major drop in standard of living, the wages of PRs would need to increase which would in turn make Singapore a lot less attractive. The other option would be for companies to bring back Expat packages as their workers would not want to move and work in Singapore as they would take a hit in their quality of life to do so.

What the figures originally posted show is that Singapore does not have the workforce available to fill all the jobs available. Putting PRs in a significantly worse position than they would be in their home countries would result in either Singapore loosing jobs to other countries like Hong Kong or more non-perm resident people having to be brought in who are by the very nature transitory and so a hiring company always needs to rotate staff to fill the position.

There might be a whole lot of factors to consider when a PR chooses Singapore. HK houses are more expensive in that sense. A friend of mine took up a job offer in HK, she said she ended up getting less pay than in Singapore after rental. But she's there for the culture and fun. Probably won't stay long as well.

When people are calling for PRs being banned from purchasing HDB housing or PRs being banned from this or that they only see the benefits for themselves or family etc but either do not understand or are deliberately ignoring the knock on effect for the country. The statistics above are intended to highlight some of the links. Are these links relevant.... only if you have any interest in looking at the big picture rather than just trying to find a cheaper house regardless of the consequences.

yes, many calls for policies are indeed for self interest. Normally, one will look at self interest before nation. We can see from the General Elections. Many wants opposition in the parliment, just not in my backyard. (They want upgrading/PAP MP to write letters).

RB

[bepgof 20]

Non-citizen[Prs(10.65%)+non-residents], as of end 2010, already hit 36.4% of total population, not 1/3.

Total=5,076k

Citizens=3,230k

PR=541k

Non-residents=1,205k

LKY ever mentioned HK can afford to fail and china can accomodate them. Unlike Singapore, once fails, who can earlier to "fock" first? The answer is obvious.

Of course, there are many ways & means to regulate public housing price

- more grants

- build more

- cheaper land

- MOP

- Loan

- Foreign policy controls

etc, etc

A nation building never be easy, besides satisfying the within needs of residents, has to watch out for global situations and take actions to "adjust" accordingly. Primary aim towards a 6.5mil total population, is to have substitiate domestic market needs.

Personally feel that PAP leaders should take more active action inviting PRs to become citizens, as to change the ratio from present's 36.4" to 33.3% as targetted. Why 33.3%, don't ask me. However, I do know that this 33.3% would be earlier to "fock" if one day singapore runs into deep s h i t.

Policies can never remain unchanged. Choices often come with committments.

Last Sunday invited by children's tutor for breakfast at her place in Tampines(Em). She has moved from HUDC to 5rm to present's EM. Her husband is a SPR, Geman. During breakfast, he told he has no intention to become citizen and when both get "old", will move to Germany where his parents & relatives stay.

Edited May 13, 2011 by bepgof

[ngunadi 2]

When I was discussing conversion of PR -> Citizen, one question always pops up:

Is this a place I want to retire?

The truth is that Singapore is a good place to retire. The sad part of it, you need loads of money to retire in Singapore.

I speak to many PRs .. many express the desire to convert to citizen. Easily 4-5 ppl want to convert.

With the government is becoming strict in terms of immigration, it's yet to be seen whether they would be granted citizenship ...

[RimBlock 0]

thats why there is a productivity drive, to reduce reliance on quantity of workers. Cheap labour stiffens productivity growth and well its a bit too late to start now. But better late than never. Though at the end of the day, u still need one driver to drive a bus. I not sure how anyone can measure the productivity of such labour? Drive faster or drive with less accidents?

Any reasonably run private company will always be on the lookout for productivity boosts. Publicly owned organisations and badly run private companies is usually where you will find people employed in a pretty inefficient manor.

To give a comparative example... In the UK the last Government (Labour) slashed unemployment rates. One of the ways they did this was to add a large amount of paperwork and red tape to the National Health Service and then create jobs to cope with this extra work. Efficiency has been cut in order to make work for political gains and service has suffered in this publicly owned organisation.

It is not about driving faster or having less accidents but more about meeting the goal more efficiently. If the goal in your analogy is to deliver people from one place to another then trends could be mapped to assess volumes and maybe cut frequency at quiet times and increase at busy periods. Maybe you could use bigger buses rather than two buses. Sometimes it is hard to find areas to improve and there is always resistance to change but pain is sometimes needed to provide a better outlook like having an injection to ward off a disease. Filling inefficiency by employing cheap labour is a quick and easy way to relieve stress in a particular area but fails to tackle the underlying issue. For the purpose of this thread though, how many of these cheap workers are PRs and how many are EP holders ??. One of the issues in my mind is not so much this part of the employment sector but more the more technical skilled part where jobs are created in Singapore and then services companies are used to fill them which they do by importing cheap skilled labour from India and the like. They can undercut the local workforce and fill entry level jobs Singaporeans would have filled in order to gain experience for them to move further up the career ladder. The cold hard fact though is that it makes good business sense for businesses to do this.

Trends may or may not give an indication of future. "just because it rained 2 days ago, does not lead one to believe that it might rain 2 days later". One such example was how firmly HDB prices held during the worst financial crisis faced in almost 10yrs.

True but they can give a more informed indication than having no information at all. If it rained 2 days ago, will it rain today. Looking at the average rainfall for the month and comparing with the previous 5 years can give an indication to the probability and that probability will be more accurate than going in blind and just sticking your finger in the air and going 'dunno'. Historical data and statistics can give a more accurate probability but they are not a crystal ball to tell you exactly what will happen. Most would prefer to have an indication of probability than nothing to base decisions on. Some would prefer not to especially if it goes against what they would like to happen or their point of view and some just like spouting uninformed and unsubstantiated facts around and expect people to agree.

Trends for people in Singapore show that a two year period around 2007/2008 saw a massive jump in foreign workers and a spike in PRs above the baseline for the last 10 years. What it also shows is a vast reduction on those figures over the next 2 years, partly, no doubt due to public opinion. This spike, especially with foreign workers, has made some people a lot of money. People have been buying up HDBs for rental. Our old landlord upgraded from a HDB to a condo but didn't sell his HDB and rented it out. If the HDB apartments are meant to house Singaporeans, especially when there is a shortage of homes, why are Singaporeans who have moved to Condos allowed to use them as a money making machine ?

Till date, to the best of my knowledge, no law in Singapore had been passed to apply retrospectively. The reason is simple enough to do away with the need for explanation.

I read the question as 'should', as in 'what is your opinion' rather than 'would' as in 'if the government implemented it based on past experience of them introducing policy would the impact be good'. On one hand you are saying 'historical information is irrelevant as it does not show us the future' and on the other you are saying 'it should be this way because of this is how it has happened historically'.

if i am the party in control, i would surely have the next 5yrs plans in place. They being scholars, a minimum of 10yrs. Since the figures are never revealed, we would never be sure. I could be totally wrong. They might decide to approve applications by tossing a coin even.

So you are just picking number out of the air based on pure assumption. TBH, considering the last few sets of rule changes on HDB purchases and the statement on offering PRs citizenship or not renewing their PR status I think the coin flip seems to be the way they were going.

From an outsiders point of view, these knee jerk rule changes seemed like the decisions of a very amateurish and arrogant group of people with little consideration for people caught up in the new rulings especially as those affected did not have a reasonable time to manage issues that may have arisen due to the new rules. Case in point was that we had just signed the OTP as the first set of new rules came out about a second home lone and the max allowed to borrow. Potentially this meant that we could not borrow the 80% and would have to borrow only 70% as we had not completed the sale by the time the purchase was initiated. HDB had no information for a week or two, banks had no information, agents had no information and we had just signed a legally binging contract that, if the new rules forced us to a 70% loan, we could not honour. It all worked out in the end but surely before you announce a sweeping rules change you make sure your support organisations are aware and able to answer questions and you give people time to adjust and manage before it comes in to affect. The fact that the Government is willing to treat its own citizens like this is one bug red alarm bell as to why citizenship is not so appealing to many PRs I am sure, myself included.

Singapore have lots of under-developed land and have old estates with many flats below 15 storeys. The lack is therefore the speed of building.

THe underlying issue is the lack of pre-planning.

Renewing old blocks makes sense but not when there is already a shortage of housing. Displacing a block full of people when there is nowhere for them to go is just madness.

It seems therefore that building on unused land is now the only way to go. This then brings with it infrastructure cost and making that are desirable and accessible. Punggol, for example as a new estate has limited shops, transport links and the like but lots of new apartments. Living there is not as desirable for many compared to living in a more established area.

As of now, people can still "afford" housing with a 30yr loan.

30 year loans are not usually available to people around 40 years old or above.

As of now, price difference between a 3 room to 4room is not that huge when u spread it over 30yrs.

Sure if you want or have to buckle yourself in to a 30 year loan commitment. Clearly this is great for the banks.

Regardless, people look at "the cost of your house" as a reflection of your economic ability. For example, someone probably gets more "face" if he lives in a condo (size of 3rm HDB) vs someone who lives in a 4rm HDB (but cheaper in price).

This is human nature. The difference between views is how much you let it dominate your life and the choices you make. I believe in living for myself and my wife/kids and not for what others think of me.

I am well aware of the concept of 'face' as my wife was considered the 'black sheep' of the family as she was divorced before meeting me. My mother and father in law refused to come to the ceremony initially but relented in the end after I personally told them how much it would mean to us. We all get on very well now and my in-law are very happy for all of us (although my mother-in-law tends not to show any positive emotions ).

Anyway, this is digressing from the main subject wildly.

It is interesting to see how, even though people cannot afford HDBs, new builds and even Condos are usually oversubscribed by orders of magnitude.

RB

[RimBlock 0]

Non-citizen[Prs(10.65%)+non-residents], as of end 2010, already hit 36.4% of total population, not 1/3.

Total=5,076k

Citizens=3,230k

PR=541k

Non-residents=1,205k

Not sure who you are correcting here but just to clarify, non-residents is incorrect. The figure of 1,305k (not 1,205k) is for non-perm residents and covers students, work pass holders and the like who live in Singapore.

Glossary of terms (p36) of the Census.

Residential Status

Singapore citizens and permanent residents are classified as Singapore residents or the

resident population. Singapore permanent residents refer to non-citizens who have

been granted permanent residence in Singapore. The non-resident population

comprised foreigners who were working, studying or living in Singapore but not

granted permanent residence, excluding tourists and short-term visitors.

It is the large increase of non-perm residents that has raised the population of Singapore so quickly (14.9% or 130k in 2007 and 19% or 190k in 2008), not the increase of PRs which has increased by 100k between 2007 and June 2010, the same rate as the growth of Singaporean citizens. PRs still only account for 10% of the population.

...

Personally feel that PAP leaders should take more active action inviting PRs to become citizens, as to change the ratio from present's 36.4" to 33.3% as targetted. Why 33.3%, don't ask me. However, I do know that this 33.3% would be earlier to "fock" if one day singapore runs into deep s h i t.

So 'encourage' PRs to become citizens. How to do that ?. Not so hard when the PRs come from less fortunate countries but much more difficult when they come from countries with a comparable or better standard of living.

Last Sunday invited by children's tutor for breakfast at her place in Tampines(Em). She has moved from HUDC to 5rm to present's EM. Her husband is a SPR, Geman. During breakfast, he told he has no intention to become citizen and when both get "old", will move to Germany where his parents & relatives stay.

Not sure of the point you seem to be trying to make here and you have of course missed out the most important bit of information.... why would they move to Germany in their old age. What appeals to them which will draw them away from Singapore ?

RB

[RimBlock 0]

The truth is that Singapore is a good place to retire.

Ahh, for whom and compared to where ? .

I know we touched on this briefly last time we met up.

RB