Mah Bow Tan say citizens had been hearing MYTH on HDB flats

[halsey02]

CASE STUDY: Mr C complained about his lack of success in getting a flat. The HDB's checks found that he had submitted four applications, three of which were in highly popular mature estates. In six months, he consecutively rejected three offers of flats: one offer of 121 flats in Punggol/Sengkang because he had been 'targeting a unit in Buangkok'; another offer of 143 flats in Punggol because 'the units left are facing the mosque'; and a third offer of 14 flats in Serangoon, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio, Tampines and Woodlands because these were not his 'choice' flats.

=> But will Mabroky himself accept these 'palaces' himself? If he doesn't, what makes him think that others should accept them?

That is what I say..Mah Bow Tan thinks, we are all "bong kan"!..and he is 'huat teow"...

 

[aurvandil]

TR is back up.

The following is the url where Dr Ng exposed the problems with the analysis done by the "independent" NUS professors.

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/0...g-in-singapore-is-affordable-by-any-standard/

The following is the link to the later discovery that one of the "independent" professors is actually on the board of HDB. Later in the thread, it was found he was also a grassroots leader.

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/0...hdb-flats-being-affordable-sits-on-hdb-board/

 

[Papsmearer]

NATIONAL Development Minister Mah Bow Tan spent some time in Parliament yesterday addressing popular misconceptions about Singapore's public housing market.

MYTH: There are not enough HDB flats to meet demand.
HIS RESPONSE:
# The HDB released 13,500 new flats last year and will release another 12,000 or more this year. This is more than the total number of flats in Clementi or Jurong East (about 23,000 flats each).
# The massive oversubscription rates for new flats are misleading. That is because half the number of flat applicants choose not to book a flat when invited to do so. Many say this is because they could not get a flat of their choice, yet in recent selection exercises, one-third rejected flats on the first day of selection, when all the flats were available.
# Some first-time buyers have complained that they have tried repeatedly to get a flat to no avail. But when the HDB reviewed 477 such cases in the last six months, it found only 29 appeals (6 per cent) were genuine.

Yes, but Mah Bow Jackass failed to mentioned that in the year before that, the HDB only build 2700 flats, and the year prior to that only 7000 plus. All very low numbers considering the large influx of FTs. This number of flats mentioned this year and next are basically knee jerk reaction to criticism and not proactive thinking on their part. Why is the HDB doing a review on only the people that complained they could not get a flat. A sample size of 477 is very low. Isn't it better to ask the 50% of the people that choose not to book a flat why they did so?

CASE STUDY: Mr C complained about his lack of success in getting a flat. The HDB's checks found that he had submitted four applications, three of which were in highly popular mature estates. In six months, he consecutively rejected three offers of flats: one offer of 121 flats in Punggol/Sengkang because he had been 'targeting a unit in Buangkok'; another offer of 143 flats in Punggol because 'the units left are facing the mosque'; and a third offer of 14 flats in Serangoon, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio, Tampines and Woodlands because these were not his 'choice' flats.

If he is required to spend $350K on a property that is not his and tied to a 30 year mortgage, he has earned the right to be choosy. No one wants to live facing a mosque. His reasons for targetting Buangkok could be very legitimate. So, I think at least half his reasons are real.

MYTH: HDB flats are unaffordable.
HIS RESPONSE:
# On top of the CPF Housing Grant of $30,000 or $40,000, there is an Additional Housing Grant (AHG) for lower-income families of up to $40,000. As of Jan 31, the Government disbursed more than $330 million in AHG to more than 20,000 families.
# The median house price is 5.8 times the median household income in Singapore. In comparison, the ratio is 7.1 in London and 19.8 in Hong Kong.
# The average mortgage payment for new flats in non-mature estates sold in 2009 was 22 per cent of monthly household income. This is well below the affordability benchmark of 30 per cent to 35 per cent.
# Four out of five Singaporean new flat buyers service their housing loans from CPF savings, without any cash payment.

$330 million disbursed to 20,000 families is only $16,500 per family on average. He should have mentioned this rather than mention "up tp $40,000", when he knows very few families actually get $40K. This comparison between London and HK is the most cocked up thing I have heard. The ratio may be 7.1 in London, but they actually own their flats freehold. They are not paying long term rent for it. And in HK, citizens have the choice to move to much cheaper accomodations in NT, or mainland China if they so choose and still remain within their own country. Sinkies don't have this option.
The servicing of housing loans with CPF savings is a travesty and an outright robbery by the PAP. No Sinkie should have to jeopardize their retirement income and nest egg by using it to pay for their current rent.HDB flats used to be affordable in that one could keep their CPF intact and pay their mortgage with take home pay.

CASE STUDY: Mr and Mrs S, with a $4,500 monthly income, bought a four-room flat in Punggol for $297,900. They received $10,000 in grants and took a concessionary loan of $268,100 (90 per cent of the price) from the HDB. The couple's monthly instalment is $1,073, or 24 per cent of their income. They can use $1,035 from the CPF to service the mortgage and end up paying only $38 monthly in cash.

This couple has just taken $350K out of their retirement income and handed it over to the HDB for rent. This is a good example by Mah Bow Jackass?

MYTH: PRs push up prices.
HIS RESPONSE:
# The median cash-over-valuation (COV) paid by permanent residents have been the same as the median COV nationwide for the last two quarters.
# Cases of PRs paying high COV are the exception. Of 37,205 resale transactions in 2009, 58 cases had COV exceeding $70,000. Of this, only eight (14 per cent) involved PRs.

MYTH: Private property owners push up prices.
HIS RESPONSE:
# Their number is not large enough to push up prices. Of the 58 resale transactions last year with COV exceeding $70,000, only 11 cases (19 per cent) involved private property owners.

MYTH: Subletting of HDB flats is rampant.
HIS RESPONSE:
# Of the 682,000 flats that have fulfilled current Minimum Occupation Period requirements, only 3 per cent are sublet. This suggests most flat owners are buying their flats for occupation, and not rental.

This idiotic statement makes no sense at all. U can only sublet the flat if you are currently a tenant. Under the HDB eyes, everyone is a tenant. But than in the same breath, Mah says they are "buying" their flats"

Anyway, i can tell u all that this forum is getting to be populated by people who are smart and know how to analyse a con when they see what. the quality of the posts are getting better. Keep up the good work.

 

[coolguy]

There are 3 myths which MBT forget to raise up.
There are.................

MYTH 1 : HDB being a monopoly, control the price.

MYTH 2: HDB artifically overvalued the price, thus making obscene profits from it.

MYTH 3: HDB artifically restrict the supply of new flats. Causing demand to be many time higher than supply.

 

[halsey02]

Anyway, i can tell u all that this forum is getting to be populated by people who are smart and know how to analyse a con when they see what. the quality of the posts are getting better. Keep up the good work.

That is why I say in Hainanese, he thinks we all are "bong KAN" ..STUPID!:p

 

[IR123]

CASE STUDY: Mr C complained about his lack of success in getting a flat. The HDB's checks found that he had submitted four applications, three of which were in highly popular mature estates. In six months, he consecutively rejected three offers of flats: one offer of 121 flats in Punggol/Sengkang because he had been 'targeting a unit in Buangkok'; another offer of 143 flats in Punggol because 'the units left are facing the mosque'; and a third offer of 14 flats in Serangoon, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio, Tampines and Woodlands because these were not his 'choice' flats.

=> But will Mabroky himself accept these 'palaces' himself? If he doesn't, what makes him think that others should accept them?

Here you need to be fair to Mah.

What Mr C wants is to be given his choice. IF not, then he complained. We can do without such Singaporeans.


If it is a HDB policy problem, let's state it as it is. If it is a problem with the attitude of some Singaporeans, then let's not defend them.

 

[vamjok]

mbt: Goal 2010 is to be the fortune god!

now this is funny

 

[Ramseth]

There are 3 myths which MBT forget to raise up.
There are.................

MYTH 1 : HDB being a monopoly, control the price.

MYTH 2: HDB artifically overvalued the price, thus making obscene profits from it.

MYTH 3: HDB artifically restrict the supply of new flats. Causing demand to be many time higher than supply.

What you've listed are truths, not myths. This is a myth: Market demand drives resale prices and HDB new flats are priced with market subsidy. Truth is: HDB new flat prices drive resale prices, not the other way around. Controlling 85% of the housing market, if HDB lowers new flat prices with real cost subsidy, how can resale price go up, especially for Singapore citizens who're eligible to buy new flats?

I ask you with a good example of what's real cost subsidy that should have driven the price down or at least maintain it stably. How can costs of building new flats go up so much when contractors are using foreign workers at lower wages from 90s onwards compared to 60s to 80s when most construction workers were Singaporeans?

 

[aurvandil]

Leong Sze Hian did the following analysis on how "funny numbers" were used in Budget 2010. Have highlighted the part on how Mr Mah seems to have given a misleading impression on subletting.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/03/budget-debate-statistics-uniquely-singapore/

Budget debate statistics: Uniquely Singapore?

By Leong Sze Hian

According to the article “Parliament: Transformation budget for future” published in My Paper on Mar 5, the Finance Minister was quoted as having rebutted opposition MP Low Thia Khiang’s (Hougang) claim that the Government had depressed wages of lower-income citizens by letting in more foreign workers.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam said: “By allowing the economy to grow rapidly in the second half of the (last) decade, we were able to bring unemployment down and grow the incomes of Singaporeans.”

Ample statistics were cited: the unemployment rate for residents fell from 6 per cent in 2003 to 2.4 per cent by end-2007; median income grew by 20 per cent over the decade after adjustment for inflation, while that of low-income households grew by 7 per cent over the decade.

Firstly, is the 7 per cent figure quoted for the lower-income households also adjusted for inflation?

To put things in perspective, the bottom quintile of households’ income declined by about 1.7 per cent per annum in real terms from 1998 to 2008. In 2009, median income dropped by a further 2.5 per cent in real terms.

In Parliament, Mr Tharman also gave an example of a couple in their mid-20s earning an income in the lowest 20 per cent bracket. Together, they earn about $1,500 a month, own a three-room flat and have two children.

The Finance Minister said that over the next 60 years, this family can expect help totalling about $460,000, after accounting for inflation. (Source: “No lack of help for low-wage workers”, ST, Mar 5)

There is no detailed break-down of how the $460,000 is derived. How is the inflation adjustment done? For example, does it mean that a $1,000 benefit adjusted for inflation at 2 per cent may be counted as an increasing amount every year such that it will be $2,208 and $3,281 in the 40th and 60th year respectively? Are there any countries in the world that calculates social benefits to citizens in this way?

The mainstream media also reports that from this year’s budget, each Singaporean in the bottom 10 per cent of income earners will get $869 in benefits, including GST credits, living cost rebates and top-ups to CPF accounts.

Most of these benefits are not extra cash that can be utilised.

For example, Medisave top-ups can only be used for medical expenses.

Top-ups to Post-secondary school Education Accounts can only be used when the children enter tertiary education, by which time the increase in fees may be more than the top-ups

Only 29 per cent of Workfare is paid in cash with the balance 71 per cent credited to the CPF account (not the Ordinary Account).

GST Credits are to offset the GST increase and not extra cash per se.

Electricity tariffs, property taxes, and Service and Conservancy Charges have all increased over the years.

While there are course fee subsidies given for Workforce Development Agency-approved courses as well as bonus payments upon completion of training under the new Workfare Training Supplement scheme, how can we assume that the lower-income family will be able to find the time to go for such training?

On subletting concerns, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said that of the 682,000 flats that have fulfilled the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) and are eligible for subletting, only 23,200 or 3 per cent are sublet, which suggests that most flat owners are buying their flats for occupation, and not rental.

However, according to the report “More turn to sub-letting HDB flats” by Channel News Asia on Nov 9, 2009, between April last year and March this year, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) approved 22,754 such applications, or 4,019 units more than in the previous year.

So, is it that only 23,200 flats are sublet in total, or 22,754 sub-let applications were approved in just one year?

Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said that the Government hears and understands Singaporeans’ concerns about the influx of immigrants in recent years. So it has refined the requirements for permanent residents (PRs) and new citizens, even as it continues to take them in to top up Singapore’s declining population. As one indication, there were 59,500 new PRs last year, down from 79,200 in 2008, and 19,900 new citizens, compared to 20,500 a year ago.

However, with unemployment rising to an average of 87,000 in 2009 during Singapore’s worst recession, is it justified that the yearly intake of new PRs and citizens declined by only 20,300 or 20 per cent?

 

[batman1]

Myth or no myth,get rid of Mah Pok Kai and the greedy and coward MIWs !!!!
If not,singaporeanse desrve to have their heads on the chopping boad to make minced meat.yummy !

 

[ruffles]

This MBT is really “iron teeth"!! It was reported in ST that he would only build flats based on real demand demonstrated by actual booking for BTO flats.

Why is he burying his head in the sand and not facing up to the REAL demand?

1) the demand from the PRs who don’t buy their flats from HDB

2) the demand from couples exceeding the income ceiling who have to buy from the resale market

3) the demand from couples who can’t wait for 3 years to get a flat to settle down

It is precisely because HDB failed to meet these sources of REAL demand, that prices of resale HDB flats are escalating due to supply shortages!

Reading this really make my blood boil. MAH Bow Tan must be ousted for the sake of Singapore !

Make it your patriotic duty to prevent Mah Bow Tan from getting re-elected in the next GE!

 

[ccchia]

Our overpaid million dollar minitoots such as MBT are now into mythology.
The truth of the matter is that :

(1) HDB flats are overpriced.

(2) FTs and PRs have been flooding into the little red dot for the past few years
and they are inflating the housing prices.

(3) Local Sinkies are being overcrowded out of our country by the flood of FTs, PRs
and the "new Singaporeans".

(4) Our PM and his minitoots are the most expensive civil servants in this world.

All true blue Sinkies should make it their duty to vote out MBT and Pinky Loong from the next
GE, assuming that they are given the chance to vote.

 

[scroobal]

Its a huge commitment to buy a house. It is likely to be the biggest purchase in one's life. No one with a borderline IQ and above is likely to treat such purchases as a trivial activity.

We have come along way and know that flats within the same block have different values. Most people will not accept flats next to lift landings, on the first floor or the house number is not right. Then you have the orientation such as facing the sun, facing a road, facing a nice landscaped area, the sea etc.

Naturally one wants to be careful when choosing a house. Its no different to buying a private property. I find the suggestion bizarre that there so many people have "attitude" problems when buying a home. It just don't stand to reason to accept this kind of hollow argument. I am sure we have some level of intelligence and common sense.

I naturally can understand when grassroots leaders, the government and people who have vested interest conveniently use the "attitude" problem but I am sure we are all reasonably smart enough to pick out bullshit when its flying across your face at slow speed.

I certainly there will be exceptions when it comes to "difficult" people but this are just exceptions.

Here you need to be fair to Mah.

What Mr C wants is to be given his choice. IF not, then he complained. We can do without such Singaporeans.


If it is a HDB policy problem, let's state it as it is. If it is a problem with the attitude of some Singaporeans, then let's not defend them.

 

[aurvandil]

Does anyone have a url link to the original media article? I have Googling like mad and cannot find it. I hope that this is not a new strategy by the mainstream media to "counter" online critcism - turn the clock back to the pre-Internet age and do only hard copies of articles that are likely to be criticised. Someone please prove me wrong and provide a link.

 

[IR123]

He was given 3 choices and rejected all of them.

We are talking HDB policies here. Not using the MP to get your own choice flat.

............

 

[aurvandil]

He was given 3 choices and rejected all of them.

We are talking HDB policies here. Not using the MP to get your own choice flat.

I don't think we are getting the full picture here. Mr Mah revealed that the person rejected a flat because it was facing a mosque. This is understandable given that such flats normally fetch a lower price in the resale market.

To make the story complete, maybe Mr Mah should have provided the reasons for why the person rejected the other two units. Were there negative externalities which would have affected the quality of living and subsequent resale price?

If you look at the private housing, units with negative externalities are usually discounted heavily. You never see private sector developers throwing a tantrum and complaining that their customers are choosy.

 

[mustspeakup]

Singapore I think it's the only country in the world that makes used of public housing to make money for greedy people!!

The reason why we have public housing is because we want to eradicate slums and shanty towns unfortunately this has been abused for quick profits and self interests!

I am suprised the Singapore government are in cahoots with the peasants to engage in this kind of nonsense with them!!!!

 

[IR123]

I don't think we are getting the full picture here. Mr Mah revealed that the person rejected a flat because it was facing a mosque. This is understandable given that such flats normally fetch a lower price in the resale market.

To make the story complete, maybe Mr Mah should have provided the reasons for why the person rejected the other two units. Were there negative externalities which would have affected the quality of living and subsequent resale price?

If you look at the private housing, units with negative externalities are usually discounted heavily. You never see private sector developers throwing a tantrum and complaining that their customers are choosy.

And if you are dissatisfied, you use the political process to get your own choice flat?

The flat selection procedure is an impartial and objective process (presumably). Some will get the highest floor and others the first floor. You cannot say that since you are given the selection of the first floor flats 3 times in a row, the policy should now favour you getting the highest floor flat. If not, then that is something wrong with Mah.

Once again, we are talking about HDB policies. Not about catering for the needs of an individual to get his choice flat.

 

[aurvandil]

The flat selection procedure is an impartial and objective process (presumably). Some will get the highest floor and others the first floor. You cannot say that since you are given the selection of the first floor flats 3 times in a row, the policy should now favour you getting the highest floor flat. If not, then that is something wrong with Mah.

Once again, we are talking about HDB policies. Not about catering for the needs of an individual to get his choice flat.

For the longest time, people have been saying that there is something wrong with the way HDB prices their flats. I think there will be many people who are willing to stay on the first floor or facing a mosque if you give them a $20,000 to $30,000 discount.

For most people, buying a HDB flat means getting into debt for the next 30 years. It cannot be that because you are unlucky 3 times in a ballot, you are penalised and forced to accept a lousy unit which you know will be worth less in the resale market.

 

[Conan the Barbarian]

They can call all these myths. I trust the average
Singaporean should be wise enough to know the
truth.

If the electorate believe they are myths, then all
I can say is good luck to them. They deserve it
when life kicks them in the balls.