Ng Kok Lim debunks Mah Bow Tan’s “myths”

[makapaaa]

<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Ng Kok Lim debunks Mah Bow Tan’s “myths”</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>

Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"></TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt_89 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>3:06 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right>(1 of 2) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>29886.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Ng Kok Lim debunks Mah Bow Tan’s “myths” about HDB flats

March 10, 2010 by admin
Filed under Columnists, Ng Kok Lim, Opinion

Leave a comment
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/03/10/ng-kok-lim-debunks-mah-bow-tans-myths-about-hdb-flats/


Dear Mr Mah,
I refer to your comments in parliament as reported by Straits Times on 6 Mar 2010.
There are not enough HDB flats to meet demand
You said it is a myth that there are not enough HDB flats to meet demand because the 13,500 flats built last year and the 12,000 flats to be built this year add up to be more than the approximately 23,000 flats in either Clementi or Jurong East. However, the 23,000 flats in either Clementi or Jurong East do not represent the demand for new flats. Ms Chua Mui Hoong reported in her Straits Times commentary on 11 Feb 2010 that there is a potential demand for 95,600 flats over and above those who have already clinched their flats or will be buying other properties. This demand for 95,600 flats far outstrips your supply of either 13,500 or 12,000 flats. Hence, it is not a myth but a truth that there aren’t enough flats to satisfy demand.
You said that the massive oversubscription of new flats is misleading because many applicants eventually reject the flats they were invited to buy. While it is true that applicants who reject flats available to them do not want those flats, it doesn’t mean that they don’t want a flat at the end of the day. They still want a flat and so they still constitute part of the demand for flats. Hence, the massive oversubscripton of new flats is indeed a reflection of the massive demand for new flats.
You said that only 6% of complaint cases from first time buyers are geniune. However, some of the examples you reportedly gave on 8 Oct 2009 were in themselves dubious. Your case study of Mr C rejecting flats facing the mosque may be unreasonable to you and the HDB but may not be unreasonable to Singaporeans who wish for a more quiet place.
HDB flats are unaffordable
You said there is the CPF housing grant of $30,000 or $40,000 and an additional grant of up to $40,000 for low income families. However, these grants are not even enough to make up for the more than $100,000 increase in flat prices across Singapore over the last three years. You said that the government disbursed more than $330 million in housing grants to more than 20,000 families. But a nominal increase of just $40,000 in the price of new flats multiplied by the 13,500 flats sold last year would have seen government coffers swell by $540 million. That easily beats the government grants that have been disbursed. Rapidly increasing flat prices have swelled government coffers a lot more than the grants that has been disbursed.
You said that our house price to household income ratio of 5.8 is low compared to London’s 7.1 and Hong Kong’s 19.8. However, the ratio for London was calculated omitting the 15% Londoners living in cheap rental flats while the ratio for Hong Kong was based on expensive Hong Kong Island alone which excluded Kowloon and the New Territories where the bulk of Hong Kongers actually stay. Hence, the ratios you quoted are flawed and unfairly skewed towards more expensive accomodation in those cities. Furthermore, the choice of highly expensive London and Hong Kong as comparison targets also serves to show just how expensive Singapore has become.
You said our monthly mortgage payment to household income ratio of 22% is lower than the affordability benchmark of 30% to 35%. But the international affordability benchmark is in essence an unaffordability benchmark that marks the level of absolute unaffordability much like the poverty benchmark of $1 per day marks the level of absolute poverty. Just as an income of $2 per day which lies above the poverty benchmark does not imply that there is no poverty, similarly, a ratio of 22% which falls below the affordability benchmark of 30% doesn’t imply that housing is therefore affordable. Furthermore, it is misrepresentative to base our affordability ratio on new flats only since the 13,500 new flats last year is only a fraction of the 37,205 resale transactions registered last year.
Your case study of Mr and Mrs S does not represent the average 4-room flat applicant which according to the HDB’s reply to the Straits Times on 12 Sept 2009, has a household income of $3,800 paying a monthly mortgage of $955 for a flat priced at $265,000. If we assume an average of four persons living in the household each requiring a monthly sustenance of $500 at a minimum, the family’s total basic monthly expenditure would add up to $2,955 leaving only $805 for all other purposes and for retirement funds for both parents. Is the measely sum of $805 sufficient for retirement and for all other purposes?
PRs push up prices
You said that PRs do not push up prices since they do not pay very high COVs. But that is not how PRs contribute to high prices. By simply taking up units, be it flats or private properties, PRs absorb the supply of available housing leaving less for Singaporeans. When supply is less, price goes up naturally.
Private property owners push up prices
You said that private owners do not push up HDB prices since they are involved in only 11 out of 58 resale transactions exceeding $70,000 in COV. But that is like looking at the tip of the iceberg and concluding that the iceberg is not very big. Beyond those 11 resale transactions are countless other transactions involving private property owners. Collectively, they soak up supply leaving less to be competed for by the rest. Greater competition for a dwindling supply naturally leads to prices being pushed up.
Thank you
Ng Kok Lim

</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"></TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap> Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle>Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[IR123]

PRs push up prices

Private property owners push up prices

How about the proportion of prices that are pushed up by new citizens?

I recalled reports that the PA and RCs organized welcome parties for new citizens some time ago. It stands to reason that they bought HDB flats.

So how many of them are there in the estates, what are the prices of the flats paid by them specifically.

A list of all flat prices paid by these new citizens and PRs can once and for all conclude this debate.

 

[aurvandil]

How about the proportion of prices that are pushed up by new citizens?

I recalled reports that the PA and RCs organized welcome parties for new citizens some time ago. It stands to reason that they bought HDB flats.

So how many of them are there in the estates, what are the prices of the flats paid by them specifically.

A list of all flat prices paid by these new citizens and PRs can once and for all conclude this debate.

During his speech in Parliament, Mr Mah quoted used an unusually high COV number to try to convey the impression that foreigners were not pushing up prices. The following is from the famous myths article.

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.

 

[mustspeakup]

Ng kok lim should join the opposition to fight in the boxing ring sure knockout marbok tan easily and win 100k votes easily just like that!

At least it helps to offset the other 100k new citizens votes for papee!

 

[IR123]

During his speech in Parliament, Mr Mah quoted used an unusually high COV number to try to convey the impression that foreigners were not pushing up prices. The following is from the famous myths article.

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.

Maybe Mr Mah feels that these are meaningful statistics.

However to settle the issue of whether PR push up the prices of HDB flats, a list of prices actually paid by the PRs is all that is needed.

The harping on PR by all and sundry is only one part of the entire equation. A more important equation are the new citizens. They qualify for HDB flats. The red carpet was laid out for them. What are the actual prices paid by these new citizens. No one addressed this to-date - neither Mr Mah nor the oppositions.

There are only 58 cases. So provide a detailed listing of them - segregating across PRs, new citizens and singaporeans.

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

THE SCUMS still think they can bull shit their way through everything.

The more nonsense they spew, the lesser votes they will get in the coming ERECTIONS. This is because PEOPLE can now see through their bull shit.

Even if they were telling the truth (not likely), very few would believe in them.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[aurvandil]

Maybe Mr Mah feels that these are meaningful statistics.

However to settle the issue of whether PR push up the prices of HDB flats, a list of prices actually paid by the PRs is all that is needed.

The harping on PR by all and sundry is only one part of the entire equation. A more important equation are the new citizens. They qualify for HDB flats. The red carpet was laid out for them. What are the actual prices paid by these new citizens. No one addressed this to-date - neither Mr Mah nor the oppositions.

There are only 58 cases. So provide a detailed listing of them - segregating across PRs, new citizens and singaporeans.

Fully agree that Mr Mah can "settle" the issue by releasing better, more concrete statistics. One table which I think would be very useful would be not just who paid COV of $70k or more. It would be so much more informative if we can have a table which gives a breakdown like this:

COV $70k and more
COV $60k to less than $70k
COV $50k to less than $60k
COV $40k to less than $50k
.
.
.
.
COV $0 to less than $10k