Why are HDB owners allowed to own private property?

[buttercarp]

Saw this article in yahoo.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/your-view--...070601999.html

YOUR VIEW: Why are HDB owners allowed to own private property?

Yahoo! Newsroom – 17 hours ago

• 
  Fair or not? HDB flat owners are allowed to keep their flats when they buy private property but not vice versa. (Yahoo! file photo)

This email by a reader was sent to us via [email protected]. We welcome your views. Please include your full name, age and occupation if you want your emails to be considered for publishing. Please note that all submissions will be subject to these terms.

Property prices remain high in spite of all the recent cooling measures introduced. I wish to share some observations on two cooling measures.
One measure bars private property owners from buying HDB flat unless they sell off their private property.

However HDB flat owners are permitted to buy private property. While the intentions are good, there has been an unintended consequence in that it has divided Singaporeans into two groups (i.e. HDB flat owners and private property owners). This is not justice and equality as stated in our national pledge. I hope the government will review and amend this cooling measure.
Second, the additional stamp duty on foreigners was intended to help curb rising property prices. However, the effect of this policy is diluted because some property developers are now absorbing the stamp duties. Further, these developers lodge the caveat of the unit at its listed price with URA, giving the impression that the listed price was the sale price. This is misleading the public.

I would also like to suggest a few more measures that could help cool the rising property prices:
-- Consider not allowing PRs to buy resale HDB and EC. After all, the government’s aim of Public Housing is to provide affordable housing for all Singaporeans. Those PR who own HDB flats must sell them off when they leave Singapore.
-- Consider not converting EC into private condo after 10 years. EC is Public Housing meant for the sandwich class and it should remain as such.
-- Consider limiting the number of private condo units that can sold to foreigners, hedge funds foreign companies and PR.
Tan Teck Kwong, 72
Retiree

[phantom_opera]

The author openly challenge LKY is it?... LKY has repeatedly ask you don't sell ... so why complain?

And LKY said your HDB price will go up 5x,10x,15x, 20x ... and if SG economy continues to grow ... rest assured price will continue to go up

[Shanhz]

classic case of sour grapes. his friends all making good rental income while he has to wipe table everyday.

sorry to be so blunt. it is a fact. this policy divides citizens into 2 camps: camp 1 who have it support it for passive retirement income. camp 2 who can only look on because they never planned well when they were younger (ok, granted, they may not have the opportunity or were not as well educated in the past, as we are now)

this complain will not go away. 30 years later, those we see arnd us who keep taking on overtrade after overtrade to buy bigger and flashier cars now find they have not enough for retirement and start to blame govt again for high COE, blah blah blah.

while the rest of us resist the urge and keep the $$$ for pptys will be enjoying our lexus convertibles at old age. it has been proven monthly income of 2k+ also can own multiple pptys. everybody can do it!

[kane]

When the market is weak, the private property owners provided support for the hdb market by restricting supply. Now suddenly they are blamed for housing shortage? Heh. How fickle can people be.

[Kelonguni]

Saw this article in yahoo.

Fair or not? HDB flat owners are allowed to keep their flats when they buy private property but not vice versa. (Yahoo! file photo)
This email by a reader was sent to us via [email protected]. We welcome your views. Please include your full name, age and occupation if you want your emails to be considered for publishing. Please note that all submissions will be subject to these terms.

Property prices remain high in spite of all the recent cooling measures introduced. I wish to share some observations on two cooling measures.
One measure bars private property owners from buying HDB flat unless they sell off their private property.

However HDB flat owners are permitted to buy private property. While the intentions are good, there has been an unintended consequence in that it has divided Singaporeans into two groups (i.e. HDB flat owners and private property owners). This is not justice and equality as stated in our national pledge. I hope the government will review and amend this cooling measure.
Second, the additional stamp duty on foreigners was intended to help curb rising property prices. However, the effect of this policy is diluted because some property developers are now absorbing the stamp duties. Further, these developers lodge the caveat of the unit at its listed price with URA, giving the impression that the listed price was the sale price. This is misleading the public.

I would also like to suggest a few more measures that could help cool the rising property prices:
-- Consider not allowing PRs to buy resale HDB and EC. After all, the government’s aim of Public Housing is to provide affordable housing for all Singaporeans. Those PR who own HDB flats must sell them off when they leave Singapore.
-- Consider not converting EC into private condo after 10 years. EC is Public Housing meant for the sandwich class and it should remain as such.
-- Consider limiting the number of private condo units that can sold to foreigners, hedge funds foreign companies and PR.
Tan Teck Kwong, 72
Retiree

Very delicate balance... If remove CM that private property owners cannot purchase HDB, there will be sudden surge in demand for HDB. We all know what follows thereafter. It hurts the picture that Govt is trying to portray about stability.

Absorbing stamp duty also means increasing prices and claiming to absorb stamp duty. Prices are pushed upward, even though it can be claimed that stamp duty is not part of the price and be omitted. It indeed is a loophole. Is there a better way to do this?

If PRs cannot purchase resale or ECs, rentals and private housing will surge, again causing even bigger bubbles.

If don't convert EC into private housing, who will and can subscribe to it???

The Govt is already limiting number of private condo sold to foreigners, hedge funds and companies and PRs through the more stringent financing CMs. Severe limiting options means the money will flow to our neighboring Asian countries - not an ideal situation.

[price]

i like the 2nd idea though. ECs were meant for higher income earners and should remain as public housing

ECs could be like EAs and what HUDCs were like back in the 80s/90s

[chiaberry]

If HDB owners not allowed to buy private property, this will hurt the aspirations of a lot of Singaporeans and will not be a popular move for the Govt to make. I hope that they will not have a knee-jerk reaction.

[Kelonguni]

If HDB owners not allowed to buy private property, this will hurt the aspirations of a lot of Singaporeans and will not be a popular move for the Govt to make. I hope that they will not have a knee-jerk reaction.

This scenario very unlikely. Will lose too much housing demand to other parts of the world.

[Emma]

but this will still create the phenomenon of concurrent hdb and private ownership. i understand how HDB can be used as a tool of wealth creation and offers Singaporeans a chance to move up the economic ladder but once you have enough financial ability (achieved in part through higher pay as you progress in your career and the increase in asset value of your HDB over time) to pay for your private property, this means that you have successfully grown your net worth and thus you should not be allowed to hold on to your HDB as a safety net anymore.

If HDB owners not allowed to buy private property, this will hurt the aspirations of a lot of Singaporeans and will not be a popular move for the Govt to make. I hope that they will not have a knee-jerk reaction.

[Emma]

i just feel it's illogical to allow HDB owners to own private property but not private property owners to own a HDB. the former group will be in a better off position and thus how is it justifiable for them to be still on public housing which is subsidised by the govt?

[Kelonguni]

i just feel it's illogical to allow HDB owners to own private property but not private property owners to own a HDB. the former group will be in a better off position and thus how is it justifiable for them to be still on public housing which is subsidised by the govt?

Must look at the bigger picture. For political and economic reasons it can't be done.

[Emma]

that's why i feel it's unfair to some extent. it prejudices those who are able to buy a private property as a first property. those who are not able to are already given a headstart by giving them the option to buy a HDB which is an appreciating asset. but once the latter group reaches a certain level of financial stability, the safety net should be removed.

i appreciate there is not an easy solution to balance all the interests of the parties involved but this policy i am afraid is one very glaring inconsistency which i do not understand nor agree

Must look at the bigger picture. For political and economic reasons it can't be done.

[FamilyGuy72]

i just feel it's illogical to allow HDB owners to own private property but not private property owners to own a HDB. the former group will be in a better off position and thus how is it justifiable for them to be still on public housing which is subsidised by the govt?

My take is that citizens should not profit from public housing through rental returns. Allow HDB owners to invest in private properties but cannot have them rent out HDB units after MOP unless due to oversea business or posting.

[Emma]

oh yes, they shouldn't be allowed to rent out the HDB period. if you are overseas etc, to enforce this strictly so as to see desired results, the HDB should be left vacant. otherwise there will be loopholes that are just open invitation for people to exploit.

My take is that citizens should not profit from public housing through rental returns. Allow HDB owners to invest in private properties but cannot have them rent out HDB units after MOP unless due to oversea business or posting.

[PV Excit]

i just feel it's illogical to allow HDB owners to own private property but not private property owners to own a HDB. the former group will be in a better off position and thus how is it justifiable for them to be still on public housing which is subsidised by the govt?

I feel there should be a "benefit" for Singaporeans vs PR in this aspect.

HDB owners who are Singaporeans, when they purchase private property, may be allowed to hold their fully paid HDBs. This creates motivation and wealth for the Singapore citizens thru growith.

HDB owners who are non-Singaporeans (aka PRs), when they purchase private property, shall NOT be allowed to hold their HDBs. This promotes them to consider if they be converted to citizens instead and not to "compete" with citizens in such benefits. This will also address a lot of concerns of the voters during election.

I feel that HDBs/ECs are subsidised apartments and should be "purchased" by those who need such subsidisation only. But if they had worked hard enough to purchase private thereafter, why force them to sell? On the other hand, if private property owners should not be allowed to buy such subsidised apartments unless they have special reasons such as those who meet income ceiling requirements and perhaps only under extreme and special circumstances?

I am no guru but just sharing how I think think.

[Rosy]

My take is that citizens should not profit from public housing through rental returns. Allow HDB owners to invest in private properties but cannot have them rent out HDB units after MOP unless due to oversea business or posting.

There are many low to middle income foreign families renting hdb. They need a place to stay.

There are also many retirees depending on their hdb rental income. There is no pension.

[ahsoh88]

I hope that the government can allow private property
owener above 55 years who are retired to buy resale HDB flat for own stay without selling their existing property.

[Emma]

I am still for no Private property and HDB joint ownership, regardless of the order in which they were purchased.
the increase in asset value for their HDB is already in itself a gain for them and they can use the increase in value of the HDB to fund a private property and this is already growth and wealth creation for them. if they have enough savings through their career or business ventures, then it means they are in a financially secure enough position and thus should no longer be allowed to hold on to a subsidized housing.

And PRS should not be allowed to buy HDB at all period - there should be no leeway on this. HDB is for citizens.

my two cents as well ..

I feel there should be a "benefit" for Singaporeans vs PR in this aspect.

HDB owners who are Singaporeans, when they purchase private property, may be allowed to hold their fully paid HDBs. This creates motivation and wealth for the Singapore citizens thru growith.

HDB owners who are non-Singaporeans (aka PRs), when they purchase private property, shall NOT be allowed to hold their HDBs. This promotes them to consider if they be converted to citizens instead and not to "compete" with citizens in such benefits. This will also address a lot of concerns of the voters during election.

I feel that HDBs/ECs are subsidised apartments and should be "purchased" by those who need such subsidisation only. But if they had worked hard enough to purchase private thereafter, why force them to sell? On the other hand, if private property owners should not be allowed to buy such subsidised apartments unless they have special reasons such as those who meet income ceiling requirements and perhaps only under extreme and special circumstances?

I am no guru but just sharing how I think think.

[Kelonguni]

that's why i feel it's unfair to some extent. it prejudices those who are able to buy a private property as a first property. those who are not able to are already given a headstart by giving them the option to buy a HDB which is an appreciating asset. but once the latter group reaches a certain level of financial stability, the safety net should be removed.

i appreciate there is not an easy solution to balance all the interests of the parties involved but this policy i am afraid is one very glaring inconsistency which i do not understand nor agree

Most important is this: if only non-HDB owners feel this way, and HDB owners do not share the same thoughts, it cannot be pushed through.

A democratic country is subject to "tyranny" by the masses, although it is not that bad. There are at least a dozen of other "not-totally-fair" policies in SG, just consider PSLE, Pri school admission, etc etc etc...

Some other situations regarding implementability: a HDB owner of a four-room or five-room HDB, with 4 or 5 people in the household cannot be expected to move into an MM easily. People with HDB near their children's Primary school or their workplace and their private flat on the other side of the island will not be too happy to relocate as well. The reverse is true as well, for e.g. if their HDB is now too small or if their HDB is too far from their children's primary school or their workplace. Why should these groups of people who have followed Govt specifications to the dot be penalised? I don't think this group of people is small.

For e.g., if the basis is fairness, why should people who were posted overseas be allowed to rent?

Since it is neither desirable (by the masses) nor implementable, introducing even more injustice in complex manners, it just will not happen.

[Emma]

i think most of the non HDB owners would like to see some kind of a middle ground being achieved. the world is inherently unfair - this is reality but i feel this HDB-private property ownership issue has the scales tipped heavily to one end no matter how i look at it.

Most important is this: if only non-HDB owners feel this way, and HDB owners do not share the same thoughts, it cannot be pushed through.

A democratic country is subject to "tyranny" by the masses, although it is not that bad. There are at least a dozen of other "not-totally-fair" policies in SG, just consider PSLE, Pri school admission, etc etc etc...

Some other situations regarding implementability: a HDB owner of a four-room or five-room HDB, with 4 or 5 people in the household cannot be expected to move into an MM easily. People with HDB near their children's Primary school or their workplace and their private flat on the other side of the island will not be too happy to relocate as well. The reverse is true as well, for e.g. if their HDB is now too small or if their HDB is too far from their children's primary school or their workplace. Why should these groups of people who have followed Govt specifications to the dot be penalised? I don't think this group of people is small.

For e.g., if the basis is fairness, why should people who were posted overseas be allowed to rent?

Since it is neither desirable (by the masses) nor implementable, introducing even more injustice in complex manners, it just will not happen.

[roly8]

feel so hopeless with endless debt if i would to buy property including HDB now..

as a late20s -early30s couple

[Rosy]

feel so hopeless with endless debt if i would to buy property including HDB now..

as a late20s -early30s couple

Your combined income exceed 10k? Or even 12k for ec?

It is alot easier to get bto recently. Even so for 2nd timers.

[roly8]

Your combined income exceed 10k? Or even 12k for ec?

It is alot easier to get bto recently. Even so for 2nd timers.

the problem is me is choosy ...

end up got nothing

[bsslang]

I feel most HDB policies are fair including helping first timers and the restriction on PR. PR needs a place to stay too.

But dual HDB-private property ownership is really not a balanced policy. I agree government should stop that or put a limit on the number of years they can rent their HDB flat out. Then they should leave public housing as they are now financially independent.

[Shanhz]

I feel most HDB policies are fair including helping first timers and the restriction on PR. PR needs a place to stay too.

But dual HDB-private property ownership is really not a balanced policy. I agree government should stop that or put a limit on the number of years they can rent their HDB flat out. Then they should leave public housing as they are now financially independent.

I am still for no Private property and HDB joint ownership, regardless of the order in which they were purchased.
the increase in asset value for their HDB is already in itself a gain for them and they can use the increase in value of the HDB to fund a private property and this is already growth and wealth creation for them. if they have enough savings through their career or business ventures, then it means they are in a financially secure enough position and thus should no longer be allowed to hold on to a subsidized housing.

And PRS should not be allowed to buy HDB at all period - there should be no leeway on this. HDB is for citizens.

my two cents as well ..

hi emma and bsslang, no bad feelings, but may i know how many pte pptys you hold? and have you ever owned a HDB?

[Shanhz]

the problem is me is choosy ...

end up got nothing

bro, choosy is an option. HDB is for those who have no better option.
you got 300k. when i got married, not sure if i even have 30k.

[roly8]

bro, choosy is an option. HDB is for those who have no better option.
you got 300k. when i got married, not sure if i even have 30k.

now and then is so big difference..



very demoralizing

[chiaberry]

Well we have to face up to the fact that Singaporeans need to employ many foreigners especially in the service sectors as there are simply not enough Singaporeans to do those jobs (and the numbers will dwindle as the birth rate is so low).

Those foreigners need a relatively affordable source of accomodation. That is being provided by HDB flats rented out by Singaporeans and to a lesser extent now PRs. If the Govt withdraws this source of accomodation by disallowing co-ownership of HDB and private, where are we going to house these foreign workers? Are our private condos going to turn into dormitories for them? The new private condos are so so small. They would have to squeeze to get into those spaces at an "affordable" rent.

[Shanhz]

Well we have to face up to the fact that Singaporeans need to employ many foreigners especially in the service sectors as there are simply not enough Singaporeans to do those jobs (and the numbers will dwindle as the birth rate is so low).

Those foreigners need a relatively affordable source of accomodation. That is being provided by HDB flats rented out by Singaporeans and to a lesser extent now PRs. If the Govt withdraws this source of accomodation by disallowing co-ownership of HDB and private, where are we going to house these foreign workers? Are our private condos going to turn into dormitories for them? The new private condos are so so small. They would have to squeeze to get into those spaces at an "affordable" rent.

to add to this, we have a huge supply of PCs coming on board, much larger than HDBs. if HDB owners are forced to stay in HDB and rent out PC, the rental of PCs will come down alot, thereby forcing down valuation of HDB as well. also this will become a social anomaly where citizens stay in "lower class" HDB while blue collar workers stay in "higher class" PC (yet super squeezed there). you get unhappy HDB owners and unhappy PC owners (those who stay there have to put up with slum condition neighbours).. not quite a happy social outcome.

[sherlock]

hi emma and bsslang, no bad feelings, but may i know how many pte pptys you hold? and have you ever owned a HDB?

Shanhz, there are 4 groups of people:-

1. Those who own HDB but cannot afford PC
2. Those who own HDB and PC
3. Those who has PC but cannnot buy HDB
4. Those who has HDB and is looking to buy PC

Every group will tell you their views based on where they are. And I daresay it will be to their benefit/ advantage.

Who will say they got HDB but tell garmen not to allow them to buy PC even when they could afford?