$60,000 to close shop? Some would rather not
-
Sept 15, 2005
$60,000 to close shop? Some would rather not
Today is the deadline for 193 HDB shopkeepers to decide if they want to wind up their businesses and retire with a cash payout, or get help to move. Most tenants can't wait for the chance to collect the $60,000 - part of a help package for struggling HDB shopkeepers - and retire. But for some, the well-intended scheme is giving them grief instead: they could be forced to close shop even if business is perfectly fine. Daryl Loo reports.
RESTAURATEUR Tan Swee Peng has had sleepless nights for the last three months.
Since finding out in June that the shops in his block were selected for restructuring, he has worried that his restaurant will be forced to shut down.
He has spent more than $200,000 on renovations, furniture and equipment, and has been in business for only three months.
Mr Tan is one of 193 tenants given the option to quit under the Housing Board's pilot Restructuring Programme for Shops (RPS). The programme is part of the HDB's help package for shopkeepers announced in March, as about 2,500 of the 6,600 shops it rents out 'are not doing well'.
Bukit Batok mini-mart owner Ang Ah Keng, 45, has been worried too as three of the five shops in her block have already decided to wind up.
Unaware that her block would be picked for restructuring, she rented her shop from the HDB in May, and started business in July after spending about $100,000 on renovations and stock.
'I wish they could have let us know earlier,' she said. 'My body couldn't stop shaking when I heard the news, and I've been worrying about it since then.'
MPs interviewed felt that while the HDB's aim to help struggling shopkeepers is laudable, it should also be flexible enough to consider those left worse off by the scheme.
The HDB picked 193 outlets in Toa Payoh, Clementi, Bedok, Bukit Merah, Bukit Batok, Kallang/Whampoa and Woodlands for a trial run of its programme.
On June 16, it gave the tenants three months to decide on the offer, and another three to vacate if they vote to quit. When more than half the shop units in a block vote to go, everyone has to pack up.
The vacated shops will be converted into void decks, or given over to social and community uses.
Shopkeepers who want to retire will receive $60,000 from the Government. Those who want to keep going get a $10,000 removal allowance, to help them set up shop elsewhere. They also get two months rent-free at their new HDB premises.
But this is little consolation for Mr Tan.
'All my family members - my sisters, brother-in-law, and my wife - invested their savings in this business. If we're forced to move, there's no way we can recoup the loss,' he lamented.
'We just hope the HDB will consider letting us stay on in this place.'
But Retail Promotion Centre general manager Chng Hoon Hoon said tenants like Mr Tan were told by the HDB when signing leases that the shops could be affected by future redevelopment or clearance.
He said leaving a few shops open while others vacate is a poor option as it will make the block even more unattractive.
Hong Kah GRC MP Amy Khor agreed that leaving some shops open may not be the best solution. 'It is not commercially viable to have pockets of vacant shops in a block, as it might cause a low-traffic area to decline even further.'
However, she intends to appeal to the HDB on behalf of Madam Ang, whose Bukit Batok shop is in her constituency. Dr Khor wants her to be able to remain in business for longer than three months.
'This is a trial, and the HDB has to be willing to be more flexible on how it wants to implement it,' said the MP.
Madam Cynthia Phua, an MP for Aljunied GRC, felt the HDB should step in to help out in exceptional cases, such as when a tenant had rented a shop recently.
'After all, the HDB was the one that assigned these shops. It could give the affected shopkeepers more compensation to cope with the relocation, or give them a longer time to keep operating before they need to vacate,' she said.
But both Dr Khor and Madam Phua said the programme will ultimately benefit most of the shopkeepers.
'Overall, the programme is a good one, especially for the older shopkeepers,' said Madam Phua. 'On getting the $60,000, they can buy a studio apartment and retire comfortably.'
Mr Lim Ah See, 65, who has been running a sundries shop in Woodlands since 1974, agrees with her.
Business has been poor for five years, he said, and at least 10 of the 16 shopkeepers in his block have voted to go.
'I'm still deciding how to clear all the stock in my shop. But once all that is done, I just want to wind up and retire.' -
How far can this sum of $60,000 be stretched for the retirement of the shop owner ?
Is any business worth only $60,000 ?
Will $60,000 be sufficient to justify a business to be given up ?
Will it be sufficient to write off the stocks that are held ?
Even a coffeeshop in an HDB block will need to recover the cost of renovation that would have cost a minimum of $100,000.
By allowing pockets of shop owners to quit, will it not hollow out the neighborhood, and making the it look like a slum, resulting in the more viable businesses to be negatively affected - as was the reported concern of some other successful business owners ?
Will it not be better to accumulate the individual package of $60,000 per shop into a consolidated fund, to help the entire community of shop keepers to revitalise their business environment, and bring life back to the neighborhood ?
What has happened to the brains that the Ruling Party claim to have a monopoly over all the other Political Parties - and over the entire Singapore Population ? -
wah... a very small peanut... -
Sept 15, 2005
Bukit Batok mini-mart owner Ang Ah Keng, 45, has been worried too as three of the five shops in her block have already decided to wind up.
Unaware that her block would be picked for restructuring, she rented her shop from the HDB in May, and started business in July after spending about $100,000 on renovations and stock.
'I wish they could have let us know earlier,' she said. 'My body couldn't stop shaking when I heard the news, and I've been worrying about it since then.'
This pretty much sums up the bureaucratic handling performed by our 'govt's handpicked'. Just 2 months better than the LTA goofballs. And with an identical take-it-or-leave-it policy. Seems less like the HDB and more like some mercernary money-spinning HDB Inc.
MPs interviewed felt that while the HDB's aim to help struggling shopkeepers is laudable, it should also be flexible enough to consider those left worse off by the scheme.
If that's the best response from our govt's leaders, expect more high-handed mandates in the coming years.
On June 16, it gave the tenants three months to decide on the offer, and another three to vacate if they vote to quit. When more than half the shop units in a block vote to go, everyone has to pack up.
So this is how our govt display their humble democracy: a warped perversion of choice. Since they have already done their research, it was obvious they choose the blocks where the general consensus was to wind up and take the dangling carrot. As for those who just set up shop...too bad.
The vacated shops will be converted into void decks, or given over to social and community uses.
If it was for more value-added usage, there may be merits in the decision to chase away the shopkeepers. But to provide more airy room for residents? Is that a fair response for a reason when questioned? How can anyone accept such a statement: hey i wanna tear down your shop and renovate it into a void deck so kids can play.
Shopkeepers who want to retire will receive $60,000 from the Government. Those who want to keep going get a $10,000 removal allowance, to help them set up shop elsewhere. They also get two months rent-free at their new HDB premises.
Paltry 10K for a business set-up? That's hardly compensation?! Since entrepreneurship seems the drive of our govt, shouldn't more money be offered to those who intend to start over elsewhere? There is no logic in offering a pathetic carrot for those with a legitimate business and a potential market.
Hong Kah GRC MP Amy Khor agreed that leaving some shops open may not be the best solution. 'It is not commercially viable to have pockets of vacant shops in a block, as it might cause a low-traffic area to decline even further.'
However, she intends to appeal to the HDB on behalf of Madam Ang, whose Bukit Batok shop is in her constituency. Dr Khor wants her to be able to remain in business for longer than three months.
'This is a trial, and the HDB has to be willing to be more flexible on how it wants to implement it,' said the MP.
Madam Cynthia Phua, an MP for Aljunied GRC, felt the HDB should step in to help out in exceptional cases, such as when a tenant had rented a shop recently.
'After all, the HDB was the one that assigned these shops. It could give the affected shopkeepers more compensation to cope with the relocation, or give them a longer time to keep operating before they need to vacate,' she said.
Of course both sides of the flip coin had to be shown otherwise the ruling party would be labelled as mercenary and without compassion. Then again, this is all for show.
But both Dr Khor and Madam Phua said the programme will ultimately benefit most of the shopkeepers.
'Overall, the programme is a good one, especially for the older shopkeepers,' said Madam Phua. 'On getting the $60,000, they can buy a studio apartment and retire comfortably.'
'Buy a studio apartment' ?!?! What are these materialistic MPs thinking? We're talking abt people's livelihood and they can talk abt buying new flats when these people already have homes?! That's totally irrelevant and unhelpful.
Frankly, these are basic issues the Worker's party have to raise at the next election and hopefully, Singaporeans better sit up and take notice. We have suffered a one-party leadership long enough. Cracks are already starting to show. The arrogance is already self-sustaining and growing astronomically. It's time these people were brought back down to earth. -
one tenth of a peanut, to be exact.Originally posted by mistyblue:wah... a very small peanut...
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
You are right, Sir. I think we should join opposition parties to stop the arrogance gov from manipulating on us further.
[b]Sept 15, 2005
Bukit Batok mini-mart owner Ang Ah Keng, 45, has been worried too as three of the five shops in her block have already decided to wind up.
Unaware that her block would be picked for restructuring, she rented her shop from the HDB in May, and started business in July after spending about $100,000 on renovations and stock.
'I wish they could have let us know earlier,' she said. 'My body couldn't stop shaking when I heard the news, and I've been worrying about it since then.'
This pretty much sums up the bureaucratic handling performed by our 'govt's handpicked'. Just 2 months better than the LTA goofballs. And with an identical take-it-or-leave-it policy. Seems less like the HDB and more like some mercernary money-spinning HDB Inc.
MPs interviewed felt that while the HDB's aim to help struggling shopkeepers is laudable, it should also be flexible enough to consider those left worse off by the scheme.
If that's the best response from our govt's leaders, expect more high-handed mandates in the coming years.
On June 16, it gave the tenants three months to decide on the offer, and another three to vacate if they vote to quit. When more than half the shop units in a block vote to go, everyone has to pack up.
So this is how our govt display their humble democracy: a warped perversion of choice. Since they have already done their research, it was obvious they choose the blocks where the general consensus was to wind up and take the dangling carrot. As for those who just set up shop...too bad.
The vacated shops will be converted into void decks, or given over to social and community uses.
If it was for more value-added usage, there may be merits in the decision to chase away the shopkeepers. But to provide more airy room for residents? Is that a fair response for a reason when questioned? How can anyone accept such a statement: hey i wanna tear down your shop and renovate it into a void deck so kids can play.
Shopkeepers who want to retire will receive $60,000 from the Government. Those who want to keep going get a $10,000 removal allowance, to help them set up shop elsewhere. They also get two months rent-free at their new HDB premises.
Paltry 10K for a business set-up? That's hardly compensation?! Since entrepreneurship seems the drive of our govt, shouldn't more money be offered to those who intend to start over elsewhere? There is no logic in offering a pathetic carrot for those with a legitimate business and a potential market.
Hong Kah GRC MP Amy Khor agreed that leaving some shops open may not be the best solution. 'It is not commercially viable to have pockets of vacant shops in a block, as it might cause a low-traffic area to decline even further.'
However, she intends to appeal to the HDB on behalf of Madam Ang, whose Bukit Batok shop is in her constituency. Dr Khor wants her to be able to remain in business for longer than three months.
'This is a trial, and the HDB has to be willing to be more flexible on how it wants to implement it,' said the MP.
Madam Cynthia Phua, an MP for Aljunied GRC, felt the HDB should step in to help out in exceptional cases, such as when a tenant had rented a shop recently.
'After all, the HDB was the one that assigned these shops. It could give the affected shopkeepers more compensation to cope with the relocation, or give them a longer time to keep operating before they need to vacate,' she said.
Of course both sides of the flip coin had to be shown otherwise the ruling party would be labelled as mercenary and without compassion. Then again, this is all for show.
But both Dr Khor and Madam Phua said the programme will ultimately benefit most of the shopkeepers.
'Overall, the programme is a good one, especially for the older shopkeepers,' said Madam Phua. 'On getting the $60,000, they can buy a studio apartment and retire comfortably.'
'Buy a studio apartment' ?!?! What are these materialistic MPs thinking? We're talking abt people's livelihood and they can talk abt buying new flats when these people already have homes?! That's totally irrelevant and unhelpful.
Frankly, these are basic issues the Worker's party have to raise at the next election and hopefully, Singaporeans better sit up and take notice. We have suffered a one-party leadership long enough. Cracks are already starting to show. The arrogance is already self-sustaining and growing astronomically. It's time these people were brought back down to earth. [/b]
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
I think she must have failed her math exmaination badly. 60K to buy a studio apartment and live comfortably? No need to pay expensive utilities bill?, Food and laundry, garment, medical fee, transportation fee, home maintenance and etc..... As our ministers used to say ''No free lunches'' what the fark............. so mean.
[b]Sept 15, 2005
Bukit Batok mini-mart owner Ang Ah Keng, 45, has been worried too as three of the five shops in her block have already decided to wind up.
Unaware that her block would be picked for restructuring, she rented her shop from the HDB in May, and started business in July after spending about $100,000 on renovations and stock.
'I wish they could have let us know earlier,' she said. 'My body couldn't stop shaking when I heard the news, and I've been worrying about it since then.'
This pretty much sums up the bureaucratic handling performed by our 'govt's handpicked'. Just 2 months better than the LTA goofballs. And with an identical take-it-or-leave-it policy. Seems less like the HDB and more like some mercernary money-spinning HDB Inc.
MPs interviewed felt that while the HDB's aim to help struggling shopkeepers is laudable, it should also be flexible enough to consider those left worse off by the scheme.
If that's the best response from our govt's leaders, expect more high-handed mandates in the coming years.
On June 16, it gave the tenants three months to decide on the offer, and another three to vacate if they vote to quit. When more than half the shop units in a block vote to go, everyone has to pack up.
So this is how our govt display their humble democracy: a warped perversion of choice. Since they have already done their research, it was obvious they choose the blocks where the general consensus was to wind up and take the dangling carrot. As for those who just set up shop...too bad.
The vacated shops will be converted into void decks, or given over to social and community uses.
If it was for more value-added usage, there may be merits in the decision to chase away the shopkeepers. But to provide more airy room for residents? Is that a fair response for a reason when questioned? How can anyone accept such a statement: hey i wanna tear down your shop and renovate it into a void deck so kids can play.
Shopkeepers who want to retire will receive $60,000 from the Government. Those who want to keep going get a $10,000 removal allowance, to help them set up shop elsewhere. They also get two months rent-free at their new HDB premises.
Paltry 10K for a business set-up? That's hardly compensation?! Since entrepreneurship seems the drive of our govt, shouldn't more money be offered to those who intend to start over elsewhere? There is no logic in offering a pathetic carrot for those with a legitimate business and a potential market.
Hong Kah GRC MP Amy Khor agreed that leaving some shops open may not be the best solution. 'It is not commercially viable to have pockets of vacant shops in a block, as it might cause a low-traffic area to decline even further.'
However, she intends to appeal to the HDB on behalf of Madam Ang, whose Bukit Batok shop is in her constituency. Dr Khor wants her to be able to remain in business for longer than three months.
'This is a trial, and the HDB has to be willing to be more flexible on how it wants to implement it,' said the MP.
Madam Cynthia Phua, an MP for Aljunied GRC, felt the HDB should step in to help out in exceptional cases, such as when a tenant had rented a shop recently.
'After all, the HDB was the one that assigned these shops. It could give the affected shopkeepers more compensation to cope with the relocation, or give them a longer time to keep operating before they need to vacate,' she said.
Of course both sides of the flip coin had to be shown otherwise the ruling party would be labelled as mercenary and without compassion. Then again, this is all for show.
But both Dr Khor and Madam Phua said the programme will ultimately benefit most of the shopkeepers.
'Overall, the programme is a good one, especially for the older shopkeepers,' said Madam Phua. 'On getting the $60,000, they can buy a studio apartment and retire comfortably.'
'Buy a studio apartment' ?!?! What are these materialistic MPs thinking? We're talking abt people's livelihood and they can talk abt buying new flats when these people already have homes?! That's totally irrelevant and unhelpful.
Frankly, these are basic issues the Worker's party have to raise at the next election and hopefully, Singaporeans better sit up and take notice. We have suffered a one-party leadership long enough. Cracks are already starting to show. The arrogance is already self-sustaining and growing astronomically. It's time these people were brought back down to earth. [/b]
How the balance of 60k going to last after buying a studio apartment? Is she ''seow'' or what?
Or is She encouraging people to be lazy or just to be contented to what are given? -
The HDB finally like the NKF had to face the truth that it is their unrelenting past policy of fixing shop rentals indiscriminately to the highest of any locality irrespective of oversupply in contractual rental revisions that was the cause of all the neighbourhood shopkeepers' woes.
HDB had announced the shop retirement or opting-out scheme not because of its own good corporate governance but because of very strong forum letters (including one from myself as published in Today) objecting to their illogic attempt to increase shop rentals (by withdrawing earlier rental rebates presumably given during past recessions) when JTC was doing the reverse in trying to lower rentals of industrial shops.
JTC and HDB were caught contradicting each other and could not reply to my etter. That was the real reason for the latest HDB shopkeepers' retirement scheme and stopping their attempted further increasing of shop rentals.
HDB had again failed to act with efficiency and creativity despite all the feedbacks and complaints. It is futile to pay HDB officers hyper salaries (three times equivalent of private sector manager) if they cannot solve simple problems of such nature.
HDB should now reexamine all their past policies and rental revisions and take into consdierations the obvious flaws in their system of valuations.
It is ridiculous to revise rentals to the highest of any locality without accounting for oversupply due to completion of new shops nearby and in new neighbourhoods.
The whole government is similarly not up to their tasks in managing the anti-business high costs and economic competitiveness. It is time to wake up and not drag their feet until another NKF again. -
the elites have lost touch with the ground. $ 60 k enough for comfortable retirement, $ 600 k is peanuts ....Originally posted by Lowclassman:I think she must have failed her math exmaination badly. 60K to buy a studio apartment and live comfortably? No need to pay expensive utilities bill?, Food and laundry, garment, medical fee, transportation fee, home maintenance and etc..... As our ministers used to say ''No free lunches'' what the fark............. so mean.
How the balance of 60k going to last after buying a studio apartment? Is she ''seow'' or what?
Or is She encouraging people to be lazy or just to be contented to what are given? -
Well, some also because feelings for the place...
And the people -
whoah!so shiok man if I'm in the govt. position...see lah govt. do all this,increase our bankruptcy rate u noe or not?!damned,we get wad?'peanuts' only what is wrong with all singaporeans?why no MPs strongly bind together and demand more compensation for our fellow country man or is it because they've got too much money and dont wanna take the risk of demanding such a thing esp. in parliament where they've got the trust of the peeps of sg and power to request stuffs!My thoughts-they dont wanna risk their fat pay cheque and kopi @ high-class shang ri la yar?agree guys?
-
Sept 26, 2005
Help stallholders stuck with loans at high interest rates
The Stall Ownership Scheme was launched by Ministry of Environment in April 1994 to enable stallholders to own their stalls.
In October 1996, my aunt took a loan from NTUC Income Insurance Cooperative to purchase her stall.
The interest rate was fixed at 5.25 per cent for the first two years. In February 1999, it rose to 7 per cent. In May 2001, the rate was adjusted to 6.5 per cent. In April 2004, it was adjusted again to 6 per cent. This is still the prevailing board rate.
In comparison, Central Provident Fund's interest rate for HDB mortgage loan is currently 2.60 per cent per annum.
When I called to ask how NTUC Income sets its interest rate, the manager in charge of the Loan Department explained that it is 'set by the Cooperative's senior management'.
There is no set formula, unlike CPF rates, which are pegged at 0.1 percentage point above the major local banks' interest rates for the preceding three-month period.
There is also no regular period of review, unlike CPF rates that are reviewed every three months.
Even though hawker stalls are commercial properties with lower resale value than say, HDB flats, the interest rate charged seems to be high.
You may say this is the result of market forces at work. But is there really sufficient market competition to determine a fair interest rate on hawker stall loans?
In the past, only Hong Leong Finance and NTUC Income gave such loans. Now there is no competition as both financial institutions have ceased to give new loans for hawker stalls.
NTUC Income can set whatever rate it chooses because borrowers have no avenues for refinancing and they are usually not financially-savvy enough to explore alternative sources of funding.
Given that NTUC Income was established in 1970 as the 'poor man's insurer', it is only reasonable for us to expect NTUC Income to be run for the benefit of its members, especially those in the low and middle income groups.
Hence it should be more transparent in determining the prevailing board rates on loans and have regular reviews of these rates to ensure that borrowers are not over-charged.
The monthly instalment of my aunt's loan is about $1,000 and it is a strain on her finances. I would imagine this is a significant burden for most hawkers who are facing increasing competition from air-conditioned food courts in neighbourhood malls.
According to ENV's Annual Report 2000, no stalls were offered for sale in 1999 and 2000 due to the economic downturn affecting the region.
This means that hawkers who had taken loans before 1999-2000 were hit with a double whammy.
They had to service the loan at 7 per cent (NTUC Income's board rate at the time) even as earnings and the resale value of their stall dropped.
Some hawkers may even be faced with negative equity, whereby their mortgages exceed the real value of their stalls.
I urge the government to look into the situation faced by those stall holders who had participated in the Stall Ownership Scheme and are now locked in loans with high interest rates.
This is a vicious cycle. The higher the interest rate, the greater the strain on borrowers. High default rates in turn lead to even higher interest rates for the existing pool of borrowers.
Teo Sin Ee (Ms) -
That Stall Ownership or HDB Shop Ownership (This one back in 1980's)
Good way for govt to make $$, easy way for ppl to lose $$
-
60K can retire? Maybe can buy a coffin, lie in there and wait to dieOriginally posted by crazy monkey:the elites have lost touch with the ground. $ 60 k enough for comfortable retirement, $ 600 k is peanuts .... -
and caused inflation also. 10 cents kopi become $1 kopiOriginally posted by sbst275:That Stall Ownership or HDB Shop Ownership (This one back in 1980's)
Good way for govt to make $$, easy way for ppl to lose $$