No subsidy in HDB, just a discount
-
sg has no natural resources, only human resource....for a long time i always thought they were implying that we had to work hard to succeed. however, truth be told we are the resource from which our money has been cleverly taken to build the reserves, through hdb that is...hdb indeed loses money but that's just a case of emptying one side of the pocket to fill the other side.
cpf is a clever savings plan, i beg to differ, it is a channel whereby hdb loans can be deducted conveniently. so in one clever guise you've got public housing and revenue dealt with. wasn't it reported in the papers that $400k was paid out to a director when he resigned to become a mp? if that was true, then i find it strange....that's one executive flat for you..... -
The situation of the many 5 room flat left unsold is worrying the HDB n they have relaxed rules to allow singles to buy flat at age 35. UnfortunatelyOriginally posted by the Bear:now, people start to understand the creative accounting and why it is said that HDB is a cash cow for the gabrament
it is still not improving n some of the flats have been coverted into smaller flats. -
It is not 5 room flat design/size people dislike. Many Executive flats unsold.Originally posted by will4:The situation of the many 5 room flat left unsold is worrying the HDB n they have relaxed rules to allow singles to buy flat at age 35. Unfortunately
it is still not improving n some of the flats have been coverted into smaller flats.
There is only 1 reason - Pricing. They are priced so much higher than 4 rooms flats.
So again, it support my argument. Gov, go on and sell land parcel to Private Developer and try to sell to the bulk of population as Pte apt/condo. Even now, there are still plenty entry level/mid level condo still unsold.
The arugument of "land could be sold at higher price to pte developer, etc" is just BS. -
Aiyah, this is accounting singapore style!
HDB must follow NKF style accounting.
Both are world class institutions.
Don't play play, ok?
NKF report www.nkfs.org/download/nkf_report_161205.pdf
page 189 -
Settle question of HDB subsidy once and for all - ST Forum 2 Jan 2007
I REFER to Mr Viktor Ye Kok Kheong's letter, 'Did HDB land pricing use Raffles Place as rule?' (ST, Jan 1).
The Housing Board said that 'HDB does not reveal the land and construction costs of specific projects as they vary from location to location... That is why it incurs an overall deficit each year for its home-ownership activity, as reflected in its annual accounts which is available publicly'.
The reason given for not revealing the land and construction costs is somewhat illogical, because the HDB is not being asked to disclose the costs of every project or location. Why not just reveal the breakdown of total costs, and a few examples of some projects and locations, now and in the past?
What the HDB is saying is akin to 'since we cannot tell you each and every item, we won't tell you anything at all'.
Every once in a while, the question of the cost and pricing of HDB flats comes up in the media. So, why not put a stop to the on-going speculation that HDB flats are not really subsidised?
In the interest of maintaining Singapore's reputation of having the highest standards of transparency and corporate governance, the HDB should keep up with the standards of disclosure in the private sector.
To illustrate the point of transparency, no real-estate investment trust or publicly-listed company would be able to give the reason given by the HDB for not breaking down the information on the major cost components in its accounting statements.
How can we tell whether HDB prices are 'at market price' without a breakdown of the land and construction costs for comparison purposes?
As to the market price for land taking into account the 'substantial resources... invested to provide major infrastructure, such as roads, MRT, sewers and utilities, for the new housing development', thus significantly enhancing the land value beyond the acquisition costs incurred by the Government, aren't the billions collected every year from road tax, electronic road pricing, property tax, 30 per cent water- conservation tax, etc, supposed to be used to provide such infrastructure?
Leong Sze Hian -
Originally posted by LinYu:
If the former President can't even get a straight answer to his queries on Singapore's assets, what makes you think a regular Singaporean writing to the ST forum will get one?
[b]Settle question of HDB subsidy once and for all - ST Forum 2 Jan 2007
I REFER to Mr Viktor Ye Kok Kheong's letter, 'Did HDB land pricing use Raffles Place as rule?' (ST, Jan 1).
The Housing Board said that 'HDB does not reveal the land and construction costs of specific projects as they vary from location to location... That is why it incurs an overall deficit each year for its home-ownership activity, as reflected in its annual accounts which is available publicly'.
The reason given for not revealing the land and construction costs is somewhat illogical, because the HDB is not being asked to disclose the costs of every project or location. Why not just reveal the breakdown of total costs, and a few examples of some projects and locations, now and in the past?
What the HDB is saying is akin to 'since we cannot tell you each and every item, we won't tell you anything at all'.
Every once in a while, the question of the cost and pricing of HDB flats comes up in the media. So, why not put a stop to the on-going speculation that HDB flats are not really subsidised?
In the interest of maintaining Singapore's reputation of having the highest standards of transparency and corporate governance, the HDB should keep up with the standards of disclosure in the private sector.
To illustrate the point of transparency, no real-estate investment trust or publicly-listed company would be able to give the reason given by the HDB for not breaking down the information on the major cost components in its accounting statements.
How can we tell whether HDB prices are 'at market price' without a breakdown of the land and construction costs for comparison purposes?
As to the market price for land taking into account the 'substantial resources... invested to provide major infrastructure, such as roads, MRT, sewers and utilities, for the new housing development', thus significantly enhancing the land value beyond the acquisition costs incurred by the Government, aren't the billions collected every year from road tax, electronic road pricing, property tax, 30 per cent water- conservation tax, etc, supposed to be used to provide such infrastructure?
Leong Sze Hian
[/b] -
Sadly, the late Mr Ong Teng Cheong was the only president in Singapore's history to take his job seriously. Ironically, he was also the only one denied a state funeral.Originally posted by charlize:If the former President can't even get a straight answer to his queries on Singapore's assets, what makes you think a regular Singaporean writing to the ST forum will get one? -
For continuity sake, I posted the original letter in question dated on 1/1/07.
I REFER to the letter, 'Why sale of state land is done at market price' by Ms Kee Lay Cheng of the Housing and Development Board (ST, Dec 28 ).
Mr Ngiam Tong Dow has a very interesting thing to say about land pricing in Singapore in his book: A Mandarin And The Making Of Public Policy, on page 153:
'Sadly the clarity of thought shown by Dr Goh Keng Swee in pricing land has been lacking in more recent years. Relying on the concept of opportunity cost, the Chief Valuer, at the behest of either the Ministry of National Development or the Ministry of Trade and Industry (I am not sure which), has valued land across Singapore using Raffles Place land as the benchmark. The assumption is that every square metre of land in any part of Singapore has the potential to be Raffles Place.'
Would the HDB like to comment how this has affected the pricing and allocation of subsidy of new HDB flats?
Viktor Ye Kok KheongOriginally posted by LinYu:
[b]Settle question of HDB subsidy once and for all - ST Forum 2 Jan 2007
I REFER to Mr Viktor Ye Kok Kheong's letter, 'Did HDB land pricing use Raffles Place as rule?' (ST, Jan 1).
The Housing Board said that 'HDB does not reveal the land and construction costs of specific projects as they vary from location to location... That is why it incurs an overall deficit each year for its home-ownership activity, as reflected in its annual accounts which is available publicly'.
The reason given for not revealing the land and construction costs is somewhat illogical, because the HDB is not being asked to disclose the costs of every project or location. Why not just reveal the breakdown of total costs, and a few examples of some projects and locations, now and in the past?
What the HDB is saying is akin to 'since we cannot tell you each and every item, we won't tell you anything at all'.
Every once in a while, the question of the cost and pricing of HDB flats comes up in the media. So, why not put a stop to the on-going speculation that HDB flats are not really subsidised?
In the interest of maintaining Singapore's reputation of having the highest standards of transparency and corporate governance, the HDB should keep up with the standards of disclosure in the private sector.
To illustrate the point of transparency, no real-estate investment trust or publicly-listed company would be able to give the reason given by the HDB for not breaking down the information on the major cost components in its accounting statements.
How can we tell whether HDB prices are 'at market price' without a breakdown of the land and construction costs for comparison purposes?
As to the market price for land taking into account the 'substantial resources... invested to provide major infrastructure, such as roads, MRT, sewers and utilities, for the new housing development', thus significantly enhancing the land value beyond the acquisition costs incurred by the Government, aren't the billions collected every year from road tax, electronic road pricing, property tax, 30 per cent water- conservation tax, etc, supposed to be used to provide such infrastructure?
Leong Sze Hian
[/b] -
why are all this published in ST if there is something to hide?
-
its a cover...
they let people ask questions(for the sake of freedom of speech), but they dont answer, and when people press them for answers, they will start insulting them. calling them "whiners" or some other names. -
because the st editor is just egging to be fired....Originally posted by Faramir:why are all this published in ST if there is something to hide?
mah challenged some opposition politician at the recent ge to build his own hdb flat...so the opp guy with the super gel on his head wrote to hdb for cost details...mah got spooked and said this guy was only fishing and ignore the issue.... -
That's certainly one way of looking at it, and i dare say it's not far from the truth. How the govt manages the people is down to how sly and shrewd their ideas are derived.Originally posted by asdfzhao:its a cover...
they let people ask questions(for the sake of freedom of speech), but they dont answer, and when people press them for answers, they will start insulting them. calling them "whiners" or some other names.
On the other hand, we can also look at what we have rather than what we don't have. By allowing people's views to be aired, at least the public can sit up and take notice. Imagine if the govt surpressed all forms of public information, denying even the slightest of wrongdoings or misinformation to be published.
We'll have a Totalitarian state, instead of pseudo-democracy. -
Yeah!!!! This is freaking unfair....s h i t is the word to the ruling party clowns.Originally posted by av98m:Sadly, the late Mr Ong Teng Cheong was the only president in Singapore's history to take his job seriously. Ironically, he was also the only one denied a state funeral. -
Don't just talk talk talk...
Stop Owing Them The Votes!!! -
One woman wrote to ST forum : No cause to doubt credibility of HDB
I DO NOT think that it is justified to press the Housing Board for its land and construction costs or doubt its word that the flats are subsidised.
In the first place, Singaporeans are not obligated to buy HDB flats. If they suspect that the flats are not 'at market price', they can buy private apartments.
However, the ongoing demand for the flats speaks for their market value. If a comparison were to be made, private apartments are still beyond the reach of the majority of Singaporeans.
Secondly, in view of the subsidy, owners should sell their flats back to HDB if they want to upgrade. However, HDB is good enough to allow owners to sell their flats in the open market and make a tidy profit.
Thirdly, the flats have improved in design and size since they were first built. If the flats are not 'at market price' and therefore unattractive, why are some Singaporeans using the names of their siblings, aunts and uncles who are still single to purchase these flats with the intention of selling them later?
I voted for a government which is trustworthy, honest and capable in every sense of the word and I have no cause to doubt the credibility of the HDB.
In fact, I appreciate what the Government has done to house poor Singaporeans like me in the 1960s when we were desperate for a roof over our heads during the Indonesian Confrontation.
Today, our housing system is a pride of the nation. It is unfair to throw brickbats of any kind at the HDB when it deserves bouquets.
Grace Cheah Gek Neo (Miss) -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
pui lor
[b]One woman wrote to ST forum : No cause to doubt credibility of HDB
I DO NOT think that it is justified to press the Housing Board for its land and construction costs or doubt its word that the flats are subsidised.
In the first place, Singaporeans are not obligated to buy HDB flats. If they suspect that the flats are not 'at market price', they can buy private apartments.
However, the ongoing demand for the flats speaks for their market value. If a comparison were to be made, private apartments are still beyond the reach of the majority of Singaporeans.
Secondly, in view of the subsidy, owners should sell their flats back to HDB if they want to upgrade. However, HDB is good enough to allow owners to sell their flats in the open market and make a tidy profit.
Thirdly, the flats have improved in design and size since they were first built. If the flats are not 'at market price' and therefore unattractive, why are some Singaporeans using the names of their siblings, aunts and uncles who are still single to purchase these flats with the intention of selling them later?
I voted for a government which is trustworthy, honest and capable in every sense of the word and I have no cause to doubt the credibility of the HDB.
In fact, I appreciate what the Government has done to house poor Singaporeans like me in the 1960s when we were desperate for a roof over our heads during the Indonesian Confrontation.
Today, our housing system is a pride of the nation. It is unfair to throw brickbats of any kind at the HDB when it deserves bouquets.
Grace Cheah Gek Neo (Miss)[/b]
the designs gettin more n more fugly..
the size gg down oso
pui!
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
I am considering whether to write back in response to Grace Cheah.
[b]One woman wrote to ST forum : No cause to doubt credibility of HDB
I DO NOT think that it is justified to press the Housing Board for its land and construction costs or doubt its word that the flats are subsidised.
In the first place, Singaporeans are not obligated to buy HDB flats. If they suspect that the flats are not 'at market price', they can buy private apartments.
However, the ongoing demand for the flats speaks for their market value. If a comparison were to be made, private apartments are still beyond the reach of the majority of Singaporeans.
Secondly, in view of the subsidy, owners should sell their flats back to HDB if they want to upgrade. However, HDB is good enough to allow owners to sell their flats in the open market and make a tidy profit.
Thirdly, the flats have improved in design and size since they were first built. If the flats are not 'at market price' and therefore unattractive, why are some Singaporeans using the names of their siblings, aunts and uncles who are still single to purchase these flats with the intention of selling them later?
I voted for a government which is trustworthy, honest and capable in every sense of the word and I have no cause to doubt the credibility of the HDB.
In fact, I appreciate what the Government has done to house poor Singaporeans like me in the 1960s when we were desperate for a roof over our heads during the Indonesian Confrontation.
Today, our housing system is a pride of the nation. It is unfair to throw brickbats of any kind at the HDB when it deserves bouquets.
Grace Cheah Gek Neo (Miss)[/b]
I certainly agree that HDB gave Singaporeans the opportunity to gain ownership of their own apartments. A home to live in is surely the most prized asset in other 3rd world countries.
But we are talking about principles and how HDB management has not been transparent. Grace Cheah is writing at a tangent to the crux of the discussion.
It's a simple matter of HDB refuting or owning up to whether HDB flats have been sold at a 'discount' or a 'subsidy'.
The only way to clear it up is to publish the actual costs of building the flats down to land costs at the time. No agency builds a company on a loss-making model, not even a govt agency. -
Hmmmm... in any discussion to the topic, there surely will be both sides of the fence. I think ST Forum is trying to publish the other side of the argument. Just like in any forum out there, I think there are anti-PAP as well as pro-PAP supporters, just that this particular forum of ours seems to have a greater collection of anti-govt topics.Originally posted by BillyBong:I am considering whether to write back in response to Grace Cheah.
I certainly agree that HDB gave Singaporeans the opportunity to gain ownership of their own apartments. A home to live in is surely the most prized asset in other 3rd world countries.
But we are talking about principles and how HDB management has not been transparent. Grace Cheah is writing at a tangent to the crux of the discussion.
It's a simple matter of HDB refuting or owning up to whether HDB flats have been sold at a 'discount' or a 'subsidy'.
The only way to clear it up is to publish the actual costs of building the flats down to land costs at the time. No agency builds a company on a loss-making model, not even a govt agency.
In any case, I agree with your point that nowadays, no Singapore govt agency is being run under a loss-making model.
Most of the govt agencies have govt scholars at the helm being trained to balance whatever monies that they are given from MOF. To excel (or to show that they are one-up on other scholars), some of them will even propose ideas that are revenue-earning somehow forgetting the context of the govt agency they are working in. Sometimes these ideas will get recognised, sometimes they get modified or sometimes abandoned and the poor scholar gets rotated to some other govt agency to be replaced by other scholars to inject new ideas.
Whatever the case, there is already intense pressure for scholars within govt agencies to bring the agencies to higher levels of excellence, so it is unlikely we will come across a knowledgeable and learned scholar who can think differently and explain himself against these trends. -
Originally posted by googoomuck:
This was the same type of thinking which my daughter had when she was in Pr school 10 yrs ago n asked us 2 donate $ to NKF cauz the teachers told her so!!!
[b]One woman wrote to ST forum : No cause to doubt credibility of HDB
I DO NOT think that it is justified to press the Housing Board for its land and construction costs or doubt its word that the flats are subsidised.
In the first place, Singaporeans are not obligated to buy HDB flats. If they suspect that the flats are not 'at market price', they can buy private apartments.
However, the ongoing demand for the flats speaks for their market value. If a comparison were to be made, private apartments are still beyond the reach of the majority of Singaporeans.
Secondly, in view of the subsidy, owners should sell their flats back to HDB if they want to upgrade. However, HDB is good enough to allow owners to sell their flats in the open market and make a tidy profit.
Thirdly, the flats have improved in design and size since they were first built. If the flats are not 'at market price' and therefore unattractive, why are some Singaporeans using the names of their siblings, aunts and uncles who are still single to purchase these flats with the intention of selling them later?
I voted for a government which is trustworthy, honest and capable in every sense of the word and I have no cause to doubt the credibility of the HDB.
In fact, I appreciate what the Government has done to house poor Singaporeans like me in the 1960s when we were desperate for a roof over our heads during the Indonesian Confrontation.
Today, our housing system is a pride of the nation. It is unfair to throw brickbats of any kind at the HDB when it deserves bouquets.
Grace Cheah Gek Neo (Miss)[/b]
She has all the faith in NKF but she is so embrassed now same as her teachers n Ps in the Schools
She has since learnt a lesson that cant just take thing 4 granted and only has faith in an org or person, she is now with a more analytical mind to examine what is right and wrong and not following thing blindly!!!
By reading the above article making me thinking of my daughter 10 yrs ago. -
A Reply by HDB in Straits Time Forum 10 Jan 2007
I REFER to the letters from Mr Viktor Ye Kok Kheong and Mr Leong Sze Hian (ST, Jan 1 and 2, respectively) pertaining to the subsidy for new HDB flats.
First, Mr Ye asked if it is true that the Chief Valuer values all land in Singapore using Raffles Place as the benchmark. We wish to state that it is not so.
It is a fundamental valuation principle that lands are valued based on the specific attributes of the site, such as location, the permitted use of the land, and tenure.
The Chief Valuer's valuation has to be supported by comparative land-sales evidence.
It is simply not tenable to benchmark every plot of land to Raffles Place pricing, as this would drive property prices beyond the reach of most Singaporeans.
For example, state land alienated by the Singapore Land Authority for housing in Tampines will be valued taking into account the market values of housing in Tampines, while state land for industrial use in Tuas will take into account industrial- land values in Tuas, etc.
Second, Mr Leong asked HDB to reveal its land and construction costs to prove that HDB flats are subsidised. He has missed the point.
To understand the full extent of public-housing subsidy for new HDB flats, one should be comparing the market value of the flats with the sale prices charged by HDB, rather than look at the input costs of land and building.
New flats are subsidised as they are being sold at prices that are lower than what they would otherwise fetch in the open market.
If this subsidy is not real, why should many flat buyers choose to buy new flats from HDB instead of resale flats in the open market using the CPF Housing Grant?
Third, Mr Leong asserted that HDB has not kept up with the standards of disclosure in the private sector. He is wrong.
HDB's financial statements are prepared in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standards, audited by the Auditor-General and tabled in Parliament for information.
HDB's standards of disclosure and governance are no less than those required of publicly listed companies and real-estate investment trusts in Singapore.
Overall, HDB is unable to recover the development cost of new flats that it offers to the public, and has incurred a deficit averaging $390 million in its home-ownership programme in the last five years. These figures are reported in HDB's audited financial statements, which are publicly available for inspection and scrutiny.
Kee Lay Cheng (Ms)
Deputy Director
(Marketing & Projects)
For Director (Estate Administration & Property)
Housing & Development Board -
Originally posted by SevenEleven:
HDB looses money because it has been building flats at places where people don't want to live in, like sengkang, punggol, jurong west etc!
[b]A Reply by HDB in Straits Time Forum 10 Jan 2007
I REFER to the letters from Mr Viktor Ye Kok Kheong and Mr Leong Sze Hian (ST, Jan 1 and 2, respectively) pertaining to the subsidy for new HDB flats.
First, Mr Ye asked if it is true that the Chief Valuer values all land in Singapore using Raffles Place as the benchmark. We wish to state that it is not so.
It is a fundamental valuation principle that lands are valued based on the specific attributes of the site, such as location, the permitted use of the land, and tenure.
The Chief Valuer's valuation has to be supported by comparative land-sales evidence.
It is simply not tenable to benchmark every plot of land to Raffles Place pricing, as this would drive property prices beyond the reach of most Singaporeans.
For example, state land alienated by the Singapore Land Authority for housing in Tampines will be valued taking into account the market values of housing in Tampines, while state land for industrial use in Tuas will take into account industrial- land values in Tuas, etc.
Second, Mr Leong asked HDB to reveal its land and construction costs to prove that HDB flats are subsidised. He has missed the point.
To understand the full extent of public-housing subsidy for new HDB flats, one should be comparing the market value of the flats with the sale prices charged by HDB, rather than look at the input costs of land and building.
New flats are subsidised as they are being sold at prices that are lower than what they would otherwise fetch in the open market.
If this subsidy is not real, why should many flat buyers choose to buy new flats from HDB instead of resale flats in the open market using the CPF Housing Grant?
Third, Mr Leong asserted that HDB has not kept up with the standards of disclosure in the private sector. He is wrong.
HDB's financial statements are prepared in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standards, audited by the Auditor-General and tabled in Parliament for information.
HDB's standards of disclosure and governance are no less than those required of publicly listed companies and real-estate investment trusts in Singapore.
Overall, HDB is unable to recover the development cost of new flats that it offers to the public, and has incurred a deficit averaging $390 million in its home-ownership programme in the last five years. These figures are reported in HDB's audited financial statements, which are publicly available for inspection and scrutiny.
Kee Lay Cheng (Ms)
Deputy Director
(Marketing & Projects)
For Director (Estate Administration & Property)
Housing & Development Board
[/b]
If they manage to sell 90% of these flats, their profits would be through the roof!
It now openly states a subsidy is one that is sold below the market value.
In that case, public housing is also now very much at risk in the face of economic crisis, when people mortage their homes for loans, yet when the valuation falls, the banks comes after them for money topup, which causes them to bankrupt!
All this because they want to have a 99 leasehold roof over their heads, and enough money to pay taxes!
When property prices plummetted, I didn't quite see new flats' prices falling just as much as well.
How can someone paid by the tax payers' monies mislead the tax payers? Where is the moral stand of civil servants, or the government, whom owns hdb for that matter?
Can anyone comment and give a reasonable answer to quench this peasant's fire? -
perhaps you can take a close look at their financial statements.
there are many ways to create a deficit. -
You believe those crap story that HDB has a deficit? These people are given $$$ for bonuses, retrenchment benefits only to be employed again etc.... Heads will roll if HDB losses moneyOriginally posted by av98m:perhaps you can take a close look at their financial statements.
there are many ways to create a deficit. -
HDB is getting smaller and expensive.....do they still give loan at low interest? or now all taken over by Banks?
by the way this thing about govt housing....so surprise in Penang, they get to pay 25yrs and own them as freehold....
poor us pay and pay and only can pass on less than 99yrs....haizzzzzz
poor us..... -
please read my post again. carefully.Originally posted by SevenEleven:You believe those crap story that HDB has a deficit? These people are given $$$ for bonuses, retrenchment benefits only to be employed again etc.... Heads will roll if HDB losses money