ST Forum 14 Dec 2006
I REFER to the reply from the Housing Board's Ms Kee Lay Cheng, 'HDB consistently incurs losses selling new flats' (ST, Dec
.
Ms Kee took the stand that HDB did not acquire land at a very low cost. However, she failed to note that since the 1970s, the Government had indeed acquired land at very low cost under the Land Acquisition Act.
She then informed us that the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), a government agency, sold the low-cost land at a value determined by the Chief Valuer, another government body, to HDB, yet another government agency. This inter-government agency sale certainly ramped up the total development cost for HDB.
As the vendor and purchaser are related, the transaction is a zero-sum game to the Government's bottom line because HDB's liability matches SLA's gain. Hence, I see the deficit in HDB's sale-of-flats account as an internal 'paper loss'' to the Government, not a tangible cost.
However, I concur that CPF housing grants are a tangible cost.
Ms Kee merely stated that the total development cost of an HDB flat is higher than $200,000 and disputed the deduced profit of $150,000. However, no figures were provided.
Why can't Ms Kee reveal the true land cost, construction cost, consultants' fees and other incidentals in the building of a typical flat?
Steven Lo Chock Fei