MND Minister Lawrence Wong confirms Lau Goh’s/PAP’s “asset enhancement” programme is hogwash

Although MP and former PM Goh Chok Tong has been credited with our HDB “asset enhancement” programme, he has also single-handedly held an entire nation hostage to the property market. link

With the PAP throwing tax dollars to continuously upgrade HDB flats to buy votes, Lau Goh and the MSM gave the impression that HDB “asset” prices will increase as if there’s no tomorrow. A majority of HDB flat buyers have bought into PAP propaganda for 2 decades and this has necessitated MND Minister Lawrence to recently state in no uncertain terms that prices of HDB flats will be $KOSONG/$ZERO at the end of a 99-year lease (CNA). Whether HDB flat buyers wake up to their folly remains to be seen.

p8-Lawrence-Wong
Wong’s confirmation: “When the leases for HDB flats run out, they have to be returned to the state eventually and that as flats near the end of their lease periods, their prices come down correspondingly.”

Wong could have been more direct and said: “When the leases for HDB flats run out, HDB flats are worth $ZERO.”

Because the PAP controls both demand and supply of housing in our little red dot, it is in a unique position to dictate housing prices. And Lau Goh was so successful in his “asset enhancement” programme that within 6 years as PM, HDB resale prices shot up 400%. So clever hor, this Lau Goh.

Long-term planning?

Assuming a married couple buys a 50- or 60-year old resale flat to be close to their parents, won’t they be facing a serious shortfall come retirement?

Wong could have been more upfront with flat buyers and stated clearly this: HDB flat buyers never owned their flats.

There is no signing of any sales and purchase contract; HDB flat buyers only agree to lease the flat from the government.

HDB only leases flats to buyers.

Since HDB flats are not our assets, how are we able to benefit from “asset enhancement”?

In reality, it is the PAP which has benefited from exorbitant public housing prices, aka “asset enhancement”. Besides boosting our GDP, high real estate prices translate to increased land sales revenue which is channeled into GIC for investment (speculation).

Doesn’t “asset enhancement” also consequently lead to retirement shortfall for a majority of ordinary citizens living in public housing estates? How many ordinary Singaporeans, especially those who had retired more than a decade ago, are leading a dignified existence?

Isn’t Lau Goh’s/PAP’s “asset enhancement” programme more than hogwash, a scam of sorts?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in HOUSING. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to MND Minister Lawrence Wong confirms Lau Goh’s/PAP’s “asset enhancement” programme is hogwash

  1. Stanley sandosham says:

    In essence most if ordinary folks have been using their hard earn savings to rent a unit from HDB/ govt

  2. Jayden Lee says:

    yah. it is a scam and sinkies took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

  3. sinkie says:

    HDB has recently sneakily removed the term “LESSEE” from the Agreement For Lease and replaced it with “PURCHASER”. It has also dropped the term “Lessor” from this document.

    When you buy a HDB flat, there are 3 legal instruments (or documents) you need to sign:-
    1. Agreement For Lease (mainly a contract between HDB & you)
    2. The Lease
    3. Memorandum Of Lease (conditions for the lease e.g. keeping the flat in good condition, allowing HDB staff or contractors to enter & inspect the flat, not to sublet without permission, not to throw anything out the windows, etc etc)

    Documents #2 and #3 are “higher” priority, as the info must be registered with SLA in the Land Registry. Hence for now, both these documents still use “LESSEE” and “LESSOR”.

    1. Sample Agreement for Lease: http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/doc/specimen-afl
    2. Sample Lease: http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/specimen-lease
    3. Sample Memorandum of Lease: http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/specimen-memorandum-of-lease

  4. DavidLKSee says:

    You’re too polite to call it “hogwash” ( or “pig pee” ??? ).
    I prefer to call it “bovine excreta” (polite term for “bull shit”).

    PAP = PEE And POO
    ( yes, as disgusting as smelly urine [pee] and stinky shit [poo] )

    PAP = PILFER And PLUNDER
    ( yes, as disgusting as the Barbarians who invaded Ancient China and plundered the wealth of the People; molested their wives and gang-raped their virgin daughters.)

    PAP = PIMPS And PROSTITUTES
    ( yes, yes — both disgusting and immoral )

  5. Confused says:

    It looks like the trend is heading towards lower lease term than the 99 years, which effectively could be even 96 years only when you move in. With only one aim, to zero your property in much shorter time???

    HDB is now even constructing BTOs for the olds for 30, 35… years lease presumably more affordable. Nobody knows whether the construction cost is being fully shouldered by the 1st buyer because HDB can probably resell even higher at least for another 2 times more (2×35) for the almost same 99 years lease? What is the problem with making more monies?

    This is already happening in the industrial sector. Some multi storey industrial properties were sold in 60 years lease in or around 2000. Today, most of the new multi storey industrial properties completed recently were only with 30 years lease (left with 27 or 28 when ready to move in) but much more expensive than some of the 60 years lease properties (not to mention that some of these industrial still have more than 40 years to go to zero).

    JTC is also tightening on the lease for land sale generally at 20 years lease unless you are those big big players. With the construction cost almost the same for 20 years (which could be left with 18 by the time move in) or 60 years lease. This invariably will add to the production cost as the business owners would have to spread its construction cost over a shorter period (3 folds instead of 1) and thus higher unit cost, it’s a no brainer’s fact. There are many more…..

    At the end, who suffers???You, You & all of us.

    The PAP has only one aim, to make more monies out of us and we continue to feed them endlessly. No???????

  6. Firros Rajah says:

    While it is true somewhat that the PAP Government had continued to mislead the masses with the asset enhancement theme surely having realized that the masses had confused that to mean something that it was not, which was that it had no bearing on the lease tenure itself. This was the direct result of a lack of understanding of legal terms.

    Leases are as far as I understand as a layman, a period or term of ‘occupation or ownership’ and just that. To understand it as something else is no fault of anyone else. As in all contracts or terms of leases similarly, ‘occupation or ownership’ ceases at the end of the lease or term of contract. No compensation is given or to be expected.

    The PAP had simply capitalized on the false understand of the legal term of ‘leasehold’ and the erroneous association to the asset enhancement proposals, to continue to win support. You might say they had used deceptive methods especially when they should have clarified the misconception at the time
    Now they are caught in a bind.

    I should think that the Government now has to compensate all HDB leases for their oversight or inaction to delink the lease from their asset enhancement proposals in a timely manner.

    • Phillip Ang says:

      The confusion doesn’t end with whether a property is on a 99-year lease, ie leasehold, or freehold. What PAP has attempted to mislead is worse, ie HDB owners are in fact only tenants/lessees.
      Even if the HDB were to renew 99-year leases FOC, this doesn’t settle the issue of our lessees(flat buyers)/lessor(HDB) relationship.
      By redefining HDB flat buyers/lessees as ‘owners’, the PAP has effectively transferred its maintenance costs to HDB ‘owners’. Not forgetting property taxes which should not have been levied because we were never owners in the first place. Such a convenient arrangement benefits the PAP as HDB will still have full control of the 1001 rules and regulations which are tweaked at its whims.
      Unfortunately PAP’s intent to mislead is clear. Since it is unaccountable, it’s best not to entertain the thought of compensation. 😦

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s