Saturday, December 18, 2010
Elaboration on answers to Housing Issues @ TOC Forum
I was invited to be one of the panelists at TOC end of year event, Face-to-Face Forum on 16 Dec 2010. Housing issues became one of the hottest again.
Due to time constrains, I have given key points and short answers to the questions asked. I would like to elaborate further here on what I have said during the forum.
The first question asked was whether HDB should be privatized. My first response is that it should not. HDB is part of a socialist Land Reform program. Due to scarcity of land in Singapore, it is important for us to avoid land hogging by a small group of landlords while the masses and future generations suffer. The fall of the ancient feudal systems was basically due to the income and wealth inequality partly exaggerated by the unequal distribution of land.
Thus it is important for the government to act as an arbitrator in making sure that land can be recycled over generations for public usage like housing. The 99-year leasehold HDB flats are part of this scheme to maintain sustainability of land usage across generations. Privatizing HDB will not do us good. It will most probably result in higher prices for HDB flats due to the profit maximizing nature of a private entity.
The second question about HDB is on what will happen to those who have paid hefty prices for their HDB flats but now I am advocating lower HDB prices. I explained that the HDB has two market segments. First, we have the NEW HDB flat market and second, the resale market. The government, via HDB, is the sole monopoly of supply in the NEW HDB flat market. The demand comes from citizens only. The resale market is basically a free market where sellers are those who own HDB flats (both PRs and Citizens) and buyers from both PRs and citizens as well.
The government has FULL CONTROL over the New Flat market as the monopoly. It should sell these flats at cost to Singaporeans as I have explained earlier that our forefathers have sacrificed their land for the development of this Nation. It is the unwritten social contract that the government in return should take care of Singaporeans' basic public housing needs.
On the other hand, the government should not meddle or distort the resale market, which is a free market by giving grants to first timers. This is a bit "counter-intuitive" which results in people calling it a "radical view" but it is not!
The rational is very simple. Just taking an analogy of a fireman trying to put out a fire. Will he add oil to the fire? Obviously not. If there is a pipe leaking oil to the fire, what will he do? Obviously, it is to stop the leakage.
Money and easy credit are just like fuel to the fire of high prices. Giving grants to first timers to buy resale flat is an act of market distortion to increase the demand of resale market. There are a few implications:
1) The present system is such that the NEW HDB flats prices are pegged at the resale market prices. It is naturally for the government to want to maintain a high Resale prices.
2) The grants given to first timers have to come from somewhere. i.e. from the higher prices of New HDB flats. At the same time, resale levy is charged on those who sold their flats and apply for new flats.
3) It is basically a scheme that goes round about, self-feeding itself to maintain or push up the prices of HDB flats, both resale and new HDB flats.
4) Such grants coupled with easy credit and low interest rates will encourage more young couples to OVER COMMIT themselves. If these young couples, in spite of low interest rate of 1.5% or less from private banks need to commit 30 years loans to buy their resale flats, they will be in trouble if interest rates rise in future! That will become Singapore's Subprime!
My proposal of a new system is:
1) Sell NEW HDB flats at cost.
2) Don't meddle in the free resale market by removing the grants.
Many youngsters may scream at the second point. I would advise them to take a step back and ponder. The proposal is a package. New young couples will have a far CHEAPER OPTION of having their first new HDB flat when it is sold at cost.
After you get your first HDB flat at CHEAP price, it will provide you a good financial position to get your resale HDB flat later on. My concern now is that too many young couples are over committing themselves by going for resale HDB flats. This will add financial burden to the new families and in the end, you may not have enough finances to have babies.
It is also an important thing to show to young couples that it is more worthwhile to buy NEW HDB flats with a big difference in the prices. If young couples are to be lured into resale HDB flats with the HDB grant and resulting in over committing themselves, a 30 years mortgage loan starting at low interest rate but going up later one, most people will be forced to sell their flats for retirement in the end!
However, I also caution that our only HDB flat is OUR HOME and SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS INVESTMENT. A HOME is not something you can sell off that easily. Each and every corners of your HOME are embedded with the collective memories of your family members.
I am asked about how I am going to make such "unpopular" idea to Singaporeans. I just replied, we just have to make it "popular". We should be careful about politicians trying to sell you GREED and be populist. My generation as well as my father's generation has been hoodwinked by PAP's sales of GREED through "ASSET ENHANCEMENT SCHEME". Who suffers in the end? My generation, the younger generation as well as future generations.
Two years ago, nobody would have thought that the campaign on HDB issues would be fruitful. Nobody believes that I could convince so many people that the HIGH HDB PRICES IS BAD FOR THEM. Nobody sees the bad points of 30-year mortgage for HDB flats. With the help of the online media, blogs and networking tools, we have managed to get the message viral. Many people are talking about the ills of the 30-year mortgage. I strongly believe that I can go a step further to bring forth my point about my "instinctively unfavorable" or even "politically incorrect" policy views that this is the best way for Singapore's future generations.
Of course, for those who have committed at high HDB prices, I just have to remind them that it is PAP who makes them suffer with such bad policy. Look on the bright side. Just like many people of my generations who were caught in the late 1990s property boom and subsequent bust, as long as we treat our flat as our HOME, whether the price went up or down, it didn't affect us, even when we became negative asset holders. On top of that, in my proposal, the resale market will be allowed to grow on its own. In the long run, the HDB resale prices will still grow although in a relatively slower pace.
One sensitive HDB issue was raised by M Ravi on the ethnic quota. It is a well-known fact that ethnic quota restrictions affect the minority races adversely.
I went a bit further to say that the present restriction may have impact on ethnic economy. Look at Tampines. It has a bigger proportion of Malay community of 24%. Tampines has the most number of Muslim coffeeshops as compared to other places. There are even shops selling Malay traditional clothing. A critical mass congregation of the minority ethnic group will provide more opportunities for their ethnic entrepreneurs to strive.
Thus in my view, I have no problem with any precincts or groupings with less than 50% composition of the minority races. Why not more than 50%? If the minority race becomes the majority composition of a precinct, that would mean statistically, it has become a big outlier!
I have not mentioned the lower band. My proposal is to have a band, instead of a tight rule of 25%. The band will range from 15% to 45%. It also means that the Chinese majority race cannot exceed 85% of the composition in any precincts.
Many people would suggest to get rid of the ethnic quota once and for all. I do not favor that but instead, take a progressive step towards that aim. I have spoken to foreign visitors from Australia, Sri Lanka and other places on Earth and they admire our racial policies in this aspect. It is something that we may have taken for granted for all this while. But a relax of such rules may foster better ties and lessen the price that any ethnic groups may suffer as the result of the ethnic quota rule.
I hope that these elaborations on my comments and responses given during the TOC Face to Face Forum will provide more insight into the policy rationale behind them.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
行不通的公共组屋政策
尽管组屋价格还是需要以30年房贷才能让国人买得起,国家发展部长马宝山还是坚持政府组屋还是“负担得起”。但他最近还提起几个有意思的观点。
在这些观点当中,他似乎刻意的把之前所说的“卖屋养老”的话给收回了。他说许多人也许不必卖屋降级来维持退休生活。
我之前已经在我党报悉数这“卖屋养老”计划根本行不通,更非是一个可持续的选择。
我现在就解释为什么这高屋价政策在“资产提升”的掩护下成为行动党的蓄意执行的政策方针。
以高房价解决人口老化问题
自1980年代初起,行动党就意识到它在70年代执行的“两个就够了”政策是大错特错,而这政策将促使人口史无前例的迅速老化。在做了人口统计规划预算后,执政党便发觉公积金政策可能无法持续的给老化的人口提供足够的退休资金。
为公积金户口提供稳定回报作为国人的养老金是政府的责任。如果有能力工作的人越来越少而向公积金提钱的退休人士越来越多的话,这情况会促使公积金局造成现金周转的压力。这问题将随着时间而逐渐严重。
维持高屋价的“好主意”就是为了解决人口老化带来的种种问题而构思出来的。以下是这计划的详细的论述:
1)如果新加坡人在公积金户头里有较少的储蓄的话,政府就无需承担太大的利息负担。也就是说,政府就可把资助人口老化的养老金的责任推卸掉。
2)但是将来老人的生活由谁来担当呢?30年的房贷肯定会逼使多数新加坡人卖屋养老的!只要让政府组屋价格持续上升,这一些未来的退休人士就可在高屋价的环境中卖屋“提取退休金”!这不就解决了他们养老金的问题了吗!
卖屋养老计划的影响和冲击
这过于简单的想法将会有几个影响。所有的现象都对新加坡人不利,反而对政府有利。
1)政府可从以高屋价把政府组屋卖给公民中得利。与此同时政府也无需拿出任何钱给以任何津贴。
2)首要调整就是提高地价。建屋局会在账目上承担赤字,因为它必须向土地局(两个部门同样隶属于国家发展局)以市价买地。我们必须认清土地局因运用土地征用法令强行以超低价收了私地而成了最大地主,拥有垄断权来制定地价。
3)所有卖地所得都直接进入储备金。这也就是为什么我们的储备金会自1980年起迅速增长。
4)政府减少了在公积金给以的利息反而从借给组屋买者的贷款中赚取利息。这也意味着新加坡人不只要承担高屋价的负担,除此之外还要承担房贷的利息。
5)如果这计划要能持续下去,房价就必须随时间大幅度飙升。要不然,整个的制度就会垮了。
影响
很明显的政府是这计划的既得利益者。它推卸了为老化人口提供资金的责任。它基本上把这责任以高屋价政策转嫁给下一代。与此同时,它却从中得利而把这利益转入储备金里头,使执政党看来能干。除此之外,它还从房屋借贷利息里获利。
政府的获利就是人民的失利。建屋发展局是新组屋市场的唯一供应者而它也是从房屋借贷中收取利息。
这政策将对这一代以高价买组屋和往后世世代代的新加坡人。这一代以30年房贷买屋子的人将会被逼卖屋养老。下一代的新加坡人就必须承担更高的屋价,因为这是政策方向以便这一代人可以筹足养老金!
行不通的政策
从长远看来,这计划根本是无法持续下去的。原因显而易见。如果要保住那一些新加坡人放进房子的钱的购买力的话,他们房子未来的价钱就必须要盖过利息和30年里的通货膨胀。
但是工人的工资通常只能以通货膨胀的速度增长。这也就是为什么我们在这二十年间已经面对工资的增长大幅度落后于政府组屋价钱的增长率的情况。
资料源自 singaporemind.blogspot.com
从1990至2009年间,工资只翻了一番,但是组屋的价钱却翻了四番!在这期间,房贷也因此从15年增长至30年。如果这形势持续下去,我们的后代也许就必须
会面对40或50年的放贷才能买得到政府组屋!
这能行得通吗?
这是两个矛盾的政策目标。这一方,如果要卖屋养老计划成功的话,房价的飙升必须超越薪金的涨幅。但是在另一方,我们又要世世代代的新加坡人“负担得起”房子,那么房价的涨幅就不能超越薪金的涨幅!我们怎么可能同时达到这两个矛盾的目的?
再说没有人能保证房价能以这速度飙升。在这人口老化的前提,二手房屋的供应将会增加而需求量反而会因年轻人的数目少而减少。这就会致使房价承受下跌的压力。
新加坡人必须彻底的了解这“卖屋养老”对我们这一代与后代所带来的严重后果。
最新的报告显示新加坡的房贷已经占了我们经济所有贷款的51%。这比香港的20% 还要高!如果房地产市场崩溃的话,整个金融体系将会承担超重的坏账!
一个经济体系不能把过多的资金投入像房地产一样的无生产力的资产上。如此会剥夺了需要资金来创业的国人。这也会使整个金融体系过度暴露于能使我们的财富瞬时间化为乌有的泡沫经济里。
日本,爱尔兰或甚至美国的经验显示金融体系过度暴露于潜向于泡沫的房地产将会摧毁整个经济体系。日本自从1990年代的泡沫经济引爆后,至今还是无法重新振作起来!
政治上,对大众推销贪婪是最有效的手段但是这也会致使对我们后代无法扭转和弥补的伤害。要说服人们高屋价是对他们不利是非常艰难的。我已等了很久才等到这适当的时机来试图以我在这些年里对此课题深入研究的知识来尝试解释这政策祸害的来龙去脉。我恳请那一些认同我的看法的读者能帮我把这重要讯息传达给你的亲朋好友们。
这祸害子孙后代的政策必须被制止,否则我们的后代会因我们的不理不睬而受害。
在这些观点当中,他似乎刻意的把之前所说的“卖屋养老”的话给收回了。他说许多人也许不必卖屋降级来维持退休生活。
我之前已经在我党报悉数这“卖屋养老”计划根本行不通,更非是一个可持续的选择。
我现在就解释为什么这高屋价政策在“资产提升”的掩护下成为行动党的蓄意执行的政策方针。
以高房价解决人口老化问题
自1980年代初起,行动党就意识到它在70年代执行的“两个就够了”政策是大错特错,而这政策将促使人口史无前例的迅速老化。在做了人口统计规划预算后,执政党便发觉公积金政策可能无法持续的给老化的人口提供足够的退休资金。
为公积金户口提供稳定回报作为国人的养老金是政府的责任。如果有能力工作的人越来越少而向公积金提钱的退休人士越来越多的话,这情况会促使公积金局造成现金周转的压力。这问题将随着时间而逐渐严重。
维持高屋价的“好主意”就是为了解决人口老化带来的种种问题而构思出来的。以下是这计划的详细的论述:
1)如果新加坡人在公积金户头里有较少的储蓄的话,政府就无需承担太大的利息负担。也就是说,政府就可把资助人口老化的养老金的责任推卸掉。
2)但是将来老人的生活由谁来担当呢?30年的房贷肯定会逼使多数新加坡人卖屋养老的!只要让政府组屋价格持续上升,这一些未来的退休人士就可在高屋价的环境中卖屋“提取退休金”!这不就解决了他们养老金的问题了吗!
卖屋养老计划的影响和冲击
这过于简单的想法将会有几个影响。所有的现象都对新加坡人不利,反而对政府有利。
1)政府可从以高屋价把政府组屋卖给公民中得利。与此同时政府也无需拿出任何钱给以任何津贴。
2)首要调整就是提高地价。建屋局会在账目上承担赤字,因为它必须向土地局(两个部门同样隶属于国家发展局)以市价买地。我们必须认清土地局因运用土地征用法令强行以超低价收了私地而成了最大地主,拥有垄断权来制定地价。
3)所有卖地所得都直接进入储备金。这也就是为什么我们的储备金会自1980年起迅速增长。
4)政府减少了在公积金给以的利息反而从借给组屋买者的贷款中赚取利息。这也意味着新加坡人不只要承担高屋价的负担,除此之外还要承担房贷的利息。
5)如果这计划要能持续下去,房价就必须随时间大幅度飙升。要不然,整个的制度就会垮了。
影响
很明显的政府是这计划的既得利益者。它推卸了为老化人口提供资金的责任。它基本上把这责任以高屋价政策转嫁给下一代。与此同时,它却从中得利而把这利益转入储备金里头,使执政党看来能干。除此之外,它还从房屋借贷利息里获利。
政府的获利就是人民的失利。建屋发展局是新组屋市场的唯一供应者而它也是从房屋借贷中收取利息。
这政策将对这一代以高价买组屋和往后世世代代的新加坡人。这一代以30年房贷买屋子的人将会被逼卖屋养老。下一代的新加坡人就必须承担更高的屋价,因为这是政策方向以便这一代人可以筹足养老金!
行不通的政策
从长远看来,这计划根本是无法持续下去的。原因显而易见。如果要保住那一些新加坡人放进房子的钱的购买力的话,他们房子未来的价钱就必须要盖过利息和30年里的通货膨胀。
但是工人的工资通常只能以通货膨胀的速度增长。这也就是为什么我们在这二十年间已经面对工资的增长大幅度落后于政府组屋价钱的增长率的情况。
资料源自 singaporemind.blogspot.com
从1990至2009年间,工资只翻了一番,但是组屋的价钱却翻了四番!在这期间,房贷也因此从15年增长至30年。如果这形势持续下去,我们的后代也许就必须
会面对40或50年的放贷才能买得到政府组屋!
这能行得通吗?
这是两个矛盾的政策目标。这一方,如果要卖屋养老计划成功的话,房价的飙升必须超越薪金的涨幅。但是在另一方,我们又要世世代代的新加坡人“负担得起”房子,那么房价的涨幅就不能超越薪金的涨幅!我们怎么可能同时达到这两个矛盾的目的?
再说没有人能保证房价能以这速度飙升。在这人口老化的前提,二手房屋的供应将会增加而需求量反而会因年轻人的数目少而减少。这就会致使房价承受下跌的压力。
新加坡人必须彻底的了解这“卖屋养老”对我们这一代与后代所带来的严重后果。
最新的报告显示新加坡的房贷已经占了我们经济所有贷款的51%。这比香港的20% 还要高!如果房地产市场崩溃的话,整个金融体系将会承担超重的坏账!
一个经济体系不能把过多的资金投入像房地产一样的无生产力的资产上。如此会剥夺了需要资金来创业的国人。这也会使整个金融体系过度暴露于能使我们的财富瞬时间化为乌有的泡沫经济里。
日本,爱尔兰或甚至美国的经验显示金融体系过度暴露于潜向于泡沫的房地产将会摧毁整个经济体系。日本自从1990年代的泡沫经济引爆后,至今还是无法重新振作起来!
政治上,对大众推销贪婪是最有效的手段但是这也会致使对我们后代无法扭转和弥补的伤害。要说服人们高屋价是对他们不利是非常艰难的。我已等了很久才等到这适当的时机来试图以我在这些年里对此课题深入研究的知识来尝试解释这政策祸害的来龙去脉。我恳请那一些认同我的看法的读者能帮我把这重要讯息传达给你的亲朋好友们。
这祸害子孙后代的政策必须被制止,否则我们的后代会因我们的不理不睬而受害。
Labels:
Chinese Articles,
Economics,
Finance,
Housing,
Policy Views
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Unsustainable Policy : HDB
Minister Mah Bow Tan has continued to claim that HDB flats are "affordable" inspite of the 30 years mortgage. He has however, made a few interesting points lately.
One of the points he made has somewhat RETRACTED from his earlier position that it is alright to have high HDB prices because we could "monetize" or sell our HDB flats for retirement. He said that we may not need to sell our flats and downgrade for retirement.
I have explained why selling flat for retirement is NOT A WORKABLE and SUSTAINABLE OPTION at all.
Before I talk about why this scheme of "selling flat for retirement" is not sustainable in the long run, I would like to address the basic fundamentals of why such HIGH HDB PRICES under the guise of "asset enhancement" is the deliberate policy direction of PAP government.
High Property Prices to solve Aging Population Problems
Since early 1980s, PAP has suddenly realized that their aggressive "TWO IS ENOUGH" policy is flawed and it would create unprecedented acceleration of an aging population. By doing a demographic projection, it would mean that the CPF scheme may not be sustainable in providing adequate retirement financing for this aging population.
The burden of providing retirement financing lies on the government to give constant returns to CPF account holders. If less and less people are going to work in the work force while more and more people are going to withdraw their CPF money in future, it would create cashflow pressures on CPF. This problem will aggravate in time to come.
The brilliant idea of maintaining high HDB flat price comes about to solve a lot of these problems derived from aging population. The followings are the reasoning:
1) If Singaporeans have less savings in CPF, the government won't be burdened by interest payment to the account holders. i.e. the government will wash its hands off from retirement financing of an aging population.
2) How or who will finance the future retirees then? A 30 year mortgage plan will DEFINITELY force Singaporeans to sell their flats for retirement! This is basically because their CPF accounts will have very little amount of funds left! By allowing HDB prices to increase, these future retirees could well "withdraw" their "retirement funds" by selling off their HDB flats at high prices! This would solve their retirement financing!
Impact of HDB flat for Retirement Financing
Such simplistic thinking will have a few impacts. All of these impacts are unfavorable to Singaporeans but very favorable to the Government.
1) The Government could benefit from selling HDB flats at high prices to citizens and they no longer need to fork out money for any subsidies. All so call subsidies are basically on paper accounting, market subsidies.
2) The first adjustment is to raise land prices. HDB, on paper, is in deficits because it has to buy land from SLA (both under Ministry of Development) at market prices. Please note that SLA has become the biggest land owner in Singapore through forceful acquisition of private land with monopoly power to determine prices.
3) All proceeds from Land Sales go directly into the reserves and that is why our reserves grow at rapid rate since 1980s.
4) The government earns interests, instead of paying interests, from making loans to HDB buyers. This also means that while Singaporeans are paying higher HDB prices using almost all their CPF monies and they are also incurring mortgage interests.
5) The prices of HDB flats MUST increase substantially over time in order for this scheme to be sustainable. If not, the whole system will collapse.
Implications
What are the implications?
Apparently, the government benefited the most from such scheme. It relinquishes its responsibility of providing retirement financing for an aging population. It basically transfers this burden to the future generations in terms of HIGHER HDB PRICES. It MAKES PROFITS from these higher HDB prices which transferred into reserves which make them look good. On top of that, it makes money from interests collected from HDB buyers
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
Unsustainable
This model is NOT sustainable in the long run. The reason is pretty clear. In order to preserve the purchasing power of the amount of money Singaporeans have put into their HDB flats, the future price of their flats has to increase tremendously to cover the interest cost as well as inflation throughout the 30 years period.
However, wages of the working class will normally grow at the rate just enough to cover inflation. That is why we are witnessing this impact of wages lagging behind HDB price growth for the past two decades. From the following graph prepared by Lucky Tan .
Wage doubled while HDB prices grow by FOUR folds during the period from 1990 to 2009. It corresponds to the increase in the mortgage payment period from 15 years to 30 years. In time to come, our future generations may have to pay for a 40years or even 50 years mortgage for just a decent HDB flat
Is this sustainable?
There are CONFLICTING policy objectives. On one hand, in order for the scheme of utilizing high HDB prices as a means for retirement financing, we need HDB prices to outstrip wage growth but in order to maintain "AFFORDABILITY" for all generations, we need to maintain the price increase according to wage growth! How could these CONFLICTING policy targets be met simultaneously?
Nobody can guarantee property prices will grow forever at such rapid rate. With an aging population, demand will be lower while supply will be increasing due to the increasing number of elders trying to sell their flats. This will have downward pressure on relative prices.
This is really an ill-thought out HDB-retirement scheme by the PAP government. This scheme benefits only the present government by alleviating its burden to provide for the retirement funding needs for the citizens while benefiting from all the higher HDB prices and interests earned from loans to HDB owners. This is in the expense of Singaporeans both present and future.
Almost all present Ministers will not be around in 30 years time to take responsibility for the effects of their policies. It is important for Singaporeans to understand the great implications of this HDB-retirement scheme upon our present generations as well as future generations.
I have come to this realization of this scheme ever since PAP started to embark the so call "Asset Enhancement Scheme" back in early 1990s. I have written a number of articles in protest of this scheme but many Singaporeans were overwhelmed by the immediate gain of paper capital gains. There were even Singaporeans trying to capitalize on the sudden increase in their flat value by upgrading or multiple upgradings. In the whole process, they committed higher and higher debts.
The latest report has indicated Singapore's housing debt has constituted more than 51% of total loans from our financial loans! This is even higher than Hong Kong's 20%! We will be doomed if there is a property crash! The whole financial system will be burden with unperforming loans!
An economy cannot invest too much of its financial resources in assets like properties which are not "productive" for the economy. If the property sector takes up too much of the financial resources of the economy, it will crowd out resources for financing investments by our local entrepreneurs. It would also mean that the financial sector would be over-exposed to a potential bubble which would wipe off our wealth when it bursts.
Experiences from Japan, Ireland and even US have shown that over-exposure of the financial sector to the bubble-prone property sector will destroy the economy. Japan has hardly recover from its collapse of economy due to property bubble since 1990s!
It is up to every Singaporeans to judge on whether what I write here make any sense. It is easy to sell greed to the masses but it will create irreversible damage to our future generations. It is not easy to convince people that high property prices are BAD for them. I have waited this long for the opportune time to explain what I have learned throughout these years. I urge every reader who agrees with my views to help me to spread this message to your friends and relatives.
This unsustainable and potentially damaging HDB-retirement scheme must be stopped and ceased else our future generations will suffer in vain for our inaction.
Goh Meng Seng
One of the points he made has somewhat RETRACTED from his earlier position that it is alright to have high HDB prices because we could "monetize" or sell our HDB flats for retirement. He said that we may not need to sell our flats and downgrade for retirement.
I have explained why selling flat for retirement is NOT A WORKABLE and SUSTAINABLE OPTION at all.
Before I talk about why this scheme of "selling flat for retirement" is not sustainable in the long run, I would like to address the basic fundamentals of why such HIGH HDB PRICES under the guise of "asset enhancement" is the deliberate policy direction of PAP government.
High Property Prices to solve Aging Population Problems
Since early 1980s, PAP has suddenly realized that their aggressive "TWO IS ENOUGH" policy is flawed and it would create unprecedented acceleration of an aging population. By doing a demographic projection, it would mean that the CPF scheme may not be sustainable in providing adequate retirement financing for this aging population.
The burden of providing retirement financing lies on the government to give constant returns to CPF account holders. If less and less people are going to work in the work force while more and more people are going to withdraw their CPF money in future, it would create cashflow pressures on CPF. This problem will aggravate in time to come.
The brilliant idea of maintaining high HDB flat price comes about to solve a lot of these problems derived from aging population. The followings are the reasoning:
1) If Singaporeans have less savings in CPF, the government won't be burdened by interest payment to the account holders. i.e. the government will wash its hands off from retirement financing of an aging population.
2) How or who will finance the future retirees then? A 30 year mortgage plan will DEFINITELY force Singaporeans to sell their flats for retirement! This is basically because their CPF accounts will have very little amount of funds left! By allowing HDB prices to increase, these future retirees could well "withdraw" their "retirement funds" by selling off their HDB flats at high prices! This would solve their retirement financing!
Impact of HDB flat for Retirement Financing
Such simplistic thinking will have a few impacts. All of these impacts are unfavorable to Singaporeans but very favorable to the Government.
1) The Government could benefit from selling HDB flats at high prices to citizens and they no longer need to fork out money for any subsidies. All so call subsidies are basically on paper accounting, market subsidies.
2) The first adjustment is to raise land prices. HDB, on paper, is in deficits because it has to buy land from SLA (both under Ministry of Development) at market prices. Please note that SLA has become the biggest land owner in Singapore through forceful acquisition of private land with monopoly power to determine prices.
3) All proceeds from Land Sales go directly into the reserves and that is why our reserves grow at rapid rate since 1980s.
4) The government earns interests, instead of paying interests, from making loans to HDB buyers. This also means that while Singaporeans are paying higher HDB prices using almost all their CPF monies and they are also incurring mortgage interests.
5) The prices of HDB flats MUST increase substantially over time in order for this scheme to be sustainable. If not, the whole system will collapse.
Implications
What are the implications?
Apparently, the government benefited the most from such scheme. It relinquishes its responsibility of providing retirement financing for an aging population. It basically transfers this burden to the future generations in terms of HIGHER HDB PRICES. It MAKES PROFITS from these higher HDB prices which transferred into reserves which make them look good. On top of that, it makes money from interests collected from HDB buyers
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.
Unsustainable
This model is NOT sustainable in the long run. The reason is pretty clear. In order to preserve the purchasing power of the amount of money Singaporeans have put into their HDB flats, the future price of their flats has to increase tremendously to cover the interest cost as well as inflation throughout the 30 years period.
However, wages of the working class will normally grow at the rate just enough to cover inflation. That is why we are witnessing this impact of wages lagging behind HDB price growth for the past two decades. From the following graph prepared by Lucky Tan .
Wage doubled while HDB prices grow by FOUR folds during the period from 1990 to 2009. It corresponds to the increase in the mortgage payment period from 15 years to 30 years. In time to come, our future generations may have to pay for a 40years or even 50 years mortgage for just a decent HDB flat
Is this sustainable?
There are CONFLICTING policy objectives. On one hand, in order for the scheme of utilizing high HDB prices as a means for retirement financing, we need HDB prices to outstrip wage growth but in order to maintain "AFFORDABILITY" for all generations, we need to maintain the price increase according to wage growth! How could these CONFLICTING policy targets be met simultaneously?
Nobody can guarantee property prices will grow forever at such rapid rate. With an aging population, demand will be lower while supply will be increasing due to the increasing number of elders trying to sell their flats. This will have downward pressure on relative prices.
This is really an ill-thought out HDB-retirement scheme by the PAP government. This scheme benefits only the present government by alleviating its burden to provide for the retirement funding needs for the citizens while benefiting from all the higher HDB prices and interests earned from loans to HDB owners. This is in the expense of Singaporeans both present and future.
Almost all present Ministers will not be around in 30 years time to take responsibility for the effects of their policies. It is important for Singaporeans to understand the great implications of this HDB-retirement scheme upon our present generations as well as future generations.
I have come to this realization of this scheme ever since PAP started to embark the so call "Asset Enhancement Scheme" back in early 1990s. I have written a number of articles in protest of this scheme but many Singaporeans were overwhelmed by the immediate gain of paper capital gains. There were even Singaporeans trying to capitalize on the sudden increase in their flat value by upgrading or multiple upgradings. In the whole process, they committed higher and higher debts.
The latest report has indicated Singapore's housing debt has constituted more than 51% of total loans from our financial loans! This is even higher than Hong Kong's 20%! We will be doomed if there is a property crash! The whole financial system will be burden with unperforming loans!
An economy cannot invest too much of its financial resources in assets like properties which are not "productive" for the economy. If the property sector takes up too much of the financial resources of the economy, it will crowd out resources for financing investments by our local entrepreneurs. It would also mean that the financial sector would be over-exposed to a potential bubble which would wipe off our wealth when it bursts.
Experiences from Japan, Ireland and even US have shown that over-exposure of the financial sector to the bubble-prone property sector will destroy the economy. Japan has hardly recover from its collapse of economy due to property bubble since 1990s!
It is up to every Singaporeans to judge on whether what I write here make any sense. It is easy to sell greed to the masses but it will create irreversible damage to our future generations. It is not easy to convince people that high property prices are BAD for them. I have waited this long for the opportune time to explain what I have learned throughout these years. I urge every reader who agrees with my views to help me to spread this message to your friends and relatives.
This unsustainable and potentially damaging HDB-retirement scheme must be stopped and ceased else our future generations will suffer in vain for our inaction.
Goh Meng Seng
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Battle of Tampines
Yes, I know, I am supposed to write about the unsustainable policies of PAP. But the Straits Time's constituency report on Tampines is just too interesting to be missed.
I have made a comment on The Online Citizen Facebook with regards to Minister Mah's column on TodayOnline and it is as follows:
I have written an article entitled "Basis of Meritocracy: Competency and Accountability" for the next issue of NSP North Star. This is to address the second part of the campaigning. I will put up this article in January 2011.
It is interesting to note from the ST report that "about half" in Tampines support PAP. To me, it actually means LESS THAN HALF supported PAP because if the figures are that great, it would have reported "MORE THAN HALF" supported PAP. This is in spite of the fact that 28 out of 30 don't "blame" Minister Mah.
It is also interesting to note the fact that the question of affordability of HDB flats is "no longer there": i.e. apparently, EVERYONE, including PAP supporters, has accepted that affordability of HDB FLATS IS AN ISSUE. This is a vast different from two years ago whereby people would pour scorn on me for raising high HDB prices as an issue.
The strange part is this: according to Mah Bow Tan's write up on Today, he is open to debate about HDB issues. I have requested a live debate with Miniister Mah but till now, no response from him just yet.
It is also interesting to note that Minister Mah has shifted his position subtly from his earlier assertion that "you could sell your flat for retirement" to "most probably you don't need to sell your flat and downgrade for retirement" because they have "savings, CPF" etc... BUT WAIT! With a 30 years mortgage payment to the max, how much money would an ordinary folk has in his CPF when he reach 60 years old? Well maybe the million dollar paid minister would have lots of other assets and savings, but for an ordinary folk, this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE!
The blatant truth is, with a HDB flat to be liable for a 30 years mortgage, Singaporeans would be FORCED to sell their flat and downgrade for their retirement financing!
It is quite surprising that after I have declared that Minister Mah's HDB policy is TOTALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run, he insisted that to remain "SUSTAINABLE" he needs to keep the present pricing policy! Scarcity of land is the reason he cited. But as I have mentioned before, this is NOT an issue when all LAND sold by the government comes with a 99 lease!
Minister Mah also claims that there is "hefty subsidies" for HDB flats. It is already a well known fact that HDB only gives "discounts" NOT ACTUAL SUBSIDIES to buyers. In fact, they overpriced the land which they have acquired DIRT CHEAP from Singaporeans. Then, they give discounts based on that price!
Contrary to what Minister Mah's assertion, pricing new HDB flats at COST WILL NOT COMPROMISE the BUDGET. This is basically because whatever revenue they gained via LAND SALES, go straight into the reserves, not the Budget revenue! Thus, by cutting down the price of the LAND sold to HDB will NOT compromise the BUDGET at all!
The Battle of Tampines is about the future of our children. It is also about defending our core values of Meritocracy, especially so when we are pay the HIGHEST SALARY in the world to our ministers.
Goh Meng Seng
I have made a comment on The Online Citizen Facebook with regards to Minister Mah's column on TodayOnline and it is as follows:
Two years ago, before TOC went into the homeless issue and I banging on the unaffordability of HDB flats, many people think that HDB under MBT is great. When I first started the fire on HDB issue coupled with my minister-specific strategy aiming at MBT Tampines, many people say I am crazy. They reasoned that Tampines has the best flats which is appreciating, why would they want to vote for someone who tell them their flats are too high a price?
I am glad that after one and a half year of banging on housing issues with the help of New Media blogs and websites like TOC (and Temasek Review), we manage to change people's mind and get this very important point across. So much so that even hardcore PAP supporters have to admit that high HDB prices are a grave concern.
We have successfully completed half of the mission of political education, raising issue like Housing into hot topic. Now, according to ST, there are still 28 out of 30 who thinks MBT shouldn't be blamed for this HDB blunders. The other half of the mission is to convince voters that we must safeguard MERITOCRACY as our CORE VALUE by voting out those ministers who have screwed up.
I have written an article entitled "Basis of Meritocracy: Competency and Accountability" for the next issue of NSP North Star. This is to address the second part of the campaigning. I will put up this article in January 2011.
It is interesting to note from the ST report that "about half" in Tampines support PAP. To me, it actually means LESS THAN HALF supported PAP because if the figures are that great, it would have reported "MORE THAN HALF" supported PAP. This is in spite of the fact that 28 out of 30 don't "blame" Minister Mah.
It is also interesting to note the fact that the question of affordability of HDB flats is "no longer there": i.e. apparently, EVERYONE, including PAP supporters, has accepted that affordability of HDB FLATS IS AN ISSUE. This is a vast different from two years ago whereby people would pour scorn on me for raising high HDB prices as an issue.
The strange part is this: according to Mah Bow Tan's write up on Today, he is open to debate about HDB issues. I have requested a live debate with Miniister Mah but till now, no response from him just yet.
It is also interesting to note that Minister Mah has shifted his position subtly from his earlier assertion that "you could sell your flat for retirement" to "most probably you don't need to sell your flat and downgrade for retirement" because they have "savings, CPF" etc... BUT WAIT! With a 30 years mortgage payment to the max, how much money would an ordinary folk has in his CPF when he reach 60 years old? Well maybe the million dollar paid minister would have lots of other assets and savings, but for an ordinary folk, this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE!
The blatant truth is, with a HDB flat to be liable for a 30 years mortgage, Singaporeans would be FORCED to sell their flat and downgrade for their retirement financing!
It is quite surprising that after I have declared that Minister Mah's HDB policy is TOTALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run, he insisted that to remain "SUSTAINABLE" he needs to keep the present pricing policy! Scarcity of land is the reason he cited. But as I have mentioned before, this is NOT an issue when all LAND sold by the government comes with a 99 lease!
Minister Mah also claims that there is "hefty subsidies" for HDB flats. It is already a well known fact that HDB only gives "discounts" NOT ACTUAL SUBSIDIES to buyers. In fact, they overpriced the land which they have acquired DIRT CHEAP from Singaporeans. Then, they give discounts based on that price!
Contrary to what Minister Mah's assertion, pricing new HDB flats at COST WILL NOT COMPROMISE the BUDGET. This is basically because whatever revenue they gained via LAND SALES, go straight into the reserves, not the Budget revenue! Thus, by cutting down the price of the LAND sold to HDB will NOT compromise the BUDGET at all!
The Battle of Tampines is about the future of our children. It is also about defending our core values of Meritocracy, especially so when we are pay the HIGHEST SALARY in the world to our ministers.
Goh Meng Seng
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
I have just written a Chinese article on the ills of HDB policy which is not sustainable. I will be reconstructing this article into English article soon as part of my promise of posting on the unsustainable policies of PAP government.
Goh Meng Seng
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
在建国初期,百业待兴。行动党在成为执政党后,便积极使用土地征收法,强制以超低价格向各个大小地主征收土地以便供国家发展。为了补偿这一些新加坡人为国家发展所做出的牺牲,政府与人民达成了不明文规定的社会契约,那就是政府会为人民提供优质廉价,甚至是受津贴的公共住屋。
政府把永久地契的土地以超低价格征收回来,然后以99年地契的组屋出售给人民,这种社会主义的土地改革和建制对于我们世世代代新加坡人的住屋需求提供了保障。如果没有我们先辈对土地的牺牲,我们千千万万的同胞和我们的后代便没法有足够的住屋了。
政府也从这以超低价格征收土地中得益良多。到目前为止,政府已从征收廉价土地中累积超过80%的国土!我国几千亿的储备金中,有一大部份是买卖土地的收益!这也就是为什么政府有责任和义务为世世代代的国人提供廉价组屋。我们也不期望政府亏钱,但至少必须以成本价提供住屋给国人。就算要从组屋用地赚点利息回报,它也必须以合理的计算法计算土地价格给建屋局。
政府与建屋局在建国初20年里的确履行了它对这社会契约的义务和责任。我们的父辈的确以廉价的价格向建屋局买到了组屋。我们父辈能以少过15年的按揭买到他们心仪的房子。这基本上解决了国人的住屋需求。
但是一踏入1990年代,行动党却以“资产增值”为利诱,说服国人组屋升值是好事,积极发展组屋转售市场,更以“组屋翻新”为竞选伎俩。但是新组屋价格也悄然地猛涨两三倍以上!以往行动党所依赖的“组屋津贴”政治资本逐渐站不住脚了。在反对党议员屡次挑战这“组屋津贴”的神话后,行动党才婉转的以“市场津贴”搪塞。说穿了,这“市场津贴”也只是从市场给以“折扣”而已。行动党政府还是从买组屋中牟利。关键就在土地价格的制定上。
新加坡土地有限,政府又是最大的地主。政府基本上垄断了土地市场的供应。从经济常理看来,土地价格在这种情况下肯定会随着时间以超过经济和国民平均薪金成长的速度飙升!
这也就反映在组屋价格与国民中间收入增长日益扩大的差距。从1990至2009的统计看来,国民中间收入只增长了一倍而组屋转售价竟然升超过三倍!由于新组屋是以市场转售价给以折扣,所以新组屋也应该升了三倍或更多!如果是以1980年代为基准的话,那这差距肯定会更大!
Source: Data compiled by Lucky Tan, http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/
这扩大的差距也反映在按揭年限逐渐的延长上。我们父辈只须15年或更低的按揭,在1990年代买组屋的我这一代就需付上20年的按揭。到了这世纪初至今,我们的新一代就必须给30年的按揭奴役了!
如今这30年房屋贷款将使我们年轻国人无法有足够钱在老时养老!如果他们30岁结婚,要到60岁才能把房贷还清!他们还能有多少公积金储蓄来养老?如果按照马宝山部长的说法,组屋可是“投资”,我们能卖房子养老,那么我们不是要祈求房价能一直勇往直前,继续往上狂升吗?姑且不谈这种期望屋价不断上涨的妄想是否不切实际,但是试想想,要是真是如此,我们的子孙后代是不是要付上更长的按揭才能买到组屋吗?40年还是50年按揭?如果让行动党政府继续如此搞下去的话,我们的子孙后代便须付出沉重的代价!
吴明盛
Goh Meng Seng
建屋局违背社会契约 祸害子孙后代
在建国初期,百业待兴。行动党在成为执政党后,便积极使用土地征收法,强制以超低价格向各个大小地主征收土地以便供国家发展。为了补偿这一些新加坡人为国家发展所做出的牺牲,政府与人民达成了不明文规定的社会契约,那就是政府会为人民提供优质廉价,甚至是受津贴的公共住屋。
政府把永久地契的土地以超低价格征收回来,然后以99年地契的组屋出售给人民,这种社会主义的土地改革和建制对于我们世世代代新加坡人的住屋需求提供了保障。如果没有我们先辈对土地的牺牲,我们千千万万的同胞和我们的后代便没法有足够的住屋了。
政府也从这以超低价格征收土地中得益良多。到目前为止,政府已从征收廉价土地中累积超过80%的国土!我国几千亿的储备金中,有一大部份是买卖土地的收益!这也就是为什么政府有责任和义务为世世代代的国人提供廉价组屋。我们也不期望政府亏钱,但至少必须以成本价提供住屋给国人。就算要从组屋用地赚点利息回报,它也必须以合理的计算法计算土地价格给建屋局。
政府与建屋局在建国初20年里的确履行了它对这社会契约的义务和责任。我们的父辈的确以廉价的价格向建屋局买到了组屋。我们父辈能以少过15年的按揭买到他们心仪的房子。这基本上解决了国人的住屋需求。
但是一踏入1990年代,行动党却以“资产增值”为利诱,说服国人组屋升值是好事,积极发展组屋转售市场,更以“组屋翻新”为竞选伎俩。但是新组屋价格也悄然地猛涨两三倍以上!以往行动党所依赖的“组屋津贴”政治资本逐渐站不住脚了。在反对党议员屡次挑战这“组屋津贴”的神话后,行动党才婉转的以“市场津贴”搪塞。说穿了,这“市场津贴”也只是从市场给以“折扣”而已。行动党政府还是从买组屋中牟利。关键就在土地价格的制定上。
新加坡土地有限,政府又是最大的地主。政府基本上垄断了土地市场的供应。从经济常理看来,土地价格在这种情况下肯定会随着时间以超过经济和国民平均薪金成长的速度飙升!
这也就反映在组屋价格与国民中间收入增长日益扩大的差距。从1990至2009的统计看来,国民中间收入只增长了一倍而组屋转售价竟然升超过三倍!由于新组屋是以市场转售价给以折扣,所以新组屋也应该升了三倍或更多!如果是以1980年代为基准的话,那这差距肯定会更大!
Source: Data compiled by Lucky Tan, http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/
这扩大的差距也反映在按揭年限逐渐的延长上。我们父辈只须15年或更低的按揭,在1990年代买组屋的我这一代就需付上20年的按揭。到了这世纪初至今,我们的新一代就必须给30年的按揭奴役了!
如今这30年房屋贷款将使我们年轻国人无法有足够钱在老时养老!如果他们30岁结婚,要到60岁才能把房贷还清!他们还能有多少公积金储蓄来养老?如果按照马宝山部长的说法,组屋可是“投资”,我们能卖房子养老,那么我们不是要祈求房价能一直勇往直前,继续往上狂升吗?姑且不谈这种期望屋价不断上涨的妄想是否不切实际,但是试想想,要是真是如此,我们的子孙后代是不是要付上更长的按揭才能买到组屋吗?40年还是50年按揭?如果让行动党政府继续如此搞下去的话,我们的子孙后代便须付出沉重的代价!
吴明盛
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)