More regulations for showrooms in amended Housing Developers Act

[CityFarmer]

It is a necessary move to avoid illusion, which we all experience during show room visit, and the discounts advertised.

More regulations for showrooms in amended Housing Developers Act

SINGAPORE — Showrooms for future private residential properties will no longer be able to use glass panels in place of a solid brick wall to make the unit seem bigger than the actual product. Instead, developers will be required to have structural and external walls which are of the same thickness in actual units, with labelled furnishings, interior fittings and finishes that are made known to buyers, while the authorities will have the right to enter and close showrooms which breach these rules.

These are some examples of the new Housing Developers Rules which the Government will be empowered to make, after Parliament approved changes to the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act yesterday.

Under the amendments, developers will be required to make public their audited financial positions, while their advertising and promotional activities of developments will also be regulated. The maximum fine if developers fail to comply has been raised five times to S$100,000.

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/mor...lopers-act

[cfa]

Otherwise ,as good as cheating .

[opmi]

Ya. No more colored tape on the floor showing where the walls
supposed to be.

[mulyc]

No more optical illusions?

[godjira1]

If people want to buy something that is prob 10x annual income based on being fooled by showrooms (assuming they are) should we really try to save them from themselves by legislation?

[CityFarmer]

If people want to buy something that is prob 10x annual income based on being fooled by showrooms (assuming they are) should we really try to save them from themselves by legislation?

A fair way should be freedom on investors' decision, but ban on misleading from sellers (developers).

[smallcaps]

If people want to buy something that is prob 10x annual income based on being fooled by showrooms (assuming they are) should we really try to save them from themselves by legislation?

A fair way should be freedom on investors' decision, but ban on misleading from sellers (developers).

Yes, I believe we should at least try. It might be pretty devastating for it to happen to a family... especially the children...

[godjira1]

I know it is terrible when s$&t hits the fan. But the point I am trying to make is that if people want to commit to a massive financial commitment without thinking thru it or being fooled by simple presentations, it is not useful to legislate to protect these people. They WILL find a way to ignore good sense in general.

[brattzz]

took a long while to come out with this!! haha!

now, if they can do the same for "gold trade", "sunshine empire", time shares.. etc...

[specuvestor]

I know it is terrible when s$&t hits the fan. But the point I am trying to make is that if people want to commit to a massive financial commitment without thinking thru it or being fooled by simple presentations, it is not useful to legislate to protect these people. They WILL find a way to ignore good sense in general.

There is that much that regulations can do to help these people. But it is better than nothing or arguing smart consistent regulations are not necessary, as some other capitalists like to trumpet on CNBC.

I was particularly shocked when one of the CNBC presenter said she can't think of anything that regulations were helpful. Good grief. Even the broadcast system is standardised because of regulation, for the benefits of consumers. That's how extreme ideology can become, even for something sensible like capitalism.