KHAW CONFIRMS VALUE OF HDB FLATS WILL BE ZERO AT END OF 99-YEAR LEASE

[soros]

Correction : Singaporeans are born lucky to enjoy more housing space .

[HitandRun]

SG : 258
HK: 75
Seoul: 140
Tokyo: 161
And of course, we have 90+% home ownership. Singaporeans vastly over consume housing.

Surely, we would and should not aspire to be like Tokyo, HK or Seoul. 

IMHO, folks in HK are virtually living in indentured servitude, held hostage by the tycoons, who also controls/greatly influence the elections committee.

Correction : Singaporeans are born lucky  to enjoy more housing space .

For that, I believe that we have to thank LKY and team for nationalising the bulk of the land post independence (unless one happens to be a landlord whose land was acquired cheaply).

[brattzz]

Correction : Singaporeans are born lucky  to enjoy more housing space .

not born lucky, Singapore needs singaporeans to STAY in singapore to defend it!

[specuvestor]

The average living space per person in Hong Kong is 47.8 square feet with (https://www.hongkongfp.com/2015/07/27/th...ing-space/), and with an average of 40% of a household's income going to rental. A young person in Hong Kong expects to work for 25 years before they can buy their first home (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/15/dream-of...eople.html).

The average living area per person in Singapore by contrast (where home ownership - if you don't quibble about semantics - is 90%) is 140+ square feet (forgot where I saw that).

Correction, I've just come across an academic report published in 2009. Per capita floor living space as follows:
SG : 258
HK: 75
Seoul: 140
Tokyo: 161
And of course, we have 90+% home ownership. Singaporeans vastly over consume housing.

I'm actually surprised Seoul is less than Tokyo

But let's not fall into the Marlboro Tan's fallacy during the down times that Singaporeans prefer 3&4 room flats, even to extent of downgrading.

[tanjm]

But let's not fall into the Marlboro Tan's fallacy during the down times that Singaporeans prefer 3&4 room flats, even to extent of downgrading.

I'm relatively apolitical, and I feel uncomfortable if you reply to me and "pollute" the thread I'm in, with a derogatory term (I presume "Malboro" refers to Mah Bow Tan). Also, if you are going to say someone said something, I'd prefer you to post a link to the original source so that I can see both context and actual words used.

Back to the topic at hand.

People's baseline is set by what they are used to now. So a person who goes from a 40 sqft living space to a 100 sqft one, would be very happy I presume. While one that goes from a 500 to a 300 sqft would be less so. My point was not to say "Singaporeans should be happy with what they have". My point was to say "Singaporeans are over consuming housing at the expense of retirement savings". I said this very clearly in my post, so I'm not happy its been twisted for some other purpose.

[HitandRun]

People's baseline is set by what they are used to now. So a person who goes from a 40 sqft living space to a 100 sqft one, would be very happy I presume. While one that goes from a 500 to a 300 sqft would be less so. My point was not to say "Singaporeans should be happy with what they have". My point was to say "Singaporeans are over consuming housing at the expense of retirement savings". I said this very clearly in my post, so I'm not happy its been twisted for some other purpose.

While I agree with your argument that relative improvement affects one's happiness, I cannot really agree readily with the over consumption part.

On one hand, I agree that from an investment point of view, it would appear that for the typical Singaporean, his property(s) would probably consist of > 50% of his net worth.

On the other hand, I have not really seen any real data (other than those surveys conducted by wealth management / insurance groups which are geared towards their underlying sales spiel), but the anecdotal evidence that I can see from my friends and relatives do not suggest that they are over consuming property at the expense of retirement. Typically, folks who have run out of money are those who over consume everything, including cars, travel, gambling, etc.

[tanjm]

People's baseline is set by what they are used to now. So a person who goes from a 40 sqft living space to a 100 sqft one, would be very happy I presume. While one that goes from a 500 to a 300 sqft would be less so. My point was not to say "Singaporeans should be happy with what they have". My point was to say "Singaporeans are over consuming housing at the expense of retirement savings". I said this very clearly in my post, so I'm not happy its been twisted for some other purpose.

While I agree with your argument that relative improvement affects one's happiness, I cannot really agree readily with the over consumption part.

On one hand, I agree that from an investment point of view, it would appear that for the typical Singaporean, his property(s) would probably consist of > 50% of his net worth.

On the other hand, I have not really seen any real data (other than those surveys conducted by wealth management / insurance groups which are geared towards their underlying sales spiel), but the anecdotal evidence that I can see from my friends and relatives do not suggest that they are over consuming property at the expense of retirement. Typically, folks who have run out of money are those who over consume everything, including cars, travel, gambling, etc.

Actually, most studies is better than anecdotal evidence, as long as you are able to correct for bias.


In "Social Policy in an Aging Society" By David Reisman, Housing Assets as a percentage of total assets for the total population is : SG 51%, US 28%, Japan 40%. For the age group of 50+, the ratios are 75% for SG and 20% for the US. That, by itself, doesn't mean Singaporeans over consume. After all, a person with 3 million in the bank account and with a fully paid 2 million dollar house is not "over consuming".

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-...t-adequacy. This was conducted by the Centre of Research on the Economics of Aging based on following 8000 people over 16 months. Some key findings
- 18% of people received a health shock and went through a spike in healthcare spending.
- a large fraction of household wealth is held in property, but especially so for those in 4 room HDB flats or smaller

https://www.cpf.gov.sg/Assets/Members/Do...chemes.pdf Between 1967 and 2007, an average of about 60% of total net CPF withdrawls were for housing annually. [my words: money that isn't accumulating for retirement]

https://www.cpf.gov.sg/Assets/Members/Do...lances.pdf (2011)

• Net balances of CPF members between the ages of 45-54 was about about 8k at the 25th percentile.
  
• At the 50th percentile, the net balance for the age group is about 35k
  
• At the 75th percentile, it is about 95k.'
  
  Note: when I say Singaporeans are over consuming, do not make the mistake of assuming your friends and relatives are typical.
  

[specuvestor]

But let's not fall into the Marlboro Tan's fallacy during the down times that Singaporeans prefer 3&4 room flats, even to extent of downgrading.

I'm relatively apolitical, and I feel uncomfortable if you reply to me and "pollute" the thread I'm in, with a derogatory term (I presume "Malboro" refers to Mah Bow Tan). Also, if you are going to say someone said something, I'd prefer you to post a link to the original source so that I can see both context and actual words used.

Back to the topic at hand.

People's baseline is set by what they are used to now. So a person who goes from a 40 sqft living space to a 100 sqft one, would be very happy I presume. While one that goes from a 500 to a 300 sqft would be less so. My point was not to say "Singaporeans should be happy with what they have". My point was to say "Singaporeans are over consuming housing at the expense of retirement savings". I said this very clearly in my post, so I'm not happy its been twisted for some other purpose.

For someone who is apolitical you sounded quite uptight. I have better things to do than twist words in this forum

Here's some links that you can refer to, but it will be laborious to find those exact words that he mentioned in his walkabout (not to mentioned I paraphrased from my memory) but the policy trend is clear. I wouldn't even want to bother comparing his policies vs Khaw Boon Wan's

http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/spe...303979.htm
https://singapore2025.wordpress.com/2011...singapore/
http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-proper...pt/a/64332

[cif5000]

I thought this is a good summary.
https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/upl...gapore.pdf

Agree with tanjm that the use of CPF was a key policy - first by allowing it for HDB and then for private housing.

However, "over consuming housing at the expense of retirement savings" isn't the real issue here since public housing can be monetised for retirement. The real issue here is the uncertainty of the monetisation dateline if the value will be zero at Year 99. Like in a bubble, when should one leave the party?

[corydorus]

I guess demonetization for retirement is not the point since most will be dead after 99 years. The buyer is at fault if they buy an overly expensive 50 year old flat just like any bad investment. Is good that lease is clarified that most will be returned. This will put some sense into people who overly paid or enter into such deals for investment.