Property Views
-
sleepy:
I can't find the newspaper link but there's the story...
Can post the newspaper article link here? I don't recall reading ittoddles:
Yup, I am quite sure. Besides the terms that sleepy posted, there was also a recent case in the news papers of the Indian PR (?) who bought private and rented out his hdb after fulfilling MOP.
that's the whole point of having an MOP mah...
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/06/26/hdb-clears-ypap-leader-sinha-shekhar-of-any-wrongdoing/
more on HDB's reply on such incidences:
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?p=492885
HDB flats are primarily for home ownership purpose. However, lessees who have fulfilled their requisite occupation period (5 years for flats purchased directly from HDB or from the open market with a CPF Housing Grant; and 3 years for flats purchased from the open market without a CPF Housing Grant) may apply to sublet their whole flats subject to HDB's written approval and subletting terms and conditions.
Lessees who have illegally sublet their whole flat without HDB's written approval would have infringed our Housing & Development Act. Thorough investigations will be conducted and legal actions will be taken against them.
Yours sincerely,
NEO SAW KIAN (Ms)
EXECUTIVE ESTATES OFFICER
HOUGANG BRANCH OFFICE
HOUSING ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT -
toddles:
Thanks for the link. Noticed someone posted this http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10325p.nsf/w/PrivatePtyEligibility?OpenDocumentI can't find the newspaper link but there's the story...
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/06/26/hdb-clears-ypap-leader-sinha-shekhar-of-any-wrongdoing/
more on HDB's reply on such incidences:
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?p=492885
HDB flats are primarily for home ownership purpose. However, lessees who have fulfilled their requisite occupation period (5 years for flats purchased directly from HDB or from the open market with a CPF Housing Grant; and 3 years for flats purchased from the open market without a CPF Housing Grant) may apply to sublet their whole flats subject to HDB's written approval and subletting terms and conditions.
Lessees who have illegally sublet their whole flat without HDB's written approval would have infringed our Housing & Development Act. Thorough investigations will be conducted and legal actions will be taken against them.
Yours sincerely,
NEO SAW KIAN (Ms)
EXECUTIVE ESTATES OFFICER
HOUGANG BRANCH OFFICE
HOUSING ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
I cut & paste the relevant paragraph
The lessees and occupiers must continue to stay in their HDB flat after the purchase of the private residential property unless prior approval from HDB is obtained to sublet the whole flat.
Wow! So with this precedent case, HDB has no reason to reject HDB owners from renting out their flat and reside in private? -
sleepy:
if they reject you, just write to ST
Thanks for the link. Noticed someone posted this http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10325p.nsf/w/PrivatePtyEligibility?OpenDocument
I cut & paste the relevant paragraph
The lessees and occupiers must continue to stay in their HDB flat after the purchase of the private residential property unless prior approval from HDB is obtained to sublet the whole flat.
Wow! So with this precedent case, HDB has no reason to reject HDB owners from renting out their flat and reside in private?
Title of Letter : Discrimination against S'pore citizen, preference treatment given to PR. -
limlim:
So this was what I thought it was (i.e. must stay in the HDB apartment), and the policy in this case is congruent. Precedent shouldn't bind them. It is case by case and likely will be tightened up in this new environment.
if they reject you, just write to STsleepy:
Thanks for the link. Noticed someone posted this http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10325p.nsf/w/PrivatePtyEligibility?OpenDocument
I cut & paste the relevant paragraph
The lessees and occupiers must continue to stay in their HDB flat after the purchase of the private residential property unless prior approval from HDB is obtained to sublet the whole flat.
Title of Letter : Discrimination against S'pore citizen, preference treatment given to PR.
I really don't get this whole issue with PRs and foreigners. Why is there such a reaction, were we all not immigrant families at some point in the not so distant past? -
sleepy:
this case did not set a precedent.
Thanks for the link. Noticed someone posted this http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10325p.nsf/w/PrivatePtyEligibility?OpenDocumenttoddles:
I can't find the newspaper link but there's the story...
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/06/26/hdb-clears-ypap-leader-sinha-shekhar-of-any-wrongdoing/
more on HDB's reply on such incidences:
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?p=492885
HDB flats are primarily for home ownership purpose. However, lessees who have fulfilled their requisite occupation period (5 years for flats purchased directly from HDB or from the open market with a CPF Housing Grant; and 3 years for flats purchased from the open market without a CPF Housing Grant) may apply to sublet their whole flats subject to HDB's written approval and subletting terms and conditions.
Lessees who have illegally sublet their whole flat without HDB's written approval would have infringed our Housing & Development Act. Thorough investigations will be conducted and legal actions will be taken against them.
Yours sincerely,
NEO SAW KIAN (Ms)
EXECUTIVE ESTATES OFFICER
HOUGANG BRANCH OFFICE
HOUSING ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
I cut & paste the relevant paragraph
The lessees and occupiers must continue to stay in their HDB flat after the purchase of the private residential property unless prior approval from HDB is obtained to sublet the whole flat.
Wow! So with this precedent case, HDB has no reason to reject HDB owners from renting out their flat and reside in private?
basically this has always been allowed. Just obtain approval first, then carry on.
It does not contravene the statement in blue. -
3Boys:
So this was what I thought it was (i.e. must stay in the HDB apartment), and the policy in this case is congruent. Precedent shouldn't bind them. It is case by case and likely will be tightened up in this new environment.
if they reject you, just write to STlimlim:
[quote=\"sleepy\"]
Thanks for the link. Noticed someone posted this http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10325p.nsf/w/PrivatePtyEligibility?OpenDocument
I cut & paste the relevant paragraph
The lessees and occupiers must continue to stay in their HDB flat after the purchase of the private residential property unless prior approval from HDB is obtained to sublet the whole flat.
Title of Letter : Discrimination against S'pore citizen, preference treatment given to PR.
I really don't get this whole issue with PRs and foreigners. Why is there such a reaction, were we all not immigrant families at some point in the not so distant past?[/quote]The chap wasn't a PR, as I found out after reading the details in the links. He's obtained Singaporean citizenship since 1994 (when he was 25) but never served NS (which makes him immediately hateable by our men) and also a young PAP member (double whammy). I suppose he was 'foreign talent' since he is working as a speech therapist. -
FYI
http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2010/09/08/are-foreigners-driving-up-property-prices/
By Mr. Propwise (courtesy of PropertyGuru)
With the growth of Permanent Residents and non-residents far exceeding that of citizens over the last five years, there’s been a growing sentiment among Singaporeans that foreigners are crowding out the market and pushing up property prices.
From 2004 to 2009, the number of PRs and non-residents grew at a compounded annual growth rate of 8.4 percent and 10.7 percent respectively, versus 0.9 percent for citizens (and 3.7 percent for the total population).
Over this period, a total of 677,000 foreigners (PRs plus non-residents) were added to the population versus 172,000 citizens.
In other words, foreigners accounted for about 80 percent of the growth in Singapore’s population over the last five years. By the end of June 2010, Singapore’s total population hit 5.08 million with foreigners accounting for 36 percent — that’s one foreigner for every two Singaporeans.
A growing population certainly adds to housing demand, and in this case, the growth has mostly been from the increasing number of foreigners.
This increased housing demand comes in the form of renters and buyers. More buyers would push up property prices directly, while more renters would do so indirectly as higher rents would improve rental yields and entice investors to enter the market.
Another way to look at this issue is by the rising proportion of foreigners buying private homes here. Foreigners (including PRs) accounted for 15.5 percent of total private home purchases in the first quarter of 2009, and that has risen to 23.7 percent in the second quarter of 2010 – so foreigners are playing a larger role in the private property market.
But foreigners are not the only factor supporting property prices.
The current environment of low interest (and mortgage) rates makes it easier for buyers to leverage up and pay higher prices. For example, a household earning S$8,000 per month can afford to borrow $811,312 when mortgage rates are at 1.5 percent, versus $586,491 when they are at 4 percent (assuming a 30 year loan and 35 percent of income spent servicing the mortgage).
Also, incomes are rising and Singapore residents are becoming wealthier.
The Inland Revenue Authority Of Singapore (IRAS), recently reported that the amount of personal income taxes received from individual tax payers rose from S$5.4 billion to S$6.1 billion in fiscal year 2009/2010, a 13 percent increase. With GDP growth expected to be 15 percent in 2010, income and wealth are likely to increase as well.
So it’s not just the growing population (mainly from foreigners), but also cheap money (interest rates are the price of money) and rising incomes which are supporting property prices. An additional factor could be the growing interest from foreign investors who are attracted by Singapore’s cosmopolitan buzz and strong currency.
These factors have contributed to a buoyant property market – prices rose 11 percent in the first half of 2010, and price levels have exceeded the historical peak reached in the second quarter of 1996.
In response, the government announced new measures on August 30, aiming to reduce the amount of speculative and investment demand in the housing market. In particular, the measures emphasise the role of HDB flats as a vehicle to fulfill resident end user demand and not investor demand.
Also, the planned increase in supply of HDB flats (22,000 Built to Order, 8,000 Executive Condominium and 7,000 Design, Build and Sell Scheme flats) are meant to moderate the rapid price increases experienced in the past few years.
Going forward, despite tighter controls of population growth and foreign worker inflow, Singapore’s overall population is still expected to hit 6 million by 2020.
For 2010, due to the booming economy, around 80,000 new foreign workers will be needed. This growing population (mainly from “importing” foreigners) and rising incomes will continue to support end user demand in the long term.
Mr. Propwise is the founder of Singapore property blog http://www.propwise.sg -
I feel that there’s something wrong with the HDB policy…
Maybe they should just set a rule that HDB owners must stay in the HDB flat. Better still, HDB owners should not own private property. If they acquire private property, they should dispose of the HDB flat say, within 1~2 years.
If it’s primary role is to provide housing for residents, why allow people to own it but not stay in it? if they can afford not to stay in it, that means they don’t need it.
In this case, they should sell it in the open market instead of hogging on to it. That would increase supply and help to make housing more affordable for those who really "needs" a home they can call their own, isn’t it? -
Agree. I feel HDB flats should really be restricted only to those who need it to live in it. Especially for those couples planning to get married and have their own family and those single adults wanting to move out to stay on their own. Should be kept affordable and prevent it from being so-much driven by market-forces until they are out of reach of most common-folks.
limlim:
I feel that there's something wrong with the HDB policy..
Maybe they should just set a rule that HDB owners must stay in the HDB flat. Better still, HDB owners should not own private property. If they acquire private property, they should dispose of the HDB flat say, within 1~2 years.
If it's primary role is to provide housing for residents, why allow people to own it but not stay in it? if they can afford not to stay in it, that means they don't need it.
In this case, they should sell it in the open market instead of hogging on to it. That would increase supply and help to make housing more affordable for those who really \"needs\" a home they can call their own, isn't it? -
DesertWind:
yaAgree. I feel HDB flats should really be restricted only to those who need it to live in it. Especially for those couples planning to get married and have their own family and those single adults wanting to move out to stay on their own. Should be kept affordable and prevent it from being so-much driven by market-forces until they are out of reach of most common-folks.
limlim:
I feel that there's something wrong with the HDB policy..
Maybe they should just set a rule that HDB owners must stay in the HDB flat. Better still, HDB owners should not own private property. If they acquire private property, they should dispose of the HDB flat say, within 1~2 years.
If it's primary role is to provide housing for residents, why allow people to own it but not stay in it? if they can afford not to stay in it, that means they don't need it.
In this case, they should sell it in the open market instead of hogging on to it. That would increase supply and help to make housing more affordable for those who really \"needs\" a home they can call their own, isn't it?
if they allow existing HDB owner to buy private proprty, they should also alow existing private property owner to buy HDB to live in it and rent out the private one
if they require private property owner to sell the private one after buying HDB, they should also require the same of the existing HDB owner to sell HDB once they buy the private property
please be fair to both side, either way
why victimise and target the private property owner ?
if you want to prevent dual-property ownership, why one a one-sided rule for 5 years ? please treat all your citizens EQUALLY !
the pledge says \"...based on justice and equality .....\" else where is progress, happiness ?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login