Tag Archives: Mah Bow Tan

How Minister Mah will manage the affordability of BTO flats

If the income ceiling for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats is raised, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan will be watching closely one set of figures: The average incomes of applicants for each flat type.

Based on those numbers, he will price the flats within a range they can afford. And in the long term, it will be a price range equivalent to a monthly mortgage within one-third of household income.

That is how he will manage affordability for the future, Mr Mah told Today in a one-to-one interview, two days after the surprise announcement that the income ceiling for BTO flats may be raised to S$10,000, from S$8,000.

News of the six-month review has come both as a relief to some middle-income Singaporeans and a concern to others.

Apart from the worry that BTO prices may creep up further, the question is whether the queues will get longer.

Speaking at a PAP Community Foundation kindergarten in Tampines, Mr Mah made his second promise: He will bump up supply to meet any increased demand if the income ceiling is raised.

One way to gauge demand is to look at the application numbers of current BTO launches, although it may not be a “perfect indicator”, as there are various queues for different flat types in different areas, he said.

The income ceiling review comes after a lot of feedback from the sandwiched class, Mr Mah said, and also on the back of strong economic growth and the National Wages Council’s call for higher wages.

And as he shared more on what homebuyers can expect, he also gave his take on the big housing debate at these elections. To the minister, much of the current debate is on whether a 30-year loan is too long.

“But if you want to take a 20-year loan, you can do so … whatever loan you take, the rule of thumb is don’t spend more than one-third of your salary on housing. And that, in the final analysis, is what people consider to be affordable,” he said.

The Housing and Development Board now prices new flats such that buyers spend less than 25 per cent of their household income for monthly mortgages on the 30-year loan.

In the last two years, though, property prices have risen sharply. And this is what Mr Mah wants to stress: Singaporeans should not take the “very abnormal situation” now as a gauge of price increases in the future.

Noting that property prices fluctuate in cycles, he said: “It’s very important for people to realise that things don’t just keep going in a straight line. And to base our assumptions and to base our approach on this basis, I think, would be a bit dangerous.”

The anxiety about affordability and availability of flats was not there four years ago, he said, and what the Government is trying to do is to stabilise the market.

Opposition parties have taken on Mr Mah over the housing issue and with the latest BTO review, National Solidarity Party secretary-general Goh Meng Seng has said the income ceiling should be lifted entirely “to provide a mechanism to re-adjust the private property prices when it’s too hot”.

Asked for his comments, Mr Mah said he “doesn’t see” how that will work and that, without a ceiling, even the high-income group will get a share of housing subsidies.

Still, Mr Mah had this to say about his NSP opponents in Tampines Group Representation Constituency: “We treat them as respectable people because they’ve come forward to offer themselves as alternatives. It’s much better than hiding behind anonymity and criticising.”

Asked if he felt that the criticisms against him over housing issues were fair, he said without hesitation: “Of course.”

“Anybody who doesn’t get a house the first or second time, they’ll be unhappy,” he said. “Anybody who … looks at the house price his friend bought three years ago, he’ll be unhappy.

“(But) can we sell a house in today’s market at a price three years ago? Will that be fair? I think that’s the issue.”

Source : Today – 5 May 2011

Bad idea to lower cost of land

Dear Mr Mah,

I refer to the 17 Apr 2011 Straits Times report of your comments on the Workers’ Party manifesto.

You said lowering cost of land is taking money from Singapore’s reserves. But in the first place, who paid for the high cost of land that fed government coffers? It is the people. The people ended up bearing the high cost of land. So the government has been taking lots of money from the people by charging a very high price for land. Since the people have been charged a very high price to begin with, lowering the cost of land is merely returning money that the government has overcharged to the people.

The cost lowering can be gradual so that its impact on resale flat price can be slow and gradual. Notice that the Workers’ Party did not advocate a sudden return of price back to normal. Contrast this with the PAP track record of allowing property prices to shoot up like a rocket in a matter of just two, three years. Shoot up like crazy can, go down slowly cannot. The reason is clear. You want the price to keep going up because that will allow the government to squeeze more money from the people to feed government coffers which end up being wasted by our state investment agencies anyway.

You said it would cost the government billions to lower the prices from current levels. Doesn’t that in turn tell us that the government has been making billions from the people by hiking prices to their current levels? You seem to be telling the people that government taking billions from the people is okay but government returning billions back to the people is not okay.

You said lowering prices means home owners’ assets cannot grow over time. Are you telling the people that asset values can miraculously grow over time without having anyone to pay for it? You are telling people that money can drop from the sky out of nowhere. Money cannot drop from out of nowhere. Growing asset values means growing asset prices that will be borne by our children and our children’s children. You are robbing our future generations to pay for the present and past generations. You are irresponsible.

You said money from land sales goes into our reserves and is therefore not money from left pocket to right pocket. But PM Lee has just dipped generously into the reserves during the recent crisis. So the reserve is another pocket that the government can slip its hands into. No doubt the government has to ask the President permission. But has the President ever said no?

You claim that the Workers’ Party’s plan of abolishing the elected presidency is a grand plan to ‘raid’ the reserves. But PM Lee has already ‘raided’ the reserves during the recent crisis. With such an accommodating president, why is there a need to abolish the elected presidency just to raid the reserves?

You want the opposition to make clear how they are going to get the money to reduce home prices. But you never seemed to see the need to make clear how the government is getting all that money from the people by jacking up home prices.

Thank you

Ng Kok Lim

Source : TheTemesakReview – 30 Apr 2011