ROOT CAUSE OF HIGH COST OF PUBLIC HOUSING

Comments by netizens at speakspokewritewrote.wordpress.com on Robert Teh's post at theonlinecitizen.com on public housing issue:- QUOTE I do read comments. Robert Teh has been patiently trying to explain this, but on deaf ears it would seem. some people feel that it is a willing buyer, willing seller situation. But as Robert Teh so painstakingly point out, there is a moral to the story. In the end, the coffers are enriched from the people, who paid for it, but only a select few really gained much. Robert Teh24 June 2011 I think you missed the main point about public housing aka “Homeownership for the People” scheme. Under the HFP scheme, lands were acquired below market price with special power vested in the LAA for the stated purpose of providing people with low-cost public housing. HFP scheme is the true public housing. However, MBT has cleverly manipulated the HFP scheme to BTO and DBSS which is no longer public housing but private housing under guise of public housing. They are no longer the same. Under the BTO/DBSS, the whole scheme has become a land sale scheme with the government only caring to make a huge profits on the land sales amounting to some S$70K-S$100K per unit of BTO/DBSS upfront. The developers then mark up the selling price to market prices making huge profits under the name of public housing. It was after this manipulation of HFP scheme to BTO/DBSS that we hear government talking about lands becoming reserve so that they are entitled to make huge land sale profits without bothering with HFP any more. The plain fact lands acquired for public housing should remain for PUBLIC HOUSING under HFP scheme where citizens are charged at cost plus since the lands were not acquired with intent to make profits for the government coffer or reserve with such manipulations as BTO/DBSS. If the same lands were differently acquired for commerical development or for private property development as condos, no body will question your stated principles of selling such lands at market price under the principle of disposal of state’s land reserve. The trick used to turn the whole scheme to profiteering scheme is through creative accounting. Originally, lands so acquired were developed and sold at cost plus. Under MBT, acquired lands were transfered from HDB to State Land Office and re-transfered back to HDB so that HDB officially buy the land at market price with mark up of selling price to market price. HDB keep silent about the State Land making a huge profit in selling the lands acquired to the higher market price thereby giving an impression of a subsidy. The costs of land at the point of acquisition was about S$0.70 psf in the case of Clementi estate. Can you imagine how much profits the state land office make for each unit of flat sold under the guise of public housing. Such land sale profits amounted to some S$2 billions per annum based on a Straits Times report in the 1990s. Is it conscionable to charge public housing in this manner for 1-4 room flats as so-called public housing which is no longer PUBLIC HOUSING so that HDB can make huge profits yet claiming to have made a subsid UNQUOTE