Wrong answers from the wrong questions
Tuesday, March 9, 2010 at 1:54PM
The Straits Times, true to its form of operating as a government mouthpiece, publishes this gem of an opinion piece disguised as "Prime News":
MR I.B. YUSOF, a father of four young children, sold three Housing Board flats in nine years, netting $90,000 in profits. Flush with cash after the first two sales, Mr Yusof, 44, took out a hefty bank loan and upgraded to a four-room flat in 2005. At the time, the sole breadwinner, who has a hearing-impaired wife, earned only $800 per month. He hoped to get a better job to pay for the new flat. Unlike in some countries, where people are often too poor to rent - let alone buy - their first home, homelessness in Singapore is often the result of personal irresponsibility, stemming from avarice or divorce and dysfunction. The story of Mr Yusof is true, but the conclusion is a swing and a miss. Miss Basu, the author of the opinion piece, made the conclusion that homelessness is self-inflicted in most cases when he can neither prove nor disprove the claim, and also manages to define divorcee as a "personal irresponsibility". ST publishing this as "Prime News" is just further proof that journalism is not practised at the paper that most Singaporeans "trust". Aside from the willful redefinition of personal irresponsibility, it is also apparent to me that Miss Basu has failed to ask the right questions. HDB policies allowed Mr Yusof to sell his flats in order to realise a profit on his assets; this has been repeatedly heralded by the PAP government. If HDB confined itself to its original goal of providing functional and affordable public housing for citizens, this scenario might not have materialised. Instead, HDB flats are marketed as "assets that grow over time", not the neccessity that a roof over your head is. This strategy has been largely successful, and we are now reaping the whirlwind with increasing costs of new and resale flats. The HDB policies do not encourage home ownership, but instead promotes the use of a flat as an asset that can be used to increase personal wealth. Other policies such as denying access of rental flats to single parents, based upon the fear of "an explosion in divorce rates or illegitimate births", discloses the naivete in policy planning. Divorce is an unfortunate circumstance, but hardly an irresponsible move, and does not merit penalties. The undeserved social stigma is absurd enough without further punishment in national policies. And this goes without being questioned by Mr Basu but used as an unflinching justification of the policies. This article is almost a personification of why the public remain largely uninformed and uneducated on policy issues due to dogmatic defense of the PAP's policies, and further evidence, if we need any more, of why a free press would do more to elevate political discourse one controlled by governmental interests. (h/t: Gwee Li Sui)
Callan Tham
I have been informed that Radha Basu, the author of the ST article, is a woman; my post has been corrected to reflect that.
HDB, Radha Basu, Straits Times, What I DON'T Appreciate, public housing in Fail, Journalism, Policy, Politics, Singapore 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
I don't understand the "$90,000 in profits" What is there to profit if now you pay $200,000 more just to lease another HDB flat. I would say that flats are pretty much unaffordable now, and as a graduate, earning $3000 a month, (Family making $72k a year) a HDB flat is easily 5 times annual salary of a couple, or 10 times that of a Single breadwinner, don't forget there are other expenses in having a family. If housing is more than 7 times that of annual salary of other countries, there would be a riot!
I don't understand Mr Lee's policy that "owning" or rather leasing a Flat and "having the price appreciate" over the years is a good policy. It just means that now, prices of homes are so expensive that young people who do not have rich parents can never afford homes except for those in far away places where they have to pay ERP and lots of $$ for transportation to get to work. I personally don't care if my home appreciate as I still have to live in it not matter what price, and if it appreciates and I don't own many many homes, it just means that the other rich folks who are renting or buying more homes and selling them are at a much more advantageous position. Housing price appreciating only matters for PRs who want to buy a home, rent it out and selling it with a notion of never returning to Singapore again, to realize the profit.
On a side note, I realize that public transportation is getting a lot more expensive than before too. (As in more than last year)
Robin, your comment is right on the money. This policy only "benefits" short-term finances, and does not account for the higher premiums the next generation has to pay.