View Full Version : Did Mah consult developers?
Saturday December 31, 2011
Developers – the real landlords
Insight Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Developers – the real landlords
As a group, exclusive and rich, property developers have always wielded strong influence in small cities with rich land banks in a scale that probably rivals the government – until now.
TRADITIONALLY, property developers in cities like Singapore and Hong Kong have enjoyed economic power far beyond their numbers.
We were politely reminded of this when Singapore’s developers told the government they were disappointed at not being consulted before it announced recent measures to cool the market.
This was tantamount to a right to be informed in advance of any policy or price affecting their interests.
The developers’ reaction stirred public ire, with people considering it an audacity its demand to be consulted over changes.
Yet there is a tradition behind the demand.
As a group, exclusive and rich, developers have always wielded strong influence in small cities with rich land banks in a scale that probably only rivals the government.
After all it controls the city’s most precious asset.
My first lesson of this fact of life came in the 1970s when I arrived to take up the post as news editor of The Hong Kong Standard. A colleague asked who I thought were the colony’s most powerful people.
“The chief editor of New China News Agency” I ventured, regurgitating what I had often read.
“No, my friend, not even the Chinese mainlanders, and not the colonials,” he exclaimed, “It is the Hong Kong real estate developers.”
Land auctions often decided how well - or poorly – the Hong Kong people were to live.
Property prices would affect billions in budgets and living standards, in other words, people’s lives.
When I returned to Singapore, I found a little of the same, the difference being we were an independent country and not led by a passive colonial Governor. In short, developers here were powerful!
Once land values were decided auctions, the developers controlled the ultimate prices and timing of the sales.
To a large extent, it meant controlling of supply and demand.
If the developers thought the asking prices were too high, they would abstain from bidding, making them a sort of a little “pressure group”.
When I returned here I discovered a bit of the same.
Developers collectively could – if they chose to - influence the way the media reported the property market because they were big advertisers.
The bigger the spenders, the greater the influence! They could ensure newspaper reports did not report too negatively on the market and scare away buyers.
Some were not reticent exercising it by making it clear to advertising managers that their money could best be used in a media that keep encouraging property buyers, or at least not to predict weak markets too strongly.
Others stayed away from the game.
Many years ago when I was chief editor of a newspaper here I had one such run-in with several Singapore developers, who were among my paper’s frequent advertisers.
It was at a time when dark economic clouds were gathering and our Business Desk was reporting that property markets were heading for a fall. The bad vibes were strong, and they were reflected in our coverage.
During lunch, one developer referred to how much his company had spent on advertising in our paper.
He added that he “sometimes considered it a waste of money to advertise in a newspaper which frequently talked down the market”.
If this continued, they might as well stop or cut down advertising in the paper, he said.
I was very concerned. I replied that as a newspaper editor, I feared two things most; the government withdrawing the newspaper licence and secondly, businessmen threatening to withhold advertising unless we cooperated with them.
“In either case, our survival will be threatened, and we will bring the fight to Page One and let readers judge!”
We finally struck a deal: No advertising boycotts. In return I would run an interview on record with a property tycoon who predicted his views that the market would rise in the following year.
I am relating this to record appreciation of the National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan’s stand not to bend to the developers’ will “by consulting” them about market “cooling-off” action or price movements.
That would have been tantamount to tipping them off in advance of price-sensitive measures, an act no government can do.
Analysts expect the recent measures to cool buying and bring down the home prices by between 15 to 30% over the next two years.
“There will be a sell-off in the next three-to-five months,” said a property agent.
By imposing stiff measures against foreigners’ speculative buying, including a 10% duty, Khaw has gained public acclaim.
“Khaw has my full support. His policy is good for the younger generation,” a Singaporean commented.
“If the young people feel that even with hard work they still cannot achieve their goal, Singapore is done for. That dream is to own a private property.”
Khaw has also succeeded in shortening the queue of new Singaporean graduates applying to own their first public flat.
Since becoming minister after the May election, Singapore’s once world-acclaimed public housing is slowly working to dispel public discontent over shortage and high prices.
Many more years are needed to clean up the mess. But for now, wrote Khaw - one of the more popular ministers: “We’re starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel”.
And instead of the usual brickbats, praises are starting to come in for fending off foreign speculators.
“I’m seeing the quality of Minister Khaw,” one surfer wrote.
Another said: “Thank you for the cooling measures. This shows Singapore is clean and NOT controlled by the (property) billionaires club.”
If he did, he should be investigated thoroughly for any corruption, conflict of interest, etc. at the expense of Singaporeans. ****ing bastard.
If he did, he should be investigated thoroughly for any corruption, conflict of interest, etc. at the expense of Singaporeans. ****ing bastard.
He already bye bye shake leg liao, every month just collect pension from taxpayers for life!
Can investigate meh?
Allthepies
01-01-12, 20:21
If he did, he should be investigated thoroughly for any corruption, conflict of interest, etc. at the expense of Singaporeans. ****ing bastard.
Under his rule, all hdb owners laughing to the banks, where got at the expense of Singaporeans? :p
Under the new rulership, only a minority of Singaporeans benefit leh :scared-4:
Under his rule, all hdb owners laughing to the banks, where got at the expense of Singaporeans? :p
Under the new rulership, only a minority of Singaporeans benefit leh :scared-4:
Ya. The loud mouthed, pampered, demanding and internet savvy ME generation...
The remaining 10% who don't owned any properties yet or wanting to buy more, shouting and screaming for property prices to crash >50% so that they can buy cheap cheap? Seems like policy has been enacted to help them achieve their aim! :scared-2:
Under his rule, all hdb owners laughing to the banks, where got at the expense of Singaporeans? :p
Under the new rulership, only a minority of Singaporeans benefit leh :scared-4:
blackjack21trader
01-01-12, 23:35
The remaining 10% who don't owned any properties yet or wanting to buy more, shouting and screaming for property prices to crash >50% so that they can buy cheap cheap? Seems like policy has been enacted to help them achieve their aim! :scared-2:
maybe good time for those who do not own property or buy for own stay. But I do not think anyone with more than 1 property now wants to buy anymore. It will be irrational if you buy more and more hoping to make the same kind of profits during the last 10 years.
simple calculation... just add all the duties selling and buying up and see for yourself...any profits go straight into Lion City's treasure chest.
My humble suggestion is : take your own sweet time la IF you still insist on buying lor..CM5 is like a major road block on the expressway.
Any developer who wants to absorb any taxes or duties is going to sabo themselves later on... dun say I never warn first hor.
Good Luck.
maybe good time for those who do not own property or buy for own stay. But I do not think anyone with more than 1 property now wants to buy anymore. It will be irrational if you buy more and more hoping to make the same kind of profits during the last 10 years.
simple calculation... just add all the duties selling and buying up and see for yourself...any profits go straight into Lion City's treasure chest.
My humble suggestion is : take your own sweet time la IF you still insist on buying lor..CM5 is like a major road block on the expressway.
Any developer who wants to absorb any taxes or duties is going to sabo themselves later on... dun say I never warn first hor.
Good Luck.
True. But I feel CM5 is more like a tight slap to developers to wake up their idea. With lower bids and fairer prices, the govt just want to ensure that supplies get absorbed eventually by 2015 for a stable market. It is also a clever tactic to get Singaporean first time owners to lose confidence in private and switch to public housing, in the end bto, dbss and ecs will be fully sold by 2016 so elections they will not be accused of creating excess supply.
phantom_opera
02-01-12, 09:54
Post cm5 soho will still be hot, the more u dun want ppl to buy, they buy even more, now my expectation about cm5 bring down OCR price is reversed, hdb resale 900k will lead OCR condo to another new high, land bid will moderate but price won't come down, next time max 1+s @ 1500psf is the norm
Post cm5 soho will still be hot, the more u dun want ppl to buy, they buy even more, now my expectation about cm5 bring down OCR price is reversed, hdb resale 900k will lead OCR condo to another new high, land bid will moderate but price won't come down, next time max 1+s @ 1500psf is the norm
Bro, bulls like you make me feel happy lor....I will only hear the good stuff....haha!
blackjack21trader
02-01-12, 10:50
i frankly do not want a price rocket. stabilise at this level,rise a bit or DROP more is ok. Another price rocketing is going to bring many problems to the developers, not anyone else..my morning bird says so hor....dun quote me.:doh:
CM5 seems like to discourage buying private so that most buyers will go to buy BTO & DBSS & ECs to soak up all their supply so that they huat ah! otherwise, you can expect another round of gluts in HDB flats in future. People just have forgotten that HDB prices go no where or even down slowly from 1998-2006 (9 long years!). :rolleyes:
However, i don't follow what they want me to do. Previously, they encourage people to study IT, then few years later IT burnt & many out of jobs & can't find jobs for long time. Then they supply loads of HDB & encourage people to buy & resulted in HDB price effect from 1998-2006. You wanna follow what they want you to do? Think long & hard first! :banghead:
True. But I feel CM5 is more like a tight slap to developers to wake up their idea. With lower bids and fairer prices, the govt just want to ensure that supplies get absorbed eventually by 2015 for a stable market. It is also a clever tactic to get Singaporean first time owners to lose confidence in private and switch to public housing, in the end bto, dbss and ecs will be fully sold by 2016 so elections they will not be accused of creating excess supply.
The moral of the story: never ever depend on the government; it is essential to have one's own observations and analysis of trends and environmental changes, and act on them instead of following the herd.
CM5 seems like to discourage buying private so that most buyers will go to buy BTO & DBSS & ECs to soak up all their supply so that they huat ah! otherwise, you can expect another round of gluts in HDB flats in future. People just have forgotten that HDB prices go no where or even down slowly from 1998-2006 (9 long years!). :rolleyes:
However, i don't follow what they want me to do. Previously, they encourage people to study IT, then few years later IT burnt & many out of jobs & can't find jobs for long time. Then they supply loads of HDB & encourage people to buy & resulted in HDB price effect from 1998-2006. You wanna follow what they want you to do? Think long & hard first! :banghead:
devilplate
02-01-12, 12:20
i frankly do not want a price rocket. stabilise at this level,rise a bit or DROP more is ok. Another price rocketing is going to bring many problems to the developers, not anyone else..my morning bird says so hor....dun quote me.:doh:
u say so bcoz u r developer?
devilplate
02-01-12, 12:21
The moral of the story: never ever depend on the government; it is essential to have one's own observations and analysis of trends and environmental changes, and act on them instead of following the herd.
after cm4 and 5, u still buying?
Price crash 50% in 1998
Price crash 30% in 2008
So even property market crash in 2012, how much will it be?
should be less then 20%.
GE2016...Government got 4yrs time to ensure everyone get a house,and made as many people happy as possible.
But it will never take the Risk crash the property market, as it will make 80% of people very upset. Which country government in the world will do that? China? not really too, it punish the developer and specactor , but it gain support from it people on the policy. :cheers4:
so any Singaporean complain CM1-CM5?
Those who complain, you know why, as their profit are affected now:cool:
Some of the political risks in Singapore that we had talked before are beginning to materialise. I have rebalanced my portfolio over the last couple of months, reducing exposure in commercial properties (3 down to 1) and residential (5 down to 2, still holding one landed as hedge).
Freed up 80% cash for re-deployment, doing research for select U.S. and Malaysia properties now. Any insights to share in these two countries?
after cm4 and 5, u still buying?
GE2016...Government got 4yrs time to ensure everyone get a house,and made as many people happy as possible.
But it will never take the Risk crash the property market, as it will make 80% of people very upset. Which country government in the world will do that? China? not really too, it punish the developer and specactor , but it gain support from it people on the policy. :cheers4:
so any Singaporean complain CM1-CM5?
Those who complain, you know why, as their profit are affected now:cool:
I think it maybe too simplistic to suggest that 80% of the people will be upset if property price crashes. This is just an assumption that about 80% of the households are owner occupiers and with probably quite a number of people having second properties for investments. We are assuming that any crash in prices will upset these people. However, looking at the issue harder, those with one property will not be affected by price crashing as long as they are not holding negative assets and having trouble with their banks. These people may be looking forward to buy their second property if price falls. The only people likely to be upset are those holding second or more properties and wanting to sell. They either miss the boat to sell earlier or holding on hoping for price to rise quickly again.
With property prices at its 20-year peak now, I believe majority of the people be it one-property owners or investors should welcome a crash in property prices.
That is just wishful thinking. Pty prices will crash when euro tanks and recession comes. When that happens the marginal upgraders or 2nd pty investor want-to-bes will worry about the jobs, instead of pty buying. Without a crisis, existing owners have no reason to sell at loss. Remember this group are better off in the 1st place, as they had the capacity to take one more pties with even 70 or 60 % LTV. Ppl dun want to openly say so, but fact is, these group are the better off ones both in terms of career or investment.
So for the existing group who aspire to upgrade, nothing changes really. Except that the gov is now taking on the role as developers for pte pty and is doing massive amount of ECs. This group can "upgrade" to EC. Although I'm sure after a few yrs ppl will realize EC becomes just another class below PC. So prime will remain as prime. Mass market better PCs will remain as "real" condos. And EC, are still semi public. Nothing changes. The "classes" of the society remain the same.
What gov achieved with this CM is the perceived justice-done message. The majority of the 80%, who really have no intention to buy a condo anyway, are happy to see that foreigners and PRs and "the rich" are "being punished".
I'm most curious to know the impact of CM 5 on the rental market.
All these empty talk and wild assumptions of govt's intent on this and that about CM1-5 after GE and the fear of backlash in GE16, etc, etc... are just that, talk... come on, GE16 is 4 years to come, lets first worry for 2012. :doh:
Do you think CM5 would have come if not because of what is happening outside of Singapore? :scared-2:
Ha ha ha! Another justification for why is good for property market to crash? :scared-3:
Well, even assuming all buyers are owners-occupiers and they have 1 property only, they will not want to see increase in property prices and not crash for following reasons:
1) When property prices crash, it means economy bad, many people probably also end up with no jobs and small business owners and self-employed's incomes may dropped to close to zero, and might not even have cash flow to pay instalments.
2) When 1 happens, they may default on loan payments, and end up having their properties forced sold, worse at the bottom of the crash, bearing all loses for being sold at lowest price and no roof over head
3) When property prices crash, people default, properties get forced sold, banks will have to take real loses to their balance sheet, bank stocks crash, employers want cash and not stock options! Banks in deep shit as well.
4) Banks in deep shit, don't want to lend to small companies and businesses, many of these companies will go bankcrupt, accelerating (2) & (3).
5) When (1)-(4) accelerates, Singapore economy will end up in very deep shit as well.
So how can property prices crash be good for Singapore!!! :doh:
I think it maybe too simplistic to suggest that 80% of the people will be upset if property price crashes. This is just an assumption that about 80% of the households are owner occupiers and with probably quite a number of people having second properties for investments. We are assuming that any crash in prices will upset these people. However, looking at the issue harder, those with one property will not be affected by price crashing as long as they are not holding negative assets and having trouble with their banks. These people may be looking forward to buy their second property if price falls. The only people likely to be upset are those holding second or more properties and wanting to sell. They either miss the boat to sell earlier or holding on hoping for price to rise quickly again.
With property prices at its 20-year peak now, I believe majority of the people be it one-property owners or investors should welcome a crash in property prices.
Ha ha ha! Another justification for why is good for property market to crash? :scared-3:
Well, even assuming all buyers are owners-occupiers and they have 1 property only, they will not want to see increase in property prices and not crash for following reasons:
1) When property prices crash, it means economy bad, many people probably also end up with no jobs and small business owners and self-employed's incomes may dropped to close to zero, and might not even have cash flow to pay instalments.
2) When 1 happens, they may default on loan payments, and end up having their properties forced sold, worse at the bottom of the crash, bearing all loses for being sold at lowest price and no roof over head
3) When property prices crash, people default, properties get forced sold, banks will have to take real loses to their balance sheet, bank stocks crash, employers want cash and not stock options! Banks in deep shit as well.
4) Banks in deep shit, don't want to lend to small companies and businesses, many of these companies will go bankcrupt, accelerating (2) & (3).
5) When (1)-(4) accelerates, Singapore economy will end up in very deep shit as well.
So how can property prices crash be good for Singapore!!! :doh:
Property prices crash may not be good for Singapore and minority of property owners. However, it brings down the cost of living and provides opportunity for many to get the properties they would otherwise unable to do so. Economic growth comes in cycles just like property cycle. In fact, they are highly co-related. Therefore, if it comes, it comes and those who are prepared will be rewarded. As the saying goes, there exist opportunities in every crisis..
So the thought that's always in my mind is whether we are in a crisis or out of a crisis...
Actually other then developer, there one more group of people affected - Property Agent ... :doh:
Cooling measure sure not welcome by them, as they got less business and earn less. :scared-3:
Maybe KBW should "consult" Property Agent on the CM, as think Singapore got about 10,000 or 20,000 agent? it do affect a certain % of family.
Not true. Property prices crash is bad for:
1) all property owners (>90% households in Singapore) who have no wish to buy another property.
2) Property agents, who are mostly Singapore citizens.
3) Banks.
Property price crash is good only for a minority who:
1) A small minority of Citizens who don't have property in Singapore and intending to buy 1.
2) Especially good for foreigners and PRs who have mostly have not bought any property in Singapore and wanted to buy 1.
2) Those rich people intending to buy more, especially foreigners (since foreigners are generally much richer!)
In conclusion, creating property crash will only benefit foreigners, PRs with no properties, and rich people! :doh:
Property prices crash may not be good for Singapore and minority of property owners. However, it brings down the cost of living and provides opportunity for many to get the properties they would otherwise unable to do so. Economic growth comes in cycles just like property cycle. In fact, they are highly co-related. Therefore, if it comes, it comes and those who are prepared will be rewarded. As the saying goes, there exist opportunities in every crisis..
CyrusChang
03-01-12, 08:36
Not true. Property prices crash is bad for:
1) all property owners (>90% households in Singapore) who have no wish to buy another property.
2) Property agents, who are mostly Singapore citizens.
3) Banks.
Property price crash is good only for a minority who:
1) A small minority of Citizens who don't have property in Singapore and intending to buy 1.
2) Especially good for foreigners and PRs who have mostly have not bought any property in Singapore and wanted to buy 1.
2) Those rich people intending to buy more, especially foreigners (since foreigners are generally much richer!)
In conclusion, creating property crash will only benefit foreigners, PRs with no properties, and rich people! :doh:
Agree!!!!!!
[quote=samsara]Some of the political risks in Singapore that we had talked before are beginning to materialise. I have rebalanced my portfolio over the last couple of months, reducing exposure in commercial properties (3 down to 1) and residential (5 down to 2, still holding one landed as hedge).
Freed up 80% cash for re-deployment, doing research for select U.S. and Malaysia properties now. Any insights to share in these two countries?[
/quote]
I am a Malaysian born in KL,perhaps we can share ideas related to properties in KL.
property crash does not bring the cost of living down. It may not bring fuel price, food price down, transport price, etc.
It only bring inflation number down as property contributes 20% to inflation number. which is a big number. Don't be fooled again and again...
Not true. Property prices crash is bad for:
1) all property owners (>90% households in Singapore) who have no wish to buy another property.
2) Property agents, who are mostly Singapore citizens.
3) Banks.
Property price crash is good only for a minority who:
1) A small minority of Citizens who don't have property in Singapore and intending to buy 1.
2) Especially good for foreigners and PRs who have mostly have not bought any property in Singapore and wanted to buy 1.
2) Those rich people intending to buy more, especially foreigners (since foreigners are generally much richer!)
In conclusion, creating property crash will only benefit foreigners, PRs with no properties, and rich people! :doh:
Have to agree with your analysis. However, we need to understand that it is the average Singaporeans that long to have a second property as investment are finding prices beyond their reach. This is evidence with the successful sale of MM units which despite the high cost (PSF wise). The rich foreigners or PRs (without property) will always be there regardless of the state of property price. It is the average Singaporeans that are upset because property prices have risen beyond their reach. This group may not be buying not because they are not wanting but they could no longer afford it. This is our average Singaporeans who can influence the fate of the next government.
just on a side note, Mah's no longer the MND minister but Khaw
Any insights to share on properties in the different parts of Malaysia, not just in KL? What are your thoughts on property prices and the relevant macro/micro factors that influence them over there?
I am a Malaysian born in KL,perhaps we can share ideas related to properties in KL.
Response to what you said:
1) Those longing to have second property as investment are RICH, not average. :D
2) Don't know who the goodu go buy the MM with obscene $PSF (vs surrounding bigger size units)? If they want to get burn it is up to them right? Anyway only a very small minority.
3) If true US will never have property price crash! SG will also not have property price crash in 1998 & 2009. So this statement is not true.
4) I believe >85% Singaporeans will be very upset that their property have dropped in value, worse when crash occurs! How many people do you think will vote for existing govt during GE when they think that it is the govt who cause their owned property price to crash? (Remember, >90% Singaporeans own their property, not renting!) :p
Have to agree with your analysis. However, we need to understand that it is (1) the average Singaporeans that long to have a second property as investment are finding prices beyond their reach. This is evidence with the (2) successful sale of MM units which despite the high cost (PSF wise). The (3) rich foreigners or PRs (without property) will always be there regardless of the state of property price. It is the (4) average Singaporeans that are upset because property prices have risen beyond their reach. This group may not be buying not because they are not wanting but they could no longer afford it. This is our average Singaporeans who can influence the fate of the next government.
Jonathan0503
03-01-12, 12:45
Have to agree with your analysis. However, we need to understand that it is the average Singaporeans that long to have a second property as investment are finding prices beyond their reach. This is evidence with the successful sale of MM units which despite the high cost (PSF wise). The rich foreigners or PRs (without property) will always be there regardless of the state of property price. It is the average Singaporeans that are upset because property prices have risen beyond their reach. This group may not be buying not because they are not wanting but they could no longer afford it. This is our average Singaporeans who can influence the fate of the next government.
I think a lot of average singaporeans also want to own properties in Orchard, drive luxurious cars. So should govt fulfill their desire?
I think a lot of average singaporeans also want to own properties in Orchard, drive luxurious cars. So should govt fulfill their desire?
errr..... how to provide "a lot of average singaporeans" property in Orchard. There is only 1 orchard road :confused: ..... unless orchard road extend from marina to yishun.... (like our GRCs :D )
how to provide "a lot of average singaporeans" "luxurious cars", there's something called the COE..... :(
... the average Singaporeans that long to have a second property as investment are finding prices beyond their reach.... This group may not be buying not because they are not wanting but they could no longer afford it..
Condo is not for the "average" Singaporeans. It's for the top 20-30%.
Gov has no responsibility to ensure the "average" Singaporeans to afford a condo (or a luxury car, for that matter).
From your comments, I sense you are just another opportunistic pty investor who had chosen to short (or not long) previously, and now sees this as an opportunity. Nothing wrong with that. But you should not confuse this with the effect and intent of the policy.
Condo is not for the "average" Singaporeans. It's for the top 20-30%.
Gov has no responsibility to ensure the "average" Singaporeans to afford a condo (or a luxury car, for that matter).
From your comments, I sense you are just another opportunistic pty investor who had chosen to short (or not long) previously, and now sees this as an opportunity. Nothing wrong with that. But you should not confuse this with the effect and intent of the policy.
Singapore is already a middle class society as being in the first world. So the average Singaporean here must be viewed in the right perspective. We must not hold the view that the average Singaporean is one the same as we saw 20 or 30 years ago.
I'm not following.
Are you saying the average Singaporean families should have at least one investment property ?
It is not impossible with the HDB flat as the first property and buy a second MM unit with mortgage serviced by the rental of the hdb flat. Expectation is getting higher.
I'm not following.
Are you saying the average Singaporean families should have at least one investment property ?
I'm not following.
Are you saying the average Singaporean families should have at least one investment property ?
If we look at the demographic profile of today's population, you will find a lot more dual-income with no kids or no kid yet till much later. They are capable of owning more than one property. While the government (and we Singaporeans also) always digitized people by their incomes, flat type and wheels to classify their net worth. People are now more well read and travel and understand that rich is not about how much you earn but how much you save and invest. Today, the average Singaporeans know this. They are certainly not what we think they are 20 or 30 years ago.
If we look at the demographic profile of today's population, you will find a lot more dual-income with no kids or no kid yet till much later. They are capable of owning more than one property. While the government (and we Singaporeans also) always digitized people by their incomes, flat type and wheels to classify their net worth. People are now more well read and travel and understand that rich is not about how much you earn but how much you save and invest. Today, the average Singaporeans know this. They are certainly not what we think they are 20 or 30 years ago.You are right to a large extend! :cheers3:
Ppl change, getting smarter , know more etc, compared with 20yrs ago, yes.
This does not mean the average ones are getting richer. Because the gap is higher too. 300k was a huge sum of money 30yrs ago. It's peanuts today.
Just like university education. 30yrs ago only 5% of the population has it. Today, maybe 50% of the working population (or even more). But that does not mean now 50% are rich enough to be pty investors.
Granted over the years we have built up a large segment of middle class, but you should know property prices within SG rise non organically. The new middle class find themselves with higher purchasing power while overseas, but it does not mean domestically it's rich enough to be multiple pty owners.
iwantgizmos
03-01-12, 14:47
If we look at the demographic profile of today's population, you will find a lot more dual-income with no kids or no kid yet till much later. They are capable of owning more than one property. While the government (and we Singaporeans also) always digitized people by their incomes, flat type and wheels to classify their net worth. People are now more well read and travel and understand that rich is not about how much you earn but how much you save and invest. Today, the average Singaporeans know this. They are certainly not what we think they are 20 or 30 years ago.
that is so true... today it's a norm to see parents who are way too old, with children that are way too young....
that is so true... today it's a norm to see parents who are way too old, with children that are way too young....Yeah... sometimes even mistaking them to be the kid's grandparents... so embarrassing! :ashamed1:
...They are capable of owning more than one property...
If they are capable, why are they complaining price is too high ? and expects Gov to bring it down for them ?
No. The fact is, they are not capable. They think they are capable. Because x yrs ago , a 7-8k income can afford a house. So they think they should be able to.
The ones really capable are always capable, they do not complain prices are too high. These group are really the ones ahead of the earning curve of the society.
Ppl change, getting smarter , know more etc, compared with 20yrs ago, yes.
This does not mean the average ones are getting richer. Because the gap is higher too. 300k was a huge sum of money 30yrs ago. It's peanuts today.
Just like university education. 30yrs ago only 5% of the population has it. Today, maybe 50% of the working population (or even more). But that does not mean now 50% are rich enough to be pty investors.
Granted over the years we have built up a large segment of middle class, but you should know property prices within SG rise non organically. The new middle class find themselves with higher purchasing power while overseas, but it does not mean domestically it's rich enough to be multiple pty owners.Yup... not forgetting the fact that property prices are also climbing or should I say escalating and sky rocketing much faster than the wages of a regular rank and file worker... :rolleyes:
Ppl change, getting smarter , know more etc, compared with 20yrs ago, yes.
This does not mean the average ones are getting richer. Because the gap is higher too. 300k was a huge sum of money 30yrs ago. It's peanuts today.
Just like university education. 30yrs ago only 5% of the population has it. Today, maybe 50% of the working population (or even more). But that does not mean now 50% are rich enough to be pty investors.
Granted over the years we have built up a large segment of middle class, but you should know property prices within SG rise non organically. The new middle class find themselves with higher purchasing power while overseas, but it does not mean domestically it's rich enough to be multiple pty owners.
That is exactly the point and why the average Singaporeans' aspirations is what the government now has to address. Hopefully, the government get it right this time round or they will be dead ducks come 2016.
Ppl change, getting smarter , know more etc, compared with 20yrs ago, yes.
This does not mean the average ones are getting richer. Because the gap is higher too. 300k was a huge sum of money 30yrs ago. It's peanuts today.
Just like university education. 30yrs ago only 5% of the population has it. Today, maybe 50% of the working population (or even more). But that does not mean now 50% are rich enough to be pty investors.
Granted over the years we have built up a large segment of middle class, but you should know property prices within SG rise non organically. The new middle class find themselves with higher purchasing power while overseas, but it does not mean domestically it's rich enough to be multiple pty owners.
Yeah. Just back from 3 weeks UK trip and finding Singapore to be awfully expensive. SGD$4 a pint of Ben & Jerry's and 60 cents 1 Snickers bar etc. Onisuka Tigers at SGD$50-60+ a pair compared to $120 here. Don't even get me started on the cost of cars.
Yup... not forgetting the fact that property prices are also climbing or should I say escalating and sky rocketing much faster than the wages of a regular office worker... :rolleyes:
It's a fact of life, that in a free capitalist society like us, poor-rich divide can only grow bigger, not smaller. It's an illusion that many just well to do middle class families think they are rich. pretty much the same like how university degree status: ppl didn't get smarter, just the degree gets "diluted". Private property itself gets "diluted" too. Developers use tiny apartments to profit from this mentality. And government feeds ECs to satisfy this group's need. And this breeds unrealistic expectations.
If they are capable, why are they complaining price is too high ? and expects Gov to bring it down for them ?
No. The fact is, they are not capable. They think they are capable. Because x yrs ago , a 7-8k income can afford a house. So they think they should be able to.
The ones really capable are always capable, they do not complain prices are too high. These group are really the ones ahead of the earning curve of the society.
x years ago doesn't factor inflation. 7k then could be the same purchasing power of 20k today. What they are really complaining about is how their mum/dad can pay off a 5 room HDB (bought 1992) in 10 years with their 3k-4k pay but they can only pay off their 5 room HDB today in 20 years at a higher wage say 8k.
Why can't the HDB be priced such that at the same percentile, say 3-4k at 1992 is top 30% of population (just example figures) can pay off in 10 years. 7-8k at the same top 30% today should also be able to pay of in 10 years rather than 20-30 years per today's pricing.
Wrong conclusion lah. It doesn't mean that previously 10 years ago if a household earns $10k can afford a second property means now another household which earns $10k can afford a second property.
You have to see it this way: Say there are only 20k private properties in Singapore. Previously only 20% of household earns >$10k per month, so those earning $10k pm can afford at least private property. However, now 40% of household earns >$10k per month. Obviously money increased but the number of goods (in this case the private properties still remain the same, 20k). So, obviously now only the top 20% of households, which now earns >$20k pm then can afford the private property! Therefore, on a per household basis, It is irrelevant whether they have dual-income or even quadraple income! They must compare what their wealth are vs those of all others around! Regardless of how much they earn, only the top 20% of households can afford a private property comfortably! :(
If we look at the demographic profile of today's population, you will find a lot more dual-income with no kids or no kid yet till much later. They are capable of owning more than one property. While the government (and we Singaporeans also) always digitized people by their incomes, flat type and wheels to classify their net worth. People are now more well read and travel and understand that rich is not about how much you earn but how much you save and invest. Today, the average Singaporeans know this. They are certainly not what we think they are 20 or 30 years ago.
Property prices are escalating because the general income of the people in Singapore are escalating even faster! Those people who cow-pay cow-bull about property prices escalating too fast should instead reflect on themselves whether they are less capable or didn't work hard and smart enough so much so that they are earning much less than others. Instead they should focus on working harder & smarter to earn more rather than complain! It is now very common nowsdays to see 30+ young people earning >$10k per month. Dual income x2 means 30+ young household earning >$20k per month and yet have no kids' expenses! :o
Anybody genuinely believe that property prices can climb when everybody's income and net worth are declining? Then how to explain that $900k HDB? :doh:
Yup... not forgetting the fact that property prices are also climbing or should I say escalating and sky rocketing much faster than the wages of a regular rank and file worker... :rolleyes:
...at 1992 is top 30% of population (just example figures) can pay off in 10 years. ...same top 30% today should also be able to pay of in 10 years rather than 20-30 years per today's pricing.
2 reasons.
1, when a country goes from third world to 1st, the earlier phase growth is always exponential. whoever lived in that era benefited from it simply because he was in that era. this is history opportunity cost one cannot "relive". this is just to say, yea these group were kind of lucky. (btw, why do you think Temasek grows from a few hundred million to a few hundred billion today ? really because they are so good investing ? of course not. TH benefited the same way too. It practically didn't have to do anything.)
2, population growth is not linear. The richer the country gets, the more ppl come, and the 1st hit with such result is property prices.
It is irrelevant whether they have dual-income or even quadraple income! They must compare what their wealth are vs those of all others around!
Yes this is what I meant.
Well well, they forgot a few things:
1) Actually, property prices are just too cheap in 1992 to remain at that price rather than now 2011 property prices are too expensive. :p
2) In 1992, there are only 3m population, now 2011 there are >5m population!
3) In 1992 household income of $3-4k is top 30% of population. In 2011, household income of >$10k then is top 30% of population (not $7-8k), so they perform more poorly than their parents, what to say? What to complain? They should just pluck up their socks! :p
x years ago doesn't factor inflation. 7k then could be the same purchasing power of 20k today. What they are really complaining about is how their mum/dad can pay off a 5 room HDB (bought 1992) in 10 years with their 3k-4k pay but they can only pay off their 5 room HDB today in 20 years at a higher wage say 8k.
Why can't the HDB be priced such that at the same percentile, say 3-4k at 1992 is top 30% of population (just example figures) can pay off in 10 years. 7-8k at the same top 30% today should also be able to pay of in 10 years rather than 20-30 years per today's pricing.
Yeah. Just back from 3 weeks UK trip and finding Singapore to be awfully expensive. SGD$4 a pint of Ben & Jerry's and 60 cents 1 Snickers bar etc. Onisuka Tigers at SGD$50-60+ a pair compared to $120 here. Don't even get me started on the cost of cars.Welcome back to Singapore... :cheers1: I just got a 2nd hand car yesterday coz new cars are simply :scared-1:. Not worth that sort of depreciation. Cars are just huge liabilities, never an asset!
There are much cheaper place to live, like neighbouring Malaysia, or cheaper still you got China rural areas, India, Indonesia, Thailand or .... :D
Frankly speaking, nobody put a gun to their heads to live in Singapore. Strange thing is if Singapore so expensive, so many foreigners want to flock here? :beats-me-man:
Yeah. Just back from 3 weeks UK trip and finding Singapore to be awfully expensive. SGD$4 a pint of Ben & Jerry's and 60 cents 1 Snickers bar etc. Onisuka Tigers at SGD$50-60+ a pair compared to $120 here. Don't even get me started on the cost of cars.
There are much cheaper place to live, like neighbouring Malaysia, or cheaper still you got China rural areas, India, Indonesia, Thailand or .... :D
Frankly speaking, nobody put a gun to their heads to live in Singapore. Strange thing is if Singapore so expensive, so many foreigners want to flock here? :beats-me-man:Foreigners who are flocking here are essentially those who want to strike it rich or have high paying jobs here... the poor foreigners who have no chance of making it rich will not come lah... too expensive... poorest foreigners probably refer to domestic helpers and construction workers...
Then again, it is not fair to say that 'nobody put a gun to their heads to live in Singapore' coz they are born here. Their family members are here... All their friends are here. Not everybody can uproot so easily. Too much to consider for uprooting also. No need for anybody to put a gun to their heads... their heads alone can dissuade them from leaving their comfort zone!
The big bold highlight can only be the only valid reason - The reason why they cannot earn more or make it big: "Their heads alone can dissuade them from leaving their comfort zone!". They cannot even take hardship to earn more - can only whine and whine as though the govt and everybody owe them a living, owe them a private property, owe them a nice branded car etc! :doh:
Foreigners who are flocking here are essentially those who want to strike it rich or have high paying jobs here... the poor foreigners who have no chance of making it rich will not come lah... too expensive... poorest foreigners probably refer to domestic helpers and construction workers...
Then again, it is not fair to say that 'nobody put a gun to their heads to live in Singapore' coz they are born here. Their family members are here... All their friends are here. Not everybody can uproot so easily. Too much to consider for uprooting also. No need for anybody to put a gun to their heads... their heads alone can dissuade them from leaving their comfort zone!
It can be an income-generating tool in certain situations. :D
Who instils more confidence in the general populace (prospective customers, partners, vendors, etc), a CEO driving a Mercedes Benz S500L or one who drives a Volkswagen Polo (no offence to the marque and owners of this car)?
Between a property agent who drives a BMW740 and one who drives a Toyota Altis, who do you associate success (and correspondingly confidence in) with?
Much as we would like to put aside stereotypical perspectives, society naturally focuses a lot on the type of cars that we drive, the type of properties that we live in, the type of people that we associate with. In certain trades and business sectors, this can have a significant effect on one's performance.
Welcome back to Singapore... :cheers1: I just got a 2nd hand car yesterday coz new cars are simply :scared-1:. Not worth that sort of depreciation. Cars are just huge liabilities, never an asset!
Let's see what are the "average" Singaporeans aspirations:
1) 2 private condos with nice facilities - 1 to live in to enjoy life and the other to rent out at a high price so that they can shake leg and do nothing (don't need to work for a living).
2) Nice branded new (and safer to crash) cars, at least a Mercedes E200, BMW 520, or Volvo S80 or equivalent.
3) Easy and relaxing 9am-5pm job just to kill time only and yet pay them >$10k pm, can switch off after 5pm don't have to do anything.
4) A nice and enjoyable 2week Europe/US/etc tour every half-yearly.
5) Provide free child-care for their toddlers, and free education up to finish University for their kids.
6) Provide free medical for their kids and themselves for life.
7) Provide cheap cheap (better still free) yet super high-quality tuitions for their kids so that their kids can do as well or even better than their peers. (don't laugh, this is real! You see people writing to Newspaper forum and on internet complaining about unfairness because other people's kids go tuition and their didn't because they say too expensive and expect Govt to do something about this!).
Wo ho ho! Govt owe all Singapore citizens all the above and must find all ways to address and fulfill the above "average" Singaporeans aspirations! :doh:
That is exactly the point and why the average Singaporeans' aspirations is what the government now has to address. Hopefully, the government get it right this time round or they will be dead ducks come 2016.
If the whining works, then their strategy is not incorrect (from their perspective). There are different ways to skin the cat. If a child whines and gets his toy, can you fault him for continuing his whining? There are consequences to this though - his siblings eventually will also learn that working hard is pointless and will turn to whining to get what they want. :D
The big bold highlight can only be the only valid reason - The reason why they cannot earn more or make it big: "Their heads alone can dissuade them from leaving their comfort zone!". They cannot even take hardship to earn more - can only whine and whine as though the govt and everybody owe them a living, owe them a private property, owe them a nice branded car etc! :doh:
Well well, they forgot a few things:
1) Actually, property prices are just too cheap in 1992 to remain at that price rather than now 2011 property prices are too expensive. :p
2) In 1992, there are only 3m population, now 2011 there are >5m population!
3) In 1992 household income of $3-4k is top 30% of population. In 2011, household income of >$10k then is top 30% of population (not $7-8k), so they perform more poorly than their parents, what to say? What to complain? They should just pluck up their socks! :p
teddy : How old are you? 40-50+? Just needed a rough estimate to gauge where you're coming from.
Re pt 2, doesn't matter then 3m or now 5m. Top 30% is top 30% right?
Re pt 3, i did say made up numbers la on the example figures i used. :p but if you are that particular, just say they are at 10+k today and performing as well as their parents. Cannot buy HDB as out of salary cap.
I am old.
I just want to point out that when there are 3m population and 20k private properties and when there are 5m population and still 20k private properties, there are more competition and hence expect price to rise right?
And also when there are 5m population, there are more competition, surely more people will work harder to earn more. Can't expect to remain as top 30% earners and still do just as much as when population is only 3m right? :rolleyes:
How to fairly compare when you made up the numbers and assume? :beats-me-man:
I can also assume that $3-4k earnings in 1992 is equivalent to $50k in 2011. :p
teddy : How old are you? 40-50+? Just needed a rough estimate to gauge where you're coming from.
Re pt 2, doesn't matter then 3m or now 5m. Top 30% is top 30% right?
Re pt 3, i did say made up numbers la on the example figures i used. :p but if you are that particular, just say they are at 10+k today and performing as well as their parents. Cannot buy HDB as out of salary cap.
It can be an income-generating tool in certain situations. :D
Who instils more confidence in the general populace (prospective customers, partners, vendors, etc), a CEO driving a Mercedes Benz S500L or one who drives a Volkswagen Polo (no offence to the marque and owners of this car)?
Between a property agent who drives a BMW740 and one who drives a Toyota Altis, who do you associate success (and correspondingly confidence in) with?
Much as we would like to put aside stereotypical perspectives, society naturally focuses a lot on the type of cars that we drive, the type of properties that we live in, the type of people that we associate with. In certain trades and business sectors, this can have a significant effect on one's performance.
I think it's also due to Asians being carrot heads with the commercialism but also a bit of the must have face factor as you have mentioned. Over my time in UK, saw only 3 Prada bags during the entire 3 weeks. 2 by a Singaporean there accompanying the hubby working there and 1 by a Hong Kong tourist. Upon arrival to Terminal 1, within 5 mins of stepping out of the arrival gates, i see 6. :beats-me-man: One of the ang moh's greatest scam to earn Asian's money. Luxury goods.
In case which cities i visited matter, i visited Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. Granted, not London but these aren't Preston or those small villages.
It is not just about being a carrot-head but rather the understanding that certain possessions such as cars and properties can be money-making tools. To the tow-kay, the Rolls Royce is not so much about comfort but rather showing to his clan members that he has made it. That $1.x m Phantom will help him get even more business (probably recovering the cost in just two to three big deals).
I think it's also due to Asians being carrot heads with the commercialism but also a bit of the must have face factor as you have mentioned. Over my time in UK, saw only 3 Prada bags during the entire 3 weeks. 2 by a Singaporean there accompanying the hubby working there and 1 by a Hong Kong tourist. Upon arrival to Terminal 1, within 5 mins of stepping out of the arrival gates, i see 6. :beats-me-man: One of the ang moh's greatest scam to earn Asian's money. Luxury goods.
In case which cities i visited matter, i visited Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. Granted, not London but these aren't Preston or those small villages.
But their whining seem to be working! Otherwise how do you expect policy like the most recent ABSD that differentiates between whether you are a foreigner, a PR, and a citizen? Shouldn't the same rules apply to everybody? :doh:
If the whining works, then their strategy is not incorrect (from their perspective). There are different ways to skin the cat. If a child whines and gets his toy, can you fault him for continuing his whining? There are consequences to this though - his siblings eventually will also learn that working hard is pointless and will turn to whining to get what they want. :D
So, can you blame the child then? Or should you blame the father?
养不教，父之过。教不严，师之惰
If the child whines and gets his way, the blame does not lie with the child. It lies with the father or teacher.
But their whining seem to be working! Otherwise how do you expect policy like the most recent ABSD that differentiates between whether you are a foreigner, a PR, and a citizen? Shouldn't the same rules apply to everybody? :doh:
I am old.
I just want to point out that when there are 3m population and 20k private properties and when there are 5m population and still 20k private properties, there are more competition and hence expect price to rise right?
And also when there are 5m population, there are more competition, surely more people will work harder to earn more. Can't expect to remain as top 30% earners and still do just as much as when population is only 3m right? :rolleyes:
How to fairly compare when you made up the numbers and assume? :beats-me-man:
I can also assume that $3-4k earnings in 1992 is equivalent to $50k in 2011. :p
But the number of private properties go up in proportion to the increase in population and not remain at 20k in your example.
Ignore my numbers since obviously you're not looking at my made up example numbers at how i'm trying to present them. Even if you use the 3-4k in 1992 is equivalent to 50k in 2011, i'm still using the top 30% at 1992 vs the top 30% at 2011 and the purchasing power for these group of people should be the same and not dropping. That is what the so called 'cry father cry mother' group is complaining about
What i am simply saying is, top 30% at x date can pay off property in 10yrs. Why is it that top 30% at x + 10 years date cannot pay off property in 10yrs?
ha ha ha! :D :p :47:
So, can you blame the child then? Or should you blame the father?
养不教，父之过。教不严，师之惰
If the child whines and gets his way, the blame does not lie with the child. It lies with the father or teacher.
Because:
1) Property prices are just too cheap in 1992! :o
2) Macro-economic changes, and also the amount of money in circulation, so much so that eg. in 1992 interest rate of 5% is the long term average & norm, while after 2010 probably 2.5% is going to be the long term average and the norm... :p
But the number of private properties go up in proportion to the increase in population and not remain at 20k in your example.
Ignore my numbers since obviously you're not looking at my made up example numbers at how i'm trying to present them. Even if you use the 3-4k in 1992 is equivalent to 50k in 2011, i'm still using the top 30% at 1992 vs the top 30% at 2011 and the purchasing power for these group of people should be the same and not dropping. That is what the so called 'cry father cry mother' group is complaining about
What i am simply saying is, top 30% at x date can pay off property in 10yrs. Why is it that top 30% at x + 10 years date cannot pay off property in 10yrs?
Because:
1) Property prices are just too cheap in 1992! :o
2) Macro-economic changes, and also the amount of money in circulation, so much so that eg. in 1992 interest rate of 5% is the long term average & norm, while after 2010 probably 2.5% is going to be the long term average and the norm... :p
Re 1) Just too cheap because of? Shouldn't raw materials and cost of labour grow in proportion in raises to general level of wages/wealth overtime? (yes, i understand raw materials are limited resources but we're not talking about gold or platinum here. Bricks/cement should be plentiful and cheap)
If not, are the price growth in recent times due to less subsidy from the government? If yes, why? Are Singaporeans born in 1980/90s not worth subsidizing as much as those born in 1960/70s?
Re 2) With macro economic changes and increase in money circulation, the top 30% in present time should also have access to these excess money that was printed and still be able to pay in the same number of years as the top 30% x years ago?
If your reasoning is because these monies are only accessible to say the top 20% in 2011. Why this widening of the income disparity over the years? Why should the rich get richer and the middle class starting to fall behind?
This is at least the point i am trying to bring across. I'm not sure if you can see from this angle. However, please do correct me if there's something fundamentally flawed in my posts as i'm open to learning from others here.
Boils down to demand and supply 101.
Last few years, you had population growth from 3m to 5m.
At same time, HDB was not building to cater for this explosion.
Hence, today's problems.
Of cos, externally there are many other factors as well but essentially the root cause has to be demand and supply.
Back to TS question > what did Mah do back then?
Was he sleeping? And if so, with whom?! :banghead:
That's for HDB. More so for pte, as there is limited supply due to the nature of the business. The competition is definitely getting tougher. U cannot assume by achieving what your parents achieved last time everything will be the same.
And by the way, the rich do get richer. It's the same everywhere.
Capitalism is not perfect. However, in lieu of a superior (or at least one that the majority could agree on) socio-economic system, it has been widely adopted in the western world and progressively in the other parts of the globe as well.
In the Capitalist system, those with resources (the "rich") have greater leverage and opportunities with which to further their goals. Those who possess lesser and fewer advantages (the "poor") will fall behind because they lack the same extent of leverage and opportunities. The direct consequence of this is the ever-increasing gap between the "rich" and the "poor", the "haves" and the "have-nots". Do note that "rich" and "poor" are just relative terms.
This widening gap is an inherent characteristic and flaw of Capitalism. It is perhaps the most significant flaw of the system. When the gap becomes too large, what inevitably ensues are riots and civil unrest. Anarchy then takes place and the system is reset. More often than not, this reset is painful.
Until a superior socio-economic system is invented (or until global circumstances warrant a change), Capitalism should continue to be the most common/popular and the flaws of Capitalism shall persist in rearing their ugly heads.
Why this widening of the income disparity over the years? Why should the rich get richer and the middle class starting to fall behind?
HDB would be the starting point.
The rest is history.
with the median income of abt 2.6k, I don't know why some of you can ascertain most of the citizens can afford 2nd property. Servicing the roof over the head is already a big issue.
I don't buy the rational of high price of basic housing is welcome by the majority. To most of the dwellers, u still need a roof regardless of the price. sell high, Buy high but Ur quantum increase. This bring back my above point abt affordability to service the higher quantum loan with median income.
my 2 cents...cheers!
The big bold highlight can only be the only valid reason - The reason why they cannot earn more or make it big: "Their heads alone can dissuade them from leaving their comfort zone!". They cannot even take hardship to earn more - can only whine and whine as though the govt and everybody owe them a living, owe them a private property, owe them a nice branded car etc! :doh:That is correct... :D
It can be an income-generating tool in certain situations. :D
Who instils more confidence in the general populace (prospective customers, partners, vendors, etc), a CEO driving a Mercedes Benz S500L or one who drives a Volkswagen Polo (no offence to the marque and owners of this car)?
Between a property agent who drives a BMW740 and one who drives a Toyota Altis, who do you associate success (and correspondingly confidence in) with?
Much as we would like to put aside stereotypical perspectives, society naturally focuses a lot on the type of cars that we drive, the type of properties that we live in, the type of people that we associate with. In certain trades and business sectors, this can have a significant effect on one's performance.You are right too! :D
So, can you blame the child then? Or should you blame the father?
养不教，父之过。教不严，师之惰
If the child whines and gets his way, the blame does not lie with the child. It lies with the father or teacher.Disagree.... mother too! :D
What i am simply saying is, top 30% at x date can pay off property in 10yrs. Why is it that top 30% at x + 10 years date cannot pay off property in 10yrs?Coz property price increment > salary increment over the 10 years... ;) Rhetorical but yes! :D
OPINION: Developers - the real landlords
By Seah Chiang Nee | ANN – 20 hours ago
Kuala Lumpur (The Star/ANN) - Traditionally, property developers in cities like Singapore and Hong Kong have enjoyed economic power far beyond their numbers.
We were politely reminded of this when Singapore's developers told the government they were disappointed at not being consulted before it announced recent measures to cool the market.
This was tantamount to a right to be informed in advance of any policy or price affecting their interests.
The developers' reaction stirred public ire, with people considering it an audacity its demand to be consulted over changes.
Yet there is a tradition behind the demand.
As a group, exclusive and rich, developers have always wielded strong influence in small cities with rich land banks in a scale that probably only rivals the government.
After all it controls the city's most precious asset.
My first lesson of this fact of life came in the 1970s when I arrived to take up the post as news editor of The Hong Kong Standard. A colleague asked who I thought were the colony's most powerful people.
"The chief editor of New China News Agency" I ventured, regurgitating what I had often read.
"No, my friend, not even the Chinese mainlanders, and not the colonials," he exclaimed, "It is the Hong Kong real estate developers."
Land auctions often decided how well - or poorly - the Hong Kong people were to live.
Property prices would affect billions in budgets and living standards, in other words, people's lives.
When I returned to Singapore, I found a little of the same, the difference being we were an independent country and not led by a passive colonial Governor. In short, developers here were powerful!
Once land values were decided auctions, the developers controlled the ultimate prices and timing of the sales.
To a large extent, it meant controlling of supply and demand.
If the developers thought the asking prices were too high, they would abstain from bidding, making them a sort of a little "pressure group".
When I returned here I discovered a bit of the same.
Developers collectively could - if they chose to - influence the way the media reported the property market because they were big advertisers.
The bigger the spenders, the greater the influence! They could ensure newspaper reports did not report too negatively on the market and scare away buyers.
Some were not reticent exercising it by making it clear to advertising managers that their money could best be used in a media that keep encouraging property buyers, or at least not to predict weak markets too strongly.
Others stayed away from the game.
Many years ago when I was chief editor of a newspaper here I had one such run-in with several Singapore developers, who were among my paper's frequent advertisers.
It was at a time when dark economic clouds were gathering and our Business Desk was reporting that property markets were heading for a fall. The bad vibes were strong, and they were reflected in our coverage.
During lunch, one developer referred to how much his company had spent on advertising in our paper.
He added that he "sometimes considered it a waste of money to advertise in a newspaper which frequently talked down the market".
If this continued, they might as well stop or cut down advertising in the paper, he said.
I was very concerned. I replied that as a newspaper editor, I feared two things most; the government withdrawing the newspaper licence and secondly, businessmen threatening to withhold advertising unless we cooperated with them.
"In either case, our survival will be threatened, and we will bring the fight to Page One and let readers judge!"
We finally struck a deal: No advertising boycotts. In return I would run an interview on record with a property tycoon who predicted his views that the market would rise in the following year.
I am relating this to record appreciation of the National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan's stand not to bend to the developers' will "by consulting" them about market "cooling-off" action or price movements.
That would have been tantamount to tipping them off in advance of price-sensitive measures, an act no government can do.
Analysts expect the recent measures to cool buying and bring down the home prices by between 15 to 30% over the next two years.
"There will be a sell-off in the next three-to-five months," said a property agent.
By imposing stiff measures against foreigners' speculative buying, including a 10% duty, Khaw has gained public acclaim.
"Khaw has my full support. His policy is good for the younger generation," a Singaporean commented.
"If the young people feel that even with hard work they still cannot achieve their goal, Singapore is done for. That dream is to own a private property."
Khaw has also succeeded in shortening the queue of new Singaporean graduates applying to own their first public flat.
Since becoming minister after the May election, Singapore's once world-acclaimed public housing is slowly working to dispel public discontent over shortage and high prices.
Many more years are needed to clean up the mess. But for now, wrote Khaw - one of the more popular ministers: "We're starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel".
And instead of the usual brickbats, praises are starting to come in for fending off foreign speculators.
"I'm seeing the quality of Minister Khaw," one surfer wrote.
Another said: "Thank you for the cooling measures. This shows Singapore is clean and NOT controlled by the (property) billionaires club."
When the developers get hungry enough to bid for projects, they won't dare to go in too low.
When the developers get hungry enough to bid for projects, they won't dare to go in too low.They also don't dare to bid high high in such uncertain times... Watertown will become ghost town... :beats-me-man:
Not true lah overall, only true for lower % income group.
Just for illustration purpose (I don't have the hard figure):
- If you take the top 1% income, their salary % increase is probably > 10x property price % increase.
- If you the top 20% income, their salary % increase is probably > 1x property price % increase.
- if you take the bottom 10% income, their salary % increase is almost ZERO all these years.
So here you see the widening gaps.
Coz property price increment > salary increment over the 10 years... ;) Rhetorical but yes! :D
phantom_opera
04-01-12, 08:34
in 2007, top 20% of taxpayers earn 91,400
in 2010, top 20% of taxpayers earn 105,500
increase of 15.4%
top 10%, 2007/2010
142,500
167,000
up 17.5%
bear in mind we have a recession in 2009, otherwise you can see at least 20% growth in 4y
If somebody can chart the top 1% & 5% income earners from 1990-2010, I am sure their income increase much much faster than property rise!
in 2007, top 20% of taxpayers earn 91,400
in 2010, top 20% of taxpayers earn 105,500
increase of 15.4%
top 10%, 2007/2010
142,500
167,000
up 17.5%
bear in mind we have a recession in 2009, otherwise you can see at least 20% growth in 4y
phantom_opera
04-01-12, 11:01
If somebody can chart the top 1% & 5% income earners from 1990-2010, I am sure their income increase much much faster than property rise!
5% sure
In 2010:
$263,000 you are at the 95.0th percentile.
In 2007:
$218,000, you are at the 95.0th percentile.
up 20.6%, you can see the higher income percentile you go, the higher the growth
Share share the links to determine percentile:
Percentile Check for Monthly Salary in 2010 (http://www.salary.sg/2010/benchmark-your-monthly-pay-by-age-gender-2010/)
Percentile Check for Monthly Salary in 2007 (http://www.salary.sg/2007/compare-your-income/)
5% sure
In 2010:
$263,000 you are at the 95.0th percentile.
In 2007:
$218,000, you are at the 95.0th percentile.
up 20.6%, you can see the higher income percentile you go, the higher the growth
check out this link
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/hhinc1.pdf
1) the ratio between the 91-100th percentile and 1-10th percentile has increased from 2000 to 2010.
2) The 1-10th percentile barely increased from 2000 to 2010.
check out Table 2,
Average Monthly Household Income from Work Per Household Member among Resident Employed Households
in the 1-10th decile, each working person in the household earn average monthly $293 in 2000 and $354 in 2010.:scared-5:
Like that how to escape from poverty trap without extraordinary measures.
Note to myself - I must remember to give thanks to my ancestors for bringing out their descendants out of the cesspool.
5% sure
In 2010:
$263,000 you are at the 95.0th percentile.
In 2007:
$218,000, you are at the 95.0th percentile.
up 20.6%, you can see the higher income percentile you go, the higher the growthThank you for all these data... indeed very informative and yes the income rise in the top bracket of Singaporean earners is indeed higher than that of the lower bracket.
Then again, if I'm not mistaken (no hard figures), the property price rise from the subprime crisis to 2010 is probably also about 20%? We all know that prices shot further in 2011 though... so is this in parallel with income earners in Singapore? :confused:
Share share the links to determine percentile:
Percentile Check for Monthly Salary in 2010 (http://www.salary.sg/2010/benchmark-your-monthly-pay-by-age-gender-2010/)
Percentile Check for Monthly Salary in 2007 (http://www.salary.sg/2007/compare-your-income/)
Presumably this only take into account SALARY. If including passive income(i.e. non salaried) they should earn much more!:scared-4:
Presumably this only take into account SALARY. If including passive income(i.e. non salaried) they should earn much more!:scared-4:
This includes whatever is reported to IRAS for income tax purposes.
This includes whatever is reported to IRAS for income tax purposes.
Yes, understand its EARNED INCOME. Believe a more accurate figure to determine total earnings is CHARGEABLE INCOME before allowable items which include earned income and other earnings
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.