THE ONLINE CITIZEN
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “HDB residents happy
where they live – over 95% surveyed satisfied with their flats and
neighbourhood” (Asiaone, 18 February).
I believe the statistic for the
number of foreigners staying in HDB flats has been made available
for the first time ever. I surmised this from this statement in the
report:
“The survey also showed that the
HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and
permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92
million in 2008.”
“This figure makes up 96 per cent
of the total population in HDB flats, of which 88 per cent were
citizens, and 8 per cent were permanent residents. The remaining
four per cent were foreigners.”
So, does it mean that we have
121,667 foreigners staying in HDB flats, which makes up 4 per cent
of the total HDB population (as calculated by taking 2.92 million
to be 96 per cent)?
Given the acute shortage of rental
housing for Singaporeans, with a queue of over 4,000 applicants and
waiting periods of up to two years, how many foreigners are staying
in flats which may be indirectly rented out by the HDB through
managing agents like EM Services?
Are there any countries in the
world whereby one in eight people in public housing are not
citizens, since 12 per cent are non-citizens (8 per cent PRs and 4
per cent foreigners)?
The article also states:
“86 per cent – especially those who
live in newer flats (less than 5 years) and older flats (21 years
and above) – feel that their HDB flats are worth the money they
spent mainly because of the appreciation in flat value, good
location, proximity to facilities, and affordability.
“For residents of older flats, the
main reasons given were the location of their flats, flat prices
that had either already appreciated or were expected to have a good
resale value in the future.”
This statement seems to be somewhat
odd, as it conveniently ignores the bulk of flat owners who live in
flats ranging from six to 20 years old.
As the statement suggests, those
who live in older flats of over 21 years surely feel that their
flats are worth what they spent because HDB flat prices were very
low and affordable more than 20 years ago.
Similarly, the newer flats of less
than five years may be those which have not met the 5-year Minimum
Occupation Period (MOP). These flats had been offered at much lower
prices than resale flats, which have seen huge price spikes in only
the last two years or so.
Surely, those who went through the
13-year bear market (1996 to 2009) waiting for the HDB Resale Price
Index to recover its price level may not be so happy when asked
whether their flats were value for money, had appreciated in value,
or were affordable. If we factor in the interest payments on
housing loans, flats bought from as long as about 15 years ago may
still not be making any money at all.
So, are we perhaps telling only
‘half the story’ about value for money and affordability?
Several media reports said that we
should not blame others for rising flat prices, because only five
percent of flats are owned by PRs and only 20 per cent of resale
flats last year were purchased by PRs. Perhaps what we need are not
just the statistics on ownership, but on rental as well. How many
flats are also rented to PRs and foreigners? Perhaps there’s
another case of telling ‘half the story’ here?
Did the survey cover any of the
60,000 flat dwellers who were given financial counselling by the
HDB for difficulty in paying for their flats in 2008, or the 30,770
flat-owners in arrears over three months as of September 2009, or
the estimated about 60 flats repossessed by the HDB every month, or
the unknown number of HDB bank loans in arrears or foreclosed?
Perhaps another case of ‘half the story’ here too?
With regards to the statement:
“The survey also showed that the
HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and
permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92
million in 2008”.
It omits to mention what was the
increase in the foreigner HDB resident population over the five
years. It is inconsistent to on the one hand give the break-down of
the resident population by citizens, PRs and foreigners, but omit
foreigners in the rate of increase over the five years.
What we need is the rate of
increase in the five years, broken down into Singaporeans, PRs and
foreigners, in order to have the ‘full story’.
The HDB press
release said: “The average household income from work
had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting
the growing affluence of HDB households.”
However, for the purpose of a rough
comparison for discussion’s sake, according to the Department of
Statistics’ (DOS) Household Expenditure
Survey released in December 2009, the average monthly
household income for HDB flats’ dwellers grew from $4,202 in 2002/3
to $5,503 in 2007/08.
The DOS data for all households,
including private housing, had the average monthly household income
of the 41st – 60th quintile at $5,480. For their data, the DOS uses
HDB flats’ average income as well as the average income of the
median total population – the average income of the segment of
households that separates the higher and the lower halves of the
total population sample.
The problem with such a comparison
is that the HDB uses just the average income. This figure is skewed
upwards by the high incomes earned by wealthier households – which
is a significant distortion given Singapore’s income inequality
(BusinessWeek ranked
Singapore the second most unequal country in a list of
the 11 most unequal advanced economies in the world – our score was
42.5, with 0 being complete equality and 100 being complete
inequality).
So, the question is why can’t the
HDB use median income as well? This would be more reflective of the
income of the average household, like data provided by the DOS.
This is not the first time that the
HDB Survey data seems to be out of sync with the DOS data. In 2003,
according to the DOS Household Survey, while the household income
of those living in private homes grew, those in public flats fell
by 0.4 per cent per annum, from $3,860 in 1998 to $3,790 in
2003.
Since about 85 per cent of the
population live in public flats, does this mean that the majority
of Singaporeans were worse off?
In contrast, according to the HDB
Household Survey of the same year, “average household income of HDB
flat dwellers rose from $3,719 to $4,238 a month.”
How is it possible that the DOS
Household Survey differs so markedly from the HDB Household Survey
for apparently the same period, for such a crucial statistic?
I tried searching the HDB web site
and the internet for the HDB Sample Household Survey Report, but
could not find it.
Instead of just a press release
fill with HDB’s selective findings and conclusions, may I suggest
that the full report be made available to the public so that we may
try to figure out the whole story?
