Lands in Singapore are acquired by the government (Singapore
Land Authority) at age-old prices ranging from S$1.00 per square
foot to values fixed by the Land Acquisition Act.
Under the Act, minister has the right to declare any lands as
required for public use and compensate the land owner affected by
such acquisition a value dated back to a historic date (e.g.
1.1.1996) or the latest market value whichever is the lower.
Only in April 2007 was the compensation revised to current market
value. Even at the so-called current or prevailing market value at
the latest amendment the SLA still refused to substantiate
compensation as based on current market value as the compensation
values are not substantiated by latest transacted land sale values
for equivalent lands acquired but based on some secretive list kept
by SLA's own valuers.
The ministers' decision is administrative and cannot be challenged
in court by any citizens.
As the Law Minister Professor Jayakumar has told parliament in the
instance of Geyland land acquired for 20 years not put to public
use, time and circumstance may change after acquisition thereby
requiring change in government's original intention.
It is like talking nonsense and the whole parliament accepted such
nonsense from highly paid or over-paid ministers as happened in so
many cases.
In other words not only has the government the power to take any
land and paid pittance like S$1.00 the minister can under the
pretext take the land to make profit or take any lands from any one
without proving that it will be put to public use giving some
excuses like change of circumstances as happened in the Geylang
land which was kept empty or rented out to some tenants without
showing intention to put to public use.
When the lands are acquired whose monies were used to put the
compensation?
Your guess is as good as mine - people or taxpayers' monies were
used not HDB's or ministers' own monies.
When a piece of land was used for public housing, the land cost is
zero but the reasonable low cost public housing should rightly and
fairly be priced at say market price less land costs since land
costs are zero or near zero and in any case paid for using
taxpayers' monies.
For example a three room flat should be priced at:
Market value ($180,000.00) less Land Cost ($80,000.00) i.e.
$100,000.00.
By selling the low cost public housing at $180,000.00 the
government is profiteering by $80,000.00.
This to me is a housing tax. What else could you call it. Minister
Mah Bow Tan has the temerity to tell the parliament "Don't expect
free lunch, HDB flat is subsidised by the government" When
challenged by people that it was not a subsidy but only a discount
he was giving to flat buyer he was so far still unable to give an
accountable or satisfactory reply after so many years of query.