895 HDB Homes Foreclosed By Banks!!!

last SG · 2007-02-19T03:38:34+00:00

P*P must be blamed for pricing HDB at such ridiculous prices and then go around trumpeting that it is "affordable" - well it shows clearly that it is not aff...

Lowclassman SG

Kan ni Nia.....Govt is inhumane!!!

895 out of 89,000 HDB flats financed with bank loans foreclosed between 2003 and 2006
ADVERTISEMENT

SINGAPORE: Some 90,000 HDB flats were financed with bank loans between 2003 and 2006, and as at 31 December last year, 895 or 1 percent of the mortgages were foreclosed by the banks
The figures were released by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan in response to questions raised in Parliament by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong.

While the Ministry does not have information on the average period of default by borrowers before the banks foreclose on the loans, Mr Mah says banks normally monitor closely Non-Performing Loans where no payment has been made for more than 90 days.

They would then offer to reschedule repayments or other assistance measures when borrowers are facing difficulty servicing their loan installments. - CNA /dt

countdracula SG

this is called passing the buck…

the Bear SG

although the gabrament is sometimes "inhumane", let's temper this with some personal observations i've overheard from the kopitiams...

there is this ranter at the kopitiam near where i work.. occasionally, he'd rant about the gabrament.. one of his rants, i remembered.. take what you want from the rant (which was in hokkien):

the gabrament!! they are worse than dogs... people take 10 year car loan, have to pay $800 a month for 10 years! and when they cannot pay, they "pull away" (repossess) the car... i tell you the gabrament is terrible...

now.. here, we could be looking at some of those who refuse to practise financial prudence.. there was someone who worked for my organisation who was like that.. he didn't even have enough to pay for his flat yet he had a 2.4 litre car, wore expensive clothes, bought all kinds of crap like bowling balls, expensive shades and crap like that.. running up a credit card bill which he could never have a prayer of paying...

from what we heard, after not paying for his flat and his utilities for almost a year, they had to sue him for payment.. which caused him to be declared bankrupt..

things like that happen.. although some are, you have to look at the other side... we do have our own responsibilities to shoulder...

foomwee88 SG

Who cares???

Just 0.01% only!!!!!

hloc SG

Not sure how true..... heard from some housing agent that HDB will once again give out housing loan... Reason being that banks are foreclosing too many unit. The Govt knows that they will lose alot of support if ppl start to become homeless.....

ShutterBug SG

You are right, the gov knows they will lose a lot of votes if increasingly people are losing their homes.

Admittedly, I'm quite pleased with what the gov is gradually beginning to do for people... the Budget was quite DECENT.
Smile

If they can do more by making some changes to their policies within the next 4 years, they may win back more supporters...
Smile

AndrewPKYap SG

I think we kpkb loud enough, some asses start to move a little... but still not enough lah... they must give back what they took instead of "investing" in more "shin corps"

robertteh SG

Fortunately we still have citizens here who are prepared to stand up and speak their concern despite all the brainwashing and hypocrisy of the powerful media.

It is good that citizens understand all the wrong doings like over-taxing and recovering fullest possible costs to keep taxes as surpluses for government's own credit despite people's suffering.

I salute these citizens (33.3%) and they are our only true loyal citizens and our only national assets now. They have a job to convince the rest of 66.6% not to give in to wrongs committed like the nkf has been doing.

For those who are the MPs, Civil Servants and the grass root, they are advised not to pretend nothing has happened or hip-hop to prove anything.

We remind them that and they are elected or nominated to do their jobs in speaking up against wrongs like over-charging people and not to be engaged in any hypocrisy to secure their own career advancements.

We are testing their courage by asking them to differ and disassociate from anything which are wrongs like over-charging by HDB or NKF hoarding of public monies which cause our present problems of high cost of living and over-spending by government on expensive facade and signposts etc many problems.

Eventually wrongs will have to be put right by the citizens. This requires patience and persistence and they are doing fine as of now on taking up cases of wrong doings as collective groups.

oxford mushroom SG

If you borrow money, you must be able to pay back. Borrowers are using the money that investors have deposited in the bank for interests. Why should investors suffer loss because you cannot pay back what you owe. Foreclosing the property is the only way to reduce the losses of investors.

You make a financial decision to take a loan. You understand the rules and you take the risk. Loans are just like any other consumer products...caveat emptor Exclamation

robertteh SG

If such loans were straightforward commercial loans by willing private buyers and willing private sellers, there is no problem with your argument.

Trouble is such loans were originally loans granted by HDB under low-cost public housing using the power of CPF Laws and Land Acquisition Act to acquire lands cheap for public housing.

Such public housing loans then after minister Mah has become minister were transferred to the private banks to lessen HDB risks for loan exposure under public housing scheme.

This move to transfer the loans from HDB to private banks has resulted in public-housing citizen purchasers being unable to keep up with the higher interest rates following the transfer. Many HDB homes as many as 852 this month are being re-possessed by the private sector banks because the HDB purchasers become insolvent and unable to keep up with such transfer problem/

So in such a situation is your argument about loan and interest payment liability still valid?

What makes matter worse is the low-cost public housing authority called HDB overnight began to double-charge and over-charge the citizens for flats intended to be constructed as low-cost housing a deviation from the pricing basis adopted by minister Lim Kim San when HDB was constituted.

Then HDB should not have paid the lands at cheaper state-authorised dirt cheap price of S$0.10 per square foot in the name of providing public housing.

will4 SG

I truly pited with the bank n those flat kena possessed but those flat kena foreclosure is three room or four room flat?

I thought HDB subsidized loan is still available? These people belonged to upper middle income group in which they cannot be granted HDB subsidized thing?

oxford mushroom SG

HDB flats are sold at the market value with substantial discounts for those who are eligible. Buyers are fully aware of the price and the conditions of the loan. If you cannot afford to repay the loan, you should settle for a smaller flat.

As for the transfer of loans to the banks, why should the public continue to bear the risks of bad debts arising from HDB buyers who cannot afford to repay their loan? It is the tax payer who has to bear the cost when bad debts get written off. Let commercial banks do their evaluation of the risks and bear the consequences if they are wrong. Interest rates are dependent on market forces and it is right that the government should not continue to distort the economy if it is true that HDB loan rates are much lower than commercial rates.

For the poor who cannot afford to buy a HDB flat, they can rent one at a very substantial discount from HDB.

At a time when thousands of Singaporeans do not have basic housing, it might have been right for the government to provide cheap public housing below cost to Singaporeans. The situation is different now: large subsidies will only distort the market and is detrimental to the economy. It is right to let market forces decide the price for properties, with some safeguards for the very poor, such as cheap rentals for the low-income groups, as we have currently.

The HDB still has a role by providing much cheaper, high quality housing, which prevents private housing prices from shooting through the roof. However, it is not the role of the government to use tax payers monies to underwrite bad debts by Singaporeans who buy property beyond their means.

Incidentally, it is not in the interest of commercial banks to foreclose on housing loans lightly. Especially when the economy is not doing well, the last thing the bank wants is to end up with lots of HDB flats that nobody wants to buy. They would rather restructure the loan and keep the financial stream alive. They foreclose only because it is obvious the owner is never going to be able to repay the loan....and that person shouldn't have bought the property in the first place.

robertteh SG

quote:Originally posted by robertteh:

If such loans were straightforward commercial loans by willing private buyers and willing private sellers, there is no problem with your argument.

Trouble is such loans were originally loans granted by HDB under low-cost public housing using the power of CPF Laws and Land Acquisition Act to acquire lands cheap for public housing.

Such public housing loans then after minister Mah has become minister were transferred to the private banks to lessen HDB risks for loan exposure under public housing scheme.

This move to transfer the loans from HDB to private banks has resulted in public-housing citizen purchasers being unable to keep up with the higher interest rates following the transfer. Many HDB homes as many as 852 this month are being re-possessed by the private sector banks because the HDB purchasers become insolvent and unable to keep up with such transfer problem/

So in such a situation is your argument about loan and interest payment liability still valid?

What makes matter worse is the low-cost public housing authority called HDB overnight began to double-charge and over-charge the citizens for flats intended to be constructed as low-cost housing a deviation from the pricing basis adopted by minister Lim Kim San when HDB was constituted.

Then HDB should not have paid the lands at cheaper state-authorised dirt cheap price of S$0.10 per square foot in the name of providing public housing.

OM:

HDB flats are sold at the market value with substantial discounts for those who are eligible. Buyers are fully aware of the price and the conditions of the loan. If you cannot afford to repay the loan, you should settle for a smaller flat.

As for the transfer of loans to the banks, why should the public continue to bear the risks of bad debts arising from HDB buyers who cannot afford to repay their loan? It is the tax payer who has to bear the cost when bad debts get written off. Let commercial banks do their evaluation of the risks and bear the consequences if they are wrong. Interest rates are dependent on market forces and it is right that the government should not continue to distort the economy if it is true that HDB loan rates are much lower than commercial rates.

For the poor who cannot afford to buy a HDB flat, they can rent one at a very substantial discount from HDB.

At a time when thousands of Singaporeans do not have basic housing, it might have been right for the government to provide cheap public housing below cost to Singaporeans. The situation is different now: large subsidies will only distort the market and is detrimental to the economy. It is right to let market forces decide the price for properties, with some safeguards for the very poor, such as cheap rentals for the low-income groups, as we have currently.

The HDB still has a role by providing much cheaper, high quality housing, which prevents private housing prices from shooting through the roof. However, it is not the role of the government to use tax payers monies to underwrite bad debts by Singaporeans who buy property beyond their means.

Incidentally, it is not in the interest of commercial banks to foreclose on housing loans lightly. Especially when the economy is not doing well, the last thing the bank wants is to end up with lots of HDB flats that nobody wants to buy. They would rather restructure the loan and keep the financial stream alive. They foreclose only because it is obvious the owner is never going to be able to repay the loan....and that person shouldn't have bought the property in the first place

Was HDB set up under the HDB Act as a private developer which was funded by private funds or was it set up as a statutory board with the task of providing low-cost housing to house the population to keep citizens rooted and loyal to the country?

If HDB was indeed set up as a private developer why was it given the right to acquire lands under the Land Acquisition Act at dirt cheap prices of S$0.10 per sq ft.

If any land acquired by HDB for public housing with the lands paid for by public or taxpayers' monies should people be charged for the land cost again?

What is the meaning in spirit and substance of "Housing & Development Board"? Is it not a housing authority given special power to acquire lands at cheap costs and isn't it given power to fine residents for construction defects on windows not even caused by the residents?

Was ex-minister Lim Kim San so naive as to sell the low-cost housing constructed by HDB at construction-pegged costs at S$7,800.00 for a 3-room improved flat in the 1970s?

Did circumstances you mentioned vary so much like the people's wages rising 20 times since 1970s for the HDB to decide it is time to change policy and charge 3-room flat nowadays at 20 times that of 1970s costs.

If HDB begins to act like the private developer why then is it given the power to acquire lands again and again at dirt cheap prices and make windfall profits from selling the flats at market prices.

So apparently some one has decided to jack up the prices illegally against the substance and spirit of the HDB Act and the Land Acquisition Act.

If HDB must be reconstituted why was not there be a public announcement so that all the previous rights given to acquire lands with special power and all the fining of citizens for falling windows due to their own negligence be withdrawn.

If HDB really must sell the low-cost housing at such higher price say to counter abuse of the public funds, it should be mindful of the fact that it should not have included the land element in the costing whatever the final pricing.

The correct pricing formula in such event after parliament re-constituted the HDB would be market price less land cost.

So a fundamental judgmental errors or negligence has been committed under the HDB Act and Land Acquisition Act which reflected serious concerns to the citizens.

Such an act amounts to profiteering and a reprehensible over-charging on lands which were already paid for by the citizens out of their own taxes.

To avoid distorting use of public fund it may be necessary but the whole HDB will need to be reconstituted and not over-charge which is a greater crime as compared with distorting use of public monies per se.

So it is profiteering if HDB already got the land free by paying such lands with people's taxes.

So when HDB selling its flat at market prices less a bit of discount claiming that it is subsidising the flat. Such is the state of over-charging and misrepresentation is a serious wrong against the citizens.

HDB will have to be overhauled to avoid further wrong and misrepresentation.

Lowclassman SG

Well said...this mushroom is just arguing for the sake pf argument! Bird brain!!!

Is there anyone wish to be in that kind of awkful situation of being forced to move out?
How would their children feel?
Don't pap have any moral feeling for them and their children?

Why would pap allowed banks to take such drastic actions? Why the banks are not getting advices or discuss with HDB or the minister in charge to work out the most appropriate action to take, instead going into extreme?

Didn't the minister had ever considered of the actions or standard operating procedures of banks of leaser's payment terms and conditions?

What kind of ministers do we have? Common sense would have told us....every banks have its loans terms and conditions. Standard procedures...after 90 days in default of payments; banks would take legal actions.
Banks are not wrong...It is the minister who he had allowed this to happen!!! Mad

airgrinder SG

Hihi. Happy cny!
I'm a neutral party.

Regarding your statment above, you'll be surprise at the kind of people we sigaporeans are. The earlier post by The Bear about people spending beyond their means is very common. I guess most would not want to be in that kind of awkful situation of being forced to move out, but some people do not consider the future circumstances when something happen.

A friend, who's a RM for priority customers (approx net worth of above $200K) of a local bank said alot of his clients (be it priority or normal like us) are overly optimistic of their financials. They tend to purchase flats such that it will max out their CPF monies. Some of their monthly installments are even much more than their combined monthly CPF contribution by themselves and their employers, such that they have to top up substential amount of cash. Guess what happens when either party experiences a pay cut? (Dun even talk abt retrenchment here).

The truth is there are alot of people with this kind of thinking. When banks forced them out, they come up with funny excuses saying bank so immoral, so cruel so heartless. They'll then complain to their MP. The most the MP can do is just to send us a letter in his/her highest capacity. But ultimately it's up to the bank, as the contract is between the home owner and the bank.

However, most banks, because of public goodwill/reputation/whatever, will actually not repossesed the flat by force immediately. They'll sit down with the home owner to devise a payment schedule. It's usually only when their suggestions are not taken up, or that the owner does not seem promisable (pretend up front to agree but just trying to drag for time) that the bank issue lawyer letters to take back the flat.

Your view point is very valid, and is a problem people face. However, we have to sometimes consider both sides of the coin. The home owner in question is not entirely responsible to himself and his family in the first place, hence now he'll have to suffer the consequences.

The same happens with credit card/credit line/credit facilities debt. Chalking up above $5000 of credit debt is not uncommon where one's income is just $2.5k/month. When a one loss his/her job, and complain to the bank/credit company about how he got many mouths to feed, grandmother sick, another child coming out soon, who's fault is it?

Both ways, (person defaults payment, or arranges a new payment schedule with bank/credit companies) the bank/credit company loses.

I guess your post (and others above) about our government being the cause of all this interests, etc etc. Guess we can't do anything constructive about it. Much as a person is disagreeable to the system, we still face the same thing when we buy flats, etc. Guess what we can do is perhaps vote better, be responsible and honorable.

Just my 2 cents.

oxford mushroom SG

Again living in the 1960s...

Property acquired under the Act is compensated based on market values. The recent change in the rules takes into account the value of potential development as well as current land usage. Land owners can also engage a private valuer to assess the value of the acquired property. The cost of the valuation will be covered by the government. And the owner can submit this valuation to the government for its determination of the statutory compensation. If the owner is still dissatisfied with the statutory compensation given by the government, he or she can appeal to the Appeals Board.

Is it selective amnesia or are you not aware of news just a week ago?

Again living in the past...are you not aware that private development companies are allowed to compete with the HDB for public housing projects? Increasingly, HDB has to function like any other property development firm. The competition will improve quality and drive down prices, which will only be good for consumers.

That was as much as the market could bear at the time. Wake up, uncle! Read the newspapers...look at the prices Singaporeans are prepared to pay for property. Under this government, most Singaporeans have become wealthy and are both able and prepared to pay more for quality housing. If you are prepared to live in Afghanistan, I am sure you can find even cheaper prices for housing than HDB flats in the 1970s.

If the price of 3-room HDB flat today is forcibly pegged at S$8k, alot of Singaporeans will see the value of their investment completely wiped out.

Go read the news: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/258363/1/.html

Acquisition of land is at market prices and private developers are allowed to build public housing as well. If HDB has been jacking up prices with great profits, competition from private developers will drive them out of business. The market will decide what constitutes a fair price and reasonable profits for the developer.

Your other comments are mere repetition in various guises. The cheap housing in the 1970s were designed to deal with a desperate shortage of cheap, basic housing. HDB could acquire land cheaply when all it had at the time was just a few papaya trees. The owners were compensated according to the prevailing market rate at the time, based on the land usage.

Once the land has been developed by the government, its value rises, especially when facilities such as markets, MRT stations, schools and hospitals are built around it. You cannot compare a HDB flat with lifts on every floor, covered walkways, nearby schools, libraries, markets, shopping malls, sports complexes and cinemas to that attap house wih 3 papaya trees. The value of a property can easily rise 20 times or more and rightly so.

As Singapore continues to develop and the citizens become more wealthy, inflation rises as salaries increase for the majority. The rising value of our property is a reflection of the confidence in our continued prosperity.

lionnoisy SG

The banks rates were lower than HDB market rates.

The banks also have more biz and more people
were employed in banks.

2.THe borrowers have to take responsibilty for their loans.

On one hand,SG was said to be a nanny state.

Now this kid was let go and got into trouble.The parents are now blamed!!

3.Pl tell me how the parents act,to be or not to be??

LazerLordz SG

Singaporeans should learn to rent their property if they cannot afford to do so.

It's a check on reckless spending.

foodforthought SG

Hmm.. There is an obvious flaw in hdb and bank loans.

For downgraders, (4room to 3 room or even 4 room to 4 room), we have to take a bank loan. The interest rate for bank loans are higher and the repayment criteria is stricter. But hdb does not understand why we need to downgrade. We downgrade becos we have no money. N when we have no money, we will still need to take a bank loan which commands higher interest rate. Thus, there will obviously be more downgraders who will have their house repossesed by banks. This is truly a situation which HDB can just change by a simple policy of granting hdb loans to downgraders, who needs the loan more than others.

robertteh SG

quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
Was HDB set up under the HDB Act as a private developer which was funded by private funds or was it set up as a statutory board with the task of providing low-cost housing to house the population to keep citizens rooted and loyal to the country?

OM:
Er...that was in 1960...still living in the past? The needs have changed and the challenges today are quite different.

Precisely, who is living in the past. Who has been claiming success repeatedly pointing back to anecdotal past success to claim credit over the past 40 years and ignoring the serious problems like dropping wages and loss of economic competitiveness due to wrongful taxing and cost recovery past policy.

Such a past policy has been described as pay and pay policy which could no longer work well in today's globalized economy but has the government or MM Lee been willing to make changes.

People are nowadays more technologically savvy and now are mobile. If government does not treasure its own practical talents under the lopsided meritocracy policy which benefited largely the elitist scholars, how is it going to globalize the economy to meet drastic changes which the scholars were found unable to accomplish over the last three prolonged recessions.

So it is not the people who cannot change but rather the older leaders who by their own actions and conduct have refused or were unable to change.

Just let go of the past legalistic wrangling of laws and regulation and start motivating the people to get better results through mass participation in practical knowledge applications at every level

quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
If HDB was indeed set up as a private developer why was it given the right to acquire lands under the Land Acquisition Act at dirt cheap prices of S$0.10 per sq ft.

Again living in the 1960s...

Property acquired under the Act is compensated based on market values. The recent change in the rules takes into account the value of potential development as well as current land usage. Land owners can also engage a private valuer to assess the value of the acquired property. The cost of the valuation will be covered by the government. And the owner can submit this valuation to the government for its determination of the statutory compensation. If the owner is still dissatisfied with the statutory compensation given by the government, he or she can appeal to the Appeals Board.

Is it selective amnesia or are you not aware of news just a week ago?

Don't kid yourself!!!. The government has not changed its past decade-old practice of acquiring lands at value based on values backdated to 1979 and 1993 until much public outcry including one forum letter I wrote to Straits Times published recently exposing the injustice of acquiring lands at dirt cheap prices of as low as S$0.10 per square foot or at nominal value of S$1.00 depending on purpose of intended usage.

A Kim Keat church car park lots which were acquired at S$1.00 finally had to be revised to some S$17,000.00 based on car park lot valuation precisely because of public criticism.

A piece of Geylang land which was acquired originally for public use was left vacant and undeveloped for more than 10 years depriving land owners of their constitutional rights relating to ownership of property.

Please do read my forum letter published in the Straits Times where I pointed out the wrong for URA to declare valuable commercial-zoned lands at fringes of CDB presumably for conservation purposes which at the end deprived lands of valuable uses which have been granted planning approval for redevelopment prior to such declaration.

Don't you think the HDB and URA have been misusing the acts mentioned for purposes which deviated from original parliamentary approval.

So I am now questioning such government practices and it self-proclaimed leadership success in view of many NKF types of errors and abuses which should now be corrected if they want the people to trust its leadership and intentions.

quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
What is the meaning in spirit and substance of "Housing & Development Board"?

OM

Again living in the past...are you not aware that private development companies are allowed to compete with the HDB for public housing projects? Increasingly, HDB has to function like any other property development firm. The competition will improve quality and drive down prices, which will only be good for consumers.

What a cheek to make it look like HDB is helping competition when clearly it is involved in sheer abuse of HDB Act and Land Acquisition Act by acquiring lands intended for low cost housing but through deceitful creative NKF-type of accounting method, HDB quietly sell the flats at market prices on lands which were already owned by paid for by citizens for such purposes.

quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
Was ex-minister Lim Kim San so naive as to sell the low-cost housing constructed by HDB at construction-pegged costs at S$7,800.00 for a 3-room improved flat in the 1970s?

OM:
That was as much as the market could bear at the time. Wake up, uncle! Read the newspapers...look at the prices Singaporeans are prepared to pay for property. Under this government, most Singaporeans have become wealthy and are both able and prepared to pay more for quality housing. If you are prepared to live in Afghanistan, I am sure you can find even cheaper prices for housing than HDB flats in the 1970s.

If not for public letters exposing HDB for double charging and profiteering on selling lands acquired for low-cost housing already owned and paid for with taxpayers' monies, do you think the government would have recently amended the basis of compensation on such acquired lands in Feb 2007.

So don't kid yourself again and again and be such a hypocrite to claim for false credit which government is not entitled to. If people do not work hard to expose all these do you think government would change the decade-old practices of acquiring lands intended for public housing at S$0.10 psf or nominal value of S$1.00 as mentioned in the foregoing?

OM:
If the price of 3-room HDB flat today is forcibly pegged at S$8k, alot of Singaporeans will see the value of their investment completely wiped out.

It is true that if HDB is now to retract on its market-pricing policy vis-a-vis sale of low-cost housing, it will cause problems to existing owners who have already bought the flats at inflated market prices HDB by constitution should not have charged.

But there is no reason why when a government has committed a serious error of judgment to continue to ignore people's plight and suffering of having to struggle to pay for exorbitant housing costs for the rest of their lives.

The government should make amends since the ministers are openly proclaimed to be talents with great ability to solve problems.

quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
If HDB begins to act like the private developer why then is it given the power to acquire lands again and again at dirt cheap prices and make windfall profits from selling the flats at market prices.

So apparently some one has decided to jack up the prices illegally against the substance and spirit of the HDB Act and the Land Acquisition Act.

Go read the news: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/258363/1/.html

Acquisition of land is at market prices and private developers are allowed to build public housing as well. If HDB has been jacking up prices with great profits, competition from private developers will drive them out of business. The market will decide what constitutes a fair price and reasonable profits for the developer.

Your other comments are mere repetition in various guises. The cheap housing in the 1970s were designed to deal with a desperate shortage of cheap, basic housing. HDB could acquire land cheaply when all it had at the time was just a few papaya trees. The owners were compensated according to the prevailing market rate at the time, based on the land usage.

Once the land has been developed by the government, its value rises, especially when facilities such as markets, MRT stations, schools and hospitals are built around it. You cannot compare a HDB flat with lifts on every floor, covered walkways, nearby schools, libraries, markets, shopping malls, sports complexes and cinemas to that attap house wih 3 papaya trees. The value of a property can easily rise 20 times or more and rightly so.

As Singapore continues to develop and the citizens become more wealthy, inflation rises as salaries increase for the majority. The rising value of our property is a reflection of the confidence in our continued prosperity.

If you cannot answer straightfoward questions and are to make digressions into other objectives of government, I don't think you could cyber-counter our forumers' many constructive views.

You would only appear to be hypocrite exposing government to more ridicule.