HDB correspondence on public newsletters

Spunky

Master Member
Joined
May 29, 2000
Messages
2,657
Reaction score
0
yah....if contractor cannot do a good job, penalise him....or get someone who can for the same amt of $$$.
I'm from the contracting line....still kena squeeze like hell! very common to see contractors doing 20% more work for 30% discount of previous cotnract value....so I don't think the increase will eventually go to the contractors:eek:
 
Last edited:

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
ST JULY 27, 2004
Subsidy should be based on flat's building cost
I REFER to the reply by the Housing Board, 'What goes into pricing of HDB flats' (ST, July 23).


It was stated that a market subsidy is provided 'by pricing new flats below the price of comparable resale flats' and that the price 'also takes into account location, design and other specific attributes'.

Most Singaporeans would have expected the selling price to be related to the cost of production, in this case the cost of land and construction. The final price would be arrived at after factoring in a subsidy. In other words, a subsidy would be given on the absolute cost.

Under the current pricing policy, the subsidy may be non-existent in the event that the cost of production is lower than the selling price.

So if a flat costs $100,000 to build (including land, construction and financing costs), and HDB says the resale price of a comparable flat is $250,000, selling it at $200,000 results in a subsidy of $50,000 - according to its definition.

However, to the man in the street, HDB has made a $100,000 profit.


MOHAMED RAFIQ HAMJAH
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Five room, different charges
Mr Chua Hwee Yong said in his letter, 'Why raise already steep HDB fees?' (ST, July 21), that the service and conservancy charge for a five-room flat in his estate is $59.50. I am very surprised that I am paying $73.50 to the Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council for my five-room flat, which is smaller than those in the older estates.

Why the great difference in charges?


LIM KWEE HUAT

SOME FLATS PAY A PREMIUM: I would like to know why there is a difference in service and conservancy charges between a standard and a premium five-room flat. The charge for a standard flat is $59.50, and for a premium, $65.

The only difference is that the premium flat comes with additional floor and toilet finishing but these extras had already been factored into the selling price.

Could the Ang Mo Kio Town Council justify the additional charge for premium flats?


HAN YAW JUAN

CLEAN OR DIRTY, SAME CHARGE: My precinct had for two years been awarded the title of Cleanest Precinct in Tampines/Singapore, so I do not understand why there is no reduction in the conservancy fees to recognise the effort of the residents and residents' committee in keeping maintenance costs down.

Instead, the monthly conservancy fee for my flat will be increased by $4.


CHUA WENQIANG

COSTS TRIMMED, SO WHY THE HIKE?: The letter I received on the revision in service and conservancy charges says the fee is used to pay for daily cleaning of common areas, among other works. However, I doubt that each floor is cleaned/swept every day. Also, the Hong Kah Town Council confirmed last year that the monthly washing of common areas had been changed to once every two months, to keep costs down.

This being so, why do we need to pay an additional $2 every month? Also, why is it that the two opposition town councils can do without an increase?


PNEH LI FEN (MS)
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
JULY 28, 2004
Hike In HDB Service And Conservancy Charges
Town council should prioritise spending
SERVICE and conservancy charges will go up for Housing Board residents in September. While I applaud the West Coast-Ayer Rajah Town Council for putting in effort to maintain the overall appearance of my estate with the recent renovation and painting works, it should prioritise how it spends residents' hard-earned money.

A van crashed into a pillar of the carpark shelter in Block 410 of Pandan Gardens a few months ago. No action was taken to repair the pillar.

Shortly after the accident, the town council started renovation works in the estate, and all the other shelters were repaired and given a new coat of paint. Everything seems to have been repaired or renovated, except for the damaged pillar in the carpark shelter. Where is the priority?

The cement flooring of all the void decks in the estate was redone, even though there was nothing visibly wrong with the old one.

The estate is still undergoing painting works as I write, even though the old coat of paint still looked good.

On July 19, a gaping hole appeared in one of the sewage pipes in the void deck of Block 410. Faeces and urine spewed forth, splashing against the freshly painted walls and onto the new flooring.

It took four days for the town council to have the problem fixed.

I do not see how the West Coast-Ayer Rajah Town Council can justify the increase in service and conservancy charges in my estate if this is the service it provides.



FOO WEI-NE (MS)
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
JULY 29, 2004
Time To Seal Resale Deal But...
Flat seller makes himself scarce
I AM writing to highlight a potential pitfall in the process for purchasing a resale Housing Board flat. The process stipulated by HDB apparently protects the seller and puts the buyer at a disadvantage.

About a month ago, I signed an option (on HDB's standard option form) to purchase a resale flat and paid the option money to the seller.

According to HDB procedures, the buyer must exercise the option within 14 calendar days (the 'option period'), failing which the option would lapse and the contract deemed null and void. The seller would then be able to forfeit the option money.

I had, within the option period, signed the acceptance and wanted to pay the exercise fee to the seller. But the seller and his agent 'disappeared'. Attempts to contact them by both my agent and myself failed. I even went to the seller's flat but could not get any of the occupants to talk to me.

The seller probably had second thoughts about the selling price and was not keen to proceed with the sale.

I then tried to recover the option money as well as the cost I incurred in getting a valuation report but my requests fell on deaf ears.

I checked the HDB option form and realised that there is nothing in the 'agreement' to bind the seller or require him to return the option money, when he is not there to receive the acceptance and exercise fee, if he had not authorised another person to receive them on his behalf.

I approached HDB for assistance but was told that this was a contractual issue and it would not intervene. I cannot understand how this is so, as the form and procedures had been stipulated by HDB.

I also sought assistance from the police as I felt that this could be a scam but was informed again that this was a contractual matter. Approaching the Small Claims Tribunal and the Consumers Association of Singapore also drew similar responses. In each case, I was advised to engage a lawyer and to go to court to recover my costs. However, this does not make sense as I would have to incur more costs to recover a small amount of money. But though the sum may not be large it is still hard-earned money. I would therefore like to hear from the relevant parties on this issue.



KATHERINE TAN THUAY NGOI (MDM)
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
ST JULY 30, 2004
Paya Lebar precinct votes on makeover
If residents of five blocks in Paya Lebar Way vote for it, 25-year-old estate will be renamed Pelton Place after major upgrading

By Tan Hui Yee

RESIDENTS in five blocks of flats in Paya Lebar Way began voting yesterday to decide if their precinct will get a makeover under the HDB's main upgrading programme. The estate was picked for the exercise in 2001, but the poll was on hold for some time. Usually, a vote is taken within 18 months of the announcement.

Mr Matthias Yao, Member of Parliament for the area, said the poll for blocks 120 to 124 - from yesterday to next Monday - was delayed because the project team was trying to incorporate the residents' numerous suggestions in the plan, like the location of drop-off points.

He added that over the past two years, some residents had been worried about keeping their jobs and their ability to pay for the upgrading, but recently, they expressed eagerness to have their 25-year-old estate upgraded.

'The economy is picking up... the job market has stabilised. My feeling is the residents are much more comfortable at this moment.'

Under the programme, residents not only get their flats and surroundings spruced up but also have the option of adding a utility room to their unit and having the lift stop at every floor in their block.

The Paya Lebar precinct will be the third to vote on the scheme since residents at Pandan Gardens rejected it in July last year, the first time the programme was turned down since it began in 1992.

Only 68.8 per cent of the residents were for it then. A total of 75 per cent have to be in favour before it can be carried out. One reason cited by those who said 'no' was the economic downturn. That vote prompted some MPs to consider putting off the upgrading poll in their precincts until the economy got better.

Since then, two precincts - in Telok Blangah Heights and Teck Whye Lane - have given their approval to the scheme. Five more selected for upgrading in 2001 and another eight picked in 2002 have yet to hold the vote.

The Paya Lebar Way estate will be renamed Pelton Place after the work is finished. It will have a new roof garden above the multi-storey carpark and a porch where residents can be dropped off.

Depending on the size of their flat, Singaporean residents there who opt to have more space added to their homes can expect to pay between $11,000 and $21,900 for the upgrading work if this is the first time a flat they are living in is upgraded, and an additional $3,000 for a new lift landing. Said Mr Yao: 'If we don't get the 75 per cent vote... the chance to upgrade will be given to other estates.'

Said retiree Low Ka Noi, 73: 'I'll definitely support it. I've been waiting for this for a long time.'
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Today

Upgrading poll leads to war of petitions

Grassroots committee and nay-sayers in tussle for residents' votes on Paya Lebar programme

Monday • August 2, 2004

Derrick A Paulo
derrick@newstoday.com.sg

Campaigning, lobbying, going door-to-door ... It's not the General Elections, but two opposing camps have been fighting for every vote at five apartment blocks in a sleepy neighbourhood estate.

The event? The Housing and Development Board's (HDB) latest polls for its Main Upgrading Programme.

In the past week, residents at blocks 120 to 124 along Paya Lebar Way have found petitions and newspaper clippings slotted between their gate grilles.

Even the Residents' Committee (RC) has gotten into the act to counter the anonymous appeals which have urged residents to vote against the upgrading.

With an earlier straw poll indicating that 76 per cent of the residents were in favour of upgrading — a 75 per cent majority vote is required for the go-ahead — every vote has become crucial during the polling exercise, which began on Thursday and will end tonight.

So crucial, in fact, that the RC did a check to see which households had not voted by Saturday so that it could send them a newspaper clipping exhorting the benefits of HDB upgrading.

A non-vote will count as a vote against the programme.

Explaining why the RC distributed the article on Saturday night, the chairman of the MacPherson Zone 'F' RC, Mr Jeffrey Wee, told Today: "Since the flyers had been all negative on upgrading, some of the residents came to us and said we should do something to keep the other party from succeeding."

About 300 of the 726 households had yet to vote when the RC made its check. Voting is computerised.

The war of letters began the previous weekend, when an anonymous resident or residents circulated a letter arguing that the space-adding item for five-room flats — a 6sq m balcony — was unnecessary and listed several disadvantages to upgrading, such as the inconvenience.

Last Monday, Mr Wee countered with a letter to stress that the chance for upgrading would be "given only once" and to rebut the points that had been made earlier.

Then came a slew of clippings about HDB contractors going bust while working on upgrading projects at other precincts, as well as letters in the newspapers questioning the pricing of HDB flats.

Another anonymous letter cited the case of a resident who had renovated a flat recently, yet would have to spend money again.

While many residents have shrugged off the flurry of appeals, some seem to have given them some thought.

"Actually, we were not in favour of upgrading initially because we just did some renovations, but there's no choice. If we don't vote now, the chance won't come back," said Mdm SK Sim, a homemaker in her 40s, on Friday night.

"But quite a few of my neighbours who have also done their renovations recently are beginning to agree with some of the points raised (against the upgrading)."

Mr Matthias Yao, the MP for the precinct, told Today: "I think residents will be able to judge for themselves whether upgrading is good for the estate and that they will choose wisely."

When asked if he knew the identity of the anonymous petitioner(s), Mr Yao said: "We have not wasted our time doing that."
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
MUP Boycott-ed??

TODAY
Paya Lebar upgrading plan defeated at polls

Tuesday • August 3, 2004

For only the second time, Housing Development Board residents have rejected the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP).

Last night, polls came to a close for five blocks along Paya Lebar Way and only 71.4 per cent of the eligible voters voted "yes" for the standard package. A 75-per-cent majority is required before the HDB will implement the programme.

In a statement to the media, Mr Matthias Yao, MP for the precinct, said: "I share the disappointment of the residents who voted for upgrading and were looking forward to it.

"But as the proposal did not receive sufficient support we have to respect the result. I will ensure that the Town Council and the HDB Branch Office will continue to keep the precinct at a high standard of maintenance."

An earlier straw poll indicated a 76-per-cent support for the MUP. But the past week saw strong lobbying against it.

Over 120 precincts have been selected for the scheme and last year, residents at Pandan Gardens were the first to turn it down when only 68.8 per cent voted in favour of a makeover. — Derrick A Paulo
 

sunsetbay

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 3, 2000
Messages
49,995
Reaction score
2,538
Re: MUP Boycott-ed??

given a choice i wld opt out MUP as well. IUP & LUP wld be gd enough!! :D


jq75 said:
TODAY
Paya Lebar upgrading plan defeated at polls

Tuesday • August 3, 2004

For only the second time, Housing Development Board residents have rejected the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP).

Last night, polls came to a close for five blocks along Paya Lebar Way and only 71.4 per cent of the eligible voters voted "yes" for the standard package. A 75-per-cent majority is required before the HDB will implement the programme.

In a statement to the media, Mr Matthias Yao, MP for the precinct, said: "I share the disappointment of the residents who voted for upgrading and were looking forward to it.

"But as the proposal did not receive sufficient support we have to respect the result. I will ensure that the Town Council and the HDB Branch Office will continue to keep the precinct at a high standard of maintenance."

An earlier straw poll indicated a 76-per-cent support for the MUP. But the past week saw strong lobbying against it.

Over 120 precincts have been selected for the scheme and last year, residents at Pandan Gardens were the first to turn it down when only 68.8 per cent voted in favour of a makeover. — Derrick A Paulo
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
hdb shld let pple choose which part of the package they prefer than to have some useless upgrading package....

guess it shows pple still dun really feel upbeat abt the economy
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
High-rise bomb shelter rule eased

AUG 5, 2004
High-rise bomb shelter rule eased
By Tan Hui Yee

NEW high-rise apartments no longer need a bomb shelter built into each unit. These emergency refuges can now be located in fire-escape staircases instead.

The decision to ease the much-criticised rule follows discussions between developers, who felt it restricted their project designs, and the Singapore Civil Defence Force.

Under new guidelines, the entire fire-escape staircase can be used as a bomb shelter.

The change was welcomed by private developers, who see this as an opportunity to improve on the designs of their apartments.

Previously, the bomb shelter had to be either within each home or in a communal space for each level of a building.

The Housing Board (HDB) and most private developers did not go for the second option of building communal bomb shelters, though for different reasons.

HDB has no plans to move bomb shelters to staircases.

It told The Straits Times that the staircases in HDB blocks are designed to be 'as open as possible' for natural ventilation and lighting and to prevent crime.

It is also concerned about overcrowding if passers-by take refuge in HDB stairwells in an emergency.

An architect said that it would cost a lot more for the HDB to fortify its staircases because they would have to be enclosed and ventilated mechanically.

Private developers, on the other hand, placed the bomb shelters in homes to maximise the amount of saleable space in their projects.

To date, only one residential-cum-commercial development has a communal shelter on each floor.

Bomb shelters, which have reinforced concrete walls and steel doors, have been built in new HDB flats since 1995. About 147,800 flats have them.

Private homes were only required to have the shelters from 1998.

Over the years though, the rule has been criticised.

The chief of investment company Temasek Holdings, Ms Ho Ching, has questioned its practicality, pointing out that residents usually use their bomb shelters as storerooms and would have to empty them in an emergency.

Singapore Institute of Architects official Lau Kwong Chung told The Straits Times that the ruling restricted, in particular, the design of homes 800 sq ft and smaller.

Developers said the location of bomb shelters had become a bigger issue because smaller apartments were being built.

Now, three private projects have received approval from the Building and Construction Authority to build the shelters into staircases.

United Overseas Land will have them in its upcoming 118-unit condominium, Newton Residences, while City Developments will have them in two future projects.
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
ST AUG 5, 2004
Option procedure used successfully in large number of resale-flat cases
I REFER to the letter, 'Time to seal resale deal but flat seller makes himself scarce' (ST, July 29), by Madam Katherine Tan.

The Option to Purchase is a standard contract for HDB resale-flat transactions. It provides prospective buyers with a 'cooling-off' period, known as the option period, during which a buyer may think over the intended purchase before committing to a firm contract with the seller.

If the buyer subsequently decides not to purchase the flat, he simply allows the Option to lapse, without incurring the risk of being liable to the seller for breach of contract. The Option to Purchase is a form of contract that is commonly used in private-property transactions. The procedure involved is not intended to put one party at a disadvantage against the other.

The Option procedure has been used successfully in a large number of resale cases since its implementation. In such cases, sellers who are not available during the option period may authorise a third party to receive the signed Option and the option exercise fee from the buyer. Madam Tan may wish to obtain independent legal advice to seek recourse.


LOH SWEE HENG
Deputy Director (Resale)
for Director(Estate Administration & Property)
Housing & Development Board

I REFER to the letter, 'Time to seal resale deal but flat seller makes himself scarce' (ST, July 29).

All professional practising real-estate agents have a duty to their clients and also the co-broker's clients.

Unfortunately in Singapore, not all practising agents are required to join an industry body like the Institute of Estate Agents (IEA) - unlike lawyers and doctors, where any mis-conduct is subjected to disci-plinary action by the industry body. We would thus advise the public to engage agents who are members of IEA as they are bound by its strict Code of Conduct and Ethics, as well as agents who are National Skills Recognition System-certified.


ANTHONY CHUA
Chairman, Press Liaison Committee
IEA - 4th Council
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
ST AUG 6, 2004
HDB pricing keeps new flats affordable to most Singaporeans
I REFER to the letters, 'What goes into pricing of HDB flats' (ST, July 23) by Mr Hiong Kum Meng and 'Subsidy should be based on flat's building cost' (ST, July 27) by Mr Mohamed Rafiq Hamjah.

Mr Hiong concluded that the increase in HDB resale prices has outstripped wage growth, based on a comparison of changes in the Resale Price Index with changes in average nominal wages between 1993 and 2003.

We would like to explain that resale flats are transacted in the open market on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. The prices are not set by HDB. Prices can fluctuate, depending on factors such as the economic outlook, employment situation and sentiments in the property market.

What is important is that HDB prices its new flats so that the majority of Singaporeans can afford one. From 1993 to 2003, the prices of new four-room flats increased by 2.6 per cent per annum, below the annual increase of 5.3 per cent in average wages cited by Mr Hiong. New-flat prices did not rise as steeply as resale-flat prices, because HDB prices new flats below their equivalent market price, that is, at a subsidy.

Mr Mohamed asked why HDB's subsidy for new flats is related to the market price and not the building cost of a flat. Today, first-time HDB flat buyers can buy either resale or new flats. Those who opt to buy resale flats from the open market can take up a housing grant of $30,000 or $40,000, which allows them to enjoy a discount off the market price of the flat.

Those who opt to buy new flats from HDB also enjoy a discount off the equivalent market price of the flat.

The difference between what the buyer pays HDB for his flat and what it is actually worth in the market is a direct and real subsidy provided by HDB to the buyer.

Like the housing grant for resale flats, the provision of such a market-related subsidy in the case of new flats has enabled HDB to keep its flats affordable for the majority of Singaporeans.



Why unsold new flats may sell for much less


I REFER to the letter, 'New flat now selling for $115,000 less' (ST, July 23), by Madam Germaine Ling.

All HDB flats are priced below their equivalent market prices at the point of offer so that buyers enjoy a market subsidy. HDB reviews the selling prices of its flats regularly, and takes into account several factors when doing so.

One of the factors considered is the prevailing resale price of comparable flats in the vicinity. With the softening of the property market in the past few years due to the Asian financial crisis and subsequent economic downturn, the prices of unsold flats were adjusted according to the prevailing market condition.

Currently, HDB is re-offering a number of executive flats which have remained unsold. This will help to increase occupancy rates and improve the safety and security of residents who have already moved into the blocks.

We thank Madam Ling for her feedback.


DESMOND WONG
Deputy Director (Marketing & Planning)
for Director (Estate Administration & Property)
Housing & Development Board
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
ST AUG 6, 2004
Two Havelock blocks to get interim upgrade
HOME owners of 192 flats in two Housing Board blocks in Havelock Road have voted in favour of the Interim Plus Upgrading Programme, which will improve their common areas and provide a lift that opens on every floor.

Almost 94 per cent of residents in blocks 94 and 95, both point blocks with five-room flats, supported the programme when voting ended on Monday.

Their vote contrasts with that of residents in Paya Lebar Way who, earlier this week, rejected a refurbishment under the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP) that included retiling their toilets and building a multistorey carpark. Only 71.4 per cent voted for it, less than the required 75 per cent.

It was the second MUP rejection since the programme began in 1992. Pandan Gardens was the first precinct to turn down the opportunity in July last year.

The Interim Plus programme was introduced in 2002. A less extensive alternative to the MUP, it marries the HDB Interim Upgrading and Lift Upgrading programmes.

So far, 32 precincts have been picked for the programme.

In the Interim Plus programme, improvements to the common area are done for free and can include such features as passenger drop-off porches, sheltered staircase and waiting areas, and new void-deck seating areas.

However, flat owners who benefit from upgraded lifts must pay up to $3,000 each.

Renovation of the Havelock flats starts in the second quarter of next year and is expected to take two years
 

sunsetbay

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 3, 2000
Messages
49,995
Reaction score
2,538
jq75 said:
ST AUG 6, 2004
HDB pricing keeps new flats affordable to most Singaporeans
I REFER to the letters, 'What goes into pricing of HDB flats' (ST, July 23) by Mr Hiong Kum Meng and 'Subsidy should be based on flat's building cost' (ST, July 27) by Mr Mohamed Rafiq Hamjah.

...........

What is important is that HDB prices its new flats so that the majority of Singaporeans can afford one. From 1993 to 2003, the prices of new four-room flats increased by 2.6 per cent per annum, below the annual increase of 5.3 per cent in average wages cited by Mr Hiong. New-flat prices did not rise as steeply as resale-flat prices, because HDB prices new flats below their equivalent market price, that is, at a subsidy.


DESMOND WONG
Deputy Director (Marketing & Planning)
for Director (Estate Administration & Property)
Housing & Development Board


they compared the price of the new flat with the annum wage!! what abt the floor area? 10yrs ago, u can buy a 4rm A corner 103sq.m flat at $100k, now with $180k u can only get a 90sq.m 4rm on corridor unit!! :slant: also the annual wage increment, was it really that much? or they base on the civil servants wages increment?
 

Spunky

Master Member
Joined
May 29, 2000
Messages
2,657
Reaction score
0
Only now then I understand what the govt meant by "subsidy":rolleyes:
And most ppl I know thought that resale price (valuation) is dependent on 'new' price. Now it seems like a cyclic function...no wonder the prices of both were spiralling up previously!
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
basically they never answer the question directly....:rolleyes:
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Singaporeans still want upgrading despite recent rejection: Mah Bow Tan

06 August 2004

SINGAPORE : National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan is convinced that Singaporeans still want their homes upgraded and it is not a big deal that one precinct in Paya Lebar voted against upgrading.

However if there are more such rejections, then the Government will have to reconsider this asset-enhancement scheme.

Residents in the 25-year-old Paya Lebar precinct have voted against upgrading their estate.

This is the second time in the past 12 months that an estate has turned down the Government's main upgrading programme.

But the Minister does not think upgrading is losing its appeal.

He pointed out that in the past 20 years, residents in more than 100 estates around the island have welcomed upgrading.

Mr Mah said: "Two incidents over 20 years does not signify that the programme is not popular. I think that is something not unexpected given different precincts have different needs - this may not be the right time and they may not want it. It's not something that we should be too fussed about."

Main upgrading would have meant sprucing up the estate, adding a utility room and having lifts stop on every floor.

Many of those who voted against the upgrading say it would have been too expensive.

Mr Mah said: "In the final analysis if the programme is really not popular, we will scrap it, it's as simple as that. So if the next few rounds people say "No I don't want it", then we'll save the budget and use it for something else. If there is a consistent pattern, and it's not well received as it is, then the logical thing for us to do is to stop and review it. But I don't think we have reached that stage so I don't think there's any need to do any major overhaul."

Beyond upgrading Mr Mah says that his ministry has been responsive to change.

And he says it will continue to play a role in creating a Singapore that's attractive, a place where Singaporeans can relate to, a place they can call home.

He added: "But there is still a sense of of cynicism among some members of the public that this is all a "wayang" that we have already kept the plans in our drawer somewhere and are just going through the motions. The sooner we get over this mental barrier the better."

The best example he said was Chek Jawa where the Government deferred reclamation plans after the public highlighted the rich and diverse marine life in the area. - CNA
 

sunsetbay

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 3, 2000
Messages
49,995
Reaction score
2,538
Spunky said:
Only now then I understand what the govt meant by "subsidy":rolleyes:
And most ppl I know thought that resale price (valuation) is dependent on 'new' price. Now it seems like a cyclic function...no wonder the prices of both were spiralling up previously!


pricing the new flats pegged to the resale mkt price!! oh!! that's the new definition for the word "subsidy"!!! :o
 

sunsetbay

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 3, 2000
Messages
49,995
Reaction score
2,538
Fm ST, 07 Aug 2004

Potong Pasir and Hougang S&C charges not raised

Opposition MPs say PAP town councils enjoy economies of scale; PAP MP says money saved there had staved off hikes since 1997

By Tan Hui Yee

THE two Opposition Members of Parliament said yesterday that they will not be raising their residents' service and conservancy (S&C) charges and expressed surprise that the People's Action Party town councils saw the need to do so.

Workers' Party's Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang, said in a statement that the Government's move to allow town councils to set aside less money for their sinking fund from April 1 should have helped contain the charges.

Previously, town councils were expected to put aside 35 to 40 per cent of their S&C charges, depending on the type of flats in the ward, into their sinking fund, meant for upgrading and cyclical works. This was reduced to 30 to 35 per cent.

For Hougang Town Council, this translated into a $200,000 annual saving which could go into paying for day-to-day maintenance.

Contacted yesterday, Singapore People's Party's Chiam See Tong, MP for Potong Pasir, also said the lower sinking fund contribution had helped. But even if there was no change, his town council would probably still have balanced the books, he said.

Both MPs said higher charges would further burden residents, some of whom have no jobs or have yet to feel the effects of the economic recovery.

Mr Low said he was surprised at the PAP's announcement that charges will go up, given that their town councils enjoyed economies of scale. His town council has about 10,000 flats, compared to, for example, Pasir-Ris Punggol's 77,235 units.

PAP town councils also saved money because of government upgrading programmes that would have solved maintenance problems such as spalling concrete.

'Finally, I note that the majority of the PAP town councils have very healthy financial positions,' said Mr Low.

He appended a list of PAP town councils with surpluses ranging from $1.2 million for Tampines Town Council to $5.2 million for Ang Mo Kio Town Council for the financial year 2002/2003. Accumulated surpluses go up to $13 million for a few town councils.

But Mr Chew Heng Ching, coordinating chairman of the 14 PAP town councils, maintained that the increases, which take effect next month and go up to $3.50 per month for owners of five-room or smaller flats, were necessary.

Without these increases, many PAP town councils would be in the red in the next three to five years, he said.

Whatever economies of scale the PAP town councils had reaped over the past years had been used to stave off any hike in S&C charges, which had not been raised since 1997, he said.

Also, a portion of the accumulated surpluses has been pre-committed to town improvement works like linkways, and could not be used to cover operating expenses.

Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council, for example, had accumulated a surplus of $11.3 million by March 31 last year. However, about $7.5 million of it needs to be set aside for town improvement works.

Its chairman, MP Charles Chong, disclosed in an earlier interview that, despite the $2 million reduction in contributions his council was putting into its sinking fund in this financial year, it would be $500,000 in the red next year if it did not raise fees.

According to coordinating chairman Mr Chew, not every PAP town council is reducing its contributions to the sinking fund.

His town council, East Coast, was not doing so because it wanted to make sure it had enough money in its kitty to do upgrading work on its ageing precincts.

'We are looking at our long-term needs, running our town councils as prudently as possible,' he said.

different explanation by Mr Chew as above and last week Mr Mah said the increase of SC/CC was due to the increase of the contractor cost!! :

Fm TODAY, 26 July 2004

HDB fee hike fair: Mah

Buildings in good condition have value so pay for their upkeep, says minister


"Better to spend money to make sure your flat is properly maintained."

Mr Mah noted that a large part of the fees come from contractors' costs, for services such as rubbish collection and cleaning.

"I think the town councils have tried their best to keep the costs down. They probably feel that now, they have no choice but to pass it down to residents."

:slant:
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top