Rent control act was abolished in 2001 by the G. The main reason why rents have gone out of control?

[dry_county]

Why did the G chose to abolish rent control in the 1st place? Who stand to gain the most? Obviously the landlords right? And who is the biggest landlord in SG? Very obvious right? They created the problem but keep denying rental is the cause of businesses shutting down

In before: there is no evidence that rental costs are related to food prices….

 

[Shion]

those who own commercial properties be it buildings or shophouses or just a small shop really is huat big big over the years

 

[Reborn]

Why did the G chose to abolish rent control in the 1st place? Who stand to gain the most? Obviously the landlords right? And who is the biggest landlord in SG? Very obvious right? They created the problem but keep denying rental is the cause of businesses shutting down

REITS would love the abolishment of the act.

 

[IndomitoW]

U forgot those who invest in reits 1

saying about this... how come reits only up little bit nia... i thought previously a lot people predict reits will go up high high...

 

[mynickname]

Wait. You actually think this act applied to all rentals before 2001 and that there was literally no open market before?

 

[Reborn]

Please have more educated guesses... You dug out a 24 years old news and made wild guess? You didn't complain rental surge 24 years ago? And suddenly 24 years after, you blame rental on an act enacted 24 years ago? Does that sound logical to you?

if the act was still in place today, and rentals were restricted to a certain limit, For example. a premise which costs $50000pm was limited to 20k per month because of the act, why wouldn't it be logical? Maybe the reason he didn't complain 24 years ago (which is an assumption) was the act was in place?

 

[ahnyaahnya]

Rent Control affected the very old property.
Tenants were paying a few dollars per month (less than $100) to rent a landed property.

 

[TheITGuy]

We have been scamming by the biggest scammer all these whiles

 

[NintendoSwitch]

Wah want to enforce rent control for their favorite foreign talents liao

Chiu noe it in yr gut.

 

[mynickname]

if the act was still in place today, and rentals were restricted to a certain limit, For example. a premise which costs $50000pm was limited to 20k per month because of the act, why wouldn't it be logical? Maybe the reason he didn't complain 24 years ago (which is an assumption) was the act was in place?

Why would a place that can only derive 20k pm cost 50k pm to begin with? Thats illogical.

 

[Reborn]

Why would a place that can only derive 20k pm cost 50k pm to begin with? Thats illogical.

because of demand and supply. Free market forces not supressed by any ACT? How can it be illogical?

 

[mynickname]

was it actually being enforced prior to the appeal? a lot of legislation are just sitting on the books
it takes a lot of work and time to review all legislation

It was. But it's application was very limited.

 

[mynickname]

because of demand and supply. Free market forces not supressed by any ACT? How can it be illogical?

Great. I want to sell you something. Please pm me.

 

[Reborn]

It was. But it's application was very limited.

how limited was it?

 

[mynickname]

how limited was it?

Firstly understand that the rent control act was targetting your colonial renter e.g. aka sbc 红头巾, a room in a shop house, pre 1950 building. By the time it was repealed, probably only less than 3% (and im being generous with the percent) of the existing residential tenancies.

These things don't happen in isolation. Impacted people were already being provided relocation and related benefits even before.

Rents were otherwise on a free market basis. So stop attributing whatever ill to this repeal, it's bonkers. Not even the most hardcore opposition candidate does this.

 

[gnoes85]

It depends on which side u are on. Landlord are like kings, why would policy be advantage to peasants?

 

[Capitalist]

We are a Capitalist market!

- Capitalist

 

[Reborn]

Firstly understand that the rent control act was targetting your colonial renter e.g. aka sbc 红头巾, a room in a shop house, pre 1950 building. By the time it was repealed, probably only less than 3% (and im being generous with the percent) of the existing residential tenancies.

These things don't happen in isolation. Impacted people were already being provided relocation and related benefits even before.

Rents were otherwise on a free market basis. So stop attributing whatever ill to this repeal, it's bonkers. Not even the most hardcore opposition candidate does this.

so did the repeal of the act for those properties under the act have any significant effect on the overall market? Even though it was a tiny portion of the market?

 

[zueinder]

Gg pofma lai liao

 

[coyote]

if the act was still in place today, and rentals were restricted to a certain limit, For example. a premise which costs $50000pm was limited to 20k per month because of the act, why wouldn't it be logical? Maybe the reason he didn't complain 24 years ago (which is an assumption) was the act was in place?

It's ok. I already conceded... 夏虫不可语冰。。。 Any further explanation is futile... Can't help people who chooses to stay and dwell in the past instead of living in the present.