Downgrading the quality of living

Without any hassle or hullabaloo, Singaporeans are downgrading their quality of living and paying more for it. In my personal view, a family of 4 hardlanders, their lives are not much to talk about anyway, but they should deserve a living space of at least 1000 sq ft or 90 sq m. They are human beans too. But this is subjective. Some may think that 600 sq ft should do the trick and some may be more generous and think 1500 sq ft should be more decent. It all depends on what one would consider decent and comfortable. I think going anywhere lesser than $1000 sq ft is going down to living like dogs in a kennel. We are human beans and we need some decent space to live reasonably comfortably. I would suggest that the govt should use this as a guideline in their estate planning and as a yardstick for decent living. And not to forget, the people should not have to strife a life time to pay for such a small space. Yes we have limited space. So don't crowd it by bringing in more foreigners, aspiring a 6m or 8m population. A family of 4 in less than 1000 sq ft is bad. Anyone who thinks that it is good should be prepared to live in one. Please don't use Tokyo or Hongkong as a reference point. They are bad examples. And please don't use Africa to say how lucky we are. We need to live better and in bigger and better space, not in smaller and more expensive space. Call it the people's dream, or aspiration. Does the govt share the people's dream?


Anonymous said...

In time to come, the people's dream will be just, well, dreams.

The people's nightmare come true will be more appropriate. CPF money largely exhausted by HDB and partly imprisoned in CPF life. No savings in old age because of the present high cost of living. And working till you drop becomes the norm.

I know, I know, some will say, just blame those loser Singaporeeans who cannot take care of their finances.

Anonymous said...

'Downgrading the quality of living?'

Hahaha, Lim Swee Say will come in to do a song and dance about, 'Upgrading the downgrading' of your quality of living.

Then all will be peaceful and we live happily ever after.

Anonymous said...

"Please don't use Tokyo or Hongkong as a reference point. They are bad examples."

Why not? These cities have been used by bloggers to compare our governments and economy. Why are they bad examples when comparing housing?

redbean said...

the subjective selection of reference points, in this case hongkong and tokyo, will lead people to think that 300 sq ft is enough for a family of 4 to live in comfort.

that will be terrible won't it be?

and they will exclaim that our public housing is too cheap.

Anonymous said...

"...will lead people to think that 300 sq ft is enough for a family of 4 to live in comfort."

True. But by what yardstick do we say 1000 sqft is the magic number?

Depends on many factors.

Firstly, some mentioned dreams. Dreams are wants, not needs. Public housing is about needs, not wants. Comfort is not only subjective, it can also be considered a luxury.

Secondly, a family of four can mean a couple with toddlers or grown up children. They have different spatial needs. The former certainly do not need one room for each toddler.

Thirdly, for a young couple starting out in life, they can start small and slowly work towards bigger homes in better/premium locations. To expect to get their dream home from the beginning is, to me, a tad too much to as from a provider of public housing.

Lastly, HDB in a way has asked for it. If they had remained true to their original mission of providing public housing to meet needs, instead of venturing into what Pinnacle or whatnots and tagging the price of new units to the private market, they would have been able to justify their stand against unreasonable demands better.

redbean said...

i have mentioned in my post that the 1000 sq ft is what i think is a decent space. and this is what i would expect a govt to set it as its goal for the people. if it can't and want to provide less as good, i will not vote for them.

Wally Buffet said...

No worries about lesser space to live in mate. With so many shopping malls coming up and other interesting places to spend one's time, the home is just basically for sleeping. Besides, most people have to spend a great portion of their waking moments at work so what's the grumble about size? It really doesn't matter.

In Hong Kong, more than half of the population is on the streets 24/7. That makes for a vibrant city and enlivens the economy. You don't want Singapore to end up like some cities in Australia where everything shuts down after 5pm do you?

Incidentally, a very interesting monk has some very interesting views on "space" in Singapore. Read it Here

Anonymous said...

I will vote for a government which does not bow to unreasonable demands within and without for the sake of votes.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Because the locals are becoming more and more "daring" in speaking out against the govt, the govt has little choice but to build a new political base by wooing in foreigners to live in S'pore.

Foreigners get more free passes than the locals -- or it seems to be moving in that direction. The aim of the game is to "crowd out" the noisy chattering classes of the local masses with "new citizens" who will no doubt be solid supporters of the PAP.

That's the plan, IMO. Am I right? If so, will the plan work?

I for one do not give a damn. I have options :)