HDB flats for collateral! Cannot Mah...

HDB flats will now not be allowed to be used as collateral for loans. This is to protect the owners from losing the roof on their heads. The good thing is that it will join the list of things that Singaporeans can smile and feel happy about aka money in CPF. The high prices of HDB will now make Singaporeans smile and smile. But if they want to go to the Ah Long for a loan, the Ah long will say HDB cannot mah. Never mind lah, it may be a myth of wealth, but many happy Singaporeans with HDB flats worth a million bucks will can be seen smiling and smiling in the kopitiams.


Wally Buffet said...

Good policy to nip the bud of obnoxious activity by some Ah Longs masquerading as property agents.

But bad news for the IRs because now Ah Ter and Ah Kow cannot pledge their bunny holes to go to the two casinos with their PRC girlfriends and splurge like high rollers!

Matilah_Singapura said...

Only true privately owned property can be used as collateral.

If you could use public-funded property for collateral then any fool could go take a loan and use a portion of parliament house as collateral -- since parliament house is public property and therefore equally owned by every citizen.

Anonymous said...

Glad you pointed that out. Thanks to PAP's brainwashing propaganda machine that tries to equate "buying" a HDB flat = "investing" of Singapore. Many Singaporeans also believe they "OWN" a HDB flat when they pay $xxx,xxx for it.

One never owns a HDB flat whether one pays $650k for a Pinnacle@Duxton pigeon hole, $550k for a 5-rm at Dawson Place or $700k for a resale Queenstown flat. They are all leased to us for 99 years and the contract is a LEASE AGREEMENT between us and HDB.

"Buying" a HDB flat is merely a commitment on our part to rent that flat from HDB for 99-years. We also cannot "pass on" a HDB flat to our children since we don't OWN it. We can may be able to pass the remaining lease to your children if they haven't leased another flat from the HDB.

PAP is very clever, or rather Singaporeans are damn stupid. PAP convinced the citizens that they "own" a HDB flat, then sell them a HDB pigeon hole which costs $40k to build at $350k. The hundreds of billions in surplus then gets skimmed and surreptitiously transferred to GIC and Temasek for Auntie Jinxy to "invest". All I can say is this is one big SCAM OF THE MILLENIUM.

Matilah_Singapura said...

High property prices (real prices) are inevitable in HK or S'pore -- whether in a public or private system of real estate acquisition, as land is scarce.

Even in HK the state leases the land to owners/ developers and they "own" the land for 50 years or so. But technically the property is not owned. What is objectively "owned" -- though temporarily -- is the lease.

Property is taxed as income in HK, in S'pore it is taxed ad valorem -- assessed on the value of the property. (4%, 10%)

It is impossible to remove the deeply emotional aspect in day-to-day life because one's home occupies a large chunk of one's self-identity and one's feeling of security.

That said, public housing is a contentious political issue in S'pore and to remain objective one must try to take the emotion out of any analysis.

This is one policy I firmly congratulate the Sg.gov for implementing -- although they did in their political speak attempt "bluff" the people into thinking HDB ownership is true ownership. One is free to believe any myth. If political claims are not scrutinised, I blame the recipient, not the originator of those ideas. As the saying goes: "You can't cheat an honest man". But there're people who want to believe, because they want to believe, so they set themselves up.

Borrowing money on HDB collateral will inevitably contribute to the growth of the credit bubble. It is also UNFAIR to use public-assistance (public housing is discounted housing) to "gain an upper financial hand". By doing so means you are using other peoples' money without their consent (taxpayers) to better your position in life.

Let's face it, if you want truly private property, then buy truly private property. The fact that for many it is unaffordable is not an issue. Caviar and champagne are unaffordable, does that mean the public purse should subsidise it?

Also closing the loop holes should mediate prices in the HDB sector -- HDB's now become less attractive because they are NOT private property and cannot be borrowed against. Prior to this, people would have been motivated to acquire HDB then borrow against it -- for their personal gain of course, which grossly UNFAIR and UNJUST to other people who pay more taxes simply because they are either smarter, harder working or just plain lucky.

Anonymous said...

It is absolutely unfair to compare caviar and champagne to housings, otherwise, could agree with Matilah Singapura's Comment.


Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The high housing price is to make Singaporeans feel rich and happy.

Matilah_Singapura said...


I don't mind being accused of being wrong. However you could better your own position by showing readers the reasons you think my analogy/ metaphor is somehow "wrong".

Tip: remember we're dealing with metaphor and analogy here -- which is not the "real thing" in question but methods of explaining what the "real thing" is.

Anonymous said...

Until now, few Singaporeans are bothered with Caviar and Champagne-too luxurious and taste too fishy(caviar) to the local palates. Maybe me dislike it, as for its' price, me can do without it even if me am loaded with filthy and sinful wealth.



Anonymous said...

Sorry Mr Matilah, forgot to mention that Champagne is fine with me, a drinker. When me am near empty in the pocket, did compromise with Baby Champ in my teens. Now get more used to Stout, 3 to 5 cans on pay days and one or two cans near pay days.