Someone has finally spoken..

This is taken from the ST forum on the topic "Flats are subsidised".

Dear Mr Lee,

I refer to your comments as reported by Straits Times on 28th Jan 2010.

You said that our flats are subsidised. But what is $40,000 compared to $100,000 to $200,000 increase in flat prices over the last three years? Even with the subsidies, Singaporeans end up paying a lot more.

You said that our flats will appreciate in value and that will add to our wealth. But for every $100,000 addition to the wealth of my estate, each of my children must fork out an extra $100,000 for his or her future housing needs. As long as there is more than one child, the family as a whole loses, not gains. The only entity that truly gains is the HDB and the government. It would really be ‘daft’ of you if you cannot see the silliness of your own reasoning.

You warned Singaporeans that our flats will not longer be of value if Mah Bow Tan loses. Are you threatening Singaporeans? Mah Bow Tan has already lost many years ago to Chiam See Tong and yet Potong Pasir flats are as pricey as any flat would be.

You seemed to chide Singaporeans for always wanting it cheaper and better. But flat prices have gone up by 30% in the short span of three years. We are not asking for cheaper, we are asking for price stability. Are you sure you’re getting your facts right? Are you sure you’re not being ‘daft’ instead?

You said the government has to price flats fairly. Compared to three years ago, new buyers have to pay 30% more now. You call that fair? Did our salaries increase by 30% over this period?

You said that the government is giving us something more valuable than what we paid for. If the price of flats increased by $100,000 over the last three years and the government gives a $40,000 subsidy, aren’t we paying more still? Isn’t it ‘daft’ to insist that we are paying less when we are actually paying more?

You said that the government gives us an asset that is below market price the moment we buy it. But by the time we buy the asset, the market price of that asset has already gone up by $100,000. So even with a subsidy of $40,000, we are still paying $60,000 more for nothing the moment we buy it.

So if there is a ‘loss’, it’s a fictitious one that confounds the electorate.

Ng Kok Lim