(For those that aren't from Singapore, which is apparently where i reside, HDB is the Housing Development Board, and when we say HDB in this case, it refers to the flats they offer for residents of Singapore which is at a subsidised rate compared to private developers, for more info, go to
www.hdb.gov.sg) Source:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/Ooo... some MPs suggested the No Frills HDB... there was no frills bread, no frills paper towels, no frills milk, no frills can food, no frills detergent..... And now, no frills HDB.... Well, simply put, a HDB which is without fancy sheltered walkways, without playgrounds and just simple designs, but all this at a lower and attractive price of possibly below $100K, which seems to be attracting younger couples who have just started out work.
Perhaps something like that? No, I'm just kidding... there has been discussion whether this is viable or not, in various discussion forums and
blogs, however I noticed that there are a few interesting discussion points that came about... and some facts that I didn't know I didn't know....
1) In the 1970s, houses cost around $15,000-$20,000 where the starting pays were in the range of $1,000... seems really puny for our time, but at 1970s, it's actually quite decent, considering the rate of inflation over the years... especially in 2007 of 7%. And now, the starting pay is only about 2-5 times that of the past, but houses are 10-30 times MORE!.. Seems like the rate of pay increase isn't quite directly proportional to the rate of the rise in standard of living.... And it also seems like it's not the best thing to stay just employed when people actually set a price tag on your worth... Times are changing, the environment is different, but many mindsets remain in that of the past, including my own... Perhaps it is time to think twice, thrice...
2) It seems like some MPs do argue that these houses wouldn't attract younger couples because they have grown much more demanding in their quality of life, and it seems like one of those, "Younger ones these days are leading a good life"... Considering the factors of the environment and our own capabilities, I do think that many people would still be rational enough to take the pragmatic decision in deciding one of their greatest monetary asset in their life (where most people spend their entire CPF paying off for a lifetime), especially with the rising cost of living, it doesn't pay off to commit to something that is beyond our present state of earning power. I have a simple philosophy, "live within your means, and you live for a long and good time, live beyond them, and you live only to regret after a short lived good time..."
I know that many would not already agree with me that this is a good idea because it seems like the quality of the houses should not be compromised just to bring down the prices of the houses but rather streamline the production of these houses, and perhaps squeezing everyone in the supply chain dry? I think no doubt that seems like an ideal solution for some, it seems pretty much a loser mentality of "Ai Pi Ai Qi" meaning want cheap want good. There is always a tradeoff when it comes to the cost and quality of product, not withstanding the fact that more expensive things doesn't necessary mean they are good or better, but it becomes idealistic to expect premium products at no-frills pricing. The mentality we should work towards is to be fair and just in the process of any trade. We cannot expect to buy Gold bars from people for dirt cheap prices and expect to sell our tin ore for diamond prices... It all has to respect the economics of demand and supply, and thus setting our expectations right and staying within our limits and capabilities when it comes to making purchasing decisions would be most viable, instead of being discontented about everybody else who seems to be cheating of our money through their seemingly expensive prices, when all they are doing is too earning a living to feed their families back at home. Having said that, I do not deny the fact that some people do cross the line of social and business integrity and so prudence is equally important in making purchases, to prevent paying a premium that does not translate to any significant benefit.
Thus, I am actually quite for the idea, though a better name could be thought of for branding purposes of these 'back to basics' flats instead of No-Frills... And I must say that Singapore MPs really do spend quite a bit of brain cells on improving and growing Singapore in various aspects, and also bootstrapping and a moderated welfare during the tougher times... Plus the recently implemented plan of lease-buyback scheme of HDBs where home owners can sell back the remaining lease of their HDB homes to the board, for an exchange of $5,000 cash and a life annuity with a lifetime payout... If you think about it, it could potentially benefit many people especially the elderly who do not need their houses for another 60,70 years but at the same time running low on cash, most of the time due to medical costs and depleting savings...
3 cheers for the Singapore Government... *Hip hip hurray*... x3, haha...
*Disclaimer, I am not a 'part time PAP member' or grassroot club member, just a Singaporean being contented with what he has...
Posts
