Is SDP’s housing proposal ahead of its time?

It is an unfortunate reality of life that sometimes, good ideas are not adopted because the people are not ready for it. For example, no one would question anti-slavery laws today, but such laws would never have a chance of being enacted at a time when slavery was commonly accepted as a fact of life.

SDP’s housing proposal is a radical shift from existing free-market housing policies. In order for SDP’s proposal to be accepted, a paradigm shift is needed not only in the elected government, but also in the minds of the citizens. Two of these mindset changes are described in this post.

Homes are not a retirement fund

The common view held by the average citizen is that money spent on their home is an investment because it grows over time as housing prices rise. Hence, buying a home serves as a hedge against inflation and as a retirement fund. However, home prices cannot rise indefinitely (the sub-prime mortgage crisis was a direct result of naively believing in  home prices rising forever). Furthermore, high home prices may benefit the existing generation, but the resulting high mortgages will become a cost burden on the future generation.

In order for SDP’s proposal to work, this mindset of “homes as an investment” must be broken. The entire community must be willing to forsake the selfish act of making the most out of our home investments, and accept that home prices must be collectively curbed because they are a curse on our children.

I’m personally doubtful that this mindset change would happen anytime soon due to the inherent greedy nature of man. Furthermore, there are many people in Singapore who simply have no idea how to plan for their retirement. The PAP gave them an easy way out by telling them that they can simply put their money in their homes as a safe investment. If SDP’s proposal is going to take away this “safe investment”, then an alternative inflation hedge must be found for these people who are unlikely to be savvy investors. (More emphasis on CPF perhaps?)

Renting homes is not anathema

Home ownership is seen as a source of pride in Singapore. This is actually a good thing as long as homes remain affordable. But if homes become unaffordable, then the concept of home ownership is no longer a source of pride, but rather a burden imposed upon society by its own collective expectations.

To break this cycle, the collective expectation of home ownership must be re-examined. When everyone places too much emphasis on home ownership, the corollary effect is that renting homes is seen as a path for losers. However, we should ask ourselves whether rental is really a bad thing if the rental price is very low. After all, if the Government was able to give everyone homes for free, we would naturally rejoice as this frees up a lot of personal resources for other activities. If the next closest thing to free housing is cheap rental housing, is it really that bad? SDP’s proposal would only have a chance if this collective mental leap can be made.

 

Advertisements

About sgthinker

I'm a 40-year old Singaporean male, and this blog pens down my thoughts and feelings about Singapore's political happenings, government policies and society trends. I hope this blog will provide a moderate voice in the growing online debate about the state of Singapore's society. Some of the posts here won't be solely written by me, since there will be times when other writers are more eloquent at expressing their views, in which case I'll share their insights (along with my comments). The content on this blog is owned by me.If you wish to share or reproduce the content, please attribute it to this blog.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Is SDP’s housing proposal ahead of its time?

  1. Pingback: Weekly Round Up: Week 46 (12 Nov – 16 Nov 2012) | The Singapore Daily

  2. Jeremy Chen says:

    To add on to your article… Capital gains on public housing are far from guaranteed.

    The population segment aged 30 to 49 will shrink to 91.1 percent of its current size in ten years, and to 81.6 percent of its current size in 20 years. So there’s a shrinking demand base. Also, if you buy today, ten to twenty years later, downgrade go where?

  3. Tan Boon Gim says:

    Hi sgthinker,

    It does seems that our ideas are somewhat quite alike. We have also suggested to give more emphasis to rental in Singapore. Please have a look at our articles posted here http://www.bluta.com/blog/, especially the one specifically touching on home rental; http://www.bluta.com.sg/blog/2012/11/bluta-on-housing-part-2/.

    We hope you can give us your feedback on our suggestions.

  4. Pingback: Daily SG: 15 Nov 2012 | The Singapore Daily

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s