Latest data: Worsening HDB ethnic quota & 99-year problem?

CC BY-SA 3.0, BY-SA 3.0,

The latest data may indicate a continuing, worsening of the decreasing prices of HDB ethnic quota and older flats?

After writing “HDB resale flats cheaper than BTO flats?” (Oct 6) – the person   (who prefers to remain anonymous) who alerted me to these interesting HDB data in the first place, has just sent me the ‘Private Treaty Sales’ listing for October of just one property portal.

There are 12 HDB ‘Bank Sale’. As this is for just one month in one portal – how many ‘Bank Sale’ are there in a year?

As I understand that normally a private treaty sale is explored and  ‘Bank Sale’ is often a last resort – how many cannot pay their HDB mortgage?

Also, how many HDB loans (not HDB bank loans) are in arrears, in addition to HDB bank loans?

From this sample, the number of ethnic quota problem flat sales appear to exceed that of normal sales relative to ‘Bank Sale’ (for example 67% in Bishan/Ang Mo Kio) and private treaty sales (for example 100% in Toa Payoh).

Since I understand that ethnic quota flats are about 25% of the number of flats – why is it that (at least from this sample data) the proportion of ethnic quota bank sale and private treaty sales are apparently so high?

3-room flats (ethnic quota problem) in Toa Payoh (mature estate) have guide prices as low as $245,000 – which may be lower than BTO flat prices.

How is it possible that BTO flats may be more expensive than resale flats when the HDB continues to say that “BTO flats are priced significantly lower than comparable resale flats so that Singaporeans can enjoy a subsidy”?

And there seems to be quite a lot of such ‘low price’ resale flats.

So, who are we kidding when we keep saying that the ethnic quota and older HDB flats’ rapidly declining values are not a serious problem?

The Government should provide the statistics as to what is the price difference between those flats (different flat types – 2, 3, 4 and 5-room) in blocks that have reached the ethnic quota, in comparison with Chinese owners’ flats’ transactions, as well as older versus younger  normal (non-ethnic quota) flats.

After all, isn’t this arguably, in the public interest, and in line with the online falsehoods’ committee’s recommendation that the Government should give the reasons for decisions not to disclose information to the public, and to gain the trust of the public?

Leong Sze Hian


About the Author

Leong Sze Hian has served as the president of 4 professional bodies, honorary consul of 2 countries, an alumnus of Harvard University, authored 4 books, quoted over 1500 times in the media , has been a radio talkshow host, a newspaper daily columnist, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow, columnist for theonlinecitizen and Malaysiakini, executive producer of Ilo Ilo (40 international awards), Hotel Mumbai (associate producer), invited to speak more than 200 times in about 40 countries, CIFA advisory board member, founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of 2 countries. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional  qualifications.