I refer to the article “Housing lease expires but 10 families stay put” (Straits Times, Jan 5).
HDB temporary rental evictions?
It states that “Their neighbours have already moved out, but some 10 households are staying put in a block of rental flats in Boon Lay, although their lease expired on Monday.
Some said they cannot afford other forms of housing, while others complained that their landlord had not given them enough time to move out.
The flats are rented to tenants who need temporary housing. They pay about $1,500 a month for the three-room flats, not including utility bills.”
In this connection, I would like to refer to the HDBSpeaks’ article “Why was HDB leasing vacated SERS flats in Toa Payoh to private operators for profit when these could have been used to meet the rental requirements of needy families?“, which said that “They have been leased to an operator, with one block set aside to assist needy households who need short-term housing under the IRH scheme. The other blocks are used for rental at market rates and tenants must conform to the approved categories of occupiers. HDB takes no profit from such interim use”.
HDB “takes no profit”?
Since EM Services was founded as a joint venture between the Housing and Development Board and Keppel Land Limited, how is it that the HDB now says that “HDB takes no profit from such interim use” – when “some tenants said they have been offered other rental flats in Woodlands for about $1,900 a month”?
Are we saying that at $1,900 a month’s rental, EM Services does not make a profit or HDB as a joint-venture partner “takes no profit from such interim use”?
In this connection – “But, they said, they would have to also pay a deposit and the first month’s rent, which amounts to about $3,800.
One tenant, who wanted to be known only as Mr Ho, 53, said he could not afford this amount even though he earns $5,000 a month as a production supervisor at a factory.
Much of his income already goes into footing the medical bills of his elderly mother and an adult daughter who is mentally ill.
He and his wife have two other daughters.”
“Interim” flats rented to foreigners for 6 years?
As to “Pending the finalisation of redevelopment plans and prior to demolition, some vacated SERS blocks are put to interim use to meet the demand for short-term rental housing. Because they are due to be torn down, these blocks are not suitable for long-term rental. Instead, HDB is increasing the number of purpose-built rental blocks to meet the demand for such accommodation”, since “The 200 units in Block 189 and Block 190, Boon Lay Drive are run by private operator EM Services, which had been leasing them from the Housing Board since January 2007”, isn’t six years a very long time for such “blocks are not suitable for long-term rental” to be rented to foreigners when they could have helped alleviate the long waiting list of needy Singaporean families?
In this connection – “Another tenant, who wanted to be known only as Ronald, said he tried to apply for the Housing Board’s Interim Rental Housing scheme, but was rejected.
This scheme is for households currently in the queue for public rental flats, but which need urgent accommodation.
The 47-year-old security guard said he had been told by EM Services yesterday to leave his flat by Friday morning.
The area’s Member of Parliament, Mr Lawrence Wong, said he has been in touch with the residents and is helping those who face difficulties. He also said that the HDB is assisting them to find alternative accommodation.”
Why apply new policy to new interim sites only?
So, instead of continuing to defend the rental of public housing to foreigners, it should have done this – “Since the start of 2012, HDB has also removed the market rental component and set aside all the flats from new interim sites for needy households. Private operators are appointed to only manage the flats on HDB’s behalf and they no longer lease the flats from HDB” – a long time ago.
Also, why only apply the policy change for “new interim sites”, why not apply it to the existing sites as well?
Is it not somewhat self-contradictory to say almost in the same breath that “Because they are due to be torn down, these blocks are not suitable for long-term rental”, and yet the policy can be changed to “Since the start of 2012, HDB has also removed the market rental component and set aside all the flats from new interim sites for needy households”? Its like keep saying in the past for so many years cannot do, but all of a sudden now can do!
How many “public housing” rented to foreigners?
Finally, instead of just disclosing the number of HDB SERS flats – “Currently, a limited number of about 1,600 vacated SERS flats have been leased to private operators to manage. A portion of these flats are allocated to needy Singaporean families at subsidised rates under the Interim Rental Housing (IRH) scheme”, why not tell us how many public housing flats (HDB, Jurong Town Corporation (JTC), SIT (Singapore Improvement Trust), etc) in total are leased by the HDB to private operators to rent out for a profit? (Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss’s article “Work Permit Holders living in Dakota Crescent SIT rental flats”, Apr 23, 2011)
HDBSpeaks
(Note: About HDBSpeaks – “With HDB touching so many lives in Singapore, virtually everyone has a view about various aspects of public housing, some more critical than others. Along the way, certain myths and misconceptions have arisen. Many also remain interested in finding out what HDB is doing to help different groups in society.
Seeking to learn more? Check out this website to get the facts straight from the source.”
Leong Sze Hian
