News

HDB seems to view enclaves – be it ethnic enclaves, or areas defined by a certain socioeconomic strata – as areas that need to be broken up. It’s like for them: all the flats are pricey and centralised? Put in rental flats. There are exclusive landed properties nearby? Put up a block across from it. For the most part, I love it.  I get that some homeowners don’t, but it’s needed to prevent widening class divisions. We already have such strong stratifications (your social class is obvious from condo, HDB, or landed ownership), the least we can do is to try and make everyone get along. And I think the upcoming housing estate in Bukit Timah is going to be the of this intent.  There are going to be up to , which is directly facing Binjai Park, one of our pricey landed enclaves in Bukit Timah. Even the government’s statements on this upcoming estate, like calling it “inclusive and highly accessible,” hint at an underlying motive:  To break up the sense that Bukit Timah – or at least this part of it – is some kind of elite community separate from the rest of Singapore.  It’s some great imagery: the Turf Club embodies a sport that was, primarily for the wealthy (the F1 races of their day I guess). It was also closely tied to Singapore’s colonial past; and by proximity or otherwise, it remains an area frequented by more affluent expatriates. So reclaiming this area for HDB flats is more than practical; it becomes a metaphor for Singaporean unity, which ideally transcends class.  And as skeptical as some of us may be about that, I’m sure the intent of the message is clear. I’m referring to the crackdown on the property owners who used the “99-to-1” arrangement. Using this method, a property owner is given only a one per cent share in a second property they buy, thus paying ABSD only on the one per cent. Later they can sell the one per cent back to their co-owner.  From word on the ground, this was sometimes touted as a “grey area” to property buyers; some of whom claim they were taught to do this by their property agents. Out of 187 cases reviewed by IRAS, 166 of them were found to have avoided taxes this way; and property agents in at least 10 of these cases are under review.  This isn’t the first time misinformation has cost property owners, by the way. Sometime back, I recall some flat owners claiming they’d been advised to just lock up one room in their flat and rent out the rest. This would count as “not renting out the whole flat” so it could be done before the Minimum Occupancy Period.  I also recall, a few years back, some new launch buyers being told it’s okay to receive “furniture rebates,” which were essentially a sort of cashback scheme: the idea was to inflate the price for a bigger bank loan, after which a portion would be paid back to the buyer.  For starters, we should probably talk more to our conveyancing firms. Many buyers treat the conveyancing firm as little more than an overpaid form-filler.  And perhaps the most important thing we can do is to be fully aware that things described as “grey areas” can change in a hot minute. Nothing should be scarier than phrases like “the government knows people do it,” or “everyone does it.” Or that most loaded line of all, “It’s an industry practice.”  Those lines suggest it’s time to get a bit paranoid, and seriously consider not doing it (i.e., whatever is being suggested).   For more news on the Singapore property market, follow us on Stacked.