If you listen, really listen, you will be able to understand.
a. The smoking applies to the question of "subsidy". What it really is. Seems no one in public office likes to be pinned down on what it really is.
b. Transparency is demanded from HDB simply because they are HDB. You can't compare to private developer. HDB is public, developer is private. Since they build flats with public funds, some people feel that they are entitled to more transparency from HDB than from a private developer.
Geddit?
Now, you may consider a "market" subsidy to be a subsidy. I think that's really a joke. Just because HDB chooses to sell it below the resale valuation, they call it a "subsidy".
As Vincent said, back in the old days, the govt really subsidised. They sold flats cheaper than cost so they could get people out of the kampongs.
Now they make profits even after the so-called "market" subsidy. In their defence, they say that if not for the "subsidy" they would make even more profit.
You understand the questions now? You get the source of the unhappiness now?
We're not asking for "handouts", but for HDB to call a spade a spade. And to come clean on how much they really make, since HDB is funded with public money.
Calling a spade a spade, I think the unhappiness has nothing to do with how much HDB subsidises a flat, but rather how affordable a flat is these days.
For arguments sake, if a flat were to be going for $1000, and HBD were 'making' $500 from it, how much noise would there be? Very little, I suspect.
It is because the HDB is a the largest custodian of the nation's land bank, that I expect them to act responsibly in that custodial duty, not only for the behalf of present HDB dwellers, but ALL Singaporeans, present and future. To what purpose does it serve the public good if the HDB were to completely distort the property market by severely under-pricing the sale price of flats? If the return on the land is not optimised properly (i.e. paid fair value for), then taxpayers like you and me are being cheated. Geddit?
It is exactly because HDB is being funded by public money (btw, most HDB flat dwellers do not pay income tax, or very little), that they have a responsibility to use those funds in a fair and proper manner. I expect it. I expect the HDB not to shortchange the taxpayers and future generations by giving away valuable land at steep discounts just for the sake of appeasing present flat buyers. I don't just expect it, I demand it.
Costs? You tell me, what are the components of that cost that you so wish to see? Is the open market value of the land not also part of that cost? If I built a block of flats in Yishun and built the same block in Orchard Road, what is the 'cost' of that flat? The construction cost? That should roughly be the same, shouldn't it? But would HDB sell both flats at the same price? Of course not! There is a MARKET VALUE to the location of the flat. If HDB were to sell both flats at the same price, would the person buying the Orchard Road flat not be getting a larger subsidy than the one in Yishun? So the 'costs' incorporate the market value of the land/location, which is what HDB has been saying all along. It prices it flats according to market value, a completely transparent statement and without any smoke whatsoever.
Using the example above, don't tell me its a 'fake' subsidy. If someone sold me a private apartment at less than market value, and I turned it around the next day and sold at a 20% profit, it is real money in the pocket. The previous owner has effectively subsidised my 'flat'.
HDB makes a profit? To what end? First off, I have no issue with public bodies generating surpluses. If they were loss-making and eating up public funds, THEN I would be really upset. Next, whatever revenue they generate goes back into that big pot called g-ment reserves. You can argue back and forth what the size of that reserve should be, but that is beyond this discussion.
At the end of the day, there is all this talk about 'transparency', as if the HDB were hiding something. You'd be wondering why our public servants were scratching their heads about what else they really needed to do, since they had already repeatedly stated that the "cost" is the MARKET VALUE. It cost the g-ment (and taxpayers) that amount to build and locate that flat in that place, which had otherwise been sold to a private developer, would have gained the g-ment (and taxpayers) that amount of revenue. It is an opportunity forgone (opportunity cost) when the g-ment (on behalf of citizens and taxpayers) uses a piece of land for public housing and sells it for less than market value, rather than selling it to a private developer.
A) It is a real subsidy
B) As I see it, HDB is about as transparent about this as they can be
C) I agree there is an affordability issue