Singapore HDB flats dubbed most 'attainable' homes among APAC's capital cities, but netizen says 'must compare until it's affordable'
SINGAPORE: Singapore's Housing & Development Board (HDB) flats have been named the 'most attainable homes' among Asia Pacific's (APAC's) capital cities, according to the 2025 Urban Land Institute (ULI) Asia Pacific Home Attainability Index. While it sounds like good news, many locals questioned what 'attainable' really means in Singapore, with one netizen remarking, 'Must compare to other countries until it's affordable.'
Singapore Business Review reported that ULI defined 'attainable' housing as homes costing no more than five times the median annual household income, which is consistently met by HDB flats.
Notably, among 51 urban housing markets surveyed, only seven were found to offer attainable home ownership, and Singapore's HDB system was the only one in a national capital.
Despite rising urban costs across the region, the report found that the city-state's public housing system, which houses 80% of the population, remains within reach for median-income Singaporean households, compared to those in Hong Kong, Tokyo, or Sydney. See also Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin's family adopts stray kitten
Still, some Singaporeans online said the housing prices in the city-state continue to rise. One said HDB flats are 'public housing, yet prices are so high.' Another wrote, 'Our HDB flats are getting so costly. I worry for the future generations. They will be slaves to the flat for the rest of their lives.'
One commenter also pointed to the shrinking sizes of homes in the city-state, saying, 'Look at the new flat sizes. It is not liveable at all. Look up at the windows of the nice new flats. So many clothes [are] hanging there because [there is] no proper laundry space!'
The ULI report explained, pointing to Singapore's HDB system, that 'Operating a similar scheme is more difficult in countries where the government has less control of freehold land.'
While many cities in APAC face rising prices, limited land, and speculative demand, Singapore's centrally planned and subsidised housing has helped keep home ownership within reach for citizens, although access remains limited for non-citizens due to the 60% Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty on foreign buyers. /TISG
Read also: 'Why Indonesia?': Singaporean couple share 5 reasons why they moved after their HDB MOP
Featured image by Depositphotos (for illustration purposes only) document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", () => { const trigger = document.getElementById("ads-trigger"); if ('IntersectionObserver' in window && trigger) { const observer = new IntersectionObserver((entries, observer) => { entries.forEach(entry => { if (entry.isIntersecting) { lazyLoader(); // You should define lazyLoader() elsewhere or inline here observer.unobserve(entry.target); // Run once } }); }, { rootMargin: '800px', threshold: 0.1 }); observer.observe(trigger); } else { // Fallback setTimeout(lazyLoader, 3000); } });
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Independent Singapore
5 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
Singapore HDB flats dubbed most 'attainable' homes among APAC's capital cities, but netizen says 'must compare until it's affordable'
Photo: Depositphotos/tang90246 Featured News Property Singapore News SINGAPORE: Singapore's Housing & Development Board (HDB) flats have been named the 'most attainable homes' among Asia Pacific's (APAC's) capital cities, according to the 2025 Urban Land Institute (ULI) Asia Pacific Home Attainability Index. While it sounds like good news, many locals questioned what 'attainable' really means in Singapore, with one netizen remarking, 'Must compare to other countries until it's affordable.' Singapore Business Review reported that ULI defined 'attainable' housing as homes costing no more than five times the median annual household income, which is consistently met by HDB flats. Notably, among 51 urban housing markets surveyed, only seven were found to offer attainable home ownership, and Singapore's HDB system was the only one in a national capital. Despite rising urban costs across the region, the report found that the city-state's public housing system, which houses 80% of the population, remains within reach for median-income Singaporean households, compared to those in Hong Kong, Tokyo, or Sydney. See also Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin's family adopts stray kitten Still, some Singaporeans online said the housing prices in the city-state continue to rise. One said HDB flats are 'public housing, yet prices are so high.' Another wrote, 'Our HDB flats are getting so costly. I worry for the future generations. They will be slaves to the flat for the rest of their lives.' One commenter also pointed to the shrinking sizes of homes in the city-state, saying, 'Look at the new flat sizes. It is not liveable at all. Look up at the windows of the nice new flats. So many clothes [are] hanging there because [there is] no proper laundry space!' The ULI report explained, pointing to Singapore's HDB system, that 'Operating a similar scheme is more difficult in countries where the government has less control of freehold land.' While many cities in APAC face rising prices, limited land, and speculative demand, Singapore's centrally planned and subsidised housing has helped keep home ownership within reach for citizens, although access remains limited for non-citizens due to the 60% Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty on foreign buyers. /TISG Read also: 'Why Indonesia?': Singaporean couple share 5 reasons why they moved after their HDB MOP Featured image by Depositphotos (for illustration purposes only) () => { const trigger = if ('IntersectionObserver' in window && trigger) { const observer = new IntersectionObserver((entries, observer) => { => { if ( { lazyLoader(); // You should define lazyLoader() elsewhere or inline here // Run once } }); }, { rootMargin: '800px', threshold: 0.1 }); } else { // Fallback setTimeout(lazyLoader, 3000); } });
Independent Singapore
5 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
Nurse says ex-manager didn't return S$1.5k in approved transport claims, seeks advice on Reddit
SINGAPORE: A nurse who recently left her job at a home care company took to social media to share her frustration after her former manager allegedly failed to reimburse her S$1,500 in approved transport claims. In a post on the r/askSingapore forum, the nurse, who has eight years of experience, explained that she had been verbally assured from the start that Grab fares for house visits would be fully reimbursed. 'At the end of the month, I received my payslip, and the reimbursement amount (S$1.5k) is written clearly on the payslip, but in my bank account, I have only received my basic salary,' she wrote. 'There was no reimbursement nor any explanation.' She then reached out to the HR and finance team, who told her they would check and get back to her. However, several days went by with no response. When she approached her manager, the manager claimed she had never seen the transport claim form and referred her back to HR. 'I kept the record of the transport claim form, with the admin's name as the one doing the claims and the manager's name as the approver.' Feeling uneasy about the company's practices, the nurse eventually resigned. Unfortunately, four days after her last working day, the reimbursement still hasn't been paid out. Seeking advice from the local community, she asked, 'Can I raise this issue to MOM/TADM? Would they consider this a case?' adding that she's unsure whether to inform her manager before taking action. 'I'm feeling so alone in this, and I appreciate any advice,' she wrote. 'THREATEN to report to MOM.' In the comments, one Singaporean Redditor advised her to give the company one final follow-up before escalating the issue to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). 'Follow up once more; attach the manager's or company's messages or written policies stating that transport claims are claimable,' they said. 'Also, attach your payslip. THREATEN to report to MOM, and that should be enough to sort this all out.' Another shared, 'I kena this before. The company still didn't pay three months' worth of reimbursement even months after I left. The HR replied with one-word responses, and I was very patient, waiting three to four weeks before asking for an update. In the end, I threatened to report to TADM and MOM, and only then did they quickly pay me.' A third, however, felt that a warning was not necessary at all. 'No need to inform,' they wrote, adding, 'Just go straight to MOM.' Where to seek help Employees who are not reimbursed for work-related expenses outlined in their employment contracts are entitled to seek legal recourse. According to Singapore Legal Advice, they can file a salary-related claim with the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) to recover the unpaid amounts. Read also: 'It feels kind of late': Woman says she feels behind in life for only starting to travel in her 30s Featured image by Depositphotos (for illustration purposes only)
CNA
13 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: Did anyone really win the Great Eastern-OCBC standoff?
SINGAPORE: At Great Eastern's extraordinary general meeting on Tuesday (Jul 8), around 63.5 per cent of the insurer's minority shareholders said yes to delisting. But this did not meet the 75 per cent approval required to go ahead with the proposal. As a result, the proposed S$30.15 exit offer from majority shareholder OCBC – which was conditional on the delisting resolution being passed – lapsed. This was celebrated by dissenting shareholders as a win for minority rights. At the same time, others picked OCBC, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) as well as Mr Wong Hong Sun and his family - who collectively hold more than a quarter of Great Eastern minority shares that voted this week – as 'winners' in the year-long saga. Mr Wong – whose grandfather chaired Great Eastern for nearly 20 years – has been outspoken about his decision not to sell, citing both sentimental ties and valuation concerns. If everyone is the winner, who is the loser? Two groups of minority shareholders are now left exposed: those who declined OCBC's voluntary general offer last year of S$25.60 per share, and those who supported the more recent S$30.15 offer but were blocked by a small group of holdouts. A SMALL YET POWERFUL GROUP As Great Eastern's filing with the SGX shows, shareholders owning 23.7 million shares voted in person or by proxy. Of those, 15.02 million shares, or 63.49 per cent, voted to delist. But the Wong clan representing 7.56 million shares voted against. Their collective stake accounts for 87.5 per cent of the 8.64 million shares that torpedoed the delisting. In short, despite being the majority of the minorities, shareholders owning the 63.5 per cent voting shares failed to push through the resolution. Following the failed move to delist, Great Eastern shares will likely resume trading. But this share trading can only resume if Great Eastern restores the minimum 10 per cent free float required under SGX's rules. And this in turn depends on whether Great Eastern can carry out its plan to dilute OCBC's stake from 93.7 per cent to below 90 per cent. To effect this dilution, Great Eastern will have to declare a 1-for-1 bonus issue of ordinary and Class C non-voting shares. OCBC has agreed to support this so-called 'Pathway 2' to resolve the suspension impasse by agreeing to take up the non-voting shares. It will not, however, lose its 93.7 per cent rights to any economic benefits offered to ordinary shareholders, such as dividends. The default election for minority shareholders is ordinary voting shares, but they too have a right to accept the bonus shares in the form of the Class C non-voting scrip. From the questions asked during the extraordinary general meeting, it seemed like some shareholders disagreed with the advice of Great Eastern's independent directors and independent financial adviser. One of the shareholders told the Board that had they earlier taken the independent directors' advice, they wouldn't have gotten the higher S$30.15 exit offer. THE RIGHT PRICE This brings us to the next bizarre aspect of this saga. Having torpedoed Pathway 1 (the delisting), minority shareholders holding the combined 36.5 per cent stake surely intend to extract another exit offer, higher than the S$30.15 that they had rejected. Mr Wong was quoted in the press as saying that Great Eastern is his 'grandfather's company … I would not sell it'. What he probably meant was 'it's my grandfather's company, I won't sell at this price.' After all, when probed if the family might sell if the offer price was higher, he said: 'We might.' That is perfectly fair and fine: Every shareholder must seek the best price. But Pathway 2 is also fraught with problems for these dissenting minorities. If most minorities accept ordinary shares, Great Eastern will get to resume trading. However, when trading resumes, Great Eastern's shares will likely go south – below the pre-takeover price of S$18.70 – going by past trends. All minorities will end up worse off than before the takeover bid was launched in May 2024. UK activist fund Palliser, which reportedly bought into the counter at above S$25, will likely book millions of dollars in paper losses. So, it would be in the interest of dissenting shareholders to also scupper the lifting of trading suspension by electing for Class C non-voting shares. Mathematically, they would need the help of another 1.1 million shares to keep the counter in limbo – not delisted but still suspended. WHAT'S THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANOTHER OFFER? Can the dissenting minorities force the parties to make another exit offer? OCBC has stated clearly that it 'will not make another offer for Great Eastern in the foreseeable future'. Why should it? From OCBC's perspective, it can mop up Great Eastern shares if trading resumes at a discounted price. The bank is the master of the long game. Lest anyone forgets, it has been accumulating Great Eastern shares for the last 30 years. If lifting of the suspension is thwarted, the ball will be in the SGX's court to figure out a solution. Can the SGX compel a 'round 2': invite another, perhaps higher, exit offer? Or will it let the market decide on the price of an exit that is the result of willing buyer-willing seller arm's length negotiations between a major shareholder and minority shareholders who want out? There is no precedent, and we could be sailing into uncharted territory. What happened at the extraordinary general meeting is not a situation of the minorities having a voice. It is not a tyranny of the majority. The cynic might even call it tyranny of the 'minority of minorities'. The wishes of two-thirds who wanted to exit at S$30.15 was thwarted by the one-third who hope that the regulator can force OCBC/Great Eastern to come up with a higher exit offer. Finally, all this also raises the question of whether the SGX should rethink its 75 per cent rule to delist a company at the exit offer stage? If nothing else, the Great Eastern situation has laid bare the reality that shareholders controlling one-third of 6 per cent of a company can have the last word on a matter of such importance to all shareholders. Would not a simple majority of, say 50 per cent, be fairer?
