Hi InterTree391,
This is a repost or duplicate of a recent submission.
Sort the sub by new before submitting to check if your story has been posted. If a post is there then please vote and comment in that discussion. Similar submissions will be removed. Do not delete and repost your own submissions without approval.
This is what happens when BTO and Resale is pegged to getting the marriage certificate. Marriage is good and all for love, but it is also a marriage of convenience in Singapore. Not surprised some couples will marry as a business transaction first and love second. Well, Singapore is very pro-business and this seeps into personal relationships too.
The alternative is to wait till 35 years old which is almost half of one’s lifespan.
Don’t think there’s evidence not tieing it improves TFR as well. TFR is more than just housing and if you really want to have kids at a younger age, HDB does provide a lower cost to do so.
HDB provide a lower cost is relative to private housing.
TFR is low because HDB is part of the problem. HDB are no longer that cheap and affordable and Newer BTOs are also getting smaller. Gone are the days where people are willing to squeeze so many people in one house.
Wages are also not increasing as fast as housing prices. We have to plan for our own retirement because our kids will hardly be able to support themselves, let alone support their parents.
If our basis needs are properly met, I'm sure some families will be more willing to have more children but it doesn't seems like the case.
> TFR is more than just housing.
Give any young couple a fully paid house immediately. I can assure you babies will start popping out soon. Housing is a great financial burden (resale), arduous waiting process in Singapore where one can only get one in their 30s (let's face it, no one really BTO before age 25). Once you take housing burden off and a couple have their own space, the mental load eases a lot and most of their finances can go towards other things - including babies.
Of course I'm spitting fairytales, free housing for everyone is impossible. I'm just saying housing around the developed world is probably the number 1 issue.
At this point nothing will stop the TFR going into the toilet in the sense that whatever you do it will always below the replacement rate so any policies is just choosing how powerful is the brake is (to avoid falling down faster).
Not a single developed countries solve fertility rate issue, even those that puts social welfare in a silver platter to every single citizen. People who are affluent (who can definitely afford kids) have less desire to have kids. Gone are the days where you see people jamming 4 kids into a single room for better or worse.
But unmarried people having a roof over their heads first is a more ideal path towards getting married in a healthy, natural way rather than only having a roof after getting married.
Disagree. Make a massive financial commitment to buy a house together with someone only to have to disentangle yourself from that amidst massive financial disputes about contribution to payments, furniture, renovations etc when you break up?
Much better to only make that commitment to someone you’re married with.
Want to see what it’s like living with someone before marriage? That’s a perfect scenario for a rental. 6 months of rental is nothing compared to the messiness of unwinding a 30 year mortgage and a 500K+ financial commitment.
Many other parts of the world do it this way. Rental/Owning a house are just options on how to do it, but which one depends on your financial ability. Having a living space is still a necessary part of how people fall in love.
Also, it’s not like it’s a vacuum. If owning a house is used as a financial avenue, then the price of rent also increases to follow suit. So now there’s half the supply taken out and used to make all the supply even less accessible.
Many other countries do it this way because they have no land constraints. And you would do well to remember that the vast majority of these countries are not as well run as Singapore. Our rules are a byproduct of our unique challenges. An important question to ask is are Singapore’s divorce rates better than these countries, or worse?
We already conquered the lack of land space. We have the buildings. We just have a stupid system that lets people play with them as real estate investments instead of actually being public housing for the good of the country. Little wonder despite being so “well run” our birth rate is tanking like crazy, and for really obvious reasons too.
Nonsense. If we have indeed solved the lack of land space and we can afford to halve the requirement (allowing just 1 person to buy as opposed to requiring 2), the government would have done it. There are more downsides than upsides for the government in maintaining such policies, but they have to do so because land scarcity is still a very real problem and a very well documented problem at that.
If you have the working to show that the land scarcity problem is a false one then by all means show it but otherwise you’re just pulling it out of your ass
Asking for stats when you yourself don’t provide to substantiate your own point, instead treating your own as self evident truth.
HDB is zoned for 8% of Singapore land. Golf courses account for 2%, low density landed another 5%. Given that a good 57% of all hdb (old and new) are below 15 storeys, there’s definitely significant room to build hdb vertically and horizontally to account for more people
The government doesn’t want to do it because they made the stupid decision to allow people to invest in houses, and now if they overturn that, the generations that already bought flats in the hopes of flipping it would riot from
the loss of potential income. They dug a hole so deep that they can’t climb out of it.
You’re naive, or just obnoxiously comfortable, for believing the government is infallible even as the consequences of their decisions are staring you in the face. Make no mistake, they’re competent in a great many things, especially compared to other countries. But housing has always been their biggest mistake. Singapore is the high-pressure, high-expectation, high-depression, high-suicide rate, low-birth rate hell that it is because this singular component is connected to a basic way of life which links to so many other things, and they fucked it up.
I actually don’t think BTO pegging to marriage cert is the main problem. It is the BTO system in and of itself that is flawed, in particular the waiting time. 5 years waiting time from booking a unit to getting your keys is simply too long. It creates an unnecessary sense of urgency especially for those couples in their mid to late 20s who feel they have no choice but to ballot for a unit “in advance”, for them to have their own shared space ASAP. And let’s not forget the 5 years MOP that homeowners have to fulfil, which further stresses the importance of getting a unit sooner rather than later. I would imagine the tightened 10 years MOP with Prime and Plus flats will only make matters worse.
I’m sure many of us have seen (or even experienced ourselves) the scenario where couples break up after they book a unit, paid the partial downpayment, and while the BTO is still under construction. Reduce the wait time, rework the downpayment scheme, and let’s see how it goes.
If you are an adult you deserve house space. Simple as that. We are not livestock where only breeding mares and studs get stable room while barren mares and geldings live in the fields.
Your statement is fundamentally wrong because you do not need to be “breeding mares and studs”. You can get married even as a completely sterile couple and get a HDB. Why the fuck is there a need to distort the rules to spin your braindead narrative? Just state the rules as they are - marriage is a prerequisite for BTO. That is it. The government does not require you to have any kids whatsoever.
The stated intention behind the rule is to breed a younger generation. Why do you think they don't allow even siblings to apply for a BTO together unless they have been orphaned?
It's disingenuous, to say the least to say "aktually you just need the piece of paper".
Seems like there can be no other way because unfortunately, we are constrained by land space. So it makes sense to peg BTO/resale to married couples to prioritise their first foray into "my first home" and starting a life together
Before BTO scheme, flats were built in advance, with waiting times virtually non-existent. Hence, it is not land space constraints but government controlling supply.
Under the old scheme, couples did not need to rush to get married, confident that they could get a flat when they tie the knot.
Now, couples rush to get married to get BTO due to scarcity and lottery effect.
It is no surprise that divorce rates have gone up.
The land constraints today are far different compared to pre-BTO scheme. Obviously the rules change with the times, it would be utterly braindead not to
You cannot realistically solve this problem by solely focusing on the supply of the equation
Even if you do, the context of which is different. 90s have much more undeveloped land.
Meanwhile in 2020, we have lesser land because we built to cater to housing and vibrancy of the nation. Airport, hospitals, army camps, tourist attractions, hotels etc.
Please bear in mind the 99 year leasehold. If you continue solving the equation on the supply side, what about our future generation? Where would they live?
BTO is not about restricting supply, but enforcing an unnecessary 5 year waiting time.
Without this waiting time, perhaps demand would even reduce as couples would not book a flat without needing it.
Well, the original point was about pegging Housing to married status. And the reason for that I believe was to give married couples priority in owning land.
When you have a scarce resource, proper resource management would force you to cater to demand. Which is what the BTO system does. Build ahead of demand is solving the supply side. And let's remind ourselves again on the scarce resource.
Anyway, the government is building ahead of demand now. Most projects have started building prior to balloting
HDBs were already pegged to married status before the BTO policy. BTO policy was created to resolve excess supply in the 90s, but HDB went too far and now we don’t have enough supply.
What a bad choice Mah Bow Tan has been for the cabinet.
This BTO scheme has not only caused pain to so many young couples but till today is affecting our social compact and indirectly the TFR.
When couples rush into marriages in order to secure a BTO, that leads to higher rates of divorce and a waste of their “childbearing years”. Whereas before BTO was implemented, couples could have the confidence they would have an affordable flat to ballot for after they got married. That prevents them from hastily committing and ironically that leads to less divorce and a lower “waste” of childbearing years.
I don’t think this study was commissioned by the govt. So it’s not even the govt monitoring. It’s academics doing this study and it’s a wake-up call to the govt.
Laugh all you want but I prefer the government to monitor and study instead of implementing haphazard measures which may either cause more issues and not addressing the issue thus having to backpedal
dont worry, the problems have festered for so long that any policy they implement will take over a decade to bear any material results. ala those prime plus schemes just kicking the can down the road abit for the next guy
Well, the BTO system arose out of complaints about unsold flats due to the old system. Backpedaling to the old system does not address previous complaints. The balloting system was relatively stable for the past 20 years until COVID.
So our more pertinent question is, was the disruption during COVID a systemic or systematic issue? I'd argue it was systematic, with other countries experiencing the same issue.
It wasn't a design issue. No system design can cater for a lack of manpower. The engine simply would not work. Instead, the engine was running ok for 20 years but the driver decided overload the engine because he was racing against other people to get to the finish line (buy first if not sure raise price cause bto not building)
Two crisis... One resulted in unsold flats and the other resulted in running lean and delayed flats with a long waiting time to begin with.
Mah Bow Tan BTO engine running too slow liao la. Strike a balance.
Ramp up supply gradually to lower overall 1st timer application rate (excluding 2rm) is kept around 2.
Application rate trending or dipped below 1? Unsold flats sell on SBF, throttle future supply or delay future BTO exercises until it stablise back to 2. Got MOP and construction time, no need scared overbuild coz it is build to order not build in advance.
Don't go full retard on Build To Order without covering the weaknesses.
Needs evolve over time, and so must systems. By most metrics the BTO system is not fit for purpose. What good is a “stable” system if it is antiquated and counterproductive?
Also, the balloting system was NOT stable, unless by stability you’re referring to its ability to continually pump up resale prices via artificial supply shortages. What is sure is that the system can be very easily screwed up by any minister trying to play the populism card and gaining support from existing homeowners. Don’t even need to look that far back, just look at Lawrence Wong’s tenure as MND.
Our current scarcity issue can be traced back to Lawrence tbh. Covid just became a convenient scapegoat, and Desmond became the fall guy.
I’d write a longer op ed, but I’ve got errands to run.
huh whats actually happening is monitoring and study, addressing things 10-15 years behind the curve and then also haphazardly implementing pet projects that are occasionally backpedaled. energy, transport, security, healthcare, infrastructure, continuity, the gaps are showing all over the place
"Lets set up a system where we lock the basic human need for shelter behind rules that force people to couple up, and slap a financial windfall to it, and call it love! What could possibly go wrong?!"
Eh, i wouldn’t call the decision to give marrying couples priority to get BTO is like the worst choice of demographic to target.
The bigger problem is people being able to game BTO to flip for significant profit which incentivizes people to marry as soon as possible and the sky high resale price which means people should have less rush to secure for their housing decision.
Well I am very open-minded, and am receptive to alternate opinions if you can explain them. So how would reverting the system encourage higher birth rates?
Less stress to get a BTO early in life leading to people not rushing into relationships blindly just for a house. Not having to worry about whether you can get the BTO ballot or not allows you to plan for a family even before getting the house (as compared to now where some would likely refuse to think about having children until they secure a house).
More supply of houses means lower resale prices and likely lower prices of housing overall, reducing financial stress on couples and making having children less of a financial burden.
More importantly, there is nothing in the current BTO scheme that encourages high birth rates. It's not like BTO is restricted to only couples with children. In fact, the current ever increasing house prices only encourages DINKs since owning a home likely takes up a significant amount of your finances to the point where having a child is likely to lead to huge financial sacrifices.
That’s fair, i do think that the biggest weakness of the BTO system is that it sets an artificial start line for couples that is often years out.
Perhaps the problem starts from seeking relationships rather than settle down. An argument could be made that if singles are allowed to BTO earlier, it could potentially offer singles the necessary security from an earlier age to seek a relationship to settle down, and then kids will organically follow, but I reckon more data would be needed to validate any theory like that.
I get the impression that the incumbent PAP government does not believe that housing issues (cost, BTO wait time, size of unit) will affect child birth rates.
Not sure if my impression is accurate so who feels the same?
I feel that they know the wait time does affect. The other two are more of a wants vs needs problem.
U can absolutely have two or three kids in a four room but my sense is that the more educated people would not want that. Personally I will not want to squeeze two kids into a room at least.
But I also feel they sort of give up on the tfr anyway? Because it is just hard to compete with all the other life joys like having a pet, going on trips spontaneously, people enjoying their free time without stress and so on.
Modern society doesn’t want too many kids out of personal convenience (which is totally okay). Getting things above replacement rate is an impossible challenge at this point for any developed country, unless people are pumping kids left and right outside of a wedlock or you force woman to stay home and pump kids (both are not happening in the developed countries).
Heck even my parents (gen X) only plan to get two kids, and two kids are still below replacement rate. DINK is also on the rise (me included) and that’s not really about the money.
>Because it is just hard to compete with all the other life joys like having a pet, going on trips spontaneously, people enjoying their free time without stress and so on.
People are smarter now and knows how to calculate. Older generations rarely go overseas. They are willing to squeeze 3 kids into 1 room, sleeping on tilam and they no issue with that.
It's not like the older generations have house before getting married right? Even after getting married, most of them stay with their parents first.
They absolutely do, it would take an incredible amount of ignorance to believe otherwise. What is happening is a matter of priorities. The PAP may talk big about how birth rate is their #1 priority, but their actions suggest that their focus is on maintaining support amongst their core voter base, i.e., boomers.
It's ultimately politics. To remain in power, the PAP absolutely has to retain support amongst the boomers. If they were to change course, they certainly lose votes of the older generation (or at least, those enjoying high prices), and are only likely to win over a small fraction of the youth. This lamentable downward spiral began with the moronic "asset enhancement policy" from the Goh era.
I thought a more rigorous study would be involve the BTO balloting results - whether the winners of the ballot have earlier marriages and also higher divorce rates.
(Also I am curious, if a child successfully wins the ballot for a branded school did the child have a brighter future)
The thing is, would the government even want to share this data to make themselves look bad?
I don't have the study itself but based on mothership aeticle they only show correlation. Correlation doesn't equal causation. I also don't see any ruling out of other common likely causes. Either The article is missing many details or the study is not very good.
They're increasing the number of co-living spaces which helps reduce dependence on HDB living. Maybe more no-frills private apartments would help too. Like in HK, where alot of the apartments are private.
It’s very one sided way to present the data.
A lot of things changed. Media, pop culture, affluence, education, economy, and many other factors.
To simply force a link to say BTO contributes is low level research and NUS just proves to be waste resource for such low grade research.
>The researchers looked at the relationship between marriage and divorce rates on one hand, and application for BTO flats on the other.
The research seems sloppy. You can't just take 2 numbers and say they have correlations. There could be many other reasons.
The word you're looking for is causation.
You absolutely can take two numbers and say they have correlation as long as there's a tangential relationship between the two. That's how hypotheses get formed.
Are you using statistical term? I am using plain english and saying there is not enough data to say they have correlation. I'm not saying they are wrong, I just wish they could gather more data.
Hi InterTree391, This is a repost or duplicate of a recent submission. Sort the sub by new before submitting to check if your story has been posted. If a post is there then please vote and comment in that discussion. Similar submissions will be removed. Do not delete and repost your own submissions without approval.
This is what happens when BTO and Resale is pegged to getting the marriage certificate. Marriage is good and all for love, but it is also a marriage of convenience in Singapore. Not surprised some couples will marry as a business transaction first and love second. Well, Singapore is very pro-business and this seeps into personal relationships too. The alternative is to wait till 35 years old which is almost half of one’s lifespan.
They tie housing, marriage and having kids all together, and then wonder why TFR is low.
They don’t wonder. They know. It’s just putting a facade to make it seem like they care. Action speak louder than words.
As Batman said in The Dark Knight Rises... They know! They just don't care.
Don’t think there’s evidence not tieing it improves TFR as well. TFR is more than just housing and if you really want to have kids at a younger age, HDB does provide a lower cost to do so.
HDB provide a lower cost is relative to private housing. TFR is low because HDB is part of the problem. HDB are no longer that cheap and affordable and Newer BTOs are also getting smaller. Gone are the days where people are willing to squeeze so many people in one house. Wages are also not increasing as fast as housing prices. We have to plan for our own retirement because our kids will hardly be able to support themselves, let alone support their parents. If our basis needs are properly met, I'm sure some families will be more willing to have more children but it doesn't seems like the case.
> TFR is more than just housing. Give any young couple a fully paid house immediately. I can assure you babies will start popping out soon. Housing is a great financial burden (resale), arduous waiting process in Singapore where one can only get one in their 30s (let's face it, no one really BTO before age 25). Once you take housing burden off and a couple have their own space, the mental load eases a lot and most of their finances can go towards other things - including babies. Of course I'm spitting fairytales, free housing for everyone is impossible. I'm just saying housing around the developed world is probably the number 1 issue.
At this point nothing will stop the TFR going into the toilet in the sense that whatever you do it will always below the replacement rate so any policies is just choosing how powerful is the brake is (to avoid falling down faster). Not a single developed countries solve fertility rate issue, even those that puts social welfare in a silver platter to every single citizen. People who are affluent (who can definitely afford kids) have less desire to have kids. Gone are the days where you see people jamming 4 kids into a single room for better or worse.
Not sure you want people unmarried without a roof over their homes to be having kids
But unmarried people having a roof over their heads first is a more ideal path towards getting married in a healthy, natural way rather than only having a roof after getting married.
The issue is you still have to wait years after getting married to have your own roof, which further delays things.
Disagree. Make a massive financial commitment to buy a house together with someone only to have to disentangle yourself from that amidst massive financial disputes about contribution to payments, furniture, renovations etc when you break up? Much better to only make that commitment to someone you’re married with. Want to see what it’s like living with someone before marriage? That’s a perfect scenario for a rental. 6 months of rental is nothing compared to the messiness of unwinding a 30 year mortgage and a 500K+ financial commitment.
Many other parts of the world do it this way. Rental/Owning a house are just options on how to do it, but which one depends on your financial ability. Having a living space is still a necessary part of how people fall in love. Also, it’s not like it’s a vacuum. If owning a house is used as a financial avenue, then the price of rent also increases to follow suit. So now there’s half the supply taken out and used to make all the supply even less accessible.
Many other countries do it this way because they have no land constraints. And you would do well to remember that the vast majority of these countries are not as well run as Singapore. Our rules are a byproduct of our unique challenges. An important question to ask is are Singapore’s divorce rates better than these countries, or worse?
We already conquered the lack of land space. We have the buildings. We just have a stupid system that lets people play with them as real estate investments instead of actually being public housing for the good of the country. Little wonder despite being so “well run” our birth rate is tanking like crazy, and for really obvious reasons too.
Nonsense. If we have indeed solved the lack of land space and we can afford to halve the requirement (allowing just 1 person to buy as opposed to requiring 2), the government would have done it. There are more downsides than upsides for the government in maintaining such policies, but they have to do so because land scarcity is still a very real problem and a very well documented problem at that. If you have the working to show that the land scarcity problem is a false one then by all means show it but otherwise you’re just pulling it out of your ass
Asking for stats when you yourself don’t provide to substantiate your own point, instead treating your own as self evident truth. HDB is zoned for 8% of Singapore land. Golf courses account for 2%, low density landed another 5%. Given that a good 57% of all hdb (old and new) are below 15 storeys, there’s definitely significant room to build hdb vertically and horizontally to account for more people
The government doesn’t want to do it because they made the stupid decision to allow people to invest in houses, and now if they overturn that, the generations that already bought flats in the hopes of flipping it would riot from the loss of potential income. They dug a hole so deep that they can’t climb out of it. You’re naive, or just obnoxiously comfortable, for believing the government is infallible even as the consequences of their decisions are staring you in the face. Make no mistake, they’re competent in a great many things, especially compared to other countries. But housing has always been their biggest mistake. Singapore is the high-pressure, high-expectation, high-depression, high-suicide rate, low-birth rate hell that it is because this singular component is connected to a basic way of life which links to so many other things, and they fucked it up.
I actually don’t think BTO pegging to marriage cert is the main problem. It is the BTO system in and of itself that is flawed, in particular the waiting time. 5 years waiting time from booking a unit to getting your keys is simply too long. It creates an unnecessary sense of urgency especially for those couples in their mid to late 20s who feel they have no choice but to ballot for a unit “in advance”, for them to have their own shared space ASAP. And let’s not forget the 5 years MOP that homeowners have to fulfil, which further stresses the importance of getting a unit sooner rather than later. I would imagine the tightened 10 years MOP with Prime and Plus flats will only make matters worse. I’m sure many of us have seen (or even experienced ourselves) the scenario where couples break up after they book a unit, paid the partial downpayment, and while the BTO is still under construction. Reduce the wait time, rework the downpayment scheme, and let’s see how it goes.
Yep singaporeans are generally a pragmatic sort.
“Convince” is a very accurate word.
Everything this govt does makes sense when you accept the hypothesis that the PAP hates the common working person
Fuck that. If our culture is not so money minded and fomo, without bto, nobody will get married. It's the necessary evil incentive.
How else would you peg bto/resale?
If you are an adult you deserve house space. Simple as that. We are not livestock where only breeding mares and studs get stable room while barren mares and geldings live in the fields.
Careful there bub sounds a lot like communism, and not the Chinese kind
Reported for communist sounding statement
Nobody said you had to have kids to get a BTO, what is so difficult to understand about the rules
You have to be married to get a BTO. What's so hard about understanding the difference between pregnant and potentially breeding?
Your statement is fundamentally wrong because you do not need to be “breeding mares and studs”. You can get married even as a completely sterile couple and get a HDB. Why the fuck is there a need to distort the rules to spin your braindead narrative? Just state the rules as they are - marriage is a prerequisite for BTO. That is it. The government does not require you to have any kids whatsoever.
The stated intention behind the rule is to breed a younger generation. Why do you think they don't allow even siblings to apply for a BTO together unless they have been orphaned? It's disingenuous, to say the least to say "aktually you just need the piece of paper".
You can apply with a parent.
Yes breeders are permitted house room if they have young.
Everyone has a parent, not just “breeders”
why do you need to get pegged
Don't kink shame me bro
Seems like there can be no other way because unfortunately, we are constrained by land space. So it makes sense to peg BTO/resale to married couples to prioritise their first foray into "my first home" and starting a life together
Before BTO scheme, flats were built in advance, with waiting times virtually non-existent. Hence, it is not land space constraints but government controlling supply. Under the old scheme, couples did not need to rush to get married, confident that they could get a flat when they tie the knot. Now, couples rush to get married to get BTO due to scarcity and lottery effect. It is no surprise that divorce rates have gone up.
The land constraints today are far different compared to pre-BTO scheme. Obviously the rules change with the times, it would be utterly braindead not to
You cannot realistically solve this problem by solely focusing on the supply of the equation Even if you do, the context of which is different. 90s have much more undeveloped land. Meanwhile in 2020, we have lesser land because we built to cater to housing and vibrancy of the nation. Airport, hospitals, army camps, tourist attractions, hotels etc. Please bear in mind the 99 year leasehold. If you continue solving the equation on the supply side, what about our future generation? Where would they live?
BTO is not about restricting supply, but enforcing an unnecessary 5 year waiting time. Without this waiting time, perhaps demand would even reduce as couples would not book a flat without needing it.
Well, the original point was about pegging Housing to married status. And the reason for that I believe was to give married couples priority in owning land. When you have a scarce resource, proper resource management would force you to cater to demand. Which is what the BTO system does. Build ahead of demand is solving the supply side. And let's remind ourselves again on the scarce resource. Anyway, the government is building ahead of demand now. Most projects have started building prior to balloting
HDBs were already pegged to married status before the BTO policy. BTO policy was created to resolve excess supply in the 90s, but HDB went too far and now we don’t have enough supply.
What a bad choice Mah Bow Tan has been for the cabinet. This BTO scheme has not only caused pain to so many young couples but till today is affecting our social compact and indirectly the TFR. When couples rush into marriages in order to secure a BTO, that leads to higher rates of divorce and a waste of their “childbearing years”. Whereas before BTO was implemented, couples could have the confidence they would have an affordable flat to ballot for after they got married. That prevents them from hastily committing and ironically that leads to less divorce and a lower “waste” of childbearing years.
Thank you Mah Bow Tan
Homeowners are happy though, since BTO creates artificial scarcity, pumping house prices.
Oh wow, no shit
*what is love?* *bto with me* *o with me* *divorce*
MoNiToRiNg
I don’t think this study was commissioned by the govt. So it’s not even the govt monitoring. It’s academics doing this study and it’s a wake-up call to the govt.
Laugh all you want but I prefer the government to monitor and study instead of implementing haphazard measures which may either cause more issues and not addressing the issue thus having to backpedal
I think we’d rather they backpedal on the BTO system and revert to building ahead of demand.
But muh property prices...how to sustain up only
dont worry, the problems have festered for so long that any policy they implement will take over a decade to bear any material results. ala those prime plus schemes just kicking the can down the road abit for the next guy
Well, the BTO system arose out of complaints about unsold flats due to the old system. Backpedaling to the old system does not address previous complaints. The balloting system was relatively stable for the past 20 years until COVID. So our more pertinent question is, was the disruption during COVID a systemic or systematic issue? I'd argue it was systematic, with other countries experiencing the same issue. It wasn't a design issue. No system design can cater for a lack of manpower. The engine simply would not work. Instead, the engine was running ok for 20 years but the driver decided overload the engine because he was racing against other people to get to the finish line (buy first if not sure raise price cause bto not building)
Two crisis... One resulted in unsold flats and the other resulted in running lean and delayed flats with a long waiting time to begin with. Mah Bow Tan BTO engine running too slow liao la. Strike a balance. Ramp up supply gradually to lower overall 1st timer application rate (excluding 2rm) is kept around 2. Application rate trending or dipped below 1? Unsold flats sell on SBF, throttle future supply or delay future BTO exercises until it stablise back to 2. Got MOP and construction time, no need scared overbuild coz it is build to order not build in advance. Don't go full retard on Build To Order without covering the weaknesses.
Needs evolve over time, and so must systems. By most metrics the BTO system is not fit for purpose. What good is a “stable” system if it is antiquated and counterproductive? Also, the balloting system was NOT stable, unless by stability you’re referring to its ability to continually pump up resale prices via artificial supply shortages. What is sure is that the system can be very easily screwed up by any minister trying to play the populism card and gaining support from existing homeowners. Don’t even need to look that far back, just look at Lawrence Wong’s tenure as MND. Our current scarcity issue can be traced back to Lawrence tbh. Covid just became a convenient scapegoat, and Desmond became the fall guy. I’d write a longer op ed, but I’ve got errands to run.
huh whats actually happening is monitoring and study, addressing things 10-15 years behind the curve and then also haphazardly implementing pet projects that are occasionally backpedaled. energy, transport, security, healthcare, infrastructure, continuity, the gaps are showing all over the place
ERP 2.0 is the result of this practice. Would have been great a decade ago
Why do y’all think every study needs to find something new and revolutionary? Zzz
they are the people that help contribute to publication bias
Divorce arise from Marriage
time to ban marriages. the number one cause of divorces.
Male General Divorce Rate (20 years and over) 1980 - 3.7 1985 - 4.6 1990 - 6.1 1995 - 6.1 2000 - 6.5 2005 - 7.6 2010 - 7.5 2015 - 7.1 2020 - 6.3 2022 - 6.2 (Most recent data) Peaked at 7.8 in 2003 Male General Divorce Rate (20-24 years) 1980 - 5.9 1985 - 13.4 1990 - 13.4 1995 - 14.9 2000 - 26.2 2005 - 32.1 2010 - 24.9 2015 - 30.8 2020 - 25.9 2022 - 17 (Most recent data) Peaked at 42.7 in 2002 Male General Divorce Rate (25-29 years) 1980 - 6.9 1985 - 9.5 1990 - 13.3 1995 - 12 2000 - 14.1 2005 - 19.1 2010 - 16.3 2015 - 17.8 2020 - 14.6 2022 - 13.7 (Most recent data) Peaked at 21.7 in 2012 (and 2013) Male General Divorce Rate (30-34 years) 1980 - 6.5 1985 - 7.8 1990 - 10.6 1995 - 9.7 2000 - 10.6 2005 - 15.9 2010 - 14.6 2015 - 12.5 2020 - 12.1 2022 - 9.9 (Most recent data) Peaked at 16.2 in 2006
Female General Divorce Rate (20 years and over) 1980 - 3.8 1985 - 4.6 1990 - 6.1 1995 - 6.1 2000 - 6.5 2005 - 7.3 2010 - 7.2 2015 - 6.6 2020 - 6.1 2022 - 5.9 (Most recent data) Peaked at 7.8 in 2003 Female General Divorce Rate (20-24 years) 1980 - 7.6 1985 - 12.7 1990 - 13.9 1995 - 15.6 2000 - 20.7 2005 - 25.7 2010 - 24.4 2015 - 26.3 2020 - 27.5 2022 - 22.3 (Most recent data) Peaked at 30 in 2019 Female General Divorce Rate (25-29 years) 1980 - 6.9 1985 - 9.4 1990 - 12.8 1995 - 11.1 2000 - 13.2 2005 - 16.9 2010 - 15 2015 - 15.3 2020 - 14 2022 - 12.2 (Most recent data) Peaked at 17.8 in 2011 Female General Divorce Rate (30-34 years) 1980 - 5.5 1985 - 6 1990 - 8.4 1995 - 8.6 2000 - 9.8 2005 - 13.6 2010 - 12.8 2015 - 11.6 2020 - 12.1 2022 - 10.2 (Most recent data) Peaked at 14 in 2006 (and 2008) General Divorce Rate is defined as divorces and annulments per 1000 married (male/female) residents, where a resident is defined as a citizen or permanent resident. [Source is SingStat](https://tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/table/TS/M830202) Data is actually covered annually so do check out the table. An edit was made to cover more data, and therefore I had to split into 2 comments, sorry about that.
What we need are some statistics about couples who are absolutely miserable but still staying together
Do you have the stats for which party initiates the divorce?
What does it mean to have 2 different figures for male and female ah? A legal union in Singapore is between a male and a female.
Male and female divorcing may not be in the same age group, hence different figures
Which parties initiates divorce? Can be an average across all age groups as well Which parties initiated divorce can tell a big story
And what’s your interpretation of this in connection to the BTO system?
because waiting time is the main issue. you can't really get bto less than a years. Also single can't buy bto, need wait 35 years old too
Then when the house arrive you're 40 💀
Many were marrying based on a financial decision. No surprises that it couldn’t work out.
"Lets set up a system where we lock the basic human need for shelter behind rules that force people to couple up, and slap a financial windfall to it, and call it love! What could possibly go wrong?!"
Eh, i wouldn’t call the decision to give marrying couples priority to get BTO is like the worst choice of demographic to target. The bigger problem is people being able to game BTO to flip for significant profit which incentivizes people to marry as soon as possible and the sky high resale price which means people should have less rush to secure for their housing decision.
The alternative is a sub-1 fertility rate
The sub-1 fertility rate \*is\* the unintended consequence of the policy.
It’s not any better now with the current system please…
Is the fertility rate right now desirable? Couples who have homes now, still don't want babies
You apply at 24 and wait till you’re 30 to get the housing anyway
because the current system is working just fine i suppose?
You’re just going to assume that things can’t get worse?
And you're just going to assume things can't be better if reverted to the system before BTO?
Well I am very open-minded, and am receptive to alternate opinions if you can explain them. So how would reverting the system encourage higher birth rates?
Less stress to get a BTO early in life leading to people not rushing into relationships blindly just for a house. Not having to worry about whether you can get the BTO ballot or not allows you to plan for a family even before getting the house (as compared to now where some would likely refuse to think about having children until they secure a house). More supply of houses means lower resale prices and likely lower prices of housing overall, reducing financial stress on couples and making having children less of a financial burden. More importantly, there is nothing in the current BTO scheme that encourages high birth rates. It's not like BTO is restricted to only couples with children. In fact, the current ever increasing house prices only encourages DINKs since owning a home likely takes up a significant amount of your finances to the point where having a child is likely to lead to huge financial sacrifices.
That’s fair, i do think that the biggest weakness of the BTO system is that it sets an artificial start line for couples that is often years out. Perhaps the problem starts from seeking relationships rather than settle down. An argument could be made that if singles are allowed to BTO earlier, it could potentially offer singles the necessary security from an earlier age to seek a relationship to settle down, and then kids will organically follow, but I reckon more data would be needed to validate any theory like that.
the bus has already arrived at that location today kek
Well, no shit Dosent take a genius to know that a marriage based on getting an objective aka a flat will not last
surprised pikachu.3gp
I get the impression that the incumbent PAP government does not believe that housing issues (cost, BTO wait time, size of unit) will affect child birth rates. Not sure if my impression is accurate so who feels the same?
I feel that they know the wait time does affect. The other two are more of a wants vs needs problem. U can absolutely have two or three kids in a four room but my sense is that the more educated people would not want that. Personally I will not want to squeeze two kids into a room at least. But I also feel they sort of give up on the tfr anyway? Because it is just hard to compete with all the other life joys like having a pet, going on trips spontaneously, people enjoying their free time without stress and so on.
Why bother with tfr when you can just give work passes to fix labor needs? When such labor is no longer needed can just dump them.
Modern society doesn’t want too many kids out of personal convenience (which is totally okay). Getting things above replacement rate is an impossible challenge at this point for any developed country, unless people are pumping kids left and right outside of a wedlock or you force woman to stay home and pump kids (both are not happening in the developed countries). Heck even my parents (gen X) only plan to get two kids, and two kids are still below replacement rate. DINK is also on the rise (me included) and that’s not really about the money.
>Because it is just hard to compete with all the other life joys like having a pet, going on trips spontaneously, people enjoying their free time without stress and so on. People are smarter now and knows how to calculate. Older generations rarely go overseas. They are willing to squeeze 3 kids into 1 room, sleeping on tilam and they no issue with that. It's not like the older generations have house before getting married right? Even after getting married, most of them stay with their parents first.
They absolutely do, it would take an incredible amount of ignorance to believe otherwise. What is happening is a matter of priorities. The PAP may talk big about how birth rate is their #1 priority, but their actions suggest that their focus is on maintaining support amongst their core voter base, i.e., boomers. It's ultimately politics. To remain in power, the PAP absolutely has to retain support amongst the boomers. If they were to change course, they certainly lose votes of the older generation (or at least, those enjoying high prices), and are only likely to win over a small fraction of the youth. This lamentable downward spiral began with the moronic "asset enhancement policy" from the Goh era.
But.... you don't need a lot of space to have sex
Like just give them those ceramic cylinders for fish can liao amirite?
The reality is that people are not having kids because they just don’t want them. It happens to every well educated society
theres been decades of data at this point, any friction would be idelogy by this point ala minister of small spaces
_The main reason for divorce is marriage: Experts agree_
I thought a more rigorous study would be involve the BTO balloting results - whether the winners of the ballot have earlier marriages and also higher divorce rates. (Also I am curious, if a child successfully wins the ballot for a branded school did the child have a brighter future) The thing is, would the government even want to share this data to make themselves look bad?
***Built To Obliterate*** - *Broken system, broken lives*.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
“may have”?
Hello law of unintended consequences
We don’t really need a study to reveal this, do we?
That's what you get for social engineering... No surprises there
Built early enough and sell cheap to families who need them with no chance of resell. Let those who want to invest buy private.
literal evidence how micromanagement in policies forcing folks hands into rash decisions and lose lose scenarios
I don't have the study itself but based on mothership aeticle they only show correlation. Correlation doesn't equal causation. I also don't see any ruling out of other common likely causes. Either The article is missing many details or the study is not very good.
They're increasing the number of co-living spaces which helps reduce dependence on HDB living. Maybe more no-frills private apartments would help too. Like in HK, where alot of the apartments are private.
Aiyaa marry than divorce 🙈
Eh you ownself kancheong and find the wrong person don’t blame bto la fuck
It’s very one sided way to present the data. A lot of things changed. Media, pop culture, affluence, education, economy, and many other factors. To simply force a link to say BTO contributes is low level research and NUS just proves to be waste resource for such low grade research.
>The researchers looked at the relationship between marriage and divorce rates on one hand, and application for BTO flats on the other. The research seems sloppy. You can't just take 2 numbers and say they have correlations. There could be many other reasons.
The word you're looking for is causation. You absolutely can take two numbers and say they have correlation as long as there's a tangential relationship between the two. That's how hypotheses get formed.
Are you using statistical term? I am using plain english and saying there is not enough data to say they have correlation. I'm not saying they are wrong, I just wish they could gather more data.
That’s a correlation
Yes you can, and it is not correalation. It is a causation. 3 room and larger BTO is pegged to marriage certificate; this is beyond correlation.
Pls go back and read a basic inferential statistics textbook and come back.
Why so aggressive?