Having a price ceiling on resale prices is hardly a straight forward proposition and I don’t think it should be blamed on a voter bloc…. You guys normally have a good grasp of economics so you should know the economic difficulty of enacting it… For example, if 4-5 people fancy a property and they cannot outbid each other via the price mechanism because of a price ceiling then how does the seller or HDB allocate the property? Ballot again?
Hey Gilbert, thanks for the comment. We’ve added the word “seemingly” before “straightforward approach” to clarify our intent and avoid misunderstanding.
To be clear: at no point did we blame a voter bloc. The article never suggested elderly Singaporeans are selfish or malicious.
What we highlighted was a structural contradiction: that housing in Singapore is treated both as a public good and a retirement asset. That tension creates political paralysis—especially when so much of the nation's wealth is tied up in homes.
Sociologist Chua Beng Huat breaks this down in Public Subsidy/Private Accumulation. Worth a read if you're serious about the topic.
We get it—this is a thorny issue. It’s rarely discussed openly, and raising it always risks being misunderstood as ageist. But not talking about it doesn’t make the problem go away.
and therefore all the more it is getting more crucial at present times, for people who are more well-off to start giving (resources, time & energy) to those with less, especially those at the top of the wealth or power pyramid..
Having a price ceiling on resale prices is hardly a straight forward proposition and I don’t think it should be blamed on a voter bloc…. You guys normally have a good grasp of economics so you should know the economic difficulty of enacting it… For example, if 4-5 people fancy a property and they cannot outbid each other via the price mechanism because of a price ceiling then how does the seller or HDB allocate the property? Ballot again?
Hey Gilbert, thanks for the comment. We’ve added the word “seemingly” before “straightforward approach” to clarify our intent and avoid misunderstanding.
To be clear: at no point did we blame a voter bloc. The article never suggested elderly Singaporeans are selfish or malicious.
What we highlighted was a structural contradiction: that housing in Singapore is treated both as a public good and a retirement asset. That tension creates political paralysis—especially when so much of the nation's wealth is tied up in homes.
Sociologist Chua Beng Huat breaks this down in Public Subsidy/Private Accumulation. Worth a read if you're serious about the topic.
We get it—this is a thorny issue. It’s rarely discussed openly, and raising it always risks being misunderstood as ageist. But not talking about it doesn’t make the problem go away.
Cheers,
Ruiming
Wow, a lot of information to process ...
and therefore all the more it is getting more crucial at present times, for people who are more well-off to start giving (resources, time & energy) to those with less, especially those at the top of the wealth or power pyramid..
as the old chinese words of wisdom goes:
《周易·益卦》: "损上益下，民说无疆。"
《道德经》第七十七章：
"天之道，损有余而补不足。人之道则不然，损不足以奉有余。孰能有余以奉天下？"