SGHOUSING.COM 新加坡房地产网

THE report, ‘Is S’pore’s first condo worth preserving?’ (The Sunday Times, Sept 24), conveys the advent of economic obsolescence of building structures here.

For property managers, economic obsolescence refers to a situation where the economic value of the building structures is less than that of the land on which the structures sit.

The building structures are encumbering the land, in an economic sense, and this encourages the owners of these buildings to demolish the structures so that new spaces, which will fetch a higher value, can be erected.

In a small country, it is not surprising that economic obsolescence seeps into our buildings at a faster-than- desired pace.

The debate is now between two groups of people: property owners who, apart from getting rent, also expect to get capital appreciation from the properties they

own; and property conservationists, who are protectors of our national heritage, so that future generations will get to see the historic buildings Singapore has.

The matter is a delicate one. Properties are a good hedge against inflation.

In other words, instead of putting money into the bank and risking the weakening spending power of money, one can buy a property so that the appreciation in property value offsets inflation.

The appreciation in property value can come from the land itself, where the land value exceeds the value of

the building sitting on it, driving developers who want to pay for the appreciated land value to develop new buildings.

But who determines the ‘intrinsic value’ of economically obsolete buildings?

I am reminded of people who are prepared to bid for artworks, not for economic gains alone, but for the bidders’ appreciation of the intrinsic value of the artworks.

It will take a sufficiently wealthy person to pay for intrinsic value, to retain a building’s heritage.

The alternative would be for those who want to preserve economically obsolete buildings to pay the owners of these buildings.

Of course, the easier way is to ask the Government to intervene, but this should be a last resort. This way, we can test what society truly values.

Patrick Sio Puay Soon

Insurance plan yields net loss

I AGREE with suggestions in recent newspaper reports that projections made by insurers ‘are just plain unrealistic’.

One policyholder took up a special (fixed sum assured of $8,000) 18-year Golden Lion Endowment with compound reversionary bonus in 1988 - a special policy celebrating Great Eastern Life’s 80th anniversary.

His policy just matured recently with no gain but a net loss of 23.5 per cent.

Total premium paid for 18 years amounted to $18,684 ($1,038 x 18 years) but he received a total payment of $14,285.60, resulting in a net loss of about $4,400.

Endowment policies are meant for, among other things, savings and if they fail to meet this criterion, Great Eastern Life should not have marketed this product in the first place.

Eighteen years is a long wait. Many, by now in their sunset years, have been looking forward to this special policy to bring them greater returns, not great loss.

Tan Khin Pang

Littering spells a deeper issue

IN HER column, ‘Let litterbugs stew in their own muck’, (The Sunday Times, Sept 24), writer Tan Hsueh Yun rightly expressed the indignation civic-minded Singaporeans feel towards litterbugs.

She went on to suggest reforming these people by not cleaning up after them.

I applaud her novel suggestion and her willingness to try it herself, although I am not optimistic this will work, as it is a problem that years of campaigns and fines have failed to solve.

The problem is symptomatic of something located deep in our national ethos. It could be, as Ms Tan suggested, an unwillingness to lose out on conservancy charges paid. But it also shows up Singaporeans’ unhealthy overdependence on carrots and sticks to modify their behaviour. This is disturbing as Singaporeans seem to show a reluctance to take responsibility for their own actions.

In other words, their actions are not informed by internal standards of what are right and wrong, independent of rules and regulations. Therefore, it is not unexpected that there exists a pervasive attitude that it is all right to litter, as long as one does not get caught and the penalty is not severe.

The solution may require nothing short of changing the ethos. Unfortunately, this is not what a top-down approach with campaigns or bigger carrots and sticks could effect. For this, long and hard self-reflection is needed.

Yeo Chow Khoon

Macau not just for gamblers

MY FAMILY and I visited Macau last December and had an experience totally different from the one reported in the article, ‘Macau will not reduce S’pore’s allure’ (The Sunday Times, Sept 24).

Upon arrival in Macau, we took a cab from the ferry terminal and showed the driver an address written in Portuguese. The taxi driver was not only able to read Portuguese, but he also knew the directions well.

I am not a gambler, but I found the rest of our three days in Macau fun.

We enjoyed the unique scenery, architecture, and both its Eastern and Western heritage. We enjoyed the walks and found the air surprisingly fresh.

We also loved the food. Most of the eateries we patronised had menus in Chinese, Portuguese and English.

Source : Sunday Times - 1 Oct 2006