The government has introduced changes to the Reserve List System under its Land Sales Programme.

These include a cut in the deposit when bidding for reserve sites, which is set to benefit property developers.

But analysts said the revisions are unlikely to have a far-reaching impact on the property market.

The government said the Reserve List System for land sales has worked well since it was introduced in June 2001.

A total of 65 sites has been triggered and sold under the system so far.

In 2009 alone, 11 sites for residential, hotel and industrial developments were sold under the Reserve List.

And according to National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, more sites are expected to be offered under the Reserve List for the second half of this year.

But he said the system will be fine-tuned with immediate effect to make it more responsive to business needs.

Mr Mah said: “We will henceforth consider releasing a Reserve List site for sale immediately if there is more than one party that submits a minimum bid that is close to the Government’s Reserve Price for the site, within a reasonable period.

“If members may know, prior to this, a site is released for sale only if a developer submits a minimum bid which is equal to or higher than the reserve price.”

Analysts said the change will make the Reserve List System more dynamic, especially in down cycles where reserve prices may not be in sync with market conditions. And it could also help developers obtain sites at less favourable locations at lower prices.

Among other changes, the deposit on Reserve List sites required from successful applicants will be cut to 3 per cent of the minimum price.

This is down from the current 5 per cent, and it will be capped at S$5 million.

Observers expect more sites to be released for tender at a faster rate following the changes, particularly for residential sites.

Donald Han, managing director, Cushman & Wakefield, said: “It will certainly ease requirements to put up a deposits for such properties, so you might be able to see more entry-level or boutique-sized developers and the medium-sized developers to partake in (the) Government Land Sales Programme.”

Meanwhile, the government said there will be no further moves to cool the property market for now, following anti-speculative measures introduced in February.

There will also be more space for businesses in the city, as several government agencies will relocate to new growth areas in Jurong Gateway and Paya Lebar Central by 2015.

Source: Channel News Asia, 8 Mar 2010

IMPLEMENTED in 1989, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was driven by the desire to facilitate interaction among the different races in Singapore by preventing the formation of racial enclaves.

Building on the success of the EIP in fostering racial harmony, the Government has decided to extend it to permanent residents. The goal is to prevent PR enclaves from emerging and thereby facilitate their integration.
There has been much debate over the utility of extending the EIP to PRs. Unfortunately, the current debate does not resolve a key problem at the heart of the EIP itself: The perception that it is a cost to be paid for racial harmony. Arguably, if the EIP is to continue playing an important role, it should not be viewed as a burden but rather be seen in a far more positive light.

The main bugbear for many Singaporeans regardless of race about the EIP stems from the difficulty of reselling HDB flats owing to the racial quota. For the minorities in particular, a common grouse is that they face a depressed resale market in Chinese-dominant Singapore. When a minority is prevented from selling a flat to a Chinese because of a quota ceiling, the flat is often sold below market rate.

As for the Chinese, those who own homes in a traditionally minority-dominant area may have to turn down willing minority buyers.

While the EIP’s goal of racial harmony is laudable, it is unfortunate that a policy aimed at fostering racial harmony is perceived to be burdensome. Penalising monetarily Singaporeans seeking to secure their dream home sends a signal that there is a cost for racial harmony. Expressed another way, the monetary cost of multiculturalism due to the EIP detracts from the respect Singaporeans have for racial harmony as a non-negotiable national value.

The suggestions that have been made over the years to remove the economic sting of the EIP may be clustered into two broad categories. In the first, people have suggested the policy be scrapped altogether or the quota be waived on a case-by-case basis. While well-meaning, these suggestions are moot as the Government feels strongly the EIP plays too critical a role to be either abandoned or fudged.

In the second category, the focus has been to alleviate the economic burden of the EIP. For example, some have suggested a cost-sharing system to compensate owners for the loss of their flats’ value, a government grant to compensate minority sellers for losses incurred, or even the Government buying back flats from owners unable to sell them.

The Government too has attempted to ease the cost of the EIP over the years. Measures that have been put in place include financial assistance in the form of the deferment of loan repayments or the temporary reduction of repayments.

But all the suggestions that have been made to reduce the economic burden of the EIP offer merely a patch to a systemic problem. Basically, they seek to reduce the monetary cost of integration instead of making the project of integration more enticing by offering incentives.

A possible way forward is to incorporate both sticks and carrots into the scheme. This could be achieved if the current system of deterring racial enclaves from forming is complemented with one that incentivises Singaporeans to embrace the ideal racial mix in each neighbourhood.

Akin to the HDB Family Grant that encourages Singaporeans to purchase flats near their parents or children in support of strengthening family ties, Singaporeans could be steered towards realising the desired racial complexion in each neighbourhood with what may be termed an ‘Ethnic Integration Grant’, or EIG.

The mechanics of the EIG can be made simple and complementary to the EIP. To ensure that each neighbourhood is truly a representative microcosm of multiracial Singapore, there should not only be a maximum, but also a minimum, quota of minority households set for each neighbourhood, to reflect the actual racial composition of Singapore.

However, unlike the EIP’s maximum quota to avoid racial clustering, the minimum quota need not be mandatory. The HDB could inform potential flat buyers of particular neighbourhoods where the lower-bound quota for each race is not being met. Should they contribute to the attainment of the ideal racial mix in such neighbourhoods, they will be rewarded with housing grants.

One pragmatic way to internalise the value of racial harmony is to make its gains tangible. With the EIG, Singaporeans could be rewarded for contributing to the greater good. The EIP would remain as the stick, to be wielded only as a last resort in case the carrot fails.

Yolanda Chin is an Associate Research Fellow and Norman Vasu is Assistant Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU.

Source, Straits Times 8 March 2010