外國人購有地私宅條件收緊 業者：預料對市場影響不大

 (2011-10-14)  ● 胡淵文 報道

　　政府收緊海外買家購買有地私宅的條件，預計對本地有地私宅市場的影響不大。

　　律政部長尚穆根前天表示在政府今年初開始收緊政策後，預計符合申請條件的海外買家會減少一半以上。

　　對此，欣樂國際（SLP）執行董事麥俊榮受訪時表示購買有地住宅的海外買家，實際上隻占極少數。

有地私宅數量少

　　他指出，我國有地私宅的供應本來就有限，每年完工的數目很小。市場上的新供應量隨著時間的推移會越來越少，而且新的供應很可能是現有的有地住宅拆除後重建的。

　　據律政部發言人透露，我國目前約有7萬棟有地住宅，隻有已成為永久居民的海外買家有權申請購買本島的有地住宅，其中海外屋主所擁有的有地住宅占了3.5％，這個數字在過去三年並沒顯著變化。

　　麥俊榮說，今年截至年中，發展中的有地住宅共有90間，其中9間由海外買家擁有，也就是10％。每年成交的單位中，隻有4％至6％的單位是由海外買家購買。

　　相比之下，同時期共有3000間公寓在發展中，發展中的有地住宅單位數量隻相當於公寓的3％，再加上購買有地住宅的海外買家隻占5％左右，即使獲準購買的海外買家減少一半，這對有地住宅市場，乃至整個私宅市場的影響都是微乎其微的。

　　戴德梁行執行董事高春華也指出，購買有地住宅的絕大多數是新加坡人，海外買家的申購條件收緊，影響不會顯著。

　　她表示海外買家買房近期是個比較敏感的課題。因為許多新加坡人認為是海外買家推高了本地的房價。

　　她說，本地房地產市場上的海外買家主要活躍於公寓市場，而大眾化市場的海外買家雖不多，但最近也開始增加了。

　　她相信政府這麽做是因為有地私宅的數量非常有限，因此要把更多的單位留給國人。

　　麥俊榮也認為政府此舉的關鍵目的是要顯示它更親國人，並重新強調要把新加坡人利益放在首位。

　　不過，他留意到律政部並未清楚地說明會如何收緊。目前的條件是獲準購買有地住宅的海外買家必須是為新加坡作出顯著貢獻的。

　　“這具體是什麽？基本上還是要由政府根據個別的申請作出判斷。”

[e-mail]

《聯合早報》

Foreign ownership rules: When the Government intervenes …

Posted by luxuryasiahome ⋅ October 14, 2011

The issue of foreign ownership of private residential properties has been a fairly hot topic of debate for newspaper readers recently.

Sensational news reports on foreigners buying private housing properties in Singapore never fail to draw many online comments, and some of the more unbiased and thoughtful comments have made it into print in the letters-to-the-editors section.

While some have called for some kind of ban, others asked that foreign buying be restricted to certain areas or types of properties or for us to adopt rules similar to those found in other countries such as Australia.

At the same time, there was also some robust defending of the status quo. It is not the duty of the Government to provide every local household with a private property as these are not basic but luxury goods. It is simply not possible with our scarce resources.

Foreign ownership of residential properties, particularly land, is an acutely sensitive topic in many countries, particularly in less developed ones. We do not have to look further than our neighbours, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

It has to do with the general income levels and with the economic progress achieved by the local population. Natives want a level-playing field and not have all the prime or quality properties taken away by rich foreigners, perceived to have an unfair advantage with their ample wealth.

Sometimes, it is psychological as land is considered sacred. In some of the oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries, the only way foreigners could own property in their own name was on man-made islands such as The Palm Islands – Palm Jumeirah, Palm Jebel Ali and Palm Deira in Dubai and The Pearl-Qatar in Qatar.

The Palm Islands are artificial peninsulas constructed of sand dredged from the bottom of the Persian Gulf on which major commercial and residential projects are built.

The Pearl-Qatar is a man-made island covering 400ha and consists of luxury apartments and town homes, penthouse and villas besides various other commercial developments.

Until recently, foreign ownership of private residential property was also a non-issue in Singapore and in Hong Kong, but talk to some Hong Kongers these days, even among the wealthier ones, and you sense a deep resentment against Chinese nationals who have been buying up residential properties in the former British colony in droves.

What capped the debate for me was a letter to the press published on Wednesday by Associate Professor Kelvin F K Low, the associate dean (external relations) of the Singapore Management University’s School of Law.

He was responding to an earlier letter which argued for no government intervention in the private property market. Besides the strict rules on foreign buying of public housing flats, he reminded readers that there are already existing restrictions in the private housing market.

Non-Singaporeans cannot buy landed property without consent. Two days ago, Law Minister K Shanmugam said he expected the number of approvals given to permanent residents who want to buy landed homes in Singapore to fall by more than half after the criteria was tightened further recently.

In his letter, Assoc Prof Low said that with the property market regulated at the bottom and at the top, it is those in the middle income bracket who are left feeling the squeeze.

In 1973, the Government introduced measures to prohibit the sale of residential property to foreigners without its consent.

These measures were relaxed in 1975 to allow foreigners to purchase residential property in buildings of six or more storeys.

The measures took form as the Residential Property Act in 1976 but the Act has lost its bite over time. Exemptions were introduced for developments designated “condominiums”, which today is almost every new development. In 2006, the need for “condominium” status was itself removed.

However, Assoc Prof Low warned that the decision to change the status quo should not be taken lightly. The Government derives substantial revenues from land sales and any restrictions may affect this revenue.

In his opinion, it may be unthinkable for measures as draconian as in 1973 but the idea of government intervention is “hardly ludicrous”. He ended by saying the “precise extent of intervention is a matter of government policy which, in a democracy, must in turn be accounted for come the next General Election”.

He took the words out of my mouth.

By Colin Tan – of research and consultancy atChesterton Suntec International.