Workers’ Party MP for Seng Kang GRC, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, recently questioned the Minister for National Development, Mr Desmond Lee, regarding the average price of state land sold to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for public housing over the past five years. He also asked for cumulative and percentage changes in public housing land value during this period.
In a written response on 5 February, Mr Lee revealed that HDB spent between $S907 million and S$2.6 billion annually for land in non-mature estates and between S$1.3 billion and S$5 billion annually for mature estates from Financial Year (FY) 2019 to FY 2023.
However, he did not provide the average land prices or detailed breakdowns by district, explaining that HDB does not classify flats or land costs based on district boundaries.
Mr Lee further stated that land costs vary due to several factors, including prevailing market conditions, the location of land parcels, and their size.
He clarified that HDB purchases state land at fair market value as determined independently by the Chief Valuer. The fluctuating total land costs reflect changing development needs and external conditions, but HDB does not track year-to-year changes in land value after the point of purchase.
This lack of specific details has raised questions about the government’s willingness to provide clearer insights into the rising cost of land for public housing.
With housing affordability remaining a pressing issue in Singapore, public scrutiny of HDB’s land acquisition and pricing methods has intensified.
The land acquisition cost is a major factor contributing to HDB’s rising financial deficit. For FY 2023, HDB reported a net deficit of S$6.775 billion, up from S$5.38 billion in FY 2022.
Of this, S$6.225 billion was linked to the Home Ownership segment, driven by the development of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats, disbursing of housing grants, and provision of subsidies.
HDB’s spending on land has steadily risen, with the board paying S$7.53 billion for state land in FY 2023/2024, compared to S$5.39 billion the previous year.
Despite these rising costs, HDB emphasised that it does not profit from the sale of its BTO flats and reiterated its commitment to keeping public housing affordable.
In its statement, HDB added, “We will continue to review our housing policies and make adjustments where necessary, to support the housing needs and aspirations of Singaporeans and ensure that public housing remains fair and inclusive.”
However, public scepticism over HDB’s claims persists. In recent years, several individuals and organisations have questioned whether HDB profits from the sale of public housing, prompting HDB to issue multiple correction orders under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).
While the correction orders aim to address misinformation, some have criticised the heavy reliance on POFMA as a sign of limited transparency and openness to public discourse on housing costs.
With land acquisition costs continuing to rise, calls for clearer disclosures on how land prices influence public housing costs may intensify.
Mr Chua’s questions reflect ongoing concerns about how HDB manages its land expenses and the broader implications for housing affordability in Singapore.
