外国人购有地私宅条件收紧 业者：预料对市场影响不大

 (2011-10-14)  ● 胡渊文 报道

　　政府收紧海外买家购买有地私宅的条件，预计对本地有地私宅市场的影响不大。

　　律政部长尚穆根前天表示在政府今年初开始收紧政策后，预计符合申请条件的海外买家会减少一半以上。

　　对此，欣乐国际（SLP）执行董事麦俊荣受访时表示购买有地住宅的海外买家，实际上只占极少数。

有地私宅数量少

　　他指出，我国有地私宅的供应本来就有限，每年完工的数目很小。市场上的新供应量随着时间的推移会越来越少，而且新的供应很可能是现有的有地住宅拆除后重建的。

　　据律政部发言人透露，我国目前约有7万栋有地住宅，只有已成为永久居民的海外买家有权申请购买本岛的有地住宅，其中海外屋主所拥有的有地住宅占了3.5％，这个数字在过去三年并没显著变化。

　　麦俊荣说，今年截至年中，发展中的有地住宅共有90间，其中9间由海外买家拥有，也就是10％。每年成交的单位中，只有4％至6％的单位是由海外买家购买。

　　相比之下，同时期共有3000间公寓在发展中，发展中的有地住宅单位数量只相当于公寓的3％，再加上购买有地住宅的海外买家只占5％左右，即使获准购买的海外买家减少一半，这对有地住宅市场，乃至整个私宅市场的影响都是微乎其微的。

　　戴德梁行执行董事高春华也指出，购买有地住宅的绝大多数是新加坡人，海外买家的申购条件收紧，影响不会显著。

　　她表示海外买家买房近期是个比较敏感的课题。因为许多新加坡人认为是海外买家推高了本地的房价。

　　她说，本地房地产市场上的海外买家主要活跃于公寓市场，而大众化市场的海外买家虽不多，但最近也开始增加了。

　　她相信政府这么做是因为有地私宅的数量非常有限，因此要把更多的单位留给国人。

　　麦俊荣也认为政府此举的关键目的是要显示它更亲国人，并重新强调要把新加坡人利益放在首位。

　　不过，他留意到律政部并未清楚地说明会如何收紧。目前的条件是获准购买有地住宅的海外买家必须是为新加坡作出显著贡献的。

　　“这具体是什么？基本上还是要由政府根据个别的申请作出判断。”

[e-mail]

《联合早报》

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.