25/09/2026
HDB says it is reviewing the conversion scheme after a "jumbo" flat in Telok Blangah, comprising two 3-room flats, was put up for sale at $2.18 million.
Read full article at:-
https://str.sg/e8UR
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
“ Personal opinion, without bias or prejudice “
Question 1:
When a policy creates a special category of property, did policymakers sufficiently consider how that category might evolve over the following decades?
Possible response:
Who could have foreseen market trends and property values decades later?
Question 2:
Fair enough. No one can predict the future with certainty. But did HDB have a mechanism to periodically review whether the original purpose, assumptions and parameters of the scheme remained appropriate as Singapore’s housing market evolved?
Possible response:
The parameters of a scheme may be too broad to anticipate every possible outcome. A review would normally require sufficiently visible signals or evidence of an unintended consequence before changes are considered.
Follow-up Question 3:
If policymakers cannot foresee every possible consequence, and policy review only happens when a sufficiently visible signal emerges, how do we ensure that such signals are identified early enough?
Shouldn’t long-running policies have some form of built-in periodic review and monitoring — not necessarily because the policy is failing, but simply because circumstances and market behaviour change over time?
Possible response:
Periodic reviews could certainly be considered, but not every policy requires changes simply because circumstances have evolved. The purpose would be to determine whether the original objectives are still being achieved and whether any unintended consequences have become significant enough to warrant intervention.
And perhaps this is the broader question.
Tongue-in-cheek, has policymaking sometimes become a little like a “Tai Chi Master” — absorbing pressure, waiting for the signal to become sufficiently strong, then redirecting and adjusting?
I’m not suggesting policymakers should be expected to predict every future outcome.
The concern is whether some long-running policies could benefit from earlier and more regular review, using public feedback, market behaviour and emerging signals as part of the monitoring process — rather than waiting until an issue becomes sufficiently visible to develop into a public controversy.
A policy doesn’t have to be wrong before it deserves to be reviewed.
Sometimes, reviewing an old policy simply means asking whether the assumptions that made sense 20 or 30 years ago still make sense today.
