A Troubling Case of Domestic Violence: The Harrowing Impact and the Role of Depression

In a chilling incident that recently unfolded in Singapore, an 11-year-old boy was stabbed by his own mother in a moment of anger. The cause? The child used his mother’s phone without her permission. This tragic event offers a stark reminder of the grim reality of domestic violence and its devastating effects, particularly on children. Simultaneously, it compels us to examine how mental health conditions like depression can contribute to such horrifying actions.

Domestic violence, an often-overlooked issue, carries devastating psychological and physical consequences for its victims, especially when they are children. Children growing up in homes marred by violence can develop a range of emotional, psychological, and behavioral problems. They may also struggle with feelings of fear, guilt, shame, and confusion. This incident in Singapore is a stark illustration of such a reality. The young boy, subjected to a violent act by his own mother, has endured not just physical harm but also an unimaginable psychological trauma that could potentially scar him for life.

Depression, a complex mental health disorder, is another key element in this sad narrative. The mother in this case suffers from major depressive disorder of mild severity. While depression can severely impair a person’s mood and behavior, it is important to note that it doesn’t justify violent actions. However, understanding the role of depression in such incidents is crucial for preventing similar situations in the future.

Depression can manifest in a variety of symptoms, including persistent sadness, loss of interest in activities, and in severe cases, uncontrolled emotions and even violent behavior. It’s a condition that requires empathy, understanding, and appropriate treatment. In this case, the mother’s depression might have contributed to her loss of control and the violent act she committed. But again, it does not excuse her actions.

The incident is a call to action for all of us. It underlines the need for a multi-pronged approach to address domestic violence and mental health issues. Awareness and understanding of domestic violence must be enhanced. Mental health conditions like depression need to be recognized, and those afflicted must have access to the necessary support and treatment. Moreover, the stigma associated with these issues must be combated, ensuring individuals and families are not deterred from seeking help.

This tragic case is a stark reminder of the harsh reality of domestic violence and the intricate role mental health conditions like depression can play in such situations. As we reflect on this incident, let us resolve to take action, to educate ourselves and others, and to work towards a society where such heartbreaking incidents are a thing of the past.

DBS Bank Services Repeatedly Disrupted, MAS Imposes Additional Capital Requirements Again

DBS Bank services have been experiencing frequent issues lately. Following a large-scale service disruption in March, another disruption occurred today (5th), affecting ATMs, online banking, and other services. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced the implementation of another round of additional capital requirements for DBS Bank later that evening.

MAS stated that the new round of additional capital requirements, combined with the requirements implemented in February of the previous year, means that DBS Bank will need to face a total of approximately SGD 1.6 billion in additional capital requirements.

Since DBS Bank’s services were disrupted in November 2021, MAS had proposed in February 2022 to raise the additional capital requirements to 1.5 times the bank’s operational risk assets. Now, it has been raised to 1.8 times.

In an announcement, MAS said that after the service disruption in March, DBS Bank had established a special committee to review the bank’s information technology. This review was conducted by independent third-party experts.

MAS subsequently instructed the bank to conduct a comprehensive review, including assessing the management of digital banking services, employee capabilities, operational processes, system resilience, and the architectural design of digital banking services. Now, MAS also requires the bank to include today’s service disruption event in the scope of the review.

“MAS also requires DBS Bank to take immediate measures to enhance the resilience and recovery capabilities of the existing system, including strengthening monitoring and more comprehensive testing, to minimize the impact on customer service.”

Ho Hern Shin, Deputy Managing Director (Financial Supervision) of MAS, said in a statement, “DBS Bank has failed to meet the MAS’s expectations for banks to provide reliable services to customers, and causing inconvenience to the public repeatedly is unacceptable.”

“This additional capital requirement highlights the seriousness with which MAS views this issue, and DBS Bank must spare no effort to address the root causes of these disruptions.”

DBS Group CEO Piyush Gupta apologized for the recent digital service disruption events.

“Our customers rightfully have higher expectations of us, and we are committed to doing better. After the event on March 29th, the bank established a special board committee, and independent external experts conducted a comprehensive review of our technological recovery capabilities. We will treat this review as the top priority and promptly implement all recommendations.”

星展银行服务再陷困境,金管局加码额外资本要求

星展银行服务近期状况频出,继3月出现大规模服务中断后,今天(5日)又发生提款机、网上银行等服务中断,金融管理局晚间随即宣布,对星展实施又一轮额外资本要求。

金管局说,新一轮额外资本要求,加上去年2月实施的额外资本要求,意味着星展需面对一共约16亿新元的额外资本要求。

自2021年11月星展银行服务受到干扰后,金管局已在2022年2月向星展银行提出,将额外资本要求提高到其操作风险资产的1.5倍,如今则是提高到1.8倍。

金管局文告说,在3月的服务中断后,星展银行已成立了特别委员会,针对银行的资讯科技展开检讨,这项审查由第三方的独立专家执行。

金管局随后也指示银行进行全面审查,包括评估数码银行服务管理、员工能力、运作流程、系统韧性,以及数码银行服务的架构设计。如今,金管局也要求银行必须把今天发生的服务中断事件,纳入审查范围中。

“金管局也要求星展银行立即采取措施,提高现有系统的韧性和恢复性,包括加强监控、更全面的测试等,以尽量减少对客户服务的干扰。”

金管局副董事总经理(金融监管)Ho Hern Shin在声明中表示:“星展银行未能达到金管局要银行向客户提供可靠服务的期望,一再对公众造成不便是不可接受的。”

“这次额外资本要求,突显金管局看待这问题的严重性,星展银行必须不遗余力地处理引起这些中断的根本问题。”

星展集团总裁高博德(Piyush Gupta)表示,对最近发生的数码服务中断事件表示歉意。

“我们的客户们理所当然地对我们有更高的期望,而我们也致力于做得更好。在3月29日的事件发生后,(星展)银行成立一个特别董事会委员会,由独立的外部专家对我们的技术恢复能力进行全面审查。我们将其当作最优先事项来完成检讨,并将迅速实施所有建议。”

Rejecting Populism: Consensus and Challenges in Singapore’s Political Landscape

“Populism” became a focus of last week’s parliamentary debate on the government’s policy guidelines, and in a rare move, on the final day of the debate, opposition leader Pritam Khaira Singh agreed with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong that everyone should say no to populism. Clearly, no politician will admit to pursuing a populist path, so we can only listen to their words and observe their actions.

But what is populism? In the context of parliamentary debates, populism is obviously bad and detrimental to the healthy development of democracy, and therefore unanimously rejected. Tracing its roots, it has various definitions. As used in the general news media today, populism refers to politicians who exploit certain issues to incite public sentiment, oppose those in power (the establishment), and the elite class, in order to gain votes. Therefore, former US President Trump and former Brazilian President Bolsonaro, for example, are populist politicians.

What is populism in the context of Singapore’s recent parliamentary debate? In the past, our understanding of the term was straightforward, referring to politicians who propose various voter-pleasing and sensational ideas, such as free education and healthcare, to win votes. This time, Lawrence Wong provided his own clear definition. He said, “Populism is politics that suppresses, conceals, and falls into post-truth, and twists facts for political gain. It falsely claims that complex issues have simple solutions when that is not the case. If populism takes root in Singapore, parties implementing populist policies may gain some short-term benefits, but in the long run, it will cause great harm to Singapore and Singaporeans.”

He went on to say, “As far as the government is concerned, our position is very clear. We reject all forms of populism and uphold honesty and integrity when formulating policies. If the government does not meet these standards, we expect the opposition to point it out. Please do so. You must do so. We expect you to do so. Conversely, if the opposition proposes ideas and policies that we consider populist, we will also point out and emphasize our concerns, as we should. I hope this is our consensus on how to advance Singapore’s political and democratic development.” Pritam Khaira Singh immediately expressed agreement. This is an important reference point for “observing their actions.”

In fact, Lawrence Wong expressed this expectation on the first day of the debate. He hoped that during this debate and for the remainder of the current government’s term, the opposition would propose realistic alternative policy options, rather than opportunistic or populist ideas that slowly erode public trust in the government, and should instead present rigorous alternative guidelines as a potential alternative government.

The so-called gradual erosion of public trust in the government, or “salami slicing” in popular terms, is a powerful political tactic, as it operates in the gray area. It is not easy to label it as populist. For example, if you say that the government should only use half of the net investment income contribution from reserves, and someone else asks why not use 60%, it may be debatable whether this is populist, but it is definitely “salami slicing” and can easily win voters’ hearts. Similarly, if you insist on raising the consumption tax, others may argue for raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations instead, which could also win over some voters.

The most deadly aspect is the amplification effect of social media, which makes “salami slicing” tactics even more potent. Because one person can form a cyber army, stirring up noise for various opposing voices. However, Pritam Khaira Singh did not take the bait to Lawrence Wong’s direct attack but adopted a temporary avoidance strategy, admitting that the Workers’ Party is not yet able to form an

alternative government and expressed the desire to continue learning and growing. He also emphasized that the Workers’ Party’s goal is to provide constructive feedback and to ensure that the government is held accountable.

In this debate, both the government and the opposition agreed to reject populism, emphasizing the need for responsible and honest policy-making. This consensus is crucial for Singapore’s political and democratic development. As citizens, we must not only listen to politicians’ words, but also observe their actions, to ensure that they are adhering to the principles they claim to uphold.

Going forward, it is crucial to maintain a healthy political environment in Singapore, where parties and politicians focus on substantive policy discussions and strive to provide pragmatic solutions to the challenges faced by the nation. In this way, Singapore’s political landscape can continue to mature and evolve, ensuring that the country remains resilient in the face of a rapidly changing global environment.

应对民粹主义:新加坡如何维护社会稳定?

“民粹主义”(populism)成了上周国会辩论政府施政方针的一个焦点,而且很罕见的,在最后一天辩论中,国会反对党领袖毕丹星竟同意副总理兼财政部长黄循财的观点,即大家都应向民粹主义说不。显然,任何政治人物都不会承认自己在走民粹主义路线,我们也只能听其言,观其行。

但什么是民粹主义呢?在国会辩论的语境里,民粹主义显然是不好的,也不利于民主的健康发展,因此遭到一致否定。追根溯源的话,它其实有各种不同的定义。就现在一般新闻媒体上的用法来说,民粹主义指的是政客利用一些课题煽动民众情绪,反执政者(体制)、反精英阶层,从而达到捞取选票的目的。因此,如美国前总统特朗普、巴西前总统博索纳罗等,都属民粹主义政客。

新加坡国会日前辩论的民粹主义指的又是什么呢?过去我们对这个词的理解很直接,就是指一些政客为了争取选票提出各种讨好选民、哗众取宠的主张,如免费教育、医疗之类。这回,黄循财给了自己的明确定义。他说:“民粹是压制真相、掩盖真相、陷入后真相(post-truth),以及为政治利益而扭曲事实的政治。它伪称复杂的课题有简单的解决方法,而事实并非如此。如果民粹主义在新加坡生根,推行民粹政策的政党或许能得到一些短期的好处,但长远而言将对新加坡和新加坡人造成巨大伤害。”

他接着说:“就政府而言,我们的立场非常明确。我们拒绝一切形式的民粹主义,在制定政策时坚守诚实和廉正。如果政府没有达到这些标准,我们期待反对党指出来。请这么做。你们必须这么做。我们期待你们这么做。相反的,如果反对党提出我们认为是民粹的想法和政策,我们同样会指出和强调我们的关切,理应如此。我希望这是我们就如何推动新加坡政治和民主发展的共识。”毕丹星随即表示认同。这是一个“观其行”的重要参照点。

其实,黄循财在第一天的辩论中就已表达了这样的期许。他期待在此次辩论和本届政府余下的任期中,听到反对党提出实在的替代政策方案,而不是投机取巧或民粹的想法,一点一点地削弱人民对政府的信任,理应是提出一个替代政府的严谨的替代方针。

所谓一点一点地削弱人民对政府的信任,用现在流行的话说就是切香肠。政治上这是很厉害的做法,因为它操作的是灰色地带。你不容易给它套上民粹的帽子。比如,你说政府只应动用一半的储备金净投资回报贡献,他说为什么不可以动用60%?这是不是民粹可以争论,但肯定是在切香肠,也很容易获得选民的欢心。又如,你说非得调高消费税不可,他则说,为什么不调高富人税、公司税等等?这也能博得一些选民的欢心。

最要命的是,如今有了社交媒体的推波助澜,使切香肠的做法更具杀伤力。因为,一个人就可以形成一支网军,为各种反对的声音鼓噪。但对黄循财的直攻,毕丹星其实并没有接招,而是采取了暂避其锋的做法,坦言现阶段工人党成就不了替代政府,它的中期目标是在国会里拥有三分之一的席位。在冷眼旁观者看来,这等于说:现在我们不必提出什么替代方案,反正我们还做不了政府。

值得注意的是,黄循财和毕丹星过招,还提及另一个当今民主政治极其突出的问题:在发达的民主国家,民主都走上了民意分化和两极化的歧路。看一看这些国家,民粹主义已经生根,对这些社会造成极大的伤害。在这方面,美国可说是最为突出的例子。多年来一直高举民主旗帜四处征讨的美国,现在是民主政治最糟糕的反面示范。

政党政治一般来说,最终都难免走上这样的末路,即连以色列也不例外。少了外部威胁,内斗立即恶化,政党间(以及它们背后的利益集团)的利益争夺很快就浮上台面。当年立国时的以色列可谓四面楚歌,加上有犹太复国主义精神的支撑,因此表现团结,枪口对外。但如今来自阿拉伯世界的“威胁”已经消退了(除开伊朗),各政党的争斗也空前激烈。比例代表制更加剧了大小政党割据和政治碎片化的情况。

因此,新加坡民主政治未来的发展,无可避免地要面对两大问题。一是政党政治难以回避的发展趋势问题,另一就是与此相关的民粹主义问题。一党(行动党)主导向来是新加坡政治的优势。但随着老一代选民的逐渐消失,这种情况必会逐渐转变。社交媒体的推波助澜则会加快转变的进程。会有越来越多的人相信,我们需要更多元的声音和意见,并认为国会里应有更多的辩论,只有这样才能制衡政府和产生更好的政策。越来越多的人也会觉得,更多的政党竞争能产生更好的治国人才,或者在行动党有朝一日变坏时,能有一个后备轮替。

但事实证明这些都是理论上正确而已。每一场政治辩论几乎都是以各持己见暂时落幕;政党激烈竞争的结果往往出现民粹主义政客。总的结果则是党派对立(若是两党势均力敌的话),社会分化。欧美各国如此,亚洲的日本、韩国和台湾等地也是如此。政治辩论可以似是而非,让一般选民头脑混乱,无所适从,最后是靠对政党的忠诚投票,胜出的往往是最懂得操纵民众情绪的政党和政客,而不是最有能力治国的人选。这里不是要否定竞争,而只是要指出,政党政治必然形成政治恶斗,政治恶斗就会出现上述的结果。

新加坡出现行动党和一批能干的建国元老,那是历史的偶然,不是必然。随着建国时期的危机感逐渐消退,以及老一代曾经过苦日子的选民逐渐退场,在相对安逸和稳定中成长的新“新加坡人”,必然会有不同的想法,也会逐渐有脱离现实的政治欲求。要求人们为后代和长远着想,抑制和延迟满足眼前的欲望,将会越来越难。其实这是人的本性,不然朝代和国家也就不会有盛衰的轮回了。

因此,孟子有名言:生于忧患,死于安乐。2016年出版的一本英文科幻小说里的主角,也说出了一番现在在网络上经常被引用的话:艰难的时世造就了坚强的人,坚强的人造就了安逸的日子,安逸的日子造就了软弱的人,软弱的人造就了艰难的时世。未来一代又一代的新“新加坡人”,是否能超脱盛衰轮回的“规律”,这是一个只有时间才能解答的问题。

作者是前新闻工作者、前国会议员

Euthanizing the Wild Boar: Are We Truly Protecting Wildlife?

Recently, a heartbreaking incident occurred at a bus stop on Yio Chu Kang Road, where a woman was attacked by a wild boar late at night while waiting for the bus. The National Parks Board stated that the wild boar involved had broken hind legs and was subsequently euthanized. However, while we sympathize with the victim, we must not overlook a critical question: Are we genuinely protecting wildlife?

As native wildlife in Singapore, wild boars’ living spaces are increasingly being squeezed by urbanization. Human activities are continuously encroaching on their habitats, leading to a reduction in the wild boars’ living areas and an increased likelihood of contact with humans. Under these circumstances, conflicts between wild boars and humans are inevitable.

In the face of such incidents, we should seek a balance that protects both human safety and the welfare of wildlife. Although the wild boar was deemed the aggressor in this case, we must not neglect their rights as living beings. After all, they, too, are striving to adapt to a world shared with humans.

We need to critically examine our efforts in wildlife protection. Merely choosing to “euthanize” after a conflict arises is not a fundamental solution to the problem. We should consider the ecological needs of wildlife in urban planning and provide them with sufficient living spaces. Additionally, we should enhance public education on wildlife protection, raise ecological awareness, and promote harmony between humans and wildlife.

In this incident, while we must be concerned about the victim’s safety, we should also reflect on humanity’s attitude towards and protection measures for wildlife. Let us work together to safeguard the rights and welfare of all living beings on this land and create a harmonious home.

野猪被人道毁灭:我们真的在保护野生动物吗?

近日,在万吉路巴士站发生了一起令人痛心的事件,一名女子深夜等待巴士时被野猪袭击并受伤。国家公园局在事后表示,涉事野猪的后腿断裂,已被人道毁灭。然而,在我们为受害者感到同情的同时,我们不能忽视一个关键问题:我们真的在保护野生动物吗?

野猪作为新加坡的本土野生动物,其生存空间正逐渐受到城市化进程的挤压。人类的活动不断侵占它们的栖息地,导致野猪的生活圈子被压缩,与人类的接触机会增加。在这种背景下,野猪与人类之间的冲突无可避免。

面对此类事件,我们应该寻求一种平衡,既保护人类的安全,又维护野生动物的生存权益。在这起事件中,野猪虽然被认定为攻击者,但我们不能忽视它们作为生物的权益。毕竟,野猪同样在努力适应与人类共处的世界。

我们需要认真审视自己在保护野生动物方面的努力。仅仅在发生冲突后选择“人道毁灭”并非解决问题的根本方法。我们应该在城市规划中充分考虑到野生动物的生态需求,为它们提供足够的生存空间。同时,加强对公众的野生动物保护教育,提高人们的生态意识,让人类与野生动物和谐共存。

在这起事件中,我们既要关注受害者的安全,也应反思人类对野生动物的态度和保护措施。让我们共同努力,保护这片土地上所有生灵的生存权益,创造一个和谐的家园。

ORTO moves from Yishun to West Coast! Authentic Thai cuisine, 24-hour prawning, karaoke joints, and more await you!

Even as a certified west-sider, I was among those who were sorely disappointed over news of ’s closing. After all, it was a great spot (as long as someone was driving, of course) for those cravings. You can understand my excitement, then, when I heard about ORTO West Coast! It’s not exactly very far-west, either — it’s located just opposite Haw Par Villa MRT station.

Photo: @prawningatorto/instagram

enthusiasts, you can rest assured knowing that the folks behind Prawning at ORTO have relocated to West Coast with the same opening hours — 24 hours daily, so you can head down any time you like. The popular restaurant SGMY has also shifted over, so you’ll find similar homely seafood dishes.

Photo: @prawningatorto/instagram

Don’t feel like eating tze char? Head over to Mo’s Grill & Bar for Asian-inspired dishes — think nachos, spicy korean chicken bites with gochujang mayo, grilled pork belly skewers, and so much more.

Photo: @eatznplayz/instagram

If the name RedDot BrewHouse rings a bell, it’s probably because you’ve seen them around at Dempsey. Fans of their award-winning beer, you’ll be delighted to know that they’ve opened an outlet at ORTO as well — sounds like it’s time to sit back and enjoy a main or two while listening to the live band.

Photo: @reddotbrewhouse/instagram

While BKK Bistro & Bar won’t be coming along (RIP 80 cent boat noodles), you can still enjoy cuisine from Kinn Derm. Whether you’re craving for mookata, or more, this restaurant’s got you covered!

Photo: @kinnderm/instagram

For desserts, head over to Gelato for some thick toast and unique ice cream flavours like Soya Bean Milk ice cream.

Photo: Confirm Good

It’s not all just prawning and eating, either. Patrons can sing at eateries like Volta West, play billiards at West Coast Cue Sports, and even engage in Playstation games at Ignite Spaces — there’s defo no shortage of things to do.

Photo: @ignitespaces_sg/instagram

The place is relatively new at the time of writing, so there are a few restaurants and facilities that have yet to open (hint: frog porridge, mermaid-themed bar & more!) — we’ll update this article with more information when ORTO officially opens.

Perhaps it’s time to make a trip down to the , after all!

ORTO West Coast
📍 27 West Coast Highway, Singapore 117867

ORTO义顺搬到西海岸,提供正宗泰国美食、24小时钓虾、卡拉OK场所等等

即使作为一个在西部长大的人,我也是那些因ORTO义顺关闭而深感失望的人之一。毕竟,它是一个很棒的宵夜地点(只要有人开车,当然)。因此,当我听说ORTO西海岸的消息时,我感到非常兴奋!它位于非常偏远的西部,位于虎豹别墅地铁站对面。

钓虾爱好者,你可以放心,ORTO的钓虾业务已搬到西海岸,开放时间仍为每天24小时,所以你可以随时去。受欢迎的SGMY餐厅也搬过来了,所以你会发现类似家常的海鲜菜肴。

不想吃煮炒?去Mo’s Grill & Bar品尝亚洲风味的菜肴,比如墨西哥玉米片、韩式辣鸡肉、烤五花肉串等等。

如果RedDot BrewHouse这个名字让你想起了什么,那可能是因为你在登普西见过它。喜欢他们获奖啤酒的粉丝们,你会高兴地知道他们在ORTO也开了一家分店——听起来是时候坐下来享受一顿饭,一边欣赏现场乐队了。

虽然BKK Bistro & Bar不再提供(RIP 80分船面条),但你仍然可以在Kinn Derm享受泰国美食。无论你想吃木炭烧烤、火锅还是其他东西,这家餐厅都为你提供!

想吃甜点,就去After Hours Gelato品尝厚厚的烤面包和独特的冰淇淋口味,比如豆浆冰淇淋。

这里不仅仅是钓虾和美食。顾客们还可以在Volta West等餐厅唱卡拉OK, 在West Coast Cue Sports打台球,甚至在Ignite Spaces玩Playstation游戏——这里绝对不缺乏活动。

在撰写本文时,这个地方相对较新,还有一些餐厅和设施尚未开放(提示:青蛙粥、美人鱼主题酒吧等等!)——当ORTO正式开放时,我们会更新本文并提供更多信息。

也许是时候去西部看看了!

ORTO西海岸
📍 27 West Coast Highway, Singapore 117867

HO Ching: The Truth about Singapore’s Property Market Cooling Measures: No Need to Panic

ABSD curbs on property purchases?

Relax, lah!

Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty or ABSD increases has been described by some media folks as “shocking”!

Others are surprised that buyers are snapping up 75% of units at a recent condo launch, post the ABSD increase announcement.

Wow! What nail biting news!

But hit the pause button, and we find it is not so surprising after all.

First of all, what is clear is that Singaporeans still enjoy zero ABSD for their 1st property (ie the single property that they wish to buy if they do not own any other properties). PRs would pay 5%, no change from before.

The ABSD cooling measure increases target 2nd, 3rd and higher number of residential properties, as well as foreign buyers. Taken together, these constitute some 10% of residential property transactions.

Ah so! 90% of home buyer are buying their one property, mostly for owner occupation. The rare exceptions are when they are posted overseas for instance for jobs etc.

So, the new ABSD increases don’t affect the 99% of home buyers at all.

But, but, but, …, what if we want to upgrade? downgrade? move nearer our parents or children? move nearer school for kids? move nearer our work place? follow our church or temple move? move closer to parks, seaside, MRT station, hawker centre, etc?

Yah, there is also straight forward 2nd point about the ABSD system as a cooling measure.

We can get an ABSD refund if we sell our 1st residential property within 6 months of buying the 2nd property.

After all, the ABSD is meant as a property cooling measure, not intended to prevent home mobility.

So we have 6 months to sell our 1st property, to claim back our ABSD.

What else if we are looking at a 2nd residential property?

Apparently, we don’t need to pay ABSD upfront if we are buying an Executive Condo or EC. We still have 6 months to sell our 1st property to avoid paying the ABSD for the new purchase.

And husband and wife can separately or jointly own 2 properties, on the basis that this is equivalent to one residential property each.

And of course, ABSD only applies to residential properties. There is no ABSD for commercial properties etc.

Plus, there are now over 30+ S-REITs for interested investors to get exposure to various kinds of properties for investment, without having to go buy single chunky assets, which could be hard to dispose when we need to cash.

The S-REITs in this environment yield anywhere from 4% for more conservatively managed portfolios, to over 10% for the higher risk portfolios.

The S-REITs don’t require huge amounts of money to start. And we can buy an ETF on S-REITs too to diversify single S-REIT manager risks.

S-REITs were first conceived and developed as a way for ordinary mom and pop retail and small investors to have digestible access to a chunky asset class of properties. It is a way for folks to invest in a well regulated, relatively stable and easily understood asset in bite sizes of 1000 units.

At the same time, foreign buyers can also have access to a more liquid asset underpinned by an easily understood and well diversified asset like property. In this way, they don’t need to park their emergency savings into a single property, and find it difficult to sell and monetise that one chunky asset precisely during emergencies when markets may dry up.

What else?

Yah, what if we are planning to move but worry about not finding a buyer within the 6 months window?

Not usual, but we can consider doing a sale and leaseback say for 2-3 years, so we have up to 2-3 years of lease post sale to remain in our 1st home, while we hunt for our next dream home.

As Lucy Tan suggested in her comments, perhaps govt could consider extending the sale of 1st property to 9 months instead of 6?

But 6 months may not be too bad, if there is serious effort to sell?

Sometimes, delays in selling may be driven by higher than market expectations? ]

As for paying the ABSD for 2nd, 3rd or more homes, whether for ourselves, our children, etc, think of it this way.

Those who can afford to buy more than one property, would be buying for investment, or as a gift for their children or as a home for their parents.

The ABSD they pay can be considered a donation to government to support various social programmes or public good services including education and defence.

We can kind of think of the ABSD as another layer of wealth tax.

Given that there are many other ways to invest, or create a nest egg for their children or grandchildren, including S-REITs, folks who want to buy additional properties for investment or as future gifts to their children or grandchildren should consider their ABSD as a sharing of their own good fortune, as a payback of their good fortune, as donations for the public good.

And as for foreign buyers, chances of foreigners from far away wanting to buy a home in Sg is small.

But as Asia prospers, and about half of the world population is within 7 hours flight from Sg, we are just too small a place for a massive wave of non Singaporeans or PRs wanting to park their money in a relatively non-productive asset like a residential home.

Overseas folks are most welcome to invest in other productive segments of the economy, with residential properties largely meant to be homes for people to stay as owner occupiers.

Hence, foreign buyers are subject to a hefty ABSD of 60%, doubling the earlier rate of 30%.

This hefty jump must mean that MAS must already be seeing increasing flows into the residential property market post pandemic, and hence, the quick preemptive cooling measure, esp in the light of various macro global trends.

So foreigners still interested in property assets can invest in S-REITs or S-REIT ETFs as an alternative to crowding into the residential home market in tiny Sg

So relax folks, there is really no need to hyperventilate about the latest ABSD increases.

Have a good weekend, and a Happy May Day tomorrow.