Charge people for land in public housing, but not charge "private" companies for land use?

although we only buy the right to use the apartment and never owned the land even in those 99 years, we are long-term tenants.

This is the state land for a state purpose and yet this dramatically increases the cost of our housing, standing directly against the stated need to provide low cost housing.

Not only are our homes severely inaccessible, but when combined with the poor policies of the Central Pension Fund (CPF) drain our retirement … and of course, it takes our money permanently because, as Minister Lawrence Wong himself told us, is $ 0 and the apartment returns to HDB that has to return land to the state at the end of the contract.

According to Minister Khaw Boon Wan, HDB must pay the market rate for the land and that is why it is taken into account in HDB's price equation, though no reason why it should pay this, since it is a national asset.

Terminal 5 of Changi Airport will be built on 1000 hectares of land, which is 10,000,000 m²

Although we do not have an exact number, the Global Property Guide lists Singapore as the third most expensive land in the world at $ 13,748 per m² (S $ 18,650 per m²). Now this may be the price of orchards, but since the Development Ministry (MND) development rates in Changi are about half of the orchards, let's say the land is about half. (Maybe an URA / land expert can help with the enlightenment?)

This would put the theoretical price of Changi's land airport will be built at S $ 93.25 billion?

So may I ask if the MND will charge the market rate of the Changi Airport Group for the land where the new terminal is located or if there is a double standard here and the government megaprojects are exempt, but ordinary citizens must pay?

Oh, and on a side note, Changi Jewel used to be a parking lot. Sector 99 of which Changi Airport operates has development fees for commercial activities, category A, set at US $ 6,230 per square meter.

Joia is 135,700 m² so basic mathematics yields a number of $ 845 million. Now I know that there is a complex calculation involving reference values ​​and previous paid charges etc, so the final number is much smaller, but the development rate for this change of use must be in the multi million.

Has this been collected on behalf of the Singapore staff to offset some of our taxes that were spent on transportation projects, especially since we are now told that Jewel is a commercial enterprise of "private" companies?

If you must have double standards, why not look at the needs of the people whom you ought to serve instead of overloading them?