The Builder vs. The Gatekeeper: Two Philosophies of Housing
The contrast between Singapore and the UK is not merely one of geography, but of intent. Is the government a long-term partner in nation-building, or a short-term collector of rents and taxes?
1. Singapore: The Government as an "Anchor"
In Singapore, the state operates with the philosophy that a "property-owning democracy" is the foundation of social stability.
State Execution: The government owns 90% of the land and builds directly.
They don't just plan; they execute. Financial Locking: By using the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the state forces savings that can only be used for housing, ensuring that citizens are financially committed to the nation’s growth.
Social Stability: With 90% homeownership, the government’s success is directly tied to the citizen’s equity.
They cannot afford for the system to fail because the state is the developer.
2. The United Kingdom: The Government as an "Extractor"
In contrast, Britain’s housing policy has shifted toward a model that prioritizes revenue and regulation over actual construction. Critics argue the UK government acts as a "gatekeeper" that reaps money through taxation and complexity.
Bureaucratic Extraction: Instead of building, the UK government creates a "toll booth" of planning permissions and Section 106 requirements. This forces risk onto developers while the state collects fees and political capital from NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) voters.
Capital Siphon: High tax rates on high-earning graduates and the lack of a dedicated housing savings vehicle make it nearly impossible for the young to save. This creates a "rent-trap" where capital is siphoned from the working class to the land-owning class and the treasury.
Foreign Liquidity Dependence: The UK market relies on "reaping" money from international investors (including Singaporeans) to fund domestic social housing, leaving local buyers priced out of their own cities.
3. The Result: Stability vs. Volatility
Singapore’s "statism" results in forcefulness—a government that ensures homes exist. The UK’s "statism" results in obstructiveness—a government that ensures the process of building is so expensive that only a few can survive. If the UK continues to prioritize short-term tax revenue and regulatory complexity over the long-term goal of building, it risks a "brain drain" of its most talented youth.
發表文章
