To monetize or not to monetize...

Got this quote off Today Newspaper, about why HDB is only willing to assist downgraders in a "case-by-case" basis:

'There are those who are downgrading because they want to monetise their assets. They live comfortably in a 5-room flat, they sell their flat, they get substantial proceeds and they want to buy a 3-room flat. Such cases are really not the financially hardship type.'

My first thought: Huh? If I can't monetise my "asset", what is the point of its price going up? (Other than enabling the IRS to collect more tax from me that is). What is wrong with wanting to live in smaller house so that I can have more spending cash? I would have worked hard to pay my mortgage interest to the banks, and CPF would have gotten back the money that's meant for my retirement (plus the incurred interest).

My second thought: People who are "living comfortably" in 5-room flats are not likely to want to, or meet HDB's antiquated criteria for 3-room flat purchase anyway.

Given that the average household income in Singapore is approx. $6,000 in year 2008, based on prudent financial thinking, an average property in Singapore should not cost more than $216,000 (3x gross annual salary). And that's already discounting all other expenses such as agent fees, legal fees, renovation, insurance, furniture, etc. Therefore, the price of public housing should be lower than this value, not going 3 times above it! (E.g.: The $600,000+ flats at Boon Keng.)

It gets worse: 'The per capita household monthly income from work for the top 10 percent of the employed households is $7,940 and for the next 10 percent, $3,460. In other words, the per capita income of 90 percent of the households is less than Singapore's average household income.' Source: Department of Statistics' report.

So now, guess who is also at fault for people ending up with properties they can't afford? Hint: this body restricts people from buying properties that are way below their income level and only provide loans for upgrading, not the other way round. They are now turning a blind eye and deaf ears on a problem that they had helped, and still continue to, with great gusto, perpetrate.

Relevance...

So, there's been a tragedy at NTU.

What I don't get is the recurrent mention about how the student was "an avid gamer".
This "info" appeared in all the articles about him so far.

I don't see why this specific "info" about the student has to be included in every article. People who read it would tend to go "ah, is that one of the reason...?"

I am Indonesian, and also am "an avid gamer" myself. So, hypothetically, if people starts giving me funny looks, then I would have a pretty good idea on who to take it out on yes? (And this is a joke, for those who don't get it.)

And they say that the newspaper is relevant...
Bah, humbug!