Sir, I speak on property tax valuation for owner-occupied homes.
A constituent I visited — a retiree, in his home for decades. Asset rich, cash poor. His landed home is the most basic on the street.
His neighbour tells a different story. Rebuilt into a multi-storey house — three units, three entrances, three tenants, a very high rental yield..
Under the AV system, his property tax is set by comparable rentals — including his neighbour's. His neighbourhood gentrified around him while he stayed put. A retiree who never rented and never will is taxed as a landlord.
In February 2024, Mr Yip Hon Weng raised the same concern — how IRAS assesses AV for asset-rich but cash-poor owners. The Second Minister: IRAS considers "improvement works last done." But his problem is not his property's condition — it is his neighbour's rental income. The AV system yokes an owner-occupier's tax to his neighbours' self-interested actions.
There is a 10% tax rebate but it is capped at $500. The extended GIRO plan for retirees 65 and above stretches the payment, but does not fix the bill.
Sir, there is a better method. Capital Value — based on sales, not rentals — would better reflect the position of owner-occupiers who derive no rental income.
The Government rejected this, citing fewer sales transactions and greater price volatility. Why does this reasoning not apply to the Chief Valuer's other function?
When the Chief Valuer prices State Land for BTO flats, the methodology references resale flat transactions — confirmed by Second Minister Indranee Rajah in November 2025.
If resale transactions are reliable enough to price State Land worth billions, why are they insufficient to value an owner-occupied home for property tax?
Can the Minister explain this inconsistency? Will the Government consider Capital Value for owner-occupied property tax?
