The income limit of individual borrowers for My First Home Scheme (SRP) will be increased from RM3,000 to RM5,000 per month effective January 2013.
This enhancement was one of the SRP’s eligibility criteria slated for improvement under Budget 2013’s announcement last year, Cagamas SRP Bhd said yesterday.
For joint borrowers, it said the income limit had been increased up to RM10,000 per month, subject to the individual borrower’s income not exceeding RM5,000 per month.
“In addition, the requirement for a savings record equivalent to three months installment and minimum employment of six months will be abolish,” Cagamas SRP said.
It said the scheme allowed homebuyers to obtain 100% financing from participating banks, enabling them to own a home without having the need to pay a 10% downpayment.
“Cagamas SRP will guarantee the initial 10% of the loan under the scheme,” it added.
Cagamas was mandated in 2011 to play an active role of helping young, working Malaysians in the private sector to own their first homes under the SRP. - By The Star
1 comment
Below is what Spore Housing Minister Khaw Boon Wan had to say about profiteering by developers :-
"In some recent EC launches, super-sized ECs units were offered and snapped up by buyers who did not appear to be from the "sandwiched" households. Understandably, there was public indignation at such deviations (both by some developers and some buyers) from what we had intended ECs to serve.
The developers explained that such super EC units were a minority and that they had priced them low (that was why they were snapped up by buyers who could actually afford private properties). The media reported that one such developer priced its super penthouse at $470psf, while selling the other smaller typical EC units at $770psf.
I was initially baffled by this. Why would the developer short-change itself? Why not sell more normal-sized EC units at a higher $psf, and make more profit? The space for one super penthouse, for example, can be used to build 2 or 3 normal-sized EC units.
As I probed, I discovered that the developer had not short-changed itself.
Let me illustrate: a super EC unit of 3,500 sqft may comprise 2,500 sqft of built-in space and 1,000 sqft of private roof terrace. Now, outdoor roof terraces are actually free space, space that developers do not have to pay development charges. URA allows this to encourage developers to build more outdoor space open to the sky, for the enjoyment of the residents. Developers can use this free space to develop private OR communal roof terraces, and they are NOT counted as GFA (gross floor area).
Communal sky terraces have been effective in promoting greenery and providing useful common amenities for residents in our residential developments. However, the creation and sale of super-sized private roof terraces (at the expense of communal sky terraces), is increasingly prevalent. What is happening at the roof top in the form of private roof terrace is also happening on the ground floor where it is referred to as "private enclosed space (PES)" for the buyer.
Developers' selling off free spaces to make additional profit for themselves is not improper under current URA rules. But as more developers do so, with larger private roof terraces and PES, communal space in the development that benefits all residents will correspondingly shrink. There is a further downstream problem as some buyers may be disappointed later on, when they find out that these outdoor spaces that they have paid for are not allowed to be covered up or enclosed.
I have directed URA to review this policy and have it fixed."
---------------------------------
This is a good example of space being used up for luxury purposes, and consequently depriving the average people of the space they need. Unfortunately, our authority is not as responsive as Spore's.