What do the PAP, WP, PSP, and SDP manifestos say about housing?
The PAP, WP, SDP and PSP have rolled out their housing manifestos, each claiming to fix voters' housing concerns. But do they deliver?

With HDB resale prices up 50% since 2020 and BTO waiting times stretching to five years, affordability and access are strangling young couples, singles, and retirees alike.
The 99-year lease model, once a cornerstone of stability, now looms as a ticking time bomb for ageing flats.
The PAP, WP, SDP and PSP have rolled out their housing manifestos, each claiming to fix voters' housing concerns.
But do they deliver?
PAP - more flats, same old tune
Flood the market with supply, tweak eligibilit, and tackle lease decay head-on
The PAP, Singapore’s ruling juggernaut, promises to build over 50,000 new HDB flats in three years—enough for an entire Ang Mo Kio town.
They’re doubling down on Shorter Waiting Time flats to cut BTO delays, exploring options for higher-income couples and singles, and pushing the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) to rejuvenate old estates like Kallang-Whampoa.
More flats don’t automatically mean cheaper flats
The Housing Price Index (HPI) ratio—median flat price to median income—hovers around 5-6, far from affordable for a $80,000-a-year household eyeing a $400,000 4-room BTO.
PAP’s reliance on grants, like the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant, is a band-aid, not a cure, when resale prices have soared 50% in five years.
VERS sounds promising but lacks teeth—its voluntary nature and vague compensation details leave residents guessing, unlike the more decisive Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).
Expanding access for singles and higher-income groups is inclusive but risks diverting resources from lower-income families who can’t even dream of a $500,000 resale flat.
And while 50,000 flats sound impressive, global supply chain crunches and labor shortages could derail delivery, as seen in past construction delays.
Stability, not affordability
PAP’s plan is feasible, backed by HDB’s machine and approximately $1.2 trillion in reserves, but it’s incremental, not transformative.
PAP is betting on stability, not affordability, leaving young Singaporeans stuck in a cycle of grants and grit.
WP - bold on ideas, shaky on substance
The Workers’ Party takes a different tack, zeroing in on affordability with a promise to slash the HPI ratio to 3.0 or below—meaning a 4-room flat for a median-income family would cost no more than $240,000.
They propose 70-year BTO leases at lower prices, with an option to top up to 99 years, and a universal buy-back scheme to rescue retirees from depreciating flats.
To sweeten the deal, WP wants HDB to reacquire coffee shops and cap rents to inflation, easing living costs in estates.
Gutsy policy proposals but no clarity on how to fund it
WP's proposed housing policies speak directly to middle-class families and retirees crushed by prices.
An HPI of 3.0 would be a game-changer, making homeownership a reality, not a pipe dream.
The 70-year lease option is clever, offering flexibility for cash-strapped buyers, while the buy-back scheme tackles lease decay with precision, ensuring grannies in 40-year-old flats aren’t left penniless.
A very costly proposal
But ambition comes at a cost.
Dropping the HPI to 3.0 means slashing flat prices by 40-50%, requiring massive subsidies or land cost write-offs that could dent fiscal reserves or spike taxes.
The buy-back scheme, while noble, could cost billions if applied universally, and WP’s manifesto is mum on funding.
Worse, there’s no clear plan to boost flat supply, leaving waiting times untouched—a glaring blind spot when young couples are begging for faster BTOs.
WP’s heart is in the right place, but its wallet might not be.
PSP - radical vision, risky bet
The Progress Singapore Party swings for the fences with its Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS), scrapping BTOs to sell flats without land costs—recovered only on resale. This could halve prices, dropping a $400,000 flat to $200,000.
Singles aged 28+ get to buy 2- and 3-room flats anywhere, more flats will be built based on demand, and a Millennial Apartments Scheme offers short-term rentals in prime spots for young folks.
It’s a bold, youth-centric vision, promising to break the affordability curse and free CPF savings for retirement.
Revolutionary if it works, catastrophic if it flops
AHS is a stroke of genius on paper, tackling the root of high prices: land costs, which eat up half a flat’s value.
Letting singles buy at 28 in any estate is a nod to a growing demographic—30% of adults are single—while rental apartments cater to millennials delaying marriage.
But genius comes with glitches.
Deferring land costs guts government revenue ($20 billion yearly from land sales), risking budget shortfalls or reserve dips that Singapore’s fiscal hawks will savage.
Resale markets could tank as cheap new flats flood in, rattling homeowners’ wealth.
AHS demands a complete HDB overhaul, a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.
The Millennial Scheme sounds sexy but faces land scarcity in prime areas, limiting scale.
And PSP’s silence on lease decay is a fatal flaw—retirees with 30 years left on their flats get no lifeline.
It’s a high-stakes gamble: revolutionary if it works, catastrophic if it flops.
SDP - bold but tricky to execute
Slash prices with NOM flats, prioritize families, and secure retirements
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) proposes a transformative Non-Open Market (NOM) Scheme, selling HDB flats at cost—excluding land costs—for as low as S$70,000 (2-room) to S$240,000 (5-room).
NOM flats can’t be resold on the open market, only back to HDB, curbing speculation.
The Young Families Priority Scheme (YFPS) fast-tracks flat access for couples with kids, while singles, single parents, and low-income renters get broader eligibility.
An enhanced Lease Buy-Back Scheme offers seniors inflation-adjusted annuities, and a buffer stock of flats aims to slash waiting times.
A sophisticated Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) balloting system promises efficient allocation.
Affordability and inclusivity with a side of complexity
SDP’s NOM Scheme is a masterstroke for affordability, potentially cutting a 4-room flat from S$400,000 to S$160,000, freeing CPF savings for retirement and family needs.
YFPS directly tackles Singapore’s dismal 0.78 Total Fertility Rate by prioritizing young families, while inclusive policies for singles and single parents resonate with 30% of adults who are single.
The buffer stock and VCG system could shrink waiting times, addressing a key pain point.
The annuity-based Lease Buy-Back is a lifeline for retirees, ensuring dignity without depleting equity.
Bold but tricky to execute
NOM’s cost-recovery model, while appealing, risks government revenue losses similar to PSP’s AHS, though SDP’s resale restrictions may stabilize markets better.
Converting existing flats to NOM could spark legal or financial disputes over compensation.
The VCG system, while innovative, may confuse applicants unused to bidding premiums, and maintaining a buffer stock demands precise demographic forecasting to avoid oversupply.
Funding grants for low-income households (up to S$60,000) and annuities could strain reserves without clear fiscal plans.
SDP’s vision is bold and inclusive but hinges on complex execution and public buy-in.
Verdict
Singapore’s housing crisis—skyrocketing prices, endless waits, and lease decay—demands more than manifesto bravado.
-
PAP offers stability and supply but ducks affordability, betting voters will trust its track record over flashy fixes. Its plan will keep the system humming but won’t ease the squeeze.
-
WP’s price-slashing ambition and retiree focus hit the mark but stumble on funding and supply, risking empty promises. Its heart is right, but its math is shaky.
-
PSP’s radical AHS and youth appeal are electrifying but teeter on fiscal recklessness, ignoring older voters’ fears and homeowners who see housing as their nest egg. Its vision is thrilling but could crash the economy.
-
SDP balances affordability, inclusivity, and demographic fixes with NOM flats and family-focused policies, but its complex mechanisms and revenue risks need ironclad execution. Its plan is ambitious but navigates a tightrope.
GE2025’s housing debate exposes a truth - no party has a silver bullet. Voters must weigh stability against bold reform, affordability against fiscal prudence, and inclusivity against execution risks.
Comparative Analysis
Aspect | PAP | WP | PSP | SDP |
Key Proposals | 50,000+ new flats, Shorter Waiting Time flats, VERS, options for singles/higher-income. | HPI ≤3.0, 70-year leases, universal buy-back, coffee shop rent caps. | AHS (no land cost), singles 28+, more supply, Millennial Apartments. | NOM Scheme (cost-recovery flats), YFPS, enhanced Lease Buy-Back, buffer stock, VCG balloting. |
Affordability | Relies on supply and grants; no direct price cuts. | Targets HPI ≤3.0; flexible leases for cost savings. | AHS removes land costs; highly affordable but disruptive. | NOM flats slash prices (e.g., S$160,000 for 4-room); grants for low-income. |
Lease Decay | VERS rejuvenates old estates; proactive but vague. | Universal buy-back; direct but costly. | No specific measure; overlooks ageing flats. | Enhanced Lease Buy-Back with annuities; preserves equity. |
Supply and Access | Strong focus on 50,000+ flats; inclusive for singles/higher-income. | Limited supply focus; emphasizes affordability over volume. | Increases supply; strong singles’ access at 28+. | Buffer stock to cut waits; inclusive for singles, single parents, renters. |
Innovation | Incremental; builds on BTO/VERS frameworks. | Moderate; new lease options and buy-back scheme. | Transformative; AHS and Millennial Scheme rethink housing models. | Transformative; NOM, VCG, and YFPS overhaul pricing and allocation. |
Feasibility | High; leverages HDB’s systems and reserves. | Moderate; HPI target and buy-back costly but implementable. | Low to moderate; AHS fiscally risky, others feasible. | Moderate; NOM and VCG complex but actionable with reserves. |
Voter Appeal | Likely appeals to families, older voters, and those prioritizing stability and supply. | Likely attracts middle-class families, retirees, and young couples seeking affordability. | Likely draws younger voters, singles, and reformists open to bold changes. | Likely appeals to young families, singles, retirees, and those valuing inclusivity and affordability. |