On a trip to Singapore in 2025 one question that arose as we moved around the country was what tools the government used to generate revenue, and in particular for a small, high income country without natural resources. One of the unexpected areas (beyond the location and development of a maritime trading hub, financial hub, etc) was learning about land and the housing system, which has been described as effectively nationalizing a scarce resource for the benefit for the state. For that, I found a useful book by Chua Beng Huat. Selected quotes from the book below:

“… the PAP government believed from the outset that a public housing program must pay for itself, as a constant subsidy of low-rent public housing would not be financially sustainable. Thus in 1964, the government/HDB decided to “sell” a 99-year lease on publicly subsidized flats. Leasing is effectively similar to renting. Instead of regular monthly payments, a lease owner pays the full cost of the 99-year lease as if in a regular mortgage system. An initial down payment would be paid at the point of purchase, and payments are made monthly to service the remaining principal sum with interest. The leaseholder is entitled to most of the rights of ownership in the control, use, and disposal of the flat.” (p. 2)

“… the government eliminated all alternative models of housing, leaving all but the wealthiest 10 to 15 percent of Singaporeans depend on the HDB for their housing needs. Facilitated by the CPF-withdrawal scheme to service the 99-year lease tenure in a conventional mortgage system homeowners would have to eventually ‘monetize’ their flats to fund their retirement. The national housing program has effectively become an “asset-based welfare system” (Doling and Ronald 2010). This places a constraint on the value of existing flats. They cannot be allowed to fall precipitously since that would jeopardize the retirement needs of their owners.” (p. 28)

“In effect, land has been nationalized and removed from the market, i.e.,de-commodified. Land decommodification would have significant consequences. Firstly, land is no longer subjected to market speculation. Secondly, with state ownership, from building infrastructure, to public housing, the construction of public projects would not impose a hefty land cost on the state. Thirdly, parcels of land could be and have been leased to private developers for residential, commercial, and industrial developments. The revenue generated from leasing land has contributed to the national reserves. Finally, as a landowner, the state can readily recover the leasehold land for redevelopment and intensification of use with appropriate compensation to the lessee.” (p. 49)