Extending ABSD deadlines for large en bloc projects may seem helpful, but it reintroduces risks that cooling measures were designed to curb. The original five-year timeline forced developers to sell units quickly, keeping prices in check and preventing inventory hoarding. By giving them up to seven years, the government weakens a key safeguard against speculative behaviour, especially for large sites where price manipulation is easier.
Critics argue that the extension could fuel a new wave of speculative en bloc bids, as developers may overpay for sites knowing they have more time to stagger sales. This could push up land costs and, eventually, home prices for buyers. In a market where affordability is a growing concern, such a move appears counterproductive. The policy also risks creating a two-tier system: smaller projects still face tight deadlines, while large ones get leeway, potentially distorting competition.
Furthermore, the extension may slow the delivery of new homes to the market. With more time to sell, developers could hold back supply to maintain higher prices, contradicting the government's goal of a stable, adequate housing supply. Homebuyers may face fewer choices and longer wait times for new units.
The change also raises accountability questions. If a developer fails to sell despite extra time, taxpayers may ultimately bear the cost through slower land recycling. While the policy aims to encourage redevelopment, it softens the discipline that ensures efficient use of scarce land. Caution is warranted, as the long-term consequences could undermine market stability.