Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 73 of 85.
“You are an economist and I think you know the answer. It is high time the PAP sought new formulae to rule the country. Discard your old ways. Control and more control is bad for Singapore. This Bill is in line with that kind of a policy. Why tell professional people what to do? Because at the moment there is no solid ground for the Minister to amend this Act. As they say in the temperate countries, "One swallow does not show that Spring is coming." So one or two people in the profession, or members of the public, who have defaulted like in the --- An hon. Member: One swallow does not make a Summer.”
“In fact, there is already over-regulation, and it is high time the Government realized that this kind of a policy is leading Singapore to a dead end, as we are experiencing now. Neighbouring countries are still enjoying positive growth, whereas ours have gone to a minus.”
“That is furthest from the truth, again. It is the duty of pressure groups in Singapore, like the Law Society and other professional bodies, to take part in issues which are of public interest. And, of course the amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act is one such issue. Whether or not we are going to change the style of government in Singapore to that of a Presidential type of government, or whether we are going to have a Westminster type of government, I think all persons in Singapore should have a say, not only professional people. But, of course, I would imagine the Minister bringing out his own set of statistics to show that, in fact, there has been an increase of lawyers defaulting. If that were the case, then there would be two sets of statistics. I wonder which set is the truthful one. The reason seems to be political. Anyone who criticizes the Government, anybody who dares to speak against any Government policy will have to be silenced. There must be a deterrent for every situation. That is the new philosophy of the PAP. But, of course, we must always take note that it is not always that the interest of the ruling party must be upheld. The interest of the country and the interest of the people are equally important. Is it good or not for bodies in Singapore, ie, associations, professional bodies, business people, to regulate themselves? I think this question is an important question. In fact, it has to be highlighted and debated. From the Government's point of view, the Government does not think that it is pursuing its paternalistic policy, ie, everybody has to be regulated in Singapore. As has been pointed out by the Member for Anson, this is part of the pattern of governance of the PAP - regulation.”
“May it please you, Mr Speaker. It is typical of this Government sometimes when there is no danger in any situation, this Government will make out one, and where there is no need of a law the Government will go ahead and implement one. This particular Bill is a good example. So far, I am not convinced at all by the Minister. I cannot see one valid reason why I should support this Bill. The Minister has said that in recent times there has been an increasing number of lawyers guilty of misconduct. I think he also said something to the effect that the Bar Council believes in self-help and mutual assistance and it is reluctant to punish its own members. Both these statements are furthest from the truth. As has been pointed out by the Member for Anson, the statistics were in fact taken from the Report of the Law Society which shows that there is a drop in the number referred to the Disciplinary Committee, ie, the Committee that punishes defaulting lawyers. Over the last five or six years, in fact, from 1982-83 period to 1984-85 period, there has been a tremendous drop from seven members to one having been referred to the Law Society. That is a drop of over 80%. So what is the rationale? There is no rationale at all to amend the Legal Profession Act as it stands. There are enough provisions to keep lawyers, so to say, in line. The Minister has said that Singapore is an important banking and commercial centre. We all know that. And the lawyer has played his part to make it that way. So if there is really no valid reason to amend this law in the public interest, we should find what are the reasons. Perhaps a clue has already been given by the Member for Telok Blangah and also by what has transpired in the press. The Law Society has been accused of meddling in politics.”
“Yes, all right. If you look at section 17, it also says: 'Without prejudice to the provisions of section 16 of this Act and subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, no person who gives evidence before Parliament or any committee shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings, arrest, imprisonment or damages by reason of anything which he may have said in such evidence.' Again, I think this provision will be in conflict if section 20 (2) is not deleted. Because subsection (2) says that it gives powers for Parliament to suspend privilege and immunity of a Member. In that case, how does section 17 come in? It is again in conflict.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to join in. Before I begin, I would just like to make an observation. At the last amendment, I notice that many Members were out, probably drinking their tea, without hearing the argument as to whether ---”
“Can I have a clarification, Mr Speaker? What has been spoken, if he comes before the Committee of Privileges, the same subject matter will be brought up, isn't it? So, in effect, it is retroactive. If it were a different complaint from before the law was passed, then it will be a different subject matter.”
“I think on this very point, our Standing Orders ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just have a point of clarification?”
“I think what the Member is saying is not true. We are not keeping up with the Commonwealth Parliaments.”
“I am not asking them to raise the fine. But I think there must be a difference between Members of Parliament and strangers. A Member of Parliament is a representative of the people. I think this Bill shows no respect for representatives of the people. Finally, may I just ask the Leader of the House to tell us exactly how this new section 20(2) will work? Will it have a retroactive effect? Let us assume that a Member makes an allegation which the House thinks that it is dishonourable, say, at 3.00 o'clock today. Is it possible for the House to specify the period if there is a summary action taken against him and he is found guilty at 4.00 o'clock? Is it possible for the House to suspend the privilege and immunity of that Member, say, from 3.00 o'clock onwards? I think it is useful not only to myself but to other Members of the House to know exactly how this provision works. I am much obliged to you, Sir. 3.57 pm”
“So I think it is useful perhaps for the Leader of the House to give a guide to Members. If the House is going to take action, it would appear that it is the House which will initiate the prosecution and they will also be the prosecutor and the judge at the same time. There is of course no chance of appeal. At least in the courts, there is this element of appeal. So if you look at it objectively, this amendment is completely one-sided against the Opposition. Because everytime when there is a vote, there is no chance for the Opposition to win in that voting. May I just be allowed to make short commentaries on this amendment. We see that the punishment for a stranger is the same as the punishment for a Member. When a Member commits a dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, he is fined up to $50,000. Of course, in the former Act it was $1,000. And for a stranger, in the former Act it was $3,000 and the present amendment is $50,000. So under this amendment, the Government thinks that the status of a Member of Parliament is the same as a stranger. An hon. Member: Raise the fine!”
“So if there is any thought at all behind the minds of the Government to deter or put fear into future MPs from the Opposition, I do not think it will succeed at all. The point brought up by the Member for Anson about bringing our law to be in line with the UK is definitely not true. I have to say that because ours is only up to 1965 when Singapore became independent. After that, under this Bill, we are not obliged to follow the laws of Parliament in the Commons House in the United Kingdom. I see that we have got punishment for dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt. And the House can deal with a Member summarily. Mr Speaker, Sir, a vote on the Bill should be taken in the House. I think it is only fair to all the Members of the House here that the Leader should give an indication as to what sort of conduct is classed as "dishonourable". Or what is abuse of privilege or a contempt? I think he should, in his answer later on, give us some examples because I can say that in my short experience in this House, I do not think many of the Members, both from the Backbenches and from the Government side, have behaved honourably. I have often been accused of lying and others have called a Member of the Opposition a snake. Are all these dishonourable conduct? I am sure they are. And who is to say that if a Member of the Government or a Backbencher speaks out in this fashion he is going to be punished? When a vote is taken, it is obvious how it will go. Otherwise, the Whip will come into the picture. Whenever there is a vote, we know that the Opposition will be out voted. And so the Government will be the arbiter. They will decide what is dishonourable and what is honourable and I hope you do not have two standards.”
“And also, lifting the privilege and immunity means to say that he is liable to be punished in the courts for defamation, if it happens. Of course, the Leader of the House says that this is in between, but sometimes the punishment for defamation, which of course affects the Member personally, can even be higher than this $50,000. I think the Leader of the House should explain as regards the period whereby privilege and immunity is lifted. Is there a minimum or a maximum period? Or is it just at the discretion of the House? I think he should give an idea. It would appear that this Bill is being rushed through, the urgency is that it would be in time for the hearings of the Committee of Privileges in regard to one of the Members of the House. If that is so, then all the trouble, time, money spent on the Commission of Inquiry was a failure. Obviously, it has not served its purpose. So it only shows that this Government does not really know what it is doing. It is just muddling through, have a Commission, and now we have this Bill rushed through so as to be in time for the hearings of the Committee of Privileges. This amendment would appear to have threats on would-be Members of Parliament, with all the heavy fines and the lifting of privilege and immunity. But I will tell Members of the Government that the attitude of the people of Singapore has changed. They have no more fear in their hearts as before. That has been proven at the last general elections. They dared to vote in two Members of the Opposition despite the fact that the Prime Minister himself had come forward to canvass for two of their PAP members against the Opposition.”
“This Bill purportedly is to uphold dignity and decorum in this House. If this Bill should be passed, I think the damage done to this House is far, far greater than whatever indignities or alleged unsubstantiated allegations made in this House. If there is going to be any punishment, I think those who vote for this Bill should be punished for bringing down one of the pillars of our system. Of course, as the Member for Anson has pointed out, it is obvious. This Bill has got nothing to do with preserving the solemnity or dignity of this House but it is, in fact, just to silence criticisms of the Government. This Government is like a bad tooth, very shaky. No one is allowed to touch that tooth for fear it might fall off. Members of Parliament here are representatives of their constituencies. If they are going to be punished, then they should be punished in relation to their status as a representative. I think the principle here is that we should not punish the Member personally as a representative of the constituency. It would appear that increasing this fine from $1,000 to $50,000 appears to be in that direction. There is a 50,000 times increase in the fine! [Laughter] 50 times. Well, you can laugh. I do not know whether this is against the dignity and decorum of the House. I think if we are going to pass this Bill, we better have a list of all the so-called indignities that can be committed in this House. And laughing at others I wonder if it is one of them. [Laughter.] Look at yourselves. Where is the solemnity of this House? It would appear to me that the $50,000 fine is to punish the MP personally and I think this principle should not be allowed.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to join in this debate on a very serious matter. The Member for Anson has described it as a momentous event. I would add more by saying that, if this Bill were to be passed today, then it would go down as a day of shame in the history of Singapore. The reason is that we are attacking the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. Parliament must have absolute privilege, otherwise how can Members of Parliament do their duty to their constituent without fear? This element of absolute privilege is well-founded in all Western democratic parliaments, in particular, the Parliament of UK. The Parliament of UK, as the Member for Anson has pointed out, has fought jealously for its independence. It has fought and managed to keep itself free from the examination by the courts. And this is the very thing today that we are going to undo. Under the new section 21(2), this privilege and immunity of Members of Parliament can be lifted and subject them to the scrutiny of the courts. Today what we are doing is destroying the very pillar of parliamentary democracy. And each one of you who votes against this, of course your names will be recorded for posterity. Why the rush? Why all three Readings in one afternoon? What is the need? What is the urgency for this Bill to be passed so quickly? Is there a national danger? Or is money quickly needed? I cannot see any. Then why the need to rush through such a very important Bill which deals with the very foundation of our concept of parliamentary democracy? The Member for Anson has pointed out correctly - the people of Singapore must be consulted on this matter, and they are the people who should decide whether we want to dismantle one of the pillars of our system.”
“Just one final question, with your indulgence, Sir. At age 55, if he needs more than the $10,000 which will be paid out to him for his children's education - this point has been brought up before - especially for university education, will he be given some kind of leeway to take out money for his children's tertiary education?”
“I have not seen it yet. It is not rubbish. Please produce it. Government has always been accusing others of not being able to justify. We have justified it in our figures. Let us see yours - whether the Government has the means to finance the repayment of CPF. Surely, the reason given by the Government through the last Minister for Health cannot be the reason. In fact, if it is, then it is a slap on the Government's face. After 25 years, you bring up a whole generation and at age 55 they cannot look after their own financial interest? What is this Government trying to say? Is it because you cannot trust our own people with money at age 55? If you can, then pay them back the money, the whole lot. After all, it is their money. Why should you retain this sum of $30,000? The more worrying point is: are you going to stick to $30,000? I can lay a bet on my last dollar that, if this Government stays in power, it will be raised.”
“The figure of 3,000 has been mentioned as the number involved in this retention of $30,000. Perhaps the Minister could clarify because, as I see from last year's withdrawal from CPF - section 12 covers all the cases - perhaps he could tell us how much money has been withdrawn by members at age 55. Under section 12, the amount was over $500 million and, according to Government statistics, those members who have got a balance of less than $30,000 comprise about 85-86%. In other words, the $30,000 will, in fact, catch all the members. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point. Could I also ask the Minister whether or not the need to retain this CPF money which is, in fact, the workers' money, is because the Government is worried about the falling rate of contribution as reported the last time because of the cut in the employer's portion of the CPF? The Government, of course, always boasts that it has got no external debt but may I say that the CPF money and moneys which have been used comprise the Government's debt to the people of Singapore. This is a debt to the people of Singapore and, of course, as you know, in other countries if they cannot repay their external debts they have got a scheme called rescheduling. Is this a scheme of Government, rescheduling their own debts? Please explain. Are you afraid that in time to come, in the year 2000 when there is a declining rate of our population, there are not enough young people working to contribute to the CPF and when there are too many withdrawals? Let us hear it. Up to date, the Government has not come out with a specific answer, clearly, to say that it has enough money to pay back the CPF money in 20 or 25 years' time. An hon. Member: Rubbish!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to make some clarifications and make some comments on the Ministerial Statement? First of all, what is the rationale? Why is it necessary at age 55 for the Government to retain $30,000? The last Minister for Health has already given some idea of what the Government's thinking was at that time. He said that if the people of Singapore take out their CPF savings when they reach 55, they will squander their money. Does this rationale still stand from the Government's point of view? I see no rationale at all. The Government has promised to pay back to the members their money at age 55 and now they say they are going to retain part of it. I say this is definitely a breach of promise. The minimum sum suggested at present is $30,000. But can the Minister guarantee this House that this amount will not be raised out of proportion, out of step, with inflation? Perhaps the Minister could give us a categorical answer to this question. We have noted here that when a member dies, his money will be given to the nominee or to the estate. I cannot understand this point. A man works hard and when he reaches 55 he still continues to save until, let us say, at the age of 57. Then he dies and his nominee will get all the money, a big lump sum. What happens then? Is there a situation like this? He is not protected. I am talking about his nominee. What happens if he dies at age 57? An hon. Member: The nominee dies? Mr Chiam See Tong: The member dies at age 57. No, not the nominee. It looks like the Government seems to take the CPF members' money very lightly. I think we show more concern than the Government in regard to the workers' savings. As you say, they are the workers' money.”
“Since the HDB knew of this problem, in what housing estates have they publicized and carried out a programme of education in regard to this problem?”
“What steps has the HDB taken to publicize this problem or to educate the residents of housing estates not to park their motorcycles in void decks because of oil spills and other problems?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a point of order. This question refers to indiscriminate parking of motorcycles in Housing and Development Board apartments' void decks. May I say that I have got no complaints in respect of the constituency of Potong Pasir with regard to this problem. I think the Member ---”
“All right. Since the time constraint is there, it is all right.”
“I want to know how some Members will vote.”
“Is your word more important than the legal officer?”
“They are governed by the HDB. They are the same.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I said, the issue here is the credibility of the HDB. The Minister has not satisfactorily answered my query. I have put the question to him. He says, "It is hypothetical. We will surely be bound by our contractual terms." But I have evidence here that, even if you have the contractual terms, you are breaking them. You can break one set of contractual terms, why cannot you break, in the face of your 1,170 excess units? An hon. Member: HUDC.”
“I have got no pecuniary interest at all.”
“But if the Member, as an MP for Potong Pasir, is acting for his constituents, he can refer this case to HDB. HDB's legal officer will look into it and if, legally, HDB has to buy back or has to pay whatever amount is due, HDB will pay. But if the Member for Potong Pasir is acting as a solicitor for these people ---”
“It is not ridiculous. I have two letters here from the HDB which show that they break their own contract. HDB has gone into a binding contract with a purchaser of one of its flats at $51,900 and it wants to go back on its words by insisting that the buyer now pays more. There is already a binding contract. The HDB insists that he now pays $61,100. If you do not believe me, you can check it out. I have got two cases but there are many other cases. They have come to me at my Meet-the-People sessions. There is another case of a binding contract for $42,600 and the HDB wants to go back on its contractual terms and force the poor chap to pay $46,400. This is clear-cut proof that HDB has gone back on its contractual terms, and please do not tell us that it is a hypothetical case. I am not speaking about hypothetical case. I am speaking of concrete cases here. HDB and HUDC flats are all governed by HDB rules. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I am a bit confused. I thought that we are talking about HUDC flats. Suddenly I am told that it is HDB flats. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think this is quite a clear case. I do not think we should waste too much of Parliament's time. If there is any individual case that HDB is legally in the wrong, then HDB has to buy back. HDB has no intention of breaking its legal obligation. If there is a legal obligation on the HDB to buy back, then HDB will buy back, as I mentioned, including the HUDC flats. I mentioned yesterday that HDB has undertaken to buy back 26 HUDC flats. HDB will buy them back. Anything that HDB is legally obliged and has undertaken in writing, HDB will carry out that undertaking. There is no question of Government breaking its own law or that the HDB does not follow the laws of Singapore. There is no such question.”
“You have not answered my other queries, please, about the binding contract. Assuming there is a binding contract, will the HDB not break it, please?”
“I have to make a clarification. I hope the Minister is not misleading the public by saying "I have a hope that HUDC flats can be easily sold." The report of the Property Market Consultative Committee does not show that. There is going to be a glut, even by December 1990. There are two scenarios. One scenario is that projects already commenced, when completed, will make for nearly 8,000 residential homes in excess. The other scenario is that, if all approved projects are completed, will leave us with more than 14,000 units in excess. What then is the basis of your saying that you have confidence that these units are going to be sold? Just tell me that.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think there are two points which the Minister has not answered fully. First, the conditions laid down for the sale of HUDC flats in the earlier years. The reasons for all these conditions, I have already mentioned, are not valid today. Property prices have dropped to almost at par or even sometimes lower than HUDC flats, and there is also a glut of condominium units as well as flats. Therefore, there is no possibility of any HUDC owner going to buy an HUDC flat with a view to making a profit or speculating on it. The Minister says that it is a Government policy to provide for public housing. When he says that, there is an assumption that prices of public housing must be cheaper than private housing, otherwise why would anyone be given a choice? It is obvious. Public housing in the earlier days, as the Minister has said, was 30-35% lower than private housing. That is very good. I applaud that. But now that the prices are almost equal and, in fact, even less, what is the rationale for this so-called public housing? There is no benefit at all in buying public housing. Unless there is a valid reason, they should not still hang on to all these conditions. The other point I would just like to bring up is in regard to the binding contract which I have mentioned and which the Minister has not answered. What I was saying is that if there is a binding contract on the HDB, does not the HDB ever break its own contractual terms?”
“May I have a word of clarification, please. Does not the Minister consider his own policy binding on him? Does he not think that? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, of course. I do not think that I have ever said that HDB wants to buy back the HUDC flats.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we say "as far as we can see", it does not mean that we are looking. What we are saying is that as far as the words go what you have stated is a matter of policy - there is a legal duty on the part of the HDB to buy back the HUDC flats which are not more than five years old. Perhaps the Minister does not really comprehend the English language.”
“I said that as far as I can see, there is a legal binding document.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not say "guessing" at all. Please do not put words in my mouth.”
“I was saying that assuming there is a clause and there is a binding contract, will the HDB honour its contractual terms? Is there a precedent in which - this is assuming again - the HDB has attempted to break its contractual terms with flat owners? I am much obliged, Sir. Question proposed.”
“Please. You have stated that there is no contractual clause. So you are not legally bound.”
“--- to see how HUDC owners vote on this motion. I think there is another important point which I have to make, my final point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Minister has said that there is no legal duty for HDB to buy back the HUDC flats. Assuming, Mr Minister, that if there is a legal duty, there is a binding contract, there is a clause which says that the HDB has to buy back the flat within five years, will the HDB honour its contractual terms? Assuming there is a contractual term which the HDB has gone into, will they break it?”
“Maybe the Minister does not live in an HUDC or HDB flat and so he does not realize that. This car park is a big problem for HUDC owners. Their friends come on Sunday and they have to rush down and say, "I have got to go and renew my car park coupon". All the hassle. Whereas living in a private property, you just come in and park your car and that is all. That is the reason why they want to sell off. As I have said, I have brought up this issue because I think you should not only give a fighting chance in view of the change of policy of the HDB, but more important is the credibility of the HDB which is really at stake. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to have a Division on this motion because I think it is important --- An hon. Member: Your supporter has gone. You are alone.”
“If there is a rule, then we go back to what is written in your agreement for lease which says that (this is clause 12 which I have mentioned earlier): 'In the case where the purchaser is required under any term condition ["under any term condition" means the condition term of the buy-back of HDB flats within five years] herein to transfer, sell, assign, surrender or cause the flat to be vested in the Board, the consideration for such transfer, sale, surrender or assignment shall be the purchase price of the flat together with the value for such improvements made thereto as determined by the Board and accepted for purchase by the Board or the value of the flat and of such improvements as determined by the Board, whichever is lower. The Board's determination of the value of the flat and/or the improvements shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called into question by the purchaser.' So it would appear that if they want to sell it back or resell or assign, then they must sell it to the HDB at the original purchase price or at a price determined by the HDB. I do not think the HDB will want to buy back at a lower price than the original cost price because they themselves have said that they are 30-40% subsidized. I would say that they have a legal duty to buy back the flats. Why do so many of these HUDC flat owners want to so quickly unload their units back to the HDB? It is quite obvious. Because the market value for property has now dropped drastically. And if it is at par or even if they lose a bit of money, they do not mind selling it off. Why? Because they are not tied down with so many rules and regulations of the HUDC. And they do not have a free car park. Yes, they have to pay $25 a month for their car park.”
“I hope the Minister is not denying that because in Parliament on 22nd March 1983 he had clearly announced the policy of the HDB. "Mr Teh said during the debate on the fund allocations to his Ministry that the policy for HUDC flats which are now, he says, 'are governed by the same rules applied to HDB flats.'" I do not think he will deny that. And we have established yesterday, I believe during Question time, that HDB has a rule. As far as HDB flats are concerned, they have a rule that they will buy back HDB flats which are less than five years old. If we go by what he had said on 22nd March 1983, and I have to quote the Minister for Home Affairs earlier on in the debate, he said, "Government stands by what it says." I have got it here. I hope the Government will stand by what it says, in the case of HDB. If HUDC policy must comply with the policy of the HDB or that HDB rules are applicable to HUDC, then the HDB must, by this ruling, buy back HUDC flats. Because there is a rule for HDB, it must also follow that this rule must follow for the HUDC.”
“Why can the HDB not take back more flats from the 216 people who want to resell them back to the HDB? Why can they not do so? Of course, if you look at it from another point of view, these 1,000-odd vacant flats which the HDB is holding are causing a big loss in terms of interest and later on when the property market does improve - I have read in the Property Market Consultative Committee's report which says that even in December 1990 the demand will not be there - there will be an excess of flats even by that date. So the HDB is going to have a big problem trying to unload these 1,000-odd HUDC flats and think of the amount of interest lost. When the time comes to sell these flats, I am sure the prices will have to be jacked up to recover the interest lost. There is no doubt about that. The other point is the question of breach of faith. Of course, the Minister has denied it. There is no breach of faith. But I am afraid those HUDC flat owners who cannot sell their flats back to the HDB think otherwise. It has been clearly reported in the papers. I would contend that there is a breach of faith on the part of the HDB. The HDB has set a precedent when they say, "Yes, we will continue to buy back." And they have done so and people expect it. How else? So it is a question of trust. I think the HDB has really let down the HUDC flat owners. They feel that they have been done in. What is the protection or fall-back that the HDB is relying on? On legal ground. Let us look at whether or not they have a legal ground. In my view they have not. I would say that, in fact, the HDB is legally bound to buy back those flats. How do I come to that conclusion? That the HDB has a policy; it is an announced policy.”
“It was true when the market was very good, prices were galloping upwards. So anyone without any restriction could make a quick buck. He could speculate on HUDC property and, of course, it is not fair for people to make money on HUDC property. But what is the situation now? It has completely changed. All those reasons that were given by the HDB before are no longer valid. There is a glut of flats and condominium units now, but not at that time. So there is hardly any difference between private flats, condominium units and HUDC units. In fact, I have personal knowledge that some condominium units are even cheaper now than your subsidized HUDC flats. So there is really no ground at all to impose your restrictions. So the only logical thing to do is to remove all your restrictions. Let us look at these 1,000-odd vacant units. Is it the fault of the HUDC flat owners? It is not. And they are penalized. HDB has over-estimated the demand and kept on building when the demand is not there. The HDB has built in excess and now they are saddled with this big number of flats and the poor HUDC flat owners have to suffer for it. It is not a case of HUDC flat owners unloading big numbers of flats to the HDB and as a result the HDB has to carry big numbers of flats, and they say, "All right, please stop selling back to us. We are already buying back too many units." If that is the case, there is some justification. But that is not the case. The case is that HDB on its own has built too many flats and therefore it is unable to buy back HUDC flats. In fact, I have just mentioned that they bought back only 40 units, and out of that 40 units HDB has managed to sell 11 units, leaving only 29. That is all they are holding.”
“If he has the choice, I do not think he would want to buy an HUDC flat. So that is not a concession. Of course, the other point the Minister often mentioned is the removal of the 30% levy. The rationale behind the removal of the 30% levy is this. They say, "Oh, HUDC flats are subsidized. So we have to have that levy." But if it is subsidized, why are you removing the levy now? I would imagine that would not be the reason. The reason for the levy in the past is because the owners could sell their units at a highly appreciated price and therefore, when they sell it, after paying 30% of the gross price to the HDB, it will still appear good. But now, if anyone who owns an HUDC flat wants to sell his flat, can he make a profit on it? No. He is lucky if he can get his cost back. He probably has to suffer a loss. Can you imagine an owner selling it at a loss and the HDB wants to levy 30% on the gross price and say, "Look, because this flat has been subsidized by us."? I think there will be an uproar among HUDC flat owners. I would not think that he would dare to implement that policy and I do not think it is a concession either. So what concession has he given? As far as we can see, nothing. I would call upon him, if he really wants to do something for these people who have got these HUDC flats and who want to sell them back and HDB is unwilling to take them back, to at least give them this concession - remove all restrictions, put the HUDC property at par with private property. In particular, there are many singles who want to buy a property and cannot qualify. Perhaps this is one area where it would be helpful when he removes all restrictions on the sale and resale. It was justified perhaps to place restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC property in the early days.”
“He said that the only reason, we have been given this reason officially by the Minister, is that they provide reasonably priced housing for the middle-income group of Singapore. But he never mentioned that there was a political reason behind it. I call on the Minister, in view of the fact that he has, I would say, gone back on his word, he has breached his faith in making the announcement on 5th July, at least the most decent thing he can do now is to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats and I call upon him in this motion to do so. I think at least he will give those present flat owners a fighting chance to sell their flats. Out of the 216, I believe some of them took your policy for granted and they have, in fact, committed themselves to purchasing a private property and this group in particular will suffer hardship as a result of your sudden change of policy. What have you done for all? Give a concession in return. You said, "We will give them more time to sell. If six months is not enough, we will give them one year, 1(r) years, two years." Is this a concession at all? If an HUDC flat owner cannot sell his unit in six months, I do not think he can sell it in two years in the current property market which is so weak. That is not a concession at all. Of course, the other concession is that people who want to purchase HUDC units can use 100% of their CPF Ordinary Account. But, as we know, there is already a Government policy which allows anyone to use 90% of his CPF Ordinary Account to buy private property. So if anyone can buy an HUDC flat with 100% of his CPF Ordinary Account, I am sure he can buy a private flat with 90% of his CPF account. I am sure he would have that much money.”
“The other reason given was that they have got no legal duty to take back the flats. They said that it is only a favour to HUDC owners. It is nowhere stated in any of the documents, whether it be agreement for lease, or lease, or memorandum of lease, that they have a duty to take back the flats. I will come to that later on. When the property market was good, was firm and strong, at least the HUDC, then the HDB, put up its price. In 1983, I believe HDB jacked up the HUDC flat prices by 143%. HUDC flat owners supported the HDB in purchasing those flats despite the high prices. In Pine Grove, a flat costs as much as $340,000 and that is supposed to be a Government-supported type of development. If I am not mistaken, the Minister has been heard to say that HUDC flats are subsidized 30-40% by the Government and yet it is $340,000. If they are subsidized, why are there no people coming to buy your flats? Why do you have these thousand over flats with you? They are supposed to be subsidized. One would imagine that people will be rushing to buy them. So whether or not there is a subsidy, I think the Minister owes an explanation to the members of the public as to the nature of this subsidy. The HDB has given their reason for building HUDC flats, ie, to give professionals long-term housing, give them a stake, so to say, in the nation and this is the overt policy of the HDB. I was reading the papers and curiously enough it is stated by the manager of an HUDC estate "that the formation of the HUDC can be described as a political move to provide the middle-income group with proper housing so that they could have a stake in that country." This is something, an eye-opener to me when I read this. The Minister has never told us this. It was someone else.”
“I hope you do not interrupt me again. I am perfectly speaking relevantly. The more important issue in this matter that we are discussing is the credibility of the HDB. We have seen all the reactions, especially that particular resident from Bedok Reservoir. As far as he is concerned, and perhaps as far as HUDC flat owners of Phase 3 and Phase 4 are concerned, the credibility of the HDB is either near-zero or zero. Yes, I think it is important. The HDB must maintain a good credibility because they are housing 85% of the population of Singapore and it is of great concern to a vast majority of the people of Singapore. The Minister, a Chinese scholar, I believe, would know Confucius well. Can you remember what Confucius said of a good government? There are three requirements - food, military equipment and trust of the people. Someone asked the sage, "Which one can you remove?" He said, "You can take off military equipment." Then another disciple came in and asked the sage, "Of the two, which one can you dispense with?" He said, "Food. Human beings must die. But without trust of the people, the ruler has no standing at all." I hope that the HDB will regain their credibility, otherwise they will have no standing with the people. I believe I have quoted that correctly. Of course, the HDB's reason was that they have 1,170 (or about that number) vacant flats which they have built. This is the reason given by the HDB and they cannot take back any more. Of the 216 applicants whose flats are less than five years' old, and who want to sell them back to the HDB, the HDB has accepted 40 and they have approved another 26. If I am wrong, please correct me, Mr Minister. I believe out of the 40 that were accepted, 11 were re-sold by HDB to applicants. This is the reason given.”