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 77 of 85.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is fair that I should refer the Minister of State to page 5 of this Report of the Economic Committee which I have quoted. It says, "... a third of our economic growth -”
“I think this line is getting a bit too far. An hon. Member: Not far enough.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify? The 40% refers to the occupancy of hotel rooms. As regards the drop in tourists coming to Singapore, the period 1980 to 1985 there was only an increase of 5.3%, while the period for the 1970s, it was 13%. Is it clear?”
“Perhaps we could implement that here. I have looked through the Economic Committee's Report. It does not seem to mention any- thing about the apprenticeship system. I think each trade, each business, should train its own personnel. And it is a good system because you work and study at the same time. (6) It has a labour force which is highly motivated. Perhaps we could learn from the Swiss and implement these things in our social and political system in Singapore. And maybe we can really reach a highly developed state in our economy.”
“I would say that it is only good up to the point of attaining the present standard of living which is the highest it can go. It is just like an athlete whose capacity is only good for a certain performance and not higher than that. The Government is good only for that. I think we have reached the summit of our performance. In fact, the Economic Committee's Report says that when the recession is over, there will be no high growth. That is what it says. The policy of the Government as stated at the last general elections was to make Singapore a developed country by the end of the century. More precisely, it says, it hopes to attain the present-day Swiss standard of living which is one of the highest in the world by 1999. Does this Government know how the Swiss managed to to attain one of the highest per capita income in the world? Do you really know that? The Swiss can do it because they have a good social and political system. That is what we lack. Switzerland is a truly democratic nation. I would just state some of the things that it has in its political and social system, namely: (1) It has a strong democratic tradition. (2) It has a political system which prevents a strong leadership. The Presidency is rotated every year. I am not suggesting that we rotate our Prime Minister every year. But perhaps we could amend our Constitution and limit his term of office to two or three terms. (3) It is a nation which is truly united, despite the fact that it has disparate cultures and has four national languages. (4) It has 99% literacy. This is important. We have been told again and again that about 600,000 of our workers do not even have primary school education. You see the Swiss have got 99% literacy. (5) It has an excellent apprenticeship system in all trades.”
“Perhaps he could tell the House what is the accumulated losses after the end of last year. May we have his answer on that? The Economic Committee has identified certain fundamental requirements for economic growth. One of the fundamental requirements stated is good government. The Report says there must be good government, both in the sense of being stable and having popular support, and in the sense of carrying out rational wise policies. This is sine qua non of progress for lack of good government, many theorists of economic development have failed to deliver results in the Third world. Does the present PAP Government qualify as a good government, as defined by the Report of the Economic Committee? An hon. Member: Yes.”
“I think it is going to be difficult to have these demands pick up in two years' time? It may even be longer or never at all, if there is always going to be a continual glut of oil in the market. Tourism is a big foreign exchange earner, 16%. The prediction now is that we would not be getting the five million tourists. In fact, there was a drop in tourist arrivals over the period 1980-85 as against the '70s. There is a hotel room glut. And the forecast is that it is going to be even difficult to fill 40% of the 30,000 rooms that we are going to have next year. Construction is one-third of our GDP. It looks bad. There is oversupply. If we are going to put more money in construction, it will be suicidal for us. Probably if we stop building now, it is quite safe. Any time, there are always spare flats around for any takers at Yishun. Garments, well, there are problems. They are short of workers. Electronics look like the only bright sector. So if the two-thirds demand that we are talking of is not forthcoming, do we just sit down and wait? And if there is no demand locally, the spiral downwards will even be more enhanced. We have just heard yesterday that there was a 4% drop over the first quarter. Our economy is still slipping, going down. There is talk of buying local goods. But I think the other aspect is that a cut in the employee's CPF should be implemented. I would suggest, be bold, be radical, and have a cut to match the employer's CPF cut. I think we cannot exaggerate the usefulness of our local demand. At this point, perhaps I would like to ask the Acting Minister what is happening to the Petrochemical Complex at Pulau Ayer Merbau. We have spent something like $2 billion, I believe. Since it is not doing well, it must be losing money.”
“If you propose to have strong counter measures, that is your opinion. But I do not advocate that. I think we should have a closer relationship and our leaders should practise more tact and be more humble. When we are doing well, we do not go on the air and boast to the whole world, especially to our neighbours and tell them, "We are having 10%, 12%, 14% GDP growth despite bad world conditions. And look at our neighbours, they are only having 4-5% growth." I think this kind of talk is not good for neighbourliness. There is another example of our First Deputy Prime Minister. Even a little talk about the Malaysian leaders, we received a strong protest. So if we want to have good relationship, I think we have to practise tact. The other point I want to bring up, which I have already brought up in this House, is local demand. The Member for Whampoa seems to agree with me. I mentioned last year that we should have a "Buy Singapore Campaign". I am sure the Acting Minister, who was a Minister of State then, can remember what I said. His reply to what I was advocating was like this. "We are like a ship," he said. "When the wind is strong, our sails are full blown. And during a slack period", what he said I was advocating, "was to get a member of the crew to blow the sail and get the ship going." But the Member for Whampoa seems to agree that we should now support local industries. "Buy Singapore-made furniture", he says. Perhaps now that the Minister of State has been promoted to Acting Minister, I would like to hear him on that. He says that two-thirds of our demand is external and therefore we do not have to stimulate local demand. What are these external demands, oil refineries, petrochemical industries, shiprepairing, shipbuilding?”
“The Member for Whampoa in his usual self is always carried away by his speech. In one breath, he says that we should not take retaliatory action against the Malaysians. In another breath, he says we should not take things lying down. What does he mean by that? Is he recommending that we take some kind of measures against the protectionism policy of the Malaysian government? He has to be very careful when talking about the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. He is touching on the sensitivity of the Malaysians. I think this is an important point. Because the ground level there can always put political pressure on the leaders to take trade retaliatory measures against Singapore. So we must not take this matter too lightly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have four amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important question. Is this CPF money, in fact, our national reserves?”
“Well, I think I have made my point. It is obvious that the credibility of the Government is definitely in question. Thank you, Sir. VISIT OF MR HEINRICH THOMAS BECKER, MP SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT”
“Now, it is the cost of production that must be reduced. Far from decreasing shopkeepers' overheads, the Government has increased them. It is escalating like a snowball, that is, gathering more snow. This was in March 1985: 'If all these years increasing CPF rates of contributions have been implemented as purely political ... - The Acting Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan): On a point of clarification, Sir. The point is that the Member for Potong Pasir has two amendments in his name, according to the Order Paper Supplement. So I do not know, on what basis, he claims he has four. Mr Chiam See Tong: Are you afraid?”
“Solid bedrock of the Acting Minister for Labour. We should ask for his reasons, clear-cut reasons why there is a big change now. He was laughing at me then. I wonder whether he is laughing now. Now in December 1985, four months later: 'The CPF should not be a sacred cow.' The same person saying that, and again the same person on 11th January, 1986 said this. This was quoted in the Straits Times: 'But Mr Lee made it clear that the employer's CPF rate would be cut.' I do not think he is going to deny all these; what he had said. I do not think I would labour you on all this turnaround but surprisingly the only consistent person is the Member for Rochore.”
“' Now, of course, I have quoted him, and not about six months later, he said: 'I think this 15% CPF cut is a reasonable cut.' What about the First Deputy Prime Minister? On 1st September, 1985, he was quoted in the Straits Times: 'As I have just explained, we do not recommend a wage cut for everybody. CPF contributions are part of the workers' wages. Many workers use them to pay for their HDB instalments. Here, I would like to make it clear that the CPF is not the cause of our high wage costs.' Then, let us see the turnabout on 1st November, 1985. Before I quote that, I will quote another of what he said: 'Wages, we think, is not the main cause of our downturn.' On the same note: 'Even reducing CPF now would not help the economy because the cause is not high wages. If wage costs for the higher technological industries are 50% as we reduce CPF by 10%, I think the actual impact on costs of production will be only 1%.' This again was on 1st November, 1985 in the Straits Times. Now here is the turnaround. On 28th January, 1986, this is what the First Deputy Prime Minister said: 'Employer's CPF rate needs to be reduced by greater than 10%.' Then the changed tune: 'The CPF cut would not adversely affect the present standard of living.' Then again in the same changed tune, on 30th January, 1986, he said: 'I think we can settle for a CPF cut of 15 percentage points.' What about the Acting Labour Minister? Well, this was quoted in the Straits Times on 12th August, 1985 in banner headlines: '4 reasons not to cut CPF. (1) CPF is a pillar of the Singapore economy. (2) It is part of our workers' wages. (3) Contributors will find it difficult to service their housing loans. (4) CPF savings can be used as a form of hard cash in the event of a world banking crisis.' There you are!”
“When needed, can the Government liquidate those bonds and property, in particular, property? Property prices are now almost at their rock bottom levels. And we all know a bad investment is consumption. How do we know that the Government's investments are not being eaten up? We need answers from the Acting Minister. No other issue has put the credibility of the Government in question more clearly than the CPF issue. Within a period of six months, we have seen how the Government made a complete turnaround. Just let me quote from the horses' mouth, so to say, from their own Ministers' mouth. Let me first quote the Prime Minister, right from the top: 'The question is: Should we do so? Should we cut future workers' savings for the benefit of employers? No, unless it is an economic crisis. I ask MTI [Ministry of Trade and Industry] economists this question: If one year ago there had been a saving of wage cost by 10% on the CPF and wages, would we have avoided a downturn? Their answer is: No. I asked MTI economists if the downturn could have been avoided if the wage cost, including CPF, were 20% less.... Their reply was that it would have made no difference.' This was in August 1985. Let us see what the Prime Minister said in January 1986: 'One of their [that is the PAP leaders] options is to reduce or suspend a portion of the employer's contribution to the CPF...'. What about his son, the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry? He, BG Lee Hsien Loong, (this is a quote from the Straits Times, 1st August 85) said: 'It was an illusion to think that the CPF rate could be cut without reducing the worker's total wage package. You cannot manipulate CPF in such a way that the employer pays less, and the worker takes back the same.”
“Their report stated that the Central Provident Fund faces the danger of severe financing problems in the next 25 years with payments exceeding contributions as a result of a gradually aging population. Sir, I make no apology for taking up this issue again. All our workers' CPF savings are involved. So we in the Opposition have that responsibility at least to our workers. The Finance Minister and the Acting Minister's explanations in respect of that report are not convincing. The Prime Minister himself admitted that there was a problem, in the interview published in the Straits Times, 21st December 1984, when asked whether there was concern among people nearing the age of 50. He said: 'No, no. They don't have to worry about that. We are not worried about the people over 50. We are not even worried about the people over 45 because their numbers are small and it is not going to be a serious problem. The problem will be enormous when the people in their early 40s, middle 40s when they get old at 65 because from then onwards larger and larger numbers will be involved.' The time-frame of 25 years predicted by Philip and Drew was borne out by the Prime Minister. 25 years will be within the lifetime of the majority of our workers. If you look at the demographic pattern, the bulk is around the 30 age group. There is no doubt about it. The Government will have problems of paying out in time to come. I say to the Government, "Be honest. Own up and let us have your solutions to the problems." This Government has created the problem and it has the duty to the public to tell how it intends to solve those problems. The Acting Labour Minister told this House last year that Government has $33.5 billion assets, and most of those assets are in bonds and property.”
“Sir, the Government has announced that it will defer payment out of CPF and give a decision in two years' time. But the Government has also thrown out some ideas in that regard. In December 1984, the Prime Minister agreed on a proposal that $25,000 be kept at 55 years and the balance given out. However, if the contributor has purchased an HDB flat and paid for it in full, then he can take out all his balance CPF at age 55. However, this sum of $25,000, when the worker reaches 55 years old, will have to be paid out in instalments until he reaches the age of 60 and then 65 years. Does the Acting Minister agree to that proposal? I should say that that proposal originated from his pre- decessor, Prof. Jayakumar. Will the sum of $25,000 eventually be held back? The public has a right to know because it is their money. CPF savings are the workers' money, it is often said. All CPF money belongs to the contributors. Therefore, I say to the Government, it has no business to hold back any money belonging to the people. The Government should now, in clear terms, state whether or not it intends to return all CPF money to contributors when they reach 55 years. I have asked this question many times but I have not got a straight answer yet. I hope this time I will be more successful because a very vast sum of money is involved, about $24 billion. My Party has stated that due to the aging population and the vast amounts accumulated in the CPF by workers, the Government eventually will not be able to pay back the money to the contributors. We were ridiculed by the Government for that statement. Now we are not alone in saying that. The economist of Philip and Drew, one of London's largest stockbroking houses, in their studies also, came to the same conclusion last year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, did the Acting Minister hear what his Minister of State stated just now? He said that a hotel together with a beach resort would be developed at Sentosa. That is why I was surprised and I brought up this question in the first place. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, part of the master plan for Sentosa comprises a beach hotel and a beach resort. Whether that part of the master plan is realized depends on whether an entrepreneur decides that there is money to be made and that is a viable project. If so, it will be built. If not, there will be none. RENTAL FLATS (Age requirement) 10. Mr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the imposition of the age requirement of 29 years will affect the demand of and create problems for those who need rental flats; (b) what are the Housing and Development Board's future plans on these rental flat vacancies; and (c) whether the waitingperiod for rental flats will be shortened.”
“Did the Minister of State say that the Government intends to build another hotel at the beach resort there in Sentosa?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I read in the papers that the only hotel in Sentosa, the Apollo Sentosa, is about to close down. Did I hear the Minister of State -”
“Does the Minister not consider working seven days a week non-stop will enhance the danger hazards to workers?”
“Sir, is it true that HDB workers work seven days a week, including Sundays, whereas workers at private developer's sites do not work on Sundays?”
“There are no fares elsewhere. That is why they are there?”
“Have you gone to the Airport in the evening? Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the Airport in the evenings must have a lot of taxis because up to about 20 flights come in each hour. A jumbo can carry up to 400 passengers. That gives us approximately 8,000 passengers to clear in an hour. And 8,000 passengers clear a lot of taxis, 8,000 passengers clear a very long queue of taxis.”
“But you still have got to verify my point.”
“That is reason why I take a much lower figure.”
“That is the reason why I take a lower figure.”
“Sir, a supplementary question, just to follow up on my last question.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that the ROV is doing everything humanly possible to make our roads safe. Can he please tell this House how much money was expended last year to educate the public in respect of road safety? Mr Ho Kah Leong( In Mandarin): Sir, educating the public about road safety is not the duty of my Ministry alone. Other Ministries and bus and transport companies and operators also have the responsibility. So I am sorry I cannot give the figures requested.”
“It is also the intention of our Government to raise our standard of living to that of the present-day Swiss standard of living by 1999. Therefore, I would say that it is time now to democratize, to decentralize, our education system. It is time to discard the authoritarian, strict, paternalistic control of our schools and tertiary institutions. This is a prerequisite. Without this ingredient, Singapore can never hope to attain the Swiss standard of living. Society, as we know, never really stagnates. Either it progresses or it regresses. In our case, we note that we have regressed. This is evident. The Government has asked the workers to take a lower standard of living. We are going backwards now. The Government, under the present authoritarian policy, has reached its upper limit. It cannot have a breakthrough. The only way it can do so is to abandon its old policies, including its old educational policies. I say to the Government, be brave, adopt more enlightened policies in education. Open up more windows, let more light shine through. Only then can we achieve a breakthrough and progress to attain the Swiss standard of living.”
“Our school system seems to favour only the academically advanced. Our present streaming system of hitting hard at the late developers or those who are not academically inclined at such an early age will only stifle children who are endowed with other talents. It is true that the Ministry of Education has mitigated its streaming policy by allowing parents to make the choice. The choice is now given to the parent to choose whether or not his child who has allegedly failed to get into the academic stream to continue in that stream. This slight change of policy is not good enough. All the bad effects of streaming as mentioned are still there. This is because the whole streaming structure is still left intact. I would recommend to the Minister to be bold. I would like to say to him, scrap the Primary 3 streaming now, in toto. Otherwise, more damage will be done to our pupils. Not long ago, the First Deputy Prime Minister was reported to have suggested that school principals be given more autonomy. They should be allowed a more free hand to run their schools. I support that suggestion. May I know from the Minister whether this suggestion has been taken up and implemented? The question here is really, do we still want a centralized highly controlled education system or a more open, less authoritarian, more democratic type of education system? In the early days, in the '50s and the '60s, it was understandable that the Government should control education tightly. Education was an emotional and often sensitive political issue. Times have changed markedly. The situation now is completely different. There are no communists or communalists who dare to exploit education to advance their political cause.”
“We should have a more liberal, democratic open type of education rather than the present strict, closed, centralized, tightly controlled type of system. Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party has criticized the streaming of a child in his third year of schooling. From the educational, social or psychological point of view, this policy cannot be supported at all. Why? This policy, first, weeds out late developers; secondly, it may irreparably affect the morale and mental attitude of the child. As the child is very sensitive at that tender age, once he is branded a failure by adults, he suffers a traumatic experience which he may not fully recover. A scar is inflicted on his mind and it may remain there for the rest of his life. Thirdly, socially it is bad for the society to classify or divide our children into groups - the allegedly intelligent ones in one group or class, and the so-called "not so intelligent" ones in another. In this respect it is very irresponsible of the Government to give weight only to intellectual attainments in deciding on which group our future citizens should be divided. Psychologists will tell you that there are different kinds of geniuses, not necessarily only those who are good in solving abstract problems. Men and women are inherently different. Each is an individual. There are those who are good in their academic studies. Then there are those who are good in motor skills such as sportsmen, there are those who are good in the arts, music and other creative work. Others are good in organizing or public relations, ie, getting along well with others. All these types of talent are important to our society and they should be rightly recognized. So why are we always stressing only on academic performances?”
“These words, in their present-day context, when translated into the real situation would mean something like this: give plenty of tuition to a child, get him to score eight or nine straight A's in '0' level and another five A's in 'A' level if possible, and get him to study very hard at the University and come out with a good Honours degree or, better still, a Ph.D. Then he would be considered to be in the top 5% of our society and highly qualified for a ministerial post. That is the potential. This kind of a citizen is likely to be a technocrat and not a leader who shines or inspires others. It is no accident that we have a Prime Minister in Singapore who is a product of Cambridge University, a prestigious British university which teaches its students to think, to question, to show initiative and leadership. And it is also no accident that the Prime Minister makes sure that his son attended that University. It is only under a more liberal and democratic environment where its students are encouraged to think, to ask questions without fear and to show initiative that students can eventually be leaders. I am not decrying or saying that to educate a child to its fullest potential is bad. It is a good objective but not good enough. We also need to educate all our children to think - I think that is very important - to solve problems, to show initiative and to be able to work independently without somebody telling him all the time what to do. So the issue really is what type of education system do we want. Do we want a more liberal, democratic type of education system? Or do we want an authoritarian system, with strict type of education? I would opt for the first one.”
“The high-rise building or the bridge will collapse if ever they could be put up at all, or that the patient will die. So it is really amazing that this Government, which prides itself in being a responsible one, allows a band of amateurs to decide on the education of or the fate of all our school children. Of course, in the case of education, one does not see the startlingly bad results quickly. But nevertheless, in the long term, the effects of bad education will show itself in widespread anti-social behaviour. What is the object of education? The British believe that the main purpose of education, which must be distinguished from just mere teaching, is to teach a child to think, to show initiative and to be able to work independently. The ability to think, to show initiative and to work independently are important if this country really wants to progress. Nowhere in the Goh Keng Swee Report have I seen this object of education spelt out. The Prime Minister did mention this in his letter to Dr Goh on 10th March 1979. He said, 'The objective [that is, of education] is simple. It was, and is, to educate a child to bring out his greatest potential, so that he will grow up into a good man and a useful citizen.' The words like "to bring out the greatest potential" or words to that effect were repeated in the Budget Statement. What do these words mean? The interpretation of those words is subjective. "Greatest potential" in what? This Government seems to give these words a narrow meaning. What they probably mean is potential in academic attainment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join the debate. I have four amendments in my name. Our present school system is based on the recommendations of the Report on the Ministry of Education prepared in 1978. The Report is popularly known as the Goh Keng Swee Report. Dr Goh Keng Swee himself is not an educationist. His team comprised 12 persons who are also amateurs. They are young, in their 20s, perhaps early 30s. They lack experience which can only come with age. When it comes to education, everyone seems to imagine that he is an expert on the subject just because he has spent 10 or 12 years in school. Education, Sir, is a complex subject and there is certainly more in it than meets the eye. Dr Goh himself confessed in his Report: 'As none of us possess much knowledge nor any expertise in education we found it necessary to acquire knowledge as we proceeded with our study.' There you are, Sir, a committee comprising one very Senior Minister and 12 persons who do not possess much knowledge nor expertise in education had made recommendations which were subsequently adopted and became policies affecting the lives of thousands of our children. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development is not here. I was going to ask him whether he would be willing to appoint 12 or 13 persons who are not architects or engineers to build a high-rise building or construct a bridge; or perhaps ask the Minister for Health whether or not he will allow a team of men who are not doctors to operate on a patient. Of course, they will be given the opportunity. Both these teams will be allowed to acquire knowledge as they proceeded with their work. The answer is obvious. Of course not. Why? Simple.”
“You give one figure and you say it is subsidized. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Okay, if the Member wants another figure, I will give him. The Member for Potong Pasir has mentioned in this House (I think not so many days ago) that the selling price of a 4-room Model A flat in Potong Pasir Estate is $78,000. He mentioned it here. Am I right?”
“This is the feedback we get from the construction industry.”
“So for the plans to be approved without delay, we require the cooperation of not only the officers in BCD but also architects and engineers, and sometimes other authorities too. Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to the topic of the Housing and Development Board. Many Members have raised various problems connected with the Housing Board. First of all, I would like to deal with the prices of public housing. Both Members of Opposition, ie, the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson, complained that HDB flat prices are too high. We all know that both the Opposition Members, since they entered Parliament, have continuously been complaining about high prices of Government services. In fact, I have not once heard the Members of the Opposition saying, "Ah, these Government charges are very reasonable." Not even once. They always say, "Ah, PUB bill is too high. Housing Board prices are too high. Everything provided by the Government is too high."”
“On the question of the Public Works Department's programme on the construction and widening of roads, the Member for Pasir Panjang talks about the widening of Pasir Panjang Road and West Coast Road, while the Member for Bukit Batok talks about the development of Bukit Timah/Whitley Road flyover, Bukit Batok Road and the pedestrain overhead bridges. If Members look at the Budget allocation for PWD for the construction of roads, there is an increase of more than 100%. In fact, at present, during this recession, the Government has allocated a large amount of money for PWD to do road construction work, and PWD will make full use of this opportunity to build as much road as possible. Of course, I am not suggesting that we are building a lot of roads in areas where these roads will not be used. PWD will build roads according to development plans. For those areas which require development, PWD will spend the maximum amount of time and effort to build the roads. The Ministry of Finance is quite supportive of the road development scheme. So PWD does not have to put so much effort to convince the Ministry of Finance officers that the expenditure is justified. There is also mention about BCD planning procedures. I would like to thank the Member for Paya Lebar for bringing this matter up. BCD has introduced new planning procedures so that plans for development can be approved very quickly. These new procedures have already been in force and engineers, architects and other professionals,who have submitted their plans, are quite happy with the new procedures. But here, I think we need the cooperation of the architects and engineers. Quite often, when they submit plans, they are informed of the additional requirements by BCD. So the architects and engineers must respond quickly.”
“They are a good feature because a building without trees looks very bare. So the trees have been preserved and well looked after. The Member for West Coast touched on the West Coast Park and the development of the sandy beach along the West Coast. Perhaps the Member is wondering why we have such a beautiful beach in the East Coast but not in the West Coast. I would like to explain that the sea current along the East Coast is favourable for a beach. Unfortunately, the same condition does not exist along the West Coast, and therefore the West Coast is unlikely to have a beautiful beach like that in the East Coast. The Member for Paya Lebar raised the point about barbecue pits and the need for a permit at $6 to rent a barbecue pit. The Member for Paya Lebar has quite emotionally asked why a family who wants to have a barbecue has to obtain a permit for $6. I want to explain that the purpose of this permit is to control the use of barbecue pits to avoid a situation where there are not enough pits. For example, at a certain part of the beach, there are only six barbecue pits. So we can issue only six permits, and no more. This is to control the usage. The second point is that this $6 is not a tax or a fee. It is to pay for part of the cost of cleaning up after the barbecue because people usually throw paper cups, plastic bags, coca-cola tins, chicken bones, pork ribs, and many other things all over the place. So workers have to be sent there to clean up. In fact, the $6 is not enough to pay for the cost of cleaning up the place. Quite often, it is not the family who use the barbecue pits. In fact, the people who use them are usually the young people from associations or even from trade unions. The occasion for a family to hold a barbecue party is relatively few.”
“Sometimes trees with a large canopy of leaves may collapse during a heavy rain or during a strong wind. This pruning is an on-going project. Members can see Parks and Recreation Department'slorries with teams of workers going round cutting down branches and leaves. The Parks and Recreation Department is constantly checking the trees and if they are found diseased they will be cut down altogether. If some of the trees require treatment, then treatment will be given. Members will remember that a few weeks ago, there was a rather unusually heavy continuous rain in Singapore. The soil around the tree absorbed a lot of water and the roots became weak, and the strong wind that followed uprooted the tree. As a result of the recent incident, I have asked the Parks and Recreation Department to find out whether there is anywhere in the world we can obtain the most up-to-date equipment to test the firmness of the soil because the tree which fell recently was due to a softening of the soil caused by continuous rain. But their answer is no. Nowhere in the world is there such an equipment that we can stick it to the ground and tell whether there is a lot of water in the soil and that the roots have loosened. Unfortunately, nobody has that equipment. So we still have to rely on the expert eye. The inspectors go there, look at the soil, check the tree, and make the best estimate they can. As regards the trees at Parliament House, I would like to assure Members that the two trees in front of Parliament House, ie, the Yellow Flame, are in very good condition. There is no possibility of the trees falling down. Architecturally, those two trees in front of Parliament House blend very well with the building. So they should be preserved.”
“The Member for Chong Boon touched on the Preservation of Monuments Board. He said that since the function of the Preservation of Monuments Board is quite different from urban redevelopment, it should be detached; that it should not be brought together under the same Ministry. The function of the Preservation of Monuments Board complements that of the URA. The objective of setting up the Authority is to redevelop the City of Singapore and part of the function of redevelopment is the preservation of monuments, that means individual buildings of architectural and historical merit as well as that of the whole area, such as Chinatown, which has a historical and architectural value, are to be preserved. Preservation and redevelopment, in fact, go hand in hand. They are not two separate activities or unrelated functions. Now I wish to move on to the Parks and Recreation Department. Several Members just now have shown concern about falling trees. I share their concern because falling trees are dangerous and sometimes, as happened recently, even fatal. I would like to inform the House that the Parks and Recreation Department will computerize the information on more than 600,000 large trees in Singapore. Inspectors from the Parks and Recreation Department make periodic checks on each and every tree under their control. Usually, checking is done every 12 or 18 months. If a tree shows signs of decay or a likelihood of being uprooted, the inspectors make more frequent checks, perhaps at 6-monthly intervals and, if necessary, at 3-monthly intervals. Action is being taken by the Parks and Recreation Department to prune the trees regularly because in the tropical climate of Singapore trees grow very fast.”
“Its surpluses are held in land stock which has to be obtained early so that the land can be cleared and made ready for development. Notwithstanding its poor cash position, the URA recently announced several additional measures to help purchasers of URA land to overcome some of their difficulties during this economic recession. As a result, URA will have to borrow more than $300 million in the next five years to finance its development expenditure. There is no short cut to solving the problem of the property glut. As the Minister for Finance has stated quite clearly in his Budget speech: 'While property values will generally rise, given the scarcity of land in Singapore, one should expect it to peak and trough in accordance with the economic cycles. In time, the property glut will be absorbed.' Sir, I hope I have clarified the position of the property market. On the question raised by the Member for Chong Boon about the Singapore River development scheme, I would like to explain that the objective of the URA is to redevelop the properties along both banks of the Singapore River, with a view to preserving the area. In other words, URA does not wish to drastically change the character of the architecture on both banks of the Singapore River. The other reason is that the present properties are not attractive enough. So the URA allows the owners to redevelop their properties and make them attractive, with restaurants, shops, souvenir shops and other activities. Hopefully, Singapore River will have more life again, with games and sea sports to be introduced there. The URA therefore has to stipulate that the owners of the properties on both sides of the River will redevelop their properties in accordance with the guidelines of the URA scheme.”
“Anyone can see that if the Singapore Government is only interested in generating revenue from land sales, it would be rather cumbersome to acquire the land and take the trouble of clearing the land, assembling the land together, and offer the land for sale. If the Government is really interested in land sales to generate revenue, there is marina land, reclaimed land along the sea front, and the State land owned by the Government in the City which easily amount to more than 1,000 hectares. So with the enormous amount of land available, why would Government want to take the trouble to acquire the small pieces of private land? If the Government is interested in making a lot of money, it could easily sell during 1981 and 1982 the reclaimed land and the Government would have generated enormous amounts of revenue. So the notion that Government acquired the land at a low price from the private sector and sell it at a high price is not true. The objective of URA is to comprehensively redevelop the City. The Golden Shoe area has been identified by URA in the 1960's as an area ripe for redevelopment. Therefore, the Control of Rent Act was lifted for the Golden Shoe Area to enable the private property owners to develop their land. URA only moved into this Golden Shoe Area 10 years later when some of the owners in the Golden Shoe Area were unable to develop their land. Therefore, the claim that the URA is the "Banker in the Property Casino" is totally unfounded. The surpluses made by URA is mainly from the sale of the State land alienated to the URA at the earlier lower market prices, and not from the sale of acquired land. The URA has no huge cash surpluses to speak of.”
“I was not suggesting. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: He is imagining it. As we all know, the United States is the most sophisticated free market economy in the world with the most up-to-date computerized information collection system and yet they could not prevent a glut. We also know that in the United States there is no URA to be blamed for the property glut. The Member for Alexandra complained that URA has contributed greatly to the oversupply. I do not blame the Member for saying so. Many other people have the same wrong impression. Since the first URA sale of sites in 1967 up to the last URA sale of sites in June 1982, the URA has contributed 3.5% of all private residential units. In other words, 96.5% are not URA land sales. The office space contributed by URA land sale is 19% of office space in Singapore. In other words, about 80% of office space in Singapore is contributed by non-URA projects. The Member for Alexandra also complained that URA acquires private land at low prices under the 1973 Land Acquisition Act and sell the land at high prices, thereby making huge surpluses of $900 million in the last five years. However, from the URA sales records, a total of 157 hectares of land were sold by the URA since 1967, and only eight hectares, or 5.1%, is land acquired by the URA under the 1973 Land Acquisition Act. So the total land sale by URA is not very large. As we all know, the British Government and the Chinese Government have agreed to allow Hong Kong to sell 50 hectares of land every year. But the total URA sale in the last 20 years, from 1967 up to 1986, is only 157 hectares. This is roughly equivalent to about three years of Hong Kong land sales agreed between the British and the Chinese Governments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister in his summing up speech will, once and for all, come out with his own set of figures to show that the SDP has claimed that there is no subsidy by the Government to the HDB. Please prove us wrong.”
“Many of them are having a drink in the Members' Room, I suppose! I have given my version of the so-called subsidy. Please prove me wrong. The truth is that there is no subsidy by the Government to the HDB flats at all. Words like "scandal", "dishonourable", "shame" have been thrown at the Opposition. I say that this new HDB accounting system which is unable, as it were, to reveal the true unit cost of flats is deceitful. And I stand by what I say. The Leader of the House is not here. I challenge him to take me before the Privileges Committee on this. The hiding of the actual development cost of one unit of flat is an attempt to hoodwink the public into thinking that the Government is subsidizing flat purchasers. Last year, we read in the Straits Times in banner headlines on the 15th May 1985: "Potong Pasir get $226 million in State subsidies". Was there really money out of pocket from the Government, as we know of subsidies? Were there any grants really given to the HDB in respect of building of blocks of flats? No. As regards the building of the four blocks of flats, I have replied on behalf of my Party to the Minister on 27th April 1985 that his offer of 6th March 1985 to build four blocks would be subject, of course, to 19 conditions. The Minister replied that all the 19 conditions were impossible conditions. I will just read to you the first condition, and you decide for yourself whether it is an impossible condition. 'You must first refute our (the Singapore Democratic Party) figures published in December 84/January 85 issue of the Demokrat with the Housing and Development Board's own facts and figures as verified by the Auditor-General.' The Minister has admitted that that was an impossible condition. The Government is unable to prove that the SDP was wrong.”
“I notice that what I said about the so-called "subsidy" only last Monday on 18th March, was never published in the Straits Times, or even given television time. If I were telling an untruth, you can bet your last dollar that the newspapers will, without fail, splash this news across the front page, and full TV coverage given. But since this was not done, what I said about the alleged Government subsidy to the HDB must be 100% true. Perhaps the Professor of Economics, the Member for Whampoa, would like to prove me wrong on this point when I have finished my speech. The Prime Minister is not here. So he need not be afraid. I can illustrate the so-called subsidy very simply. A customer is looking for a particular camera. He knows the camera costs about $100, because he has already made inquiries. He gets into a shop. The shopkeeper is an experienced man, a very cunning one. He smiles and says, "You want this camera? Its market value is $900. I am willing to sell it to you for $600. You know I am losing money. I am subsidizing you $300. The price of $600 is very cheap." But the customer knows for sure that the camera is about $100. When he hears the shopkeeper telling him that the camera is cheap and that there is a subsidy on it, of course, the word "subsidy" will be have to be within inverted commas. How do you think he will react? I think the customer will slam the shopkeeper in the teeth. I think this is how the voters will react if there is a by-election. Of course, now we do not have any by-elections. It was announced that there was going to be one. Maybe at the next general elections. The Prime Minister always says, "Let us have it out." Yes, there are 77 PAP Members in this House.”
“I am just wondering how these people can have the financial stamina to keep on paying these hefty loan instalments, often amounting to 30%, 40% or even 50% of their take-home pay. I can only predict that default of repayments of HDB monthly instalments will increase as the recession bites deeper into our economy. In the last general election in December 1984, I said that HDB was making hefty profits. My Party has supplied a set of calculations to prove that. Sadly, the Minister, instead of coming up with his own set of figures to prove us wrong, has not done that. Typical of the PAP. I have discovered that their modus operandi over one year in this House is that, whenever we say something, the Government will counter with a challenge or with a counter question, instead of coming out with a straight answer. This is typical of the Government. The challenge was to build four blocks of flats at Yishun New Town. A Member has even written to the press, "The Opposition has never come out with a straight answer." Perhaps the Member for Telok Blangah can help the Minister out. This Government purports to have people with brains. Let us have this issue thrashed out - whether or not the Government or the HDB is making profits. Give us a straight answer. Why ask us to prove ourselves by building blocks of flats? Everybody with whom I meet, the feedback is simple: the Minister just has to come up with his own set of figures. He said, "Take this swampy land." We know this piece of land at Yishun is very soggy. Perhaps you have to put double or three times the depth of piling on it. We now have the new accounting system for the HDB. It is preposterous to say that the Government is giving the HDB a subsidy.”