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 80 of 85.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the recession has hit Singapore hard. Last year, the GNP recorded a negative growth at minus 1.7%. Thousands of workers are out of job. It was reported that last year something like 90,000 workers have lost their jobs and the prediction is that the economy will stagnate for a period of 18 months to four years. If the economy does not pick up and there is no growth, it means that jobs will not be created. Each year about 20,000 of our school leavers will come into the job market. There will be no jobs for them. The picture is grim. The workers who are retrenched will suffer, in particular those workers with financial burdens, such as payment of housing loans and other payments. And yet the Government up till today has not announced a scheme in respect of retrenchment benefits for the workers. The Government only wants the workers to bear the brunt. They want the workers to make sacrifices, to have their employers' CPF contribution cut by 15%. I think it is time that we in this House, both Ministers and Members, set an example for our workers. Let us also cut our pay. This will be an example that we are with the workers. This will be a great morale booster to them. How did this recession come about? Of course, the Government wants the people of Singapore to believe that this recession is due to the poor economic situation in the world. If this were true, then neighbouring countries last year should not be registering a 3% to 7% GNP growth. The people of Singapore will not be bluffed. I put the blame squarely for this downturn in our economy on the domestic policies of this Government. The Government has acted in a paternalistic fashion. It has encroached on private enterprise and interfered in the free market.”
“I will quote further at page 166: 'Legal proceedings against witnesses Both Houses will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which he may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a breach of privilege. The House of Commons resolved on 26 May 1818, [as long ago as that] 'That all witnesses examined before this House, or any committee thereof, are entitled to the protection of this House in respect of anything that may be said by them in their evidence.' There are cases cited there which I would not bother the House with. I think the point has been made. So under our Standing Orders it would appear that Mr Sivadas, when he presented his representation to the Select Committee on the amendments to the Companies Act, does have that privilege and I hope the House will take cognizance of that and vote accordingly for the motion. 8.04 pm”
“That is the rationale behind the privileges. What does it say in our Standing Order? If you look at Standing Order 104, it says: '(1) In cases of doubt the Standing Orders of Parliament shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (2) In any matter for which these Standing Orders do not provide the said practice shall be followed, but no restriction which the House of Commons has introduced by Standing Order shall be deemed to extend to Parliament or its Members until Parliament has provided by Standing Order for such restriction.' What I am going to read is that the practice in England is not a restriction. This privilege is a well accepted practice in the House of Commons, in fact, also in the House of Lords. This is Erskine May, 20th edition, at page 88: 'The protection of witnesses etc concerned in proceedings in Parliament. Witnesses, petitioners, counsel and others are protected from molestation, threats or legal proceedings on account of what they may have said or done in either House or a committee thereof. Such persons may be regarded as being participants to that extent in proceedings in Parliament, which, as Article 9 of the Bill of Rights declares, 'ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'. In practice, when such cases of molestation, threats or legal proceedings have been brought to the notice of either House, the procedure adopted for the protection of witnesses and others concerned has been that regularly employed in cases of breach of privilege and contempt.' So there you are. That is the practice in both Houses of Commons and Lords in England.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of the hon. Member for Anson. I would like to refer the House to this Report of the Public Petitions Committee (First Session). This is a very brief Report, comprising of two pages. The Committee comprised seven Members from this House together with Mr Speaker in the Chair. I note that they held only two meetings and out of the two meetings one of the hon. Member was absent. This is to show how interested he was in these proceedings. The other observation I would like to make is that the whole Report comprised the joint opinions of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. None of the views of any of the seven Members were recorded. I wonder why. Just now I was accused of not having a view. There are seven Members here who have not expressed their views at all, or are they too ashamed to have their views published? I think it is useful for us in Parliament to know what their views are. Having said that, I will refer to the issue at hand, and that is, Parliamentary privilege. The Attorney-General would appear to agree that any proceedings in this House itself is a privilege, but he is not very sure that when a person presents a representation in one of these Committees whether it is privilege or not, whether it is covered by section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. I would say that it is privilege. Why do we need the privilege in all these Committees? Then there would be freedom of speech. Anyone making a representation does not fear that it might end up in a legal suit. He must be protected by Parliament and he must be able to give his representations freely so that these Committees can gather the maximum information so that Parliament can function effectively.”
“That is not as practicable as you think.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would say that this piece of legislation at this time when Singapore's economy is so bad is one of the worst legislation that is before the House. The Government's policy as has been published is to give priority to revive our economy. How does it do it? It has, of course, to cut down costs, increase productivity and also give confidence to business people and also to business people from abroad to invest here. Confidence is also important. How can you give confidence to business people when we have got such a piece of legislation? As the Member for Whampoa said, it is a blank cheque for the Minister to sign. What is the limit of the payroll tax? This is the kind of signal we do not want to give to business people. How can you create confidence in business people when they come in and they do not know how much tax the Government is going to impose on them? We have seen measures to reduce the Central Provident Fund, to cut down costs. But that is done half-heartedly, half measures. They say they are going to do it temporarily, two years. Any businessman will tell you that this kind of signal is not good for confidence. Anyone with money coming to invest in Singapore, they want something on long term, at least five years, if not permanently. At least, they can predict what the future situation will be. On the one hand, the Government says it wants to revive the economy. On the other hand, the steps taken contradict that. This is the sort of Government we have today. Perhaps the Minister for Trade and Industry who heads the Economic Committee can give his views on this. Does this kind of legislation give confidence to business people? If not, then he should oppose this Bill as I am opposing it.”
“For the record, I am against gambling, of course.”
“May I just complete and say this? With this amendment, I would say that there will be a degeneration of our moral values.”
“I think we are in point. What are debating is related to gambling. I think this is the end Bill which -”
“In fact, I have got the Minister to say that he probably would like to take all three Bills together. They are all related. This is in point because they are related.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the amendment of the Road Vehicles (Special Powers)(Amendment) Bill, all loopholes, it would appear, would have been covered with these enhanced penalties. Probably, after all these enactments have gone through, after a period of time illegal gambling would probably be wiped out in Singapore. But, of course, there is the possibility of some of our gamblers going over to Johor to operate from there. But in Singapore it would appear that only legal gambling can exist. At the moment, anyone wanting to go and make a bet, would probably still have a pinch of conscience about it, knowing that gambling is wrong. They know it inside them that it is wrong. But without illegal gambling and with the introduction of computerized terminals, people can conveniently place or punch in 4-digit bets. Perhaps these terminals will be located at strategic points, probably at places in supermarkets where they are about to leave the market. Now, we know that in marketing, there is such thing as impulse buying, so that cigarettes and perhaps other items are placed strategically at the point where monies are paid. Mothers going along with children readily will be punching in, gambling right in front of their children. We will have a new set of moral values.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not told the House whether he agrees to send this matter to a Select Committee. I think there is enough concern to show that it should be sent to a Select Committee. From what I can see, it is definitely an over-reaction on the part of the Government to wipe out a social problem. If there is to be an overkill legislation, this is perhaps the legislation which can be classified as an overkill. So would the Minister please tell the House whether he would just stay the matter and have more further discussions on it?”
“I would apologize. I should have revealed the source of it.”
“All the things about gambling have already been spoken. But no one has touched on the seriousness of the fettering of the powers of the court. Does the Minister agree with me that this is a serious principle which these amendments will curb?”
“No, I am not their spokesman. These principles are principles which this House must be made aware of. Principles like presumptions. Does anybody know?”
“As I have mentioned earlier which the Minister probably did not grasp, it is the seriousness of these amendments. There are many serious principles involved, presumptions. And then we have got fettering of our courts. If this practice is continued, then I do not know what the Judges are doing in our courts. This is a very serious matter and, in fact, which has been brought up by the Law Society in regard to the fettering of the court with the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code. It would appear that the Minister does not take the Law Society seriously. I would like to tell the House that these are the representations of the Law Society. And perhaps if the Minister so wishes, I think it is appropriate for him to show how he has demolished the arguments of the Law Society. I must put it on record that I am not the representative or speaking on behalf of the Law Society.”
“I was unaware because we only received the notice yesterday afternoon. And I want all Members of the House to know the seriousness of the matters that have been raised by the Law Society. I think these amendments should go to a Select Committee for further representation by the Law Society. And I agree with the Member for Anson because of the seriousness of this matter. I would say that it is an overkill, over-react amendments. Because there are many accepted principles involved which are just thrown aside.”
“No. I just asked the secretary and the secretary forwarded a copy to me. And I found that these are very serious points brought up by the Law Society and I feel that the House must be made aware of them. I would support the Member for -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is, in fact, the memorandum of the Law Society.”
“The representation of the Law Society and my views are similar. And I feel that this House must be aware of the seriousness -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is, in fact, the representation of the Law Society. I am bringing it up because the Minister has earlier said that there was no new offence created. In fact, if he had read the memorandum of the Law Society, he would have known that the Law Society has pointed out to him that there is a new offence created. The offence is one of loitering in places - Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, has he got a copy of my reply to the Law Society which has dealt with this point? And has he got the authority of the Law Society to divulge the contents of its memorandum in this Chamber?”
“In other words, what is the heavy penalty for? For the revenue that the Government is deprived of.If it is legal, the Government will get the revenue. If it is illegal, the Government cannot lay its hands on the earnings of gamblers. So they are punished for it. Is that the reason? Perhaps that would answer the question of the Member for Queenstown. He says there is no valid explanation why betting in Government approved centres are allowed and those at the hawker centres are not allowed. Is it because that the Government cannot lay its hands on the revenue of these illegal gamblers? Of course, with custodial sentences, people who are caught gambling will naturally try to contest the case. Because if they plead guilty, they will be jailed. So there will be more court cases arising from arrests. In other words, there will be a clogging up of our courts. There will be more such cases, and that means more manpower ---”
“As has been drawn to the attention of this House, another presumption is if you have three or more telephones in your premises. Nearly all offices in town would have three or more telephones, which includes connections. If somebody goes there and makes two calls in regard to gambling, there you are, you have to prove to the court your innocence, that the place is not being used as a betting place or a common gaming house. So these presumptions have got really serious implications. So much for presumptions. The other serious matter, of course, is punishment. The punishment has been enhanced many times, a maximum of $200,000 and mandatory jail sentence. These are for bettors, for bookmakers, agents and runners. Why so serious a punishment? These are not drug offences or offences connected with dangerous weapons. And worse still, there is a minimum sentence imposed. This is another important principle which the attention of the House has to be drawn to. Because the Judges in our courts are affected by us, by Parliament, they cannot exercise their own discretion. They are there. They are the people who dispense justice. They can hear the case and they can decide for themselves. But when this law is passed, that discretion is taken away from them. Once a person has been found guilty, the Judge must impose a minimum sentence. From experience, heavy sentences meant to deter a crime do not normally work that way. Despite increasing the sentences, crimes do rise. This has been borne out by statistics. So why the heavy fine? Why the heavy sentence when it does not deter gamblers? As has been pointed out in this House, gambling does not seem to be an issue because gambling is allowed by the State. What this Bill attempts to do is to wipe out illegal gambling.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would support the hon. Member for Anson to bring these amendments to the Select Committee for further consideration. And even as I follow the debate today, many Members here have shown concern. If we accept all the amendments here, there may be legal and social ramifications that may not have been intended by the House. There are many important principles involved in these amendments. First, as has been drawn to the attention of this House, is presumptions. Normally, in a court of law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. But in this particular case, the onus of proof is placed on the accused person. Take the example of houseowners or occupiers of houses. If any appliance or instrument connected with gambling is found in his premises, it is for him to prove that the house is not used as a common gaming house. So house owners are in a very precarious position if we accept this kind of statute. I am sure there are many houseowners in this House. If you rent your house through the agents, you do not know whom he rents the house to. And one day you receive a telephone call, "Look here, there are instruments connected with gambling found in your house." I am sure you will get a decent shock of your life. Many people may not have the time to look into the tenancy of their house personally or who they rent it to? They leave it to the agents. This kind of a presumption has got serious implications. Of course, under the previous Act, the Police will give notice to the owner of the house and say, "Look here, your house is used as a common gaming place." So presumption introduced into the Act is very dangerous, and I would draw the attention of the House to the presumptions which they have to be aware of.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my question yet. I would like to know whether any more High Court judges will be appointed because of the flood of cases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Subordinate Courts Act is to increase the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts. The reason is there are too many cases in the High Courts. By bringing over the cases to the Subordinate Courts, the number of court houses and the judges there will have to be increased. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether, to solve this problem, the Government is considering increasing the number of Judges in the High Court.”
“The Minister has said that forward trading was not an infringement of the law, but does MAS realize that people from across the Causeway were using this method to raise funds where they were unable to do so, or at least not at the level from banks?”
“Does not the Minister realize that, in fact, CPF money is being used for legal costs and other costs related to transfer of title? So, therefore, could not an additional sum set aside for repairs be approved by the CPF, just as the approval given for this additional sum for legal costs?”
“I think this is an important topic and the whole of Singapore wants -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask four supplementary questions?”
“- where the matter was brought under this disciplinary rule, where a fine was imposed on a warden or on any other persons? Were there other similar cases?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary question. May I ask the Minister how many cases similar to the one mentioned here where the -”
“Is a referendum not as important as an exhibition?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards costs of the referendum, how much will that be - $1 million, $2 million? The Government has thrown away $18 million last December. Is that just to boost up the sagging image of the PAP?”
“- we are virtually taking away the supremacy of Parliament, changing the system as we know it today and which has served us so well for the last 25 years. My question is: Since this is going to be a very serious matter, will the Government put it to the people of Singapore, maybe in the form of a referendum, before these changes are made?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister suggests the changes which, in my mind, are very drastic. In other words, if you give veto powers to the President - Mr Speaker: Where is your supplementary question, Mr Chiam?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister please tell the House whether or not this scheme is to get the very slow stock market moving again, just as the second house scheme despite which the release of CPF did not move the property market?”
“Well, I still have not got my MP's office yet. I have two requests for hangers at specific places for bird cages, which have not been attended to yet. To plant an exotic tree - I have written in three times, and they have been refused. And my request for a place for Malays who want to play Gasing also has not received a reply yet. So I can quote these specific instances.”
“At least three. Mr Speaker: All right. Raise them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just reply, since he has said that I should substantiate what I have said in regard to the specific points?”
“Is that how efficient the HDB is? Dr Lau Teik Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is very impatient. He should be patient and he will get his due. Then there is the question of the issue of HDB parking labels. Well, if you look at his car, he has got the HDB parking label ---”
“It is just that I heard it at 1081. You divide that by 5, and see what you get.”
“I must have heard wrongly. I have it as 1,081. The Member for Anson clarifies that it is 181. So 181 is about 36.”
“If they are to be effective, then I would say that the HDB should recommend strongly that they should be taken away from the Prime Minister's Office and put in the hands of the residents themselves. Then they will become effective, and then we will see a truly cohesive society, a truly meaningful community, effective. The Government should show that the people would be given responsibility; then they can be effective. Then we would not have these social problems of killer-litter, as one Member there from his own experience mentioned such anti-social activities like urinating in the lift, vandalism, and the like. 3.56 pm SITTING OF PARLIAMENT (Exemption from Standing Orders) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the Ministerial Statement be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. HOME OWNERSHIP Debate resumed.”
“He cannot just brush aside a big issue by making a sweeping statement that all my 19 conditions were impossible. Whether or not the HDB makes a profit is a big issue and will remain so, and it will never fade away until the people of Singapore get a satisfactory reply from the Minister. There are 80% of the population out there who are interested in this issue. They are all residing in HDB flats. Many of them are flat owners, and eventually if this policy gets through, they will all be flat owners. Therefore, I want the Minister to tell me exactly why he thinks those 19 conditions are impossible. We all want to know the truth of the matter. The HDB has announced that with effect from April it is going to have a new accounting system. Under that system all parcels of land will be transferred by the HDB to the Government land bank. The Government will then resell the land back to the HDB at a price subject to Government valuation. By this method, it was alleged that the unit cost of flat can be determined. This new accounting system will not bring down flat prices. The HDB has still to pay for the price of land at market value and not at its original acquired cost. Only this time the profits on the land will be transferred, probably to the Government. It has been reported that one of the functions of the HDB is to provide community facilities. Much as been said about the RCs, CCCs, CCMCs, but unfortunately these so-called grassroots organizations have not really seeped down to the bottom level of the HDB estate residents. They still remain at the top and only reach out to a few. Why? Because these so-called grassroots organizations are politically motivated.”
“When my Party alleged that the HDB was making profits, the Minister, instead of taking the proper step of coming forth with his own facts and figures to prove that we were wrong, issued me a challenge to build four blocks of flats. I accepted the offer in writing, with 19 conditions. The Minister replied that all the 19 conditions were impossible conditions. One of the conditions was that we required the Minister to prove us wrong, ie, my Party's allegation that the HDB was making a profit. The Minister has put it in writing and said that that was an impossible condition, ie, to refute my Party's claim that the HDB was making a profit. Is that really an impossible condition? You are unable to prove us wrong. If the Minister cannot prove my Party wrong, then my Party's allegation that the HDB is making a profit must be right. As far as I am concerned, the issue of building the four blocks of flats is still alive. The Minister must come back to me and tell me why all the 19 conditions are impossible. You cannot just brush them off.”
“When it acquires land, it gives very low compensation. The reason is that it acquires the land to build cheap public housing. But when it sells the flat, it makes a turn around and charges purchasers the market value. If the Government really wants to help the poor in owning homes, then it must ensure that the HDB does not price the land higher than the prices paid for its acquisition. The question of the value of land as far as public housing is concerned is a moral issue. The HDB should not take into account the potential value of land or its opportunity cost. It has acquired the land cheaply and, therefore, it must sell it back cheap. The HDB has the advantage of the Land Acquisition Act. Why must it charge people more than what it acquired the land for? The HDB considers the HUDC flats as subsidized. The drop in property market prices this year has brought some prices of private condominium units even cheaper than the HUDC units which are supposed to be subsidized. New private condominium units along Lorong Chuan are priced at $210 per sq ft, whereas an HUDC apartment is selling at $250 per sq ft. Not only are the said private condominiums selling at a lower rate, but if you have a look at them, they have more amenities than the HUDC units. They have got squash courts, swimming pool and free parking. You pay for your facilities. Housing for all is a good policy but the HDB must not profit from it. If the HDB has stuck to its original objective of providing cheap housing to the lower income group by charging the cost of land as the cost it has paid for, then today I would be standing here to praise the HDB. But unfortunately that is not the position.”
“The truth of the matter is that the HDB, in its calculation of flat prices, has taken the open market value of land and not the actual cost of the land, ie, the actual amount of money it paid for compensation for compulsorily acquiring the land. The people of Singapore tolerated the Land Acquisition Act only because that piece of legislation was used by the Government to acquire land for public use. It is immoral for the HDB to acquire land at a cheap rate, at 1973 prices, and to charge flat purchasers at the open market value or at opportunity cost. The whole purpose of compulsorily acquiring land at a low price is to enable the HDB to sell its flats at a cheap rate to Singaporeans. The HDB should not charge flat buyers one cent more than what it paid for the land. It is also ridiculous for the HDB to claim that it has given subsidy to flat purchasers because it has not charged the full market value of land. This absurdity can be clearly seen by a simple illustration. Take, for example, a company purchases a piece of land for $200 and sells it for $1,000. The market value of that piece of land happens to be $1,500. By HDB reasoning, that company should be able to declare to the Comptroller of Income Tax that it has suffered a loss of $500 because it has sold the land at $1,000 instead of $1,500. The company should factually report as follows: purchased land at $200, sold it for $1,000, profit is $800. That is what the HDB should do. Similarly if the HDB acquired land at, say, $6 per sq ft in a certain area, its cost of land is $6 per sq ft. The HDB cannot say that it could have sold the land at $50 per sq ft in the open market and therefore it has given a subsidy of $44 per sq ft. The HDB should not adopt a double standard.”
“If the Government intends to pursue its policy of 100% home ownership, then I would call on the Government to lower the selling prices of HDB flats. Prices of HDB flats at the moment are priced too high, taking into account the HDB need not pay the increase in land prices since 1973. All the land acquired by the HDB is based on 1973 prices. There should be a reduction of at least 10% of prices of HDB flats. At this level of price reduction, the HDB will still not suffer a loss. My Party has published facts and figures a year ago to show that the HDB was making profits. We have again published in our Party's paper, the Democrat, to show with a set of figures provided by the Minister himself that the revenue from sales of flats at Potong Pasir exceeds the construction costs. We have also attempted to show that a profit at Potong Pasir Estate was made. Our articles on the HDB are not wishy-washy. They are based on facts and are all substantiated. Just now I asked the Minister what was the land area at Potong Pasir acquired. According to this report at page 30, it is 47 hectares. This works out to be about just over 5 million. And if he says that compensation paid was $1,081 million - am I right? - that works out to $262 per sq ft. I know for sure that at the neighbouring Pek San Teng Estate, the HDB compensated the farmers there, inclusive of the farm, with $19,500, ie, at only $1 per sq ft. Why the big jump? At one place you pay only $1 and at another place, the HDB pays $200-odd. I really need this clarification from the Minister himself. We all know now that the so-called subsidy given by the HDB is no subsidy at all.”
“And yet the HDB's selling prices went up against market trends, they were raised 2(r)%, as mentioned. All prices of properties this year have dropped drastically, ranging from 30% to 50%. Paper losses must amount to millions of dollars of the 1981 prices, when there was a peak, and yet there is no drop in the HDB selling prices of its flats. The Minister for National Development was reported to have said that, despite the big increase of 38% in 1981, the purchasers could still afford to purchase. Why? He knew exactly how much Singaporeans had in the Central Provident Fund. Therefore, according to the Minister, the amount of CPF Singaporeans had must be directly related to the prices of HDB flats. It would appear that the HDB is a tool of the Government to mop up the CPF of the people. The majority of purchasers use their CPF to buy HDB flats. The general trend of HDB flat selling prices can only be upwards because, in the long-run, building costs will go upwards. This would mean that the CPF contribution rate would move only upwards as well. The high rate of CPF contribution will cause the Government repayment problems in the future. Originally, everybody agreed with the Government that CPF contributions were a good thing as its overt purpose was savings for old age. Nobody was against having a nestegg on their retirement. We know now that the Government will have repayment problems in the future. Similarly, home ownership for all, on the face of it, is a commendable policy. But will this policy of 100% home ownership also end up like the CPF in a future date, encumbered with all kinds of problems causing great hardship and distress? With such high prices, purchasers will be tied up for life making substantial monthly repayments to the HDB.”