Chng Hee Kok
Singapore
“Sir, I would like to ask the DPM whether the new Securities and Futures Act will be made retroactive in the Links case. In other words, will the civil penalties be made retroactive in the Links case? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is somewhere in the new Bill [indicating].”
“Sir, one cannot appreciate the enormity of the problem of a poison pen letter unless he is a victim. Imagine the power of a poison pen e-mail done in the midst of a general election. By the time the truth is established, if it can be established at all, the harm is already done.”
“And this is because the transmission is now almost direct, that when orders are placed, they are placed not only with those who supply the items, the same orders are sent to the supplier's supplier's suppliers.”
“Sir, the Minister is aware that in the case of SingTel it is quite different because it is part of our asset enhancement exercise and a fairly large number of Singaporeans own shares in SingTel. Since the announcement of the Optus deal, share prices have dropped by some 30%.”
“This is a follow up of my earlier question. If the market sentiments are favourable, will the IPOs take place this year? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, PSA and Singapore Power would not have appointed investment bankers and proceeded with due diligence unless they have very serious intentions.”
“And in many cases, over a period of time, we would be happy to reduce our shareholdings down below where they are now and, maybe even divest completely. Because the original rationale for building up and maintaining these companies has to be reviewed and may or may not continue to exist.”
The complete record
Every one of 834 lines we hold for Chng Hee Kok, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 17.
“Sir, what I fail to understand from the Amendment Bill is that 80% of the surpluses will still have to be transferred to the sinking fund should the elected MP come from the same party as the incumbent. I think, Sir, this is wholly unnecessary and I will like the Minister to give a fuller explanation, especially when certain commitments for expenditure have already been made by the incumbent just before an election. Sir, another question I will like the Minister to clarify is that under clause 3(a), the declaration of a "Town" is mentioned as a result of a general election. But does this present Bill cover the effects of a by-election? Sir, although I support the changes in the Amendment Bill, I feel that it has not gone far enough. As Town Council is becoming an important part of our national landscape, the elected MPs must be made accountable for its performance. This should not stop at cleaning and maintenance and development projects. It must also encompass how Town Council funds are being managed. Hence, the Act should be further amended to remove controls over the management and investment of Town Council funds. In this way, Singaporeans will realise that an elected MP can make an even greater difference to their lives. We must all understand that the mere casting of a vote can have national as well as local significance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly in two areas. The first one is this Amendment Bill enables the Town Council to carry out agency work on land not belonging to the Town Council. I think this will help the Town Councils greatly to improve their services to residents of HDB estates. There are instances in which minor works such as grass-cutting, paving of muddy footpaths and even repair of drain covers and gratings, have to be carried out so as not to present a hazard to residents. I think this could not be done expeditiously under the present Act. The second area I welcome is the proposed change in which 100% of the accumulated operating surplus of a Town Council will be transferred into the sinking fund after a general election if the elected MP is from a different political party. This change is equitable as it applies to both ruling party and opposition controlled Town Councils. The most important outcome of this mandatory move is that it will prevent political opportunists from making election promises to win votes. The financial performance of every Town Council is publicly available. May I have your permission to distribute a table of some eight Town Councils showing the level of surpluses as at the fiscal year 1994/95. [Copies of table distributed to hon. Members.] Sir, on the high end, we see that Sembawang Town Council has some $14.8 million of surplus funds and Cheng San has $16.5 million. On the extreme, Potong Pasir, which is a single constituency, has $500,000. Therefore, prudent Town Councils have large surpluses and hence vulnerable during an election as all kinds of promises, including service and conservancy charges rebates, can be easily made.”
“Sir, I am more concerned about the missing workers. What steps is the Government taking to trace these foreign workers and how successful are we in solving this problem?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three questions for the Minister. The first question relates to ST shares. Unlike ST1, now there is a market price for ST2. As a result, a large volume of vendor sale of shares may have a negative impact on the share price at the time of sale. If this is the case, this adverse impact may translate into a price drop. Therefore, the subsidy of $2.7 billion may disappear. My question to the Minister is, how will he ensure that when the new shares are sold at a discount from the market price, that it would not have a serious negative impact on the share price, whereby it will be perceived that there is no subsidy? My second question is, learning from the experience of ST1, will the shares be sold on the basis of the A, B and C tranches? My third question is on the exclusive rights or the monopolies granted to ST. I have spoken in this Chamber before on why it is very important for ST to be competitive, not from the consumer's point of view, but from the national point of view. Is there any other exclusive rights or monopolies that are granted to ST that we should consider taking them off?”
“Sir, perhaps the Minister may like to explain why the recycled COEs are not included in the total pool and are allocated based on the vehicle population, which may be easier for the general public to understand.”
“If we fine-tune the rules and allow foreigners to buy condominiums, even on a freehold land, then there seems to be less justification in restricting them in the case of 99-year lease landed properties. If these restrictions can be fine-tuned, then such landed properties will be good and interesting investments for a group of Singaporeans who desire such properties and at the same time want these properties to appreciate in value and become good investments. By imposing restrictions and ensuring adequate supply of land it will help to keep such properties within the reach of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, this issue that we are debating here today is about the very core of our Government, that is, integrity of government, and that is the core of our system. I believe that we have defended it well and I am confident that the legacy of the Senior Minister will continue. I think the three days' debate can now be easily summarised by the headlines in yesterday's Lianhe Zaobao, which in English said: Second generation leaders are able to maintain our nation's standard of integrity and honesty.”
“Since we are prepared to subsidise them on the price, why should we not help this group of first-time house owners on their mortgage with lower interest. In today's copy of the Straits Times, it was reported that there was only one bid for the mixed landed home development in Mugliston Park whereas the 99-year site for condominiums drew 16 bids. The result is not surprising at all if we remember that foreigners are not allowed to own landed properties whereas no such restriction applies to condominium units or buildings above six storeys. Developers are shrewd businessmen who will always sink their money in properties which are assured of a good return. The condominium market, even though for a similar 99-year lease, will still be much sought after by both Singaporeans and foreigners as Singaporeans know that this market has a wider pool of buyers than the landed property market. They know that foreigners are allowed to buy. This is a paradox here, Sir. They decry the fact that foreigners own private property but they also know that if foreigners are not allowed to own condominiums, then the value of their investments or condominiums cannot rise. Sir, Singaporeans decry foreign ownership of property, yet it is this very potential of a wider market, including foreigners, that makes this a good investment. A scheme to enable Singaporeans to own landed properties is already in place. However, the lack of interest is a result of restriction of foreign buyers. I would like the Government to review the existing regulations restricting foreign ownership of leasehold landed property.”
“A tampering of this equation which gives the impression of lower support for the Prime Minister may result in poorer market sentiment and confidence and these are the two key ingredients for foreign investments and a thriving property market. Just imagine, a 20% drop in a $600,000 HDB property, is in absolute dollars, a financial disaster for many, unlike a similar home, which are valued at some $200,000 in the 1985 recession. I am therefore urging Singaporeans to ponder over this issue seriously and use their votes wisely. We can ensure that the property market will not spiral downwards if we continue to have good Government to implement hard but necessary policies to correct the imbalance in the market as and when the need arises. The recent curbs in speculation are steps in the right direction as they are implemented to safeguard the long term interest of Singaporeans and Singapore. The three ideas given by the Senior Minister yesterday to help Singaporeans own properties state in no uncertain terms that the Government is fully aware of the problems and is working at the solutions. However, we already have in place the Executive Condominiums Housing Scheme. This scheme is to help the upwardly mobile and young professionals to own private property. My feedback is that the Government should look into the financing aspect of the scheme. For the first-time house owners without any asset backing or additional resources, a condominium of half a million dollars is still very prohibitive. Since the Government is serious about helping this group, a revised form of HDB type of financing at competitive interest rates should be reviewed and implemented.”
“There was also a cut in the CPF at that time and many homeowners suffered the prospect of losing their homes altogether. The same applies to HDB properties. Properties are only valuable if the prices are affordable and hence sustainable. They are worthless if the property market were to go into a downturn for any reason and people have no confidence in it. This is a fact of life that some Singaporeans know very well but tend to overlook when they see the property prices escalate, and they themselves have no part in it to get rich. The present generation of HDB upgraders has not had the horrifying experience of the last market downturn. From my discussions with my constituents, they have shown disbelief that the private property market can decline. As far as they are concerned, in land scarce Singapore, property prices, especially in the private sector, cannot go down. Given the price of our HDB flats today, a drop of some 10% to 20% in value is not something to just bat an eyelid. Any drop in price will have serious impact today. The equation of political stability, economic growth and value of property assets are all intertwined and inter-related. Whether one owns a $600,000 HDB flat or $1 million private property, a vote on a mosquito bite issue will surely upset this equation. Last Sunday, the Home Affairs Minister, Mr Wong Kan Seng, highlighted two cases in the newspapers. For most Members of Parliament, we are aware of many residents who threaten to vote against us because they have been legitimately summoned for some minor offence.”
“Although we have to work on the basis that Ministers, MPs and civil servants must be allowed to invest in property, we nevertheless have to avoid giving the impression or perception that many others are being seriously disadvantaged. Much as we have put to rest this episode, we must also address the larger concern of the dream of many younger Singaporeans to want to own a private property or landed property. The Government has always known that this dream does exist, that it is a legitimate one and it is one issue which the Government can solve. But we must also learn to be realistic and to live within our means. We should not begrudge the opportunities that a small section of our fellow Singaporeans are able to own private properties. They have worked hard to do so, and if they have the chance to invest in property and make a profit, they are well entitled to keep their gains. Investing in property is a risky venture and property owners who have been through the last recession in 1985 will know what it means to have been caught in the market downturn when prices simply went into a free fall. I am speaking from experience, as I was one of those who survived the property crash. In the early part of 1985, my wife and I bought a bungalow as our home in Coronation Road West. When the recession set in in 1985, the property market went into a free fall. We were not spared the heartache and anxiety that came with it. Our bungalow house suddenly was worth much less than similar homes in the vicinity which went a begging. Prices went down more than 20% from what we bought. We were worried that we had made a wrong investment decision and we were not certain if we could continue to service our mortgage.”
“The whole episode is basically an issue of privileges, the small favours that people would naturally extend to Government officials, MPs or famous personalities from time to time without any hint of bribery or corruption, but merely out of admiration, courtesy or respect. As an MP, who from time to time has been offered a free cup of coffee by coffee stallholders when I go to the hawker centres or to the market, or given a place ahead of the queue when I have to see my doctor, I am always mindful of the system we have in place and the need for us to avoid taking advantage of such situations. Hence, the Prime Minister's proposal to make Ministers, MPs and civil servants declare to him future purchases of development projects is an excellent one. By reporting to the Prime Minister, we are leaving the wisdom of our prospective purchases to be decided by him. If each time an MP were to be approached individually by a developer, that MP or Minister cannot be aware of how many other persons of standing have been offered units in the same project as the facts are not simply made available to him. It will be different for the Prime Minister who, when looking at the report, would be able to let the invited politicians or civil servants know that in fact too many MPs, Ministers or civil servants have been approached. This may result in those not in the inside track being pushed out of the project altogether. Such coordination will give the politicians involved an option whether to proceed with their purchases when they know which of their colleagues are involved. This is to address a political perception of well-known personalities crowding out other buyers.”
“He says that, to him, Singaporeans are petty, ungrateful and ugly. "Does affluence bring out the ugly Singaporean?" he asked me. The forthrightness of both the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are also important lessons in moral authority and they have shown that even in an investigation into their private dealings they have not used their influence to wriggle out of the aspersions cast on their characters and that they know that the Prime Minister was right in ordering an investigation of them and they have a duty to account to Singaporeans. Our second generation leaders have done us proud as they have shown to Singaporeans and the world that they are not beholden to the Senior Minister, that they can govern Singapore without fear or favour even if the target of the investigation is the Senior Minister himself. These are men of high integrity and honesty and they truly have the interests of Singaporeans at heart. They are prepared to bring to book any improper dealing or impropriety on the part of even the most high ranking Minister. Sir, our Government has not faltered nor hesitated in putting the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister under close scrutiny, and the Ministers themselves have readily subjected themselves to extensive inquiry. In the past two days they have revealed more of their private lives and conduct than would have been necessary. Our system of Government has won the praise it deserves and the political system has much to benefit from the wisdom of the Senior Minister in the way he handled this issue. Singapreans can only hope that we can continue to have many more men of his calibre.”
“There were also no letters published in the forum pages in our newspapers decrying this issue of discounts to the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. However, true to the spirit of our political leadership, they did not let sleeping dogs lie. In particular, they cannot allow the integrity of the Government and themselves to be attacked or eroded by small talk and whispering campaign. Sir, I am most impressed by the performance of the Prime Minister throughout this episode. He has not let the stature nor the reputation of the Senior Minister intimidate him into hushing up this matter or compromising his principles and the integrity of the Government. He stood for what he believes to be right and proper and gave instructions to investigate the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and even questioned them himself. I have not heard of any country doing so yet, nor have I come across any Government in the world that was so ready and forthright in disclosing facts to clear the air, even if in doing so, a large part of the private lives of the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were pried open to be seen by the world at large. I had dinner with a business friend from Malaysia last night and he was amazed at the reaction of Singaporeans. He felt that Singaporeans were actually very ungrateful. He recounted to me that when Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was the first Prime Minister of Malaysia and founder of Malaya's independence, retired, the Malaysian Parliament passed a law to give him two residences, one in Kuala Lumpur and the other in Penang, and he chose to retire in Penang. He says that we seem to begrudge the so-called discounts given to the Senior Minister for properties which he bought at market prices.”
“We have to put the integrity of not only the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister but also the action of the Prime Minister through a fine tooth comb. I certainly did not know the stand of the Opposition and which direction the debate will take. I worried whether the explanations given by the Senior Minister and DPM Lee will be accepted by the public and whether the Prime Minister has done enough to investigate this issue. This call for debate in Parliament is an act of laying bare our souls to protect our system of Government, not to protect the Senior Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. It is to show to some cynical Singaporeans that our system is transparent and that no one is above public scrutiny. The high standards of integrity and non-abuse of ministerial positions to influence or solicit favours which the Senior Minister and his first generation colleagues have set for the PAP MPs have been put to test in this episode. This issue is unpleasant and public confidence has to be reaffirmed, and I am proud to say that after two days of debate we have seen for ourselves that the Prime Minister, Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have conducted themselves above board, and have shown to the world that there are no dubious or double standards being practised by our leaders. They have practised what they have preached and are still preaching, ie, that the Singapore Government must be honest and credible, and its leaders are not, have not and will not be above scrutiny. Many have thought that the Prime Minister may be so intimidated by the Senior Minister that he would just let sleeping dogs lie. After all, no Member of the Opposition has raised this question for Parliament.”
“Sir, first I would like to declare that I am the Managing Director of a public listed company that is involved in property development and I would like to declare my pecuniary interest. Sir, after two days of debate, many Singaporeans and my colleagues in this Chamber are most gratified with the outcome. With this advantage of speaking after all my other colleagues have spoken, I can now, with relief and satisfaction, conclude that this debate has been most useful and, if I may say so, a watershed in that the legacy of the Senior Minister and his generation of leaders has not been in vain but has been strictly observed and enforced. This debate is beneficial in many areas and for once in the history of our Parliament, we have the fortune of hearing two Members from the Opposition openly declaring and reaffirming their stand in the integrity of the Senior Minister and DPM Lee. When this issue of the purchase of private property by the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister first came into the limelight, there was some confusion, consternation in some quarters and in the large majority of Singaporeans, disbelief. Disbelief that after so many years of touting honest Government, have we succumbed? Have cracks appeared in our system? Is our political leadership in trouble? Coming on the heels of the public criticism of the HPL by the Singapore Stock Exchange, there was much talk amongst the professionals that there may have been after all some impropriety involved in this issue. Hence, when the Prime Minister announced that Parliament will sit to debate on this issue, I too felt that although it was absolutely necessary that we put our system under close scrutiny, I was apprehensive.”
“Sir, in view of the take-up rate of new properties by foreigners in the range of 17% and 28%, as disclosed by the Minister, will the Minister take this into account when the Planning Department or the URA releases the supply of land for tender?”
“Sir, first, I would like to declare my pecuniary interest as a managing director of a public-listed company involved in property development. Three questions for the Minister. Firstly, will he enlighten the House on the percentage of foreign ownership of private property, say, five years ago, compared to the 9% today? Secondly, will the URA publish these numbers on a regular basis, so that there will be no wrong perception in the public's mind as to the extent of foreign ownership of private property? The last question, Sir, is this: will he like to paint a scenario of what will be the problem if we impose sudden curbs on foreign ownership of property? In other words, what impact will it have on the current property market and property owners?”
“For example, in a Business Asia report of 26th February 1996, in a survey done in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sydney and Singapore, for a 10-minute call at those countries to major cities, our charges are generally much higher than in Hong Kong and Sydney. We are comparable to Tokyo. (3) In an industry where fast changing technology plays a key role in its development and growth, have we been able to keep pace with technological advances since there is no competition? (4) While I am aware that certain liberalisation initiatives have been announced and implemented, I would like to ask the Minister whether the pace of our liberalisation is, against the pace of change in the telecommunication industry, good enough for Singapore to remain an important telecommunication and services centre. What step is the Government taking to quicken the pace of liberalisation in Singapore?”
“Sir, it has been three years since the Government privatised Singapore Telecom. Much has happened since then in the telecommunication industry worldwide. The telecommunication industry has undergone a massive transformation characterised by rapid technological changes and a fast pace of liberalisation. Worldwide, many of the traditional Government-owned telecommunication monopolies have now been privatised. Out of necessity and not choice, many Governments have also allowed widespread competition in their telecommunication sector to ensure the timely introduction of new and better technologies and services. Notably, the advent of Internet, the continued trend towards the merger of telecommunications, broadcasting and information technologies, and the fast-paced development of innovative telecommunication and IT technologies have all combined to make the traditional telecommunication monopolies unwieldy, unresponsive and uncompetitive. The world is fast moving towards an information-based economy. As we advance towards the information age, there is no doubt that the economic future of a nation and the social well-being of its people will depend on the quality and accessibility of sophisticated information communication infrastructure and services which are made available at highly competitive prices. Sir, I have a number of questions for the Minister: (1) Have we achieved the objective of the privatisation exercise of Singapore Telecom? (2) In the light of the changes in the global telecommunication industry which I have described, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government's current telecommunication policies are able to ensure that Singapore continues to have a competitive edge over her economic competitors?”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $430,065,800 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $10,620,375,900 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head M -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UJ 2600. Sir, the concept of town council is now firmly entrenched as part and parcel of the HDB landscape as well as our political process. In the last four years, the town council's role has been expanded. Town councils are not only responsible for the cleanliness and general state of maintenance in HDB estates, it has an increasing role in enhancing the value of HDB estates through the implementation of projects, such as children's playgrounds, covered walkways and Senior Citizens' Corners and so on. As a result, the town council has an impact on the lives of Singaporeans. In short, the town council has achieved its original objective. The town council is making a difference to the lives of Singaporeans and, I believe, it will continue to do so. Hence, it is timely to review the Town Councils Act, particularly in the area of financial control and procedures. Presently, these are too restrictive, especially on the investment of surplus funds of the town council. The town council is a government in miniature and the liberalisation of financial rules is one further move to gauge the ability of MPs and town councillors. I believe it is in the best interest of the further development of our political system. Will the Minister indicate if he will review the Town Councils Act to this end? 3.45 pm”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and the very patient manner in which he has replied to the questions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, the Minister has not touched on the question of upgrading of private housing estates.”
“Sir, listening to Mr Chiam, I find it hard to believe he is saying that, with the limited resources given to the Government, all HDB estates for upgrading should be treated in the same manner. Assuming his estate is the same age as mine, I think my constituents will be most upset if they find out that he is able to get his estate upgraded, and not mine. Surely he cannot believe that good Government is for everybody, especially those who have voted against the Government. I just cannot subscribe to his point of view, Sir. Sir, with the completion of the first pilot scheme of the Main Upgrading Programme and now with several Interim Upgrading Programmes in progress, Singaporeans now realise that there is indeed wealth creation as it is being demonstrated that the upgrading of estates does create value. Therefore, private property owners should now be given serious consideration. There are several private estates where upgrading of the environment will be much appreciated by property owners. The process of applying the principle of the Interim Upgrading Programme, that means, just upgrading the environment of the private housing estates will also build up closer rapport between the Member of Parliament of the area and property owners in private housing estates. Will the Minister consider implementing a number of pilot projects to demonstrate that all Singaporeans can benefit from the good and continuous economic growth of Singapore?”
“In this way, all those who are current HDB flat owners and living in those estates may have the benefit of higher compensation and at the same time, in the longer run, choice properties can then be privatised. Perhaps this is more beneficial to Government in that such land can be tendered out for private purposes. I shall like to know whether the Minister will look into this matter.”
“Sir, the privatisation plan of HUDC estates is proceeding well. It is popular with HUDC flat owners and there is value-added in that the value of the properties has in fact risen upon privatisation. I wish to suggest to the Minister that we should now look into further privatisation of HDB estates. Existing estates in which there are no clear or logical precinct boundaries do not make good candidates for privatisation. However, those built under the design-and-build concept are excellent for this purpose. The estates are well designed and built up with natural boundaries, and there are ample common areas. In fact, some of the designs have areas which you can build a swimming pool and a clubhouse. More importantly, it has the right mix of different housing types, starting from 3-room flats. This is in many ways similar to private condominiums where there is a mix of housing. Privatising such estates will also bring the process of privatisation to benefit 3-room flat owners. Will the Minister consider this proposal and let this House know if there is any plan in this direction? Sir, the next topic is on Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme. This scheme actually enables the HDB to take over an old estate and redevelop it as an HDB estate. But I believe that in the longer run where these estates are situated in prime locations, especially in the old parts of Singapore, Government should consider redefining this scheme. Use the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme concept and have the land privatised, ie, the land could be acquired from house owners and sold to the private sector.”
“In this way, not only are HDB residents better served by the availability of a spread of essential services, this would lead to, hopefully, affordable prices. Will the Minister consider this suggestion and perhaps enlighten the House on what other measures he has in mind to moderate shop prices in Singapore?”
“Sir, I am fully in support of HDB's Sale of Shops programme. I am particularly in favour of the way the HDB shops are being sold off close to market prices. However, there is a general perception that as prices of shops escalate, there is a perception that consumer prices at neighbourhood shops are being affected. In other words, prices are being passed on to consumers as a result of rising shop prices. One of the problems of increasing prices for shops is the seemingly long lease which the shops are being sold. Presently, all the shops are sold at the remaining of the lease which usually runs to more than 80 years or 90 years. And for new shops which are tendered out, they are up to about 99 years. Even the Jurong Town Corporation, which sells off industrial leases for substantial investments running to millions of dollars, leases those properties for up to only 30 years. Sir, 30 years is a sufficiently long time for a business to recover its investments. Hence, my suggestion is that to lower shop prices, the HDB programme should consider selling those shops with shorter leases. Shorter leases should lead to lower prices and if the use of CPF is a problem, I am sure this can be easily overcome. Another suggestion to consider is to sell some of the shop units for more specific purposes, such as those for clinics and Chinese medical halls. Shops which are sold for specific purposes should be lower in price and upon a change in business or should a owner sell it off to another new owner who intends to run a different business, then the HDB can impose a top-up charge. This top-up charge will be similar to the concept of the development charge.”
“For example, in my constituency, a children's playground, which came together with four blocks of new flats, had to be replaced in just about three years by the Tampines Town Council. This was the result of several requests by my constituents for a modern playground with new play equipment. Sir, the biggest concern and fear of younger Singaporeans is that public housing is moving beyond their reach, and not new and better designed estates. They see older Singaporeans benefiting most from our high economic growth. Existing flat owners have the advantage of an enhanced capital base in the form of their present asset, ie, the value of the flat from which to upgrade to a larger HDB flat or private property. Moreover, even by staying put, present flat owners will have the benefit of one of the upgrading programmes which will enhance their present asset. I hope the Minister will enlighten this House on the continuing role of the HDB and how it can continue to provide basic housing, and make it not only affordable but seen to be affordable.”
“On the one hand, I am impressed that the HDB has been able to meet the challenge of providing better quality housing. On the other hand, I am not sure if this is good policy. In fact, I suggest that there must be a fundamental redefinition of the role of the HDB. If the HDB is to make public housing affordable and continue to do so, it must look at the way it is going about doing this. Some four years ago, I suggested in this House that HDB should stick to its traditional role of building flats of up to no more than 5-room flats. I believe that the advent of the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme is one move in the right direction. By playing its role of providing basic housing with more spartan designs and finishes, HDB will help to keep housing more affordable. Perceptions of more affordable housing will also alleviate the fears of first-time house owners and younger Singaporeans. Another benefit of sticking to basics, ie, not full featured new estates, is that it will also slow down the demand by upgraders. This move, together with the prospects of the opportunity to participate in the Main Upgrading Programme and the Interim Upgrading Programme should keep more HDB flat owners where they are, and hence reduce or shorten the queue for new flats. Sticking to basics, without the frills and enhanced common areas, will also give town councils the opportunity to undertake estate enhancement projects. This is a sensible move, as leaving common area enhancements to the town councils will also reduce wastage. It is the town councils, working together with grassroots organisations and residents, who are in the best position to determine how residents' needs are best met.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, first, I would like to declare my interest as a director of a public listed company that is involved in property development. In a short span of about five years, from the late 80s, we have revised our target ratio of public housing to private housing from 85:15% to 75:25%. I believe, currently, based on the pace of sales of private housing, we are moving towards a ratio of something like 70:30 very soon. The revision shows the dynamism of our housing market. At the same time, it also reflects the strong aspirations of our people. Sir, while there is this shift in demand to own private property, it seems that the HDB has risen to the challenge by building better flats in terms of design and finishes. Hence, the trend towards more design-and-build projects seems inevitable, as these are more popular than other HDB-built flats. This is no surprise as flats in the design-and-build concept are closest to a private apartment, except in name. With the economy continuing at near double-digit growth rates, housing has become a major preoccupation of Singaporeans, even though more than 85% of our population are already housed in HDB flats. The result of all these factors is that the demand for new HDB flats exploded. Those who already own HDB flats are eager to upgrade to a new flat. First-time house owners, fearing that they will be left out in the stampede, join the queue and wait with concern and impatience. They complain about the long waiting time. At the same time, improvements in design and finishes result in rising housing prices. And first-time house owners and younger Singaporeans are fearful that new flats are becoming less affordable.”
“So right now, I feel that, instead of shooting at a moving target, we place curbs in areas which we have difficulty controlling. I suggest that we should perhaps place controls and curbs now only on the licence, ie, Internet access providers and Internet service providers, similar to what the German government is doing to America On-line. I believe any further curbs can be easily overcome, even using software like NannyNet at home, as has been suggested. Any control by means of software can always be overcome, unless you are prepared to update the software continually, like what my colleague, Mr Sinnakaruppan, has said. It is almost impossible to keep a software valid and good for a long period of time. Perhaps some form of educational effort should be made in the school curriculum on the proper and correct use of Internet over the long term. The act of trying to control the Internet and not being able to do so effectively is perhaps more damaging. It is better for us to start now on what is controllable, that is, basically to control the licence of Internet access providers and Internet service providers. Perhaps the Minister would like to also enlighten us on whether the current legislation is adequate for this purpose.”
“Sir, I agree with what my colleagues said on the Minister's plan to place some curbs and control on the use of Internet, ie, by bringing this under the regulatory framework of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA). However, I would like the Minister to perhaps enlighten the House on how he is able to do so under the current framework. I am not sure if the current regulations will enable him to place those controls and curbs because the penalties are obviously not adequate. I am not certain of the effectiveness of all these controls. The Internet is a world-wide phenomenon. Today, the flow of information is instantaneous and at a click of a computer mouse. As mentioned earlier by my colleagues, the source of information of an article or writing is even more difficult to determine. This is especially so if this information can be sent from Singapore but routed outside Singapore and coming back to a Web site in Singapore. The current legislation, as it stands at the moment, will not be able to establish the source of information, even if such a source of information is important for us to track. Moreover, if one is prepared to pay, a Singaporean can today access Internet through an external service provider outside Singapore. Through the use of a long-distance phone call, you can access America On-line, CompuServe and any of the others. Even Malaysian Internet, an access provider, and you are into Internet. Therefore, money is one simple way in which one can overcome access to the Internet. Yet with all these problems, we have a vast commercial potential and possibilities of Internet. And like it or not, Singapore has to be part of the information technology revolution. We cannot do without the Net.”
“This may be too arbitrary and I suggest that the Ministry should work out a formula and put this formula in place for arriving at the compensation for the purposes of more transparency.”
“Thirdly, the power to re-possess the apartments of those who breach these conditions or die whilst waiting for their apartments within 10 years of issue of the TOP for the apartment needs further consideration. In the case of death, such situations should be distinguished from cases of wilful deceit and handled more sensitively. Why should the deceased's co-applicant who is also eligible for the Executive Condominium or his next-of-kin be dealt a double blow of losing a loved one and a home at the same time? An Executive Condominium is a very substantial investment and it appears grossly unfair for such an apartment to be re-possessed by the Government in the event of death of the owner. Fourthly, since the concept of the Executive Condominium is intended to be the same as that of private housing, it is not clear in the Bill if strata title is to be given to these developments. If this is the intention, then provisions should be made for this and the incorporation of management corporations to manage the estate. The administrative aspect of the Executive Condominiums after the minimum occupation period is over is also left open. Unlike the HDB flats which are naturally and logically handled by the HDB and the Town Councils, there is no similar mechanism or institution that Executive Condominiums can readily turn to unless it is the Government's intention to also let the appointed developer handle this as well. Lastly, Sir, as the Executive Condominium is a major investment asset for Singaporeans, the amount of compensation to be paid for compulsorily acquired apartments is left entirely to ministerial discretion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This housing scheme is timely as it enables a group of young and upwardly mobile Singaporeans more opportunities and easier access to private properties. Although I applaud the introduction of this housing scheme, I feel that the Bill has left open a number of issues. First, the Bill seems to cover only the end-user part of the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme. No provision has been made on the land allocation to the developer - the developer's right to mortgage land, control on and end-pricing of the apartments and what are the pre-determined margins. Currently, the HDB receives Government grants to buy development land from the Land Office at market values. The extent of the Government subsidy for public housing and the site allocation mechanism are therefore transparent. But there is no similar arrangement for the Executive Condominium scheme. Also, the Bill is not clear if the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and the Housing Developers Rules apply to the developers. In time to come, as the Minister has indicated, the Executive Condominiums will be privatised. Second, it is unclear whether the power to sell to buyers who satisfy the eligibility conditions implies that such developers will either have to be given certain investigative powers to verify the truth of the buyer's statements as to their eligibility or that they will be assisted somehow in this process. Perhaps the Minister has in mind that this will be managed by the Housing and Development Board. If this is to be maintained by HDB, will the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme be perceived as just another HDB scheme which I think is not the Government's intention.”
“Even today, one can understand why SBS is asking for this principle to be applied to them. Quite rightly so, as new assets are almost always replaced at a higher cost. What about the taxi operator or owner? His taxi, seven years down the road, is invariably going to cost more than his current taxi. Is the Government going to subsidise him seven years down the road when he replaces his taxi over the current cost? Since taxis are now recognised as part of our land transport system, should this same principle not apply? Beyond land transport, what about utilities? Should not the utility companies lower their charges to recover today's capital cost and leave the worry of financing a new power plant in the future to the government of the day? Sir, a sensible solution is that fares must rise if our current principle is to be adhered to. We should then identify how this fare increase will affect commuters and then target our subsidy where it is needed and necessary. This may be done in the form of tax and other rebates, concessionary travel passes or other such schemes. In this way, the Government subsidy or support is directed where it is needed. And this has always been the principle of the Government. The essence is that those who can afford to pay will pay the full fare and our trains will continue to run perpetually. There will be no question mark on future asset replacement and the government of the day will not have to subsidise all and sundry on an across-the-board basis which this new financing scheme is really all about. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government to do a rethink on this very significant change in principle. It is a very tough call, but let us not short-change our people and solve a short-term problem with very long-term pain.”
“This is a substantial departure from the Government's principle that once it has paid for the initial capital cost of the project, no further financial help will be granted as the project must be able to continue indefinitely. By this change, we are disguising the fact that there is a subsidy in the MRT system. By so doing, the Government is in effect repeating the fatal mistake of major cities in the developed countries where subsidising of rail and public transportation systems has resulted in significant losses and increasing subsidy and mounting government deficits. This change also begs the question of imposing on a future government the burden of paying for the replacement of assets. We cannot assume that the government of the day will have sufficient surpluses accumulated to do so. There is also the question of the control of reserves by the Elected President. Can a future government draw upon the reserves of today's government which makes this promise? On the other hand, if money is set aside by the present Government, then it is the present cohort of users who is paying for the replacement of future assets as the Government must then ensure that there are budget surpluses to do so. The Minister may like to explain how this process of committing a future government may be achieved. If the North-East Line is too costly to build or not financially viable, then there are clearly two options. We either delay the project or increase the fares to generate sufficient revenue. Both these measures have political repercussions. But the cost of proceeding with the project on the new financing principle has even wider repercussions which will have a profound effect on how Singapore is governed.”
“It is in this area which we have excelled, in that no matter how difficult the solution, as long as it is necessary, the public can expect bitter medicine. In a country like Singapore where we do not have any natural resources to rely upon, the decisions that the Government has to make in order to ensure our survival in this competitive world are often hard-hitting but crucial, and certainly not popular by any means. And it is this conviction that unpopular policies are good for Singapore and Singaporeans as a whole that has indeed pushed us with a political will and grit unparalleled anywhere else in the world. I think even hard-core critics of ours have grudgingly admitted or realised that there is something to be learnt from Singapore. Hence, it is with alarm that I read in the White Paper of a major shift of what I consider a sound principle. This is a change in the definition of "operating cost". Our current position in all infrastructure projects, except for housing, health and education, is that revenue must not only cover operating cost but include accumulating enough reserves to replace the operating assets. This is a very sound principle indeed. Whether it is for water, electricity, gas or telecommunication services infrastructure, we have always practised the principle of not only covering operational costs but ensuring sufficient reserves are accumulated for future replacement of the capital assets. To justify the cost of extending the MRT network, the White Paper is now proposing that the Government will pay for the replacement cost but less current depreciation of the original assets for a new set of operating assets in the future, and the current operator need only recover the historical cost.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister. Last Sunday's edition of the Sunday Times contained two articles which I find useful in my discussion today on the White Paper. The first article entitled "Singapore: The New Media Centre" highlighted how Singapore is fast becoming a media hub. In a seeming contradiction of sorts, despite Western press reports of our stifling environment, the media industry, which is mainly a creative one, has found Singapore an ideal spot to locate itself. According to the report and I quote: 'Contrary to some perceptions that Singapore is boring and stifling, staff in the satellite media industry find this more than adequate as a place to live and work. Ease of transport and telecommunications ranked highest among the good points cited.' In other words, day in and day out, international transport and communications feature prominently in major international investment decisions. Therefore, this White Paper is timely. It serves not only to inform Singaporeans of our grand designs for our land transport system, it will also have an impact in international boardrooms where major overseas investment decisions are being made. The second article is on the visit by Mr Tony Blair, Leader of the Opposition in the British Parliament. The article implied that Britain has a great deal to learn from Singapore. It features some of the recipes which have made Singapore what it is today. Implicit in this article is our hard-nosed approach to solving problems. There is a price to pay for good, strong government, both to the people as well as the party which remains or wants to be in power.”
“Sir, I seek a clarification from the Minister. I am quite comfortable with his reply, but I do not understand why "work place" in this Bill is defined quite differently from the Bill that has just been moved by the Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister for Home Affairs moved a Bill that specifies "work place" as a construction worksite. It is a very specific definition, Sir.”
“Sir, I agree with the general thrust of the Minister's points on the problems at construction worksites. My only concern is that in this Bill, as opposed to the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, "work place" is defined quite differently. In the case of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, the Minister for Home Affairs has made it very clear that "work place" means the construction worksite. In the Employment of Foreign Workers (Amendment) Bill, "work place" is defined as "any place or premises where works are being carried out ...". I assume that the Minister's intention is that this Bill should apply to all and sundry, and not just to the construction worksite. Could the Minister clarify that "work place" defined in the Bill is targeted only at the construction industry? If it is meant to be a wide-ranging Bill, then I think he has to get the message across to all small and medium size enterprises. The Minister for Home Affairs has made it very clear that the Police have already been in contact with the Singapore Contractors Association on the problems at worksites. But no attempt has been made to inform all other employers that they are also liable under this Bill. Perhaps the Minister may like to clarify that the change in definition of "work place" is intentional and is meant to cover everyone besides the contractors.”
“Sir, I recognise that there is still the 5% which the Minister has mentioned. How is he going to protect the interest of the spouses? Usually, these are cases whereby the surviving members of the family have no legal recourse or they may come from the lower-income group and unable to seek legal recourse.”
“Will the Minister confirm that not all the land in HDB estates belong to the residents? They only have a right to use the land.”
“Sir, going by the reports on Boon Tiong which was selected for this scheme, it seems that the Government is under-selling itself in the process. Some outsiders feel that the scheme is rather generous but the news reports indicate otherwise. Will the Minister like to comment on that, Sir?”
“Sir, will the Minister agree that the HDB Executive Condominiums have some special covenants on the first 10 years of its lease? They are therefore not quite like private properties. The second question I would like to ask the Minister is when will the financing schemes be finalised and announced to the public so that those who are on the waiting list of the Executive Apartments can make a decision as to whether they should opt for the Executive Condominiums.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. My only question for the Minister is: in the disposal of shares in which the prices vary from day to day, how are the interests of CPF nominees protected in the event of disposal of the shares? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the shares have to be disposed of by sale, which means the nominees are unable to receive the shares, for instance, when the nominee is a minor, a bankrupt, or a person of unsound mind, then the CPF Board will have to sell the shares and pay the proceeds from the sale to the nominees. They will have to take the nearest available date or the most opportune time to sell the shares regardless of the price of the shares at that point in time. The whole purpose of this amendment is to expedite the distribution of CPF assets to the member's nominees. Therefore, the sale will be made as soon as it is administratively possible.”
“Sir, in other words, the Minister says that in the case of private homes, beyond the defects liability period, owners are supposed to carry out repairs on their own.”
“The Minister confirms that this problem of carbonisation is common among all buildings in Singapore and not just HDB flats. In relation to the total number of flats built by the HDB, how does this problem of spalling concrete compare in the private sector?”
“Sir, to put the matter in perspective, will the Minister tell us how does this $5 billion compare to the total cost of building the present MRT line, and how many people will benefit from this North-East line?”