Leong Mun Wai
Singapore
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding inc…”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?”
The complete record
Every one of 978 lines we hold for Leong Mun Wai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 20.
“No, I am going to reply to Member Ms Tan. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I Thank Ms Carrie Tan for her query. Our scheme is called 安居乐, not 安乐居. I would like to clarify this first. In my speech yesterday, I was not able to explain in details the contents of this scheme, so thank you for giving me a chance to clarify this —”
“I was trying to explain to a Facebook comment which said that AHS will condemn Singaporeans to a life in HDB flats – to which I replied that that is not the case because AHS will actually give Singaporeans the opportunity to upgrade, because under AHS, Singaporeans would have more CPF savings in their CPF accounts. If anyone has taken offence by my choice of language, I retract the use of that word, but the quote that Ms Tan has taken, is out of context.”
“Thank you, Madam. Before the break, the Member Ms Carrie Tan made a speech questioning my stance on land cost and public housing policies that I had discussed on social media. I would like to make a clarification to address this issue. Firstly, Ms Tan has argued, as Minister Desmond Lee did during last month's Sitting, that I had said that HDB prices should be based on the historical cost of land. Member Mr Raj Joshua Thomas also referred to the same. Minister Desmond Lee referred to the Facebook post that I make on 8 December 2022, where I said "land cost should be taken out of the picture because much of the land used for building HDB flats were surrendered by the Pioneer Generation to the Government for a relatively modest sum under the Land Acquisition Act, between 1970s and 1980s." This is also in the Hansard. It should be quite clear from this, that I have not called for HDB prices to be based on the historical cost of land. Secondly, Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas have tried to imply that I have been flip-flopping on my stance on land cost. What I have just read out is not inconsistent with what I proposed in the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS). AHS takes land cost out of the picture for people who buy flats for owner-occupation. I have not pursued the matter up to now because I want to focus on the substance of the debate. But I categorically reject allegations that I have been flip-flopping or made any proposal that HDB flats should be based on the historical cost of land. Finally, Ms Tan has taken issue with the fact that last night, I wrote on Facebook that Singaporeans are condemned to live in HDB flats. She has taken the quote totally out of context.”
“Yes, a clarification. Because before the break, two Members made certain allegations about my proposals and all that. So, I think I have to make a clarification.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, can I make a comment?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State one supplementary question. Given the recent event, whether Temasek will review their due diligence processes, especially when it comes to charismatic founders and whether they plan to engage founders and the board more regularly to ensure good governance?”
“With the two schemes, Singaporeans can look forward to a better future where: one, owner-occupied public housing is truly affordable as land cost is waived; two, they can have enough to retire without having to downgrade or sell back their lease to the Government; three, they have more choices to choose what best suits their life plans and aspiration, to buy or to rent, to be an HDB occupier or an investor and others; four, the resale market remains buoyant although less speculative. It is important to reiterate that the two schemes will not raid the reserves, no matter what the Government may say. We only need the Government to make up its mind and we can execute the reset as swiftly as we had tackled the COVID-19 pandemic. On this Valentine's Day, the best Valentine's Day present that this Government can give a young Singaporean couple is an affordable and accessible HDB flat. Sir, I beg to move the Motion. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“But it is more equitable not to sell all the HDB flats in the prime location, but to keep a larger portion of them for rental, so that a broader range of Singaporeans can access these flats. The Millennial Apartments will be smaller and quality flats on affordable leases of two to five years for younger families or groups of singles. These apartments should be attractive because they are close to the workplace, good amenities for families and even vibrant nightlife spots. Concentrating young Singaporeans together will allow those who are single to have more opportunities to socialise and perhaps, marry; while those are already married will have more time for their families because they live near their workplaces. HDB can also develop a network of shops around these Millennial Apartments to allow a more diverse range of business to operate near the CBD at lower rents. With these businesses and a vibrant young population, our CBD can become economically productive day and night. Mr Speaker, our public housing has become a national malaise which robs young Singaporeans of the financial security they need to be enterprising risk-takers and build Singapore into a competitive information economy, and the older Singaporeans of their well-deserved retirement. While the Government does not acknowledge any problems, the PSP sees the urgent need to reset the public housing policy and has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme and the Millennial Apartments Scheme as solutions to our public housing malaise.”
“The Affordable Homes Scheme is aimed at moderating the resale prices, but we are not expecting a precipitous fall in the resale prices because of several reasons. Firstly, the backlog of housing demand will continue to persist and provide support for the resale market in the next few years. Second, the market may look further into the horizon and realise that the supply of resale flats will be lower in the future as the owner-occupation intent strengthens. Thirdly, new sellers will not sell their flats unless the price is high enough for them to earn a profit after paying off the deferred land cost. This will reduce the available supply of resale flats and support resale prices in the long term. Finally, if the Government provides more certainty on the future of existing HDB flats by releasing more details on VERS, this will further support resale prices and help the market transition to the Affordable Homes Scheme. This is a good opportunity to resolve both the affordability and lease decay problems at the same time. Our second proposal is the Millennial Apartments Scheme. The idea is for the Government to keep a large stock of quality rental flats to provide young Singaporeans who desire more space and more independent living with more housing choices. Again, this idea has surfaced from the public domain as a popular demand by the younger generation who desire a greater variety of housing options. We propose that the main supply of Millennial Apartments come from prime locations near the Central Business District (CBD). These locations are currently highly sought after by buyers driven by the profit motive.”
“So, under the Affordable Homes Scheme, HDB will return to its primary objective of providing affordable homes for Singaporeans while CPF will return to its primary objective of providing savings for retirement. One policy, one objective. Singaporeans will no longer have to depend on rising property prices to provide for their retirement. Every Singaporean will have the Basic Retirement Sum without having to sell their flat or pledge it to the Government. It is also a more equitable way of allocating HDB flats, by lowering the prices of new flats, lower-income Singaporeans will be able to afford flats in better locations. Flats in prime locations will not become enclaves for the upper middle-income class only. Despite all the abovementioned advantages, the Affordable Homes Scheme will not have a major impact on the nation's fiscal position and reserve accumulation. Currently, about two-thirds of HDB flats are resold after the MOP. Even if this proportion drops with the introduction of the Affordable Homes Scheme, due to the strengthening of the owner-occupation intent, the Government will still be able to recover a substantial part of the deferred land cost. Anyway, it is narrow-minded to see the cost of this scheme as a raid on the reserves because affordable housing is an investment in our people for the benefit of the current as well as future generations. And we believe that the interests of current and future generations are not mutually exclusive. If the current generation needs the resources badly, there should be no question of that compromising the interest of the future generation. The best inheritance that we can pass on to our future generation is a current generation that has done well.”
“This user price concept was also suggested by Mr Yeo Lam Keong, the former chief economist of GIC. At the point of purchase, the land cost for the flat will be made known and recorded with HDB. If the Singaporean sells his flat in the resale market after the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP), he will have to pay this land cost with accrued interest based on historical mortgage rates into the past reserves, before pocketing the net profit. Thus, he ends up paying the full price of the flat. Let me explain the principle behind the Affordable Homes Scheme. We believe owner-occupied public housing is a public good that should be treated as a form of essential public infrastructure, like schools and hospitals, where land cost is not charged because it is treated as state land. We believe the land used for owner-occupied HDB flats should be treated in the same way as schools and hospitals. Hence, as long as Singaporeans are leasing HDB flats for owner-occupation, they should not have to pay for the land cost. They should only pay the land cost when they take the HDB flats to be an investment and sell it for a profit. The Affordable Homes Scheme takes care of Singaporeans without hurting the past reserves too much. In the same example of the Tengah BTO flat, whereas the full price is $350,000, the Singaporean buyer only paid the user price of about $140,000 at the time of the purchase under the Affordable Homes Scheme. The balance of $210,000 in land cost will be paid later into the past reserve, when the flat is sold after the MOP. At the lower user price, the buyer will have about $323,000 more in his CPF account, after servicing the housing loan compared to the current BTO pricing system. The buyer will have enough CPF savings to satisfy his basic retirement sum.”
“The problem has worsened since then, and currently, close to 100,000 young couples are waiting for their BTO flats, some more than five years already. Apart from the newer, longer-term policies we are discussing today, the Government should also take more urgent, short-term measures to help young couples with housing problems instead of relying on limited avenues of help, like the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS). The policy failure today will have dire consequences on our population's structure and economic performance in the future, as young couples will have less incentive to have children due to financial challenges. My colleague, Ms Hazel Poa, will touch more on this later. So, to address the concerns mentioned above, PSP proposes two policies, the Affordable Homes Scheme and Millennial Apartments Scheme (MAS), with the aim to reset our public housing system to improve affordability and accessibility, strengthen the owner-occupation intent, protect retirement adequacy and reduce social inequality, all of which are embodied in the Motion statement today. I invite Singaporeans to judge the merits of these policies for themselves. The first proposal is Affordable Homes Scheme, which is based on the deferred land cost idea first proposed by Dr Tan Meng Wah in 2013, when he was a research fellow with the Institute of Policy Studies at the National University of Singapore (NUS). It goes to show that there are many good ideas in the public domain, provided the Government remains open to that. This Affordable Homes Scheme is designed to allow a Singaporean to buy a new flat at a user price, which is equal to the construction cost plus a notional location premium. If a Singaporean stays in the same flat his entire life, he will only pay the user price.”
“However, by 2030, almost half of the HDB flats will be more than 50 years old and the prices of these HDB flats are expected to decline sharply, according to empirical valuation models. In our local context, limitations on loans and CPF usage will start to affect the prices of flats more than 40 years old, which coincides with the time when retirees want to monetise their flats. The Government has promoted the HDB flat as a store of value for retirement and has previously tried to reassure Singaporeans over the lease decay problem with policies such as the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS). However, as I have said during my Adjournment Motion last month, the Ang Mo Kio Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) incident has shown that if the Government uses the same compensation formula as SERS for the older flats in VERS, flat owners will have to put up a significant cash outlay to buy a replacement flat, which they can hardly afford. It appears that VERS is not a credible solution for the lease decay issue, unless the Government provides further details to prove otherwise. Without the information, Singaporeans will continue to form ungrounded expectations over VERS and this will disadvantage Singaporeans, especially the lower-income segments, who most need to monetise the flats to supplement their retirement income. Potential young buyers also want to know whether they can get their CPF savings and accrued interest back when they use them to buy older HDB flats. The fourth concern is that a shortage of BTO flats and high resale prices have impacted the total fertility rate. I have highlighted this issue since my first Committee of Supply (COS) debate in 2021.”
“Members can also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL app. The data in the table is based on an HDB advertisement in The Straits Times on 15 January to show that BTO flats are still affordable. However, the advertisement does not show the total cost of home ownership, which is shown in my table. If you look at the second last row, the number, total cost of home ownership is $592,000. A new 4-room BTO flat at Tengah, which initially cost $350,000, will actually cost the buyer $592,000 in CPF savings after 25 years of principal repayment and financing costs. This is the total cost of home ownership to the buyer. And it is 70% higher than the purchase price. The drain on CPF savings will be even larger for those who purchase resale flats and also for future generations as BTO prices continue to follow the rise in resale prices. Affordability is not about whether the housing loan can be serviced on a month-to-month basis by CPF savings or not, but by looking at the effect of the total cost of home ownership on the CPF retirement account. Currently, high HDB prices caused by rising land cost are raiding the CPF savings of Singaporeans, while HDB pays $3 billion to $4 billion in land cost into the past reserves each year. The third concern is lease decay, which has started to threaten the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans. Even older Singaporeans who have bought their HDB flats at lower prices are exposed to the problems of the current public housing policies – and their problem is lease decay. We did not need to worry about lease decay in the past, when all flats were young and the Government did not mention it until 2017.”
“Indirectly, I take this to mean that while the Government can temporarily slow down the increase in BTO prices when resale prices are surging, like today, BTO prices must eventually keep up with the rise in resale prices over the long term. Not surprisingly, many in the property market are predicting that the $1 million BTO flat will appear soon. The second concern is, even BTO prices deplete Singaporeans' CPF balances. The Government says BTO is affordable because most home buyers need not pay cash to service their monthly mortgages, which can be covered by their CPF savings. However, this comes at the cost of depleting their CPF savings. This is backed by the latest data released by the Government in January in response to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's question, which shows for those at the bottom 40% income bracket, the median percentage of monthly CPF contributions used to service housing loans is more than 70%. For the bottom 20% income bracket, it is more than 99%. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a table to show how the purchase of a BTO flat can deplete the buyer's CPF account over 25 years.”
“While ensuring affordability for owner-occupiers, we will aim to maintain a buoyant resale market for Singaporeans who want to monetise their HDB flat and upgrade to private property. While we encourage owner-occupation, we also offer more rental flats for Singaporeans at different life stages and circumstances. With all this in mind, I will walk the Members through Singaporeans' concerns about public housing before introducing the PSP policy recommendations. The first concern is that affordability has little meaning without accessibility. The Government keeps harping on the affordability of BTO flats, but they are in short supply. With the waiting times of BTO flats stretching to between five and seven years, compared to between 18 and 24 months during the 1980s, many first-time buyers have no choice but to buy a resale flat. Hence, overall affordability will depend on the prices of both the BTO and resale flats – and not the BTO flats alone. Today, resale flats, especially the newer ones, can be as much as 30% higher than BTO flats. Resale prices have outpaced wage growth by a large margin over the last three decades. Singapore has witnessed a streak of 11 consecutive quarters, or nearly three years of price increases in the resale market. Hundreds of resale flats have been transacted above $1 million, with hundreds more being offered on the market. BTO prices have been rising too. Even though the Government has maintained that BTO prices are not linked to resale prices, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann acknowledged in December last year that the windfall gain from a BTO flat cannot be too large; otherwise, it will be unfair to buyers who were unable to secure a BTO flat.”
“Mr Speaker, public housing was one of the greatest achievements of our nation under the Government of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. During the early years of Independence, when land cost was not built into the price of a HDB flat, the Government was able to provide a roof over the heads of all Singaporeans who needed it, in a timely manner and at affordable prices. The security of a stable dwelling liberated Singaporeans in that generation and provided them with the energy to build a new nation and change Singapore for the better. However, the situation changed drastically in the 1990s, when the Government started to treat HDB flats as an appreciating asset. In 1995, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong told Singaporeans that we are embarking on "a new phase where the Government increases your asset value through the Asset Enhancement Programme". Since 1990, the HDB resale price index has increased by seven times as a result of the Asset Enhancement policies of the Government. But the median monthly household income has only increased four times. As a result, the heavy burden of home ownership today robs young Singaporeans of the financial security they need to be enterprising risk-takers and build Singapore into a competitive, information economy. To address that, the PSP's main objective for public housing is to ensure Singaporeans have both affordable housing and retirement adequacy. Every Singaporean should be able to have an HDB flat and a basic retirement sum in their CPF without having to downgrade their HDB flat or sell their lease to the Government in retirement. By doing this, every Singaporean can be free to realise their full potential in life – and we have the resources to do this. PSP's policies are also aimed at giving more choices to Singaporeans.”
“Oh, I see. Okay. Sir, I beg to move, "That this House calls upon the Government to review its public housing policies in order to deliver affordable and accessible HDB flats to all Singaporeans who need them, strengthen the owner-occupation intent of public housing, protect retirement adequacy and keep public housing inclusive for every Singaporean." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes that our public housing policy needs a reset and hence, we have identified the areas where we need to review in our Motion. The Government's Motion, on the other hand, suggests that there is no need to review its current housing policies. PSP will state our position clearly and I hope that the Government will also state clearly why it thinks that public housing is still affordable and accessible today, and against whom is it protecting the interests of the current and future generations of Singaporeans? It is clear that the Government is not confident that Singaporeans believe in its housing policies since the Government has been running extensive advertisements in the mainstream media to illustrate the affordability of BTO flats. If HDB flats are truly affordable and accessible, Singaporeans will know it. There is no need to explain it. If Singaporeans are not satisfied, the Government should be proactively reviewing its policies and telling Singaporeans what corrective actions it will be taking to resolve housing problems. The Minister has covered some of the corrective policy actions that the Government is going to take, but I think that is not all. So, there is no need for advertisement. Singaporeans should be treated like citizens, not consumers.”
“Yes. Can I clarify that your Motion has two points?”
“Clarifications, yes. So, Minister, can I clarify, your Motion basically has two points.”
“Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister Desmond Lee for his first Motion speech; I will deliver the second one. But before I deliver my speech, Speaker, may I ask the Minister two questions?”
“Mr Speaker, I think that Minister's reply to me just now defies financial logic. When we take over the media operations from SPH and we know from the beginning that the circulation number is lower than what we have expected, we would have asked for more compensation. That is a logical way of looking at financial deals between the two entities. Would she not agree to that?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the due diligence, what I said is that the due diligence should also cover circulation data. If the Ministry had not discovered that in its first due diligence, then we can say there is a certain amount of inadequate due diligence being done at first. This is my first point to the second question. On my first question, I am not talking about the justification of whether the Government should spend the $900 million or not. I am saying that the Government may have the reasons to spend $900 million dollars, which you have explained. But what I am asking is, when the Government takes over the baby from SPH, should the Government not have asked for more money if the Government had known that the circulation data was falsified?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister this: senior management accountability is very important. Is the Ministry pursuing the senior management of the former SPH Holdings, with regard to the falsification of circulation data? I think the Minister would agree that they actually have the responsibility because in the run-up to the taking over by the Government, the data would have some bearings on the amount of compensation that SPH Holdings should give to the Government. And although the Minister said the Government has not disbursed any money so far, but there are still implications that maybe in the past, the Government should have asked for more money from SPH. My second question is: although the Minister said that the main due diligence done by the Ministry is on the readership and reach, but circulation data definitely is also an important area. Is there inadequate due diligence done by the Ministry and how will the Ministry pursue that further?”
“Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister one question. I am not sure when I mentioned that HDB prices should be priced based on historical cost of land. Where did I write that? I think I did not mention that.”
“Yes, and as an answer to the lease decay, the Government has suggested VERS. So, the Government has shaped the expectation. I am asking the question. Even before, with this Ang Mo Kio SERS incident which points to the fact that the compensation would be very different – of course, the guidelines for VERS have not been totally clear or announced at the moment – but does the Senior Minister of State agree that if we draw an analogy of VERS with the Ang Mo Kio SERS exercise, then the VERS compensation will not be attractive to Singaporeans?”
“Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for responding to my speech. However, contrary to what the Senior Minister of State has said, I think the Government has actually shaped certain expectations in our society already. I am not the one who is reshaping the expectations. For example, SERS, for all the past SERS exercises, the residents had received cash and gotten an equivalent flat with a 99-year lease. Is that not an expectation cultivated by the Government? Am I reshaping expectations? I am just saying the Ang Mo Kio SERS residents have a totally different package and Government, please admit to it. That is the first communication that you have to be frank with the Ang Mo Kio residents. And I am not necessarily — So, I would like to the Senior Minister of State to clarify. Even after I have shared the reasons why I think the Ang Mo Kio SERS package is totally different from the packages of the past SERS, does she still think that that is a wrong claim? That is my first question. The second question is, does she think again the expectation on VERS is not my shaping the expectations in our society. The Government has given the expectations, first of all, that HDB flats are an appreciating asset. And now, there is a lease decay.”
“Singaporeans, especially those who live in older flats with decaying leases, should be aware that the Ang Mo Kio SERS possibly foreshadowed what could happen to them in the future if the Government uses the compensation formula applied to the Ang Mo Kio SERS for VERS in future. We urge the Government to clarify how it intends to compensate the residents of VERS in the future, because Singaporeans needs certainty on the lease decay issue as soon as possible. Singaporeans deserve better – for country, for people.”
“The right thing to do, however, is to clarify to Singaporeans whether it would be devising a new compensation formula for VERS or proposing some other solutions for the lease decay problem, which has serious implications on the financial well-being and retirement plans of Singaporeans, especially those who bought older flats in the mature estates before the lease decay issue was thrown into the spotlight. Mr Speaker, the Government has shown a lack of transparency and compassion by offering a compensation package that requires topping up, to the Ang Mo Kio residents in April 2022 without explaining the reasons for it. Even though the Government has followed the same model and approach, as a government responsible to the people, it should have thought through the implications of the different compensations and come out with more palatable solutions beforehand. The Government has failed to appreciate how stressful and unfair it is to the Ang Mo Kio residents, for them to fork out tens of thousands of dollars to move to a new location, forced upon them by national development needs. I urge the Government to further improve the compensation package for the Ang Mo Kio residents, although a final compensation has been announced on 7 November last year. Fifty years after the introduction of the Land Acquisition Act, it is time for us to reassess the Act with regards to its power, to displace Singaporeans from their homes without adequate compensation for them to afford an equivalent replacement home in the same area. Had the Ang Mo Kio SERS residents not protested, this issue would not have been drawn into the national spotlight and we would not be able to assess its implications for SERS in future.”
“Since 2018, the Government, however, has touted VERS as a solution to the lease decay problem. Singaporeans are expecting VERS to be like "SERS for all". But it is a different story if VERS is actually "Ang Mo Kio SERS for all". The original SERS means residents get paid; while the Ang Mo Kio SERS means residents must pay. Since the market-based compensation formula that the Government had used for SERS all this while has failed to enable Ang Mo Kio residents to exchange their 42-year-old flats for new ones without having to top-up cash, VERS cannot be a solution to the lease decay problem, as the flats under VERS will be even older, at more than 70 years old. This will be especially true if the price disparity between the new and older flats in mature estates which we see today, continues to persist. If the Government uses the same formula as SERS to compensate VERS residents, it is certain that the VERS resident will have to pay a lot more cash or move to a cheaper area with the proceeds from VERS. The likelihood of any VERS proposal being approved will also be nil, because Singaporeans have come to associate "en bloc" with windfalls and new homes, and the redevelopment of mature estates envisioned by VERS will not materialise. VERS will be doomed if the Government uses the same compensation formula as it did for the Ang Mo Kio SERS. By not admitting to the different outcome of the Ang Mo Kio SERS and the financial plight of the Ang Mo Kio residents, the Government continues to keep silent on the non-viability of VERS.”
“But the Minister's explanation does not fully explain why the compensation given to Ang Mo Kio residents is insufficient for them to buy an equivalent flat with a new 99-year lease like in other SERS exercises. He also did not explain why the residents affected by Marsiling SERS which was announced slightly later than the Ang Mo Kio SERS, did not need to top up with cash although the Marsiling flats have a lease balance of only 58 to 59 years, which is not much longer than the 57 years remaining for the Ang Mo Kio flats. In my opinion, the full explanation is that lease decay has affected prices of old HDB flats in mature estates more than the ones in non-mature estates. At the same time, the prices of new flats in mature estates have risen much faster because they enjoy the benefits of good amenities and location. Therefore, there is a larger price difference between the existing old flats and the new replacement flats in Ang Mo Kio than in Marsiling. This is the key reason why the Ang Mo Kio residents have suffered a worse outcome than that of the residents of the Marsiling SERS and previous SERS exercises when the effect of lease decay had not set in. The Government should have admitted to the different outcome and offered this full explanation to the Ang Mo Kio residents upfront. But that is not to be. So, what is the reason that the Government has avoided admitting the different outcome and, as a result of that, is unable to provide a full explanation to the Ang Mo Kio residents and Singaporeans? I think the reason is, by admitting to the different outcome of the Ang Mo Kio SERS, it means the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme, or VERS, is not a viable solution to the lease decay problem.”
“Only residents who opted for "a more centrally located replacement site" at Clementi Avenue 1 were required to top up with cash. Thus, the Government's example of West Coast Road SERS cannot be taken as an example of past SERS residents having to top up cash for an equivalent flat. This confirms that the Ang Mo Kio residents are the unlucky first SERS residents to be financially burdened. For the first time, residents of a SERS must fork out cash for an equivalent flat with a new 99-year lease. The Government has repeatedly stated it has used the same model and approach as other SERS to compute the compensation for the Ang Mo Kio SERS, but the Government has not admitted that the outcome of the Ang Mo Kio SERS is different from other SERS. It is disingenuous of the Government to have not admitted to the different outcome up till today, even though the outcome is undeniably different. If the outcome was not different, there would have been no need for the Government to introduce the 50-year lease and Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) as new options for the Ang Mo Kio residents. Short of admitting the different outcome, Minister Desmond Lee had tried to give the reason for the different outcome in his response to Ang Mo Kio Member Ms Nadia Samdin's Adjournment Motion speech in July 2022. The reason given is the lease decay. The Minister explained that in past SERS, the flats were generally younger at the point of the SERS announcement, with around 70 years of lease remaining. However, the flats affected by the Ang Mo Kio SERS are older, with a lease balance of about 57 years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 which I shall call "Ang Mo Kio SERS", is an epochal event in the history of our public housing. This event has important implications for all Singaporeans beyond the residents that are affected, but the media and Government have downplayed these implications. Therefore, I will be using my Adjournment Motion speech today to explain to Singaporeans why they should be concerned about the Ang Mo Kio SERS and how it will affect the future of their ageing HDB flats. Some Singaporeans may not fully understand how and why the Ang Mo Kio SERS is different from other SERS exercises in the past. I will first explain briefly how Ang Mo Kio SERS is different from past SERS. The key difference is, this is the first time that residents selected for SERS must top up cash to get an equivalent replacement flat with a new 99-year lease. An equivalent flat is defined as one that is the same flat-type, same size and located at a designated site near the current site. I confirmed this during the deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee, where I persistently asked the Ministry of National Development (MND) for past examples of SERS where the residents had needed to top up with cash for an equivalent flat with a new 99-year lease. MND finally provided a memo to the Public Petitions Committee on 14 November stating that in a previous SERS at West Coast Road, residents who bought equivalent flats at the "designated" West Coast Crescent site, near their existing flats, had received cash payment from the Government of $51,000 for a 3-room flat and $61,000 for a 4-room flat respectively.”
“Speaker, I have heard over the last half an hour what the Minister had said about the various schemes that have been brought into the job market since the last one year. But I want to ask the Minister again: what exactly, specifically, is the process that MOM will adopt to ensure that the Singaporeans are really getting the jobs after the M-SEP scheme is introduced or, for that matter, all the other schemes? For example, if there is no time limit, you employ a lot of foreigners, but there are no time limit to the foreigners, how do the Singaporeans take over the jobs eventually? Can you describe that process a bit more? This my first question. The second question is that you have not answered our fellow Member Leon Perera's question on whether it is a "U-turn" or not. You say you have to check the past information, but if in the past there was a 30% cap on the foreigners, then if you say that that is not necessarily the ratio now – that, in fact, is a "U-turn", right? And Member Leon Perera also asked about what is the percentage of Singaporean-owned firms within the 1,000 firms that you have pointed out just now.”
“Okay, then whether that report will be made available in a future session in Parliament.”
“Sir, I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that we should leave the fund managers of our sovereign funds to run the funds independently. However, because the reserves are the money of the people, accountability is important. And especially in a case like FTX, there are many unanswered questions. So, I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. One, the Deputy Prime Minister has answered that the investment guidelines are available in separate places, like in the report of Temasek and in some places for GIC. These are things that Singaporeans would like to know. So, will the Government in the future prepare all these guidelines in a consolidated place so that Singaporeans know the investment strategy and the guidelines guiding the investment of our sovereign funds? Secondly, in relation to the FTX case, has MOF, under the current governance structure, received any reports from Temasek? This is my first question.”
“Speaker, Sir, can I know the reasons why the eight Questions on our sovereign fund was put almost towards the end of the question queue today? Which means, the questions will not be answered orally today, probably.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions. First, one indicator of whether MAS has done enough to tighten policies is to look at money supply growth. Does the Minister of State happen to have data, figures about the money growth in Singapore's economy in 2020 to 2021, and what is the latest in 2022? The second question, what is the impact of the accumulation of reserves by MAS over the last two years on the inflation picture? Does MAS or the Minister of State have any opinion or views to share on that? Because we have been accumulating reserves at a much higher, faster rate, than in the past. We all know, by now, that in 2021, MAS had accumulated more than $200 billion of reserves. Our normal rate of accumulation is about $40 billion to $50 billion a year. So, what is the impact of that? Does MAS or the Minister of State have any views to share on that?”
“Yes, Deputy Speaker, thank you. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to reach 80,000, what is the plan? How many of them will be foreigners and how many of them will be locals?”
“Mr Speaker, thank you. I have expected the Deputy Prime Minister to answer like that. First, on the NIRC. There is a large share of the NIRC being apportioned to funds, right? Just like a few years back, you took $6 billion out of the NIRC and put it in the GST Voucher. So, that means, for that particular year, I think it was 2018, we do not have $6 billion benefit from NIRC. So, one would think that we have been discussing a lot today – would the Deputy Prime Minister commit that in the future, all NIRC will be spent in the current year? Secondly, on the HDB grant, you did not answer my question. I asked, the HDB grant, like this year, the grant may be close to $4.5 billion, $4.8 billion to cover the deficit of the HDB. So, the amount of NIRC will be reduced by that amount, right? Because you have to pay for the HDB grant. And besides that, there are other expenditures, which two of them I have mentioned in my last Adjournment Motion speech. So, can you answer the question, please?”
“Yes, I am coming to that. Let me quote one thing. Even when we talk about the NIRC, we are trying to fanthom up this whole money scheme, the fiscal system that the Government has on the people. So, let me just talk about the NIRC. Two questions to Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, please. One, what is the share of NIRC? We give 50% of the NIR to the Budget, right? So, NIRC is the 50%. But what is the share of NIRC that is not spent in the Budget year? Two, there are operating expenditures in the Budget and recently we have discovered, you have HDB grants which cost the Budget money, deficit to the Budget, and this in turn, will eat into the NIRC that you contributed, right? So, I ask you the second question: did the NIRC contributed by the past land sales cover the deficit of the HDB grant? Two questions, thank you.”
“Yes, two clarifications. But before that, let me say one thing, is that the basic differences between the position, at least for PSP and the Government, is that we think that the Government still did not appreciate enough the financial position that the Singaporeans are in. They are not just paying taxes, there are many kinds of indirect taxes. As a result, let me quote one thing —”
“Thank you, Speaker. First of all, allow me to thank the Minister for a very engaging and useful debate today. Maybe this is the second time we are debating on GST in this Chamber. Allow me a little bit of preamble, just one minute. I think, however —”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Member Shawn Huang for his question. As I have said in my speech at the beginning, there are other episodes to the story, so let me add in other episodes in other Sittings.”
“Furthermore, each time any family member questioned the grandfather about the ancestral assets, he would rage and call them spoilt children. He would warn them not to spout nonsense. Actually, Ah Seng agreed that they should leave behind more assets for the future generation, but not without addressing the urgent needs of the present generation. Fellow Singaporeans, do you agree with the grandfather's behaviour? If you are Ah Seng, would you agree to his grandfather's request for an increase in allowance? Justice is in the hearts of the people. (In English) Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party does not support the Bill.”
“Ever since Ah Seng started working, he had always been giving his grandfather a large proportion of his salary. After Ah Seng got married and had children, his expenses began to increase rapidly, but his grandfather continued to ask Ah Seng to increase his allowance. Grandfather had his reasons, like he needed money to pay his wife's medical bills, or because he needed money to refurbish the ancestral homes. Hence, all this while, Ah Seng carried a heavy financial burden and had limited cash savings. If the extended family was truly short of money, grandfather's requests would be reasonable. But as Ah Seng grew older, he realised that the extended family, headed by his grandfather, was doing pretty well financially, as their ancestors had left behind many properties and assets. However, the grandfather never revealed this to Ah Seng, and deliberately kept it as a secret. All this while, Ah Seng, who had a strong notion of self-reliance, had not given much thought to the ancestral assets. He did not complain even when he had to pay his grandfather the market price to purchase a house allocated to him out of the ancestral assets when he got married. At the time, the grandfather gave Ah Seng some money to help with the down payment, and Ah Seng borrowed money from banks to pay for the rest of the house. After that, the grandfather continually invest the proceeds from the sale of the house that he received from Ah Seng. As Ah Seng entered middle age, his career began to flounder and his income became unstable. The cost of living also began to rise precipitously. Under such circumstances, when grandfather again asked Ah Seng to increase his allowance, Ah Seng felt aggrieved, and started to feel some discontent towards his grandfather.”
“Mr Speaker, the reasons for the Opposition's objection to the GST hike have been documented extensively in social media and in the minds of Singaporeans. As the Progress Singapore Party's Secretary-General Francis Yuen has said, the move to hike GST is unnecessary, untimely and uncompassionate. The Government has basically put up two arguments against the Opposition. First, while the Government does not deny that it has ample revenue, it insists that much of the revenue is not to be used for this generation. Second, the GST is not regressive because the poor are compensated by GST vouchers, never mind the other Singaporeans, including the sandwich class, who have to pay more. In my speech during the Committee of Supply Debate in February, I have stated that the sandwich class would be paying $1.2 billion more as a result of the full implementation of the 2% GST hike at a time when they are facing challenges with soaring inflation and escalating housing prices. The Government, however, did not confirm or deny that figure. I do not want to raise the same questions. The time is better spent telling a story to illustrate what is happening and let Singaporeans decide. Many would remember the story about Ah Seng and his grandfather, Ah Gong, told by former Member of Parliament Lee Bee Wah. However, she did not complete the story. Today, I will share one more episode with all of you. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Story of Ah Seng – Second Episode. Ah Seng’s parents died when he was very young and he was brought up by his grandfather. Ah Seng was not a prodigal son or a "see gui kia" who only knew how to get money from his grandfather.”
“Sir, I am asking the question whether there are plans in the future that will ensure that these remuneration packages for preschools and special education areas will continue to improve.”
“Thank you, Sir. It is important that in every sector in the economy, we must allocate some of our top talents. So, even in preschools and SPED schools, are we allocating our top talents? For example, is the Public Service Commission (PSC) offering scholarships to allow some of our top talents to be trained in those areas so that, in the future, they can lead the sectors? Secondly, in the long run, we must also ensure that every sector has a fair salary structure. For example, we cannot assume that the preschool teachers are of a lower level than the teachers in the Junior Colleges. So, in the long run, we must align the competencies, we must make sure that we recognise the competency level in every of these sectors and remunerate them accordingly. We have heard a lot of stories that overseas, there are Masters and PhD holders becoming teachers of preschools, for example.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. One is, just now when the Minister was quoting the affordability statistics across countries, did he consistently use the comparison for public versus public housing, or did some of the data come from comparing our public housing to private housing in Hong Kong, for example? That is my first question. The second question is, I think the Ministers did not quite answer my colleague, Ms Hazel Poa's Parliamentary Question. There is a general feeling that the younger generation is quite seriously affected by the recent rise in the property market, especially over the last two years. So, are there any studies done to look at whether the younger generations are really affected and whether there are additional measures that the Ministry is considering?”