Lim Hng Kiang
Singapore
“The company has made commitments to recycle the ash, and as for renewable energy, the gasification project is not an energy project, it is not a generation company (genco). It is to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide or, essentially, carbon. Because as feedstock to the petrochemical sector, you need more C and more H2.”
“The Government will continue to recover the IIA awarded if the company fails any conditions or breaches the legislative amendments. I would like to highlight that there are no errant cases in the last five years for IIA and the current amendments are, therefore, not reactionary in nature, but are being made for legislative clarity.”
“In addition, the IIA scheme will be extended till 31 December 2022. Clauses 10 to 13 give legislative effect to this change. The remaining legislative changes arising from our periodic review of the income tax system are either administrative or technical in nature.”
“Data on household and individual savings rates by income groups are not available. However, data on the aggregate level of household financial assets can be obtained from the Household Sector balance sheet compiled by the Department of Statistics.”
“The aggregate level of financial assets owned by Singapore’s household sector6 in each of the past five years is provided in Table 1 below. Data on the amount of financial assets owned by households and individuals in the different income percentiles is not available.”
“The Second Review of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Second CECA Review) is ongoing. The review is taking some time as both countries have our respective interests to work through, such as in the area of labour mobility. Our agencies regularly engage Indian counterparts to work through issues collaboratively.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,677 lines we hold for Lim Hng Kiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 54 of 54.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take Mr Low and Mr Chiam's comments on expanding the GRC separately. First, I think it is not relevant to the Bill under discussion. The Town Councils Act presently allows the amalgamation of three constituencies to form a Town Council. The definition of a "GRC" is one constituency. So what we are providing for in the Bill is to increase the number of town councillors to be appointed. It has got nothing to do with increasing the size of individual GRCs. The number of town councillors that can be appointed, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, is only intended as a maximum. We will leave it to the Town Councils to strike a balance between ensuring adequate representation from the various estates within the Town Council as well as not appointing too many town councillors as this will be so unwieldy. On the question of sinking funds, I think this is a very important issue. I share Dr Koh Lip Lin's concern that with the rising cost of cyclical maintenance, the sinking funds accumulated by Town Councils may not be sufficient for future commitments for cyclical maintenance. In fact, the Government is taking a look at this and we may require the rate of contribution of 25% to be increased to make sure that future generations will have access to adequate sinking funds for their cyclical maintenance. The reason why we want the Town Councils to be able to use the sinking funds as contribution to the upgrading is, as I have explained earlier, we will coordinate the upgrading together with the cyclical maintenance of the precinct. And in so doing, Town Councils can make use of their funds set aside for cyclical maintenance as part contribution to the upgrading. Mr Chiam made a comment on the frequency of changes to the Act.”
“As Town Councils are no longer responsible for the CATV system, the references to CATV systems in sections 22 and 33 of the Town Councils Act have to be deleted. The deletion will be effected through clauses 6 and 8. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Town Councils Act was first drafted, we tried to be as comprehensive as possible. However, amendments are inevitable in the light of experience. The amendments I have listed earlier, Sir, have been shown to be necessary through our experience. They are intended to further facilitate the operations of the Town Councils and to enhance their effectiveness. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The upgrading costs for the six precincts included in the first or demonstration phase of the Upgrading Programme will be met largely by Government, with each flat-owner paying no more than $4,500. When the Upgrading Programme is extended to other estates, the costs will be shared by Government, flat-owners and Town Councils in a proportion to be determined. The Town Councils will have to meet their share of upgrading costs of common property from their sinking funds. This was something which Dr Tan Cheng Bock alluded to just now. We think it is fair that Town Councils share in the cost of the upgrading because the Town Councils benefit from the upgrading of the precinct in that future cyclical maintenance and routine maintenance may be minimised. On another point raised by Dr Tan, we also try to coordinate the upgrading with the cyclical maintenance of the Town Councils. That is the reason why we would like them to contribute from their sinking funds. Clause 8, therefore, amends the Act to allow Town Councils to use their sinking funds in their share for the upgrading project. We would like to encourage Town Councils to transfer part of their operating surpluses to their sinking funds to meet such upgrading costs. The final set of amendments deals with the maintenance and management of CATV systems. HDB took over the maintenance and management of CATV systems in the early part of this year. The takeover was necessary as HDB has the technical expertise and is in a better position than individual Town Councils, to upgrade and maintain the systems to facilitate reception of new services such as subscription TV and Teleview.”
“This will enable Town Councils to invite more residents to sit on their committees. It will also help lighten the work burden of Town Councillors, many of whom are also grassroots leaders in their estates. The next category of amendments deals with the transition immediately after a general election. The existing provision stipulates that a Town Council Chairman shall be appointed within seven days after any general election or by-election. This, in our experience, is too short a period for the MPs in larger Town Councils, or those whose boundaries have been changed, to choose a Chairman. Clause 4, therefore, amends this section to provide up to 30 days for the appointment of a new Chairman. The existing legislation allows the Minister to prescribe the period, not exceeding 180 days, within which a Town Council shall take over the management of an estate from HDB. This section was applicable at the time when Town Councils were first established, but does not cover situations where Town Councils are affected by boundary changes, such as after a general election. Clause 2 of the Bill introduces a new provision allowing the Minister to prescribe the period, not exceeding 90 days, given for a Town Council affected by boundary changes to take over the management of estates from the Town Council previously responsible for those estates. This will also ensure that services to residents will not be disrupted during the transition period. The remaining amendments in the Bill are necessitated by HDB's Upgrading Programme, and by HDB's takeover of the maintenance of the CATV system in public housing estates.”
“To remedy this, clause 3 of the Bill amends the Town Councils Act to raise the upper limit on the number of appointed members of a Town Council to 30 per Town Council, or 10 per MP in a large Town Council, whichever is the greater. For example, in the case of Bedok Town, which comprises Bedok GRC and Changi SMC (Single-Member Constituency) and, therefore, has five MPs, the maximum number of appointed Town Councillors allowed under the amendment will be 50. This is 20 more than the present limit of 30. I must stress that the Town Councils Act sets the upper limit on the size of a Town Council. It would, of course, be up to the Chairman and the other elected members of each Town Council to decide how many members should be appointed to a Town Council. They would have to ensure that there is adequate representation from the various housing estates under their charge, without at the same time making their Councils too large and unwieldy. The existing section 8(2) specifies that two-thirds of the appointed Town Councillors shall be residents of the Town. This would include residents of non-HDB estates, who are not particularly involved in the day-to-day problems of HDB estates and, therefore, are not usually affected by the Town Council's decisions. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend this section to make it clear that two-thirds of the appointed members of a Town Council shall be residents of HDB estates within the Town. The other amendment relating to the membership of Town Council committees is clause 7 of the Bill. At present, at least half of the members of each committee of a Town Council shall be members of the Town Council. Clause 7 seeks to amend the requirement to reduce this requirement from one-half to one-third.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Town Councils Act came into operation on 5th August 1988, and was last amended in November 1990. Since then, a number of developments have arisen that make further amendments to the Act necessary. The proposed amendments fall into four categories. The first category covers membership of Town Councils and Town Council committees. The second category of amendments deals with transitional arrangements following a general election. The third set of amendments allows Town Councils to share the costs of upgrading of the common property in their estates. And the final set of amendments is consequential to the recent transfer from Town Councils to HDB of responsibility for the maintenance of the Central Television Antenna (CATV) system in the HDB estates. Let me first touch on the first category of amendments, ie, membership of Town Councils and Town Council committees. The current provision in the Act states that, in addition to the elected MP or MPs, a Town Council shall comprise not less than six nor more than 30 other members appointed by the Chairman. Sir, the GRCs have expanded from three to four Divisions. Towns which are made up of, or which include, GRCs, now cover more public housing estates. For example, there are now 11 Towns with four Divisions each, and four Towns with five Divisions each. The Act also allows a Town to comprise up to three constituencies. If all these three constituencies are GRCs, then the Town will cover 12 Divisions. For such large Towns, the present limit of 30 appointed members for a Town Council may not provide adequate representation from the various Divisions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department will provide 40 bicycle stands at Simei MRT station and 30 bicycle stands at Tanah Merah MRT station. The work will be completed by September this year. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1992 TO 31ST MARCH, 1993 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head I (cont.) -- Resumption of Debate on Question [18th March, 1992], "That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IC 1500 of the Main Estimates." -- [Mr Leong Horn Kee]. Question again proposed. Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San GRC): Sir, in the recent survey of the Punggol area of Cheng San GRC completed this month, 37% of the 1,400 respondents indicated that the area was lacking in public transport. I had earlier raised the issue with the Minister and he has kindly consented to look at this matter. The reply is pending. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. Firstly, do the bus companies conduct surveys of the residents in the HDB estates to assess the adequacy of the bus services? If they do, how are these surveys conducted to ensure that they reflect the actual needs of the residents? Secondly, it is often perceived that our bus companies only service profitable routes and are extremely reluctant to amend routes if they are not profitable. Can the Minister clarify if this is true? If it is not true, can the Minister cite specific services that are not profitable and are operated primarily to provide a service?”
“Sir, State lands are regularly maintained. I will alert the Ministry of the Environment to do the grass-cutting and clearing of the land. SIMEI AND TANAH MERAH MRT STATIONS (Provision of bicycle stands) 2. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether a bicycle stand each will be provided at the Simei and Tanah Merah MRT stations.”
“Because these are demonstration precincts, the Government selected the six precincts according to the following criteria: First, they must be old and therefore need upgrading, thera ore the precincts are all 10 to 15 years old. Secondly, we want them to disperse in Singapore so that people can see them being upgraded. Thirdly, they are in strategic locations and you can see them at key road junctions. Fourthly, the precincts we select have a diversity of rental, 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats. Older flats other than those in the demonstration precincts will be considered in the subsequent phases of the upgrading. Mr Low also asked about the new flat spacing. The plot ratio that HDB uses for its development is 2.5. Private property plot ratio ranges from 0.5 to 2.5 to 2.7, depending on the density. He also asked that in the sale of shops that there should be no increase in rental, and that I have earlier explained on the sale of shops.”
“The Government has announced that it is looking at plans to help people in the 1- and 2-room rental flats to help own 3- and 4S flats. So we will announce this programme to help the lower-income groups to own flats, but, of course, we are not dogmatic about it. If there is a group that still, despite all this special assistance programme, cannot afford to own a 3-room flat, the Government is prepared to consider renting 3-room flats to this small group of people. Mr Leong Horn Kee gave two suggestions - fire insurance and guidelines for coffeeshops. In terms of fire insurance, we agree with him entirely. It is a good practice that owners of HDB flats take up fire insurance. This happens in the private sector. We will want to encourage that and that is why HDB is working with the CPF Board to try and extend the present mortgage reducing insurance to cover as a fire insurance as well. So it is not just a life cover, but also a fire cover. We hope to be able to work out with CPF a scheme that will allow a checking-off system. On guideliness for coffeeshops, we agree that there should be guidelines to help coffeeshop operators determine how they can place chairs outside their coffeeshops. There are two concerns. One is that it must not inhibit pedestrian movement, and the second concern is environmental concern, the waste that necessarily spills from such operations must be well contained. That is why the conditions under which such shops are allowed to operate require them not to hinder pedestrian flow as well as some ways of waste disposal. Let me now turn to Mr Low Thia Khiang. He asked for the criteria for the selection of demonstration precincts.”
“Even though these shops would be sold much later, these shopkeepers will continue to enjoy far below market rents during the interim period before the shops will be sold. So it is not true that these shops will be disadvantaged. Dr Tan also suggested that we should consider the rental as part payment for the sale of shops later on. I think this is not possible, especially for these shops that are paying very far below market rent. Because their rent is not even covering the cost or the rate of return of the capital of the shop, how do you set aside part of the rent to help pay for the shop? 1.00 pm Mr Chng Hee Kok gave his suggestion that we should put up the sale on an encumbered basis, so that more Singaporeans can participate in the sale of shops programme. In the initial stages, we want to reassure the shopkeepers that we are not chasing them out. So we have made the terms very generous to them. They can either buy, or if they are not prepared to buy, they can continue to rent. If we say, "Look, if you don't buy, we are going to put it up for sale", then their terms of tenancy on an encumbered basis may be short-lived. For the transition period, we want to give this assurance to our shopkeepers that they have several options, either buy, or if they cannot afford to buy, they can continue to rent, and remain in business. I think that pretty well covers most of the points relating to shops. Let me now cover the other points. Mr Eugene Yap asked HDB to consider opening up 3-room flats to the public for rental. HDB is prepared to consider that, but we must keep our focus, our objective in mind. The objective of making Singapore a home-owning society still remains. Although, today, we are 91%, we can still go further.”
“So when people ask for a quicker pace of sale, that is entirely in line with Government's thinking. But we must be realistic. Previously, HDB sold on the average of 200 shops a year. We plan to sell 1,200 in the first year. This is already a big jump, but we are prepared to go even faster. That is why we are targeting the sale to be finished within seven to ten years. If we can do faster, the Government will obviously do so, because our objective is to restructure the sector. The third principle, if we are going to restructure the sector, surely we must price the shops at market prices by valuers. Then the market conditions will take its effect. The fourth principle, why discount proportional to the number of years? That is because we think the older shops need more assistance in the restructuring. So we tailor the assistance programme to favour the older shops. The fifth principle, why are we only allowing one shop per tenant, something which Dr Tan Cheng Bock raised. I think the explanation is quite clear. If the tenant is able to own many shops, I do not think we should give him discount for every shop that he owns. We should help him only in one shop, and not in all the shops. This is because we want to underline that the sale of shops is not an entitlement, it is not a subsidy, it is an assistance to the restructuring programme. Another concern expressed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock is what happens to shops that are sold later. There is a perception that these shops will be disadvantaged. Let me try to explain. Today, 40% of the shop tenants pay less than 50% of the market rent, and the rents are going up at a very measured pace. It is not moving up to market rent very quickly.”
“When they do so, the new shopowner takes over the shop at market rent, but you and I know that when the previous shopowner hands over to the new shopowner, he gets some goodwill money from the new shopowner. The numbers differ. Some say it is $40,000; some say it is $80,000; some give even bigger numbers. So the market rent that HDB charges is reasonable enough that a new shopowner thinks that he can still do business, pay the current market rent, and still give goodwill money to the previous shopowner. This happens in about 10% of our tenancy each year. The Government could let the restructuring take its natural course in this way. Let the more inefficient shopowners be taken over by the more efficient shopowners. But the readjustment will be long and painful. For example, some shopkeepers, in postponing the inevitable, pull in their family members to help out in the shop. Young able-bodied men are dragged in to run the business in the old-fashioned way. Unless they change, they will continue to be uncompetitive. That is the reason why the Government has decided to step in to assist in the restructuring process by drawing up the Retail Sector Development Plan and by selling the shops at a discount to the shopkeepers. Let us keep the focus in mind. The aim is to help in the restructuring. If we keep this objective, then I think the principles that we follow can be easily understood. The first principle is if we want to help in the restructuring, we will sell as many as possible. That is why we are selling 12,000 shops. The 4,000 shops that we are not selling is because the flats above will be redeveloped. The second principle, we will sell as fast as we can. That is our purpose. We want to restructure, we will sell as fast as we can.”
“I need not go through the main terms. I just want to say that Mr Chng Hee Kok is absolutely right. The terms of the sale are very generous. If each shop is given an average discount of $40,000, then the 12,000 shops to be sold would mean Government giving away $480 million. In addition, the 4,000 shops that will not be sold because the flats above are scheduled for redevelopment, under the present policy, each shop will be given an ex gratia compensation of $38,000. That is another $150 million. In total, the Government is giving away $630 million. You may say this is very uncharacteristic of the Government to give away such large sums of money. Why should the Government do so? How does the Government justify spending public funds in favour of such a small group? The answer is very simple. The Government wants to assist in the restructuring of the retail sector. We feel that the retail sector has to be restructured because the value-added today is low, the catchment is changing, the pattern of demand is shifting. If we invest and bring about a more competitive retail sector, the whole economy will benefit. We will see more productive use of our limited manpower resources, more value-added, more economic growth. Therefore, we are prepared to assist in the restructuring by providing these discount and cash grants. The restructuring of the retail sector would take place, whether the Government assists or not. It is already taking place today. If I may just quote you statistics. Today, some shopowners find that they cannot compete and, therefore, they assign their shops to somebody else who can do better.”
“The Member always anticipates the next segment of our explanation. As the Minister for National Development alluded yesterday, really the fact that HDB prices have lagged behind total development cost may give little solace to Singaporeans. HDB in pricing its flats also looks at affordability. In the example that the Minister cited yesterday, if you take a couple with a household income of $1,800, if they work two and a half years, which is very likely before they get married at the age of 27 or 28, they can easily pay for the 20% downpayment through their CPF savings. The monthly CPF that they earn can easily pay for the mortgage instalment of a 4-room flat. So an average couple earning $1,800 can well afford a 4-room flat without any cash payments. All this will be paid for through their CPF. If you go down to a 3-room flat which costs about $40,000 in the primary and the secondary market, you can see that this is also well within the affordability of a household income of $1,000. Some Singaporeans again may not be happy with that kind of approach and say, "Look, really, are we getting more from the Government?" If you look at the Government grant per flat over the last three to four years, that has increased from $20,900 in 1988 to $44,000 in 1991. Therefore, for every flat that HDB builds, the Government has to give HDB a grant to defray the cost of construction which has increased over the last four years from $21,000 to $44,000. So this is the actual direct cash grant that Government has given to HDB owners. Even though cost has gone up, we have kept the prices affordable and, as a result, Government grant has increased. Let me now talk about shops. The Minister for National Development announced the terms for the sale of HDB-tenanted shops last week.”
“So new flats now have got design features, better finishes, and these are all costed. Finally, there are the professional fees that have to be added to all these costs. So maybe it is more important to look at the last four years. In the last four years, land cost has gone up by 73%. Construction cost has gone up by 48%. Prices in the private sector reflect all these changes and private sector property prices have gone up by 58%. In the same four-year period, HDB prices have only gone up by 37%. If you compare this with wages that have moved up between 9.2% and 9.8% in the last four years, you will see that HDB prices have kept in pace with wages. Therefore, people are still able to afford HDB prices.”
“Sir, I would like to take the questions raised by hon. Members in the following sequence. First, I would like to touch on price increases in HDB flats. Then I would like to deal with the sale of shops policy, and cover the other points raised by Members. First, on price increases. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asks how wages, private property prices, HDB prices and resale prices have moved over the last 10 to 20 years. Fortunately, we had an adjournment, so we were able to do some research last night. Over the last 20 years, the average monthly income has increased by almost five times from $330 in 1972 to $1,700 in 1991. During that period, the sale prices of HDB flats increased just over four times. So HDB prices have moved slower than monthly income. If we take a shorter time-frame of 10 years, the average annual increase in HDB flat prices was about 7.8% per year. The resale prices averaged about 8.6% a year; private property prices were much higher, averaging 11% over the last 10 years. So both HDB prices in the primary as well as secondary markets have moved slower than private property prices. But in comparing prices, we should be careful to compare like with like - HDB flats that were built 10, 20 years ago are very different from what are being produced today. Let me explain how HDB does its costing and pricing of flats, because I think that will be useful to all Members here. Basically, there are several components in HDB costs. First, land cost. HDB buys land from the Government at market prices. Second, construction cost. HDB puts out its flats for open tender and contractors bid for them, and these prices are advertised in the newspapers. Third, HDB introduces new designs, new improvements, and the quantity surveyors in HDB cost these out.”
“So when we amalgamated the old URA with the Planning Department and the Statistics and Research Unit, we kept the name for goodwill purposes. The name is not entirely out of sync with the work that URA does because URA also helps to provide guidance for the redevelopment of the city centre. So the name is still quite appropriate. As regards car park fines, the Member for Eunos GRC is extremely sympathetic to errant motorists. Let me just say that we have done as much as we can to provide a softer approach to such motorists. First, we give them a grace period of five to 10 minutes. Secondly, through popular demand, we have introduced half-hour coupons. So people who do not want to spend one hour coupon can now tear a half-hour coupon. Thirdly, our fines for overparking are graduated. So if you overpark for a few minutes you get a smaller fine; if you obviously overpark by a substantial period, then your fine will be more. I think we have done enough and the suggestion put up by the Member would make coupon parking overly complicated. The main virtue of the coupon parking is that it is a simple and inexpensive system and that we hope to keep it that way. But in the long term we are studying other ways of regulating car parking, in particular, automated ways and stored value cards. Both the HDB and URA are looking into the use of stored value cards for car parking. We are thinking of doing this in conjunction with the electronic road pricing. So we will try out some pilot programmes over the next few years, and if it is workable we may introduce this for car parking.”
“Sir, the Minister has in part replied to Mr Chng Hee Kok just now about the procedure for planning applications. It is in the interest of both the industry and the Ministry to try and streamline the procedures and to make the processing as expedient and as quickly as possible. In this connection, both the professionals and the Ministry must play its part. On the professionals, we urge them to submit applications which are complete, comprehensive and not expect the processing authority to help them in their work by indicating what needs to be done. We will take up his suggestion on the building structural processing. As Members may remember, this was put in place following the collapse of the Hotel New World. We are now in the process of reviewing the procedures and we may only require to audit the checking of structural designs on a sampling basis. This means that the professionals submit with the accredited checkers and the building authority samples the checks. Today, we are still incorporating 100% checks and that has caused some delays. But we are now looking into the process to see whether at the second level of checks we can just institute a sampling basis. On the role of URA, since 1987, URA has returned all its undeveloped land to the State. URA has also incorporated PIDEMCO Lands to look after all the properties that URA has owned. The intention of the Ministry is that URA will divest this to Temasek Holdings in the near future. So the Member can be rest assured that there would not be any conflicting role between URA as a planning authority and its holding of such properties. As to why the name of URA has not been changed, we believe URA has built up a substantial goodwill over the years through its work, both locally and internatinlally.”
“The third criterion of course is that it must be structurally feasible for us to incorporate the overhead shelter. We will review the criteria to see whether these criteria are overly stringent. So we will take the Member's suggestion to review the criteria. But whatever the criteria, we intend to provide an outlet for the CCC to make use of the CIPC funds if they think that they want to put overhead shelters on their pedestrian overhead bridges. Through the CIPC funds, the CCC will also have to contribute part of the funding and that will provide the check and balance so that we do not get too many frivolous requests. Mr Koo Tsai Kee( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, Mr Koo Tsai Kee asked whether we can improve the design of ramps. We do recognise that the population will age over time and PWD's design for pedestrian overhead bridges will try to take this into account. Our current policy is to build pedestrian overhead bridges incorporating both ramps and staircases where the space allows us to do so. Where the space does not allow us, then we will just build ramps. If there is still not enough space, then we just provide stairs. In the design for stairs, we do provide a more gentler slope so that the elderly can make use of the stairs. Although that is our intention, I must say that ramps cannot always be provided because, especially in the city area, the space constraint limits us to do so. Ramps also cost more and taking a sampling of pedestrians, many pedestrians in fact prefer stairs, because they do not like to double back and take such a long distance going up the ramps. Nonetheless, I have some good news for Mr Koo. His perseverance has paid off. His request for the ramp in Jalan Bukit Merah will be incorporated. I do not have such good news for Dr Koh. First of all, I think in all public expenditures, there must be clear guidelines to justify the expenditures. In cases of providing overhead shelters for pedestrian overhead bridges, the PWD uses three criteria. The first criterion is that there must be reasonable pedestrian traffic. They use 1,200 pedestrians per hour during peak hours, as a traffic count to justify spending such money. The second criterion is of course it must connect two covered areas. There is no point for us to provide cover over the overhead bridge if after they get off from the overhead bridge, they have no cover.”
“A new consensus, a new partnership, is being forged. Some people are apprehensive. Their fears are unfounded. This Government has kept faith with the people for 32 years and the people have prospered. In the President's Speech, the Government again demonstrated unequivocally its commitment in education, health care and housing. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.”
“The Member for Chua Chu Kang has corrected him. I would like to add that unlike many countries, what our people earn in Singapore dollars have held up in value. In 1972 and 1973 when I was a student in England, the pound was strong. It was nearly S$7 to a pound. Today, it is only S$3 to a pound. I remember it was S$3 to a US dollar in those days. Today, it is S$1.65 to US$1. It was also S$3 to A$1. Today, it is S$1.20. Even more dramatic, it was S$3 to NZ$1. Today, it takes only 90 Singapore cents to buy NZ$1. What is most remarkable of all is that we kept the value of the Singapore dollar up, while keeping interest rates low. Mr Speaker, Sir, many governments allow wages to rise, but the value of their currencies to fall. In Singapore, our wages go up and we keep our Singapore dollar up. The Ministry of Trade and Industry has provided data to debunk assertions that people are less well off, again echoed by the Member for Potong Pasir yesterday. I am sure it will do so again. Let me, however, just focus on housing where the standard of living has improved tremendously. In 1980, only 59% of Singaporeans owned their homes. Today, 90% own their homes. More recently, when I joined the Ministry of National Development in 1987, 30% of applications for HDB flats were upgraders. Today, 50% of applications are upgraders, and the numbers have not dropped. In the last quarter, HDB received 32,000 applications. If the people are less well off, as the Member for Potong Pasir alleged, how is it that HDB received so many applications to upgrade to 5-room and Executive flats? Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by returning to the original theme of my remarks. New circumstances require the Government and the people to seek a new balance between self-reliance and Government assistance.”
“The Government encourages self-reliance and personal responsibility through the Medisave approach. This will be reinforced by the healthy lifestyle campaign which will highlight the crucial role each individual plays in determining his future health care burden. On its part, the Government implemented MediShield so that the people are insured against catastrophic illnesses. The Government is also committed to maintaining the heavily subsidised C and B2 wards to ensure that basic health care is affordable to all Singaporeans. Since older as well as self-employed Singaporeans may not have accumulated the necessary Medisave accounts to meet their needs, the Government will assist them through the Medifund proposal. As several of my colleagues observed, many developed countries are grappling with rising health care costs and ballooning state subsidies. As an aside, I might add that the French like their cognac neat, and this is reflected in the deep troubles of their health care. In Singapore, we are evolving our own solution. I think we are approaching the right mix. So long as we emphasise self-reliance and personal responsibility, we will minimise waste and dampen unreasonable demand. At the same time, the Government will restructure the hospitals to keep costs down and provide safety nets in the form of subsidised wards and Medifund. Singaporeans should not be apprehensive about seeking this new balance. This Government has kept faith with the people over 32 years. As a result, the people have prospered and the standard of living has gone up. The Member for Potong Pasir, however, has claimed otherwise. He claimed that his engineer friend in 1972 earned $1,600. A fresh engineering graduate today earns $1,800 and can afford much less.”
“Basic needs have been met and the standard of living of Singaporeans gets better and better each year. Singaporeans therefore want more choices and a greater say in matters that affect them. This is to be expected. It is not possible for the Government to satisfy the wide array of needs of different segments of the population. Nor is it wise to do so. We should let the people take on greater responsibility on how to run their own lives. The setting up of Town Councils is an example of residents taking up greater responsibility in the running of their housing estates. The approach of "Many Helping Hands" ensures that looking after the disadvantaged in society draws upon the community for support, and not fall on the Government alone. In my assessment, the new balance calls for more self-reliance and personal responsibility and less Government intervention. However, please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating for the complete withdrawal of Government intervention. It may not be appropriate for a distinguished gathering like this, but let me use the well-worn but local analogy of brandy and water. In the past, we may have recourse to a stiff brandy on the rocks. Now we should lighten up with less brandy, more water. In fact, we should encourage different drinks, some with brandy, some without. If a chill wind should befall us, heaven forbid, we may still need the original brew to fortify us. But in the present competitive and rapidly changing environment before us, we need Government to be of a lighter touch, more selective, less pervasive. The Government and the people will have to find this new balance in each major issue. Let me illustrate how this balance is evolving in health care.”
“Countries much larger than Singapore, like China, the old Soviet Union and India, have tried insulation and have failed miserably. Opting out will mean being left behind. Postponement means more drastic changes later on. Sir, it will be most ironic and tragic if after a quarter of a century of showing the rest of the world what a market economy can achieve, and country after country has adopted this strategy, Singaporeans themselves lose faith in the free market system, clamour for protection and are not prepared to change . I hope this does not happen. The second reason why a new balance between self-reliance and Government assistance is needed is the state of the Singapore economy. In the President's Speech, he noted that we are only half way towards becoming a developed country. The more difficult half remains ahead of us. Sir, in a more competitive environment and an increasingly sophisticated economy, there is a greater need for every worker, every supervisor and every manager to be more self-reliant, more creative and to exercise initiative. It is not possible for the Government to direct all the changes in a centralised fashion. What the Government can do is to provide a conducive framework, remove obstacles and facilitate the changes. If the changes are painful, the Government will assist in the transition. But the momentum for change lies with the people. If we are prepared to restructure and compete, we can make 4-6% economic growth each year. If we become more rigid and resist change, our economy will falter. The standard of living of our people will then stagnate. Sir, the third reason why I think we need a new balance between self-determination and Government intervention is the stage of our political development.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion by the Member for Hong Kah GRC. Sir, there are several important themes raised in the President's Speech. Members have debated them extensively. I would like to focus on how to strike the right balance between self-reliance and Government assistance. In my assessment, if Singaporeans are to progress as a nation and prosper as individuals, we must get this balance right. Too much individualism and we end up with a selfish and callous society. Too much Government intervention and we stifle private initiative and personal responsibility. Sir, getting this new balance will not be easy. On the other hand, we cannot just stick to what we have done in the past. Let me give three reasons why times have changed. First, the external environment. It is now more competitive and more complex. Competition for investments, technology and markets has intensified. In a way, Singapore has helped brought this about. Through our example and that of the NIEs, we have shown the world that economic progress is faster when you have an open economy, high savings rate, sustained investment and free trade. The lessons have been well learnt. Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have adopted similar policies and their economies are taking off. China, Eastern Europe and Latin America have embarked on the same path. Even the more developed economies like Ireland and Spain are competing vigorously for foreign investments. To succeed in this environment, we must be prepared to compete, adapt and restructure. Some changes will be painful but we have no choice. We cannot insulate ourselves, we cannot opt out, nor can we postpone the changes.”