Mr Speaker, sir, allow me to congratulate you on your election as the eighth Speaker of the House. I look forward to your guidance and support as we air the views and concerns of our residents. I also hope not to enter history by being the first to face your guillotine!
Sir, when I sat here listening to our President on the 10th of October delivering his address, I cannot help but wonder what does it really mean to my fellow Singaporeans when he said: “Our shared goal is to create a better life for all.” To tell you the truth, I do not know, yet. But one thing I do know, sir, is more and more Singaporeans are watching and they want this Parliament to continue to make Singapore better and most importantly to improve their lives.
Sir, there are many noble goals and objectives that our President had articulated in his opening speech. But, sir, it is how we work towards achieving those objectives for the next five years is what really matters. Because that is how we will and can affect the lives of Singaporeans for the better.
By all counts and benchmarks either in education, housing, economy, healthcare and many more, as a young country, we can be proud to say that we have done reasonably well. Singaporeans, know that they are living in a much better condition than in many other countries. The challenge then is for us to continue to do well and improve on our shortcomings.
Since the early days of Singapore independence, we have worked hard to provide for our people and we have focused on the fundamentals and basics very well. The three areas of thrusts that we have single-mindedly worked on namely public housing, education and employment have brought us far and forward in development. Living conditions improved, lives got better with good paying jobs and our citizens become more educated. Our country progressed. All communities in Singapore flourished and progressed including the Malay community.
Over the years, the Malay community had made leaps forward and this has happened unabated for many years. We made significant progress in many areas like housing, educational achievements, employment and also business. The rapid development of our economy had provided and impetus for our Malay community to advance and stand tall side by side with the other fellow Singaporeans. Nevertheless, we do face some challenges that need to overcome together. Just like the many others in this new landscape of Singapore, we face many common challenges that cut across racial and cultural boundaries.
Currently, when I talk to friends, relatives and residents, I get the sense that people are uneasy and worried . They worry, are stressed and are concerned about many things. It ranges from job stability and job opportunity, their children’s education to future health care cost.
Today, I would like to talk on 2 topics that are so closely link to Singapore success story. 1. Employment and 2. Homes.
Employment and Opportunities:
Recently, I had a conversation with a former student who is working in an electronic test company. She was very concerned that in the engineering department that she works in, she is the rare Singaporean. She said that whenever there is a new recruitment done very often than not the new recruits are foreigners. She had many questions to ask me: Is this normal? What is happening? Where are our technicians and engineers? Are we training and producing enough?
Similarly, I do get anecdotal stories about financial firms or banks that employ entirely foreign team for a particular department. Singaporeans are asking, what happened to these jobs opportunities? Why aren’t these jobs going to able, qualified and capable local talents? Aren’t our institutions and reputable universities producing enough finance executives and bankers? These are genuine question on opportunities. They are concerned that these jobs that are created because of our economic growth are not being given to Singaporeans.
Housing:
Sir, let me now move to an issue that is close to all our hearts. Having a roof over our heads is a basic human desire. It is no surprise, therefore, that many Singaporeans are concerned about housing, and whether they can afford a comfortable home for themselves and their family.
To be fair, the Singapore Government has done an outstanding job in housing the population. Within just 50 years, our population has moved from living in kampongs and overcrowded shophouses to modern, well-appointed public housing flats. I believe many in this house went through this experience, and so did I. I remember when my father proudly received the keys to his two-room flat in 1970, which he bought for $13,500, on his salary of $150 per month as a security guard. By no means luxurious, our HDB flat was still a great step forward, with running water, electricity and sanitary plumbing. For us, it was a roof over our heads, a place to grow as a family, and make friends with new neighbours.
It seems to me that in those days, that was the basic purpose of the public housing programme - to house a growing population. And how well we have done it. I can confidently say that Singapore's public housing programme is probably the most successful of its kind anywhere in the world. Where other public housing programmes house low-income populations and are often quickly reduced to slums, Singapore's public housing programme houses about 80% of our population, with options for low-income as well as higher income earners. Today, we proudly say that Singapore boasts among the highest home ownership figures in the world.
And this did not happen by chance. It happened because of a very conscious decision by the government that people should own their homes, and have a stake in the country. Home ownership also promotes a certain sense of belonging in the estate, and encourages residents to look after their flats and their neighbourhood. And, a HDB flat has also become a growing asset, in some instances offering a windfall of a few hundred thousand dollars to owners if they choose to sell.
So, it seems to me that from a basic purpose of housing a population, our public housing programme has taken on many more roles - that of giving Singaporeans a stake in our country, of building a community, and of being a financial investment. Little wonder that housing issues are so complex, and so emotive.
From my purely layman point of view, let me try to unravel some of the issues facing housing.
First, there is the issue of demand. If demand was constant and predictable, I don't think there would be an issue. HDB would be able to plan the number and types of flats to build, enough to satisfy all flat buyers. But demand has not been predictable, for any number of reasons - a poor and volatile economy, fewer marriages and new families units, the fear of "tiger year" babies. So, it seems to me that rather than trying to predict demand, HDB sought to deal with this by building to order. A great idea, because flats would be built when there were buyers for them, and buyers would know when their flats would be delivered to them. This would allow them to plan, save money for payments, renovations, furniture, and get on with the business of raising a family. And yet, there are people who are dissatisfied with this solution. Some say that they cannot get a flat that they like. Others say that the wait is too long. Yet others say that the location is no good, too far away from amenities, too far from parents. I'm sure these are all valid complaints. But I cannot see how HDB can address all of them, except perhaps by building flats faster without putting too much pressure on construction resources, and putting all the necessary amenities in place at the same time. If newer estates have all the necessary amenities and good public transport, I believe flat buyers in new estates will have less cause for concern. I recognise that some of the businesses that offer amenities may not be economically viable in the first instance, because newer estates only slowly build up their population, and thus the clientele for the businesses. But this is something that creative support from government can overcome - whether through reduced rentals, small business financing schemes or manpower cost subsidies. I believe that that if we want to tackle this issue, we should take the concerns of home buyers as legitimate, throw out our preconceived notions, and start with a fresh look for solutions.
The second issue is cost. There is no lack of feedback that cost of housing, including public housing, is too high. One resident quipped to me that the most Singaporeans are working for the HDB. He explained that many of us take a whole working lifetime to pay off our mortgage for our flat, and after we have done so, we are left with little in savings for our retirement. And heaven forbid if we or our family members are faced with a major illness, and the expenses related to that. But that is an issue I will bring up another day.
Looking back, as a government that encourages home ownership, we cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibility of seeding the deep desire among Singaporeans to own property. As I understand if from feedback from my residents, there are at least two sides to the concern about the high cost of public housing. Clearly, those who aspire to buy their flat, even new flats, and after the subsidies that HDB offers, are concerned that they will be saddled with a large mortgage. A large chunk of their income would go towards paying for their flat. This is not an unreasonable concern. I looked at the HDB annual report for 2009/2010, and the prices of flats offered ranged from $72,000 for a 2-room flat in Bukit Panjang to $409,000 for a 5-room flat in Punggol. Former National Development Minister Mr Mah Bow Tan, in his article in the TODAY newspaper in November 2010 dealt with the issue of whether HDB flats were affordable. Using the concept of Debt Service Ratio, Mr Mah said that for new HDB flats in non-mature estates, and for a 30-year loan, the Debt Service Ratio was an average of 23%. This means that when I buy an HDB flat, 23 cents of every dollar I earn goes towards paying for my flat. No wonder my resident told me that we are all working for HDB! Granted that this ratio is lower, according to Mr Mah, than the 30-35% international benchmark for affordable expenditure on housing. But let us also consider that unlike other countries, a large chunk of a Singaporean's income is also spent on transport and education. After other family expenses, it is no surprise that many Singaporeans live from paycheck to paycheck.
The other side of the issue is that no one seems to be able to tell me what an HDB flat actually costs to be built. Since our private sector construction companies build our flats, I suppose we could look at their tender price for a clue to what the construction cost is. I'm sure there must be other costs, including the cost of land. Now, if we think about it, should land cost be included in the price of HDB flats? I agree that we have to impute a cost for the use of land to build flats, but on what basis? I don't think this question has been adequately debated.
Having promised home ownership for all, the government must do its utmost to deliver. If a quarter of our income is used to finance our home, where will our savings for retirement come from? Is this the reason that many people hope to boost their savings by trading in their biggest asset, that is, their home? Is that why many people buy their flats, take the so-called "first bite of the cherry", and then are tempted sell their flats five years later for a profit to invest and fund their retirement? And to attempt a "second bite at the cherry" after that? Some may point to the minimum sum scheme and the CPF Life schemes for retirement. But all of us know that these will hardly be adequate, and that other sources of income are needed. Of course, we could all keep working until into our ripe old age, but we all know the challenges older workers face. Again, that is an issue for another day.
I would like to argue that the government should find ways to make HDB flats even more affordable. CPF grants are helpful, but it seems that we are just taking money from one pocket to return it to the other. We must seriously consider the pricing formula for HDB flats, and seek to make it as transparent as possible. In this way we can assure residents that the government is not out to make a profit through the sale of public housing, and by pricing our flats more reasonably, we can also relieve the debt service burden on our residents.
And speaking of "bites of the cherry", I would also like to bring up the plight of a very particular group of my residents. As you may know, there are some residents who have run afoul of the HDB because they are unable to pay for their flats. No doubt, HDB works with them to reschedule their instalment arrears, but in some cases, regardless what is done, some residents simply are not able to pay. The reasons are many, unemployment, prolonged sickness, unstable families, prison, and the like. I am sure we all have residents who have come to us for help during our Meet The People sessions.
Now, the current situation is that HDB houses these residents in what is called "interim housing". In my constituency, they are housed in flats which were earmarked to be demolished as part of a selective en-bloc redevelopment exercise. This was put off because of a demand for rental housing, and also to house people who could not pay for their flats. If you were to visit these flats, you could not imagine that you are still in Singapore. Whole families are squeezed into one room. Sometimes, two families share a two-room flat - one family in on room. I accept that this is a temporary situation, until more permanent housing can be found. But some families I know have been living in such flats since 2009 - hardly temporary! I cannot imagine how school-going children can study, and how parents can keep their young safe, when they are living with strangers.
I am disappointed that we are slow at resolving this issue. We should try hard to provide a stable safe roof for them. I'm sure many will say that this group of residents put themselves into the situation, and have only themselves to blame. I would say that we all share the blame. Let me explain. In the first place, why would we encourage people who simply cannot afford it to buy a flat and aspire to home ownership? I personally have seen the scenario where a resident defaults on his housing instalments, has his flat sold or repossessed, is put into "interim housing" for a period, and then is encouraged to again buy another flat.
I think we cannot see residents as simply statistics or numbers to be channeled from one place to another. I think the government must think of a longer term, sustainable solution for this group. Perhaps the HDB can think of expanding its rental scheme, and work out meaningful subsidy scheme, so that families can live together safely, children can have a conducive environment to study and play, and over time, hold out hope that they can improve their lives, and break out of their poverty cycle.
In addition to setting maximum income ceilings on purchase of new three-room flats as it does now, the HDB might consider restricting the resale of three-room flats to only low-income Singaporeans. HDB could consider being the sole agency that sells and buys back three-room HDB flats at a price that is predetermined, for example at the original sale price plus the annual inflation rate. In this way, the price of three-room flats can be managed, and low-income families can aspire to own flats without undue burden on their incomes. Once the price is controlled, we can also exclude people who want to buy three-room flats as an investment or for speculation. We have a duty to our residents to understand their needs, recognise their circumstances, and offer solutions to improve their lives. And not put them in a situation where they end up worse off than before.
Still on the subject of housing, we should also recognise that a home is more than just some bricks and tiles. It is a place where families grow, memories are made, neighbourly ties are forged. And home is also where the seeds of rootedness to the community and country are sown. And yet, sometimes, these seedlings are uprooted in the name of national progress. I have a group of residents whose freehold homes will be taken away by the government for redevelopment works. We all agree that the greater national interest must come first, and that from time to time, residents, even those who own freehold properties, will have their homes acquired by the government. In such instances, I'm told that the government will offer compensation to owners, based on a valuation on the day that the property is gazetted. This could be many months prior to the actual acquisition of the property. So, my residents, who live in a row of 29 houses near Marymount, will be required to vacate their houses, and hope to find something similar. These residents bought their houses and grew their families there. Many have two and three generations living together, with children attending nearby schools. Given how the property market has moved, they are not hopeful to find properties which can keep their families together. While the government has gone by the book, I think that we cannot "just follow law". We have to see these residents as individuals, as families with special needs. The government must make a special effort to see to their needs. I don't have an easy solution - but I want to encourage all the relevant bodies to sit together, make the effort, and do something meaningful for these residents.
This brings me to the final point that I want to make, and it has been the underlying tone of my speech. Today, we need to forge a new compact with our residents. Over the last few months leading to the General Elections in May, and for many months before that, our residents have been crying out to be heard, to be understood, to be engaged, to be taken as individuals. Each has his own ambition, his own needs and his own circumstances. Many want to get on with life, start families, grow in their chosen profession, stay healthy and retire comfortably. Many do not need help from the government, except perhaps for a secure environment, good healthcare and sound economic policies. On the contrary, today, many want to have a say in how our country should move forward. While we all know that we cannot run a country through consultation and consensus on everything, I maintain that there is room for our policies and programmes to be adjusted to the individual needs of our residents. Gone are the days that Singaporeans will be satisfied with a standard answer or a solution based on a template. Gone are the days that government and the civil service can facelessly implement policies.
Younger Singaporeans are not going to be satisfied with the status quo. They see their world becoming much more complex, much more competitive. Their's is a multi-tasking, multi-sensory world, moving at the speed of the Internet. Naturally, they demand the same of their government, and of the civil service.
Older Singaporeans want to be recognised for their effort in bringing Singapore through thick and thin to where we are today. While they want to be left alone to run their lives, their family and their work with minimal interference from the government, they are also concerned that they cannot afford to grow old, or grow sick. An irony, because, as one lady grassroots leader said when we were talking about more support for the elderly - "If you're lucky, you'll grow old!" Another man, in his 60s told me, perhaps a little too cynically - "In Singapore, better to die then to fall sick".
These are real concerns. I'm sure the government will make every effort to come up with programmes and policies to look after the needs of Singaporeans. All I ask is that as Members of Parliament, we recognise our residents for who they are, what they aspire to, and help shape government policies to help them achieve their dreams. Then, we would have forged a new social compact, where we can all work hand in hand for a better tomorrow.
Sir, I support the motion. Thank you.
