HOME OWNERSHIP

12.15 pm

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House -

Recognising the achievements of the Housing and Development Board in the last 25 years; and

Commending the valuable contributions made by the Management, Staff and Workers of the HDB in achieving this; and

Conscious that HDB's success has enabled the majority of Singaporeans to be proud home owners;

Urges the Government to take suitable measures to assist those citizens in the lower income group who do not yet own homes to become proud home owners.

Sir, we are today a nation of proud home owners. In 1959, when the PAP swept into power, it was confronted with seemingly intractable problems. The immediate tasks were to provide jobs for the jobless and homes for the homeless. Sir, in 1959, it was estimated that a quarter million people were living in generated slums and another 300,000 in squatter areas. The Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT), which was set up in 1927 by the then colonial Government, had managed to build only 23,000 units of public housing over a period of 32 years. The SIT flats accommodated about 9% of our 1.6 million population. Sir, the PAP Government therefore took immediate action to tackle the problem of public housing. The HDB was thus established in February 1960 to undertake the function of providing low-cost public housing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, after 25 years, the HDB has completed over 500,000 units of flats, accommodating over 80% of the total population of about 2.6 million people. This is indeed no mean task. Today, Singapore's public housing record is the envy of many people and nations. Sir, last week I happened to be in Wushan in South Korea where I had the occasion to meet leading members of the business community. South Korea, as you probably know, has tremendous economic achievements and better performance records than Singapore. They lamented that only 15% of the population are housed in low-cost public housing, where our record, Sir, is well over 80%. Mr Speaker, Sir, this achievement has been made possible because of Government's strong commitment to its public housing policy and Singaporeans' full support for its implementation. The Government's goal is to provide sufficient flats for all Singaporeans who need them and at prices they can afford. Moreover, out of half a million flats more than 75% are owner-occupied under the Home Ownership Scheme. For the year 2000 we can expect virtually all HDB residents to be home-owners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB in the last 24 years has successfully completed four Five-Year Building Programmes, and it is now at the tail-end of the fifth programme which ends in December 1985. This House should congratulate the HDB for its splendid achievement on its 25th Anniversary, which it is celebrating now.

Sir, as at March 31, 1985, the properties under its management consist of over half a million flats, as well as a large number of shops, factories, car parks and a host of other facilities, such as swimming and sports complexes, town and neighbourhood parks, food centres, markets and offices. I have tabled these cumulative achievements of HDB. These Tables (Cols. 653 - 654) I and II have already been circulated to hon. Members. Tables - HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Cols. 653 - 654)

Sir, the HDB's achievements underscore the commitment and the determination of the Singapore Government to provide not only a home for every citizen but also to build a viable urban community for people to live, work, shop, rest, relax and educate their children. All the time, however, the HDB was also learning from its own experience and thinking of ways and means to improve conditions for future residents. In 1962, Queenstown, the HDB's first new town, took shape. Built on the neighbourhood concept, it became the basis for future generations of new towns. In 1964, Toa Payoh added another landmark in the Singapore scene.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next two 5-Year Building Programmes (1966 to 1975) saw HDB putting greater efforts to improve facilities and amenities for residents. More emphasis was placed on quality. Hawker centres, shopping and recreational facilities were also included. The estates that were completed included Telok Blangah and Marine Parade. By the end of 1975 a total of more than 180,000 units of shops and flats were completed against a target of only 173,000.

Sir, with the completion of another 134,000 units in the fourth Building Programme, 65% of our population began living in HDB flats. By this time the lifestyle of Singaporeans had so changed that the "HDB Family" was recognized as a typical Singapore family. In fact, HDB also made several policy changes and decisions aimed to preserve the family unit, especially our Asian extended family lifestyle. In this connection, the Joint Ballot Scheme and the Multi-tier Family Scheme were introduced.

To even encourage upward mobility, in 1979 the HDB flat owners were allowed after five years of occupation to sell their flats in the open market and to purchase another bigger HDB flat. Before, however, all HDB flats had to be sold back to the Board at the original selling price. Recent revisions in the resale policy have also given flat owners more flexible options.

Mr Speaker, Sir, income ceilings governing the eligibility criteria of HDB flats have also been revised over the years to enable those with rising income who could not afford private housing to purchase HDB flats.

Sir, at the start of the fifth 5-Year Building Programme in 1981, there was an upsurge in the demand for HDB flats, resulting in more applicants on the waiting list. Immediately the building target was revised upwards from 100,000 to 155,000. By 1983, the waiting list had been significantly reduced. It was during this time that the HDB introduced mechanization and prefabricated flats successfully.

In May 1983, the first HDB executive flats were completed to meet the housing needs of the middle-class in our population. I am told that the Board is confident that by December 1985, the number of dwelling units completed will be over 180,000, exceeding its revised target of 155,000.

Good physical housing is no guarantee for good and harmonious community living. Experience all over the world has shown that it is all too easy for public housing to degenerate into urban slums. This is so whether it be in advanced countries or in developing countries. Fortunately, for us, HDB towns were saved from falling into this trap by the creation of a harmonious and thriving community within each of our existing housing estates and new towns. This is not entirely due to good fortune. It was achieved through a mix of right Government policy on the one hand and hard work and cooperation on the part of the HDB, its residents and our community and grassroots leaders on the other hand. By having a mixed community in each housing estate and new town, this ensures that each represents a cross-section of the population distribution in Singapore. This prevents the formation of enclaves or closed communities. For this reason, Sir, the HDB discontinued the building of exclusive HUDC estates.

At the same time, Sir, tremendous efforts have been made by Residents' Committees, Citizens' Consultative Committees and grassroots organizations to ensure that living in HDB estates is a pleasant and harmonious experience. This is a goal which cannot be achieved by good housing design alone.

Sir, in the last few minutes I have tried to sketch the achievements of the HDB over the last 25 years. I would like now to turn to the people who have made this possible. If you consider the achievements of the physical building which you see as the hardware, now let us look at the software behind the scheme. Permit me to propose a general salute to the unsung heroes of the HDB. Here, I am referring to the 13,906 management and staff who have been in the front line of the Republic's battle against homelessness. This House should commend the valuable contributions made by the HDB's dedicated and harkworking workforce as well as qualified management team. Since the inception of HDB in 1960, the staff strength has risen more than ten-fold, from over 1,000 employees to the present strength of nearly 14,000.

The HDB management team, Sir, must be congratulated for effectively implementing well thought-out administrative policies, sound planning and designs and an efficient implementation system. These are the silent heroes who strive ceaselessly to make our housing estates clean and the environment habitable. Let us also not forget the maintenance crew who provide 24-hour emergency service to all constituencies to ensure that nobody gets trapped in our lifts. To all the HDB staff, especially the counter staff, we owe them a big Thank You for their patience in dealing with the public. A word of thanks should also go to the sweepers, counter clerks and all the other supporting staff throughout the 32 Area Offices around Singapore. I would submit, however, that the management of HDB continue to explore avenues to improve the HDB-resident interface. I can foresee that the HDB would be subject to increasing pressure for more, better and faster services and amenities in the years ahead.

Sir, in my opening remarks I mentioned that we are a nation of proud house owners. Sir, home ownership is the cornerstone of our nation building. It gives every home-owning Singaporean a genuine stake in this land of ours. Singapore is today a property-owning democracy. Instead of the inevitable class struggle between the haves and the have-nots, we have in Singapore a healthy battle among Singaporeans each striving for a bigger slice of the Republic's real estate. Indeed, the lower and middle income groups can look forward to constant improvement of the standard of living and eventually owning their own flats. The provision of large scale public housing in Singapore has contributed in no small measure to the stable, social and political climate.

Though the home ownership scheme was introduced in 1964, overwhelming demand to own an HDB flat did not gather momentum until 1968. With the introduction of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Act in 1968, purchasers were permitted to use their CPF savings to meet down-payments and monthly payments.

In view of the rising general income level, and to enable a greater proportion of the population to own HDB flats, the income ceiling has been periodically reviewed. To further encourage Singaporeans to own their own homes, people living in squattered areas or rent-controlled premises which are affected by public redevelopment are given priority in the allocation of flats.

Sir, Singapore has gradually avoided disastrous policies of unlimited subsidies associated with the welfare state which are, in fact, crippling some of the industrial countries today. However, having said this, there does appear to be pockets of our less well-off Singaporeans who do not seem to be able to afford to buy HDB flats. One estimate gives the percentage of such Singaporeans as about 15-20%. According to the HDB, about 26% of its flats are still being rented out to Singaporeans who are either waiting to buy flats or for some reason are not eligible to own flats. However, there are also some Singaporeans who just cannot afford to buy their flats. I think it is our duty to help our fellow Singaporeans to move out of this trap.

It is the Government's stated policy, and here I quote:

'Our people can enjoy a better quality of life by 1999. There will be no unsewered households, slums or environmental pollution. Every family will own a home for we shall help the 15-20% lower income group to do so.'

Sir, due to various reasons, maybe lack of education, old age, personal circumstances, the 15-20% of our population belong to this lower income group. They have not reaped much of the benefits of our 25 years of economic progress. Most of them are either odd-job workers, casual labourers or self-employed and are thus without the benefit of CPF. If nothing is done to assist them, then this lower income group living in their cramped flats will become more and more detached from the mainstream of our society and it will remain a dark spot in our social fabric. The $10,000 cash grant is one of the schemes introduced by the Government to assist the people in the lower income group. However, for various reasons, response to this scheme has been poor so far.

Whilst I agree with what the First Deputy Prime Minister has stated in this House, and I quote:

'The Government's approach to the problem of the poor is therefore high economic growth, universal education and skill training, small families, home ownership and working wives. It has in large measure succeeded although it has not eliminated poverty altogether. Our experience has confirmed that welfare and generous handouts are not the solution to the problem.'

I submit, Sir, that it will take considerable time to solve the problem of the lower income group. As such, I believe special interim measures may be necessary. This has been articulated by many of my PAP colleagues in this House during the debate on the Presidential Address earlier in the year. The Government may want to consider some of the following measures to assist the poor in our society to own their own homes:

Firstly, there is this question of reduction in the deposit for the purchase of flats. The current deposit level appears rather high for the lower income group. Another measure which Government could seriously consider to assist the lower income group is to extend the current repayment period of 20 years. And thirdly, as a further incentive, Government could consider offering lower interest rates for the people in the lower income group.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the above measures, if implemented, will enable some to become home owners quickly. The long term solu- tion, I believe, will really be to increase the income levels of the people through higher productivity. If this can be achieved, then the lower income group can own their own homes and improve their quality of life. I would strongly urge the Government to work out a scheme quickly which will enable these lower income Singaporeans to join the rank of proud home owners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to offer my heartiest congratulations to the HDB on its 25th Anniversary and would urge the management and staff of HDB to scale even greater heights.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 12.34 pm

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the name HDB is now a household name, a name which Singaporeans have identified as a provider of not only a roof over our heads for the last 25 years but also one who made clean, orderly and hygienic high-rise living a reality in Singapore. To most of us, it was really a dream come true. HDB has provided flats for 81% of the population. To the unsung, efficient, men and women of the HDB, we thereforeextend our heartfelt thanks and we all wish HDB a happy 25th Anniversary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past 25 years, HDB has also provided hawker centres, wet markets, shops, offices and industrial premises. Thousands of Singaporeans have benefited and depend on these facilities for a living. For this, we thank HDB again. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past few years, especially during the property boom period, the rents of HDB outlets were pegged to prevailing market conditions which were then enjoying high growth. Despite steadily increasing rents, these tenants did not complain because they could still maintain a profitable margin as there was high demand. Today, the market situation has changed for the worse. The demand has dropped. The tenants of shops and factories are the hardest hit. Many of the small businesses in the HDB industrial estates are supporting industries to big multi-nationals operating in Singapore. The multi-nationals' slow-down has also affected them terribly. Help is really and urgently needed and we must not allow them to go under.

You see, Mr Speaker, Sir, the availability of such supporting industries is an attractive and important consideration for potential investors who are deciding to set up production in Singapore. It is a very important competitive edge for Singapore to project the image that our supporting industries are still available even during this worldwide economic downturn. I strongly believe that the Government, through the HDB, can help by lowering rents. May I urge fellow colleagues to join me in this appeal, and we hope that HDB will consider further lowering rents till the good times are here again.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that championing the cause of the poor has always been the delight and joy of all politicians all over the world. Many great speeches and impressive rhetorics have chosen the cause of the poor as their favourite theme. The poor will always be with us. Even America, the world's richest and most powerful nation, has the poor with them. We too have our share. We still have them now. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, with this Government, there is a very distinct and outstanding difference. Its unique difference lies in this: that its concern for the poor has always been translated into action.

I say this not because I am a Government Backbencher. Before I came into this House, I had the privilege of having lived in poor and unhygienic Chinatown - "privilege" in the sense that it has given me the background experience to compare realistically. It is not uncommon for a family of five to seven to cram into a room no bigger than a bedroom of any HDB flat. In the place I stayed, about 10 families shared a toilet and a bathroom. Today's one-room HDB flat would be considered a luxurious apartment then. There were two or three governments who governed Singapore but it was only when the PAP came into power that events began to take shape. I was poor. I know what life is like in cramped and stuffy cubicles. I am one of those who have benefited from this Government's concrete action. Now I know what it is to live in comfortable surroundings.

Like many Singaporeans, I do not wish to go back to the living conditions of yesteryears. But for some various reason, there is a small section of our fellow Singaporeans who still find it difficult to keep pace with the rapid economic progress despite Government's efforts in helping them. Nonetheless, looking at them from a Third World poverty criteria, our poor is only relatively poor compared to those of us who have more. With the benefit of hindsight, coupled with the fact that I am now a Government Backbencher, I want to do my part. I join my fellow colleagues in urging the Government to continue to help the poor and, in this instance, to help them own their own homes. I fully support the measures suggested by my colleague from Chong Boon. In addition, I want to suggest a long term measure.

(1) That the Government should ensure that this section of the population are gainfully employed during the tenure of their loan for the purchase of their own home.

(2) That their children be exempted from paying any form of fees and be given free textbooks from pre-primary to tertiary level until one member is able to subsidize family expenditure.

I personally think that this would give them a greater sense of dignity than just mere handouts. I further suggest that the Government consider allowing their richer relatives help pay part of their flat from their excess CPF. Secondly, that the richer fellow Singaporeans be encouraged to donate part of their excess CPF savings towards initial deposits required for the purchase of their flats. This should be done through a Government agency to avoid possible embarrassment or obligations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are confident that our appeal will not fall on deaf ears. The reason for our confidence is very simple. You see, Mr Speaker, Sir, the players have changed but the goals, aspirations, and the determination to continually better the lives of all Singaporeans remain the same.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues in this House in commending the HDB for its achievements in the last 25 years. Most of us know that without the HDB we would not be what we are today, living in a clean, green and safe environment. The HDB has done much to change our way of life - from the slum dwellings in unhygienic and insanitary conditions in the sixties and, for some of us, even in the seventies, to the warmth and comfort of modern HDB homes, be they 3-room, 4-room, 5-room, executive apartments or even HUDC flats. Prices of HDB flats are now within the reach of the majority of our population. The waiting time for a flat has been reduced from what used to be five years or more to a mere two years. Today, 81% of our population live in HDB estates which are well equipped with facilities, such as markets, shops, clinics, schools, recreational facilities and social amenities. As if providing a clean and green environment is not enough, the HDB went a step further, to form Residents' Committees to promote social cohesiveness and community spirit among HDB flat dwellers. Today,the RC movement has been successful and has become a way of life for most HDB flat dwellers. All this would not have been possible without the foresight, hardwork and efforts of the management, staff and workers of the HDB in the last 25 years. May I say, Three Cheers to the HDB for a job well done!

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Mr Speaker, Sir, while we are debating ways and means on how the HDB and the Government could help the lower income group own their own homes, which I support wholeheartedly, we should also draw HDB's attention to the need to keep maintenance and conservancy charges low, within the reach of this group of people. How can HDB do this? Yes, automate and mechanize its services and operations to improve productivity and keep costs down; perhaps even design special HDB flats for this group of people where the maintenance cost is kept to a minimum. But I believe, Sir, in the long term the solution is to help educate these residents, these people in the lower income group, on what they themselves can do to help keep their own estates clean, green and safe.

It is a well known fact that till today, we still hear of complaints by HDB residents about littering, lift vandalism, urinating in the lifts, damage to public telephones installed at the void decks, and so on. From my observations, as an MP for 10 months and as an HDB resident for the last 20 years, first staying in a 3-room rental flat, subsequently upgraded to a 3-room purchase flat, and presently a 5-room purchase flat, I find these undesirable anti-social acts of littering and vandalism to be more common in the 1-room and 2-room flats, and these are largely rental flats, and less so in the purchased 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats. Perhaps it has got something to do with the socio-economic background of residents living in those flats. Perhaps, residents of rental flats are less responsible.

May I suggest that the HDB intensify its community development programme and embark on an intensive education programme to help educate our residents, especially those in the lower income group, on the do's and don'ts with regard to their social responsibility and role in the upkeep of their own estate. Only by encouraging and getting them to look after their own estates will a good living environment prevail and maintenance and conservancy charges be kept low within their reach.

The HDB has made a good start recently. Its recent Area Office Open House programme was a success. There were interactions between HDB staff and residents. Residents were shown how to be more considerate to their neighbours and even how to do simple plumbing work at home. I think we should have more of such activities for our residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I may be exaggerating or am unnecessarily concerned about the ability of the lower income group, when they eventually own their own homes, to pay maintenance charges and help look after their own estates. Buying or renting a house is like buying or renting a car. When one rents a car, one tends to spend less care on it. But when one drives one's own car, one tends to be more careful. What is more, when a car owner is on a tight budget, he will soon find the shortest route to travel and perhaps even maintain and service his own car. I hope this will also apply to our lower income group residents when they eventually own their own homes through the help and encouragement of the HDB and the Government.

I support the motion.

Mr S. Vasoo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion by the Member for Chong Boon.

Our 25 years of public housing programme has changed not only the physical but the social landscape of Singapore. Lifestyles of families, children and the young have changed. In fact, for many families, there is dramatic change - the way family lives has been organized. Mr Speaker, Sir, never in the history of public housing have so many people gained so much from governmental efforts to provide homes for people. I must say that credit must be given to the many people who had a hand in shaping our housing programmes for the last 25 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having relocated about 81% of our population in various public housing estates, the HDB has become a convenient target for social blame because it deals basically with issues from cradle to grave. The House, I think, has given sufficient critical comments. The Opposition too have given critical comments. The difference is that the comments by PAP parliamentarians are well-researched, documented, supported with sufficient evidence to get constructive programmes organized and done. Despite all these pressures and demands by the public, the Board has attempted to remain on course to do its best.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am concerned about is the issues which will arise in the next five to 10 years. I feel that HDB has to become more sensitive to the social and demographic changes and the needs of the people living in the various public housing estates. It has to gear itself to be more socially responsive to some of the social challenges ahead.

Now, what are these social challenges that the Housing Board needs to respond? I will just identify a few of them for the Board to think through in the next five to 10 years so that its social management perspective can be further strengthened. Some housing estates will have a growing number of elderly residents. This will be acute in older estates where more young people have been resettled into new housing estates. In view of this situation, it will be important for the Board to modify the existing facilities so as to attract more young people into these estates, and at the same time to make these estates more accessible, more conducive, to the growing elderly population in the next five to 10 years. Currently, about 21% of the HDB households, representing 108,745 households, are living in 1-room and 2-room flats. They are low income families. It is difficult for them to become home owners because the social and economic cost is too much for them to shoulder. This sector of the population will always find it difficult to meet payments when they become home owners. It will be desirable for HDB to waive the 20% deposit required, and perhaps consider extension of the loan repayment, to help this sector of people who wish to become home owners. Even with these considerations, there will still be a small number who will not be able to make it. I think the rental scheme should still be made available to this lot of people who have difficulties in moving into home ownership. I feel particularly concerned for this sector of people. More attention will have to be given to the building of social community organisation and infrastructure programmes programmes to help these residents to help themselves in solving their problems, and to encourage them to assist in the maintenance of the environment.

I feel that it is time we reviewed the way in which social services and other community efforts, in terms of programmes, can be channelled to this sector. There are increasing number of children who are growing in this environment. And if we are looking at the cycle of poverty trap of families, then I feel that the Board must liberalize by giving facilities or make provision for facilities such as social facilities and facilities for programmes, to be organized for this sector.

I also anticipate that there will be some changes in the social texture of the older housing estates. It is probable that they will not have a good social mix of people when the better-off move out. The neighbourhood will become less resourceful in tackling its problems at the local level. Therefore, there is a need for HDB to rethink ways to rejuvenate the older neighbourhoods in order to make them more attractive to people who have the potential to contribute and be attracted to live in these estates.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, many housing estates will age further in the next five years. More demands and pressures for maintenance tasks can be anticipated. In order that the Board may respond fairly quickly to these tasks, it will be necessary for the Board to decide decentralizing some of its decision-making processes to the estate level. Estate officers can be given more powers to deal with localized neighbourhood problems. In doing so, the estate will be able to galvanize itself and to mobilize the residents together to build a better social environment. I feel that perhaps a Residents' Enquiry Counter could be established in the Area Office so that residents themselves will feel comfortable when approaching the HDB to deal with problems relating to the neighbourhood, or to deal with issues that the residents may face with regard to the maintenance of their homes.

More importantly too, I feel that when new estates are built, there is a need for the Board to build the Area Office when residents are moving into these new estates. By having the new Area Office located in new towns, problems related to new residents could be tackled as quickly as possible. A better rapport could be built between new estates Area Offices and new residents and through their mutual cooperation, the estates will then have its social throb and be better socially organized. The neighbourhood problems will be solved together with cooperation from the HDB. I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I think it is a good time to suspend the Sitting until 2.30 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm