HOME OWNERSHIP

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed. 2.52 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to this motion but I do not propose to move it now. I propose to speak, first of all, on the motion and then move my amendment half-way through, and then speak on the amendment. Or would you like me to move my amendment first?

Mr Speaker: You better do it now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do it now? As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the motion standing in the names of the Members for Chong Boon and Paya Lebar:

To delete all the words after the word "Government" appearing in the 8th line and to insert thereafter the following words -

'to appoint a Commission of Inquiry:-

(1) to inquire into the present prices charged by the Housing and Development Board to purchasers;

(2) to examine the justification for these prices and whether they cannot be reduced;

(3) to examine and recommend proposals to facilitate the purchase of publicly subsidized housing by citizens in the lower income group;

(4) to examine all the powers at present exercised by the Housing and Development Board and their justification therefor'.

Sir, I beg to move my amendment.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed by the Member for Anson, as an amendment, to seek to leave out the words from "Government" in line 8 to the end, and there to insert the words as proposed.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I now speak on the motion and then on my amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir. When I saw this motion that was tabled, I wondered why the motion was tabled at this point in time. It is not, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am against the principle of home ownership. I am all for it, and I think it is very desirable that as many of our citizens should be helped and encouraged to own their own homes. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the burning question at the moment in the minds of many a Singaporean. I do not think for a minute that their priority - and, of course, we are talking about those who are not owning HDB flats and the motion is directed to helping them - I do not think their priority at the moment is whether they can buy an HDB flat or apartment. Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that one of the problems that many residents in HDB apartments are facing now is whether they will be able to continue with their instalment payments to the HDB in this time of recession.

Mr Speaker, Sir, only last night somebody came to see me in my office in my constituency, someone not from my own constituency but from outside the constituency. It was a woman. She said she had come to see me with a letter on behalf of retrenched workers. Their problem at the moment is how to meet the HDB instalment payments and the fear that was looming over them was whether they would lose their HDB apartments. Her suggestion was that I should say something in Parliament that the HDB should consider very seriously cases of these retrenched workers who find themselves unable to make their instalment payments and to give appropriate relief to them - either suspend the payments for the period of their unemployment, spread the payment and or reduce the amount of the instalments.

That seems to me to be the main problem at the moment in Singapore, not the question of whether they can buy an HDB apartment or not. There are now at least 7,000 to 8,000 of our workers who are retrenched. And particularly those who come from the lower income group, those who occupy the 1-room, 2-room flats, they are finding it very difficult, a struggle, to make ends meet. The question of buying their own homes is furthest from their minds at the moment. So I wondered why the Members, no doubt at the instigation of the Government, have tabled this motion. I suspected it was probably because the HDB wanted praise for the HDB's achievements. They wanted praise from this House, acknowledgment of the contributions made by the HDB over the past 25 years. I am not against giving praise where it is due and no one can deny that there have been a tremendous number of apartments built for our people over the last 25 years. That was the reason for this motion, and it became clearer as I heard the mover of the motion and his seconder and others speak after that. The purpose clearly was to sing a chorus of praise for the HDB, and not only for the HDB but also for the PAP Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to be assumed from the Government side that the history of Singapore only started from 1959, that Singapore's progress only began in 1959 and before that there was nothing really to speak of. One is to forget that the people were enabled to buy their own houses because of the foresight of the government, before the PAP took over, in introducing the Central Provident Fund for our citizens. But that is all lost and forgotten. Whatever the SIT did should not be mentioned. All attention should now be focussed merely on the HDB and, of course, the PAP Government. That seems to me to be the real purpose of this motion because from the motion itself you will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the first three parts, as I said, sing a chorus of praise for the HDB's achievements. And, as I said a little while ago, I am not averse to giving praise or recognizing the contribution where it is due.

But let us not forget that whilst it provided houses for the citizens, the HDB has been used as an instrument of political control by the PAP Government. That is quite evident from the powers that have been given to the HDB under the statute and also from the powers that the HDB has arrogated to itself outside the Act - its list of people who are forbidden to apply for HDB apartments, its powers to throw people out, its exclusion of people from alternative accommodation when they are resettled. A number of these powers have been used to the misery and unhappiness of a lot of our citizens and, as I said, it has been useful because, through the HDB, people could be controlled. If they should attempt to be a little troublesome, as the word is, they can always be brought to heel through the HDB mechanism by a visit to their flat by HDB officers with a simple hint, a suggestion that they are there just at the pleasure of the HDB and that they owe their residence to the pleasure of the HDB and to the PAP Government. So it is not all a matter of the people's welfare and serving the people. The Government, of course, recognizes the effectiveness of a statutory board like the HDB to serve its purposes to maintain political control and in that respect the HDB has done very well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as was mentioned by the mover and perhaps the seconder, the reason for this motion is that the HDB is celebrating its 25 years of existence. Sir, a playwright in the 16th century, I think, wrote about good wine needing no bush. I do not know why it is necessary that the HDB be praised. If that is necessary, then it has not served the people of Singapore.

I have complained in this House several times about the draconian powers exercised by the HDB over the lives of our citizens through this home-ownership plan. It is some kind of home-ownership plan, Mr Speaker, Sir, ownership where the owner has really no rights over his home. If one looks at Part IV of the Housing and Development Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, one finds that the owner of an HDB apartment is only an owner in name. The HDB is given powers under the Act for a host of reasons to dispossess the owner and to re-acquire the property. And when it does, it pays him whatever it thinks fit he should receive for the property. A philosopher wrote about the state becoming a leviathan, Mr Speaker, Sir. Here in Singapore we have a veritable leviathan in the Housing and Development Board, notwithstanding that it has, as I said, built these homes for our people.

The last part of the motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, deals with the question of encouraging our low-income group to own their own homes. It is only the last part of the motion which deals with that. Ostensibly it was intended as a motion to encourage our citizens to own their own homes.

Sir, as I said, it is, of course, desirable that everyone should own their own home, and it is to this end that I have proposed an amendment to this motion because we can then inquire into the cost of the HDB apartments that are made available to our citizens. Ever since the HDB took over the task of providing public housing for our citizens, prices have been increased for these apartments without any public justification or control over the increase in the prices. Before 31st October 1981, every year prices went up, sometimes it went up by 10%, 15%, and in 1981 the prices went up by as much as 38%. The Minister for National Development, in presenting the increase in prices for 1981 (this was before 31st October 1981) mentioned that the HDB would go bankrupt if it continued to sell the flats at the prices they had been selling them. But, as I pointed out, when I later came into this House, when he made the announcement he was not able to tell the public what was the unit cost to the HDB for the construction of the apartments. He was not able to do that because the accounts prepared by the HDB did not show a costing of the flats. And so all that the public had was a statement by the Minister that the HDB was selling at prices below the construction cost, below the cost to it, and it could not go on doing this and there had to be an increase.

I pointed out to the Minister, way back in 1982, that before he appealed to the public he should have gone to them with proper figures to justify the need for the increase and that he could only have done that if he had a costing of the flats unit by unit - 3-room, 4-room, 5-room, 6-room. I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the HDB is a public body, a statutory board made accountable to Parliament and to the public through Parliament. But it has over the years completely disregarded its obligations to the citizens and to the public. It has become a law unto itself. It has increased its prices without considering whether it should justify these prices to the public and to the purchasers. I know the Minister for National Development still continues to deny that the HDB is making a profit on the construction and sale of these apartments. But may I tell the Minister that very few people believe that. We do not believe it and we have been saying this right from 1981, after I came in. I pointed out, in my first appearance in this House, that the service and conservancy charges collected by the HDB were far in excess of what they were spending on the service and conservancy for these flats. And, of course, after that, the notes to the accounts were rewritten to show that the accounts also included a number of other items which were paid. But let us not forget that last year (was it?) $40 million was transferred from the service and conservancy charges to repay loans. If any illustration was needed, that provided ample illustration that the HDB was collecting far more than it needed for service and conservancy. So if the Government intends to promote purchase of HDB apartments among the lower income group, something must be done to inquire into the cost of the HDB apartments so that the fears of the public may be laid at rest.

There should be an inquiry, and I have suggested a Commission of Inquiry under the Inquiry Commissions Act with quantity surveyors and the Commission receiving evidence from members of the public and from people who are in the construction business about the cost to the HDB inbuilding these flats and at what price they should be sold. There should be an examination by this Commission into the justification for the present prices, whether there is not a case for a reduction of these prices. That is one part of it. You have got to try and bring down the cost, particularly for the lower income group, of the HDB apartments. If you are serious about encouraging them to own their own homes, it is no good saying, "Well, we will give you a loan, my man" if it is going to saddle him for the rest of 20 years or more with having to make large payments from his salary which he can ill afford. That is not going to help him to make up his mind to buy the house. He wants to know whether it is being offered to him at a cost which he can well afford.

The other aspect, of course, is the method of payment of the price for the apartments. I was very glad to note from the mover of the motion that he had in mind, or he was recommending to the Government, that the HDB should consider lowering the interest on loans given to those in the lower income group. We made the suggestion at our National Day Rally in August of this year, and I am glad to find that it is being considered, if not by the Minister for National Development, by at least the PAP Backbenchers. So it is not true that we do not make suggestions that are not worthy of consideration. He has also suggested that loan terms for repayment should be extended and that there should be a reduction in the downpayment that is required from all purchasers. Those are some measures and, of course, one can think of other measures to help the lower income group.

But my plea is this: I think it is time we had a public inquiry into the whole question of public housing. We have had 25 years of the HDB providing public housing, and it is good, at this time when most of our people have been provided with apartments, that there should now be an inquiry into not only the prices that are being charged but also on the whole question of public housing - how much that should be subsidized, what should be the rights of the owners of these apartments, how their rights should be protected, what protection should be given to them against the HDB or against anybody else. The whole question should be examined. At the moment, under the law a tenant of an HDB apartment has no protection whatsoever. The HDB has only to serve a notice to quit, giving one week's notice, and if the man does not move out with his family, HDB goes to the court - it does not always go to the court, as I have been saying - and throws him out. It is time to consider whether they should be left completely at the mercy of the HDB. I am sure the Minister will say in his reply, "Well, we do not. We are not tyrants as you have made us out to be. We do not throw everybody out. We consider every case on its merits, and it is only in really bad cases that we exercise these draconian powers." But that is not the answer. The answer is that you should give our citizens their rights, and everything should be spelt out in Acts or in Regulations, and not left to the discretion of the HDB or any other authority.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the movers of the motion to accept this amendment because it gives substance to the motion moved by them. The motion, as it stands, is that it "urges the Government to take suitable measures". That is not going far enough. It is for us, as representatives of the people, to suggest concrete measures to the Government, and a concrete measure towards helping the people would be to inquire into the cost and then to see whether the prices can be reduced for our people who are unable to afford them at the present prices, and also to inquire into how payments can be made easier for them, and then the whole question of the terms and conditions under which they occupy their flats. I have mentioned before that in other countries the tenants sit on the board of the public housing boards. Here, our owners of HDB apartments or tenants have no representation on the Board. Is it not time we moved up a little bit and gave them some representation so that their views can be heard?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. 3.27 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion of the Member for Anson, and I would like to speak on the two motions together.

The motion of the Members for Chong Boon and Paya Lebar is an obvious attempt by the PAP Government to pat itself on its back.

An hon. Member: Why not?

Mr Chiam See Tong: As I sat there, I heard, before the Member for Anson spoke, speaker after speaker rising in praise of the HDB, sky-high. It was nothing more than a self-reinforcing exercise. For a moment one would think that the HDB is a superstar which, in fact, it is not. At least the voters did not think so.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Which voters?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Last year's voters. There was a 12% swing towards the Opposition. And as for the HDB residents in the estates at Jalan Bukit Purmei and Potong Pasir, they distinctly voted against what would have been expected if the HDB were that good. Of course, we know what their complaints were. The flats were too costly and, of course, the workmanship was shoddy, very bad. I shall speak of the high price later on.

Then we hear two Backbenchers talk about going up the ladder; from 1-room to 2-room, to 3-room, and staying in a crowded 1-room, five families - a sob story. For a moment I thought I was listening to a Chinese TV serial. I hope they do not underestimate our intelligence. They know what HDB is for - to mop up the CPF; it props up the Singapore economy, and it has got much political mileage for the ruling Party. I do not think when the HDB, the Government, is building blocks and blocks of flats, they were thinking of the Member who was staying in a 1-room with five families in it.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: Mr Speaker, can I make a point of clarification here? I think the Member for Potong Pasir was not listening to my speech just now. He was only trying to find ways and means to ridicule. I did not say five families in one bedroom. I said "five to seven people to one bedroom" and that I am only just one of the grateful Singaporeans who had benefited in living in HDB flats, and that is why I am like any other ordinary Singaporean who will say "Thank you" to those who have given to us. Perhaps both of them, I believe, have not lived in HDB flats before. That is why I think they are so ungrateful and they have an axe to grind against the HDB.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Last year, the electorate did not think so.

The Member for Chong Boon spoke of his experience in Korea. He said that one Korean told him that we were very fortunate. We have 80% of our population staying in public housing and they have only 15%. It is obvious that the Korean was just being polite to the Member for Chong Boon. They have 15% of public housing and the rest of the money is put in productive forces - factories, nuclear power stations, motorcar factories. That is why their economy is so vibrant, whereas in Singapore we put all our eggs only in the property market. And what has happened now? When the property market drops, we have got zero growth and, in fact, it is going to be negative growth. I think emphasis on property is bad economic culture. Property essentially is non-productive. Do not think for a moment that the Koreans have not got enough houses to live in. I am sure they have. Otherwise they would not be hosting the 1988 Olympics if they were living in slums.

The HDB was formed in 1960. It was not a PAP idea. As the Member for Anson has said, the British colonialists started the public housing programme. They had a body called the Singapore Improvement Trust. They were already building cheap houses for the lower income group. And so it was not a PAP idea to provide cheap public housing. The HDB was set up to take over the tasks of the Singapore Improvement Trust to provide low-cost public housing for people in the lower income group. In 1964, the home ownership for the people scheme was launched to enable citizens in the lower income group to purchase a flat. It would appear that, after 25 years of existence, the HDB has not fulfilled its objective of providing homes for the lower income group. If that is so, then we do not need to come here to debate on the motion of the Members for Chong Boon and Paya Lebar.

The home ownership for the people scheme was started more than 20 years ago and yet substantial numbers of the lower income group cannot purchase HDB flats. The reason is obvious. HDB flats are no longer cheap in relation to the incomes of those in the poorer sections of the population. There is no shortage of HDB flats. In fact, it was reported in the press not long ago that there were surplus flats built at Yishun. Anybody who now wants a 3-room flat can go to the HDB Area Office and get one. I have personal knowledge; in fact, from my own staff who applied for a flat in Yishun, "When do you want it? You can get it tomorrow if you want to."

Mr Chandra Das: What is wrong with that?

Mr Chiam See Tong: The high cost of public housing is the main deterrent to home ownership for citizens in the lower income group. Prices of HDB flats have dramatically increased. In 1979, prices of HDB apartments increased by 15%; in 1980, by 20%; in 1981, a hefty jump of 38%; in 1982 and 1983, there were 5% increases; and in 1984, the increase was 2 1/2%. On average, for the four years beginning 1979, the increase in selling price was about 19.5%.

I will cite three examples to show the range of price increases of HDB flats by comparing, first, the 1973 and current prices. Take a 5-room flat in Buona Vista. In 1973, it cost $27,500. What about the current prices for a 5-room flat? The price range is from $82,000 to $132,000. The increases ranged from 3 to 4.8 times. For a 4-room flat in 1976, about 10 years ago, also at Buona Vista, the selling price was $17,500. At the present time, a 4-room flat is selling in the range of $57,000 to $91,000. There is an increase of 3.3 times to 5.2 times. In 1976 again, the selling price of a 3-room flat was $11,800 in the new towns. A 3-room flat today costs between $37,300 and $59,500. The increase is between 3.9 and 5 times. These are clear-cut examples of hefty jumps in prices of HDB flats. That is why the lower income groups are left out.

Public housing is no longer cheap. The present HDB 3-room flats have been priced beyond the reach of people in the lower income group who are sole breadwinners. As a result of the price increases, the HDB made hefty profits. Pricing of the flats by the HDB is not entirely guided by costs alone. This can be shown by the fact that construction cost and the cost of materials and the prices of property generally have dropped in 1984. And yet the HDB's selling prices went up against market trends, they were raised 2(r)%, as mentioned. All prices of properties this year have dropped drastically, ranging from 30% to 50%. Paper losses must amount to millions of dollars of the 1981 prices, when there was a peak, and yet there is no drop in the HDB selling prices of its flats.

The Minister for National Development was reported to have said that, despite the big increase of 38% in 1981, the purchasers could still afford to purchase. Why? He knew exactly how much Singaporeans had in the Central Provident Fund. Therefore, according to the Minister, the amount of CPF Singaporeans had must be directly related to the prices of HDB flats. It would appear that the HDB is a tool of the Government to mop up the CPF of the people. The majority of purchasers use their CPF to buy HDB flats. The general trend of HDB flat selling prices can only be upwards because, in the long-run, building costs will go upwards. This would mean that the CPF contribution rate would move only upwards as well. The high rate of CPF contribution will cause the Government repayment problems in the future. Originally, everybody agreed with the Government that CPF contributions were a good thing as its overt purpose was savings for old age. Nobody was against having a nestegg on their retirement. We know now that the Government will have repayment problems in the future.

Similarly, home ownership for all, on the face of it, is a commendable policy. But will this policy of 100% home ownership also end up like the CPF in a future date, encumbered with all kinds of problems causing great hardship and distress? With such high prices, purchasers will be tied up for life making substantial monthly repayments to the HDB. If the Government intends to pursue its policy of 100% home ownership, then I would call on the Government to lower the selling prices of HDB flats. Prices of HDB flats at the moment are priced too high, taking into account the HDB need not pay the increase in land prices since 1973. All the land acquired by the HDB is based on 1973 prices. There should be a reduction of at least 10% of prices of HDB flats. At this level of price reduction, the HDB will still not suffer a loss.

My Party has published facts and figures a year ago to show that the HDB was making profits. We have again published in our Party's paper, the Democrat, to show with a set of figures provided by the Minister himself that the revenue from sales of flats at Potong Pasir exceeds the construction costs. We have also attempted to show that a profit at Potong Pasir Estate was made. Our articles on the HDB are not wishy-washy. They are based on facts and are all substantiated.

Just now I asked the Minister what was the land area at Potong Pasir acquired. According to this report at page 30, it is 47 hectares. This works out to be about just over 5 million. And if he says that compensation paid was $1,081 million - am I right? - that works out to $262 per sq ft. I know for sure that at the neighbouring Pek San Teng Estate, the HDB compensated the farmers there, inclusive of the farm, with $19,500, ie, at only $1 per sq ft. Why the big jump? At one place you pay only $1 and at another place, the HDB pays $200-odd. I really need this clarification from the Minister himself.

We all know now that the so-called subsidy given by the HDB is no subsidy at all. The truth of the matter is that the HDB, in its calculation of flat prices, has taken the open market value of land and not the actual cost of the land, ie, the actual amount of money it paid for compensation for compulsorily acquiring the land. The people of Singapore tolerated the Land Acquisition Act only because that piece of legislation was used by the Government to acquire land for public use. It is immoral for the HDB to acquire land at a cheap rate, at 1973 prices, and to charge flat purchasers at the open market value or at opportunity cost. The whole purpose of compulsorily acquiring land at a low price is to enable the HDB to sell its flats at a cheap rate to Singaporeans. The HDB should not charge flat buyers one cent more than what it paid for the land.

It is also ridiculous for the HDB to claim that it has given subsidy to flat purchasers because it has not charged the full market value of land. This absurdity can be clearly seen by a simple illustration. Take, for example, a company purchases a piece of land for $200 and sells it for $1,000. The market value of that piece of land happens to be $1,500. By HDB reasoning, that company should be able to declare to the Comptroller of Income Tax that it has suffered a loss of $500 because it has sold the land at $1,000 instead of $1,500. The company should factually report as follows: purchased land at $200, sold it for $1,000, profit is $800. That is what the HDB should do. Similarly if the HDB acquired land at, say, $6 per sq ft in a certain area, its cost of land is $6 per sq ft. The HDB cannot say that it could have sold the land at $50 per sq ft in the open market and therefore it has given a subsidy of $44 per sq ft. The HDB should not adopt a double standard. When it acquires land, it gives very low compensation. The reason is that it acquires the land to build cheap public housing. But when it sells the flat, it makes a turn around and charges purchasers the market value. If the Government really wants to help the poor in owning homes, then it must ensure that the HDB does not price the land higher than the prices paid for its acquisition.

The question of the value of land as far as public housing is concerned is a moral issue. The HDB should not take into account the potential value of land or its opportunity cost. It has acquired the land cheaply and, therefore, it must sell it back cheap. The HDB has the advantage of the Land Acquisition Act. Why must it charge people more than what it acquired the land for? The HDB considers the HUDC flats as subsidized. The drop in property market prices this year has brought some prices of private condominium units even cheaper than the HUDC units which are supposed to be subsidized. New private condominium units along Lorong Chuan are priced at $210 per sq ft, whereas an HUDC apartment is selling at $250 per sq ft. Not only are the said private condominiums selling at a lower rate, but if you have a look at them, they have more amenities than the HUDC units. They have got squash courts, swimming pool and free parking. You pay for your facilities.

Housing for all is a good policy but the HDB must not profit from it. If the HDB has stuck to its original objective of providing cheap housing to the lower income group by charging the cost of land as the cost it has paid for, then today I would be standing here to praise the HDB. But unfortunately that is not the position.

When my Party alleged that the HDB was making profits, the Minister, instead of taking the proper step of coming forth with his own facts and figures to prove that we were wrong, issued me a challenge to build four blocks of flats. I accepted the offer in writing, with 19 conditions. The Minister replied that all the 19 conditions were impossible conditions. One of the conditions was that we required the Minister to prove us wrong, ie, my Party's allegation that the HDB was making a profit. The Minister has put it in writing and said that that was an impossible condition, ie, to refute my Party's claim that the HDB was making a profit. Is that really an impossible condition? You are unable to prove us wrong. If the Minister cannot prove my Party wrong, then my Party's allegation that the HDB is making a profit must be right. As far as I am concerned, the issue of building the four blocks of flats is still alive. The Minister must come back to me and tell me why all the 19 conditions are impossible. You cannot just brush them off.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: What about making the land free?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, that was his offer, not mine.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Why didn't you take it?

Mr Chiam See Tong: He cannot just brush aside a big issue by making a sweeping statement that all my 19 conditions were impossible. Whether or not the HDB makes a profit is a big issue and will remain so, and it will never fade away until the people of Singapore get a satisfactory reply from the Minister. There are 80% of the population out there who are interested in this issue. They are all residing in HDB flats. Many of them are flat owners, and eventually if this policy gets through, they will all be flat owners. Therefore, I want the Minister to tell me exactly why he thinks those 19 conditions are impossible. We all want to know the truth of the matter.

The HDB has announced that with effect from April it is going to have a new accounting system. Under that system all parcels of land will be transferred by the HDB to the Government land bank. The Government will then resell the land back to the HDB at a price subject to Government valuation. By this method, it was alleged that the unit cost of flat can be determined. This new accounting system will not bring down flat prices. The HDB has still to pay for the price of land at market value and not at its original acquired cost. Only this time the profits on the land will be transferred, probably to the Government.

It has been reported that one of the functions of the HDB is to provide community facilities. Much as been said about the RCs, CCCs, CCMCs, but unfortunately these so-called grassroots organizations have not really seeped down to the bottom level of the HDB estate residents. They still remain at the top and only reach out to a few. Why? Because these so-called grassroots organizations are politically motivated. If they are to be effective, then I would say that the HDB should recommend strongly that they should be taken away from the Prime Minister's Office and put in the hands of the residents themselves. Then they will become effective, and then we will see a truly cohesive society, a truly meaningful community, effective. The Government should show that the people would be given responsibility; then they can be effective. Then we would not have these social problems of killer-litter, as one Member there from his own experience mentioned such anti-social activities like urinating in the lift, vandalism, and the like. 3.56 pm