HOME OWNERSHIP

Debate resumed.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has again repeated his allegation that the HDB is reaping untold profits from the sale of too costly flats. He has supported those of us on the Government side of this House in recognizing and commending HDB's achievements and contributions in the area of public housing. This is evident from the wording of his amendment to the motion. However, he has, in his part of the amendment, attempted to belittle the contribution which HDB has made to our nation building effort.

Sir, it is no mean task to provide homes for nearly two million people and to provide daily care and management for the vast number of housing estates which are sprouting all over the island. The HDB and all those who are associated with its operations must be congratulated for having done a fine job, for having accomplished the objectives.

Sir, is the HDB making unseemly profits? The Hon. Minister for National Development had, on the 21st March 1985, explained to this House the various costs involved in putting up a housing estate. He has stated that the HDB is, in fact, losing money. I recall, Sir, that on the same occasion the Hon. Minister for National Development asked the Member for Potong Pasir if he was indeed a liar who distorted facts on the cost of building HDB flats in order to mislead the people. What was the Member's reaction? Did he jump to his feet to protest that he was being maligned? Did he produce more facts and figures to further prove his case? No, Sir, he simply changed the subject of the debate at that moment with another question so that the question of whether he lied or not was left unanswered till this day.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not lie.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: That clearly showed how much faith the Member for Potong Pasir had in his own figures and in his own advisers. Sir, today he is repeating the same chant that the HDB is making a profit, yet in the same breath he admitted himself moments ago that the cost of flat must go up because cost of construction goes up. Sir, if he had any faith in his own claim or in his own figures, then should he not have accepted the Hon. Minister for National Development's previous offer to build four blocks of flats and keep the vast profits for himself or for his Party? Again, he chose to evade the issue by asking for ridiculous preconditions. Where is the element of sincerity in the Member for Potong Pasir? Either he believes in his allegation that they are true and show by deeds what his words claimed, or he stands accused as a manipulator of facts without credibility.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir would have us and the people of Singapore believe in him. But, as the records stand, there is nothing to substantiate his claim to be an honest and sincere seeker of the truth.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is wrong?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, he last came to this House with a motion to reduce MP's allowance by 25%. What happened next was a forewarning of his tendency to juggle figures. Inexplicably, he changed his mind and reduced the amount of his sacrifice by 10% to 15%.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It wasn't his motion.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: And we are still waiting to hear about his personal act to support this motion of his.

Sir, I have digressed slightly for a reason - to show that insincere rhetorics and artfully twisted arithmetics must not be allowed to reduce the scale and magnificence of the HDB's endeavour to provide homes for Singaporeans. 4.02 pm

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to reject the amendment moved by the Member for Anson.

I think his amendment is really inconsistent with the preamble of the motion as moved by the Member for Chong Boon. The preamble very clearly shows that the Housing and Development Board has achieved a very substantial degree of public housing for the people of Singapore, and yet in his amendment the Member for Anson asked for a commission of inquiry. The Member for Anson also acknowledges the achievements of the Housing and Development Board, and yet what does he want? At the drop of a pin, indeed even without the drop of a pin, he is asking for a commission of inquiry. What is the purpose of a commission of inquiry?

Mr Jeyaretnam: To find out the exact cost.

Mr Tang See Chim: Naturally a commission of inquiry is to be appointed if you think there is something wrong. The Member for Anson himself recognizes the achievements of the Housing and Development Board and yet he wanted a commission of inquiry. In his amendment, he has asked the Commission of Inquiry to inquire into four areas. Areas (1) and (2) are that the present prices charged by the Housing and Development Board are too high. Area (3) is to examine whether or not Government could facilitate the purchase of subsidized housing by citizens in the lower income group. So far as these points are concerned, they have been adequately answered by the mover of the motion, the Member for Chong Boon.

What I would do is to spend some time on the fourth point raised by the Member for Anson, and that is, his amendment "to examine all the powers at present exercised by the Housing and Development Board and their justification therefor." By this, he implies that either the Housing and Development Board has been exercising its powers unjustifiably, for which he really has not given us any evidence, or that the Housing and Development Board has powers given to it which are unjustified.

In moving his amendment he made a series of allegations without any substantial evidence to support them. One was that the Housing and Development Board is entitled to give notice to quit to the owners of the flats. I wonder where did he get such a provision which entitles the Housing and Development Board to give notice to quit without cause, without any reason. He did say that Part IV of the Housing and Development Act gives the Housing and Development Board very draconian powers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Point of clarification. May I ask the Member for Chua Chu Kang whether he has ever seen a notice to quit from the HDB? Does he not know what it says?

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have seen a notice to quit from the Housing and Development Board.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What does it say?

Mr Tang See Chim: The Housing and Development Board does not give notice to quit without reason. If they do give a notice to quit, it is because either the tenant has breached a condition of the sale or ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: A point of clarification. Is the Member seriously saying that the notice to quit issued by the HDB specifies the reason? Will you produce one?

Mr Tang See Chim: Is the Member for Anson seriously saying that the Housing and Development Board can give a notice to quit without reason? If that is so, why does he not take the Housing and Development Board to court?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would he like to ask the Minister to produce the notices to quit? He must know his facts before he speaks.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, a notice to quit simply gives the tenant notice to quit. But what the Member for Anson is alleging is that the Housing and Development Board can give a notice to quit without reason.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Mr Tang See Chim: Of course not! If that is the case, why does the Member for Anson not take the Housing and Development Board to court? Because every notice to quit is made pursuant to a reason. There must be a reason. If there is no reason, you cannot get the tenant out. I think that is the usual habit of the Member for Anson, that is, he is telling half-truths. Even in a notice to quit by a private landowner to a tenant, all you need do is to say that you are served with notice to quit and could you please quit the place within a month, or some period like that, after the service of this notice. The reason is that he has breached a condition. Without a reason, you cannot get the tenant out.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chua Chu Kang is able to follow what he is saying himself, or he is lost.

The simplest way of answering all this, if I may suggest to the Member, is to produce the notices to quit, and then we can talk about them. It is obvious that the Member does not know what is contained in the notice to quit from the HDB.

Mr Tang See Chim: That is precisely the reason why I say that the Member for Anson is telling half-truths to this House. The notice to quit need not contain the reason itself but you must have a reason before you can serve the notice to quit. What does that mean? Do you mean to say that the Housing and Development Board can serve a notice to quit on a tenant and get him out of the place without any reason at all? It must have a reason.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not giving way.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because you do not know what you are talking about. You really do not know what you are talking about.

Mr Tang See Chim: My main point is that the Housing and Development Board cannot serve a notice to quit without any reason and ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Ask the Minister.

Mr Tang See Chim: --- if there is a notice to quit without reason, why does he not take the Housing and Development Board to court? The court would then be able to adjudge that the Housing and Development Board has, for no reason, served a notice on the tenant, and the order would be that the tenant can stay put. The Housing and Development Board will be pronounced wrong. That is precisely why the Member for Anson is always telling half-truths to this House.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Tang See Chim remained standing.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He does not know what he is talking about. Will somebody show him the notice?

Mr Tang See Chim: The Member for Anson has not been giving any reasons to this House why these were draconian powers. In fact, the conditions on which a tenant can be asked to quit are amply spelt out in the Act itself, and if the Member for Anson wants an inquiry there is really no reason for it. Does he know how much it costs to appoint a commission of inquiry? He simply thinks that at the drop of a hat he could get a commission of inquiry. I would reject his amendment to appoint a commission of inquiry.

As far as the allegations of the Member for Potong Pasir are concerned, I think they have been adequately answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. All I can say is that what he quoted are not facts and figures but just lies and lies. [Interruption] Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. He has been offered the opportunity to build houses, and he has not accepted it. If he had accepted it, why did he not build the houses? Therefore, I would suggest that if he thinks the Housing and Development Board is making such large profits, he should accept the offer to him to build the flats so that he would make a lot of money for his Party.

For all these reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would reject the amendment moved by the Member for Anson.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just seek a clarification from the Member for Potong Pasir? It is usually not my habit to speak but, since this matter is of great public significance, I just want him to explain. First, I believe that the Minister for National Development this morning quoted the acquisition cost of land in Potong Pasir as, very roughly, $181 million. Have you got my figure?

Mr Chiam See Tong: 1,800.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: No. $181 million. The Member for Potong Pasir just now quoted a figure of total land acquired: 5 million sq ft. You said, "land acquired is 5 million sq ft". You claimed just now that the Government is paying $240 or $160 per sq ft. How do you arrive at that figure?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I must have heard wrongly. I have it as 1,081. The Member for Anson clarifies that it is 181. So 181 is about 36.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we can recall that some months ago he was confused with his arithmetic of the CPF. Now he is confused with his arithmetic of compensation. So if he has no ability to handle figures, then I think this bigger figure of HDB making profit is even more untrustworthy. I also suggest that ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of clarification.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: I will not give way.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is just that I heard it at 1081. You divide that by 5, and see what you get.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: There is another point which, I think, is of great public significance, and we have to state it. There are some members of the public who may be misled by it, and that is: a lie repeated often enough gets believed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That's right!

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: So I think that, in future, the public ought to be more aware of what the Member for Potong Pasir says.

Some hon. Members: He agrees.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a motion for the adjournment to be moved by the Member for Siglap called Dignity and Decorum of Members of Parliament. I am sure from the behaviour of the two Opposition MPs, he will have plenty to talk about afterwards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on the amendment submitted by the Member for Anson. But before doing so, I would like to comment on some of the points they have made. Both referred to the role of the British colonial government and the SIT concerning the provision of homes for the people of Singapore. Now, if they think that the British colonial government and SIT deserve praise, as we think the HDB does, then they should put a motion before the House and let us debate on that. If they did, and I hope they do, they will be the laughing stock of Singapore.

Both of them mentioned about the draconian measures taken by the HDB, the aggressive policies of the HDB, and yet it is undeniable that more than two-thirds of the people of Singapore own their own homes. 76% of residents in HDB estates own their own homes, and many more thousands of Singaporeans want to own their own homes. Why the rush to home ownership if the HDB is so draconian, takes unfair measures against them, and it the prices are not quite right for them?

Mr Jeyaretnam: They are forced.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Clearly they do not know, Mr Speaker, Sir, what they are talking about.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What are they?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: The Member for Anson in his introductory remark made a very revealing statement. He referred to the motion put forward by the Member for Chong Boon which refers to the question of home ownership for the lower income group, and he said, "This is not a burning question." I would like the press and the public to take note of this statement ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: At the moment, yes.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: --- that the Member for Anson is not concerned about the question of home ownership for the lower income group, and yet he professes to be the champion of the lower income group. Mr Speaker, Sir, coming to the amendment put forward by the Member for Anson, I would really like to talk about this tendency on the part of the Opposition MP to suggest ever so often Commission of Inquiries into various matters before the House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You want ample participation, don't you?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: His strategy, Mr Speaker, Sir, is very simple. Make false allegations about the Government, produce half-truths, and then say, "The only way to get to the truth is to have a Commission of Inquiry." It is a very simplistic line of strategy, and I do not think intelligent people will be taken in by that line of argument. Just imagine, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we accede to this amendment to have a Commission of Inquiry into the HDB, what is there to prevent the Member for Anson to suggest, henceforth, Commissions of Inquiries into the work- ings of Government ministries, departments, statutory boards?

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is very good.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: And then there will be so many Commissions of Inquiries involving considerable finance, manpower, and we will not be surprised that at the end of it, the Member for Anson will come before Parliament and say, "I would like to have a Commission of Inquiry to end all Commissions of Inquiries."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not saying that the Opposition MPs, if they have rational suggestions to make to the HDB, cannot do so. In fact, I am sure that the Minister for National Development would be only too happy to receive whatever suggestions they have and will give them due consideration and come to a decision befitting those suggestions. So the avenue is open to them to put forward whatever ideas and suggestions they have.

The Member for Potong Pasir mentioned the fact that the HDB is a political weapon of the Government, implying that the HDB in some way or another has discriminated against Opposition MPs. Here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have an example of not a half-truth but of an Opposition MP lying to the House and to the public. Let me state what the position is with regard to the treatment of MPs by the HDB. And if the Member for Potong Pasir refutes my points, then he should stand up and say so. All MPs, irrespective of whether they are PAP MPs or Opposition MPs, are given certain privileges, for example, the allocation of an MP's office. And both Opposition MPs have their offices allocated to them by the HDB.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Not yet.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Well, the Member for Potong Pasir said, "not yet". But he has already been allocated and his office is in the process of ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: When? One year already.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: --- construction and due for completion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is that how efficient the HDB is?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is very impatient. He should be patient and he will get his due. Then there is the question of the issue of HDB parking labels. Well, if you look at his car, he has got the HDB parking label ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: --- which allows him to park in HDB, URA carparks just like any other ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Not URA.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Yes, URA carparks too, unless of course he does not know that he has this privilege, and that he has been paying for it. But I am sure that if he appeals, he cannot get a refund. But he has the privilege. Where is the discrimination? All MPs have use of the void decks, the open space, for various functions. And I am sure that the Area Offices have approved their requests ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, they have not approved.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: --- to make use of the void decks for such functions as children's party, art competition, but of course not for free. There is a charge for the use of these spaces.

And last but not least, the referrals which all MPs submit to the HDB on behalf of their constituencies. They are given due attention, and I am sure the Opposition MPs cannot deny that. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Opposition MPs feel that there is serious wrongdoing, or if there are wrongdoings of whatever nature on the part of the HDB, they should so state it specifically and let the public know. And I am sure the Minister will have to respond to those allegations if they can be substantiated by facts. Otherwise, they are again misleading the House and the public, and I would call for the rejection of the amendment put forward by the Member for Anson.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just reply, since he has said that I should substantiate what I have said in regard to the specific points?

Mr Speaker: How many points have you?

Mr Chiam See Tong: At least three.

Mr Speaker: All right. Raise them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, I still have not got my MP's office yet. I have two requests for hangers at specific places for bird cages, which have not been attended to yet. To plant an exotic tree - I have written in three times, and they have been refused. And my request for a place for Malays who want to play Gasing also has not received a reply yet. So I can quote these specific instances.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may be permitted. I have so many requests which have been rejected by HDB because HDB has rules and regulations. You have to comply with them. And I suppose the requests you put forward are either unreasonable or they are taking time answering the questions.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson seems to have a liking for suggesting the setting up of various commissions of inquiry to investigate into one thing or another. I was told that in China there was one joke. In a certain place there was an instance of a rabid dog biting people. The cadre members there called a meeting to look into the matter and, after one whole day, they could not come to a conclusion, and the dog was still there biting the people.

The two Members of the Opposition do not understand the feelings of the people living in HDB flats. They have never stayed in an HDB flat. Of course, they have not stayed in an attap house. Nevertheless, they are making a lot of noise here. What is their intention? Their intention is to gain some political capital. Just now the Member for Potong Pasir attacked the speeches made earlier by my colleagues, the Member for Paya Lebar and the Member for Kaki Bukit, relating their personal experiences of how they struggled and gradually upgraded from living in a crowded 1-room flat to a 3-room and to a 5-room flat. The Member for Potong Pasir described this as a cheap tear-raising episode of a Chinese TV serial. I think this remark is a great insult to all those people who live in HDB flats. I feel he should make a public apology to all of them.

As a citizen who is now living in a 4-room HDB flat, let me tell you my experience and feelings. For more than 10 years I have been living in a shabby attap house in a kampong. At that time my family was very poor. When it rained at night, the roof leaked and the whole house shook in the storm. It was awful. I spent my childhood in the kampong. It is a nostalgic place. But, Mr Speaker, if you ask me to go back and live in such a place, I still have this lingering fear in me. I do still have this kind of nightmare sometimes. [Laughter] Please do not laugh. This is a true experience. I believe the majority of the people living in HDB flats have this kind of experience. After leaving the kampong, like the Member for Paya Lebar, I spent seven years living in a shabby house in Chinatown. But I can tell you this is another place which holds a nostalgic memory in my heart because there I met my wife. But if you want me to go back to such a place where you have to live with the rats, cockroaches and mosquitoes, of course, I will not agree. And I would not suggest that we preserve such an environment.

Sir, in 1975, about 10 years ago, there came a turning point in my family. After a few years of waiting for a flat, we were allotted a 3-room HDB flat. Now, any Singapore citizen who is not too choosy should be able to get a flat in Yishun or any other new town.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you had not experienced life in in a shabby attap house or in a crowded pigeon hole type of house in Chinatown, like Kreta Ayer, you will not be able to appreciate the feeling of joy and a sense of security when you move into an HDB flat.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, point of order. The point of order is: how is all this relevant to the amendment to the motion? It is all very interesting to hear the Member's personal history. But how is it relevant to the amendment?

Mr Speaker: He is coming to it.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I am coming to it. I want to emphasize this point. In Singapore, 80% of our population are living in HDB flats. Most of them came from poor families. They struggled to improve their earnings, and gradually upgrade their living environment. There were many children living in the same kampong where I lived. They are now living in HDB flats which they now own.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how is it possible? What is the reason? How could the poor people of Singapore keep improving their standard of living over the past 20 years? There are three reasons. First, our parents saved every cent they earned so that their children would be able to receive good education, good training. And the children, on their part, have not failed their parents. They worked hard at their studies. They have acquired a skill of their own.

Secondly, we must give credit to the HDB. The Housing Board has built many flats for the people, flats which they can afford.

Thirdly, we must give credit to the Government. If not for the Government, there would not have been the Housing and Development Board today, and we would not have political stability, economic growth, and full employment where everyone who wanted a job could get a job, and would be able to earn more and so improve their standard of living and purchase their own flats.

Of course, we cannot deny that at the present time there are still some people who cannot afford to purchase their own flats. They have to settle for a rental flat. But I believe even the poor people have a backbone and are resolute in their will. They would not do what some people who, on the one hand, while handing out a few hundred dollars for charity would, on the other hand, ask for hundreds of thousands of dollars from people to pay for the cost of litigation. But Singaporeans have a backbone and are a very resolute people.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, on a point of order. First of all, there is an imputation. No names were mentioned. I am asking for a ruling whether the Member should be allowed to continue in that vein.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder if he has a guilty conscience. I believe the people of Singapore all have a backbone and are straightforward. They could be poor, but they would not beg on their knees from others. They can stand straight, and would not beg for money or to swindle.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I have asked you for a ruling under Standing Orders. Is this Member allowed to go on making imputations? First of all, it is completely irrelevant to the amendment to the motion before the House. Secondly, he is making imputations, which are quite unnecessary and uncalled for.

Mr Speaker: Mr Goh, please come to your points.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, when I raised this point, I was trying to say that Singaporeans do not beg. They would not ask for a free house or something. They would rather find fulfilment of living through their own efforts. In these circumstances, how do we help them to buy to own their flats? This is the question I have been talking about.

As for those who are now living in rental flats and cannot afford to purchase their own flats, the Housing and Development Board may want to consider these suggestions; in fact, there have been some announcements regarding these. I would urge the HDB to consider the two recommendations made by the Member for Chong Boon, as they are practical and realizable and should be implemented as soon as possible, ie, to waive or reduce the deposit for the purchase a flat and to prolong the period of repayment. Perhaps for those who have been living in HDB rental flats for a long period of time, the HDB may want to consider lowering the selling price for them. But on a long term basis, to solve this problem of providing flats for the lower income group, I think the best way is to give their children more opportunities to be better educated. If their children are better educated, they will be able to earn a better income and have a better living, and with a better earning power and they will be in a position to purchase their own flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly object to the amendment to the motion by the Member of the Opposition. I fully support the motion by the Members for Chong Boon and Paya Lebar. I am sure there is no other comparable organization in any other part of the world whose achievements can be compared with those of the HDB. In 1980, I had an opportunity to visit China. I went to the countryside in Xiamen and I saw, for myself, that many of the people are still living in the old type of houses that my parents and their generation lived in, before they migrated to Singapore. Therefore, over the past 25 years, the Housing and Development Board has contributed much towards providingSingaporeans with proper living accommodation. The Board's undeniable contribution to solving our housing problem is not something which the two Members of the Opposition can challenge with their senseless ravings.

Apart from helping the lower income group to own their own flats, the HDB should also continue with their effort to build flats which members of the public could afford. As it is now, every newly married couple would like to own their own flat. So the practical solution to this problem is not to set up any commission of inquiry to look into the cost of building or into this or that. The Government should persist in carrying out its declared policy and ensure that the HDB build flats at a price which members of the public could afford to buy.

Mr Speaker: I think this is a good time to take a suspension. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.10 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.42 pm until 5.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Encik Yatiman Yusof (Kampong Kembangan): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to support the motion moved by the Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Paya Lebar and oppose the amend- ment moved by the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir.

After the Government announced its intention to give every Singapore citizen an opportunity to own his or her own home, it is only appropriate that measures toward this end be taken immediately without any further delay. This is because our Government is well-known as an efficient government which acts quickly. This is not a government which relishes in empty talk. In this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB has discharged its functions and responsibilities magnificently. It is not wrong for us to offer our heartiest congratulations and profound thanks to this organization which has transformed Singapore physically, population and occupation-wise, and the lifestyles of the community, an achievement unmatched anywhere.

In this regard, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Governmnet Backbencher, I do not wish to indulge in self-praise nor the HDB as alleged by the Opposition Members. The fact of the matter is that the HDB has fulfilled its tasks and the people of Singapore still need flats even today.

However, Sir, I am rather disappointed with the Opposition Members of this House who seize every opportunity to exploit this issue, which affects the majority of our citizens, purely to score political capital. Although they claim to represent the workers and the forces of democracy, they have failed to respond well to the Government's measures. In fact, they keep on drumming issues to which my colleagues in this House have adequately responded.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the allegations brought up is that when the Government intends to expedite the process of giving opportunities to our citizens to own their own flats, this is misconstrued as fishing in troubled waters. It is alleged that Government wants to speed up this housing project in order to reap profits. If this allegation is true, the answer can be found if the Members visit the HDB office at Maxwell Road to see for themselves the large crowds of Singapore citizens, morning and afternoon, queueing for flats. Is it suggested that these Singapore citizens, of their own volition allow themselves to be hoodwinked, thereby making it possible for the Government to reap profits? It is obvious that such allegations are untrue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we can deceive a person all the time, we can throw wool over the eyes of many people for a certain time. But it is too far-fetched for us to dupe 81% of the flat owners and tenants for a long period of 25 years. It is clear that such loose talks is irresponsible and in the long term will not produce the desired results. It is clear that the Opposition is exploiting this issue for its own ends. It is alleged that the HDB's enforcement action against tenants is too harsh. We have already suggested that a Town Council be set up to deal with such matters.

The Opposition also raised the question of setting up a Commission of Inquiry. Is this necessary where the people have no need for it? And the erroneous claim that public housing was started by the then Singapore Improvement Trust. They have their facts wrong in that the Singapore Improvement Trust only built flats for rental.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the time constraint, I merely wish to list some of the points which, in my opinion, were raised with ulterior motives. It is alleged that the selling prices of flats on the average rose 38% every year. I ask the Member concerned: Do the flat owners suffer monetary losses when they sell their flats? The fact is that those flat owners who purchased a 4-room unit at $30,000 could easily sell them at $80,000 at the present time. That point was not raised.

In fact, the most dangerous and dirtiest allegation is that the HDB is being used as a tool by the Government to rob our poor citizens of their CPF savings, by compelling them to buy flats. Such wild allegations can easily arouse the resentment of the people. But it is clear that such allegation contains lies. Are the flats not the property of the people? Have not the flats purchased by the people got no values in the market? Can the money not be exchanged after the flats have been sold? Such utterances made in this august Chamber will not help the people to grasp the significance of the praiseworthy measures which the Government intends to take.

On these grounds, Sir, I oppose the amendment, and I support the motion expressing our thanks to the HDB.

Mr Speaker: We have taken a long time, so let us come to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I reply to the speeches on the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: You want to reply?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Mr Speaker: There is no question of replying, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, it was my motion, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: It is not your motion. You just moved an amendment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker: The amendment of the Member for Anson has fallen. The Question now before the House is the motion moved by the Member for Chong Boon.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Members for Chong Boon and Paya Lebar.

Despite the attempts made by two Members in this House to belittle the efforts and the achievements of the HDB, the valuable contributions made by the HDB cannot be overstated. Many Singaporeans, including Members of this House, join me in expressing admiration and gratitude to what the HDB has done.

This motion is of special interest to me. In my first speech in this august Chamber, I highlighted the plight and difficulties of those who were living in 1- and 2-room flats. I do not intend to go into a description of the living conditions. This has been covered by previous Members. My contention then was, and it still is, that helping these people to upgrade to better homes is only a necessary condition to a longer term overall improvement. Better homes will help their children to improve educationally and in this way enable the family to break out of the cycle which they are trapped in. The essence then is an overall improvement through their children's education. When there is hope, a man will live with short term difficulties, and no sacrifice is too large for a man to see that his child has a better future than himself. There is a link between a better home and a child's education. Ownership of a better home is a necessary beginning.

I shall cover two points very briefly. The first relates to the scheme which has been mentioned several times before. There are many ways of trying to make this scheme interesting, but it must be flexible and innovative. No downpayment or a little downpayment, and a longer term repayment scheme has already been covered, but there are many others, such as increasing annuities. If we assume that income increases year by year, they can always pay less now but more as they go along. Repayment schemes can also be designed in such a way that members do not have to pay in any one single month of the year, ie, the Chinese New Year month, Hari Raya month, and so on. In other words, they can skip payment for a festive month. This is probably better than letting this group of people fall into rental arrears. With computers, this is now not difficult. But these are really details and I bring this up to urge our policy makers to leave no stone unturned in their efforts to design a package to make sure that most, if not all, of these people, can take up the scheme.

The second point I wish to touch on is the speed of implementation of this scheme. This matter is a long standing one. It was brought into the limelight late last year when the 20% downpayment was discussed. This was further highlighted in the President's Address this year. Since then it has been in the air, revived time and again. I realize that a major policy decision of this nature takes time, but there is much apprehension and anticipation. Each time it is revived, expectations rise. I hope that a decision will be taken soon and that the scheme will not come attached with so many riders and conditions that, at best, it becomes a scheme that is not significant, or at its worst, it will be unpalatable to the population.

5.23 pm

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members for Chong Boon and Paya Lebar and other PAP Members of the House who spoke on this motion commending the HDB, its management, staff and workers who have contributed to the success of our public housing programme.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We should have a chorus for the Minister.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Indeed, Singaporeans have every reason to be proud of our achievements in public housing under the PAP Government. To date, the HDB has built half a million flats to house 82% of our population. This is a remarkable record, unmatched by any other country in the world. What is even more remarkable is that 76% of the residents living in HDB flats own their homes. Few countries in the world have achieved such a high percentage of home ownership in public housing.

The achievement of the HDB is not just in quantity, that is, the construction of half a million flats, but also in the extremely high quality achieved in the construction of the flats and facilities. I believe a copy of the HDB publication, Design for Living, has been forwarded to all Members of this House. From this publication, we can see beyond any shadow of doubt the high quality of housing provided by the Singapore Government for the people. The high quality is evident in the physical design and layout of the flats and the housing estates and in the comprehensive range of facilities provided in each estate. These include shopping facilities, sports complexes, recreational areas, schools and clinics.

To any reasonable Singaporean, I really do not have to request the Members in this House to praise the HDB. In fact, the HDB flats are all over Singapore. HDB flats are not something that is very small and is hidden somewhere and I have to ask the people to notice it, otherwise they will miss it. So it is totally unnecessary for me to request the House to praise the HDB ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why don't you tell that to the Member for Chong Boon?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: --- which the Opposition Member was insinuating just now.

Over the last two decades, the real income of Singaporeans has gone up continually. As a result, there is a constant upgrading by tenants of HDB flats to become flat owners. Statistics from the HDB showed that in the last five years, about 55,000 tenants have, on their own efforts, upgraded themselves to become home owners. In addition, more than 14,000 tenants are presently on the waiting list to purchase HDB flats. In other words, within the short period of five years, 70,000 of the tenants become flat owners on their own efforts. Singaporeans' incomes are continuously improving. It is not, as some people suggest to the foreign correspondents who are totally ignorant about Singapore, that thousands of Singaporeans are starving. However, notwithstanding the fact that there is already a constant stream of tenants upgrading themselves, the Government is now considering various measures to provide further assistance to low-income families so that more tenants will be able to become home owners, earlier.

I am very grateful for the various useful suggestions made by PAP Members, both inside and outside this House, concerning the further assistance that could be given to help more tenants and low-income families to upgrade themselves. Continuous studies are presently being carried out by my Ministry and the HDB on this issue. It is hoped that a comprehensive announcement will be made on this in the next few months.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all Members who participated in this debate this afternoon and I am sure the Minister for National Development will give due consideration to all the valid points made by the PAP Backbenchers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as expected, the two Opposition Members have repeated their usual theme, and I am sure the Minister for National Development will give it his usual treatment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for National Development for his assurance to this House that some measures will be taken to assist the poor in our midst. My request is that any plans the Government has must be implemented soonest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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.