COST REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT (Motion)

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Lim Boon Heng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, three years ago, we debated this issue in this House. Today, we are debating it again. One thing I am sure - this will not be the last time.

As long as we live in this world, reward comes only from effort. We have to work for anything and everything that we want. Some things come easier than others, but the most desirable things require much more effort. And not everyone attains them. This was the lesson which my parents and my teachers taught me. In life, there will be many occasions when we feel that we have to work very, very hard to get by. There will be many occasions when we cannot get what we want in spite of our best efforts. Therefore, from time to time, many will be dissatisfied about the cost of living. So from time to time, this will be debated also in this House.

One key question which has emerged in this current debate is: how should the debate be joined? Do we want the debate to be based on facts and figures? More than that, do we want the debate to be based on the full facts, on as complete a set of information as possible? Or do we want to descend to gutter politics and allow political aspirants to misinform?

In 1992, when we set up the Cost Review Committee comprising a cross-section of people from all walks of life, we invited the opposition parties which have MPs in Parliament to join the Committee. The Singapore Democratic Party declined. We proceeded with one opposition party, the Workers' Party, represented in the Committee.

When we reconvened the Committee again this year, the SDP made great play about how serious they were in wanting to participate and to get to the bottom of things, but they twisted and turned and, eventually, chickened out. Mr Ling How Doong said that he did not have the time. Incredulous! His party says that the cost of living is a big issue, but he has no time for it! And today, he is not present in the House even.

The SDP-PKMS panel was nevertheless called to meet the Cost Review Committee, to discuss their submission. The sorry exchange on 6th August speaks for itself. Notwithstanding that, the Cost Review Committee proceeded to examine various issues. And notwithstanding the volumes of information given out and extensively reported in all our newspapers, on television and on radio, the SDP continues to purvey misinformation.

We have seen, as Mr John De Payva said, in the proceedings of the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy how the SDP had repeatedly misinformed the public. The phrase "typographical error" has already claimed its place in the annals of political debate in Singapore.

Mr John De Payva mentioned about the price of HDB flats and how the SDP-PKMS panel had inflated the figures, and he asked the question whether this was out of inability to look at the figures or was there some other intent. In case Members may not be too clear as to how they had inflated it, basically, it is quite straightforward. They took the prices of 4-room new generation flats for the base year and then used the subsequent prices of 4-room Model A HDB flats, and they used, not the base price, but the average price. And that was how they had inflated the rate of increase of HDB flat prices over those few years. One can only surmise why it was done this way, because they were not able to understand the figures or because of malice. This I leave to you to form your opinions.

Then in the SDP's New Democrat, they claimed that the Government is collecting a lot of money from the foreign workers levy in the construction industry and said that there are 300,000 workers. There are no 300,000 workers in the construction industry. There are 29,000, which is less than one-tenth of what the SDP claimed.

They also reproduced the cost of secondary school and junior college education over a few years. Without comment, they produced the charts and from the charts, you will know that the cost of secondary school education and junior college education has risen over the years by several thousand dollars per year per child, and increasing over time. The impression of such a publication without comment is to convey the impression that parents are paying more for sending their children to secondary school or to junior college. But the truth is that the fees have not been changed for the last few years. So the parents continue to pay a nominal sum, not the thousands of dollars which the New Democrat tries to purvey.

These are examples in one issue of the New Democrat. Mr John De Payva has mentioned something else, that of Ministers' pay. All these are clear examples of misinformation. The SDP continues to sell the New Democrat freely in Singapore. Mr John De Payva asked a question: why is it that publications which contain errors and misinformation are still being allowed to be sold in Singapore? In case anybody in Singapore or anywhere else in the world thinks there is no freedom of expression in Singapore, why is this still continuing in Singapore?

I think Mr Low Thia Khiang had learnt from the previous sitting of the Cost Review Committee and he knows how difficult it is to argue against the full facts and therefore also declined to participate in the Committee this time. He probably prefers the more comfortable position of asking questions rather than to be involved in getting to the root of the issues. Again, today, of course, he has taken the opportunity to ask some questions. He tries to imply that the Cost Review Committee's explanation about people buying better goods and employing maids as blaming the people for the rise in the cost of living. I think this is unfair and my colleague, Dr Ow Chin Hock, had rightfully rebutted the point immediately. We in the Committee had been trying to establish what had caused the increase in spending and to explain to the people who do not understand why the expenditures have gone up. We are not blaming anybody. We are not blaming the public for the rise in the cost of living.

I think it is a pity that Mr Low did not participate in the Committee, because he would have learnt a lot more in this second session of the Cost Review Committee. If he wishes to continue to play a constructive role in political debate in Singapore, he would have gained a better understanding of the issues at hand. I dare say that he would have learnt a few lessons in economics. He would also have learnt what are the factors underpinning Singapore's growth over the years. He missed the opportunity.

After 10 meetings spanning over 50 hours, the Cost Review Committee's conclusions and recommendations are contained in the Report. Our findings are there. Members have referred to them and commented on them and I would not repeat. But the Report accounts for why people feel that the cost of living has risen even sharply. This feeling is fueled particularly by the rise of high profile items - housing, health care and certain domestic services. These high profile items mask the general rise in the standard of living.

On housing, the CRC found that HDB selling prices are still affordable. More people are buying bigger flats, which means that purchasing power has, in fact, risen because wages have risen. At a public hearing, the HDB reaffirmed that HDB flats will be kept affordable.

The resale market prices of HDB flats, however, had gone up. We found that it was not due to HDB raising prices and so pushing up prices on the resale market. Instead, it was due to other factors, such as infrastructure improvements or the Main Upgrading Programme. The major factor in the past few years, however, has been "easy credit". The HDB had liberalised, usually in response to public requests, including requests from Members of Parliament, but each time credit was eased, the resale prices went up! Liberalisation caused an increase in demand, but without a similar increase in supply, the prices rose. It is a demonstration of the fundamental law of economics! In the Report on page 69, Chart 4-2, this is clearly shown. This easy credit, coupled with what Dr Lee Tsao Yuan described earlier about the booming economy and the rise in incomes, has made the cost of housing the way they were in the last few years.

As the HDB resale prices rose, some cashed in, and used the capital gains to buy private property. Some cashed in and bought, again from the HDB, and pocketed the cash. Others used it to upgrade to private property. This, plus easy credit again, led to the rise in private property prices. As some people made quick money on the property market, more people jumped in. In such a situation, if credit is not tightened, then the only other lever to pull is supply. For quite some time the Ministry of National Development regularly announced that supply was coming and that it would be increased if there was demand. But there is a time-lag between announcement of supply and actual supply coming on to the market. Finally, the lever which had an immediate impact, the tightening of credit, was pulled. This was the 14th May measures. Clearly, they are effective because demand has shrunk. We should be careful in future when controlling the levers on credit. You loosen the controls too much, the prices will rise sharply. You tighten the controls too much, there will be a crash in prices. So whoever is controlling the lever has got to move very cautiously and carefully.

As you can see from the information provided in the Committee's Report, it is not HDB raising prices or the tender system, which has caused housing prices to shoot up. It was easy credit.

The Cost Review Committee has urged Singaporeans to be prudent in their spending. A house is a desirable item, but one should spend within one's means. We should not assume that housing prices are on a one-way upward escalator. It is a roller-coaster as well. There was a crash in housing prices in the 1970s. I was one of those caught in it. There was another crash in the 1980s. These experiences should teach us to be prudent and to beware the trap of easy credit. Each time I see or hear a bank advertising easy credit, I wonder why there is not a law against it.

The other sensitive cost item is hospital expenses. The basic reasons for the rise in medical expenses are wage costs, advance in medical knowledge, and a shift to higher class wards, or to private hospitals. The Government has anticipated this rise, and has therefore devised the Medisave, MediShield and Medifund schemes. Unfortunately, there is a general lack of understanding by the people, so people worry more than they need to. More so, when procedures in hospitals give the impression that money comes first.

People do not understand various Government policies. This is a point which Dr Soin mentioned. Is it due to the loss of the art of communication or is it due to people not listening? I do not know the true reasons, but I know that when it comes to medical treatment, people will not bother with MediShield or Medifund until they go to hospital and find that there are high bills to pay. It is only then that they will try to find out how the expenses can be met. Having said that, I think it is true today that we have many policies which are for the benefit of the people which are complex and even, if I may say so, Members of Parliament will find difficulty to explain. So it is useful for us from time to time to review our policies. I say that a simple solution usually covers 90% of the problem. To try to cover the next 10% is difficult. In fact, you have to weave a very complex policy to cover the next 5% and you cannot cover the balance of 5% anyway. Perhaps we should consider implementing policies which are simpler which people can easily understand and be satisfied with 90% of the result.

For the working class, whose monthly budgets are tighter, it is the everyday type of expenses which cause them concern. They will remember prices of domestic services, such as how much a plate of chao guo tiao used to cost. Or how much it used to cost to get their hair done. But these are wage driven increases. The prices of such services will follow general wage increases, a point which Singaporeans will have to learn and understand.

We have to understand that our hawker food business is labour intensive. So long as the methods of serving hawker food remain the same, hawker food price increases will keep pace with wage increases. The more successful our economy, and the higher our wage levels rise, the higher will be the price of hawker food. Unless there is a restructuring of the hawker food business, a change from the labour-intensive methods currently employed, very soon our hawker food will cost more than the Western import, hamburgers. I am glad to say that restructuring of the hawker food business has been going on, though a bit slowly, over the last few years.

These, in simple terms, are some of the main findings that explain why people feel that the cost of living has gone up. But our investigations reveal much more: that we have a system in place which motivates people to perform, which raises their productivity so that they can earn more, and so enjoy a better life, and at the same time there are safety nets for those who do not make it.

Our CPF savings system allows the vast majority of our people to own their own homes, so that accommodation is not a consumption item. Instead, their homes are their assets. If they purchase homes within their means, they are much better off as compared with people who rent, should there be a disruption in their incomes. We take the 90% home ownership in Singapore for granted. We aspire to the Swiss standard of living. Home ownership in Switzerland is only 60%. So a person who rents in Switzerland and who unfortunately is retrenched in a recession has got to worry about the rent. In Singapore, if people use the CPF system and buy the right type of flats, they need not worry about the rent.

Our wage system has a bonus system, and this has helped most families, including the lower income families, to buy consumer durables that are usually found in typical middle class households. And as I have mentioned earlier, and so have several Members, we have got the Medisave, MediShield and Medifund schemes for our health care needs. All these schemes provide Singaporeans with the means to a better life and with safety nets.

The basic philosophy of governing Singapore is: provide a good quality of basic services, let those who want better work, to pay for it, but provide a safety net for those who do not make it on their own. And this philosophy has helped us to preserve our work ethic. It is a political philosophy which explains why Singapore succeeds. This is why most Singaporeans have seen their lives improve.

But that is not to say that there are no poor people in Singapore. The Committee studied this extensively, and noted that there are about 7,000 households deserving of help. A significant number are the elderly. There is a range of assistance programmes. The poor are assisted, and the sums given to them by Government and voluntary welfare organisations are substantial and growing. But, again, there is a basic philosophy: Government assistance is the last resort, after help is first sought from the family, Government's help is kept at a minimum and the community chips in the rest. Perhaps, this comes across as being harsh and hard. But it is one way of ensuring that the work ethic in Singapore is maintained.

It is quite natural for most people, when discussing the cost of living, to turn attention to the poor. Our Committee has done the same. However, the plight of the poor is not so much a cost of living problem, but a social problem which is there, whether the cost of living is high or low. Each time, the cost of living goes up, the people's attention turns to the poor. But it is a problem which exists all the time and deserves our constant attention.

The Cost Review Committee has explained the reasons why people are spending more, why people feel the pressures of the cost of living, and it is satisfied that things are generally under control. It has found the systems we have in place to be sound and help people improve their standard of living.

But costs will continue to rise. The Committee has recommended measures to moderate such increases. Today, in this debate, several Members have made other suggestions and recommendations. And I urge my colleagues in the Cabinet to take these suggestions seriously and implement them wherever they are feasible.

But the greater task, as my colleague, Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, earlier mentioned, is how do we ensure Singapore's future growth. Wage increases will only be possible when there is growth. The task is to ensure that incomes rise faster than price increases. Only then will there be better standards of living. So our focus should really be on how to ensure our growth and raise our productivity. I hope we will not have to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to establish the truth on the cost of living. I hope we can spend more time on the development of the economy and on the development of the social aspects of life in Singapore.

For me personally, this second session of the Cost Review Committee has taken the better part of my time in the last four months. I would have preferred spending the time dealing with competitiveness, productivity improvement and skills upgrading because these would ensure our workers' future. I know the members of the Committee feel the same way. Sir, on Dr Soin's proposal to have periodic reconvening of the Cost Review Committee, I am not sure that it will be a popular suggestion as far as the members are concerned. But I am happy to say that the members have given of their time to serve the public interest. Staff of the various Ministries, the universities and some private organisations have also contributed their time and appeared before our Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank them all for their contributions and I would like to ask this House to thank them as well. [Applause.]

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See and Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon.

I hope that while endorsing the recommendations of the Cost Review Committee, we would also accept its recommendations to control the rise in the cost of living and to help the poor and the aged people.

I agree with the Department of Statistics that while the average household expenditure of Singaporeans rose by 76% between 1987 and 1993, only 14 percentage points were the result of higher prices or inflation. Therefore, to a very large extent, the rise in cost of living was due to other factors, mainly because Singaporeans are now moving towards the pursuit of "better but more expensive" lifestyles.

With the continuous increase in the average annual income of our people, their pattern of consumption has become more demanding. Moreover, nowadays bank loans and other forms of credit facilities are easily available. Advertisements in the newspapers and over the television make the goods and services look so tempting and attractive. This has resulted in big changes in the consumption habits and patterns of our people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if a country is ruled by a good government and hence enjoys good economic growth, it will become prosperous and its people will live a life of plenty. As such, they will want to buy better goods, wear better clothes and use better appliances to satisfy themselves and members of their families. It is quite natural and normal. However, from statistics, I have discovered that within a short period of six years, household expenditure has increased by 76%, but only 14 percentage points were due to price increases. These 14 percentage points can easily be offset by the higher earnings of our people. Yet, we cannot neglect the fact that our household expenditure has risen substantially. I feel that as Members of Parliament, whether from the ruling party or the opposition party, we have the duty to look squarely at this substantial rise in our cost of living. We should not merely try to find fault with the Government, confounding right and wrong, or running away from the problem. This is a very irresponsible behaviour. I believe that the key to this problem is on the consumption behaviour and pattern of our people. Therefore, we have the duty to educate our people and change their unhealthy consumption behaviour and pattern, in order to check the rise in our cost of living.

Let me give a few true-life experiences to illustrate my points:

Consumption Behaviour

More expensive does not necessarily mean better products. I have a friend who sells ladies' handbags in a shopping centre in Orchard Road. Initially, he priced his handbags at $20 each. But a lot of customers asked a lot of questions. They were sceptical about the quality of the handbags, saying that they were so cheap and hence could not be good. As a result, these handbags were not saleable. Subsequently, this friend of mine relentlessly jacked up the price of these handbags and sold them at $80 a piece. Suddenly, his shop became the most patronized in the shopping centre. His handbags were selling like hot cakes, and no customer complained that the handbags were no good or doubted whether they were durable or not. Naturally, my businessman friend made a fortune out of it. Prices went up by 300%, and this was indirectly caused by inappropriate consumption behaviour.

I discover that Singaporeans have the mentality of "what you buy, I must buy too". For example, during the pre-Chinese New Year period, the giant prawns and the travella ("white belly fish") can be sold at prices between $20 and $40 per kilogram, and there is always a long queue for them. This is because everybody feels that if you buy, I must buy also, no matter how expensive they are! Once the festive season is over, the same giant prawns and travella can be bought at just a few dollars per kilogram. It is just a difference of one or two weeks and there is a vast difference in prices. By such consumption behaviour, you are just forcing your money into the pockets of the fishmongers, indirectly causing a momentary price increase.

We should not buy unnecessary things just because there is a sale or "special offer". Some people feel that things are cheaper during a sale, and they simply buy up a lot of cheap T-shirts, shoes, handbags, etc. But, in fact, they have already had lots and lots of these things at home. Just because there is a special offer, people are seen buying drinks and canned food by the cartons. These food items are perishable. Even in canned form, they have a certain storage life, and after some time they become unfit for consumption. Buying large quantities of such items will eventually lead to wastage of money. Such consumption behaviour will virtually lead to higher household expenditure.

Avoid buying branded goods. If you buy branded goods, you are paying for the brand and not so much the product itself. Nowadays, most of our children know what are the famous brands. Very often, parents would buy these branded products for their children out of love for them. By so doing, they are invariably cultivating the children's habit of high spending, and leading to higher household expenditure. I think CASE should take upon itself to educate the consumers on the proper consumption behaviour.

Consumption Pattern

The people of Singapore should realize the fact that Singapore is a small country with no natural resources, and we should accordingly adjust our consumption pattern to check the rise in our cost of living. In Singapore, whatever we eat, wear or use are all imported. Any variation in the supply situation will bring about fluctuation in the prices. For example, last year, when durian was in short supply, the fruit was sold for as high as $5 a kilogram. This year, there was a bumper harvest, and supply was so plentiful that we could buy durian for as low as 50 cents a kilogram or even at 50 cents per fruit. So, when the harvest for apples or oranges in the foreign countries is poor, and the imported fruits are expensive, we should tell our people accordingly and encourage them to eat more local fruits, such as water melon, papaya and banana which are equally nutritious. At the same time, it will lighten our burden on household expenditure. In this aspect, I hope that CASE will be able to provide more guidance to the consumers.

Spend within our means. I notice that in recent years, the hongbao for wedding dinner is getting bigger and bigger. In the good old days, if you gave $20, it was considered very good, but now it has risen to $60, $80 and even $100. For those wedding dinners held in the major hotels, usually the host will make a lot of money out of these hongbaos. Nowadays, when young people get married, they want to hold their wedding receptions at the hotels. The bigger the hotel, the bigger the hongbao will be. For those who are wealthy, they can well afford to give a big hongbao, but for those who are less well-to-do, they will also have to cough out a big hongbao to "save face". This is another expenditure that jacks up our household expenses.

Some Singaporeans whose incomes and savings are enough to support the purchase of a 4-room flat and live comfortably are not contented with it. They force themselves to buy a bigger and more expensive 5-room flat, resulting in expenditure beyond their means, and they have to tighten their belts just to make ends meet. Even members of the family have to suffer for that. Some say this is a form of investment, but as Minister Lim Boon Heng said just now, when you invest in property, it is not necessarily a hundred per cent win situation. Sometimes, you make a profit, sometimes you lose your fortune. Like in the 1980s, there was a property slump and many people lost a lot of money. That is a good example. Other expenditure such as the buying of motorcars and the type of ward in the hospital, we should also spend within our means.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang said just now that in Singapore, Mercedes Benzes are selling very well, but these are very expensive goods. Usually, the manufacturers and the agents target at the rich people when they advertise. I do not think an ordinary citizen could afford a Mercedes.

Our country belongs to all of us. Whether you are in the ruling party or the opposition party, you have to look at the matter in a responsible manner. We have to put in a joint effort to change the consumption behaviour and patterns of our people. We should not distort the facts like what the SDP and PKMS did to mislead the people. I think what they are doing has undermined the reputation of the Department of Statistics as well as the reputation of Singapore. Now, at this important debate, Members of the SDP are not present. They are not responsible. Only irresponsible politicians would use such a means to attain their political purpose.

Sir, I am very happy that the Government would accept the recommendations to help the poor and the aged. I am also very glad that the Prime Minister has also urged upon the various departments to look at the recommendations.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Ang Mo Kio GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Cost Review Committee Report is a very comprehensive report, with far-reaching effects. Singaporeans have been very concerned about the rising cost of living in recent years.

The success of our housing programme is well known throughout the world, and our Housing and Development Board has been receiving delegation after delegation from countries all over the world. We all know that the facilities in our HDB estates are excellent, and the living environment is pleasant. However, the escalating prices of HDB flats have given rise to concern.

The Cost Review Committee Report has given an in-depth analysis of the problem. On page 58, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Report, it is stated that although the prices have increased, with the rise in the incomes of our people, the flats are still affordable. For example, between 1992 and 1995, the price of a 4-room Model A flat has increased by 5.4%, that of a 5-room flat by 10%, and the Executive flat by 11%. On the other hand, the average wages of a worker have increased by 7.1%. Some people feel that the price increase of HDB flats is substantial. I believe there are a number of reasons for this.

First, on page 58, Table 4.1 of the Report, between 1994 and 1995, the price of a 4-room Model A flat increased by about 10%, a 5-room flat by 18.8% and the Executive apartment by 18.9%. From 1991, the selling price of a 4-room flat increased from $88,000 to $120,000; a 5-room flat from $114,000 to $190,000, an Executive apartment from $168,800 to $309,800. The main reason for this increase was that in 1991, after the Gulf War, the property market in Singapore began to take off and land prices escalated rapidly. As a result, all property prices went up.

The other reason was that the figures in this Report are taken from non-mature new town prices. While in the other mature estates, the 5-room flats and Executive apartments are selling at much higher prices. For example, last year in Ang Mo Kio, the HDB price for a 5-room flat was $268,000, and that for an Executive apartment was more than $300,000.

Another reason was the re-sale of old HDB flats in the open market. A 5-room flat could be sold for as much as half a million dollars. An Executive apartment in Bishan could be sold for more than $700,000. These prices would have given the public an impression that all the HDB flats have reached such a price level. In fact, these were partly due to extensive renovations which had enhanced their values.

During the first half of this year, the restraints on the property market of the Government have yielded positive results, and the prices are more stabilised. However, many people are concerned that prices may go higher in future and some could not afford to wait in the long queue for a flat to be allocated. So I support the recommendation of the Committee, in urging the Government to maintain its level of subsidy for the 5-room HDB flats.

I urge the Government to build 5-room flats in mature estates. For example, I hope that the vacant land near the Ang Mo Kio Library can be developed for the construction of 5-room flats. If this plot of land is to be handed over to URA for tender by private developers, it would be used for building a private condominium. Many residents in this estate, including the grassroots leaders, will only be able to admire it at a distance, with a tinge of envy.

Our long-term target is to have private property making up 25% of the total residential property in Singapore by the year 2010. I think we should re-examine the time-frame for achieving this target. Most residents of HDB flats would need to have more space when their children grow up, especially those families with daughters where additional rooms are a necessity rather than a luxury. I hope that the relevant authority would seriously look into the feasibility of building more 5-room flats. If the prices of HDB flats can be increased gradually rather than drastically, I believe young couples will not rush into purchasing bigger units. They can work for a few years, wait for their incomes to rise before applying to upgrade to bigger flats.

Just now, Mr Low Thia Khiang mentioned that Singaporeans were struggling with a heavy burden in life, so how could they be bothered with the building up of a more gracious society. I think this is a lopsided view. He has neglected the fact that many community organisations, Government departments, community centres and schools have put in a considerable effort to promote cultural, educational and recreational activities in Singapore. A heavy burden in life is a common phenomenon in any urbanized society, and high consumption is not peculiar to Singapore. All successful urbanized societies, such as Hong Kong, Taipei and the major cities in some countries in South East Asia are facing similar problems. So this is not a problem that is found only in Singapore. This is a common phenomenon in societies with rising incomes and affluence. To say that the Government is blaming the people for indulging in costly lifestyles and contributing to the rise in the cost of living, is a lopsided and misleading argument.

I agree with Dr Lee Tsao Yuan that Government should exercise more care before increasing levies and charges. For example, the fees for a restricted passport for travel to West Malaysia have been increased from $10 to $40. This margin of increase appears to be on the high side.

Recently, some people have topped up their CPF accounts with cash in order to purchase Telecom shares. Some self-employed people, such as taxi drivers, who are above the age of 55 were not happy with the CPF Board over the issue of withdrawal. A 67-year old taxi driver complained to me that after selling the Telecom shares to earn some profits, he was told by a CPF Board officer that he could only withdraw the profit from the sale, but the cash portion amounting to $1,250, which he had deposited with the Board to top-up his account, could not be withdrawn until three years later. When he told the officer that he was already 67 years old and might not survive another three years to get his money back, the officer told him that even if he was 100 years old, he would still have to wait for three years. I feel that we should reconsider this policy, especially for those who are above 60. Do they need to wait for three years before they can withdraw the amount which they had actually topped up with cash? I hope that the Minister for Labour would consider this matter. Our policies have been drawn up with the long term interest and welfare of the people in mind. But for those who are facing financial difficulty at present, we should try our best to help them.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a clarification. My colleague told me that he heard me saying that when I referred to the SDP New Democrat which claimed that there are 300,000 foreign workers in HDB construction sites, I mentioned that there are 29,000 foreign workers in the construction industry. The SDP did claim that there are 300,000 foreign workers in HDB construction sites in their report. But the total number of both foreign and local workers on HDB sites is only 29,000. Therefore, the SDP had inflated the figure by more than 10 times.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Loh, do you want to wind up the debate?

Mr Loh Meng See: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all Members who have spoken on this motion. There are a few points I would like to make before I round up, Sir.

One is the noticeable absence of the SDP MPs this afternoon. Most probably they are having their dispute sorted out in another chamber! The second point I want to make with regard to cost and money is that we should be grateful in Singapore that money does not bring us very far. We subscribe to the principle of meritocracy and Singaporeans have every opportunity to achieve position and rewards. In Singapore it is not money that you can buy success.

I am quite surprised with the logic that Mr Low Thia Khiang made just now and he is confused with the matter of cost and effect. He suggested that the Government wanted the women to go out and work because of the very high cost of living. The position is this: it is a choice for the women if they want to go out to work and it is a choice for them if they want to make to stay at home. The two matters are quite different. It is not because of the high cost of living that has compelled them to go out to work. The point I want to make is that we all have a choice to make. We can live within our means and we have to live within the income that we have.

I am particularly pleased with the comments made by the three Nominated MPs. They have been objective and independent in expressing their views. It is important that they do not belong to any political party and the statements that they have made give credence to the work of the CRC, and we should be grateful to them for that.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the conclusions of the Cost Review Committee contained in Misc 4 of 1996, and calls on the Government to accept the recommendations to contain rises in the cost of living and to assist the poor and the elderly.