MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES - OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1983 TO 31ST MARCH, 1984
Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years, many constructive suggestions have been put forward by Members of Parliament sitting on this side of the House, i.e. PAP Members of Parliament. Invariably, the Hon. Ministers on the other side have either turned down the suggestions or merely taken note of them. Very often, we hear nothing more of the subject until it is once again raised in this House by my persistent colleagues. Some of us have seen their persistence paid off. For example, the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah recently obtained the agreement of the Hon. Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health, to agree to an upward review of the allowance paid to National Servicemen during the sitting on 4th March 1983, after several Members had failed in the past. The moral to be learnt is that if we believe strongly in a particular cause, we must have the conviction to persist. Members of this House may have forgotten that on 22nd March last year, the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah again put up a case for CPF savings to be used on medical grounds, particularly for major surgical operations or prolonged specialized medical treatment. At that time, the Hon. Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour typically and predictably turned down the suggestion. However, this suggestion of using CPF savings for medical care apparently got through to the highest levels, and no less than the Prime Minister himself announced in August last year that Medisave would be funded by CPF contributions. Other suggestions have been put forward but without the same success. Since persistence pays, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to these suggestions again. Sir, other hon. Members have eloquently argued the case for CPF savings to be used for education. Education is a form of investment - an investment in human resources. Could the Minister inform this House whether the CPF Board has considered the following suggestions: (a) that parents be allowed to use their CPF savings to finance the education of their children, and (b) that workers be allowed to use their CPF savings to upgrade themselves, and meet family financial commitments while they undergo full-time training courses, and if the CPF Board has considered these suggestions, has it come to a decision? Sir, I need not repeat the arguments of those Members who spoke strongly for these proposals, since they are fully recorded in the proceedings of this House. However, let me add that since skills upgrading is so essential to the success of our economic restructuring, we must make it possible for those workers who wish to pursue higher studies to do so now. While the Minister is considering these suggestions once again, let me put to him another case. It is not a new proposal but merely an appeal to vary the rules pertaining to the use of CPF savings for the purchase of property. Sir, presently a person who buys an HDB flat directly from an existing owner can use his CPF savings to pay for the purchase. The amount that he can use, however, is limited by the current posted selling price of the HDB for the type of flat in question, and not by the freely negotiated market price. Sir, we all know that the prevailing free market price is always more than the HDB's selling price, very often more than double. This is a clear demonstration that HDB flats are good value for money, and that the HDB sells its flats to the public at subsidized rates. The purchaser of an HDB flat on the free market, therefore, faces a heavy financial obstacle. He has to raise the finance for the balance above the HDB's posted price from other sources. No bank or financial institution is prepared to accept a second mortgage for the amount above the HDB's posted price. Unless the purchaser has other financial resources, he will not be able to purchase directly from existing HDB owners. Sir, recently one of my constituents who was staying with his parents, had the rare opportunity of buying the adjacent flat. If he buys over the flat, he could continue to live close to his parents, in fact, next door. However, he could not raise the extra finance. He appealed to the CPF Board, first directly, then through me, to be permitted to finance the purchase through his CPF savings. The CPF Board, however, would not flex the rules. The reason for turning down this request, I understand, is that CPF savings are meant to provide for old age, and the CPF Board has, therefore, a social responsibility to ensure that CPF savings are protected. The CPF member may not be able to make full restitution to the CPF should HDB, for example, repossess the flat for infringement of rules since the HDB would use the value of the flat at the posted price prevailing at time of sale to determine the compensation payable to the owner. Sir, while this is technically correct, it is not convincing. Presently, those who buy private property can use their CPF savings up to 80% of the assessed market value of the property. CPF has first claim if the property is sold. What would happen if the market value of the private property drops at the time the owner sells? How would CPF recover the funds used? Take, for example, those who may have purchased private condominiums with CPF funds. It has been seen that prices of condominiums have come down and in future may even go down further. If an owner has to sell when the price drops, the CPF may not be able to recover fully the funds used, Evidently, there are certain risks when one buys property. Since CPF funds are the statutory savings of members, then when we permit them to use their CPF savings to buy property, we must allow them to assume those risks which may mean a reduction in the member's CPF savings. So in the case of a person buying an HDB flat directly from an existing owner, we should permit the purchaser to finance it with his CPF savings up to 80% of the assessed free market value of the flat, and not limit it to HDB's subsidized price. Sir, I hope the Minister will reconsider such cases favourably. A re-appeal has been submitted to the Ministry. I strongly feel that this request should be granted. To grant this request would be completely in line with our social policy of preserving the family as the basic building block of our society.