MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1985 TO 31ST MARCH, 1986
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you will forgive this intervention, but I think it is essential that we do not have a slur cast over the new accounting system because it was not answered effectively. The Member for Potong Pasir will discover that the difference between campaigning and debating is that in a face-to-face encounter, no point which is untrue will be allowed to pass. That is a fundamental principle of this Government. We have played Robin Hood for too long and we have been too modest about it. Let me explain. Land value is crucial to the concept of wealth, of property. I have been the major formulator of this policy because it so happened I understood the law, the law - acquisitions, the law of property, the law of values of property. 4.00 pm When we were confronted with an enormous problem of bad housing, no development, overcrowding, we decided that unless drastic measures were taken to break the rules, we would never solve it. We therefore took overriding powers to acquire land at low cost, which was in breach of one of the fundamentals of British constitutional law, the sanctity of property. That had to be overcome because the sanctity of society seeking to preserve itself was greater. So we acquired at sub-economic rates. When fires took place, in order to get rid of squatters, in order to stop fires, and also prevent owners from getting a profit out of accidental fires, we passed a special provision (which I did personally) in this House in 1961, after the Bukit Ho Swee fire - that we can acquire as if the land had been squattered, and the State would pay forth e land, which was unencumbered, as if it was encumbered. It is unprecedented anywhere in the British Commonwealth or in America. When we had to reclaim land, we overrode foreshore land, right of compensa- tion for loss of sea frontage, sea breezes, prospect, and we just filled up land. They were overriding considerations. So we embarked on this Robin Hood adventure. Now, the population has learned a little bit of accountancy, book-keeping, the Member for Potong Pasir comes in with vague allegations of misdemeanour, profit-making, profiteering. So I need to remind the House what this is all about. It is to try and get a unique society set up out of extraordinary circumstances of near despair, to become a 100% property-owning democracy. Quite an achievement if we do it. I am not sure that we can make it a 100%; I think we can make it to 90%. The last 10% will be very difficult and, on some other occasion, I will explain why. But we have been playing Robin Hood and now we are accused of being the highwayman, without any charity. Really? What for? How have we sold? Just given it away. That is how we have sold, in order that people can become owners. We have prevented land owners from evicting tenants, de facto. The Member for Potong Pasir practises at the Bar. He knows you cannot get rid of a tenant from rent-controlled premises. The government was advised by a U.N. team to repeal this law, allow rents to go up, and collect more property tax. I persuaded my colleagues not to change the law, that it was one method of redistributing wealth. So every tenant now squats and waits until his compensation comes. Good luck to him. How have we sold without the price mechanism? Housing Board built on prime land in Marine Parade, 1-, 2-room flats for rental, with the prospect of the South China Sea, and we sold it for a song. Housing Board gets more sophisticated, and now breaks it up into six categories. (I was asking; I wanted to be sure. I thought there were six, but I was told there were four.) It is New Town, Outer Suburban, Inner Suburban, Outer Urban, Inner Urban, and Central Area, varying prices. Are they accurate? They are not. It is like Marine Parade. It is like Clementi. Any valuer would tell them that was a mistake. I think it is a mistake. And if we had the price mechanism, that mistake would not have been made. If the HDB had to bid in a Government auction for prime land in Marine Parade and paid the price for it, because it was a marine prospect, it will say, "No, no, that is not for me. Let's go to Hougang." What is the answer now, with a more sophisticated electorate? Because the Member for Whampoa raised, at a time when there was no Opposition and he was playing the devil's advocate, that the books were not properly kept. So this cloud grew. I said, 'Simple. Put it all out into proper accounts. Every transaction registered. MND Holdings, breakoff. "HDB does not have to buy sand or granite from MND Holdings; buy cheapest. MND Holdings need not sell to HDB; sell it to the developers if they offer more. Let HDB wither on the vine, compete. After all, we have a more sophisticated electorate; they will understand. Should we try and grade them into six, or should we not allow the market to decide? When you pay the same price and, you ballot, you get the top-storey flat with a beautiful view, or you get a third-storey flat with no view, next to the rubbish heap, but you pay the same price - will any private property developer sell on those terms? No buyer buys on those terms. You go there. You look at the view, you see the breeze, you study the sun, bring your geomancer along for fengshui. Then you bargain over price. Well, let's move in that direction. It is inevitable. People are more educated. But I believe we should educate them beyond the stage of the Member for Potong Pasir. It is not the scare. We will now go through the accounts in detail in this House, whether it is CPF, whether it is Housing Board lands whether it is the cost of housing, and i think we will move into much more sophisticated pricing systems. The Minister for National Development may speak broken, fractured English. But I can assure the Member for Potong Pasir that his thoughts are well connected, that he comes out with whole solutions to complex problems, He has worked with me for 26 years. We have a difficult problem to resolve - limited land, with too many people wanting more than what the land can yield. If the answer were price alone, and if we solved it the Hong Kong way or, for that matter, Bangkok, or Man- ila, or even Kuala Lumpur, we would not have more than 25% of our population housed; never mind, owner-occupiers. We make no apologies for what we have done. We are prepared to have everything under scrutiny. But remember, every allegation of bad faith, every allegation of skulduggery, of inhouse double ledgers, will have to be proved, or they will have to be withdrawn publicly. We will not allow such allegations to pass unchallenged. So I would like to make it quite clear, at the very beginning of this debate, that we want the problems to come Out into the open. I think we are moving into a more complex phase. I do not believe that we have solved the question of price just by putting it into six categories. I think each building block has to be priced differently because they are differently priced. We know when they are resold, whether it is in Tanjong Pagar or in Whampoa, there is a tremendous difference in price. And so I hope that the Member for Potong Pasir will help us educate both the public and, I hope, himself and us, on the intricacies of his thinking.