Mr Speaker, Sir, everyone has a view on the cost of living. And the views expressed so far by Members of this House testify to this fact. It is not my intention to reply to points raised by Members of this House, except to say that many of the suggestions that came up in the debate so far were, in fact, also aired during the process of discussions of the Cost Review Committee. Some of the suggestions were rejected. Others were not agreed to. But there have also been a few new suggestions which, I suppose, the appropriate Ministries would have to consider and, if they are practical, to implement. I want to take this opportunity to set the House on track as to what it is that the Cost Review Committee set out to do and what it has concluded. The first question which the Cost Review Committee dealt with was: Is the Government wrong, and the people right on the subject? Does the CPI tell the wrong story? Sir, after a year's discussion, the CRC came to the conclusion that the CPI is sound. The CRC did not come to this conclusion hastily. It dissected the problem, and looked at it from different angles. It examined how the CPI was computed. It examined the impact if some of the inputs, such as the rental index, or the weights in the basket, were wrong. The CRC examined the impact on different income groups, by expenditure groups and by the types of housing people lived in. The CRC also examined the impact by age of the main family earner. Those who have read the Report thoroughly know how thoroughly the Committee had looked at the problem. And it came to the conclusion that the CPI is sound. Inflation has indeed been low. What was heartening was that the impact on the lower income had been lesser than for the rich. Overall, wages have risen faster than prices. The CRC then went beyond, to determine what troubles the people most, and examined in detail these questions on education, health care, transport and housing. Fundamentally, there was nothing very much wrong. Minor improvements can be made including better coordination of price increases in so far as the public sector is concerned. Even Mr Low Thia Khiang, a Member of the Opposition, did not differ substantially from the rest of the Committee. I hope that he now has a better picture and will try to reconcile what he said during the General Elections and what he knows now. It is, of course, a matter of regret to me and I think to many Members of this House that the Members of the SDP failed to participate in this Committee. They were given every opportunity. They declined. Among the reasons which I remember them saying was that they did not have time. I have always wondered what they were elected for if they did not have time for a problem they profess to be of utmost importance and troubling the people so much. The Cost Review Committee has done a year's work. We assume that the SDP has also looked at the subject. But today, all that we were told by Mr Ling How Doong was that they held a forum and there is no report. Yet, in the 1991 General Elections, the SDP made this one of their main issues. So if what Mr Ling How Doong said today is all that they have to say, then surely they must have blown an anthill into a mountain. It also indicates how much interest he has in the subject. There is still some hope. There are two other Members of the SDP, although belonging to different factions. I hope they will enlighten the House about the SDP's view on this subject. Otherwise, as they say, forever maintain your peace. Mr Speaker, Sir, the press had reported and this has, in some cases, been reflected in the speeches in this House about what was said by a certain research analyst, Mr Koh Su Haw. I quote the Sunday Times of 3rd October 1993: `Research analyst Koh Su Haw, 26, said that the CRC failed to shed new light on the problem: "They came to the conclusion that the CPI was accurate and that the problem was with people's perception. This was the same conclusion they started out with."' Mr Koh's reaction may be typical of a group of Singaporeans. He accuses the CRC of having started with a preconceived idea, and implies that the CRC set about proving this notion. Mr Koh is unfair to the members of the CRC. I can testify. The members of the CRC, far from going into their work believing that the problem was with the people's perception, went in to try to prove the Government wrong. If Mr Koh had read the full Report, he would know that the CRC cited four sources of inflation. They are: 1. Scarce resources. Singapore faces shortages of land and labour. 2. Timing of fee increases. Several fee increases were carried out around the same time in recent years. 3. Reduction in subsidy rates. This came about as the Government set the levels of subsidy. 4. The "expectations" factor. With many years of prosperity, there is an expectation that standards of living will continue to rise rapidly. In other words, while the CRC did not find the Government wrong, it did throw light on why people feel the cost of living has gone up. Although Mr Chandra Das felt that we went about the job trying to do too much justification, I think it is important to find reasons why people feel the way they do. Mr Koh, being an analyst, surely understands that if a position is right, facts and figures cannot be bent or twisted to show that the position is wrong. Since rationality is the hallmark of a good analyst, Mr Koh must ask how his own assumptions should be squared with the conclusions of 16 independent-minded persons in the CRC. Does he now still doubt the conclusions of the Cost Review Committee? Another person interviewed by the Sunday Times of the same date, and here I quote again: "Sociologist Chua Beng Huat said that while the CRC explained cost increases at the same macro-level, its report lacked "flesh and blood". The Government would have to bridge an apparent contradiction between cost of living statistics and "everyday reality", he said." "If I am poor, and you tell me that I am no worse off today, that I am better off today than 10 years ago, do you think I will believe that?" Unfortunately, the Sunday Times' report did not make clear whether Mr Chua agreed with the macro view or not. Probably he did not. The report indicated that Mr Chua was one of 17 persons interviewed, and they had mostly not read the Report. As a sociologist in our university, he should read the Report before he passes judgment. Then he should tell us what is "everyday reality", and how it differs from that of the CRC. For the record, the CRC members are quite well aware of "everyday reality". In its Report, the CRC noted, and I quote: [Chapter 13, paragraph 96] "... the needs of the less well-off members of society have to be addressed. Although almost all Singaporeans have enjoyed rising standards of living, some have experienced a relatively larger increase. This had given rise to fears among those who have not done as well that they might be left behind as others move ahead." And in Chapter 3, paragraph 16, the CRC said this: "... lower-income households do have a sense of being left behind. Their living standards are better than before but those who remain in this group are still disappointed to find that they have not improved their position relative to others. One major way of improving their standards of living is to improve their earning capacities, which requires investment in training and skills upgrading. In addition, society must be prepared to provide a certain amount of support to this group like subsidised rental for flats, subsidised health care and education, and financial assistance to the destitute, as is the case at present." It is clear, therefore, that the CRC is well aware of the problem of how the poor feel. So the question to Mr Chua really is this: Mr Chua is not poor. What role should he, as an upper income member of the community, play to help the poor he sympathises with? Some may say that the Government should subsidise more. In fact, points were raised this afternoon. Did the Cost Review Committee discuss how much Government subsidies should be? Apart from calling on Government to keep the subsidy level for university fees where they are now, ie, 79%, instead of reducing it to 75%, the CRC examined subsidies only in relation to the impact the adjustment of subsidies to target subsidy rates had on the rise in the cost of living. It is outside the terms of reference of the CRC to consider how much Government should subsidise. This is the prerogative of the Government. So I hope that Mr Chandra Das would raise this subject in this House, which is the appropriate forum. In making an exception for education, the CRC wished to distinguish it from other areas. Education is a form of investment in human resources. Expenditures in other areas should properly be classified as consumption. None of the CRC members advocated that we become a welfare state. Why does the subject of subsidies come up for discussion in public and in Parliament? I believe no one in this House wants a welfare state. Then what is the reason? I believe the subject crops up only because Government has healthy surpluses. If we have a deficit, this Parliament would be discussing how to reduce the deficit, not whether Government should subsidise more. And you know the problem in the US. Government has to decide how much it should subsidise. The Prime Minister has, in his reply to me on the Report, stated that Government "will keep the cost of the services it provides as low as possible, and continue to subsidise education, public housing, and basic health care heavily." Because we continue to chalk up healthy surpluses, there will be calls for Government to subsidise more. Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, should consider this matter most carefully. We are a young nation, at the peak of our dynamism now. Thirty years from now, when the population has aged, and has less dynamism, there may not be such healthy surpluses. So, is it wrong to save while the going is good, so that the savings can be used to support an older population to continue to enjoy the high standard of living 30 years from now? Spending to raise the productive capacity of the people, or so that people can enhance their assets, these can be done. Indeed, the Government is doing so. However, to subsidise consumption, such as health care more heavily now, when we already enjoy first world standards of health care, is unwise. Parliament can, and should discuss whether Government's subsidy levels are appropriate. But finally we must decide, we must agree on what level of subsidy. The CRC listed seven measures on how to keep inflation low. These include keeping a free trading environment, sound financial and economic policies, and raising productivity levels. There is one other measure, not discussed by the CRC, which Singaporeans should consider. This is the question of family support. In this particular instance, I want to refer to discussions in this House generating from Mr Ling How Doong's speech. There is an unhealthy trend for greater State support. That is reflected by what Mr Ling How Doong said. There are examples of this in our daily life. For example, when child care is a problem, people look to the Government to provide the solution, and people look to Government to subsidise child care. In the years to come, when there is an older population, the care of the elderly will be of greater concern. In most European countries, the burden has shifted on to the State. The cost is tremendous, and unbearable, as their governments now find. Studies have confirmed the obvious. Family care of the elderly is the lowest cost solution, and in most cases, the most meaningful one for the elderly. We will have to decide whether we will go the Western European way of caring for the elderly, or maintain traditional family support, while we still can. The seeds of our problem have already been sown, and taken root. Families have dispersed in different housing estates. There are hardly any extended families. If we cannot reverse the trend, if we cannot preserve the values of filial piety, then surely in 20 or 30 years time, the cost for our country will be high. If it is the Government that is to be responsible for taking care of the old, then surely the tax rates must be commensurate with the cost. Again, this is a point, I hope the young, in particular, will consider seriously. Next, Sir, I turn to the subject of expectations, and I quote, firstly, Sunday Times of 3rd October 1993, a statement by Mr Michael Fernandez. He said: "I think it is not fair to tell people to aspire to life in a developed country, and then to tell them to scale down their expectations." For the record, all members of the CRC agreed that there is nothing wrong with having aspirations. And I quote Chapter 13, paragraph 56 of the Report: "The CRC was of the view that there is nothing wrong with such aspirations of the younger generation. Having high aspirations motivates Singaporeans to work hard." But what must you tell Singaporeans when there are resource constraints? Certainly, there is nothing wrong with dreaming of a private property. But when we have land for 30% of the housing stock to be of private property, what can you say to the 60% of each cohort who will be tertiary-trained and who will want for themselves what they think graduates before them obtained easily and cheaply? In 1970, I do not know what the figure was for each cohort who went on to university, but I know in 1980, and this is in the Report, 13% of the cohort were tertiary trained, ie, polytechnic as well as university. In 1992, this rose to 45%. So one must conclude that maybe it was only 5% in 1970; it must be lower. So if one was a graduate from the 1970s and early 1980s, then one belonged to the cream of society. There was an exclusiveness about being a graduate in that context. They can, and they have, owned private property. Not as easily as our young people today think, but after hard work, they have. Today, I repeat, 60% of each cohort is going to be tertiary-trained and they will compete for that 30% of housing stock, which is private property, and they will compete for it not only among themselves but also some of the other 40% who will make it. So should not the CRC be honest and tell them that not all will fulfil their dreams? This is what the CRC had decided to do, and I think we had been honest about it. Many people have talked about life in a developed country? What is life in a developed country? Each with a summer house, as Mr Chng Hee Kok said yesterday? I worked in Oslo in 1972/73. Yes, I envied my Norwegian colleague from the same university his access to a summer house. Let me stress: access to a summer house, not ownership of a summer house. In case Singaporeans get the idea that every Norwegian has a summer house of his own, I have to correct the impression. A minority have access to summer houses, and some of them do own those houses. Just a few months ago, this same Norwegian friend of mine spent Christmas here. Now it is his turn to be envious. And he remarked: "Singapore must have the highest ownership of Mercedes cars in the world!" That is his observation. He compares it with what he sees in his own country and Europe. He is not saying that all Singaporeans go around in Mercedes cars, but he was remarking that there did not seem to be any lack of money, if there are so many such cars, even though the prices are so high. This leads me to ask: what is life in a developed country? But there are many Singaporeans who travel each year. They have been to developed countries. So what is the good life they have, which we are deprived of? Just as the CRC tells Singaporeans that our resource constraints will remain, "... cannot be wished away, and will force upon society difficult and unpleasant choices as how these should be allocated", I would like to ask Singaporeans to face up to what life is like in Singapore, compared to life in developed countries. I have lived in Europe, and in Japan. I know that life here, while not equal to the best in Europe, is not far behind. Our school education is better than in England; our children come out better educated. We enjoy equal, if not better standards of health care, while as a nation, we pay less. We clearly have a higher rate of home ownership here. What is it that we lack? Cheap cars? Yes, but can you still drive in the big cities like Paris and London? Cheap houses? I am not sure apartments in the big cities are much cheaper than in Singapore. As the Cost Review Committee has exhaustively explained, these are two prized possessions which not all Singaporeans will realise. Many dream, but only some will achieve. But apart from these two items, certainly we should identify the things which make for a higher standard of living. And provided we are willing to work hard for them, certainly we can have them. A livelier cultural scene? Yes, if we compare ourselves with the big cities, we are lacking in this area. But London and Paris have much larger populations and a wider audience base. If we compare ourselves to the smaller cities, we may not be so far behind. But if it is a livelier cultural scene that we want, we can certainly bring those facilities to Singaporeans. I have lived in Japan also, for two years. I know we have a better quality of life. Already, many years ago, our living conditions far surpassed the Japanese. And it is true Japanese expatriates "cry" when they are recalled home. They will not enjoy the space we have in our homes, nor the access to golf courses that Singaporeans today enjoy. Even so, if there are things which the Japanese enjoy which we do not, we can also create and bring them to Singaporeans. Singaporeans may not realise that they are today enjoying first world standards of living, without paying first world prices. Certainly our graduates have nothing to complain about wages. They already command first world rates of pay. Not true? Then why do Australians, New Zealanders and Britishers come here to work on local terms? Why are they willing to forgo expatriate terms? It may not seem fair to tell people to aspire to life in a developed country, and then tell them to scale down their expectations. But surely it is fair to tell them that they have arrived. Yes, not everything is here. But if we define clearly what we want, there is no reason why our people cannot enjoy those also. And in order to arrive and enjoy all those things, we must focus our minds on the fundamentals that make it possible. As Mr Robert Chua has said, we must maintain Singapore as a competitive place for doing business where business can thrive, that we have high value-added industries that can pay workers higher wages to enjoy those things. I am reassured that our young graduates, while aiming high, are realistic about expectations of the good life, as reported in the Sunday Times. And they also say they are willing to work hard. However, notwithstanding all that we do and how much we put in, not all will make it to achieve their dreams; some will be disappointed. Vivian Lim made a point which explains why people feel disgruntled. This is reported again in the Sunday Times. And she said this: "I suppose most people would tend to use friends as a reference point". Comparison, that is why people feel unhappy. To those who feel unhappy when they compare themselves with friends, let me commend the good advice in the piece of writing entitled "Desiderata": "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself." The same passage also had this: "... whatever your labours and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy." [Applause].