Speech on Affordable and Accessible Public Housing, and Public Housing Policies
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak. Having heard the debate yesterday and comments on social media, especially after having heard the speeches of Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Members of Parliament, I feel that I should say a few words.
First, yesterday, Member of Parliament Hazel Poa asked why we could not build sufficient flats in one go, like what we have done during Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s time. She also asked the Minister whether he thought Mr Lee Kuan Yew had raided our reserves. Her questions surprised me.
Times have changed. At that time, we didn’t have a mature HDB resale market, nor did we have much reserves to speak of. What was the point or purpose of her question?
Second, Mr Leong Mun Wai had also spoken about PSP’s Affordable Homes Scheme, the purpose of which is to strengthen the principle that a HDB flat is for owner occupation, not investment. However, when he responded to a netizen’s comment on his Facebook, he said that his intention was for Singaporeans to keep their CPF money, and not to be “condemned to living in HDB flats” forever because they cannot afford private housing. When I read this, I was very puzzled. What did he mean by saying “condemned to living in HDB flats”?
In Singapore, more than 80% of our citizens live in HDB flats and many of them have been living there for their whole life. We bring up our children in HDB flats and some of us have upgraded from a 3-room flat to a 5-room flat. Many middle-income families are very proud of this. Mr Leong Mun Wai really should not say that people are “condemned” to stay in HDB flats. What is wrong with staying in a HDB flat? By saying so, Mr Leong seems to be subconsciously looking down on those who live in HDB flats.
Since December last year, Mr Leong has kept on changing his stance. First, he said that we should not include the cost of the land into the prices of HDB flats; then he said we should use historical prices; yesterday he said that we could include the land cost, but delay it until we sell, and give it back to HDB together with interests. Within three months, he changed his stance three times. Can such a scheme be reliable?
Shifting stances aside, I tried to give serious thought to his proposal. Mr Leong suggested that when selling new flats, the price should only include building cost, thus reducing the price drastically. Hence, people do not need to spend their CPF money to buy a flat. This is indeed very appealing.
However, if you think twice, you will realise that this will further increase the price gap between BTO flats and resale flats. Looking at the BTO application data last year and considering our “kiasu” mentality, the PSP proposal will only cause more people to apply for BTO flats, because it is a good deal! But the resale market will suffer from lack of buyers, the resale price will fall precipitously. Can Mr Leong be sure that such a scenario will not happen?
If this were to happen, the asset value of current HDB flat owners will fall. How is Mr Leong going to resolve this?
In my constituency in Yishun, there are many Ah Gong and Ah Ma in their 70s or 80s who are thinking of leaving their flat to their children, or selling it and distributing the proceeds to their children, or selling it back to the Government at market price. In this way, they will not only be able to stay in the same flat, but also have spare money to spend for the rest of their life, without the need to depend on their children so much. If we were to implement the PSP’s policy, Ah Gong and Ah Ma’s asset value will drop sharply. Where then can they get their retirement security?
I can understand the anxieties our residents have been feeling in the past two years. Geopolitical uncertainty, rising prices and the pandemic have made young people, who were forced to stay at home, to want to have their own space more urgently. Construction delay has also made the younger generation worry about if they are able to get a flat. All these anxieties add up to the challenges in getting a flat successfully. It is human nature to feel this way.
However, if we look further, these feelings are all transitory and caused by the special circumstances in the past two years.
We cannot step on the brake suddenly on the government policies and simply reset. What will happen if you brake suddenly? The cars behind will ram into you.
Now the PSP is calling for a policy reset and its proposals are only for immediate convenience, hoodwinking the people with short-term interests. Their so-called policy reforms on retirement security are likely to cause 80% of Singaporeans who own HDB flats to lose their safety net overnight.
I believe Singaporeans are rational. We need to address the immediate challenges with right solutions, not empty theories on paper.
I urge Singaporeans to think over this thoroughly and not try to make hasty changes to important policies because of temporary challenges. Hasty actions will only lead to our forefathers’ efforts being wasted away.
To resolve the current issue, I think the Government is right to step up the supply of BTO flats and give young couples priority to get a flat through targeted measures. I support the Motion raised by the Minister for National Development, Mr Desmond Lee.
In Chinese
谢谢议长先生给我机会发表。
听了昨天的辩论和社交网上的舆论,特别听了前进党议员们的演讲,我觉得我应该站出来说几句话。
第一,昨天,潘群勤 议员 问政府为什么不能像在 60年代李光耀时代一样,一次过预先建起充裕的組屋。又问部长认不认为李光耀当时也在盗用储备金。她的问题令我感到诧异。
此一时彼一时,那时我们国家没有一个成熟的转售組屋市场价格的问题必须考虑。
那时国家也没有多少储备金可言。
问这句话有什么意思?
第二,梁文辉 昨天提出了前进党的安乐居计划,其中一个目的是强化购买組屋为了居住而不是投资的原则。可是今天早上在他的脸书对一位网民的提问,他回话说,他的用意是让国人能保存退休金,不用一辈子因为买不起私人住宅而都被判注定得居住在政府組屋里。“condemned to living in HDB flats”。我看了心里很纳闷。
“被判注定得住在政府組屋” 这句话是什么意思?
超过 80% 的国民都住在政府組屋,很多都住了一辈子,在政府組屋里养儿育女,有的从三方式提升到 5方式。这是许多小康之家一整代人应以为荣的。
梁文辉实在不应该这么形容 “国人被判或注定得住在政府組屋 ”。这种话似乎意味他潜意识中带着鄙视的眼光看待我们居住在組屋的大众。
梁文辉 从去年12月在房屋政策方面不断改变立场。先是说不应该把地的价格算在内,然后又说应该以历史价格定位,昨天又说应该把地价包括在内,可是可以延迟等卖的时候连本带利再还。
在三个月内换了3种想法。这种计划可靠吗?
想法漂浮不定别说,我试图认真考虑他的提议。梁文辉建议在供应新組屋时,价格只包括建筑费用,让价格大幅度减下来,让人们不用掏出公积金来买房子。这个想法的确很吸引人。可是如果预购組屋和转售組屋的价格差距更大,以去年的预购組屋数据来看人们的心态,这会导致更多人争先恐后申请预购組屋。因为很划算嘛!可是少了买家,转售市场的价格必定会直滑下坡。
梁文辉 有信心这绝对不会发生吗?要是发生了,那现在已经拥有組屋的人们,他们的资产价格滑落,梁文辉觉得该怎么解决这个问题?
想着我义顺区内的阿公阿嬷们,7/80岁的,期待着他们的組屋留给孩子们,转卖了孩子们多少能分到一点钱,或者以市场价格卖回给政府,不但继续有的住,还可以有钱过完余生,不需要太过依赖子女。如果前进党的政策落实了,阿公阿嬷们的屋价猛跌,还谈得上有什么保障?
我理解这两年来居民们的焦虑。国际政治的动荡不安,物价影响,疫情别在家中导致年轻一代感觉更迫切想有自己的空间。建筑拖延导致年轻一代对能不能够买到組屋倍感焦虑。这些焦虑都增加了成功购屋的挑战。这是人之常情。
但如果我们放远来看,这些感受都是短暂性的。是因为这两年的特殊情势的关系。
国家的政策不能因为这时的焦虑就急刹车,大改革。急忙刹车的后果是什么?后面的车辆就撞上来了。
现在前进党要求政策大改革,提出的政策只贪图眼前方便,以短期的利益来忽悠国民。
他们所谓要提供退休保障的政策改革,对 80%已拥有組屋的人民来说,很可能会让他们在一季之间失去保障。
我相信新加坡人是理智的。针对眼前的挑战我们必须对症下药,而不是纸上谈兵。
我呼吁国民们好好的分析。不要因为短暂性的挑战而轻率地在这些重要政策做大改革,草率行事只会导致祖辈们的付出前功尽弃。
对于当下的问题,我认为政府现在致力加紧推出预购組屋的供应,通过针对性的措施帮助年轻夫妇优先购买組屋,是对的策略。
我支持国家发展部李智陞部长的动议。