Budget 2023: Ensuring A Sustainable Housing Market With The Affordable Homes Scheme
Mr Chairman, The PSP has recommended the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS) and the Millennial Apartments Scheme to deliver affordable and accessible public housing to Singaporeans of current and future generations. I am sure Singaporeans will be excited to be able to buy a new flat in Tengah at $140,000 under the AHS and live in […]
Budget 2023: Ensuring A Level Playing Field For All Singaporean Workers
Mr Chairman, I refer to the recently released interim report of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness. PSP has high hopes of the Committee, which was set up just before our debate on Foreign Talent Policy in September 2021, but we have found the interim report to be inadequate in at least two areas. We […]
Budget 2023: What is “Raiding of Reserves”?
Mr Chairman, the PAP Government and some of its MPs like to invoke the claim of “raiding of reserves” to attack alternative policy ideas and proposals put up by the Opposition. In order to have a more productive debate in this House, it will be helpful to have an understanding of what constitutes “raiding of […]
Budget 2023: Budget Process and Accounts
Mr Chairman, I have questions for the Minister of Finance. Firstly, the termination payment for the Sports Hub was advanced from the Contingencies Fund and this House is now being asked to vote on replacing the amount in a Supplementary Supply Bill. How much is this termination payment? The Contingencies Fund was created for urgent […]
Budget 2023: PSP Offers An Alternative Budget To Better Serve Singaporeans
Mr Speaker Sir, We welcome the financial assistance that the DPM has announced in Budget 2023 to help Singaporeans cope with the rising cost of living and inflation. However, we are not sure whether more of the same short-term, ad hoc financial assistance will strengthen the resilience of Singaporeans and help them move forward in […]
PSP Housing Debate: Personal Explanation to Clarify my Closing Speech
Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification. On Feb 7, when I was giving more details on the Affordable Homes Scheme during my Closing Speech for the Public Housing motion, I have said the following, and I quote, “..will the scheme actually increase the holding cost of the buyers? I called […]
PSP Housing Debate: Ensuring Affordable Homes for Every Generation
Mr Speaker Sir, I thank the Ministers, Senior Minister of State, Minister of State and Members for making so many contributions which have enabled us to have a lively debate on public housing. I have certainly learned a lot from this debate because the rebuttal points have been specific and substantial. While we may differ […]
PSP Housing Debate: Concrete Solutions to Singapore’s Public Housing Problem
PUBLIC HOUSING POLICIES: That this House calls upon the Government to review its public housing policies in order to deliver affordable and accessible HDB flats to all Singaporeans, strengthen the owner-occupation intent of public housing, protect retirement adequacy and keep public housing inclusive for every Singaporean of each generation. Mr Speaker Sir, The Progress Singapore […]
<strong>2023 年 1 月 9 日休会动议：宏茂桥 3 道的选择性整体重建计划</strong>
议长先生，宏茂桥3 道的选择性整体重建计划——我称之为宏茂桥 SERS，是我们公共住房历史上的一个划时代事件。这一事件对受影响居民以外的所有新加坡人都有重要影响，但媒体和政府在陈述时对它的影响轻描淡写。因此，我将在今天的休会动议中向新加坡人解释为什么我们应该关注宏茂桥 SERS，以及它将如何影响正在老龄化的组屋的未来。 宏茂桥 SERS和其他的SERS有何不同？ 一些新加坡人可能没有完全理解宏茂桥 SERS 与过去其他SERS项目有何不同，以及为何不同。我会先简单介绍一下宏茂桥SERS与过去的SERS有什么不同。 关键区别在于，这是被选中参加 SERS 计划的居民首次需要以现金填补价格差额，才能获得具有 99年新屋契的同等替代组屋。 同等替代组屋是指相同房型、相同面积且位于现址附近指定地点的组屋。 我在公众陈情委员会的审议过程中证实了这一点，当时我坚持要求国家发展部提供过去曾出现过 SERS计划居民需要为99年新屋契的同等单位填补现金的例子。国家发展部最终于 11 月 14 日向公众陈情委员会提供了一份备忘录，指出在西海岸路之前的 SERS中，在“指定的”西海岸湾新址（靠近他们组屋原址）购买同等单位的居民，收到了政府分别给3房式和4房式单位现金拨款$51,000和$61,000。只有选择搬到金文泰1道这个“位置更中心的替代地点”的居民才需要做现金填补。因此，就连政府提出的过去这个西海岸路SERS例子，都不足以证明过去SERS居民必须为同等单位填补差额。 我们可以由此证实宏茂桥居民是第一批倒霉的、需要为SERS计划承担经济负担的居民。SERS计划下的居民第一次需要拨出现款来获得具有99年新屋契的同等组屋。 政府一再声明，它使用与其他SERS计划相同的计算模式和方法来得出宏茂桥SERS的补偿金额，但政府尚未承认宏茂桥SERS的结果与其他SERS不同。即使在这样毫无疑问的不同结果面前，政府至今尚不愿承认这次SERS的结果不一样，这是没有诚信的。如果结果没有不同，政府就没有必要推出50年屋契和屋契回购计划的替代方案供宏茂桥居民选择。 避开承认不同结果不谈，李智陞部长在回应宏茂桥议员娜蒂亚女士在 2022 年 7 月的休会动议演讲时，试图给出造成不同结果的原因。他给出的原因是租约老化。部长解释说，在过去的 SERS 中，在SERS宣布时，组屋通常较新，还有大约 70 年的屋契。然而，受宏茂桥SERS影响的单位较旧，所剩租约大约 57 年。 但部长的理由并没有完全解释为什么支付予宏茂桥居民的售屋补偿不足以让他们像其他SERS一样购买具有新的99年屋契的同等组屋。 他也没有解释为什么在马西岭SERS计划下的居民（马西岭SERS的公布时间比宏茂桥SERS稍迟）不需要填补现金差额，虽然马西岭组屋的租期也只剩58-59年，不比宏茂桥组屋剩余的57年长太多。 在我看来，完整的解释是组屋租约老化对成熟住宅区的旧组屋的价格影响大于非成熟住宅区的组屋。与此同时，成熟组屋区的新组屋价格上涨得更快，因为它们享有良好的设施和位置。因此，与马西岭相比，宏茂桥的现有旧组屋和新替换组屋之间的价格差异就更大。这就是为什么宏茂桥SERS居民的结果比马西岭SERS和在租约老化的影响尚未出现之前的其他SERS的居民的结果更糟糕的关键原因。 政府本应承认宏茂桥SERS的不同结果，并坦率地向宏茂桥居民提供这完整的解释，但他们并没有怎么做。 政府为什么不愿承认 宏茂桥SERS的不同？ 那么，政府为什么不愿承认宏茂桥SERS的不同结果，因而给不到宏茂桥居民和新加坡人一个完整的交代呢？ 我认为原因是，如果承认宏茂桥 SERS 的不同结果，这意味着承认自愿提早重建计划（VERS）将不是解决租约老化问题的可行方案。 我们知道，自 2018 年以来，政府一直吹捧VERS作为解决租约老化问题的方案。 新加坡人期望 VERS 就像“所有人能享受的 SERS”，但如果 VERS 实际上是“所有人都得承担的宏茂桥 SERS”，那就另当别论了。 原来的SERS意味着居民能得到回报，宏茂桥SERS则意味着居民必须填补差额。 […]
The Ang Mo Kio SERS Alarm Bell
Mr Speaker Sir, the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 which I shall call Ang Mo Kio SERS, is an epochal event in the history of our public housing. This event has important implications for all Singaporeans beyond the residents that are affected, but the media and Government have downplayed […]