The Housing and Development Board (HDB) was established in 1959 and was tasked immediately with housing a nation. In thirty years, the HDB can be easily be credited for housing over 80% of the population. This was accomplished with the backing of a committed government willing to plough money and support the HDB with all its administrative machinery. This achievement not only transformed the physical landscape of Singapore but it had also changed the way Singaporeans lived and eliminated much of the segregation of the population along ethnic lines.
The housing problem faced by Singapore in 1959 is very different from that Singaporeans are concerned with today; the problem of relocating masses living in crowded unhygienic slums and providing alternative modern housing of yesteryear is in stark contrast to the problem of providing high quality spacious housing to the majority of Singaporeans who may already own their own flat. This is a reflection of the high standard of living that Singaporeans are accustomed to and grown to expect as their birthright. It is irrelevant to enter a moral debate on whether Singaporeans should have such high expectations. The fact is that there is a perceived housing problem and Singaporeans are not responding to exhortations to lower their expectations. A more interesting question is whether we can satisfy the aspirations of young affluent Singaporeans in a responsible manner.
The housing problem cannot be treated in isolation. The growth of the economy has led to a very bullish property market. Available land for development must increasingly either be reclaimed, allocated from a dwindling pool of reservation of land space or bought from the open market. In any case, any pricing of flats that factored in a lower cost for the occupied land space than any commercial development would must be seen as a subsidy. As long as Singaporeans are allowed to sell their HDB flats in the open market, these subsidies are very real and they are reflected in the rising profits from sales of flats. I am not suggesting that the HDB should price flats solely based on the going market price. What I am saying is that the government is giving out subsidies and yet for every flat that goes on the market, the rising of its resale price with every transaction is actually pricing it out of the reach of more and more Singaporeans. In turn, the government has to build new flats on new land to reissue subsidies for the younger workers. In a small country like Singapore, this cannot go on indefinitely. What we need is a way to recycle the subsidies more efficiently and equitably. It is the younger workers who need the subsidies more than those who are realizing the profits from the resale of flats.
Does a young professional need to buy a four-room HDB flat as his/her first home? Perhaps he/she is fearing that he/she might not be able to afford a bigger flat when the family grows larger. In many other countries, young professionals often rent accommodations near their workplace in the first few years of their working life before putting down a deposit for a house/apartment when they can afford to. In Singapore, the rental market of private properties is practically out of reach of ordinary Singaporeans and subletting of HDB flats is severely restricted (rightly so). In my opinion, the government should include rental properties as a major part of their housing strategy.
A single 4 or 5 room HDB flat can easily be converted to 2 to 3 single bedroom or studio flat. We can achieve a higher density of population on prime districts by this conversion. These rental flats would be highly sought after by young professionals who either have not gotten married, or are still childless. These people should be in their early productive years and they would naturally be unable to afford a bigger apartment or to buy a car. If these concentrations of rental apartments can be sited near industrial or commercial areas, then clearly we can move a larger portion of the work force to work by a shorter distance. With such concentrations of the working population in dedicated areas, it would make economical sense to design a comprehensive public transport policy to support these areas. It will eliminate the need for many of the young professionals to drive to work in the morning, thus eliminating congestion on the expressways.
Such a scheme will enable the young to realize their dream of independence from their family at an earlier age. More importantly, younger workers will not be required to tie themselves down to a hefty loan or mortgage. It has the effect of encouraging the young to be more adventurous and the availability of a higher level of disposable income in the early years of their working years may be just what they need to strike out to be entrepreneurs. The government should initially be responsible for building and maintaining these apartments and ensuring that that they are affordable and well-kept. Of course, the management of these estates may be privatized at a later date but the quality of housing must be always be strictly monitored. Because tenants will be unable to sell their rental apartments, it would mean that there will be no property speculation on this sector of public housing. The side effect will be that banks will no longer be able to depend on yields on large numbers of mortgages or housing loans. This may then encourage the banks to investigate the potential of investing in local ventures and businesses.
There are many ways to price the rentals of these apartments. For one, the rentals could be priced at the interest on a mortgage taken out for an average HDB flat. Alternatively, an appropriate portion of the total rentals paid for a government rental apartment may be taken to be part payment for a family sized family flat. The principle should be that each citizen is entitled to a single housing subsidy in the form of a subsidized apartment when he/she is ready to commit to a purchase. Presumably, this would be when he/she needs a larger apartment for a new family. We may never be able to eliminate the market on government apartments short of forbidding resale of flats but we would have dampened the demand, thus cooling off the market.
Plans have been announced to build a new commercial district in Marina South, and there are plans to build integrated residential areas in the district as well. I urge the government to use this opportunity to experiment with alternative schemes to solve the housing problem.
Thong Wei
The new regulations affecting the use of the Internet in Singapore have been announced. The press release by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority reiterates its claims that they were committed to "safeguard the interests of the Internet community while promoting the healthy development of the industry." Unfortunately, as a member of the Internet community, I strongly believe that the new regulations are contrary to my interests, and will adversely affect the best interests of Singapore's fledging Internet community.
The "Singapore Broadcasting Authority has consulted Internet Service operators and other key players in the industry on workable solutions which would allow some control over parts of the Internet important to us, without impeding the industry's healthy development". However, the Internet is more than an industry or a fancy multimedia fax machine for communication. The Internet also represents new attitudes - attitudes that place the highest importance on the free flow of information, attitudes that welcomes, tolerates, respects and embraces diversity of opinions, ideas and values, attitudes that promote discussion in spite of disagreement, attitudes that result in co-operation in spite of antagonistic values, attitudes that inspire creativity from its community, attitudes where assistance is regarded as a norm whenever there is a request, - and ultimately, attitudes that results in the paradox of a sense of community in the midst of anarchy. The Internet represents a new culture, and new opportunities for intellectual and attitudinal growth - ALL of which are at risk of being undermined or terminated, in Singapore, by the new regulations announced by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority.
The Singapore Broadcasting Authority seeks to protect Singaporeans from content on the Internet that "may undermine public morals, political stability and religious harmony" in Singapore." Certainly, there is considerable material on the Internet that may give parents cause for concern. The duty of the government to protect Singapore's national interest by reserving the legal power to respond in an appropriate manner, where necessary can also be appreciated. Nevertheless, the ability to protect the national interest must be distinguished from the need to do so. Singaporeans have had general access to the Internet for more than a year now with relatively few instances of abuse. Therefore, it is fair to state that Singapore's national interest is not facing a threat from the rapid growth of the Internet. While the desire for proactive measures against the abuse and exploitation of Internet for crime, and or its potential to undermine public morals and the public order is laudable, unfortunately, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority has sought to insure this through a broad blanket ban on content deemed undesirable. We must ask ourselves if the cost of such a policy is justified by the marginal gains (if any at all)
While there is a need to ensure consistency with regard to laws affecting those engaged in traditional broadcast media, religious organisations and political parties. It should not be forgotten that much of the content on the Internet represent 'private' individual expression, as opposed to the commercial broadcasts of the traditional media organisations. In seeking to extend their jurisdiction over the expression of private individuals, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority goes beyond extending old laws to new technology. By establishing a boundary between what can or can not be published on the Internet, as opposed to simply reserving the power to respond on the rare occasions where there is a need, the Internet Regulations can become a powerful suppressant on individual expression.
The idea of a puritanical attitude towards the interpretation of the announced regulations is abhorrent, and a source of enormous concern to many. The frequent complaints over the censorship of films, television, music and the print media suggests that there is a considerable difference of opinion over the determination of material considered objectionable. In view of the fact that the Internet community is generally considered more tolerant than society in general, any restriction resulting from the new regulations are apt to be felt more keenly. Moreover, even if the Singapore Broadcasting Authority adopts a broad-minded interpretation of the regulations, the regulations would still impose a psychological constraint that would inhibit individual expression, feedback and the flow of information. The need to register with the authorities as an Internet Content Provider, as well as the fear of reprisals, real or imagined, are likely to discourage many Singaporeans from expressing themselves or providing information on the Internet.
The psychological impact of the regulations should not be understated. There is an underlying assumption in the Internet regulations that exposure to new ideas, different ideas, controversial ideas, provocative ideas and or politically incorrect ideas can be dangerous - and that young Singaporeans need to be shielded from these ideas. Yet exposure to these ideas are essential if Singapore seeks to encourage entrepreneurship and research. Entrepreneurs are risk-takers and must be willing to venture into the unknown. Similarly, research requires people to explore new ideas, to challenge convention, and to conceive the inconceivable. The Internet has provided young Singaporeans with opportunities to be creative, to explore new potential and possibilities. In seeking to establish barricades against ideas that are considered deviant, and reinforcing a culture of conformity, the new regulations can and will stifle the instincts required in entrepreneurs and researchers.
The hallmark of a mature and civilised society is the ability to respond in a responsible manner to controversial and or provocative issues. The Internet offers us an opportunity to grow into such a society. The Internet community is young and full of nonsense, including frequent outbursts of profanity, inanity, paranoia and irrationality. While there have been frequent heated exchanges on the Internet, there have been no physical violence resulting from it, nor is there likely to be. Instead of rushing out to punch up someone after provocation on the Internet, internauts are more likely to respond with words through e-mail or counter-arguments. Flame-wars might be annoying and immature but they are hardly a threat to the stability of Singaporean society. The Internet Community is growing and maturing. The evidence of character-building and intellectual growth within the Internet Community is seen everywhere - former antagonists in heated debates learn to respect one another and become friends over time, - information and facts are shared willingly and frequently. Indeed, a characteristic of the Internet is the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation, - parochialism and complacency are constantly challenged by new and different perspectives on issues, resulting in the broadening of minds and encouraging the capacity to respect and learn from others, even as we challenge their views. There are many signs that the Internet has grown in maturity and is continuing to grow into a community of diverse minds, values, interests and attitudes. The Internet Regulations jeopardises the further growth of this community. For not only is it likely to result in greater reserve on the Internet, it also usurps the responsibility for decision-making, and robs individuals of their opportunities to determine the nature and direction of the Internet Community for themselves. Without respect and responsibility, there can be no growth.
The violence and instability that were prevalent in the early history made tough restrictions on broadcast media that might inflame passions a necessary evil. After 30 years of nation-building, Singapore has become an economically developed nation, with a society that has become increasingly well-educated, surely our needs are now different. Surely we can adopt a pragmatic approach towards engaging the Internet, instead on relying on the dogma that has guided policy in a bygone era. The Internet should be seen as an opportunity, not a risk. The Internet Regulations treats it as a risk, not an opportunity. The Internet Regulations offends the dignity of Singaporeans by implying that they lack the maturity to engage the Internet in a responsible manner. They also represents an international humiliation for Singaporeans everywhere by being the embarrassing equivalent of having an overprotective mother that will follow them on dates, into their Universities and or work-places, to watch after their welfare.
Editor: Thong Wei 30/10/95
Return to Editorial