TR EMERITUS

I refer to the 20 Jun 2014 Straits Times letter “HDB policies will change with the times” by Kammo Liu. Ms Kammo made the common mistake of unfairly comparing the 23,000 housing units built by Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) over 32 years with the 54,000 units HDB built in 5 years. Japanese Occupation and post war baby boom The 32 years between 1927 and 1959 spanned the Japanese Occupation. Does Ms Kammo expect SIT to build homes during the Japanese Occupation? Surely the occupation years cannot be included in any comparison between SIT and HDB? It is also not fair to compare SIT in the years immediately following the end of the war given the extensive war damage and disruption to the construction industry which will take time to restore. It is not fair because by the time HDB started in 1960, the nation had had 15 years to recover from the war versus none for SIT if we start comparing immediately after 1945. • World War II halted the SIT’s functions and presented it afterwards with a truly formidable problem. At the end of the war, houses were destroyed or derelict but the population was on the increase and a baby boom was under way. [Management of Success: The Moulding of Modern Singapore, Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley, page 18] • The combination of low construction and war damage had resulted in a substantial housing shortage in the immediate post-war years. [Squatters No More: Singapore Social Housing , For Third Urban Research Symposium: Land Development, Urban Policy and Poverty Reduction , 4-6 Apr 2005, Dr Belinda Yuen, NUS professor] Different charter, different purpose SIT wasn’t created to develop new houses like HDB was. SIT’s function was to renovate insanitary homes and to house those rendered homeless by its improvement programs, hence it’s named “Singapore Improvement” rather than “Housing Development”. • When the SIT began its operations in 1927, it possessed only the power to lay out roads, back lanes, open spaces, and drainage, as well as prepare and implement improvement schemes. It did not have the power to zone, a severe impediment to the enactment of a master plan for the entire island. [Flammable Cities: Urban Conflagration and the Making of the Modern World, Greg Bankoff and Uwe Lübken and Jordan Sand, page 311] • There was an anomaly, which became glaringly obvious in the post-war years, in that the SIT was not sufficiently empowered by legislation to do the work it was expected to do. The SIT was formed in 1927 under an ordinance which allowed it to condemn insanitary houses and effect their renovation but not to build new houses. The SIT was given very limited power over housing, and was to build accommodation only for those who were made homeless by its improvement programme. [Management of Success: The Moulding of Modern Singapore, Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley, page 18] It wasn’t until after the war when the housing situation became dire that SIT took on the added role similar to HDB’s. So for fair comparison, only years after the war should be compared, it is not fair to judge SIT for what it wasn’t created for. High rise Since HDB’s success formula ultimately lies with building high and high rise flats only appeared after the war, the relevant comparison period should be after the war. It is not fair comparing a period where there are no high rise flats with a period where there are. UK’s first high rise flats appeared in 1948 while those in Singapore first appeared in 1951. A fairer comparison between SIT and HDB should be from 1951 onwards. • It is worth nothing that the first ten-storey tower blocks in London had appeared only three years before, in 1948. [Beyond Description: Singapore Space Historicity, Ryan Bishop & John Phillips & Wei-Wei Ye, page 56] Comparing the years after 1951, SIT built 18,153 flats (Public Administration Singapore-Style, Jon S. T. Quah, page 60) between 1951 and 1959 or a rate of 2,017 flats per year, which is nearly three times that of 23,000 / 32 = 719 flats per year referred to by Ms Kammo. The figure of 2,017 flats per year is fairer to SIT and is a fifth of what the HDB achieved in its first five years – 1/5th, not 1/15th. HDB benefitted from SIT’s experience HDB inherited and benefited from SIT’s invaluable experiences, it spring boarded from SIT’s base and foundation, it did not start from scratch. • The Singapore Improvement Trust ... did provide the basis of a public housing bureaucracy with a valuable accumulation of experience, which could later be utilized by the Housing and Development Board. An illustration of this transition is the development of the first satellite town, Queenstown, which was originally planned by the Trust but was left to its successor to accomplish. [The Politics of Nation Building and Citizenship in Singapore, Michael Hill and Kwen Fee Lian, page 114] There was also an overlap of up to 19,372 units between the work of SIT and HDB in the development of Queenstown which is no small number compared to the number of flats HDB built in its early years. Although the majority of those units were built by the HDB, one cannot deny the fact that they were started by the SIT. • Although the development of Queenstown was initiated by the SIT in 1952, the estate was subsequently completed by SIT’s successor, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), in the early 1970s. A major part of the town was developed during the first Five-Year Building Programme (1960–1965). Between the years 1952 and 1968, a total of 19,372 housing units were built in the area. [HistorySG, an online resource guide - Development of Queenstown, Singapore's first satellite town, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/ecd861b6-87eb-4f95-bfb9-4cc439cf44ea] Different eras It is also not completely fair to compare SIT and HDB because they belong to different eras, just as it is unfair to compare Singapore’s GDP during Goh Chok Tong era with Singapore’s GDP during Lee Hsien Loong era and concluding that the latter is better than the former. When measured against the standards of its own time, SIT’s performance had been commendable. • The housing of 150,000 Singaporeans by the SIT had no parallel elsewhere in Asia. Straits Times, 2 Feb 1960 [Beyond Description: Singapore Space Historicity, Ryan Bishop and John Phillips and Wei-Wei Yeo, page 57] • ... He told the Straits Times: "I have never seen such wonderful blocks of flats ... The S.I.T. flats, which he toured yesterday, "staggered him." ... "People in Liverpool where we consider ourselves to be in the forefront of town planning and slum clearance, would fight to get an S.I.T flat in one of the new blocks I saw to-day. [The Straits Times, 10 June 1952, Page 5, He is all praise for SIT homes] • The S.I.T should be congratulated for developing Queenstown into a beautiful estate which was once covered with shrubs and graveyards. Queenstown should now be considered a model housing estate for Singapore. It has the highest building, schools, markets, good roads and plenty of playing grounds for children and very good flats. [The Straits Times, 8 September 1956, Page 12, A SLUM IN THE MAKING] • One of its enduring achievements was the building of a new town at Tiong Bahru, intended to relieve the congestion in Chinatown. It housed 6,600 people and was to have been the first of a series of satellite towns. [Management of Success: The Moulding of Modern Singapore, Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley, page 18] • The SIT record shows that by the end of 1959, it had built 22,115 housing units, 904 shops, and twelve markets. Another solid achievement to its credit was the completion of the Master Plan. It is often commented that the performance of the SIT was unremarkable compared with that of its successor, the HDB. But the different conditions under which the two bodies worked should be taken into account. [Management of Success: The Moulding of Modern Singapore, Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley, page 19] Land Acquisition Act Perhaps the most important difference between SIT and HDB was that the latter had access to abundant cheap land acquired through the Land Acquisitions Act whereas SIT had to haggle with property owners over land compensation. • The work of the SIT was hampered by the greed of property owners, who demanded excessive sums as compensation for their condemned houses, and by the law which favoured the propertied classes. A scheme to improve ninety-four houses in Bugis Street involved the SIT in a protracted legal battle from 1933 to 1937 which went up to the Privy Council where a decision was given favouring the owners of the houses. [Management of Success: The Moulding of Modern Singapore, Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley, page 18] It should therefore come as no surprise to Ms Kammo that HDB was able to house 85% of Singaporeans after buying up nearly all the land in Singapore on the cheap. Events like the Bukit Ho Swee fire of 1961 also helped clear slums to yield 60 hectares of precious land for housing. Conclusion The evaluation of SIT’s performance over 32 years is unfair because: • The period spans the Japanese Occupation and doesn’t take into account extensive war time damage that required time to repair. • It also fails to account for the fact that SIT’s per-war purpose wasn’t to build new homes but to improve existing insanitary homes. SIT shouldn’t be taken to task for what it wasn’t tasked for. • HDB’s success lies with building high but high rise flats didn’t appear in Singapore until 1951. So at the very least, comparison should be after 1951 as it isn’t fair comparing a period where there are high rise flats with a period where there aren’t. • SIT’s performance after 1951 was three times better than the often but unfairly quoted performance over 32 years. • HDB could spring board from SIT’s wealth of experience, it didn’t start from scratch • It is never entirely fair to compare the different eras to which SIT and HDB belonged. SIT did well when compared to its own time. • HDB had plenty of cheap land acquired through the Land Acquisitions Act whereas SIT had to fight protracted legal battles over land compensation. Thank you Ng Kok Lim Straits Times, HDB policies will change with the times, 20 Jun 2014 I AGREE with Mr Liew Eng Leng that we must not forget that "HDB was founded on the basis of providing an affordable home" when allowing the ownership of private homes by HDB flat owners ("HDB flat owners can't have cake and eat it"; last Saturday). But public housing policy will continue to change in response to changing circumstances. The colonial government established the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) in 1927 to provide public housing. But during its 32 years of existence it managed to build only 23,000 housing units. By 1947, Singapore was reputed to be filled with squatters and slums. In 1960, the HDB replaced the SIT and within five years, it built some 54,000 housing units. By end 2010, it had built one million flats. Today, some 85 per cent of Singaporeans live in HDB flats. But even as it built and rehoused the population, the HDB continued to move with the times, helping potential tenants seek financing, improving the value of their biggest asset and allowing them to capitalise on it, improving facilities in the flats they built and improving aesthetics. Initially, the flats were only for rent. By 1964, some flats were put on sale and by 1968, Central Provident Fund monies could be used to buy the flats. Then, flats were built for middle-income families and premium apartments and executive condominiums were built. The latest development is the three-generation flat, with four bedrooms and three toilets. Thus, the HDB has come a long way from just providing basic housing. It will no doubt continue to evolve as circumstances dictate. And we should welcome its attempts to help HDB dwellers upgrade themselves financially so long as it does not forget to continue providing affordable housing for the poor. Kammo Liu  Read More →

Dear TRE, It came to my attention that the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) has a set of guidelines regarding discriminatory job advertisements. You can find it here. Under the first section "Nationality", it is stated that job ads should not "exclude Singaporeans" or "indicate preference for non-Singaporeans". However, it later states, in its ensuing examples, that employers should avoid using this phrase: "Singaporeans & SPRs only" However, this phrase "Singaporeans & SPRs only" is neither: 1) Excluding Singaporeans NOR 2) Indicating preference for non-Singaporeans So can someone please explain what is wrong with job advertisements that use this phrase? I find it loathsome that we are not allowed to express the company's preference for only Singaporeans and PRs. The message seems to be that there is something wrong in choosing to hire only Singaporeans or SPRs. Are we only considered non-discriminatory if we choose to accept non-SPRs too? Concerned Reader *  Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

Will the CPF Minimum Sum be enough to help CPF Members' future needs? The CPF Minimum Sum will be locked when you reach 55 for the next 10 years in the Retirement Account(RA) and earned 4% interest p.a. On reaching 65, you are allowed to withdraw on a monthly basis till the amount is depleted. Based on the CPF Board's Chart Example:- A member reached 55 on 1 July 2009, the Minimum Sum was set at $117,000. The Interest accumulated plus the Principal Sum on the RA since 1 July 2009, will be at $141,335.32($24,335.32 + $117,000) as of 31 December 2013. As the chart shown, today’s inflation adjustment is at $155,000. A shortfall of $13,664.68 just over 4 years and still has another 6 years more to go before Member reaches 65. On reaching 65, CPF Board allows you to withdraw the Minimum Sum on a monthly basis, you may have another 15 years more to go assuming we live till 80. How much inflation will that be for another 21 years (6+15) from now? Notable from the chart on the the CPF website, the inflation year on year is much higher than the Minimum Sum set a few years ago. How can Members catch up with the inflation rate with the Minimum Sum set when they reach 55, if the interest rate earned on the RA cannot even match future inflation rates? Will the CPF Board change the Minimum Sum again when Members reach 65? Or will CPF Board top-up their Members’ RA yearly or increase the interest rate on the RA to match that future year's inflation as years go by? If the answer is NO, then do you think increasing the Minimum Sum year on year will depreciate our hard earned monies locked in the RA even more? Do you think based on the above calculation or CPF Board's Chart without increase the current 4% interest p.a. on the RA to hedge against inflation, our savings today can never catch up 21 years later? (based on the above example) Minimum Sum Scheme is meant for Citizens’ retirement. That’s why it is locked for long-term use. We should not compare interest rates earned at Commercial Banks. Why does our Govt not shoulder responsibility for their Citizens to maintain the Minimum Sum at future value on reaching drawdown age of 65 but keep changing the Minimum Sum every year? What are all our reserves for? Member Concerns *  Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →