We moved to a system where each HDB is priced differently to reflect its real value.

In the 1960s, most Singaporeans lived in over-crowded shop houses or squatter huts. People were poor and life was hard. There was no running water, no modern toilets, no expectation of a better future.

The immediate task of the Government was to tackle this housing crisis, and build homes in the shortest time possible. It would have been easier and simpler to build simple rental one and two-room flats to give people a roof over their heads, Mr Lee said.

But right from the start, Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted a home-owning society to give every citizen a stake in the country. Mr Lee said ownership is critical because we were an immigrant community with no common history.

"Our peoples came from many different parts of Asia. Home ownership helped to quickly forge a sense of rootedness in Singapore. It is the foundation upon which nationhood was forged."

When HDB first launced the homeownership scheme in 1964, there were many skeptics.

"We had little reserves then. Singapore was still in Malaysia. Our future looked bleak. The post-war baby boom and the high unemployment added to our pressures. Our construction industry was low in skills and lacking in building management. Few believed a home-owning Singapore was possible."

"Against the odds, through grit and determination, we housed the nation progressively and systematically.

"By the end of the 1960s, 35% of the population was living in HDB flats. By the 1980s, HDB had housed 85% of the population. Few nations have managed to house its population in such a short span of time."

"Singaporeans know that the HDB flat gives them a tangible and valuable stake. If Singapore prospers, their flat values will appreciate and they will share in the growth. Home ownership motivates Singaporeans to work hard and upgrade to better flats for a better quality of living. The HDB story reflects the social mobility in Singapore. ... The home ownership programme is the success story of Singapore, shared by all Singaporeans.

From the 1980s...

"We moved to a system where each HDB flat is priced differently to reflect its real value. We cannot price a new flat in Punggol or Tanjong Pagar the same, because when they are resold, we know there will be a tremendous difference in price. From the 1980s, we moved towards a market-based system. By liberalizing the resale market and allowing HDB prices to move in tandem with the economy, we unlocked the value of HDB flats to allow citizens to share in the fruits of the nation’s growth. Home ownership of a HDB flat is a store of value that can be monetized when needs be."

"𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞@𝐃𝐮𝐱𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 .. 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥, 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐃𝐁 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐮𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬.

"The Pinnacle@Duxton is a strong testament to our tenacity and capabilities as a people, to get to where we are today.

"𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡. ... 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝."

- Excerpt from Mr Lee Kuan Yew's speech
KEY HANDOVER CEREMONY FOR THE PINNACLE@DUXTON, 13 DECEMBER 2009 

Housing and state land: the Government has a duty to all Singaporeans, both current and future generations.

The Government has a duty to all Singaporeans, both current and future generations, to dispose of and account for state land at fair value. Therefore, it is necessary for HDB to acquire such land parcels at market price, and reflect that in how it prices new flats.

Pricing state land at zero value or basing the sale price of flats on average household incomes would mean that the nation’s assets are not being accounted for.

The Singapore dollar is one of the most actively traded currencies in the world relative to our GDP

It's not as if the size of our reserves is an absolute secret. The size of reserves managed by MAS and Temasek is known and published. It's only the size of reserves under GIC's management that is not fully known. Still, it is not completely a secret.

There is such a thing as economic defence.

In the physical defence of our country, would you make public a full inventory of your weapons and armoury?

Isn't it sad when learned people cannot understand why the full size of our reserves should remain a secret?

I 'blame' the PAP for people's ignorance. I tell you why. The PAP Government has succeeded in protecting Singapore and Singaporeans from the full impact of every crisis thus far, so much so that Singaporeans lack the full experience of a crisis. They think overcoming a crisis is a breeze.

The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 was a shocker that began in Thailand. The Thai baht was the target of intense speculative attacks just before it collapsed in July 1997. For a while, the Thai government managed to defend the currency. However on 2 July 1997, it announced that it would no longer intervene and would allow the baht to float. The sharp depreciation of the baht against the US dollar began that same day.

This immediately triggered panic among investors, and other regional currencies such as the Philippine peso, Indonesian rupiah and Malaysian ringgit also began to experience selling pressure.

The contagion extended its reach to South Korea, Hong Kong and China and in1998, the crisis had spread to Russia and Brazil as their economies saw a free-fall.

In countries most affected by the crisis, banks and other companies collapsed or had to be rescued, and many others were forced to downsize, resulting in massive unemployment. In Indonesia, the crisis even led to the resignation of then president Suharto.

As a small open economy Singapore is extremely vulnerable to external developments. The large and adverse economic shocks of the Asian financial crisis could potentially have had a devastating effect on the Singapore economy.

Singapore, however, withstood the financial storm lashing the region and the Sing dollar did not come under the kind of pressure that many other currencies faced. Singapore was sheltered. The PAP Government took various measures to keep Singapore competitive.

The result is that Singaporeans including learned Singaporeans are unable to imagine what a speculative attack on the Sing dollar can look like. The only people who fully understood what happened during the AFC were people in government and MAS, civil servants and Heng Swee Keat.

With every successful handling of a crisis, Singaporeans have come to take Singapore's success for granted, so much so 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝.

In normal times, the Singapore dollar is actively traded with a daily turnover estimated at US$37 billion! This is the volume in normal circumstances. ( US$9.5 trillion annually).

Can you imagine how much firepower you would need if the Sing dollar comes under speculative attack? The financial strength that the government would also need to take other measures as well to maintain investors' confidence so your financial institutions do not collapse? Otherwise, all you learned and rich people may just helplessly watch your own savings all gone in a second.

It's not even idealism that Lam Keong Yeoh displays.

 

377A is like an approaching train: K Shanmugam

 

There are 2 reasons for the repeal, Minister Shanmugam said.

The first reason is that there are no public order issues that are raised from such conduct, so it should not remain criminal.

"But I accept that MPs and others may disagree with that. Even though there are no public order issues, they may feel that there are other reasons for keeping the law. And I accept that people can and do legitimately have such views, and it is reasonable to hold such views."

There is a second reason and this second reason is NOT a matter of conscience. It is a policy question and 'requires each of us to THINK CAREFULLY, and APPLY OUR MINDS'.

"The second question is a matter of considering the consequences for Singapore, given that there is a clear legal risk that s 377A could be struck down.

And given that, having heard me, you know what the consequential legal risks are – in fact, this has been talked about in public – to the heterosexual family. Housing, education, other policies – they could all be at risk.

Knowing all these risks and refusing to take a position or be clear in how we will deal with it, is avoiding our responsibilities as MPs, basically passing it on to the Courts.

It is easier politically, but it is also worse for Singapore and Singaporeans.

To put it bluntly, that will be an abdication of duty. And it would be cynical if we, as MPs, did that. Because we would be putting, if we take this as a deliberate decision, political capital over doing what is good for Singaporeans."

Singaporeans who are opposed to the repeal because of the first reason must carefully consider the second reason for repeal. Herein are the things you hold dear and want to protect.

377A is indeed an approaching train. The Court of Appeal has said already that legal standard does exist (which is a good thing).

Upholding legal standard means that at some point in time in the future, it will have to rule that the law is unconstitutional if the Government chooses not to do anything about it.

Knowing that the risk of it being struck down in the future is real, and the consequences that will follow, do we really want the Government to do nothing, wait for the train to crash, and we become casualties?

The Court enforces laws without regard to social norms or value. This, we need to be clear.

We have seen in many places like India, Taiwan and the US, where challenges are brought before the court and same sex marriages legalised in this way.

The result is hostility and friction between opposing groups, and a deeply divided society.

If the Government does nothing and allow the same the thing that happened elsewhere happen in Singapore, our society will fray.

What many fear is that the character of our society will change after the repeal. This fear is addressed by the amendment to the Constitution to protect the definition of heterosexual marriage.

Some will be sad at the repeal. Some will be angry. Some will be disappointed. What you can do and must do is to channel your energy to build strong families in the traditional definition.

The WP had a debate among themselves but did not adopt a party position.

6 out of 9 WP MPs supported repeal. 2 of them who supported repeal, did not support the Amendments to the Constitution which would give Parliament the right to define marriage.

Excerpt from Minister K Shanmugam's speech:

Articles 156 (3)(b) and (4) are the operating provisions.

They protect the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies.

𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟏𝟓𝟔 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬’ 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 (𝟏) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 (𝟐) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

Ms Lim’s and Ms He’s position would mean that they accept that the courts can strike down the heterosexual definition of marriage, or to curtail the ability of Parliament and Government to make laws and policies based on this definition, and for society to live with the consequences after that.