Lawrence Wong
Singapore
“Sir, we will provide more information. I see the value of getting Ministries to put out more information, to share more about how their resources are being used and what outcomes they have achieved.”
“Sir, I agree fully with Mr Azhar that human capacity, human capital is critical. In fact, I would say the long-term potential of Singapore, how far we go really depends on us being able to maximise our human potential. That is key and that is why we have long invested in education. And it is not just about the investments.”
“Sir, we have been maintaining that commitment of 1% for some time now. I do not think it is about saying that we just have to do more and spend more. As many have highlighted, we want to ensure good outcomes from our R&D spending as well. So, we will continue if the outcomes are good.”
“This has never been the case. Temasek, when it started, was always very clear about its mandate from the very beginning – commercial, not doing national service, focused on commercial outcomes.”
“Sir, the MOF economists when they look at fiscal projections use Government's forecast of the economy, which is also published. We would typically use the mid-point of the range and then, of course, because these are in nominal terms, you have to factor for that. And the projections are done on those basis.”
“Sir, I was relieved that Mr Loh said he only has one question, but he asked the most difficult question. To answer the question, we will continue to monitor cost of living across all segments of society.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,205 lines we hold for Lawrence Wong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 47 of 65.
“We have measures in place to ensure that Singapore is sufficiently prepared for disruption to our sand imports. First, Singapore imports sand on a commercial basis from a diverse range of countries, to ensure resilience in our sand supply. And we will continue to encourage industry players to procure sand from alternative sources. Second, we have also been encouraging the industry to reduce the reliance on sand. For construction, the industry is adopting more sustainable construction methods like using structural steel and mass engineered timber. We have also been recycling excavated materials from the construction industry to replace a proportion of sand in some reclamation projects. Most recently, we piloted a polder development in Pulau Tekong, which reduces the volume of sand needed as compared to traditional reclamation. The Government will continue to work with industry players to explore new and innovative means to reduce our reliance on sand. As for the Member's query on our sand import volumes, such figures vary from year to year, depending on projects and availability. In 2016, we imported 35 million tonnes of sand. These figures are publicly available, similar to other traded commodities.”
“HDB's public rental rates are highly subsidised. To ensure that rental flats are provided to households who are most in need, one of the considerations that HDB takes into account in assessing applications for public rental flats is the sales proceeds from their last flat sale. If the applicants' housing budget, which includes their balance sales proceeds, CPF savings and loan quantum, is sufficient for them to buy a flat, they will not be eligible for a rental flat. For households who are in public rental flats, HDB considers appeals for lower rentals taking into account the households' prevailing circumstances, such as the current household income, expenses for medical needs and the number of dependants. HDB will work with social agencies to offer assistance, where necessary, and reduce the rentals if these households face genuine financial difficulty. Sale proceeds from the sale of previous flats are not considered in assessing such appeals.”
“The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was launched in 2001 to provide direct lift access to flats and enhance convenience for residents, especially the elderly and the less mobile. At the start of the programme, there were more than 5,300 HDB blocks without 100% lift access. Among them, more than 1,000 blocks were initially found to be unfeasible for LUP due to cost or technical constraints. Over the years, HDB has adopted innovative technical solutions and conducted lift pilot trials to help flats in these affected blocks achieve direct lift access. Some examples of solutions that have been successfully implemented include lifts that do not have a machine room at the top of the shafts, that is, machine room-less lifts, creation of new entry points to residents' homes and the use of smaller "home lifts", such as those used in the Bedok blocks which the Member referred to. More recently, HDB piloted new solutions like the Pneumatic Vacuum Elevator at Lorong 6 Toa Payoh and the Vertical Platform Lift at Petir Road, but both were found to be unfeasible. Through the various innovative solutions, the vast majority of the 5,300 blocks have benefited from LUP. There now remains about 150 blocks where it is still not possible to implement LUP due to existing constraints or prohibitive costs. This includes 17 blocks in Sengkang South. Residents who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or disability may approach HDB for housing and financing assistance. HDB assesses each request on a case-by-case basis to see how best to render help.”
“Madam, I have explained earlier that when you look at sites of heritage and architectural significance, it is typically an interagency process. The different relevant agencies will come together to discuss this and there have been instances where the discussions have involved the relevant Ministers as well. Of course, with Oxley Road, it is a unique case because it is not just about heritage. The terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee are also to look at the range of options and to understand Mr Lee's thinking and wishes for the house. And that is why we have put together this Committee and we are coordinating the work of the agencies.”
“Indeed, so, Madam, for all intents and purposes, I see no difference.”
“Yes, Madam, under the circumstances, I have said that if Mr Lee Hsien Loong, in his private capacity, given his circumstance as a beneficiary of the estate with interest in the assets, had written to NHB for information, NHB would have given him the information.”
“Mdm Speaker, there is a range of different circumstances. Like I have said, the trigger can be due to a property owner submitting a development application, and, therefore, the Government has to make a decision, either to accept the application or to say, "Look, hold on, because there are these conservation and preservation considerations". Alternatively, the Government itself may decide that we want to go ahead and, therefore, we proceed. There is a range of different circumstances. So, it is hard to generalise. What URA does is to try to give information to the public. In its Master Plan, URA would typically highlight some of the potential areas. Which we have identified ahead of time for conservation. So, that is made public in the URA Master Plan.”
“Mdm Speaker, as I had explained just now, NHB, at the start of this process, thought that Mrs Lee Suet Fun, being a board member, could play a useful role as an intermediary in the discussions with the executors. Again, with the benefit of hindsight, some of these roles ought to have been better clarified and NHB has, indeed, strengthened its own processes internally to make sure that conflict rules are observed within the Board. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask Minister Lawrence Wong on what he shared earlier that, very often, after studies are done on certain properties about the need for preservation, action is often not needed until there is a trigger. Is it possible for him to share with us how often action was triggered in past cases?”
“Mdm Speaker, I have already explained that the Deed of Gift does not have a confidentiality clause. I said that yesterday and I have explained that in the circumstances where there are differences of views amongst beneficiaries – and indeed, where something like this may be contested – NHB would want to share the information with the individuals concerned to make sure that there are non-contesting claims about the artefacts. So, while the Deed of Gift was given to the Prime Minister in his official capacity, if he had asked for it in his private capacity, NHB would have shared the information with him, too.”
“What is the Ministry's position on the use of the copy of the Deed for personal purposes, no matter how justified, that NHB has given to an officer in his official capacity? I think, more specifically, what is the Minister's response when he came to know after 12 June 2015 that the Prime Minister had used the copy of the Deed of Gift in his personal legal communication with his siblings?”
“Mdm Speaker, the Member is right that when I first updated the Prime Minister on 8 June 2015, I have already shared with him the plans for the exhibition, the artefacts and, substantively, the conditions in the Deed. As I related yesterday in my account, NHB and I discussed the matter. Recognising that there were differences in views amongst the beneficiaries, we approached the executors to see if we could put off the exhibition in August. But when this could not be done – the executors insisted on this exhibition proceeding – we also had to think through what was a possible way to resolve the issues. We had approached the executors to also ask them whether they had the authority to engage in the Deed and if there was consent from all the beneficiaries. The questions were not fully answered at that stage. But before the questions could be answered, as I related yesterday, they had put out a press statement saying that these were the items that they had donated and this became public information. NHB then also had to put out a statement that same night to say that there were questions that were still outstanding, that we were seeking resolution from the executors. So, being mindful that all these had been playing out after my last update to the Prime Minister on 8 June 2015 I had to give him a further update, naturally at that time. He did not ask me, but I had to give him a further update on the matter, telling him what had happened since 8 June 2015, and giving him the full facts of the information, including the specifics of the Deed of Gift. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: I thank the Minister. Just one more last clarification.”
“For Oxley Road, this research work is ongoing amongst the various agencies and, the work, as we have discussed, is being overseen by the Ministerial Committee which will ensure that the due diligence work done is comprehensive and rigorous. And that is what we are trying to do − to be ready with all the options, to have drawer plans fully prepared, so that the government of the day is able to make a decision, as and when the time comes. 2.15 pm Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, can I make a clarification on the Minister's speech yesterday?”
“The work is done at the staff level but there had been instances where Ministers come together to discuss these proposals which often require inter-agency inputs. After this research work, we may not need to do anything with the property at all unless there is a trigger to take the next step. This trigger can be by the property owner who submits a development application or it can be by the Government to advance the conservation or preservation proposal. When that happens, then we move on to the next step, which is to engage the various stakeholders, including experts, relevant advisory panels and boards, as well as the property owner. And then, after considering all the factors, a decision is made by the Government through the various Ministries. Several Members suggested having more participatory processes to engage and involve the public. We certainly do not preclude this. But we should not end up with a decision to conserve or preserve a building solely based on a public referendum. Just looking at the case of Oxley Road as an example, after the publication of "Hard Truths", it appeared that the majority of Singaporeans wanted the house preserved. After Mr Lee Kuan Yew's passing, the surveys would indicate that the majority wanted the house to be demolished. Nothing has changed with the house. The heritage factors are still the same but the opinions have shifted. So, public mood on these matters can shift, depending on circumstances and emotions. I am not saying that we should not consult but architectural and heritage merits are careful and rigorous assessments that ought to be done by professionals and subject matter experts.”
“We see of this now with the benefit of hindsight, but it is important to recognise that, at that time, no one realised that there were these sharp differences of views between the beneficiaries. The assumption was that the executors spoke for all the beneficiaries and these were the firmed conditions set for the donation of the artefacts. In fact, this was my assumption, too, when NHB initially updated me about their discussion with the executors. I only realised that the situation was very different when I spoke with the Prime Minister. Under the circumstances, NHB, in fact, considered this matter very carefully. It was not a rash decision. NHB deliberated over this and they decided eventually to sign the Deed because of several considerations. First, the artefacts had heritage significance. Second, several of the objects were in a deteriorated condition and required immediate care and conservation. And third, all things considered, NHB felt that it would be in the public interest to exhibit these artefacts in this major SG50 exhibition. Next, Members, with your indulgence, let me just touch briefly on the due process which several Members also spoke about. As I have explained, all sites that agencies – be it URA or NHB – have identified with some architectural or heritage merits, go through a rigorous due process. And there are two parts to this due process. The first part is the research work which is done internally within the Government and there are various agencies involved in this. The key ones, obviously, are NHB and URA but, depending on the situation, other agencies may be involved like LTA and SLA.”
“Mdm Speaker, let me take this opportunity to clarify some of the points that Members have raised to my speech yesterday about the Deed of Gift, the negotiations between NHB and the executors, the role played by Mrs Lee Suet Fern in the process, as well as the due process for conservation and preservation which Miss Cheryl Chan also asked just now. First, on the Deed of Gift. NHB did not approach Mrs Lee Suet Fern for advice. She had reached out to NHB to assist in the negotiations. At that time, NHB thought that, as a board member, she could be useful as an intermediary to reach a satisfactory outcome with the executors. And, indeed, she helped to raise some of NHB's concerns with them. Later, as NHB had to engage in more extensive discussions with the executors to resolve the legal issues, the Chairman of NHB approached her on 12 June to recuse herself on matters concerning the Deed, which she did. Throughout this process of negotiations, some of the terms were changed over the course of negotiations. But as I said yesterday, the executors held firm to several key conditions. The $1 buyback provision was, as the lawyer of the executors said, to quote, "non-negotiable". The display of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes in the exhibition, this was something that NHB originally wanted to limit only to the replica of the house that was exhibited. But the executors required this to be displayed prominently in other areas of the exhibition as well. So, given the executors' position, NHB really had just two choices − either sign the Deed on the stipulated terms or do without the artefacts completely.”
“There have been 11 drowning fatalities involving recreational users at public beaches over the past five years. Efforts made to help keep swimmers safe include signs in prominent locations to advise beach users about the dangers of swimming in open water. Lifebuoys are deployed at highly visible locations not more than 300 metres apart. There are also patrols at beaches with a high volume of swimmers, like Palawan Beach. There are at least 14 patrol officers on duty each day at these types of beaches. More broadly, the Government has taken steps to equip children with basic water safety skills. For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) requires all primary school pupils to take part in the SwimSafer programme as part of the Physical Education syllabus. This is done in partnership with SportSG. That said, safety measures cannot be 100%. We urge all recreational users to remain vigilant while swimming in open water. Parents should also closely supervise their children at beaches at all times.”
“It is the intention of the Government to continue to invite nominations for the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP). The date for new nominations has yet to be determined. There are currently 17 ongoing EUP projects from various Batches island-wide, with the most recent under EUP Batch 9 being awarded their consultancy tenders just last month. We would like to complete some of these ongoing projects first, before calling for new nominations. This will allow us to devote the requisite resources to better manage the new projects.”
“New Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are heavily subsidised. With finite resources, the Government has to prioritise such housing for those who need them more, such as first-time homebuyers and households who cannot afford private housing. Private property owners are, therefore, generally not eligible to buy new HDB flats. Nonetheless, to facilitate housing monetisation, we allow elderly private property owners aged 55 and above to buy new 2-room flexi flats on shorter leases of between 15 and 45 years. They will have to dispose of their private property within six months of taking possession of the flat.”
“The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) maintains guidelines on the use of any premises as a student hostel. For example, sites which are located in estates safeguarded for landed housing are generally disallowed from being used for student hostels. Any party who wishes to operate his premises as a student hostel must first obtain planning permission from URA for this use. But private homes can be let out for rental to students so long as the use of the home fully complies with URA's planning guidelines on residential use. These guidelines, which include a minimum duration of stay and a cap on the total number of occupants per home, are intended to prevent disamenity to neighbouring residents resulting from problems, such as overcrowding and the frequent turnover of tenants.”
“Currently, Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funding is allocated to Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs), which have the flexibility to decide which projects to prioritise, based on local needs. Apart from infrastructural and recreational facilities, such as covered walkways, footpaths and playgrounds, CIPC funds may also be used for the provision of bicycle sheds and double-tier bicycle racks.”
“Under the Housing and Development Board (HDB) lease, the repair of leaks in the party structure is a joint responsibility between upper- and lower-floor flat owners. When there is a leak, both upper- and lower-floor flat owners would need to liaise with each other to investigate and carry out repairs. In most cases, issues concerning leaks can be amicably resolved when flat owners exercise mutual understanding and cooperate with one another. There is no cap on the number of times upper- and lower-floor flat owners are obliged to share in the cost of repair for leaks due to wear and tear. However, if the cause of the leak at the lower-floor flat is due to renovations carried out at the upper-floor flat, the upper floor flat owner will be fully responsible for rectifying the leak and bearing the full repair cost. For ceiling leaks caused by wear and tear, HDB may also offer assistance to flat owners to repair and co-share the cost of repairs under the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme. Under this scheme, HDB will pay 50% of the ceiling leak repair cost. The remaining 50% is then shared equally between the upper- and lower-floor flat owners.”
“As at 30 April 2017, about 54,300 Housing and Development Board (HDB) households, or less than 6% of all HDB households, concurrently own private properties. Of these, the vast majority (about 80%) own only one private property. By property type, close to 80% of these households own just residential properties, while the remainder own commercial properties (such as shop houses, hawker stalls and warehouse spaces) or a combination of both. Among HDB households which concurrently own private properties, about 7,100, or 13%, are servicing their HDB housing loans. HDB does not have data on whether these households have outstanding bank loans on their private properties. Nonetheless, there are existing measures to safeguard financial prudence and prevent individuals from over-leveraging when they purchase properties. For instance, an individual with an outstanding HDB loan will be subject to a higher cash downpayment and a tighter loan-to-value limit when he borrows to purchase a private residential property. Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty will also apply to his second and subsequent property purchases. In addition, he will be subject to the Total Debt Servicing Ratio framework, which requires a financial institution to take into consideration his total outstanding debt obligations when assessing his loan application. This ensures that the borrower’s total monthly debt repayment obligations do not exceed 60% of his monthly income. We will continue monitoring the market closely and will review the necessary measures as conditions evolve.”
“The Housing and Development (HDB) sets quality and service standards for contractors in the execution of Home Improvement Programme (HIP) projects. Based on surveys of precincts which have undergone HIP, at least 90% of residents express satisfaction with the works completed. From time to time, there are service or quality lapses by the contractors. HDB does not publish the names of these contractors, but it takes strict enforcement action against them. Between 2012 and 2016, 22 contractors were penalised with demerit points, of which seven had an administrative charge imposed on them. Four contractors also performed poorly enough to be restricted from tendering for HDB projects. The tender restriction was lifted only after they showed improvements in performance, and three of them were subsequently successful in tendering for HIP projects.”
“The accessibility and ease of maintenance of common areas, including exterior features, are key aspects that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) considers in the design of its buildings. External features, such as ledges and beams, are provided for a functional purpose. Concrete ledges or canopies are provided above windows to provide shade and protect flats from rain. For instance, without such canopies, rainwater flowing down the building facade may enter the flats if the windows are open or not closed tightly. As for beams, external tie beams are required in some projects to ensure the structural robustness and stability of the building. Design-wise, HDB generally ensures that canopies are gently sloped to allow water discharge. In addition, the use of tie beams is minimised, and these are only deployed where necessary. If a lot of high-rise litter is thrown by residents, it will inevitably accumulate on external ledges and beams. We hope residents can play their part in maintaining the cleanliness of the common areas and refrain from throwing litter out of their windows.”
“Construction costs vary for different car parks built over the years as they depend on factors, such as the prevailing cost of construction materials and site-specific constraints. In general, it costs about three to five times more to build a multi-storey car park compared to a surface car park, on a per lot basis. On average, general maintenance, improvement and repair costs take up about 20% of yearly car park expenditure. However, parking charges do not cover only maintenance costs. The bulk of expenditure for Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks comes from building works as well as other operating costs, such as car park management and enforcement. The total costs of building, operating and maintaining car parks have increased over the years because of rising overheads in the construction industry, more capital expenditures for new and existing car parks, and additional repair works required to maintain an increasing number of ageing car parks. Last year, we estimated that without any increase in car park charges, HDB would incur a deficit of around $100 million annually in the coming years. Even with the revised parking charges, we expect HDB to continue to run a deficit in the coming years.”
“For the recently completed Build-To-Order (BTO) projects in Punggol where the one-year defects liability period (DLP) has just expired in 2016, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received about four cases of feedback on workmanship issues per 1,000 units per month. When residents move into their flats and report any defects to HDB during the one-year DLP, HDB will arrange for the contractor to carry out repairs. The one-year DLP is an industry-wide practice and is aligned with that for private developments. If any issue is reported after DLP, HDB will first investigate the likely cause and advise flat owners on the follow-up action accordingly. If the issue is assessed to arise from workmanship of the building contractor, it is considered a defect and HDB may recall the building contractor to rectify it. However, if the issue is due to wear and tear or the flat owner’s own actions, flat owners will be responsible for any rectification works. The Member has referred to a "latent defects liability period". I believe he is referring to the limitation period under the Limitation Act, which sets out how long a developer is legally liable for defects from the time of completion of a project. The duration of the limitation period for latent defects is 15 years. This applies to private developers and HDB. As there are many reasons why defects emerge after DLP, HDB assesses each defect – even those which emerge after DLP – on a case-by-case basis.”
“The Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) public rental rates are calibrated to provide subsidies where they are most needed and to encourage rental households to purchase home ownership flats when they are ready. More than half of HDB's rental households pay basic rents, which are now set at $26 a month for a 1-room flat and $44 a month for a 2-room flat. The remaining households pay higher monthly rents based on their household incomes. The majority of HDB rental tenants have a household size of three or less. However, HDB recognises that some households do face difficulties paying higher rents, for example, due to medical needs or a large number of dependants. This is why HDB already exercises flexibility to allow tenants to pay a lower rent depending on each household’s circumstances.”
“Those who require assistance, such as households who face financial difficulties or wish to right-size to a smaller flat, can approach HDB, and we will see how best to help them.”
“Singaporeans enjoy a significant housing subsidy when they buy a new flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB), or a resale flat in the open market with a Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grant. They can also buy a second new flat from HDB but, as second-timers, they are no longer eligible for the full subsidy which is meant for first-timers only. Hence, the resale levy is imposed on all second-time buyers of HDB flats. Under the current resale levy policy which has been in place since March 2006, second-timers pay the resale levy upon the sale of the first subsidised flat or on the collection of keys to the second flat, whichever is the later. There is no interest component. However, we recognise that there are some second-timers who had sold their first HDB flat before 2006. Under the prevailing policy then, they were subject to a compound interest of 5% per annum if they chose to defer the payment of the levy until they collect the keys to their second subsidised flat. Some of them are now looking to purchase a second flat from HDB but face high interest on their resale levy accumulated over the years. HDB does not track the number of appeals it has received specifically for a waiver of the accrued interest on the resale levy. However, for appeals to reduce the resale levy payable in general, HDB received about 4,200 appeals from 2012 to 2016, and acceded to 1,729 appeals. In 2015, we waived the accrued interest on the resale levy payable by elderly second-timers who wished to right-size to a smaller flat. Beyond the elderly, HDB has also been exercising flexibility for other affected second-timers who are in need and will continue to do so.”
“Over the last two years, there has been about 600 feedback received each year on alleged nuisance by the subtenants of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. This is a small percentage of about 1% of the 53,000 flats rented out as of end December 2016. One of the common pieces of feedback received is on noise nuisance. For such cases, HDB will inform flat owners of the complaint and advise them to remind their subtenants to be considerate. In most cases, the flat owners will resolve the matter quickly. If the situation does not improve, flat owners can consider mediation with the neighbour who complained, avail themselves of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, or end the subletting arrangement.”
“NHB has been documenting the historical significance of the house. MND and URA have been looking at options for the property as well as the planning and zoning implications arising from the different scenarios. This work was being done at the staff level. Later, in discussing the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister and various Ministerial colleagues, we agreed that it would be useful to have a Ministerial Committee to coordinate the work across agencies and to oversee the matter. That is why MND tabled the proposal at the Cabinet meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo on 1 June to set up the Ministerial Committee to draw up a range of possible options for 38 Oxley Road. As the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, the Ministerial Committee has no preconceived notion on what to do with the property. But the current Government has the duty to do the work now in listing out all the options and to prepare ahead of the implications of each one of them. That is the right and responsible thing to do. Madam, like many Singaporeans, I am saddened by the events that have transpired over the last few weeks. Many baseless allegations have been made against the Government and I hope this debate will give us a chance to discuss the issues openly, dispel doubts and strengthen confidence in our public institutions and system of government. Above all, we will continue to uphold the values of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and our founding leaders and do our utmost to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.”
“Madam, this sort of research work provides important baseline information for all properties deemed to have heritage and architectural value. In fact, that is the norm. Agencies will engage and undertake these sorts of research work to provide the baseline information we need for all such properties. If there is a need to decide on the next step for the property, then the Government agencies will proceed to seek views from the relevant stakeholders. Of course, views will be sought from the property owner. Views will also be sought from relevant professionals and subject matter experts. The URA has a conservation advisory panel while the NHB has a preservation of sites and monuments advisory board. The advisory panels comprise professionals in the building, arts and heritage and education sectors, and will provide their inputs on the conservation or preservation proposals tabled by the agencies. URA and NHB will submit the recommendations of their findings to the respective Ministries for decision thereafter. If the Government, acting through the Ministry of National Development (MND) or the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, decides to pursue the conservation or preservation proposal, the property owner will be given the opportunity to respond and appeal. Based on past cases, the vast majority of owners would agree with the conservation or preservation proposals. A few have appealed but the final decision for conservation or preservation lies with the Government. Madam, we should follow this due process for all properties with architectural or heritage merit, including 38 Oxley Road. In fact, prior to the formation of the Ministerial Committee, various agencies have already been working on this issue.”
“In examining the architectural merits of the building, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) will study which parts of the building are most architecturally significant, or, if it is a cluster of buildings, which are the most significant buildings within the cluster. Next, agencies would look into the planning considerations of the property and its surroundings. This includes examining whether there are any technical regulatory requirements which may have an impact on the form of preservation or conservation proposals for the property. Agencies will also review the allowable uses of the site. For example, URA may look at whether a conserved residential building can be adapted for commercial use or for civic and community purposes. But such a change in use will have to be compatible to its surroundings and supported by infrastructural considerations, such as a potentially higher traffic count brought about by the change of use. Arising from these planning studies, agencies may then review the need for the Government to acquire the property for conservation or preservation. Under the Preservation of Monuments Act, if a building is occupied as a residence and the Government chooses to gazette it as a monument, then the Government has to acquire it within one year of the preservation order or else the preservation order will lapse. But beyond the legal requirement, the question is whether the planning intent for the conserved or preserved site is best served by having the Government owning the site as opposed to leaving it under private ownership. For example, if the intent for the site is to have significant public access and the owner is not prepared to do so, then one option is, indeed, for the Government to acquire the site.”
“In this case, Mr Lee Hsien Loong told me that his concern was not with the donation of artefacts to NHB but rather the way it was handled and the terms of the donation, as he had shared in his speech earlier. Despite his personal reservations over how the artefacts were conveyed to NHB by the executors in the Deed of Gift, the Prime Minister did not instruct me to stop the display of the Oxley Road artefacts in the exhibition. Instead, he asked me to take instructions from the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter and that was how the matter was handled. So, Madam, I have given an account of what happened to the NHB Deed of Gift. Contrary to this being an abuse of power, I believe the matter was handled correctly and above board. Madam, I will next elaborate on the due process that applies to the conservation and preservation of properties which is something that the Deputy Prime Minister had highlighted briefly in his speech. The Government undertakes a vigorous assessment process for all such properties before deciding whether or not to conserve or preserve them. I will elaborate briefly on what this process is. First, Government agencies will undertake detailed research on the preservation or conservation merits of the property of interest. Agencies will have to review the historical, cultural, social and heritage significance of the property, its national importance as well as its architectural merits and rarity. In examining the historical significance of a site, for example, NHB will review how the site has played a role in our national history.”
“The artefacts helped to enhance the storyline of the exhibition and to bring out the values of our founding leaders for Singaporeans. Subsequently on 25 June, the Prime Minister informed me that he had written to the executors, in his capacity as beneficiary, indicating to them that notwithstanding his position on the Deed of Gift, he would not object to the exhibition as he did not want to put NHB in a difficult position. NHB was thus able to proceed with the exhibition with agreement from all beneficiaries. As NHB needed more time to prepare, it sought the consent of the executors to push back the exhibition date. Eventually, the opening was shifted from 6 August to 21 September 2015. In fact, I attended the opening with Mr Lee Hsien Yang, Dr Lee Wei Ling and Ms Lee Suet Fern. The exhibition was very well received, and it has been extended till now. Madam, as I have explained, my discussion with the Prime Minister on the exhibition was in his official capacity and I shared the Deed of Gift with him on that basis. In response to the question from Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, the Deed of Gift did not have a confidentiality clause. If Mr Lee Hsien Loong has asked for the Deed of Gift in his private capacity, NHB would have been entitled to give it to him, given his position as elder son and beneficiary of the estate. More generally, in a scenario where items are being donated to NHB from an estate, and NHB becomes aware that one of the beneficiaries objects to the terms of the donation, it would be necessary for NHB to take steps to verify that there is agreement from all beneficiaries. Otherwise, it could face a potential claim from a beneficiary whose consent was not given.”
“On 12 June, Mr Lee Hsien Yang replied to NHB that the executors had not obtained probate for the will but that probate was not necessary for the executors to have the power and authority to enter into the Deed of Gift. He also said that NHB should not be concerned about the position of the beneficiaries under the will. But this response still left open the question of whether there were, indeed, other beneficiaries and whether their consent had been sought for the donation of items to NHB for the exhibition under the stipulated conditions. Throughout this period, I was discussing the matter with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean as the Prime Minister had said that he would leave it to the Deputy Prime Minister to handle the specific dealings between NHB and the executors on the Deed of Gift. Deputy Prime Minister Teo's main concern on the conditions was that NHB was being asked to display a partial quote of the demolition clause which did not fully reflect Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes. He felt that NHB, as a public institution, should remain neutral and should not be drawn into a private disagreement or be used to present a particular point of view which was incomplete. Nevertheless, after weighing all the factors and considering that NHB had already signed the Deed, both Deputy Prime Minister Teo and I agreed that the pluses of having the exhibition with the Oxley Road artefacts in accordance with the Deed outweighed the potential controversy that was likely to arise. This was a major SG50 exhibition on our founding leaders. We had artefacts not just from the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew but also from the National Archives and the families of other founding leaders. And many of these artefacts had not been displayed before.”
“I discussed this with the then CEO of NHB Ms Rosa Daniel to see what could be done about the matter. Given the circumstances, we agreed that it would be better to take a pause and not rush the Oxley Road items for the August exhibition. We could exhibit them at a later stage, after the issues had been resolved. So, I asked Ms Daniel to inform Mr Lee Hsien Yang that we would like to put off the display of the Oxley Road artefacts from the August exhibition and do so at some time in the future. Mr Lee Hsien Yang responded on 10 June that this request was unacceptable and would be a breach of a legally-binding Deed. In fact, NHB had no intention to breach any legal obligation and Ms Daniel clarified this point in an email to Mr Lee Hsien Yang the next day. She said that the Minister's instructions are that NHB is not to breach its obligations if it has entered into valid agreements which are binding on it. While the executors were insistent that NHB had to follow through on the exhibition, NHB still had the duty to check whether the Deed of Gift was in order in light of the different views of the beneficiaries. Hence, NHB wrote to the lawyers of the executors to clarify whether probate had been granted for the will, whether there were any other beneficiaries entitled to the assets of the estate and, if so, whether the consent had been obtained for the gift to NHB. Before responding to these queries, the executors of the estate put out a media release on 11 June publicising their donation of items to NHB. This was a surprise to NHB because the queries had not been addressed. So, NHB issued a statement that same night to highlight that there remain some questions on the Deed of Gift which NHB was in the process of clarifying with the executors.”
“She supported the conditions stipulated by the executors in the Deed and, her law firm, Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC, helped in the process of finalising the Deed. The executors held firm to many of the terms they had stipulated in the Deed. For example, when NHB asked to amend the $1 buyback provision, the lawyer for the executors stated that this clause was non-negotiable. While the terms were unusual, NHB proceeded to sign the Deed with the executors because it recognised the heritage significance of the artefacts and felt that it would be in the public interest for them to be exhibited. NHB also assessed that several of the objects were in a deteriorated condition and required immediate care and conservation. So, NHB signed the Deed with the executors on 8 June 2015. At around the same time, I updated the Prime Minister on the plans for the exhibition and the inclusion of the Oxley Road artefacts in the exhibition, including the conditions stipulated in the Deed. I later shared with him a copy of the Deed on 12 June. As the Prime Minister shared earlier, he felt that the terms of the Deed were onerous to NHB and he told me that, as a beneficiary of the estate, his consent for the donation had not been sought, the executors had not informed him of the donation nor the terms of the donation. NHB was caught in a difficult position. It had signed the Deed and had accepted the gifts. But it was not clear if the executors were properly empowered to enter into the Deed without first consulting all beneficiaries. This also raises questions about the validity of the agreement. Moreover, the planned exhibition was just two months away and NHB did not have much time left to resolve the issues and then properly prepare for the exhibition.”
“Madam, I would like to speak on two matters in this debate. First, I would clarify the issue of the Deed of Gift between the executors of the estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the National Heritage Board (NHB), as I was then the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth. Second, I would elaborate on due processes for proposals on the conservation and preservation of properties. First, let me touch on the Deed of Gift. From early 2015 onwards, NHB started planning for a major SG50 exhibition on 6 August 2015, just before the Jubilee Weekend. The exhibition was on Singapore's Founding Leaders. Following the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in March 2015, NHB was also in discussion with the executors of the estate about a donation of artefacts from 38 Oxley Road which could be incorporated into the exhibition. The Deed of Gift was not based on NHB's standard agreement. The executors of the estate, namely, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, insisted on several unusual conditions. These conditions included (a) the right to buy back the items at $1, so long as the house was not demolished, and (b) the display of the wishes of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew to demolish the house. As Members would have heard just now, the Deed of Gift required NHB to display only part of the demolition clause in Mr Lee's will. In other words, NHB was to display the first part, which sets out Mr Lee's wish to demolish the house, but not the second part, which sets out his wish should the house not be demolished. At that time, NHB did not pick up the significance of this partial quote from the demolition clause. Ms Lee Suet Fern, who was then the Director on the Board of NHB, was also involved in the discussions between NHB and the executors.”
“The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) takes a risk-based approach in the licensing of animals as pets. Hence, it requires licensing for dogs, which are the most common cause of transmission of rabies from animals to humans. For rabbits, AVA requires pet shops to do pre-sale screenings to assess and ensure that their customers will be suitable pet owners. Following the recent revisions to pet shop and pet farm licensing conditions pertaining to dogs and cats, AVA will continue to work with stakeholders to review other licensing conditions, including those related to rabbits.”
“Between 2013 and 2016, the Urban Redevelopment Authority granted planning approval for the development of (a) non-landed private residential units on 160 hectares (35%) of land, and (b) public housing units on 300 hectares (65%) of land.”
“An insurance claim process is a private matter between the claimant and the insurer. The duration of the process depends on the complexity of each claim and the negotiations between the relevant parties. It is the same in this case where the affected farmers are engaging directly with the relevant insurers. That said, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) has made additional efforts to help farmers affected by the January oil spill with their claims. For example, AVA helped affected farmers submit their claims and arranged a meeting for the affected farmers to seek clarification from the relevant insurers about their claims. We understand that some farmers have already received compensation.”
“The number of unsuccessful Build-To-Order (BTO) applicants in 2016 is not available as the selection process is still ongoing. Nonetheless, most first-timer families who apply for a BTO flat in the non-mature estates today should be able to book a flat within their first or second try, and definitely on their third try. Families are generally not eligible to purchase BTO flats from the Housing and Development Board beyond two times.”
“The Housing and Development Board (HDB) received 31,900 and 36,900 unique Build-To-Order (BTO) applications from families in 2015 and 2016 respectively. In 2015, most first-timer families who apply for a BTO flat in non-mature estates were able to book a flat within their first or second try, and definitely on their third try. Selection for BTO exercises 2016 is still ongoing. From 2015 to 2016, HDB received an average of 8,600 requests a year for rental flats. About three in 10 of them were successful.”
“About 48,600 non-landed private residential units were completed between 2015 and 2016. Over the same period, about 52,100 Housing and Development Board flats were completed, comprising about 4,600 units for rental and 47,500 units for sale.”
“Over the past three years, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) has received three feedback of sightings of illegal wild boar traps in forested areas. Two of the cases were related and the illegal trap was removed. In a recent case reported in April, AVA investigated and found two traps. AVA has disarmed these traps and is in the process of removing them. Under the Wild Animals and Birds Act (WABA), it is an offence to kill, take or keep any wild animals without a licence. Penalties include fines of up to $1,000 per wild animal or bird, and the animal will also be seized. Under the Parks and Trees Act, anyone who captures or displaces an animal from a national park or nature reserve without permission can be fined up to $50,000 or jailed for up to six months, or both, upon conviction. The offence of capturing an animal, if it is committed in the public parks, is a fine of up to $5,000 upon conviction.”
“Generally, void deck space is common space for social use. Since 2014, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has enhanced such spaces by introducing the "community living room", which are designated communal areas at the void decks with two to three sets of tables and seats for residents to meet and chat. Residents can also use the precinct pavilions for larger activities, such as block parties and community functions. For Social Communal Facilities (SCFs), such as Senior Activity Centres, Senior Care Centres and childcare centres, HDB works closely with the relevant Ministries and agencies to integrate them with new public housing developments. The funding for the construction of such SCFs at void decks is provided by the respective Ministries and agencies. In cases where the need for SCFs is not yet established during the planning of new developments, HDB will safeguard space in areas, such as the void decks or multi-storey car parks, so that SCFs can be provided subsequently when the need arises. The location, size and quantum of these safeguarded spaces depend on the size of the HDB precinct. In cases where such safeguarded spaces are not sufficient, HDB will work with other agencies to identify suitable space in the community, including at HDB neighbourhood centres.”
“The Non-Citizen (NC) quota for subletting of flats was implemented to prevent the formation of foreigner enclaves and to maintain the Singaporean character of our Housing and Development Board (HDB) heartlands. Once the quota for a block is reached, no further subletting applications, whether a new or renewal application, will be accepted. Tenants affected by the NC quota generally have no difficulty finding accommodation in other areas. Nevertheless, HDB exercises flexibility for a small number of cases to allow renewals of flat sublets to NC tenants when the quota is reached, including those who have been staying in the same flat for many years.”
“Owners of older Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are generally able to sell their flats in the resale market today. Potential buyers of HDB resale flats come from a wide spectrum of life stages and circumstances and have different housing needs. There is still demand for older flats, including from elderly buyers who are right-sizing, as well as families who are not yet ready to commit to a longer lease. Older flats are also attractive to some buyers, as they are usually located in more central locations and served by established amenities. In addition, there are other monetisation options for elderly flat owners to unlock the value of their flats without selling them. These options include subletting a spare bedroom or the whole flat or applying for the Lease Buyback Scheme.”
“There are currently 21 Housing and Development Board (HDB) Branches across Singapore, which provide a range of services to the residents. There is no one-to-one mapping of the electoral division boundaries in the location of HDB Branches. Depending on location, each HDB Branch typically serves a number of electoral divisions, and residents within the same electoral division might be served by different HDB Branches. On average, each Branch is responsible for HDB developments in about three electoral divisions. HDB manages the manpower resources of its Branches according to the number and profile of the HDB developments that each Branch manages and may reallocate resources across Branches if required. To optimise resources, HDB has implemented a number of self-help options to allow residents to obtain information quickly, and to conduct straightforward transactions via online channels. HDB has been reaching out to educate the public on the various electronic and mobile services available. HDB will continue to review its resources, streamline its processes and leverage technology to enhance operational efficiency and ensure timely delivery of services to the residents.”