Lim Hng Kiang
Singapore
“The company has made commitments to recycle the ash, and as for renewable energy, the gasification project is not an energy project, it is not a generation company (genco). It is to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide or, essentially, carbon. Because as feedstock to the petrochemical sector, you need more C and more H2.”
“The Government will continue to recover the IIA awarded if the company fails any conditions or breaches the legislative amendments. I would like to highlight that there are no errant cases in the last five years for IIA and the current amendments are, therefore, not reactionary in nature, but are being made for legislative clarity.”
“In addition, the IIA scheme will be extended till 31 December 2022. Clauses 10 to 13 give legislative effect to this change. The remaining legislative changes arising from our periodic review of the income tax system are either administrative or technical in nature.”
“Data on household and individual savings rates by income groups are not available. However, data on the aggregate level of household financial assets can be obtained from the Household Sector balance sheet compiled by the Department of Statistics.”
“The aggregate level of financial assets owned by Singapore’s household sector6 in each of the past five years is provided in Table 1 below. Data on the amount of financial assets owned by households and individuals in the different income percentiles is not available.”
“The Second Review of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Second CECA Review) is ongoing. The review is taking some time as both countries have our respective interests to work through, such as in the area of labour mobility. Our agencies regularly engage Indian counterparts to work through issues collaboratively.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,677 lines we hold for Lim Hng Kiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 54.
“I thought my answer states specifically that owners of these categories are allowed to sell their flats in the open market.”
“MND is currently reviewing the season parking rates for the surface and multi-storey car parks. One of the considerations in the review is whether season parking rates should reflect the demand for the car park lots. WEEKEND CARS 10. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked the Minister for Communications if he will give a breakdown of cars registered with weekend car Certificates of Entitlement, according to different engine capacity.”
“Simei Avenue is a dual three-lane high speed arterial road connecting the East Coast Parkway and the Pan Island Expressway. PWD did not install traffic lights at the junction of Simei Street 3 with Simei Avenue because of its close proximity to the Simei Avenue/PIE Interchange. Only left-in-left-out turns were allowed at this junction. PWD has advised against providing an opening along the central divider as it is hazardous for motorists to turn right from Simei Avenue to Simei Street 3, and vice versa, without traffic lights. PWD will evaluate whether a signalised junction can be provided at this junction. FOOTPATH BETWEEN BLK 744, YISHUN STREET 72 AND YISHUN MRT STATION (Conversion into covered walkway) 8. Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked the Minister for National Development whether the Public Works Department will widen and convert the footpath between Block 744, Yishun Street 72 and Yishun MRT station into a covered walkway and provide it with adequate lighting. Mr Lim Hng Kiang (for the Minister for National Development): The footpath in question is a temporary footpath across a piece of vacant State land. It was constructed a few years ago to facilitate pedestrians' movement between Yishun MRT station and the HDB blocks on this side of the station. As the land will be tendered out for commercial development, it is not justifiable to put in lighting, or provide overhead cover along the footpath. MULTI-STOREY CAR PARKS IN SIMEI ESTATE (Reduction of parking charges) The following Question stood in the name of Mr Teo Chong Tee - 9. To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider reducing the parking charges of under-utilized multi-storey car parks in Simei estate so as to encourage better utilisation of these car parks.”
“People who are tendering for these small plots, whether they are small developers or individuals, I think, are sophisticated individuals who know what is the market price for the land. These are not small investments. They want a piece of property, whether it is landed, or in combination with their friend's, family's, or their company's semi-detached development, and they want it in the design of their own choice. They know that they are competing with big developers as well as other small developers and individuals. So they must assess the market and bid correctly. I am in no position to advise them how to bid. We, in the Government, must provide the information openly and freely so that everybody makes his decision based on the open availability of all information. That is the best way to keep the playing field level by making sure that everybody has equal access to the information. NORTHLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL (Admission into Primary 1) 6. Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked the Minister for Education how many children have been registered for admission to Primary 1 in Northland Primary School for 1994 and what percentage of them are residents of Nee Soon Central.”
“Since the 1985 recession, the Government has changed the ground rules for sale of sites. All tenderers pay up the full price of their land which they tender upfront and it is no longer a deposit. If the market turns bad, they give up the deposit, and lose the deposit. They pay up the entire cost of the land upfront. There is a time limit for the construction. If they cannot or refuse to complete within that time frame, they are charged liquidated damages for every period of time that they do not conform. So unless you are saying that this big developer is only in for these 10,000 or 100,000 units and he does not want to continue business in Singapore, then that might be what he would do. But he has to pay the land price which is 30% or 40% of the total development cost upfront and he will be charged liquidated damages if he does not complete the project on time. The conditions have changed since 1985.”
“If the market is so easily cornered, there will be many, many developers out there trying to corner the market. Take the reverse situation. In the depths of a recession, why did you not tender for 100 units and push up the price of all the 10,000 units they were trying to sell during the 1985/1986 recession? Does it work?”
“This is the perception of people. Whether it is true in a marketplace that by tendering for 100 plots, you are able to lever the price of all your existing 10,000 plots and influence the entire property market would suggest a very unsophisticated market, ie, bankers would just look at the evidence of 100 units and jack up the loan requirements of all 10,000 units of the developer, or of the entire property market, or of buyers who would be seduced by the fact that 100 units have been jacked up and they now go in willing to pay higher prices for the 10,000 units on offer. I think, ultimately, the market price is determined by willing buyer and willing seller. As long as the buyer has all the information available to him, knowing the supply of new properties coming on to the market, and if he is prepared to pay the price, then that would be the market price. Mr Chia Shi Teck: Sir, will the Minister agree that as Singapore has limited land supply, the market is not perfect? Therefore, the availability in the market is actually not that simple, and that market can be cornered.”
“I am not sure how the Member has come to the conclusion that property prices have been pushed up by the bids. The purpose of demarcating it into small lots is to open the field for everybody to compete, whether he is a big developer, small developer, or an individual. We think it is a good scheme which allows more opportunities for small developers and individuals to bid. If we do not have such a scheme, they would have been out of the market completely. We will still continue to try out with this scheme and make these opportunities open for small developers and individuals.”
“The Government put up landed properties in small plots for sale to allow smaller companies and individuals to participate in the tenders. The criterion for the award was made clear in the tenders, namely, the highest bid wins. Companies linked to the Far East Group succeeded in out tendering the others because they put in the highest bids for the majority of the plots on tender. Mr Chia Shi Teck: Sir, if the very objective, as the Minister said, is to encourage individuals to bid and if such a big developer has tendered all the plots, should such a scheme be scrapped in view of the fact that property prices have been pushed up because of these high tender prices?”
“I would take up all these suggestions with the relevant Ministries. URA TENDERS FOR PRIVATE LANDED HOUSING 5. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked the Minister for National Development what are the reasons for a single developer to succeed in out-tendering almost all other tenderers in the first two Urban Redevelopment Authority small parcel tenders for private landed housing.”
“Sir, as I said earlier, we did not maintain historical records. So it is very difficult to detect a clear trend of foreign ownership of apartments in Singapore. But if you look at the statistics that have been compiled so far, the percentage of foreign owners at 23% for condominiums would not, in my opinion, constitute a very high figure for a city state in an international communication node like Singapore.”
“There are two definitions of subsidy. In the HDB's account, there is a financial subsidy. What it costs to HDB to build a flat and what it sells, and that is the subsidy I was referring to. That is a net loss. I did not say that is a subsidy. That is a net loss the HDB makes for every flat that it sells. For every flat the HDB sold last year, it made a total loss of over $600 million or a net loss of $30,000 per flat. Subsidy is what it could have fetched in the market and what we are selling it to you. And that is the $200,000 that we are talking about the sale of the Executive flat. If the person had sold it back in the market, he could have sold it for $200,000 more. That is the real subsidy that he is enjoying and the real value that he is getting from the Government. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“The Hong Kong housing authority prices its flats at X dollars and it says, "Look, this is what it would have fetched in the market, Y dollars, and therefore you are enjoying a discount from the market of 30%, 40%, or 50%. You are allowed to sell your flat 10 years later. At the end of 10 years, when you make the capital gain, the discount which you enjoyed when you purchased the flat, you have to return it back to the government." So they actually practise the subsidy in accordance with market price and recover that later when the flat is sold. In Singapore, we are very generous. We price it and we let the people enjoy the subsidy. And when they sell it five years later, they pocket the capital gain.”
“Let me respond to him first. He has the article which says that for a 3-room flat, the HDB could have made $22,000; and a 4-room flat, the HDB could have made a surplus of $40,000. These were precisely the numbers which led to the debate between Mr Teh and Mr Chiam. Mr Teh said, "Look. If you say that HDB makes a surplus of $22,000 for a 3-room flat, and for a 4-room flat it makes a surplus of $40,000, here is a piece of land, you build it; you sell it back to us at the then selling prices, and you make the profit." And BG Lee at that time, as Minister of State, told him, "Mr Chiam, take the offer. You can make a profit of $60 million straight into your SDP funds." But he did not take up such a lucrative offer. Instead, he gave 19 conditions, and wanted $600 million downpayment before he would start work. These figures of costs and subsidies are published in HDB's accounts every year, audited by the Auditor-General. Last year, it showed that HDB incurred a net loss of $645 million in its sale of flats or, on the average, a loss of $30,000 in every flat that it sells. If you say that the HDB could have made a profit, I agree with you, which is the point that Mr Chng raised. HDB could have sold at market price and made the $200,000 profit from the person instead of selling him at the price and he sells it in the market and makes $200,000. That is the subsidy given to the person. And you were very upset yesterday. How could it be? The person is getting away with $200,000. That $200,000 is a subsidy that the person enjoys and every person who buys a HDB flat enjoys that subsidy because what he pays is much less than what he would have got in the private market. Let me give an example of how Hong Kong prices its flats.”
“Mr Chiam, we have all day. We can debate it today.”
“Today, you buy a 4-room flat from the Government at $100,000. The resale value of a 4-room flat, which is much older, in the same location would have been $160,000 to $180,000. So the person who bought the 4-room flat enjoys a subsidy no less than $60,000 or $80,000. But the key question to ask is: we have not denied that costs have gone up and that prices have gone up. The HDB prices its flats taking into account the costs it has to pay. Construction costs have gone up, but it moderates the prices of HDB flats so that the subsidy is still kept intact, and the people do not have to pay more out of their income. And this is the calculation that HDB does each time and, as explained in the CRC, at the end of the day, even though the cost of a 4-room flat or a 5-room flat has gone up, to the individual household, he asks himself: does he pay more today than he paid more five years ago as a proportion of his income? Does he have to fork out more out of his income for housing today than he did five years ago or 10 years ago? And HDB does its calculations each time it makes its price increases and ensures that the proportion of income spent on housing remains the same. For a 4-room flat, it has remained at about 22% of a household income all these years. For a 3-room flat, in fact the percentage spent on housing has dropped. If you refer to the Report, it is all there. So as far as the layman is concerned, that is what he is interested in. Cost has gone up; the price has gone up, but he is still able to afford it because he is spending not more than what he would have paid five years ago.”
“I was not here then, but I have been reading up the Hansard, and if my memory serves me well, Mr Chiam laid down 19 conditions before he could take up Mr Teh's offer. Among these 19 conditions, two are worth repeating. First condition was the SDP would only build if it did so for all HDB flats. So it is all, or nothing. It is not one block; it is everything. Of course, Mr Teh could not leave all the HDB flats to SDP. Second condition was 20% of the cost of building all these flats must be given to SDP before it would start work. So Mr Teh said, "Mr Chiam, you can't be serious. My HDB building programme is $3 billion a year. You want 20% as downpayment before you start work? You mean, I have got to give you $600 million before the SDP starts work?" So Mr Teh obviously could not accept his conditions. Mr Ling has again today referred to these conditions not being accepted before the SDP builds. The fact of the matter is that all these data are available. People understand the costs; people understand the subsidy that is received by the people from the Government. Just yesterday when Mr Chiam heard Mr Chng Hee Kok mention that a Tampines Executive flat was sold immediately after the person got it, and he made a capital gain of $200,000, Mr Chiam jumped up and said, "Cannot be, cannot be!" That is exactly the subsidy that such a person has received. That is the subsidy the person has received because he was allowed to sell it before the five years are up. When the Government explained that subsidy is based on what he pays and what he could have sold, either at the resale price or, in this case, because of certain rules he is allowed to sell immediately, that is the amount of subsidy. And the same concept applies to a 4-room flat or a 3-room flat.”
“Not on talking terms. Or Mr Cheo can convey the message. I think the point is the cost of building an HDB flat is clearly established and it is reflected in the Annual Report of HDB every year since 1985. So the debate has not progressed since 1985, despite having all these data published. Next, the selling price. Mr Ling says 4-room flats have gone up from $70,000 to $100,000, and now to $150,000. I think he should know that they are 4-room flats, and a 4-room flat in the 1970s was only 83 square metres. Today, a 4-room flat is 105 square metres. So if the price of a 4-room flat goes up, it is because the flat size itself has gone up, the improvements have gone in, and also costs have gone up. Mr Ling says a 4-room flat costs $150,000. That is true. We do sell 4-room flats in Bukit Merah for $150,000, but we also sell 4-room flats in Choa Chu Kang, in Woodlands, for less than $100,000. So a 4-room flat will cost differently in different locations and depending on the design. As a result, the Government has introduced smaller 4-room flats which are about 90 square metres, and we are now selling them at between $80,000 and $95,000. So we price according to what it costs. Having determined the cost and having determined the price, we should make sure that it is subsidised. We now look at this issue of subsidy - how big a subsidy ought to be incorporated. Again, Mr Chiam had this debate in 1985/86 whereupon he was challenged by the late Mr Teh to undertake the building of HDB flats and to sell them back to HDB at the prices that HDB would sell. Today, when Mr Peh Chin Hua reminded Mr Ling of the debate, Mr Ling claimed that the SDP laid down some conditions before they could take up the offer.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not trying to be sarcastic. I was trying to compliment Mr Chiam that the points that Mr Ling raised were indeed the same points that Mr Chiam had raised with the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan and also Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Let me go through these points. First, on subsidies of HDB. The construction costs of HDB flats are published every time. These are the tender costs by contractors, and you can refer to the published data. The issue is land cost. Here, Mr Ling raised the same points as Mr Chiam did when Mr Chiam had a debate with Mr Lee Kuan Yew seven years ago, and that is, land has no value, according to Mr Chiam. Government should cost the land of HDB flats at its acquisition cost. I think Mr Chiam will remember the debate in which he had to back down and accept that land has a value in Singapore, and that value is determined everyday in the market through willing buyer, willing seller, and determined by valuers. The idea that HDB should cost the land at acquisition cost is simply ridiculous. Let me give you an example. Very soon, Gillman Camp will be given back to Government. The cost is zero. So the Government would price the cost there at zero dollar. The Government is going to reclaim land in Seletar and Punggol at huge cost and would have to reflect that at acquisition cost. So we will reach a point where a 4-room flat in Gillman, in Alexandra Road, will be very, very much cheaper than a 4-room flat in Punggol and Seletar. How could that be? Mr Chiam, I think, will remember the debate he had with Mr Lee Kuan Yew and perhaps he should tell Mr Ling, since Mr Ling is not here, the outcome of the debate, unless they are not on speaking terms. An hon. Member: Not on talking terms.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. I wanted to wait until Mr Ling and Mr Chiam have spoken to see what new ideas they have to resolve this issue, but I find that they are the same points raised since 1985/86. For that, I must congratulate Mr Chiam for tutoring and nurturing Mr Ling in the same footsteps. He has raised ---”
“The policy is quite clear. If you stay beyond five years, you can sell it in the open market and repay the arrears. If you have not occupied the flat for five years, you have to sell it back to HDB at the original purchase price, unless you come under the special schemes like the third child policy. SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGS (Rationale for selling excess shares) 11. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance what is the rationale behind his Ministry's order that those who hold more than 3% of the Singapore Press Holdings shares have to sell their excess shares equally to the stock market, Temasek Holdings and MND Holdings.”
“He does not have to wait for five years, which means he gets an incentive of $200,000 to have his third child. But since it has caused so much outrage, we will have a look at it as part of the overall package for the third child and see whether this is a loophole that ought to be redressed. Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, before the Minister considers changing that policy, would he then consider allowing people whose flats have been compulsorily acquired to sell them at the market price so that they would then be able to make that extra money to pay the arrears to the HDB and not go into debt?”
“Sir, I think Mr Chng is using this opportunity to answer the query raised yesterday about his example. Since he has raised it, let me explain the situation. In 1987, when the Government was encouraging families to have the third child, the Government gave two incentives in terms of housing policy. The first incentive is that we gave priority to people who qualify under the third child family. That means, if you have a third child and the third child was born after 1987, you would get priority in the allocation of a new flat. The second incentive is that you need not stay for five years in the old flat that you have already purchased. The scenario is that for a family with two children staying in a 3-room flat, we wanted to encourage them to have a third child. So we offered them a bigger flat, a 4-room or a 5-room flat under priority, and we allowed them to sell their 3-room flat without them having to stay in it for five years so that they could quickly have the third child before the window of opportunity closed. Six years later, we find cases where, because of the waiver of the occupation period, it is now possible for somebody to say, "I am applying under the third child policy. I have a flat which I applied under the public scheme and because there is no five-year requisite period, I now want to sell it." This is the case which Mr Chng quoted yesterday. So what is wrong with that? Many Members were very outraged. If you look at it in dollars and cents, what we are saying is that this person makes a capital gain of $100,000 to $150,000. He would have made a gain if he sold it five years later. But under the third child incentive, he is allowed to sell it four or five years ahead.”
“In many of these cases which are 3-room flats, the original purchase price and the posted price are in fact the same. The posted prices for 3-room flats have not changed since 1981. So the Member's suggestion is in fact implemented today. We sell any acquired 3-room flat at the same price since 1981, and that is the price we pay anybody who has bought a 3-room flat from us in the last five years.”
“As I have already explained to the hon. Member, HDB has studied the income profile of these cases. We have been in this business for 30 years. There is no set pattern of people who can afford or cannot afford. Many of them were able to afford in the beginning. They make wrong career decisions, business decisions, they fall into arrears. Many people, on paper, would not be able to afford and HDB will advise them not to buy. I think they will all come to the MP and complain. It is their own business how they manage their funds. Many have got other avenues of income. They may not have a declared income or may not have CPF, but they all seem to be able to buy a 4-room or 5-room flat quite comfortably and service their loans. Should HDB come and say, "No, you are not allowed to buy because you do not have this prerequisite income level and CPF downpayment."?”
“The price at which the HDB acquires the flat depends on the period of occupation. If the owner has occupied the flat for more than five years, HDB will advise the owner to sell the flat in the resale market and pay back the arrears. That is the normal route most owners will take when they realise that they cannot continue to service the loan for such a big flat. And if they have stayed in it for more than five years, then they will sell it in the open market and pay the arrears. For flats which are less than five years, then HDB acquires it based on the original purchase price.”
“Let me explain to the Member that buying of HDB flats varies according to the many situations. Many home owners may not have CPF but they are able, and they continue to be able, to pay their mortgage payments through cash. If you look at their declared income or their CPF accounts, bona fide, they may not seem to be in a position to buy a 5-room flat. But I can assure you that many thousands of them continue to buy 5-room flats and continue to service their loans. There are many people who, on the basis of their income statement and their CPF, look able to afford a 4-room flat or 5-room flat, but because of poor financial management - they gamble, they drink, they squander away their money - they fall into arrears. There are many such cases. In the end, I think it is best that individual home owners decide for themselves what flat they are able to afford and which type of flat they should invest in. It is very difficult for Government to set up hurdles and say, "If you don't have such an income, you are not allowed to buy a 5-room flat."”
“The cases cover the entire range of HDB flat owners. Some people fall into arrears very early in their mortgage payments. Some have temporary financial difficulties and then fall into arrears. And despite the rescheduling of the loan, they cannot catch up with the repayment of the arrears and therefore have to give up the flat. Some have upgraded and find that they have upgraded beyond their means and then they have to give up their flat and downgrade. So it covers a wide range of cases.”
“Out of the 366 flats that were finally taken back, the majority were three-roomers which reflect the flat profile of the existing flats. There are cases of four-roomers, five-roomers and executive flats being revested.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, between 1988 and 1992, action was taken to revest the titles of 2,269 flats because the owners were unable to continue with their mortgage loan repayment. The HDB examines each case carefully and offers assistance to the owners wherever possible. For example, depending on the circumstances of each case, HDB will, as far as possible, allow the owners with genuine financial difficulties to defer payment of their instalments for at least six months, or reschedule their loan repayment period up to a maximum of 25 years, or opt to pay the instalments under the easy repayment scheme such as paying 75% of the normal monthly instalment for the first five years. Eventually, of the initial 2,269 flats, HDB only took possession of 366 flats as a last resort. Even for these 366 cases, HDB continued to render assistance by offering rental housing. About 90% of them took up the offer. The rest chose to move in with their relatives or friends. The number of flats recovered is only about 0.1% of the number of flats under each flat type.”
“The objective of providing public housing is to help Singaporeans who cannot afford private housing to secure affordable housing. Eligibility conditions are imposed to ensure that only those in genuine need are allocated subsidised public housing. HDB, however, recognises that not all who own a share of a private property are able to afford private housing. This is especially so for properties acquired by way of gift or inheritance. Special consideration is therefore given to those who have an interest in a private residential property not exceeding $200,000 in value and holding more than 50% share to buy a flat directly from HDB. In 1989, HDB relaxed its rules to allow private property owners to buy HDB flats from the secondary market. With this relaxation, those who own a share in private properties exceeding the value of $200,000 can purchase a resale flat. In view of this, it is not necessary to review the current $200,000 limit on the value of the interest in the private properties for the purchase of flats directly from HDB. PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN ON INVESTMENT IN SHARES 3. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked the Minister for Finance if he will state (i) the reasons for the Government's publicity campaign to get Singaporeans to invest in shares; (ii) the target group it hopes to reach; and (iii) the cost and success of the campaign so far.”
“As I said, HDB considers many possibilities and we will be happy to evaluate any new ideas that the Member may have. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Raising of ceiling limit for buyers who are co-owners of private residential properties) 2. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will, in the light of the recent escalation in property prices, reconsider raising the ceiling limit of $200,000 imposed on potential buyers of flats from the HDB, who are co-owners of private residential properties and whose interest in such properties is not more than 50% but exceeds the ceiling limit of $200,000.”
“HDB is considering many schemes. If the Member has any suggestion on how such schemes can be implemented, we will be happy to listen to him.”
“The upgrading programme is targeted at the older estates. The sequence of the upgrading gives priority to those estates which are oldest. The Member can see that in the scheduling of the upgrading programme, we schedule those estates which are oldest first. That will be the main programme by which people staying in mature estates will see their flats upgraded and enhanced in value. If they want to upgrade to a new and bigger flat, then they must apply for the new flats which are being built in their estate and although we give them priority, compared to non-residents, as I said, the demand is very, very high.”
“HDB has a scheme which gives residents in the mature estates twice the priority for new flats in their estate compared to residents from outside the estate. But, as he knows, the number of applicants for flats in the mature estates is very large. So even though they have twice the probability they still end up with a fairly slim chance.”
“Let me now turn to the second objective of the amendment. The Bill will also enhance the powers of the car park Superintendent to deal with recalcitrant motorists who repeatedly flout car parking regulations and ignore parking notices. This is to empower the car park Superintendent to fix immobilisation devices, or wheel clamps, on vehicles parked illegally in the parking places. This measure is quite commonly adopted in many other countries. For the interests of the public, it is necessary therefore to introduce the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Following the announcement of the scheme last year, the Public Works Department (PWD) has held a number of dialogue sessions with the lorry and bus owners' associations and several transport companies to gather their comments to refine the implementation aspects of this scheme. PWD will begin licensing private heavy vehicle parking lots from January 1994. Operators of parking places will be issued with Vehicle Parking Certificates commensurate with the number of heavy vehicle parking lots in their parking places. From 1st July 1994, all owners of heavy vehicles will be required to have a valid Vehicle Parking Certificate before they can register a heavy vehicle, or renew the road tax of an existing vehicle with the Registry of Vehicles. The Vehicle Parking Certificate will serve as documentary proof that their vehicles have an authorised parking lot. With effect from 1st July 1995, it will then be an offence for any heavy vehicle to be parked unattended, between midnight and 6.00 am in the morning, at any location other than at a designated parking lot. There will be sufficient supply of heavy vehicle parking lots to meet the anticipated demand. Currently, there are about 22,000 heavy vehicle parking lots managed by HDB and URA and the private sector. Additional lots will be created by allowing car park lots in industrial areas to double up as overnight parking lots for heavy vehicles. Owners of industrial developments will also be allowed to make use of space within their premises to park heavy vehicles, for optimal use of their land. PWD will provide kerbside parking along selected roads where parking of heavy vehicles does not pose a danger to other road users. URA has also identified land for the development of lorry parks by private parking operators.”
“However, many of these lorry parks are grossly under-utilised as drivers do not want the inconvenience of travelling to centralised lorry parks to pick up their vehicles. Just like others who commute to work, for example, SBS or TIBS drivers, there is no reason why the drivers of these heavy vehicles should not also commute to work. The Traffic Police has been taking enforcement actions against illegal parking. However, experience has shown that enforcement actions alone have not been very effective in solving this problem. Besides being labour intensive, enforcement actions are ineffective against indiscriminate parking of heavy vehicles along those roads which allow parking, particularly along roads in residential estates. In fact, more drivers will be tempted to park their heavy vehicles along such roads to avoid Traffic Police's enforcement action, thus aggravating problems faced by residents living in these residential estates. To address the problem, my Ministry, together with the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of Home Affairs, will implement a scheme to require all heavy vehicles to be parked overnight at designated proper parking lots. Under the vehicle parking certificate scheme, all heavy vehicles will be required to have a proper overnight parking place. The availability of a proper overnight parking lot will be a condition for the registration and the renewal of road tax for heavy vehicles. This will ensure that all heavy vehicle owners provide for proper parking lots to park their vehicles overnight. Heavy vehicles will be required to park overnight at these designated parking lots. This is similar to the arrangement currently adopted by SBS and TIBS to provide bus depots for proper overnight parking of their buses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Parking Places Act to achieve two objectives. First, to allow rules to be made to regulate the parking of heavy vehicles and, second, to allow additional deterrent measures against illegally parked vehicles in car parks. In May 1992, my Ministry, together with the Ministries of Communications and Home Affairs, announced the need for a vehicle parking certificate scheme to control the growing problem of illegal and indiscriminate parking of heavy vehicles in car parks and roads in HDB and private residential estates. The illegal and indiscriminate parking of these heavy vehicles in HDB car parks and along roads in HDB and other residential areas is hazardous to motorists and pedestrians. Traffic Police's records show that in 1991, there were 14 accidents involving stationary heavy vehicles, of which one was fatal. In 1992, there were 29 such accidents, of which six were fatal. In the first seven months of 1993, there were already 23 such accidents, of which five were fatal. Many of these accidents could have been avoided if these heavy vehicles had not been parked indiscriminately along roadsides. Heavy vehicles are also a noise nuisance to the nearby residents, especially in the early morning when the engines are being warmed up. In our high density residential environment in HDB new towns, the noise generated by these heavy vehicles warming up their engines can be very disturbing to a large number of residents. Similarly, residents in private residential areas are subjected to this noise by vehicles parked overnight along narrow streets fronting their homes. HDB and URA have provided neighbourhood and centralised lorry parks for the parking of heavy vehicles.”
“In other words, new household applicants are given a one year head-start over upgraders under the balloting system in the allocation of HDB flats in non-mature estates. 1.30 pm”
“HDB is currently carrying out the offshore soil investigation and hydraulic model studies for the proposed reclamation works. HDB has also called tender for the hydrographic survey and field measurement works. All preliminary investigation works are expected to be completed by June 1994. Reclamation works are expected to start towards the end of 1995. PWD is now planning and working on the design of the bridge linking the two islands. It can be constructed after the completion of the reclamation works. The timing for the development on the reclaimed land and the bridge construction will be decided in due course. The water channel between Pulau Tekong Besar and Pulau Tekong Kechil is narrow and shallow. URA is currently evaluating whether to reclaim this channel or to connect the two islands via a causeway or a short bridge. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Priority scheme for first-time house owners) 14. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for National Development if he will improve the priority scheme for first-time house owners in the balloting of Housing and Development Board flats. Mr Lim Hng Kiang (for the Minister for National Development): Under the existing Revised Balloting Scheme, implemented since January 1992, new households enjoy enhanced probabilities of success compared to upgraders at the ballot for HDB flats in non-mature estates. Apart from Tampines New Town where demand far exceeds supply, new household applicants who continually apply for flats in non-mature estates should generally be able to book a flat within a year of their first application. In the case of upgrader applicants, it is two years from the date of their first application.”
“2) BILL "to amend the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ARMS OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“I do not know what is the basis of his information, but it is affected and will be replaced. 1.25 pm BILLS INTRODUCED APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW BILL "to declare the extent to which English law is applicable in Singapore and for purposes connected therewith and to make consequential amendments to the Civil Law Act (Chapter 43 of the 1988 Revised Edition), the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Chapgter 61 of the 1985 Revised Edition), the Extradition Act (Chapter 103 of the 1985 Revised Edition), the Insurance Act (Chapter 142 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Penal Code (Chapter 224 of the 1985 Revised Edition), and to repeal the Voluntary Conveyances Act (Chapter 346 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Insurance Act (Chapter 142 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PARKING PLACES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Parking Places Act (Chapter 214 of the 1992 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for National Development (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Probation of Offenders Act (Chapter 252 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Community Development (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT NO.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the area in Punggol was acquired by the Government for public housing. We have spent a substantial amount of public funds to reclaim the land in Punggol towards the west. We are embarking on the reclamation of Punggol to create more land for public housing on the eastern side of Punggol starting from 1995. Therefore, these TOLs will have to be revoked. There is a need for the leisure boats sector and we are providing this by making sites available for the public to tender for these sites.”
“URA will definitely take the Member's comments into consideration.”
“In working out the conditions for this tender, URA has in fact engaged in a dialogue with the present boatel owners and the detailed conditions for the tender site would be made known at the end of this year.”
“I think a time span of six months, ie, at the end of this year and early next year, is specific enough. TOLs should be revoked over this period of time. There are several TOLs and they will be revoked during this six-month period.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, these boatel operators are operating on TOLs. So when the TOLs are revoked, they have to find alternative premises. At the same time, we are putting up a tender, and they can tender if they want to.”
“I have already said that they have to move out between the end of this year and early next year. When the TOL is revoked, they have to move out.”
“As I have already said in my reply, the TOLs will be recovered at the end of this year or early next year.”