Mah Bow Tan
Singapore
“The previous generation of Singaporeans overcame huge odds together to create this improbable nation which we call home. Let this generation work as one to define our country for the next lap of our journey. Sir, on this note, I fully support the amended Motion. Page: 143”
“Like all upgrading programmes, there is a certain budget, and a certain pace at which we will build. We have completed the LUP and now we are going on towards the HIP. The Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) is ongoing.”
“For those who cannot afford home ownership, we will provide rental flats. For the rest where there is hardship involved, that is where the safety net comes in. I do not think we should make the safety net so wide as to bring in everybody.”
“Building a studio apartment is no different from building any other HDB flat. If a person applies now and the building works start now, he can get it in two-and-a-half years to three years. We have stepped up the building of studio apartments over the last couple of years.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and how many have revoked them since; and (b) whether there is a need to review the current rules on AMDs which do not require a person who has revoked the AMD to inform the Registrar, thus causing uncertainty for hospitals t…”
“Parents who wish to exert more control over the maximum mobile service charges incurred by their children may consider service options such as mobile pre-paid cards. IDA is aware of the public's concerns on mobile subscriptions, and will continually review policies and look into measures to further protect the interest of consumers.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,030 lines we hold for Mah Bow Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 61.
“Mdm Phua has raised several issues in her question. Let me first deal with the issues relating to construction cost before I update her on the use of sustainable construction materials in the industry. Singapore, like other fast growing countries in the world, is facing rising construction costs. BCA’s Building Tender Price Index(2), which tracks mainly manpower and equipment costs, rose by 19% in 2007, and by another 4% in the first quarter of 2008. In terms of overall construction cost, feedback from leading Quantity Surveyor firms indicates that the increase was about 20% to 30% in 2007, and about 3%-5% in the first quarter of 2008. The sharp increase in construction cost is driven mainly by the high demand for construction resources and materials worldwide, and exacerbated by the surge in fuel prices. For example, the price of steel bars has risen by 85% since June last year. Concrete now costs about 18% more, year-on-year. The Government has implemented several measures to ease the tight resource supply situation. MOM has relaxed the construction sector dependency ratio from 1:5 to 1:7 and raised the S-pass quota from 15% to 25%. Experienced foreign workers are also exempted from the Man-Year-Entitlement requirement. BCA is also working closely with the industry to expand its contracting capacity, including bringing in contracting resources from overseas. For a start, BCA has organised two joint-industry trips to China. To help moderate construction demand, the Government had earlier deferred $3 billion worth of public sector construction projects to after 2009. This month, public agencies have identified another $1.7 billion worth of projects for deferment. This will bring the total value of projects that the Government is deferring to $4.7 billion.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. SECURITY LAPSES AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE 3.35 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to now move a business motion to revise Question Time. Currently, Standing Order 22(1) states that Question Time is one and a half hours from the commencement of a sitting. But in view of the time that was taken for the obituary speech just now, I wish to seek the House's consent to vary this. As there are many more Questions on the Order Paper yet to be answered, I wish to seek the House's consent to allow Question Time to be extended for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on the obituary statement, which is 10 minutes.”
“Apart from various other committee appointments, Dr Ong was also the former GPC Chairman for Education, and for Defence and Foreign Affairs. We all recall the many passionate speeches which Dr Ong made in this very Chamber, on various issues close to his heart, from defence to education to social welfare. We remember the many sterling contributions he made, both within and outside Parliament. We treasure those too few moments each of us had with him. We will never forget our comrade in arms, this stalwart of a man, this fine son of Singapore. Sir, on behalf of this House, may I express our deepest condolences to the family of the late Dr Ong Chit Chung. The family is with us in the House today. To his wife Elizabeth, and his two sons, Christopher and James, their spouses Magdalene and Sharon and his sisters, Chai Ming, Chai Peng and Tan Leong, we mourn with you the loss of your husband, father, brother, and our friend and comrade, Ong Chit Chung. *Dr Ong Chit Chung, Member for Jurong GRC, passed away on 14th July 2008.”
“He was an exemplary union advisor who helped to strengthen labour-management relations on the ground, for which he was recognised by the NTUC as a Friend of Labour. Indeed, it would be difficult to list fully all of Dr Ong’s accomplishments. I cannot but echo the Prime Minister’s words, when he called Dr Ong a man of deep convictions, a party stalwart, and an indispensable member of the PAP election team. Those of us who have fought many tough election battles will recall the invaluable help rendered by his Bukit Batok branch, whose members churned out the flyers and pamphlets for our campaign, sometimes at very short notice. Dr Ong was a veteran member of this House. He first entered Parliament in 1988, and served two terms as Member for Bukit Batok from 1988 to 1996. After the January 1997 General Election, he was returned to Parliament as a Member for Bukit Timah GRC. At the November 2001 General Election, Dr Ong was once again returned to Parliament, serving as MP for Jurong GRC, a position which he held into this current term. He was a dedicated and hardworking MP, who served his residents well and represented them fearlessly and faithfully in Parliament. He reflected their hopes and aspirations, as well as their frustrations and fears. He in turn was well-loved by his residents, from all walks of life, all ages and races. This was all too evident in the stream of people who came to pay their last respects to him at the funeral service on Friday. Dr Ong served this House and this Government tirelessly and with distinction. He was Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Home Affairs and the then Ministry of Labour from 1991 to 1993. He was Deputy Government Whip from 1994 to 2002.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at certain moments in time, we are reminded starkly that each of us has but one life here, one lone opportunity to leave a mark on our family, our friends, our fellow men, our country. The true measure of a man is seen not just in the height of his accomplishments here and now, but also in the depth of the gap he leaves behind when he passes on, and in the loss that we all feel. This past week, Singapore has lost one of its finest sons. Dr Ong Chit Chung* was a distinguished parliamentarian, a devoted representative of his constituency, a learned intellectual, a leading business figure, and much more. We salute his achievements in these fields. But we will always remember him as a fellow comrade and colleague, a generous mentor, an inspiring individual. He was, for many of us as well, a close and dear friend. As with fellow Members of this House, I was stunned when I first heard the sad news of Dr Ong’s sudden passing. I have known Dr Ong for many years. We both entered Parliament together in 1988, worked closely in many areas, and enjoyed many hours of fellowship. Only recently, we, the 1988 batch of MPs, past and present, had dinner with him and his wife Elizabeth, a gathering which Chit Chung had initiated and organised. We had a good time talking about many things – politics, family, life. He was his usual meticulous self, making sure all arrangements were perfect, right down to the bottle of 1988 red that Elizabeth told me he had personally selected. Many have paid tribute this past week to Dr Ong’s many notable achievements, such as his dedicated grassroots work, his outstanding contributions to defence and security issues and his active engagement with unions.”
“Stockpile sites are chosen with several considerations in mind. A key consideration is to minimise environmental impact on the surrounding areas. Our stockpiles are meant to be static stocks, which means that once they are built up, there will be minimal activities at the sites. Once the materials settle down and compact, and there will be negligible dust dispersion from the sites. While the stockpiles are being built up, the air quality in their vicinity is closely monitored. For example, in the recent build-up of the stockpile in Lim Chu Kang, our Ambient Air Monitoring study showed that the 24-hour average reading for PM10 (particulate matters less than 10 micro-metre in size) was well within the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Dust suppression and mitigating measures are also put in place during the building-up of the stockpiles. These include the deployment of water tankers and sprinklers system to clean the delivery truck tyres and surrounding roads. We are satisfied that the air quality in the housing estates near to all our stockpile sites is within healthy levels. SUBSIDIES FOR HOME-BASED HEALTHCARE SERVICES (Review) 3. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is reviewing the provision of subsidies for home-based healthcare services to help families who prefer to keep their sick elderly at home and, if so, when will this be implemented.”
“Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he will provide an update on the investigation into allegations that a Singapore trading company had been involved in North Korean exports of weapons to Myanmar.”
“The Malay Village site was sold to Malay Village Pte Ltd for a commercial development, on a 20-year lease which commenced on 27th September 1991. The lease will expire in 2011. It is a private development and Government has no hand in its operations. As such, I am not able to comment on its business performance. Under the new Draft Master Plan 08, which URA unveiled on 23rd May, the Paya Lebar area will be comprehensively redeveloped into a commercial hub called Paya Lebar Central, where new commercial floor space for retail, office and hotel use will be located. The site occupied by the Malay Village will be re-parcelled for more optimal land use. A substantial portion of the site will be reserved for a new civic building that will house a variety of amenities, including a Community Club, the Community Development Council office, and possibly a Community Library. A new open plaza space, about the same size as the open atrium space at HDB Hub, will be created next to this civic building. This space will allow for community uses, including activities related to the Hari Raya celebrations. Another portion of the Malay Village site will make way for an improved road network to reduce traffic congestion in the area. To retain the ethnic character of the area, a new pedestrian mall will be created along Geylang Road to accommodate more stalls during the annual Hari Raya bazaar. In summary, the comprehensive redevelopment of Paya Lebar Central into a new sub-regional commercial hub will allow us to cater to new commercial and civic uses, while retaining the rich Malay heritage of this area. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS EXPORTS OF WEAPONS TO MYANMAR BY SINGAPORE TRADING COMPANY (Update on investigation) 1.”
“10TOUCHPOINTS COMPETITION (Use of design solutions in public and private sectors) 25. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in light of the '10TouchPoints' competition held in 2007 which promotes innovation and creativity in the redesigning of objects for daily use (a) whether the winning entries have been adopted or adapted by public agencies and corporations; (b) if so, what is the success rate; and (c) if not, does the Ministry plan to promote its design solutions to both the public and private sectors.”
“Being cheated is not a valid reason for anyone, foreigners included, to break our laws. Instead, they should report their plight to the authorities immediately. In this way, they can work with Police to apprehend labour agents in Singapore who are involved in such scams. This is one reason why MOM has stepped up its outreach efforts to educate employers and workers on our employment and immigration regulations. For example, it has published a guidebook in various languages which highlights the penalty of mandatory caning for overstaying1. This is given to workers at the Work Permit Services Centre when they collect their work permits. In addition, MOM conducts regular dormitory road-shows to reach out to foreign workers. For these reasons, we do not think it is necessary to review the law on mandatory caning for overstayers at this point in time. We do not track the number of foreign workers allegedly cheated by rogue agents who were subsequently caned for overstaying. In any case, we do not think that the caning of foreign workers will affect our relationship with the countries from which they come. All persons, whether local or foreign, are subject to our laws and will be punished accordingly if they do not abide by them. This approach likewise applies to Singaporeans who commit offences in other countries. I believe countries whose nationals come to Singapore to work understand this principle. Our relations with them are good. For foreigners who are detained for overstaying, the authorities will facilitate consular assistance if they wish to speak to their consular representatives. 1 The penalty of overstaying including mandatory caning for overstaying beyond 90 days is set out clearly under the section “Singapore Laws & You” of the guidebook.”
“Mr Gautam Banerjee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry has plans to review the law on mandatory caning of foreign workers who overstay as a result of rogue labour agents. 23. Mr Gautam Banerjee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last 12 months, how many foreign workers were caned for overstaying; and (b) whether caning of foreign workers, particularly if they are innocent victims of unscrupulous labour agents, will affect Singapore's relationship with the countries from which these workers come from. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mandatory caning of at least three strokes for foreigners who overstay 90 days or more was introduced in 1989 to curb the immigration offender problem. Our experience prior to 1989 had shown that a mandatory imprisonment term of at least six months alone was not sufficiently deterrent. With the introduction of mandatory caning, the mandatory minimum imprisonment term was reduced from six to three months. In 1995, the law was again amended to remove the requirement of imposing a sentence of at least three months. Mandatory caning remains a necessary deterrent in today's context. Long term overstayers who stay here illegally pose social problems. In addition, not being able to work legitimately in Singapore, they may turn to crime. It is therefore necessary for our immigration laws to remain stringent to deter would-be immigration offenders. The mandatory caning provision applies only to overstayers who have overstayed for more than 90 days, in other words, these are deliberate law-breakers. Foreign workers who are victims of scams, whilst deserving of support, should not overstay in Singapore or work illegally.”
“The HDB has in place various financial assistance measures to help flat owners who are in temporary financial hardship. The Reduced Repayment Scheme (RRS) is one such measure, whereby the monthly mortgage instalment is reduced for a limited period not exceeding two years. From 2006 to 2008, HDB has granted the RRS to about 24,000 households. The financial assistance measures are meant to give the lessees some time to tide over temporary financial difficulties. They are not meant to be long-term solutions. Lessees whose financial situation has deteriorated must be prepared to make lifestyle changes such as sub-letting a room, include another working family member as a joint owner or downgrading to a smaller flat. Enhancing the RRS for such lessees will not help, as they will still be unable to pay the mortgage installments once the assistance comes to an end. HDB will give ample time, advice and assistance to allow lessees to work out a realistic long-term financial solution. For example, HDB can help by offering another concessionary loan to facilitate downgrading. Unfortunately, not all lessees in financial hardship are receptive to advice and some are even reluctant to take action to prevent their arrears from accumulating. In such cases, HDB will have no choice but to compulsorily acquire their flats so that the lessees do not end up in greater debt. I must stress that compulsory acquisition is the last resort to help these households, taken only after all other measures have been exhausted. MANDATORY CANING OF FOREIGN WORKERS WHO OVERSTAY (Review of law) 22.”
“HDB'S REDUCED REPAYMENT SCHEME (Number of cases approved) 21. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many cases under HDB's Reduced Repayment Scheme were approved in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively; and (b) whether HDB has any plans to enhance the scheme so as to reduce the number of cases of flats being repossessed.”
“Applicants for DBSS flats are required to pay a booking fee amounting to 5% of the flat price upon booking. This is similar to practices in the private property market, as DBSS flats are built by a private developer. This booking fee is fully refundable if applicants are subsequently found to be ineligible to buy a DBSS flat. If they cancel their application although they are eligible, they would have to forfeit one-quarter of the booking fee. According to the developer of the DBSS project at Boon Keng Road, there were 21 cases of cancellations as at 15th May 2008. 13 cases were on grounds of ineligibility, such as exceeding income ceiling, ownership of private property or not meeting the minimum occupation period for the current flat. These applicants will be refunded their booking fees in full. Out of the remaining eight cancellations, five cancellations could be related to financing reasons while three were due to health-related reasons. Of the five financing-related cases, only one had applied for and was granted an HDB loan after booking the flat. The other four cases did not apply for an HDB loan, although one of them did enquire at the HDB loan counter. Buying a flat is a major financial commitment, and applicants are advised to work out their finances before committing to a flat purchase, including checking on their bank or HDB loan eligibility before booking a flat. Since 1st January 2007, HDB requires those who need mortgage financing to first obtain an HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) Letter from HDB or a Letter of Loan Offer (LO) from the banks before they commit to a flat purchase. For the Boon Keng project, flat buyers had more than one month from the launch of the project to work out their finances before the start of the booking exercise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for allowing time for Members to seek clarifications of the DPM on this very, very important subject. Resolved, “That Parliament do now adjourn.” – [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes to Seven o’clock pm. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM FORMULA ONE (F1) RACE (Benefits) 27. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the impending Singapore Formula One (F1) race in September (a) what are the opportunities for businesses; (b) how many new jobs have been or will be created; and (c) whether there are plans for any allied exhibitions or shows relating to motor sports to be held separately to coincide with the F1 race in order to maximise the benefits.”
“These programmes cover genres which are not commercially viable, including minority language programmes, culture, information, current affairs, quality drama, local sports and some children's programmes. The Government recognises the financial circumstances of those who are on Public Assistance (PA) schemes. While the Broadcasting Act does not exempt the PA recipients from RTV licence fees, the Media Development Authority (MDA) does grant waivers for such households on a case-by-case basis. PA recipients can apply for such waivers by approaching MDA with the supporting documents. Upon application, MDA will assess the merits of each case and decide on the appropriate form of assistance. The assistance can be in the form of instalment payments, deferred payments or total waiver of the licencing fees altogether, depending on the merits of each case.”
“I am not aware that there have been a lot of cloned animals coming into the market, but we will certainly keep a look-out for it. The most important thing is that we have got a system in place that monitors the import of meats at source as well as when they come to Singapore. So there is a random checking process that checks the meat that is coming in, laboratory testing, etc. As a result of this, we are fairly confident that everything that comes into Singapore for consumption by Singaporeans is safe. When it comes to the GM foods, in consultation with GMAC and our international partners, eg, Codex Alimentarius, we have been trying to determine a position to take as far as the GM foods are concerned. For every research article that suggests that GM foods are unsafe, there is another one that says that they are safe. In fact, the US and Canada, for example, opposes this issue of labelling because they feel that GM foods are safe and are actually part and parcel of the current food technology research and development that is going ahead. As far as halal food is concerned, yes, the price and the resilience of supply of halal meats is also being monitored by AVA. WAIVER OF TV LICENCE FEES FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS 17. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts if he will consider waiving the TV licence fees for all Public Assistance recipients. The Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew) (for the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts): Mr Speaker, Sir, Radio and Television (RTV) licence fees support Public Service Broadcast (PSB) programmes, which play a critical role in communicating national and social messages.”
“That is a good suggestion. The jury is still out as to whether GM foods are safe or not safe. We have looked at all the current literature, and we believe that there is no conclusive evidence that they are not safe. However, there are strong advocates on the issue of trans fats, for example, that there is a clear danger. So we are monitoring the situation very closely. It is a good idea that Ms Denise Phua has brought up, and I will certainly ask AVA to look at it and see how we can disseminate more literature on this very important topic.”
“Recently, as Members may notice, AVA has been conducting a campaign to encourage consumers to switch from fresh meat to frozen meat. It has been a very successful campaign, so much so that the chilled pork sellers in our wet markets are complaining that demand is coming down. But that is one way for consumers, eg, housewives and the man-in-the-street, to take control of the situation. Rather than paying for high prices that are being asked for, try to switch to something else. If we switch, for example, from fresh to frozen pork, we are easily able to save something like 15%-20%. For some cuts like chicken wings, drumsticks, we can even get it 50% cheaper, because of the greater availability of supply. To round up this answer, I just want to reassure Members again that there is no shortage of fresh food, there is no need to be concerned about availability, but we are subject to market forces, we cannot control prices. If there is an upward price pressure because of external factors, we have to live with it or, better still, let us look for alternatives. But, meanwhile, be assured that the Government is monitoring the situation and working with the industry to ensure that supply is available and resilient.”
“Members may remember the scare when we had the bird flu and had to stop the import of eggs from Malaysia. We are now importing eggs from New Zealand, Australia, USA and Japan. So, if there is a disruption in supply from any one source country, we are able to shift to other source countries. Likewise, for vegetables, our source includes not just China but India, Indonesia and Australia, in addition to our traditional suppliers from Malaysia and, of course, our local farms. Fish we import from all over the world, eg, Italy, Norway, India, China, South Africa and New Zealand. In a recent trade mission to proactively seek out new sources, AVA managed to secure new sources of supply of seafood from Namibia. So Namibia has now joined the list of food suppliers to Singapore. They are now interested in diversifying from just exporting fish to other fresh produce as well. Apart from that, internally, we are working with the importers on business contingency plans, just like in the case of rice, where we have got buffer stocks. In the case of fresh produce, we are not able to keep two or three months' stock. Imagine trying to keep two or three months' stock. So what we do with the suppliers is that we work with them to keep a small buffer stock ranging from about several weeks to maybe one month or so, to tide over short-term disruptions in supply. Last but not least, let me round this up by emphasising a very important player in keeping our food prices stable, and that is the consumer. The consumer can play a very important part, taking control of the situation, be an informed and educated consumer, look at different choices and options, and go for those options which make good sense and value for money.”
“And accreditation means that we actually go there and check their health and food safety standards before we accredit the farms. But once we accredit the farms, they will then be put on the list of accredited suppliers to Singapore. Just to give Members an idea of how many such establishments there are. To date, we have more than 600 establishments spread over 26 countries accredited to supply Singapore with different types of products, eg, meat, fish, vegetables, etc. For meat products, just to give Members an example, we have added Chile to our list recently, and Chile will now be accredited to export frozen pork as well as poultry to Singapore. We have added the Philippines to export frozen pork to Singapore recently. For big countries like China and Brazil, we are also accrediting different regions and provinces. If we look at China, 34 provinces, it is possible for us to approach each province to accredit establishments, eg, abattoirs, farms, etc, to export to Singapore. For example, Liaoning was recently approved to supply frozen pork to Singapore. We are also working with the industry to explore the possibility or viability of different ways of bringing the fresh food produce to Singapore. A good example is Australia. We have been importing chilled pork, or what they call "airpork", which is airfreighted to Singapore. We are now looking at the possibility of seafreighted pork, what they call "seapork" to Singapore. Whether it is viable or not, they are looking at it. All these measures are taken to ensure that we have as wide a variety of choices as possible from as many countries as possible, and using many different methods of importation. We not only import eggs from Malaysia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the question. I would like to assure Members that there is no shortage of fresh food products, such as meat, fish, vegetables, eggs, and so on. The AVA and MND have been monitoring the situation very closely. We have looked at the import figures over the last couple of months and, so far, the import figures suggest that the situation of imports of fresh produce is healthy and stable. We looked at last year's figures as well, and the two sets of figures are quite comparable, which seems to suggest that there has been no sharp spike in the demand. Feedback from the importers also indicates to us that there is no difficulty for them to get adequate supplies from their various sources. But that is as far as availability is concerned. As for prices, I think the Member is correct to say that prices have increased. They have trended upwards over the last year or so, due mainly to several reasons – higher production cost, input costs, such as fuel prices, transportation cost, raw material cost. The cost of feed grain, for example, has gone up sharply. So, while we do not expect any sharp spike in prices over the next few months, we do expect that this trend of prices increasing in the near future will continue. Let me also inform Members that we are not taking this lightly. We are not saying that we are just going to wait for prices to go up. There has been a concerted effort on the part of the various agencies, ie, AVA, together with IE Singapore and others, to diversify our sources of supply as much as we can. That is our strategy. We will identify and accredit countries as well as individual suppliers, eg, farms, abattoirs, and so on, to supply to Singapore.”
“As mandatory labelling of GM food is currently not an international practice, making it compulsory will curtail our sources of supply and increase food prices. Nevertheless, AVA and GMAC will continue to monitor international developments closely to ensure that our labelling requirements are up to date. We are working closely with the Codex Committee on Food Labelling to develop acceptable guidelines on the labelling of GM food. The Codex guidelines are expected to take several years to finalise. Although our current Food Regulations do not require GM food to be specially labelled, GM food, like all other food products, must meet existing food labelling requirements with regard to ingredient listing and information to facilitate tracing and recall. I would like to assure the House that food available in Singapore, including GM food, is safe for consumption.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is international consensus that GM food is safe for consumption. Various international scientific organisations have extensively reviewed the safety of GM food over many years. All GM food are subject to rigorous risk assessments to ensure that they are safe for human consumption before they are allowed to be sold in the international market. GM food is governed by guidelines at both international and country levels. The international guidelines for assessing the safety of food derived from genetically modified organisms are issued by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is the international reference body for food standards which Singapore is a member of. For Singapore, we have set up a Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC), which was established in 1999 to oversee and advise on the research and development, production, use, handling and release of GM organisms in Singapore, and it sets the guidelines for the import, release and use of GM products here. In assessing and approving GM foods for consumption in Singapore, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) follows the guidelines of both Codex Alimentarius as well as GMAC. The labelling of GM food is a complex issue and, so far, there has been no consensus reached at the international level as to whether labelling should be compulsory or not. As approved GM foods are safe, there is no need for health warnings on the labels of GM food. Some countries do practise this and, where it is practised, the labelling of GM food is done to provide consumers with choice, and not for food safety reasons. Some of the countries that do ask for labelling of food include Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Singapore’s position on GM food labelling is in line with international requirements.”
“On this note, Sir, may I thank you once again and, through you, your Deputies and the parliamentary staff, including the Clerks, the Interpreters, the Reporters and the Librarians for their support, assistance and cooperation.”
“I also wish to commend you for being flexible in adjusting the guillotine times every day. I know this means more administrative work, and I want to thank the Clerk of Parliament and her staff for this. But it has meant that Ministers and MPs have been able to adjust their schedules more accurately and manage their time better. We should continue to finetune our system and remain flexible. The main objective is to have a good debate, enough time for MPs and office holders to engage in meaningful debate so that the people can have their views heard and clarified, yet keeping it productive so that we can get on with our work. This means having to sit beyond the scheduled time of 7.00 pm on some days. I must apologise to Members for making you missed your evening appointments or being late for your Meet-the-People Sessions. But the good news is that, as a result of this dynamic scheduling, we have been able to finish the debate one day ahead of schedule without any Member having to miss any of his or her cut. Now, allow me to give some words of advice to Members. First, please watch your time management. Members should not try to deliver a 3-minute speech in one minute, or file 1/2-minute cuts, and I counted three 1/2-minute cuts, unless all they want to do is ask the question without going into the history of the question. Remember, if the Minister cannot understand you, he cannot give you a reply. Second, please remember that if you have filed a cut, you should make the effort to be present in the Chamber to move your cut. Unless there are exceptional circumstances for your absence, such as illness, it not only deprives the House of your valuable inputs to the debate, but it is also extremely disruptive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise, on behalf of hon. Members, to thank you and your Deputies for so ably conducting the proceedings during this year's Budget debate. We sat here for nine days and over the last nine days, a total of 62 MPs filed some 401 cuts, with 49 MPs using the full 18 or 20 minutes allotted either to MPs or GPC Chairmen respectively. Unfortunately, not all of them were in the Chamber to speak on these cuts, but more on that later. The number of cuts had increased slightly from last year's 372 cuts, but this is a far cry from the heady days of 2003 and 2004 when we had more than 700 cuts. This demonstrates clearly that the new system that was introduced in 2005 has worked. It has kept inflation in the number of cuts in check, and has also encouraged MPs to keep their speeches short, sharp and focused. As a result, the quality of the debate has been high. There were many good speeches and some outstanding ones, both from the front as well as the backbenchers. There were unfortunately a few that went on a bit too long and here, I must confess, on hindsight, that I am one of the guilty parties. I will try and learn from this. But the highlight of this year's debate was undoubtedly the clarification time. This was the most lively part of the proceedings with both front and backbenchers at their most natural and, often times, most eloquent and witty. And this is what a good debate needs. I must express my appreciation to you, Sir, for being not only forbearing but also flexible in your administration of the guillotine and allowing clarifications to be raised freely and letting the debate run on when the subject matter was interesting and the exchanges hot, all the while keeping an eagle eye on the clock.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2008/2009, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow. Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes to Eight o'clock pm. APPENDICES”
“Sir, may I seek your consent to move that the progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?”
“Because if you cap the selling price, then, to maximise the profit, they start to squeeze on the cost, I think that is not what we want to have. The Hong Kong experience was quite salutary for us and that is the reason why we did not go in that direction.”
“I may have mistaken the Member in that respect. In other words, he is saying, do not build DBSS flats, for example. I think that is essentially what he is saying. However, as I have explained, DBSS is a special category meant for those 1% or so buyers, who would really like something special. Again, it may or may not work. For example, the next DBSS project, I believe, is now open for sale. I do not know what the results are. Will the flats be sold out? Again, I do not know. But that is the test of affordability. If people are prepared to pay, get a loan to pay for it, and they think it is good value, so be it. In line perhaps with what the Member is suggesting, we have specified that there must be some 4-room or smaller flats in that development. Why? Because we want to have some 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flat people living there together. We would not allow him to just build all 5-room flats, even though that may be what makes him the most profit. So there is some moderating of the flat type. There is also some moderating of the features because we do not want him to go overboard on the features. So, those are some of the moderating influences that we have introduced. But I am reluctant to say that you cannot sell your flat more than this amount of money. We actually did consider that at one stage, to put a cap on the selling price, ie, you cannot sell the flat more than this amount. What happens then, of course, is that you have got to start to check what is it that they are putting into the flat. The experience in Hong Kong, which had a similar scheme, was that they started to cut corners on all their materials, construction, and so on.”
“We are going to give you a loan based on what you can afford to pay back. That is how we exercise prudence. But I would advise that we do not start thinking about putting a cap on HDB prices because you never know what you are wishing for.”
“In the case of the DBSS flat, priced at $700,000, for example, that was set by the developer. I am not saying that it is too high or too low. It is for the buyer to decide whether it is too high or too low, and not for the Government. If the flat price is too high, do not buy, walk away, forget about it, and say, "I am not going to buy this." Why must you buy that flat priced at $700,000, which happens to be a high floor price? Why can you not buy a lower floor? Why can you not buy a cheaper flat? You have the option, I am not forcing you to buy a $700,000 flat. However, if the flat is considered to be good value, then you make the decision. So, that is how we have always operated. Even for our new HDB flats, we say, "These are the flat prices. If you want a flat in Bukit Merah, it will be more expensive than the same flat in Punggol or Sengkang." It has to be. The person cannot come to me and say, "Why is it that your flat in Bukit Merah is so expensive? The same flat in Punggol is cheaper." So, we have to take the market signals, we have to let the market set the price. Then, to make it affordable, HDB will provide the subsidies. In the case of the DBSS flat, if you buy a DBSS flat and if you are eligible, you will get the subsidy of $30,000 or $40,000. That will help to lower your loan. If it is still too much and you still cannot afford, please do not buy. But there are people who can afford, even at $8,000. Maybe they have got parents who will give them a loan, provide them with a start-up fund, or whatever. I do not know. But if they want to buy, it is up to them. But exercise prudence, do not take a bigger loan than you can afford. And if you are taking a loan from HDB, we are going to conduct credit assessment. We are not giving you a loan based on $700,000.”
“I think, basically, what the Member is asking is for us to have a cap on the house price. Can I summarise it like that? The Member is saying, "Let's put a cap on the price of a HDB flat". Or, in the case of DBSS, let us put a cap on it - not more than $700,000. If we were to adopt that suggestion, then the next thing is that we would also have to have a cap for resale flats. If you say, let us put a cap on the price of a new flat, then surely the argument also holds for a resale flat, because the next person who comes to me will say, "I cannot afford that Bukit Merah flat that was sold for over $800,000. Why did the Government allow that flat to be sold for that price? I cannot afford." Then, we are in a very dangerous situation. So my point is, let us make sure that the prices are affordable for new flats. For resale flats, let us allow the market to set the price. I think Singaporeans understand this but, of course, when they buy a flat from the Government they want to have it as low as possible, the lower the better. So there are all these arguments about why new flat prices are so high. Why do you base it on market? Why do you not base it on cost, and so on? But when the same person sells the flat, he forgets about all these arguments. He wants to sell the flat at market price, the higher the better. We have a system whereby we allow our people to enjoy a subsidy first time and then if the market goes up, enjoy the increase in value of the flat, because that increase in value of the flat is his safety net for old age, his hedge against inflation. So we want people to enjoy the fruits of Singapore's progress. Why should we put a cap to it? So similarly for new flats, we will subsidise him.”
“Because they are targeted at the HDB flat buyers. Two, they will still be maintained by the Town Council because one of the requirements that we have put in is that these flats that the private sector builds must be maintainable. We make it clear to them what type of maintenance we want to conduct on these flats and the Town Council must also agree that this is the kind of maintenance that they are able to conduct on these flats. So whether it is the facades or the precinct facilities, it is maintainable. So no swimming pool, no tennis court, those kind of things, because we want the maintenance cost to be kept manageable. I hope the Member appreciates that while HDB would really like to stick to the basics, its customers are asking for something more than the basics. And I think it is the responsibility of HDB to try to meet these aspirations as far as possible, not going overboard but keeping it within certain budget limits, not just in the basic costs but also in the maintenance costs.”
“Mdm Lee Bee Wah asked why is HDB not just sticking to basic flats. The answer is very simple. HDB's public housing programme reaches out, as I said in my reply, to 80% of Singaporeans. That is far from basic. So we are talking about people who are earning $1,500 as well as people who are earning $8,000. The household who is earning $8,000 wants a different type of flat from the household who is able to afford $1,500. We have got, first of all, different flat types - two-room, three-room, four-room, five-room, etc. Then even within the flat types, within the four-room flat type, we have got 4As, 4Is, etc. We have five-room flats, Executive flats and Executive Condominiums. If we want the public housing programme to remain as something that more Singaporeans, within that target group, still value and treasure, we will have to look into their aspirations and see what is it that they want. I remember at one time, lessees were throwing out the old doors and the old flooring and re-doing their own, putting their own flooring, doors and windows because the old ones were not good enough. In the end, all of these were wasted. So HDB said, "Look. Instead of you putting your own doors, floorings, etc, why don't I put in better flooring and doors for you? Why don't I put in different bathrooms for you?" And so it went on. The fact of the matter is that Singaporeans' aspirations are going up. That is the reason why HDB cannot just stick to building basic flats. The next question she asked is: why are we building DBSS flats? As I explained, and I would like to reiterate, DBSS flats will constitute less than 1% of the total stock. This 1% will be a kind of flats which will have a different look, perhaps even a different flavour, but still ultimately, within the HDB umbrella. Why?”
“First of all, on the lease itself, if the lessee outlives the 30 years, we will look for alternative housing arrangements for them. But if they do not outlive the 30-year lease, then whatever is remaining in the lease, they are able to return it to the Government. The example that I quoted of about $490 per month for life is for the flat itself. In other words, if that is a two-person family, then it will be $490 for two.”
“HDB Upgrading Programme Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, to the many residents in my Nee Soon South division, the HDB Lift Upgrading Programme does not seem to pick up the momentum to keep pace with the needs of the population. This is the feedback given in almost every one of my house visits. In Nee Soon South, there are a total of 111 blocks of flats that need to be upgraded. Out of that total, 59 blocks or 53% have not been upgraded. I urge the Ministry to consider accelerating the LUP programme so that more of our elderly folks, pregnant women and handicapped residents can have a better quality of life. The delays may even result in higher construction cost, and this may result in higher cost to the residents.”
“There are many instances of families who have successfully improved themselves and they have moved up, and they are moving into home ownership flats. And I would like to hear more of these success stories. The third thing that we will do to try to correct this imbalance is to carry out enforcement, to weed out those who do not need or who have abused the privilege of rental flats. One Member recently told me that one of her rental flat tenants had just installed a split unit airconditioner in her flat, courtesy of her children. Another has just asked for a season car parking ticket. Other Members, like Mr Lim Biow Chuan just now, have told me about rental flats being sublet. HDB will not hesitate to terminate the flat tenancy of those who abuse or violate the conditions of the lease, and redistribute these flats to the deserving cases in the queue. Sir, in summary, let me say that our home ownership programme will enable the elderly to monetise their flats to meet retirement needs. Those who are less well off and where monetisation options are not so readily available, we will offer the new Lease Buy-Back Scheme to them, to help them unlock that flat equity. For low-income families, we will build more rental flats, even while we review the scheme to ensure that the rental flat subsidies are reserved for the genuinely needy. We will continue to be flexible to help families in financial hardship, but the individual has to exercise prudence, financial responsibility and do something to help himself even as he seeks help from HDB. And in this way, we can continue to provide housing subsidies to Singaporeans who really need help.”
“Yes, some of them. But those who already had their HDB flats in the past, more than half of them were not affected by mortgage arrears. They had no mortgage problems. They were not affected by divorces. 20% of them had enough money to buy themselves another smaller flat. Many of them have relatives, siblings, families, whom they could stay with. So, I hope Members will agree with me that those who can afford home ownership and those who have family support should not join the rental queue. Otherwise, they are going to crowd out the more needy cases. Mr Masagos, for example, spoke about the elderly who sell their flats, give the proceeds to their children, the children turf them out, and then they come to HDB for a rental flat, when their relationship sours. I appreciate his understanding that HDB rental flats cannot be used to encourage such irresponsible behaviour of their children. So, the question is: are there other ways to help these families, rather than provide a heavily subsidised rental flat? Ms Irene Ng suggested short-term housing for low-income divorcee families. We can look into this idea. But I submit that the issue of dysfunctional families, divorces and so on, is not just a housing issue. What was the cause of the problem, in the first place? More than 20% of those applying for rental flats are divorcee families, and the numbers are increasing. We will have to look at the overall issue of low-income dysfunctional families from a wider perspective, together with MCYS and other Ministries, and not just from the housing perspective. So this review of rental housing criteria will also examine how we can encourage existing tenants to move into home ownership when their financial situation improves.”
“The reason is that we do not want to have people who already own flats joining the queue for rental flats. 6.00 pm What about the supply and demand of rental flats? There is a cause for concern. There is a shortage of rental flats. I have asked HDB to resolve this issue in three ways. First, we will increase the supply of rental flats; second, we will review the eligibility criteria for rental flats; and, third, we will step up enforcement to weed out those who abuse the privilege of rental flats. Today, we have about 42,000 rental flats. We will build more rental flats over the next few years. We will increase our stock by 20% in the first instance, to 50,000. In 2006, I announced that we will resume the rental flat building programme and, since then, we have built some 2,200 new units. We have converted some old flats into rental flats. So 900 over flats will be ready by this quarter. These are the rental units that are converted from vacant blocks, that was suggested by Mr Ang Mong Seng. We are going to build another 2,000 rental flats this year (2008), and these will be located all over Singapore. They will be ready for allocation from 2011 onwards. But building more flats on its own will not be an adequate or sustainable solution. We have to target our rental flats so that they are reserved for the genuinely needy. We will embark on a comprehensive review of the rental scheme, and we will put in place more holistic assessment criteria of rental flat applicants. Who are the people in the rental queue at the moment? Ex-HDB lessees, those who either have a flat now or who had a flat in the past, make up two-thirds of the total rental applicants. The majority of the applicants have enjoyed housing subsidies in the past. Did these applicants fall on hard times?”
“Unfortunately, not all lessees in need are receptive to helpful suggestions. Worse, they are reluctant to make any effort to help themselves. They expect HDB and the Government to help them indefinitely. I think it is most unwise of HDB to do so. It will be most unfair to the many residents who live within their means, who work hard to pay off their loans, albeit with a bit of help and forbearance from HDB from time to time. Let me now talk about the public rental system. I think many Members here have expressed their concerns about the public rental scheme. I agree, even while we have the home ownership scheme, there will always be a group for whom home ownership is not a viable option. This is what Ms Irene Ng said and it is perfectly true. We do have to provide for the low income who cannot afford a flat even with the most generous of housing subsidies. So the public rental scheme is really the final safety net to help families who are truly in need, who have no other options to turn to. Each rental flat is very heavily subsidised. A one-room rental flat receives an equivalent of $6,000 per year in rental subsidy. If a family stays in the flat for 20 years, they would have consumed $125,000 in rental subsidy, or even more than if we had given them a home ownership flat. That is the reason why we have such stringent criteria in place, to make sure that the rental subsidies are only for the very needy. They are not for existing flat owners who decide that they want to cash out, and then now they want to have a rental flat. Yes, we encourage the elderly to monetise, but they can choose from many other monetisation options - that I have explained earlier. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked why the 30-month debarment.”
“He said that compulsory acquisition is not the long-term answer. I want to assure Mr Ong and other Members that for HDB, compulsory acquisition is absolutely the last resort. It is a serious decision not taken lightly, carried out only after many other measures have been taken, ie, many options have been exhausted and only if the lessees themselves do not make any effort to resolve their financial situation. In fact, the purpose of this action is to prevent the family getting into more serious financial difficulty. Take the case of Mdm Judy Mitchell that Mr Ong mentioned. Let me give this House the full picture. She lives in a five-room flat with an adult daughter and mother. This is her third flat. She bought and sold two previous flats. She made profits of about $190,000. She has enjoyed three concessionary loans. She started having difficulties paying her housing loan for her current flat soon after she bought it. Four occasions, six months each occasion, over two years, she was allowed to defer her mortgage payments, or pay only 50%. She did not make any attempt to find a long-term solution and the arrears kept mounting. She was not receptive to HDB's suggestions to downgrade or include her working daughter to service the loan. As a result, the loan outstanding today is higher than the original loan she took. They have to downgrade while they still have enough sale proceeds to afford a small flat. I would like to urge Mr Ong to persuade the family - please do the right thing quickly. If they cannot get a bank loan, I will ask HDB to consider providing a non-concessionary HDB loan for them. This case illustrates many of the challenges that HDB faces in helping HDB lessees in mortgage arrears.”
“They would have substantial proceeds from selling their larger flat. So it really does not make sense to provide all of them with a further subsidy in the form of another concessionary loan. But I think Members are also aware that those households who need to downgrade because of genuine financial difficulty, do get special treatment from HDB. HDB has exercised flexibility. And I want to assure Dr Teo and other Members that HDB will continue to exercise flexibility. On their part, households must help themselves by exercising financial prudence and taking a longer term view. They must be ultimately responsible for their own actions. I do not think it is wise for all Members here to just look at the picture from the MPS cases that they receive. Many of them are deserving, but not all of them are. This is where we have to make a difficult distinction between those who are in genuine need and those who are not. Home buyers will have to exercise prudence by choosing the flat that they can afford. We have imposed credit assessment to make sure that they do not buy beyond their means. Those who are already in financial difficulty with their existing loan, before they accumulate even more arrears, they should think of their options seriously. If they can spare a room, rent out a room. If not, downgrade to a more affordable flat. As I said, we have given second, third - I have even seen cases of a fourth - non-subsidised HDB loans to those who are in serious financial difficulty. HDB's Financial Assistance Measures are only given to the family to tide them over temporary financial difficulties. They are not meant as a long-term solution. In the Budget debate, Mr Ong Kian Min mentioned the case of one of his constituents and he was talking about compulsory acquisition.”
“We will look into the circumstance of each case to determine the appropriate housing arrangement for them. What I have said about the LBS may sound rather complicated so I have asked my staff to see how we can make it simpler, how we can promote the scheme, because some of the scheme details can be quite technical. They have come up with this slogan, LBS, L for live, ie, live in your flat; B for bonus, ie, bonus of $10,000; and S for steady income for life. I hope that works. If not, I will ask Minister Lim Swee Say for another option. That is for the elderly. Let me now turn to the lower income. Many have spoken about housing for the low income. There were many suggestions on how we can provide more help to this group - subsidies, concessionary loans for downgrading, subsidies to rent from the open market, and so on. As I explained at length in my first speech on housing, the Government provides very heavy subsidies to keep our flats affordable, as much as $88,000 throughout the lifetime. I hope Members appreciate that no matter how generous the Government is or would like to be, there is a limit, a finite limit, on the amount of money that is set aside for housing subsidies and, therefore, a limit to the amount of housing subsidies that each household can receive. That is why, for instance, we generally limit households to one concessionary loan. We do provide a second concessionary rate loan to support upgrading because, as families grow, we see them wanting to upgrade themselves. That is a good thing. That is something that we want to promote. HDB generally does not offer a second concessionary loan to downgraders as most of the downgraders - and I say most, not all - will have benefited from housing subsidies.”
“Our estimate is about 25,000 households will qualify for the LBS and this is something like 70% of elderly households in two-room and three-room flats. Mdm Halimah has asked that some of these eligibility criteria be relaxed. For example, why restrict it only for those who have not enjoyed more than one housing subsidy? The answer is very simple. Because, with a second subsidy inherent in the LBS, we need to make sure that it is only applicable to those who have not enjoyed the second subsidy as the LBS is tantamount to a second housing subsidy. Why not for the four-roomers? This is something that we will look into. We can examine, and perhaps after implementing the scheme for a while, depending on the reaction to the scheme, it is possible for us to consider, perhaps extending it to the four-roomers. I believe that the LBS, together with CPF LIFE, will substantially improve the financial situation of lower income elderly households. In particular, many of today's elderly do not have much in their retirement accounts. And I agree that we should make a concerted effort to try and promote this scheme to make the eligible households aware of the benefits of the scheme, allay some of their fears, actively promote the scheme. One of their concerns may well be: what happens after 30 years? What happens if they outlive the 30 years? Here, I would like to assure them that they will continue to have a roof over their heads even if they outlive the LBS lease. We will look into housing options for them if they are fortunate enough to outlive the 30-year lease. This is a similar situation to, say, for example, the studio apartment lessees, some of whom may outlive their 30-year lease.”
“The remainder will then be used to purchase a CPF LIFE plan to provide the owner with a monthly stream of income for life. The family will continue to stay in their flat which will be left with the 30-year lease. Let me give specific examples to illustrate this. For example, a couple jointly owns a three-room flat and the three-room flat is worth, say, $200,000, with a 70-year lease remaining. They are both 62 years old. If they sign on to the Lease Buy-Back Scheme, they will get a 30-year flat lease because HDB will buy back the 40 years, giving them 30 years left. They will get a $5,000 upfront lump sum and they will get a combined payout for life at about $490 per month. So, they will be able to stay in their flat for the next 30 years. They will have $5,000 cash upfront and $490 for life from age 62. This monthly payout, together with their CPF savings or their monthly lifelong income from CPF LIFE will then help them to enjoy a more financially secure retirement. Do not forget that this is only one part of their financial retirement income. If they have CPF savings and CPF retirement amount, they will then get the income from the CPF LIFE. And on top of that, they will get this amount arising from the LBS. So who can qualify for the LBS? It is a subsidised scheme. The $10,000 upfront is an additional subsidy over and above the purchase price of the lease. So there will be some eligibility criteria. First, beneficiaries must not have enjoyed more than one housing subsidy. Second, it will be restricted to two and three-room HDB lessees. Why? Because owners of larger flats are able to take advantage of other monetisation options, such as downgrading. So these are the two main eligibility criteria for the LBS. How many households will qualify?”
“We will build them in different estates so that the elderly can choose a studio apartment in a familiar neighbourhood or, better still, where their children are staying. Not only studio apartments, we are also going to build more of the small two-room flats which are suitable for the low-income as well as the elderly. 5.45 pm Sir, the options that I have described meet the needs of most elderly home owners. But some elderly low-income home owners - these are the ones in smaller flats - may need a little bit more help to unlock their flat equity to meet retirement needs. Last year, at the National Day Rally, the Prime Minister announced that HDB is going to introduce a new scheme, what is known as a Lease Buy-Back Scheme, or LBS for short, to help such households. Let me now give an update of the Lease Buy-Back Scheme as requested by Members. First, the Lease Buy-Back Scheme will be launched in 2009. We need the time to work out some of the technical details. I will explain a few of these later on. The Lease Buy-Back scheme will supplement CPF LIFE, which is a lifelong annuity scheme that was announced by the Ministry of Manpower recently. It will supplement CPF LIFE to help the elderly with their retirement adequacy. Under the LBS, HDB will purchase the tail-end of the flat lease from the elderly household. And in addition to the housing equity that is unlocked by this purchase at the tail-end of the lease, HDB will provide a $10,000 subsidy. So the money from the buy-back of the lease plus the $10,000 will form the capital for the Lease Buy-Back Scheme. Out of the housing equity unlocked and the $10,000 subsidy, $5,000 will be given to the household as an upfront lump sum payment.”
“It not only gives you a steady stream of income but it also helps you to be closer to the family. HDB has been gradually relaxing the subletting policy so that more households can sublet their flats. So far, close to 18,000 households have taken up the option to sublet the whole flat. One quarter of them are elderly households above 55 years old. I would like to highlight a case that was published in Zaobao recently. 57-year-old Mr Wong sublet his Ang Mo Kio three-room flat for $1,700 a month. He and his wife and son, then went to stay with their daughter and son-in-law in their executive apartment in Jurong West. When Zaobao interviewed him, he said, yes, he has more cash in hand now but, more importantly, staying under one roof has brought the family closer. I wanted to highlight this case because it is important for such examples to be highlighted and I hope more elderly Singaporeans, like Mr Wong, will benefit from the subletting policy. If you do not want to sublet your whole flat, you can also sublet one or two rooms. If you have a five-room flat, you can very easily get $300, $400 or $500 per room for your flat. That is not a bad option either. If you do not want to sublet either the whole flat or the rooms and want something more permanent, you can move to a smaller flat or you can buy a short-lease 30-year studio apartment. Our studio apartments have been very popular with the elderly. We have close to 100% take-up rate for 1,700 units that we have to date. Members have asked for more of such units to be built. I am happy to inform them that, yes, we will do so. In fact, this year, we intend to launch another 400 more studio apartments.”