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 21 of 61.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past few years, the Government has implemented several key policy changes related to the property market. These included adjustments to the CPF Ordinary Account contribution rates and cash downpayment requirements, and limiting the amount of bank financing for the purchase of private residential properties. We also capped the amount of CPF that could be withdrawn to purchase properties using bank loans. Such re-tuning of policies from time to time is necessary to ensure their continued relevance to broader social and economic objectives. These objectives include enhancing Singapore's cost competitiveness, ensuring retirement adequacy for an ageing population, and maintaining a healthy financial sector. These changes in CPF policies, mortgage financing rules, and policies relating to home ownership affect the property market, in one way or another. As such, we need to ensure that the rules set will foster the free and undistorted functioning of the property market. It is in our interest to ensure that the property market is stable and that it is consistent with economic fundamentals, as it affects home ownership, asset values, retirement savings and the health of the banking sector. So far, the various CPF, home ownership and mortgage rules have been introduced at different times to fulfil various objectives. Hitherto, we have not comprehensively reviewed all of them together. We have thus decided to do a holistic review of various property-related policies, and implement them as a package. This way, we can provide stakeholders in the market with a complete picture, and ensure that the measures are consistent with one another.”
“The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act was passed in March 1989 to give effect to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES in short. Since then, we have amended the Act twice to align it with additional CITES requirements. In view of the various revisions to CITES recently, we have started another round of review of the Act. As part of the review, we would consider updating the provisions in the Act on penalties, to maintain effective deterrence. For endangered species in transit, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) currently checks to ensure that the animals and specimens would have the necessary CITES documents for their export from the source country and import into the destination country. In reviewing the Act, we will also consider whether the existing enforcement procedures are adequate. We will take into account existing provisions in the Animals and Birds Act, which also empowers AVA to check on animals in-transit, to safeguard animal and public health. FOREIGN STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS AND JUNIOR COLLEGES (Percentages) 3. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the percentages of foreign students out of the entire student population in the primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges in the last three years; and (b) what are the ratios of local to foreign students in the top 5% and top 10% cohorts in terms of examination results in the PSLE, O-level and A-level examinations in the last three years.”
“Sir, I just want to inform Mr Low that there are blocks and precincts in PAP wards, eg, in Ang Mo Kio, that are older than those in Hougang which have still not been upgraded. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Heng Chee How]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes to Seven o'clock pm. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM ORCHARD ROAD (Measures to improve peak hour traffic flow) 18. Mr Ong Kian Min asked the Minister for Transport apart from the introduction of Electronic Road Pricing, what other measures will be taken to improve traffic flow along the Orchard Road belt during peak hours.”
“I recall this debate with Mr Low a few years ago when Mr Low asked when he would get MUP at that time, and I remember saying to him that so long as we have PAP Town Councils or PAP advisors also asking for the same upgrading programme, it is very difficult for me to look them in the eye and say, "I am going to give it to an Opposition Member and not to a Member of the ruling party." Does the hon. Member recall that? Did I say then that there would be no upgrading for Opposition wards? I did not say that. All I said was that, realistically speaking, the Opposition wards must expect that, in the prioritisation exercise, we will have to weigh their demands versus those of the PAP Town Councils.”
“No. I think if the hon. Member will go back and look at the Hansard, he will see that the Government will undertake to complete the LUP in 10 years. There is nothing in there that says that it includes or excludes Opposition wards.”
“We know that our population is aging, and we know that if we do not do this, then, as time goes on, more and more of our residents, whether in Potong Pasir, Hougang, Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio or elsewhere, will face difficulties. So, the objective of this exercise, as my Minister of State pointed out, is to bring this programme to residents as quickly as possible. For that purpose, Town Councils would need to spend part of their sinking funds. If they do not do that, then, based on the budget that we think we can set aside for this exercise, it is going to stretch a little bit longer. Of course, Mr Low may ask: why does the Government not give him a grant so that he can do it faster? But he might as well ask why do we not pay for everything. Here, again, I have already answered the question about why residents must also co-pay. It all comes back to what is a reasonable budget that the Government feels needs to be allocated for this particular exercise. And we feel that, based on our housing budget, we are able to achieve this 10-year target which we have presented in Parliament.”
“On the second point, I really do not know what is going to happen in 10 years to the Opposition wards. So it is very hard for me to answer that question. For all you know, there may be no Opposition wards by then. But that is really pure speculation. So I think I should not answer his question. But seriously, Sir, it is true that, for the TC-LUP, the Town Council will pay the bulk of the cost and the residents will pay some of the cost. To the extent that some of the Town Councils' sinking fund comes from the residents, yes, it is true. But let me remind the hon. Member that part of the sinking fund also comes from the Government grant. I think the Member knows that. So, it is not quite correct to say that it is all coming from the residents. Having said that, I stress again that this is an additional option. If Members will recall, I think Mr Chiam came to this House and asked why he could not use his Town Council's sinking fund to replace the lifts in a particular block and, if Mr Chiam could correct me if I am wrong, that particular block would fit the $5,000 cost cap. So, if Members choose the blocks carefully, have sufficient sinking funds and can persuade their residents that they should also co-share the cost of the LUP, then this is a win-win situation for everybody, ie, the residents as well as the Town Councils and, of course, for the Government as well, because we will be able to accelerate the programme. That is the reason why we went back to look at all the requirements of the Town Councils to see how we can speed up the Lift Upgrading Programme, so that in 10 years' time, we will be able to bring this very, very important programme to more of our residents.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, let me, on a point of order remind Members that when they speak, they should be addressing the Chair, rather than to talk to each other across the floor. Next, I would like to respond to a point that Mr Low made just now about why he thinks that it is unfair for his residents if he were to implement the TC-LUP, instead of HDB-LUP. I suggest that he should go and talk to Mr Chiam about how to do it. Because Mr Chiam has a way of selecting certain blocks which are very cost effective and which will allow his residents to benefit from LUP, and he uses his sinking fund. I think he finds there is an advantage for him to do so. We are not, of course, by any stretch of the imagination, amending this Town Councils Act for the benefit of Mr Chiam. Mr Chiam believes that we do it to fix him. But, of course, that is not true. What we are doing is to give all Town Councils in Singapore another option over and above what the Government is doing to bring a very, very important and a very beneficial programme to the residents. And that is the Lift Upgrading Programme. That is all we are doing. So I think for Mr Chiam, or in fact for Mr Low, to ascribe other motives to this is not very fair. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: Sir, as I understand from the MOS' reply, in the TC-LUP, there will not be any subsidy from the Government and, as I understand from the HDB website, the cost for lift upgrading could range from $10,000 to $30,000 per flat. In this case, there is a regulation that sets the TC's share of the cost in the TC-LUP to be $5,000. Does it mean that the residents would then have to pay $5,000? Would the Ministry consider setting a cap on the resident's share of the upgrading cost in the TC-LUP?”
“Pursuant to Standing Order No. 44, I beg to move, That the Proposal to Develop Integrated Resorts be considered by Parliament. Question proposed.”
“Sir, the resale levy is, as I have indicated earlier, not a tax on profits made. If it was so, then the Member would be correct to say that if there is a loss, there should be no levy charged. As it is not a tax, but a levy to cream off the subsidy on the next flat, there is no justification for acceding to the request of the Member, which is to charge a levy based on the percentage of profits made. That is to answer his second question. On his first question, if a downgrader wishes to sell his first flat and buy a second flat, there are several options available to him. First, he can use the proceeds from the sale of the first flat, which is substantial, to purchase a second subsidised flat. Or if he does not wish to pay the resale levy, which I think is what the Member is trying to say, he can always buy a second resale flat, ie, a smaller resale flat, in which case, he can keep all the proceeds from the sale of his first flat. He does not need to worry about paying a levy. TA-CHING MARINE TECHNOLOGY (Improper accommodation and non-payment of wages for foreign workers) 13. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what action will be taken against Ta-Ching Marine Technology for the poor and unsanitary living quarters provided to its foreign workers and non-payment of their wages; and (b) whether there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that employers provide proper accommodation for their foreign workers.”
“The resale levy ensures that public housing subsidies are allocated fairly and go to those who need them more, in other words, first-timer families. As such, we will not waive the levy. We will, however, review the resale levy regularly to ensure that it remains relevant and meets our overall objectives.”
“Sir, let me first explain the purpose of the resale levy. It is a payment imposed on those who buy a second subsidised flat from HDB after they have sold their first subsidised flat. The resale levy reduces the subsidy on the second flat, thus ensuring that public housing subsidies are given more to first-timers, who have not yet enjoyed any subsidy. The resale levy is not a "tax" to cream off any profit from the sale of the first flat. It is payable only if a lessee buys a second subsidised flat from HDB. Those who buy private housing or a resale HDB flat, ie, a non-subsidised flat, would not have to pay the levy and they can keep the full sales proceeds from their first subsidised flat. Lessees whose flats are affected by the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) receive market compensation for their flats. They are also offered a new replacement flat, which is subsidised, plus an additional discount of up to $30,000, if they are eligible. If the SERS flat is his first subsidised flat, the flat lessee need not pay the resale levy when he buys the new replacement flat from HDB. However, some SERS lessees had previously sold a subsidised HDB flat, before owning their current flat. These lessees had signed an agreement to pay the resale levy should they buy another subsidised flat from HDB. Thus, they have to pay the levy before buying the SERS replacement flat from HDB. Alternatively, they can opt to convert the resale levy into a premium on the price of the new flat. For those who are eligible for the additional $30,000 discount off the replacement flat, they can also forgo the discount in lieu of paying the levy, which effectively caps the levy payable at $30,000. Sir, home ownership is an important facet of our public housing policies.”
“I would urge Members to bear this in mind next year, when they estimate the time they need for speeches. Finally, I wish to remind Members that, apart from the Committee of Supply, there are many other opportunities for Members to make themselves heard. They can raise Questions for Oral and Written Answer; they can move substantive motions or adjournment motions; they can debate on Bills, and this is only in Parliament. Members can also make their views known outside this Chamber. In other words, if they have something to say, there is no lack of opportunities for them to say it. On this note, Sir, may I thank you, and through you, your Deputies and your staff, for your patience and forbearance, as well as for keeping us in line during these last two weeks. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. APPENDICES”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of hon. Members, I would like to thank you and your Deputies for chairing this year's Budget debate and Committee of Supply. It has been a long session but not as long as last year. The reason is because, as you have indicated earlier, we have introduced a new way of debate in Parliament for the Committee of Supply and significant changes in the way the debate has been conducted. I think some Members had misgivings earlier when this new system was mooted. But I can safely say, after speaking to many Members, that the verdict is that the new system is a success. I agree with you that the new rules have instilled more discipline in Members, not only in the crafting of their speeches, but also in the answers. The same rules apply to everybody, to the backbench as well as to the frontbench, to the ruling Party Members, Opposition MPs, NCMP and NMPs. As a result, there has been more time made available for clarifications, for Members to engage the Ministers on specific issues and, as a result, making for a better debate all round. There is, of course, room for improvement. We will and we must finetune the system. But we are in the right direction. Last year, we faced the prospect of hyper-inflation in the number of cuts. We had a record number of cuts. This year, however, the number has been sharply reduced. As a result, we have been able to complete the proceedings in 7 1/2 days, instead of 8 1/2 days last year, without, I must say, sacrificing any of the substance. As many Members spoke this year as they did last year, less cuts were withdrawn or not moved this year, compared to last year. No Member should feel that they have no time to raise issues. Indeed, the time set aside for clarifications was not fully used.”
“In the new estates, for example, you need to have one provision shop, at least one coffeeshop, maybe one or two other specific trades. But, by and large, I do not think it is tenable, neither is it possible, for HDB to go and determine what is the retail mix. If there was one developer that owned that area, for example, in the case of a shopping centre, that one shopping centre owner said, "OK, I am going to rent these shops out. I am going to decide who is going to rent these shops. And I will then undertake to promote them." Fine, that is possible. But I do not think HDB has that kind of expertise. That is the reason why in the RPS exercise, we want to make sure that we get the HDB retailers, together with the consultants, to work together to determine what is the optimum mix of shops, what is the kind of retail niche that they want to occupy, and then we will facilitate, rather than for HDB to undertake upon itself that particular role. Because, frankly speaking, I do not think HDB has that expertise.”
“The answer to the first question is, yes, we will certainly advise the Member which are the low-rise blocks in her constituency which would not be amenable to upgrading, and so it is with the other Members as well. Coming to the issue of retailers and HDB shops, I think we need to come back to the fundamentals again. HDB, when it rents out its shops, does so because it feels that there is a need, having built the housing estate, to provide some shops to service the needs of the residents. It did so in the early years, partly for that purpose and partly also to cater for resettlement. That is the reason why, in certain areas, we may have over-provided shops. So when we redevelop precincts today, either under SERS or other schemes, we do not provide a one-for-one replacement, in the new area where the resettled blocks are. Why? Because we know that there is an over-supply. But having built these shops, having recognised the need for flexibility, and having changed the rules such that we allow them to sublet, change trades, etc, you cannot have that flexibility and, at the same time, say, "Look, you can only change trade to this particular shop or that particular shop." It is like the bubble tea phenomenon. The first few bubble tea shops did very well. Everybody else wanted to sell bubble tea. Should HDB have told the fifth guy in line, "Hey, there are already four bubble tea shops in this place. You cannot change." It would be very difficult because he would be saying, "How do you know that I am not going to be the one to succeed and the rest will fail?" So the best solution must be where it is necessary, yes, determine that there must be certain types of shops.”
“For those projects that are currently undergoing upgrading, works would have been in hand at the moment, contracts would have been awarded and polling already conducted. So it would be very disruptive for us to go back and, retroactively as it were, to do an MUP or a LUP for those low-rise blocks. So my immediate reaction is that, for practical reasons, it would not be a good idea to apply this new arrangement retrospectively. But we do recognise that for those projects that have not been polled, there is no reason why it cannot be included. And that is the reason why for this particular announcement, I have indicated very clearly that for those precincts that have not yet been selected, the low-rise blocks would be included. On the suggestion to have a minimum income for purchasing of bigger flat types, the rationale, as I recollected from the Member's speech, was to make sure that people do not over-commit themselves and that by preventing them from buying a bigger flat, they would be more prudent in their purchases. Rather than specifically stopping them from buying their flat, by using a minimum income, what HDB has done for first-timers is to provide counselling as well as credit assessment for them. In other words, we would base the ability to buy, ie, a loan that is to be granted to them, on their household income. Those whose regular incomes are low or who have no regular income would be affected by this credit assessment and, therefore, would not be able to get a large enough loan to buy their flat. However, if somebody who may not have a regular income but who has a lot of money, or whose children are prepared to subsidise him, and he comes to us and says, "I don't need a loan from you. I want to buy a bigger flat. Here is the cash.", who are we to say no?”
“Should we provide higher CPF housing grants to first-timers to stay with their parents? Currently, they have $30,000 grant for buying a flat, and $40,000 grant for buying a flat near to their parents. The Member is suggesting that we give an even higher grant to these first-timers, to encourage their parents to stay with them. That is an interesting suggestion. I have not really thought about it. Do give me some time to mull over that. On monthly repayments affected by CPF changes - when we adjusted the CPF, we were mindful of the fact that some families or households would be affected because they had already committed a certain amount of instalments. That is the reason why we allowed them to use part of their Special Account to service their housing instalments, if they did not have enough in their Ordinary Account to do that. So provisions have already been made. And, lastly, on multi-storey heavy vehicle parking, I am not sure. If single-storey surface parking is a problem, would multi-storey heavy vehicle parks not create even more problem?”
“Sir, the Minister for Defence will be very relieved to hear that. On his specific request for a car park within bicycling distance, if he can let me have the details, I will ask URA to look into it.”
“I will have to refer this query to the Land Transport Authority which, obviously, is in charge of the in-vehicle unit. But having been involved with the design of the in-vehicle unit at that time, I believe that it is not such a simple process after all. In fact, to try and design an in-vehicle unit which is able to do all the things that we have asked it to do is a task in itself. And to make it durable, to make sure that it withstands all the knocks, hot sun and so on, is again not a small task. But if Prof. Png thinks that it is a simple thing to do, then I will refer him to LTA.”
“Sir, I believe I did answer Mr Steve Chia but probably not clearly enough. HDB has already rolled out the ERP-based car parking in 13 of its car parks. This is, of course, on a pay-per-minute basis. It will roll out the rest in the course of this year and next year. As far as the interim upgrading is concerned, first of all, those blocks which have not undergone lift upgrading during the earlier stages of the upgrading programme, obviously, will have to vie together with the other blocks - 3,000-over blocks which I was talking about - which have not undergone any form of upgrading at all. Of course, if any of the advisers or the Town Council Chairmen wish to upgrade these blocks using their Town Council funds within the new rules that have been put in place, they will be free to do so.”
“But, at the same time, he also asked for certain special considerations to be made to allow his residents to drive their vehicles home. This is again another dilemma that we face. If we allocate space within the HDB estates for such heavy vehicle parking, invariably, the complaints are going to come from the residents. The question, of course, is where can we put these heavy vehicle parks. We would have to locate them away from residential areas. Of course, this, by definition, means places which would not be convenient for the heavy vehicle drivers and, hence, the persistent requests for us to find a place which is nearer for them. So, I think this is a dilemma that we will constantly face. There is no easy solution. We will be looking for heavy vehicle parks all the time. But with developments, I think such parks are few and far between. What we can do, of course, is to provide such parking facilities in purpose-built heavy vehicle parks which are properly shielded, near workplaces and in factories. I hope that we do not have to start worrying about having to provide parking for tanks in future, because there are also tank drivers who want to drive their vehicles home. Prof. Ivan Png and Mr Steve Chia asked about charging for parking. I want to inform them that, yes, the technology is available. Both HDB and URA are working on this technology. They have already implemented it in several town and neighbourhood centres where there is demand, and they are going to roll out more of such automated systems to other carparks when it is feasible and cost-effective to do so. Construction Industry”
“Sir, the question is whether we should do more, especially now when the property market appears to be recovering. The Government has always sought to ensure stability in the property market. Why? Because a stable property market is important in providing certainty to business, to investors and to home owners. Whether it is through the Government Land Sales programme or other financial measures on property purchase, the aim is to moderate property swings due to rampant speculation or sudden disruptions. However, we should not intervene in the market more than is necessary. To do so would distort the market, introduce rigidities and make the property market less robust. Let me turn now to some other specific queries, one by Mr Lawrence Leow on rentals and rental transactions. Currently, data on rental transactions for private residential properties is available to the public through URA's property portal, the REALIS system, and this is aggregated on the street or postal district level. If you are talking about specific individual property rental, then this is only available from IRAS because that information is provided from the individual property owner to IRAS for income tax purposes. For this reason, IRAS is not at liberty to disclose such information without the permission of the owners. For the purpose that the Member has in mind, the information provided by URA, via the REALIS system, is sufficient to help investors and other players in the market make informed decisions. 5.15 pm Finally, very quickly, on carparks. Mr Wee Siew Kim has raised the issue about parking for heavy vehicles. He has in his speech accepted the fact that heavy vehicles are meant for purposes of doing business, and not a means of transport.”
“We will have to ensure that our land use policies are relevant and updated and, in this way, help to maximise the economic value of the land that we have. Let me turn now to the request by Mr Yatiman Yusof for Government to take steps to intervene in the property market. The property market has undergone major corrections since the boom years. We had not just one, but many different crises hitting us one after the other - the financial crisis, 911, SARS and so on. It is not surprising that property prices have fallen sharply from their peak in the mid-90s. But the recent indications are that the market appears to have stabilised and is showing signs of recovery. The prices of private residential properties increased by about 1% in 2004. Rentals of office and shop space increased by 3.5% and 3.7% respectively in the same period. The Government has taken measures to stabilise the property market in the last few years. We suspended the confirmed list for the Government Land Sales programme since October 2001. We have been releasing land only via the reserve list; in other words, if there is a need for land, private sector developers would have to make a conscious effort to trigger that release by offering to tender for that piece of land at a price that the Government considers acceptable. We have removed some of the anti-speculative measures such as income tax on gains from selling properties within three years of their purchases. We introduced the Deferred Payment Scheme which basically means that you need only pay 10% for your initial cash downpayment. We allow CPF monies to be used for paying up to half of the 20% downpayment. All these have helped improve the financing for private home purchases.”
“He has a point, but I want to assure him that we have taken this measure, trying to be more flexible without creating major impact on the bona fide farmers. For example, we have imposed maximum caps for non-farm uses on farmland. At least 70% of the land area must be used for agricultural production. So it is not possible, for example, for somebody to tender for a piece of farmland and convert the whole farmland into a large bungalow or a ranch. 70% would still have to be used for farming, like orchids, vegetables or whatever. Land set aside for commercial uses will be charged commercial rates. This addresses the question about unfairness, ie, not having a level playing field. So, again, if you want to use part of your land for such uses, you will have to adjust the land rental or the land price to that particular new use that you want to put it to. All these guidelines help to ensure that genuine farmers are not unduly affected. This is just one example of the many issues that planners have to face on a daily basis. It is a dilemma that they have to deal with because when you adapt to new business models, you try to consider and accommodate new interests and new needs. As you relax your guidelines and regulations to provide flexibility, invariably, you will create a ripple effect or impact on other users. This is a very fine balancing act, but that does not mean that we do not do anything. It will become more complex and more contentious because, as we develop a more distinctive Singapore, one thing has not changed - the land area that we have. No matter how much we reclaim, we will still remain "a little red dot". That is the reality. Sir, it is not easy for us to balance, but it is something that we must do. We cannot stand still.”
“Whether we are talking about an airport, a theatre, a civic place or a private building, a quality and well-designed development will add value to the environment. It will reflect the values of excellence and creativity in its people. To this end, URA will contribute $3 million over the next three years to kickstart a programme, beginning this year, to co-sponsor an architecture and urban design promotion programme with the private sector. With these efforts to encourage greater creativity, I hope to see greater awareness of good design which will eventually translate into more outstanding buildings and better public spaces. Sir, part of the effort to develop a distinctive city and to nurture greater creativity and enterprise must come from not just the physical developments, but also from improvements in our processes and policies. One such area is our land use policy. There is a growing demand for greater flexibility in land use because we know that businesses are evolving, and demands are changing. There have been lots of requests for the introduction of new uses on sites, for the integration of activities within the sites, and so on. Just now, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay raised one such issue in the House - allowing non-farm uses on farmland. Earlier this year, we decided to allow non-farm uses such as cafes, shops, visitor centres, farm stay facilities on farmland, in response to farm owners' request. But as Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay pointed out, such flexibility has brought about some problems which required certain trade-offs. He is concerned, for example, that allowing recreational uses on farmland will affect the livelihood of bona fide farmers. They will be priced out of business with higher farmland prices.”
“To encourage new developments along Orchard Road, we will be placing two sites on the reserve list in March, ie, this month. One is a commercial site at Orchard Road/Paterson Road and the other at Orchard Road/Killiney Road. There will also be two short-term leased parcels at Orchard Road - one next to Faber House and one next to Orchard Building. Details will be released by STB shortly. The Orchard Road enhancement works will also involve upgrading of the pedestrian mall. And, here, I would like to assure Ms Eunice Olsen that in the proposed upgrading of the pedestrian mall, one of the key considerations is to enhance the pedestrian and street experience, and make Orchard Road freely accessible for all. Furthermore, when building owners undertake major redevelopment or upgrading works, these buildings will be required under BCA's building control regulations to comply with the requirements in the Code on Barrier-free Accessibility (BFA) in Buildings. So her concerns about making Orchard Road accessible to the disabled will be allayed. To successfully develop the Downtown at Marina Bay and Orchard Road, the Government is prepared to experiment and move decisively. However, there is a need for our people to embrace design excellence and quality as a way of life. Whether you are talking about a watch, a car, a chair or a dress, good design adds value. Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a well-designed Swiss watch when they can pay $50 for a simple Quartz watch that can tell the time just as accurately, if not more so? And so it is with well-designed buildings, the pursuit of design excellence, quality and innovation in a built environment is key to the creation of an attractive city.”
“URA will be relaxing the guidelines and grant gross floor area (GFA) incentives to encourage the refurbishment of existing buildings. For example, GFA incentives will be given to encourage more buildings to create dynamic facades such as the one that we are seeing in Wisma Atria. We will also relax guidelines and grant incentives to encourage buildings to integrate with adjacent developments to provide better connectivity between buildings and, as far as possible, along Orchard Road. I am also pleased to announce that an inter-agency Commission, known as the Orchard Road Development Commission will be set up to review development proposals for quality and innovative projects along Orchard Road. URA will head this Commission with representatives from the Singapore Tourism Board, the Land Transport Authority and other agencies. The Development Commission will support projects that contribute to making Orchard Road a distinctive place. These projects must offer refreshing business concepts and interesting architecture. It must enhance the surroundings through public spaces and facilities that promote vibrant street life, arts and culture and good pedestrian linkages. Developers whose projects contain these qualities will be granted incentives and allowed to deviate from current planning parameters. The Development Commission will also consider proposals for the rejuvenation or redevelopment of existing buildings in Orchard Road beyond their masterplan plot ratios. Additional GFA can be granted for worthy projects that push the boundaries or create new innovative products that add value to our city. URA will be announcing details of these initiatives soon.”
“The Downtown at Marina Bay is envisioned to be a live, work and play environment where we will have prime office space, quality housing, shopping, dining, the arts, entertainment, recreation, etc. A new waterfront promenade and pedestrian and vehicular bridges will connect all these attractions. It is like a necklace around the bay. An exciting attraction for the area would be the second botanic gardens. This large park will be the central park in the new Downtown for all to enjoy. It will be strategically located, easily accessible and well integrated with the surroundings. It will create a unique green-blue lung in the new Downtown, a respite from the hustle and bustle of the city, and it will be a legacy for future generations. 5.00 pm As the development agent for Downtown at Marina Bay, URA will work with other agencies and industry professionals to realise the potential for this area. And even as I speak, plans are being implemented. Just a week ago, I announced the launch of the tender for the Business and Financial Centre (BFC). The BFC will be a key milestone in the development of the new Downtown and, together with the completed Esplanade, One Fullerton, One Marina Boulevard and, in future, One Raffles Quay and The Sail, the Downtown at Marina Bay looks set to become an exciting venue and a signature image of Singapore to the world. Another opportunity to create that "x-factor" is in Orchard Road. The vision for Orchard Road is for it to be one of the great shopping streets of the world. Great buildings can contribute to a great street. To encourage developments along Orchard Road that support this vision, we will be implementing several initiatives.”
“Whatever, the statistics showed that it attracted four million visitors to the park, including one-and-a-half million visitors from out of town and brought in an estimated US$254 million in revenues for hotels, tourism outlets and other services. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "We had to go out for big bold projects that would set our city apart. We showed the world that New York is safe and exciting." If an established world city like New York feels the need to go for big bold projects to set itself apart, what should we do in Singapore, a newbie, to borrow an Internet word, as far as world cities go? In Singapore, we have been careful and prudent in our developments, and we will continue to do so. We do not go for grandiose buildings and extravagance to attract attention, eg, the highest this, the tallest that, the biggest this, that and the other. But Singapore cannot continue developing as a city in the usual way. We need to recognise the economic and social benefits of a distinctive city, one that is bold to invest where wider benefits can be reaped. The "x-factor" cannot be decreed into existence, it needs to evolve over time. But we can create an environment that can facilitate this evolution. It requires boldness and experimentation by planners in urban development. It requires higher standards in architectural design and building from industry, and it requires an atmosphere that nurtures creativity and excellence among our people. One such area where we can encourage boldness and creativity is in the development of the Downtown at Marina Bay. The Bay area, which has a large tract of unencumbered land and prime waterfront location, provides a unique opportunity for us to create something truly special.”
“There was a visitor from Canada who wrote: "Makes me want to spend the rest of my life here. Truly a place where you can live, work and play." Looking ahead, how should we develop Singapore, to make it an even more attractive place? At the launch of the Shaping Singapore Exhibition, the Prime Minister mentioned the "x-factor". What is the "x-factor"? If we knew, we would not be calling it the "x-factor". It is something intangible, something extra that gives the place character, vitality and uniqueness. It is a combination of many things, eg, the hardware, infrastructure, buildings, public places, etc. It is also the software, eg, the vibrancy of the place, the arts and cultural scene, the environment of energy and vitality, the greenery, the habits of the people, etc. As Ms Indranee pointed out just now, various cities around the world have these distinct characteristics, eg, London, a city of history; Paris, a romantic city. Now we have Shanghai creating an identity for itself; Dubai, spending its way into the record books. All these cities are sparing no effort to differentiate themselves from the competition. Recently, you may have heard or read in the Business Times and the Straits Times about New York, a city which we all envisage to be buzzing with life and vitality that are unique. In New York, Central Park recently had an exhibition known as "The Gates" where the two artists said that they spent about US$21 million of their own money - I am not sure how true that is, but that is what they said - to create this artwork in Central Park. Some may say it is a frivolous waste of money, but the residents said it brought a lot of joy back to the city.”
“Sir, Ms Indranee Rajah asked how we can make Singapore a distinctive city. During the lunar New Year holidays this year, I was invited to many homes. My hosts were very quick to show me their newly-renovated homes, their new furniture, paintings, trendy home accessories, etc. They had decked out their homes with the latest accessories and flowers, they provided good food, there was good company, and I could feel that spring was in the air. My hosts had gone to great lengths to make all their guests feel comfortable and to have a good time. But, most importantly, they were obviously very, very proud of their homes. Sir, in the same way, Singapore is our home and we are proud of it. We want to make Singapore attractive and comfortable for all who live in or visit our city. For Singapore, it is different from other cities in that this is the only city we have. This is where our home is, and we owe it to ourselves to make it the best home. Some visitors will want to stay here for a while. They want to enjoy what we have to offer. Others may even want to make it their home. This pride is evident from the responses that were received from some of the 25,000 visitors to the Shaping Singapore Exhibition at the City Gallery at the URA Building. Both exhibitions tell the story of Singapore's transformation over the last 30 years, and they give a glimpse of what the future holds. I would recommend this exhibition highly to Members of this House, for those of you who have not been there. What struck me, as I flipped through the comments in the guestbook, were the repeated refrains: "I love Singapore", "I am proud to be a Singaporean", "I am proud of my country and the development over the years". Even the visitors expressed support.”
“Mr Ang asked if property taxes can be lowered. There are currently no plans for us to touch the property tax which is already pretty low.”
“For those who wish to retire from business, having bought their shops, rather than asking HDB to buy back their shops, they can actually sell it in the open market, often at a substantial premium, even today, to what they bought or what they originally paid HDB. I asked for some figures. One shop in Bedok North Town Centre, for example, was sold for $2.8 million last year. The owner bought it from HDB for $630,000 (net of $96,000 tenancy discount) in 1992, made a handsome capital gain of nearly $2.2 million. The market rates for shops in these areas now, compared to the discounted rate and original purchase price, are roughly more or less about the same. Dr Amy Khor asked whether we can buy back the sold shops that are struggling. The shop in the Bedok Town Centre, that I cited earlier, the current owner, the one who bought over, is selling footwear, health goods and telephone equipment. His business is doing well. I hope he will continue to do well. But should his business decline, I think it is not the Government's responsibility, or HDB's responsibility, to buy back the shop from him. He would have to find other ways to guard against these fluctuations in the property market. So, those who buy the shops from the original owners, at the market rate, would have to calculate whether, at this rate, they are able to do business, or whether it is a good buy or not. The Government cannot protect them from any fluctuation in the property market. Mr Ang asked whether we can revive the Sale of Tenanted Shop (SOTS) Scheme. I think we should focus at this point in time on the RPS Scheme. Let us try and see whether we can do something for the tenants in the shops before we reactivate the SOTS Scheme again. One last point about property tax.”
“We will target to launch the RPS on a pilot basis in a few clusters of shops by the middle of this year. Critical to the success of the RPS is the support of the Advisors. So if any Member here would like to volunteer for this scheme, please put up your hand or get in touch with my Minister of State or myself. We will work with you to make sure that this scheme takes off. As Dr Amy Khor said, we should work with the merchant association, grassroots leaders, etc. This has got to be a collective effort on the part of everybody. Sir, now, let me turn to the issue of HDB shop owners. The RPS relates to a programme for shop tenants. What about the shop owners who have bought their shops? Many Members have asked for assistance for shop owners who bought their shops under the Sale of Tenanted Shop (SOTS) Scheme. Contrary to the picture that is painted that most of these shopkeepers are struggling, my information and the information of HDB suggest that the first-generation shopkeepers who bought their shops under SOTS had a very good deal. They received upfront discounts of up to $96,000 when they bought their shops. These shops were all located in very good locations, ie, in town centres or in neighbourhood centres. Together with the purchase, came a whole slew of unbundling of many of the restrictions that governed HDB shops at that time. So once they bought over, they were free to sublet their shops, totally or partly, and many of them in fact did. Many of the shopkeepers in my constituency, for example, after they bought their shops, they sold them off straightaway and then disappeared and somebody else is now doing business there.”
“So they would have to form themselves into groups, hopefully, into shopping associations or management companies. They would need to engage consultants to see how they can map out promotion strategies, advertising strategies, buying strategies, etc. To help them, SPRING will set aside $5 million from its Domestic Sector Productivity Fund (DSPF) to co-fund up to 50% of the revitalisation programme cost over the next three years. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S. Iswaran) in the Chair] 4.30 pm Members asked whether HDB can take some of the money from the rentals to do promotions and programmes for the shopkeepers. Let me, first of all, say that HDB is not the retail shop manager. Its expertise is in housing. Even then, many Members have questioned whether HDB should be doing so much, why not do less and so on. I would urge Members not to expect that HDB is going to be able to solve the problems of the shopkeepers, just simply by deciding on the tenant mix, doing promotions, and so on. In fact, the people who would be in the best position to do so are the shopkeepers themselves. Of course, there will be consultancy and there will be other experts who can help them. We will try and co-fund, and help them to do so. For example, we may want to look at an arrangement where there is a master operator, instead of having individual operators. Perhaps, through this RPS, we can assign the shops to a master operator. This master operator, who has the expertise and experience, can then manage the trade mix, create a certain identity in the shops, and so on and so forth. I have asked my Minister of State, Mr Cedric Foo, who is also the Chairman of SPRING, to oversee the implementation of the RPS.”
“Over the past five years, HDB has cleared something like 1,700 shops, which is roughly 10% of the total stock of shops through the various clearance and redevelopment programmes, and this has helped to reduce the over supply. It has helped to improve the business conditions in these areas. But, obviously, that is not enough. And through this RPS, we hope to accelerate this process. Members asked what happened to the VRS pilot scheme that we had implemented earlier. Should we not learn the lessons from that scheme? The RPS will be different from the VRS in two main areas. First, under the old VRS scheme, tenants who did not take up the ex gratia were allowed to stay put. As a result, as Mr Chay Wai Chuen pointed out, there were vacant units interspersed within the estate. And as a result of that, we had worse situations. We do not want to see that happening again, and that is the main reason why we discontinued the VRS. Under the new RPS scheme, should more than 50% of the tenants in the block opt to quit, HDB will proceed to clear the remaining shops as well and pay them $10,000 removal allowance. If less than 50% opt to quit, of course, it is status quo - all the shops will remain as they are. That is the first difference. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the VRS scheme focused on clearance of shops. The emphasis of the RPS is on restructuring and upgrading the operations of the remaining shops. How are we going to do this? HDB will be working with the Retail Promotion Centre of SPRING Singapore to help those who wish to remain in business to upgrade their operations and improve their general competitiveness. Again, this has got to be done in conjunction with the shopkeepers.”
“Sir, let me now move to the restructuring programme for shops. I think this is a matter that is of great interest to Members. The Prime Minister has announced that HDB will implement this new programme in order to rationalise and restructure HDB shops. Let me now provide Members with the details of this restructuring programme for shops (RPS). The RPS would be targeted at shop tenants where there is an over supply of shops and where the business is poor. Some MPs, like Dr Ong, dubbed it the 3R programme - relocate, restructure and retire. I think that is quite apt. The RPS will look at areas where business is not doing well in a cluster that is probably located in one of the older estates. And they will be polled on whether they wish to exit their business - whether they want to retire. Those who opt to quit will receive an ex gratia payment of $60,000. This is higher than the ex gratia of $48,000 that was previously offered under the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS). It is on a purely goodwill basis and should not be seen as payment for their shops. To be consistent, HDB will also increase the ex gratia to $60,000 for its future clearance and redevelopment programmes. The RPS will be triggered on a block basis if more than 50% of the tenants in the block opt to quit. So more than 50% would have to say, "Yes, I want to quit." Then the excess shops will be converted into other uses, especially social and communal uses, childcare centres, RC centres, etc. HDB will assist the tenants in the blocks that are cleared out but who did not want to quit and who wish to stay to relocate, where possible, to another block within the same cluster or nearby. They will be given a removal allowance of $10,000 which is twice the current allowance of $5,000 paid by HDB.”
“Presumably, this is the price at which they are prepared to do business, ie, the price that they have factored in in the cost of doing their business. Now that they have bid and their business is not doing well, can we adjust the bid? I am afraid that is not something HDB should do. The tender process works only if all the players - the tenderer, the landlord, the bidders, winners and the losers - agree that these are the rules of the game. They all bid and they abide by the rules. The highest bidder wins. If the rules say that we do not give it to the highest bid but to the second highest bid, then let us set the rules upfront. This does not mean that the bids are going to be lower, but those are the rules of the game. Once we fix the rules, that is it for the duration of the tenancy. Do not change it half way because, as I said, it works both ways - for the winning bidder as well as for the losers. If we say that after winning the bid and then we lower the bid, I think the second highest bidder would have every reason to feel aggrieved. The consideration on how to allocate shops depends on what kind of shops, whether the shops are limited in supply or whether it is an area where there is no limit on the number of shops. Since last year, HDB has experimented with a different way of allocation, that is the e-bidding system, which essentially is an auction system. So bidders know who they are competing against. They know what sort of prices are in the system. I must say that it has been well received. So HDB will be moving fully to the e-bidding system for its commercial properties with effect from this month. This way, the problems faced by those who have gone into a closed tender will largely be eliminated.”
“Currently, shop tenants can only have one or two sub-tenants, depending on the shop size. I have asked HDB to do away with this restriction and to lift the cap on the number of sub-tenants, so long as the subletting does not involve more than 50% of the total shop area. Mr Arthur Fong and Mr Ang Mong Seng, among others, also asked about rentals - why not HDB reduce rentals further? Let me explain how rentals are set. HDB does not set the rentals. They ask a group of private professional valuers to value the property and then set the rental based on the attributes of that property. Adjustments are made for location, size and so on. And these rentals are then fixed for a duration of one, two or three years. The tenant can choose whether he wants to go for one-year, two-year or three-year tenancy. But whichever one he chooses, for that particular period, that rental is fixed. I think this is not unusual. This is what most contracts are all about. This is what the private sector does. It works both ways. If the market goes up during that period, the landlord does not go to the tenant and say, "Look, I want to adjust your rental upwards because rents have gone up", and vice versa. This is a way to have some security of tenure and to protect the tenant from any escalation but, of course, in a down market, there is a request to adjust the rentals downwards. I think this is clearly not tenable. So the choice really is for those who wish to have more responsive rental to choose the shorter tenancy period of one year. But in fact, almost all tenants choose the longest tenancy period which is three years. Mr Wee asked what assistance HDB can provide shop tenants who overbid for their shops. They went into a bidding exercise for their shops. They tendered for the price.”
“But even as we liberalise, even as we accede to the request for some shopkeepers to allow them to change the trade, we do face other problems. Take, for example, the relaxation that we made several years ago where we allowed shops to convert into family restaurants, as a result of which family restaurants have proliferated across many estates. But what happens then? This has led to complaints from the nearby coffeeshops and the eating house operators who now resent this mushrooming of family restaurants because of the new competition. So we will have to manage this very carefully between flexibility as well as trying to manage the competition. Those who wish to exit their trades are allowed to assign their tenancies and to sublet 50% of their premises. And, of course, during the economic downturn, we granted extensive rebates to the shopkeepers. Dr Ong just now asked why is it that when we allow tenants to sublet their shops, we adjust the rentals upwards from the prevailing market rent. The reason was that, in the past, most HDB shopkeepers, especially those who are resettled, were paying very heavily subsidised rents, and HDB revised their rentals to market rates when they sublet their premises because they would, in turn, charge their sub-tenants market rate. But now that most tenants are paying market rates, I am pleased to inform Dr Ong that HDB has reviewed this policy and it will allow tenants to retain the existing rents for the remaining term of their tenancy when they sublet their shops. This will also, of course, apply to assignment cases, and the rents will be adjusted to market rate only when tenants' leases are renewed. There is another relaxation pertaining to the subletting rules.”
“Are they smiling or not when they say that? Because that seems to be the stock answer. HDB tells me that the shops located at the town centres and most of the neighbourhood centres are doing well. It is really the shops in the smaller precincts that are not doing well. All of us know that HDB shopkeepers face major challenges, not just general problems facing the economy, but specific problems facing HDB shopkeepers. They serve a segment of the population whose tastes are changing. They are becoming more sophisticated. They want more quality goods. They want a better shopping environment, and there are new shopping malls coming up all the time, not just in Singapore but also in JB. Because of working patterns and lifestyles, most young couples I know do not shop every day. They shop weekly and they go to the supermarkets for that purpose. So we must do something. But, as I said, realistically, we can only do so much. As a responsible landlord, HDB will do what it can to help tenants who face difficulties. Mr Chay, for example, suggested that we widen the scope of the shops for other trades. This is something that has been done progressively over the years and this flexibility has given shopkeepers a way out. If they cannot survive doing this, they can rent out their shops and let somebody else do something else. In fact, HDB today is so liberal that it is more likely to say yes rather than no to requests for change of trade, and I do not mean just changing from one retail shop to another, but even to showrooms and offices. There are still some noes because sometimes HDB neighbourhood would really need a provision shop or a coffeeshop and they cannot be changing the trades too liberally.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, various Members have spoken on the problems faced by HDB shop tenants and asked how HDB could help them. Let me first of all say that the Government empathises with the problems faced by our HDB shopkeepers. Some of them are first generation shopkeepers who were resettled when their old shophouses were cleared so that we could build roads, schools, HDB flats, factories and so on. So we do remember their contributions to Singapore's development and prosperity. And that is why over the years, we have tried to help them in various ways to tide over these difficulties. But I think we must not forget that a HDB shop is first and foremost a business. It is run by the shopkeepers. HDB does not run the business. And, as with any other business, shopkeepers with good business sense, acumen, skills, knowledge of the market would do better than those who do not. Ultimately, whether a shop thrives depends not on how much help he receives from the Government, but on how they could attract and retain their own customers. It would be unrealistic for us to harbour this belief that the HDB or, indeed, any Government agency would be able to solve all their problems. It is unrealistic for an ailing business to rely on Government's life support to keep it going. Having said that, I am happy to note that many of our HDB shopkeepers are doing well. They are doing business in the heartlands serving the customers well and making a good living for themselves. They do not need additional Government assistance. Whatever we give is gratefully accepted. 4.15 pm Every time I visit the shopkeepers in my constituency, I ask them how is business. Usually, they answer me guo de qu - can manage, can do. Of course, to get the real sentiment, we really need to look at their faces.”
“In other words, we have opened up the whole of Singapore as re-housing option for those who are affected by SERS. They do not have to confine themselves to just the precinct where the replacement blocks are going to be built. In this way, I hope that the residents who are involved in the SERS programme will have more choices and will find the programme much more attractive. In fact, it is already an attractive programme, but in this way, we hope the elderly lessees will find such options more attractive.”
“We only launched MUP about 16 years ago and that was precisely for the purpose of rejuvenating some of the older estates like Queenstown, like Mr Chay Wai Chuen's, to bring them to the standard of the newer ones. So far, we have had 130,000 flats undergoing MUP. Of these, 80,000 have been completed. But in selecting the precincts for MUP, I must say that it is not just age alone. Age is only one of the criteria. There will be other factors, like the overall redevelopment of the area and the budget, which is one of the big constraints. As we do more lift upgrading, there will be less budget for MUP, so fewer precincts will be selected for MUP. It does not follow then that the oldest blocks will be selected for MUP or, for that matter, considered for SERS. For SERS, there are several other considerations, key of which is the fact that it must have redevelopment potential. My advice to Mr Chay is to get his town council to quickly proceed with R&R works or cyclical maintenance works for those blocks that are urgently needed and not to wait and assume that they are going to be selected for MUP or SERS. As far as SERS is concerned, Mr Chay also asked whether there can be other re-housing options for the lessees, especially the elderly lessees. I am pleased to inform him that, in fact, the re-housing options for SERS lessees have been relaxed in the last year or so. They can now opt for different types of flats - three-room, four-room, five-room. We have even built studio apartments for them, and of course now, three-room flats. If they do not wish to take up any of these options, they can still choose two-room flats in areas other than where they are going to be re-housed.”
“This, we have worked out, is enough for the typical common corridor standard blocks and also for the point blocks. Most of the standard blocks in our estates should be eligible under this cap. HDB estimates that this will enable town councils to implement lift upgrading for some 300 to 400 HDB blocks, based on these two conditions. It is a sizeable number, and it will go a long way to meet our 10-year target for completing the LUP. There are several other considerations. First, residents in blocks selected for lift upgrading by their town councils will need to vote. Similar to upgrading programmes under HDB, at least 75% of eligible residents for a block must vote in favour of lift upgrading before the works could start. Residents will also co-pay for the works in the same proportion as HDB's LUP. Why co-payment and why polling? Because we want to make sure that residents carefully consider whether they really require the lift upgrading works before the works proceed. In some blocks, it may well be that, as Dr Tan Boon Wan mentioned, some of the residents may not want it for one reason or another. Once the town council has achieved the minimum 75% support level for the upgrading, it will have the necessary mandate to implement the programme. So this is a very important point. We will have to amend the Town Councils Act to provide for the necessary legislative framework for town councils to carry out lift upgrading using their sinking funds. Sir, finally, one last point to address Mr Chay Wai Chuen's point about the blocks in his constituency, Queenstown. Yes, there are blocks in Queenstown which are 40 years old. In fact, they were the earliest blocks that were built by HDB. These blocks have not been selected for MUP or SERS.”
“But over the years, we have re-looked at the sinking fund contributions. We have relaxed the rules governing the use of the sinking funds. And today, town councils, for example, use sinking funds to co-pay for lift upgrading under the HDB's Lift Upgrading Programme up to a cap of $3,000 per flat. Town councils have also been allowed to use sinking funds to pay for specific improvement works subject to the approval of the Minister, such as installation of video monitoring devices in lifts. Subject to all these changes, we will still need to make sure that there are sufficient funds left in the sinking funds. Do not forget that over time, our estates are getting older. Our population is aging and our estates are also aging. Therefore, they need more care and attention and more works to be done. Taking all these into consideration, we have set certain caps and limits on the amount of money to be spent for the town councils' Lift Upgrading Programme. We have decided to allow town councils to use up to 10% of their sinking funds as at 31st March 2004 to have a certain specific number for the purpose of their own lift upgrading programme. If you add this up cumulatively amongst all the town councils, this is quite a significant amount. It works out to something like $125 million for the 16 town councils. That is on the town councils' basis. To ensure that more residents can benefit from the TC-LUP, ie, to spread the benefits out as widely as possible, we have also decided that town councils should avoid using the bulk of their available sinking funds to upgrade lifts for only a few blocks. Town councils will only be allowed to implement lift upgrading for HDB blocks where the cost per unit does not exceed $5,000.”
“Two, and more importantly, it gives town councils more flexibility and more responsibility as well to schedule and to prioritise the blocks within their estates, bearing in mind their residents' needs and their own resource capabilities. Mr Chew asked if we could relax restrictions on the use of town council sinking funds to allow them to do their lift upgrading works or other improvement works. Although we do allow town councils, even now, to use their sinking funds for lift upgrading, I just want to remind Members that sinking funds are meant for the long-term cyclical maintenance of the estates. They come from the residents' S&CC contributions over the years and they should be deployed to do the necessary works, like re-roofing and repainting, ie, the cyclical maintenance works that are essential to make sure that our HDB estates do not degenerate into slums. This is a very important point because the basic difference between our housing estates and many other public housing in other countries is that our estates not only look good when they are first built, but they also look good after many years. If you look at council housing in UK or in other countries, you will know what I mean. After the initial period, because they do not have a system of regular maintenance, and they do not require their residents to actually pay for the maintenance, or enforce the maintenance, very soon it deteriorates. When it deteriorates, values drop and there is a vicious cycle, a spiral downwards. This is something that we really should not see. We must not let this happen in Singapore. This is why I believe that the sinking fund is very important to make sure proper cyclical maintenance is done when it is needed.”
“This is provided the cost does not exceed $30,000 per benefiting unit which is similar to the criteria that we have adopted for high-rise blocks, and also provided that the blocks are not affected by future development. This new policy will take immediate effect, beginning with the current batch of LUP and IUP Plus precincts, the ones for FY2005. HDB will inform advisors and town councils of the selected precincts shortly. Mr Ang Mong Seng made several other suggestions, eg, HDB should find new and innovative ways to make lift upgrading more cost-effective. I agree with him. For example, if we can upgrade low-rise blocks in a way that makes it more economical to do so, we certainly will, whether it is in the construction of link bridges or in making use of new technologies. I think all these things are worth serious consideration. I will be asking HDB to get in touch with Mr Ang. Mr Ang also suggested reducing the period between the announcement of the LUP and the commencement of works. He mentioned that it took something like two years. My experience so far is that this ranges, on the average, about 16 months, and this includes the time to work out the design for HDB, to conduct the poll, to call a tender and, ultimately, to award the tender. But even then, it is a little bit too long. We will endeavour to shorten this period as much as possible so that residents will be able to benefit as quickly as possible. Let me move on to lift upgrading by town councils, what I would call - TC-LUP. PM has announced that town councils be allowed to use part of their sinking funds for this purpose. This serves two objectives. One, it will speed up the upgrading in HDB estates and help us to achieve our 10-year target.”
“In FY04, we will be selecting only three precincts for MUP. So, the first thing we will do is to speed up the selection programme. The second thing we will do is to stretch every LUP dollar as much as possible. The cost of lift upgrading per unit, as I said earlier, ranges from about $1,500 for a standard block with a standard configuration, ie, common corridors where you just have to punch the lifts through, to something like $80,000 to $90,000 for some of the more complicated segmented blocks where you have to have virtually a lift shaft for every stack of flats. So, to ensure that the largest possible number of residents can benefit from lift upgrading, we will only select blocks for lift upgrading if the cost per unit does not exceed $30,000. With this cost cap of $30,000, 95% of the blocks will be eligible for LUP. HDB has always been very careful about keeping the cost of lift upgrading low, because this benefits not only the Government as it stretches the budget a little bit more, but it also benefits the residents because they do not have to co-pay as much. To keep costs low, HDB avoids over-provision of lifts, extravagant finishes, and it procures lift and building contracts via bulk contracts. To reduce costs further, HDB will now provide more basic finishes in the building works, for example, by minimising the amount of tiling and other finishes for the upper lift lobbies. 3.45 pm I come now to the issue of low-rise blocks. This is something that many Members have been asking for in this House, not just in this sitting but also in past sittings. Mr Ang Mong Seng, Dr Tan Boon Wan and Ms Indranee Rajah, amongst many other MPs, have done so. I am happy to announce that we have decided to extend lift upgrading to low-rise four- and five-storey HDB blocks.”