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 23 of 61.
“URA/HDB parking charges are levied to recover the cost of building and maintaining the carparks and to regulate parking demand. The recent introduction of a five-day work week for the Civil Service does not necessarily lead to lower parking demand throughout the Central Business District (CBD). In certain areas, such as in popular shopping and dining hubs like Orchard Road, Chinatown and Queen Street, it may generate higher parking demand. As such, there is a need to maintain parking charges in the CBD areas so as to regulate vehicular turnover and enable more motorists to make better use of the limited public car parks. URA and HDB will continue to monitor the parking demand on Saturdays in the CBD areas and will review the charges as and when necessary. UTILITIES BILL 21. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he is alarmed by the reported figure that "on average, 3,000 homes every month are without power because of arrears" in payment of utilities bills, in wealthy Singapore; (b) what is the Government doing to help those poor families living without water and electricity; and (c) whether the estimated number of homes without water and power will increase in the next five years as the economy trudges along.”
“Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what steps are being taken to combat the perception among young Singaporeans that synthetic drugs are merely "recreational drugs" and therefore harmless and non-addictive; and (b) whether there is a rehabilitation programme for users of synthetic drugs.”
“Finally, on the point that Mr Tan brought up about whether a Member who addresses this House by video is deemed to be present in the House. I think this is a good point that the Standing Orders Committee has not addressed. This is a point that we should address because, as he has explained, on that historic occasion in 1961, it was literally a matter of life and death for the Government. Therefore, we should look at it. I will recommend to the Committee that we look at this, and at an opportune time, address this question fully. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I come back to the same point that this was an exercise in trying to update the rules and the Standing Orders, take the opportunity, even if we do not need to do anything at the moment, update the rules so that they are in keeping with the times and that they will allow us to be a more efficient and a more effective House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would commend to Members that we adopt the Report of the Standing Orders Committee. Question put, and agreed to. That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 6 of 2004 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes past Eight o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM SYNTHETIC DRUGS 16.”
“It may happen one day that, in certain circumstances, you may want to do something like that. It may well be that, at some stage in future, Members, whether it is Nominated Members or any other Members, may want to do that. We are making provisions for a possibility some time down the road. But it does not follow that such changes in the Standing Orders automatically imply that there will be consequential changes made without reference to the dignity of Parliament. As for lifting the restriction on the time that Ministers can speak, it has always been the practice that the Frontbenchers will get more time to speak because, presumably, the House wants to hear what they say. Whether it is in the Committee of Supply or whether it is in a debate, Frontbenchers should have more time to speak in order to allow them to elaborate on policies, to respond to suggestions or to rebut certain allegations. Again, this is not something that is uncommon for our Parliament. It is something that all parliaments practise. I agree with Members that this should not be at the expense of the Members' right or ability to say what they want to say. Here, I want to assure Mr Low. In fact, at the end of Mr Low's speech just now, he said, "I have said my piece", and he sat down. Basically, he has said what he wanted to say and he made his point and he sat down. He has done so many, many times in this Parliament. Nobody has stopped him. If he has been stopped or guillotined, it is the same guillotine that has been exercised on PAP Members. He has not been treated any differently. So again, I do not see where, how or when Members feel their rights to speak have been curtailed.”
“But suffice it to say that I am aware that there are rules and guidelines as to what questions can and cannot be asked. Whether it is Erskine May or Standing Orders, there are, again, certain rules in place, and I think Mr Tan himself is aware of those rules. Next, as to the accusation that we are over-zealous in making Parliament too efficient, that we are sacrificing Members' rights, here I must confess that I am all for making sure that we do not go overboard, that in trying to make Parliament extremely efficient we forget about some of the practices or rituals of Parliament. I think we should keep the rituals of Parliament as far as possible. It is important for us to maintain the dignity of Parliament. But it does not necessarily mean that in doing so we do not change anything, that we maintain the status quo. We have actually made changes. In fact, some of the changes were made when Mr Tan was the Speaker. I remember very clearly that, in the past, when we took divisions, we had to go around, the Clerk would call each name, and then there would be a vote taken. Subsequently, one day, we had an electronic system whereby, instead of having your name called one by one, you pressed the button and you indicated your vote and your vote appeared on the scoreboard. Does that demean Parliament? I do not think so. It is just a more efficient way of doing things, making use of technology that is available. So, it is probably jumping the gun, if I give Mr Tan the benefit of the doubt in saying that. There is really no cause for alarm. We are not seeking to make Parliament so efficient and so technical and mechanical that it loses its meaning. So, why do we make changes? Why are the Standing Orders changed, for example, to allow Oaths of Allegiance to be taken from his place?”
“" Surely this is not something that we want. So, the question is: if it is not unreasonable to have a limit, then what is the limit? Again, here I must admit that the Committee has been rather arbitrary. Why five? If we look at the other parliaments, India has five in total, ie, one oral, four written. Yes, India has many, many more Members than us. Canada has four in total, ie, three oral, one written. Malaysia has three oral questions but, in a session, they can have 10 and five, which means if we compare it per session, it will probably be three oral and two written, ie, five in total. So, we decided a reasonable figure, more than some of the others perhaps, but just about the same ballpark, let us keep the limit at five, but let us keep the oral questions at three and the written ones at two. Is this onerous? So, we went back to the records and we checked. We looked at what Members had asked over the last two years and we discovered that each Member, on the average, asked two questions per sitting. So, are Members being gagged as a result of this new rule? Have they been gagged in the past? The answer is no. And, as Mr Tan himself mentioned, over the last few years, Members have not really been asking that many questions, so why the rule? As I have explained, this is in order to make sure that we do not have a runaway situation in future. And the total number of questions that are asked is, by the way, per sitting. In other words, if we have two sitting days, it is actually double that figure. So, I think that Members would be reassured that there is more than sufficient room for questions to be asked. What about questions that have been asked but have not been answered? This is really left to the prerogative of the Speaker to answer and I will not comment on that.”
“And I have made this point very clear in my speech also. As I said, I hasten to assure Members that it is not the intention of the Committee to prevent Members from asking questions. Sir, what was a fairly simple exercise in trying to update the rules of Parliament, to update the Standing Orders to bring it in line with what other parliaments and jurisdictions are doing, has been viewed with much suspicion. All I can say to Mr Tan and Mr Low is that there is no such intention. We are not doing something that is beyond the curve. We are not doing something extraordinary. We are doing something which other reputable parliaments are also practising. I mentioned a few of them. I did not mention many others as well. Mauritius has a limit. Trinidad and Tobago have a limit but, if I use those examples, I guess comments will be made as to whether we should be comparing ourselves with those parliaments, but they are respectable parliaments too. However, I thought it only sufficed if I mentioned Malaysia, Canada and India, because these are parliaments which we are familiar with. So, first of all, should we have a limit? Is it wrong to have a limit? We already have a limit for oral questions. There is nothing unusual about that. Now we are saying, "Let us have a maximum for total number of questions, including written ones." Is that unreasonable? Other parliaments do it, why not us? Why are they doing it? It must be for the same reason that we are trying to do this, ie, to make sure that there is no situation that one day perhaps somebody will come along and say, "Look, here are 1,000 questions for written answer", or somebody putting on the Internet and saying, "Look, anybody who has any questions, please submit them to me and I will file them in Parliament next week.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have always listened to Mr Tan Soon Khoon's speeches in Parliament with great interest and a lot of respect for several reasons, which I think Mr Low Thia Khiang has mentioned. One, as a former Speaker of Parliament, he speaks with great authority and he has a very deep knowledge of the subject, particularly Standing Orders. Two, as a very senior Member of this House, he has a great store of knowledge, wisdom and experience. For these reasons, his speeches have always been hard-hitting and to the point. Sometimes, I may not agree with it, but I think every Member in Parliament has a right to say what he or she feels. In that regard, being a senior Member not just of this House but also a former Speaker of Parliament, he must know that it is not the intention of the Government or of Parliament to restrict the Members' right to speak. Indeed, I think he has himself on many occasions had had to stop Members from speaking. Why? Because there are certain rules that are in place in Parliament. This is not a free-for-all. This is not the coliseum, a Roman arena where people do whatever they like. There are rules in Parliament, and this is what Standing Orders is all about. Sir, the question before this House is: what kind of rules do we put in place to make sure not just that there is fairness, efficiency and equity, but that everybody has a chance to say what he or she feels, Members of the Government as well as Members of the Opposition, and Members of the Frontbench and Backbenchers? This is a very basic tenet of parliamentary democracy. Surely, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, and Mr Low Thia Khiang who has also agreed with Mr Tan, must know that we in Parliament have never faced any sense that we are not allowed to speak.”
“In such an event, the proceedings on the business of Supply shall be postponed until after the Bill or motion is disposed of. Opportunity is also taken to update certain Standing Orders to reflect the current practice, such as sending and receiving notices by electronic means, as well as to rephrase some Standing Orders to avoid ambiguity. Moment of interruption The Committee has recommended that the moment of interruption be shifted from 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm since our sittings usually go beyond 6.00 pm; sometimes they go beyond 7.00 pm. However, if Parliament decides to adjourn earlier during the debate in the Committee of Supply or during the debate on the President's Address, a motion can be moved to suspend Standing Orders. Other Amendments The last group of amendments are mainly drafting amendments to standardise certain terms and update the terminology used in the Standing Orders. Some of the amendments are also consequential amendments. Sir, the amendments proposed would facilitate the conduct of parliamentary business and ensure that Parliament functions more effectively and efficiently. I therefore commend Members to adopt the Report of the Standing Orders Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Hence, the amendment to Standing Order No. 89 provides for this change. Amendments to Procedures and Current Practices Question Time/conversion of questions The amendments under the next category "Amendments to Procedures and Current Practices" are to formalise the sitting time of Parliament and to make consequential changes to the times of business specified in the Standing Orders. In April 2003, Mr Speaker announced in Parliament that the commencement time of sittings of Parliament would be changed from 12.30 pm to 1.30 pm with effect from 25th April 2003. Consequent upon the change of the commencement time, Mr Speaker also revised such other times specified in the Standing Orders. These revisions are now incorporated in the proposed amendments (Amendment Nos. 14(d), (e), 16 and 20). Amendment No. 19 also formalises the extension of Question Time from one hour to one-and-a-half hours as resolved by Parliament on 2nd April 2002. Amendment No. 18 allows a Member to convert a question for written answer to a question for oral answer, or vice versa. However, the requisite notice period for such a request must be given. Members will also be given more time to indicate their intention when they want to postpone or withdraw their questions for oral answer, if they have not been dealt with by the end of Question Time. They can inform the Clerk of their intention at any time prior to the termination of the sitting. Currently, they must do so by the end of Question Time. Introduction of Bills and moving of business motions before Supply business commences Amendment No. 36(b) formalises the practice of allowing the introduction of Government Bills and business motions to be moved before the business of Supply commences.”
“Motion to debate on a specific matter/Ministerial Statement Currently, in all cases, when Parliament wishes to debate on a matter under Standing Order No. 42, the term of the motion is, "That Parliament do now adjourn." To be more specific on the matter to be debated, Amendment No. 12 provides for the subject matter to be expressed in direct terms. For example, if it is intended to allow for debate on a Ministerial Statement such as "Retuning the CPF", a motion can be moved "That the statement on "Retuning the CPF" be considered by Parliament.". Whereas, under the existing provision, the term of the motion will be, "That Parliament do now adjourn." Incidentally, although Standing Order No. 10 lists "Ministerial Statements" as one of the items of business, no substantive provision has been made for it in the Standing Orders. Hence, Amendment No. 3, which is a new amendment, provides for such a provision in the Standing Orders. Members can continue to ask for clarifications on a Ministerial Statement. Amendments in Committee of Supply The last amendment (Amendment No. 13) under this category relates to the debate in the Committee of Supply. Currently, Standing Order No. 89 provides that Members wishing to move amendments in the Committee of Supply can file their amendments on matters of policy or details, in other words, either a $100 cut or a $10 cut. In fact, over the past five years, we have found that most of the amendments filed (more than 90%) were on matters of policy rather than on details of implementation. The Standing Orders Committee has therefore proposed to remove the distinction between $100 and $10 cuts, in other words, on matters of policy and detail, and confine amendments in the Committee of Supply to just $100 cuts.”
“Having considered the practices in other parliaments, the Committee has proposed that a Member may have up to five questions on the Order Paper at any one time and not more than three of these questions shall be for oral answer, which is the present practice. Though the amendment may place a cap on the number of questions for answer, I hasten to assure Members that it is not the intention of the Committee to prevent Members from asking questions. It is the legitimate right and duty of an MP to ask questions in Parliament. Ministries, on their part, welcome them as an opportunity to explain and clarify Government policies or programmes. However, there must be a reasonable limit to the number of questions that are filed for answer, as has been done in other parliaments. That is why the Committee is proposing that we have some restriction on the number of questions asked. Based on Parliament's records, a total of 657 questions for oral and written answers were filed by Members during the last two years. This works out to an average of two questions per Member whose questions appeared on the Order Paper. So the limit of five questions per Member per sitting should not pose a problem for Members. Amendment No. 11 inserts an additional rule governing the contents of questions. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that questions are not excessively long and do not range so wide as to detract from its focus. The present practice of allowing multiple parts to a question is unaffected by this rule so long as the question does not cover a plethora of issues. In framing their questions, Members should try to be succinct and concise and should exclude preambles, contexts and background information on matters which are already public knowledge.”
“Term of a Standing Select Committee The Standing Orders Committee has similarly proposed that the term of Sessional Select Committees, for example, the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee, be for the duration of a Parliament and that the business and proceedings before such a Committee shall not lapse by reason of a prorogation. As the term of these Committees will no longer be for a session, they shall henceforth be known as Standing Select Committees. Substantive Amendments Oaths of Allegiance Under the category of "Substantive Amendments", Amendment No. 9 gives the Speaker the flexibility of determining the manner of taking an oath or affirmation of allegiance at a place other than at the Table. For instance, Members may, in future, take their oaths from their seats or in groups. Questions for oral/written answer The next amendment under this category (Amendment No. 10) makes provision for the number of questions that a Member can ask for oral and written answer. Currently, Standing Orders allow for a maximum of three questions for oral answer per sitting. They are silent on the total number of questions, including those for written answer. The Committee has considered the provisions in other parliaments. For example, in Lok Sabha (India), a Member can ask not more than five questions per sitting, one of which can be for oral answer. In Canada, a Member is allowed to ask four questions per sitting, three of which can be for oral answer. In Malaysia, a Member can ask not more than three questions for oral answer per sitting and in one session (there are three sessions per year) a Member can ask not more than 10 questions for oral answer and five questions for written answer.”
“Interpretation of "clear days" In view of the introduction of five-day work week in the public sector, we have defined "clear days" to exclude Saturday for the purpose of calculating the number of days. This is provided for in the Interpretation section in Amendment No. 1. Effect of prorogation on Bills Another new amendment relates to the effect of prorogation on Bills (Amendment No. 6). At present, all Bills which have not been passed or obtained the Presidential assent shall lapse upon prorogation of Parliament. The amendment provides that a Bill shall not lapse upon the prorogation of Parliament and all business and proceedings connected therewith shall automatically be carried over to the next session of the same Parliament. As Parliament is elected for a term of five years, there is no compelling reason for the business not to continue from one session to the next within the term of that Parliament. The amendment also allows a Bill which has been passed by Parliament before prorogation to be presented, after prorogation, to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights for consideration and to the President for his assent. Similarly, the business before any Select Committee shall not lapse upon the prorogation of Parliament and shall be carried over to the next session of the same Parliament and continue from the stage that it had reached in the preceding session. However, when Parliament is dissolved, all Bills will still lapse.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 6 of 2004 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. Sir, under the chairmanship of the Speaker, the Standing Orders Committee has proposed amendments to the Standing Orders (SOs). These amendments have been grouped under four categories, namely: (a) New amendments; (b) Substantive amendments; (c) Amendments to procedures and current practices; and (d) Other amendments. The rationale for proposing the amendments under the above four categories is stated in the "Remarks" column in Appendix I and there is no need for me to elaborate on them. However, I shall highlight the key and substantive amendments made to the current rules and procedures so as to facilitate the conduct of parliamentary business and improve the efficiency of the House. New Amendments Residuary powers of the Speaker Firstly, we have included a new provision to allow the Speaker to rule on all matters of practice and procedure. Currently, Standing Order (SO) No. 105 provides that in cases of doubt the Standing Orders shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the UK House of Commons. With the amendment, the Speaker can decide and rule on the interpretation and application of the Standing Orders but he will be guided by previous Speakers' rulings and established practices of Parliament. However, this does not prevent the Speaker from adopting the relevant practices of Commonwealth Parliaments so far as they may be applicable to us.”
“Basically, we want the office bearer who wishes to resign to make the effort to announce to the general body to give notice that he is going to resign, and also to have them put on notice that nobody is stepping forward. They are now able to resign, and the consequence of this is that the individual subsidiary proprietors will have to bear a liability, both jointly and severally. And this liability is something that has to be made known to them, and this is the reason why we require them to convene a general meeting. On the issue of quorum, why is the 30% removed? I believe the 30% was removed because there was a representation made that the number of 100 SPs is an arbitrary number. The 30% figure is deemed to be fair. Why do you need 100 SPs? The Committee felt that this was a reasonable point, and this is the reason why we felt that we would remove this. The last point that Dr Amy Khor made is probably a good point for me to conclude, and that is to agree with her. Yes, it is important that we keep the channels open. I do not believe that this is the last time that we are going to amend the LTSA, although I hope that we do not have to do it too often because this is a very major exercise. The last time we did it, I think, was more than 10 years ago. At that time too, we went through a very major exercise. But the way we have crafted the Bill allows us the flexibility to make regulations that will allow us to continue to keep or preserve the intent of this Bill. And I hope that many of the feedback that we got will allow us to improve the system or process by changing the regulations. With that, Sir, I thank Members once again for their very useful and very detailed comments. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.”
“For HDB flats, which are not under the STB, the current arrangement will still apply. In other words, the owners of the upper and lower floor flats would share responsibility in maintaining this party structure. HDB will try and adjudicate and try and resolve the problem to the satisfaction of both parties. Currently, there is no plan to change this arrangement. Dr Amy Khor also made several other points concerning some other aspects of the change. She talked about changes in the share values in the phased developments - whether the range of the share values can be kept small in order to make sure that existing subsidiary proprietors are not disadvantaged later on. I agree with her that we should have some guidelines, and BCA will work with the industry to prepare some guidelines to make sure that there is equity both for the existing as well as for future subsidiary proprietors. As regards permitting of alterations to common property, this is a question of where we place that balance - how we balance the interest of the owner/developer and the subsidiary proprietors. We feel that with the special resolution, there are sufficient safeguards. We do not wish, if we can help it, to refer everything to the Commissioner of Buildings for such changes to take place. I believe that this is an arrangement which will find its own balance after a while. If there is blatant abuse of the system, then I would certainly expect the Commissioner of Buildings to get into the act. There were several other points made about resignation of office bearers. Why convene a general meeting to find a replacement?”
“We are not going to back date this to existing developments. We are going to apply this only to new developments. And as we do so, we will also monitor the developments closely, as he suggested, and, if necessary, we will make changes as we go along. On the issue of inter-floor leakages, yes, the reason why we accepted this particular suggestion was a realisation that to be fair, since most of the cases are actually due to the upper floor unit, we should place a rebuttable presumption on them. In other words, it is their responsibility to prove that they are not at fault. That is merely to facilitate the process. The current experience has been that since the upper floor unit is not the one who is suffering the consequences of the leak, there is really no urgency on his part to do anything. So he is the one who would be dragging his feet. He is the one who would not be answering phone calls or answering requests from the MC or the subsidiary proprietor of the lower floor to do something about it. So with this new clause in the Bill, the rebuttable presumption would be on the upper floor unit. The onus is on the upper floor unit to rebut this presumption and prove that the leak is not due to a defect in his unit. Of course, that does not automatically imply that the upper floor unit will have to pay the full cost. It really depends on what each individual case is, and this is where the Strata Titles Board comes into the picture. It is up to the Strata Titles Board to then determine the apportionment of cost depending on the specifics of each case. Let me hasten to add also that this provision only applies to strata developments, because it relates to disputes heard by the Strata Titles Board.”
“These standards have been drawn up in the year 2001, the technical reference on performance of managing agents or TR3. Basically, this sets out basic requirements for MAs to follow. It serves as a reference for MCs to assess whether their estates are properly maintained. What we can do, of course, is to go to the next step and that is to upgrade this TR3 into a Singapore standard where the industry can then use this as a basis to accredit MAs in Singapore. So this has already been done. The industry has launched a system in December 2003 to raise the standard of professionalism in the industry. I support this move, and I hope that we would be able to do more. But whether the Government should mandate that all MAs must be accredited and to write this into the Bill, I do not think it is necessary for us to do so. I think it is an overkill and I have faith that the industry will be able to self-regulate and there are reputable players in the market who should be able to do this. Again, I come back to my point that subsidiary proprietors and MCs must be able to arrive at informed decisions such that their condominiums and properties are well managed. And if they make the wrong decisions, they will suffer the consequences. I hope Members will continue to support this approach, work with the Government and continue to promote this self-regulation process and the authorities, BCA and SPRING, will help them in this process. Dr Teo made several comments concerning two-tier MCs. He basically supported the two-tier MCs but he did also ask that we continue to monitor this process. As I indicated in my Second Reading speech, this is a very new process and this is the reason why we are going to take it in a careful and cautious way.”
“And at the end of the day, many of their suggestions were accepted and incorporated as amendments to this Bill. As Dr Khor pointed out, about three quarters of the representations were accepted either wholly or in part. This is a process which the Government has practised in various forms, particularly in Bills which are of a very highly technical nature and also Bills which affect a lot of people. My Ministry will continue to do this for Bills of this nature and I hope to seek the support of Members. In so doing, we will need to spend time sitting through and interviewing the representors and coming to conclusions. But I think it is time that is well worth spending, as Members will agree. The second important point I would like to address is the issue of accreditation of managing agents. The point has been highlighted, particularly by Dr Amy Khor, on the need for managing agents to be professional. Dr Teo Ho Pin also made the same point. SPs should choose their MAs carefully because MAs are not regulated. Both of these Members understand the current situation. There is a wide range of standards in the industry. There is a wide gulf in the standards between one MA and another. So the question is: who should be doing something about this? My view is that we should continue to encourage the industry to self-regulate. Why? Because I think, first of all, they are the more effective regulators; secondly, they understand the industry better. There is, in fact, already such a self-regulation system in place. The SISV and APFM both operate a self-regulation system. They have an accreditation system. In addition to that, they have also worked with Government agencies, such as SPRING and BCA, to come up with certain standards for the industry to follow.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank both Members for their support of the Bill and also for their many useful comments. Let me try to address the questions that have been posed by the Members but not in the order of how they were posed. Let me try and take what I think are the more important and fundamental ones first, and it is the point which has been made by both Dr Amy Khor as well as Dr Teo Ho Pin - the consultation that we have adopted to try and arrive at this point. Basically, this is a Bill that has got far-reaching implications for many strata title holders in Singapore, as they do have problems with their managing agents. Many people do not come forward to serve for various reasons. And when they do come forward to serve, they do encounter certain problems. So there is a general lack of empathy. And this is the reason why, in the crafting of this Bill, we sought not only to try and address some of the problems of balance of interest between the various stakeholders but also to try and encourage more self-regulation and more involvement of subsidiary proprietors and stakeholders in the management of their estates. That is the reason why we decided to go for this very long consultation process; first of all, an exhaustive process talking to the various stakeholders and then subsequently when we came to Parliament, I accepted the point that was made by Members to commit this Bill to a Select Committee. And then in the Select Committee itself, we again canvassed for a wide range of views and we received a lot of views. More than 60 representations were made and very good representations, I must say. We then went through the process of hearing the representors.”
“Sir, this presumption of liability will make upper floor unit owners more responsive to lower unit owners who have to bear with the inconvenience and distress as long as the leakages remain unresolved. This will facilitate and expedite the resolution of such disputes. Lay-person's guide Sir, this Bill is highly technical in nature and I am concerned that the lay-person will find it difficult to fully understand its content and implications. Therefore, I have asked BCA to publish a lay-person's guide to highlight the changes in the new legislation and the implications to various stakeholders. The guide will provide interpretation of the various aspects of the new Act, as applied to situations commonly encountered by stakeholders. Conclusion In conclusion, Sir, this Bill is the result of very extensive consultations with the public at large and with various industry stakeholders for about 1 1/2 years. It addresses the corporate governance of the MCs, as well as the problems arising from differences among the various user groups and stakeholders. The Select Committee is recommending amendments to the Bill, which will no doubt further improve the framework for strata management and maintenance in Singapore. However, I wish to stress that this will not solve all the problems facing strata developments today. Strata developments are founded on the concept of community living. Individuals own their strata units but share the ownership of common property. Community living requires a certain degree of give-and-take from each resident. He must be aware of his responsibilities and liabilities. Ultimately, the SPs and other stakeholders will have to take on greater ownership of their estates and work together to resolve issues for the common good of the community.”
“This restrictive condition may stifle opportunities for creative developments on White Sites and the upcoming Business and Financial Centre (BFC) at the New Downtown in Marina South. Hence, the Committee has agreed to the proposal to enable developers to better plan and implement mega developments to meet our future demands. A new provision will allow share value for a unit to be stated within a range of values, to be adjusted according to changes in the later stages of development. Developers are required to let would-be purchasers know these conditions upfront so that they can make an informed decision. Other recommendations Provision that made failure to pay contributions an offence Such a provision, making failure to pay maintenance contributions a criminal offence, was removed in the original Bill. This provision is now reinstated following a representation that the threat of criminal sanction is an effective deterrent against SPs defaulting in contributions. MCs are also relying on it to recover outstanding debts owed by SPs. Statutory presumption of liability for inter-floor leakages The Committee has heard that in disputes over inter-floor leakages, the fault is usually with the upper floor unit. This is so in the majority of such disputes heard by the STB. Despite this, the upper floor unit owners tend to be uncooperative, and drag on the dispute resolution process unnecessarily. Therefore, the Committee is agreeable to the proposal that the Bill attributes a rebuttable presumption of liability to the upper floor unit owner for such cases that are handled by the STB.”
“If this happens, the entire body of SPs will then have to bear responsibility for the management of the strata development. Individual SPs will be made jointly and severally liable for the payment of all the MC's debts. If the SPs do not maintain their estate properly, the Commissioner of Buildings will issue a notice to compel them to take corrective actions. A new provision also allows any SP to apply to the STB to compel an election and the appointment of new office bearers. Sir, this is a reasonable approach as SPs must take ownership of how they want their estate to be managed, including stepping forward to hold office in the council. Removal of council member on being appointed managing agent (MA) Many representors are concerned over the discretionary power of the management council to remove a council member, if he is also appointed as an MA. Sir, the MA's appointment is an important decision that has an impact on all SPs. The Committee has therefore agreed that the termination and re-appointment of MAs be done at a general meeting so that every SP will be aware of the decision. At the meeting, the council member who wishes to be appointed MA will have to declare any conflict of interest. Facilitating staged developments - variable initial share values The Committee has considered a proposal for developers to be given the flexibility to vary the share value allotted to units in phased or staged developments. Share values allotted in the first stage of such developments usually need adjustments due to changes in the following stages. At present, developers have to get the consent of all purchasers or SPs in order to change the share value. In practice, this is very difficult to achieve.”
“The Committee has agreed to empower the Commissioner of Buildings to prosecute the "person responsible" for failure to maintain the exterior features of their buildings, and thus endangering the lives or properties of others. These exterior features include windows, airconditioning units, wall tiles and any other elements permanently fixed to the external façade of buildings. The penalty is a maximum fine of $10,000 or 12 months' imprisonment or both. The "person responsible" is defined as the person or entity who has charge of the maintenance or daily control of the external features. This means: (a) Town Councils, for common property in HDB flats; (b) MCs, for common property in strata developments; and (c) Owners, for common property of any other buildings or premises. For openable windows, which are no longer common property, the SPs in strata developments and the flat owners of HDB flats will be deemed as the "person responsible". Encouraging greater ownership amongst SPs Resignation of office bearers Under an existing provision, office bearers in the council (ie, the chairman, secretary and treasurer) are not permitted to resign unless replacements are found. Several representors feel that this is unfair to volunteers, who have to continue in office for many years due to general apathy of fellow SPs. As a result, many are discouraged from coming forward to hold office. The Committee considers this to be a valid point and recommends that office bearers be allowed to resign, regardless of whether replacements are found. However, the office bearer must first notify the MC of his intention to resign and must convene a general meeting to try to find a replacement. Without replacements, the whole council may be vacated.”
“This is so that the MCs can have control over window designs, in order to preserve the uniform appearance of building façades for aesthetic reasons. However, with the high incidence of falling windows in the last four years, which again I have highlighted in this House, for example, there were 19 cases in 2000 and, last year, in 2003, there were 106 cases, the rationale for defining all external windows as common property and the onus on MCs to maintain them are no longer relevant. A re-definition is needed, so that the most appropriate party is made responsible for window maintenance. External windows can be classified into two distinct groups: (a) Those that can be opened, eg, casement, sliding and top-hung windows, and louvres; and (b) Those that are fixed, eg, curtain walls or fixed glass panels. The Committee recommends that windows that are openable be excluded from the definition of common property. As the SPs are the ones who have access and control over such windows, they will be made responsible for their maintenance. However, fixed windows remain as common property and, as such, MCs will continue to maintain them. In addition, the MCs will still retain the ability to regulate window designs for uniformity of the building façade. For consistency, a consequential amendment will also be made to the Town Councils Act to exclude openable windows from common property. These windows will come under the flat owners' maintenance. Maintaining exterior features To inculcate a strong maintenance culture, we need continuing public education. We also need to strengthen our legislation.”
“As soon as the developer starts collecting maintenance contributions, the developer must also contribute to the fund, for the unsold units as well as for the sold units that have not yet been handed over to the purchasers. It is fair that the developer, who has not handed over the units to the purchasers, should contribute to the maintenance fund. However, in several representors' view, requiring developers to contribute to the fund for sold units not yet handed over could pressure them to rush through the handing over and compromise quality and customer service. The feedback is that developers usually need up to three months after TOP to hand over the sold units in large developments. Hence, the Committee has agreed to allow developers a grace period of three months from TOP before starting contributions for unsold units and sold units not handed over. Establishing a maintenance culture Sir, Members have expressed concern over the weak building maintenance culture in Singapore. I share their concern. External windows I have emphasised many times in Parliament this year the danger posed by, for example, falling windows. The Building Control Act has been amended to provide for the Minister to prescribe minimum standards for the design and installation of windows. Existing casement windows in residential buildings are required to be retrofitted with stainless steel rivets. This addresses the upstream safety aspects of design and installation. Sir, we also need to address the downstream aspects of maintenance to be fully effective in addressing the problem. External windows have been defined as common property in strata developments.”
“To ensure that the addition of the fourth category will not result in the proliferation of sub-MCs, qualifying criteria will be prescribed by regulations. Such criteria can include the minimum size or gross floor area of eligible developments. To facilitate dispute resolution under the two-tier MC system, the Strata Titles Board (STB) will be allowed to adjudicate boundary disputes on limited common property between MC and sub-MC, or even among sub-MCs. This would be more efficient and less costly than going to the courts. Balancing the interests of majority and minority SPs - representation in the council In the original Bill, each SP can only have one seat in the council, even if he owns more than one lot. Some representors consider this to be unfair to those SPs with substantial interests in a development. This is because the minority SPs can then dictate the overall management of the development. Sir, it is reasonable to expect majority SPs to want to have a greater say in the management of their assets. Hence, the Committee has agreed to allow owners of multiple lots to have proportional representation in the council according to share value. This is subject to a cap of 49% of the council seats for any one SP. For example, a SP can have up to six seats in a 14-member council, or one seat short of half of the total seats. This is to prevent absolute control by any SP in the council and provide some safeguard to the minority SPs. Balancing the interests of owner developers and SPs - contributions to maintenance fund Sir, the current industry practice is that the developer sets up a maintenance fund for a development after the issue of its Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP).”
“Balancing the different interests of user groups - in mixed-use strata developments The original Bill proposed a two-tier MC system for mixed-use developments, with a main MC and a second tier of subsidiary MCs (sub-MCs) to represent different users, eg, residential and commercial. The main MC manages the property which is common for general use of all SPs. The sub-MCs manage the common property used exclusively by their respective user groups, ie, "limited common property", and they can levy contributions from them for maintenance or improvement. Sir, the two-tier MC system has been tried and tested in other countries, such as Canada and Australia, specifically in the states of New South Wales and Victoria. User groups have flexibility to make their own decisions without being frustrated by other groups who may not share their interest. For example, high-rise residential unit owners can now upgrade their lifts without being hampered by objections from owners of low-rise units without lifts. Likewise, retail shop owners in a mixed development can plan to upgrade the concourse of a shopping area without having to face resistance from residential unit owners. The representations to the Committee generally supported the two-tier MC system. In fact, several representors have asked that the three categories of developments that are allowed to form sub-MCs, namely: (a) residential and non-residential lots, eg, residential apartments and retail shops; (b) non-residential lots used for different purposes, eg, hotels, offices and retail shops; and (c) different types of residential lots, eg, high-rise apartments and low-rise town houses be expanded to include one more category, ie, non-residential lots in distinct office blocks. The Committee has agreed to this.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Select Committee Sir, at its Second Reading in April this year, the House committed the Building Maintenance and Management Bill to a Select Committee. This was because it was likely to have impact on a broad cross-section of the population. The Select Committee has received 61 written representations on the Bill from various stakeholders, including management corporations (MCs), subsidiary proprietors (SPs), managing agents (MAs), developers and lawyers. The Committee has heard oral evidence from 15 individuals or groups, whose views are representative of the stakeholders. It has taken into account these representations as well as Members' views expressed during the Second Reading. The full details are in the Report of the Select Committee, which has been presented to Parliament on 7th October 2004 and available to the public since 8th October 2004. Sir, the Committee has been guided by some key considerations. First, recognising the different interests of stakeholders, the Committee has sought to strike a balance between the interests of majority and minority SPs, and owner developers and SPs. Second, the Committee has been conscious that SPs need to take greater ownership in managing their developments, in line with the intent to promote self-regulation. Finally, the Committee has sought to strengthen the Bill to inculcate a maintenance culture and to facilitate the staging of large development projects. Let me now elaborate on the key recommendations. New short title of Bill The Committee has agreed to change the Bill's short title to "Building Maintenance and Strata Management" to reflect its substantial content on strata developments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. MEDICAL INSURANCE 6.00 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Standing Orders Committee appointed under paragraph 4(a) of Standing Order 96 do consider and report on such amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary." Sir, it is normal practice for the House to review and amend the Standing Orders from time to time to make sure that the business of the House is transacted as efficiently as possible. Members may wish to take this opportunity to submit their proposals on the amendments of the Standing Order to this Committee for its consideration. As the Standing Orders Committee would be meeting soon, Members are urged to submit their proposals to the Committee by 9th September 2004, ie, a week's time. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. "That the Standing Orders Committee appointed under paragraph 4(a) of Standing Order 96 do consider and report on such amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary." CONTRIBUTIONS BY SENIOR MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG”
“On average, we have targeted $5.8 million in cash and in-kind sponsorships. Each year, the National Day Parade, including the National Education show and the Preview, reaches out to a live audience of 180,000, and beyond that, to more than a million Singaporeans at home and abroad, through television and the Internet. The National Day Parade brings together Singaporeans from all walks of life to celebrate our nation's birth, to affirm our unity and to pledge our commitment to the success of Singapore. The parade showcases elements that are uniquely Singaporean – a shared history and heritage; a diverse community living a common destiny; a vibrant, resilient and progressive society with an international outlook. The pride among Singaporeans is evident not just in the tremendous response from the spectators. It is also clear from the enthusiastic commitment of the thousands of participants who volunteer long hours of painstaking preparations for the parade, and in the generous support given by sponsors. CLONED BABIES 12. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the law governing Singaporeans who cloned their babies abroad and bring them into Singapore; and (b) how will the Government know whether a child is cloned.”
“The Government has committed that the majority of Singaporeans would be able to afford a basic HDB flat. Affordability is therefore the key consideration in pricing HDB flats. All HDB flats come with a market subsidy, ie,they are priced below their equivalent market value. Last year, 3- and 4-room HDB flat buyers used, on average, less than 20% of their monthly income to service their monthly loans. It is well within the 40% guideline used by financial institutions in credit assessment. It is also lower than international benchmarks of household expenditure on housing, which are typically around 25% or 30% of household income. This clearly shows that HDB flats remain affordable to Singaporeans. We have consistently adopted an affordability-based pricing system. This has enabled more than 80% of Singaporeans to own their HDB flat. NATIONAL DAY CELEBRATIONS 11. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Defence (a) how are the big posters and billboards showing Members of Parliament celebrating National Day funded; (b) what was the yearly budget allocated for National Day celebrations for the lastfive years; and (c) how have these helped to build up a nationalistic spirit for Singaporeans. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: The National Day big posters and billboards showing Advisors to the Grassroots Organisations are mainly funded by the Grassroots Organisations to enhance the celebratory mood of our National Day. Some of the posters and billboards are also co-sponsored by some of the Town Councils andtwo of the Community Development Councils (CDC). As an average over the pastfive years, the Government has budgeted $6.3 million each year for the National Day Parade. The parade organisers also receive generous contributions from many corporate and individual sponsors.”
“HDB reviews the selling prices of its flats regularly. In doing so, one of the factors that it considers is the prevailing resale price of comparable flats in the vicinity. Prices of HDB resale flats vary according to the market, like other properties. All HDB flats are priced below their equivalent market prices at the point of offer so that buyers enjoy a market subsidy. HDB has some unsold flats which were not taken up as a result of the economic downturn. It has been re-offering these flats for sale, to help increase occupancy rates and improve the safety and security of residents who have already moved into the blocks. Resale prices have declined in the past few years due to the economic downturn. Hence, the prices of unsold new flats that were first offered at the peak of the market have to be adjusted downwards to be in line with prevailing market conditions. However, the adjustments are moderated compared to the fall in resale prices. This helps to stabilise the property market and preserve the value of existing HDB flats. AFFORDABILITY-BASED SCHEME FOR HDB FLATS 10. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the basis and rationale for the Government to choose an affordability-based pricing scheme for HDB flats instead of a cost-based pricing system; (b) whether this affordability-based scheme is taking more money than necessary from the people's savings than for other needs like children's education, medical care and retirement; and (c) whether this affordability-based scheme is turning previously well-affordable HDB flats into a backbreaking financial burden for those hard hit by the economic restructuring and who cannot find jobs with the matching pay.”
“HDB flats are priced at a market subsidy, ie, below their equivalent market prices. Just as first-time flat buyers of HDB resale flats can take up a housing grant of $30,000 or $40,000 and enjoy a discount off the market price of the flat, those who buy new flats from HDB also enjoy a discount off the equivalent market price of the flat. This difference between what a buyer pays HDB for his flat and what it is actually worth in the market is the subsidy provided by HDB to him. The provision of such a market-related subsidy has enabled HDB to keep its flats affordable for Singaporeans. The development costs of flats vary from time to time and contract to contract, due to the particular site conditions, design or location of each project, as well as market and material price fluctuations. While we do not track the cost subsidy for each HDB flat, the overall deficit incurred by HDB for its home ownership activity is reflected in its annual accounts. Over the lastfive years, this deficit has averaged about $530 million per year. PRICES FOR HDB FLATS 9. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how can a similarly subsidised new HDB flat offered by the HDB for sale at S$425,000 three years ago, be now offered for sale by the HDB again at a 27% depreciated price of S$310,000; and (b) how does the HDB resolve the negative impact of such price cuts on existing home owners who had bought the flats from the HDB at the much higher price.”
“HDB charges a 0.1% administrative fee for its loans to cover the costs, such as costs of manpower and computer systems, incurred in managing its mortgage loan accounts. At 0.1%, the administrative fee that HDB charges is lower than what banks charge to service their mortgage loans. As the current fee is reasonable, there are no plans to lower it at this juncture. HDB FLATS 8. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for National Development, after factoring in all the costings, like land cost, construction cost per unit of about S$50,000 and other construction-related costs, costs for piling works, consultancy and project management fees, marketing cost, etc, and the discounted price given to first-time home buyers in the name of €˜market subsidy', what is the actual profit amount and profit margin that HDB will make on each HDB flat.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. SUPPORTING SPORTS EXCELLENCE IN SINGAPORE 6.42 pm”
“No matter what legislation we put in place, no matter how much punitive measures we put into the legislation, there is no substitute for ultimately safety consciousness and the safety culturebeing inculcated and being part and parcel of all the people who are responsible in the industry. With those remarks, I thank once again Dr Teo for his support. And I hope that with this Bill and the support of all home owners, we will be able to drastically improve public safety. 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 Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. HUMAN CLONING AND OTHER PROHIBITED PRACTICES BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“And for regulations to be effective, we also need to have the clout andthe teeth, and this is the reason why there are provisions for fines and also custodial sentences, if necessary. He asked why do we exempt owners of high-rise commercial buildings. In my Second Reading speech, Iexplained that generally the problem does not lie with them. Their buildings are regularly maintained. They do havemaintenance agents who actually maintain these buildings. That is the reason why the figure shows the overwhelming bulk of the cases of fallen windows actually comes from residential buildings and, to a large extent, from the HDB buildings. Dr Teo mentioned about safe design. Yes, as I said earlier, definitely I agree that safety must be designed into the building and development. Should it also involve designing covered walkways? If it is necessary, of course. But I do not think we should require or mandate that everybody should be walking under shelter. Otherwise, we might as well live in a tunnel! As far as safety standards are concerned, yes, there are already in place safety standards under SPRING. The building codes do specify safety standards. But where they are inadequate,we must, of course,endeavour to strengthen them. And this is one area where we have to update the building codes, specifically to SS212 for casement window rivets. The last point that Dr Teo mentioned - I think this is a general point - is that qualified professionals (QPs) must exercise responsibility, there must be a mindset change, we must inculcate in them a sense of responsibility and that no amount of fines will do.In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with him. This is something that we have to keep on doing.”
“But the fact is that you cannot fault the designer and the architect for actually designing windows at that particular point in timeto the standard of the day. Now that the standard has been changed,we are now requiringretrofitting. That is something that we have to do. But I submit, in all fairness, it is not the fault of the design professionals. But, yes, the general point is correct.I agree that when somebody designs a building, it must be designed with safety in mind,with ease of maintenance in mind, andit must also be designedwith ease of construction in mind. I must say that this is part and parcel of the overall responsibility of the professionals. So, should Government regulatethe number of external features or minimise the number of external features? I do not think so. I think we leave it to the professionals, but put the onus on them to make sure that when they do design such things, that it is going to be properly designed, properly anchored and constructed. And, of course, we are now urging home owners, "persons responsible", to make sure that they are properly maintained. Dr Teo also said that it is not fair to put the blame on flat owners who do not know the difference between aluminum and stainless steel rivets. Yes, I think we do need a lot more education of flat owners on how they can better maintain their flats. And this is the reason why HDB last year and together with PAP town councils this year are looking at maintenance manualswhich will better educate flat owners on how they can not only just better maintain windows but also generally maintain their flats and keep them in good condition. The other way, of course, is through regulation, which is what we are doing today. We want to have the regulations in place.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Teo for his very incisive and comprehensive comments and his support for the Bill. I must, first of all, mention the fact that we are dealing with quite a specific problem here - the problem of fallen windows - and this is the reason why I have come to Parliament, on quitean urgent basis, toget Parliament's approval to amend the Building Control Act to allow us to make these changes, specifically to ensure that public safety is not compromised. But I do take his other comments concerning the general safety of public buildings, and I take that in the spirit in which it is given, and that is we need to look at it on a comprehensive basis. I cannot disagree with the fact that the problem is not just a matter of maintenance alone. It starts all the way from design, construction and, of course, maintenance, usage and, finally, environmental factors. We cannot do very much about earthquakes and high winds. I think we can take that into account when we design buildings, which is the first point he made. But I would like to perhaps add a word of caution here in that we cannot be so prescriptive as to regulate the building industry or the qualified professionals to such an extent that we say that theycannot have exterior features or they can only have so many exterior features, etc. Do not forget that our problems are, as I said earlier, windows and air-conditioners.We have dealt with air-conditioners earlier.We are dealing with windows now. You cannot tell the designer not to include windows in his building. He has to put them somewhere. That is where our problem is. We have casement windows particularly that have not been properly installed andmaintained.”
“Sir, the safety of public is of paramount importance with regard to this proposed Bill in regulating the exterior features of buildings. To achieve this, we need to ensure that future buildings in Singapore are designed with minimum or safe exterior features. We must also ensure that persons responsible for the safe performance of exterior features are able to exercise their responsibility diligently, and must exercise their responsibility to ensure the safety of the public. To address this problem, we need to change the mindsets of qualified persons upstream in the building process. Architects and engineers must design more practical and functional building facades, and provide access for maintenance so that flat owners and maintenance organisations can exercise their responsibility to make high-rise buildings safe. Without concerted efforts upstream, we will always have "dangerous" buildings in our built environment. Sir, increasing the penalty will not solve the problem. But increasing the sense of responsibility among all stakeholders is the key to achieve a safe high-rise living and working environment. I hope the Minister would consider my suggestions to regulate the safe design of exterior features of high-rise buildings. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“For example, movable windows or grilles and air-conditioners can be designed to have safety catches or cables to prevent them from falling from heights. Precast concrete sunshades which are cast monolithic with the building structures should be used instead of fixing sunshades of different materials to building facades. We should avoid using tile claddings on building facades as they tend to delaminate due to poor bonding and thermal expansion. Rainwater downpipes should run inside instead of outside buildings to facilitate access for maintenance and prevention from falling from heights. Where possible, avoid plastering building facades which have high sunlight exposure as they tend to experience thermal expansion and cracks if poorly designed and installed. Sir, to ensure the safety of public from falling exterior features of buildings, we must set safety performance standards for these features. Although the Singapore Standard SS212 prescribes specifications for the use of aluminum alloy windows, there is a lack of emphasis on the safe design of windows, grilles and shutters. To date, many exterior features are designed based on building standards overseas which may not be suitable in the local context. I would urge the Ministry to introduce a comprehensive set of Singapore Standards for all specified exterior features as stated in the Bill under clause 2. In this way, designers and contractors can comply with these local standards to ensure better and safer performance of exterior features. To further protect the public, we should design our buildings so as to channel pedestrian traffic at the ground level to covered walkways. This will reduce the chances of persons being injured by falling objects from heights.”
“Frankly speaking, not many flat owners would know the difference between using aluminum or stainless steel rivets for their windows, and its implications on the performance of the windows. Sir, I would like to commend the efforts of HDB in publishing a HDB Residents' handbook in November 2003 to educate its lessees on the maintenance and repair of various building components. I would urge BCA to do likewise for all other high-rise buildings in Singapore, especially with regard to the safe installation and maintenance of windows, grilles, shutters and air-conditioners. At present, there is no clear regulatory guideline on how flat owners should maintain their windows and grilles. Technically speaking, windows, grilles and shutters are relatively maintenance free, except for periodic cleaning. Even window unit air-conditioners, if installed properly, can last many years. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether flat owners have exercised due diligence in maintaining their windows, grilles, shutters or air-conditioners. Sir, the Bill also restricts the responsibility to HDB flat owners and subsidiary proprietors of strata title developments. I do not understand the rationale for omitting owners of high-rise commercial buildings, especially those in the city areas where public traffic is high. I would propose that all high-rise buildings should be covered under the Bill. (3) Safe design of exterior features Sir, instead of focusing on the responsibility of flat owners and maintenance organisations on exterior features, we should explore innovative approaches to improve the design of exterior features of buildings with better safety features.”
“Can I ask the Minister whether architects and engineers should be held responsible for designing exterior features which are difficult to access for construction and maintenance? Sir, although clause 11 of the Bill empowers the Minister to make regulations relating to the design and construction of exterior features and to regulate persons authorised to carry out installations or retrofitting of any exterior feature, it is not clear how this should be regulated. From the experience of maintenance personnel, the simplest solution to prevent exterior features from falling from heights is not to have any of such features on building facades. (2) Due diligence offlat owners Sir, while I agree thatflat owners should exercise more responsibility to keep their windows, grilles and shutters in a serviceable condition, there are problems relating to the exercise of due diligence on the part offlat owners. There is a general lack of information in the industry to help flat owners make informed decisions to select a qualified person or firm to install windows, grilles or shutters properly in their flats. The Building andConstruction Authority should exercise more stringent control to license these qualified persons or firms, and take effective enforcement action against firms which flout the rules. To-date, the extensive sub-contracting system in the industry does not ensure quality installation of windows, grilles and shutters. There should be better traceability and accountability of such qualified persons and firms. Manyflat owners are laymen who do not understand the technicality of building materials and designs.”
“In order to ensure that exterior features of buildings do not fall from heights, we need to adopt a prevention strategy. First, we should minimise the number of exterior features on the facades ofbuildings. Sir, in Singapore, we have far too many buildings with lots of exterior features such as cantilevered architectural features, hanging sun shades, protruding awnings, and extensive tile claddings on the facades of buildings.All these features are attributed to design. Thus, it is necessary for the proposed Bill to regulate the design of exterior features onfacades of buildings so as to reduce the chances of such features falling from heights. Sir, if you observe the high-rise buildings in Tokyo, the external facade design is usually simple and easy to maintain with minimum exterior features. Instead of spending large sums of money onbuilding facades, their designers focus more on the interior design and comfort of its users. In Singapore, you cannot help but feel a littleunsafe when you walk in the housing estate or in the city area. Many of our buildings have extensive exterior features cantilevering or protruding over your head. I hope the Minister can explain why the authorities do not regulate the design of exterior features of buildings in Singapore so as to further enhance the safety of the public. Sir, if a high-rise building is designed with lots of complex exterior features, it makes construction and maintenance difficult. As such, the quality of construction and maintenance of the exterior features will be affected. Who should be held responsible if such complex exterior features were to fall from heights? I believe the designers and contractors must be held accountable. This design and construction responsibility is not featured in the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. In a high-rise and high-density built environment like Singapore,we must ensure that both building users and the general public are safe from objects falling from heights. The recent cases of falling windows from high-rise buildings have raised much safety concern among the general public. Over the last two years, more than 100 windows had fallen from high-rise buildings. We are fortunate that no fatality has occurred. Sir, the authorities must address this safety issue urgently; otherwise, there may be adverse consequences. Sir, I support the Bill which aims to provide a framework for the regulation of specific exterior features on building facade which pose danger to the public if they should fall from a height. I also support that persons responsible for the maintenance or daily control of the specified exterior features should be held accountable if these features fall from heights. But the Bill falls short of taking a holistic approach in tackling the problem of falling objects from all high-rise buildings. Let me elaborate the shortcomings of the Bill. (1) Prevention strategy Sir, to prevent exterior features from falling from heights, we need to address the root of the problem. Why do exterior features such as windows, grilles, air-conditioning units, tiles, gutters, rainwater downpipes and various other features that are permanently installed on building facade fall from heights? There are five possible causes of such failures: (1) poor design; (2) poor construction; (3) poor maintenance; (4) poor usage; and (5) environmental factors such as wind, rain, ultra-violet light, earthquake and air pollution.”
“Periodic inspection of buildings Currently, the Act requires owners of commercial buildings to carry out periodic inspections at 5-yearly intervals and residential buildings at 10-yearly intervals, after obtaining their Certificates of Statutory Completion (CSCs). The purpose of the inspections is to ensure that structural defects can be detected and rectified early, in order to keep our buildings structurally sound. This is especially important as our buildings age over time, and wear and tear start to set in. However, some buildings may not obtain their CSCs for several years after obtaining their Temporary Occupation Permits (TOPs). Hence, the Bill proposes to amend the Act so that the first structuralinspection will be conducted at the specific number of years after obtaining the TOP or CSC, whichever is earlier. Composition fine The Building Control Act and the Building Control Regulations are aimed at protecting public safety. To provide greater deterrence against contravention of the Act and the Regulations, the Bill proposes to raise the cap on composition fine from $400 to $2,000. Sir, in conclusion, this Bill will provide a framework for regulating upstream the design and installation of exterior features of buildings. Where necessary, the Minister will issue orders to require specific exterior features to be retrofitted to the required standards to ensure public safety. However, I must stress that the owner needs to make the effort and continue to properly maintain these exterior features after they have been installed or retrofitted. My Ministry will introduce provisions in the Building Maintenance and Management Bill that is currently being considered by a Select Committee, to require external features to be properly maintained.”
“Windows that have been installed for 5 years or more will have to be retrofitted. The retrofitting requirement will apply only to existing casement windows in residential buildings. Non-residential buildings will be exempted. This is because most of the reported cases of fallen windows involved casement windows of residential buildings. Non-residential buildings are normally maintained regularly to ensure that the buildings, including windows, are in good condition. Notwithstanding the grace period or the exemptions, I strongly urge all owners to retrofit their windows as soon as possible, in the interest of public safety. All installation and retrofitting of windows must be carried out by contractors approved by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA). BCA will register these approved contractors under the existing Contractor Registry System (CRS). We will make available the list of approved contractors to the public before 1st October this year. Nevertheless, if the residents wish to retrofit their windows before the legislation is made effective, they can obtain a list of HDB trained window contractors from their Branch Office or from HDB's Infoweb. These contractors have undergone the necessary training by HDB and are competent to carry out the retrofitting of windows. To keep the retrofitting cost low, BCA and HDB will work with managing agents for private housing estates and Town Councils respectively to do en bloc retrofitting wherever possible. Other amendments Sir, apart from the amendments related to exterior features, my Ministry is also proposing other amendments to provide for more effective administration of the Building Control Act.”