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 26 of 61.
“My question is: why could they afford to change the windows in the first place? I think in such a circumstance, it is also necessary, if there is a need to, for them to also look at their own windows, inspect them, and if it is necessary to change, they would have to bear the full cost of changing. But where it is a HDB-installed window, then the 50% co-sharing paying kicks in. Madam, even while we are standing here arguing about who is responsible and who should pay, I would like to appeal to all high-rise residents to act now and minimise the danger of falling windows. Act now, check your windows straight away. If they are not in safe condition, get them fixed before they fall off and hurt or kill somebody. HDB residents who are in doubt can approach the Branch Office for assistance. At the end of the day, what is this all about? It is not about creating jobs for contractors, as some members of the media have mentioned. It is not about HDB ducking responsibility or the Government ducking responsibility. It is about getting residents to play their part in making sure that our high-rise living environment in Singapore is safe and a pleasant one. It is about minimising risk to life and limb. It is about saving lives, and the lives that we save could be our neighbours, friends, loved ones, or even ourselves. Madam, I turn now to Mr Chiam's question about window inspection fee and also the banning of casement windows. Yes, BCA had earlier proposed mandatory periodic inspection of windows. The reason behind that was that they wanted to make sure that the windows are absolutely safe, and there is a certain minimum standard of safety.”
“So, when we talk about apportioning responsibility, we have to accept that it is not entirely the responsibility of the window contractor, developer or installer, but also the responsibility of the owner. I think this is one fact that has to be established. It is not the same as designing a car wrongly, whether it is a Mercedes A class or whatever, and then having to recall those cars. These are things that have been designed according to the standards and yet have failed after many, many years. I think it is fair for all the parties involved to take some responsibility. It is certainly not correct to say that owners are not responsible at all. It is the responsibility of the home owner to maintain his windows and other fittings in his flat in good condition. Whether it is stated in the lease or not, I think it is common sense. To argue, therefore, that HDB should continue to pay for the full cost of retrofitting the windows, because they fitted them in the first place, irrespective of how long that has been - five years, 10 years, even 20 years for some of the cases - I think does not make sense. Nevertheless, to help those flat owners improve the safety of their windows, HDB will carry out a one-off goodwill rivet replacement programme for the casement windows that were earlier installed by HDB, and it will co-share 50% of the cost. And this is strictly on a goodwill basis. Those who are in financial difficulties, as Mdm Halimah asked, can approach HDB Branch Office for assistance, and there can be some consideration made to allow them to pay the retrofitting cost by instalments. But it is not tenable for HDB to pay for those who have retrofitted their windows themselves. The question was asked: what if they cannot afford it?”
“Because even with proper design and installation, even if it is designed to the highest standard and here I must say - it is very well to say that everybody should know that aluminium does not last very long and that we should have switched to stainless steel - but at the time when these windows were installed, the industry standard was aluminium, not just in Singapore, the PSB SPRING standard, but internationally. Everybody installed aluminium casement windows with aluminium rivets. So, even with proper design and installation, windows can become unsafe over time, because you cannot expect the window to be installed and last forever and ever. Windows can become unsafe because they are subject to constant usage and to high wear and tear, like all things. And without regular maintenance and repair, screws, rivets, even stainless steel rivets can break or become loose, causing windows to fall. The majority of windows which have fallen in HDB flats are between 8-13 years old. It is not as if they were installed and they start falling overnight or within a few years. Three quarters of the windows that fell have been installed by lessees themselves. They were not the original windows. So, it is clear to me that the windows did not fall due to poor design or installation by HDB. HDB has been following the industry's standard. It has installed the windows according to the prevailing quality standards of the time, both new and upgraded flats. Between 1987 and 1998, aluminum rivets were used because they were the accepted industry standards. Where standards have risen, HDB has followed suit. In fact, HDB was ahead of the industry standard when it switched to stainless steel rivets in 1998, although the revised industry standard was adopted in the year 2000.”
“Madam, first of all, falling windows. This topic has been the subject of much public debate recently. Members have asked why HDB residents should bear half, or indeed, all of the cost of retrofitting their windows. Let me first of all explain why we are taking such an apparently drastic action, as Mdm Halimah put it. The number of falling windows has risen sharply in recent years. I quoted some statistics in Parliament. In 2001, 17 cases; 2002, 48 cases; 2003, 106 cases. We have been lucky so far. Only three minor injuries have been reported due to falling windows. In spite of the increased publicity since BCA and HDB had a joint press conference on 20th February, we have not seen a drop in the number of windows falling. In fact, we have had another 10 new cases since then - three a week. Do we have to wait for somebody to get killed or hurt before we take this seriously? I hope not. 5.15 pm The next question is: whose responsibility is this? Is it the designer's responsibility, the installer's responsibility or resident's responsibility? To answer that question, I think we have got to go back to why windows fail. They fail due to poor design at the start, poor workmanship when they are installed or poor maintenance. Architects, developers and contractors have a duty to ensure proper design, manufacture and installation. I agree with Dr Teo, as endorsed by Mr Chiam, that we have to legislate upstream. In other words, we have got to make sure that the architects design it properly; contractors install it properly; the developers make sure that they have the right standards. All these will ensure that we tackle one part of the problem, but this is only part of the problem.”
“Basically, in the hierarchy, the MUP is the one that encompasses everything. It encompasses the IUP, LUP, everything. So, basically, what Dr Tan is asking for is to have MUP for everybody. That is, essentially, what had been happening in the past until we introduced IUP when Members of this House urged a sort of MUP-minus to be implemented because obviously not everybody could wait for MUP. That was the genesis of the IUP. Then came the Lift Upgrading Programme, which is a stand-alone package, separate from the MUP. But, to put it very simply, what Dr Tan is asking is: can we implement MUP for everybody? Keep it to a trimmed down version of the MUP, where you do lift upgrading, works within the flat, some works in the precinct. I think essentially that is what he is asking for. And, yes, as I said, that is part of the review that we are undertaking. He may think that it may be cheaper, but I just like to explain to him that if we put all those items in the list, and the menu starts to get longer and longer, it is not necessarily as cheap as what we are doing today. Maintenance of HDB Flats”
“If you want to buy a resale flat, if you are a first-timer, you can make use of a housing grant - $30,000 if you are buying a flat anywhere and $40,000 if you are buying a flat in close proximity to your parents. You can also use the housing grant for ECs. So, it is not something new. But the question that Mr Iswaran is asking is whether we can do so universally and to apply this housing grant for all flats and also for private flats. These are very important and serious questions to be asked and to be studied. If we are going to allow the use of the grant for new flats, then obviously, the pricing of the new flats cannot be at a subsidised rate. It would have to be at the market rate. Then again, do we allow the housing grant to be used for private developments? There are several serious questions involved there. If you can afford a private flat, do you really need a grant? These are questions which need to be asked and will be studied, especially in the context of our plans to open up the public housing sector to private sector participation through various options, as I have explained earlier. This is obviously one of the areas that we will be looking at. I would like to ask Mr Iswaran if he has got any views on this, to pass them on to the Ministry. Madam, I believe I have answered all the questions on this particular section.”
“We introduced LUP in 2001. We introduced IUP Plus in 2002. We reduced the MUP budget per flat in 2002 by something like 30%, so the Standard Package today is about $29,000 where it was about $40,000 before. We reduced the Standard Plus Package from $67,000 to $47,000. Today, we see less of the not-so-essential items like amphitheatres, facade works and extensive landscaping and so on which town councils have fed back to us are more difficult to maintain and therefore to hold off such works if we can. As a result of the reduction in the budget, some of these works have been dropped off the list of things that can be done. We are sensitive to feedback from Advisors and HDB residents when we decide what kind of HDB upgrading programmes to offer. In FY2003, we did not select any new precincts for MUP partly because there are still some precincts that have not yet been polled. We selected 16 IUP Plus and eight LUP precincts, the same as in FY02. I agree with Members, going forward, that careful prioritisation in the upgrading programme will become increasingly important, especially in the context of tighter budgets. I have asked HDB to review the upgrading programmes to see how we can make upgrading even more cost-effective and more beneficial to residents. Madam, I have answered the questions on upgrading. Since I have some time, I will respond to Mr Iswaran's question on the decoupling of subsidies from the purchase of flats. Madam, in principle this is a good idea. It makes economic sense. In fact, we have already implemented such a scheme in the form of a housing grant.”
“So far, 310,000 flats or 60% of the flats which are eligible for upgrading have received some form of upgrading, whether it is MUP, IUP or LUP. Considering that we started the upgrading programme in 1990, I think this is quite an achievement, it is quite a rapid pace. As to how quickly we can upgrade the rest, it will largely depend on the resources that we have available. We need to prioritise our budget, so we cannot upgrade all the remaining flats at the pace that Members would like. But I assure the House that we will certainly do as much upgrading as we can, to as many precincts as possible, within the budget allocated for upgrading in my Ministry. Dr Amy Khor and Mr Ang Mong Seng, amongst others, asked for lifts for low-rise blocks. I empathise with their call. But, again, it is a question of priority. There are still more than 3,000 high-rise blocks that are eligible for lift upgrading that have not yet received this upgrading and have lifts on every floor. Funds earmarked for lift upgrading are finite. Our priority now is on high-rise blocks, where more residents can benefit. As we make further progress on upgrading the high-rise blocks, we can certainly consider bringing some of the low-rise blocks in at some stage. As has been famously said, "Never say never". Mr Iswaran has several questions. First of all, I apologise for not answering his questions earlier on the issue of decoupling of subsidies from purchase. I will touch upon this later on if I have some time. He asked if the MUP budget is well-spent. We recognise that the MUP is a programme that needs to be constantly reviewed to ensure that they remain relevant. In fact, in the whole upgrading programme, if we trace it from 1990 to today, we will see that there have been many changes.”
“Rather than speeding up the programme, we are going to delay the programme even further. Having residents poll and co-pay for the programme actually ensures that the upgrading proceeds at a pace in which people are happy with and gives them a sense of ownership of the programme. It makes them appreciate the programme and realise that if they ask for it, they are prepared for it, then they can have it. On the contrary, if it is free, everybody will be asking for it and it is going to be much more difficult for us to try to assess what is the real need. We have also decided that there must be a high threshold of 75% before we implement the programme. Again, this is because there is a co-payment element. If we just have a simple majority, say, 50%, since all residents have to pay their share of the cost, I think it is not a high enough rate. We have set it at 75%, the same rate for the MUP programme. If we can garner 75% "Yes" votes, then I think that 25% or less who did not vote for it, will not feel aggrieved, as it is an overwhelming majority that has chosen to go for lift upgrading. Dr Ong suggested that the proportion of elderly residents is a criterion for lift upgrading. I agree with him. In fact, this criterion is implicit in the choice of many of the precincts for Lift Upgrading Programme, although I hope he understands that we also need to have other criteria as well. Otherwise, if we just go for the older precincts based on age, many of the not-so-old estates will not be able to enjoy the upgrading. Mr Ong Kian Min asked whether upgrading itself will continue. The answer, of course, is yes. It is a long-term commitment of the Government but it is subject to our fiscal position, whether we can afford to continue to have upgrading and, if so, at what pace.”
“95% of the households indicated that they were satisfied with the Main as well as the Interim Upgrading Programmes (MUP/IUP). This satisfaction level was higher than the previous survey conducted in 2000. HDB also asked them what were the items that they found most useful and most appreciated - covered linkways, upgraded lifts, letterboxes and improved toilets within their homes, these are things that were most appreciated. The overall support level for upgrading is very strong. The overall support level in all the nine precincts that were polled last year for the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was over 85%. For the MUP, apart from Teban Gardens which did not meet the 75% requirement, the other six precincts that we polled in 2002 were all well supported, with "Yes" votes ranging from 82% to 95%. In fact, three precincts received more than 90% for upgrading. So the message for us is loud and clear - that upgrading, especially lift upgrading, is still very relevant, very welcome, and still desired by residents. That does not mean that we do not review from time to time the scope of upgrading. Why do we need to have co-payment for upgrading? Why do we need to poll for upgrading? Dr Ong Seh Hong, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and others have asked why residents have to pay for lift upgrading. Why not treat it like IUP? Madam, contrary to what Members have suggested, lift upgrading is an expensive programme. It is very heavily subsidised by Government. In fact, for some blocks where there are certain physical constraints, the cost of providing lift access to every floor is exceptionally high. If we do not have a co-payment element in it, a lot of our budget for upgrading will be taken up by the Lift Upgrading Programme.”
“Madam, many Members have spoken on this issue of upgrading. Some, like Dr Tan Cheng Bock, have questioned the relevance of the upgrading programmes and suggested that we review them. Others, such as Dr Tan Boon Wan, Mr Ang Mong Seng and Dr Amy Khor, have asked whether we can do more, especially lift upgrading. Let me first reiterate the importance of upgrading. Upgrading is critical in our efforts to keep our housing estates young. As Members rightly pointed out, our estates are ageing. It is like our population, and we really need to renew the older estates, give them a new lease of life. And if you do not have upgrading, over time, very quickly, HDB estates will deteriorate and will become slums, and I do not think any of us wants to see that happen. If that were so, it would defeat the whole purpose of our home ownership programme, which is to provide good quality, affordable housing for our people. So, by improving the living environment, upgrading gives our residents a sense of ownership and pride in their estate, encourages them to remain, maintain the existing ties in their community, and we are also able then to attract new households to come into those estates and give those estates a boost, greater vitality. But, upgrading is not only about aesthetics, renewal or rejuvenation. It is also part of the asset enhancement programme, which gives residents value-for-money and gives them a chance to rejuvenate their homes and their surroundings. 4.45 pm HDB regularly conducts surveys on the upgrading programme. It asks several questions of residents who have lived in completed upgrading precincts. Its latest survey was conducted last year and covered nearly 60,000 households whose flats were upgraded between 1996 and 2002.”
“25 pm Madam, in conclusion, let me say that I do understand why many Members of this House consistently and continuously ask HDB to exercise greater flexibility in the implementation of these rules, whether you are talking about the 30-month debarment rule or you are talking about granting of additional concessionary loans. These rules were introduced to curb excesses and to prevent over consumption and they are still appropriate and necessary. But I wish to assure Members of the House that HDB will exercise flexibility at the margins, will be sympathetic and will assist those who are in genuine hardship. Even so, I hope Members will understand that not all the cases that they bring up, or appeal for on behalf of their constituents, will be approved. Madam, as I said at the start, we have made several significant changes in our public housing policies and this is necessary to keep pace with the changing economy and society. Going forward, even as we consolidate the measures that we have implemented, we will keep on reviewing our policies and programmes to ensure that they remain relevant to Singapore and Singaporeans. But our commitment remains unchanged, and that is, we will provide quality, affordable housing to the people. HDB Upgrading Programmes”
“Our housing stock for rental flats is limited and we really need to make sure that it goes to those who are in greater need for those flats. Having said that, again, HDB does exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis and we do waive the 30-month waiting period if the persons are in severe financial hardship and they are not able to afford alternative housing after the sale of their property. Again, I urge Members of the House to bring any cases that they may have to our attention, in case some of these cases may have slipped through the cracks. I wish to assure Members of the House that HDB will continue to ensure that there are adequate rental flats to meet the demand for such flats among the low income families. But even as we make subsidised rental flats more available to more people, we have to be careful that we do not give rental subsidies to all and sundry. We need to target the rental subsidies to those who need the most. And those whose financial situations have improved, those who are renting flats and have improved their financial status should be encouraged to take home ownership instead. This would then free up the rental flats for those who are truly needy. I think I had mentioned this to Members of the House previously. HDB intends to convert all those rental tenants, existing tenancies, which are open ended, to term tenancy and to implement income-based rental. But, of course, it would take into account the economic situation before doing so and any adjustments would be done in phases. [Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair] 4.”
“So far, about one quarter of the 300 rental applications every month - about 70 to 80 of them come from families earning between $800 and $l,500, and these were families which hitherto had not been able to rent from HDB. Then for those who do not wish, not that they cannot afford, but do not wish for whatever reason, to buy a HDB flat. HDB has relaxed the subletting rules last year to allow more flat owners to sublet their whole flats. I hope that through this way, and over time, a thriving viable rental market in public housing will be created. So far, more than 700 flat owners have rented out their whole flats. They have moved in with their children or they have moved to other properties. But it has been a win-win, they have been able to get rental income, at the same time some of these young couples would have a chance to rent some of their flats. We have no plans to provide rental housing for the better off, for those whose household incomes exceed $1,500. The reason is very simple because, based on current HDB prices, HDB flats are actually very affordable. You consider that your mortgages actually can be paid out from CPF whereas your rental cannot, then I think you will realise that it makes very good sense, not just from the investment point of view, but also from the cashflow point of view, to actually buy rather than rent. Now, I come to the 30-month debarment policy, many Members again have asked whether we can relax this policy of 30-month debarment for HDB lessees as well as private property owners from renting a flat. Why is this policy necessary? We really want to prevent the existing property owners from competing for subsidised rental housing with other low income families who may have more pressing housing needs.”
“This is something that I believe is to be proud of. Because I do not believe there is any other country in the world, developed or developing, that is able to claim this. Should we deliberately restructure our public housing policies and subsidies so that a higher proportion live in subsidised rental housing permanently or for a long period of time? Public housing is more than just providing a roof over people's head. It plays a very critical social role in getting people rooted to the country. It gives people a sense of belonging and to own a home is to own a part of Singapore. It is what makes Singapore worth contributing to and worth defending. We remain committed to encouraging home ownership. Social cohesion is critical, especially for a young and small country like ours, and to give Singaporeans a stake in the country, a stake in the nation, through home ownership is, I believe, the critical bedrock upon which we have achieved social stability and engendered a sense of community and belonging to Singapore. So I would like to urge Members to continue to support the home ownership policy. But, nevertheless, I agree that as our economy restructures, there will always be some low income households who may have difficulty sustaining home ownership. There will always be those, like the young couples that Mdm Yu-Foo mentioned, who are not ready to commit to home purchase. So for these people, subsidised rental housing may be a better option until they are ready and able to buy a HDB flat. For the low income, we have the Public Rental Scheme and October last year, the Government made subsidised rental housing more readily available for the lower income households by raising the monthly household income ceiling, from $800 to $1,500.”
“And the majority of the unsuccessful appeals were rejected mainly on two grounds. The first was when the lessees were deemed to be able to finance their flat purchase from the sales proceeds of their existing flats. So when you consider the proceeds from your flats and you net off the outstanding loan, in many cases, they would have quite a large sum of money which would enable them to buy or rent another flat. But the second category are those who are really not financially ready to buy a flat in the first place. In other words, they did not meet HDB's credit assessment guidelines either because they did not have a job or they had already extended themselves in other areas. Nevertheless, HDB will continue to exercise flexibility during this period. It will take into account buyer's economic circumstances and, of course, if MPs come across such cases, I would urge them to either write to the Ministry, myself, my MOS or my SPS, and we will consider their requests for concessionary loans taking into account, as I said, their individual circumstances. But the policy on not granting concessionary rate loans to those categories of people will remain. Sir, let me now turn to the issue of rental flats or, more correctly, the issue of home ownership versus rental. Again, many Members have asked what are our plans to meet the increasing demand for rental flats. They have brought up this very fundamental issue which is whether we should continue with our home ownership policy or whether we should move towards some kind of a rental policy. Which is better for us? Sir, home ownership is the foundation of our public housing programme. It has been a success. Over 85% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats and the majority of them, almost 95% of them, own their flats today.”
“Obviously, it is not tenable for us to continue to have such a generous loan policy. Not only does it encourage over consumption, but I think there is a limit as to how much money we should put aside for housing loan subsidies. And we should really target those who need it most, ie, the first timers and those who are able to upgrade as to encourage them to better themselves. Those who have already enjoyed a concessionary loan, or who are buying a flat of the same or smaller size, are not eligible for a loan because, generally, when they sell their bigger flats, they have in hand a considerable sum of money as a result of the sale of their flats. So the proceeds from the sale of their flats are sufficient for them to either buy a smaller flat or to rent a flat. This is the reason why we have limited the second loan and not allowed them to take a second loan. The majority of flat buyers who have approached the banks and the financial institutions for a second loan have been able to do so successfully. But, of course, again the small numbers who are not able to do so for a variety of reasons have come back to HDB for concessionary loan. I explained in this House last year that HDB would exercise flexibility and would grant another concessionary loan to downgraders who are in severe financial hardships, and these include retrenchment or severe pay cuts, or business failure, illness, death of the breadwinner, and so on. This is a temporary measure. It will help lessees to cope with the CPF changes that were implemented last year as well as the economic downturn. I wish to inform the House that so far, we have processed more than 600 appeals for such concessionary loans. We have approved about 12%, about 80 of them.”
“In this regard, Members know that HDB has put in place a wide array of financial assistance measures to help flat lessees who have difficulty paying their mortgage loan instalments. They can extend their loan repayment. They can defer in certain cases. They can reduce their local instalments in other cases. By and large, I think these schemes have come in very handy and there are many flat owners who have taken advantage of these schemes to tide over their temporary financial hardships. But, as always, there are those who cannot be helped by these schemes. They are in severe financial hardship. And I agree with Members that downgrading to a smaller flat, a more smaller flat, a more affordable flat, would be effective in alleviating their financial burdens. Dr Maliki, Mr Ong Kian Min, Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed and Prof. Chin have also asked whether HDB can grant concessionary loans to downgraders purchase another flat, whether we should change the policy. According to Prof. Chin, I am not supposed to answer, but I will anyway. This is something that has occupied the minds of the Ministry and HDB. Ever since we ceased the granting of concessionary market rate loans for flat buyers, since 1st January 2003, we have had a considerable number of requests or appeals from people wanting to continue to have a market rate loan from HDB because they cannot get one from the bank. 4.15 pm Let me explain, first of all, that when we implemented this policy, we wanted to ensure that subsidised loans are given to those who need them most. There was a time when you could actually go to HDB to get not just the first subsidised loan, not just the second subsidised loan, you could even get a third subsidised loan from HDB.”
“Those who choose to buy a resale flat near their parents also enjoy a higher housing grant of $40,000, instead of $30,000 for the others. Again, more than 50% of couples take advantage of this. This is already very generous and we do not have any plans to increase the housing grant any further. For the public rental scheme, those who are earning $1,500 monthly and above, we have liberalised the subletting rules, again, allowing more young couples, if they so wish, to rent. If they do not wish to rent from HDB, they can rent from the open market. Again, we have relaxed the subletting rules. HDB estates are also designed to be family-friendly, whether it is in terms of ramps, void deck space for elderly care or childcare facilities, or whether it is in terms of elder friendly features in their flats. The provision of sufficient elderly care, infant care, childcare facilities in the HDB estates is something that is looked at very closely. I recall every time I visit the branch offices and I get a briefing from them, one of the main briefing items is on the provision of facilities, especially facilities for children, elderly, kindergarten facilities, social day-care facilities and so on. And there are planning norms in place for each of these facilities. Where the facilities are not up to the norm, additional facilities are provided. I would like to assure the Member that these pro-family policies will continue to be in place and monitored closely. Sir, finally, let me move on to an issue which has attracted the attention of many Members of this House and rightly so, and this is the concern about providing assistance to households who are in financial difficulty. As a general guiding principle, the Government will help those who are prepared to help themselves.”
“I believe it has and I think the results show for themselves. It has started to build show flats. It has conducted tours of the estates in which they are trying to sell the flats, to try and interest buyers, to show the buyers what a wonderful estate they are moving into. This is where, I believe, the work of Members of Parliament and the work of the Town Councils have an impact. Because where the estate is well maintained, well provided in facilities, that is a great plus for buyers. The HDB has also taken up television advertisements and advertisements in the newspapers. Last, but not least, and very importantly, they have also adjusted their pricing. Obviously, they cannot keep their prices fixed and expect buyers to accept whatever they sell those flats at. Yes, HDB has been able to learn from the private sector and has adjusted its practices accordingly, with success. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked about the number of flats that have not been taken up. Currently, HDB has about 10,000 flats available for sale - about 8,000 in the non-mature estates and 2,000 in the mature estates. They are continuing to market them and to sell them to people through the various allocation systems. Now, let me respond to Mrs Yu-Foo's questions about pro-family policies. I think HDB's policies are very pro-family. For example, under the balloting exercise, couples are given priority allocation if they want to buy flats near their parents through some weightage system. Although it is a balloting exercise, they are given additional weightage. So far, the records show that about 40% of all applicants have taken advantage of this scheme. So, it is a very high percentage of people who have benefited from such priority allocation scheme.”
“What HDB has implemented last year, Build-to-Order system, meets this objective, as flats are only built when there is sufficient take-up and demand. Yes, it does create some uncertainty, as Dr Khor pointed out, but I submit that that is part and parcel of letting people be aware that we cannot simply be building ahead of demand, having flats ready waiting for buyers. And if the buyers, for one reason or another, change their mind, we have those flats just sitting on the shelf. That is an untenable situation and this is the reason why there is a need for us to better match supply and demand through the BTO system. But that is not the only way we allocate flats, as the last few years have demonstrated. Other than the BTO system for new contracts, we have also implemented the Balloting Exercise (BE), whereby surplus SERS flats in mature estates that are no longer needed for rehousing the SERS lessees are put up for balloting for members of the public. We use the balloting method because these flats in the mature estates are in very high demand and is always over-subscribed many times. So, we need to allocate them by ballot. The third method of allocation is the Walk-in-Selection (WIS) scheme. This is used in situations when there is ample supply of flats. In the non-mature estates, for example, in Jurong and Woodlands where there is ample supply, applicants can walk in and literally pick a flat off the shelf. They can buy it at any time. This is even better than what Dr Khor was suggesting -- to have a WIS every day. This is more than every day. This is 24 hours if you use the Internet. This is a very effective system for clearing surplus flats in non-mature estates. Has this been successful? Has HDB been proactive, pro-consumer, pro-market?”
“And those balance units that are not taken up by the SERS lessees will then be offered for sale to the members of the general public. The income ceiling for the purchase of these new 3-room flats will be set at a higher level than the current income ceiling for the sale of 3-room buy-back flats. It will be set at $3,000. This is higher than the ceiling of $2,000 for the same 3-room buy-back flats, but this is still lower than the $8,000 for the purchase of 4-room and larger flats. The reason for this is that we want to ensure that the 3-room flats that we are building will continue to be kept for those who are in the 50th percentile and below, which is what the income ceiling of $3,000 represents. All those who have household incomes higher than the 50th percentile should, strictly speaking, go for the 4- and 5-room flats. All the other eligibility conditions, such as citizenship, household nucleus, etc, will continue to apply. Sir, I now turn to the question by Dr Teo on the supply and demand of HDB flats. Dr Teo asked how HDB projects housing demand. This is a very difficult task, I assure him. Housing demand is very dynamic. It is affected by many factors - state of the economy, employment outlook, confidence level, the demographics, such as household formation, the profile of the population and so on. Demand can also change quickly due to unforeseen circumstances. The SARS crisis last year had a significant and immediate impact and housing demand fell sharply, both new as well as resale and, of course, in the private sector as well. Therefore, it is very essential for HDB to have a flexible and yet responsive flat supply and allocation mechanism.”
“In recent years, the prices of 3-room flats have risen sharply, in part, due to the growing demand from singles and also from downgraders. Last year alone, the average valuation of 3-room flats increased by 17.6%. At the same time, the proportion of 3-room flats in our housing stock has declined as a result of a stop in the building programme in 1985. So today, our stock of 3-room flats consists of 220,000, which is about 27% of all HDB flats. When we stopped in 1985, 3-room flats accounted for more than half, or 52%, of the total housing stock. MND has been monitoring these trends carefully. Although the demand from downgraders may abate once the economy picks up, it is also possible that there will be sustained demand for 3-room flats in the future, due to our changing demographics or aging population, as older lessees may opt to downgrade to a 3-room flat so that they cash out and have more to meet their retirement needs. Sir, I am pleased to inform the House and the Members who have spoken in support today that HDB will resume building 3-room flats for sale to the public. This is in line with HDB's core mission of providing affordable, quality housing. The new 3-room flats will be offered for sale under the Build-To-Order (BTO) system, and this is to avoid over supply because we try to match the supply and demand as far as we can. Under the BTO system, a contract will only proceed to tender if demand is above a certain minimum benchmark level. The first contract will be launched in the second half of this year, and more details will be released when the flats are ready for offer. We will assess the response and then adjust the supply accordingly. At the same time, we will continue to build new 3-room flats in SERS replacement sites.”
“We have reviewed our policy on 3-room flats as part of the overall review of the role of the HDB, and let me now share with the House our key conclusions. Over the years, the profile of flats sold by HDB has changed, as many Members of Parliament have observed, and this is in tandem with changes in Singaporeans' expectations and living standards. In the 1960s, HDB built predominantly 1- and 2-room flats and that was primarily to ease the very acute housing shortage at that time. Later, HDB started to build 3-room flats, then 4-room flats, 5-room flats and even Executive flats as people wanted better and better housing, bigger and bigger flats. In 1985, HDB stopped building 3-room flats because there was simply very little demand for 3-room flats. Everybody was going for 4-room flats, 5-room flats, and bigger. Subsequently, in 1995, HDB stopped building the top-end Executive flats, preferring to let the private sector build ECs instead. Since 1985, HDB has built 3-room flats only in selected SERS replacement sites, and this is to cater for the 3-roomers who still have a preference for these 3-room flats. So to meet their rehousing needs, we have continued to build 3-room flats for the replacement sites. Now, only 4-room and larger flats are offered for sale to the public. To meet the housing needs of low-income families earning $2,000 per month and below, there is a 3-room flat buy-back scheme, whereby HDB buys back 3-room flats from the resale market, then resells them at subsidised prices to these low-income eligible households. 4.00 pm Sir, I relate this history to reinforce the point that the situation has changed over the years - demand has changed, aspirations have changed. And HDB has had to keep pace with those changes.”
“It is something that has got to be determined by the market and based on willing buyer and willing seller. But for new flats, they will be made affordable. Yet, another point on the issue of affordability, some Members have suggested that HDB consider offering shorter leases - 30-year leases. Those who are familiar with valuations know, and here Dr Amy Khor may be able to bear me out, there is no straight line correlation between the length of the lease and the price of the flat. So, if you were to say, shorten the lease, from 99 years to 60 years, it does not correspondingly reduce the cost of development by one-third. In fact, the valuers say it will just reduce the cost marginally, say, by about 10%. The reason is because land cost and property prices do not vary proportionately with the length of the lease. on the other hand, there are also some major shortcomings with shorter leases. Those who have properties with short leases would know that such flats depreciate in value very quickly. And, when you try to sell them, it is very, very difficult to do so. When you try to obtain financing for them, it is also very difficult. So, I think, in view of these concerns, my view is that shorter leases would not be well received by most Singaporeans. Yes, we do offer shorter leases. Studio apartments are on 30-year leases for the elderly. Shops are on 30-year leases. But I would hesitate to extend such short leases across the board to other flats, without careful consideration. Sir, let me now touch on the issue of 3-room flats. Many Members have asked whether and how Government will ensure that there are sufficient 3-room flats available because such flats are more affordable, and they are in greater demand now from various categories of people.”
“It is also in line with international benchmarks of household expenditures on housing, which are typically between 25% and 30%. So, Sir, in answer to many Members' concerns, there is really no need to be worried that HDB flats are today not affordable to the majority of Singaporeans. Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mdm Cynthia Phua were concerned about the impact of the flexible wage system on buyers. Sir, HDB monitors wage trends very closely and, as I have said in this House, if it is necessary, they will adjust the prices to ensure that they remain affordable. But individuals must also exercise prudence and choose a flat that is well within their means, bearing in mind that buying a home is a long-term commitment. Dr Teo asked whether we can, through reducing the construction cost of flats, make HDB flats more affordable. Let me emphasise that the affordability of households, and not construction cost, is the key consideration when we price HDB flats. In other words, we look at the resale flat prices and as resale flat prices move, the new flat prices will also move in tandem, in such a way that they will remain affordable. 3-room flats, we have undertaken to make them affordable to as many as 90% of Singaporeans; 4-room flats, 70% of Singaporeans. But, having said that, it is still important for us to make sure that construction costs are kept as low as possible. And I want to assure the Member that HDB does that through many means - through the use of construction technologies, like prefabrication, using value-for-money materials, and so on. But I just want to add that while we can ensure that new flats are affordable, we cannot ensure that prices of resale flats are affordable.”
“So what does this tell us? The Hong Kong couple's 55 sq metre flat is not cheap by Singapore's standards, but it is very affordable to them, because the wages there are higher. The son's flat in Singapore, which is cheap by Hong Kong's standard, but not by Singapore's standard, is also affordable to him. In other words, what is affordable varies from place to place and, indeed, from time to time as well. And it is dependent on many factors, like the cost of living, income levels, people's expectation of what kind of quality of life they want, what kind of flat they want to buy. So it can be rather subjective. So a better and a more objective way of trying to assess affordability is to take the monthly mortgage instalments that a household has to pay, and compare that with the gross monthly income. This is known as the debt-service ratio. So you take the mortgage instalments and you divide that by the household income, what is the percentage of your household income that you spend on housing to pay off your loan. At last year's prices, those who bought 3 and 4-room flats from HDB needed to use, on average, less than 20% of their monthly income to service their monthly mortgage loans. In other words, they had a debt-service ratio of less than 20%. A debt service ratio of 20%, I submit, is reasonable and affordable by any standard. Buyers would generally be able to service their loans, this 20%, using their CPF funds alone. In other words, they do not have to come up with any cash, even after the cut in the CPF ordinary account rate in October last year. It is well within the debt-service ratio guideline of 40% which is adopted by financial institutions when they do credit assessment for granting of mortgage loans.”
“But, whatever the option we choose, with greater private sector participation in the public housing market, I believe that Singaporeans can look forward to more choice, greater variety in public housing, and I think that is for the good and that is something we should go for. Sir, many Members have spoken about the issue of affordability of HDB flats and I think this is particularly relevant in these last few years when there have been economic uncertainties, CPF cuts and now flexible wages. Sir, affordability is always a contentious issue and Encik Zainul Abidin Rasheed said just now that public perception is that HDB flats are not cheap. HDB always responds that, "No, public housing is affordable. Cheap and affordable." Are we talking about the same thing? Sir, recently I visited a public housing flat in Hong Kong. This was a 55 sq metre flat, smaller than our 3-room flat, close to a studio apartment. The elderly couple who had just bought the flat paid HK$1.5 million. Roughly it is about S$320,000 for a 55 sq metre flat. But when I spoke to them they were very, very proud. In fact, they said they were very lucky to get this flat. Why? A private flat of that size in Hong Kong would cost much more. Was that flat cheap? To the owner, it was very affordable. They were obviously very house proud. The house was very well furnished, just husband and wife. Then they also told me that their son had emigrated to Singapore, I think something like seven years ago, working with the SMRT, and recently bought an HDB Executive flat (130 sq metre), more than twice the size of the parents' flat in Hong Kong. Price - about the same - $320,000. And, they said that their son was even luckier than them - to be able to buy such a nice flat in Singapore for the same price.”
“Members will recall when I announced the formation of HDB Corp, I indicated that, in the first year of liberalisation, 2006 onwards, 10% of HDB's building programme will be opened up to the private sector, and thereafter it will be followed by 30% in the second year and 50% in the third year. MND is currently studying ways to open up the public housing market to the private sector. One way is to just outsource the design and consultancy part of the project. This part is currently undertaken by HDB Corp and we can just outsource this part to the private sector. In other words, a straightforward transfer. Another option is to use the design and build method. This design and build method is not something new. This has been practised in some HDB projects already. Under this option, private companies will undertake the design and build works for HDB as one package. A third option is to allow the private sector to take over the whole development of HDB flats. In other words, design, build and sell the new HDB flats. This means that private sector developers will tender for the land, build the flats, and price the flats for sale. And, as a result of that, they will bear the market risk in the process. This is along the lines of what Dr Khor mentioned just now, the reverse tender process, whereby the developer sets the price, except that in the case of a reverse tender system, the price will actually be fixed by the authority - by HDB. There are some problems associated with this option which I will elaborate on later. The outcome of this study is going to have a very significant impact on the nature of public housing in the years ahead. It is, therefore, very important for us to take our time to study carefully the implications before we finally take a decision on this.”
“Sir, these changes are significant and major, and I am pleased to note that they have been implemented smoothly. I attribute this mainly to the very harmonious relations between the management and the unions of HDB. I would like to place on record my appreciation of board members like Mdm Halimah who was instrumental in helping us to implement these very major wrenching changes in a relatively smooth manner. Sir, in the years ahead, we are going to consolidate these measures and focus on their implementation in order to ensure that our public housing programmes remain relevant and in tune with other changes in the economy and our society. One of the major outcomes of our review is to re-focus HDB on its core function - to deliver quality, affordable housing to our people. As part of this review, we have examined the public-private housing mix in Singapore. Dr Amy Khor mentioned just now that the target for public-private housing mix is something like 75:25. This is a long-term objective. Currently, the proportion of public housing is something like 80-81%. So to drop from 81% to 75% may seem small in percentage terms, but, in actual fact, it is an extremely big drop. Because if we look at the stock of public housing in Singapore, 800,000 units, you will see that this is a very major task and, therefore, it has to be done gradually over a long period of time and at a pace which the housing market can absorb and such that the housing needs, the demands, the aspirations of Singaporeans can be met at the same time. So this change will be gradual. 3.45 pm Sir, our immediate focus is to phase in the private sector participation in the development of public housing from July 2006 onwards.”
“Sir, I thank the many Members who have spoken and taken such a keen interest in the various public housing issues. Before I respond specifically to their questions, may I have a few moments to give a quick overview of the public housing policies. Over the last few years, we have seen a few major changes in public housing policies. For a start, with the implementation of bank origination, HDB farmed out its market rate loans to commercial banks. So now, flat buyers who take bank loans have a much wider choice of loan packages, but, of course, at the same time, they have to be subject to the credit assessment rules of the banks which are not a bad thing in the sense that they encourage financial prudence. Also, in the same spirit of giving the owners more choice and encouraging greater self-reliance, we have relaxed the rules at the same time to make it easier for them, amongst other things, to resell or sublet their flats in order to monetise this very important asset. This is exactly in line with what Dr Maliki mentioned just now about the concept of home ownership - a person having a stake and being able to make use of that stake. Another major change took place in July 2003 when we corporatised HDB's Building and Development Division to form a company known as HDB Corp. As a result of this restructuring, HDB today is a much leaner organisation with a clearer focus on the core functions of being a public housing authority, as Mr Iswaran mentioned just now. It has, at the same time, allowed HDB Corp to export its expertise which it is beginning to do, and it has paved the way for greater private sector participation in our public housing programme, something which I will elaborate on later in response to Dr Khor's questions.”
“Since the launch of the Studio Apartment (SA) scheme in 1998, HDB has built a total of 936 SAs in standalone blocks under the pilot phase. About 96% of the units are currently occupied. The remaining units were returned to HDB by their former owners. HDB will re-offer them for sale to eligible applicants. In view of the favourable response to the pilot batch of SAs, HDB will be building new SAs to meet the housing needs of the elderly. These will be integrated with other HDB flat types in the same block to encourage more social interaction between the elderly and younger residents. 300 such units are being built at Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) replacement sites in Geylang, Bukit Merah and Queenstown. They are currently being offered for sale to SERS lessees and the balance units will be offered to the public at the end of 2004. HDB will gauge the response to these new integrated SAs before deciding on its future plans for SAs. Besides SAs, the elderly in Singapore have other housing options. They can buy various types of HDB flats according to their preference and financial situation. Through HDB's upgrading programmes, HDB flats are made more elderly friendly to enable our elderly to remain in their own homes. Elderly households with lower incomes can apply to rent a flat from HDB at subsidised rates. We will continue to regularly review our housing policies for the elderly to ensure that they are relevant and sufficient to meet the needs of our ageing population. TAXIS 14. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Transport what is being done by his Ministry to monitor and improve the service of taxi companies and taxis, especially the "On Call" taxis which pick and choose fares.”
“If they are in doubt about the safety of the windows, please call the HDB which will give them a list of the contractors who can fix the windows for them. Finally, on whether we should replace casement windows with sliding windows, the casement windows have been installed in HDB flats for the last 20-odd years or more. Before that, there were also casement windows. However, they were not aluminium casement windows but mild steel casement windows. So I do not think that there is a case per se to say that casement windows are more dangerous than sliding windows, or louvred windows for that matter. In fact, our statistics show that there are sliding windows that have also fallen, although to a lesser extent. There, the problem is slightly different, but the point I want to make is that all windows, even the ones that are built according to the latest standards, are subject to wear and tear, need to be inspected, checked, maintained and, if they are not in good condition, changed. So, there is no evidence to suggest that we should be changing all casement windows to sliding windows. OUTSOURCING AND OFF-SHORING OF JOBS (Impact on Singapore economy and employment situation) 6. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the impact, if any, on the Singapore economy and employment situation in the short to medium term from the trend toward outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs to lower cost countries; (b) how will this affect Singapore's oft-repeated role of being a bridge to the recipient countries like India and China, particularly in the light of the possible backlash in USA from anti-globalists; and (c) what strategies are there to counter any negative impact of this trend.”
“The problem of falling windows came to the notice of HDB and to the Ministry recently when the trend was, as I said, rising at an alarming rate. There have always been cases of windows falling, but to a very minimal extent. But in 2003, the number of cases shot up quite dramatically. For example, in 2003, there were 97 cases for HDB and nine cases for private flats, compared to, say, 2002 when there were 39 HDB cases and nine in private flats. In 2001, there were about an average of 17 to 18 cases. So, you can see that the trend has been increasing sharply. Last year, HDB mounted an exercise to zero in on this problem of maintenance, particularly of windows. In November 2003, the HDB launched a handbook which was distributed to all homes to educate residents on what to look out for and how to look after their windows. They also conducted roadshows at various housing estates. Unfortunately, the statistics since then show that there has been very minimal impact. After the launch of the handbook in November, there were about 15 cases in December, nine in January, and February up to now, so far there have been about three cases. After the press conference when there was massive publicity about falling windows, touch wood, so far there has been no case. Yes, we have been aware of this and this is what we have been doing about it. I would like to say to members of the public that this is something that should be the responsibility of all of us. Residents should check their windows. They should not wait for legislation, they should not be caught up in this current debate, but they should act now, check their windows, make sure that they are safe and do not fall down and hurt somebody or, worse still, kill somebody.”
“What I will do is I will ask BCA to consider whether there is another way of achieving that minimum standard of safety, say, self-checking on the part of the residents. But I want to emphasise that what we are looking for is a certain minimum standard, to allow us to have some assurance that home owners are accepting responsibility for keeping their windows in good condition. So, yes, we will relook the need for such legislation and whether there is a necessity to mandate periodic inspections of windows. We will look at various other options as well. On the question of 50-50 cost sharing and, therefore, no need to inspect, I think there is a rationale behind doing away with the need to inspect. BCA will take this into consideration when it enacts its legislation. I will be bringing legislation to the House to allow us to enact certain laws which will enhance the safety of windows, and I welcome all views from Members when we debate it in this House.On rental flats, yes, I can confirm that as HDB is the landlord for such rental flats, the HDB will change the windows that need to be changed to comply with the new safety standards and will foot the cost of such retrofitting. Lastly, on the tender. Yes, HDB is now in the process of calling for tenders for retrofitting of windows and I will see whether we can shorten the period of retrofitting and we will expedite the exercise.”
“We have the upstream responsibility of designers, installers, manufacturers, and we have the downstream responsibility of residents. As a result of this problem arising recently, BCA has decided that we have to do something and it is proposing several pieces of legislation. The first one is to legislate to have a minimum standard of safety for design and installation of windows. So far, we do not have such legislation. HDB installs windows according to the minimum safety standards. But this is entirely an initiative on HDB's part. There is nothing in the legislation to force, say, a private contractor or a private developer to do the same. We intend to change that. We intend to enact legislation to make that a minimum safety standard, and not just for the design, but also the installation. So this will take care of the so-called upstream problem. The second aspect we are considering is whether we should mandate the retrofitting of existing windows, because while the existing windows are safe, they could be made safer. So, the question is whether we should make this mandatory, and this is also something that BCA is considering. The third aspect that BCA is considering to ensure that there is a minimum standard of safety in the existing windows, is to require home owners to check their windows, and to have a periodic mandatory check. I think this is what the Member was referring to. The idea behind this really is to establish a certain minimum standard of safety for all the windows that have currently been installed. I understand that some members of the public and also Members of this House have expressed some reservations about this, whether it is necessary to have this level of check at the downstream end.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, yes, BCA has been considering legislation to deal with the problem of falling windows. Let me just emphasise to the House how serious this problem is. We live in a very densely-populated high-rise environment. Over the last few years, and particularly in the last few months, the incidence of falling windows has risen quite sharply. In the last four months of 2003, for example, we had a total of between 12 and 15 cases, ie, about three cases a week. I do not need to tell the House how serious this problem can be. I shudder at the thought of what would happen if one of these windows were to fall on somebody's head. The consequence of such an incident would be horrendous. We have been lucky so far. There have only been three reported cases of somebody being hurt by falling windows over the last few years out of a total of over 160 cases. One was a boy who was hurt when he was hit by some glass fragments as the window fell down; another was a woman who was actually hit on the arm, but not very seriously. In fact, it was brought to my attention that in Hong Kong, the same problem has arisen. Two people were killed in Hong Kong in January alone this year. One was a 70-year-old woman; another was an 87-year-old man. So, this is a problem that we really need to treat very seriously. We ought to do something. BCA has been studying the problem. Essentially, the problem of falling windows is one that spans several areas of responsibility, starting from the design of the windows to the installation and, finally, of course, to the use of the windows, because it is something that residents use very frequently. So, wear and tear is also an issue.”
“I do not have the full list here, but I have some of the precincts which are involved in this programme. Some of the precincts include Jalan Bahagia, Jalan Bukit Ho Swee, Taman Ho Swee, Circuit Road, Toa Payoh Lorong 1, Marine Drive and Woodlands Street 32.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB adopts the Singapore Standards, which are set by Spring Singapore, for the installation of windows in HDB flats for its building and upgrading contracts. From 1987 to 1998, aluminium rivets were used for the installation of casement windows in HDB flats. This was based on the prevailing industry standard at that time. HDB switched to the use of more durable stainless steel rivets for casement windows from 1998. The industry standards were revised in the year 2000 to specify the use of stainless steel rivets for casement windows. There are to-date 20,600 flats in 22 precincts which have undergone the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP) and where aluminium rivets were used in the installation of casement windows. Between 1999 and 2001, HDB checked and replaced damaged or defective aluminium rivets with stainless steel rivets for 10,300 upgraded flats. For the remaining 10,300 flats, HDB had found the rivets to be in good condition at the time of inspection and, hence, did not change them. Following BCA's announcement last week on measures to enhance window safety, HDB has included the remaining 10,300 flats under a new goodwill rivet replacement programme. Under this programme, HDB will co-share half the cost of replacing the aluminium rivets with stainless steel rivets for aluminium casement windows in these flats.”
“Sir, I am not aware that if they are vaccinated, they will not be covered by workmen's compensation. I would have to check that point up and revert to the Member. BILL INTRODUCED BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT BILL "to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act (Chapter 30 of the 2000 Revised Edition) so as to provide for proper maintenance and management of buildings, and to make consequential amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Chapter 158 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and to make certain other written laws", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“The physical inspections of birds imported from Malaysia are now being carried out every day. In every consignment, there are about 60 trucks a day carrying 120,000 birds every day. And they come in, as I said, through the second link. Our AVA inspectors are stationed there. When the lorries come in, they are directed to a certain bay away from the immigration people. They are separately checked. Birds are pulled out from there on a random basis, and random testing has been stepped up. So far, it has not shown any sign of the bird flu in the birds coming in. Are the tests effective? Yes, of course, they are. What we are doing is to test them for H5N1. We would test them for type A first. The H5N1 virus strain needs a bit longer to identify. But once you get a type A occurrence, that would already trigger off the actions that we have mentioned earlier.”
“So far, the health authority (WHO) has not seen it necessary to issue any travel advisory. The Health Ministers have met, and they have also not issued any travel advisory. So there is really no need for any country to issue a travel advisory. But commonsense precautions must be taken when you go to these countries. And there are situations, for example, they do have markets where live poultry is being sold, and you should avoid close contact with poultry. You should also, if you feel it necessary, get a flu jab, but this is again something that we are not advising everybody to do. As for taking of Tamiflu, again this is something which I do not think should be taken unless it is necessary. It is not a vaccine. Unless you think that you are going to be placed in a position where you are going to be in contact with a farm worker or somebody who is going to be engaged in the culling operations, in that situation, yes, take the Tamiflu, and we will give them Tamiflu. But, otherwise, I do not see any necessity for doing so. The stocks that we are carrying really is meant for those people who are going to be involved in the culling operations. We want to make sure that they are all protected.”
“Dr Lily Neo's first question is about the farms, how safe they are. I think she would know that the farms that we import the live chickens from in Malaysia are all accredited farms. In other words, we do not import from any farm or every farm in Malaysia. Only those farms that are accredited by AVA are allowed to export to Singapore. The reason is that we want to be able to do those things that she is talking about. In other words, to check the farms to make sure that the farms are biosecure, to make sure that the procedures are in place, and to make sure that the farm workers are following good hygienic practices, etc. I am able to inform her that AVA is indeed stepping up its checks on these farms. So far, it has been satisfied that all the necessary precautions are taken. In fact, AVA is working very closely with its counterparts in Malaysia, which is the Department of Veterinary Science, to monitor, to exchange information, and to check as thoroughly as possible. Do not forget that their livelihoods are at stake too. They have a big industry and I think it is in their interest, and they realise it, that they have to be extra vigilant. So they have been doing the checks. We are also doing the checks and as another level of check, when the chickens come to Singapore at the Second Link, and they all come in through one point, they are checked again. And on top of that, apart from physical checking of the symptoms, random checks are done, birds are taken off the trucks, sent to the laboratory, checked again. So there are various levels of checks to make sure that the chickens that we import into Singapore, that are slaughtered here, that we eat here, are free from the bird flu. What about a travel advisory?”
“If they are found roaming around, somebody may actually catch them and eat them because people like to eat wild chickens.”
“The workers who are directly in contact with the chickens - the poultry farm workers, abattoir workers, and so on - are being protected physically through wearing of protective gear, vaccination, and so on. And I believe that they should also - I see no reason why they should not - be covered by workmen's compensation if, in the course of their duty, they do fall ill. I really do not see why they should not be covered, but, of course, I stand corrected by the Manpower Ministry. As for the SARS Relief Fund, I think the Fund is for a very specific purpose. I do not think we should complicate matters. Let us deal with the bird flu one step at a time. As I keep emphasising, the first step is to make sure that it does not come here. Whether we should maintain chicken farms, I think this is a decision which has to be taken by the farmers. We do not have a large chicken supply. We, in fact, do not have any breeders in Singapore. All our chickens for the table come from either Malaysia's live chickens or frozen chickens from Brazil mainly, and from the US. The only chickens that we have are the layers. They are the ones who produce 30% of our eggs. So the question really is whether we need to be self-sufficient in eggs. Off-hand, I would say no, because there is really no reason why we cannot get sources of supply from other countries, and there are many, many sources of supply. But having said that, I think this is a decision which we would have to discuss and consider several steps down the road. Our first priority is to make sure that our farms are biosecure and that it does not hit us. Thereafter, I think we can consider all these other issues. As for wild chickens, it depends on how you define "wild chickens". If he is talking about pet chickens, keep them in cages.”
“As for mynahs, crows, etc, as I indicated earlier in my reply to Mdm Halimah, such free-flying wild birds are not known to be transmitters of the Avian flu virus. Nevertheless, as I indicated in my statement, we are monitoring them. We are catching them and checking them to make sure that this is indeed so. There is an active programme to cull them, because I know that many of our residents find them a nuisance - noise, droppings, etc. So there is an active programme to cull them. But that has got nothing to do with the bird flu situation.”
“Sir, as far as the risk from migratory birds is concerned, yes, that is one of the possible causes of the very fast, rapid and extensive spread of the bird flu throughout Asia. They have been nailed as one of the prime suspects in this. It is well known that migratory birds are carriers of Avian flu viruses. Whether they carry the H5N1 or other strains of the virus needs to be checked. As far as being carriers are concerned, it is well known that they are carriers. AVA as well as NParks, in fact, many years ago started a surveillance programme to check all the birds that come to Singapore as part of their migratory flight. They stop over in Sungei Buloh. They stay for a few months and then they move on. That is a possible source of danger. But I am glad to inform the House that over the last five years, since they started the surveillance programme, there has been no evidence of such migratory birds being infected. So far, no Avian flu virus has been detected. That is good news. The other fact which Members may wish to know is that the Avian flu virus appears to be found in certain types of birds - the migratory swans and ducks, for example - not so much the shore birds which visit us. For some reasons, the ducks, geese and swans avoid Singapore. They do not come here. So far, for the last many years, we have not seen them here. They come from Siberia and they bypass Singapore and they go to Indonesia, the Philippines and other places, and then they go down south. I am not sure why. The fact remains that they do not come here, which is another blessing in disguise. Migratory birds are being watched very carefully.”
“We have to explain that we are prepared to compensate on an ex-gratia basis. This is an indication that Government is willing to share part of the cost with them. But it is not our intention nor is it correct for Government to fully compensate them for all the losses that they would incur as a result of this. The best thing that we can do is to make sure that it does not come. And for that, I think we are putting in a lot of effort and a lot of money to make sure that it does not hit us. The farmers have also been asked to cooperate and I am happy to say that they themselves realise that their livelihood is at stake and they are cooperating fully on that.”
“We are actually able to cull and use this more effective method of eradication of the disease, and this is what we prefer to do. So we will cull completely in the event of an outbreak. And if we do so, it is not just to eradicate the disease effectively, it also ensures that there is no reservoir of the disease remaining so that public health is safeguarded. Equally important, it increases or maintains the confidence of our own people and visitors to Singapore if we can do that. Yes, you can vaccinate if you cannot cull completely. But if you can cull completely, please do so. This is how we read the FAO and WHO advice. On the Pulau Ubin situation, yes, there were long queues. Let us put things in perspective. We are talking about maybe 700 chickens altogether in Pulau Ubin. I do not think we can take the risk of letting the disease come in via these 700 chickens and putting the two million odd birds in Singapore at risk. That is the reason why AVA went in to Pulau Ubin. Finally, on ex-gratia payment, the principle of this is that if there is an infection and we have to cull. The chances are that all the birds will be infected and will be destroyed anyway. Ex-gratia payment allows us to move in quickly and take pre-emptive measures. So what do we do? We will pay what we believe to be the market rate for the layers. But beyond this point, I think it is difficult for us to completely or totally compensate the farmers on loss of business and all the other expenses involved. I accept that there will be many other expenses involved. In the same way, when we compensated the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, we were not able to compensate them fully for the loss of business. In fact, there was some unhappiness there.”
“Sir, as far as vaccination of chickens is concerned, yes, it is true that the WHO and the OIE, when they met in Rome just a few days ago, did issue an advisory which appears to state that we should be vaccinating the chickens instead. I have read the advisory in greater detail and discussed this with my officials in AVA. I would like to clarify this point. It is very clear that they are not talking about vaccination instead of culling. In fact, what they are saying is: "stamping out or culling is the preferred control option for an outbreak of H5NI, which is the bird flu, and it should be used for all flocks exhibiting clinical diseases. It has been highly effective in controlling outbreaks of H5NI where there is limited spread and low risk of reintroduction." Basically, the position really is that if you can cull, you should do so, because that is still the best way of eradicating the disease. This is what Hong Kong did in 1997. They culled 1.5 million birds and, effectively, stopped the outbreak from spreading. However, I think what they are saying now is for situations where it is not practical or perhaps economic cost is high for culling all chickens. Obviously, if you are talking about Indonesia or China, it is practically impossible for such a method to be effective. How can you cull all the chickens in China or all the chickens in Indonesia? It is just not practical. What I think they are trying to say is that in such a situation where you can cull the infected birds and those around them, do so. For the rest, you vaccinate. But in our case, the situation is quite different. Our farms are all located very close together. We do not have such a large population as in those countries.”