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 30 of 61.
“Sir, on the first part of the question, first of all, the commitment to make either a 3- or 4-room flat affordable to Singaporeans must be premised on, firstly, what is the wage level and, secondly, how much of that wage level should be used to buy a flat. As a rule of thumb, based on the guidelines which banks use for credit assessments, banks would say that ideally, you should not be using more than 40% of your monthly income for mortgage payments towards a flat. Using that criterion, ideally, the HDB flat would be considered affordable if the mortgage payments do not exceed 40% of the person's income. Based on that criterion and based on the figures that we have for the last few years, I would say that HDB flats are more than affordable. For example, a family earning $2,000 could comfortably afford a 3-room flat because the repayments for a 3-room flat would constitute maybe something like 20% of his monthly income. Of course, if, for example, wage levels deteriorate drastically to the extent that for that same flat, he would now have to pay more than 40%, then obviously, we would have to adjust HDB flat prices. That is what I meant when I say we would make sure that HDB flats are affordable. As to whether HDB flats can be re-priced because land costs or construction costs have gone down, I have always explained in this House that the pricing of HDB flats is based on the criterion of affordability which implies that a certain element of subsidy is built into HDB pricing. Every new HDB flat sold in Singapore carries a subsidy and the extent of that subsidy varies from time to time, depending on the market. But the bottomline is that that flat is affordable to that particular segment of Singaporeans.”
“Yes, HDB does consider such applications on a case-by-case basis, particularly when there are demonstrable cases of difficulty or hardship, such as a person or a family member has lost his job or suffered a salary cut or because of illness or heavy financial commitments elsewhere, etc. So there are circumstances whereby HDB would be sympathetic to granting HDB loans even for downgraders, although the general principle is that it would not do so. I know that HDB has favourably considered such applications before.”
“Usually, when a person purchases or books a flat, he or she is advised to consider very carefully before he or she makes that purchase. Buying a flat is not like buying a TV set or even buying a car. It is a very major commitment. I would urge people who make a commitment or wish to buy a flat to consider carefully. First of all, consider the affordability - whether they can afford the flat. Secondly, consider the timing, location, etc. I think it is not a frivolous commitment. It is a commitment that has to be taken seriously. If we allow people to book a flat and suddenly opt out of the system at no cost, it is going to incur a very heavy penalty and inconvenience for many other buyers. This is the experience we had when we had the queue. When we had the queue, people could just drop out of the queue without any penalty and we ended up with a huge backlog of flats. I think there must be responsibility on the part of every buyer, that when he buys a flat, that is, when he makes a downpayment, he makes a commitment, a commitment which allows HDB to plan the building programme accordingly. He also helps to defray some of the costs incurred by HDB in preparing the flat for sale. HDB would not normally waive the cancellation cost associated with somebody who is cancelling the purchase of a flat. But as always with HDB - and I have said this many times before - anybody who has a genuine and strong case can always put it up to HDB. They would always look at it as sympathetically as possible although the answer is not always "yes".”
“The experience of HDB is that those who ask for deferment of collection of keys are usually those who are buying the bigger flat types. So, it would suggest that these lessees would have difficulty in servicing their loans for the bigger flat types. As I indicated in my answer, so long as buyers buy within their means, in other words, take into consideration their own incomes as well as the flat types and do not buy a flat which is bigger than what they can afford, then there is no problem. So, the commitment of the Government to provide basic housing - which is either a 3-room or a 4-room flat - for the majority of Singaporeans is still very much in place. But as to specific cases of individual lessees wanting to defer, HDB always takes a very sympathetic view. So long as the difficulties are genuine, HDB would usually allow lessees to defer the collection of keys by a few months.”
“As far as different types of flats are concerned, there is a range of flats currently available, from the 3-room flats all the way to the 5-room flats. By 3-room flats, I am talking about the 3-room buyback flats which HDB buys back from the market and then resells to those who need a smaller flat. Having said that, of course, HDB is always monitoring the buying patterns and trends. Currently, HDB notes that there is a very strong demand for 4-room flats, and this is the reason why it is releasing the 4-room flats that are currently in stock, as well as building new 4-room flats under the Build-to-Order (BTO) scheme. As to the Member's question about whether we will build 3-room flats, HDB will continuously monitor the situation and make a correct decision at the appropriate time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government remains committed to providing affordable public housing to Singapore citizens, especially to first-timers. HDB flats are priced below their respective market values, to enable 90% of Singaporeans to afford at least a 3-room flat and 70% of Singaporeans to afford at least a 4-room flat. Those with higher income can consider buying the larger HDB flats. Within each flat type, there is also a range of sale prices, depending on the location, design, size, etc, that will enable applicants with different household incomes to choose a flat that is within their financial means. HDB monitors wage trends closely to ensure that its flat prices remain affordable to Singaporeans, even in the current economic downturn. Last year, those who bought 3- to 5-room flats from HDB typically needed to use only about 20% of their monthly incomes to service their mortgage loans. This is well within the 40% guideline which most financial institutions use as a basis for credit assessment. As for the downpayment portion, younger flat buyers would generally have sufficient CPF savings to afford the 20% downpayment after working a few years. In addition, to enable young first-timer couples to purchase a home earlier, since October 2000, HDB has allowed those who book a 4-room flat that is under construction to pay only half of the 20% downpayment at the point of signing the Sales Agreement. The remaining half is payable about two years later, at the time of taking possession of the new flat. This measure has since been extended, till 31st December 2003, to all first-timer couples for the purchase of all flat types, in view of the economic downturn.”
“The upgrading works at Marine Terrace stopped on 3rd June 2003 due to the latest contractor's financial difficulties and cash flow problems. HDB had exercised due diligence before engaging the original and subsequent two novated contractors for the project. Unfortunately, they all ran into financial problems. HDB has employed a contingency contractor to minimise inconvenience to residents, complete the more urgent works first and provide essential services like conservancy work, housekeeping and site security. A limited tender has been called to select a new contractor to finish the work. The new contractor should be on site by August 2003. Completion may be slightly delayed by one to two months. Since HDB is not the cause of the delay and measures have been taken to complete the works expeditiously, there is no need for a public inquiry.”
“Nonetheless, in view of recent feedback, MND and BCA are presently reviewing the current tender system, and seeking views from industry representatives and key Government agencies. For ongoing projects, contracts have already been entered into between HDB and its contractors and these are legally binding. HDB will continue to monitor its contractors' performance closely. If any contractor runs into difficulty, HDB will take immediate action to rectify the situation and minimise the impact on the public. TERRACE PUBLIC INQUIRY ON UPGRADING OF HDB FLATS AT MARINE TERRACE 7. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development whether he will hold a public inquiry to enquire why the upgrading of the HDB flats at Marine Terrace could not be completed.”
“HDB's tender system is guided by the Government's policy to award a tender to the company that gives the best value for money, and not necessarily the lowest bidder. First, contractors are pre-qualified based on their financial resources, professional and technical qualifications and track record, using the Building and Construction Authority (BCA)'s Contractors Registry as a guide. Second, HDB will verify that the tender proposals fully comply with the tender requirements. The tender proposals are then evaluated based on their price competitiveness, conformance to the required specifications, the tenderer's ability to undertake the project, his financial solvency and his performance in other public sector projects. Finally, HDB conducts due diligence on the tenderers and their tender prices. If HDB finds that the lowest tender price is significantly below the other tender bids and its own estimates, it will interview the tenderer and ask him to re-examine his bid. He can withdraw his bid if he so chooses. On the whole, HDB's tender system is sound and working well. Since 2000, the number of HDB contracts that had to be terminated was only 4% of the total number of contracts awarded. However, even with a rigorous selection process, there is no guarantee that selected firms will not meet business difficulties and flounder later, especially during this economic downturn. Under HDB's tender system, the company that offers the best combination of price, quality and reliability will be awarded the contract. All things being equal, HDB will award to the lowest bidder who can do the job. It is objective and fair, and ensures transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.”
“Manufacturers producing these goods and exporting them through Singapore will benefit directly from the provision. Although these products already enjoy zero tariffs going into the US, the ISI confers three additional benefits. First, such goods will enjoy a waiver of the 0.21% merchandise processing fee imposed by the US Customs. Second, the ISI reduces the paperwork relating to documentation procedures, thus saving on time-to-market costs for these manufacturers. Third, these manufacturers will enjoy faster customs clearance as Singapore-origin products. Not all firms will see direct benefits from the ISI. But the exporters of the 266 ISI products should see higher sales which, in turn, generate a greater volume of business with Singapore companies that supply them with components or support their activities here. Hence, our industries will benefit indirectly from the ISI. I should emphasise that the benefits of the FTA extend beyond tariff savings. Enhanced investment and IP protection, liberalisation of trade in services and other important provisions of the agreement help us to draw in more investments, while facilitating the internationalisation of Singapore-based enterprises. All these will have important secondary spin-offs to the economy. We must therefore view the FTA in totality. For firms, I would urge them to study the details of those portions that affect them directly, and see how their operations can be re-configured to benefit from these. MTI will work with SBF and other chambers to help businesses in the coming months in this area.”
“Let me now turn to the results of the survey by the Singapore Confederation of Industries (SCI). I would like to first commend the SCI for its initiative in conducting the survey. The results are extremely helpful to both SCI and MTI in identifying the information gaps that exist in the minds of our business community. As part of MTI's outreach activities, MTI had, even before the survey, worked with SCI to organise a seminar on 30th July 2003 for its members. We hope that, like Miss Penny Low, SCI members will be intrigued by the results of the survey, and attend the seminar so as to find out how they can benefit from the US-Singapore FTA. The money is in the details, and I believe that once our business community studies the parts of the agreement that affect their industry, they will find numerous benefits. Under the US-Singapore FTA, tariffs on all products have been eliminated, including electronics and precision instruments. Firms with a high volume of exports where there are substantial tariff elimination will get to gain most. Textiles companies, should they meet the rules of origin, will face lower tariffs and gain a price advantage after the textile quota system lapses in 2005. These benefits will be immediately reaped by companies that already export to the US. I note from SCI's survey that although 71% of respondents perceive no benefits from the US, 50% of respondents also acknowledged that they do not currently export to the US. I would urge these companies to review their business plans in the light of the US-Singapore FTA. The US is a large market and will be a big boost to their business if they successfully enter it. As for the Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI), it is confined to 266 IT products and certain medical devices.”
“To cast as wide a net as possible, we work closely with organisations, such as the SBF and the individual chambers of commerce. For instance, we staged a major event on the US-Singapore FTA in partnership with SBF in May 2003, which attracted over 600 participants. Our events are not solely conducted in English. In June, MTI organised a seminar in conjunction with SBF to reach out to businessmen more familiar with Mandarin. Another is planned for late July with the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We will also be conducting a briefing for the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry on 8th July 2003. Our activities are targeted at all businesses, both large corporations and SMEs. We have paid special attention to SMEs. My Ministry has worked closely with industry-specific associations as well as through SPRING, IE Singapore and, in the future, ASME, to ensure that the SMEs are not left out. The overall response to our outreach activities has been positive, with many follow-up enquiries being received after the events. Many participants have indicated that the briefings have helped them to understand the FTAs much better, and are keen to explore the possible opportunities presented. Our pre-negotiation consultations for FTAs, like the India-Singapore CECA and the ASEAN-China FTA, have also attracted more interest since our outreach programme started. To date, we have conducted seven sessions of pre-negotiation consultations, involving nearly 100 participants from the processed food, chemicals, construction and logistics industry clusters. Participants at such consultations are now more forthcoming with their inputs and are more aware of how they can use FTAs to help them in these markets.”
“Yes, I am happy to give him that "clarification", that this additional cost would not be passed on to the residents. US-SINGAPORE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (Efforts to inform business community of benefits) 10. Miss Penny Low asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the Singapore Confederation of Industries (SCI) survey findings on the perceived benefits of the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) that were reported in the Straits Times of 19th June 2003, (a) will his Ministry explain the finding that (i) 71% of those polled indicated no benefits and (ii) while his Ministry has hailed the Integrated Sourcing Initiative (ISI) to be of significant impact, 92% of the respondents stated that ISI will not affect them; and (b) whether his Ministry (i) has embarked on its FTA "outreach" programme to inform and educate the business community on the benefits of FTA and (ii) will intensify these efforts in view of the SCI findings. The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Sir, since the beginning of this year, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has conducted 17 briefings involving over 1,500 participants, explaining to them in detail how the various free trade agreements we have negotiated could be of advantage to them. These include separate briefings to members of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) on our FTAs with Australia, Japan and the United States. Our programme for raising awareness ranges from open seminars and business briefings to one-to-one consultations with individual companies, which have approached MTI officials to conduct tailored briefings for them after attending our general briefings. Some companies have also sent in enquiries through the MTI website.”
“Why should damages be paid? In the case of Marine Terrace, the work is going on as scheduled. It will be completed, but with a minimal delay of about two or three months, as I have explained to Mr Othman Haron Eusofe. In the case of Punggol Field, again the issue of compensation does not arise because, first of all, the contractual obligation of HDB is very clear - that in the lease agreement that is signed between the buyer and the seller, this flat would be delivered by a certain date, in what is known as the development completion date. That obligation will be fulfilled. In so far as delays are concerned and residents getting alternatives, anybody who is in urgent need of a flat as a result of the flat not being completed as originally estimated can approach HDB for assistance, and such assistance will be given. So, again, I do not see any reason why there should be any question of a compensation. Many of the residents in Punggol Field have asked for and have been given assistance in the form of an alternative flat if they are really in need, and in the form of transitional rental housing if they do not want an alternative. So, in that respect, HDB has taken great pains to ensure that the effects of this delay, even though it is not its fault, are minimised.”
“Of course, in calling for a new tender, the cost involved would be much higher.”
“Yes, Marine Terrace is an MUP project. And like all MUP projects, the residents pay only a fraction of the total cost. It depends on the particular project itself. It depends also on what is involved in that particular MUP. It could be $10,000. It could be less, or it could be more, depending on whether there is an SAI. But it is heavily subsidised. In fact, in all MUP projects, the Government foots 70% or 75% and for the smaller flats, as much as 90% of the total cost. I am not sure what is the point of the question. That is a fact. Whether the HDB has been soft on these contractors, as I explained earlier, the works of both the first contractor and the second contractor were satisfactory until the point of time when they felt that they could not carry on. HDB has a system in place to monitor the works, ie, regular monitoring of the progress of works to make sure that disruption to the residents is kept to a minimum and there are regular site meetings. I have seen records of these site meetings. I am satisfied that HDB has carried out its work diligently and properly. Notwithstanding all these, the contractors did get into difficulties, and once they got into difficulties and they could not carry on, HDB had to take the necessary steps to recover. In the case of Marine Terrace, the first disruption was when the first contractor could not finish and it went to the second contractor. There was a novation. The second contractor could not complete, and it novated to the third. In Sum Keong's case, it was not able to carry on. So, instead of novating to yet another contractor, HDB has decided to terminate the contract and to call for a new tender. In calling for the new tender, the chances of the work being completed in time will be that much better.”
“My statement was apropos a company that starts off in business. Nobody, when you start off in business, goes into a tender and puts in a suicide bid. But, yes, a company which is in great difficulties probably would. The safeguard of course for us is that we do not have to automatically accept such bids. The IM does not require HDB to accept the lowest bid irregardless, our own internal systems do not require us to do so, and common sense tells us that if the bid is really too low, if we accept that bid, it is not the contractor alone which is committing suicide, we are also committing suicide because the amount of work involved in trying to recover is not insignificant. So it is not in anybody's interest to accept such so-called suicide bids.”
“The Member said that the contractor is already "terminal". I do not know whether ---”
“As far as resumption of work is concerned, HDB will endeavour to make sure that the work resumes as quickly as possible. As quickly as possible can range from one or two months to probably four, five, or six months. The difficulty is mainly when there are legal difficulties involved in the winding up of the current contractor. This, of course, is no comfort to the residents. So I would like to assure the Member that HDB, even within this constraint, will endeavour to engage the new contractor as quickly as possible, but it would not be sooner than, say, a couple of months. In the case of Punggol Field, the example that was mentioned, the delay will ultimately be in the range of anything from two months to as long as 10 months from the original estimated completion date.”
“" It is a system that has generally worked well. There are certain problems in the system, one of which is this issue of non-payment. But this is a problem that has surfaced now when the construction industry or the construction pie has shrunk rapidly. This was not such a problem when the construction industry was booming. The sub-contractors were paid, suppliers were paid, and nobody faulted the system. So we have to be careful that we do not try and come out with the wrong solutions to the problems that we are facing. I have indicated earlier that the issue of payments between the main contractor and sub-contractors is something that needs to be looked at. The industry is now looking at it together with the Government agencies and I hope that there will be some practical solutions arising out of this discussion. But I would not advocate the Government getting involved in running the construction companies or running the contracts for the main contractors. I would leave it to them. His second question was on the number of contracts under MUP and IUP which have not been awarded to the lowest tenderer. I am afraid I do not have the information offhand. But if the Member would file a Question, I will be happy to answer.”
“The issue of main contractor awarding jobs to sub-contractors is a peculiarity of the construction industry in Singapore. I am not saying that it does not happen in other countries. The prevalence of such a practice in our industry is quite unique to us. As the Member suggested, it is not just one level but maybe several levels down where the main contractors will appoint sub-contractors, sub-contractors will appoint their own sub-contractors, and so on. Why is this so? There are several reasons. One perhaps is the fact that the barrier to entry of contractors in Singapore is very low and we do not require too much qualifications nor other prerequisites. But it is, by and large, I would say, an efficient system. It is efficient in the sense that after getting the job the main contractors find, on their own accord, the best people to help them to do the job. They either appoint sub-contractors, or they hire people to do the job. Some contractors prefer to hire their own staff. They train the staff and keep them for the long-term. Others prefer to virtually hire all sub-contractors. But should the Government get involved in deciding how much sub-contracting they should do, how much of their own direct workers they should employ? I do not think so. I think the main contractor is the one who knows best how to get the job done at the price that he has tendered for. For us to specify these things is virtually to manage the project for him. How can the Government be in a better position than the contractor to actually complete the job? And if we were to do that, the contractor would have every reason to come back to us if the job is not done properly and say, "You are the one who told me to do all these things. Now it is not done.”
“I can give the Member an indication about how many contracts were not completed over the last year. I believe it is something in the region of 4%. 4% of the total number of contracts awarded by HDB were not completed on time for some reason or other. As to how much liquidated damages were forfeited, I do not have the figure offhand. But I will be happy to provide it to him at an appropriate forum. As far as the review of the public sector tender form is concerned, yes, this is one of the issues that is being discussed by BCA and the industry. The objective is to make sure that the terms in the public sector procurement system and the form are transparent and fair to all the parties involved and I include, in this case, the sub-contractors, in response to Encik Othman's question just now, and the consumers as well.”
“Sir, I am not sure where the Member gets this idea that people go into business to commit suicide. I do not believe so. The so-called suicide bids, I think, are the result of several factors, but let us leave that aside for the time being. Specifically, to answer the Member's question on whether we will consider tightening the Contractors Registration System, let us bear in mind that the more you tighten the less will be the number of contractors who will be on that list. You will find that the contractors will not be too happy with this. Of course, that does not mean that we do not do it. But I am just pointing out that we will have to again make sure that the criteria are sufficient to pre-qualify the good, suitable contractors and not to be so tight as to preclude many contractors who would otherwise have been able to do the job. So the CRS has undergone a lot of reviews and examinations. I am sure that there will be another round of review some time. But we have just done the last review last year. I would like to seek the Member's cooperation for us to examine the results of that past year. If she has any inputs for us to improve the system any further, we will be happy to hear from her, including how much to tighten.”
“What is to stop a contractor from not finishing his job to the complete satisfaction of the owner, if there is no retention sum? The contractor just walks away. You call him back to rectify certain works, even within the one-year defect liability period, he does not show up. What do you do? So I think there has got to be a balance between the interest of the buyer and the seller of the service. But, of course, that balance has to be struck in such a way that everybody in the industry understands, and this is one of the issues which the industry is now trying to grapple with. And I hope that there will be a consensus reached on a new equilibrium.”
“I think nobody goes into business to commit suicide. They all go in with the hope of winning the tender. So, if a tender bid is low, as a result of a mistake, then we would definitely look at the waiver of the penalty sympathetically. We are not going to penalise somebody who has, say, added an extra "0" or has subtracted an extra "0" from one of the line items. So, if it is a genuine mistake, we will waive the penalty. As far as the other issues are concerned, eg, the performance bond, the accounts being finalised quickly, the retention sum, etc, basically the common denominator in all these is that there must be a certain guarantee in the form of a performance bond or an insurance bond or a banker's guarantee, to ensure that the contractor completes the job within the time that is specified and to the specifications that he has promised. If he does not meet this promise and does not fulfill his obligation, then the performance bond will be forfeited. So, it is a matter of how much performance bond is a reasonable amount. In the case of HDB or Government agencies, it ranges from 5-10%. In the case of the private sector, I believe the norm is 10%. These are issues which, again, the industry would have to sort out. And I have asked BCA to also look at these issues of performance bond, retention sum, etc. But bear in mind that all this, while it incurs a cost, is part and parcel of the contractual obligation between buyer and seller of that service. Without the performance bond, without any retention sum, the balance must be tilted on the side of the contractor. For example, what is to prevent a contractor from not fulfilling his obligations, if there is no performance guarantee?”
“When HDB pays the main contractor, the main contractor is supposed to pay the sub-contractors. But when the main contractor gets into difficulty or trouble, invariably the sub-contractors suffer. So we will have to look into the possibility of how this problem can be solved, because it is a problem. If sub-contractors, which are part and parcel of the whole construction industry, are not paid or treated properly, then I think the industry as a whole must suffer. I have asked BCA and other Government agencies to look into the system and to see in what way we can minimise this problem of sub-contractors not being paid, including the possibility perhaps of legislating such payment. But such changes, if any, must be practical and doable and it is something that the industry as a whole must accept.”
“And, unfortunately, in the case of Sum Keong, it went into difficulties so suddenly that HDB could not warn the residents earlier. But having had its attention brought to the problem, I believe it acted swiftly, promptly and efficiently to try and recover and to make sure that the disruption to the residents was minimised. I am glad to inform the Member that to-date, the outstanding internal works that were the most disruptive to the residents in 15 of the flats - these were works pertaining to the works in the bathrooms and the toilets - had been completed in that week. Similarly, the internal works for the remaining units in the blocks have also been completed and external works are going to be started by the contractor in July, and they expect that they will finish it by the end of August. As for the remaining balance of the works, HDB will be calling a re-tender. This re-tender will be expedited and works will resume on site by the new contractor by August 2003. The Member asked whether we can guarantee that there will be no further delays. I wish I could. But, to be realistic, while we will do whatever is necessary this time in selecting a tenderer, I cannot promise that there will be no further breakdowns or delays. But I can promise the Member that such a possibility will be minimised. I can also promise that, if there is such a thing happening again, the recovery will be as swift and efficient as it was in the first episode. The Member also asked about sub-contractors. The problem with sub-contractors is that the contract that they have is between them and the main contractors. It has nothing to do with HDB. But having said that, I do sympathise with the sub-contractors because they are, as it were, at the lowest end of the food chain.”
“There was no indication by the contractor that such a thing was going to happen. I spoke to some of the grassroots leaders who indicated the same thing to me because they obviously were on the ground and they could sense when work was being slowed down or delayed. From all accounts, this was a very sudden stoppage. Why? I can only go by what the contractor told the newspapers. Apparently, the contractor said that he had run into major financial difficulties and he had no choice but to stop work. So, the contractor had to face the consequences of the stop-work. And the residents on the ground had to face more disruptions and inconveniences. HDB on the same day, 3rd June, took the necessary measures to try to minimise these disruptions. A circular was sent to the residents on the same day, 3rd June, to inform them that there had been a stoppage of work by the contractor, and also to inform them about what other measures would be taken by HDB to recover, including, for example, the appointment of contingency contractor to quickly take over the emergency works and to complete them. It also appointed the same contractor to make sure that housekeeping and the conservancy works in the area were properly carried out - mosquito control, rodent control, security in the area, and so on. This was done virtually straightaway. The very next day when works were stopped, all these were put into place. Could it have been anticipated? As I said, the procurement process tries to conduct due diligence on all the successful tenderers. In this particular case, there was no indication that the contractor would not have completed the job. But, for various reasons, it went into financial difficulties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Othman asked about the Marine Terrace upgrading project. First of all, the tender was awarded in 2001 to a company known as Seatown Construction. The performance record of Seatown Construction was good and acceptable. It was a G8 contractor, meaning that it was a contractor which was in the highest category of the BCA's CRS. So, no question about its financial strength or its track record at that time. It was not debarred and there were no adverse reports on the contractor. However, Seatown Construction went into financial difficulties and the project was novated to Hong Lai Huat Construction in August 2002. Hong Lai Huat Construction was an A1 contractor. The CRS had been changed, and A1 is equivalent to G8. Again, it was the top of the range. Again, it had a good performance record. It was not debarred. There were no adverse reports. So, by all accounts, it was a good contractor. Hong Lai Huat went into difficulties and the project was novated to Sum Keong Construction on 18th March 2003. Sum Keong Construction is an A2 contractor - not the top but the next level down. A2 means that it can tender for jobs between $30 million and $65 million. So it was more than qualified to do the Marine Terrace project - good track record, no debarment status, etc. Up till the 2nd June, the progress of works of Sum Keong was ahead of schedule. It was not just on schedule, but it was ahead of schedule. I think it was doing something like 55% of the project, which was more than what was on the time-line. On 2nd June, HDB's site management team found that the contractor had suddenly stopped all works inside the flats. And on 3rd June, the contractor had stopped all works outside the flats very suddenly.”
“But price is what is on the table. If the price is not realistic then, obviously, that tender should not be awarded. And the record shows that there have been several cases where the lowest tenders have not been awarded. In the case of Government agencies, as much as 25% of tenders are not given to the lowest tenderer. In the case of HDB, about 10% of contracts are not awarded to the lowest tenderer.”
“I must say it is not a good practice in the industry to have such bids. I am equally concerned about such bids which are unrealistically low. But having said that, I think we must realise that the contractors are professionals. They are going in for a bid with the intention of getting that contract. They do not go putting in a bid which they would have to withdraw subsequently. So, it can be for several reasons. One is that they are trying to buy market share, or they could be trying to establish a track record, or they could be going in because they want cash flow, or they may have made a genuine mistake. So, for these reasons, HDB takes the view that it does not benefit anybody to award a tender to a bid which, in its opinion, is too low. That is the reason why if a bid comes in which is below the others or which is way below HDB's own estimates, it will, as I explained earlier, call up that tenderer and conduct an interview to see whether the bid that has been put in is a genuine bid. In some cases, the tenderers, after going through the specifications, decide to withdraw their bids. If the tenderer had proceeded with the bid, the chances are that he will not be able to complete that job. And who would benefit from such a situation? HDB would not benefit. The contractor would not benefit and, certainly, the residents would not benefit. I think it is in nobody's interest to award a tender to such a bid. Because of this, the present procurement process does allow for the tender evaluation committee not to award the tender to such a bid. As I said earlier, the objective of the tender system is to get the best value for money on the basis of quality, reliability and price. For quality and reliability, we have to base on the track record. We have to base on the past.”
“Sir, the BCA's Contractors' Registration Scheme (CRS) was aimed at making sure that there is a certain minimum qualification before contractors are allowed to tender for public sector jobs. I believe the CRS is also being used as a basis for contractors to tender for private sector jobs but, essentially, it is for the public sector to find a way to prequalify contractors. Contractors are graded based on several factors - financial strength is only one of them. Other criteria include track record, whether they have been debarred in the past, etc. So, financial strength is only one of the factors but it is a very important factor. Because, as the Member would probably realise, the construction industry is very much driven by cash flow. And if contractors do not have the requisite financial strength, they would find themselves in trouble. That is the reason why the BCA requires a certain minimum financial strength before they are put on the registry. And then within the registry, there are different grades - A1 to C3. A1 and A2 would be the highest grades, followed by B1, B2, etc. A question arises: what happens if a company qualifies for the registry and thereafter shifts its funds around? There are certain mechanisms in place, eg, accounts have to be audited at certain regular intervals. Obviously, within those regular intervals, something can still take place but the BCA does try to ensure that those intervals are reasonable for the contractors as well as reasonable for the BCA to check. Having said all that, of course, it does not guarantee that the system is foolproof. It is a fact that there have been some abuses of the system but, like all systems, if abuses are detected, then severe penalties will result. What about the so-called tiao lao bids or suicide bids?”
“I would also like to ask the Minister if it is indeed the case, as reported, in the press that the current registration system, which is fundamentally sound and rational, is subject to abuses and, inadvertently, encourages some unhealthy practices, such as the contractors who are financially unsound shifting their monies around just for registration as well as bidding for jobs at very low or tiao lao bids. Again, this is just to ensure that they can qualify for registration.”
“HDB is prompt in its progress payments and usually pays its contractors within two to three weeks after they have submitted their claims and their claims are validated. If the Member has any specific information to the contrary, she can let me know. Mr Chiam raised a question on the delay of flats at Punggol Field. HDB is legally required to complete new HDB flats and deliver them to flat buyers by the Delivery Possession Date (DPD), which is provided in the Agreement for Lease. Besides the DPD, HDB also informs flat buyers of an Estimated Completion Date (ECD), which it reviews and updates as construction progresses. In the case of the flats at Punggol Field, the novated contractor ran into financial difficulties and stopped work in January 2003. After several unsuccessful attempts to resume work, HDB terminated and re-tendered the contract. A new contractor was engaged, and the blocks are now expected to be completed between January 2004 and September 2004, instead of August 2003 to October 2003, which was the original estimate. HDB notified all affected buyers of these changes in February 2003, so that they could adjust their housing plans. Those who require urgent alternative accommodation can approach HDB for assistance. The flats will all be completed before their respective DPDs, which range from August 2004 to October 2004. Thus, the issue of compensation to flat buyers does not arise. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister on the registration of contractors by the BCA. How is financial standing and solvency of a firm evaluated?”
“Sir, the objective of the tender system is to award the contract to the company that offers the best combination of price, quality and reliability; in other words, best value for money. It has to do so in a way that is objective and fair, to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in the use of public funds. On the whole, the system is sound and working well, as shown by the large number of contracts which have been awarded and successfully completed. While HDB has put in place a rigorous selection process, there is no guarantee that selected firms will not run into difficulties later, especially during this economic downturn. HDB will monitor the contractors' performance closely during construction. If any contractor is in trouble, HDB will take immediate action to minimise the impact on residents. For upgrading projects, HDB will activate a contingency contractor to complete the essential works. It will also keep residents informed through circulars and house-to-house visits. For construction projects of new flats, HDB will keep buyers informed early if there are changes in the estimated completion date. Nevertheless, in view of recent concerns, MND and BCA are presently seeking views from industry representatives and key Government agencies, to see whether and if so, how the system can be further improved. Let me now address the specific questions raised by Members. Dr Amy Khor asked about the management of main and sub-contractors. In HDB's projects, the main contractor will choose and manage his own sub-contractors, but they must be registered either with BCA or the Singapore Contractors' Association Limited (SCAL). Miss Penny Low asked about HDB's timing of payments to its contractors.”
“Sir, the construction industry is currently going through some very tough times. The demand is weak and competition in the industry has become more intense. As a result, some contractors are facing financial difficulties and have been unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. This has disrupted some public sector construction projects. Members have asked whether these problems are due to HDB's tender system. Let me first explain the HDB's process for selecting contractors. There are three steps in the procurement process: First, contractors are pre-qualified based on their financial resources, their professional and technical qualifications and track record, using the Building and Construction Authority (BCA)'s Contractors Registry as a guide. HDB will specify the category of contractors who are eligible to participate in the tender based on the estimated project value. Second, after the close of the tender exercise, HDB will verify that the tender proposals fully comply with the tender requirements. The tender proposals are then evaluated based on their price competitiveness, their conformance to the required specifications, the tenderer's ability to undertake the project, his financial solvency and his performance in other public sector projects. The third and last stage of the process is for the HDB to conduct due diligence on the tenderers and their tender prices. All things being equal, HDB will award it to the lowest tenderer who can do the job. If HDB finds that the lowest tender price is significantly below the other tender bids as well as its own estimates, it will interview the tenderer and ask him to re-examine his bid. If he decides to withdraw from the tender, HDB will recall the tender or award it to the next lowest bidder.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Dr Ng Eng Hen and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan be allowed to address this House from the Public Hearing Room in Parliament House and that Dr Tan Cheng Bock be allowed to address this House from his home, via video. Sir, the SARS crisis that we are facing is the most serious crisis since independence. Yesterday, in this House, we heard from DPM and various Ministers about the situation so far and what the Government is doing to combat the crisis. Today, we have before us in the House a Bill to amend the Infectious Diseases Act to give the Minister for Health additional weapons to fight this battle. Sir, several Members are unable to be present in this Chamber today. Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Dr Balaji, Dr Ng Eng Hen and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan are members of the Ministerial Combat Team helping the hospitals. They have indicated their desire to speak in the debate on this Bill to share their personal experience on the ground. Dr Tan Cheng Bock has voluntarily placed himself under home quarantine, as he had treated a SARS patient. He has also expressed his wish to participate in the debate. Sir, these are extraordinary times for us which call for extraordinary measures. With modern technology, these Members can participate in the debate even though they are not able to be physically present in this Chamber. I now wish to seek Parliament's consent to allow them to do so. Their personal experiences and views will help us to better understand and better fight this battle together.”
“The Potong Pasir Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) has nominated Sennett Estate for EUP. Its selection was announced in January 2003. Neither the CCC Advisor nor any of the grassroots organisations has asked for or been given permission to construct a river promenade or park at the waterfront in front of apartment Block Nos. 125-144 of Potong Pasir Avenue 3, or to provide better facilities to the surrounding areas at Avon Park and Euro-Asia Park. MND has also not received any request from the CCC Advisor or his grassroots organisations to carry out the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) or to upgrade the lifts at the HDB estates in Potong Pasir and Lorong 8 Toa Payoh. Appendix - Announcement by Mr Speaker”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn to tomorrow, 25th April 2003, at 1.30 pm."”
“So, there is now ample supply of vegetables available in the market and I would like to urge members of the public not to rush or to hoard vegetables because more supply will be coming in regularly. On the question of the safety of the workers engaged in transporting and selling vegetables, as far as the drivers and delivery workers are concerned, at the Causeway, the AVA has now instituted special measures to screen all such workers coming in from Malaysia. They will ask for a health declaration. They will ask them whether they have been to the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre from the 5th to 19th April. On top of that, they will take their temperatures. All these measures have been explained to the importers, and also to my Malaysian counterpart, the Minister for Agriculture. They have been accepted. We need to do this to safeguard the safety of our workers and the buyers involved in the vegetable trade and also those involved in other food centres. We are doing similar screening in the secondary wholesale centres which have been set up - the ones in Toa Payoh, Eunos Estate and Sin Ming. All these will help to ensure that the people who are working there as well as the supplies that are coming through are safe. Finally, as a result of the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre's experience, we have also started to screen the temperature of users and visitors to the Jurong and Senoko Fishing Ports and Markets, because a similar situation in the fish market prevails. In other words, most of our fish flows through these two markets. So we are also taking additional safety measures in these two areas.”
“Again, as a result of the closure of the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, which accounted for something like 70% of the total vegetable supply in Singapore, from Malaysia, there was considerable disruption in the first day or so. Since then, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) has been working closely with the six major supermarkets, as well as other distributors, which import vegetables directly, without going through Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, to increase their imports in order to compensate for the loss. At the same time, AVA has facilitated importers, who have been placed under HQO following the closure, to make alternative arrangements for their vegetables to be brought in and to be delivered directly to their customers, without routing them through Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre. AVA has also worked with Immigration and Customs Authority (ICA) to put in place procedures to facilitate faster clearance of consignments at the Causeway. In addition to that, AVA has approved additional suppliers from Malaysia who can export vegetables to Singapore. Now, there are over 100 such suppliers. And imports of vegetables from other countries have also been stepped up. All these measures, the re-routing of supplies through supermarkets, opening up of secondary wholesale centres, facilitation of imports from Malaysia, additional suppliers, imports from other countries and so on, have resulted and contributed to an increase in the supply that is available in the market today. This morning, I have been told that the supplies have actually gone up above the levels seen before Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre was closed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to respond to two of the questions that were raised just now by Members concerning the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre. Sir, as Members are aware, the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre has been closed for a period of 10 days, from 20th April, and this is due to the discovery of probable SARS infection there. This was a sudden closure and the Government recognises that because of its suddenness it has affected the business of tenants in the wholesale centre. Of course, the closure is necessary and justified to safeguard public health and also the safety of Singaporeans but, nevertheless, it has caused the tenants financial loss, not to mention inconvenience and disruption. We have to recognise that it is not possible to adequately compensate for such loss and disruption. However, the Government will provide some financial assistance to the affected tenants and workers. First of all, HDB will waive the rentals for 10 days, in other words, for the full period of the closure. Second, the Government will provide an ex gratia payment of $1,600 to each tenant, and this is to cover part of the loss arising from the goods that were destroyed. When the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre was closed suddenly, tenants were not allowed to enter the premises to retrieve their goods. As a result of that, and as a result of the disinfection that was carried out, most of the vegetables stored there had to be destroyed. Finally, of course, tenants and workers whose incomes have been affected will be eligible for the HQO allowance which the Deputy Prime Minister announced earlier. This allowance provides for up to $70 per day per person. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked for an update on the vegetable supply situation.”
“There may be various operational conditions requiring a deviation from the collision regulations, depending on the mission and the operating environment. An example would be when an RSN ship has to respond to violations of our territorial integrity or pre-position herself in a situation which may require such a response. Military operations often do not proceed in a regulated or predictable way, and it is important that RSN officers are fully and comprehensively trained so that they can carry out their missions effectively in whatever circumstances they may find themselves in. NATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE (Breach of ethical standards by bio-medical researchers) 5. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how such a serious breach of ethical standards in the conduct of medical research on human subjects at the National Neuroscience Institute could have taken place and remained undetected for so long; (b) what safeguards will be instituted to prevent such breaches and better protect patients from unauthorised medical tests undertaken by bio-medical researchers as well as ensure that medical records are not released for purposes other than the treatment of patients without their consent and whether these safeguards can be made public; (c) what steps will be taken to educate patients of their rights so that they too can better protect themselves when confronted with such situations; and (d) what control mechanism is in place to prevent the use of questionable research methods on human subjects for bio-medical research.”
“Members will appreciate that naval officers have to be trained not just in classroom-based lessons and theory but also in the practical application of the various skills required of a naval officer. This includes watchkeeping skills at sea. The training system includes regular written assessments to ensure currency on bridge watchkeeping as well as many practical sessions on ship handling simulators. A key part of the qualification process involves practical training at sea, during which the trainee Officer-of-the-Watch is allowed to handle the ship under close supervision. This is necessary so that our young officers are trained and qualified under realistic operating conditions and learn to make the judgements and decisions that are necessary. At all times, the trainee is under the close supervision of a qualified Officer-of-the-Watch, and it is the qualified Officer-of-the-Watch who is always fully responsible for the safety of the ship during his watch. On the issue of maritime regulations, RSN Officers-of-the-Watch have to study the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, and they are tested on these international regulations every six months. Thorough knowledge of these International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea is an important feature of the training syllabus which qualifies RSN Officers-of-the-Watch. RSN ships have to comply with the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, except when operational circumstances do not permit compliance. RSN officers know that if there should be an operational requirement to deviate from these collision regulations, the ship must do so with full regard for safety. Any deviation from the collision regulations must not compromise safety or jeopardise other shipping.”
“So, as part of the privatisation exercise, the residents have purchased the common property from HDB and they now own it as tenants-in-common. The cost of this transfer of common property at Waterfront View is not at the nominal sum of $1, as provided in the HUDC Act. It is $18,992.65 per flat, inclusive of stamp duty. Residents of the estates will also have to pay other costs that are associated with privatisation, such as processing fees, which will bring the total cost of conversion to about $20,000. This, I must add, is lower than the estimated cost of $25,000 which the residents were informed of at the commencement of the privatisation exercise. TRAINING OF NAVAL OFFICERS 4. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, in view of the findings by the Maritime and Port Authority that the collision involving RSS Courageous was due to several errors of judgement by Navy personnel, (a) whether young trainee officers will continue to be put on the watch of Navy vessels; and (b) whether officers are trained on international maritime regulations and the conditions under which these regulations can be broken for operational reasons. The Second Minister for Defence (RAdm Teo Chee Hean) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to clarify that a qualified Officer-of-the-Watch is always responsible for the safe navigation of an RSN ship. When there is a trainee officer undergoing training to qualify as an Officer-of-the-Watch, the trainee officer may direct the ship's movement under the direct supervision of a qualified Officer-of-the-Watch who always remains responsible for the safety of the ship.”
“Sir, it is correct that HDB had, arising from some strong representations made by the MP for the area, BG George Yeo, as well as the PC - this was sometime in March and April 2002 - to carry out some goodwill repairs to the aprons at some of the blocks in his estate. This was, notwithstanding the fact that, as I said earlier, the maintenance and the upkeep of the common areas and the aprons were under the responsibility of the MCST by then. However, with the commencement of the law suit by some residents on the privatisation process, it is best for HDB to wait for the outcome of the law suit before taking any further action. Any goodwill repairs would, of course, have to be considered in the light of the recent complaint of defects by the MCST. As for the MP's second query about the payment of the conversion fee, whether it should be $1 or more, let me clarify that there are two kinds of HUDC estates. The first type of HUDC estates are the estates that were built under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the HUDC programme. The second type would be under the next phases, Phases 3 and 4. The HUDC Housing Estates Act applies to flats in HUDC Phases 1 and 2 estates. These estates were built and sold in the 1970s by the former Housing and Urban Development Company (HUDC) Private Limited. Under this Act, the flat lessees own the common property as tenants-in-common. Waterfront View is one of the HUDC Phases 3 and 4 estates, and these estates were sold by HDB in the mid-1980s under Part IV of the Housing and Development Act (or H&D Act), which is different from the HUDC Housing Estates Act. The HUDC Housing Estates Act does not apply to Waterfront View. The residents of Waterfront View did not own the common property before privatisation.”
“The buildings were found to be structurally sound. The competent authorities, namely, the Fire Safety and Shelter Bureau and the Building and Construction Authority, have issued the Fire Safety Certificate (on 21st January 2003) and the Certificates of Statutory Completion (on 7th March and 13th March 2003) accordingly for the estate. Prior to privatisation, the estate maintenance works were undertaken by the Aljunied Town Council. With privatisation, the MCST has taken over the unexpended funds of more than $1 million from the Town Council, being an accrual of the monthly service and conservancy charges the flat owners had paid to the Town Council. This is one of the highest amongst all the HUDC estates privatised so far. The MCST has the autonomy to decide on the types of repair and improvement works, and the amount of maintenance fees to be collected from the residents. It follows that the rectification of defects is largely the responsibility of the MCST. Let me conclude by reiterating three points with regard to the privatisation of the former Bedok Reservoir HUDC Estate. Firstly, the privatisation was carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the LTSA. Since 1st February 2002, the estate is a private condominium under the ambit of the LTSA. Secondly, the PC acted according to HDB's guidelines on HUDC estate privatisation. It has, in HDB's view, discharged its duties diligently and acted bona fide in the interest of residents. Lastly, the $20 million cost of rectifying the said "defects" in the estate is greatly exaggerated. The blocks in the estate were certified to be structurally sound during HDB's inspections in April/May 1997 and in April 2001. With privatisation, the maintenance and management of the estate are the responsibility of the MCST.”
“The members of the PC were subsequently endorsed in 1997 by the Kampong Kembangan Community Centre Secretariat and by the new MP for the area, BG George Yeo. The role of the PC was to facilitate the process of privatisation. The members of the PC were all volunteers who worked as the liaison between the residents, the lawyers selected by the PC to conduct the privatisation process, HDB and the other relevant authorities on privatisation matters. I understand that the PC had kept the residents fully informed throughout the privatisation exercise. From October 1996 to April 2002, the PC issued 16 newsletters to the residents, updating them on the various issues of privatisation, such as the conversion cost, progress of the various works carried out in the estate and inviting more volunteers to serve in the PC. They consulted the residents on the fencing and re-naming of the estate after privatisation. The PC acted according to HDB's guidelines, and has, in HDB's view, discharged its roles diligently and acted bona fide in the interest of the residents. Alleged defects in the estate It is not true that there are widespread defects existing in Waterfront View which would cost $20 million to rectify. HDB has, consequent to receiving a survey report commissioned by the MCST and which purports to set out the extent of the alleged defects, made a preliminary assessment of these defects. HDB has discovered that these "defects" were generally due to fair wear and tear. This is not surprising, given that the former Bedok Reservoir HUDC estate was built more than 18 years ago. In any case, the rectification cost of $20 million for these wear and tear items is greatly exaggerated. HDB structural engineers inspected the blocks in the estate in April/May 1997 and again in April 2001.”
“The written consents of the lessees were signed over a period of time prior to the submission of the documents to SLA. There is no requirement in the LTSA that the 75% mandate must be obtained in a single day. On 6th December 2001, the SLA posted a notice in The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao providing for written objections to privatisation to be lodged within six weeks. It also sent a copy of the notice by registered post to all the individual flat owners on 10th December 2001. No objections were received. As the application was in order, the SLA registered the Strata Title Plan on 1st February 2002, ie, the estate was privatised on 1st February 2002. The certificate of constitution of the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) Plan No. 2625 was issued by SLA on 2nd February 2002. I believe that only a small proportion of the residents of Waterfront View were not in favour of privatisation. These residents should accept that the majority of the residents had wanted privatisation. Unfortunately, some of these residents have taken the matter to court and have sued some members of the Pro-tem Committee ("PC") and the law firm that had been selected by the PC to assist them. The Court will determine if those residents who have sued have a genuine case. The Role of the Pro-tem Committee HDB had, pursuant to its procedure for privatisation, encouraged the residents of the former Bedok Reservoir HUDC Estate to form a Pro-tem Committee (PC) with the help of the Member of Parliament. This was done in 1996 by the MP of the area at that time, Mr Chew Heng Ching, under the auspices of the relevant grassroots organisation.”