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 31 of 61.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me explain the privatisation process. Privatisation converts the HDB leases into strata titles under the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA). This changes the status of these flats from public to private housing. With privatisation, flat owners will no longer be subject to HDB's restrictions on the use, ownership and resale of their flats. They can sublet their flat wholly, purchase HDB resale flats and sell their flats to a wider group of potential buyers. Flat owners will own the common property as tenants-in-common and have the autonomy to manage and upgrade their estate, according to their needs and aspirations. The privatisation of the former Bedok Reservoir HUDC Estate was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA). The relevant provisions of the LTSA allow for such a conversion if, at least 75% of the lessees of the total number of flats apply to do so, and the proprietor of the land agrees to transfer the land to them. Privatisation is therefore the choice of flat owners. HDB cannot and does not compel the flat owners to privatise their estates unless the majority wish to do so. HDB has explained its position with regard to the privatisation process in its letters of 30th April 2002 and 5th October 2002 to Waterfront View residents, and in a letter published in the Forum Page of The Straits Times on 11th May 2002. The application to convert the HDB flat leases to strata titles was submitted under the relevant provisions of the LTSA and the documents (including the written consents signed by more than 75% of the lessees of the Estate) were lodged with the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) on 3rd December 2001.”
“So, it is open for use by members of the public and I am sure that members of the public have enjoyed the Istana grounds during these times. The Istana is a crucial national symbol for Singapore, and we would preserve and maintain it for posterity.”
“This is where he receives and entertains State guests. It is, therefore, a symbol of authority as the abode of the Head of State. Due to its national significance, we should consider very seriously before we shift it around or relook at its use. There was a suggestion, in fact, made in the early 60s by Mr Ong Eng Guan, who was then the Minister for National Development. He suggested that we should free up the land for public housing because, at that time, housing was in short supply and in great demand. The Government rejected the idea because of the significance of the Istana. Had it done so, instead of the Istana today, with all the grounds and all the buildings available, we would have a public housing estate, something like Bukit Ho Swee, because at that time we were thinking of whether we should be building flats in Bukit Ho Swee after the Bukit Ho Swee fire, if Members recall. Sir, the Istana should not be moved from its present location, and there is no pressing need to free up the Istana land, whether it is for use as a public park or otherwise, because there is sufficient State land in the central area to meet our future development needs. As far as park land is concerned, as I have just explained in a previous response, we are providing more park land, more green spaces for our residents to enjoy. Indeed, currently, the public can visit the Istana grounds and even the buildings themselves. There are plenty of opportunities. It is open five times a year, all the festivals - Chinese New Year, Labour Day, National Day, Deepavali, Hari Raya Puasa. In addition, the Istana is used for many important State and other large Government functions, eg, the Armed Forces, the Police, teachers, nurses, VWOs, community leaders and workers.”
“Ideally, they would prefer to park their vehicles just next to their flat but, as I explained, this is not feasible and it is also not conducive to the living environment of the estate. Let me just add that there are sufficient parking lots island-wide for heavy vehicles, and owners and drivers of heavy vehicles should not have problems securing a parking space for the vehicles in these areas. Finally, Sir, let me address Mr Chandra Mohan's cut about the site of the Istana and his proposals. As Mr Chandra Mohan pointed out, the history of the Istana is a very colourful and important one. It was built in 1869. It has housed many, many dignitaries, ranging from the British Colonial Governors, and all our Heads of State since self-government and independence. It has also played host to many important people. The current Istana site is zoned "Civic and Community Institution" (CNCI) in the Master Plan. Should the Istana grounds be better used, considering that it is sitting on prime land in the city area? The Istana is a very important part of our history. During the Japanese occupation, General Yamashita, who was the Commander of the Imperial Japanese Forces, resided in it. So did General Tojo, who was then the Prime Minister of Japan, when he visited Singapore. Lord Louis Mountbatten, the British Commander-in-Chief, when the Allied Forces returned in 1945, lived in it and so did many others, as Mr Mohan pointed out. If walls could speak, it would tell fabulous tales of Singapore's past. Within the Istana grounds there are also several buildings of significant architectural and historical interests, and two of these buildings have been gazetted as national monuments in 1992. The Istana is the official residence of the President.”
“What is the issue? The issue really is whether to take into account the disamenities - the disturbances, noise and smoke caused to residents - or whether we put more weight on the convenience of the heavy vehicle owners. There are heavy vehicle parks located in HDB estates, but where they are located directly inside HDB estates, we can get a lot of complaints from the residents. Five o'clock in the morning the vehicles start up and they disturb the residents. In fact, recently, I have received several requests from MPs to actually re-locate heavy vehicle parks outside HDB estates, and we have done so. So, we will provide heavy vehicle parks close to HDB estates, where there is space available, but we have to also recognise that heavy vehicles are not meant to be used as a personal transport. They are, in fact, to be used for businesses. We will try to accommodate the demand for such parks on an interim basis, as Mr Wee suggested, in certain areas where land is available, where vacant land is not required for development in the near future. But we have to recognise that in the longer term, all the heavy vehicle parks, once land is progressively used up, will have to start to move. For this reason, we have provided permanent heavy vehicle parks in many purpose built heavy vehicle parks near workplaces, like industrial estates in Jurong, Kranji, Senoko, and so on. And when we do so, the intention is to have the heavy vehicle owners make their own transport arrangements to travel between their home and the designated parking places of their heavy vehicle. This is, I recognise, not the ideal situation.”
“Exemptions are selectively granted to satisfy certain planning objectives. What are these? For example, there may be a need to provide for greater design flexibility, for more pedestrian linkage, so there are GFA exemptions for covered public walkways. Or there may be a requirement to achieve more greenery within developments, and so things like planter boxes, sky terraces, etc, are granted GFA exemption. But, GFA exemption should not be freely used as a tool to achieve every and any objective. So, for example, if there is a need to provide social facilities like childcare centres, we should be looking at other ways of facilitating such developments, rather than look to GFA exemptions as the only way of doing so. Because the moment you start to expand the GFA exemption list you are, in effect, compromising the planning norms. What are these other incentives? Perhaps we can look at tax incentives as one possibility. But, as I said in my reply three years ago, I still believe that it is important for the market to be allowed to operate in this case. If really there is a need for, say, a commercial development to have a childcare centre, or any other family-friendly facility, I believe that developers should seriously consider providing for such facilities, in the same way that it provides other facilities to make its development more attractive. I believe that this is an attractive facility and that if there is a childcare facility, this would be a plus for that development. But this is a decision not for the Government to make, but a decision properly left to the developers to make. I turn now to the issue of heavy vehicle parking by Mr Wee Siew Kim. This is a perennial problem with developments in HDB estates, and many MPs have approached my Ministry on this.”
“I do not think it is the business of Government to step in to meet this demand for private retirement villages. We have already done so in the case of HDB residents. How can we incentivise it? What we can do is to make sure that the norms, the building guidelines, the planning guidelines do not unnecessarily impede the development of such retirement villages. Just to give Members a small example. A feedback was that some of the current planning guidelines for developments in general specify certain minimum car parking requirements. We have looked at it and we have decided that for retirement villages, we can relax these guidelines because they are not relevant. But as I have said, I do not believe that Government should directly incentivise the development of retirement villages. It is best left to the private sector as a business decision. One feedback that we have received is to provide land on a shorter tenure. In other words, instead of providing land for 99 years, why not provide land for 60 years or even 30 years? This is something that we can consider, and if it is helpful for developers in encouraging them to provide retirement villages, then we will certainly look into it favourably. But, as for land specifically zoned for retirement villages alone, I do not believe there is any need for such specific land use zoning at this point in time. 12.15 pm Dr Jennifer Lee asked whether we will provide bonus GFA for space used for childcare centres. First of all, may I spend some time to explain why we provide GFA exemptions in certain situations. GFA, or gross floor area, is something that developers pay for. They tender for it and they bid on the basis of the specified GFA. Having done so, they are allowed certain exemptions.”
“For his information, we are also exploring this concept of community clusters, where civic and community facilities, such as community clubs and nursing homes are allocated together with one religious institution per cluster. We are trying out this concept in Punggol 21. Apart from optimising land use, these community clusters will also serve as a focal point, a gathering point, for residents to interact. Mrs Fang Ai Lian raised the issue of retirement villages. I believe Dr Amy Khor also raised this issue earlier in her cut. Let me, first of all, say that the issue of retirement villages was deliberated extensively when the IMC for the Aging Population met and discussed. First of all, we agreed that our priority was to allow for "aging in-situ". As I have explained, we try and provide good facilities so that the elderly can live with their families in places that they are familiar with. Having said that, of course, yes, there are also times when the elderly may want to live on their own. For this reason, the HDB has also provided the housing option known as the studio apartment. Studio apartments were originally built as stand-alone blocks. There were some valid concerns about having all the elderly together and, for this reason, we have reviewed the situation. We will be integrating studio apartments in blocks with other 4- and 5-room residents, so that the young as well as the elderly can live together. This scheme has been well-received and we will be doing more, as I explained to this House yesterday. But there may be demands for other housing options for the elderly, such as retirement villages. If there is such a demand for a retirement village, private property developers will cater to this demand.”
“Sir, first of all, in response to Dr Teo Ho Pin on the planning norms for places of worship. URA and HDB work together to ensure that there is adequate land for places of worship to meet the different religious needs of our residents. He asked what is the basis for allocating land. The number and the distribution of sites for the different places of worship are based on planning norms and standards, which are set not just by URA alone but in consultation with various authorities, like the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. The key factors in determining the number of sites include the size of the residential population in the area, as well as the needs of the different religious groups. Places of worship are one of the many community facilities that are provided for residents in HDB new towns. When HDB plans these new towns, various types of religious institutions are catered for, and they are distributed throughout the new towns. As a result, residents can pursue their own religion in a place of worship near their homes, well-served by public transport and a good road network system. But, in a few instances, where land is not so readily available, sites are also provided in industrial estates. How are sites allocated? They are allocated by open tender. We specify the type of religious institution, whether it is church, Chinese or Hindu temple. I believe that this is a fair and transparent system. Apart from tender, we also use the auction system. As for mosques, the sites for mosques are traditionally allocated directly to MUIS, and MUIS will do the development. I would like to assure Dr Teo that my Ministry is very mindful of the need to provide adequate sites for places of worship for the different religious groups in Singapore.”
“It is far better to ensure that an adequate supply of land is released to achieve competitive and stable prices.”
“Property consultants do regular surveys and, for office space, we are ranked in the latest survey, 35th in the list of global cities in the world. Our office rents, in fact, are cheaper than those in Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing and Sydney, even Mumbai, I am told. As for retail space, again, property consultants have ranked Singapore 12th in the world. We are more competitive than cities like Hong Kong, Sydney, Seoul and Tokyo. The office market is, however, currently in a state of over-supply mainly because of shrinkage in demand due to the economic slowdown. The private residential market is more stable. Prices fell marginally last year by 1.8%. But sentiments in the property market are still uncertain. The Government has, therefore, taken a more cautious approach towards the commercial and residential markets, and has not released any sites through the confirmed list of the GLS for residential or commercial developments since the end of 2001. We also deferred plans to release a site for the business and financial centre in the first half of 2003, and tightened the controls to ensure that Government agencies build office buildings only when there are no suitable alternatives. However, we have still made sites available through the reserve list. Despite the Government's suspension of the confirmed list, interested parties have, to-date, successfully applied to release nine land sale sites. Eight of them have been sold, and the tender for the last site will close in the next few days. Sir, let me conclude by restating that Singapore will never be as cheap as some other countries with a large land mass. We cannot compete on property prices and rentals alone. There are serious implications to the rest of our economy, if we deliberately depress the true market value of land.”
“Prices of land and properties will rise and fall according to economic conditions. Our aim is not to control property prices in the short term, eg, by subsidising it to maintain competitiveness when it is high, or boosting it when the market is down during economic downturns. Rather, it is to ensure a stable property market over the medium term. To achieve this, the Government's strategy is to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of land released to meet the end-users' medium-term demand for space. With sufficient supply, prices will not escalate sharply, and the market will be more stable. One way that the Government releases land is through the Government Land Sales (GLS) programme. Dr Amy Khor commented on the importance of taking into account all available supply when determining the GLS programme. Let me assure her that MND and URA will take this into account. We do account for all sources of supply when planning for the GLS programme, ie, existing supply and supply in the pipeline, and those released by private developers as well as Government agencies. MND and URA, together with MOF, MTI and MinLaw, are now studying ways to see how we can improve this operating framework. We recognise, however, that it is difficult to determine demand accurately, as the market is dynamic, and this is the reason why in 2001 we introduced the reserve list programme. The reserve list system enables the GLS programme to be more responsive to market demand. Sites will only be released for sale when developers apply for them. With this approach, Singapore's commercial space has remained, by and large, competitive. As Dr Amy Khor has pointed out, Singapore is competitive by international standards, whether we are talking about office or retail space.”
“For example, if we have a factory or part of a housing estate suddenly to be converted to a shopping centre, we can expect a lot of traffic congestion in these areas. So, for all these reasons, I hope Members will appreciate why URA needs to enforce zoning controls. Sir, the draft Master Plan 2003 for the west region has been launched. This is the first in the series of five regional plans that would be launched over the next few months for the north, north-east, east and the central regions. All these plans will be exhibited. Before firming up these plans, I hope to receive views and suggestions from Members to help us to improve our plans. Sir, let me now address the property market. Many Members of this House have asked what the Government is doing to ensure that our land prices do not hinder our competitiveness, particularly for commercial and industrial land. Other Members have highlighted that in ensuring that Singapore remains cost-competitive, we do not inadvertently destabilise the property market and erode the asset values of existing land and property owners. This House has already discussed industrial land pricing in detail. Deputy Prime Minister Lee has already explained that we cannot match the lowest land prices offered by our competitors, nor do we need to do so. But, the Government will safeguard and ensure that there is an adequate supply of industrial land released to achieve competitive and stable prices. Let me now touch on the Government's land release policy, in particular, for the commercial and residential sectors. The Government's objective behind the supply of land is to sustain economic growth. We will safeguard sufficient land over the long term, and we will phase the release of this supply to generate growth.”
“My Ministry is now finalising the details of the Home Office Scheme and we will announce the guidelines to them in the next few months. 11.45 pm I would like to take up some Members' comments that flexibility in some cases can result in undesirable side effects, like increase in value of land. Yes, today we do allow some ancillary uses, eg commercial and supporting uses, such as childcare centres, canteens, showrooms, etc, within business zones. Mdm Cynthia Phua, in fact, asked why do we not extend the allowable uses in industrial developments to other complementary uses, particularly today when many industrial developments are under-utilised or not utilised. Industrial land developers have asked that pure office or retail users be allowed to fill up vacant industrial space. There are many such requests that my Ministry receives. On the surface, they appear quite reasonable. Why do we zone land? Why do we specify that this land can only be used for this purpose? If land that was zoned industrial were used for higher value uses, eg, offices or shopping centres, we would soon use up our stock of industrial land. The price of industrial space would start to escalate, and our competitiveness would be affected. We also need to zone land specifically to safeguard sufficient land for housing, parks and for community uses, such as schools and hospitals. Furthermore, zoning ensures that uses are compatibly located. For example, I am sure we do not want our residents to live next to a chemical factory or, suddenly, to find, after they have moved into a neighbourhood that, overnight, they have got a repair workshop next door to them. Zoning is also essential to ensure that the transport facilities can be planned to match such activities.”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked whether we can allow more types of businesses to be conducted in residential premises. I remember this was a matter which was also raised last year by several Members. We did a review and I am pleased to inform Members of this House, yes, we will allow more uses in residential areas. My Ministry will be introducing a Home Office Scheme for both HDB and private developments that allows home owners to conduct certain small scale businesses from their homes within zones that allow for mixed uses. Under this scheme entrepreneurs can operate small scale businesses from their own homes without incurring high start-up cost. We will adopt a negative list approach to kick off this scheme. Uses that could potentially generate disturbances, such as noise, pollution and traffic, will be excluded. Examples include retail, maid agencies, car trading office, commercial schools and food catering. Uses specified in the negative list will not be allowed. Everything will be allowed, provided they satisfy some guidelines. The negative list will be regularly reviewed based on public feedback and I expect that many small businesses, such as professional consultancy services, design offices, financial planning offices, etc, will benefit from such a scheme. To ensure that the premises do not become full-fledged offices and to protect the amenity of the residential environment, some guidelines will be put in place, for example, the business activities must be confined within the premises and the number of employees will be limited. I hope Members will understand why there is a need for such rules to be put in place. Otherwise, those who have bought into these developments, with the hope of enjoying some peace and quiet, will feel aggrieved, and rightly so.”
“While the planners will seek to intensify land use, they also have to be guided by many other considerations, for example, technical considerations. There are tight controls imposed by, say, flight paths, which need to be taken into consideration. And we also need to take into account the need to maintain the ambience and character of certain areas. In the last Master Plan Review 1998, there was already a major review of land use and development intensity and many parcels of land had their plot ratio increased. For the Master Plan 2003, we will focus intensification on undeveloped lands, or what we call, soft lands, especially those near MRT stations. This is done with the knowledge that it will be sufficient to meet our medium term needs for housing. Sir, let me now touch on how we can allow greater flexibility in land use for businesses. We are in a rapidly evolving business environment. So the ability to adjust quickly to changing business needs is important to our competitiveness. In this regard, the Master Plan 2003 has incorporated several features that will provide this greater flexibility for businesses. First, on white sites, we propose to allow more uses within the so-called white sites. As Members will know, the white site concept was introduced to give developers greater flexibility to allow a mix of uses - commercial, residential, hotel - on such sites. We will expand this new white site zone to allow for other uses as well, such as sports and recreation, clean industrial uses and R&D facilities. Secondly, we will introduce new Business One and Business Two zones (B1, B2 zoning). Basically, these new zonings will also allow industrialists to change the uses according to changing business conditions without the need to apply for rezoning of industrial land.”
“I fully support Mrs Yu-Foo's call for us to build a city of excellence. It is indeed our intention. In fact, if Members will recall, the URA some time ago revealed the landmark and gateways plan. What this plan does is to earmark certain strategic sites for landmark developments, landmark buildings. We have started to hold design competitions as a way to draw new and creative ideas. For example, for the Duxton Plain high density public housing project, we held an international design competition in which many international architects participated in this competition. I am pleased to note that the competition was won by a local architectural firm. To add even more buzz to the city, URA plans to establish a cultural and activity loop around the Marina Bay area. So if you look at the Marina Bay area today, you will see the Esplanade, you will see the Fullerton, the developments along One Fullerton, etc. We would like to develop that even further around the Marina Bay so that Singaporeans can look forward to even more world-class attractions to arts and cultural activities along the waterfront and, hopefully, this will contribute to Singapore becoming a WOW city. We will selectively increase density of residential land around MRT stations so that more people can live within easy reach of public transport. This is a concern of some Members that we do not have a sufficiently extensive rail network for Singapore. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked about increase of plot ratio on public and private lands. Let me explain, first of all, that when we assign plot ratio to land in Singapore, we do so on the basis of planning objective, and not on who owns the land, in other words, not whether it is public or private.”
“Sorry. I heard it wrongly. While I am afraid that turning Singapore into a WOW city must be the responsibility of other agencies as well, not only MND, we will contribute our part to that effort. I would also like to thank Mdm Yu-Foo for the $100 ang pow which she has contributed to the Ministry and I hope that, after she hears my reply, she will not withdraw it. Indeed, HDB does offer a wide range of facilities for accessibility. Facilities, like schools, parks, polyclinics, community centres and so on, are well located within our new towns and they are within easy reach of residents. That we can do, and we will. Regional centres, such as Tampines and Jurong, will be developed into an integrated live, work and play environment. Housing, shops, entertainment and institutional developments will be introduced into the Jurong Regional Centre. And URA, HDB and SLA will work closely with grassroots organisations to allow vacant state land that is not needed in the short term to be put to interim community and recreational use. To bring jobs closer to homes, the Master Plan 2003 will safeguard more industrial lands in residential areas, such as Sengkang, Sembawang, Hougang and Punggol. New housing units will also be introduced in the west region, as Dr Amy Khor pointed out. This will be in mature estates, such as Clementi as well as in newer ones, such as Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Batok. As the central area is a major employment centre, we will also increase the number of homes in the central area. One area where we will do this is in Outram. URA will be proposing a new high density residential precinct at Outram. This will capitalise on two very positive attributes of this area, one, the hilly terrain in the area; and, two, its internal city location.”
“We can of course try to mitigate the effects of these developments, and we will. SMU and the National Library Board are exploring ways to capture the memory of the existing National Library. JTC is trying to relocate the popular cold bar restaurant to somewhere nearby. But while we seek to preserve memories and identity, it is not possible to conserve everything and freeze our growth. Some Members, like Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mdm Yu-Foo, Mdm Cynthia Phua, have commented that we need to improve the accessibility of jobs to homes. Mdm Yu-Foo, in particular, asked whether we can find ways and means to increase the vibrancy of our city, to turn it from a boring and so-so city into a wild city. An hon. Member: WOW City!”
“Everyone of us has a favourite building, park, or place in Singapore where we have enjoyed good times with family and friends. These physical markers in our lives serve to root us in time and space. We should not underestimate their importance in our ongoing efforts to forge a Singaporean identity. For the Master Plan 2003, we intend to preserve both such places. The identity plan goes beyond just retaining old buildings. It also recognises that the existing community life, the streetscape, the activities - all these contribute to the identity, character and colour of the place. MND is supportive of the recommendations to conserve about 600 additional buildings, or about 10%, of the existing stock of conservation buildings. There are four key nodes of the identity plan, namely, Balestier, Jalan Besar, Tanjong Katong and Joo Chiat. Sir, we have to bear in mind that there is a limit to conservation. Much as we want to conserve many buildings and areas, this cannot, and should not, be the overriding consideration when we plan for Singapore. We live on a small island with many competing land needs. So land use planning is always a fine balancing act with many trade-offs to be made. Do we conserve or do we sacrifice some infrastructure that is important for economic growth? Do we conserve and diminish the economic value of some pieces of property? The National Library, for instance, many Singaporeans have asked for its conservation. But, unfortunately, it has to be relocated because of the need for a new road and tunnel system in the area which will allow our city to grow. More recently, there were calls for the Portsdown Road area to be kept as it is. Again, it has to be disturbed because there is a need to construct a vital road link through the area.”
“So, Master Plan 2003 will provide for an additional 1,200 hectares of parks and park connectors. To give you an idea of what this means - 1,200 hectares is equivalent to something like 20 Bishan Parks, or if you consider the existing amount of land that we set aside for parkland, it is another 45% of parkland for the enjoyment of Singaporeans. Residents in several of our newer towns - Sengkang, Jurong West - as well as in Woodlands, can look forward to new parks in their neighbourhood. And for existing parks, like Labrador and Pasir Ris, we will be extending them. 11.30 am Previously, unexplored areas, like the central catchment, will be opened up for recreational activities. There will be plans for canopy walk, an observation tower and more hiking trails and boardingwalks. All these plans will be obviously implemented in conjunction with the PUB. To recognise and to safeguard our natural heritage, nature reserves and nature areas will be reflected in the draft Master Plan 2003 for the first time. With all these initiatives and programmes in place, there should be no reason for Singaporeans to complain that there is nothing to do in Singapore. Indeed, even now, there are some quite breathtaking and very beautiful places in Singapore, places like Sungei Buloh, Chek Java, Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Labrador Park, and many other places, which I hope more Singaporeans will take their time to visit and to appreciate. Another important aspect of this draft Master Plan 2003 is the identity plan. What the identity plan seeks to do is to retain the unique identity of some parts of Singapore. Again, I am pleased to note that this plan has received very strong support from members of the public.”
“Sir, first of all, let me respond to Dr Teo Ho Pin's questions on the Master Plan. As Members know, the Master Plan is reviewed every five years. The last review was done in 1998. What the Master Plan does is to translate the Concept Plan 2001 into more specific land use plans for the medium term, and the Concept Plan 2001, in turn, ensures that we have enough land to meet our development needs in the longer term. Dr Teo asked what has been achieved since the last Master Plan review in 1998. Let me just go through some of the developments since then. First of all, new towns such as Sengkang and Punggol were developed after the Master Plan 1998. New rail networks such as the North East MRT Line and LRT systems in Bukit Panjang and Sengkang were also established. As far as parks were concerned, there were new parks - the Hindhede Nature Park for one. Existing parks were redeveloped, for example, West Coast Park. New commercial space at Novena Square, Far East Square, Compass Point in Sengkang and other HDB town and neighbourhood centres were built. New industrial estates and business parks such as Woodlands Spectrum and Changi Business Park were developed to provide jobs closer to home. What about Master Plan 2003? The new Master Plan will focus on two things: (1) enhancing the quality of our living environment through green spaces; and (2) reinforcing the identity of familiar places in Singapore. As for the business community, we will be looking at ways to provide greater flexibility for businesses. Please allow me to elaborate. The public has given great support for the proposals in URA's Parks and Waterbodies Plan - a key part of our plan to realise our vision of Singapore as a "tropical city in a garden".”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2003/2004, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Nevertheless, HDB will continue to actively look for tenants to occupy the vacated premises and it will be prepared to offer competitive rent, especially to anchor tenants. But, having said that, I do not think it would be tenable for HDB to substantially undercut the market or just give away the premises almost for free, because this would have serious repercussions on the market. As to whether HDB Corp will set up shop in HDB Centre, it is really up to HDB Corp. When it is set up in June this year, it would be run as a private company. It will have to make up its own mind where it wants to set up.”
“Dr Warren Lee posed a question on children who helped their parents to pay for mortgage instalments and, as a result of that, they lose out on their entitlement to a housing subsidy. Yes, we recognise that there are such situations. Parents have difficulty to repay their mortgage and children are invited to become co-owners so that they can make use of their CPF. When the children get married and they want to set up their own homes, they are, in certain circumstances, tagged as first-timers already and are therefore not eligible for another subsidy. I would like to inform Dr Warren Lee that, under certain circumstances, they can still be considered as first-timers, eg, if they relinquish ownership or co-ownership of their parent's flat by way of transfer. In this case, the parents must agree to be tagged as having enjoyed the housing subsidy and they will have to be liable for the resale levy. I also want to inform Dr Warren Lee that although we have a ten-year time bar on lessees before they can apply for a second subsidised flat, this requirement will be waived for children who are in this situation. Very quickly, I would like to respond to Dr Chong on HDB Centre. I do sympathise with the shopkeepers in the Bukit Merah Centre. Any major move of this nature is bound to affect them adversely. I just want to assure him that HDB is actively looking at marketing HDB Centre for rental. It has appointed a panel of five marketing agents to lease out the premises. The panel of agents has conducted many show arounds but, ultimately, whether HDB can rent that particular premises depends on the demand for office space. The demand for office space at the moment is very, very weak, not just in HDB Centre, but island-wide. There is a major oversupply of space in the market.”
“Dr Lee has already enumerated some of the initiatives - the flats with elderly-friendly features through the upgrading programme, the lift upgrading programme, and so on and so forth. I would just like to address her concerns about the Code on Barrier-free Accessibility, especially the voluntary guidelines. Yes, we will monitor the implementation of this Code in so far as the public housing estates are concerned. I would like to inform her that HDB, for example, under the Main Upgrading Programme, will provide ramps for the mobility of elderly residents - ramps leading up to the blocks and also ramps leading to other facilities, like recreational facilities and so on. I thought that I should mention one other amenity that we had implemented, and that is, under the project to Improve the Living Conditions for the Elderly, apart from just improving the physical environment, non-slip tiles, hand-bars, alert systems and so on, it is also important to put in place some of the more community-based care and support services for the elderly. And, in this regard, we have worked very closely with MCDS to make sure that there are VWOs who are in place to provide such support to the elderly. So I just want to reassure her that we have a policy framework in place to deal with the challenges posed by the ageing population. We have made progress in implementing some of the IMC recommendations, but, as in all things, while the Government can provide the infrastructure and the policy framework, it is the individual, the family and the community that have to play a part in sharing this responsibility of making ageing in Singapore more fulfilling and rewarding.”
“We conducted a survey on the SA Scheme last year, and we found that, in fact, younger singles considered the studio apartments (SAs) as just one of the many options. And, indeed, the majority indicated non-SA housing options as their first housing choice, such as resale HDB flats and even private housing. So, for that reason, we decided we would not extend the SA Scheme at this point in time because they have viable alternative options to meet their housing needs. They can stay with their parents, they can buy a 3-room flat, loan from the open market, or they can buy a bigger flat if they apply together with another eligible single. And, of course, they can rent rooms. So, the SA Scheme has worked well as a housing form for the elderly. It has been well received. Almost all the SAs that we offered have been snapped up. And, in view of our ageing population, it is important for us to continue to focus on the SAs as a means to meet the housing needs of the elderly. We will build more SAs, new SAs, and we will integrate them together with other blocks and offer them to elderly persons. So, at this point in time, again I say that we do not have plans to open these up to singles. Dr Jennifer Lee asked about the housing for the elderly, especially apropos the Code on Barrier-free Accessibility. Yes, she is right to say that we have implemented several initiatives to make living in HDB flats more elderly-friendly. In fact, one of the strategic thrusts of the Inter-ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population that I chaired, was to encourage "ageing in place". In other words, to enable our elderly to continue to live in their homes, their communities, in places that they are familiar with.”
“So, in the redevelopment plans of Geylang Serai, I will ask the relevant authorities, HDB, the National Environment Agency and others to bear this in mind. Geylang Serai market, for example, serves a very important purpose. It is, as I understand, an anchor facility for festivities during the Ramadan period, and it is a social gathering point for many people. So, we will rebuild the Geylang market at a prominent location, fronting Changi Road, and, in this way, together with retaining many of the merchants in that area, we hope that the character and the vibrancy of that area will be reinforced. Mr Mohamad Maidin, the MP for the area, has, I believe, also set up a task force to gather feedback from all the stakeholders - from the residents, the stallholders and shopkeepers and from the Malay community generally - on the redevelopment of Geylang Serai. I assure Members that the Government will take note of the feedback and ensure that their needs are taken care of and the character of the place is retained. I turn now to the issue of housing for singles. Ms Irene Ng advocated passionately for singles to be allowed access to the studio apartments. Let me just go one step back and explain what is the purpose of the studio apartments. When we introduced the Studio Apartment Scheme (SA Scheme), we really wanted it to be a customised housing option, another housing option for the elderly. To make sure that they were affordable to the elderly, we purposely sold it on a short 30-year lease, with option for extension, the idea being to keep the price affordable. Then, we thought, why not consider it also as a housing option for singles? We considered this very seriously.”
“As far as payment for the upgrading is concerned, again, I would like to inform Members that so far, HDB's data indicate that there are 48,000 households that have been billed for the upgrading work, and more than 95% have paid up, either in full or by instalments. The rest can opt for either a longer repayment period or even defer their payment until their flat is sold, and this accounts for the rest of the residents. So, again, it is not true that the residents are not able to afford upgrading. As for lift upgrading, I am glad that we have been able to implement the lift upgrading programme because it is indeed a very highly appreciated programme. But there are many blocks that are eligible for lift upgrading. In fact, to date there are some 3,500 high-rise blocks which still do not have lifts on every floor yet. So, I do sympathise with the call for lifts for four-storey blocks from Mr Ang Mong Seng, Dr Tan Boon Wan and others. But, as I said, there are many other high-rise blocks which still have not had their lifts changed. And in view of the funds that we have available, we need necessarily to continue to prioritise this lift upgrading programme. So, I do not have good news for Mr Ang Mong Seng at this point in time. We do not intend to implement lift upgrading for four-storey blocks as yet. Let me now move on to Mr Zainul who asked about the SERS programme for Geylang Serai. I did not know that my parliamentary colleague, Mr Yatiman, was married in Geylang Serai. Maybe if he tells me which particular place, we might find a way to preserve that - put a plaque there or whatever. It is something that has been very well received by the residents and I agree with Mr Zainul that the atmosphere and the unique character of Geylang Serai are something worth preserving.”
“Based on the polling results so far, it is clear that many residents are in favour of upgrading, in spite of the inconvenience, the noise, the dust and so on, that they face while the upgrading works are in progress. Last year, for example, we polled ten precincts for MUP and every precinct voted "yes" for the standard package. 85% "yes" votes, on the average, is a resounding approval for the MUP programme. For the Lift Upgrading Programme that was implemented in 2001, out of 68 blocks that were polled in the demonstration phase, 67 voted in favour of the programme. Remember that there is a co-payment element in the lift upgrading programme, and why the one block did not agree to the lift upgrading programme could be because the co-payment amount was on the high side. As for the space-adding item, yes, I agree with Dr Tan that it does cost more to have a space-adding item included in the upgrading programme. But, again, this is subject to approval of the residents. If the residents do not wish or they do not feel that it is good value for money, all they have to do is to say so. Some precincts have indeed voted "no" for the space-adding item (SAI), especially the 5-room flats. I think this is quite a pragmatic position. They already have a large flat. They do not wish to have an additional storeroom or an additional balcony, and they say, "Thank you very much. I do not need it." We say, "Yes, fair enough." We move on and offer it to another precinct. So it is not true that the upgrading, especially MUP, is no longer attractive.”
“In 2001, we also introduced the Lift Upgrading Programme because there were a lot of requests from MPs for lifts to stop at every floor, and also we recognised that the population was aging. Last year, we implemented IUP Plus. Under IUP Plus, we can have more lift upgrading works to enable more residents to have access to the lift upgrading works earlier at the same time as they enjoy the IUP works. Yes, Mr Ang is correct to say that under the IUP Plus, we have actually revised the budget from $4,000 to $2,000 and this is for the IUP component. Why do we do this? The rationale is because we want to divert more resources to the lift upgrading works. The Lift Upgrading Programme is a much more sought after programme by Members of Parliament, as well as by residents, and for this reason, we diverted the funds to what we felt would be more appreciated and more valuable to the residents. However, within this IUP budget, the working committee, which is usually chaired by the advisor, would be able to select from a list of improvement works. It is like a menu. So whether it is repainting of the blocks, new letter boxes, covered linkways, improved lighting, or whatever, advisors and residents choose what they think will bring most benefit to the residents. What we have done is to keep the budget lean, divert it to areas where they are more appreciated and for the remaining budget, allow a list of things that residents would want to choose from. 6.15 pm As for the selection of blocks for upgrading, we do so after very careful consideration. After we have selected the blocks for upgrading, it is ultimately the residents themselves who decide, through a polling process, by voting, whether they want their blocks to be upgraded or not.”
“Madam, let me first respond to Dr Tan Cheng Bock's questions on the upgrading programme. Dr Tan suggested that the HDB review the upgrading programme, especially the MUP, and to concentrate on the more practical and affordable and less of those aspects which are wasteful and duplicated. Similarly, Dr Tan Boon Wan and Mr Ang Mong Seng made the same point and asked about the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). Madam, upgrading is a long-term programme. This is a programme that the Government is committed to. It is an expensive programme and is heavily subsidised. For this reason, it is necessary for us to continue to review the upgrading programme, one, to make sure that it continues to stay relevant to the needs of HDB residents; and two, to make sure that we get the best value for money, bearing in mind that resources are limited. In fact, Members will know that we have completed quite a few rounds of review of the upgrading programme over the last few years. I think Mr Ang Mong Seng has mentioned specifically a review of the IUP programme. In 1999, we revised the upgrading programme to scale down the improvement works that were considered less essential, for example, things like amphitheatres, water features, fountains, and so on. Then, we reviewed further the scope of the upgrading programme last year to focus on improvement items that the residents would value more, mainly improvement items within the flats, like the change of pipes, spalling concrete, toilets, changing of the windows, and so on. Then, in 2001, we revised the age criterion for the MUP and IUP programmes so that more HDB flats can be considered for upgrading.”
“Madam, the answer to both of Mr Chiam's questions is yes. It will take over the building of public housing and it will operate as a private company. As far as subsidies are concerned, that is a separate matter, and the management and the administration of public housing subsidies will remain with the statutory board, the public housing authority called HDB.”
“But the latest introduction of this option to purchase by HDB replaces the current sale and purchase agreement because HDB has discovered that many times, people make purchases and want to opt out, or want to cancel the purchases because of one reason or another. So this option to purchase provides buyers with an option period during which they can reconsider the purchase, they can verify various aspects of the purchase and, if they change their minds, they can withdraw from the purchase with minimal financial loss. Mr Othman mentioned a case where one of his constituents was cheated. I will ask HDB to investigate this case, check the information, check the documentation provided by the buyers and the sellers and, if necessary, we will follow up with the relevant authorities. Madam, we have reviewed the role of HDB. We have implemented major changes in our public housing policies over the past year. I have explained why these changes are necessary. I also assured the House that there is no change to our commitment to public housing, to home ownership and the provision of quality and affordable housing. We will constantly review to do whatever is necessary to ensure that our public housing policies and programmes remain relevant to the needs of our country and our people. The Chairman: Mr Chiam, just a quick clarification.”
“We all know that HDB has a comprehensive package of financial assistance measures, whether it is reduced mortgage, loan instalments, extension of loan repayment periods, etc. Yes, there will still be those who are in financial difficulties and may have no choice but to sell their flats. There are rules which have been formulated to make sure that there is no abuse of the system, for example, the 30-month debarment rule. When you sell your flat, you are not eligible to come back to HDB to either rent a flat or to buy another flat for 30 months. As I said, this is to minimise abuse of the system, generally speaking. But I assure Members that for those in genuine difficulty, HDB is prepared to consider waiving this 30-month debarment rule on a case-by-case basis. I think Dr Maliki asked specifically about the treatment of single parent families. As he knows, the Government's public housing policy is pro-family in orientation. We do not want to inadvertently encourage divorce. But as he says, there are many reasons why people divorce. So for those who are divorced, or who are separated, again, I say that HDB will consider waiving the 30-month time bar if divorced or separated parents meet certain eligibility conditions, such as custody of a child and other eligibility conditions. Finally, Madam, Mr Othman asked about the newly introduced option to purchase scheme. He asked whether it can prevent buyers of resale flats from being cheated. It goes without saying that we would like to see all buyers and sellers adequately protected. There have been many reviews of the resale procedures by HDB to make sure that they are more simplified and people are able to understand them.”
“Notwithstanding this, there may be those who wish to rent temporarily, like what Mr Ong Ah Heng has described - newly-married couples, young mobile workers, and so on. They want to rent before they buy a flat, or they want to rent one nearer to their place of work, or whatever. I suggest that they can do so, even today, by renting from the open market. This is something that the Government can and will continue to facilitate. We have already taken the first step by relaxing the subletting rules. First of all, a few years ago, we allowed elderly lessees to sublet their whole flat, subject to certain conditions. We can relook at those conditions, if need be. We have relaxed the subletting rules since 1st January this year for lessees of non-subsidised HDB flats, who are taking bank loans and who have not taken any loans from HDB. This will increase the supply of rental flats in the market and, if need be, we can relook at the rules and relax them even further. So if you take all these schemes into consideration, inclusive of flats that are sublet under the elderly scheme and those under special circumstances, for example, those who are overseas, there are more than 30,000 HDB flats that can be sublet. So I believe that there are sufficient HDB flats available for rental on the open market. Of course, as I said, we will continue to monitor and, if necessary, we can liberalise further. But we have to do this consciously and gradually because we do not want to disrupt the rental market or cause disamenities for other residents. Let me now move on to those households which are in financial difficulties due to the economic downturn. I think many Members have spoken about this and have made appeals on their behalf.”
“But even while we are doing the study, let me assure Members that we are always mindful of the fact that there will always be some people who will fall in between the gaps. And for such cases, HDB will see how it can help on a case-by-case basis. But we should be careful not to make subsidised rental housing so comfortable that people are quite happy to remain in these flats even when they no longer need such assistance. If you go to Hong Kong, for example, they will tell you and show you many middle to higher income families who stay in subsidised rental housing throughout their lives - very comfortable rental housing, no intention of moving out, whatsoever. 5.30 pm Madam, some Members have questioned whether the HDB flats are still affordable, especially during this current economic downturn. Let me assure them that it is, and will continue to remain so. Last year, those who bought 4- and 5-room flats of HDB needed to use, on average, around 18% of their total gross monthly household income which includes their CPF to service their mortgage loans. Mr Heng Chee How mentioned just now a figure as high as 34%. I am not too sure where the figure comes from. But it may be interesting for me to have some indication from Mr Heng so that we will be able to verify those figures. But what HDB tells me is that, on average, 18% of the monthly household income is being used to service the mortgage which is certainly well within the 40% guideline which most financial institutions used as a tool of credit assessment. Just to give some specific numbers. For a 3-room buy-back flat which HDB offers, a family would need to spend less than $300 on the mortgage instalment. And for those who opt for cheaper flats, they will pay less than $200 per month.”
“Government remains committed to home ownership, notwithstanding the restructuring of HDB or any other policy changes, such as bank origination, etc. Social cohesion is critical, especially for a young small country like ours. Giving Singaporeans a stake in the nation through home ownership is the bedrock upon which we have achieved social stability and engendered a sense of community and belonging to Singapore. Even for low-income families, HDB has several schemes to assist them to buy their flats. We have the Special Housing Assistance Programme, the Sale of Flats to Sitting Tenants Scheme, the Rent and Purchase Scheme for 3-room flats and so on and so forth. Why? It is important that we keep this dream of home ownership alive for as many Singaporeans as possible, especially lower income Singaporeans. By giving them a helping hand to own their homes, we give them a stake in Singapore now and in the future. And as our society develops, as our economy restructures and as income disparity widens, this becomes even more crucial in order to maintain social stability. Having said that, I recognise that there will always be room for rental. For some, rental is the better and probably the only option. Here, I would like to assure Mr Ong Kian Min that HDB does not intend to stop its rental flats scheme. Today, the monthly household income ceiling for subsidised HDB rental flats is $800. Most of the lessees in rental flats are in 1- or 2-room flats. And some Members have asked whether we can relax this eligibility criterion. At $800, we are talking about the 12th household income percentile - the bottom 12% of Singaporeans. Yes, we will study whether this current income cut-off is still relevant today or whether it should be raised.”
“Many Members have asked whether, as part of the public housing review, we should revisit our policy towards home ownership vis-a-vis rental, and perhaps allow a larger rental class to avoid tying too much of Singaporeans' money on property assets - Dr Amy Khor, Mr Heng Chee How, Mr Ong Kian Min, Ms Irene Ng and many others. Some Members have questioned whether HDB flats are still affordable in the current economic downturn and whether we should relax our rental flat eligibility criteria, so that more can benefit from subsidised rental housing. The end result of both requests is the same - more rental flats. But I think there are two separate issues here. The first is a philosophical one, whether home ownership or rental. The second is whether there is enough housing assistance for those who are affected by the economic downturn. Let me address the first issue - the philosophy of home ownership. Public housing in Singapore comprises both home ownership flats and rental flats. But as home ownership is a key objective, we have deliberately priced our new flats such that 90% of Singaporean households can afford their own homes. This policy has been a success so that, today, 85% of Singaporeans stay in HDB flats, and 95% own their homes. Should we now deliberately restructure our public housing subsidy so that a higher proportion live in subsidised rental housing permanently? Have we really built too many home ownership flats? To me, public housing in Singapore is more than just providing a roof over people's heads. It plays a critical social role in promoting rootedness and a sense of belonging among Singaporeans. To own a home is to own a part of Singapore. It makes Singapore worth contributing to and worth defending.”
“We do not see huge amounts of money being made from the sale of the first flat, as in the halcyon days of the early 90s, but the resale levy is still necessary to ensure a fair allocation of subsidies. Yes, there are lessees of smaller flats who have a need to upgrade. That is the reason why we calibrate the resale levy rate, so that those who upgrade from smaller flats - the 3-roomers - actually pay a smaller resale levy. In this way, the subsidy from the second flat that they enjoy is still attractive compared to the resale levy they have to pay, and that is the reason why quite a lot of 3-roomers still return to HDB for a second subsidised flat. What about those who are in financial difficulties or need to downgrade to smaller flats? They can use part of their sales proceeds to finance the purchase of a second subsidised flat. Alternatively, they can use their sales proceeds to purchase a smaller flat in the resale market so that they do not have to pay the levy at all. Most Members may not be aware that we operate a much more generous system compared to, say, in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, flat owners are eligible for only one housing subsidy, the first flat. There is no second housing subsidy. In addition, when they sell their first subsidised flat in the open market, they have to pay a levy straightaway. The government creams back their housing subsidy once they sell their flats. There is no deferred payment, and there is no second subsidy. In our case, flat owners who do not purchase a second subsidised flat need not pay the resale levy, and they can keep the full amount of subsidy realised from their first flat. Madam, let me now turn to the many requests for rental flats.”
“I am not so sure whether the private sector developers are going to be very happy with this suggestion. But, in any case, I am positive and confident that the surplus flats that we are seeing today - the huge overhang that we had, say, two years ago, which has been slowly whittled down - will be sold off in time. We now have slightly less than half the number of flats left from the time when we first started, and I am sure that, over time, in the next two years or so, such flats will be sold. So, I do not think Mdm Phua's suggestion is a tenable one. On the resale levy, Dr Teo asked if we could waive the resale levy for various categories of flat lessees, eg, those who sold their flat below the purchase price. Let me explain why we have the resale levy in the first place. When second timers sell their first subsidised flat, they would have cashed in on the subsidy that they enjoyed on their first flat. So, they are required to pay a levy on the selling price of their first flat, but only if they purchase a second subsidised flat from HDB. This is specifically meant to dampen the demand from second timers. If Members recall, before this levy was in place, lessees would sell off their first flat and queue up for the second flat, without any penalty. And why not? Flat prices were going up. They could cash out and enjoy themselves and do many things with the money, including, as Mr Zainul Abidin said, go on haj. But we need to ensure that housing subsidies, which are not unlimited, are fairly distributed between first timers and second timers. Obviously, we have to favour the first timers, because they have more pressing needs. Economic circumstances have changed.”
“Madam, I thank all the Members who have spoken on the topics under this cut. Members have raised a very broad range of issues on HDB, and many of them, in particular, have spoken on the restructuring of HDB and its role thereafter. Madam, let me, first of all, respond to their concerns about the role of HDB and the restructuring. Last year, during the Committee of Supply debate, I announced that, as part of our review of the roles and functions of HDB, we were looking into the feasibility of corporatising HDB's Building and Development Division (BDD). Last month, I announced our plans for the restructuring of HDB, ie, from 1st July this year, BDD will be reorganised and a new company to be called HDB Corporation Pte Ltd (HDB Corp) will be set up. HDB will focus on its role as the public housing authority. It is a major change for the organisation. The HDB was set up in 1960 to tackle the acute housing shortage facing Singapore at that time. There was a very interesting piece in yesterday's Sunday Times by Susan Long, entitled "The HDB Story". It was a fascinating story of HDB's early days as told by its first Chairman,”
“As at February 2003, some 65,000 units have completed the upgrading works under the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP). Of these, about 11,000 units are still without lift landings on every floor. These flats were selected for the MUP before the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was introduced in 2001. 92% of blocks which have been polled for the LUP so far have voted in favour of the programme. Very few residents have cited unaffordability as a reason for not being in favour of LUP. This is because the Government subsidises between 75% and 90% of the cost of the LUP, and the remainder is co-shared by the resident and the Town Council. The share per household ranges from $600 to $3,000, with most households paying $1,000 or less. In addition, HDB extends financial assistance measures such as extension of the repayment period, to households who may have difficulty in paying for the LUP costs.”
“The objective of the new multi-skill scheme is to raise the overall skill level of the foreign construction workforce and reduce its reliance on foreign workers. This does not apply to local workers. Only foreign workers attract the levy. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is working towards raising the skills level of Singaporeans in the construction sector and attracting more local participation in the sector. It aims to transform the industry from a dirty, demanding and dangerous industry to a professional, productive and progressive industry. The new measures to upgrade the skills of foreign workers would help in this transformation. There are also opportunities for Singaporeans to take up higher value-added jobs such as professional, supervisory and technical positions in the industry. In addition, BCA conducts talks in schools to encourage students to consider a career in the construction industry and offers scholarships to groom talents. For existing local workers, the Construction Industry Training Institute (CITI) and other institutes of higher learning offer a wide range of construction-related training courses to upgrade their skills. Many of such courses are subsidised by the Skills Development Fund (SDF) and Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP).”
“Every year, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) receive 19,000 dogs and cats. These are abandoned animals and their offspring. The Animals and Birds Act was amended in July 2002. An owner who abandons his pet without reasonable cause may be fined up to $10,000 or jailed up to 12 months or both. As it is difficult to catch an owner in the act of abandoning his pet, AVA is studying the feasibility of requiring pets to be micro-chipped to facilitate identification of pets and their owners. Meanwhile, AVA inculcates responsible pet ownership through its public education programme such as giving talks and exhibitions in schools, libraries and public events, as well as producing educational pamphlets. AVA also enlists the community's participation to control stray dogs and cats through sterilisation and proper management. AVA does not support the renting of pets as it compromises the welfare of the animals. An animal that is rented out constantly faces different environment and new owners which cause stress and suffering to the animal. AVA had investigated the shop reported in the press as offering a rent-a-pet scheme. This shop allows owners to exchange the animal for another that is more suitable within a certain time period. The shop has since stopped using the misleading term "rent". Annex - Singaporeans who did not qualify for ERS (Cols. 2273 - 2274)”
“HDB rental flats are meant for Singaporean households with monthly incomes not exceeding $800 who are financially not ready or unable to afford their own flats. As at 31st December 2002, HDB had 19,869 (45%) one-room rental flats and 24,045 (55%) two-room rental flats. The demand for HDB rental flats has remained stable over the last five years, with an average of about 2,500 Public Scheme applications per year. As at 31st December 2002, 48% of the 35,800 rental tenants are elderly persons aged 61 and above, and 12% are aged 40 and below. In terms of marital status, 30% of them are singles, 34% are married and 36% are either widowed or divorced/separated persons. As for gender, 59% are male and 41% are female. HDB does not maintain ready information on the occupations of its rental tenants. According to HDB's Household Sample Survey conducted in 1998, 35% of tenants were not working (eg, housewives, disabled, retirees), 28% were sales & services workers (eg, sales assistants, labourers, cleaners) and 21% were production workers. NATIONAL HEALTHCARE GROUP STAFF BONUSES 2. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Health whether all the staff of the National Healthcare Group were given institution bonuses and how were the bonuses calculated.”
“Sir, I will ask HDB to consider that. The reason why we have staged various walk-in selection exercises for different estates is to make sure that the sale of the flats in these various estates is conducted in a way which can be properly managed. So, if you notice, for each walk-in selection exercise, HDB will conduct a publicity programme, put up proper tentage, put up all the proper administrative procedures in order to make it convenient for residents to apply for these flats. If we were to adopt the suggestion of the Member that we open up all the estates at once, then one way would be to just simply accept applications, say, in HDB hub. I think we would lose something in that process, but I will ask the HDB to consider that suggestion. So it may be possible for us, at a certain point in time down the road, to adopt that proposal. At this stage, where there are still a significant number of flats available in various estates, it might be better and more convenient to conduct separate exercises.”
“Therefore, there is a need to have rules and conditions on the resale and subletting of these flats to ensure that they are used for owner occupation, and not for income generation. Nevertheless, we recognise that there is room for HDB to exercise flexibility with flats bought from the open market without any housing grant and with either a bank loan or no outstanding HDB market rate loan. Hence, with effect from 1st January this year, the rules governing the resale and subletting of such flats have been partially relaxed. This will give flat owners greater flexibility and leeway in the use of their flats. We will monitor the impact of these changes on other HDB residents and the social make-up of our public housing estates carefully, before reviewing whether there is scope for further liberalisation. As for restrictions on the use of HDB flats, they are necessary to ensure that residents do not cause disamenity to their neighbours. Nevertheless, HDB does allow its lessees to conduct small-scale home-based businesses from their flats, subject to certain guidelines. In addition, under the Technopreneur Home Office Scheme, aspiring technopreneurs can use their HDB flats as their registered business address to conduct info-communication technology-related work. We are reviewing the restrictions on the use of HDB flats to ensure that they remain relevant in the current economic and social environment. Even as we do so, we will ensure that the residential nature and the good living environment of our HDB estates is preserved, and that HDB residents are not inadvertently inconvenienced as a result of businesses conducted by their neighbours.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB introduced a number of new sales programmes last year, such as the Walk-in Selection for flats in the non-mature estates and the twice-yearly Balloting Exercise for flats in mature estates. It also suspended the Registration for Flat System, and it will switch over to the Build-to-Order system from next year. There is therefore a greater need for HDB to publicise each new launch, to keep the public informed of the availability of flats and the different application procedures for each programme. To do so more effectively, HDB has adopted new publicity measures, such as press advertisements and roadshows, in addition to the Internet and Teletext. This is to make information more accessible to prospective buyers and to minimise confusion to the public. With the new sales measures and increased marketing efforts, HDB has been quite successful in its efforts to sell its unsold stock. As at 31st December 2002, HDB managed to sell a total of 10,000 flats in the non-mature estates through the various exercises for applicants on the RFS queue and through the monthly Walk-in Selection exercises. Today, it has about 12,000 units in the non-mature as well as the mature estates that are available for sale to the public. HDB will continue to sell them through Walk-in Selection and the twice-yearly balloting exercises. It will continue to assess the response to its on-going sales measures and monitor the demand for flats and the economic conditions, before deciding whether additional measures are necessary as well as finalising its building plans for 2003. HDB flats are built to meet the housing needs of Singaporean households and are highly subsidised.”
“On the contrary, HDB resale flats are actually open to a very wide variety of people. Let me go through the various people who are eligible for resale flats. First of all, of course, would be the first-timers, who can actually buy a resale flat with a housing grant. The second-timers obviously are able to buy resale flats. Permanent residents and private property owners can buy resale flats. Singles can buy resale flats. So, the market for resale flats is actually very wide, and the number of resale flats that have been transacted, particularly during the height of the boom, indicates that, in fact, there is no shortage of people who are able to buy resale flats, if the conditions are right, ie, they feel that prices are favourable or they feel that there is good value to buy a HDB resale flat. So I would not agree that the number of resale flat buyers is actually restricted, or that the market for resale flats is restricted. It is actually a very large market. SALE OF HDB FLATS (Advertisement) 11. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) why is the Housing and Development Board (HDB) advertising for the sale of its flats; (b) how many new flats are unsold to date; and (c) whether HDB will further liberalise its rules to allow flat owners more flexibility to sell, rent or use their flats.”