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 33 of 61.
“Can you imagine the row, the uproar, the outrage, the anxiety and the extra burden which is put on older workers, and how that is going to impact the employers and, therefore, the employees? It is still the same 4%. But I think the psychological effect would have been different. Now, we are talking about reducing it by 4%, from 20% to 16%. It is a small adjustment, but it is an adjustment in the right direction, and one which will help. We are also reducing the employee's contribution by 4%, from 20% to 16%. Members have not discussed this a great deal, but it is a significant move too. In most cases, when we reduce the employee's contribution rate, it will flow straight through to higher take-home pay for the worker. It will not affect the employer. But, in some cases, if the employer is facing a tough situation and if he has to retrench, I think a lower CPF contribution will make it easier for the employer to persuade the worker to accept a wage cut, keep his take-home pay constant, reduce total wage cost and keep his job. Without that, wage cut means less take-home pay. With that, there is some scope for adjustments. So by reducing the combined CPF contribution rate to 32% for this age group, we are actually making the CPF system less inflexible. And we are not intervening more into the labour market. We are intervening less into the labour market by offsetting part of the negative effects of the seniority-based system. And we are making it easier for older workers to hold on to their jobs. This non-restoration is part of the move to a more competitive wage structure in Singapore. We have to reduce the statutory component, not as a substitute for greater wage flexibility, but as part and parcel of a broader shift. And we have to start doing this now.”
“So this is a good reason why if you want to lower the burden on employment of older workers, we have to lower the CPF contribution rate for older workers. Mr Chiam said it is unconstitutional and that it is an enormity which has just been perpetrated upon Singaporeans. But there is nothing new in this principle. Already, there is a step-down at 55 and there is another step-down at 60. What we are saying is to start stepping down at 55, in terms of the CPF contribution rate, is a little bit late. Let us start stepping down at the age of 50. So from 40%, below 50; you go to 32%, when you cross 50; and then to 20%, when you reach 55. So there are even steps downwards in order to help workers adjust, and in order to help keep them employed. Four percent on the employer's CPF is not going to make a big, or immediate, difference to retrenchment and hiring decisions. It is not a quick fix. But it is a step in the right direction. The employers who have been interviewed, none of them want to take the flak and say, "Well, this is going to help me." So they say, "Well, 4% is neither here nor there. I don't need this." As Mr Seng Han Thong said just now, "If you do not need it, why don't you contribute it to the workers' welfare fund?" I would put an opposite argument, just to think through this exercise. Supposing we had taken literally the argument, which Dr Jennifer Lee made yesterday, to say, reducing the pressure is bad because then you will not address the seniority-based wage system. We should increase the pressure. Supposing we had then said that, in order to increase the pressure, we will raise the CPF contribution rate for this group from 20% to 24%.”
“To undo the seniority-based system, either the older workers must get paid less than now, or have their pay go up not as fast as the younger workers and as fast as productivity. Hopefully, over a period of time, this will narrow the gap and reduce the problem. But neither is easy to accept. To bring down wages immediately generates a strong psychological reaction. To go up less slowly than other people will generate the same psychological reaction, as we can see when we are talking about the non-restoration of CPF in this case. We are not talking about bringing down the CPF rate. We are just saying, hold it while the CPF rates go up for others, and your wages will go up in time. But this is not easy to accept. The CPF adds to wage costs, because it is a compulsory scheme. I did not use to believe this. I used to argue that the CPF is the worker's money. Putting $1 into his account, it is the same as paying him $1, and he does not mind. And the employer should not mind too. So it is not a tax. But, actually, the worker does mind. The worker prefers $1 taken home, instead of $1 locked up on his behalf. Because what he took home, he could save if he wishes. What is locked up on his behalf, he cannot spend even if he wants to. So when you impose the CPF on top of wages, particularly the employer's CPF contribution rate, in fact, you are adding to wage costs and adding to the inflexibility of the wage system. And for older workers who are most vulnerable, the less you do this, the less problem you are going to cause their employment prospects. In fact, because wages are seniority-based and the CPF is a percentage of the wages, when everybody has a 20% rate of CPF contribution from the employers, the older workers have a higher burden than the younger workers.”
“Housing protection scheme under the CPF. I believe that is so. 5.14 pm The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mdm Deputy Speaker, it has been a long debate and I shall be brief. I would like to take up just three or four points which have not been addressed by the two Ministers and then wind up with some general remarks on the whole thrust of this approach. First, the 50-55 age group. This is the key and most controversial recommendation in the ERC report - to cap the employer's CPF contribution for this age group at 16%. What is not challenged, and what all the Members agree, is that older workers in this age group are vulnerable. They are vulnerable to competition from labour forces elsewhere, better educated or less paid. They are vulnerable because their education and skills levels are lower than younger workers, and also because the seniority-based wage system ends up paying them more than productivity can, strictly speaking, justify. The question is how to solve this problem. Training and skills upgrading, that is a given. We need to do it, but it is not easy. And if you heard Mr Nithiah Nandan, you will know that it is a slog. We also need to bring wage costs in line with, or at least, more in line with, productivity. We will tackle the seniority-based wage system. But doing that is a prolonged and arduous process. Because the labour market is inflexible downwards, not just in Singapore but, in fact, everywhere. Because if we are talking about bringing down people's wage levels, the national psychological resistance is very, very strong. Even if someone has lost a job, and has agreed to accept a lower pay for a new job, he has to overcome a psychological hurdle.”
“Yes, I believe that those who take the housing loans from the banks will be required to buy housing protection insurance (HPS).”
“HUDC flats that are not privatised, if they are covered by the Housing and Development Act, yes, they will be part of the review.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of subsidy has indeed been raised as one of the ways of avoiding a fare increase, and the arguments that I made are against this idea of subsidy. Mr Low's point about having the public bus transport service as a not-for-profit service is an option. But then, again, when it comes to not for profit, there is still the element of having to provide for the cost, and there is still the need for the fares to be increased from time to time to take care of increases in cost. So, even if there is a not-for-profit model, as Mr Low suggested, that does not mean that the fares will never go up.”
“If he is not familiar, he can go and see his MP and he will be able to advise him where to get help. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say that we have appointed the PTC to regulate the public transport industry, its level of fares and its services. We have set the framework for it to deliberate on these applications. These are men and women whom we have appointed, and I believe that they have exercised their responsibilities to the best of their abilities. Their recommendation has been endorsed by the Ministry, I am sure, after much deliberation. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the motion standing in the name of Mr Tan Soo Khoon and others, as it calls for a review of the PTC's decision. However, I do support the suggestion by Members of this House that we should review the composition of the PTC in order to improve the decision-making process. Sir, I thank you for your indulgence.”
“Applications for fare increases can then be subject to greater scrutiny and, if it is passed, it can get better acceptance. Now, I realise that this suggestion does not mean that future fare increases will not be a problem. It will still be so. People will still be unhappy. Questions must still be asked but, hopefully, we can shed more light rather than heat in the public debate. Sir, coming back to this fare hike, as I said at the outset, I am not in favour of reviewing the decision. It has been made, we should abide by it. But we should also recognise that there are people who will be hard hit by it, especially those who have just been retrenched or are still jobless, who have suffered pay cuts, who have school-going children who depend on public transport. We should provide help to this group of people. And indeed, we have. In case Members have forgotten, we still have the Economic Downturn Relief Scheme (EDRS). Every month in my constituency, my CCC considers and approves hundreds of applications for the EDRS, amounting to a few hundred thousand dollars. And the same, I am sure, is happening in every other constituency. We also have various financial assistance schemes within each of our constituency. This is in addition to the many support programmes, such as the Rental and Utilities Assistance Scheme, introduced in the off-Budget package last year, sharing of Budget surpluses through the New Singapore Shares, and so on. So, it is quite wrong to suggest that the Government is not aware of the problems faced by those who have been hard hit by this fare increase. Indeed, if nothing else, this debate can serve to highlight that such schemes are available, and if anyone wishes to avail himself of these schemes, he can do so.”
“Is 10 minutes reasonable? Is walking 200 metres to the nearest bus stop reasonable? Is having to change buses to arrive at one's designation reasonable, and so on and so forth? If you ask people, they will give you various answers. So who decides? And we have placed this responsibility on the PTC. Next, what is a reasonable fare? Should we peg fares to affordability, like we do for HDB flats? Again, if you ask different people, opinions will differ. And again, we have given this unenviable task to the PTC. We said to them, do a performance audit of the operators, check the accounts, make sure they are operating efficiently, let them earn reasonable profits, so that they can reinvest in the business, expand, improve the level of service. Like Dr Wang, I do not envy the Chairman of PTC and its members. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have attempted to establish that, like many issues facing Singapore as a country with limited resources, there are no easy solutions, no painless options. In this case, we cannot avoid increases in bus and MRT fares from time to time. But what we can and must do is to look for the least painful solution if there is such a thing. I believe that we have the framework in place. The PTC is the body that is entrusted to regulate service levels and fares. I believe that the principle of small increases is the better way to go, rather than large increases. But within this framework, I think we can still make further improvements. And one that I would support is the call by some Members to expand the representation of the PTC to include members from all walks of life. And I see no reason why this should not include some Members of this House.”
“But I believe that the huge productivity gains of the past, such as the ones through the use of high capacity buses, like double deckers and articulated buses, like the introduction of one-man operation (OMO), are no longer repeatable, which means that the fare increases can no longer be held down for as long as it had in the past. Nevertheless, the PTC should continue to insist that productivity is a key determinant of any request to raise fares. Finally, what about cutting down on the frills, a so-called no-frill service. The assumption here is that by removing the frills - the airconditioned interchanges and TV on buses - cost can be reduced so that fares do not have to go up. Sir, I know for a fact that the airconditioned interchange that is co-located with the HDB hub at Toa Payoh Town Centre is paid for by LTA, and not by SBS. I am also told that the TV sets on buses are paid for by advertisers, and not by SBS. So, this way of cutting costs is out since costs are not incurred by the bus operator in the first place. What about other cost-cutting measures? The surest way to cut costs is to lower the level of service, in other words, to reduce the number of routes or the number of buses plying certain routes. Are commuters prepared to wait 10 minutes when they are now waiting 5 minutes? Or are they prepared to wait 30 minutes, instead of 15 minutes, during off-peak? Are they prepared to endure more crowded trains? I doubt that commuters will accept this. And I do not blame them. We have come to enjoy a high standard of living which must not be going backwards. But at the same time, we must be prepared to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable service because there is no such thing as a free lunch. The issue boils down then to what is a reasonable service.”
“You look at the buses that are running on the roads today. I still remember the bone-shakers we had in the 70s. They were hot and stuffy. They were very difficult to drive and for the drivers, it was not a very pleasant thing to drive SBS buses. I know because I did take my Class 4 licence on one of those old bone-shakers. At that time, I wondered whether we could ever afford the lovely buses that we saw in Europe and in other developed cities. Today, our commuters are able to enjoy the same standard of buses as the ones we see running in most cities in developed countries - airconditioned, low steps, sturdy, automatic transmission power steering, and so on. Sir, I am not suggesting that public transport operators today have no more room for improvement. Far from it. There are still too many lapses of service which we cannot and should not condone. They should be more responsive to commuters' request for new services. Service attitude of some drivers can be improved. More buses on some routes would be welcomed. But like all things, let us see their performance in perspective. Let us give credit where credit is due. I relate this to illustrate the point that competition and having more bus companies is not the magic solution, the panacea to our problem. Indeed, the opposite can be true that a well-regulated monopoly, or duopoly, with some competition at the fringes can be the better solution. This has been borne out not only by our own experience but that of places, like Hong Kong, where bus services are also not subsidised. What about productivity? Can transport operators increase their productivity further and not have to raise bus fares? The answer must surely be yes.”
“Even then, the Government had to take the unprecedented step of seconding a team of civil servants from various Ministries to help manage SBS and to ensure that the public transport system, which was an essential part of the system, of the whole infrastructure of Singapore, did not collapse. I was one of those who was seconded to SBS. With the merger, we were able to rationalise bus routes, decentralise repairs and maintenance, and to achieve economies of scale for the purchase of new buses and spare parts. Service conditions of bus workers improved significantly. New productivity measures such as double deckers and one-man operation were introduced. As a result of this, service quality went up, fares were held steady for many years while SBS was financially viable. The final stage in this transformation was a successful listing of the company. As a result, many Singaporeans who were bus commuters also became shareholders of SBS. In a sense, SBS became some sort of a cooperative with widespread shareholdings among bus workers as well as commuters. Over time, the shares went up in value; so, many commuters decided to take profit. It was a win-win situation. In the 1980s, competition was reintroduced in some form when licences were given to Trans-Island Bus Services (TIBS) to operate bus services in the northern part of Singapore. With this move, there was now a basis for comparison of performance and some competition, although not direct. Supplementary bus services provided by school buses were also introduced to complement certain routes at peak hours. What is the situation today? Has the bus service improved today, compared to the yesteryears? Based on my own experience then and now, I can say without hesitation that it has improved by leaps and bounds.”
“In other words, if you subsidise consumption, people are going to want more and more, because they do not have to pay for it. If we start with public transport, what about other equally essential items, like water, food and electricity? Should we not also subsidise food, electricity and water? I am sure Members are familiar with the arguments. But, to me, perhaps the most powerful reason why we should dismiss this option is that, ultimately, we all end up paying for it. The experience of many countries which have gone this route, with the best of intentions, mind you, end up having to provide for a bigger and bigger subsidy, which eventually means higher taxes. So, remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Let us take the second proposal - competition. This is a common belief that if only we had more transport operators, competition would bring fares down. These sentiments are understandable. After all, look at what happened in the telecommunications industry. Let me caution, however, that it does not necessarily follow that the same will happen in the public transport industry, because the nature of both industries is not the same. In the 60s and the early 70s, we had a total of 11 bus companies in Singapore. Older Members of this House, especially those over 50, which incidentally include myself, will remember the situation then. Services were unreliable; buses broke down very frequently; they were packed like sardines; and the competition for passengers resulted in dangerous driving behaviour. Unpopular routes were poorly served, if at all. They all wanted to serve the best routes, the most popular routes. The situation improved when the 11 companies were amalgamated, first, into three companies, and then into one, which was called SBS in 1973.”
“This is because, in September, road taxes will be reduced, and so we feel that it would be better to wait until September so that HDB residents will not feel the pinch. So, I wonder which part of my explanation was not clear to Mr Tan. He may disagree with the policy, although he knows that this is not a new policy. In fact, this policy was enunciated in the House when he was in the Chair, by the former Minister, Mr Dhanabalan, as early as 1989. He may also disagree with the timing, but if not at the time when the car owner is getting something back from the Government, then when? Sir, I come back to the question about fare increases. The first question then we have to ask ourselves is: can we avoid having to increase fares? Is there another option? Is there another way of doing this? Some Members of this House have made some suggestions. Some people argued that one way to avoid increasing public transport fares is for the Government to step in and subsidise public transport. This is the subsidy argument. I think this argument was made by Mr Low Thia Khiang and others. There are others who feel that we can bring fares down by opening up the market to more competition. Again, I think this is something that has been brought up by quite a few Members. Others feel that the public transport operators should improve their productivity rather than raising fares. And, finally, a few argued that they should cut cost by providing a no-frills service. Sir, let us consider each of these suggestions one by one. Let me take subsidy first. The Government has explained many, many times why subsidising public transport is subsidising consumption which, in turn, creates distortions in demand and supply.”
“Neither realistically do I hope to change the minds of Members of this House who oppose the fare hikes or the many commuters who are affected by this increase. But what I do hope to do is to shed some light on this issue and help to bring about a more informed debate. First of all, let me say that this is not the first time that public transport fares have gone up. It is also, I dare say, not going to be the last time. I was with the Ministry of Communications for 11 years from 1988 to 1999, three years as a Minister of State and eight years as the Minister with responsibility for land transport. One of the most difficult and unpleasant things I had to do was to allow the public transport operators to raise their fares. Let me assure Members of this House that no Minister for Transport, indeed no Minister, wants to allow any fares, fees or rates to go up if he can help it. Indeed, life would be so much more pleasant and so much simpler if we did not have to do unpleasant things. Indeed, as Minister for National Development, I have not escaped having to do unpleasant things. Mr Tan Soo Khoon in his speech just now mentioned one of these things. He said that HDB is raising carpark charges in spite of public feedback. I have explained in this House why HDB has to raise carpark charges. It is because HDB's mandate is to provide subsidised public housing. It is not to provide subsidised carparks. Any subsidy for carparks will eventually, sooner or later, flow through and have to be borne by all HDB residents, whether or not they own cars. That is the reason why carpark charges have to be raised in order to reduce the subsidy and, hopefully, we can close the gap. I have also explained in this House, in answer to questions from Mr Tan, why HDB is doing so in September.”
“It is about how we finance it, how we regulate it, and what are the role and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. By this, I mean not just the commuters, the people, but also the service providers and the State. In the most immediate, it is about whether fees should be increased, fares should be increased; if so, when and by how much. Let me, first of all, state my position. I support the necessity for increases in public transport fares provided, of course, that they are properly justified. The harsh reality is this: there is no free lunch. I would elaborate on this point later. Where it is justified, I further support the principle that it is better to have small regular increases which, in fact, means increases even when the companies are profitable, as opposed to large increases coming infrequently, for example, when the companies are losing money. To the extent that the recent fare hikes adhere to this principle, I support them. I would like to reassure Members of this House, including Mr Chiam, that this does not mean that I am not speaking up for the common man. Indeed, if I may remind Members, if the PAP Government had not acted in the interest of the common man, if we had let them down, if we had not been able to demonstrate clearly that our policies, sometimes not very popular, have brought them a better life, then we would not be in Government today. Before I proceed any further, let me say that it is not my intention to justify the increase in public transport fares. That is for the public transport companies to do. That is for the PTC to assess and to recommend and, finally, for the Ministry of Transport to endorse.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in this debate. First of all, let me say that I am glad that we are having this debate in this House, at this time. It has already been raging in the media, in the coffee-shops, on the buses and trains, for quite a while now. So, it is good that we now move this debate into this House, to give MPs the chance to give voice to their feelings and their concerns, the frustrations and the fears, anxieties of their constituents. For this, we must thank the movers of the Motion, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and others. This does not mean, however, that I agree with the Motion, but I will come to that later. This debate is also important because it provides an opportunity for the Minister to explain, once again, the rationale for its policies and to clarify any misunderstandings and to provide the facts. And, it is important, because this is what Members of this House have been elected to do. To reflect sentiments from the ground, yes, but also to listen carefully to all the arguments, so as to arrive at decisions which are what we believe to be in the best interest of the country and our constituents. This debate is taking place amidst high public interest and high expectations. Some Members feel that the issues go beyond bus fares - issues like Government not listening to the people, Government not being sympathetic, and so on. I would touch on these points later. But I urge Members, if we are going to have a rational and a considered debate, to remember ultimately what this debate is all about. It is about our land transport policy, specifically our public transport policy. It is about the role that it plays in improving our quality of life and our standard of living.”
“I think there are two matters. One is the fluctuation in the property market. There is a glut at the moment. A few years ago, there was a shortage. So this is a natural fluctuation of the property market. Then there is the other matter which is SERS, which is a very long-term programme. We will do SERS as and when we find suitable redevelopment opportunities. These sites will either be redeveloped immediately, and the effects of this redevelopment will be felt, say, five years down the road, or we may decide to hold the sites as part of the land bank. So, whether we decide to build or not is a separate matter from SERS. But the idea of SERS is to free up land for redevelopment.”
“In the first place, as I said, I think the glut in the property market is not something that is permanent. There is a cycle in the market. Eventually, the glut will be taken up, and there will be a new status quo in the market. So, it is not something that is permanent. If there is a permanent glut in the market, then I think we would all be in serious trouble. The SERS programme is a very long-term programme. What we have announced for SERS now, the redevelopment would only take place, say, five years at the earliest. By that time, hopefully, the glut would have been removed. I do not think the Member should have any cause for concern over that aspect. Yes, it is true that when we do SERS, we are going to increase the potential for redevelopment, ie, we tear down a 4-storey block, or even a 11-storey block for that matter, and we are going to build something which will be much more intensive. And that is one of the rationales for SERS. That is indeed what we are hoping to do. Because, in the long run, Singapore is short of land and we have to make sure that we maximise every piece of land that we have.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) is part of the Government's estate renewal plans for old HDB estates. It enables optimisation of land use, while enabling Singaporeans to upgrade to new and better housing. Existing community ties are also preserved. Through redevelopment, old estates are rejuvenated. Thus, SERS benefits both the nation and the residents. Identification of suitable precincts for SERS is an on-going process. It takes into account several factors, including the potential for redevelopment and the Government's budgetary position. The Government will continue to progressively announce precincts for SERS if suitable ones can be identified. It generally takes about 4-5 years after announcement for a SERS site to be ready for new development. Thus, the selection of new SERS sites now should not have an immediate impact on the property market.”
“Spalling concrete is the result of a deterioration process called carbonation whereby carbon dioxide diffuses into the concrete and forms carbonates when it reacts with the alkalis in the concrete. Carbonation reduces the level of alkalinity in the concrete, thus allowing the steel bars in the concrete to corrode. The corrosion causes the steel bars to expand forcing the concrete surrounding the steel to crack and spall, exposing the steel bar. Spalling concrete is a natural phenomenon and it occurs in all concrete buildings as the buildings age over time. It is not peculiar to any flat type or flats which were built in certain years or during a certain period. HDB flat owners who encounter spalling concrete problems in their flats can report them to their respective HDB Branch Offices. HDB will assist the flat owners to investigate the cause of the problem and recommend appropriate remedial action. For flat owners who have difficulty in finding a suitable repair contractor on their own, HDB will also assist to provide them with a list of repair contractors for them to negotiate with on a private basis. Under the lease, HDB flat owners are responsible for the repair of spalling concrete in their flats. As such, the Government cannot subsidise the repair cost for spalling concrete problems. DRY HEAT STERILISATION 6. Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether his Ministry will allow Dry Air Steriliser to be used as a form of sterilization at general practitioners' clinic; and, if not (b) what is the rationale for not allowing this use.”
“HDB has appointed a panel of 5 marketing agents to help lease out its former premises at Bukit Merah, which are currently unoccupied. HDB expects demand for the office space at its former premises in the near term to be weak. However, HDB will, through its marketing agents, actively market the vacated premises. HDB has approached various Government agencies to take up the office space at the HDB Centre at Bukit Merah. These agencies are currently considering HDB's offer. HDB will also consider renting out the office space to community, social-civil or non-profit organisations. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT LINKED COMPANIES 1. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) if he will give a full list of Government linked companies (GLCs) and (b) what happen to the funds raised when these GLCs are sold off.”
“The free parking scheme on Sundays and public holidays operates from 7.00 am to 10.30 pm. It was introduced in 1986 to promote social interaction and foster family ties. HDB is aware that weekends and public holidays are usually the time when families and friends get together. At the same time, HDB has to be mindful of the parking needs of residents. With the current scheme, HDB has received complaints from season ticket holders that they are unable to find parking lots on days when the free parking scheme is in operation. Where there is a severe shortage of parking lots, the free parking scheme on Sundays and public holidays has been withdrawn to ensure that the parking needs of the residents are met. HDB currently has no plans to extend the free parking scheme to Saturdays. BUKIT MERAH HDB CENTRE 28. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for National Development in view of the HDB, having moved to its new premises in Toa Payoh in June, and having shelved its plans to sell its HDB Centre at Bukit Merah and decided to lease out the property instead (a) what is the occupancy rate of the property now and what will be the projected occupancy rate in the near and mid-term and (b) if the occupancy rate is low, will the HDB consider putting the space to more efficient uses, such as leasing it to Government agencies or leasing it at nominal rates to community, socio-civil or non-profit organisations.”
“Members can ask a private sector developer - whether it is City Developments, Far East Organisation or whoever - after five years of living in your flat and something goes wrong, ask them to come back and look at your flat, I think Members here will know what the answer is.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two issues here. The first issue is: what is the cause of the spalling concrete? If the cause of the spalling concrete is due to the design, as some Members allege, and it can be proven as such, then obviously it is HDB's responsibility to fix it, either in the flat that is currently affected by spalling concrete or to fix it in future designs. But if it is a matter of deterioration - natural wear and tear - then, obviously, the responsibility lies with the owner. Sir, if any Member of the House here feels that flats in his constituency or estate are affected by spalling concrete due to design or poor workmanship problems, then, by all means, please take it up with the Ministry and, if we can establish the cause, we will take the necessary measures. There is no point in trying to lump the two issues into one because, obviously, there is a limit to the kind of maintenance that HDB can carry out in the flats. HDB flats are 10, 15, 20, 30 years old. Wear and tear takes place, and some of the repairs and maintenance must be undertaken by the owners themselves. This is perfectly normal. If the wear and tear takes place after 10-15 years, to expect the HDB to undertake repairs is obviously not fair. Having said all that, of course, we spend a considerable amount of money going back to the flats for interim upgrading, main upgrading, goodwill repairs and so on and so forth. So, I do not think it is fair for Members to suggest that HDB, after selling the flats to our residents, just walks away and forgets about it. In fact, on the contrary, our after sales service is probably far superior to any private sector developer.”
“HDB can assist the flat owners to investigate the problem and recommend appropriate remedial action. For flat owners who have difficulties in finding a suitable repair contractor on their own, HDB can also assist to provide them with a list of repair contractors, whom they can negotiate with on a strictly private basis.”
“I think the Member is referring to the SHIFT programme, which is administered by Jurong Town Corporation. Under this scheme, what JTC does is that it rents, on long lease, a certain number of flats from HDB, and then after that, it subsequently sub-rents these flats to people who come here to work in Singapore, on either work permit or on employment pass. So, who these people are, we leave it to JTC. But whoever they rent the flats to must continue to abide by the rules and regulations of HDB, whether it is in noise standards, keeping of cats, or sub-letting of flats, etc. So I do not see what the problem is. So long as we make sure that the sub-tenants of JTC comply with the HDB rules and regulations, then I do not think that we ought to be unduly worried. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Repair of spalling concrete) 16. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider helping the HDB lessees repair the spalling concrete in their flats. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, spalling concrete is the result of a natural deterioration process called carbonation. When the surface concrete is carbonated, corrosion of the steel bars within the slab sets in. The corroded steel expands, thus causing the concrete surrounding the steel bars to crack. This problem may affect flat owners as their flats become older. Under the Lease agreement, HDB flat owners are responsible for the repair of spalling concrete in their flats. HDB flat owners who encounter spalling concrete problems in their flats can, however, report them to their respective HDB Branch Offices.”
“Yes, I can assure the Member that we will continue to make 3-room buy-back flats affordable to the lower-income households.”
“I was going to answer the question, Mr Speaker, because I think there is some relation. But, really, the question pertains to our policy on allowing singles to purchase HDB flats, whether it is 3-room, 4-room or 5-room. We do not, at the moment, allow singles to purchase 4-room flats unless they are jointly purchasing with another single under the Joint Singles Scheme. But if they are on their own, they can only purchase a 3-room flat. So, that is the singles policy. As to the other limb of the Member's question about shortage of 3-room flats, as I tried to explain earlier, I do not believe that there is a shortage of 3-room flats in the market. Of course, if the question is whether there is a shortage of new 3-room flats, the answer, obviously, is yes, because we have not been building 3-room flats.”
“Sir, it is not a new policy. It is a policy which has been in place for quite a while. HDB has been buying back 3-room flats from the open market. So this is not a new policy. It is a policy which HDB has followed consistently. They have actually been selling such flats in the open market for quite some time as well.”
“Yes, we have made that commitment and we fully intend to meet that commitment. We did not say that affordable housing has to be a new 3-room flat. A resale 3-room flat, which is bought back from the open market and sold at an affordable price, will also make such housing available to people who want a 3-room flat. There are other choices, of course. But since the Member is concentrating on 3-room flats, my answer refers to such flats. There are also 4-room and 5-room flats which are affordable. But if a person so chooses and wants to have a 3-room flat for whatever reason, such flats are readily available. So, I do not see what the problem is.”
“Sir, HDB does not build new 3-room flats. So there is no comparison.”
“I really do not see why HDB should build new 3-room flats when there are so many available in the market, whether it is for sale at open market prices or for sale at discounted prices. I think it is quite ridiculous for HDB to start building new flats and then gauge the demand. It does not make economic sense at all. We stopped building in 1985 precisely for that reason. The demand was no longer there. Now that there is a demand for 3-room flats - I am not denying that - there is a way for us to satisfy that demand in a way which is most sensible for the total housing market. Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is the Minister saying that if the HDB is going to build 3-room flats, the selling price will be the same or higher than the current discounted price that the HDB bought the flat from the open market for sale to applicants?”
“As for the last part of the question, as I said, we have got 200,000 3-room flats in the open market, and we are buying back 3-room flats regularly. Then we re-sell these 3-room flats at discounted prices. So, anybody, as he suggested in the first part of his question, who wants to buy a 3-room flat at a discounted price, not at resale flat price, can go to HDB and apply. And if he is eligible, he can get one. There are many 3-room flats available in the market. So, where is the shortage?”
“No, we are not choking the supply. In fact, as I took pains to explain, the supply is there. If one wants a 3-room flat tomorrow, he just walks into an HDB sale office and he would be able to get one. So, there is really no question of a shortage of supply.”
“HDB does monitor 3-room resale flat prices. So far, the indications are that there is no such sharp increase in 3-room flat prices. The examples that the Member mentioned just now may well be true. But I would suggest that they are probably anecdotal, because we do monitor 3-room flat prices on a regular basis, and they have been steady over the last few quarters, and they have been rising or falling marginally, but in tandem with the rest of the resale market. So, our figures do not suggest that there is this sharp spike in 3-room resale flat prices.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB stopped building 3-room flats since 1985 because there was already a sufficient number of 3-room units in the resale market to meet the demand from Singaporeans, who increasingly preferred the larger flat types. Nevertheless, to meet the housing needs of lower-income families and to ensure that there are smaller flats available to them at affordable prices, HDB has a scheme to buy back 3-room flats. Under this scheme, HDB buys 3-room flats from the open market at market prices and offers them for sale at discounted prices, so that they are affordable to 90% of Singaporean households. On average, about 90 of the 150 units of 3-room flats that HDB offers for sale each month are taken up. For those who are not eligible for the buy-back scheme and want a 3-room flat, they can opt for one from the open market, where there are more than 200,000 such units available. There is no shortage of 3-room flats in the market. The volume of resale transactions for 3-room flats has remained healthy and steady in the last few years. Hence, my Ministry does not intend to change HDB's policy on 3-room flats. We will nevertheless continue to monitor the supply and demand for 3-room flats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. SPORTS DEVELOPMENT IN SINGAPORE 4.54 pm”
“We have Parliamentary Friendship Groups with many other countries like Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Peru, etc, and many of our Members here are involved with such groups. We also have Regional Groups - West Asia group, Africa group, Asia Pacific group, Southeast Asia group, Europe group, Americas group - which also involve many other MPs. And, finally, of course, what Mr Zainul mentioned just now, the Singapore Parliamentary Society (SPS), which is a society which fosters relations with members of the CPA and IPU. Sir, let me just say that we appreciate the Member's concern about upholding the global image of the Singapore Parliament. I would like to assure him that we will bear in mind his suggestion for more women MPs to be adequately represented at the relevant conferences.”
“In fact, we are also represented on several Standing Committees, and this includes the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), the Commonwealth Speakers' Standing Committee and the Southeast Asian Regional Branch of the CPA. Sir, we will do our best, even though we are a small Parliament, to be represented in as many parliamentary conferences and committees as we can. Our MPs are very busy people. They have their own jobs to do, they have to look after their constituencies, and they have to carry out their parliamentary duties. Having said all that, I think our Parliamentarians acquit themselves creditably in all these overseas conferences, including our MPs from the Opposition parties, Mr Chiam and Mr Low. Mr Zainul made special mention of the role of women MPs. Here, I am pleased to inform him that the calibre of our women MPs has indeed been recognised by parliamentarians in other countries. If I may cite several examples, recently, Mdm Ho Geok Choo served on one of the committees at the AAPP. And likewise, Ms Irene Ng had served on a committee at the APPF. At the AIPO Conference in Thailand, two women parliamentarians, namely, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua and Dr Lily Neo, served on several committees and panels, including WAIPO, which is the Women Parliamentarians of AIPO. When we are talking about the global image of the Singapore Parliament, there is the website that we maintain on the Internet. There are also the Parliamentary Reports that we put up on the Internet and LawNet, and all these are accessible world wide. We also hosted many attachments and study tours for Members and officials from foreign Parliaments.”
“Sir, the point that Mr Zainul Abidin made is a very important one, ie, we should take every opportunity to enhance the image of our Parliament in international fora. But let me assure him that this is indeed being done and Parliament is well aware of this. For the last 12 months, for example, 48 MPs actually participated in 16 overseas conferences, seminars, official visits and committees. I have a list here which indicates that the conferences included those in Cuba, Burkina Faso, New Zealand, Barbados, KL, Beijing, Marrakech in Morocco and many, many others. Sir, the expenditure that is incurred in respect of participating in these conferences and seminars is budgeted for in the Parliament vote. And if there is a need to have more funds for such a purpose, I am sure that Parliament will allocate more funds for this purpose. True to Singapore's style, we have not been extravagant in such expenditure, as we are not prone to giving MPs junket trips, but neither have we skimped on participation. When we are invited, we assess whether we can make a contribution and if we can make a contribution, we have a role to play, we will go. Our contribution has not been insignificant, if we judge by the role that we are playing in these conferences, considering the fact that we are a small state. At many of these conferences, we are represented in many of the committees. We sit on the committees, for example, in the Association of Asian Parliaments for Peace (AAPP) meeting in Beijing. At the Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum (APPF) in Honolulu, we were represented on the committee.”
“Sir, first of all, I cannot comment on the figures that were cited earlier. I will go back and check. But these are the figures that have been given to me now and they are, I presume, the current figures. Even with these figures, there is still a deficit. To answer his question whether we are justified, the point is, based on this cost, we still run a deficit of over $100 million a year. And even with the increase, we are still going to run a deficit close to that amount. The answer to his question is yes, we are justified in raising the charges. On cost of the real estate, yes, land cost is very high. As I have said earlier, the cost of the land for car parks is treated the same as the cost of land for housing. The justification for this is very simple. If we do not use the land for car park, we have to use the land for housing. So we better make sure that we make good use of the land.”
“Sir, I am afraid that I do not have the answer. I would imagine that it is done as and when it is necessary. I do not have the answer, but if the Member wishes to file a Question, I will give him the answer. Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, in 1989, the then Minister for National Development told the House that the cost of an open surface car park lot to HDB was $14,443, and $32,581 for a covered car park lot. Based on what the Minister has just told us, it would appear that the cost of providing car parks to HDB has dropped by quite a lot in the last 10 years. Can he still justify the increase in charges if it is based on cost? Second, if it is $11,000 for building an open air car park lot, and if the size of the car park lot is about 60 square feet, that works out to almost $200 per square foot, and this is providing something without four walls, no roof, no water, no power supply. Is this not a very expensive piece of real estate?”
“But the construction cost, obviously, is much lower than the land cost. Then, for the covered car park, it is about $20,000. In this case, the construction cost is much higher. The land cost, of course, can be split up over more car parks. These are roughly the ballpark figures at the moment.”
“First of all, Mr Low is quite disingenuous to say that the reason for us to raise our car park charges is because the road taxes have come down. I did not say that. What I said was that the timing of the increase is such that the increase of car park charges will be defrayed somewhat by the reduction in the road taxes. We could have raised it earlier, but we did not do so. The timing of 1st September is precisely for that reason, to make sure that the impact on motorists is minimised. It is not a reason for doing so. I hope Mr Low will not get the wrong impression. Secondly, on the issue of depreciation, yes, we do depreciate over the life of the car parks. I am not sure exactly what the life span is. But the cost, under normal accounting practices, has to be depreciated over the life of the car parks, and I believe this is being done. On cyclical works, yes, of course, the car parks will also have to undergo cyclical works. If we are talking about a multi-storey car park, some of these works would not come under the Town Council, but come under the HDB. As for surface car parks, the cyclical works involved will be minimal, but it still needs to be done. Resurfacing, for example, needs to be done. The more critical work that needs to be done is the replacement of these surface car parks with multi-storey car parks. The demand for car park space is very high in HDB estates, and we have to constantly look for ways of increasing the number of car park lots. One of the ways of doing so is to replace surface car parks with multi-storey car parks. Let me answer Mr Tan Soo Khoon's question about cost. The estimated cost of providing a surface car park lot is something like $11,000, and this includes land cost as well as construction cost.”
“So, it is inevitable that motorists, who use their vehicles a lot, will have to bear the higher cost of usage. Mr Low also asked whether we will eventually go for breakeven in the charges for car parks. We do not have plans at the moment to reach breakeven level. Let us explain to the public and get the public to accept that the increases that we are going to implement on 1st September are reasonable and acceptable, and also get the message across why we have to raise car park charges come 1st September. We are not looking for breakeven at this point in time. In so far as maintenance of car parks is concerned, in Hougang constituency, if Mr Low has any specific complaints about the car parks in his constituency, he may let the HDB know. As for certain parts of the car parks, I do not know which part he is referring to. Some parts may be under the Town Council, and some under HDB. But if he can let the HDB know, I am sure they will look into it. The point is that there is a need for car parks to be maintained. We do not just build a car park and then after that, we let it be. There is a cost incurred in maintaining car parks, and this cost of maintaining car parks is also part of the cost which I have just cited earlier, which is the reason for the deficit in car parks. I will ask my Minister of State to deal with the other questions on wet markets, as well as on the use of HDB flats for food business.”
“As a matter of principle, it is best for us to make sure that car owners pay what is fair and what is adequate for the provision of car parks for them to use, and not to have this cost lumped to the non-car owners. Why are we doing this now? The reason is because with the new car policy, with the reduction in car taxes, with the increase in the number of COEs which has been announced, we can expect our vehicle population to go up. If we do not reduce the deficit on car parks, and if we continue to have a deficit on car parks, and if we have to build more car parks, the deficit is going to increase in the future. It is not going to get smaller. It is actually going to go up. This is the reason why we have to raise the car park charges in order to recover the cost of providing the car parks. And the reason why we are going to raise it in September this year, is to coincide with the reduction in car taxes, with the implementation of lower road taxes. We are mindful of the impact of these increases on HDB car owners and this is the reason we are timing it for 1st September. Just to give Members some idea. If a person is an owner of a 1,500 cc car, his road tax rebate will be something like $225 a year, which works out to $18.75 a month. The increase in the monthly season parking charges for a sheltered car park lot is $15, which is less than the $18 rebate that he is getting for car taxes. If we are talking about surface car park lots, the increase would be $10, again lower than the reduction in car taxes. Finally, this revision in HDB/URA car park charges is part of the larger package of measures that affect car owners, where the intention is to match the cost of driving with usage, rather than ownership of cars.”
“Mr Low asked where this deficit comes from. Basically, the cost incurred in running the car park includes the land cost, because HDB has to buy the land to build a car park. It is not given away free of charge. It is charged based on residential rates, because if we do not use the land for car parks, we can use it for housing. The land is sold in one piece. The other cost involved includes construction cost, obviously. Then, there is the cost of maintaining the car park. Finally, there is interest cost, which is the cost of funds used for building and buying the land. All these elements make up the cost. There is a certain depreciation period, and the cost is depreciated over this period. On the other hand, the income from car parks includes the parking charges, which is the bulk of the income. It also includes some fines, but that is a relatively minor amount. If you take the cost and the revenues into account, you will note that there is a heavy deficit, something like $100 million. Even after we have raised the car park charges, the deficit will still be quite considerable. The fundamental principle is this. Government will subsidise the housing needs of Singaporeans in order to enable them to have a roof over their heads, but Government will not and should not subsidise car owners who live in HDB flats. This is simply not fair to all the non-car owners in HDB estates. I would like to inform Members that the majority of HDB lessees do not own cars. If we do not price the car parks properly, what is happening is that HDB will be carrying a deficit in its books as a result of subsidising car owners. Eventually, one way or another, this subsidy is going to be borne by all HDB flat owners.”
“But let me stress that the heavy vehicles that are being used are not meant to be used as their private transport. They are meant to be used for business. As such, HDB cannot provide enough parking lots for heavy vehicles, because there is a real shortage of suitable land in the housing estates. Even if they did find a suitable piece of land, inevitably there will be competing uses or there will be housing blocks nearby and, therefore, MPs will complain, if these empty plots were used for heavy vehicle parks. There are actually enough heavy vehicle parks island-wide for heavy vehicles. In the past, URA and HDB tried to accommodate the demand for such parking lots on an interim ad-hoc basis on vacant lands which are close to HDB estates. But, as I have said, this is no longer sustainable. The existing interim parking lots will be phased out when the land is needed for development, and more parking lots, if these are needed, will be made available near workplaces like Jurong, Kranji, Senoko and so on. In fact, the LTA tells us that there are actually adequate parking lots island-wide for such heavy vehicles. So I would urge Members to understand the constraints that are faced by HDB, and also to help HDB to balance the interest of heavy vehicle drivers on the one hand and residents on the other. 2.15 pm May I now turn to the questions raised by Mr Tan Soo Khoon and Mr Low Thia Khiang on our car park charges. The first question raised is: why are we raising our car park charges? Is it justified? The point is that HDB residential car parks are heavily subsidised. The current charges are way below the cost of providing these car parks. The extent of the subsidy for last year, FY2001, for example, was something like $115 million from the car park operations.”