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 34 of 61.
“These are some of the questions that we need to ask ourselves, and we will have to study this proposal carefully before a decision is made. I will just take this opportunity to respond to a question that Ms Irene Ng asked just now. She is not here. This is concerning the issue of singles or other people, who as a result of the demise of a family member suddenly find themselves without a family nucleus and are worried that HDB would turf them out. I wish to assure Members of the House that HDB will adopt a compassionate attitude to such cases, especially where one member of the family passes away because, obviously, this is not by choice. So, in such a case, the family nucleus requirement is waived, and the remaining occupant can retain his or her flat. Let me now touch on the issues raised by various Members on parking. Let me take Dr Michael Lim's first about heavy vehicle parking. This is a perennial problem in our HDB estates, and there are two contending forces here. On one hand, residents are extremely upset when they have heavy vehicle parks next to their homes. They create traffic hazards and noise and smoke nuisance to the residents. Sir, all Members who have heavy vehicle parks in their housing estates can bear me out. Trucks and buses start up at six o'clock in the morning, and residents get woken up from their sleep. As a result of that, we get constant complaints about siting of heavy vehicle parks in their housing estates. On the other hand, of course, there is a demand from heavy vehicle owners or drivers who want to park their heavy vehicles right next to or near their homes. Sir, heavy vehicle parks are popular in HDB estates precisely for this reason - because they want to park their heavy vehicles near their homes.”
“In this way, the residents will be able to pay something and not have to defer their loan repayments totally. This will be for a period of two years. There will be a 6-monthly review by HDB, because HDB would like to ensure that residents, once they can afford to pay, will actually restart their instalment payments. This will be of help to the residents. But, over and above all these financial assistance measures, the greatest comfort to HDB lessees is really the fact that they are protected from third-party creditors, even if they are made bankrupt. So whatever happens, eg, if they lose money, they are sued by other creditors and are made bankrupt, they will not lose their flat. This is probably the greatest comfort to our residents. Why? Because we have, since we started the public housing programme, made sure that home ownership is one of the cornerstones of our policy. It is a very important social objective. I wanted to make this point because there have been recent calls to allow HDB flats to be used as collateral, in order to provide funds for business. It is an interesting proposal, but I just want to add a word of caution here because, as I said, home ownership is a fundamental principle of our home ownership policy. There are many questions that we need to answer and many issues that we need to look into before we consider this issue. One of the first questions that we ask ourselves is how do we ensure that the funds that are derived from mortgaging the flat is actually used for business and not used for consumption, eg, buying a car, going on holidays, etc. And what if the business fails and they lose their flat? Are they prepared to bear the consequences if things do not work out, or do they look to the Government to provide them housing as a last resort?”
“Sir, first of all, let me take the points raised by Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed on the question of helping residents cope with financial difficulties. He suggested specifically allowing the residents to downgrade or to buy another flat in order to help them with their difficulties. There are certain rules about this but, by and large, there is no difficulty for residents to actually downgrade in order to get some money from their existing flat to cope with their difficulties. However, there are requests from time to time concerning the interest rates that will be charged, and these are considered based on the appeals by the MPs. I would like to assure him that HDB will continue to take a sympathetic attitude to such requests. But it need not necessarily be so. They do not have to sell their flats if they do not want to. In fact, there are many schemes put in place by HDB to actually help residents to cope with their difficulties without having to give up or lose their flats. These have been quite successful. There are quite a number of residents who do take advantage of these schemes. For example, the reduced repayment scheme whereby residents pay a certain percentage of their instalments. Instead of 100%, they pay 75%. Or they can defer their instalment for six months, or they can actually extend the loan repayment period. So all these measures do help the residents cope with their financial difficulties. They are actually very generous measures that have been put in place. In fact, HDB will refine one of these measures even further, to make it more helpful to the residents, namely the reduced repayment scheme. Currently, they can pay 75% of the instalments, but HDB will, effective 1st July 2002, allow mortgagers to pay between 50-75% of their monthly instalment.”
“Sir, what we will do is that we will have a total block budget for lift upgrading and interim upgrading, but we will combine the two into one. In this way, we will be sharing some of the overheads, etc. This is what I mean by getting value for money. In the process of doing so, I expect that there will be more opportunities for lift upgrading to be done. Of course, in terms of prioritisation, specifically which blocks will get it first, this is ultimately left to the Members to recommend and nominate to the Ministry.”
“It is partly a review of both the LUP and the IUP programmes. By combining these, we hope that we will be able to get better value for money and therefore more flats will be eligible for lift upgrading.”
“I am pleased to inform Members that, despite the economic downturn, the Government will be able to sustain the same pace of upgrading this year as we had done for the last five years. In terms of the number of precincts, we are going to announce the number of precincts later. But the number of precincts for this year will be similar to the number of precincts for the last few years. Sir, the Government remains committed to upgrading. We are facing quite significant changes in our social and economic landscape. So, we will have to review our upgrading programme continuously, taking into account our economic performance. The Government's financial position will also have to be taken into account. Of course, as Members will realise, we will also need to look at the competing needs for funds and other priority areas, like healthcare and education.”
“We still have about 4,000 high-rise blocks, as I said earlier, which do not have lifts on every floor. Lift Upgrading for high-rise blocks will benefit more residents than low-rise blocks. Furthermore, the provision of lifts to low-rise blocks is expensive, as Mr Ang Mong Seng realised, and I think he has cited some figures. But if there are low-rise blocks with redevelopment potential, as Mr Ang mentioned, we will certainly consider them for en-bloc redevelopment. Sir, I come now to the Main Upgrading Programme. To provide better value for money under the MUP, MND will concentrate on providing improvement items which are of tangible benefit to HDB flat owners. What we are going to do is to classify the upgrading improvement works into two categories - the "core" and "non-core" categories. HDB flat owners, through the MUP Working Committee, will be given greater flexibility in choosing the works which they value most. When I talk about core items, I am referring to things like upgrading of toilets, covered linkways, etc, which are very well appreciated by residents. Certain items, like toilet upgrading, will be enhanced to include the replacement of wash basins. As for non-core items, the list will be expanded to include, for instance, the replacement of refuse hopper. Again, this is based on feedback from MPs where some flat owners have suggested that we include this item as part of the MUP. But we will put this under the non-core category because not everybody would like to have it. Sir, the revisions I have just highlighted reflect the feedback, as I said, from MPs as well as from residents, but also from our own experience with past MUP projects. The changes will give us value for money and optimise the use of our upgrading resources.”
“By combining these two programmes into one, hopefully, we will enable more flat owners to have the lift upgrading works done earlier. At the same time, they will also continue to enjoy interim upgrading works which will be done at the block and the precinct level, including things like linkways, etc, which, I think Members also agree, are well appreciated by residents. So, we will try and have the best of both worlds, as it were. A total of 138,000 flats, which were built between 1981 and 1986, will qualify for this new programme. There will be no change in the polling and co-payment arrangements. HDB flat owners, who will stand to benefit from the lift upgrading works, will be required to poll and pay for such works under the IUP Plus. As for the interim upgrading works, it will continue to be fully funded by Government, and no polling is required. IUP Plus will be introduced later this year. In addition, the Lift Upgrading Programme itself will continue to be available for all high-rise blocks which are not eligible for the interim upgrading type of works, in other words, a separate LUP programme for those which are not eligible for this IUP Plus. These will be flats that were built after 1986 or flats that were in the earlier IUP batches which did not enjoy lifts stopping on every floor. So those that have already been done are still eligible, and they can be nominated as well. Sir, quite a few Members have touched on the issue of lift upgrading for low-rise 4-storey blocks. Again, I must explain to Members that there is a real need for prioritisation. We do not have unlimited funds. Given the circumstances, we need to see where the Lift Upgrading Programme can give more value and more benefits to residents. The Lift Upgrading Programme was introduced last year.”
“The short answer is there is no violation of any contract. He can rest assured of that. Of course, external works which are of a general benefit to the residents, Government will subsidise, and residents will have to co-pay. In the case of lift upgrading, it is even more clear that the benefit is to the residents, and this is the reason why we have asked them to co-pay. That has been made clear to residents. I think it is well accepted by our residents. In fact, all the precincts that have polled for the Lift Upgrading Programme have given us full support for this programme. So, it is well understood. It does not violate any legal contract whatsoever. That much I would like to assure Mr Steve Chia. Concurrently with the lift upgrading, of course, there is the Interim Upgrading Programme which preceded the Lift Upgrading Programme. What the Interim Upgrading Programme does is to provide some kind of upgrading works for precincts which are not yet eligible for the main upgrading. Interim upgrading centres more on block and precinct works. But all Members who have spoken have expressed a desire for more resources and more priority to be given to lift upgrading. I do share that sentiment. Within the resources that we have available, we will try to do so. For that reason, my Ministry has decided to combine the IUP and Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) into a new programme which we will call "IUP Plus". What IUP Plus does is that it will bring IUP and LUP works together at the same time to residents. It would be offered to residents at the same time. It will be carried out at the same time, so that we would no longer have to have two separate programmes, one interim upgrading and one lift upgrading.”
“Sir, it is evident from the Members' comments that upgrading is very popular, particularly lift upgrading. But let me point out that upgrading in general, whether it is Main Upgrading or Lift Upgrading, is very expensive and very heavily subsidised. So, to make the best use of the limited budget that we have for upgrading, MND has to constantly review the scope of these upgrading programmes in order to make sure that we can bring these programmes to as many residents as possible, and also to provide improvement items which residents value. Last year, we introduced the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), and this is to allow lifts to be provided on every floor, where feasible. The feedback has been very positive and I can understand why, because it does fulfil a real need, particularly for those who have lost the spring in their steps. But let me also stress that the Lift Upgrading Programme, which we introduced last year, does require a lot of resources. Mr Steve Chia asked why residents have to co-pay. It is precisely for this reason. It is a very heavily subsidised programme. The number of blocks which still requires lifts on very floor numbers something like 4,000. This is not inconsiderable. And he must appreciate, and I am sure every other Member here must appreciate, that, given the limited resources that are available for upgrading, there must be a certain level of priority. I think Mr Chia wants to say something.”
“A key consideration is to ensure that corporatisation does not bring about any adverse impact on the delivery of our public housing programmes. The benefits of corporatisation include giving them the autonomy and flexibility to build on their current strengths, to venture overseas and to establish an external market leveraging on the HDB brand name. It will enable them to unlock their value and potential, because they have a skill and track record that few organisations around the world have. At the same time, the public housing building programme can be gradually opened up to private sector developers. Whatever the outcome of the review, let me reassure Members that there will be minimal impact on the public. We would ensure that the fundamentals of public housing are preserved. Singaporeans will continue to enjoy high quality housing at affordable prices. At the same time, I would like to assure Mr Othman Haron and Mr Iswaran that the Government appreciates the valuable contribution of HDB's staff. They have given loyal and sterling service to HDB and the public, and their interests will be looked after in the review. Sir, I have announced some changes to our public housing policies and programmes. I have also outlined some of the key areas that MND will be addressing and the considerations that we will bear in mind. We will weigh the various options before us carefully, keeping in mind the impact that fundamental changes in public housing policy will have on Singaporeans.”
“We will be looking at all options pertaining to the financing of HDB flats, taking into account, amongst other things, our budgetary and financial position. We are also reviewing the roles and functions of HDB, in particular, its role in the development of public flats. HDB has been spectacularly successful in building affordable public housing. The expertise, the experience, and the achievements of HDB in this area, have won world-wide recognition. For example, in 1991 it was conferred the World Habitat Award for developing Tampines Town, and my residents are extremely pleased about that. This was done against strong contenders such as Vancouver and Boston. 1.15 pm Today, however, property development is a much more mature industry. And recognising this, HDB has, over the years, been gradually increasing the involvement of the private sector through, eg, its premium apartments. We can further increase private sector involvement to enable us to respond faster and better to changing needs, and the changing preferences. As a first step, we are looking into the feasibility of corporatising HDB's Building and Development Division (BDD). Since the inception of HDB 40 years ago, the Building and Development Division has accumulated a wealth of experience in the design and development of HDB flats. It has gathered considerable expertise in various areas, from surveying to architectural design, from engineering to project management. It is especially strong in comprehensive township development. All the HDB estates - the new towns - have been conceptualised and drawn up in the drawing rooms of the BDD in HDB.. MND and HDB are currently studying the implications of such a corporatised BDD.”
“Members recall that the housing policy for singles, in fact, was revised, and reviewed, only last year, whereby we allowed the purchase of 3-room resale flats in all estates, not just in the suburban estates. This, I believe, has been very popular with the singles. We will continue to review and refine our policies, when necessary. Sir, MPs sometimes raise specific cases in the House, on behalf of their constituents, and to illustrate their point. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is to be encouraged because they are doing their job. However, I would like to point out that sometimes, there is often more to each case than what MPs are told. And it is only when HDB interviews their residents, to see how it can assist them, that all the facts surfaced. So, my advice is, do not listen to one side of the story before you make up your mind. Sir, let me now go on to the other issues that were raised, particularly the one about the review of public housing. This is a matter which many Members have raised, and I would like to take some time to touch on this. Sir, the budget landscape for the Government in the future will not be the same as before. Our public housing expenditure would have to adjust according to what the Government can afford. In the past five years, we spent about 1.1% of our GDP, or more than $1.5 billion annually on public housing. This includes things like the subsidised flat prices, the housing grants, upgrading and so on - 1.1% of GDP, which is considerable. In the future, we will have to be more prudent and more efficient in the way we spend the public housing budget. For a start, we have already embarked on a review of the way our public housing budget is managed.”
“Mr Ang Mong Seng has suggested that we build HDB flats purely for singles to encourage social interaction. Is that correct? That was what I think I heard him saying. Sir, many Members of this House have actually asked the HDB to review its roles. Some have said that HDB is actually doing too much and it should be doing less. Sir, even while we review the role of HDB, I can categorically say that HDB will not take on this role of providing more opportunities for singles to meet. I think there are many other agencies and many other organisations which are much better placed to play such a role, organisations like SDU, SDS, and so on. Sir, let me take up a point which Ms Indranee and others have raised, and that is that it is difficult to obtain a waiver of policy from HDB. Let me state at the outset that policies are set by the Government, and HDB is the implementing agency. The rules and regulations are put in place to support existing policies, and for good reasons. Nevertheless, as with all rules, there are always gray areas at the margin, and this is the reason why we have got mechanisms in place which will allow HDB to exercise judgement and discretion on a case by case basis. Exceptions to the rule do take place. Camels do get through, quite a few of them, in fact, and big ones too. But they are not the norm, I must admit. In fact, there are not as many as maybe Members of this House would like, and it must be so. Because, if there were too many camels getting through, then surely there is something wrong with the policy in the first place, in which case, we should review the policy. Sir, policies are not cast in stone.”
“And that is the reason why we have reviewed the rules and we have allowed singles, age 35 and above, to buy 3-room resale flats, on their own. Contrary to Ms Indranee's claim that they are not eligible for subsidised housing, in fact, they are. Singles can apply for a housing grant of $11,000, if they buy a resale flat. And, if they combine with another single to buy a resale flat jointly, the grant is double, it goes up to $22,000. Why the minimum age of 35? We have to have a cut-off, to be consistent with our pro-family approach. We do not want to inadvertently encourage singles to live away from their parents at too early an age. So we checked with other agencies, and the advice was that marriage rates for singles tend to be much lower after this age, and this is the reason why we chose 35 years as the cut-off. Why are they eligible only for 3-room flats and not larger ones? Sir, anyone who is familiar with a 3-room HDB flat, which has got 2 bedrooms, about 70 square metres, would agree with me that this should be more than adequate for the housing needs of a single person, particularly in land-scarce Singapore. Members have also suggested allowing singles to rent HDB flats on their own. Our current policy on this is to reserve HDB's heavily subsidised rental housing for lower income families who cannot afford home ownership. There is always a certain segment of the population who will never be able to own their own homes, and for them, they will have heavily subsidised rental housing. We do not encourage singles to rent HDB flats on their own, partly because of the limited stock of such rental flats, but mainly because we want them to look first to their family for support. We do not want them to look to the State in the first instance.”
“Should we shorten the lease period significantly, as some Members have suggested, this would actually make housing a consumption item, rather than investment. So how different would that then be, for example, from rental housing? Would that not run counter to our objective of home ownership? And, of course, there is also the question of acceptability. Will such short tenured HDB flats be acceptable to members of the public? So these are some of the issues that we would need to consider, if we are going for shorter tenures. Sir, a few Members have also highlighted the issue of the housing needs of the singles - Mr Ang Mong Seng, Ms Indranee, Dr Michael Lim, among others. Sir, let me remind Members of the House, that public housing is subsidised housing. So the subsidies have to be justified because it promotes some social objectives. And, in this case, the social objectives in question would be the promotion of social cohesion and family values. And that is the reason why public housing comes with many rules and regulations, as some Members have pointed out. We, of course, try to keep such rules down to the minimum. But even then I must admit that the rules are quite bewildering, even for me. But I would like to assure the House that such rules are necessary. Sir, coming back to the question of housing for singles, let me state upfront that our public housing policy is pro-family in orientation, and this is to support our social objective of promoting family formation and bonding. But, at the same time, we also recognise that single citizens have housing needs, and that they have made valuable contributions to our society and to our economy.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, my time has been slimmed down considerably, so I will get straight to the point. On Saturday, Dr Teo Ho Pin raised his concern about promoting family members' desire to stay together. I agree that it is a very laudable objective. That is the reason why HDB gives higher housing grants for couples who want to buy resale flats near their parents. Also, I think he may be aware that in our balloting exercise for new flats in mature estates, we give a higher weightage to these couples so that they have a higher probability of success. So, as a result of these pro-family measures, HDB estimates that around 40% of HDB residents with married children live with the married children, or within the same estate. This is based on the findings of a survey that HDB did a few years ago. On the question of shorter tenures, I think Dr Michael Lim, as well as Dr Amy Khor, raised the possibility of shorter tenures for HDB flats so as to enhance affordability. The first point I would like to make on this is that even with 99-year leases, currently HDB flats are already affordable. As Members may recall last Saturday I cited the fact that the typical four-and-five room flat applicants last year needed to use only about 15% of their household incomes for their monthly mortgages. That attests to the affordability of flats currently even on 99-year lease, so there is really no need for us to introduce shorter leases on the basis of affordability. But we do have shorter leases for specific purposes. For example, we have 30-year leases for studio apartments for the elderly. So the question is whether we want to expand this to other flat types. One of the fundamental objectives of our housing policy is, of course, home ownership.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2002/2003, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 20th May 2002.”
“Sir, this is a good point for us to stop because I will touch on the other issues later on on Monday, with your permission.”
“Our approach to pricing of HDB flats has served us well so far because, in the process, we have helped to stabilise the property market and we have helped to preserve the value of the assets of the majority of Singaporeans. But, Sir, I must admit that this policy and this approach does not please everybody because those who have not yet bought a flat, they want us to reduce prices even further, even faster. You have such a big overhang, why do you not slash prices and have a cheap sale, lelong. That is for those who have not bought the flats. But those who have already bought the flats earlier were extremely unhappy when we reduced prices. They start to compare the prices that their neighbours have just paid with what they paid. Then, they go and approach their MPs to ask HDB for a refund. Sir, I have tried to explain why we have to raise prices when the market goes up, but not as fast, and why we have to lower prices when the market comes down, but again not as fast. In the process, I suppose somebody would be unhappy with this policy. But it has served us well and we will continue with this policy. The Chairman: Mr Mah, do you like me to end the lelong?”
“So Members will realise that, in terms of the price that they pay for their flats and in terms of the ability to service their mortgage, it is well within their means. And this is what we mean by pricing HDB flats to be affordable to Singaporeans. Of course, when we are talking about pricing, we also have to take into account certain micro features, like individual attributes of the flats, facing, floor level, and so on. We also take into account one very important aspect, which is the resale flat prices. And finally, we have to take into account the potential impact of new flat prices on the HDB resale market. Let me take you back to the time when property prices shot up in the mid-90s as a result of excessive speculation, as Mr Inderjit Singh pointed out just now. When property prices shot up in the mid-90s, HDB new flat prices lagged the market, in other words, it increased more slowly than the market. Between 1992 and 1996, resale flat prices tripled, went up by more than 200%, while new flat prices increased less than 50%. While the resale prices were going up like that, the HDB increased its new flat prices by much less. Why? Because it wanted to ensure that flat prices would not rise beyond the reach of the people, to keep them affordable. But, on the other hand, now that the property market has softened, HDB prices are also being adjusted downwards, but more slowly than the market. If you go back to the peak in 1996, and you compare with today, resale prices have fallen by about 30%, but new flat prices have been adjusted downwards, on an average by about 10-15%. So prices of HDB flats are coming down, they are not increasing, as Mr Othman suggested just now.”
“HDB will continue to monitor the sale of flats under the various modes of sale before deciding if it should start to build any new flats in 2003 and, if so, how many of such flats to build. Sir, let me now take the questions raised on rising prices of HDB flats and the related issues of affordability. I believe this was raised by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Mr Iswaran, Dr Michael Lim, Encik Othman Haron Eusofe and several others. Let me, first of all, reiterate that affordability has been and will always continue to be a primary consideration in the pricing of new HDB flats. We have publicly stated that the Government will price new HDB flats such that 90% of Singaporeans can afford at least a 3-room flat and 70% can afford at least a 4-room flat. In other words, when we talk about affordability, this means that the maximum mortgage instalments that a family has to pay to buy either a 3-room or a 4-room flat will not exceed 40% of its monthly household income. This is the guideline that HDB uses which, I believe, is a prudential norm which is also used by other institutions. But in actual fact, even though we use the 40% rule as the norm, in reality, most buyers of our flats today, the 4-room and 5-room flats, do not use more than 25-26% of their household income. So it is not 40%, but 25-26% of their household income. In other words, they are well able to service their mortgage instalments just using their CPF alone because the current CPF rules allow them to use up to 26% of their salaries on housing. In fact, last year, for the typical 4-room and 5-room applicants, they needed to use only about 15% of their household incomes for the monthly mortgage instalments.”
“Of the four contracts offered, one was dropped because there was poor demand, so we did not build. And 92% of the flats in the other three sites were taken up. So we proceeded with the other three sites. We dropped one site and we proceeded with three sites. Sir, in view of the current supply-demand situation for HDB flats, we have decided to suspend the RFS system and switch over to a BTO system from next year, 2003. With immediate effect, HDB will stop accepting new applications under the RFS. And those who are on the queue now can opt for a flat under the Walk-in Selection System, or the balloting exercise for flats in mature estates. He will also be given one more chance to select the remaining unsold flats that have not yet been released under the Walk-in Selection System, in other words, before these flats are offered to the public. As there is demand for 4-room flats in certain areas, HDB will offer about 1,300 4-room flats in Punggol and Sengkang in the fourth quarter of this year under the BTO system. Applicants of the RFS queue can choose to participate in this offer and they will be shortlisted, according to their queue position. After this offer, the queue will be expunged. Those who are not interested in any of the offers, or who are successfully shortlisted, will have their fees refunded. HDB will release more details in due course. For Singaporeans who are not on the queue now and who would like to purchase a flat, they have got quite a few choices. These options include applying under the Walk-in Selection Scheme, or the regular balloting exercises, or they can wait for new contracts to be offered under the BTO system, and of course they can also opt for resale flats.”
“So he said, "I don't have a flat available that I like, I would like to get my registration fees back. If in three months' time, you cannot allocate me a suitable flat, I want a refund." But that is not the end of the story. More interesting part comes now. He said that we should accord him a flat on a priority basis, priority over other Singaporeans because he travels frequently overseas on business and, therefore, since he is a cosmopolitan Singaporean, HDB should favour him over others. I guess he thinks he is doing a national service for Singapore. I just give you this example to illustrate how choosy people can become. It is quite understandable. If you are talking about choosing your dream home, you can be a little bit choosy. But I think we have to bear in mind that public housing is subsidised, and subsidised housing has enabled Singaporeans to own their own homes and for Singapore to be a home-owning nation. But we have to ask ourselves how far the Government can go and should go in trying to meet such demands. So we have to review our allocation policies, as Mdm Cynthia Phua suggested, and how we assess the demand for flats. Last year, as Members will recall, HDB piloted the Build-To-Order (BTO) system to better tailor supply to the preference of the applicants and also to better manage change in demand. Under this system, applicants indicate their preference for certain sites which HDB is launching. HDB will then call tenders for construction but only when there are sufficient applicants for the flats. In other words, if the number of people who want to book these flats reaches a certain threshold, then HDB will let out the tenders. The pilot project was successful.”
“15 pm But what has happened, as a result of the overhang, is that it has highlighted the need for us to review our allocation system, particularly, the Registration of Flats System (RFS). This system, called the queueing system, has worked well, especially when the demand is high. It provides applicants with greater certainty, as Mdm Cynthia Phua mentioned just now, you know exactly when you get your flat. It may not be as fast as you would like it, two years, three years, four years, even five years. But it does provide some certainty when you apply. But it is not sufficiently responsive to sudden changes in demand. For example, when the Asian economic crisis broke out in 1997, followed by the economic slowdown in the last few years, many people dropped out of the queue. The queue was 146,000 in 1997. It dropped to 8,800 recently. HDB planned its building programme based on this queue. As a result of this, despite the reduction in the building programme, since 1998, the unsold stocks continued to build up because of the contracts that were already tendered. Of the 8,800 applicants, some 3,300 have been in the queue for five years or more, majority of them are upgraders and they have many opportunities to select a flat. But, I guess, as to be expected, because there is a lot of choice, the more choices you have, the more choosy you become. And many people, when they are given many flats to choose from, decide not to select any. Recently, I received a complaint from an applicant who was on the queue. He was asked to select a 5-room flat in Punggol. He decided that none of the 700 flats that were on offer to him was suitable for him. 700 flats, none suitable. Because he wanted one on the higher floor.”
“As Mr Iswaran pointed out just now, this is something that is going to become more and more critical because the physical needs of Singapore in the years ahead are going to become much more demanding. Our population is aging; global economic competition is increasing. So we have to determine what is the right balance between expenditure on housing and expenditure on health care, education, and so on. Let me stress at the outset that the Government is committed to providing affordable public housing to the masses. I think that is something that we will not lose sight of. More new households are being formed each year, not all of them can afford private housing, as Dr Tan Cheng Bock pointed out. We also need to ensure that low-income families continue to have access to housing. By this, I am talking about rental housing as well as sold housing. Before I elaborate on the review, let me address some of the comments that have been made by Members about our current stock of unsold HDB flats. HDB started selling its stock of 17,000 flats in the non-mature estates since January this year, first of all, to the 11,000 applicants who were in the Registration of Flats System (RFS) queue, which is the current queuing system, and then subsequently to members of the public through the walk-in selection system. To-date, HDB has sold more than 5,000 flats, and I expect that there will be more flats that will be taken up in the months to come. The current overhang is a temporary phenomenon. We should not try to, because there is an overhang, change our rules in order to generate artificial demand for these flats, for example, through the buying back of more 3-room flats from the open market, as Mr Ang Mong Seng suggested just now, in order to help the flat owners to upgrade. 5.”
“Sir, I do not think I would be able to cover all the points in 20 minutes. So I will take the main ones first. Sir, let me, first of all, touch on the review of public housing which has been a concern of many Members who spoke. First of all, I would like to reiterate that home ownership is the cornerstone of our public housing policy. HDB has been the principal agency responsible for implementing this policy. The result has been quite remarkable, if you take the 40 years of the history of HDB. In 1960, for example, 9% of the population lived in public housing. Today, 86% of Singaporeans are HDB dwellers. So, from a time when we had 9% or 10% of Singaporeans living in HDB flats, today we have a situation which is a reverse where actually 10% of Singaporeans do not live in HDB housing. Of those who live in HDB houses, 96% own their own flats. Sir, this is an achievement that is unmatched in any other country, whether you are talking of a developed or a developing country. Now that we have met our objective of providing affordable housing for the vast majority of Singaporeans, as many Members have pointed out, it is now time for us to review the future direction of public housing and also the role that HDB should play in the future. When we do the review, we will have to have certain fundamentals in mind. And two basic considerations will guide us in this review. Firstly, we will have to be more responsive to the housing needs and aspirations of a new generation of Singaporeans - more discerning, better educated. Secondly, we need to utilise our limited financial resources wisely and prudently, so that we can meet these future challenges.”
“Sir, if and when such a development takes place, the Government will act appropriately.”
“Sir, Singapore will never be as cheap as some other countries which have a large land mass, and we cannot compete on property prices and those alone. We have many strategic competitive advantages. We have a stable political and social environment. We have a world-class business infrastructure. We have a highly trained workforce and unsurpassed connectivity to business opportunities regionally and beyond. At the same time, we have a Government that is responsive, pro-business and willing to change, whether it is reviewing our tax regime or attracting high value-added industries or facilitating business opportunities, both locally and overseas. Sir, we have a lot going for us. It is not necessary to deliberately depress the true market value of land and destabilise the property market and it is not in our interest to do so. Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, can I seek some clarification? I would like to ask the Minister whether he is now willing for a speculation to once again take place in the property market since he says that it is no longer an issue and all the measures have been lifted, and whether he is willing to wait for another bubble to build up before doing something to moderate future prices.”
“So when the economy goes up, prices go up, and when the economy is not doing well, prices come down. I think she is aware, for example, that when we sold two sites in the new Downtown, one was sold in March 2001, the price was $3,100 per square metre of floor area. Then, just earlier this week, we awarded the second site for $2,400 per square metre of floor area. In other words, the market recognises that prices have come down. Similarly, the reserve price has also come down and this is the reason why we were able to award both these sites. Dr Khor also proposed that perhaps we should not have just one reserve price - we should have a band. This is already being done. We recognise that the Chief Valuer's reserve price is not an absolute figure, it is not absolutely precise. This is the reason why we have a band. If the tender price is above 85% of the Chief Valuer's price, we will award the site. This 15% band is considered to be an acceptable range by valuers. Let me conclude by assuring the House that the Government is fully conscious of the need to maintain Singapore's economic competitiveness. We will make sure that there is sufficient land to meet the demand from all sectors of our economy. To ensure that we remain price competitive, we regularly benchmark our property values and rentals against other major cities. Just to give you an example. In the case of commercial properties, there was a survey done in January this year and Singapore ranked 31st amongst the major world cities in terms of cost of office space. Our office rentals were cheaper than several major Asian cities, such as Tokyo, Hong Kong, Taipei and Beijing. Admittedly, we were more expensive than Shanghai, Delhi and KL.”
“I would like to assure her that we do. The SLF land has been allocated because the Government wants to redevelop the Ang Mo Kio Interchange area. There is a lot of quantum which is being provided for the unions to use. Whatever is left over is being used by the private sector, but that quantum is minimal. Even then, that quantum is being adjusted and taken into account in the GLS. So we will do this in order to make sure that the market knows how much land is available. Giving you another example, we have indicated that we are looking into the release of a large site for an integrated development at the new Downtown. The details are still being worked out by the Economic Review Committee. But I can say that we will not be implementing the project this year but when we do, again, the supply from this development will be factored into the GLS programme. It will take into account the floor space that is generated from this integrated development. We will, of course, also make sure when the project is implemented, that it will not destabilise the property market. 4.30 pm Sir, let me now touch on the reserve price. Dr Khor commented that the GLS does not give us an idea of Government's reserve price and that, to a certain extent, the reserve price system has caused prices to go up. Let me explain why we set a reserve price for our land sales. It again goes back to the fundamental principle that State land is an asset that belongs to the people. As a custodian of the people's assets, the Government has the responsibility to ensure that land is disposed of at its true market value and this means setting a reserve price to ensure that our land is not sold off for a song. But reserve prices are not cast in stone. They change with market conditions.”
“This is why we introduced the Reserve List system last year, in order to enable the GLS programme to be more responsive to market demand, as Dr Amy Khor said. With this system, reserved sites will be released for land when developers apply for them. So our GLS system allows the market the flexibility to adjust the amount of supply which it can readily absorb. Dr Amy Khor did allude to the fact that we should expand the Reserve List. I am not sure whether she meant getting rid of the Confirmed List. We already have a substantial Reserve List, but we would still like to keep the Confirmed List, because it is not just a matter of supplying land through the GLS programme. The GLS programme is also a tool for the Government to steer private capital to achieve certain specific development objectives. Let me give one example: the new Downtown. It is our intention to expand the existing Central Business District into the new Downtown area in Marina South. In so doing, we want to develop Singapore into a business and financial hub. We have put in a lot of infrastructure into the new Downtown to support this expansion. For example, the common services tunnel has been laid, the MRT is going in there, and many other services are going in, in order to allow us to move development into this area. So, the Confirmed List will help us to steer office development towards the new Downtown, and that will align it with our plans for a business and financial hub in the area. We will need to manage the overall supply through both the Confirmed List and the Reserve List. I do agree with Dr Khor when she says that when we have allocations of land, eg, Turf City as well as the SLF land in Ang Mo Kio, we should take these into account in our overall land supply.”
“In this regard, our land policy must be to make available land for development through the Government Land Sales programme, such that we are able to sustain economic growth and not to just control property prices. Dr Amy Khor asked how land is supplied under the Government Land Sales programme. The Government Land Sales programme seeks to ensure that there is a steady supply of land to meet the demand for various parts of the economy, for various uses - commercial, industrial and residential. How do we determine the supply? We take into account factors, such as household formation rate, potential supply in the pipeline, and the average take-up rate. And, if we have a sufficient and steady supply of land, then prices will not escalate sharply, and the market will be more stable. As we all realise, there will be circumstances when the Government may have to intervene. These are exceptional circumstances when there are abnormal trends in the market. For example, in the mid-90s, when speculation became rife, the Government introduced anti-speculation measures in 1996, because we recognised that it is not healthy when speculation causes a property bubble to build up. After the property bubble was pricked, some of these measures were removed. Why were they removed? For the simple reason that there was no longer any evidence of property speculation and there was ample supply in the market. By releasing sufficient land, and by intervening when necessary, the Government aims to provide a stable property market environment for businesses to operate in. And some of the desirable operating conditions for businesses are stability and predictability. But we recognise that it is difficult to determine demand accurately because the market is dynamic.”
“Because land is limited in Singapore, no matter how much we reclaim land, even with all the current reclamation that we are planning to do and, if possible technically, we can reclaim even more land. [Interruption.] Even if we were to be able to do that and - if Mr Low has any good ideas, he could let me know - eventually, our limited land supply will mean that prices will start moving up again as the supply is used up. And what do we do then to bring down land prices, if indeed that is the key to our competitiveness? Mr Inderjit Singh's suggestion is a well-intentioned one. His point is that if we bring down land prices we will regain our competitiveness. But I suggest to him that his medicine will probably kill the patient before he cures him. Sir, we need to be mindful that we are a nation of homeowners. 90% of Singaporeans own homes. So I agree with Mr Ong that it is very important that we maintain a stable property market in Singapore and, in order for us to do so, we need to have a right balance of Government measures to achieve this desirable objective. The question then is: what are these measures? What role can the Government play in the property market? There have been very specific comments made by various Members, Dr Amy Khor particularly, about the GLS and the reserve price, the use of the Reserve List, etc. I would like to address some of these issues now when talking about what role the Government can play. First of all, let us start from basics. What is the objective of the Government? The key objective of the Government surely must be to sustain economic growth.”
“Mr Inderjit Singh, in particular, suggested that changes be made to Government policies in order to lower land and property costs, so as to boost our economic competitiveness. He said that if the Government has all the levers in place, it will be able to control property prices. Can the Government control property prices? On the surface of it, the answer is yes. One way is for us to flood the market with land, and prices will react immediately. We may even bring property prices down by 30%, as suggested by Mr Inderjit Singh as being a desirable target to achieve. However, as Mr Ong Kian Min rightly pointed out, is it going to stop there at 30%? But that is another story. What would be the outcome of this, if we were to do that, assuming we wanted to do that? Some businesses will benefit in the short term from lower property prices, and those who are not property owners currently will rejoice. But many existing land and property owners will face a sudden drop in the value of their assets, with serious financial consequences. Mr Inderjit Singh, I think, acknowledges this. But, just to give a rough idea of what I mean by serious financial consequences. I did a rough back-of-the envelope calculation. If we just take HDB flats, for example. There are 800,000 flats and, very conservatively, we value it at, say, about $200,000 per flat. There are 3-room flats which are about $150,000, 4-room flats, about $200,000-250,000, and 5-room flats, $350,000. But if I just take a very conservative $200,000 per flat, for 800,000 flats, a 30% drop in prices means that we wipe out $48 billion worth of value! And that is not a laughing matter. That is not the end of the story.”
“It will consult a wide spectrum of Singaporeans when we put together this Identity Plan and the Parks and Waterbodies Plan. Since April this year, URA has begun seeking inputs from advisers and grassroots leaders in preparing the draft proposals. But, as we are well aware, such things can be very subjective. Things like social memory and identity mean different things to different people. It has to depend very much on individual experiences. So what we are going to do is to prepare the draft plans and, thereafter, we will exhibit these plans sometime towards the middle or later part of this year, and people will be encouraged to come and visit these exhibitions and to give us their views and inputs. This public feedback that is gathered will then be incorporated into a Draft Master Plan. This Draft Master Plan will then be exhibited, region by region, because as I explained earlier, these are rather detailed plans. So we are going to exhibit them, region by region, probably in the first half of next year. This is another opportunity for the public to offer their views. After all this is done, URA will finalise the Master Plan, and that will be towards the end of next year. So we can see, Sir, that this is a rather lengthy but important, worthwhile and necessary process because, through this process, I hope that the final plan can truly be a joint project of the URA and its stakeholders. By stakeholders, I am talking of course of Singaporeans, people who live, work and play in these areas. Sir, I now come to the comments made by various Members about the property market and, particularly, about the role of the Government in the property market.”
“We will be mindful that we do not overdo it, that we will not over-plan, and that we will not destroy the very essence of the place that we are trying to preserve. Let me also explain to the House what else we are doing, in terms of trying to enhance the quality of our environment. There is a Parks and Waterbodies Plan that will be incorporated as part of the Master Plan review, and this is now being prepared, the idea being to make our existing parks more accessible and also to open up previously unexplored areas for recreational activities. I remember Dr Teo making this point earlier about how inaccessible some of our parks are. That is a valid point. To the extent possible, we will try to open up more of our existing parks but, equally importantly, there is an opportunity for us now to open up previously inaccessible areas. For example, the Central Catchment area. One proposal is to open up the Central Catchment area by introducing more trails through the forests and boardwalks along the waterfront. There will be a new canopy walk, which we constructed to offer a different experience of the Central Catchment area. Of course, all these plans will have to be discussed with the various relevant agencies, to make sure that, for example, the environment of the Central Catchment is protected, in order not to compromise our water quality. There will be other parks being planned. Woodlands will see a new regional park. In Sengkang, along Sungei Ponggol, there will be a riverine park. So we are trying to create different types of parks to cater to different interests and with different facilities. As these plans are intended to reflect the character of places that are meaningful to our people, I assure Mr Iswaran that URA will consult widely.”
“Sir, as part of the Master Plan Review 2003, an island-wide identity plan is being prepared which will take stock of all such significant roads across the island. Guidelines will be proposed to reinforce the existing character so that whoever develops these areas must ensure that the character of these places is not inadvertently eroded. Some of these areas naturally spring to mind: Anak Bukit is one of them, along Bukit Timah Road. Those of you who are familiar with Anak Bukit will know that this is a place which is rich in local identity and significance. It is a little village centre, a little kampong for people living in the Upper Bukit Timah area. It has got a sizable cluster of shophouses. It has got many popular eating places, many retail shops. It is also a place where many of Singapore's older shopping centres are. So URA is proposing to retain the character of the area by retaining the low-scale developments and allowing more space for outdoor dining. Hopefully, this will reinforce the liveliness of the area. 4.15 pm We are looking at similar plans for other areas, such as Katong, and Jalan Leban along Upper Thomson Road. Mr Iswaran asked how do we choose such places. Why not Taman Serasi? Why not, indeed? If there are other places which can lend themselves to such efforts, by all means surface them, because the process does not start and stop with URA. The identification of these places is not the end of the story. What we want is to be able to create more vibrancy, more buzz in these areas, while retaining their existing charm. And, yes, I also agree with Mr Iswaran that we must be mindful that we do not, as he put it, be too clinical about it such that we render these places devoid of character.”
“So there is always this constant tussle between one group wanting one thing and another group wanting another. One group may lobby strongly for conservation. They want to preserve the social memory of the place, they want to leave everything untouched. But the owners of the property may not be interested in conservation and preserving memory. What they want is to be able to redevelop their land, to bring in more activities. Sir, all these examples go to show the dilemma that confronts URA when we review the Master Plan, particularly, when we have many diverse interests which are conflicting. After considering all these views, URA must make a decision, and this decision has to strike a balance between these diverse views in as fair a manner as possible and, at the same time, assure that the needs of competing land uses and, of course, the national interests are taken into consideration. This is where I come to a point raised by Mr Iswaran on the question about identity, how do we preserve heritage and identity, how do we choose, how would Singaporeans participate in the process and what happens after we have identified various areas. Do we run the risk of making it overly clinical, rendering it devoid of character, as Mr Iswaran mentioned just now? I am pleased to inform both Dr Teo and Mr Iswaran that the new Master Plan 2003 will place its greater emphasis on the issues of identity and the quality of our living environment. Let me elaborate. First of all, on the identity plan. Yes, I agree that, as Singapore develops, as Singapore grows into a world-class city, we need to establish certain things which are distinctive and unique to Singapore, familiar places, places which represent our shared identity and our social memory.”
“The last one was done in 1998. So the next one is due next year, 2003. As such, the Master Plan is of considerable interest to the general public and, in particular, to the property owners. Because if you are a property owner, from the Master Plan you will be able to establish what you can use your land for, how intensively you can develop that land and also the kind of land use in your neighbourhood so that you will know what is going on around you. As Members have noted, URA, in preparing the Concept Plan, underwent an extensive consultation exercise and it is going to do the same for the Master Plan review, in other words, consult the public extensively so that the Master Plan can take the interest of various parties into account. Inevitably, in the course of consulting the public, what is going to happen is that there will be many different points of view that will surface between different individuals and different groups. For example, an owner in a landed housing estate wants to have a higher plot ratio for his land. In fact, we constantly receive many requests from landed property owners asking for plot ratios to be intensified. But his neighbour may not agree, his neighbour may not want to have a taller building, changing the character of his estate. And the point that Mr Ong Kian Min brought up about change of use, this is a common issue. Many small businesses want to convert, they want to use residential properties for commercial use, etc, so they ask for flexibility in their land use, with good intention. Because what they want is to be able to keep the costs of business down. But, inevitably, there will be complaints from neighbours. It causes disamenity to the estate. It brings more traffic into the estate, and so on.”
“Sir, let me, first of all, address the Members' concerns about the Concept Plan and our land use policy. Then after that, I will deal with the issue of property prices. Sir, first of all, let me explain the purpose of the Concept Plan and what the Concept Plan is all about. It is a strategic land use plan that helps us to map out the long-term physical development of Singapore. By long term, I am talking about 40 to 50 years, and it will affect, to a large extent, how Singaporeans live, work and play. Because of this, when URA prepared the Concept Plan, it undertook an extensive part of the consultation exercise in preparing for this plan. In addition to this, there were also considerable inputs gathered from professionals, both locally as well as overseas. Sir, the Concept Plan is not an exercise in forecasting the future. We cannot forecast the future. Rather it is a kind of road map that guides us as we move into the future. So as the road takes unforeseen twists and turns, so too must we adjust. This is the reason why we say that we have to review the Concept Plan every 10 years, and the last review was done in 2001. Having completed this Concept Plan review, the next step is to now proceed to review the Master Plan. Let me explain what the Master Plan is as opposed to the Concept Plan. The Master Plan is reviewed once every five years. And what it does is that it translates the strategic vision of the Concept Plan into a specific actual land use plan for the whole of Singapore. And this is not for 40-50 years, we are talking about the immediate as well as the medium term. So from the Concept Plan, we break it down into land use plans for the various districts in Singapore and we call this the Master Plan. And this Master Plan is revised every five years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders: (i) the proceedings on the Estimates for FY 2002/2003 on 15th, 16th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd May 2002, be continued beyond 4.30 pm, and be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 7.00 pm on each day; and (ii) the proceedings on the Estimates for FY 2002/2003 on 18th May 2002 be continued beyond 4.30 pm, and be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 5.30 pm. Sir, this is to extend the sitting time of Parliament till 7.00 pm each day in order to allow more time for debate in the Committee of Supply. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders: (i) the proceedings on the Estimates for FY 2002/2003 on 15th, 16th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd May 2002, be continued beyond 4.30 pm, and be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 7.00 pm on each day; and (ii) the proceedings on the Estimates for FY 2002/2003 on 18th May 2002 be continued beyond 4.30 pm, and be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 5.30 pm. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL 2002 TO 31ST MARCH 2003 (Paper Cmd. 3 of 2002) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do sit on Saturday, 18th May 2002. Sir, Members have made a total of 518 cuts this year. I believe this is one of the highest in the last few years, and in order to allow more time for Members to make their cuts and for Ministers to give a proper response, I am moving this motion to enable Parliament to sit on Saturday. Resolved, That Parliament do sit on Saturday, 18th May 2002. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS (Business Motion)”
“Under the Technopreneur Home Office (THO) Scheme, aspiring technopreneurs are allowed to use their HDB flats as their registered business address, to conduct infocommunication technology-related work. To date, 385 applications have been approved under the THO Scheme, since its inception in July 1999. HDB also allows other small-scale businesses to be conducted from HDB flats, so long as they do not cause inconvenience to neighbours. For instance, HDB residents may use their flat to conduct tuition classes or music lessons to small groups of students. Even as HDB eases the restrictions on the use of HDB flats, it will ensure that it protects the residential nature of our HDB estates. HDB residents should not be inadvertently inconvenienced by noise, excessive human traffic or loss of privacy, as a result of businesses conducted by their neighbours from their HDB flats. MAID ABUSE 20. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the trend of maid abuse cases; (b) has there been a study to determine the causes of maid abuse in our society; and (c) are the present measures to stem such abuse and to safeguard the welfare of foreign domestic workers sufficient.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the promise is that we will consider Sennett Estate for upgrading under the EUP programme if there is support for it. If Mr Chiam tells me that there is support for it and I have no reason to disbelieve him, then that will be one of the criteria that will be taken into account. 1.30 pm”
“Can we continue after the next session because I am sure my answer will not satisfy Mr Chiam? All promises that are made at election time by the PAP are promises that will be honoured. They are made seriously and all promises that are made will be honoured.”
“How do we gather that? We gather that by seeing whether there is a neighbourhood committee. If there is a neighbourhood committee, it is much easier to get the residents together to support the programme, to tell us what is it that they need, to get together to work the programme through and to implement it. So all these things need to be done and to be considered. It is not a paper exercise, as Mr Low seems to suggest, that we just go through and tote up the points and, after that, we make a selection. A lot of investigations need to be done, a lot of ground work needs to be done, a lot of discussions and interactions with other Ministries need to be done also. So this is not a simple exercise, as Mr Low seems to think. But having gone through that exercise, we have to make very sure that the budget that we have for this is properly spent. There is a limited budget. The Ministry of Finance gives us a specific budget, say, $40 million for the next five years. We have found that the amount may not be enough. So we have got to go and ask for more money. Before we go and ask for more money from the Ministry of Finance, we have to be very sure about what the money is to be for, how the money is to be spent and to assure them that the money is well spent. So there is a lot of work that needs to be done. And I would like to assure the House that when the advisors put in their applications, we will assess those applications carefully and we will make a decision which will be of optimal benefit, not just to the residents, but also to make sure the money is well spent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am talking about support for the programme. I am not talking about political support for the programme per se. I am talking about support of the programme in recognising the origins of the programme, the need for budget surpluses, etc. I think we have gone through this many times in this House with Mr Low Thia Khiang and many others, and I am sure I do not need to go into those details again. But in specific answer to his question, what is the weightage of each, I am afraid I cannot answer because we do not go by specific weightages. There are a whole series of criteria. In this particular case, the age is very important because obviously the older the estate, the more need there is for upgrading. But then, this is not the only criterion because if you go by age alone, then obviously you are only going to concentrate on one area of Singapore. Besides that, it does not mean that, if the estate is old, it is in very poor condition. Sometimes, the estates which are older are not in such poor condition. So again, we have to take a very considered view of the age criterion. Then of course, we have things like scope of works. What do you mean by "scope of works"? It simply means that in certain estates, certain things need to be done which in other estates do not need to be done, for example, drains. There are some estates where the condition of the drains is very poor. So we have to look at that specifically because the Drainage Department of the Ministry of the Environment is also spending money on drains. So we have to dovetail it with the drainage programme. Last but not least, of course, there is the question whether the residents actually support such programmes, whether they have a sense of community bonding, a sense of community spirit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Chiam should go back and check what the promise was. The promise was that all these estates would be considered for upgrading. There is still the need to satisfy all the criteria which I have noted earlier. Mr Chiam has always asked us how and why we select precincts for upgrading. I am now telling him that precincts are selected for upgrading based on certain criteria. In the case of Sennett Estate, it fulfills some of the criteria and certainly when it comes up, if and when it is nominated for upgrading, we will certainly consider it. But it must be done together with all other deserving estates and I am sure all the other Members of this House here would appreciate that we would have to be fair in our selection.”
“Sir, I do not think upgrading of any sort is a matter of right. We have made it very clear, first of all, that there are certain criteria that need to be fulfilled. In the case of the Estate Upgrading Programme, you have got criteria like age, condition, etc. And of course, there is also the condition that the Government must be able to afford to do upgrading. In other words, that there are budget surpluses available. First of all, we must get the budget for it and then, secondly, we have got to invite nominations and all the estates which are eligible for upgrading will then be considered together and the ones that are most deserving will be selected. There are many criteria, as I have listed earlier. Age is one, but not the most important one. Similarly, the scope of works. And the support for the programme is also one, but not the only condition. So eligibility of Sennett Estate for the Estate Upgrading Programme is certainly there. But whether it will be selected or not depends on whether other precincts or estates are more deserving.”