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 36 of 61.
“Sir, as I indicated, we have still not reached the stage where we are looking at specific sites for such facilities. But it obviously depends upon, first of all, the availability and, secondly, whether such "white pumps" can co-locate with other users, taking into account factors such as fire safety as well as environmental requirements. OLDER PRIVATE HOUSING ESTATES (Upgrading of pavements and drains) 15. Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will expedite the upgrading of pavements and drains in older private housing estates, as damaged amenities contribute to the breeding of disease-carrying insects like cockroaches and mosquitoes. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has a regular inspection and maintenance programme for all public roads and pedestrian walkways. Similarly, the Ministry of the Environment (ENV) carries out routine maintenance and improvement works for drains in public areas. These programmes also extend to those in private housing estates. LTA will repair roads and walkways and ENV will repair drains that are damaged or pose a hazard to public safety. ENV also ensures a high standard of public health by keeping vector populations, such as mosquitoes and cockroaches, at low levels. The Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) for private residential estates provides improvement works over and above the on-going maintenance works carried out by the various Government agencies such as LTA and ENV. Where possible, improvement works of Government agencies will be coordinated with those under the EUP to lessen inconvenience to the residents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, MND is currently working with MTI to study the possibility and the mechanisms of allowing petrol pump facilities in commercial or white sites, or "white pumps", as mentioned by Dr Teo. The study is still at a preliminary stage and details have yet to be worked out. MND and MTI will make the necessary announcements when the details are finalised.”
“PASIR RIS COMMUNITY CLUB (Housing of Association of Muslim Professionals' new headquarters) 4. Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad asked the Minister for Community Development and Sports if he can provide an update on the latest status of plans for the Pasir Ris Central Community Club's co-shared facilities to house the Association of Muslim Professionals' new headquarters and services.”
“Sir, there are two parts to the Member's question. The first is the question of bringing business back, and the second aspect is lowering business cost. In so far as the second aspect is concerned, as I explained earlier, HDB has given back to the shopkeepers rebates in rentals over the last four years. Indeed, the rental rebates are still in place and will be reviewed again in the next three months. But that would not help shopkeepers if the business is not there in the first place. This is the reason why, in the recent package of measures to assist HDB shopkeepers, which I announced in Parliament, there are elements to help the shopkeepers to bring back the business, for example, assistance measures, upgrading measures, franchise measures, measures for shopkeepers to get together to improve and upgrade the environment, and so on. I think those measures are just as important as any measures taken by HDB to reduce rentals. There are also other programmes in place, for example, greater flexibility in subleasing the shops, greater flexibility in changing the use of the shops, and so on. Last, but not least, for those who really wish to exit the trade, there are also measures put in place to facilitate their exit. All these measures taken together will, I believe, help to a certain extent. But I would like to emphasise that the shopkeepers themselves must make the effort. They must avail themselves of these measures. They must make the effort to get together. They must make the effort to approach PSB to upgrade their shops and to take advantage of the various schemes that are available. Without the efforts taken by them, I am afraid that just talking about a rebate and a cut in rentals alone would not suffice. I hope the Member will help to spread this message.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, rentals for HDB shops had come down over the last five years. The average tendered rentals last year were about 46% and 12% lower than the rentals in 1995 for older estates and new estates respectively. To help shop tenants tide over the difficult economic conditions and lower their business cost, HDB has given them rental rebates since December 1997. The current rebates consist of three categories: (i) across-the-board rebate; (ii) a rebate to bring down the rentals nearer to January 1999 market level; and (iii) a rebate arising from property tax reductions which is then passed on by HDB as the landlord. Taken together, the rebates amount to 16% in 1998, 25% in 1999, 23% in 2000, and between 12%-13% this year. HDB is currently reviewing the present rental rebates and will finalise the review in about three months' time.”
“The Government would like to urge the other farms to follow the example. However, we recognise that not all the farms may want to make further investments into their operations. If they wish to cease operations because they will not be able to meet the ENV's smell control requirements, the Government will offer them an ex-gratia payment to ease their early exit. For the farms that choose to continue operation, they will have to take measures to meet the ENV's smell control requirements by April 2002, ie, one year from today. AVA and ENV have assessed that this is a reasonable time-frame for the farms to put in place the required smell control measures. AVA and ENV officers have met with the farmers to outline to them the details of the offer of ex-gratia payment and explain how AVA and ENV will help them to implement the necessary smell control measures by April 2002 if they opt to continue poultry farming. It is understandable for residents in Chua Chu Kang to want the smell nuisance removed quickly. However, we need to give the four poultry farms a reasonable period of time to put in the smell control measures. I would therefore like to seek the understanding and patience of the residents in Chua Chu Kang Town. AVA and ENV are confident that, with understanding and cooperation of the four farms, the smell nuisance can be removed. They will monitor their implementation closely during this interim period. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State to elaborate a little bit more on the smell control measures so that the farmers will be able to comply with them. I would also like to ask whether the measures are economically viable for the farmers. If not, why should there be such measures to curb the farms from operating?”
“Sir, HDB's building programme must be based upon demand. As the Member may know, demand was at its peak in 1996-1997. The waiting list then was over 100,000. If you compare that to today's situation, the waiting list is slightly less than 30,000. The demand has fallen sharply. Under the circumstances, the building programme must also necessarily fall sharply. It does not make sense to build flats because the construction costs are low as it is only one of the costs involved. There are many other holding costs involved. To build flats and keep them in cold storage because nobody is queuing up for the flats does not make economic sense. CHICKEN FARMERS IN CHUA CHU KANG (Smell reduction) 2. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry has any plan to help the chicken farmers in Chua Chu Kang to deal with smell reduction. The Minister of State for National Development (Dr John Chen Seow Phun) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, complaints from residents in Chua Chu Kang of smell nuisance from the four poultry farms at Sungei Tengah Agrotechnology Park have intensified over the last two years. A study commissioned by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) found that the major cause of the smell nuisance is the improper handling and composting of poultry waste by the farms. The problem is aggravated during the times of the year when the wind blows from the poultry farms towards Chua Chu Kang Town. To contain the smell effectively, the farms will need to improve their current mode of operations to take into consideration the impact on their surroundings. They will need to put in place smell control measures. In fact, one of the farms has recognised this need and has started doing so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB plans its building programme according to the demand for new flats. It has yet to finalise the building programme for FY 2001/2002 because part of it will involve flats to be offered under the pilot Build-to-Order system. For this pilot project, the number of flats to be built will depend on the number of flats selected by the applicants. On the status of HDB tenders, tenders for four contracts consisting of 2,800 flats were closed in February and March 2001. HDB is evaluating the tenders and intends to award them in the next few months. Three tenders for another 1,600 flats are currently in progress. Of these, about 500 flats are tendered using the Design and Build procurement method.”
“A final issue I would like to address is Mr Chiam's point whether there will be hardship to certain people caused by the Act. I think, yes, some people will be adversely affected by this. He cited the example of a constituent of his, a widow who is 80 years. If that person is not eligible for assistance under the two schemes that I have mentioned earlier, there are the normal HDB schemes where she can get assistance and, if not, if he would like to put up a case, we will consider that. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT CO-SAVINGS BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.38 pm”
“If the monies have not been claimed, those monies will be set aside and, therefore, they will not be touched. I believe that is what he is referring to. Is that correct, Mr Simon Tay?”
“And there are some other traditional trades which are doing very well in Chinatown, eg, medicine shops, herb dealers, the very well-known kaya toast shop which has now moved to Far East Square and, I am sure, there are many other examples. So the moral of the story is, if it serves a purpose, if there is demand, if there is somebody willing to carry on the trade and it is worthwhile for them to carry on the trade, that trade will not vanish. It is as simple as that. It is not easy to subsidise them to make sure that they carry on. And, as Mr Simon Tay rightly points out, we cannot freeze everything in time. I know some countries and some cities do that. They have got certain areas set aside where they carry on some of the trades of old, eg, shoeing horses, making nails and so on. But those are for the tourists. They are not real trades. They are actually there for the sake of, maybe, preserving a little bit of the past for the enjoyment of tourists. So I think we are talking about different things. But, certainly, for those trades which can survive, I think they will survive even after rent decontrol, because there is a demand for such trades. Mr Simon Tay also made a specific point about the discontinuance of proceedings. I think he is referring to the Control of Premises (Special Provisions) Act which we are amending. Under this amendment, what we are doing is to say that TCB will not accept any new applications for recovery of possession. All those applications that are pending and which Order for Recovery of Possession has not yet been issued, those will be discontinued. But anything that has already been settled, that is of course with the Tenants Compensation Board.”
“These are the several schemes that I have mentioned just now to help the tenants. One was the Old Single Persons Scheme, and the other is the Rent Decontrol Housing Assistance Scheme. So steps have been taken to make sure that the effects of rent decontrol are mitigated. It is an anomaly, as Mr Simon Tay has said, and he has also rightly pointed out that we should not just look at the interests of the tenants, but we should also look at the rights of the owners. In this respect, we have tried to balance both as much as we can. And the rights of the owners are necessary - not only the right to recognise their property rights, but also to incentivise them, to give them an incentive to refurbish and to renovate their premises. In this regard, perhaps I should reassure Mr Chiam that it does not mean that all premises that are rent decontrolled will necessarily be demolished, redeveloped or knocked down. Some of those premises are gazetted for conservation and, if they are so gazetted, they will not be allowed to be torn down. The questions of conservation and rent decontrol are two separate matters. So where they are worthy of conservation, separate steps would be taken to incentivise, as well as to prevent, in some cases, developers from tearing them down. That much he can be assured of. As for traditional businesses or so-called vanishing trades, again it is a question of how we can make sure that these vanishing trades do not vanish. If there is a need for such trades, they will not vanish. In fact, he has mentioned several of them, eg, the Killiney Road Kopi Tiam.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members who have risen to speak. I believe all of them have supported the Bill. As Dr Teo rightly pointed out, rent control has outlived its usefulness. It was enacted at a time when it was absolutely necessary. As Mr Chiam pointed out, I think it was a very noble piece of legislation, and it has actually enabled a lot of the people who came to Singapore at that time, just after the war, to be able to have a decent roof over their heads. But, over 50 years have passed, and I think we all agree now that there is really no necessity for such an Act. So the question really is whether we allow sufficient time, for those tenants who have been affected by rent decontrol, to adjust. I believe the Government has given more than sufficient time for the tenants to adjust. In trying to be fair to the tenants, we also have to take into account the interests of the landlord, but I believe that we have given sufficient time for both parties to come to an amicable settlement. In fact, it is not just four years ago that notice was given. The intention of the Government to abolish rent control was signalled as far back as 1988, when the Control of Premises Act was used to start the first phase of rent decontrol. Since then, in 1997, four years ago, actual notice was given, annual notices were sent to the occupiers in all the four official languages. Last year, every three months, the same notice was sent out. So I believe adequate attention has been paid, and adequate notice has been given, to everybody concerned. More than that, of course, there have been several additional steps being taken to make sure that tenants who are affected adversely by rent decontrol would not suffer unduly.”
“Thus, a claimant may continue to claim compensation money after the TCB is dissolved. The URA will administer the compensation moneys for a period of 12 months. This is provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Third Schedule. After the 12-month period, any unclaimed compensation moneys will be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. Any claims for compensation moneys may be made to a public officer or a statutory authority to be designated by the Minister. If the claim is established, the compensation will be paid to the claimant from the Consolidated Fund. This is provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Third Schedule. Premiums on Leases Act Finally, the Bill also seeks to repeal the Premiums on Leases Act. In recent years, the only effect of this Act has been to deter landlords of rent-controlled properties from seeking higher rents than those prescribed by the Control of Rent Act. With the appeal of the Control of Rent Act, the Premiums on Leases Act will no longer be required. Conclusion In summary, this Bill will abolish rent control in Singapore and make provisions to wind down the affairs of the Rent Conciliation Board and the Tenants' Compensation Board. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“A landowner who wishes to recover possession of his property will thus have to use the normal legal process from 1st April 2001 onwards. The Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act currently imposes restrictions on landowners on the use of properties recovered under the Act. Firstly, a landlord is not allowed to use the property for any other purpose except for redevelopment; he is not allowed to sell or lease the property until redevelopment has commenced. Secondly, a landlord must commence redevelopment of the property within six months after repossessing it and must complete the redevelopment within 10 years. The Act will be amended to lift these restrictions. The amendments are provided in paragraph 1(a) and paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule of the Bill. The lifting of these restrictions will put such rent-controlled properties on the same footing as any other rent-controlled property that is de-controlled by the repeal of the Control of Rent Act. This is in line with the idea of the total abolition of rent control and ensures that all formerly rent-controlled properties are given similar treatment. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the repeal of the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act. The repeal of the Act and the consequent dissolution of the TCB will take effect after the TCB has settled all outstanding matters. Therefore, clause 4 of the Bill will come into effect at a later date to be determined by the Minister for National Development. When the TCB is finally dissolved, there may still be compensation moneys deposited by landowners with the TCB which have not been claimed by the tenants. The Bill provides that any unclaimed compensation moneys will be transferred to the Urban Redevelopment Authority.”
“A former statutory tenant will, on 1st April 2001, continue to hold the premises on the same terms and conditions as before the repeal of the Control of Rent Act. However, either the landlord or the tenant can terminate this tenancy by giving the same notice as required by law to terminate a monthly tenancy. Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill deal with the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act. This Act provides a form of rent decontrol whereby a landowner is allowed to recover his rent-controlled property for purposes of redevelopment. A landowner who wants to recover his property for redevelopment may apply to the Tenants' Compensation Board (TCB) to recover his rent-controlled property. The TCB has the power to award compensation to the tenant. This compensation is determined based on the provisions of the Act and is paid by the landowner. With the abolition of rent control, a landlord no longer needs a TCB order to recover his property. The Act will, however, not be repealed immediately so as to allow the TCB to settle its outstanding matters. The TCB will therefore continue to deal with pending applications for which the Order for recovery of rent-controlled property has been made prior to 1st April 2001 and to administer the payment of compensation money to tenants. The Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act will, however, be amended as of 1st April 2001. This is provided in clause 3 of the Bill. From that day, the TCB will not accept any new application for recovery of possession of rent-controlled property, and any pending application for which an Order for recovery of possession has not been made will be discontinued. These amendments are set out in paragraph 1(c) of the Second Schedule of the Bill.”
“These shops and commercial tenants will have to negotiate with their landlords to remain after 1st April or look for alternative premises. The original intention of rent control was to ensure a roof over people's heads during the post-war days of housing shortage. It was not meant to provide cheap premises for commercial or other non-residential uses. I shall now go through the main provisions of the Bill and give details on the related transitional matters. Control of Rent Act Firstly, the Control of Rent Act will be repealed. This effectively abolishes rent control in Singapore. Upon the repeal of the Control of Rent Act, there will no longer be any statutory restrictions on the landowner's right to adjust rent or to recover possession of their properties through the proper legal process. The repeal of the Control of Rent Act will also dissolve the Rent Conciliation Board, established under that Act to deal with applications by landlords to adjust the rent of rent-controlled properties. This is provided for in clause 2(1) of the Bill. I will now deal with the major transitional issues related to the repeal of the Control of Rent Act, which are set out in the First Schedule of the Bill. Firstly, the repeal of the Control of Rent Act allows landlords to adjust the rent or to recover possession of their properties through the normal legal process. Therefore, with effect from 1st April 2001, any pending application with the Rental Conciliation Board will be discontinued. Similarly, any proceeding before the courts in relation to the Control of Rent Act will be discontinued. These are provided in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the First Schedule. Secondly, the status of a statutory tenant after the abolition of rent control is clarified in paragraph 6 of the First Schedule.”
“From April 2000, that is, last year, URA has been sending these reminders every three months. Since the Government's announcement in 1997, the number of rent-controlled premises has shrunk further from approximately 1,600 to about 700 as at January this year. Residential tenants There are approximately 750 residential tenants (and their families) still living in rent-controlled premises. These tenants can apply for public housing under the various public housing schemes. There are also two special housing schemes for people affected by rent decontrol. Under the Old Single Person Tenants' Scheme, the landlord can apply to HDB to resettle two or more single elderly tenants in a HDB rental flat. The landlord will have to pay four years' rental to HDB on behalf of his tenants. The second scheme is the Rent Decontrol Housing Assistance Scheme which grants priority allocation of HDB rental or purchase flats to families or joint singles of more than 35 years old who are affected by rent decontrol. These two schemes help to ensure that affected residential tenants will not suffer undue hardship. Non-residential tenants About 420 non-residential tenants will be affected by rent decontrol. Of these, some 68% (284) operate businesses such as coffee shops and eating places, medical halls and retail and wholesale shops selling a range of goods such as jewellery, stationery, textiles, garments, shoes and electrical goods. Another 10% (41) deal with trades and crafts such as laundry, hairdressing, photo studios, pawnshops and furniture making. The remaining 22% (95) comprise a mix of uses such as bars, lodging houses, stores as well as bicycle, motor and battery workshops.”
“The complete lifting of rent control will give landlords additional incentive to recover their properties and to spruce them up. Paving the way to rent decontrol In April 1997, the Government announced its intention to abolish rent control in four years' time, that is, on 1st April this year. This long period of notice was to give sufficient time for tenants to find alternative premises or to reach agreement with their landlords to stay on after lifting of rent control. The early announcement in 1997 aimed to strike a balance between the interests of the tenants and their landlords. Tenants were assured that they could continue to pay low rent and stay in the rent-controlled properties for another four years while landlords were given indication that their properties would cease to be rent controlled by 1st April 2001. The 1997 decision to abolish rent control was not a sudden decision. In 1988, the Government used the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act, which was introduced to facilitate the redevelopment of the Golden Shoe area in the 1970s, to accelerate the phasing out of rent control. The Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act was made applicable to all rent-controlled properties over four phases, between October 1988 and December 1991. This allowed landlords to recover possession of their rent-controlled properties for purposes of development subject to payment of compensation to their tenants. As a result of these measures, the number of rent-controlled properties dropped from about 7,600 in 1989 to about 1,600 in 1997. Tenants have been informed of the impending abolition of rent control. The Urban Redevelopment Authority has been sending reminders about the abolition of rent control to the tenants every year since April 1997.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to abolish rent control in Singapore. Rent control operates in two ways. First, it restricts a landlord's right to raise the rent. Second, it restricts the landlord's right to take back possession of the rent-controlled property. The history of rent control goes back to 1947, just after the Second World War. At that time, much of the basic infrastructure like roads and utilities were severely damaged. Housing was in short supply. The population had risen sharply, especially with a massive influx of refugees. Against this backdrop, rent control was introduced to prevent landlords from exploiting the situation and raising rents drastically. Why rent control is no longer needed The situation today is totally different. The Government has successfully implemented its public housing programme to provide affordable housing for Singaporeans. Almost nine in 10 Singaporeans now own their homes. Subsidised rental flats are available for those who still cannot afford home ownership. No family need go without a roof over its head. After 54 years, rental control has outlived its purpose to protect families from unscrupulous landlords. On the other hand, rent control is a disincentive for landlords to redevelop or restore their properties. The Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act was introduced in 1970 to allow landlords to recover their rent-controlled properties for redevelopment. However, as landlords are required to pay compensation to the tenants, some landlords have not moved to recover their rent-controlled properties. As a result, some rent-controlled properties, including those designated for conservation, remain in a poor state of maintenance.”
“I think it means exactly what I said, Sir. There are several criteria required to be met by the precincts or blocks, if they are to be chosen for the upgrading programme. These criteria include the age of the block, the location of the block - because we want to make sure that there is a spread throughout the island - and an indication of support for the programme. So, if there is no indication of their support for the programme or if, indeed, the residents in that area do not want the programme, then that precinct will not be chosen for upgrading, or it will be chosen for upgrading at a lower priority than other precincts. So, that is what I mean. I think it does not make sense for us to select a precinct which does not ask for upgrading.”
“Sir, I think the general principle is that where there is benefit to the residents - the benefits may be more to certain residents because they happen to be on the floor where there is no lift, and the benefit to the resident who already has a lift landing may be less - but it is in the overall interest of the block - so they will have to take the overall interest into account. There is already a precedent in the sense that some residents, in blocks that have already voted under the additional Lift Upgrading Programme that was introduced last year, have demonstrated, through the encouragement of their Member of Parliament, the Adviser, that there are benefits accruing even to those who already have the lift on their floor. I am confident that they will be able to get that 75% approval vote. It really depends on how we sell the benefits of the lift upgrading programme and, of course, ultimately, on the amounts that they would have to pay. So I am a little more confident than the Member.”
“Sir, we will detach the Lift Upgrading Programme from both the MUP and IUP. In other words, it will now become a stand-alone programme. So, if there is any lift upgrading to be considered for any precinct, this will now come under the Lift Upgrading Programme and, therefore, a co-payment will be necessary.”
“Over the years, HDB has in fact taken active steps to involve the private sector in the public housing programme, through the design-and-build scheme and, in fact, even through the upgrading schemes, ie, the MUP and IUP. With the closure of the Executive flat queue about four or five years ago, the HDB also farmed out the development of ECs to private developers. So, yes, HDB is already doing so and will continue to look for ways to involve the private sector in public housing projects. But it is not yet in a position of saying that it is not going to build any more flats, or it is not going to build any more of the bigger flats. Finally, Sir, Mr Chew Heng Ching's point about studio apartments. He asked for a review of the scheme for studio apartments. I wish to inform him that we will take note of his comments, and I will ask HDB to review the studio apartment scheme to make it more accessible to the elderly. The Chairman: I remind hon. Members that we have fallen very far behind schedule on this amendment.”
“This is because resale flats represent the true market value of HDB flats at any point in time, and they give an indication of Singaporeans' willingness and ability to pay for their HDB flats. It is not appropriate for HDB to peg the selling prices of HDB flats to, say, the private residential property prices because, obviously, they are catering to different markets. But I can assure Mrs Lim that affordability of HDB flats is a paramount consideration in the pricing of our HDB flats. Mr Lew Syn Pau suggested that we should introduce a rental scheme. Again, I reiterate that our objective is home ownership, so it does not make sense for us to encourage or set up a separate rental scheme in parallel with the ownership programme. Yes, some young couples or families may want to rent. There are ample opportunities for them to do so. So, HDB has no plan to implement a rental scheme. Dr Vasoo asked whether we can help young couples to purchase HDB flats in older estates. What this means, of course, is that those young couples who wish to move into older estates would have to buy resale flats from the open market. To help them to do so, the HDB has the CPF grant scheme, either $30,000 or $40,000, depending on where the flats are, which can be used to meet the 20% downpayment for the resale flat. They can also use their CPF Ordinary Account contributions for the 20% downpayment, and this, I must point out, is already a special concession for buyers of HDB flats. So there are no other schemes that are available for young couples to buy into older estates, apart from these two. Two more quick points. Mr Chng suggested that HDB should leave the building of flats to the private sector.”
“I turn now to the issues of allocation, pricing and financing of HDB flats which some other Members brought up. First of all, on the question of allocation, I agree with Dr Teo Ho Pin that HDB's flat allocation system can be reviewed to provide more options for flat buyers. In fact, several MPs earlier alerted me that flat applicants are actually getting their flats faster than they want them. This is certainly a turnaround from the time when MPs would approach the Ministry and HDB to ask for flats to be brought forward because their residents were waiting a long time to get their flats. But I realise that, in certain cases, it does present certain problems. I have, therefore, asked HDB to review its flat allocation system to make it more responsive to applicants' needs. I am pleased to inform him that HDB will pilot a new system called the build-to-order system later this year, which will give flat buyers more flexibility in timing, as well as a greater say and control over the location of their new flats. Again, I will ask HDB to release the details later. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua wanted to know whether the pricing of HDB flats is linked to the prices of resale flats and private properties, or whether they are independently set. The Government's objective is to encourage home ownership, so that every Singaporean family can have a stake in the nation. So, the primary consideration in the pricing of HDB flats is to ensure that the vast majority of Singaporeans, especially the young couples and the lower-income families, can become homeowners. So, HDB takes into account the prevailing prices of HDB resale flats, when it reviews the selling price of its flats every quarter.”
“With the contributions from Government and town councils, the co-payment amount will be a few hundred dollars per flat for the majority of lessees, where the provision of lifts is relatively straightforward, a few hundred dollars. But for the so-called segmented blocks, which Prof Toh mentioned just now, where additional lifts and lift shafts are needed, it can be more expensive. However, the Government will set a cap of $3,000 per flat on each share by the lessee and the town council. In addition, flat owners who need help in paying their share of the costs can make use of several assistance schemes that are currently available for MUP. HDB will release further details on this soon. 2.00 pm As far as other elderly and handicapped-friendly features are concerned, such as those suggested by Prof. Toh See Kiat, I wish to assure him that HDB will continue to incorporate these features in the upgrading programmes, as well as in the design of new flats, and it will continue to be mindful of the need to provide such facilities in HDB estates. Dr Wan touched upon the issue of SERS. I think he asked whether we should do SERS instead of MUP and IUP, and I explained earlier why I feel that there is still a continuing need for the upgrading programmes. Yes, we will do SERS, because MUP, IUP and SERS all contribute to the overall rejuvenation of our HDB estates, but they serve different purposes. The MUP and IUP serve one purpose, and SERS serves another purpose. SERS is, in effect, a redevelopment programme that helps to optimise land use, as he pointed out. So we will continue to do all three, and we will select SERS sites as and when they are appropriate, and announce them at the appropriate time.”
“The new LUP will provide all flats in high-rise HDB blocks built before 1990 direct access to a lift, where technically feasible of course. The scope of works will include addition of new lift, lift shaft, lift landing and refurbishing of lift lobbies. The LUP can be carried out on its own or together with the MUP and IUP. This is a major exercise. The total estimated cost is about $4.8 billion, if we are talking of all the flats before 1990. We certainly cannot afford to implement it overnight. It will take us many years. As lift upgrading is very costly, HDB will require all flat owners in an HDB block, except those who live on the ground floor, because they do not benefit from it, to poll and to co-pay for the lift upgrading works. The co-payment arrangement is in keeping with the philosophy adopted for the MUP, where the Government subsidises most but not 100% of the cost. It will give residents a sense of ownership of the project and ensure that they consider carefully the need for such works when they are asked whether they want it or not. As in the case of the MUP, the Lift Upgrading Programme will proceed only if at least 75% of eligible owners vote in favour. The exact co-payment ratio and amount will depend on the flat type as well as the type of HDB blocks. Generally, the smaller flat type will pay less, as in the MUP. The Government will bear the lion's share of the cost to ensure that the programme is affordable. Several town councils have also indicated that they would like to help make lift upgrading more affordable for their residents. Hence, MND has included town councils in the co-payment arrangement to help flat lessees defray the cost of lift upgrading. The town council should be allowed to use their sinking funds for this purpose.”
“Furthermore, as the IUP is intended as a precursor to the MUP, hence the term "interim", the revised criteria will allow some HDB blocks that have already undergone IUP to be eligible for MUP. With the revised criteria, another 240,000 flats can be considered for upgrading, making it a total of 540,000 flats, almost two thirds of the total stock of HDB flats which are now within the ambit of the IUP and MUP. The additional Government expenditure is estimated at $3.9 billion for the MUP and $760 million for the IUP in the next 10 years. Sir, MND will use the new age criterion to select MUP and IUP precincts for the year 2001 this year. In view of our strong budget position in financial year 2000, the Government will increase the number of precincts for upgrading this year. And MND will select 18 precincts for the MUP and 22 precincts for the IUP. The numbers will be sustained next year if we continue to enjoy budget surpluses. Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). Several Members have asked about lift upgrading for those blocks whose lifts do not stop on every floor. There are about 4,000 such high-rise HDB blocks and they were all built before 1990. Many Members, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Chng Hee Kok, Mr Sinnakaruppan, Mr Ang Mong Seng, among others, have spoken about the need for a separate lift upgrading programme. Last year, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population also recommended that the Government should progressively retrofit HDB flats with lift landings on every floor to improve accessibility and mobility for our residents, especially the elderly and the disabled. I am pleased to announce that MND will introduce a new and separate lift upgrading programme for this purpose.”
“That is why in the implementation of the MUP and IUP, the Government has given priority to those who have actively supported these programmes. Without them, it would not have been possible. It is as simple as that. Several Members have asked specific questions about the upgrading programme for this year. I am pleased to inform them that my Ministry will be introducing three initiatives that will allow more HDB residents to benefit from upgrading. First of all, MND will revise the age criterion for the Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes to enable the programmes to cover more flats. Secondly, we will step up the upgrading schedules this year. And, thirdly, we will introduce a new Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to complement the MUP and the IUP. Firstly, MUP and IUP. The age of an HDB block is one of the considerations when MND selects precincts for the upgrading. Currently, HDB blocks which are completed in 1975, or earlier, can be considered for the MUP. HDB blocks that were completed between 1976 and 1983 are considered for IUP. Based on these existing criteria, the Government has announced MUP and IUP for more than 230,000 HDB flats. To increase the number of HDB flats that can benefit from upgrading, I wish to inform Dr Teo Ho Pin that the new cut-off age for the MUP will be HDB blocks completed by 1980, while HDB blocks completed between 1981 and 1986 will be considered for the IUP. In other words, HDB blocks that are between 15 and 20 years today can look forward to the IUP, those that are at least 21 years will be considered for the MUP. This revision of the age criterion signifies the Government's commitment to the upgrading programmes on a long-term basis so long as our financial situation allows.”
“The flats themselves have seen improvements to their homes, like new bathroom finishes, main doors and front windows and, in some cases, an additional utility room. Flat owners have seen their flats increase in value. When their friends and relatives come to visit them, the transformation is immediately obvious. They can see the difference. So I believe that the MUP and IUP programmes are valued by the residents and that they serve a very important purpose in transforming our HDB estates and making sure that they do not deteriorate into the slums that we see in many other parts of the world when we talk about public housing. The upgrading programmes fulfil the promise by the Government that it will share budget surpluses with the people, especially the lower income. And that is the reason why the upgrading programmes are heavily subsidised by the Government and skewed in favour of the smaller flats. For example, the 1- to 3-room flat lessees pay around $3,000 per flat for the standard package, and this represents only about 7% of the total cost of the upgrading. And if they opt for the additional room, the space adding item, their co-payment amount is around $10,000. Is this good value for money? If you take the last 10 years, the number of precincts that had been polled, so far, we had 98 precincts that had been polled for MUP, at least 90% of flat owners had voted in favour of the standard package. So I believe the answer is, yes. Residents do find them very good value for money. Sir, the upgrading programmes are possible only because our people continue to support the Government which consistently generates budget surpluses through policies and programmes which generate growth and which prudently manages national expenditures.”
“Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Mr Chng Hee Kok enquired whether HDB will again sell shops under the Sale of Tenanted Shops Scheme. Based on what we have heard so far, the HDB retail sector is still very weak and my view is that it will not be prudent for the HDB to sell shops at this juncture. Nevertheless, if there are specific requests from advisors, I will ask HDB to consider each case on its own merits. In conclusion, Sir, there are fundamental changes affecting the business environment and livelihood of HDB retailers. Shopkeepers themselves must understand and take active steps to respond to these changes. They have to assess their individual situation and they have to decide whether they want to remain in this trade and, if so, how to revitalise their businesses to successfully ride the wave of change. On its part, the Government will support HDB retailers in ways that will reinforce what they do for themselves. I hope that, over time, these measures will bring sustained benefits, not only to the retailers, but also to their customers who are HDB residents. Sir, the Minister for the Environment would be announcing similar assistance measures for stallholders in markets and hawker centres which are managed by HDB and the Ministry of the Environment. Sir, let me now turn to the comments made on the upgrading programme. First of all, I wish to address Dr Wang Kai Yuen's point about a review of the MUP and IUP. Sir, over the last 10 years, the Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes that are being carried out by the Government have transformed the landscape of many parts of Singapore. Older HDB towns and estates, like Toa Payoh and MacPherson, have been spruced up. They have new facilities, like walkways, playgrounds, and parks.”
“Sir, the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is meant for shop tenants. A few Members asked whether HDB could also buy back shops from owners who wish to exit. Sir, the answer is no. It would not be appropriate for the Government to do so. The Government cannot protect HDB shopowners against fluctuations in consumer demand and the property market. Those who decided to buy their shops have to accept this business risk. If they wish to sell their shops, they can do so on the resale market. HDB tells me that most of the first-hand owners will be able to sell their shops above their original purchase prices. Alternatively, to lighten their mortgage repayment burden, owners of 99-year lease shops can adopt Mr Peh Chin Hua's suggestion to request HDB to convert their shops to shorter 30-year leases. Some Members suggested that HDB should give ex-gratia payment to such shopowners. I would like to highlight that the shopkeepers who bought their shops from HDB have already enjoyed very large upfront discounts: $96,000 for shops that were sold on the 99-year lease and $48,000 for those that were sold with a 30-year lease. Members have also asked for rental and property tax rebates. I would like to point out that, in addition to the new assistance programme, these measures, in other words, property tax rebates and rental rebates, are already in place. The 25% property tax rebate has been extended to June this year after which it will be replaced by a reduction in the property tax rate from 12% to 10%, as announced by the Finance Minister. The Government will also continue with the current rental rebate until the end of this year and will review the situation before that.”
“The pilot scheme will involve about 500 HDB rental shops at selected areas where business is weak. Eligible shop tenants who wish to retire can voluntarily give up their tenancies and receive an ex-gratia payment of $48,000. If response to the scheme is favourable, it will be extended. I would like to emphasise that the scheme is entirely voluntary. This should allay Mr Chay Wai Chuen's concern expressed yesterday about the implications on the livelihood of those who depend on their shops for income. Shopkeepers who wish to seek a fresh career in another sector will be able to seek help from the Ministry of Manpower which will advise on job opportunities and suggest suitable training courses. Those who choose to continue operating in the vicinity will receive assistance to upgrade their business. Their shops will be grouped together for greater business synergy and each tenant will receive a removal allowance of $5,000. They will also be encouraged to make use of the two new programmes under Retail 21 to upgrade and modernise their operations. 1.45 pm Let me stress that the $48,000 ex-gratia payment is not in lieu of running their shops. It is an ex-gratia payment from Government to help them to decide whether they have the stamina and the strength to carry on. If they do not, they have a sweetener from the Government. And if they do want to carry on, there is a package to help them to upgrade and to compete. Mr Ong Kian Min yesterday suggested that HDB should advise shopkeepers on how to set up shops, how much to tender, etc. This is really not HDB's job, and I do not think HDB is in the best position to do so in the first place. I would advise anyone who wishes to set up shop to do their sums and weigh their risks before taking the plunge.”
“In fact, there are many examples - Marine Parade, Chong Pang city, Tampines, Toa Payoh Town Centre, and so on. All these examples show that such projects are successful when they originate from the local community. I would therefore like to encourage HDB shopkeepers to market their shops and their town centres in conjunction with their town councils and grassroots leaders. I will ask the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) to consider extending funding support for more of such projects. Mr Peh Chin Hua yesterday expressed concern over the cost of the Main Upgrading Programme for the shopowners. I am pleased to inform him that the Government will make MUP more affordable to shop lessees. Currently, HDB shop lessees have to pay full cost for the standard MUP package. With immediate effect, all MUP precincts that have not undergone polling, the HDB will subsidise 50% of the cost of the standard package. HDB will also give a 50% discount off the market value of the space-adding item, up from today's 30%. With this change, shopkeepers can save some $10,000 to $15,000 per shop on the upgrading work. Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Ong Kian Min and Mr Sinnakaruppan, among others, observed that there is an oversupply of shops in older HDB estates. This observation was borne out by the findings of the Retail 21 Committee which has suggested that the HDB reduce the number of shops. The question, of course, is, reduce by how much? HDB does not have the answer. The market and the shopkeepers themselves must decide. The Government understands that some shopkeepers in these areas, especially the elderly first-generation shopkeepers, may wish to retire from the business. To facilitate this, HDB will introduce a pilot Voluntary Retirement Scheme for HDB shop tenants this year.”
“The reason for this is because some of the stand-alone centres have only recently been built and the shopping mix there is not stabilised yet. HDB feels that it needs three years at least for the shopping mix to be stabilised. Bearing the concerns of some Members in mind over such trade liberalisation, HDB will monitor closely the outcome of these relaxation rules and, if necessary, make adjustments as we go along. Yesterday, Mr Peh Chin Hua mentioned that some shopkeepers find that their shop areas are too big. Dr Lily Neo, in fact, suggested the idea of splitting the shops into smaller units. I am pleased to inform them that HDB will allow tenants to sublet up to 50% of their traditional neighbourhood shops if the floor area is at least 50 square metres. This will allow them to maximise the use of their space. They will also be allowed to sublet their living quarters for residential use. And for sold shops, HDB will allow shopowners to use the living quarters for commercial purposes, as recommended by Dr Ker. But, as pointed out by Prof. Toh See Kiat, and correctly so, most living quarters are structurally designed only for residential use. So if the shopowners wish to conduct commercial activities in these quarters, they would have to find some way to strengthen the floors of their quarters. They would have to make the necessary application to HDB who will conduct some structural analysis of the situation. Apart from software, upgrading the physical environment will also help to improve the business of HDB shops. Dr Lily Neo suggested sometime ago that HDB shops should band together to form commercial streets with distinctive features. This is a very workable idea.”
“However, at the same time, I hear Dr Teo Ho Pin, for example, say that the HDB should not be too free granting this flexibility, and that indeed HDB should proactively determine the retail mix, so that the residents' needs are met. Of course, there are other Members who seem to suggest that HDB should somehow do both at the same time. In other words, control the mix on the one hand, and yet be more flexible. Obviously, HDB has got to weigh the pros and cons of both approaches and find the correct balance, guided of course by the interests of both HDB retailers and residents. This is not an easy balance to find. If necessary, I may have to ask HDB to consult the advisers on what their views are as far as specific approvals are concerned. Nevertheless, HDB will be more flexible in granting approval for change of use and trade, such as shop showrooms and offices, as suggested by Dr Ker, but we will continue to be cautious with conversion to, say, eating houses or industrial trades as these are likely to cause nuisance to their residents - nuisance such as parking, noise, and so on. I do not think Members would want to face the wrath of their residents when they find that their convenience store or shop downstairs is suddenly turned into a shop selling spare parts for lorries, for example. So such a move will allow HDB lessees and tenants to keep up with the changes in the environment and the residents' needs. But, in the long run, it is the residents, as well as the consumers, and not HDB, who will determine the retail mix for the area. This new policy will apply to HDB shops in the traditional neighbourhood as well as shops in stand-alone neighbourhood centres that are at least three years old.”
“Hence, the programme focuses on enhancing the long-term viability of the HDB retail sector and not just on short-term quick fixes. Specifically, the assistance programme consists of three main elements. Firstly, we will provide assistance to both HDB shop lessees and tenants who wish to upgrade their businesses. Secondly, we will review HDB rules to grant both shop lessees and tenants greater flexibility to adapt to changing market conditions. Thirdly, we will facilitate the exit of HDB shop tenants who wish to voluntarily retire from the business. First, business upgrading. Business upgrading can be in the form of software, for example, business skills, processes and rules; or hardware, in other words, the physical environment. The Government's assistance will be in both areas. I would first touch on the software aspect. PSB's assistance programme. The Retail 21 Plan includes two programmes, namely, the Retail Essential Assistance Programme and the Franchise 21 Assistance Programme, both under PSB. These programmes can help HDB shopkeepers upgrade their businesses. I would like to encourage HDB retailers to make full use of them in order to compete with both the huge malls as well as the convenience store chains, like 7-Eleven, as some Members have brought up in this House. Mr Sinnakaruppan asked whether the programmes will be available in languages other than English. The answer is yes. Next, flexibility in use of shops. Many Members, including Dr Lily Neo, Dr Ker Sin Tze, Prof. Toh See Kiat, have suggested the HDB grant greater flexibility to HDB shopkeepers for change of use.”
“Sir, first of all, let me address Members' comments about the plight of HDB shopkeepers. I believe this subject has received considerable attention and airing, both inside and outside the House. Yesterday and today, we heard many Members speak up about the intense competition that HDB shopkeepers are facing and how Government must do something to help them. I share these sentiments. In fact, at the parliamentary sitting on 22nd February, I assured the House that Government will do something for this group of retailers. But we should not forget that a HDB retail shop is, first and foremost, a business. As with other businesses, HDB shopkeepers have to take the initiative to adapt to changing consumer demand and to manage their business risks. In the long run, whether a shop survives and thrives is not how much assistance the Government gives but whether the shop can attract and retain customers. This is the point that Dr Tan Boon Wan made just now. However, the Government will lend a hand to help them overcome some of these present difficulties that they face. Last week, Mr Lim Boon Heng, Chairman PSB, unveiled the Retail 21 Plan. This plan recommends that we reinvent the retail sector by raising retailing standards, enhancing industry efficiency through upgrading and retraining, and managing the restructuring of the HDB retail sub-sector. Sir, I am pleased to inform Members that MND and HDB, together with other relevant agencies, have formulated an assistance programme for HDB retailers that dovetails with the Retail 21 Plan. Our guiding principle is that the Government will do what it can to help HDB retailers who are willing to help themselves.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2001/2002, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“What has caused this situation? The following are some of the problems faced by them: (i) There is an oversupply of shops in the neighbourhood area; (ii) There is inadequate control of tenant mix in some areas, leading to duplication of services and insufficient complementary shops; (iii) The rental rates are too high, and too much multiple subletting has been allowed. This has drastically reduced the price competitiveness of their goods and services. Sir, I would like to recommend three measures for HDB to consider in making neighbourhood shops and hawker centres more viable. (1) Lower rental cost and property tax. HDB should review its policy of determining rental rates. We should adopt the practice of private developers who use fixed and variable rental rates to help their tenants to build up their businesses. We should also consider lowering or removing property tax, especially for hawker stalls. (2) Control tenant mix. HDB must control tenant mix as in private development. This will ensure fair competition and viability for their businesses. A good tenant mix will provide a wider range of services. HDB should also ensure that ATMs, post offices, banks, clinics and childcare or family service centres are present to complement the shops and hawker stalls. We must not allow the change of use from retail shops to offices. (3) Upgrade business practices. We must encourage all HDB shopowners and hawker stallholderss to upgrade their operations to increase productivity and competitiveness. As an incentive, HDB should consider providing rental rebates or property tax rebates for shops or stalls which have successfully upgraded their operations.”
“I am sorry. In so far as the provision of sports facilities is concerned in housing estates, I do sympathise with the Member's view that there should be more sports facilities. Indeed, there are sports facilities being provided in the Concept Plan on a total basis. But on an estate by estate basis, there may be instances where there is a shortage of such facilities. One of the things that the URA is looking into, together with other relevant Ministries, is, for example, the question of shared use. If we could find a way to use existing facilities in the housing estates which are under utilised, eg, the school fields, we could actually increase the number of such fields available for our residents to use. Another possibility, of course, is to make use of some of the existing open spaces, and here I think we would have to again contend with this issue of conflicting demands. By this, I mean that if we were to open up, say, some of the open spaces to children for playing ball games, inevitably, there will be complaints about noise, nuisance and so on. Of course, these are not insurmountable problems, but I just wish to point out such problems will arise. Having said all that, of course, I think the point that the Member made is well taken, that we should look into how we can provide more such facilities. And I will support any such moves to increase the number of facilities and I will refer his request to my colleague, the Minister for Community Development and Sports, to take up with the other agencies. Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, the primary purpose of building HDB neighbourhood shops and hawker stalls is to provide convenient shopping for HDB residents. But these shopkeepers and hawkers are now facing an uphill task to survive in their businesses.”
“Sir, I believe I have addressed most of the concerns.”
“The Member did say that he is not suggesting that land would be sold in Singapore for $1. I think that is precisely the point: should we sell land at a price which is ridiculously low or far below what is considered, at least by the Chief Valuer, to be the fair market value at that point in time? I would like to emphasise that this policy of selling land is not intended to prop up or to lead property prices. The Government is committed to a steady land release strategy to make available land for development. It is up to the developers to decide to tender and at what price based on their own reading of market demand. I stress again that it is not prudent for Government to accept any tender just because it happens to be the highest tender in that particular exercise. 6.15 pm Finally, Mr Ong Kian Min spoke about the abuse of mixed use developments, and he cited a specific case of Lucky Plaza. Sir, we are actually trying to introduce more mixed use into our estates. For example, last June, URA actually relaxed the guidelines for industry, warehouse and business park zones to allow more mixed use, eg, e-businesses and dot-com companies to set up offices within these zones. I understand Mr Ong's concerns about such abuse. This, inevitably, takes place when owners try to take advantage of the system for their own benefit, at the expense of the convenience and amenity of others. There is always this group of people who are very quick to try and arbitrage the system. But this is the risk that we have to take. If it is a major loophole, we will have to plug it. If not, then we just have to depend on enforcement from time to time. But we cannot just stand still and do nothing, and not to take into account the changing circumstances, just because there is a possibility of abuse.”
“In the case of Jurong West, let me assure him that the location of the housing area satisfies the guidelines set by the Pollution Control Department on noise levels, within which housing may be permitted. I understand that MINDEF is taking steps to reduce the noise nuisance from RSAF flights where possible, but it is not realistic to expect that the residents in the estate can enjoy the peace and quiet that other residents in other parts of Singapore are able to enjoy. If we were, for example, to specify that no housing estates be built under flight paths, today there would be very few housing estates in Singapore. Mr Lew asked about the setting of reserve prices for sale sites and whether in so doing, the Government is interfering in the market. He asked how URA decides what the market price is and why the Government could not just leave it to the market to decide prices, and just award it to the highest price irrespective. Let me say here that the Government does not arbitrarily set any so-called "reserve price". The reserve price is set according to Chief Valuer's assessed market value for the site and this value takes into account evidence from recent property transactions and other relevant indicators of market sentiment. As a prudent land owner, and as a custodian of the State's reserves, the Government has the responsibility to ensure that it obtains fair value in the disposal of State land, and the reserve price provides an objective basis to guide the award of tender for State land. To allow for some variations in market opinion from the Chief Valuer's estimates, the highest standard for a site is accepted so long as it is not less than 85% of the Chief Valuer's assessed market value.”
“The Concept Plan maps out the broad direction in land use for Singapore. It does not look into specific plots and specific plot ratios. This is done only with the Masterplan as distinct from the Concept Plan. The next review of the Masterplan will take place in the year 2003, when we will take into account the feedback, such as those from Mr Goh on specific sites. Mr Lew asked a specific question about whether plot ratios would be reduced and if so, whether owners would be compensated for the reduction. I wish to inform him that any existing plot ratio, which has been approved, will be honoured, subject to prevailing height control for the area, even if the plot ratio is beyond that prescribed by the Masterplan for that site. Under the circumstances, the issue of compensation is irrelevant because there would be no loss to the owners. Mr Ravindran asked why the Jurong West housing estate was built under the RSAF flight path. I believe he also raised the same question in this House a few days ago when the Ministry of Defence's estimates were debated. Let me say that in land scarce Singapore, we need to do a balancing act. We have to balance various land uses, such as housing, schools, airports, etc, within this limited land area. And when you do a balancing act, inevitably, you have to compromise between these various uses. However, that does not mean to say that we totally ignore the dis-amenities caused by different uses. There are guidelines in place that are prescribed to limit the impact of nuisances, such as noise nuisance, smell nuisance, pollution, etc, by the various land uses.”
“URA and the relevant Government agencies will continue to study and consider all the other suggestions and feedback from Members of this House, the focus groups and the public. The Concept Plan is still on the drawing board. URA will work towards exhibiting the draft plan to the public by the end of April. It will hold a public dialogue on the draft plan to gather more views before the plan is finalised. The preliminary conclusion, based on the work done so far, is that as far as the physical development of Singapore is concerned, we should be able to look forward to a comfortable life even if our population reaches 5.5 million. There would be homes for all, industries to sustain economic growth and also room for our children to enjoy the simple pleasures of life. Sir, let me now move on to address some of the Members' specific questions on land use and the Government land sales programme and a few other issues. Mr Goh Choon Kang and Mr Lew Syn Pau asked about changes to the plot ratio of land, in particular, Mr Goh asked about intensification of certain specific sites near MRT stations. I would like to say here that when URA determines the plot ratios for different sites in the masterplan, factors such as height constraints, planning intention, character of the area and proximity to transport nodes are taken into consideration. Where a site is surrounded by high-intensity uses and is close to transport nodes, like the MRT stations, a higher gross plot ratio (GPR) may be prescribed to optimise the use of land. But if the site is next to an existing landed housing estate, a lower gross plot ratio may still be prescribed in order to safeguard the amenity and the low-rise character of the existing landed housing estates.”
“This was when we had to set out to solve critical issues of housing shortages and how to earn a living in a newly independent Singapore. Times have changed. With basic housing and infrastructure in place, with economic growth and rising affluence, we can now turn our attention to issues such as conservation, identity and shared memories. But we must not get carried away. As rightly pointed out by Mr Simon Tay, we cannot simply conserve everything. We need to carefully consider what to retain, how to retain and how much to retain, while ensuring better use of land. The process of selection and evaluation has to be vigorous. This is to ensure that while deserving buildings and places would be conserved, we would still have enough land to meet the needs of our future generations. Nevertheless, when drawing up future plans for our city, our planners should consciously identify the buildings, features, places, which give the area its identity. We should find ways to integrate these so called "identity markers" into new developments. We should also look into how we can safeguard the interest and factor in the views of the various stakeholders, the owners, the residents and the users. These are not easy issues to settle. They call for a fine judgement, coupled with an ability to balance competing demands. The focus group on identity has proposed a heritage conservation trust to help Government to make these decisions. This is a suggestion we are seriously considering. The relevant Government agencies will study it further to see whether and how this concept can work in our local context. Sir, in view of the limited time, I have only touched on some of the key issues raised so far on the Concept Plan.”
“These agencies provide inputs to URA, guide them in allocating land, not only for housing, factories, roads and so on, but also for utilities infrastructure, such as waste disposal and treatment. At the same time, they also advise on how to minimise the environmental impact from adverse land uses. I just would like to inform Dr Teo that in the process of drawing up the Concept Plan, other plans, such as the Green Plan, which is coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment, are taken into consideration. I believe Dr Teo also touched on the issue of over-heating of our environment. In preparing the Concept Plan, NParks, URA and HDB have worked together to identify and safeguard areas of open space and parks with greenery and trees to mitigate the over-heating effect. BCA, HDB and NParks are also embarking on a research programme on urban heat islands in Singapore. This is a matter in which Dr Teo has particular interest. This study will include a study on roof-top gardens, together with the NUS Centre for Total Building Performance. Let me now turn to the issue of identity and development. The focus groups, as well as several Singaporeans, have expressed the need to conserve more of our buildings, places and natural features which they feel can help in retaining our identity. Mr Simon Tay spoke passionately on this issue just now. It is indeed heartening that more Singaporeans feel strongly enough for our home to want to preserve our social memories and in doing so, strengthen our sense of belonging. It was not too long ago that we did not care what our city looks like. It was even further back in time when conservation of our built heritage was a luxury and of lower priority.”
“Recently, RECORD III recommended that a new golf course for NSmen should be developed to recognise the important role that they play in total defence. This golf course would cater to NSmen members of all the reservists associations, in other words, SAFRA, CDANS and SPANS. Since there is an NSman in virtually every Singaporean household, and since golf is a sport that is growing in popularity among NSmen, I believe this is a recommendation which deserves our support. Within our land constraints, we should try to provide a wide array of facilities for Singaporeans to indulge in the sporting or recreational activities of their choice. In particular, we should recognise the special role and contribution of our NSmen. This is important if Singapore is to be an attractive place to live and work in, and also to fight for. Sir, some participants at the public forums suggested that land set aside for golf courses need not be used exclusively for golf. This is an attractive idea. NParks will explore whether we can open up some nature areas and waterbodies in the vicinity of golf courses for public recreation purposes. I must caution, however, that this must be implemented with care. We have got to make sure that it is safe for non-golfers and also the interests of golfers are taken care of. Dr Teo Ho Pin has raised some points concerning the environment. He asked whether environmental concerns would be addressed in the Concept Plan. Let me clarify that the Concept Plan is not just the product or the work of URA alone. It is a combined effort of a large number of agencies and Ministries, working together on many technical issues.”