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 38 of 61.
“We are not punishing the person twice. Firstly, he is punished in a court of law. Secondly, he has violated a condition of the lease between the landlord and the lessee. If he is in a private estate, similarly if he violates any of the conditions of the lease, he can be kicked out. ELECTRICITY TARIFFS (Increases) 2. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the total amount and what are the rates of the three consecutive increases in electricity tariffs by Singapore Power since the beginning of this year; and (b) what is the justification for such increases in light of the fact that Singapore Power had raised its after-tax profits to a new record of $904 million soon after our economic recovery in 1999.”
“These are two entirely separate matters. One is the conviction by the court.”
“The short answer to the second question is that the Government is not discriminating. When a person is convicted of a killer litter offence, whether he is staying in a private condominium or he is staying in a HDB estate, he goes to jail or he is fined, whichever the case is, and the level of penalties meted out will be the same irrespective of where he stays. So where is the discrimination? In so far as the action taken by HDB is concerned, this is entirely a matter between the landlord, which in this case is the HDB, and the lessee. It is surely the responsibility of the HDB as the landlord, in the same way that it will be the responsibility of a management corporation of a private estate, to make sure that the safety of the residents in its estate is safeguarded. I do not see what is wrong with that. It is entirely within the rights of HDB to make sure that the residents who live in HDB estates can walk around in comfort and safety. So by moving the person from a high-rise flat to a low-rise flat to make sure that that person does not repeat the offence is an eminently reasonable thing to do.”
“I would like to acknowledge that the Member has actually pointed this out to the Ministry and I wish to inform him that immediate action would be taken to regularise and harmonise these two provisions to make sure that there is no confusion. In other words, when such an offence is committed, both the Town Council and the HDB can act either separately or together.”
“The police has the discretion whether to bring such a person to court or not, depending on the investigations. It is difficult for us to say that when a person claims insanity, therefore he cannot be prosecuted. If we were to accept that, then everybody will claim insanity. So it is really up to the police who does the investigations and who decides whether such a plea is justified or not, or whether that person should be brought to court. Having made the decision, then it is left to the courts to decide whether that accused person is guilty or not and, if so, to mete out the relevant punishment. It is only when the person is convicted that HDB has the power to then decide what to do. Here, HDB now has a range of options to decide whether to acquire the flat immediately, to evict the person and allow him six months to leave, to sell the flat and to buy a flat on a lower floor or, if need be, to just issue a final warning. These are the various options the HDB will have. Compulsory acquisition is not the only option that will be available to HDB.”
“Sir, the Member asked, firstly, whether it is equitable for killer litter offenders to lose their flats. Again, I must qualify that it depends on the severity of the offence. If the person is a very serious offender, a recalcitrant or repeat offender, then under the revised guidelines, he will lose his flat. Under such circumstance, I do not think any member of the public will feel that this is unjustified. On the question whether a person in a private housing estate will also be similarly evicted, the answer is no, for the simple reason that the HDB does not have powers. The Housing and Development Act does not confer any powers on the HDB to move into a private property. Private properties are managed by their own management corporations under the Land Titles (Strata) Act. However, if there is an offender in a private estate and if that person is convicted, he will be subject to the specific provisions which the Ministry of Home Affairs will be promulgating. In other words, if you throw something down in a private condominium and you are caught and convicted, you will face the same severe penalties. Whether you are in a private or public estate, you will be subject to the same laws. However, as to whether his flat will be taken back, I think that is a separate matter. As I explained earlier, HDB is doing this because it has a responsibility to its residents. It does not stop or prevent management corporations from taking similar action against offenders in their estates. It is entirely up to them. So there is no question of whether it is fair or not. On the second point he raised about mental patients, first of all, it is up to the police whether such a person will be prosecuted.”
“It is on this basis that the HDB's compulsory acquisition power is justified. The HDB will continue to compulsorily acquire HDB flats of very serious or recalcitrant killer litter offenders. In other words, compulsory acquisition as provided for in the Act will remain. Such an offender will be debarred for five years from buying or renting another HDB flat. For cases which are serious but not severe enough to warrant compulsory acquisition, the HDB will require the offender and his household to sell their flat and move out within six months. In order not to deprive the family of a roof over their heads, the offender will be allowed to buy or rent a ground or first floor HDB flat. However, he will not be permitted to buy or rent a HDB flat above the first floor for at least three years from the date of eviction. This is for cases which do not warrant compulsory acquisition. For less serious cases, HDB will issue a final written warning to the offender. And if the offence is repeated, then HDB will take compulsory acquisition action. These are the various levels of actions that HDB will take, depending on the severity of the offence. The objective of these different levels of severity is, in the ultimate, to make sure that the offender does not remain in the flat and does not have an opportunity to commit the offence again.”
“There is no cap on fines for rash acts resulting in death. The Ministry of Home Affairs will be introducing a specific provision in the Penal Code that targets at killer litter offences. This is different from the general provisions against rash and negligent acts under which killer litter offenders are currently prosecuted. Under the specific provision for killer litter offences, the maximum penalties will be enhanced to give the courts greater flexibility to mete out stiffer punishments on the offenders, if necessary. The introduction of a specific and enhanced punishment in the Penal Code recognises the community's strong stand against killer litter. These new provisions for killer litter offences will form part of a review which MHA is currently doing of the Penal Code. In addition to the court's punishment on killer litter offenders, the HDB, as the public housing authority, has a responsibility to help maintain public safety in HDB estates. Currently, under the Housing and Development Act, the HDB is empowered to compulsorily acquire a HDB flat if, as I said earlier, the convicted killer litter offender is either the lessee, the spouse or an authorised occupier above the age of 14. Depending on the gravity of the offence, the HDB can issue a final written warning in lieu of compulsory acquisition. Feedback from Members of this House and from members of the public suggest that such a measure may be too harsh on the rest of the family, especially if the offender is not a flat lessee but an authorised occupier. HDB, as the landlord and public housing authority, has the responsibility to promptly move a recalcitrant killer litter offender out of a high-rise HDB flat, as he poses a threat to public safety.”
“Sir, first of all, on whether the penalties are too harsh, I think it is probably useful for us to remember that the victims of such offences are also suffering very severely. Killer litter offences, whether committed by the lessees or committed by members of their households, can injure, maim and even kill. As to whether the punishment is too harsh, in certain cases where such offences are committed deliberately, blatantly or where it is a case of a recalcitrant offence, I do not think anyone would disagree if we were to compulsorily acquire the flats. However, I do grant that there may be other instances where such a penalty may be too severe, and this is the reason why I explained earlier that the various Ministries involved will do a review of the offences. The objective of this review is to make sure that the penalties for killer litter are strong but fair. We need to make sure that the penalties do act as a severe deterrence against future killer litter offences, because I think we do owe a responsibility to the other residents in HDB estates. After all, 86% or almost nine out of 10 Singaporeans live in HDB estates. On the other hand, the penalties must be seen to be fair. To achieve this, we will look at the penalties to make sure that they are commensurate with the nature of such offences and yet be flexible enough for the punishments to be calibrated according to the severity of the offence. Currently, a person who commits killer litter offences can be prosecuted by the police under the Penal Code. Under the Penal Code provisions against rash or negligent acts, the maximum sentence ranges from an imprisonment term of 3 months to 2 years and/or maximum fines from $250 to $1,000, depending on the gravity of the offence.”
“Ultimately, everyone has a part to play in making our HDB estates a safer place to live in.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member's suggestion of building canopies along the perimeter at the first storey of every HDB block may not be a very practical one, because they may instead pose other problems, such as security risk to apartment units on the second floor. However, I wish to inform the Member that HDB will continue to look into ways to improve the design of our public housing estates with a view to minimising this problem. Recent improvements include provision of proper covered entrance porches at each HDB block and covered linkways within the estates, which offer some degree of protection to HDB residents. More importantly, I would like to stress that design solutions alone cannot prevent killer litter. The root cause of the problem is the lack of civic consciousness among a small minority of HDB residents. For these residents who continue to ignore the public education messages and display blatant disregard for the safety of their fellow residents, HDB will take strong enforcement action as provided for in our legislation. This includes compulsory acquisition of a sold HDB flat when the lessee, his spouse or authorised occupier is convicted of a killer litter offence. In the light of the recent spate of killer litter incidents and the public discussion and feedback generated, my Ministry, together with the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs, has decided to review the current legislation on killer litter offences to reinforce the legal infrastructure to complement our public education efforts. Meanwhile, we will continue to educate the public on the dangers of killer litter. The HDB, Town Councils and the grassroots organisations will impress upon HDB residents that they have a civic responsibility to their fellow HDB residents.”
“Officers who resign or are dismissed from the Service will not be allowed to withdraw any balance in the pool. However, officers who retire from the Service will be allowed to withdraw the balance. The bonus pool system will not apply for the President, statutory appointment holders and judicial appointees. Annex 3 Table 2: Pay Comparison Before and After Salary Revision Current Revised Grade Monthly Annual Ranking Range Monthly Annual Ranking Prime $85,000 $1,699,000 85 -- $85,300 $1,940,000 63 Minister MR3 Max $55,700 $1,422,000 137 Minister $49,800 $1,134,000 239 $49,900 $1,274,000 180 (SG II + 12%) MR3 Min $44,600 $1,138,000 239 MR4 Max $47,400 $1,210,000 206 Minister $37,800 $861,000 491 MR4 Min $37,900 $968,000 367 (SG I) SR5 Max $39,800 $1,016,000 318 Superscale B $28,000 $638,000 929 SR5 Min $28,800 $736,000 699 (Significant Grade) SR9 Max $18,800 $390,000 >1000 Superscale $13,400 $242,000 >1000 SR9 Min $17,500 $363,000 >1000 G Member of $9,100 $137,000 -- $11,900 $176,000 Parliament”
“In between, it will vary linearly with GDP growth. The intention is to eventually build up this bonus to an average of 3 months, with a range of 0-6 months. Performance Bonus Performance bonuses were first introduced for Superscale officers in the Administrative Service in 1989. Since then, they have been extended to timescale Administrative Officers as well. The performance bonus norms will be raised as follows: Political and statutory appointment holders and Administrative Officers in Superscale C and above presently receive performance bonuses averaging 4 months of salary. This will be increased to an average of 5 months for those in Salary Range SR6 and above. Administrative Officers up to Superscale D1 presently receive between 1 - 2 months of performance bonus on average, depending on their grades. This will be increased to an average of between 3 - 4 months. How many months of performance bonus an officer actually receives will vary from person to person. Those with unsatisfactory performance will receive no bonus at all, while an outstanding officer will receive much more than the average quantum. Several appointments currently receive fixed bonuses instead of a performance bonus: the President, PM, SM, Chief Justice, Speaker, Chairman PSC, Attorney General and Auditor General. This will continue under the revised framework. Their fixed bonus rate will be set at the average rate for senior officers. Bonus Pool Under the bonus pool system, an officer will be paid half his performance bonus for the year immediately. The Government will contribute the other half into a bonus pool. The officer will be entitled to receive the amount in the bonus pool in two equal instalments 12 and 24 months later, provided he continues in Service.”
“HDB flats are built to meet the housing needs of Singaporean households. They are highly subsidised. Thus, there is a need to have rules and conditions for the purchase and use of these flats to ensure that they are for owner occupation. At present, the minimum occupation period for new HDB flats and resale flats purchased with the CPF Housing Grant is 5 years, while that for other resale flats is 2.5 years. These rules are intended to prevent rapid churning of HDB flats for speculation purposes. They are not so onerous as to prevent genuine cases of upgrading to take place, whether to a bigger HDB flat or to a private property. Annex 1 Table 1: Salary System Based on Salary Ranges Salary Points Salary Political Ranges Appointments Staff Grade IV, V MR1 DPM/Minister MR1 Staff Grade III MR2 Minister MR2 Staff Grade II MR3 Minister MR3 Staff Grade I MR4 Minister MR4 Superscale B SR5 Senior Minister of State Superscale C SR6 Minister of State Superscale D SR7 Senior Parliamentary Secretary Superscale E SR8 Parliamentary Secretary Superscale G SR9 Senior Principal Assistant R10 Secretary* Principal Assistant Secretary R11 Assistant Secretary R12 Senior Administrative R13 Assistant Administrative Assistant R14 *:Newly introduced range. Annex 2 GDP-related Bonus The GDP-related bonus will directly link the pay of political and statutory appointment holders and senior Administrative Officers to the state of the economy. The size of the bonus will depend on the real economic growth of the economy. The bonus will be 1 month if the Singapore economy grows by 5% in the calendar year, the mid-point of its estimated long-term growth potential (4 - 6%). It will be 0 month (the minimum) if the economy grows by 2% or less, and 2 months (the maximum) if the economy grows by 8% or more.”
“These covenants are made between the lessee, HDB and all other lessees in the same building. This means that consensus amongst all the lessees living in the same building is required if a particular lessee or tenant wishes to conduct activities beyond those of a residential nature. This Bill discharges HDB and the affected lessees from this obligation under the lease and allows all HDB flats to be used as registered offices of companies. This will facilitate the use of HDB flats as home offices under the THO scheme. Nonetheless, NSTB and HDB will regulate the scheme to ensure that the residential character of public housing estates and the safety and comfort of surrounding residents are not affected. Administrative Measures In addition to the two main amendments that I have highlighted, the Bill also introduces some administrative changes to improve the enforcement of public housing regulations and policies. Firstly, the Bill allows HDB to prosecute any person who knowingly makes any false statements to HDB in relation to the sale, purchase, mortgage or transfer of an HDB flat. Secondly, the Bill confers on HDB the exclusive use of HDB's logo and the acronym "HDB" by making it an offence for other persons to use HDB's logo, the acronym "HDB" or one that is so similar as to cause any deception. Thirdly, the Bill removes the requirement to obtain the sanction of the Public Prosecutor before HDB takes prosecution action for offences committed under the Housing and Development Act or Rules. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Some Members of the House have fed back to my Ministry that lift upgrading is one of the more appreciated items in the MUP. However, these works can cost anything between $10,000 and $30,000 per flat. There is therefore a need to obtain a strong endorsement from residents before we proceed with the works. The Bill seeks to introduce a new class of upgrading works, known as special upgrading works, to cater for block works of this nature. The objective is to give HDB greater flexibility to do more during the MUP to bring maximum benefits to the largest number of Singaporeans living in various types of HDB blocks. The special upgrading works will proceed only if they are valued and endorsed by the residents. To gauge the level of support for such works, HDB will conduct a separate poll among flat owners who stand to benefit directly from the works. HDB will implement these works only if the minimum 75% "yes" vote is obtained. The Government will pay a majority share for such upgrading works. However, flat owners who stand to benefit directly from such works will be required to co-pay part of the cost. This is only fair. It also helps to ensure that flat owners consider the need for such upgrading works carefully. Use of HDB Flats As Home Offices Let me turn now to the subject of allowing HDB residents to use their flats as home offices. Sir, in order to create a conducive environment for technopreneurs to start a business easily and at low cost, the Technopreneur Home Office Scheme was set up. This scheme allows technopreneurs to operate their IT-related start-up businesses from HDB and private residential premises. However, HDB flat leases issued prior to 1983 contain covenants which impose on lessees the obligation to use the premises solely for residential purposes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Objective of Bill The objective of the Bill is to amend the Housing and Development Act to enable the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to introduce a new class of upgrading works, known as "special upgrading works", to cater for block works that will directly benefit only some flat owners in a HDB block and to remove the restrictive covenant that HDB flats can be used only for residential purposes to enable the flats to be used as home offices under the Technopreneur Home Office (THO) Scheme. Sir, let me now explain the rationale for the amendments in greater detail. Special Upgrading Works In implementing the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), MND and HDB have been receiving requests from Members of Parliament and residents for upgrading works which are outside the scope of the standard upgrading packages offered to MUP precincts. This has arisen due mainly to the many different designs and configurations of HDB blocks, and the diverse needs of our HDB residents. Take, for example, lift upgrading works. At present, HDB provides lift upgrading only to HDB blocks that meet a set of criteria, such as lift-to-flat ratio and the accessibility rate. These criteria are necessary to ensure that the upgrading works carried out are cost-effective. Some HDB blocks are unable to meet the criteria, mainly because not all the flats are served by common corridors. For these HDB blocks, it will be necessary to add extra lift shafts and lifts in order to provide direct lift access for all the residents in the block. The benefits of such works are obvious, especially for the elderly and those with mobility problems.”
“Sir, if an accident were to happen in a private apartment, I think the Police would know what to do. 1.30 pm”
“Sir, it is impossible for me to say yes, it is all right or it is not all right. There are hundreds of situations where such objects are placed in the common corridors. As Members know, if they have gone round on house-to-house visits, there are people who put their clothes to dry in the common corridors. They put their shoes and unused furniture in the common corridors. One could argue that somebody could then take the unused furniture and throw it or heave it over the side and therefore it constitutes killer litter. I think the point is that at the end of the day, all the town councillors and HDB officers who go around, they look around, they check, they inspect, they make use of their judgment and where it does constitute a potential killer litter offence, they will ask the relevant household to remove that object. But if the Member asks me to make a categorical statement to say, "Yes, it is all right or no, it is not all right", I am afraid he would not get that answer from me.”
“Sir, as I reiterated just now, this is, in my opinion, best dealt with both by the town councils as well as by HDB. I do not think that it is a matter of just one or the other. In so far as removing the flower pots is concerned, HDB and town councils have carried out several inspections, especially over the last couple of weeks. They have discovered that there are quite a few cases where there is potential killer litter and they have taken action to remove them. And I am told that most, if not all, of those flower pots and other objects have been removed. So I think the situation, as it stands at the moment, is that both HDB and the town councils are working together on this problem. Mr Sinnakaruppan: Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Is it all right for residents to place objects in common areas such as the common corridor, as long as they are not likely to cause damage? Is it all right to place various objects along the common corridor?”
“I am sorry. I forgot to answer his first point. The Act has been in place since 1986. And from time to time, I know that town councils do, through their various publicity channels, educate residents on what to do and what not to do, as far as killer litter is concerned. There are many other aspects of high-rise living which are also important, but the problem of killer litter is probably one of the more serious ones. And I know that town councils do make it a point, and HDB has also gone around, through their inspections, to make sure that the potential killer litter does not happen. But I do not think both town councils and HDB have the manpower or the resources to actually go around and patrol 24 hours a day every single flat in every single town. So they do spot checks and when they spot check and find something wrong, they take action. Over the last 10 years, I must say that the number of killer litter offenders has come down quite significantly. And the number of killer litter offenders the HDB has taken to task has also come down significantly. But I think that is small comfort because it does not require many such offenders to cause a tragic accident, as we saw in the case of the Kent Road incident.”
“Sir, the town councils' responsibility is enforcement of offences in the common areas. There are also offences which take place within a flat, eg, the balcony. The balcony is not considered as a common area. But if somebody places a pot on the parapet wall of the balcony, then what happens? Strictly speaking, the town council cannot act. However, as I have explained to Members of this House, there are provisions in the Housing and Development Act which allow the HDB, if they spot it, to actually take action and to require them to remove it. And if they do not remove it, then HDB can take further action. I see the HDB and the town councils playing complementary roles. It is not a matter of the town councils alone. The HDB should not and has not abdicated its responsibility and say that this is the town councils' responsibility because the offence has happened within the common property. Neither should it just be the HDB's responsibility. If the town councils say, "Oh, the offence is committed within the flat and therefore it is the HDB's responsibility alone", I also do not think that that is adequate. So there is joint responsibility, as far as HDB and town councils are concerned, not just in so far as where the offence took place, but also in making sure that the general well-being, safety, security of HDB estates are preserved. I do not see a demarcation of responsibility and neither do I think it is a fruitful exercise to point fingers at one another and say, "This is your responsibility. This is not mine." So I would urge both the HDB and all town councils to work together to make sure that our estates remain safe for our residents.”
“When you are living 10-20 storeys up, anything that falls from your flat, consciously or unconsciously, is going to cause a lot of damage. That is the first thing. As far as do's and don't's are concerned, this is something the HDB and the town councils will be following up. It is through the town councils, notice boards, newsletters and so on, that we can educate residents on the do's and don't's. But this cannot be comprehensive and all encompassing. There will be somebody somewhere who will come up with something else. Does it mean that because it is not in the Act, therefore, he is able to get away with it? Surely not. So, I would recommend an approach which says that, first of all, we make it an offence to either throw or to cause objects to fall from flats, and to give power and authority to the town councils and the HDB officers to require flat owners to remove such potentially dangerous objects, if they are spotted. And if they do not remove them, to be able to fine them. And if they still do not remove them, to be able to take even sterner action. I think those pieces of legislation are already in the books. Beyond that, it is a matter of education. It is a matter of civic consciousness. I think both legislation and enforcement are important, but education is also important.”
“Sir, I would like to refer the Member again to that particular part of the Housing and Development Act which I read out just now in response to Dr Wang. It says: 'The Housing and Development Act empowers HDB to direct any owner, lessee or tenant of a flat to remove any article placed by any window or on any balcony of or outside the flat in a manner which is likely to cause any damage to property or injury to life.' Basically, it is a very wide definition. What is it that constitutes a danger to property or injury to life, and in what manner is it to be put before it so constitutes a danger? It is worded very widely. At the end of the day, I do not think it is possible for any legislation to spell out specifically the ways in which such objects, whether they are flower pots, bicycles, etc, should be placed. And if you do it in this manner, you are committing an offence. If you do it in another manner, you are not committing an offence. I think there are myriads of objects which residents are likely to place in HDB flats which may cause injury to residents. Ultimately, it is all a matter of common sense. If you feel that putting a flower pot on the ledge is safe, then I think something must be wrong somewhere. It does not take a piece of legislation in an Act to tell you that it is likely to fall, be knocked over, be blown over and to cause serious injury to somebody walking downstairs. Sir, I do not see the need for us to spell it out from A to Z before residents would take notice. First of all, we have to educate the residents. We have to make it clear to residents that high-rise living requires a certain amount, not only of civic consciousness, but also of responsibility.”
“Yes, the penalty is different. If the offender persists in committing the offence, then the penalties would be higher, and HDB will have the power to impose higher penalties.”
“I think the Member may have misunderstood what I said earlier. As I explained in my answer, apart from compulsory acquisition in the case of a convicted killer litter offender, the Housing and Development Act also empowers HDB to direct owners or occupiers to remove any object which is placed in a manner which is likely to cause injury or damage to property. So, the Housing and Development Act does empower the HDB to act in that regard. An hon. Member: The penalty is different.”
“Sir, to answer the first question, since the amendment to the Housing and Development Act was enacted in 1986, there has only been one instance where the tenancy agreement has been terminated. This was in the case of a rental flat. There has been no instance so far where a flat has been compulsorily acquired where it has been a bought flat. In so far as the case that he has mentioned is concerned, the matter is still under police investigations, so I am not at liberty to comment on it.”
“Sir, I think this is not a question of whether it is either HDB or the Town Council. It is important for both the HDB and the Town Council to look at the situation and to see which is the best way to deal with the problem. In so far as the specific penalty involved is concerned, whether it is $2,000 or $5,000 or whether it is imposed by HDB or the Town Council, I think it is not the main point here. The point really is that there is sufficient power within the Housing and Development Act and the Town Councils' by-laws to impose a sufficient deterrent to potential killer litter offenders. When a potential killer litter offender is given notice to remove the offending pot or other object and he does not comply, then both the Town Council and the HDB can take action against him and impose a fine. The Town Council can do so within its by-laws. Some Town Councils do not have sufficient by-laws. Different Town Councils have different by-laws. So one of the things I have asked HDB and Town Councils to do is to work together to make sure that the by-laws have sufficient deterrence. Where they do, then I think the Town Council can and should take action. On top of that, after the Town Council has taken action, if it is necessary and the offender continues to be recalcitrant, then HDB can also take action.”
“Ultimately, everyone has a part to play in making HDB estates a safer place to live in.”
“on any window sill, corridor or common property in a manner likely to cause injury to person or damage to . property." The maximum fine prescribed by the different Town Councils ranges from $1,000 to $5,000. Sir, I am of the opinion that the existing Housing and Development Act is adequate in tackling the killer litter problem. However, there is scope for some Town Councils to amend their by-laws to make them more effective in dealing with the problem. HDB will work with the Town Councils in doing so. Turning to education and enforcement, I believe this is a problem that requires close and joint efforts of HDB and the Town Councils. I understand that both HDB and the Town Councils have conducted inspections, both separately and jointly, to remove potential killer litter objects. HDB will continue to work closely with Town Councils and carry out regular inspections of HDB flats for killer litter. For cases under HDB's purview, HDB will not hesitate to exercise its power under the Housing and Development Act against recalcitrant residents. Likewise, Town Councils will take enforcement action against households who infringe their by-laws. Besides enforcement, what is equally important is to impress upon HDB residents that they have a civic responsibility to others, especially when it comes to high-rise living in Singapore. In this regard, HDB has issued a press statement and sent out individual circulars to its 800,000 HDB households reminding residents not to throw objects from their flats or place potential killer litter objects outside their flats. The various community organisations, such as HDB, Town Councils and the grassroots associations, should all work together and see how best we can bring this message across to residents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at present, a person who commits killer litter offences can be taken to task in the following ways: a) Under the Penal Code, the Police can prosecute killer litter offenders. The penalty is a maximum 2-year jail term or fine or both, depending on the gravity of the offence;. b) Under the Housing and Development Act, HDB has the power to compulsorily acquire a sold flat when a flat lessee, his spouse or tenant or his authorised occupier is convicted of a killer litter offence. HDB can also acquire a flat if the flat lessee does not comply with HDB's lease conditions. One such condition stipulates that the lessee "shall not place or allow to be placed anything or object in the flat or the common areas or the building or any part thereof so as to create, in HDB's opinion, an obstruction or a danger or trap to HDB officers, . lessees, occupiers or visitors . to the flats in the building". Lessees whose flats are compulsorily acquired by HDB will not be allowed to buy or rent another HDB flat for five years. In the case of rental flats, HDB can terminate the tenancy agreement and recover vacant possession of the flat; c) The Housing and Development Act also empowers HDB to direct any owner, lessee or tenant of a HDB flat to remove any article placed by any window, or on any balcony of or outside the flat in a manner which is likely to cause any damage to property or injury to life. Any person who fails to comply with the Board's direction can be fined up to $2,000, and in the case of a continuing offence, an additional $100 per day; d) In addition, Town Councils have by-laws which prohibit residents from "throwing or allowing any object or article to fall from his flat or the balcony or "placing any . object .”
“It is part of HDB's plan to provide sufficient amenities and commercial facilities in the development of any town. While HDB does not have an average outpatient clinic to dwelling unit ratio in the planning of new town, it will ensure that there is a range of facilities such as clinics, eating houses, markets, schools, etc. in every town to meet the needs of the residents. For Sengkang Town, there will be 3 commercial centres to serve residents living in the eastern part of the town. In each of these developments, there will be a full range of facilities. One commercial centre at Rivervale Plaza is already completed and currently has 4 clinics. The other 2 commercial centres along Rivervale Drive/Crescent and in the town centre will be completing at the end of the year 2000 and in year 2002 respectively. More clinics are expected to open when these 2 centres are completed. HDB has also provided some commercial facilities in multi-storey car parks. There will be 2 more clinics in the multi-storey car parks at Anchorvale Link and Anchorvale Road, which will be completing within the next three to six months. HDB is also currently looking into the feasibility of providing some clinics at the void decks of HDB blocks as suggested by the Sengkang Town Development Steering Committee. I would like to assure the Member that HDB will continue to assist the Sengkang Town Development Steering Committee to bring about timely provision of facilities, such as clinics, in Sengkang. NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE 33. Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Minister for Information and the Arts (a) whether the construction of the National Arts Centre is within the original planned contract period; and (b) what will be its final contract sum compared to its original cost estimate.”
“It is best that operators regularly review public transport fares so that any fare increase is in small steps. This approach is less painful than holding back fare increases until cost pressures become intolerable and the public is then faced with a massive increase in one exercise. Operators are aware that any fare increase is capped by a formula pegged to the cost of living, ie, at CPI + x%, where x is an adjustment factor for cost of operations such as wage changes and productivity gains. Based on this formula, if PTC had allowed fares to increase up to the cap every year from 1997, the fares would have increased by a total of 8.3% after this year's fare revision, compared to the level in 1997. The Public Transport Council has exercised due diligence in carrying out its duty to scrutinise the proposals of public transport operators and in approving the latest round of increases. I am of the view that the increases are reasonable and justifiable, in view of the reasons given by the Council. Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the Minister of State has given long reasons for what he thinks are the justification for the increases. May I refer him to the statement that appeared in the press sometime ago? May I ask the Minister of State what inquiries had he made before he made that public statement saying that the increases were just and fair?”
“On 20th April, the Chairman of the Public Transport Council announced the new fares that would take effect from 1st June. When reviewing fare proposals, the Public Transport Council has to take into consideration improvements in service quality, rising costs and the need to balance these against consumer affordability and the long-term financial viability of the transport operators. In approving this round of fare increases, the Council has explained that its approval was based on these considerations that I have just mentioned. The Council has also explained that the increase in feeder fares is intended to ameliorate in some measure the pricing anomaly of feeder fares compared to minimum trunk fares. At present, the feeder fares are much lower than the trunk fares, even though they consume the same level of resources. This results in commuters often pressing for feeder services even though they have trunk services plying the same route. The fare adjustment will reflect the cost of operations more accurately, and incentivise operators to provide a better feeder network to serve residents better. The increase in fares for commuters travelling longer distances will make the fare structure more equitable by requiring long distance commuters to bear a fairer share of the costs. Today, short distance commuters are cross-subsidising longer distance commuters. In approving the fare revision, the Public Transport Council has moderated the fare proposals of the operators to keep the increase at a modest level. The operators have projected that based on what the Council approved, their fare revenue will only increase by 2.4% or less. This is a modest increase, considering that fares have not been adjusted since 1997.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is an open economy where local architects and engineers compete on an equal basis for project work. Award of public sector projects by Government is open to both local and foreign consultancy firms. Singapore is also bound by its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. Our local firms will have to compete on merit. We cannot offer protection or preference to our local firms, such as stipulate that foreign firms must team up with local architects or engineers when tendering for Government projects. When our local firms compete on merit, it will strengthen their competitiveness and capability. This includes tie-ups they could pursue with foreign firms which are often required to employ, or to link up with, local architects and engineers if they wish to practise in Singapore. To ensure that our engineers and architects keep abreast of the latest industry trends and developments, the Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board will be introducing Continuing Professional Development Programmes. Other professional associations, such as the Singapore Institute of Architects and the Institution of Engineers, can also play a part in building up the expertise and professionalism of their members. BUS AND MRT FARE INCREASES 29. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether he will explain the justification for the increase in bus and MRT fares. The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun) (for the Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Sir, the Public Transport Council met in April to consider the proposals by the public transport operators to increase the fares for bus and train services.”
“Under this preferential scheme, a premium (up to a maximum of 5%) was given to contractors with good track records to discount their tender sums to make their tender positions more advantageous. Among the 473 contracts awarded to the lowest tenderers, two contractors went into liquidation before completing their contracts. HDB has recommended to Ministry of Finance's Standing Committee on Debarment (SCOD) to debar the two contractors. Sir, all Government procurement agencies, including HDB, are bound by the Government's Instruction Manual 3, Part B, to award contracts to tenderers who submit the lowest offer that complies substantially with the contract requirements. However, only suitable contractors who are registered in the appropriate Work Head and Financial Grade under the Building and Construction Authority's Contractor Registration System and who have not been debarred from tendering by Ministry of Finance's Standing Committee on Debarment (SCOD) are allowed to tender for HDB's building and civil engineering contracts. In addition, contractors who performed poorly in current contracts will not be awarded new Government contracts.”
“Specifically in this Compassvale case, the inquiry found that the main cause of the accident was really due to both the PE as well as the accredited checker. The PE made a mistake in the design and he was primarily responsible. The AC, who was supposed to make sure that such design errors do not slip through the system, also did not check and, therefore, he was also found liable. The role of the supervisory professional, in this case, the clerk-of-works, was found to be a contributory but not the main cause of the accident. Therefore, it was deemed not necessary for action to be taken against him in this case. But that does not follow that he is not liable for his actions. If, let us say, in other cases, he is found to be liable, then action will be taken. BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTS OF HDB (Number awarded) 27. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many building and civil engineering contracts of the Housing and Development Board were awarded to the lowest tenderers between 1997 and 1999; (b) how many of these contractors have gone into liquidation; and (c) what measures are taken to ensure that contracts are awarded to suitable contractors. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, between 1997 and 1999, HDB awarded a total of 483 building and civil engineering contracts. About 98% or 473 contracts were awarded to the lowest tenderers. The other 10 contracts were awarded to the effective lowest tenderers under a scheme called the "Preferential Margin Scheme for Construction Quality".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the collapse of the roof at Compassvale School was due mainly to a design error by the professional engineer and the failure of the Accredited Checker (AC) to spot the error. The lack of construction supervision by the site supervisor was a contributory factor but not the main cause of the collapse. The requirement of a resident engineer for projects above $10 million was set in 1987. It was revised to $15 million in 1997 to take into account the higher construction costs. We have no intention to change the current limit for the time being. Following the Compassvale incident, BCA has reviewed its current system in which the work of a professional engineer is checked by an AC to ensure the safety of the structure. The system is found to be sufficiently stringent. However, BCA will be fine-tuning the AC system to ensure that ACs maintain a high standard in checking so that there are no lapses in the design. Some of the measures include: (a) ensuring that the larger or more complicated projects will be undertaken by an AC practice with better resources and staff strength; (b) requiring ACs to apply for renewal of registration annually; and (c) stepping up surveillance and enforcement actions to maintain a high standard in AC practice. My Ministry intends to amend the Building Control Act this year to strengthen the AC system. The legislation is targeted for implementation from January 2001.”
“However, the restriction on Singapore dollar loans to foreigners to buy residential property remains. The Government has left this in place as a signal that it does not encourage speculation in the property market, especially by non-Singaporeans using borrowed funds. The restriction does not in practice cause a problem, because employment pass holders who take up permanent residence become eligible for Singapore dollar property loans. Those who do not take up PR probably do not plan to stay on for the long term in Singapore, and are unlikely to want to buy property for owner-occupation. TAXES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES 2. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Finance (a) what was the annual revenue collection of excise duties and customs on alcoholic beverages from 1990 to 1999 and (b) whether he will consider increasing taxes to discourage their import and consumption in view of the rising trends in alcohol consumption among Singaporeans.”
“The replacement of front windows has been included in the standard package of the Revised Main Upgrading Programme from Batch 16 onwards. This is possible due to the savings that would be derived from the omission or scaling down of other works as a result of a review of the MUP. For existing MUP precincts before Batch 16, some residents may have already changed their front windows through their own arrangements. Including the replacement of front windows now as part of the standard package for these precincts may create unhappiness among the residents. However, MND has no objection for existing MUP precincts to include this item as part of their standard package if: i) there is strong demand from residents for the item; ii) substantial construction works have not yet started for the precinct; and iii) the item can be funded within the MUP budget. If necessary, the precinct will have to forgo other improvement items to accommodate this addition. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS LOANS FOR FOREIGNERS TO PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES 1. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Ministry will, in line with the current efforts to attract foreign talents, allow foreign citizens working on employment pass in Singapore to obtain bank loans in Singapore dollars to buy a residential property for the purpose of owner-occupation. BG Lee Hsien Loong: The restriction on foreigners obtaining Singapore dollar loans to purchase residential properties was part of the package of measures the Government introduced in May 1996 to curb speculation in our property market. The overall package was effective in cooling the property bubble. Most of the anti-speculation measures have since been lifted.”
“I may not have made myself clear. The Director-General, Agri-food and Veterinary Services, who has been appointed under the Animals and Birds Act, is the person who exercises the responsibilities of the previous Director-General of the Primary Production Department. Yes, he is the same person. But we have provided for a post of Chief Executive Officer. So the Chief Executive Officer may be the same person as the Director-General of the Agri-food and Veterinary Services as stated in the Bill. 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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO THE CHAIR”
“If he means that we set aside plots of land for people to go and farm, that is, hobby farm, there are farms in Singapore located in the agri-technology parks which allow the city dwellers to go there to see what a vegetable looks like when it is growing in the ground and not in the supermarket. There are also farms that allow children to visit them, to look at the animals and so on. If that is what he means, then that has been provided for. But if he is talking about setting aside land around HDB estates for people to go there and farm, that is pretty difficult for us in land scarce Singapore. The last point is about cats and dogs. I must confess that I am not familiar with the issue of whether we treat cats more favourably than dogs. If he would like to file a question, I can give him a more intelligent answer. At this stage, I must confess I do not know about that. I think I have answered all the questions.”
“Ultimately, at the end of the day, invariably, the discussions go beyond just the science of it but go into the political arena. We are not producers of the food but consumers, and we will have to take an appropriate position commensurate with our own interests. So far as agri-technology is concerned, the point that Mr Simon Tay made that we should try and restrict high technology farming because it may involve the use of high chemicals, let me assure him that high technology farming does not necessarily equal high chemical farming. In fact, the PPD is extremely strict about the level of contaminants and the use of pesticides in our food. First of all, we do a very stringent test on all the primary foods like vegetables and so on that are prone to high pesticides and high contaminants and having tested them, we are not averse to destroying those which contain a very level of pesticides. We go in further to the extent of banning imports from those particular farms. All those actions demonstrate that we take the issue of pesticides and contaminants in our food very seriously. It would be ironic for us to do so and be so specific and so tough on food being imported, and yet allow high-tech farming in Singapore which makes use of these high pesticides. It does not make sense and we certainly do not intend to take such an approach. I would like to reassure him on that. The fact is yes, where we can, we will encourage organic farming and some farms are already pursuing this option. The other point is on citizen farming. I am not sure exactly what he means by citizen farming.”
“There is no reason for us to suddenly confer upon such foods monster status. We have been eating it all this time. PPD monitors the food very closely, in line with the trends in the world. We take the necessary precautions. Food, which is not approved in other countries, will not be allowed into Singapore. Foods which have been identified as not safe, we will take immediate action to remove them from the shelves. This is a very new field. There is a lot of discussion going on now. What we have done in Singapore is to try and follow the discussions that are going on in the international arena. We have formed in Singapore what is known as the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) which includes, PPD, ENV, National Science and Technology Board, universities and so on. We are trying to establish a procedure and a protocol whereby we can also label foods, track them, monitor them and assess whether they are safe or not, etc. This is an on-going process. We will continue to monitor how other countries tackle the issue. We will abide by what is international practice in this area. As for the biosafety protocol, the Cartegena Protocol that the Member mentioned just now, I should inform him that the lead agency for the bio-diversity protocol is NParks, not PPD, because it goes beyond GMOs. It also talks about the bio-diversity in various countries. Having said that, we are also following the discussions in the Cartegena process very closely. He is correct in saying that there is a lot of politics involved in the discussions. Countries which are producers of one particular type of food obviously have a certain point of view. Countries which are net consumers have a different point of view.”
“He asked whether the Director of Primary Production Department is the same person as the Director-General of Agri-food and Veterinary Authority. The answer is yes, he is the same person. Mr Seng Han Thong asked about the transfer of officers to the new statutory board. As I have said, the Bill provides for the transfer of these officers from the department, a Government department, to a statutory board on terms no less favourable than what they are getting today. I realise that some of the officers today who are non-pensionable will lose the option to convert if they were to transfer over to the AVA. My officers have been looking into how we can provide a package which would allow the transfer to take place without adversely affecting the officers concerned. I understand the concerns of the officers. I understand the concerns of the union who represents them, as articulated by the Member just now. Let me just say that at this point in time, we are actively exploring various options to try and tide over the officers when they transfer from the Department to a statutory board. Of course, we will certainly look into his suggestion of ex-gratia payment. I turn now to Mr Simon Tay's point about GMO and the biodiversity protocol. As far as GMOs are concerned, I think he is right in saying that we should not panic the public. The media has given a lot of attention to GMOs in recent months. Some of the reporting has been quite sensational; some of the headlines, for example, Frankenstein food, and so on, and given rise to a lot of anxiety. But the fact of the matter is that there are genetically modified foods currently on our shelves in the supermarkets. But these have been determined to be safe for us to eat.”
“So, for example, when you are talking about food safety, we have the PPD which is involved in the control of safety of foods and assurance of safety of primary foods. We have the Ministry of the Environment which looks at the safety of food at the retail end. We also have Ministry of Health which also looks at the food safety and communicable diseases and so on. All these agencies have their own areas of expertise and responsibility and together, whenever there is any danger, whenever there is any sign that we are going to be affected by some major outbreak of disease, as what happened last year when the Nipah virus outbreak took place, then all these agencies come together. We form an Inter-Ministry Task Force and we fight the problem together. I think this has worked well in the past. I do not see why it would not work in the future with the AVA. And I would suggest that we look at this particular modus operandi and improve upon it, rather than to try and establish a neat solution whereby everything comes together under one agency, and then we try and decide where to put that agency. At this particular point in time, we would not make any changes to the different responsibilities of the various agencies involved. But down the road, I think it is proper for us, as we work together, to decide how we can either apportion or re-apportion responsibilities or indeed even amalgamate some of them. But I do not see the time where all these particular responsibilities will come under one. I think the range of expertise required is simply too great. Mr Lew also asked whether the powers of enforcement have been increased or remained the same. Yes, the answer is that they have remained the same.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to, first of all, thank all the Members who have spoken. They have all supported the Bill. They have also raised several questions which I would like to take this opportunity to answer. First of all, Mr Lew asked about the transferred employees, whether there will be any restructuring or redundancies. The idea is for us to transfer all the employees to the new statutory board because all of the officers involved are needed to allow the new statutory board to exercise its functions and responsibilities. So there is no plan to do any restructuring or have any redundancies at this point in time, because, as I said, all the officers are needed. However, I think it is correct for me to say that as the statutory board evolves, looks at its various functions and responsibilities, vis-a-vis other Government departments, I think there will be opportunities for the various Government departments to come together and to see how they can actually improve their coordination and their workflow. So if that opportunity does arise in the future, the new statutory board should take advantage of that and improve its organisational structure in order to provide a better level of service to the public. At this point in time, I would also like to address Mr Simon Tay's point about where the new statutory board should reside, whether it should be in the National Development Ministry or whether it should be under the Environment Ministry. I think my colleague here has just given me a signal that he does not think that it is a good idea. The fact of the matter really is that food safety and control of public safety are inter-related issues. I do not think any one agency can do justice to the very broad range of issues that need to be looked at and resolved.”
“The pension rights of Government employees would also be preserved under clause 32 of the Bill. Part VII of the Bill covers the miscellaneous provisions such as the Authority's symbol, powers of enforcement and power to make regulations under the Bill. These provisions will help the Authority to carry out its functions. This Part also includes the list of consequential amendments to be made to other legislation which are currently administered by the PPD and to any other legislation referring to PPD or the Director of Primary Production. Sir, in conclusion, let me say that we are now facing new challenges in ensuring the safety of our primary food needs and in dealing with threats from emerging diseases and harmful food contaminants. The restructuring of PPD into AVA will allow us to have a statutory board to work towards managing these challenges. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“AVA will plug into the relevant international networks to monitor closely the global spread and incidences of potentially dangerous diseases. It will also maintain world class diagnostic and testing laboratories. Resources are now being put in place. Two new laboratories are being set up and these will be ready by 2002. They will have the latest equipment and instrumentation for the detection of disease agents and harmful food contaminants as well as genetically modified foods. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on the main features of the Bill. Part I of the Bill gives the short title and interpretation of the Bill. Part II provides for the establishment, incorporation and constitution of the Authority. Part III spells out the functions and powers of the Authority. These are essentially the same as those already vested in PPD, either administratively, or through the various existing Acts administered by PPD. It will also be able to form companies, joint ventures or partnerships. Parts IV and V of the Bill relate to staff and financial matters. In particular, clause 16 includes provisions to protect the Authority from liability in respect of products or processes which have been deemed to have conformed to the Authority's requirements. This is required as the AVA will be involved in formulating standards and issuing certificates, brands or other marks related to the agri-food and veterinary sectors. Part VI comprises the transitional provisions relating to the transfer of property, assets and liabilities of the PPD to the AVA. Under clause 31, all persons employed by PPD shall be transferred to AVA. The terms will be no less favourable than those enjoyed by the officers immediately prior to their transfer.”
“This heavy dependence on primary food imports has made Singapore vulnerable to disruptions in primary food supplies due to unforeseen circumstances at the sources of supply. We therefore need to continually identify new sources of supply so that we can maximise food security. Our heavy reliance on food imports also makes us vulnerable to outbreaks of food-poisoning and zoonotic diseases, in other words, where animal diseases are transmitted to humans. In recent years, there have been disease outbreaks, such as the Mad Cow Disease, Avian Flu and the Nipah virus. It is vital for us to maintain a high level of integrity in our food safety system to detect, prevent and control emerging diseases and food hazards. Sir, it is now timely to restructure PPD into a statutory board. The board will have a mandate to ensure the safety of Singapore's primary food needs. It will also be responsible for animal and plant health, animal welfare and the agricultural industry, all of which are integral components of a food safety system. As a statutory board, AVA can leverage on its expertise in agriculture and veterinary science to offer consultancy services to the food and agriculture industries in Singapore and the region. This may enable more overseas farms to meet our food safety requirements and enable them to export their food to Singapore. AVA can also provide consultancy services to assist our local farmers to set up farms, as well as facilitate the setting up of overseas food producing projects for supply to Singapore. AVA finally can look into making Singapore an agricultural hub and distribution centre in the region. This will increase the trading of agricultural and food products through Singapore, and enable us to have access to more varieties of food.”