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 39 of 61.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Government intends to restructure the Primary Production Department (PPD) into a statutory board, called the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), on 1st April 2000. The proposed Agri-food and Veterinary Authority Bill 2000 is to provide the legislative framework for the formation of the new statutory board. Sir, let me now explain the rationale for the new statutory board. The PPD was formed in 1959 to develop and regulate the local farming industry. Through its agricultural development and health programmes, PPD ensured that local farms produced safe and quality food for consumption. With the gradual shrinking of the agricultural sector over the years, PPD's role and focus also shifted. Currently, PPD ensures the safety of primary food imports, which include meat, fish, eggs, fruits and vegetables. It also prevents and controls animal, bird, fish and plant diseases, promotes animal welfare, as well as develops the agricultural industry and facilitates trade in agriculture produce. Sir, in October last year, in my Addendum to the President's Address, I informed this House that we will diversify our sources for the supply of safe foods to meet the needs of our growing population. We will also upgrade our food inspection and surveillance systems and laboratory services to further improve on food safety. Today, local farm production supplies only 1.5% of the poultry, 10% of the fish, 30% of the eggs and 6% of the vegetables consumed in Singapore. The bulk of our primary food requirements comes from overseas sources.”
“Of course, you can rent rooms in HDB estates; you can rent flats from JTC; or you can be accommodated in dormitories or boarding houses. So there are currently quite a lot of options available for these workers and the foreign talents. But we will monitor the demand. As the Member indicated earlier, I think this is something that cannot distort the housing market, and therefore we will also study this as part of our current Concept Plan review, as I indicated in the earlier reply.”
“There is a percentage of Singaporeans who do aspire to landed housing and I think we should strive as far as possible within the constraints of limited land that we have, within the constraints of providing for other uses, within the planning norms of a higher population, within all these things, we should still try to meet people's aspirations to the best of our ability. But having said that, I think I cannot disagree with the Member when he says that this preference may change over time. It is not fixed. As I indicated earlier, all these planning norms really should not be cast in stone. We need to keep a certain flexibility in our planning. If people's tastes change and they decide that high-rise housing is a good alternative and developers are able to provide an attractive alternative to landed housing, then so be it. Sir, the question of housing mix between low density and medium density or between medium density and high density is an important issue, and this will be taken up in the current Concept Plan review that we are undertaking. If the Member has any other suggestions or views, we will be very happy to take them in. The other question about accommodation for foreign workers and foreign talents, I think I did indicate earlier that we have set aside sufficient land at the moment for the higher population. There are many housing options readily open for the foreign workers and foreign talents in our midst. If you are an employment pass holder, you can rent or you can purchase houses through the private housing market. Condominiums, you do not need approval; even landed property, if you are a PR and you apply, you may be given approval.”
“Sir, I agree with Dr Wan that high density housing such as condominiums would lead to better land use as compared to landed housing. But this does not automatically mean that we do away with all landed housing and set aside land just for high density housing. I think the pleasant fact is that we do have sufficient land for both. In the first place, not every piece of land can support a very high density housing development. As I indicated earlier in my reply, there are many parts of Singapore where there are height constraints because of flight paths, and so on. Other areas, there are safety buffers that are required by industries for utility installations. Then, over and above that, not every area can support the high density housing because of capacity constraints of infrastructure and services. By this, I mean roads. I think earlier on Dr Lily Neo already complained that too much high-rise housing in her constituency has given rise to traffic jams. So we have to take this into account. We have to take into account sewerage and drainage facilities. So all these prevent very high density housing from taking place in the short term and in all areas. What such constraints do create, of course, is a mixture of buildings of different heights. And I think that is not a bad thing, because it does result in varied and interesting landscapes for our environment. That is on the technical side. I think equally important, if not more, is to recognise that Singaporeans do aspire to landed housing.”
“Sir, we have listed out all our criteria. It is very clear, very transparent, and it cannot be more transparent than that.”
“Sir, I did not say that we do not apply the policy. I am just saying that there is a long list. How do I decide? How do I look my PAP MP in the face and say to him that, "Oh, I have upgraded Hougang or Potong Pasir, instead of Boon Lay?" I think Mr Goh Chee Wee is not going to forgive me.”
“This is not distributing of benefits. As I have explained earlier, everybody will have a chance. It is a question of who comes first. Mr Chiam See Tong rose.”
“Mr Kenneth Chen, in particular, expressed, I thought, some reservations about whether the report can achieve its objectives. Let me just tell him that these are targets. The report was not prepared just by the officials alone. They were prepared in conjunction with the professionals in the industry. There was extensive consultation among different Ministries - Ministry of Manpower, my Ministry, BCA, Professional Engineers Board, Board of Architects, SCAL, REDAS, and so on and so forth. So I think all the possible stakeholders have been consulted. They have been involved in the deliberations. The C21 report took a while to cook and to finalise. I think the process itself makes me optimistic, and so is the industry optimistic that the targets are achievable. So I would say, let us give it a try, and let us work hard to make it work. In so far as whether we should register contractors - I think this was the other point he raised, that is, whether we should license the contractors, this is one of the recommendations in the report by the architects, I believe, and the developers. Obviously the contractors were not too keen on this one. But I think BCA is currently studying the feasibility and the effectiveness of this recommendation. So we would await their comments on this. I believe, Sir, I have covered most if not all of the points.”
“First of all, let me just point out that the development control guidelines do not restrict the provision of such facilities. Yes, there is a cap on it, but they are able to provide such facilities. But whether we should require them to provide the facilities, that is another matter altogether. I am reluctant to move to that stage of being so prescriptive, but if the Member has got a very strong case, I am prepared to listen in terms of how to convince the developers to provide such facilities. I would have thought that if it does help the developer to make that development more attractive, they would provide such facilities on their own volition. On flexibility in doing business, Mr Peh Chin Hua suggested that we should allow HDB flats to be used as offices. I do not know whether he is aware that the Technopreneur Home Office Scheme has already kicked off. This actually allows people to use their HDB flats as office addresses subject, of course, to certain conditions. I am very happy to tell him that HDB has to date approved 150 applications from applicants to use their flats as registered offices. I do not see any problem at all. Dr Teo also asked about the 30% retention policy. He is correct in saying that this was introduced in 1979 to encourage better maintenance and he feels that this ruling may no longer be necessary. I agree with him and I want to tell him that URA is currently reviewing this retention policy, together with the BCA, with a view to removing it. 5.00 pm Finally, I see time is running short, I would just like to respond very quickly to Members' comments on Construction 21. Sir, Mr Kenneth Chen and Dr Teo Ho Pin commented on the Construction 21 report.”
“In other words, we will have to go through a voting process to get from the residents an indication whether they want to proceed with this upgrading or not. HDB is now looking into the details, including the co-sharing formula, criteria for upgrading and so on. A few other miscellaneous issues which I may quickly round off. Executive Condominium housing, Mr Lew and Mrs Lim asked about the relevance of the EC scheme. All of us would agree that EC housing has achieved its social objective which was, at that time, to provide a category of private housing that meets the need of the so-called sandwiched class, the young professional couples. If you look at the statistics of the people who buy the EC, the majority, more than three-quarters of them, are actually first-timers, and most of these people are young couples, between the ages of 25 and 35. The EC scheme has worked and it has met the objective. It has provided an alternative housing type to these young families. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked about the mutual exchange of flats scheme. There is such a scheme but I am afraid that it is not exactly very popular because of the constraints. Only about 20 flats are exchanged every year. Having said that, I must also point out that there are many other schemes in place that facilitate extended families living together or living close to one another. There is the Joint Selection Scheme, the Multi-tier Family Scheme, the Conversion Scheme, and of course, let us not forget the CPF Housing Grant Scheme, which is the grant of $40,000 to encourage first-timers to buy resale flats near their families. Finally, Dr Jennifer Lee asked about whether we should require industrial and commercial developers to provide child care facilities or elderly care facilities.”
“This is the reason why in order to try and prioritise the flats which qualify for lift upgrading, HDB has in place a set of criteria, like how many people would benefit if we put in the lift, benefit per flat, and so on. Mr Ang Mong Seng requested that Government extends lift upgrading to all blocks under HDB. Let me inform the House that HDB already allows full lift upgrading under IUP if the precincts meet the lift upgrading criteria and if it is within the IUP budget. In fact, we have provided additional funds for IUP, if the Member would like to upgrade his lifts. The lift upgrading programme is a very massive programme. It involves major structural works because you have to put in new lift shafts, link bridges and so on. Generally speaking, I would recommend that we do lift upgrading only under MUP rather than IUP. But those who want to do it under IUP, there is provision to do so, but bear in mind that you would have to sacrifice something else, and you must also meet the criteria. As Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned, the blocks that do not meet the lift criteria are generally the so-called segmented blocks. I think he knows the blocks in question. Basically, these are blocks which really require additional lift shafts and new lifts to be added. Where it is technically feasible, HDB is prepared to be flexible and allows such blocks to undergo full lift upgrading under MUP. But the cost of installation will mean a significantly increased upgrading bill for the residents. Notwithstanding that it is co-shared between Government and the residents, with this particular feature, it is going to be much higher. We would have to require from the residents a very firm indication.”
“The one who supports the programme and encourages his residents to support the programme, or the one who does not make any effort to support the programme and, on top of that, runs down the Government's policies which created the surplus, which allows these programmes to be implemented. As the Americans would call it, it is a "no brainer". So this is something that we have always had to explain very carefully. It is not a question of fairness. It is a question of prioritisation. It is a question of whether you support, not just upgrading, but the whole range of policies which allows us to implement the upgrading programme. A last point for Mr Low Thia Khiang's information, his flats are not the oldest flats in Singapore. There are many other constituencies which have got flats even older than his, who are also in the queue and who are also trying to jump the queue. Potong Pasir is one, Toa Payoh is another, Redhill, Tiong Bahru, Queenstown. I have asked for the list because I wanted to be absolutely sure that HDB is totally fair and objective about it. There are quite a few questions on lift upgrading. Mr Seng Han Thong has asked several questions about lift upgrading, so has Mr Ang Mong Seng. There is no doubt that lift upgrading is one of the most popular items under MUP and IUP. And with an ageing population, as Mr Ang Mong Seng very graphically put it just now, lift upgrading is something that we should seriously consider in order to meet the mobility needs of residents. But let me try and convince Members that lift upgrading is a very expensive proposition. It does not come cheap.”
“Some are subjective, some are objective like the age, some we will have to make a judgment, like the level of support. Why do we have "level of support"? Mr Low Thia Khiang mentioned that the Government is not fair because it does not upgrade flats in Hougang. Let me put it this way. If you have two MPs who are asking for upgrading, one MP goes around explaining to his constituents what is upgrading, what are the benefits of upgrading, how is it that the Government is able to spend $500 million or more a year on upgrading. It is because of the policies which generate surplus. Without the policies that generate surplus, and without a surplus, what is the point of talking about upgrading? One MP goes around and explains to the people, yes, these policies which will not be popular sometimes, these are policies which, at the end of the day, help the Government in terms of generating a surplus, these are policies which reflect a very prudent financial policy. As a result of these prudent financial policies, you have a surplus. He tells his constituents to vote for this party because this is the party that is able to generate surpluses and this is the party that distributes the surpluses in the form of upgrading, among other things, and vote for him as an MP so that he can fight for upgrading, so that he can get upgrading earlier for his residents. Then you have another candidate who goes around telling his constituents that the Government's policies are wrong, that Government makes money from the people, that the Government is rich, the people are poor. The Government should redistribute wealth through subsidies, that upgrading is a joke. If you were the Minister in charge of deciding which constituency were to be upgraded first, which one would you choose?”
“I think we have in this House and outside clarified many times that the upgrading programme is a long term programme. If you add up the total number of flats, it is something close to 400,000 flats that are eligible for upgrading even under existing criteria. Reasonably speaking, you can do something like 20,000, maybe 26,000 this year if we speed it up. At that rate, we are looking at a 15-20 year programme. There is no way that we can do all constituencies at one go, whether it is Boon Lay or Hougang. Some must go first, and some must wait. 4.45 pm When the Member for Boon Lay complains that some of the old flats in his constituency have not yet been selected for MUP, I feel very sympathetic. But he also has to wait because we have got many criteria to consider. If we were to just go on age alone (and I know Boon Lay has got many old flats), there are many old flats in Queenstown, Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio, Redhill, Hougang (not that old, but reasonably old), as the previous Minister has explained many times, all the upgrading is going to be done in Queenstown, Tanjong Pagar and Redhill, and none would be done in Marine Parade, the Prime Minister's constituency, Bedok and Ang Mo Kio. So it is not just age alone. Age is only one of the criteria. We have to ensure a good spread of the precincts across the various housing estates. That is another criterion. But that is not all, because we also have several other criteria, including the level of support and the cleanliness of the estate which is a proxy for the community spirit. Because there are so many eligible precincts, and there are such strong demands for upgrading because of the benefits, it is difficult for the Ministry to just base it on one or two criteria. There are several criteria that have been spelt out.”
“But other items that he can do himself, these we will leave to the residents. In a more cost effective upgrading package, the budget for MUP and IUP will be rationalised. The revised budget per flat for MUP will be $37,600 and $58,300 for the standard and standard-plus packages respectively, down from the original $42,400 and $67,200 for standard and standard-plus. For IUP, the two-tier budget will be brought down from the existing $5,000 without full lift upgrading, and $8,000 with full lift upgrading per flat, to $4,000 and $7,000 per flat respectively. With these revisions, residents can look forward to a smaller MUP upgrading bill, better value improvement works that will benefit them more. The IUP will continue to be fully funded by the Government and later today, HDB will be issuing a press statement to give full details of the revised programme. Dr Wan asked about the pace of the HDB upgrading programme. He asked Government to speed up the upgrading programme. Sir, with the revised MUP and IUP budgets and with the recovery of the economy, I am pleased to inform the House that the Government will step up the upgrading schedule this year. We intend to announce 12 MUP precincts and 20 IUP precincts for this year 2000, compared with 5 MUP and 18 IUP precincts last year. This means that the number of flats which will enjoy the benefits of upgrading will go up, from less than 20,000 last year to something like 26,000 this year. As for the actual precincts to be selected, I think this is always a contentious point, and Mr Low Thia Khiang has made some comments on this. Earlier, we also heard Mr Goh Chee Wee making exactly the same comment, that if we do not speed it up, his constituents will miss out.”
“Sir, HDB survey results show that the residents are generally most appreciative of improvement items that give them direct benefits. I think this is not surprising. But what kind of items? This is what the surveys sought to find out. Based on this feedback, HDB has revised the scope of the upgrading works to concentrate more on the functional items. The focus will shift from precinct and block works to works within the flat. Less functional and cost effective items like amphitheatres and extensive landscaping will be scaled down, as they add to maintenance cost. But I would like to assure the House that HDB will continue to provide precinct and block works that yield tangible benefits to the residents, and I am talking about popular items like covered linkways, lift upgrading, etc. And we will also ensure that the upgrading programme is obvious to the residents. In other words, that MUP blocks will be distinctive. In addition to the full range of internal works that are currently carried out within the flats today, HDB will replace the main entrance door and all windows in the flat during MUP. This is in response to many requests from Members in the House on behalf of their residents. The Member for Kreta Ayer-Tanglin, Mr Lew Syn Pau, commented just now in this regard that Government should not be too involved inside the flat. This seems to fly in the face of his advice. But let me say that I do agree that we should just carry out only essential works within the flat. We are not going in to renovate the whole flat for the lessee. Items such as space adding items, the replacement of the discharge stack in the bathrooms, these are massive and costly exercises. No resident can do it on his own. It has to be done by HDB, and this is what the HDB will continue to do.”
“Residents have moved in. Businesses are doing well. Residents are happy. That is the reason why they call it a mature estate. On the other hand, the Sengkang town, Punggol 21 and so on are towns where residents are only beginning to move in. Facilities are also beginning to move in. Shopkeepers are trying to find and establish their footing. Not everybody wants to go and build or set up a clinic there because they do not see the business there, for example. And that is the reason why there is such a shortage of facilities. But having said all that, I think we should, as far as possible, get the various agencies together and make sure that such facilities are provided as quickly and as conveniently as possible. Sir, I now come to questions on HDB upgrading programmes. The Main Upgrading Programme and the Interim Upgrading Programme are programmes that were started 10 years ago. The purpose was to make sure that older estates do not degenerate, to rejuvenate and bring them up to the standard of the newer estates. In December last year, the Prime Minister asked my Ministry to review the MUP and IUP with a view to making them more cost effective and relevant to residents' needs. Sir, I am pleased to inform the House that the review has been completed. In this review, HDB sought feedback from residents and MPs, through surveys and dialogue sessions, to find out what are the things that people want, what are the things that people value. The HDB also spoke to the town councils to find out what sort of problems they face in terms of maintenance in upkeeping upgraded estates. HDB internally also looked at its own work processes in order to streamline work flows, in order to increase the cost effectiveness of the HDB upgrading programmes.”
“One, is the standard flats, and these are flats which come with limited finishes for applicants who prefer to put in their own finishes. The other type of flat is the so-called design-and-build or design-plus flat, and these flats come with full floor finishes. What HDB has done, in order to minimise confusion that flat applicants have over the different range of flats offered for sale, it has grouped the design-and-build flats and the design-plus flats into one category and called them premium apartments. This is purely an administrative renaming exercise. There is no change in the flat type, neither is there a change in the selling price. And it does not in any way affect the affordability of HDB flats nor will they pose a competition nor indeed are they intended to pose any competition to Executive Condominiums or private properties. Dr Michael Lim spoke about the problems faced by his residents in Sengkang New Town. I do sympathise with him in this regard and, in fact, this is the reason why we set up a special committee chaired by Dr Michael Lim called the Sengkang Town Steering Committee in order to get all the different agencies together to better coordinate the provision of services. All I can say is that HDB will provide every support and do its best to help the Sengkang Town Steering Committee to enhance coordination among the various agencies. This is a problem every time HDB establishes a new town, and that is the reason why there is a difference in price between mature estates and non-mature estates. Mature estates are like Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio, Bedok and so on. All the facilities are there. Transportation facilities are more than adequate. Marketing facilities, shops, schools, clinics, etc, are all there. They have all grown with the town over the years.”
“So, it may well be that the different batches of flats that were offered to his constituents were offered at times when prices were fluctuating very wildly. So there must have been a very sharp difference in the resale prices from one batch to another. Hence, the sharp difference in the prices offered by HDB. But that is how the pricing works. When resale prices come down, HDB prices follow. And, similarly, when prices go up, HDB flat prices also follow. Those who have bought earlier at high prices obviously feel aggrieved. But I do not think we can accede to their request to actually give them a refund. If we wanted to do that, then I think we would either have to fix all prices the same irregardless of the time of year or when it is sold, or we would also have to ask those who have paid lower prices to top up when the next batch comes in. I think it is reasonable for the Member to make this request on behalf of his constituents, but I hope the Member would also agree with me that he is really trying his luck on this one. Sir, I hate to disappoint him. Some Members have also voiced concern about the role of HDB or the apparent move of HDB into better quality housing. Mr Lew Syn Pau and Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, among others, made these comments, expressing reservations about HDB's recent announcement of premium apartments. First of all, let me state at the outset that I agree with Members that HDB should focus on providing affordable public housing for the majority of Singaporeans. This has and this will continue to be the mission of HDB. There has been no change in housing policy or in the type of flats offered for sale by HDB. HDB has all along provided two categories of flats for sale to public housing applicants.”
“But that is precisely what I mean. The families with five children would have to have a different price. A family with six would have to have another price. That is exactly what I am talking about. I would advise Singaporeans to purchase their flats based on their needs and on their affordability. I do not think there is any problem with affordability. As the statistics and the experience of HDB show today, the 40% limit that is used to compute the maximum loan is not a problem. As I have explained earlier, the average family comes in way below the 40%. So there is really no problem with affordability. The problem arises when family expenditures become extremely high, and not necessarily related to family size. There are many families whose expenditures have got absolutely no relationship to family size, and yet because of their lifestyle, household expenditures are high. So, if we were to accede to that request, then I think HDB would have to go and do a means test for every family, and look at how much money they spend on children, on tuition, whether they have a car, whether they go on holidays, etc, etc. So let us not get into that. It is very messy. The present system today works fine and let us leave it at that. Prof. Chin asked a very specific question about the pricing of flats in his constituency. I do not have all the details at hand, but suffice it to say that, generally speaking, when flats are priced, they are priced based on several factors, one of which, of course, is the prevailing market price, because that is where the affordability issue comes in. At any point in time, in order to make the price affordable, you would have to benchmark it against the current market price.”
“In fact, what that means is that most HDB flat dwellers are able to service their mortgage loans entirely with their CPF contributions. To another question posed by another Member, there are very few HDB dwellers who do not pay their HDB mortgages in time. For 4-room flats, the mortgage instalments are roughly about 18% of the applicant's household income; and for 5-room flats, around the same, 19% of the household income. This is the amount of money that HDB dwellers pay as a percentage of their total household income, way below the 40% limit that Dr Wan was talking about just now. Mr Sinnakaruppan then posed another interesting proposition. He asked whether HDB can consider lifestyle and family size in the setting of flat prices for HDB. This is a very novel suggestion but this is going to send a very wrong signal to the people concerned. If we take that suggestion seriously, the logical conclusion is that there must be different flat prices for different families. If you have a large family, you have one price. If you have a small family, you have a different price. Mr Ong Kian Min, for example, who, I am told, has a larger than average family, would have to be given a higher subsidy in order to afford a HDB flat. Is that not right? 4.30 pm”
“First of all, the Government is committed to keeping the prices of HDB flats affordable to the Singapore citizens, especially to first-timers and to lower-income families. How is this done? By pricing HDB flats such that 90% of Singaporean households can afford at least a 3-room flat, and 70% at least a 4-room flat. 5-room flats and Executive flats which HDB used to build in the past but which they do not anymore, are additional choices for those households with higher incomes. In line with these principles, smaller HDB flats are generally given more subsidy. HDB does not follow the private sector's practice of pricing its flats on a dollar per square metre or dollar per-square-foot basis which is what Mrs Lim Hwee Hua was suggesting just now. If we did so, then the differences between large and small flats would be blurred. I do not think this is the intention of the HDB's pricing policy. This explains why the dollar per square metre of Executive flats, for example, is higher than that of 5-room flats, 5-room flat per-square-metre is higher than 4-room, and so on. And because of these affordability criteria, 9 out of 10 HDB dwellers today own their own homes. Dr Wan Soon Bee mentioned the 40% of household income that is being used to determine maximum loan quantum, which in turn determines whether a person can afford a HDB flat or not. If you take the average HDB flat prices, the average monthly mortgage instalment for a HDB flat as a percentage of his monthly household income, is way below the 40% criterion of a purchaser's household income. Dr Wan can be reassured that the 40% is not a limiting factor in terms of pricing and allowing HDB flat dwellers to own their own homes.”
“There is a wealth of experience built into this and this is manifested in the kind of public housing we have today. Before we move quickly into carving out HDB into two, or even three blocks and get them to compete with each other, we should pause a while and consider the implications of this. Having said that, there is a valid point in the sense that we should try as much as possible to involve the private sector in schemes to build and upgrade public housing. There is a difference between doing that and what the Member suggested, which is to create a competitor to HDB. How does Government do this at the moment? Through the design-and-build programme, the Main and Interim Upgrading programmes, the Executive Condominium scheme and so on. While I am hesitant to talk about a HDB 2, at the same time, I must tell the Member that we are always looking at ways to engage the private sector in public housing programmes and projects and if there is an area where the private sector can do a better job than the public sector, then I agree that we should give them the opportunity to do so. I do not see the need for Government to set up another agency at this stage to compete with HDB or to privatise HDB. We should not lose sight of the fact that a major component of HDB's mission is not about building flats. It is about social cohesion and community bonding. Those are things which cannot be easily measured in terms which the private sector understands. Many Members, like Mr Sinnakaruppan, Dr Wan Soon Boon, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua and Prof. Chin, amongst others, have spoken about the question of affordability of HDB flats. Let me, first of all, explain to Members how and what is the rationale behind Government's pricing policy of HDB flats.”
“Singapore owes a deep debt of gratitude to many men and women of HDB who have made this possible, led by many distinguished Chairmen, including the first Chairman, Mr Lim Kim San, Mr Howe Yoon Chong, Mr Lee Hee Seng, Mr Michael Fam and Mr Hsuan Owyang. Some time this year, HDB will be handing over the keys to the 800,000th family. This is indeed a great achievement. I have asked HDB to organise an event to commemorate this significant milestone. On specific issues raised by Members, Mr Sinnakaruppan made a very interesting suggestion and I think I should take his suggestion first. He asked whether the Government is prepared to introduce more competition into the public housing arena. He did not use the term, but I presume that he meant a HDB 2 because he still wants to have all the rules and regulations and subsidies associated with public housing. Over the past 40 years, HDB has accumulated a wealth of experience in public housing and the Member would not disagree with me that this, together with the economies of scale of building so many public housing units, has enabled the Housing and Development Board to keep development cost low and housing quality high. Our public housing is held in great esteem and regard by many countries and I do not mean just developing countries. Members who have visited the HDB, the Ministry and Singapore from the developed countries are equally amazed at how we are able, not just to develop and build, but also to maintain and keep HDB housing to the highest quality and standards. I was in Hong Kong recently. I went there to look at their public housing and they were quite frank in telling me that a lot of ideas were actually adapted from Singapore, and I am sure Singapore's HDB did the same.”
“Finally, there was the question about how we can factor IT into our commercial developments. Yes, this is an important aspect of the review and what the review will do is to take into consideration the rapid technological changes and their impact on the way we live, work and play. This would impact ultimately on the amount of land that we set aside for industry and commercial developments, etc. I believe I have answered all the relevant questions on the Concept Plan review. May I now respond to Members' questions on public housing. But before I do so, first of all, I would like to remind the House that the HDB is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. HDB was set up in 1960 to solve Singapore's housing problems. At that time in 1960, less than 9% of the population lived in low-cost housing. The majority lived in slums and squatter colonies. Today, 40 years later, as many Members have pointed out, it is 86% of our population living in HDB flats, and 9 out of 10 HDB dwellers own their own flats. And over these years, public housing has developed from the very basic, spartan low-cost housing units into homes and communities that our citizens are proud of. HDB flats are spacious, comfortable, well-furnished and affordable and provide residents with clean and secure homes within self-contained communities. Our public housing programme is one of Singapore's enduring success stories. It has given Singaporeans a stake in the nation. It has contributed to social stability in our nation-building process. When you talk about the Singapore heartbeat, if you want to find the Singapore heartbeat, go down to the HDB's heartlands.”
“In fact, we have gradually started to introduce mixed use and residential developments to create more life and vibrancy in the CBD after office hours. For example, if you take the Boat Quay development, when you look out of Parliament House, you will agree, if you are here in the evenings, how vibrant and how noisy it is. Fullerton Hotel is a development that has been awarded to a developer to create a top-class hotel and I believe that will also bring life into the city. Far East Square is another example. For our future downtown at Marina South, we will be zoning more sites as white sites. What these white sites allow developers to do is to give them flexibility to plan for wider range of uses so as not be constrained by URA guideplans. Mr Ong Kian Min and Dr Teo Ho Pin spoke about planning for the aged. Yes, this is going to become more important as our population ages. I chaired the Inter-Ministerial Committee last year to look at the problems of an ageing population and the Committee came up with a set of recommendations including the need to cater for the elderly in our built environment and the need to provide more facilities such as nursing homes, aged homes and other support facilities. URA and HDB will work together with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community Development and Sports to ensure that sufficient land is set aside for such uses. The Land Transport Authority has also factored the transportation needs of the elderly into its plans. Dr Teo also asked how we provide greenery within our built environment. We have, within our residential estates, provided a variety of parks and common green, as well as park connectors and these will form the green link between parks which is useful to enhance the quality of life.”
“We will be entering soon a phase which allows the URA to involve the public in various planning issues and the Concept Plan will be finalised after such consultation exercises. This public consultation will take place at different levels. There will be small focused group sessions with the professionals and informed members of the public to discuss issues and trade-offs that are faced in land use planning. On a larger scale, public exhibitions of the plan will be held next year. Again, this is another opportunity for the public to comment and to give feedback on these plans. With the participation of the public and with URA's proactive strategies, I am confident that we will be able to make Singapore a thriving world-class city in the 21st century. Sir, allow me now to address some of the specific issues that were raised by the Members just now. Mr Lew Syn Pau suggested that we allow a higher plot ratio for prime residential land in order to allow more people to live in the prime areas. Sir, this does make good economic sense and, as far as possible, this would be done, as indeed, it is being done today. But he would also agree that not every piece of land can support a higher plot ratio. There will be limiting constraints and factors, such as height constraints imposed by flight paths, as well as capacity constraints of infrastructure, or services, like roads, sewerage, etc. But as far as possible, this is something that will be done. 4.15 pm Mr Ong Kian Min, along the same lines, spoke about the need to bring more life into the Central Business District, such as Raffles Place. I agree with Mr Ong. Our CBD can be better utilised.”
“As the design quality of our buildings improves and as our construction industry matures, URA has also relaxed and reduced its development controls and urban design guidelines over the next few years. URA will explore various ways to further facilitate and encourage creative developments. It will review the existing development control and urban design guidelines, for example, those that pertain to the key districts, such as the Civic District, the Historic District, the Central Business District and the tourist belt along Orchard Road. All these can be made known. Architects, designers and planners will then know what areas need to comply with the guidelines. And outside of these areas, we can afford to be a bit more relaxed and only apply very minimal urban design guidelines. In this way, we hope to be able to encourage more creativity and more innovation in the design of the built environment. Another thing that URA intends to do is to establish an international advisory panel to provide ideas on planning strategies and proposals. URA is already currently engaged with international experts. But they hope that they can formalise this through the formation of such a panel which will comprise eminent experts from all over the world. After all, we do aspire to be a global world-class city of excellence. But we need to also complement their contributions with those of our local experts. Conferences and workshops will be organised to raise the standard of local design and also to promote, very importantly, appreciation by the public, the owners and developers of what constitute good and creative designs. Sir, the Concept Plan review is an exciting and a very important exercise.”
“And as a result of this, the proportion of private to pubic housing in the housing stock has risen steadily from 14% in 1990 to 18% today. This is going to increase even further because we recognise that we have to cater for a population which is becoming more affluent, which will have higher aspirations for more exclusive housing types and are prepared, willing and able to pay for them. But at the same time, the Government will continue to build sufficient public housing to cater to the majority of Singaporeans. For planning purposes, MND will adopt the housing mix of 75:25, in other words, 75% public, 25% private. But let me just say that we cannot cast these plans in stone. We have to take into account the changing tastes of the market. We must be flexible in order to accommodate any changes in the marketplace. While this would be the planning norm in the current Concept Plan review, the situation may change in subsequent plans. But for this particular purpose, we feel that this is a realistic and reasonable mix to plan for. We will monitor the market closely and we will have to adjust the public housing as well as the land sales programme as we go along in order to meet the changing aspirations of the people. That is the quantitative aspect of the housing and land use problems. But even as our planners strive to meet these quantitative aspects of housing and other needs, they would also do well not to neglect the qualitative aspect of our built environment. Our existing planning system has facilitated the development of a generally efficient, safe and attractive urban environment. But I think we can do more to enhance Singapore's attractiveness as a city.”
“There is, at the end of the day, a limited amount of land that we have in Singapore. So notwithstanding the many areas and many ways in which we can optimise land use, at the end of the day, we would still need to make very difficult trade-offs in planning our land use. For example, we would have to decide how much land we want to set aside for housing, and for a better quality of life, how much green space to set aside and, on the other hand, how much industrial land we need to set aside in order to attract industries, investments and dollars to create the jobs that will fuel economic growth. These are difficult decisions. Ultimately, the Government would have to make these decisions. But in arriving at these decisions, the Government would involve as many people as possible in the planning process. Not only do we let people have a say, but I think it is also good to let people understand the difficulties that are faced in arriving at such decisions. Collectively, Sir, we will have to determine the kind of city we want for ourselves and future generations. I come now to a basic concern of many Members, which is housing. Do we have enough land for housing? The short answer is yes. Even for a population planning target of 5.5 million, let me assure the House that there will be no shortage of land for housing. We have one million housing units today spread over 10,000 hectares of land. A total of 16,400 hectares of land have been safeguarded for housing over the long term. This is sufficient to house a 5.5 million population. For private housing, since 1990, the Government has systematically injected more housing units into the market through the Government land sales programme.”
“In Singapore, there are many places where buildings cannot go up beyond a certain height because of the height constraints, airspace constraint, and so on. Pollutive industries would be grouped together to minimise the constraints they impose on their surroundings, ie, sewerage treatment plants and noise polluting industries where buffers are required by law in order to protect the environment. These would be located together so that their buffers will cancel one another. Leisure and recreational facilities, such as golf courses, would be located within water catchment areas. Again, this is so as not to use up additional land. If necessary and if possible, we will put some of our infrastructure and services underground. The Environment Ministry is starting work on the deep tunnel sewerage system. Mindef is looking at underground ammunition dumps, or ammunition storage depots. We will encourage the co-location of compatible uses. Mr Ong Kian Min mentioned just now the possibility of providing recreational or eating facilities in our parks. This is indeed being done and some of our parks are already host to very thriving, very successful and very attractive eating places, for example, the Botanic Gardens. Then, we can also cluster different uses together. Community facilities, such as community centres and libraries, can be clustered together. This in fact is being done now, the first one being the Marine Parade community centre in the Prime Minister's constituency. By doing it in this way, by imaginative and creative use of land, or co-location of such facilities, we can save as much as 40% of the land compared to the situation where we have to build them separately. But we must also be realistic.”
“So obviously, we need to update our original 1991 Concept Plan population of four million. For this review, we are adopting a long-term population figure of 5.5 million. This includes citizens, permanent residents, employment pass as well as work permit holders. By long term, I am talking about some time in the middle of this century, 2040-2050, because that is the long-term planning horizon when we are talking about land use. But this does not, in any way, suggest that Singapore can only support 5.5 million people. Indeed, it would be very difficult for us at this point in time to know or to project what life is going to be like in 40 or 50 years' time. With further advances in technology, information technology, telecommunications technology, reclamation technology, building technology, transportation technology, we may be able to plan for a population larger than 5.5 million in future. But, at this point in time, for this current review, this is the number that we are looking at. Sir, our limited land space is a given in this exercise and we need to optimise the use of our limited land resources, as Mr Lew, Mr Sinnakaruppan and others have pointed out. In order to effectively accommodate more people, in order to provide more commercial, industrial and recreational space, we would have to optimise or maximise the use of this limited land. This means building upwards, high-rise residential apartments, commercial towers, high-rise flatted factories, and so on. HDB has announced that it will be building its first 40-storey block in Toa Payoh. If the response is good, HDB will build more where it is possible to do so. Uses that cannot go high rise are located where there are height constraints.”
“Sir, first of all, let me thank all the Members who have spoken. I am grateful to them for keeping their speeches short. Because I have got a fairly long agenda to take care of, I need a bit more time. Thank you very much, first of all, to the Members who have spoken on the Concept Plan review. This is a subject that I will first touch upon. Mr Lew Syn Pau, Mr Ong Kian Min, Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Sinnakaruppan, in particular, spoke about the Concept Plan review and asked questions regarding the upcoming Concept Plan review, and also raised several questions pertaining to that review. Sir, many of the issues raised are indeed being studied as part of this current Concept Plan review. The Concept Plan is a blue-print which guides our planners in shaping Singapore's physical development to make Singapore a thriving world-class city, a city which Singaporeans can be proud to call their home and, of course, to make it a livable city and attractive city so that foreigners want to come here to live, work and even settle down. In this Concept Plan review, the starting point is to decide, first of all, on what is our long-term population, what planning parameters do we use for population, because this decides how much we set aside for infrastructure, services, and so on. 4.00 pm In the 1991 Concept Plan, the figure that we used for planning purposes was four million. The focus then was on the indigenous and the resident population and that included of course PRs. Since then, we have attracted more employment pass and work permit holders in order to support the growing economy. As a result of this, the total population has grown rapidly from three million in 1990, when we were doing the previous Concept Plan, to about 3.9 million.”
“At the very least, they would have had greater ownership of the plans. And I hope the Member would agree that this is what we have done in this particular case. CULTS 3. Mr Gerard Ee asked the Minister for Home Affairs how his Ministry assesses registered groups which have been branded as cults by another government; whether it merely endorses the decision made by that government or carries out a separate assessment to come to an independent decision.”
“My Ministry intends to hold a series of discussions and consultations with the public on a broad basis and, after that, we will take in the people's views and inputs and finalise the Concept Plan. It does not follow that every single idea or input that comes to us can or will be accepted. I think the Member himself would agree that it is not possible for us to do so. And it is this very nature of consultation which gives rise to this result. Some ideas we may take in and some ideas we may not take in, or we may not take in any ideas at all. But that does not, in any way, suggest that there is no consultation. If you ask me if there is a specific formula or process, the answer is no. There are many channels open. First of all, there is a proactive approach that the Government takes in terms of major plans and policies. Then there is the iterative process of feedback and discussion, back and forth, and there are other channels such as private communications. My Ministry meets with the industry bodies on a regular basis, with the Singapore Institute of Architects, with individual architects, engineers and so on. At each and every meeting, there is opportunity for dialogue and discussion. And this is the whole purpose of having these meetings. So, there are many different channels, including writing directly to the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister receives many letters on this and many other issues. What is the right way to go about it? What is consultation all about? I think it is about giving people who are affected by the plans which, in this case, means all Singaporeans, a chance to have a say in the plans before they are finalised. As a result, if we may have missed something, if we do, hopefully this will be taken care of.”
“Sir, consultation is not something that we have suddenly discovered, that we have seen the light and now we have public consultation. If we look at the track record of the Government, not just my Ministry but other Ministries, there have been extensive public consultations in many, many areas. In this particular area alone, I went through in quite great detail the degree of consultation that took place more than 10 years ago, when the first plan for the Civic District was mooted. It was not just a plan that was put up. There was an extensive series of dialogue sessions chaired by the Minister himself. And arising from those dialogue sessions, there were a whole series of studies that were done. It was only in 1992 that the final plans were publicised and put into the public domain as a result of four years of consultation and studies. And even then, thereafter, when SMU was given the mandate to locate its campus in that area, I am given to understand that there was also a series of dialogues that were carried out with industry professionals, architects and members of the public. When a specific proposal came to us, we looked at it very seriously because the people who were behind this proposal were serious people. They put up serious proposals, spent a lot of time, money and effort in putting them up and I thought this was worth considering. There are many suggestions that unfortunately are not so serious. In fact, some of them are frivolous. I think those do not deserve the kind of attention that serious proposals deserve. This is the process that we have followed. Indeed, the Concept Plan is going to be reviewed this year and next year.”
“Sir, in the chronology of events that I narrated just now, it is quite obvious that there have been a lot of public dialogues and discussions on not only the subject of the National Library, whether it can and should be retained, but also the general discussion on the whole environment of the area. In this particular case, there was a very specific alternative proposal. This specific alternative proposal entailed a technical alternative, ie, to realign the tunnel. There was also a general proposal regarding the ambience of the area as it pertains to retaining the Park. I have met the proponent of the new plan, Mr Tay Kheng Soon, not once, but twice. I wanted to understand what was the rationale for the proposal and why he proposed it this way. I also wanted, at the second meeting, to evaluate the technical feasibility of it. So this is a very specific proposal which has to be dealt with, responded to and evaluated in a very specific manner. There have been, as the Member would agree, a lot of dialogues and discussions on the generalities of the proposal, whether the Library should be retained, the historical merits of retaining the Library as opposed to the perceived lack of architectural merit and so on and so forth. I do not think there is a need now for us to reopen the debate again, especially when there is on the table a very specific alternative proposal. I thought it was proper for us to evaluate and look at the alternative proposal seriously, and we have done this.”
“So my view is that there is no question that URA or any other relevant authority has not seen fit to reply to public suggestions on this issue.”
“We need to decide between a plan which provides a large unshaded open space and retention of the National Library building and one which seeks to bring more public activity into the centre of the area. With the former, the trade-off is a poorer road network, a tunnel which cuts the area into two and high rise buildings in an essentially low-rise environment. MND clearly prefers URA's plan as it is more people-friendly, facilitates better pedestrian flow and preserves the ambience and environment of the important Civic District. It also allows SMU greater flexibility to plan the area to meet their requirements. URA's plan brings about better coherence in the cluster of buildings for SMU in that it facilitates pedestrian traffic throughout the cluster without being subdivided by a Stamford Road which will carry heavy and fast vehicular traffic. MND acknowledges that some members of the public are in favour of retaining the National Library building. However, the Preservation of Monuments Board and the National Heritage Board have assessed that there are insufficient merits to preserve the building. Nevertheless, PMB will look into how the social memory of the building of the library can be captured and commemorated. We will also encourage SMU to incorporate in the design of its buildings features that would help Singaporeans evoke memories of the Library." Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the issue of the National Library has been extensively discussed and debated, both publicly and privately, not once, not twice, but many times, by way of public dialogues, symposiums, workshops, letters to the press and private consultations since 1988, and now this debate in the House.”
“However, he feels strongly that the Library should be preserved for historical and sentimental reasons. To avoid the Library, he proposes that the new road tunnel run alongside the current Stamford Road for a stretch and then dive down under it. This plan requires a long, deep trench, flanked by one-metre high parapet walls, to be created in front of the National Library up to the entrance of the National Museum. This will severely mar the landscape of the area and restrict pedestrian movement between Bras Basah Park and the National Museum area. URA's Planning Guidelines URA's plan for this area recognises the importance of retaining an open space and the visual connection between the Singapore Arts Museum and the National Museum. By allowing SMU's buildings and some public facilities to be built on the park, the plan seeks to encourage better public usage of the park. Capping the height of buildings around the Fort Canning Hill area to around 4 to 5 storeys will maintain the character of the Civic District and protect the view to and from the hill. The addition of low-rise institutional buildings would further enhance the civic quality of the area. The realignment of the existing Stamford Road and the building of the tunnel through Fort Canning Hill provides the most direct route for traffic moving from Marina Centre and the Central Business District to Orchard Road, and thus siphons traffic away from the Bras Basah area, making it more pleasant for pedestrians. It will provide SMU with more regular land parcels to work with. However, this alignment requires the removal of the National Library building. MND's Assessment Essentially, Mr Tay's and URA's plans seek to achieve different planning intentions, with very different start-points.”
“Sir, I have the Prime Minister's permission to release both letters to the public. May I circulate both letters to Members of the House for their information. [Copies of letters distributed to hon. Members.] Sir, may I refer Members of the House to my letter to the Prime Minister dated 28th February? In particular, may I read part of the letter starting from paragraph 3: "Mr Tay's proposal and URA's guidelines differ over two fundamental issues. The first issue is the extent of the open space in the Bras Basah area. The second issue is whether the existing National Library building should be retained. Mr Tay Kheng Soon's Proposal Mr Tay feels that the Bras Basah Park should be kept as a large open space with completely open views from the roads and unblocked by buildings, in order to retain what he perceives to be a crucial element in the mental map which Singaporeans have of the city. He thus proposes to create a sunken park below street level, reflecting pool, and waterfall; and to replace the current foliage with structured rows of palm trees to give this area a sense of monumental scale. However, the sunken park would restrict pedestrian movement between the various buildings at street level as the public would have to walk around the edges of the park to get to buildings on the other side. Since the MRT tunnels under the sunken park would limit the usable area, Mr Tay proposes to meet SMU's floor space requirements via clusters of tall buildings of up to 15 storeys at the foot of Fort Canning. These tall buildings would not be in keeping with the low-rise character of the Civic District with its many historic buildings. It would also block the views to and from the Fort Canning Hill. Mr Tay agrees that the National Library building lacks architectural merit.”
“In December 1998, SMU announced that it would build its campus in the Bras Basah area. There was a series of Forum page letters in the newspapers and direct suggestions to URA following the announcement. URA responded to these letters, and explained the plans to them. In March 1999, SMU chaired a public symposium on the physical development of its campus. Issues such as why SMU was located in Bras Basah Park, and the need to remove the National Library building were addressed by the URA representative at the symposium. URA also explained the issues to the press, and the press published these explanations on 20th March. On 15th January this year, SMU chaired a technical workshop to obtain feedback from architectural professionals on three alternative proposals put up by SMU's master planners. At the workshop, Mr Tay objected to the plans which proposed buildings on Bras Basah Park, and the removal of the National Library building. He subsequently called a press conference on 24th January to present his alternative proposal for the SMU campus. URA did not participate in Mr Tay's press conference because it was not invited. Neither could it respond to the proposal then as it had not received a formal proposal from Mr Tay. Mr Tay wrote to the Prime Minister about his proposal on 31st January 2000. The Prime Minister then referred it to my Ministry for evaluation. Subsequently, I met with Mr Tay on two occasions to better understand his plan. On the second occasion, I asked Mr Tay to present it to my Ministry officials with URA and LTA present to give their professional inputs. My Ministry made an assessment of Mr Tay's and URA's plans and I replied to the Prime Minister on 28th February. I am informed that the Prime Minister's Office has replied to Mr Tay.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I presume by "public suggestions" Mr Simon Tay is referring to the alternative proposal for the Singapore Management University campus that was submitted by Mr Tay Kheng Soon. If that is the case, then perhaps, before I reply to the Question, may I, by way of background, trace the history of the National Library issue. Sir, the possibility of the National Library building being removed was first made public in 1988 when the URA was formulating the Civic District Master Plan. URA held an exhibition on the draft Master Plan for the Civic and Cultural District which was the area around the Bras Basah Park area in April 1988. This was followed by a public dialogue in May 1988 between the then Minister for National Development, Mr S. Dhanabalan, and professional bodies and members of the public. There was general support for the removal of the National Library building to open up the view of Fort Canning Hill from the Bras Basah area. There was another proposal to realign Stamford Road behind National Museum so that the National Museum would be better integrated with Bras Basah Park. This would also entail the demolition of the library building. The public feedback led to further studies by URA and the former PWD on how to better integrate the land parcels in the area to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Several options were explored, including depressing Stamford Road, providing an alternative at-grade alignment behind the National Museum and a tunnel through the National Library. The only feasible option was the tunnel option, and this was subsequently incorporated into the Master Plan for the Civic District. The finalised Master Plan was completed and exhibited to the public in February 1992.”
“At the moment, the sense is that the grant is sufficiently attractive. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE USE OF HANDPHONES AND MUSIC HEADSETS 7. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give an update on the incidence of traffic accidents in 1999 involving the use of handphones and portable music headsets, and whether further measures, such as stiffer penalties or public education, will be necessary.”
“Sir, as I said, one of the most effective ways of revitalising the estate is the SERS programme. But of course that is not the only way to achieve that objective. Currently, there are already SERS flats in the area which have been earmarked for relocation of lessees from other locations. As and when there are surplus flats available in these particular locations, we will look into opening up these flats for allocation to new applications. And generally, as the Member himself has said, these flats are very popular with new applicants, especially the younger applicants. So with this particular programme, we will be able to go quite a long way towards the revitalisation programme. But having said that, I also would like to mention to the Member that there are also other schemes that are currently available to these people to encourage them to move into the mature estates, including those involving the Member. For example, the CPF grant scheme actually encourages and facilitates the movement of younger applicants into this particular estate. With the CPF grant, if you consider the fact that applicants who wish to move nearer to their parents can apply and receive a grant of $40,000, I think that is a considerable sum of money which will help facilitate the movement of these people to the older estates. So one of the ways that the Member can help is to publicise such schemes to his constituents or the children of his constituents and encourage them to come back to the older estates.”
“Sir, this is exactly what the Ministry is embarking upon, to try and revitalise and bring back some of the vibrancy in some of the older estates. This has got benefits not just to the new applicants who are interested to come to these estates, particularly those in the city areas, but also those who are currently living there, the shopkeepers as well as the residents. So we are now looking at the exercise on a systematic basis to try and identify more areas for the SERS programme. However, we have to bear in mind that there is a certain limit to the number that we can do every year, not least because the capacity of the ability to absorb such new flats will also be limited. We have to look for replacement sites for a start. We have got to make sure that replacement sites are sufficient to take care of the residents who will be relocated and, thereafter, we can start the programme. While we want to move as fast as we can, there is a certain limit to how fast we can move. But, nevertheless, I would like to assure the Member that this is one of the priority areas that the Ministry is looking at.”
“In the last few years, it has embarked on the SERS programme to redevelop the older public housing estates. Through this programme, HDB has been able to make better use of scarce land and build more flats in the mature estates. When HDB has accumulated a sufficient number of surplus flats from the programme, it will consider offering them to eligible public applicants. As for Executive Flats in the non-mature estates, HDB will monitor the take-up rate during the subsequent selection exercises and offer the remaining unselected Executive flats in phases to the public over the next few years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB launched an exercise to sell unselected flats in mature estates and Executive flats in non-mature estates on 15th October 1999. 1,170 units of 4-room flats, 5-room and Executive flats in the mature estates, as well as 1,500 units of Executive flats in the non-mature estates were offered for sale. The flats in the mature estates were previously set aside for special schemes, such as the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) and Relocation Programmes. As these flats were no longer needed for the various schemes, they were offered to eligible public applicants. Executive flats in non-mature estates which were not taken up by applicants on the waiting list were also offered. Response to the offer has been very good. At the close of application on 4th November 1999, HDB received more than 13,000 applications, about five times the number of flats offered. Applications for flats in the mature estates were about 10 times higher than the number of flats offered. As for the Executive flats in the non-mature estates, applications received were about 1.5 times the number of flats offered. HDB conducted a computer ballot and informed all the applicants of their queue positions. To help first-timers set up their homes early, they were accorded priority in the balloting. About 70% of the applicants shortlisted were first-timers. The selection exercise for the first batch of shortlisted applicants commenced on 7th January this year and was completed on 3rd February. The take-up for the flats has been encouraging. About 60% of the 2,670 flats offered were selected. The remaining flats will be offered to the other applicants according to their balloted queue positions. HDB will consider conducting similar balloting exercises from time to time.”
“Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) if he will elaborate on the survey on staff leave and welfare benefits conducted recently by his Ministry in respect of the small percentage of private sector establishments which offer stock option schemes to their employees; and (b) whether his Ministry will encourage the private sector to adopt employee stock option schemes as a recruitment tool to attract more and better manpower resources.”
“The primary objective of public housing has always been to provide affordable HDB flats to citizen households. This fundamental objective has not changed. Only Singaporean families are allowed to buy subsidised flats from the HDB, apply for the CPF housing grant to buy resale flats, and enjoy the HDB concessionary mortgage loans to buy new or resale HDB flats. About 29,000 flats, or less than 4% of the total stock of HDB flats, are currently owned by Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR) families. Over 80% of them bought 3-room and 4-room resale flats. SPR families are only allowed to buy resale flats from the open market at market price. They will not be entitled to the CPF Housing Grant. If they take up a HDB mortgage loan to buy a resale flat, they are required to pay the prevailing market interest rate. Hence, SPR families are not eligible for housing subsidy, whether direct or indirect. The same policy treatment which differentiates between Singapore citizens and SPRs is also applied by the Government under the Main Upgrading Programme, the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Programme, and the rebates for Service and Conservancy Charges. This differential policy treatment has ensured that our housing subsidies benefit only the citizen families. At the same time, SPR families are able to acquire reasonably affordable housing in Singapore when they contribute to our economy. They can enjoy the housing subsidies only when they apply for and are granted the Singapore citizenship. CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SURVEY 7.”