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 8 of 61.
“We have an asset which was bought at a subsidised rate, which has appreciated in value over the years in tandem with the growth of Singapore and its developments. It has allowed 80% of Singaporeans to share in that growth. I think that is truly a validation of our home ownership programme. As we continue to do well, we continue to prosper, then the people who buy the flats in this generation will also enjoy the fruits of their labour and the fruits of Singapore's success in the years to come. Column No : 1287 WAITING TIME FOR BUSES (Impact of new standard on transport fares) 3. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for Transport if the new standard which attempts to shorten the waiting time for buses will result in the increase of public transport fares for the commuters. The Second Minister for Transport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1st August 2009, the Public Transport Council (PTC) has tightened the quality of service ( QoS) standards for bus services. Eighty percent of bus services will now have to leave the bus interchanges and terminals every 10 minutes or less during weekday peak periods from the previous 15 minutes. For feeder services, 90% of feeder services now have to do so at 10 minutes or less, up from the previous 85%. To meet the tighter standards, the operators have added more than 260 bus trips to 109 services during the morning and evening peak periods. Frequencies of these services have improved by 18% and their carrying capacity by 24%. I would like to assure Members of the House that under the price cap formula, operators have to absorb the costs of these improvements and are not allowed to pass them on to commuters in the form of higher fares.”
“First of all, I have explained and shown that new flat prices are affordable. So I think there is really no issue that the new flat prices are not affordable. And I hope the Member accepts that particular point. But, yes, I grant that HDB flat prices have been going up very fast, much faster than incomes over the years. Indeed, they are much higher than those a generation ago. Is that not something positive? Is that not a reflection of the growth of Singapore? Is that not a reflection of how far we have come? Singapore today is very different from the Singapore of a generation ago when Mr Lim's parents bought their flat. The flats today and the flats in those days were also different. Some of the first generation HDB flats are still around. They are totally different from what you see today in Punggol, Sengkang, Bishan, even in Ang Mo Kio. For the flats in those days, we had to build them quick, fast and cheap. So we had no lifts on every floor, and that is the reason why we have the LUP programme today. And that is the reason Members are always chasing me for the LUP to be implemented quickly. No facilities, no transport, no MRT. So I think it is not unreasonable to expect that as the economy develops, as the country grows, that property prices in general and HDB flat prices, in particular, have gone up over time. This, I believe, is really a validation of our home ownership programme. Today, we have 80% of Singaporeans owning their own homes and these homes have appreciated in value over the years. I submit that that is something which we should be proud of. And this is something that is a result of good governance, good policies, and the efforts of everybody working together to make Singapore what it is today. As a result of that, we have asset appreciation.”
“We have to make the new flats affordable. When we price the new flats, we base it on two criteria: one, what is the market price of comparable flats in the region, in terms of size, in terms of facing, in terms of the kinds of flat – is it a premium flat? Is it a standard flat? Next, we apply a discount to that market price such that the nett price is affordable to that target group. If it is a 3-room flat, we make sure that, that 3-room flat is affordable. And I go back to what affordable means. It is that the repayment of the loan is below 30% of household income. If it is a 4-room flat, we make it affordable to the $4,000 income household and so on. So whatever the price we set, it must be affordable to that target group.”
“I am not sure, on what basis, Mr Low says that HDB is under-building. We have been building based on demand. As I said, the Build-To-Order system is a system that is responsive to demand. So if there is increased demand, as we are seeing now, HDB will up the building programme. In 2007, we built about 2,400 flats. Why? Because there were still flats available from our balance stock. So the demand for new flats was low and we built fewer flats. In 2008, we built 8,000 flats. Why? Because the demand increased. So from 2,400, we ramped it up to 8,000. That is an increase of about three times. Similarly for 2009, we will be building about 8,000 flats as well. Again, due to the increased demand. So the Build-To-Order system is a very responsive system. It does not over-build. I have explained earlier the dangers of over-building. If we over-build, we are going to cause resale flat prices to drop in value. But neither should we under-build. The BTO system allows us to match this supply of new flats with the demand. So I think there is no basis for Mr Low to suggest that we are under-building. If there is increased demand, we will step up the building programme. But this will require flat buyers to commit to this. In other words, they have to put down a deposit. They have to make that commitment. As opposed to a system in the past which we used, where people said, "okay, I will queue up to buy", but the moment the flat is ready in five or six years, the market changes and they tell us, "oh, I do not want to buy anymore". We ended up with unsold stock. I would like to assure Members that under the new system, we will be responsive to demand and we will ramp up the supply as and when necessary. New flat prices – how are they priced?”
“It even has a staggered downpayment scheme. So if you are young couple and you cannot afford the 10% cash, you can pay 5% cash now and another 5% cash can be paid at TOP. So I want to assure young couples who are about to get married or who have already got married, "if you cannot wait, then try to short-cut the process or short circuit the process this way". But they should not expect HDB to give them a readily-available flat in a mature estate at a price that they are comfortable with for everybody who wants a flat. I think that is simply not possible. Why? Because we just do not have the land available in the mature estates to be building the number of flats that people want. And that is the reason why we are now building new flats in Punggol, in Sengkang, Sembawang, Jurong West and so on.”
“First of all, the issue of "enough flats". What is "enough"? Let me explain how HDB tries to meet the demand for housing, not just for first-timers but also for second-timers. First of all, we build new flats. Secondly, we assume that some buyers will be buying resale flats. It is very important that we do so because, if we were to meet the demand just by building and selling new flats, who is going to buy the resale flats, later on, when you want to sell it? So some of the demand is met by new flats, some of the demand is met by resale flats. In this way we do not over-build and we maintain a certain price stability in the market. If we over-build, the consequences will be quite severe. The value of flats will go down over time. And of course, the building programme takes into account household formation – how many people get married a year, immigration rates, population growth, etc. These are the demographic parameters taken into account. Next, waiting time. Most new flats are now built on the BTO system, which is more responsive to the market – we will build when people want to buy, commit to buy. When people commit to buy and when HDB builds, the flats will be ready in about three years. I often advise young couples who come and see me who say, "no, I cannot wait three years", consider HDB’s Fiance/Fiancee Scheme. What they should do is plan ahead, book a flat under this scheme – and they are only required to register and to give HDB the marriage certificate, say, three months after the flat is ready. If they do it this way, sometimes it is even possible that they actually have a flat ready for them, when they get married. There are ways and means of shortening this process. And HDB is quite accommodating in this way.”
“To have the Government to ban COVs or to come in and impose itself on these transactions, I think is not the right thing to do. And indeed, you may remember that positive COV is not something that is there all the time. It was not too long ago that there were negative COVs. Flats were being transacted below their valuation prices. So under those circumstances, should we have gone in to insist that the buyer pay the valuation price? Surely not. Let us let the market decide what is the price. Let the buyers and sellers negotiate the price. And if a buyer shops around, I think there will be opportunities for him to have a flat within his budget, either at zero COV or even low COV, if he has some cash. The Member was asking, "why do we not provide a loan for it?" I think that would be an even more wrong thing to do because the moment we provide a loan for the COV, we are actually going to cause prices to go up further. I do not think that is going to help matters at all. That is the reason why it is not correct to do so and indeed it is not the prudent thing to do as well. If flat prices fall, then I think buyers will get seriously hurt.”
“The Member is very observant. But the prices that are cited in the Table do include the cash portion. Those are actual transacted prices. So they have included Cash-Over-Valuation (COV). But let me clarify that Cash-Over-Valuation is not something that is unique to HDB flats. It is part and parcel of any property transactions today, whether it is private or public. Basically it is the additional amount that the buyer is prepared to pay over and above the valuation. And that amount has to be paid in cash because the banks and HDB do not lend anything above the valuation. In fact, the guideline is that they must lend up to a certain percentage, up to 90% of the valuation. So whatever remains, must be paid in cash. I think that is the first point – it is not an HDB invention, it is not something imposed by the Government. So buyers can choose not to pay a Cash-Over-Valuation. And in fact, the latest data shows that almost one-third of transactions today, are transacted at or below the valuation. So COV is not a foregone conclusion. It is not evident for all transactions. One third of transactions today are done at zero COV. Obviously, there are no negative COVs because you do not expect the seller to actually pay the buyer. I would urge flat buyers to not get caught up in this and to just simply cough up the COV when asked by the buyers or agents. Be aware. Realise that there are flats available in the market – and there is a whole host of them – which are transacted below COV. Be prepared to shop around, do your homework and remember also that not all COVs that buyers ask for are realistic. In the free market, there must be this interplay between the buyer and the seller.”
“If he wants a bigger flat, then he has to go to a non-mature estate. Therefore, when we say that HDB flats are affordable, we are not talking in the abstract. We are talking in real terms. So when HDB makes a commitment that every new young family can afford a home, this is what it means. I think the Member had another question about income ceiling for 4-room and bigger flats – why we do not raise it. The first reason really is simply a question of limiting the subsidies. If we raise it, we have to provide more subsidies for people earning $8,000 and above. We are prepared to do that, but we are restricting families earning $8,000-$10,000 to only buying the ECs. They still enjoy the $30,000 grant. *Cols. 1437-1444. In the same way, if we were to open up the existing HDB market to the $8,000-$10,000 income households, the demand will be there and there will be some repercussions on affordability of HDB prices. So the same way that we have put the income ceiling of $2,000 for 2-room flats, $3,000 for 3-room flats, we are maintaining the income ceiling of $8,000 for all the rest of the HDB flats.”
“The median household income is $4,800. If Members cast their eyes to the last column, his cash outlay is $85, and that is what is happening today. Is that affordable? I think most people would agree that it is so. But then Members would say, that is for a new flat in a non-mature estate. What about a resale flat in a mature estate? Here, I bring Members to Table 2. At Table 2, there are several examples. Let us take the second example – a household earning $4,000 – this is about the median income. A household earns $4,000, if we take his CPF Housing Grant of $40,000, which he will be eligible for, and we take a $15,000 AHG, we work out what he can afford in terms of a new flat and what he can afford in terms of a resale flat. We look at the last column – for a new flat, he can afford a 4-room premium flat in Punggol, he can afford a 5-room standard flat in Woodlands or he can afford a 5-room standard flat in Punggol. These are actual prices. These are not estimates. These are actual selling prices. If he does not want a new flat or he does not wish to wait for a new flat, he can buy a resale flat. And what can he buy with his household income of $4,000? A 5-room flat at Woodlands, 4-room flat in Ang Mo Kio or Tampines or if he wishes to live in the mature estates in the downtown area – Toa Payoh, Bukit Merah, Bishan – he can buy a 3-room flat. So, basically, what I am trying to illustrate here is that at every income level, there are flats available and there is a choice, whether it is new or resale, whether it is in a mature estate or in a non-mature estate. But there must be trade-offs, and the trade-off is that if a person wants to be in a mature estate, he has to look for a smaller flat.”
“Because of that, HDB builds many different types of flats to suit different budgets, to suit different needs, to suit different tastes. In other words, HDB has a flat of every budget, from a 2-room flat all the way to DBSS flat. Sir, I have prepared some tables which I like the Clerk to distribute to Members to illustrate this point a bit more clearly. [Tables distributed to hon. Members*.] I want to spend a bit of time on this because I think this is an issue of some concern on the ground – all of us face it. I want to explain what is affordable in the market. For a person in different income categories, what is it that he can buy – both resale as well as new flats? What are the flats available in the market today which are "affordable" to him? Sir, the selling price today of a new 3-room flat is about $150,000 – this is a new flat in a non-mature estate. We are currently building new flats in the non-mature estates in Punggol and Sengkang. A median household income of an applicant for a 3-room flat is about $2,000. At $2,000, that family is eligible for the AHG of $35,000 – remember, I was talking about the AHG earlier. So, at the $2,000 household income, an applicant gets an AHG of $35,000 to buy a 3-room flat of $150,000 in a non-mature estate. His monthly instalment is $460, which works out to 23% of his household income, well within the 30% that I talked about earlier. More significantly is that this $460 monthly instalment can be fully paid up with money in the CPF account. What that means is that a 3-room flat can be purchased by a family with $2,000 household income without any cash outlay. I have worked out similar examples for 4-room and 5-room flats. For a 5-roomer, the average flat price is $330,000.”
“Sir, the Member asked about affordability. I think we need to be on the same page when we talk about affordability. What does "affordability" mean? To my mind, affordability is a function of both price of the flat as well as income of the families concerned. And what flat a person can afford to buy, obviously, depends on his ability to service the loan, because most people, if not all, would take a loan to buy a flat. Specifically, what we look at when we talk about affordability is what percentage of a person's household income should be set aside for his monthly mortgage payment after he has taken into account his children's education, his own monthly expenses, his medical bills, his savings, etc. As a rule of thumb, this amount of money that he sets aside for his mortgage payments should not be more than 35%-40% of his income. This is a general rule of thumb. It is an international norm. It is also a norm that, I understand, our banks use. But in the case of HDB, it has taken a much more conservative guideline. We have said, let us look at 30% of household income. In other words, if a person uses not more than 30% of his household income to service a loan to buy a flat, then I would consider that flat to be affordable. So let us start off on this premise. There are other criteria for affordability. But the ones that we are using are the ones that are most commonly used and accepted. So, if we take this criterion, then let us look at what is affordable based on this 30% limit. The current ceiling, as I said in my reply to the Member just now, allows for eight out of 10 Singaporeans to qualify – from somebody earning $1,500 or less to somebody earning as much as $8,000; and $8,000 corresponds to about the 80th percentile of Singapore households.”
“Furthermore, income ceilings were set for new 2-room and 3-room flats at $2,000 and $3,000 respectively. So, if your income is above $3,000, you cannot apply for a 3-room flat. Why? Because we want to ensure that the higher-income households do not compete with the lower-income households for the smaller flat types, so that we can enhance the affordability of the smaller flat type. Families whose household income exceed the ceiling can buy HDB flats from the resale market, where there is a wide range to choose from. Those with household incomes that exceed $8,000 – for example, between $8,000 and $10,000 – can buy Executive Condominiums (ECs). Just to remind Members, ECs are a good option for those who aspire to own a private property. First-time buyers can still get a $30,000 subsidy for their purchase of ECs. ECs can be resold to citizens and PRs after five years. And after 10 years, all the remaining restrictions are lifted and ECs, for for all intents and purposes, become private housing. I am pleased to inform Members that HDB will put up EC sites for sale in the confirmed list next year, to offer more housing choices for this target high income group. My Ministry will continue to monitor our subsidy policies to ensure that the majority of citizen families can afford public housing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government provides generous housing subsidies to Singaporeans. However, our resources are finite. So, there must be a limit to the number of Singaporeans who can qualify for such housing subsidies. The HDB income ceiling to buy new HDB flats or to be eligible for a grant to buy resale flats has been set such that the majority of Singaporeans can enjoy subsidised public housing. The current income ceiling of $8,000 per month allows about eight out of 10 Singaporean households to qualify. It is generous by any measure. The $8,000 income ceiling was last revised in 1994. We have reviewed it many times over the years but decided to keep it unchanged for several reasons. First, the coverage of housing subsidies remains high – as I said, about eight out of 10 households – so, we feel that there is no need to change based on this coverage. Secondly, our subsidy framework in recent years is to target more help for the lower income households. Specifically, in 2006, we introduced the Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG) to help lower- and middle-income families own their first homes. This is in addition to the CPF Housing Grant – the $30,000 or $40,000 – which is currently given to those with incomes below $8,000. So, in addition to that, we have introduced the AHG. The monthly income ceiling for AHG then, ie, in 2006, was $3,000. So if you had a monthly income of below $3,000, you were eligible for an additional housing grant. This income ceiling has been revised upwards twice from $3,000 to $4,000 in 2007, and then increased again to $5,000 in 2009. The highest AHG quantum has also been increased to $40,000, to give more to the lower-income.”
“The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) does monitor and publish the so-called flipping of properties, where buyers transfer their properties within a certain period after they have bought it. What is that period? It could be six months or a year. Different people have different interpretations of flipping. But again, as I have said at the outset, speculation is not an offence. People do speculate and they buy and sell for various reasons. I do not want to venture a guess as to who are the speculators and who are not. Let the market decide and let people who get into the market, whether they buy it for speculation or for owner-occupation or a combination of both, do so with their eyes wide open. As far as the Government is concerned, our job is to make sure that there is a level-playing field with sufficient information out there in the market so that everybody knows what is going on, with no imbalance of information and also, from time to time, when we see things starting to heat up, make certain calibrated corrective actions. Column No : 1274 HOUSING GRANT (Review of eligibility criteria) 2. Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the criteria used for setting the eligibility of the housing grant at the income ceiling of gross household monthly income of $8,000; and (b) when the housing grant income ceiling was last reviewed.”
“The main principle is caveat emptor or buyer beware. If you are a speculator and you lose money, that is your business. If you make money, of course, good luck to you! There is nothing against speculation. As I have said in my reply, what we are concerned about is if there is excessive speculation in the market because that can create a bubble in the market. And when that bubble bursts, there will be quite severe consequences all around. As far as foreigners are concerned, they are players in the market but the level of activity by foreigners is not that high at the moment.”
“The Member asked why there is a valuation gap between new properties and old properties in the same location. It is not for me to answer that question. I think the Member should direct that question to the developers. The point is there are new developments that are being sold at much higher prices than the existing ones and there are also buyers who are buying up these properties. In a free market, if developers price their properties in a way that buyers feel are fair or that there is some upside, then the developers will find buyers. If on the other hand, the market feels that property prices are excessive, buyers will not bite. I would rather not speculate on the reasons for the gap. I think sooner or later, the market will correct and find its level between new and old properties. There is, of course, a premium for new properties over old properties but how much that premium is or should be, is left to individual buyers and developers to decide. On foreigners with deep pockets – first of all, we do not disallow foreigners from purchasing non-landed property. If they wish to buy landed property, they have to seek permission from the Controller of Housing and the Ministry of Law. But if the Member is talking about foreigners buying non-landed property, then, yes, there is a significant number of foreigners who are in the market. We do monitor the number of foreigners who buy, and currently the numbers are not as high as they were in the heydays of 2006 and 2007. Nevertheless, there is quite a significant number. It is not a cause for concern at this point in time and I think there is really no need for us to act. My view is that speculation in property is not a crime and we do not catch anybody for speculating.”
“We will continue to allow the IAS for projects which have already been offered for sale and which had been offering the IAS before this announcement. The IOL will be disallowed with immediate effect. The Government also announced a number of assistance measures in Budget 2009 earlier this year to help stabilise the property market in view of the sharp fall in demand at the time and looming over-supply. These included allowing developers more time to complete their housing projects and allowing the re-assignment of Government sales sites. These assistance measures are no longer needed in view of the recent strong demand for private housing and improved conditions in the property market. As such, the measures will not be extended when they expire which will mainly be in January 2010. The details of these policy adjustments will be provided in a press release issued jointly by MND, MOF and MAS today. Sir, the Government has decided to take these measures in view of the current market conditions. Taken as a package, it will help to preempt any excessive price swings and promote a healthy property market. The Government will continue to monitor the property market closely and will introduce additional measures if required to promote a stable and sustainable property market.”
“Four sites on the second half 2009 reserved list have been triggered to date this year. While there are still 16 residential sites in the current reserve list that can be triggered by developers, we will enhance the supply when drawing up the first half 2010 reserve list to meet possible increase in demand. With reinstatement of the confirmed list and most sites on the reserve list, the public can be assured that there will continue to be a steady supply of private housing. MND will announce details of the first half 2010 GLS Programme towards the end of this year. Secondly, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will disallow the Interest-Absorption Schemes (IAS) and Interest-Only Loans (IOL) which are currently offered to buyers of uncompleted private residential properties. These schemes could encourage property speculation in a buoyant market where prices are rising rapidly. The IAS and IOL are forms of housing loans that entirely eliminate or substantially lower the regular interest instalment payments for property purchases in the first few years before the property is completed. Under these schemes, a property purchaser will not have to make any significant payment apart from the upfront 10% to 20% downpayment until the whole project is completed. Genuine home buyers can continue to purchase private housing under the standard payment scheme. Purchasing a property and taking up housing loans are major long-term financial commitments. The removal of the IAS and IOL will encourage perspective home buyers to consider carefully their ability to afford the properties over the long run and not rush into any purchases. The removal of IAS and IOL will take immediate effect for all private residential projects.”
“In this low global interest rate environment, Singapore's domestic interest rates have also come down. The key reference domestic inter-bank rate used for pricing housing loans, the Singapore Inter-bank Offered Rate (SIBOR), and the Swap Offer Rate (SOR), are near their historical lows at 0.68% and 0.43% respectively, compared to their 10-year averages of 1.83% and 1.91% respectively. These low interest rates have reduced the cost of property financing and encouraged a steady rise in the volume of bank lending for housing loans. If unchecked, this trend can lead to a rising spiral of demand and prices as more and more property buyers and speculators are drawn into the market. Property prices can potentially build up a strong rising momentum under these conditions. Such a development would make the property market vulnerable to the continuing risk in the global economy. Should growth turn out to be weaker than expected, property buyers and speculators could face capital losses as the market corrects. Conversely, if the recovery stays on course, then interest rates will eventually rise and drive up financing costs with severe implications for those who have over extended themselves. Given the current market conditions, the Government has decided to adopt several measures to temper the exuberance in the property market and preempt any speculative bubble from forming. Firstly, the Government will reinstate the confirmed list of the Government Land Sales (GLS) Programme in the first half of 2010. The number of sites on the confirmed list will be determined later when the GLS Programme for the first half of 2010 is firmed up. In addition, we will replenish the supply of reserve list sites in the GLS Programme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said publicly, the Government has been monitoring the property market very closely. It is in everyone's interest to have a steady property market where prices move stably in line with economic fundamentals. If excessive speculation develops and a property bubble forms, eventually a severe correction must take place and this will have serious consequences for the economy, the property market and property owners. We are currently seeing signs of heightened speculative activity although the level of speculation is not yet extreme. The proportion of buyers sub-selling their units has increased. Demand has rebounded very strongly since early 2009. Developers sold 10,000 units in the first seven months of 2009, more than the 4,300 units sold for the whole of 2008. At this take-up rate, the total sales for 2009 may well exceed the historical high of 14,800 units in 2007 – that was at the height of the fever in the market. Prices for some projects are also increasing in line with this strong demand. Based on the caveats lodged for property transactions, overall private property prices have started to increase significantly since June. The current low interest rate environment has also drawn more buyers into the market. Global interest rates are at a historical low. Why? Because governments and central banks around the world have taken extraordinary measures in response to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. Large fiscal stimulus packages were implemented and central banks in major economies lowered policy rates to near-zero and directly injected liquidity into the financial system and the economy. In the light of continuing weakness in the US economy, this monetary accommodation could persist for some time.”
“Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the LTA has reviewed the traffic conditions and impact on retailers in Chinatown and other CBD areas after the extension of ERP hours to 8 pm; (b) whether imposing ERP charges after 7 pm has had an adverse effect on a vibrant and attractive night life in the CBD; and (c) whether his Ministry is aware that residents staying in CBD are unhappy about having to pay ERP charges for driving home from work during the extended hours.”
“HDB’s mission is to provide affordable and decent public housing for the vast majority of Singaporean households. Housing subsidies are generous and calibrated to provide more for those in greater need. That is why there is a cut-off income for eligibility to buy subsidised public housing. The current household income ceiling of $8000 per month allows about eight out of 10 Singaporean households to qualify for subsidised housing. This is a generous cut-off which allows our limited housing budget to be spent prudently. As such, my Ministry does not intend to raise the income ceiling further at this time. Families whose household income exceeds the income ceiling can still buy HDB flats from the resale market, where there is a wide range to suit their budgets. If a family with household income of, say, $10,000 were to buy a resale 5-room flat in a non-mature estate at average price of $364,000 without any housing subsidies, they need only about 15% ($1,530) of their monthly income to service the mortgage loan(6), which is well within their means. In response to the Member’s question, those between $8,000 and $12,000 monthly income make up about another 13% of resident households. In other words, if the income ceiling were raised to $12,000, the housing subsidy would be extended to about nine out of 10 Singaporean households. The Member also asked about the mean income of a graduate couple that has been working for the past eight years. HDB does not have this data. (6) This assumes a 90% loan for the flat, based on non-concessionary rate loan of 3.82% for 30 year-term. IMPACT OF ERP EXTENSION ON RETAILERS 34.”
“Early this year, Traffic Police also partnered the Hindu Endowment Board to disseminate road safety messages and safety tips to more than 35,000 foreign workers through a special two-day event held at Little India. These outreach efforts are ongoing. Hence, Traffic Police conducts customised talks at dormitories, schools and community-level events to educate foreign cyclists on our local traffic rules and regulations. These talks cover a pre-riding checklist, safe cycling tips and case studies of accidents involving cyclists. Road safety exhibitions are also held at HDB neighbourhoods and workplaces such as shipyards. Many road accidents can be prevented if motorists obey traffic rules and remain vigilant, keeping a lookout especially for vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. On the other hand, cyclists themselves must act responsibly, exercising common sense; for example, they should not ride against the flow of traffic, or ride across a pedestrian crossing. When riding at night, to enhance their visibility, they should wear bright or light-coloured clothing and use bicycle lights, ensuring that there are reflectors on their bicycles. Traffic Police will continue to work with its stakeholders to reach out to all groups of road users. EMPLOYMENT DATA (Singapore citizens and PRs as distinct categories) 37. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower why the Government does not release employment data with Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents as distinct categories, rather than grouping the two categories together as "Residents".”
“This is to ensure that our limited supply of rental flats is optimised to help the truly needy. *The corresponding rates for 2R flat are: $150 (30% MR) and $240 (50% MR). FOREIGN WORKERS (Safe cycling) 36. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs given the rising number of foreign cyclists involved in accidents, what measures are being put in place to educate foreign workers on traffic rules and safe cycling. Mr Wong Kan Seng: The number of foreign cyclists who were injured or killed on our roads increased from 149 in 2005 to 282 last year. So far this year, the situation has shown some improvement. The number of foreign cyclists involved in such accidents declined in the first three months of this year compared to the same period last year: 58 cases compared to 75. During this period, there have been no fatalities this year, compared to three last year. Traffic Police has been working assiduously with its community partners to imbue key road safety messages in our foreign workers here, particularly those on work passes. It has produced and handed out posters on pedestrian and cyclist safety at these dormitories and to corporate partners and companies that employ a large number of foreign workers. As part of the ongoing Road Safety Outreach Campaign, Police have partnered the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to get the road safety message out early to newly-arrived foreign workers. A safe-cycling video in English, Bengali, Thai and Mandarin, was screened at the premises of MOM, Immigration & Checkpoints Authority and the bigger dormitories.”
“HDB’s public rental flats are highly subsidised. Eighty-three percent of rental households pay $30 per month for a 1-room flat, and $60 for a 2-room flat. These rents have remained unchanged since 1979. Despite the very low rents, some households in severe financial difficulty fall into rent arrears. HDB will exercise patience and give them more time. If necessary, HDB will also refer them to the Community Development Councils for help under the ComCare schemes. Households with family or other social issues may also be referred to Family Service Centres and other welfare organisations for help. The rental rates are calibrated to provide subsidy where it is most needed. Rental households earning below $800 per month pay $30 per month for a 1-room flat. Those with monthly income between $800 and $1,500 pay 30% of market rent or $110 per month for a 1-room flat. Tenants with monthly incomes exceeding $1,500 pay 50% of market rent or $180 per month for a 1-room flat*. They are strongly encouraged to consider home ownership. Nonetheless, we recognise that some rental households earning more than $800 per month cannot afford the higher rents. They may have a large household size, or they have family members suffering from chronic illnesses. HDB will take into account the circumstances of such cases and be flexible in considering such cases. If they have genuine financial difficulty, HDB will not impose higher rents on them. When a tenant or occupier of a rental flat passes away, the remaining family member is allowed to stay on. However, flats let out under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS) are meant for two single persons to flat share. Hence, HDB would require the remaining tenant to include another eligible occupier.”
“They should exercise due care and diligence when using unverified third-person remarks, reports or hearsay. Members should refrain from relying on unestablished facts or repeating unsubstantiated allegations in their speeches. I remind Members that they remain accountable to the House for their statements made in Parliament and that it is their individual and collective responsibility to maintain the dignity and decorum of the House. This is important to keep public trust in our Parliamentary system. Hence, when the Member concerned made a clarification yesterday and apologised for falling short of the high standards demanded by this House, he did the right and gracious thing. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION SEXUALITY EDUCATION PROGRAMMES IN SCHOOLS (Update) 1. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education (a) whether he will give an update on the sexuality education programmes being conducted in schools, specifically the processes and review of such programmes; (b) what other school programmes/activities have been outsourced to Voluntary Welfare Organisations and commercial organisations; and (c) what are the measures and guidelines that the Ministry has in place with regard to safety, moral and professional standards.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion to adjourn Parliament, I wish to make a statement regarding Members' privileges and responsibilities when they speak in this House. Sir, during the debate on Wednesday, 27th May, on the Address of Thanks, one Member made certain criticisms against the press, which he stated were based on an email from a person that he did not know and which contained allegations that he had not verified. I recognise that Members are entitled to be forthright and forceful in their comments in their speeches. The law accords the privilege of freedom of speech upon Members of this House and grants them immunity from civil or criminal proceedings in respect of statements which they make in Parliament. This is so that debate in Parliament can be free and uninhibited and the House can perform its functions without fear or favour. However, I wish to remind Members that such a privilege should be exercised responsibly in the public interest. Members have a duty not to criticise any person or body unless they are satisfied that these criticisms have a basis. If Members wish to rely on third-person reports or hearsay, they should first take steps to verify the identity of the authors and the accuracy of the statements. Members should not rely on such statements if they have not verified them, not even if they so inform the House. Members are, of course, entitled to express their own views and criticisms of persons or bodies based purely on public facts without relying on the opinions of anyone else. These personal views and criticisms, too, should naturally be well-founded. I, therefore, call on Members to be mindful of the high standards expected of them when they discharge their responsibility to the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 100, appoints the following Members to fill four vacancies in the Committee of Selection:- Ms Indranee Rajah Dr Lam Pin Min Mr Lim Swee Say Mr Mah Bow Tan. Mr Speaker, four Members in the Committee of Selection appointed previously by Parliament on 14th November 2006 have vacated their positions. These four Members are: Mr Iswaran, Dr Lee Boon Yang, Mr Wong Kan Seng and Mr Matthias Yao. This motion, therefore, seeks Parliament's appointment of four other Members to fill the four vacancies arising as moved. Resolved, That this Parliament, in pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 100, appoints the following Members of to fill four vacancies in the Committee of Selection: Ms Indranee Rajah Dr Lam Pin Min Mr Lim Swee Say Mr Mah Bow Tan. MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 91(5), may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure that Members would like some time to ponder over what the Prime Minister had said. So, under Standing Order 91(5), may I seek your concurrence to move that the debate be now adjourned?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's speech.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, under Standing Order 91(5), may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order No. 91(5), may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned?”
“Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport in the light of two passenger fatalities at MRT stations this year (a) whether he will give an update on the status of the programme to install Half Height Platform Screen Doors at MRT platforms that do not have screen doors; (b) whether the Government will accelerate the installation programme to prevent more accidents; and (c) what interim measures can be taken to safeguard passenger safety.”
“The extension of the Project Completion Period (PCP) is to allow developers to stagger or to phase in the development according to the market situation or how they assess the market situation to be. The decision of the banks on whether to extend their loans and if so, under what terms, is a separate matter. That is to be decided by the banks based on their relationship with their customers and also based on the assessment of the risks involved. As far as the extension of the PCP is concerned, this has helped many developers and allowed them to phase their developments according to demand. However, what is their relationship with the banks, how they negotiate with the banks and what the banks' decision ultimately is, is for the banks to decide. The situation, as I alluded to in my reply, is that the banks are still lending, although they may not lend at the same rates or under the same terms as before. However, that is a situation that I think we have to leave to the banks. As to her second question about the SRI – how much of it has flowed down to the construction and the property sector, I do not have the details with me off-hand. If the Member wishes to file a question, we will be happy to provide those answers. But let me just say that there are other financing initiatives that were announced, that developers as well as construction industry players can avail themselves to. For example, the Member may know that SPRING has an initiative which provides short-term financing or working capital for these Singapore companies. I believe some construction companies and some property companies, which can avail themselves to these funds, have already done so. SCREEN DOORS AT MRT PLATFORMS 5.”
“Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, Budget 2009 has allowed for a one-year extension to the project completion period. But feedback from a lot of the developers is that the banks will not extend loans for the one-year period at the same rate. In fact, they will be given less favourable terms. So, I would like to ask, is this in line with the original Government's intention? Second question – how much of the $5.8 billion of the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative (SRI) will flow into the market and, in particular, how much will flow into the real estate market?”
“Sir, under the current economic climate, banks have generally become more cautious in approving loans to businesses and companies, including property developers. These are commercial decisions that the banks themselves have to take, based on their assessment of the risks as well as the relationships they maintain with their customers. Nonetheless, banks are still extending loans to companies that they have assessed to be commercially viable and credit-worthy. Data from the MAS show that total loans to the building and construction sector, of which loans to developers account for the majority, saw a 22% growth in the 12 months leading up to February 2009. While this growth has tapered off in recent months, the total loans to the sector are still at a high level of $50 billion. Hence, we do not think the current situation warrants the Government stepping in as guarantor for loans to developers. Banks are still lending to developers, and they are better placed to assess the risks than the Government. Besides bank loans, a number of developers have also managed to raise capital through other means such as rights issue or private placement. Nevertheless, the Government is aware that developers, like other businesses, may be facing financial difficulties during this economic downturn. As part of Budget 2009, we have introduced several measures to ease the cashflow of developers. These include the deferment of property tax for land approved for development for up to two years, and the 40% property tax rebates for commercial and industrial properties. We will continue to monitor the credit situation closely. If necessary, we are prepared to introduce further measures to help developers through the current downturn.”
“Other sites of marine biodiversity significance such as Sisters’ Islands have been identified as Nature Areas within URA’s Special and Detailed Controls Plans. Marine conservation projects, such as the coral nursery established by NParks, NUS, NEA and Keppel Corporation, are also important components of our conservation efforts. To better manage our coastal and marine environment, including the protection of biodiversity, a Technical Committee on Coastal and Marine Environment (TCCME) comprising NParks and relevant government agencies was set up in 2008. We have in place stringent rules and regulations to guide our maritime activities. One key measure is the requirement for an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) to be put in place to ensure that development projects do not adversely affect our biodiversity. Singapore remains rich in terrestrial and marine biodiversity today, despite being small and highly urbanised. This has been achieved through deliberate efforts made at balancing development with nature conservation. We will continue to adopt a pragmatic approach and conserve our natural heritage as much as possible. INTERIM DISABILITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME FOR THE ELDERLY (IDAPE) SCHEME 35. Dr Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Singaporeans are now under the Interim Disablility Assistance Programme for the Elderly (IDAPE) scheme; and (b) whether there are plans to extend the list of medical assessors under the IDAPE scheme.”
“We have taken several measures to address the problem of fragmentation at our nature reserves. Let me highlight three key measures. First, we have improved the general condition of the forests through a reforestation programme. Over the years, forest edges and gaps in forest canopy have been rehabilitated with the planting of more than 17,000 native trees. Volunteers, schools, interest groups and corporate sponsors have contributed to this effort. Second, we have created buffer zones in the form of parks around the edges of our nature reserves to offer greater protection for the flora and fauna within the reserves. For example, the Diary Farm Nature Park currently under development would serve as a buffer at the edge of the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Under NParks’ draft Master Plan for Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, buffer zones would be introduced to protect the rich biodiversity cores within the wetland. Third, NParks is linking up our parks with nature reserves via tree-lined roads and park connectors so that together, they act as larger ecological entities which can better support bird and other wildlife habitats. The cluster around Bukit Batok Nature Park, Bukit Batok Town Park and Bukit Timah Nature Reserve is one such example. NParks is also studying the feasibility of building a link-way across the Bukit Timah Expressway to re-establish wildlife connectivity between the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and Central Catchment Nature Reserve. To protect our coastal and marine biodiversity, coastal areas with rich biodiversity such as those at Labrador and Sungei Buloh have been gazetted as nature reserves.”
“New sections 34A to 34E To facilitate the enforcement of the new Part VIA, sections 34A to 34E have been inserted. They deal with various miscellaneous matters such as composition of offences and obstruction to officers enforcing the Act. For example, section 34B has a standard provision to deal with corporate offenders and the officers or managers of such offenders. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill will enable a proper system to be put in place to ensure that imported construction materials meet the necessary quality standards, so that the structural integrity and safety of our buildings will not be compromised. It will also help to strengthen the resilience of our supply of essential construction materials. And it will formally authorise BCA to implement and enforce these important requirements. Sir, I beg to move. 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. > HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.26 pm”
“Penalty for importing without a licence The penalty for importing the stipulated construction materials without a valid licence is a fine not exceeding $500,000, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both. The severe penalty is necessary to serve as a strong deterrent, given that an unlicensed importer bringing in poor quality materials could endanger public safety. Revocation of licence For licensees who fail to comply with the licence conditions, the Bill will allow BCA to impose a range of actions including suspending the licence, and imposing a financial penalty or such other directions or restrictions on the licensee’s business as importer of such materials. The Bill also sets out the circumstances under which BCA can revoke an importer’s licence. The Bill will nonetheless provide the importer with recourse to appeal to the Minister before a licence is revoked. Sir, we have also taken the opportunity to make other amendments to improve some of the existing provisions in the Act. I will highlight the more salient ones. Amendments to sections 9 and 12(1) Amendments will be made to section 9 to empower the Minister to assign new functions and duties to BCA by assignment in writing, in line with the overall mandate given to BCA under the Act. Section 12(1) will be revised to clarify BCA’s delegation powers. The revisions will make it clear that while BCA has the power to delegate its functions, duties or powers to its members, officers or committees of persons, BCA cannot delegate this "power of delegation" given to BCA under this section, nor can BCA delegate the power to make subsidiary legislation given under this Act or any other written law.”
“For a start, the scheme will apply to the import of concreting sand and granite to be used for building work, street work or railway work in Singapore. Existing importers will be given six months to apply for a licence. The licence will be valid for not more than 24 months and is renewable. Quality tests Licensees must also apply for an import permit for each consignment of materials. Test requirements to determine the chemical properties of imported materials, to ensure that they satisfy quality standards, will form part of the import permit conditions. The tests will have to be conducted by an authorised analyst designated by BCA, similar to the practice today. Let me briefly explain what constitutes "quality" sand and granite. Both these materials contain a certain amount of silica. To be of acceptable quality, these materials must not contain more than a specified level of reactive silica. If a high level of reactive silica is present in sand and granite, this silica will interact with the alkali present in cement, causing an "alkali-silica reaction". This reaction, occurring over a period of time in the concrete, will cause the concrete to expand and form widespread cracks. Over time, the steel bars within the concrete would become susceptible to rust and corrode in our humid climate, causing structural weakness of buildings. Business continuity plan The importer will also need to furnish a business continuity plan to demonstrate the ability to mitigate any supply disruption of materials. BCA will evaluate the plan and issue a licence to the importers after it has been endorsed. In view of the current economic conditions, we will allow a lead-time of at least 18 months for the industry to comply with this requirement.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time." Rationale for key amendments The Building and Construction Authority (Amendment) Bill introduces a licensing scheme for importers of essential construction materials. Through licensing, we seek to achieve two objectives, namely, to ensure that imported materials meet requisite quality standards, and to enhance the supply resilience of such materials to Singapore. Let me explain. Currently, BCA administratively requires concreting sand and granite that are imported via its aggregate terminals to undergo certain quality tests. We will formalise the testing requirements as conditions under the licensing scheme. This will give BCA the proper legislative authority to impose these requirements on importers of essential construction materials. There will be no additional cost to the industry arising from formalising these requirements, since they are already imposed administratively. Sir, the disruption to our concreting sand and granite supplies, arising from the Indonesian ban on sand exports in 2007, reminds us of the importance to ensure the resilience of our materials supply. Through the licensing scheme, BCA will work with the materials importers to develop robust business continuity plans to guard against unforeseen supply disruptions. We have consulted the industry stakeholders on the proposed licensing scheme, and their feedback has been incorporated into the Bill. Sir, let me elaborate on the key amendments proposed. New Part VIA on supply of essential construction materials Clause 4 of the Bill will add a new Part VIA, to enable the implementation of a licensing scheme for importers of essential construction materials.”
“As I have said, if the Minister cannot understand what you are saying, he cannot give you a good reply. I also had to remind Members to be present in the House to move their cuts. Thanks to the collective effort of the Whip and hon. Members, this has not been necessary this year. Attendance has been good, so I urge hon. Members to keep it up. On this note, Sir, I would like to thank you and your Deputies, the parliamentary staff, the Clerks, the reporters, the interpreters and the librarians for the support, assistance and cooperation. There is another group of people we must thank. These are the members of the news media. They have been responsible for disseminating the proceedings in this House to a wider audience – reporting, summarising, analysing, presenting it over TV, radio and the newspapers in a manner which is easily understood by the members of the public.”
“It has allowed the debate to proceed smoothly while providing more than enough time for the major issues of the day to be aired as thoroughly as possible. Sir, this year's debate takes place at a difficult time for Singapore and Singaporeans. We face probably our severest test as a nation since Independence. Our response must be robust, determined and united. The Government has announced a Budget which includes the Resilience Package, unprecedented in size and scope. We have tapped into our reserves for the first time in our history. The role of the Members of this House is not only to speak up on behalf of their constituents but also to rally the ground. I want to assure them that their elected representatives have not let them down. Members have spoken up strongly on their behalf reflecting their hopes, their fears, their needs and wishes; big businesses as well as small, local and foreign workers, low income Singaporeans as well as PMETs, the young and the elderly. Members' speeches have been pragmatic as well as philosophical; sometimes witty, sometimes a little bit corny, sometimes sober, sometimes light-hearted, but never downbeat. If there is one catch phrase we should take away from this debate, it is this: let us upturn the downturn. Once again, Sir, I must express my appreciation to you and your Deputies for being firm, yet flexible in their administration of the guillotine and in allowing clarifications to be raised freely; also, for being flexible and adjusting the guillotine times everyday. This dynamic scheduling has allowed us to finish our business ahead of schedule. Last year, I had reason to remind Members to watch their time management, not to rush through their speeches. I am pleased that this year, this advice has to a large extent been heeded.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on behalf of hon. Members to thank you and your Deputies for so ably chairing the proceedings during the debates on the Budget and the Committee of Supply. Please allow me five minutes of your time. These last five days have seen a total of 52 Members speaking during the debate on the Budget. Fifty-seven Members filed 374 cuts in the Committee of Supply. The number of cuts was down from last year's 401 cuts. It is a clear sign that inflation in the number of cuts has been kept in check. Nevertheless, the quality of the debate has not been deflated. Members have made their points succinctly and no less passionately; speeches have been short and sharp. Members have planned the use of their time effectively, concentrating more fire power on their favourite topics or at their favourite Ministers. Forty-seven out of the 57 MPs use up their full quota of 18 or 20 minutes. One Member filed 16 cuts, another filed only one cut. The longest cut on a single topic was 10 minutes long; the shortest was half a minute. The three most popular Ministries were MCYS, MOE and MOH. The debate on MCYS lasted more than six hours. As was the case last year, clarification time was well used by both front and back benchers, filling in the gaps in the debate as well as providing further enlightenment. However, some Members' clarifications sounded suspiciously like speeches to me. They were even longer than the original cuts – which must have tested your patience somewhat, Sir. In fact, I am quite tempted to recommend that we introduce a countdown timer for clarifications as well. On balance, I am sure Members will agree with me that the new format is working well.”
“Yes. We are actually trying out one concept, which is a non air-conditioned food centre. It may not be called a hawker centre. We call it a food centre. We are trying out one in one of the constituencies. A private developer is looking at it and if it works, Jurong West may be the next candidate.”
“So you are saying for those who genuinely need a flat, why not rent a room for them? Yes, that is conceivable. But I can tell you, they will much rather wait for the rental flat.”
“In the first place, they should not be in the queue. This is what this whole exercise is all about. They should not be in the rental queue. They should not be in the queue for a heavily subsidised rental flat. Yes, if they are eligible under the old criteria, they remain in the queue. I do not see why we should be cooking up new schemes in order to give them a rental flat.”