S. Dhanabalan
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I said in my intervention on Tuesday that the general election is the right forum to determine the electorate's support because it puts the issue in a total and correct context.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with hindsight, of course, we can be very wise. But since one of the three islands was excluded, it was a substantial reduction in the scope of works. The assessment then, which I agreed with, was that if you called for a re-tender, you would get a substantially reduced tender.”
“To the extent that we can, we should work with countries that have a common interest, to come together and form economic groupings targeted at trade liberalisation. We have started this process within ASEAN under the AFTA Scheme. Economic linkages in groupings like APEC are also growing in significance.”
“Mr Speaker, all these questions make a lot of sense when the events are finished, and you look back. But the officer looking at the case at that time had to deal with the facts as they were at that time.”
“ASEAN countries agreed to publish all the Inclusions and Exclusions lists, as well as the full list of actual tariff reductions. The ASEAN Secretariat had since followed up and released, as scheduled, on 1st November 1993, the publications showing these lists.”
“Kallang Theatre was closed for five months in 1992 for cyclical maintenance and upgrading costing $3 million. This included a major upgrading of the toilets, recarpeting the auditorium, rewiring and repainting.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,635 lines we hold for S. Dhanabalan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 33.
“Sir, I will highlight the three significant aspects of the revised system. First, modification of the conditions under which development charge is levied. The development charge is a tax levied on a developer when he is allowed to use his land for a purpose that is more valuable than what is prescribed in the Master Plan. For example, a developer may propose a commercial building on a piece of land in an area which is designated as a residential zone in the Master Plan, or he may propose development with a plot ratio that is higher than the plot ratio that is prescribed in the Master Plan. Sir, when we compute the development charge at present, we measure the intensity of development in commercial, industrial and other non-residential developments by using the plot ratio. The plot ratio is the ratio of the proposed total floor area of the development to the total site or land area. For example, if you have a site which is 10,000 sq feet and you build a building with a floor area of 20,000 sq feet, then the plot ratio is 2, the floor area being twice the land area. So the plot ratio is the system of measuring intensity in the case of all non-residential developments. In the case of residential properties, the intensity of development is measured by density, which is the number of persons per hectare. There is an assumption, for example, that any house or flat which is up to 80 sq metres would be occupied by two persons, and that is how the number of persons per hectare is measured. So density which is the number of persons per hectare is a way of measuring intensity for residential properties and plot ratio is a way of measuring intensity for non-residential developments. Clause 8 of the Bill will streamline the system of computing the development charge.”
“All in-principle approvals granted before the commencement of this Act will have the same force and effect as provisional permission. The introduction of the term is also related to the implementation of the revised development charge system which I shall explain when I come to the second purpose of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill will insert a new section to enable the conservation authority to issue conservation guidelines for the conservation of any building or land within a conservation area. The conservation authority is required to publish and make available copies of such guidelines for free inspection and for sale at a reasonable price. Clause 6 will enable the Minister to make rules on the provision and requirements of car parks and the collection of the related fees. These functions will be deleted from the URA Act where they are at present. Clause 7 of the Bill will empower the Minister to make rules for the collection of fees and charges for services performed under the Act by the competent authorities. Such fees and charges shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund unless the Minister directs otherwise. The Minister may direct that such fees be paid to that agency or board. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to now move to the next objective of the Bill, that is, to give effect to the revised development charge system. Sir, my Ministry has received feedback from the building industry that the present development charge system has introduced uncertainty in development and has given rise to delays in obtaining planning permission. In response to this, in May this year my Ministry announced the implementation of a revised system of calculating development charges which will minimize the uncertainty and be simpler to use and easier to administer.”
“The appointment of competent authorities by the Minister to administer the Act can be done by notifications in the Gazette. With this intention in mind, the Bill will delete all references to specific government departments and agencies, for example, the Planning Department and the URA, from the principal legislation. It is important to keep the Planning Act detached from any organization so that there is flexibility in future to appoint any person or organization with the right expertise as the competent authorities to administer the Act without the need to amend the Act each time such an appointment is necessary. We intend that the new URA will carry out these planning functions through the appointment of its Chief Executive as the competent authority. This will be done by gazetting the Chief Executive Officer of the URA as the competent authority. These are the broad principles re-defining the legal framework for planning which I have stated as the first purpose of the Bill. Let me now take the main clauses in the Bill relating to this first purpose. Clauses 2 and 3 delete references to the Planning Department and URA. I have explained the reasons for this. Clause 4 will introduce the term "provisional permission". The term is the same as what is generally known as the "in-principle approval" which is given to a development application prior to written permission. It is valid for a period not exceeding six months unless extended by the competent authority or Minister. The provisional permission ceases once written permission is granted or refused. The introduction of this term will give legal status to a well established administrative practice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Planning (Amendment No. 2) Bill 1989 serves two main purposes. First, it redefines the scope of the planning functions in the Planning Act. This is done in conjunction with the establishment of the new Urban Redevelopment Authority which will amalgamate the functions of the present URA and the Ministry of National Development's Planning Department and Research and Statistics Unit. The new URA will be established under the Urban Redevelopment Bill 1989. I shall be moving the second reading of this Bill later today. The second purpose of this Planning (Amendment No.2) Bill is to revise the system of imposing development charges for permission to develop land. Let me first take the re-definition and consolidation of the planning functions. Mr Speaker, Sir, because of URA's present role in the planning of our Central Area and its role as the conservation authority, some planning functions are at present in the Urban Redevelopment Authority Act. Other planning functions are in the Planning Act. With the establishment of the new URA, we are taking the opportunity to re-define the legal framework for land use and development planning by placing the main planning functions in the Planning Act. These functions include the preparation of the Master Plan, the control of development, the regulation of car parks and urban conservation. This Bill will bring all these functions within the purview of the Planning Act. The Planning Act will therefore embody the full range of powers necessary for the Government to control, guide and promote proper land use and development in Singapore. The actual department or authority which will administer the provisions of the Act is not stated in the Planning Act.”
“In the past, HDB used to provide an exclusive lorry park in every HDB housing estate near the Neighbourhood Centre. To optimise on land use, however, HDB has since decided to provide lorry parking lots at the ground level of a multi-storey garage near the Neighbourhood Centre. In the case of Simei Housing Estate, 16 lorry parking lots, presently under construction will be provided on the ground level of the multi-storey garage at Block 248 near to the Neighbourhood Centre. Construction work is expected to be completed by August this year. THIRD LANGUAGE STUDENT POPULATION 3. Mr Lau Ping Sum asked the Minister for Education how many students have taken up a third language (Japanese, French or German) since the inception of the scheme and whether the scheme will be expanded.”
“There are sufficient carparks in HDB new towns near the existing MRT stations for commuters who wish to park and ride. These carparks are either within the town centres or within the residential areas. There may be vacant land around MRT stations in the fringe areas. However, these are earmarked for development. We will not be optimising the potential of the vacant land around the MRT stations if these are used for building carparks only. LORRY PARKS FOR SIMEI HOUSING ESTATE 2. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will provide lorry parks in the vicinity of Simei Housing Estate in Changi Constituency.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, after line 9, to insert - "(c) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: "(2) Members of the Board shall hold office for such period, not being more than 3 years from the date of their respective appointments, as the Minister may determine and shall be eligible for reappointment on completion of that period.'.". The amendment will give the Minister the flexibility to appoint Board members of the HDB for any period up to a maximum of three years. This is similar to the provisions in the principal legislation of other major statutory bodies such as the Port of Singapore Authority, the Economic Development Board and the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore. Amendment agreed to.”
“In fact, the way we worked it out, anybody who is earning $500 per month should have enough in his CPF to be able to afford a 3-room flat. And if he still cannot afford that, he can rent a 1-room flat or, where it is available, a 2-room flat. So we have enough flats to meet the demand. And I think Dr Lee must really go around Singapore and find out for himself what the present situation is. It is not the early 60's. They are not. We do not have thousands of people wanting to just rent cheap flats. People now have savings. They want to buy good flats. And that is what HDB intends to provide. 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 Dhanabalan]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -- ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 --”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I really admire Dr Lee's capacity to create facts out of his ignorance by just throwing so-called examples. First of all, I think he referred to Bridgestone. Government had absolutely no interest in that company. Primary Industries Ltd is not an HDB company. It is a company in which MND and now I think Temasek has the investment. It is not an HDB company. As to MND Holdings, yes, there was a dispute. MND Holdings is not held by HDB. I think it is held now by Temasek or by Minister for Finance. There was a dispute in the sense that whether certain operations such as the ownership of brick factories or granite quarries is entirely in accordance with section 13. I think it is. I think the Board's legal advisers held that it was so because it does say here expressly in section (e) "to do all such other matters and things as are necessary for the exercise and performance of all or any of the functions and duties of the Board." So I think it is a matter of interpretation. But in any case, to put this matter beyond doubt, that company is not held by HDB any more. Cheap rental flats. We have enough rental flats to meet the needs of all those who want to rent flats. We have enough 1-room flats, we have also enough 3-room flats for sale. We have more than 8,000 3-room flats. There are only 2,000-odd applicants on the waiting list. So we have something like four times the number of registrants for 3-room flats. The mortgage payment of 3-room flats, I have already explained, is almost equal to the rental for 3-room flats. And the terms for the purchase of a 3-room flat are so generous that I do not think anybody can say that he cannot afford it.”
“the name and address of the person who was in charge of the vehicle ...'' This is exactly the point. We lifted it completely from the Parking Places Act and this, I think, meets the point that Dr Lee made. I just wish that he had read further down instead of jumping to conclusions after just reading the first section. The last point is on remuneration to Board members. I cannot give the figures now. I doubt it amounts to anything very much. It is probably just enough to cover transport expenses. We do not pay Board members. All Board members give their services virtually free. But if Mr Chiam would like to put in a Question, I shall certainly give him the answer. Regarding quorum, I think it is quite right to leave it as it is because the amendment enables the Minister to appoint up to seven members. I may not appoint seven. I may leave it at five. So I think to keep the quorum at three is quite proper.”
“" I think Dr Lee owes this House an explanation on a list of Government investments that have gone bust, a list of Government investments that are doing well, a list of Government investments that are doing extremely well, to justify or to back up his statement that many Government investments have gone bust. This is news to me and I am sure it is news to many Members here. The HDB was set up to build flats for the population. Earlier in the sitting today, I explained how people's aspirations have changed. And for HDB to now confine itself, as Dr Lee suggests, to just building cheap flats for rental, it is just utterly ridiculous. I do not know where to start to explain the changes that have taken place in Singapore. We cannot even find buyers for 3-room flats, let alone cheap rental flats. Singapore has changed a lot. People can afford things quite different from what we thought they could afford 20-30 years ago. And if HDB is to build only cheap rental flats, I think it can just wind up. Because we have enough flats to last us for a long time for rental purposes. On the other point that Dr Lee made, I am afraid he just read the first part of the clause and did not read further down. He said that new section 27B is unfair as it puts the liability on the owner of the vehicle when a parking offence has been committed. And he said, "Why can't we follow the provisions of the Parking Places Act?" In fact, that is exactly what is provided for in this clause. If he reads further down, new section 27B, subsection (3) says: ''Notwithstanding subsection (1), [this is the one that Dr Lee quoted] no owner of a vehicle shall by virtue of this section be guilty of an offence if he - (a) within 7 days after service on him ... furnishes ...”
“Clause 3(1) says: ''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, form or participate in the formation of a private company or companies ...'' I would assume that when you form a company, you form it under the Companies Act. And when you form it under the Companies Act, you must be subject to the provisions of the Companies Act. Just as if this clause had read, "the Board may form societies", then it might form societies under the Societies Act and they will have to be subject to the provisions of the Societies Act. There is nothing here which says that a company formed under this clause will enable the company to completely ignore or act ultra vires the Companies Act. I do not know how that interpretation follows. Certainly, the people who drafted this never had that in mind and I am sure that that is not the reading of this particular clause. The second point I would like to make is the point that was much elaborated by Dr Lee. He said that HDB has formed companies which are illegal and that this is an attempt to make past illegal acts legal. I think Dr Lee knows that as far as this Government is concerned, we are always ready to be challenged on any Act and if he thinks that we have formed illegal companies, please by all means take the necessary action, take us to court, take the HDB to court to show that we have formed illegal companies. I deny certainly. All the legal advice that we have has enabled us to ensure that whatever HDB has done is within the HDB Act. The other point that he made was that this amendment would enable HDB to enter into all kinds of businesses which may end up in HDB losing money. And in passing, he mentioned, "many Government investments have gone bust.”
“(2) As has been pointed out, the amendment is a material one, I admit, in that HDB will now be able to form companies to carry out functions other than the functions that were set out in section 13. There is a very good reason for this. HDB has now been in existence for almost 30 years. It has accumulated vast knowledge and expertise in building and maintaining public housing as well as factories, as well as other public amenities, swimming pools, stadiums and so on. There is a tremendous market for this expertise outside Singapore. And I think we will be foolish if we do not take advantage of the knowledge and expertise that HDB has gathered so far to work with other private investors in Singapore or on its own to export these services. It will also be foolish for HDB not to enter into joint ventures with others to spread this expertise and knowledge within Singapore in the private sector. That is the reason why the present Bill amends the Act to enable the HDB to carry out these other functions. Of course, as drafted, HDB can do almost anything. But obviously commonsense will say that HDB will only go into areas where it already has expertise, or where it is necessary for HDB to invest in order to carry out its objectives. For example, HDB invested and owns brick factories and granite quarries. These were necessary in order to maintain a steady supply of essential building materials for HDB to carry out its functions. I am not a lawyer, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I was quite dumbfounded with the interpretation of Mr Chiam that because this clause enables HDB to perform functions as approved by the Minister, it therefore follows that the HDB can form companies to carry out functions ultra vires the Companies Act. I do not see how that follows.”
“Maybe one or two months before the law comes into operation. Now I take the points made by Dr Lee and Mr Chiam. First of all, Sir, quite a number of comments have been made on the amendment that will enable HDB to enter into joint ventures. This amendment has two results. (1) Under the present Act, HDB can only form wholly-owned companies. It cannot enter into joint ventures even for the purposes set out in section 13. This is very restrictive. Just to give one example, Mr Speaker, Sir. With the establishment of town councils, HDB set up a company to provide management services as well as cleaning and other services to town councils. Under the present law, these companies must be wholly-owned by the HDB. And HDB does not want to go on doing these functions. In fact, it wants to bring in other private shareholders into the companies and after some time divest its interest in these companies so that these functions can be performed by the private sector. But as the law now stands, it cannot do so. It cannot go through this interim period of bringing in the private investor and allowing the private investor to learn to do the job and then ultimately divest all the shares in the company. So the amendment now will enable HDB to form joint ventures to carry out any functions so that functions like estate management, estate cleansing and maintenance and so on can be done by the HDB together with other private investors. And at some future time, HDB can either completely divest itself or be just a minority shareholder. That is the first purpose that will be achieved by this amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, first of all, to deal with the points raised by Mr Chng Hee Kok. I not that he is not here. I am glad that he supports the need for penalty for late payment of instalments. As I mentioned, many cases of arrears arise not out of difficulty in paying,but because people know that there is no penalty interest and therefore they wait until the last moment. The interest is calculated on six months rest. So they wait until just before the six months before they pay the instalments. We shall certainly give sufficient publicity so that all HDB owners who owe money to the HDB will know that penalties will now be imposed. As to whether a reasonable grace period is required, this is something that can be looked into. I think with sufficient publicity, I do not see the need for a grace period. We shall certainly exercise flexibility in the sense that those who have genuine difficulties in meeting the mortgage payments, if they come early to the HDB and put forward their problem with a revised payment schedule and the payment schedule is reasonable, HDB will then revise the payment schedule. But what we do not want is the present situation where HDB has to write many letters of reminders, visit the owner many times and then ultimately threaten to take legal action and only then the mortgage payments are made. So where there are genuine difficulties, HDB will be prepared to be flexible. Let us say a main wage-earner has lost his job or is temporarily unemployed, if he approaches the HDB with a revised schedule HDB will be prepared to consider it. We will give as much publicity as possible. We will exercise flexibility in the same way that we have exercised flexibility until now. But I am not so sure whether a long grace period is needed.”
“This clause will empower HDB officers, members and employees of the Town Councils who reasonably suspect a person of committing an offence within the estate or town to request that person to furnish evidence of his identity. If the person fails to do so, he will be guilty of an offence. He will, upon conviction, have to pay a fine not exceeding $200. Finally, clause 13 of the Bill will enable HDB to serve summons for any offence under its rules or regulations, and any notice or document on persons other than owners of flats sold by the Board. The Board can do so by sending the summons, notice or document by registered mail addressed to the usual or last known residence or place of business of the person concerned or by leaving it at that address in a cover addressed to that person. This is similar to section 17(2) of the Parking Places Act. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The provision is necessary if HDB is to effectively enforce its rule against motorists who park their vehicles indiscriminately in the void decks or on the Board's common property. Clause 8 of the Bill will assist the Town Councils to carry out their mandatory estate management duties effectively. This clause will allow the HDB to delegate to Town Councils, and its employees and agents, the enforcement powers contained in the rules made under section 27 of the Housing and Development Act. Clause 9 deals with the appointment of the HDB's auditor in line with the Auditor-General's financial and auditing guidelines that statutory bodies have to comply with. The auditor appointed in consultation with the Auditor-General must be an approved company auditor, and be allowed to report directly to the Minister on any matter arising out of his audit work. Clause 10 will bring HDB's system of collecting and refunding tender deposits in line with Government's tendering procedures. The clause will allow HDB to accept a cashier's order and other forms of bank drafts instead of using cash for the collection and refund of tender deposits. It will also allow the HDB to retain tender deposits without banking them until the outcome of the tender is known. It gives tenderers and the public greater flexibility in choosing the most convenient form of payment. Clause 11 will enable HDB to use its funds for investment purposes. It will allow the Board to invest in the shares of any private company including its partially owned companies permitted under clause 3 and in any public company or in trust funds. Clause 12 of the Bill will help enforcement officers to be more effective in enforcing the Act and any rule made under the Housing and Development Act.”
“Clause 6 will enable HDB to make rules regulating the use and enjoyment of common property and open spaces of any land vested in or held in trust for the Board, and to impose a penalty on owners of HDB and HUDC properties for the late payment of loan instalments or other fees due to the Board. The imposition of such a penalty is to deter owners from habitually delaying payment of instalments and fees. HDB has to incur costs in sending reminders, monitoring the arrears that accrue and in recovering them. As at the end of April 1989, 11.1% (or 37,115) of all lessees were in arrears amounting to $30.2 million. Many are habitually late in their payments for no valid reasons. They put off paying their instalments until the HDB threatens them with legal action. The imposition of penalties to deter late payments is widely practised. Credit POSB, for example, charges 1% per month on any late payment of its loan instalments. Penalty fees will discourage such habitual late payments. Clause 7 of the Bill will give the HDB the power to compound certain minor offences under its rules, for example, parking offences and burning of incense papers on grass turfs. The amount of composition shall not exceed $400. This will enable HDB to deal more effectively with all offences under the rules. To facilitate action against those who commit parking offences, the owner of a vehicle that is not properly parked will be assumed to be the actual offender. He will, however, not be penalized if he can show that the vehicle was stolen or illegally taken or used. This provision is similar to the provision in the Parking Places Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Housing and Development Act so that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) can discharge its functions more efficiently and effectively. The amendments are necessary to help HDB meet: (a) the Board's operational needs; (b) the move towards greater private sector involvement; and (c) the transition in estate management from HDB to the Town Councils. Clause 2 of the Bill will allow the Minister to increase the number of Board members other than the Chairman and Deputy Chairman from five to seven members. It will also allow the Chief Executive Officer to be appointed a member of the Board. I shall also be moving, Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Committee stage a further amendment to allow Board members to be appointed for up to three years. The present provision requires Board members to be appointed for three years, no more no less. This is too inflexible. Clause 3 will allow the HDB to form companies in the future for purposes which are approved by the Minister. At present, HDB cannot enter into joint ventures or bring in other partners into its projects. It can only form wholly owned companies. This is too restrictive. The Bill will allow HDB to participate in forming companies with others and to grant loans to such companies. Clause 4 will revoke the HDB's power to request the President to acquire private land for purposes of the Board. This is to comply with the directive of the Ministry of Law. All such acquisitions must now be undertaken by the Land Office. Clause 5 contains the consequential amendments.”
“Sir, I think the Member should know that we have many incentives for the poor (those who can afford just a 3-room flat) to buy a 3-room flat. We allow them to book for a 3-room flat without paying any downpayment. We spread out the payments over many years, 20 to 25 years, such that the monthly instalment payment for a 3-room flat is about the same, maybe a dollar or two different from paying rent for a 3-room flat. So those schemes will continue. There will still also be rental flats available. But about 95% of HDB dwellers will, in fact, benefit from this upgrading exercise because the latest figures of application show that nobody wants 3-room flats anymore. They want 4-, 5-room, executive flats. That is the present demand pattern. But for those who cannot afford, and there will always be some, there are rental flats and there will be 3-room flats. SURVEY ON THE TEACHING PROFESSION The following Question stood in the name of Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri - 4. To ask the Minister for Education what are the main findings of the survey on the teaching profession conducted by his Ministry; and what steps are being taken to overcome the shortcomings in the teaching profession as revealed in the findings.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is already an on-going programme to deal with spalling, and that will continue. For wall seepage, I think wherever there have been complaints, HDB has attended to such seepage. Some of the upgrading may involve attending to the roof for example, because we can even change the form of the roof. I cannot give him details now. If the problems are very endemic and they cannot be solved except by, say, putting a new roof, of course that will be done.”
“We hope to keep the costs as reasonable as possible. Obviously many types of improvements are possible and we must keep the improvement cost in proportion to the total cost of the flat. That is one of the difficulties of this exercise - to try and get the maximum amount of improvement for the minimum amount of outlay. As I mentioned, the improvements involve some new techniques of construction. What we hope to do is to first try out the construction techniques and determine the cost by doing this in a few vacant blocks. We have selected some blocks in Yishun and in Jurong. Once we have already established what can be done and what it will cost, then we will select a few precincts as demonstration precincts where we can introduce all these changes. I think we would like to select for the initial demonstration project a mix of fairly old estates like Tiong Bahru GRC and some not- so-old estates, maybe 10 years or so. We have not decided when Tiong Bahru will really come in the schedule. But we have to make a very careful selection of the first few demonstration projects based on many criteria. When I have the programme in full, I will be able to give him more details.”
“I think this will have to depend upon the type of improvement. Improvements in a block outside the flat, obviously, if more than 50% agree, we may have to proceed with the work; similarly for improvements between blocks. So I think different levels of support will have to be required for different types of improvements. These are details that are being worked out.”
“Mr Speaker, as I have mentioned, the cost of this exercise or programme will be shared between the Government, Town Councils and the owners. We hope to work out some loan scheme for the owners, and these loans can be repaid over a period of time in cash. As to whether CPF can be used, this again is a subject we are considering. I will certainly be discussing with my colleague, the Minister for Labour, who is usually very reluctant to allow CPF to be used for various purposes. But I hope to persuade him to allow CPF to be used for this purpose. So we are in the process of working out the details of some special scheme which will make it easy for people to pay their share of the cost of this upgrading. As to what will happen to those who do not want to upgrade, the upgrading, as I said, will be of various types. For upgrading within the flat, obviously the flat owner will usually have the last say. For example, if he does not want to upgrade the sanitary fittings in his bathroom, so be it. He is prepared to accept whatever is there. We will not force him to upgrade. But certain improvements, for example, adding an additional bathroom, will have to involve everybody in the block. You cannot have somebody saying, "I don't want a bathroom." I think in such cases we will have to go on the basis of the majority. I think Members will be aware that in the case of the management corporations in private condominiums, if not more than 25% of the people living in that estate object to changes and improvements, it can be proceeded with. In other words, in order to stop an improvement, at least 25% must object to the improvement. We have not decided what ratio we should use. We can either adopt two-thirds, 75%, or simple majority.”
“But I do want to emphasize that this programme is not just to put right shoddy workmanship. A lot of what people perceive as poor workmanship is not because it is poor workmanship but we had to use cheap design and cheap materials because that was all the people could afford. We had to sell the flats cheap and that was what we have done.”
“I want to, first of all, say that this upgrading exercise is not just an attempt to put right shoddy workmanship. It is not that. Most of the appearance of poor quality that we find in HDB flats today is due to really, I would say, cheap designs and cheap materials. This was what we could afford. We had to house the people. We had to build the houses as cheaply as possible. We could not afford expensive designs and expensive materials. So the priority, as I mentioned just now, was to house them as quickly as possible. Now that people can afford something better we can use better materials and better designs to replace some of the old materials and old designs and that is what this upgrading programme will try to do. Within the flats, most of the poor finishes have, in fact, been attended to by the owners. They have upgraded the flat by laying very nice tiles, putting wall paper, false ceiling, and so on. Little work is needed within the flat, except for the addition, as I said, of bathrooms, toilets, and so on. So a lot of the upgrading will be in the common areas outside the flat - in the corridors, staircases, and so on because this again will help to improve the value of the flat. The value of the flat does not depend just on what is within the flat but also in the environment within the block and between blocks. Many of the items that HDB is now considering, such as introducing common conduits for telephone wires, electrical wires, repairing the staircases to put stainless steel nosings, re-doing the corridors, replacing lifts, improving the lift lobbies, creating a sense of entry into each block - all these will upgrade the value of the flat, and in the process of course some of the poor workmanship will also be rectified.”
“Sir, yes, the upgrading programme will include many items. It will include the lifts, lift lobbies, wiring in the corridors, putting the wires into conduits etc. It will include the shophouses or shops on the ground floor. All these items will be included in the programme. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I forgot to answer a question that was raised by another Member just now about poor workmanship. Can I just take the opportunity to answer this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have at present more than half a million HDB flats that have been sold. Even though not all will have to be upgraded to the same extent it is still a massive exercise. I expect the programme to take at least 15 years. As to how we will schedule or which estates will be considered for upgrading first, this is a detail that is being worked out. Obviously, in the initial years, we will have to have a combination of the older estates and some estates which are not so old. I shall be making, Mr Speaker, Sir, in a month or so a full statement on the details of this programme. But I do welcome other questions which I can answer in general at the present moment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, no. The formula that is being worked out will take into account the age of the estate, the original design, the extent to which upgrading has got to be done. The approach will be similar to the approach that we have adopted for Town Councils in working out the subsidy for maintenance.”
“The cost of this upgrading will be shared between the Government, Town Councils and the owners of the HDB apartments. How this will be done is being studied. As the upgrading programme will be a large-scale and long-term project, extensive studies and many pilot projects will be undertaken before we proceed with full-scale implementation. Starting this year, HDB will carry out its first pilot project on a few blocks of flats to test the design changes, construction techniques and cost of the programme. The first phase of the full programme should begin in 1991.”
“Each precinct will be a small area which the residents can relate to as their own, to enjoy and be responsible for. We will also modify the residential blocks to restrict access by non-residents to the corridors and other public areas within the blocks, so that residents can control access to them as if it is their own private space. We aim to create small communities with a distinct sense of identity, ownership and belonging, so community ties in each neighbourhood will be stronger and residents will not feel compelled to move in order to upgrade. The upgrading programme will encompass: (i) Improvements within the flats, for example, changing of sanitary fittings and the addition of another bath/toilet for flats with one bath/toilet; (ii) Improvements in the block outside the flats, for example, upgrading corridors, staircases, the lift lobby and the facade design; (iii) Improvements in the precinct outside the block, for example, linkways between blocks and multi-storey carparks, so that surface carparks can be replaced by landscaped areas and children playgrounds; and (iv) Building of new blocks for sale on vacant land where rental blocks have been cleared. HDB will identify the types of improvements that are practical and give value for money. Different levels of upgrading are possible. Town Councils will be responsible for seeking the views of the residents and deciding on what upgrading works to carry out for each precinct before HDB embarks on the programme for that particular precinct. The extent and type of improvement works will thus vary between blocks and between estates, depending on what the residents prefer and how much they are willing to pay.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when HDB embarked on its public housing programme, Singaporeans were facing a critical shortage of housing and we had to solve a huge housing problem quickly. Quality and distinctiveness had to take a lower priority, especially in the early years. The result was many large public housing developments which were uniform and lacking in finish and character. Now, 78% of our people live in purchased HDB flats of their own. We have overcome the housing shortage. With continued economic growth and rising affluence, Singaporeans aspire for a better quality of life. More and more HDB applicants are seeking a high quality flat to invest their savings in, rather than just a roof and shelter for their family and themselves. The Government is confident that it can fulfil these aspirations for a higher quality of life. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, a higher quality of life is the central thrust of our Vision for 1999. Letting our people upgrade to better homes as they progress in life and become able to afford them was set out as an objective in the Agenda for Action. HDB will soon launch an upgrading programme which will bring about a quantum change in the quality and character of public housing. This programme will improve the interior and exterior of flats in existing HDB estates, and progressively convert them into precincts and communities of middle-class housing, comparable to or even better than the latest HDB projects at Pasir Ris and Bishan. The upgrading programme will do more than give a facelift to old blocks. It should bring about a complete change in the perception of public housing. Each HDB estate will be divided into small precincts of five to seven blocks.”
“You can stand up or sit down and examine the formulation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a very simple point. I have mentioned certain figures. The Member says, "I want to look at the calculations." I say, "All right, I will give you the calculations." All I am asking is, "If you see the calculations and you agree with the figures, would you openly support this increase and further increases to recover costs in the first instance?"”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, how can that be a fair suggestion? All I am saying is that if I can show figures which verify, which support and confirm the figures that I have mentioned, will the Member then openly support the increase, and further increases to recover costs in the first instance?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, point of clarification. First of all, if the Member has no reason to believe that these figures are wrong, I think he should not say anything to imply that until he has checked the figures he would not accept them. The figures that I gave are carefully worked out. They are from audited accounts. Secondly, I would like to reiterate the point that I made: that while in the first instance we want to recover costs, obviously car parking charges must go beyond that in order to equate demand with supply. And even if he knows that the cost is at a certain level, it does not mean that car parking charges are going to stop at that. May I also ask him: if I were to provide him with the figures and if he is satisfied, will he openly support the increases?”
“Does he have any reasons to believe that these figures are wrong?”
“Is the Member suggesting that I did not give the right figures?”
“I am not sure whether if I had held back this revision to next month, it would have raised any less objection or furore in the public mind. Since measures for transport policy were being put together, I thought it expedient to include the car parking revision charges within this package. We could have postponed by a month or two, but I do not think that would have made the bitter pill any more palatable. I hope that Members will appreciate that the $25 increase in season parking charges is necessary and appropriate and reasonable, and it is the only way in which can move towards full cost recovery, and it is the only way in which we can allocate scarce land resources and scarce car parking spaces to theincreasing demand for such car parking spaces. We will continue to provide subsidies for home ownership, but it is not feasible for the Government to subsidize the parking of cars.”
“In view of the very strong views expressed, maybe we can stretch out this period over three or four years. But we must target as an immediate short-term target to recover full costs. So the target is clear and notice has been served to car owners in HDB estates that, in the first instance, we will move towards full recovery of cost, of $80 for surface lots and $150 for covered lots. But in the long term, car parking charges cannot just be pegged merely to recover costs. As I have said, there will be increase in demand for car parking lots and limited number of car parks, and therefore parking charges must reflect the limited supply as against the increasing demand. Otherwise, how do we allocate the car parks? One long-term solution that I am considering is to identify lots within HDB areas where either the HDB or some private company which can buy the plot can build multi-storey car parks. Car lots in these multi-storey car parks can be sold on long lease, say 10 or 20 years, to those who want to buy them. And those who buy these car lots can be assured of a car parking space for their car and they can also be assured of a fixed cost or known cost for the period of the lease. I am asking the Ministry to actively consider this solution. So those who want to buy cars can at the same time have the option of buying a lot to park their car. The cost, of course, has to be worked out and it must obviously be at minimum full recovery. If it is private sector, of course they would want to have some profit, and this would have to be looked into in detail. The point has also been made that the revision of car parking charges should not have been made now together with the package of measures on transport policy.”
“Members have made the point that the increase to $50 is unfair because it affects only those living in HDB estates and does not affect those who have their own car parks in their semi-detached or terrace houses or in condominiums. That is so. Those who buy landed property or private condominiums where car parks are provided, pay much more for their homes. And the extra that they pay gives them additional benefits, among them, a car park. The HDB residents do not pay for the car parks. That is why private houses cost more. HDB flats are subsidized and the price at which we sell HDB flats does not include the promise of a car park. Now coming to the costs. The average land and development costs for HDB car parks are $14,443 for an open surface car park lot and $32,581 for a covered lot. This is a lot of money. The annuities to recover the cost, assuming an interest of, say, 5% and a pay back period of 99 years, are about $740 per annum for a surface lot and and about $1,700 per annum for every covered lot. If we include the recurrent costs, that is, the maintenance and other cost which amount to about $170 per annum, the full economic recovery will be about $80 per month for an open surface lot and $150 per month per covered lot. These are rounded figures. $80 for open, and $150 for covered lots. Therefore, even after this revision from $25 to $50 for surface car parks and $50 to $75 for covered car parks, HDB residents are only paying 66% of the cost of open car parks and about 50% of the cost of covered car parks. So we are not recovering costs. The Ministry has a target to increase car park charges to recover full costs within two years, ie, from $25 to $50 and to $80 for surface lots, for example.”
“If we make the changes now and get the HDB residents to accept the fact that the cost of car parks will have to be paid fully, this will restrain the demand for car parking facilities and our new estates and our new towns can be better planned with more pleasant surroundings. The increase of $25 in season parking charges has been seized upon by many Members as a 100% increase. Of course, it is a 100% increase. This is one of the ways to use statistics to alarm or mislead or to lie. From $1 to $2 is of course 100% increase. One has to look at the absolute figure. Is $50 too high? I think Members, especially those who have travelled and seen other cities and Members who know the car parking charges in other cities, would know that $50, in absolute terms and also in terms of proportion to the average income of the car owners, is extremely reasonable and is well below the level required to recover the cost of providing the car parks. Before I go into details on the cost of providing the car parks, I must clear a misconception. The point was made by Dr Tan that provision of car parks is a statutory requirement. It is not. There is also the misconception that the cost of HDB flats, which I have mentioned many times in this House, includes the cost of car parks. The cost of an HDB flat does not include the cost of car parks. In the first instance, we do not sell the HDB flats to recover the cost of the flats. But even in computing the cost of the flats, the costs of car parking facilities are not included. So this is a misconception that I would like to clear. The car park facilities are separate. They are separate costs and revenue centres. Thus, when an HDB lessee buys his flat, there is no implicit or any other kind of understanding that a car park is also included.”
“If we had slowed down this increase, instead of $25 to $50, we had $25 to $30 and went at the same pace, it would mean many more years of under-pricing valuable and scarce land. In the meantime, demand will increase and put greater pressure on land use. Cheap under-valued parking will make car ownership attractive. I have heard the argument being made here that this increase to $50 will hit the 3-room flat owners most. This Government's policy is to make home-ownership affordable. It is not this Government's policy to make car ownership affordable. By keeping the car parking charges low, we will in fact make car ownership more attractive and I am surprised that Members are making the argument that 3-room flat owners should not be charged the full car parking charges as others because it is very onerous for them. This means that we should make car ownership affordable to all and it is something that would be irresponsible for the Government to Government to hold out to the people because we just do not have the land in Singapore to do that. The demand for cars and car parking facilities will accelerate as the economy grows, and once we are in this trend of trying to make car parks available for all those who want, it will become very hard to disengage from the trend. It makes much more sense to make the changes now when the demand for parking facilities within Housing Board areas is more manageable. HDB's building programme is not complete. It is far from complete. New homes are being built, new towns will be built.”
“If we continue with this practice, it will mean that more land will have to be set aside for roads within HDB estates and more land will have to be set aside for car parks, meaning less land for homes and other economic necessities as well as other social amenities like parks and open spaces. The amount of land devoted to roads and car parks in HDB estates is already very high. It is higher than the national average. For example, in Ang Mo Kio New Town, land taken up by roads and car parks covers almost one quarter, 25%, of the town. This is the same as the amount of land taken up by the actual flats, the residences of the people living there. Roads and car parks take up 25%, the flats take up another 25%. So the same land which is used for housing is reserved for the exclusive use of car owners, and car owners make up only about one-third of the HDB residents. It is therefore manifestly unfair for the majority of HDB residents, the two-thirds, who are not car owners, for the car owners to be charged less than the economic value of car parking facilities. If more land in HDB estates is used for car parking facilities, there will be less land for other purposes, as I have mentioned, for open areas, neighbourhood parks and so on. These alternative uses can be enjoyed by the community as a whole. I think there is no doubt that we must charge a rate that covers the economic cost at the minimum and I would elaborate a little bit later on what these costs are. The question is, of course, whether we should have increased from $25 to $50. Should we not have started from where we stopped, ie, continue with the $5 increase every year?”
“Is it merely to increase revenue for HDB? Yes, the increases in charges would result in increased revenue for HDB. But that is not the primary reason. The reason goes beyond just mere increase of revenue. The reason for revising the charges is to move towards full recovery of the economic cost of providing car parking facilities and to also reflect the social cost of providing car parks. Of course, it also supports the overall policy of restricting the growth in car population. This Government has deliberately practised a policy of subsidizing home-ownership by the people. Today, 85% of public housing in HDB estates are owned by the residents and the policy of subsidizing home-ownership has worked. Can we extend the same policy of subsidy to car parking facilities? From the land use point of view, this is not possible. I have mentioned these figures before but I want Members to take note and think about these figures. At present, roads, car parks and related land transport take up 6,200 hectares or 10% of the total land area of Singapore. This is a big figure but the figure is even more significant and noteworthy when we compare it to the amount of land occupied for housing. Housing takes up 12.8%, let us say, 13% of the total land area of Singapore. So roads, car parks and other land transport facilities take up 10%. Housing is just a little bit more. This is a very big proportion of land used for roads and car parks. Obviously, increases in car population will lead to increase in demand for car parks as well as roads. In the past, HDB built car parks in its estates in anticipation of demand. This practice cannot go on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a number of Members have spoken on the subject of the revision of HDB car parking charges. Members who spoke on the original motion which has been termed "conciliatory" as well as the amendment which I would term "combative" or the third amendment which I think Dr Tan Cheng Bock has termed "chaotic", have all spoken on the same subject and I want to thank them for raising this subject because it gives me an opportunity to explain the reasons for the revisions. First of all, I would like to remind Members that this is not the first time that car parking charges in HDB estates have been increased. I would like to remind them that in 1984, HDB revised season car parking charges from $15 to $20. The following year, in 1985, the charges were increased from $20 to $25. We should have continued with these annual increases of at least $5 every year and we should have increased the charges every year in order to more accurately reflect the cost of providing car parks in HDB estates as well as to ensure that the car parking charges fit in with the overall transportation policy. If we had proceeded with an increase of $5 every year, I think we would have this year a rate of $45. We did not proceed with the original plan of an annual increase because in 1985 we had a recession. All the Members are aware that the Government took pains to reduce rates and tariffs wherever possible in order to increase competitiveness. In such a context, it was obviously not appropriate to raise car parking charges. As a result, no revisions were made after 1985. Now that the economy is fully recovered and growing at a healthy pace, it is only appropriate to make a long overdue revision. What is the objective of raising the season parking charges?”
“Section 29(2)(d) provides that audible signals will be given in the prescribed manner for open mobilization. Reservists will be told how to identify these signals. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The proposed section 29(3)(f) therefore provides that the presumption of the reservist's knowledge of the order is rebuttable within the first six hours, when the order is transmitted by pager, telex, fax or other telecommunication device. In other words, although the reservist is presumed to have received the order immediately it is sent, within the first six hours this presumption can be rebutted, for example, if the reservist can prove that the office containing the fax machine was closed and unmanned. Only after six hours have passed will he be deemed conclusively to have received the order. The proposed section 29(2)(i) provides that the order can also be served on the reservist by telephone at his workplace. Where it is received by a fellow employee who is above the age of 16 years, the same six hour limit will apply. This will enable Mindef to contact reservists during working hours, and not just in the evenings or on weekends. Presently, families of reservists already relay mobilization orders to them. A natural network has evolved over the years, which has worked well. We want to encourage reservists to extend this network to their workplaces as well. A reservist's colleagues must realize that he defends not only their families but also their jobs. Often these colleagues are themselves reservists, or they are the wives or girlfriends of reservists. They understand this. The amendments also look ahead. The Government intends to install an island-wide public warning or siren system within three years. Although this system will primarily be for civil defence purposes, warning the population of impending air raids, it will be an additional means of open mobilization.”
“The law should be tightened to reflect what is achievable on the ground. The amendments thus reduce the current statutory presumption of knowledge for open mobilization from 12 to six hours. It is absurd not to use the excellent tele-communications network in Singapore to mobilize the SAF. Nearly every household in Singapore has a telephone. Last year the SAF conducted a pilot mobilization exercise using telephones. It was a success: 92% of the reservists responded when contacted. Often when the reservist himself was not at home, the call was taken by members of his family or household, who then relayed the orders to him. Family members know it is vital for reservists to report for service as soon as possible. This is as it should be. We want to institutionalize this system. The proposed sections 29(2)(a) and (g) allow the SAF to mobilize reservists via the telephone. The reservist will have knowledge of the order immediately he receives it by telephone. This is like the existing position when the notice is served by hand to the reservist personally. The reservist is also deemed to have knowledge of the order when it is received by a member of his family or household who is at least 16 years old. The same presumption already applies when the notice is served to a family or household member by hand. Besides the telephone, reservists can be contacted by other telecommunications means such as the pager, telex, facsimile, or Teleview. The proposed sections 29(2)(j) and (k) cover the use of these means. Because telex and fax machines are mostly in the place of business or employment of the reservists, there may be times, for example, at night or on weekends, when the reservist will not be immediately aware of an order which has been transmitted to him through telex or fax.”
“2) BILL "to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 1988 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ENLISTMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1.38 pm Order for Second Reading read. The Second Minister for Defence (Services) (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." During the 1988 Budget session, I informed Members that Mindef was planning changes to the law to do three things: (a) to cut down the response time for mobilizing reservists; (b) to make better use of telecommunications to mobilize them; and (c) to requisition civil resources in the same way that we mobilize reservists. The amendments to the Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act, which I shall move later, give effect to these changes. The Enlistment Act was promulgated almost 19 years ago. It provides for only a limited number of ways in which reservists can be mobilized. Mindef must either serve the order to report to the reservists individually in person, or it has to announce the order over the radio or television. The Act makes no provision for telephones or pagers to be used, or for codewords to be broadcast in place of the entire mobilization order. The mobilization system can be improved to upgrade the operational readiness of the Armed Forces. In recent open mobilization exercises, over 98% of the reservists have reported to camp within six hours of the first announcement over television. But under the Act, the reservist is conclusively deemed to have knowledge of the order only 12 hours after its announcement over the air.”