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 5 of 33.
“I would like to inform Members that, as a result of the various measures taken by HDB, such as the conversion and upgrading of the vacant flats, we have, in fact, been able to reduce the number of vacant flats very, very substantially from 36,000 a few years ago to 5,000 now. And as far as the new flats which are under construction are concerned under the booking system, the take-up rate is very high -- it is more than 95% -- so we do not expect to have a large number of vacant flats which will require us to relax the conditions pertaining to the sale of these flats. The last point he raised was whether we could reduce the current deposit of 20% to 5% for the purchase of HDB flats. He said this is because the buyer has to wait two to three years before the new flat is ready. The first point to note is that this 20% requirement is not a new requirement. Even under the old waiting list system, the moment a buyer registered for a flat, he had to pay his 20%. Under the old waiting list system -- he did not know when he was going to get the flat, or where he was going to get the flat, or what the cost of the flat was going to be -- this 20% was based on the price at the time that he applied, and it need not reflect the price at the time that he is actually allocated the flat. So there is no change as far as that is concerned, and 20% is really not an unreasonable amount. In fact, in the private sector, it is much higher, and on top of that, buyers have to make progress payments as the construction progresses. It is not onerous also because, if you take an average couple having a family income of $1,800, wanting to buy a 4-room flat in a new town, like Chua Chu Kang, such a couple will be able to accumulate the 20% required in about 2 1/2 years of working life.”
“A one-time cost of improvements to markets, to hawker centres; and one time write-off of those buildings that were demolished are all expensed in the year in which the event occurs. Therefore in that particular year, it will appear that the rate of return has gone down. So the figures have to be taken with some care, if you want to get the correct picture. I would like now to go on to the items raised by the other Members. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked when the upgrading programme will be extended to Cairnhill. I am sorry I cannot tell him the exact date because the programme for the other constituencies will only be decided after we have the present demonstration phase well in hand. The overall programme for upgrading that we announced sometime ago is expected to take about 15 years and at that time we estimated it may cost anything up to $15 billion. But the programme as well as the figures are constantly being revised and we would be able to give a better answer when the demonstration project is well in hand. The Member also asked whether the upgrading programme will result in a slowdown in the building of new estates. The answer is "no". The new construction programme will continue without in any way being affected by the upgrading programme. In the last five years, HDB constructed 92,000, 3-, 4- and 5-room flats and in the next five years, HDB expects to build 112,000, 4- and 5-room and Executive flats. I think the Members are aware that we are not building any more 3-room flats, so, in fact, the programme for the next five years excludes 3-rooms, but includes 4-, 5-room and Executive flats. The Member also asked whether, in view of the large number of unoccupied flats, we are prepared to relax some of the conditions for purchase or rental of these flats.”
“For major projects, the standard time taken is 22 weeks, and that is what BCD has set for itself as a target. We will, of course, try to improve the target. The average time taken for minor projects is 15 weeks, just over the 13 weeks' target set for by BCD. And the average time taken for the major building projects is 23.8 weeks which is, again, just above the standard time that BCD has set for itself. BCD will try its best to achieve the standard time and even lower the standard time that it sets for itself for processing. We are quite aware that the construction industry is constantly looking at the processing time taken not only by the Building Control Division, but also by the Development Control Division. These are closely monitored and I, myself, take a very detailed interest in the time taken to process the applications. The other detailed points that the Member raised the second time he stood up to speak, I will deal with them now. On the increases in HDB's administration cost, again the figures do not tell the whole story because there are extraordinary items. For example, improvements to branch offices, instead of being spread out over a period of time, are all expensed in one year, the year in which the improvements are incurred. Similarly, for computer software installed in the branch offices to deal with the public, these again are expensed off in the year in which they are incurred. So it happens that in 1992, the expenses will all be written off in the year, and, therefore, it shows a higher amount in the administrative cost. The same reply goes for the return on investment (ROI).”
“The other point that the Member raised was the Building Control Division's (BCD) processing, and whether a better measure of its productivity would be the time taken to process. Yes, I agree it is one measure, although it is not entirely a satisfactory measure because the time taken to process an application depends not just on what BCD does, but on the quality of the applications that it receives. I would like to inform the Member and the House that there are quite a number of professionals, architects and engineers who submit very incomplete plans. Unfortunately, under the present system, BCD has to go through these plans and detail all those items that the professional, or the qualified person, has left out which he has to amend. In other words, there are professionals who submit very unsatisfactory plans, wait for BCD to come back with a full detailed list of all the things that need to be done to make the plan passable, and then they just use the list and do the work. This, of course, is getting BCD to do the work which they should be doing in the first place. We are looking into this. We will change the system so that such incomplete plans will be given back to the professionals, without the detailed list of amendments, and they will have to do the work which they are paid to do. So the quality of the applications is an important component in determining the final processing time. We are tracking the processing time taken and we have set certain prescribed standard times, in terms of weeks, for the checking of plans of the construction and building plans. For minor building projects, the standard time that BCD has set for itself is 13 weeks. This includes, of course, time taken to consult other departments, not just BCD alone.”
“All other costs such as other technical staff costs, administrative overheads, rents, building maintenance costs, computer costs, all these were not included before 1989. The present system is to compute them on a full cost basis to reflect the real cost of such planning work. And therefore the Member has noted a very large increase in the processing cost of planning applications. But these costs were previously incurred but not costed into the planning operation. URA has in fact been reducing the time and cost taken to process and respond to development applications. So if you compare like with like again, there is an increase in productivity. 3.45 pm Similarly, for the other point he made on roads, the cost of roads per kilometre, 1992 seems to be lower than 1991. The 1992 costs were based on a few contracts which were very highly competitive and, therefore, the costs appeared to be lower. The 1991 costs again include other items, such as bridges, and so on, which cost more. Here again, I am assured by PWD that if you compare them on a like with like basis, the difference is not very substantial. The next point the Member raised was about the PWD's development expenditure per dollar of manpower, whether the turnkey projects have resulted in an increase in productivity, so that for each dollar of manpower cost more development expenditure is incurred. That would be so, but for the two years under consideration, that is 1991 and 1992, it is not a significant factor. PWD has been farming out smaller projects -- projects of less than $10 million each -- to the private sector for turnkey designs, but the cost savings have not yet been reflected. So the increase in productivity, under this indicator, is a real increase, and not just due to farming out the projects.”
“Some of these indicators which compare the last two or three years may not give an accurate picture because these indicators have to be taken over a long period, maybe 10 years or more. And if you look at them over a 10-year period, there will be kinks in the graph which may be due to particular extraordinary expenditures or events in a year. But you want to see the trend over 10 years. But if you just look at it over two or three years, it may be misleading. Let me just give an example. The Member mentioned that there is a 13% increase in expenditure on manpower in 1992 compared to fiscal year 1991, though there was a reduction of 119 posts. I think he compared the revised 1991 figure with the projected 1992 figure. The revised 1991 figure is an actual figure which excludes posts that were not filled during the year. At the beginning of the year when the estimates are made, all posts which may be filled during the year are included in the expenditure on manpower. But in the revised 1991 estimates, obviously, by now we know whether we can fill these posts, and we have excluded those posts that cannot be filled. The 1992 figure includes a large number of posts that we hope to fill, and therefore there is this difference. If you compare like with like, the increase is very, very marginal. Similarly, on the other details that the Member raised. For example, he had noted that the processing cost of development applications increased substantially over the last five years. Really the increase is more apparent than real. It is due to a different way of calculating the cost. Before 1989, the costs were computed only on the basis of direct technical staff involved in the processing of the planning applications.”
“The other point that Dr Tan made, which is a more valid point, is that the number of foreign workers required depends on the nature of the work. For example, in trenching and earthworks where a lot of unskilled workers are needed, it is very difficult to get local workers to do the work. We in the Ministry at one time did consider allocating different ratios of foreign workers depending on the type of construction activity. But this is very complicated and we decided in the end to settle for one ratio for all, and allow market forces to determine how the workers should be distributed. We are quite aware that there are contractors who have excess workers, who lend, as it were, workers to other contractors who need these workers for certain types of work. But I want to assure the Member that we are constantly monitoring the workings of this ratio and we will be flexible in applying the ratio of 1:3. Where there is clearly a greater need for foreign workers because of a particular type of work, we will, in fact, be prepared to consider increasing the number of foreign workers. So it is not an inflexible 1:3. But, overall, we want to try and have a cap on the number of foreign workers allowed in the industry. The Member is right that we cannot continue to depend year after year on foreign workers, or increasing the number of foreign workers in the construction industry. We have to try and improve our productivity in order to do with less foreign workers. The other points that the Member raised were more detailed points arising out of the various indicators given in the Budget book. First of all, let me make a general remark.”
“That is what I said. Sir, may I repeat the point. The previous ratio was 1:2 -- one local worker to two foreign workers (local workers are defined as Singapore citizen, permanent resident, and a skilled foreign worker). The new ratio is 1:3, and local workers are re-defined to include only the Singapore citizen and the permanent resident. The skilled foreign worker now comes under the foreign worker category. It appears as though the new definition deprives the construction industry of some foreign workers. But if you look at the details, that is not so. The number of skilled foreign workers who originally were defined as part of the local force is less than 1,000. So under the old ratio, for each such foreign skilled worker, the contractor could have got another two foreign workers. He has actually lost out about 2,000 workers as a result of the shift from one part of the ratio to the other part. But, on the other hand, by liberalising to 1:3, we have given him three workers for every one Singapore worker. There are altogether about 40,000 Singapore workers in the construction industry. Previously, for the 40,000, you could have got 80,000 workers. Now you can have 120,000, which means 40,000 workers more. As against that, a loss of 2,000 workers is really very marginal. Overall, the construction industry can get many more foreign workers now under the new policy of 1:3, though re-defined, as compared to the old system. In fact, this whole scheme was well explained to the representatives of the Contractors' Association. So I am quite surprised. I hope that the people who gave him the feedback were not members from the Singapore Contractors' Association Limited (SCAL), because they are fully aware of the changes and what these mean.”
“He made a point about the new foreign/local worker policy. I do not know where he got his feedback from. It is quite surprising to me that he has been given to understand that this new ratio in fact is not much of an improvement of the old one. The old ratio was two foreign workers to one local worker (skilled foreign worker defined as part of local workers). The new ratio is three foreign workers to one local worker (local worker defined as Singapore citizen or permanent resident). He is right that skilled foreign workers are now defined as part of the foreign workers.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to take, first of all, the general remarks made by Dr Tan on the construction industry, after which I will go to the more detailed questions that he has posed on the budgetary allocation for MND. I must confess, Mr Chairman, Sir, that some of the questions he has posed really remind me of the viva examinations in the University. They are very detailed. Obviously he has gone through the figures with a fine-tooth comb. I hope he is not trying to trip me up. Sir, on the construction industry, I agree with Dr Tan that the large-scale public construction activity is really an opportunity for us to upgrade the productivity and technology in the industry. In fact, the HDB has for some years now been paying great attention to increasing productivity. In public housing, more than 20% of the materials used in public housing are prefabricated components. As a result, also with very strict management, the output in public housing, which is one measure of productivity, is 0.61 sq metres per man-day, which is double the average for the construction industry. We hope that through the efforts of the CIDB we will be able to extend this higher productivity to the private construction activity. CIDB is very mindful and it has a number of projects or programmes in mind to educate our professionals to design buildings which are more buildable -- in other words, buildings that can be built efficiently and with higher productivity, given the type of labour that we have. We would also like to persuade professionals to design buildings which are modular and which will use more prefabricated components. We will continue with this effort, and I agree entirely with the Member that we should not lose this opportunity to upgrade our industry.”
“HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 129 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. TOWN COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Town Councils Act (Chapter 329A of the 1989 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr S. Dhanabalan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [28th February 1992], "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1992 to 31st March, 1993." - [Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed. 12.40 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the figure I mentioned in my statement just now does not include those from Yio Chu Kang which were already covered in the investigations before the Task Force was set up. In the case of Yio Chu Kang, more than 600 cases were investigated and those who cheated were dealt with, and more than $5.5 million was recovered from these cases. The closing of the files will apply to all, including the Yio Chu Kang cases. I have been informed by the Resettlement Department that all the cases where payments have been frozen because of the investigations have since been paid and, in fact, payments were completed by February this year. BILLS INTRODUCED RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL "to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Rubber Industry Act (Chapter 280 of the 1985 Revised Edition) for the promotion, regulation and control of the rubber trade and industry and to repeal the Rubber Dealers Act (Chapter 279 of the 1990 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. TRADE DEVELOPMENT BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Trade Development Board Act (Chapter 330 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to repeal the Rubber Association of Singapore (Incorporation) Act (Chapter 278 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by BG Lee Hsien Loong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. COMMODITY FUTURES BILL "for the regulation of trading in certain commodity futures and for matters connected therewith", presented by BG Lee Hsien Loong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“The culprits will be brought to justice and monies wrongfully claimed will be recovered. Since the problem came to light in 1987, the HDB's Resettlement Department has tightened administrative procedures to prevent further malpractices. HDB has also implemented changes recommended by CPIB and the Auditor-General's Office to rectify weaknesses in the resettlement compensation system. These changes include new guidelines for classifying squatters as farmers, and revised procedures for census-taking, compensation assessment and computation. Since all serious cases of cheating by ex-squatters have been thoroughly investigated and comprehensive safeguards against a recurrence of the problem are in place, the Government is closing investigations into resettlement compensation wrongly claimed by ex-squatters. It should be abundantly clear to all that it does not pay to try to cheat the Singapore Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on 29th May 1989, I informed the House that I had received complaints alleging cheating in claims for resettlement compensation by squatters on State lands. CPIB investigations confirmed these allegations. The most common cases of cheating involved the planting of fruit trees after the resettlement eligibility cut-off date, so as to claim extra compensation and other resettlement benefits. I informed Parliament then that a Resettlement Task Force comprising representatives from the Attorney-General's Chambers, CPIB, HDB and my Ministry had been set up to review every resettlement case handled since 1979. I would like to inform Members of the progress made by the Task Force since it began its investigations in December 1989. The Resettlement Task Force screened more than 100,000 resettlement cases and identified 380 cases where there was strong prima facie evidence of cheating involving planting of fruit trees after the cut-off date. The CPIB's investigations of these cases confirmed the Task Force's findings. Of the 380 cases investigated, 332 or 87% admitted to having planted trees after the cut-off date. More than 90% of these cases have made restitution. The total amount of overpayment was $2 million. As at 31st January 1992, $1.6 million had been recovered from the ex-squatters involved. Recovery of the remaining $400,000 is in hand. I am satisfied that the Resettlement Task Force has identified and thoroughly investigated all the serious cases of possible cheating on resettlement compensation. The exercise has demonstrated clearly that those who conspire to cheat the Government will be discovered sooner or later and will have to face the full consequences of their wrongdoing.”
“If Mr Chiam is advocating that a single person should be allowed to buy a 5-room flat, then I think he should bring it up and we can debate that point whether Singapore can afford it. But I did not say "everybody" in Singapore. Sir, I said "almost everybody". In fact, the market is so wide that it should not affect the resale value. Secondly, on upgrading. Of course, all the facts are made available to those who are affected by upgrading: how much would be spent on the interior of the flat, how much would be spent within the block, how much would be spent outside the block, and not just the sums but the exact items of upgrading before they are asked to vote. They are not just merely told in descriptive language, there are plans, there are models, there are films. So before the Member speaks on this, he should make himself fully informed. If he does not know about it, he should put in a Question. Maybe we can give him the clarification, but he should not make a speech without even taking the trouble to find out the facts. Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Koo Tsai Kee, you have about three minutes.”
“Of course, it is true. The only requirement is that the person stays in the flat. They should not buy the HDB flat as an investment. Anybody can buy an HDB flat on the second-hand market even if he owns a private property. There is no limit on income and he can be a permanent resident or a citizen. This covers almost everybody in Singapore. So he should get this point first. Secondly, on upgrading, obviously he has not read the papers.”
“I just want to illustrate that Mr Ling obviously has not read the papers or tried to make himself informed about HDB policies. First of all, he said that an HDB owner cannot sell his flat to anybody except to those who qualify. But the qualification of the eligibility is so widely defined that more than 90% of Singaporeans qualify. An HDB owner can sell his flat to any permanent resident, any citizen, there is no limit on income, and there is no limit on ownership of private property. This means that an owner of HDB flat can sell his flat to almost anybody in Singapore. There is no restriction.”
“Sir, may I take a few minutes just to clarify a few points.”
“Sir, he has not submitted a cut under my Ministry's head.”
“Point of clarification. Would the Member allow me to clarify?”
“The straight answer to the question, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that we do not think the conversion of void deck space into MP's office can be justified. SIMEI NEW TOWN (Provision of void deck community centre) 10. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Community Development whether a void deck community centre will be provided at Simei New Town.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said that I am prepared to make available the guidelines. We must get the starting point very clear. Void deck space is meant for use by residents in general, without being enclosed. So the very fact that we are prepared to enclose void deck space means we are departing from the primary purpose of providing the void deck space. We would like to keep such conversion to the minimum and leave as much void deck space open for residents to use.”
“I do not have the details, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I am sure the Member knows. I think it is about 300 or 400 sq feet. It is equivalent to two 3-room units. That is the general average space of an MP's office. What was the second question?”
“Sir, certainly we can make public the guidelines. Void deck space is created basically for residents to interact. They are left open, not enclosed, so that senior citizens, children, and so on can gather and use the space. And as I have explained, to a limited extent, we are prepared to enclose the void deck space for use by various community organisations. But there has to be a limit to such conversion. HDB has come to the conclusion that the use of void deck space as MP's office cannot really be justified, because this would mean a further encroachment into the void deck space that has to be left open for residents to use.”
“I suggest the Member puts in a Question. Mr Chiam See Tong: The Minister says that there is a heavy demand for void deck space. In the circumstances, are there any HDB guidelines for the use of void deck space? If not, will HDB make such guidelines for future guidance?”
“Sir, I do not know what the Member is requesting. HDB has already asked him to identify a void deck space which can be converted very quickly for temporary use. The Member has not responded. Sir, if he wants an office, the offer is there. And whether it is this or some other place, I think that is not material. But a space can be made available up to September 1992.”
“Sir, the decision by the HDB has nothing to do with the MP's request. The question of provision of MPs' offices by HDB has been under consideration for some time, as there is a heavy demand for use of void deck space. Many void decks have to be retained as void decks because, after all, they were built as such for use by the community in general. Some void deck space is converted for use by specific community organisations. Just because there are void decks it does not mean that they can be converted, closed up and residents denied the use of such void decks. The decision was taken that an MP's office is something that cannot be accommodated as it will deprive residents of the use of void deck space. To a very limited extent, we are prepared to convert void deck space for specific community uses, but not for MPs' use. So the policy was under review for quite some time and it was announced after the last elections.”
“Sir, as I said, it was converted at the request of the Advisor at that time for use as a recreation centre for the senior citizens. For various reasons, the Advisor then decided to have the centre somewhere else. But it was in fact converted for use by the community. And when the MP asked for the same space to be used as an MP's office, we did not allocate it because, as all MPs know, the provision of MPs' offices by the HDB will terminate in September this year. So there is no point in allocating this space and taking it back again in September if a more permanent use could be found; and we have found a more permanent use. As far as the MP is concerned, we have asked him to identify some void deck space which HDB can convert for temporary use, but it has to be only for temporary use.”
“Sir, the allocation was made in November 1991.”
“Sir, the conversion of part of the void deck space at Block 316, Hougang Avenue 7 was completed in 1990, at the request of the former Advisor to the Punggol Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) and the Residents' Committees (RCs). It was to be used as a Senior Citizens' Recreation Centre. It has since been taken up by the present Advisor to the Hougang CCC and RCs for use as a Senior Citizens' Club.”
“Sir, MPs can of course bid whenever shops are put out for sale. So they should keep a look out and look at the newspapers. When HDB puts out shops for sale they can make their bids. As to whether change of use would be allowed, this really depends on where the shops are. I would say that in the majority of cases it would be allowed. MPs can always check with the Planning Authority before they make their bid. VOID DECK AT BLOCK 316, HOUGANG AVE 7 (Use of converted space) 9. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for National Development what is the proposed use of the converted space at the void deck of Block 316, Hougang Avenue 7 and when the conversion was completed.”
“Sir, shops in the HDB estates provide goods and services needed by residents. At present, HDB sells new shops in housing estates which are under development. The Planning Authority generally allows these shops to be used for service and retail purposes. MPs can tender for HDB shops and commercial premises for use as MPs' offices if the change of use is approved by the Planning Authority.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody wants priority. I have said that since the Upgrading Programme will take a long time, we will do some of the other types of works under the CIPC programme. It is entirely up to the MPs to put forward suggestions. They know what is allocated for each constituency. They will have to decide what should come first. NEWTON FOOD CENTRE HAWKERS (Revocation of licences) 3. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked the Minister for the Environment whether the policy to permanently ban hawkers, including their assistants and members of their immediate families, from preparing or selling cooked food at any public or private food centres only applies to Newton Food Centre hawkers whose licences have been revoked.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB will be taking the opportunity under its Upgrading and Redevelopment Programmes to improve facilities in the older HDB estates to cater to the needs of the aging residents. Examples of facilities that will be provided under the Upgrading Programme to meet the needs of the aging residents include: (i) provision of external ramps for easy accessibility to the blocks; (ii) creation of more landscaped areas to facilitate social interaction among the older residents. In addition, in some blocks, it would also be feasible to provide lift landings on each floor. As the Upgrading Programme will span a 10-15 year period, certain improvement works might need to be carried out ahead of the normal schedule for the Upgrading Programme. My Ministry is, therefore, considering expanding the scope of the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) to allow such improvements to be implemented in advance of the Upgrading Programme. In redeveloping older HDB estates, such as Toa Payoh, Bukit Merah and Queenstown, HDB has been adopting a set of comprehensive design guidelines, formulated in consultation with the Ministry of Community Development and other social agencies, and we will design more user-friendly housing blocks and incorporate facilities for older residents. For example, lift landings are provided on every floor in new HDB blocks. Ramps and walkways are also provided, wherever necessary, to facilitate the mobility of the aged and the handicapped.”
“We will gather data from various sources, including the town councils. But I am not sure whether we can have a formal review involving all the town councils. I think that will take too long. But certainly the town councils will be consulted when we intend to make big changes. OLDER HDB ESTATES (Upgrading of facilities) 2. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to upgrade some facilities in older Housing and Development Board estates to cater to the needs of aging residents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not come to a decision on that matter. I have stated in the past that car park charges must go up over time. But this particular review is to take into account the location of particular car parks, whether it is in the central area or outside the central area, local demand factors, for example, if the demand is very high in a particular area, the rates obviously should be different from the areas where the demand is low and also the type of facility, whether it is an open surface car park or a covered multi-storey car park. So this particular review is meant to take into account specific locational factors. The present approach is to have more or less an uniform rate regardless of where the car park is.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry and the Housing and Development Board are currently reviewing the season parking rates for surface and multi-storey car parks. The review will take into consideration the location and other factors affecting demand for car park lots.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I walked in just now the Member for Bukit Gombak was commenting on the HDB upgrading programme. I think he should be aware, but if he is not aware, I would like now to make him aware that the upgrading programme is not compulsory. It requires 75% of the residents to agree, and those who do not agree have to go along. But if they cannot afford, they can get a loan from the HDB for their portion of the upgrading programme costs. And if they have no income, as he said, those who have retired, they need not even borrow. The amounts spent will be held against their flat and one of these days when they sell their flat, the amount will be recovered. But since he is so much against the upgrading programme, I want to assure the Member that we will leave his constituency entirely out of the upgrading programme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, owners of large and potentially dangerous dogs will not be allowed to exercise their dogs without the use of muzzles in public places after 1st August 1991. Muzzling is a precautionary measure to safeguard the public against being seriously bitten by such dogs. All dogs can bite. That is obvious. However, some large and powerful breeds are more aggressive, having a greater propensity to attack. Their attacks can be vicious, causing severe injuries. Using a leash alone may not be adequate in restraining a large dog. Many Singaporeans are not familiar or comfortable with dogs. They are more likely to startle the dogs by running away or moving suddenly when approached by large dogs. If the dog is "provoked" to attack, in such a situation, the owner may not be able to exercise control, or hold on to the leash securely. In such cases, muzzling will minimise serious injuries to the victims. More than 80% of the pet dogs in Singapore are not affected by the muzzling rule. These include the toy breeds kept in HDB flats. The large dogs affected account for less than 20% of the dogs in Singapore. They are mostly kept by owners living in landed properties and will be able to exercise without muzzles within the owners' compounds. PRIMARY 1 ENROLMENT 6. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Education (a) why is Primary 1 pupil admission in selected SAP schools such as Pei Hwa cut significantly when Pre-Primary classes are being introduced in these schools starting 1992; and (b) whether parents will encounter difficulty in enrolling their children in primary schools of their choice come 1993/1994 when the babies born in 1988 reach school entry age.”
“LAND SURVEYORS BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read.”
“These exempt classes of persons are set out in a new First Schedule to the Bill and include certificated officers under the Merchant Shipping Act, certified operators of steam boilers and internal combustion engines under the Factories Act, and licensed electrical workers and contractors under the Electrical Workers and Contractors Licensing Act. The First Schedule may be amended by the Minister through notification in the Gazette. Miscellaneous Amendments Finally, clause 47 of the Bill has been amended and a new Second Schedule inserted to make consequential amendments to other existing Acts, such as the Building Control Act, that presently make no reference to practising certificates as a prerequisite for engaging in professional engineering work. This will obviate the need to move a separate Bill in Parliament to make direct amendments to the other Acts. The other amendments to the Bill are consequential amendments or amendments of a technical or drafting nature. The Bill has also been renumbered throughout to achieve uniformity in the numbering of corresponding clauses between the Professional Engineers Bill and the Architects Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, when enacted, will bring the practice of professional engineers up to-date with the progress made by the construction industry over the last two decades. Together with the Architects Bill, they mark an important milestone for the course of professional practices in the construction industry. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my appreciation to the many people who have contributed to the preparation and drafting of this comprehensive piece of legislation. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.”
“Definition of "Professional Engineering Services" The intention of the Bill is to regulate by licence only those multi-discipline partnerships and corporations that are engaged in providing professional engineering consultancy services. However, the Bill, as drafted, may give rise to the misinterpretation that contractors and manufacturers of engineering products also need to be licensed. Clause 2 of the Bill has, therefore, been amended to include a new term "professional engineering services" which is defined to mean advisory or consultancy services relating to professional engineering work and the sale or supply for gain or reward of any plan, design, etc, relating to such work. This makes it clear that the licensing requirements of the Bill are applicable only to business entities engaged in professional engineering consultancy services. Clause 12 of the Bill is also amended to make it clear that only persons who are authorised to supply professional engineering services can claim remuneration for such services rendered. Exempt Bodies and Persons As in the case of the Architects Bill, clause 3 has been amended to make it clear that the Bill does not seek to license public authorities which supply professional engineering services pursuant to any written law in Singapore. In addition, clause 15 has been amended to provide that specific groups of persons, irrespective of whether they are professional engineers or not, could continue to perform certain activities that may fall within the definition of professional engineering work as defined in clause 2.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, this Bill was also committed to the same Select Committee as the Architects Bill and the Land Surveyors Bill when I moved its Second Reading before the House in March this year. The three Bills are linked to each other through the definition of "allied professionals" for the purpose of multi-discipline, professional consultancy practice and they contain very similar provisions. As stated, when I moved the Third Reading of the Architects Bill just now, the Select Committee received 15 written representations on the three Bills from various professional groups and individuals in the construction industry. Arising from these representations, the Committee has recommended some amendments to the Bill which are largely similar to those made in respect of the Architects Bill. These amendments have been incorporated in the reprint of the Professional Engineers Bill now before the House and the reasons for the amendments are given in the Select Committee's Report. Multi-Discipline and Corporate Practice, Professional Liability Insurance and Government Professional Engineers I will take these three subjects together. The amendments to the Professional Engineers Bill relating to the provisions on multi-discipline and corporate practice, professional liability insurance and exemption of Government professional engineers from paying the prescribed registration fees, are similar to the amendments in the Architects Bill. The reasons for these amendments are also the same as for the Architects Bill and, therefore, I would not repeat them. However, apart from these amendments, there are also other amendments that are peculiar to the Professional Engineers Bill which I will now highlight.”
“Lin as a shareholder, and he owns only 2%, he will still go to him. So the public perception of a firm would be determined by the competence and reputation of the professionals involved and not by the shareholding. The nature and composition of the firm's business may change from time to time. Today, architecture may be the main source of its income, next year, it could be engineering. So what happens? Does the firm restructure? Or they may bring in a new partner, who may be very well known in the engineering world, and people get attracted to the firm because he is a well-known engineer. Do they restructure the firm? We therefore decided to leave it silent and let the firm's reputation, image, perception be determined by market forces and by people's perception of the firm. On the second point: why did we change the law? As originally drafted, a firm couldoffer architectural services as long as it was under the supervision of an architect. But that architect could be merely an employee. And the point was made that an employee would be under more control and he would be less independent than a shareholding director. Therefore, we amended the Bill to require that if a firm offers architectural services, it must be under the supervision of a shareholding director who is an architect. Similarly, if a firm offers engineering services, it must be under thesupervision of an engineer who is a shareholding director. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read.”
“I thank the Member for his support for the Bill. Sir, as he has mentioned, the question of whether the engineers or architects should have control of a multi-discipline corporation was brought up before the Select Committee and some architects felt very strongly that the firm that offers architectural services should be controlled by architects. In other words, at least 51% should be owned by architects and that there should be a clear picture of the character of the firm. We debated this at some length and some of the main reasons are given in the Select Committee's Report. But I would just like to repeat or highlight some of the main considerations. Sir, if a group of architects wants to project itself as primarily architects, they can own the firm 100%. It is up to them to decide. There is nothing in the law to say that a multi-discipline corporation must be owned equally by the various professions. So it can be owned 60% by architects, 10% by engineers, 10% by land surveyors and the other 20% by others. It is entirely up to the architects to determine. There is nothing in the law which requires them to distribute the shares equally. On the other hand, if the shares are equally distributed, or widely distributed, and there is no clear dominant shareholder, then the character of the firm would be determined by the kind of work it does and how the public perceives the firm. If you have a firm with I.M. Pei, an architect, as a shareholder, and he owns only 5% of the firm, people who want good designs would go to that firm even though he owns only 5% of the firm. They are not going to look at the shareholding to see how many shares he owns. Similarly, someone who wants a special steel structure and there is a firm with T.Y.”
“Therefore, clause 3 has been amended to make it clear that the Bill does not seek to license any public authority which supplies architectural services pursuant to any written law in Singapore. In other words, bodies like HDB do not have to apply for a licence because they are allowed to function and perform what they are doing under written law. Miscellaneous Amendments The Bill introduces the system of practising certificates to replace the present system of annual registration for practising architects. This makes it necessary to amend other existing Acts, such as the Building Control Act, which refer only to registration as a pre-requisite for engaging in architectural work. For this purpose, clause 47 has been amended to provide for these amendments to avoid having to introduce another Bill to make direct amendments to other related laws. The other amendments to the Bill are consequential amendments or amendments of a technical or drafting nature. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Architects Bill marks an important milestone for the course of the architectural profession in Singapore. When enacted, it will bring the professional practice of architects and allied professionals up to date with the tremendous progress made by the construction industry over the last two decades. In conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation to the many people who have contributed to the preparation and drafting of this comprehensive piece of legislation. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Professional Liability Insurance The Bill requires only licensed corporations formed with limited liability to be insured against professional liability insurance (PLI). However, the Committee felt that enabling provisions should be inserted in the Bill to allow the Board of Architects to introduce compulsory PLI stage by stage in respect of other forms of practice, including individual practitioners. This will allow the Board to respond to the needs of the industry as they arise. Clause 36 of the Bill has therefore been amended to empower the Board of Architects to make rules requiring licensed corporations with unlimited liability, licensed partnerships, ordinaryarchitectural partnerships as well as individual practising architects to take out and maintain compulsory professional liability insurance. The Board is also empowered to make rules prescribing the terms and conditions of professional liability insurance such as the minimum amount of cover required. There is no intention for the Board to introduce such PLI in the immediate future. Government Architects Clauses 15(6) and 17(2) of the previous draft Bill, which were retained from the existing Architects Act, exempt Government architects from paying the prescribed registration fees. These two sub-clauses have now been deleted to avoid the imputation that the Bill treats Government professionals more favourably than private sector professionals. Exempt Bodies and Persons The Bill has no intention to preclude any public authorities that are empowered to supply architectural services under any written law, such as the HDB, from continuing to supply such services in accordance with the provisions of such law.”
“Multi-Discipline and Corporate Practice Many of the points raised by the representors concern the provisions in the Bill for regulating multi-discipline and corporate practice by registered architects and allied professionals. Several representors were concerned that clause 20 of the ArchitectsBill would allow a licensed corporation with non-architects as directors and shareholders to supply architectural services. It was felt that this may compromise the standard of architectural services provided if the manager in charge is merely an employee of the corporation and works under the direction and control of non-architect directors and shareholders. The Committee accepted that this is a valid concern and has therefore recommended that clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill be amended to ensure that the control and management of the business of a licensed corporation or partnership, insofar as it relates to the supply of architectural services, shall be in the hands of a share-owning director or partner, who is a registered architect with a valid practising certificate, and ordinarily resident in Singapore. A representor also pointed out that the Bill as drafted could allow non-professionals to hold more than the permitted proportion of one-third of the shares in a licensed corporation through nominee shareholders who are either registered architects or allied professionals; in other words, the professionals fronting for the non-professionals. Clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill are now amended to ensure that at least two-thirds of the shares in a licensed corporation with limited liability shall be beneficially owned by and registered in the names of registered architects or allied professionals or both.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I have to play the Philistine and bring you down from the stratosphere of high art to the world of nuts and bolts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill before the House in March this year, it was resolved that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee to give an opportunity to professional groups and individuals in the construction industry to present their views on the new provisions in the Bill that affect them. Two other related Bills, namely the Professional Engineers Bill and the Land Surveyors Bill, were also committed to the same Select Committee. A total of 15 written representations on the three Bills were received from various professional groups and individuals in the construction industry. The Committee studied all the representations and also heard oral evidence from six of the representors whose views constituted a good cross-section of the representations submitted. Many of the representors supported the spirit and intention of the Bills. The issues raised by them were mainly centred on the particular provisions of specific clauses. A number of valid points were made by some of the representors. The Committee has therefore recommended some amendments to the Bills. These amendments together with the reasons are given in detail in the Report of the Select Committee which has been circulated to Members of the House. I will now highlight the more significant amendments which have been incorporated in the reprint of the Architects Bill now before the House.”
“ECONOMIC EXPANSION INCENTIVES (RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX) (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 1988 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.20 pm”