Sim Ann
Singapore
“Sir, given the increasingly transnational nature of crime and the rapid advancement of digital finance, international cooperation is indeed key. Singapore will continue to issue MLAs where it is appropriate, but also pursue international cooperation in informal manner. This applies not just to AML/CFT and PF, but also to scams.”
“Sir, I believe that the first and the third supplementary questions from the Member are related. I would say that if the facts of the case are such that it warrants taking action under the Penal Code for offences relating to the circulation of intimate images, the Police will do so.”
“Sir, we have a national movement to prepare Singaporeans against terrorism – SGSecure. This is one way through which we disseminate important information so that Singaporeans are aware of security risks.”
“Sir, we want to see everyone get home safe everyday. If safety is compromised, then livelihoods and many other good things in life are going to be at risk. We believe that the public will see our proposed for changes in this light, particularly our vocational drivers, because safer roads also mean a safer working environment for them.”
“To Ms Cassandra Lee's question, the alcohol limits that are currently enforced have been in place since 1985, and that is more than forty years ago. Now, Singapore is one of the jurisdictions with the highest alcohol limits, while the other jurisdictions have adopted stricter regimes with lower limits.”
“MFA is working with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to strengthen our safeguards against foreign interference, which will be elaborated on by MHA during its Committee of Supply. Mr Chairman, foreign policy begins at home.”
The complete record
Every one of 775 lines we hold for Sim Ann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 16.
“Surely, you will be pursuing ways to find other means of security; you will be concerned about how you are going to deal with your living expenses; you will be concerned about being set loose upon the rental market and so on and so forth. Would you be doing a lot of things to maintain your security in such a situation? I would assume so. As for the point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim made, the first point, about how you did the chart, I would also like to ask him a clarification. How does what he shared negate my basic point, which is that I recognise that his chart shows that value goes up and then eventually down?”
“I am also very heartened that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim brought up this point. In fact, I really should have mentioned it earlier to thank him because he pointed out, indeed, that when flats reach the tail end of their leases, when you are talking about 20 years, 30 years left – you have made the point that it is very difficult to sell, is it not? That is the generosity of VERS. The Government comes in as the purchaser of last resort, when no one else would actually purchase and give the flat owner the remaining value of the lease. At that point in time, even if you had value, would the private market realise it for you? Well, if the Government thought that the private market would do it, we would not be offering VERS. This is also the reason why I want to mention this because I really hope that Mr Leong Mun Wai can be fairer to VERS. The benchmark with which he has judging SERS and VERS, but especially VERS, has been most unfair. You talked about whether or not having so much of our income used towards housing purchase, would that not free up our resources to do other pursuits? I think so, I think it would free up our resources to pursue things that we seek in lieu of the security that housing would bring in the first place. This is a very strange argument because it totally ignores the importance of housing towards building up financial security, retirement security – something that I was at some pains to share with the Member. So, if you did not have that, well, would you be doing other things? You sure would because you would be looking for other ways to make sure that you are able to deal with the vagaries of retirement life.”
“Hence, the same flat is very likely to bring the benefits of an appreciating asset to the flat owner over his lifetime and to an extent, part of his children's lifetime, although certainly not his grandchildren's lifetime. Afterall, 99 years is not that long. However, the flat owner's children and grandchildren can buy their own flats and, with support from Government policies, benefit from the appreciation of their own assets. Mr Speaker, I hope these answers address the doubts in the public’s mind and provide them with greater awareness of and stronger confidence in our public housing policies. (In English): Back to English. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Leong and the PSP have not shown that our housing policy is in need of a reset and the proposal they put forth does not address real issues that we are working hard to address today. I therefore cannot support their Motion. However, the debate thus far has been helpful in drawing out views that are on the minds of many Singaporeans. I thank Members, especially PSP and the WP, for the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's approach towards home ownership, retirement adequacy and fairness across generations. Sir, I support the Motion standing in Minister Desmond Lee's name. [Applause.]”
“The Government would never mislead the public. 99 years means 99 years. It is common knowledge that home value will fall to zero when the time eventually comes. But 99 years is a very long time for a flat buyer, sufficient to cover his lifetime. Over this long period of time, his flat value is very likely to keep appreciating for considerable length of time. And how long is that? WP Member Jamus Lim shared a chart based on his own calculations. He cited a flat with a remaining lease of 94 years as an example and assessed that this flat will appreciate for more than 60 years before dropping in value. If the buyer bought the flat at the age of 30, over the course of his lifetime, the value of this flat will go up. If his child lives in the flat with him, then the child would witness the growth in the value of his parents' flat over the decades while growing up, and for some of his adult years. The child would have aged by the time the value of the flat started to depreciate. Why do flat values appreciate? Member Jamus Lim said this is due to inflation. Actually, he omitted a few important factors, mainly good economic conditions and rising incomes. If we stay united, support sound, rational policies and work hard, we can continue to create favourable economic conditions and pursue better incomes for all. As long as flat buyers do not buy flats whose leases are too short, it is entirely possible to enjoy the benefits of an appreciating asset throughout their lifetime. By the way, what about cases where the flat owner outlives the 99-year lease of his flat? The Government has already thought of this and adjusted our policies in recent years, putting in place more restrictions in the use of CPF to buy flats with shorter leases, to make such situations less likely.”
“In addition, there are limits on how much Ordinary Account savings can be used towards housing. Having a flat of one's own has a positive impact on retirement security. Hence, the amount of CPF used towards housing purchase would not be in vain, regardless of whether the value of the flat goes up or down. With a home of our own, we no longer have to worry about renting accommodation. When necessary, one can monetise by renting out a room or tap on the Lease Buyback Scheme. Even if the homeowner does not monetise or sell his flat, he can still receive lifelong monthly cash payouts through CPF LIFE. It is estimated that eight in every 10 active CPF members turning 55 in 2027 will be able to set aside the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) and receive the corresponding BRS payout, and this is without having to monetise their HDB flat. For members with low CPF balances, the Government can provide support through other assistance schemes. Of course, we should be prudent when making a home purchase and have a good understanding of the trade-offs involved. If our attitude towards CPF is to "use as much as we can", then naturally we will have less in our CPF account and our monthly CPF LIFE payout in future will be correspondingly lower. Whichever the case may be, we should not perceive our CPF as "suffering a loss" because of home purchase. Third, while a HDB flat may continue appreciating in value over the years, what should the homeowner do when the 99-year lease expires and value inevitably becomes zero? Is it the case that the only acceptable solution is to conjure up a large compensation sum for the flat owner to buy a brand new flat? This is the political issue that Mr Leong Mun Wai has been enthusiastically stirring up, with the intent of making people anxious and unhappy.”
“Many home-buyers turned to the resale market and with shifts in the demand for living spaces during the pandemic, we saw a simultaneous increase in demand for both BTO and resale flats. Resale prices have risen rapidly too. MND and HDB have been working on increasing supply and moderating demand, to restore balance and stability in the market as quickly as possible. In his speech, Mr Leong was not able to substantiate his view that public housing policy has gone terribly wrong. He also suggested disregarding land costs so as to sharply reduce the prices of new flats. If one plans to sell his flat in the open market, he will have to refund the land cost to the Government. This suggestion does not address objective reality and hence offers no solution to current issues. Not only does it do nothing to relieve the current shortage in housing supply, it may in fact trigger further demand, and can cause serious impact on resale prices. Furthermore, the plan contradicts itself in places, resulting in many doubts raised by Members. Second, are Singaporeans over-committing their CPF towards housing? If flats are not able to hold their value and if homeowners are not able to fully refund their CPF account after selling their flats, would it mean that CPF members have lost out? Is this not an argument for drastically reducing housing prices? The handout which Mr Leong distributed in Parliament yesterday propagates this spurious argument. This is not how we should be looking at this issue. The CPF system was designed to support home ownership as well as provide lifelong monthly payouts at old age. This is why other than the Ordinary Account which can be used for housing purchase, we have the Special Account and Retirement Account which cannot be used for housing purchase.”
“They are concerned about fiscal sustainability, that we also consider some trade-offs. In fact, in the spirit of leaving no stones unturned, this is also a question that my colleagues and I have been asking ourselves. Sir, we have done some projections. What would it take to bring the HPI down, say, to three? There is an estimated fiscal cost because additional subsidies would be required in order to make this happen. Based on our projections, it comes up to more than $2.3 billion per year. This would be the equivalent of about 20% of our annual healthcare expenditure or about one third of what we spend annually on general education. If our Members are curious as to what this means in terms of additional revenue that has to be raised through taxes, this is more than the value of the 1% increase in GST. It is more like 1.3%. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, housing policies and home prices are hot topics. There has been much discussion and varied viewpoints among the public. This Parliamentary debate provides some opportunities for us to clarify public discourse. First, has our public housing policy gone terribly wrong? Has it veered from its mission, requiring a full reset? This is PSP Member Mr Leong Mun Wai's point of view. Minister Desmond Lee has made clear in his speech yesterday that HDB has ensured the affordability and accessibility of flats, especially that of BTO units in non-mature estates. We have been building HDB flats at a faster rate than HDB residential population growth, while generally keeping to affordability targets. Our building programme was suspended at one point due to COVID-19, resulting in a short-term crunch in the supply of new flats.”
“The fair and sustainable thing to do would be for land and buildings to be redeveloped after lease expiry, so that a new generation of Singaporeans can have the same opportunities too, whether or not they were lucky enough to inherit advantages from their parents and grandparents. Mr Speaker, I would also like to address some points about affordability that other Members have made. Mr Leon Perera and also, I believe, yesterday, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim have put forth this suggestion that perhaps the HPI for non-mature estate 4-room flats should be three, that is, an HPI of three and not an HPI of five. I would like to share that actually, the HPI is not our only affordability target. There is another one, which in fact just now Prof Hoon Hian Teck alluded to – which is the mortgage servicing ratio or MSR. Nine in 10 first-timer BTO flat buyers who collected their keys to non-mature estate flats in 2022 had an MSR of 25% or less and could service their loan fully with CPF, without cash. This, we believe, is also a very good complementary affordability target, particularly because it demonstrates the unique benefits of our CPF system when it works in tandem with our housing policy. However, let us address his question of whether the HPI should be five or four or three because I believe it was the subject of some lively back and forth earlier in the day between I believe Mr Leon Perera and Mr Xie Yao Quan. I think whether or not the HPI should be four or three, as long as the current target is about five, I think any number that is below five must look attractive to buyers. But, of course, there will be some trade-offs. I think it is also in the spirit of what Workers' Party Members have mentioned.”
“So, I hope this reassures Singaporeans who are worried about claims that they will be stuck without recourse when the lease of the flat they bought expires on them. Which brings me to a favourite theme of Mr Leong’s – SERS, VERS and trying to make Singaporeans unhappy over the plain truth that 99 years is 99 years. He has not forgotten to riff on this theme during this debate too. I have explained how HDB flats hold their value well and can even appreciate over the owner’s lifetime, albeit not necessarily the entirety of his children’s lifetimes and certainly not his grandchildren’s lifetimes. The Government has been upfront about this with Singaporeans. It is Mr Leong who has been creating ungrounded expectations by trying to convince Singaporeans that it ought to cost them little or nothing to extend the length and value of their leases when it approaches zero. It is the benchmark by which he has been judging SERS and VERS, and unfairly too, because that is simply not their purpose. If market valuation does not deliver the windfall outcome that Mr Leong so celebrates, then who will deliver it? It becomes a cost that taxpayers should bear. This is something which Mr Murali Pillai has also pointed out yesterday. Mr Leong does not acknowledge that what he is encouraging Singaporeans to expect would create an extended benefit that lasts indefinitely over generations, nor does he explain how this is fair. Because he cannot. Our policies already equip every generation with the opportunity to own homes and benefit for more than one lifetime. We all cherish this deeply.”
“Now that our economy is more mature, growth rates cannot be as fast as in the past, but we still work towards delivering a better life for Singaporeans, which would include improvement in incomes. Getting this right would mean that the value of this flat would continue rising for a considerable time. So, on Assoc Prof Jamus Lim’s chart, the trajectory of value appreciation continues, I believe, for more than 60 of the 94 years, before it begins to fall beyond its original value. I hope I got it right. I am pretty sure he drew it to scale. I hope so. And 60 years, that means a 30-year-old who bought this flat on the resale market in 2023 can see asset appreciation over his lifetime. Our policies allow this buyer to fully realise the value should he chose to monetise by selling – which would not be possible if we mistakenly view rising resale prices as a bad thing to be curbed at all cost. At the same time our policies are also flexible in providing monetisation options while ageing in place, such as through renting out rooms or Lease Buyback. This is the reason why although the value of the flat must go to zero after 99 years, that same flat can be a good store of value over a buyer’s lifetime, over the owner's lifetime, and possibly more – so even his children might benefit to some extent – just not over his grandchildren’s lifetimes as well. But his children and grandchildren will get Government support in turn to buy their own HDB flats and benefit from having a tangible stake that also appreciates in value. Mr Speaker, I have also explained how our policies put brakes on the purchase of leases that owners are likelier to outlive.”
“Assoc Prof Jamus Lim expressed concern about the scenario where a home owner has bought a lease that he is likely to outlive. Will his retirement be less secure? The Government has already considered this possibility and put in place safeguards. Notwithstanding the fact that 99% of those owning a HDB flat now can live in it till age 95 or more, we recently refined our policies to make it even less likely that a Singaporean would outlive the lease of his flat while also not having a significant CPF LIFE payout. Those purchasing a flat whose lease can last them till age 95 can obtain the maximum CPF usage and HDB housing loan, while those buying flats with shorter leases would have CPF utilisation and HDB loan amount pro-rated. Having a lease that lasts the buyer till age 95 is also a condition for withdrawing CPF savings above the BRS. So, we have policies in place to safeguard Singaporeans’ retirement adequacy, which do not rely on whether the value of their flat holds or appreciates. Still, I can sense a conundrum behind some of the speeches that Members have made, which is how do we reconcile the phenomenon of appreciating flat values with the fact of eventual lease expiry? Allow me to address this briefly. Yesterday, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim provided a handout showing how the value of a HDB flat with 94 years left on the lease would gradually rise and then decline from 2023 to 2116. He acknowledged the effect of inflation, but he left out the impact of strong economic fundamentals and rising incomes on the value of our flat. These are important drivers of resale prices. How do we achieve this? Well, unity, hard work and good policies would help to continue creating favourable economic conditions for Singapore.”
“CPF monies cannot be channelled wholly into housing purchase. Your Special Account (SA) is safeguarded, and as you grow older, more of your CPF contributions will need to go to SA rather than OA. There is also a limit to how much you can draw on the OA for your HDB loan. For BTO flat owners who took HDB loans, HDB does encourage those who have the means and are able to do so, to make early repayments. The earlier they repay the loan, the more they can save on the accrued interest. And many are able to do so. The average tenure for those who have fully paid up their loans is 17 years, while their average original loan tenure was 23 years. Mr Leong advocates for Singaporeans having the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) in CPF without having to downgrade or sell part of their lease to the Government. Today, we expect about eight in 10 active CPF members turning 55 in 2027 to be able to set aside at least the BRS in their Retirement Account and hence, receive the corresponding BRS payout or more. And that is without having to right-size or monetise their HDB flat. Of the remaining two in 10, a significant proportion will be expected to accrue additional contributions through employment from age 55 so that they could receive similar payouts at age 65 as those who set aside the cohort BRS when they were at age 55. Many seniors also receive additional retirement support from their loved ones and from their private savings. For members with less in retirement, the Government can provide additional support, such as the Silver Support Scheme. I should add that individual prudence in housing choice is also relevant here. CPF Members who choose not to max out their OA use towards housing purchase and thus set aside more savings for retirement can look forward to higher CPF LIFE payouts.”
“We recognise that some first-timers do turn to the resale market instead of buying direct from HDB. And this is why the Government provides grants to make resale flats more affordable to eligible buyers. We believe this approach is fair to both sellers and buyers – allowing homeowners to enjoy the full value of their asset and yet also giving some help to buyers to bridge the affordability gap. These points I have made about resale are relevant to my next topic, a concern that the PSP’s curious BTO pricing proposal is purported to resolve and that is liberating more CPF from being deployed for housing purchase, and thereby improving retirement adequacy. The PSP claims that as the value of a home owner’s flat falls as the lease diminishes, and since much of his CPF savings had been used towards the flat’s purchase, retirement adequacy is at risk. And Assoc Prof Jamus Lim appears to share similar thoughts. This claim is flawed and has to be clarified. Helping Singaporeans achieve home ownership and retirement adequacy are both important goals for the Government. Hence, our CPF and HDB policies are closely inter-linked. Owning a HDB flat that can last us for life is, in itself, important for retirement security. Why? Because the retiree would be assured of a home without having to rent accommodation. The flat could potentially also be monetised to supplement living expenses, through renting out a room, the whole flat, or through the Lease Buyback Scheme. And this is why we allow the use of the CPF Ordinary Account (OA) towards housing purchase. But we do not depend on home ownership alone for retirement needs and this is why CPF policy is also focused on helping individuals secure a lifelong cash payout through CPF LIFE.”
“Home ownership remains an important goal of public housing as it gives Singaporeans a tangible stake in nation-building and also boosts their financial security, especially in retirement. Paid rent, even if subsidised, is a consumption expense that could have gone towards financing home purchase. And compared to subsidising rental as a lifestyle, subsidising home ownership brings more benefits, especially if it is for the majority of Singaporeans for whom home ownership is attainable. PSP and WP Members, who have spoken on their concerns about retirement adequacy, ought to appreciate how having one’s own home protects us against the uncertainties of the rental market. I will speak a little bit more about that later. And we are doing our utmost to ensure BTO flats continue to be accessible and affordable to younger buyers. Several Members have identified resale prices as a concern. And here, I wish to make a distinction between the long-term trend in resale prices and the short-term spike that occurred during the pandemic. Resale prices have moved up over the long term, certainly more than BTO prices have. That is because we changed the basis of calculating HDB loans since 1993. Instead of giving out HDB loans for resale based on the posted price of new flats, we began to provide HDB loans based on the market valuation of the actual resale flats. This is a good thing for HDB home owners, because they would otherwise not be able to benefit from the fully realised market value of their flats. Over the long term, resale prices reflect broad economic conditions and income levels. Ideally, prices should be stable, with as few sharp fluctuations as possible. What about the buyers of resale flats?”
“But this prominent element in the "Affordable Homes Scheme" (AHS), which Mr Leong proposed, does not quite meet the test of sustainability. Under the scheme, the land cost is not paid if the applicant or the person does not sell the flat, but this is a draw on reserves. In fact, from the get-go, we can think of the scheme as a prepaid rental scheme leveraged on past reserves, because as long as the person is living in the flat and he is not selling it, he is not able to realise any gains or any value, and it does not seem that he has the rights of ownership. HDB must pay for the cost of the land used to build flats. It is simply incorrect to say that the land on which HDB flats are built should be treated like the land on which public infrastructure is built. Although we call it public housing, the use of the flat is exclusive to the household that owns it. And this is completely different from public infrastructure. More importantly, HDB flat owners can sell their flats if they wish, and keep the proceeds, but we cannot break public infrastructure up, sell it off and pocket the proceeds as individuals. Let me move on to another proposal that Mr Leong has put forth. The "Millenial Apartments Scheme" to appeal to young people who are not yet ready to buy their own HDB flat. Mr Louis Chua and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim have made similar points. The Government has heard a range of suggestions in our Forward Singapore conversations and we will be studying them and some of these suggestions also relate to similar ideas. We are sympathetic to the aspirations and diverse needs of our young. But we have good reasons for keeping subsidised rental housing very targeted, for families who cannot afford home ownership.”
“And for those who may wish to one day sell, because the clawback is very large, and as Members have pointed out, this is a clawback on a cost base model, not the affordability model that we currently price BTOs on – so, it is possible that prospective sellers of these flats are actually looking at a much higher price that they have to pay to the Government, if you add everything up together. In fact, a paradoxical feature of this scheme is that you buy when you sell, or you sell when you buy. If they are not able to muster the financial resources to sell, then what are their options? What does this mean for those who actually do want to exit, or they want to upgrade, or move somewhere else? Are they able to find buyers who are willing to pay a very high price? And also, should there be strong demand amongst applicants, Members have also pointed out the implications of upheaval in the resale market and they are concerned that the value of existing home owners' assets would also be negatively impacted. That is if the scheme is attractive to applicants. If the scheme is not attractive to applicants, also for the reasons that commentators have pointed out, I think that is also a concern, because then would that not mean that, young people included, applicants would abandon the public housing scheme? And how is that also better for Singapore on the whole? So, that is probably enough said about the perplexing nature of the BTO pricing scheme. I think it is important to also address another prominent element in it. Many Members, including Members from the Opposition, have cited fiscal sustainability concerns and we are very glad to see convergence on this important issue.”
“Members have also made suggestions that affirm the need to make sure that resale prices are moderated. But this means ensuring that the price increases are sustainable and will not crash or be very volatile. And again, I think that we are in agreement here. So, if we agree that the imbalances that Minister Desmond Lee has laid out are the challenges facing us, then Mr Leong's proposal of the Affordability Housing Scheme (AHS) does not quite solve any of them. His scheme also raises more questions than it answers, as many Members, including Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Lim Biow Chuan have been quick to point out. I do not wish to recap too much of the scheme, because I think many Members have done so. Suffice to say, that the scheme has attracted much comment, and yet, I think it has also perplexed commentators, because it is not so clear whether it really will be attractive to applicants or not. And if it is attractive to applicants, I think that commentators see problems and if it is not attractive to applicants, I think there are also problems. What do I mean by that? So, for instance, if there are a lot of applicants, then perhaps, they are attracted by the super low price upon entry. However, there is also a very high clawback consisting of the land cost if they wish to sell. And at the point of entry, because if the low prices really do attract applicants, we can imagine that it will also attract many applicants. But if there is a lot of demand, then does that not make it harder for first-timers to get a flat? And does that not worsen the current concerns that some have about accessibility?”
“Resale prices have, indeed, grown more sharply recently, due to buyers turning to resale when BTO construction was delayed due to COVID-19, and shifts in social norms exacerbated by the experience of the pandemic, contributing to overall increase in housing demand. Cooling measures have been introduced, which are starting to take effect. Mature estate BTOs present a specific set of concerns which Minister Desmond has also addressed. These mature estate BTOs are in desirable locations and cannot possibly be priced the same as other locations. As Nominated Member Cheng Hsing Yao has alluded to, mature estate BTOs are really more than basic. Although some prospective buyers find them pricey, there are still many buyers within the eligible income range who are able and willing to pay the posted price, as can be seen by the high application rates. The issue is how to price mature estate BTOs, so that they do not become out of reach for most buyers, and also not in a way that induces its own demand. Minister Desmond Lee has also indicated new measures we are considering to manage demand. So he has laid out the long-term picture and he has also addressed the short-term imbalances and what we are going to do. And in the speeches that have followed, I was very glad to see considerable common ground. For instance, Members like Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leon Perera have also agreed that building more flats with short waiting times and also efforts to manage demand are important – and this is what we are doing or considering. Nominated Member Dr Shahira Abdullah has also raised suggestions for managing demand amongst BTO buyers. We thank her also for agreeing with us that these are important issues to consider.”
“More than eight in 10 buyers who collected their keys to BTO flats or bought resale flats in 2022, can service their monthly mortgage fully from CPF contributions, with little to no cash outlay. Close to 70% of the BTO flats launched in 2022 across all estates, can be affordably purchased with a household income of $8,400 at a Mortgage Servicing Ratio of 25% or less, meaning that these households use a quarter or less of their household income to pay for the mortgage instalments. For first-timers who apply for BTO flats in non-mature estates, virtually everyone gets a chance to select a flat within three tries. Minister Desmond Lee's presentation has shown how, over the long term, we have not underbuilt BTOs nor have we lost sight of affordability, especially for non-mature estate BTOs. We agree with Members' observations about short-term imbalances in supply and the spike in resale price levels. Not only did Minister Desmond Lee lay out the causes, he also explained what we are doing about these imbalances. Our building programme fell behind in the last three years due to COVID-19, we are catching up and are committed to launch up to 100,000 new flats between 2021 and 2025, if needed. The median waiting time is now four to four and a half years, and we are working to bring this down to three to four years from 2024. This is the median, but even if we look at the range, it is not the five to seven years that Mr Leong mentioned. It is more like two to six years and the BTO project with the longest waiting time today is an almost 50-storey development at just under six years.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for letting me join the debate. Minister Desmond Lee's opening speech gave an overview of how we have been building and pricing HDB flats, explained the causes for the current tightness in the supply of BTO flats and higher prices in the resale market, laid out the moves we are making to address the situation and reaffirmed the Government's commitment of keeping public housing affordable and accessible, while protecting the interest of current and future generations of Singaporeans. It is natural to adjust public housing policy from time to time, in response to changes in demand, societal trends, buyer expectations and major events with profound impact on the housing market, such as the Asian Financial Crisis in the past and the COVID-19 pandemic which we have so recently experienced. But to require a reset, as the Member Mr Leong Mun Wai has claimed, is something else altogether. So, let us revisit the bigger picture. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Members would recall the points that Minister Desmond Lee has made yesterday. In his opening speech, he has given us some handouts, which I trust that Members have saved because they are very useful, but if not, we have made extra copies available. In his speech, he showed that we have been building HDB flats faster than the HDB residential population growth – and that is in Annex 1. Median household income growth grew faster than the increase in average 4-room BTO prices. And this, Members can see from Annex 7. HDB has also kept to our affordability targets. Annex 2 shows how the House Price to Income ratio (HPI) for 2-room, 3-room and 4-room BTO flats in non-mature estates have remained below five since 2015.”
“In the case of Sengkang, we have been hearing feedback from residents and also progressively been injecting F&B or eating facilities, especially as new developments come up. If the Member has specific suggestion or feedback, he can share it with HDB, which we will study. Mr Speaker, as mentioned in my opening speech, our heartland shops play important social and economic roles in our neighbourhoods. We know that our heartland shops hold a very special place in the hearts of Singaporeans. Hence, we are giving more support our heartland merchants through enhancing the ROS scheme with formal polling provisions. Overall, the amendments will enable us to better facilitate physical upgrading, which is a first and necessary step in our plans to refresh and upkeep the vibrancy of our heartland shop precincts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.”
“But there are also less measurable outcomes such as enhancing the vibrancy and local character of our heartlands, and their role as social hubs for the community to interact and forge bonds. Ultimately though, the context, including factors such as catchment, trade mix and location, will differ from site to site and hence it would be difficult to impose a standard target across ROS sites. Nevertheless, we will monitor feedback post-upgrading so that we can continuously improve on the scheme. And in this connection, although some of the points raised were not strictly to do with the clauses of the Bill, I would like to also take this opportunity to address them. In particular, I want to thank the interest expressed by Mr Chua and also Miss Chan in trade-mix curation in our neighbourhood centres and town centres. We agree that this is very important and I appreciate their raising the importance of getting the trade mix right. Mr Chua has also talked about the use of point-of-sale system and he has also mentioned ShopperLink. Indeed, HDB is in the process of rolling out, point-of-sale systems to the malls that are under HDB ownership, precisely with a view to use the data gathered to analyse and to help shop operators achieve better outcomes and also to provide a better experience for shoppers overall. So, this is ongoing. Likewise, ShopperLink is also progressively being rolled out. It is a work-in-progress and I thank Mr Chua for his interest in ShopperLink. As for the specifics, with regards to the injection of eating places in our towns, HDB follows planning parameters for the insertion of food and beverage (F&B), as well as other kinds of amenities and facilities needed by residents as we plan and build each town.”
“We agree that coordinating upgrading efforts will facilitate more comprehensive upgrading of the shopping environment and minimise disruption to retailers. Hence, HDB will continue to prioritise town or neighbourhood centres which have been selected for or are undergoing other HDB upgrading programmes such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme mentioned earlier, Remaking Our Heartlands, or where the Town Councils have plans for Repair and Redecoration works. We also agree with him that HDB should tap on the strengths of MAs to persuade shop owners to support ROS upgrading in their neighbourhood centres. MAs indeed play an integral role in our commercial heartland areas, including revitalisation efforts within the neighbourhood centres. They are an important intermediary between HDB and the shop owners. Under the revised scheme, we intend for the MAs to continue to play a key role in the upgrading process. The LWC, which I mentioned earlier, will include representatives from MAs, who will help us to shape the upgrading plans so that they can meet the needs of the shop owners. While the MAs will no longer need to gather support from the shop owners, HDB will still need to tap on their networks to engage and reach out to shop owners and share the upgrading plans with them. To Mr Ng's query on measurable indicators that HDB monitors to determine if the purposes of upgrading have been achieved, there are varying outcomes that we aim to achieve through the upgrading works. Fundamentally, upgrading should improve the shopping experience and hence, footfall. This should translate into revenue for stallholders.”
“As part of the LWC, the Town Council will be able to participate in the process of determining the scope of works and design of the upgraded precinct and provide a check to ensure that the proposed works will not generate significantly higher maintenance costs that are unsustainable in the long run for the Town Council, which remains ultimately responsible for common property. In our engagements, it was highlighted that Town Councils may be constrained by funding issues. Please be assured that we are looking into this while balancing against the need for Town Councils to also have skin in the game and we will announce more details further on. Miss Cheryl Chan also asked if HDB could consider including lift upgrading for blocks that were unsuccessful or opted out in the past as part of upgrading works under the ROS scheme. Currently, there is a menu of upgrading works offered under the ROS scheme, which are funded jointly by shop owners, HDB and the Town Council. Main items include fixed awnings, re-tiling, shop corridor lightings, digital directory, way-finders, landscaping and street furniture and Digital Display Panels. Shop-specific items that individual shops can opt in for include vertical blinds and roller shutters. Lift upgrading works are covered under the existing Lift Upgrading Programme. While we note that lifts are important to serve residents in common areas, lift upgrading is a big-ticket item that would exceed the budget allocated for works under the ROS scheme. So, we keep the two separate. Other questions pertain to prioritisation of ROS sites to align with other upgrading programmes and retaining the roles of MAs, from Mr Kwek; and whether we have indicators of success, from Mr Ng.”
“The specific details are being worked out and will be provided when we open the upcoming ROS Batch 8 for application. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Mr Ng also asked who would bear the costs if the upgrading works were to exceed the initial cost estimates. Shop owners will be notified of the overall estimated upgrading costs, as well as their share of the bill, before polling. In the event that the construction costs exceed initial estimates, HDB will work with the LWC on the best course of action for the specific site, which may include reviewing the scope of proposed works. Mr Louis Chua also raised a question on whether HDB would consider wholly bearing the cost for upgrading to the common areas. In this case, we are talking about upgrading for the purposes of improving shoppers' experience and also with the view of drawing in more shoppers, greater footfall, which will result in better business and monetary gain to the shop owners. It is in this case therefore reasonable to expect some co-payment although as I have said we are reviewing the co-payment structure. HDB co-pays a significant amount because we acknowledge that HDB shops also exist to serve residents. However, undeniably there is also a commercial interest involved. So, we believe that some amount of co-payment would be reasonable. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked how the need to upgrade the common areas would be balanced against higher maintenance costs. As mentioned earlier, when a Neighbourhood or Town Centre is selected for ROS upgrading, an LWC would be formed comprising members from the MA, the Town Council and HDB.”
“For sites that continue to fail to meet the threshold of 75%, there are other upgrading programmes which will help to rejuvenate the common areas for the benefit of nearby residents, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, where HDB provides funding for the Town Council to upgrade common areas for the benefit of residents. On Mr Lim's query on whether voting rights will differ based on the size of the commercial property, shop owners will be entitled one vote per beneficiary unit, regardless of size. For shop owners with multiple beneficiary units, they will be entitled to one vote per beneficiary unit as the share of upgrading costs for the site is typically apportioned to the shop owners based on the number of shop units owned by the individual owner, among other factors. However, in the case where HDB is the owner of the shops in the town or neighbourhood centre, HDB will only hold one vote, regardless of the number of rental units which can be considered as beneficiary units so that there is no contention on polling outcomes. There were also questions relating to the scope and cost of upgrading. Miss Chan, Mr Ng and Mr Kwek asked if HDB could come up with a preliminary design concept on the proposed works and provide information to shop owners ahead of polling, for them to exercise their vote meaningfully. We agree that this is necessary. After the selected sites are announced and the LWC is formed, the LWC will work with a consultant to come up with the preliminary design concept for the upgrading works. Prior to polling, shop owners will be notified in writing of the full scope of works proposed so that they can make an informed decision on whether to support the upgrading.”
“However, as various precincts have different upgrading needs depending on their age and design, HDB does not stipulate a set scope of works to be carried out under the ROS programmes. Instead, a Local Working Committee (LWC) comprising members from the Merchants' Association (MA), the Town Council and HDB, will be formed when the precinct is selected for ROS. With the local stakeholders' input through the MA, the scope of works can then be tailored to best suit local needs. The incidence of benefit for the upgrading works will depend on the design and configuration of each neighbourhood centre. We expect precincts selected for ROS to propose enhancements that can benefit the majority – if not all – of the shops in the precinct. Next, if a poll succeeds, I believe Members would agree, that there is a need for parity for all shop owners. Hence, HDB will recover the cost of upgrading from all beneficiary shop owners, regardless of their vote or their attendance at the poll. In this context, excluding non-responsive shop owners from the overall count would amount to further lowering the threshold for a successful poll. As Members would be aware, the key basis for this review is to avoid a situation where a single shop owner can exercise what is effectively a veto and deny the rest of the opportunity to upgrade, even if they were all supportive. At the same time, we have to strike a reasonable balance with the consideration that some individual shop owners might not support upgrading for their own reasons. We have hence taken a leaf from other upgrading programmes, such as the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), where the threshold of 75% has come to be widely accepted. We believe this would be a reasonable threshold for ROS to move towards.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their comments and their support of the Bill. Let me address the issues they have raised. First, there were a few questions about how polling for upgrading works would be carried out. Under the ROS scheme, HDB provides co-funding for improvement of the common area within the shopping precinct to boost the vibrancy and competitiveness of HDB shops. This upgrading may include works at the shopfront that directly benefit the individual shop operators, such as replacement of the floor tiles or lighting at the shopping corridor. It may also include other common area works that would indirectly benefit the individual retailers by improving the overall shopping environment and increasing footfall to the area. Examples include building new spaces for promotional events, the introduction of entrance markers or way finders. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Lim Biow Chuan have shared their concerns that shop owners who do not benefit from the ROS works – or perceive that they do not benefit – might vote against upgrading the common areas and asked if such shop owners should be excluded from the poll. Mr Henry Kwek also suggested for HDB to consider excluding non-responsive shop owners from the poll, sharing feedback that some heartland merchants would welcome a polling threshold of 60%, or even 50% instead. Miss Cheryl Chan also asked how the upgrading works could be put into effect if the likelihood of getting owners onboard is low. First, on ROS works. Neighbourhood Centres have clear boundaries, and our intention is for ROS to be provided to a neighbourhood centre as a whole.”
“This aligns with the 28-day period which a personal representative or an interested person may appeal to the Minister under section 59(6). As a similar safeguard to the one in clause 3(b), clause 2 amends section 50 to insert a new subsection (3A) that prevents HDB from repossessing or taking certain steps needed to vest the title or the estate or interest in a flat, house or other living accommodations until 14 days after serving notice of the Board’s intent to do so. This aligns with the 14-day period which a purchaser may appeal to the Minister under section 50(4). Finally, there is a need for HDB’s service delivery model to be updated to meet expectations of today’s HDB flat owners, and to be more environmentally friendly. Clause 8 repeals and re-enacts section 111 to provide additional option for HDB to serve notices such as via email. However, these additional options will not be extended to notices or summons with higher gravity. HDB notices or summons pertaining to compulsory acquisition and vesting of title will continue to be served physically. In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill enhances the ROS Scheme by introducing formal polling provisions that I have just described under clauses 4 to 7 and also makes administrative amendments to notice servicing under clauses 2, 3 and 8. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“To support our heartland businesses in their rejuvenation efforts, we are studying further enhancements to the co-payment structure, including lowering the co-payment share of shop owners. We will share more details at the Committee of Supply 2023. Let me move on to the other administrative amendments. Today, HDB may serve formal notice to a personal representative or an interested person to vest ownership of a flat back to HDB, if upon death of the owner, his personal representatives fail to take steps to deal with the deceased owner’s interest in the flat in the prescribed period. In such an event, HDB would serve a notice to inform the Estate of the deceased and all persons known to have an interest in the property, of HDB’s intent to vest the property back to HDB. Before repossessing the flat, sections 59(2) to 59(4) require the notice to include the lodgement or rescission date, that is, the date when vesting to HDB will take effect, so that the person is aware of when the flat will revert to HDB. This serves to give him or her sufficient time to submit any appeals. However, in practice, it is not always possible to state the precise date when the vesting to HDB will take effect as this date is dependent on when the instrument of vesting is registered by the Registrar of Titles. The proposed amendment to clause 3(a) therefore seeks to simplify the notice to exclude the requirement for this date. However, to retain a period of time during which a person to whom notice is served can still appeal against the vesting, clause 3(b) inserts a new subsection (5A) that will prevent HDB from effecting the vesting of the flat until 28 days after serving notice of the Board’s intent to do so.”
“The majority of the merchants' associations engaged have expressed their support for this move, and based on our experience with residential upgrading, we believe this to be a fair approach that balances the preferences of stakeholders with the need to rejuvenate our heartlands. Let me elaborate on clauses 4 to 7. Clause 4 amends section 75 of the H&D Act to introduce the definition for “commercial property upgrading works”. The term “commercial property” refers to any property permitted to be used for the purpose of carrying out business, and would include units such as retail shops, childcare centres, commercial schools, offices or sports and recreation centres. This amendment will allow upgrading works aimed at attracting footfall and vibrancy to be carried out within and outside of any commercial property in the HDB commercial precinct. Clause 5 amends section 77 to allow HDB to conduct a poll of the HDB shop owners for the purpose of shop upgrading works within an HDB commercial precinct and allows for the works to proceed when at least 75% of the votes by shop owners are in favour of the upgrading works. Clause 6 amends section 78 and empowers HDB, upon a successful poll, to recover a portion of the cost of upgrading works from all shop owners and Town Councils, including the minority who did not support the works. Clause 7 amends section 85(b) to allow the Minister to set out rules to operationalise the above amendments. In our consultations, many businesses appealed to reduce the current level of co-payment for upgrading costs by shop owners, currently pegged at 20% and capped at $5,000, to make the ROS Scheme more attractive and benefit a wider community.”
“MND and HDB have engaged Merchants' Associations and shop owners, and a majority shared that the current ROS requirement to obtain 100% support from benefiting shop owners is too stringent. They are unable to proceed with upgrading even if there is only a small number of shop owners who oppose the upgrading. For instance, the Marine Parade Merchants’ Association had managed to gather 77% support from the shop owners to upgrade Marine Terrace Neighbourhood Centre, but ultimately could not benefit from the scheme as a small minority of shop owners are not in favour of the upgrading. Some merchants' associations have shared with us that some shop owners are less interested in upgrading because they rent out the entire shop unit, rather than operate the shop themselves. For these owners, they may be more interested in the steady rental income stream. Unfortunately, if the upgrading does not proceed, the physical environment around the shop cluster may become dull over time, and it may become less attractive to customers. Instead, a refresh of the physical environment will be a win-win – residents can enjoy a better shopping experience, and shop operators may gain more customers over time. Therefore, MND has reviewed the ROS and is proposing to adjust the scheme to allow upgrading to proceed if 75% of the shop owners vote in favour of the upgrading. This is aligned to HDB’s upgrading programmes for residential flats. For example, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), can proceed if 75% of residents vote for it. Clauses 4 to 7 of our proposed amendment will extend the same framework to HDB shops.”
“Support packages such as rental waivers for our HDB merchants and Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers were also given out to Singaporean households to use at participating hawkers and heartland merchants. HDB also supports budding entrepreneurs and Social Enterprises through various schemes. For aspiring entrepreneurs, HDB sets aside retail spaces for allocation to start-ups in our shopping centres such as Oasis Terraces and Northshore Plaza. For Social Enterprises and SMEs with inclusive hiring practices, HDB supports them by direct allocating some commercial spaces to these businesses and provide them with a 20% rental discount. We want to do even more. To enhance the vibrancy of heartland shop precincts, we need to invest in physical upgrading. This is necessary to rejuvenate the heartland shop precincts and improve the shopping experience for customers, while retaining the character and charm of the shops, especially older ones. HDB introduced the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) scheme in 2007 to provide funding for upgrading HDB shops and to improve the vibrancy of commercial areas in HDB heartlands. Under the ROS scheme, HDB co-funds common area improvement works at HDB town or neighbourhood centres. Examples of such works include corridor re-tiling, landscaping, installation of roller shutters and vertical blinds. To ensure a common vision and continuity of the revitalisation effort in the long term, shop owners need to co-pay a certain amount of the works and merchants' associations would currently need to gather 100% support from shop owners in the Town or Neighbour Centre before ROS upgrading works can proceed.”
“The key findings of the study are: First, residents hope that we can improve trade mix in HDB shops to keep up with the changing needs of the local community and make the range of goods and services more interesting and diverse. Some also suggested that heartland shops serve as incubators for local entrepreneurs who are just starting out. Second, residents feel that heartland shops play a special role in fostering a more inclusive community. For instance, HDB shops provide essential products and services at affordable prices and provide convenience to local residents, including older residents who may not be able to travel far. Third, many respondents say that HDB shops contribute to the character and heritage of their neighbourhoods. Long-serving shopkeepers who know their customers well bring a sense of comfort and constancy to residents. Given the important role the heartland shops play in our HDB estates, the Government has been reviewing how to support our heartland merchants better. In the past one to two years, the Heartland Digitalisation and Revitalisation Committee (HDRC), co-chaired by Minister of State Low Yen Ling and myself, supported heartland merchants in advancing their digitalisation efforts and growing revenue streams. The HDRC worked with agencies to introduce initiatives such as Heartlands Go Digital to accelerate the adoption of digital solutions and Visual Merchandising to improve heartland shopfront aesthetics to attract customers. Events were also organised to attract footfall. For example, the three-month long Heartlands Festival 2021, which ran from November 2021 to February 2022, resulted in 20% more footfall in participating precincts, and up to 30% more revenue among some shops. The 2022 edition of the Festival commenced last November.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, on the behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Madam, this Bill seeks to amend the Housing and Development Act in three areas. First, it will extend existing polling provisions for HDB's upgrading programmes to also cover upgrading works at HDB commercial sites carried out under the Revitalisation of Shops Scheme, or in short, the ROS Scheme. Second, it removes the requirement for the date of lodgement or date of recission to be stated in HDB's notice served under Section 59(2) to 59(4). In place of this, provisions have been introduced to prevent the Board from lodging the instrument of vesting or rescinding the agreement for a lease until after the expiry of the period during which the purchaser, personal representatives or any interested persons may appeal to the Minister. Lastly, it facilitates HDB's operationalisation of its service of notices via additional options, such as email. HDB shops play important social and economic roles in our neighbourhoods. They provide affordable and convenient essential goods and services to residents. They also form the social glue within a community. HDB shops and shopkeepers that have been serving their communities for a long time contribute not only to local employment, but also add to the heritage and character of our heartlands. HDB recently partnered with EnterpriseSG to undertake the Heartlands Shops Study, to examine the social and economic value of HDB shops for various stakeholders such as residents, business owners, workers and merchants' associations. Over 2,800 stakeholders were engaged.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Leong says that it is the Government who has been shaping certain expectations of SERS in the way that he has characterised it. Mr Speaker, I would like to share with Mr Leong once again actually what the Government has been putting out with regards to SERS. We have said more than once that the selection of sites for SERS necessarily has to be limited, that only about 5% of sites could be suitable for SERS and that, in fact, many suitable sites have already gone through the exercise. So, how have we not been shaping the expectations and putting out information in a transparent way? So, Mr Speaker, I think that what Mr Leong is trying to do, once again, is to confuse the public. I believe that the information that we have been putting out is transparent and we also have been consistent in doing so. With regard to diminishing leases, again the Government has also been upfront in letting residents know about this, in being clear to home owners in terms of the relativity between VERS and SERS. If Mr Leong takes a look at our article on Gov.sg, I think it cannot possibly be clearer. So, Mr Speaker, I think what Mr Leong is trying to do here is something that is increasingly evident to everyone. [(proc text) The Question having been proposed at 6.51 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. (proc text)] Adjourned accordingly at 7.21 pm.”
“So, I think that far from the Government being disingenuous, far from the Government having been non-transparent or non-empathetic to ground concerns, I would put it, Mr Speaker, to the House that it is Mr Leong who is being disingenuous in blurring the distinction between a market expectation and a policy commitment, and also shaping expectations of a policy whose parameters we have given some outline to, but he has shaped it the other way. And I can only wonder at his purpose for doing this, Mr Speaker. I am mindful that Mr Leong has been making various arguments – in our opinion, erroneous arguments – outside of the House with regard to the valuation and the pricing of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats and also, by extension, the proper use of national Reserves. I also believe that we will have an opportunity to debate fully in this House on these matters. But I hope that instead of conflating issues, confusing issues or quite deliberately misleading the public by shaping ungrounded expectations of schemes, creating goalposts as it were, I hope that Mr Leong will engage in the upcoming debate responsibly. To do otherwise makes it harder, not easier, for us collectively to balance the needs of Singaporeans, and I am talking about the current generation as well as the future generations.”
“So, I believe what Mr Leong is doing here, is to shape certain ungrounded expectations of VERS which are at odds with what we have shared so far. The details of VERS have yet to be announced but the Government has already made clear that the terms for VERS will not be as generous as for SERS and that there are no replacement flats. So, if we examine what Mr Leong has been doing, I think he has been reshaping people's expectations of the scheme and I cannot help but wonder why he is doing so. Be that as it may, it does not seem very inconsistent with what Mr Leong has been doing because, as I have explained, the SERS scheme compensation was not designed for flat owners to be able to purchase a same size flat on a fresh 99-year lease in a very similar location. But Mr Leong has painted it as the objective. In his speech, he characterises what has happened in Ang Mo Kio as some threshold having been crossed. And I think what Mr Leong is doing here is blurring the distinction between a market expectation and a policy commitment. We can understand in the case of SERS that residents or flat owners may hope for more compensation. We can understand if they have formed these expectations based on the experiences of previous flat owners who have gone through the SERS exercises. But this cannot be the case for all SERS exercises, and we have explained that.”
“I feel that we need to repeat this: 99% of the flat owners who were involved in the Ang Mo Kio SERS exercise do not need to top-up to purchase a similar type of flat with a full 99-year lease or a similar size flat on a 50-year lease. So, the Government, in determining the compensation for SERS flats has been consistent in applying valuation principles that are well-established. In addition, we have been giving our SERS households considerable support. All these have been enumerated in our public communications and I feel that it is not necessary for us to repeat that here. Mr Leong then goes on to characterise what has happened in the Ang Mo Kio SERS case as one that is due to an effect of diminishing leases and then to use that to shape certain expectations of the public of the VERS scheme. I feel that it is important for us to make very clear here. I have explained why residents need to top up when they swop a 57-year lease for a new 99-year lease. This was also made clear during our public communications with our residents in Ang Mo Kio, as well as in response to the public Petition. And I believe that Mr Leong acknowledges that. However, it seems that he does not prefer this outcome. That does not make it an unfair one. SERS is not meant to extend a decaying lease for free to 99 years. I have mentioned that. That is not the basis upon which SERS compensation is determined. It is determined by a fair, independent assessment and that, in turn, takes reference from market value. Nor is VERS. VERS, like SERS, is not meant to extend a diminishing lease for free to 99 years. The alternative to SERS or VERS is for the residents to stay in place until their lease runs out, at which point they would have to find a new flat on a new lease.”
“It so happened, during past SERS exercises, that the outcome was quite advantageous for most flat owners, because the age of their flats was not so old. A different outcome would occur if the age of the flats involved in SERS were older. Because a flat with, say, 57 years left, would fetch a lower value on the resale market than one with 70 years left. And this was what happened in the case of the Ang Mo Kio SERS exercise; and would, in fact, be the case in future SERS exercises if the flats involved are of similar vintage. What did Government do in this case? First, the Government has maintained consistency in our approach with previous exercises. This is quite in contrast with the picture that Mr Leong was trying to paint, which is that somehow, an epochal moment was made possible without the Government admitting so. I am afraid Mr Leong is painting quite an incorrect picture here. In addition, the Government also listened to the residents and once we heard their key concerns, we introduced flexibility to meet their needs by offering more options, such as the 50-year leases, as well as the LBS for seniors and allowing flexibility for the residents to apply for a site that is different than the original designated replacement site at Central Weave at Ang Mo Kio. So, we reject the characterisation of a lack of empathy. We have been walking the ground and we have also been listening to residents. While we have maintained our approach towards the valuation of flats, we have also introduced flexibility after listening from the residents, and also the representations of their representative, Ms Nadia Samdin. And as a result of that, 99% of flat owners need not top up to purchase a similar type of flat with a full 99-year lease or a similar sized flat on a 50-year lease.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Leong has raised the issue of the Ang Mo Kio SERS by submitting a Petition to the Public Petitions Committee, and MND as well as the Housing and Development Board (HDB) had replied to the issues that he has raised and have also sent memoranda to the Public Petitions Committee several times. He has raised some issues again and I would like to take this opportunity to recap what has transpired in the case of the Ang Mo Kio SERS. First of all, SERS compensation has never been intentionally pegged to the price of a new flat of similar size, in a similar location, on a fresh 99-year lease. It has not been pegged or designed this way, although in his speech, Mr Leong has sought to make it so. How does it come about that a flat that has, say, 70 years left on its lease can be worth more than a similar flat, in terms of size and location, with a full 99 years to run? This is largely because the new flat on a 99-year lease comes with Government subsidies, which are so substantive that after netting off some additional financial support from the SERS grant and the payment of reasonable expenses by HDB, eligible buyers can actually pay less than what a similar flat with 70 years left would fetch on the resale market. During earlier SERS exercises, the flats that were acquired were generally younger, such that most unit owners would be able to afford a subsidised replacement flat of similar attributes on a fresh 99-year lease. The compensation framework was based on independent assessment, which, in turn, was based on market value. It was not pegged to the subsidised price of new flats, nor designed to create a windfall.”
“We will also take in her feedback and study new ways to design sky gardens better in the future, to pre-empt disamenities, while keeping them open and inclusive. Notwithstanding the improvement seen on New Year's Eve 2021 and throughout 2022, I understand the Member is concerned about whether the crowding seen on New Year's Eve 2020 will recur. I will be glad to join her again in monitoring the sky gardens under her charge during the upcoming year-end festive period. I thank Ms Joan Pereira again for the opportunity to respond to her ideas and set out the Ministry if National Development (MND)'s and HDB's approach to this topic. Creating a quality living environment requires everyone to play their part. I hope that as a society, we can be considerate and kind to one another, and make our HDB estates an icon of gracious, inclusive and harmonious living.”
“Even though the situation on the ground appears to have stabilised, we agree with the need for constant surveillance and vigilance, through the use of signages and CCTV cameras to warn visitors and deter errant behaviour. Similar to the sky garden at SkyVille, all skyrise gardens and terraces in other HDB projects remain open to all. The Member raised the case of Pinnacle @ Duxton, where access to its 50th storey sky bridge is chargeable and gated for non-residents. The Pinnacle @ Duxton was an exception. It was assessed at the project design stage then, that there was a need to limit access to its sky bridges in view of various factors, such as the development's central location, its iconic status as the tallest HDB residential building in Singapore, as well as the novelty of the panoramic city views on offer. Mdm Deputy Speaker, as far as possible, we would want to preserve the open, inclusive and shared nature of HDB estates. During my visit to one of these sky gardens, I was heartened to hear Ms Pereira explain that her residents are not asking for or expecting zero visitors to the sky gardens. What they want is for the disamenities to be managed and for daily living not to be disrupted. This is a reasonable expectation and, in fact, similar to resident expectations of how ground-level HDB parks are managed. Ground-level HDB parks might also attract littering, loitering or noisy congregations from time to time, but these issues are, by and large, addressable through the advice and action on the part of agencies. HDB will continue to work with the Member and agencies, such as Town Councils and NEA to monitor the situation and take action to minimise any disamenities. In particular, we appreciate the efforts expended by the Member and her ground volunteers.”
“HDB had also conducted special joint operations with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), NEA and Dawson Residents' Committee, to address feedback on the non-compliance of COVID-19 safe management measures (SMMs) at the sky gardens. From September to November 2021, the team issued advisories to members of the public on the proper wearing of masks, observing safe distancing and keeping to group size limits. For more serious breaches, HDB issued Notices of Composition (NOC) to offenders. These operations have been effective. Overall, members of the public complied with the SMMs after receiving the advisories. Apart from the isolated incidents, the sky gardens were relatively quiet, with no breaches of group size limits and no serious or deliberate non-compliance of SMMs observed. Crowds also reduced steadily, from about 80 at its peak to 30 towards the end of November 2021. On New Year's Eve 2021, the sky gardens at SkyVille were closed from 10 pm. The task force observed minimal crowds and SMMs were not breached. Groups readily dispersed and left the premises upon being advised by the task force. Since then, the sky gardens have been closed nightly, with no access permitted after 10 pm. Notices have been placed around the sky gardens with the help of Tanjong Pagar Town Council. Since New Year's Eve 2020, HDB's on-site inspections have shown that the number of visitors to the sky gardens has declined significantly and large gatherings are uncommon, with users generally cleaning up after themselves and behaving in an orderly manner. Thus far, HDB has not received any recent feedback from residents pertaining to disamenities on sky gardens.”
“This is different from ground-level HDB parks that often have multiple points of access. Thus, if the sky gardens attract an unusual volume of visitors during peak times, even residents who do not use the sky gardens regularly might feel inconvenienced by crowding in lifts or at the lift lobbies. What we are able to do is to assist the Town Councils and the local grassroots in signalling to visitors that sky gardens, while open in nature, are residential amenities and not domestic tourist attractions. Visitors should not forget that residents live very near the sky gardens, and/or behave in an inconsiderate and irresponsible manner, such as making loud noises, smoking or littering. We do not condone this. Therefore, HDB has been actively working with Town Councils and various Government agencies to implement measures targeted at addressing these disamenities that bring inconvenience and stress to residents. In 2016, a task force was established to manage crowds at the respective sky gardens on the eve of festivities. HDB is a member of this task force, focused at SkyVille and SkyTerrace, along with the Residents' Committee, Tanjong Pagar Town Council, Singapore Police Force (SPF), as well as NEA. To address residents' feedback following the larger-than-expected turnout observed at SkyVille on New Year's Eve 2020, the task force ramped up its surveillance and regulation of the sky gardens by stepping up its patrols, especially on Friday and Saturday nights. This is on top of increased SPF patrols and NEA's own patrols targeted at smoking and littering offences. More signages and CCTV cameras were installed as well.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for passionately voicing the concerns of her residents and sharing her views on how we can better manage common spaces in public housing estates. HDB estates are designed to be open and inclusive and to foster community bonding. In line with this philosophy, HDB estates are not gated and remain accessible not just to residents but also members of the public. We also design community gardens, void decks and other community spaces in our estates to foster interactions. Such spaces are, as a matter of policy, kept open and accessible to all. It is one of the distinctive differences between public and private housing. In the past decade, sky gardens have been introduced to newer estates. They function as a refuge floor for fire protection in residential blocks above 40 storeys and provide skyrise greenery. Sky gardens may include additional facilities, such as fitness corners and sheltered seating areas for people to exercise together, chit chat or gather as a community. While they are located above ground, they are, in essence, similar to other common spaces in public housing estates. I understand the Member's concerns about how some members of the public have been treating the sky gardens as an attraction. From a policy perspective, HDB cannot treat sky gardens as exclusive enclosed spaces. At the same time, we acknowledge that sky gardens are not identical in nature to the ground-level open parks and green spaces that we see in many HDB estates. Because of their elevation and the views that they command, sky gardens might attract visitors who would not go out of their way to visit ground-level HDB parks. And because sky gardens can only be accessed via lifts, visitors will end up sharing these lifts with residents.”
“I thank Mr Gan. First of all, within HMCG, we already have a framework and as I have also shared with Members just now, we have managed to see progress in some of the cases. I understand that Members, especially those who have witnessed or who have been handling hoarding cases in your own wards, would also like to see more speedy resolution. This is also a goal that we share. In terms of working together with the agencies, we will seek to have intensified ground actions because I think it is important that we do the clearance, for instance, of corridors together in a more concerted way, such that there would be first, broader understanding of the importance of clear passages; there would also be some increased understanding in hoarding and what are the factors surrounding it; and also, we hope that even for members of the public who may not be living next to someone who keeps clutter, but that, when there are actions that are ongoing, when there is some enforcement and if there is, for instance, some objections on the ground from the person who owns the clutter, we actually seek the members of the public's understanding as well, that this is something that needs to be done for the greater good.”
“I thank Ms Joan Pereira. On behalf of the MSO which chairs HMCG, I would like nothing better than to see more resources being devoted to this issue by all the agencies that are working with us. However, working closely with them, we also understand that there are different professional considerations. For instance, what we have learnt from our mental health colleagues is that hoarding itself is not an illness or a condition. It is an expression of underlying conditions which can be quite varied. And therefore, in terms of dealing with the root cause, every case is different. So, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach and actually as with quite a number of mental health conditions, it is again, not a straightforward issue of prescribing a treatment. Access to the individual, the ability to engage the individual, some awareness or response by the individual and strong support from the family members are very important, not just in terms of addressing the behavioural manifestation, in terms of the hoarding, but also whatever underlying cause could have contributed to this behaviour in the first place. So, this is something that we will continue to work together with our colleagues from the mental health sector. Broader understanding, as I have explained earlier, would also help because then, it gives our officers more confidence on the ground as they interact with each family or household and address their responses or sometimes lack thereof in their efforts to declutter.”
“To this end, the media reporting recently has also been, in my opinion, very helpful because I think it helps people understand a little bit better that it is something which is not so straightforward to do, but that efforts are being expended on the ground and we will continue to do so.”
“In response to Mr Gerald Giam's questions – first, in terms of the clearance of clutter, we do work together with a variety of partners. So, yes, volunteers are very helpful in this regard but also there are professional officers who are involved. I have just mentioned in response to Mr Murali, that HDB officers are very often on the front line and they are spending their time together with MSO officers to effect the clearance of items as well. So, the key, though, is very often to obtain entry and cooperation, especially in cases where the level of cluttering or hoarding falls short of outright legal violations. This is where most of the effort is being expended. In terms of the enforcement levers, within HMCG, we do and we will continue to work very closely first with the technical agencies, whose professional assessment we rely upon to determine whether or not a legal order can be issued. These are all covered under their respective Acts, within NEA as well as SCDF's purview. I mentioned, for instance AVS as well, and that is for a smaller subset of cases. I think one of the ways in which we can also help the officers on the ground is for there to be more public understanding of some of the complexities of the issue. It is very often not a simple matter of pressing a button and then the decluttering will take place. The individual is very much a part of the picture and sometimes not being able to contact the individual or evasive actions taken by the individual to avoid anyone speaking with him or her, or gaining entry to his or her flat, very often that can delay action very considerably. Also, the degree to which the family members are supportive makes a very clear difference on the ground.”