Teh Cheang Wan
Singapore
“The Board does not propose to reinstitute the procedure for the resale of flats at the respective Area Offices in Ang Mo Kio New Town. As a pilot project, the Board has centralised the resale of Ang Mo Kio flats at Sales Section, Maxwell Road.”
“At the contract price or whatever it is, and this is due to the mistake made by the HDB, the HDB has been quite generous. If the mistake made by the HDB staff has been to sell the flat at lower than the posted price, then the owner has the benefit of this mistake.”
“The Member for Potong Pasir is asking a question which I have to check for an answer. I do not carry with me the millions of accounts of HDB flat-owners with me. So I cannot give him an immediate answer. But I can assure the Member for Potong Pasir that those people will be refunded.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the announcement by HDB on 4th July 1986, 49 HUDC lessees appealed to the Board to buy their flats. All were unsuccessful. As at 20th September 1986, 27 HUDC flat owners had sold their flats in the open market. Twelve of them sold their flats above their original purchase prices.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the implementation of the policy, HDB has resold 13 HUDC flats from among those flats HDB bought back from the HUDC owners. In addition, HDB has sold 44 new HUDC flats. The slow sale of HUDC flats is due mainly to the depressed property market.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no figures readily available as to how many of these 49 HUDC flat-owners who requested the Board to buy back the flats have committed themselves to buying other property.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,213 lines we hold for Teh Cheang Wan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 25.
“The Board does not propose to reinstitute the procedure for the resale of flats at the respective Area Offices in Ang Mo Kio New Town. As a pilot project, the Board has centralised the resale of Ang Mo Kio flats at Sales Section, Maxwell Road. This centralisation enables both vendors and purchasers to obtain all the necessary services at one stop. These include eligibility checks, getting CPF statements, opening or transfer of PUB accounts and affirmation of Statutory Declarations. The Board will monitor the new procedure and improve it where necessary to minimise inconvenience to residents. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT'S RESOLUTION ON CHIA THYE POH 3. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the government has received the resolution of the European Parliament calling for the immediate release of Mr Chia Thye Poh and, if so, whether it has replied to the European Parliament and in what terms.”
“But I would like to assure the Member for Bukit Timah that PWD has, in fact, a proposal to provide alternative access to the Faber Hills estate. I will ask PWD to send a copy of their new plan to the Member for Bukit Timah. And if the Member is still not happy, he can always write to me and we can look further into it. On the question of the extension of Clementi Avenue 6 which generates noise. In Singapore because of the shortage of land, we have to build highrise buildings and we have to construct the expressway, the arterial roads, very near to HDB developments. And it is impossible to avoid traffic noise affecting the estate. This is because of our own land constraint and our high-rise development. I must say that there is no easy solution to this problem. In fact, PWD has made a study of how to combat the noise affecting highrise buildings. So far, they are unable to find a satisfactory solution. At present the advice is that we plant more trees along the roads to reduce the intensity of the noise. Under the HDB housing policy, if the residents who live near expressways find the noise intolerable, they can, if they have lived in an HDB estate for more than five years, sell their flats in the free market and move elsewhere. So if anybody finds the noise intolerable and they cannot live near the expressway and they have to move, then this is perhaps the only alternative. But, however, I would like to say that --- 4.02 pm”
“On the resettlement of the shops at 7th Mile, Bukit Timah, this is an impossible problem. There are at present 71 shops altogether. In the new Bukit Timah estate developed by HDB, there are altogether 16 shops. So it is impossible to resettle 71 shopkeepers into 16 shops. The problem is just as simple as that. It is not possible to resettle 71 shopkeepers into 16 new shops. From HDB's experience, it is not desirable to resettle all the resettlement cases in the shopping centre, and that the shopping centre will do better business if half the shops are taken by resettlement cases and the other half by public tender. There is then a good mix of trade and there is also a good mix of shopkeepers. The shopping centre is more viable that way. That means eight shops will go to resettlement cases and eight shops will go to the public, and therefore the 71 resettlement cases cannot be resettled into eight shops. So we have to find other solutions. I will ask the URA to look into it and, if necessary, delay the clearance because the new Bukit Timah estate is now developed and there is a bigger population there, and if the shopkeepers can remain in that area, then they will not be unlucky twice. They may have been unlucky once but lucky twice because they will enjoy the business from the new Bukit Timah estate residents. On the point raised by the Member for Bukit Timah about the Ayer Rajah Express- way. When the Expressway is built, all the roads previously connected to Ayer Rajah Expressway will be cut down to a minimum because expressways cannot have too many road junctions. If expressways have a lot of road junctions, then expressways will not achieve the desired flow of traffic. So all access to the Expressway will be cut off.”
“If it is vacant possession, then the landowner has to deliver the land, vacant, to the Government, without encumbrance. Alternatively, the landowner goes to court to obtain a judgment to say that the occupants of the land have no legal entitlement to the land. In other words, the occupant is not a lessee or is not a rent -controlled tenant, which means that, in both cases, he is protected by the law and the landowner cannot evict him. Unless the landowner can produce this document to the resettlement authority or the resettlement department, ie, JTC, URA or HDB, they will not pay the landowner the vacant possession value. Quite often the problem is something like this. The landowner has arrived at an understanding with the tenant and he pays a certain amount of money to the tenant. The tenant has agreed to give up his tenancy. The landowner then goes to the Government to claim vacant possession. Subsequently, when the Government moves in, the tenant then comes back to say, "This durian tree belongs to me. This papaya tree belongs to me. This improvement belongs to me. Government, please compensate me." That is how the dispute comes about and a lot of cases are due to this. The tenant, in fact, has arrived at an understanding with the landowner but subsequently, for various reasons, either he thought that he could get another compensation from the Government or he felt that he had been cheated by the landowner. But of the six cases raised by the Member for Bukit Timah, since four cases have been satisfactorily resolved and two cases are still outstanding, I would suggest that perhaps the Member can write to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary and give the details of the two cases and we will see what assistance can be rendered by the Resettlement Department.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bukit Timah raised three points, ie, the resettlement of the farmers and residents and also the URA's resettlement of the shops as well as the PWD's road construction project. So I will answer in that order. The resettlement in Singapore, as correctly mentioned by the Member for Bukit Timah, is handled by three authorities, ie, JTC resettles development affected by JTC, mainly the industrial development. URA handles the resettlement of mainly the shopkeepers in the central area for urban redevelopment. The rest of the resettlement is done by HDB, ie, public housing, schools, hospitals, roads and other ministries' development. But we have only one resettlement policy and this is being followed by all the authorities, ie, HDB, URA and JTC are following the same policy. In handling resettlement there will be some discrepancy. There is discrepancy even within the HDB resettlement and not just between the URA and JTC because HDB resettlement covers the rest of Singapore, other than those areas undertaken by JTC and URA, and HDB has several resettlement teams working in the various divisions. Quite often, discrepancy occurs. This is unavoidable. But I would say that in most of the cases they have been satisfactorily resolved. On the point raised about the tenants on land who have been shortchanged by the Government or they have not been properly compensated by the Government, I would like to explain that quite often it is a dispute, not so much with the authority, but a dispute between the tenant and the landowner. After the land has been acquired by the Government, the Government will pay compensation for the acquisition in two forms, ie, either vacant possession or encumbered compensation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB has no immediate plans to convert the existing rental flats in Bo Wen constituency into Home Ownership flats for sale. SZ HIRE CARS (Review of statutory life span) 4. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether he will review the regulations relating to the statutory 7-year life span of "SZ" hire cars.”
“The Member for Potong Pasir is asking a question which I have to check for an answer. I do not carry with me the millions of accounts of HDB flat-owners with me. So I cannot give him an immediate answer. But I can assure the Member for Potong Pasir that those people will be refunded. If he is asking me for a time limit, certainly it is not 10 years. Perhaps offhand I can say that if they have not already got their money, they should get it within three months. HDB RENTAL FLATS IN BO WEN CONSTITUENCY (Conversion into purchase flats) 3. Mr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any plans to convert some of the rental blocks into home ownership scheme in Bo Wen Constituency.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, although this question is not relevant, I can assure the Member for Potong Pasir that all of them will get their refund if they have not yet got it. All of them will get their refund.”
“At the contract price or whatever it is, and this is due to the mistake made by the HDB, the HDB has been quite generous. If the mistake made by the HDB staff has been to sell the flat at lower than the posted price, then the owner has the benefit of this mistake. Just for argument's sake, if the flat which should have been sold for $50,000 but because of a mistake the flat had been sold at $45,000, the owner will benefit by the lower price. In other words, he paid $45,000. But if the mistake made by the HDB had been to charge this flat at $55,000, then HDB will refund $5,000 of the additional price paid by the owner. In other words, the HDB flat-owners are having the cake and eating it as well. Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, the Minister has gone round the mulberry bush but he has not answered my question. Of the 24 purchases at the contract price, how many of them have got their refunds to-date?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no figures readily available as to how many of these 49 HUDC flat-owners who requested the Board to buy back the flats have committed themselves to buying other property. I have said earlier that HDB has relaxed the rules to allow HUDC owners to sell their flats in the open market, and those HUDC flat-owners who have committed to buy other flats can sell their HUDC flats in the open market. In fact, many of them have done so. On the question of HDB flat-owners who have purchased the HDB flats at a lower price ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the implementation of the policy, HDB has resold 13 HUDC flats from among those flats HDB bought back from the HUDC owners. In addition, HDB has sold 44 new HUDC flats. The slow sale of HUDC flats is due mainly to the depressed property market. I believe that when the property market recovers in future, more people are expected to buy HUDC flats. On the question of additional facilities to be provided in HUDC estates, if the request for the facilities is reasonable and involves a relatively small cost, HDB will consider it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the announcement by HDB on 4th July 1986, 49 HUDC lessees appealed to the Board to buy their flats. All were unsuccessful. As at 20th September 1986, 27 HUDC flat owners had sold their flats in the open market. Twelve of them sold their flats above their original purchase prices. The remaining 15 owners sold their flats below their origianl purchase prices. The Board is unable to tell if these owners had made a profit or incurred a loss. To do so, the Board must take into account imputed rentals and renovation costs which cannot be ascertained accurately.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st July 1986, there were 49,259 applicants on the waiting list to purchase home ownership flats. The average waiting period for 3-room and 4-room Simplified flats is approximately three to six months. Applicants for the purchase of 4-room Model A and 5-room flats can be allocated their flats within 1(r) to 2 years. EX GRATIA PAYMENTS FOR PUBLIC SECTOR EXPATRIATE STAFF 3. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Finance whether expatriate staff in the public sector will be paid ex gratia amounts equivalent to their Central Provident Fund cuts; and, if so, when these payments will be made, how many expatriate staff will benefit from these payments and how much it will cost the Government in one year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figure available, but in every new town there is a large number of reserved sites.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this piece of land is part of the comprehensive development within the New Town. It is part of the New Town. In all new towns, HDB has reserved several pieces of land for future development because a new town is going to be there for 99 years. We must reserve land within the New Town so that in the next 99 years when any development is necessary, we have the land for development. Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee): May I ask the Minister how many such pieces of land have been reserved throughout Singapore in the various new towns?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the empty plot of land is situated along Boon Lay Way which continues into Commonwealth Avenue West. It is reserved for future development by HDB. There are no immediate plans for the site.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB is aware that over the next 10 to 20 years the proportion of the aged in the population will increase. To meet the housing needs of elderly persons, the Board is looking into the possibility of building studio apartments together with larger flat-types, such as the 4- and 5-room flats. This would enable the elderly persons to stay with their married children in separate, but adjacent, apartments. This also avoids isolating the elderly from the community at large which hostel-like arrangements tend to promote. Elderly couples who find their present flats too big and difficult to maintain can apply for smaller flats. They can sell their present flats upon allocation of the smaller flats. If the existing flat is occupied for more than five years, they can sell it in the open market. UN SOLUTION TO THE CAMBODIAN PROBLEM 3. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the assessment of his Ministry on the pivotal role of the United Nations in the search for a solution to the Cambodian problem.”
“I said it is publicized in our HDB Home magazine, which means that since all HDB residents receive a copy of the Home magazine, so all HDB residents in every estate are told of this problem. HDB FLATS FOR ELDERLY SINGLES AND COUPLES 2. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider incorporating into future HDB flats a hostel-like design to cater for elderly singles and/or couples who may need food and lodging while continuing to work after retirement age or for those elderly persons who may find their present flats too big and difficult to maintain.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think periodically the HDB has publicized in the Home magazine the problem of parking motorcycles in the void decks, such as oil spills. And, as I have said earlier in answering the Member for Braddell Heights, HDB will be formulating rules to discourage parking of motorcycles in the void decks. These rules will be widely publicized and residents will be advised not to park their motorcycles in the void decks because they should park their motorcylces in proper parking lots. As I have said earlier, there are ample parking lots available in all the housing estates.”
“Those people who park their motorcycles without either season tickets or daily tickets are fined by HDB for taking up motorcycle lots which they are not supposed to. I do not think availability of parking lots is a problem. In most cases these motorcyclists just want to park their motorcycles in the void decks because it is more convenient or because they do not like to park their motorcycles some distance away from their block.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB has provided adequate motorcycle parking lots in the housing estates. Perhaps I can give the Member for Anson some figures. HDB manages a total of 103,118 motorcycle lots as at 30th June 1986, that is, up to middle of this year. Only 46,000 season tickets are sold for motorcycle parking, that is 45% In other words, out of 103,118 lots, we only managed to sell less than 50,000 season tickets, which shows that there are ample motorcycle parking lots available.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in a recent sample survey of 189 apartment blocks in Serangoon Central, Tampines West and Hougang Central Estates, it was found that, on the average, two motorcycles were found parking in the void decks, per block, during the night. The HDB has served warning notices on motorcycles found parked in the void decks. Although this has resulted in getting some of the owners to park their motorcycles in authorized lots in the car parks, it has not eliminated the problem. Where the parking of motorcycles in the void decks has resulted in the staining of floors by oil leaks, the HDB has taken offenders to Court under the Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations 1970. To deal with the problem more effectively, the HDB is currently formulating rules to prohibit the parking of motorcycles in the void decks of apartment blocks. Offenders can then be fined under such rules.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think we can continue to argue this. As I have explained very clearly, if HDB is legally in the wrong, the Member for Potong Pasir can send the case to HDB and take it up with HDB's legal officer. And if HDB is legally obliged to buy back the flat at whatever price that has been agreed, the HDB will pay that sum of money. There is no question on that. If the Member for Potong Pasir considers that HDB is breaking the law and refuses to pay, then I would suggest that he take HDB to court.”
“No? I am saying that if he is acting as a lawyer for these people, then please take HDB to court.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no point for me to answer the Member for Potong Pasir on an imaginary case. I mentioned earlier that if HDB is legally obliged to buy back the flat, the case is very clear, HDB has to buy back the flat. How can HDB refuse to buy back the flat if it is legally obliged to buy back the flat? It is quite ridiculous.”
“Yes, I am confident that HDB will sell the HUDC flats eventually. But I am not suggesting that it will be sold very quickly. If it is going to be sold very quickly, then perhaps this problem of buying back will not arise because HDB can continue to assist these HUDC flat owners by buying them back if the HUDC flats could be sold so quickly. In fact, this is the same side of the coin.”
“The pricing of our HUDC flats is a reasonable pricing. As I have answered the Member for Cairnhill yesterday, 70% of HUDC flats are priced at below $220,000 per unit. In spite of what the Member for Potong Pasir has said, I am confident ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Potong Pasir has missed a very important point. I have repeatedly said on many occasions that the policy of public housing, that is the HDB policy, is to enable Singapore citizens to become home owners. Therefore the Government is building public housing up to HUDC level, and sell to the people at an affordable price. There is no point for Government to build the flats to sell to the people when people cannot afford to buy. Therefore, this profit motive is not the primary consideration. The primary consideration of HDB is to make sure that our citizens are able to own their flats. And if it so happens that five years later they sell their flats and make a lot of money, good luck to them. But if five years later, they sell their flat and make less money, well, we cannot help it. It is not the primary objective of the HDB to enable HDB flat owners to make a profit. HDB's primary objective is to build comfortable homes, ie, to build good housing, for the citizens of Singapore. I am still confident that HDB will eventually be able to sell these 1,170 units of the vacant HUDC flats, because most of the HUDC flats are priced at a reasonable price although ---”
“Therefore, I request this House to reject the motion proposed by the Member for Potong Pasir.”
“This means that if a person owns a flat or a bungalow or a residential house, then he is not qualified to buy a public housing flat. This is because he already has a place to live. Then the rules on the occupation of the flat. Anybody who buys an HUDC flat must use it for his own residence. This is fair enough. It means that Government is building flats for the people to live, not building flats for the people to rent it out. If anybody wants to invest in residential property, then he should buy a condominium flat or a bungalow or be like the Member for Potong Pasir who, I understand, owns several flats for rent. Anybody who buys an HUDC flat must have stayed in it for at least five years before he is allowed to sell his flat to an owner of his choice. This condition is also the same for the HDB flats. The owner must live there for five years before he can sell his flat. Here, because of the requests of the PAP Members for a relaxation of the rules, HDB has relaxed it to allow owners of HUDC flats who have been living in them for less than five years to sell their flats. This is a concession which is not given to HDB flat owners. Again a different rule governing the HUDC and HDB. HUDC owners now can sell their flats to buyers of their own choice, provided the buyers are qualified. But this privilege is not given to HDB owners. Again, this shows that the rules for HDB flats and for HUDC flats are different. On the levy, Government has done away with the levy. Those owners who sell their HUDC flats within the first five years pay no levy to the Government. From these, Members can see that the restrictions placed on HUDC flats are, in fact, the minimum restriction that is required for public housing. That is a very reasonable restriction.”
“The first rule is that the buyer of an HUDC flat must be a Singapore citizen. This is very fair because HDB is the public housing authority and it is building flats for the people. So the buyer must be a citizen. The flats can also be sold to approved permanent residents, ie, those who in the Government's opinion are able to make a good economic contribution to Singapore. They are allowed to buy, except that when permanent residents want to buy they have to pay 10% higher in price, and they also have a longer waiting period than the citizens. The second requirement is that the applicant must have a family nucleus because the flats are sold to the people with a family. For those singles who want to buy an HUDC flat, they must be at least 40 years old. But this restriction is different for HDB and for HUDC. Singles are not allowed to buy HDB flats but they are allowed to buy HUDC flats. This is the difference that I would like to point out to the Member for Potong Pasir. So I am saying that although HUDC flats are governed by the rules of HDB, they are not identical. If they are identical, then singles who cannot buy HDB flats should also not be allowed to buy HUDC flats. But singles are now allowed to buy HUDC flats. This proves that a lot of the rules of the HDB and HUDC are similar but they are not identical. In other words, not all the rules are the same. Another difference is income ceiling. For HDB flats the family income ceiling is $4,000 per month, but for HUDC flats the income limit is $6,000. But the Member for Potong Pasir is trying to build up a case that they are the same. From these few points that I have mentioned, you can see that the rules for HDB and HUDC are not the same. They are different. Non-ownership of a private property.”
“And after building these HUDC flats, HDB then sells to those applicants on the waiting list who want to buy these flats. After that, HDB buys back these flats and keep them vacant. Do you think any responsible government organization can adopt such a policy? Certainly not. HDB has bought back these flats because at that time there were a large number of applicants on the waiting list who wanted these flats. At present we all know that the waiting list of HUDC flats has gone down to only 180. And no one on this waiting list wants to buy old HUDC flats. Therefore, HDB cannot continue to assist them. This is very unfortunate. HDB's assistance is not only not appreciated but has been misunderstood. In fact, there is a Hokkien saying: Ho sim hor dui chim. That is precisely what happened to the HDB. HDB is trying to help the HUDC applicants and the end result is that they are blamed and the Opposition given an opportunity to try and tarnish the image of HDB. Sir, this motion of the Member for Potong Pasir says that he regrets the HDB's refusal to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats. I would like to say that HUDC flats are the best public housing units built by the Board. That means they are the largest public housing and are provided with the best finish. However, this is part of public housing under the Home Ownership Scheme. Since it is public housing, they must be governed by the rules of public housing. In fact, the rules governing HUDC flats are considered the minimum rules required or minimum restriction, if the Member for Potong Pasir wants to term these rules as a restriction. It is the minimum restriction or the minimum rules required for this Home Ownership Scheme.”
“I did not say that. I think last Sunday I have explained to the reporters why HDB buys back the HUDC flats. If the Member for Potong Pasir has not read the newspaper or is not very clear, perhaps I would have to waste some of the time of this House by repeating. HDB is under no legal obligation to buy back the HUDC flats. Last year for various reasons some of the HUDC applicants approached HDB for assistance in selling their HUDC flats. They cannot sell these flats because they know that under the HUDC rule anybody who buys an HUDC flat cannot sell it to anyone within the first five years. So they approached HDB for assistance. At that time HDB officers considered that since there were more than 1,500 applicants on the waiting list for the HUDC flats, therefore they could help these people by buying back a few units of HUDC flats and offered them for sale to the applicants on the waiting list. Therefore this was a special assistance offered by HDB to the HUDC owners as well as to the applicants on the waiting list who wished to buy the old HUDC flats which were built in a good locality. Unfortunately this assistance has been misinterpreted by some HUDC flat owners as a buy-back-policy. This is a misinterpretation by the owner and the Member for Potong Pasir is trying to build on this misunderstanding and turn it into a policy of the HDB. I wish to repeat here, that the HDB has no such policy of buying back HUDC flats. Just imagine, what purpose can be served for HDB to buy back a large number of HUDC flats and keeping them vacant? Is it not a waste of money? Is it not going against the Government policy of homes for the people? HDB has taken great trouble to build the HUDC flats.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my legal officer, not me (I am not a legal man) and also the Attorney-General's Chambers have advised HDB that it is under no legal obligation to buy back these flats. So if the Member for Potong Pasir thinks that they are wrong, that is, the legal officer who advised HDB is wrong, the AG's Chambers is wrong, then I suggest the Member for Potong Pasir take this matter to court to see who is right, whether HDB is legally obliged to buy back the HUDC flats. I am quite sure if the Member for Potong Pasir is able to prove that legally he is right, then I think there would be a considerable amount of business for him.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir said as far as he can see, so it is only the eye, not opinion. As far as he can see with his eye and not his opinion, the HDB is legally bound to buy back these flats. Am I right?”
“He is guessing. The Member for Potong Pasir is guessing. He is guessing that HDB ---”
“He did not say "considered legal opinion"? Then he is guessing. Is it his legal opinion or he is guessing? I must make sure. Mr Chiam See Tong: Those are your very own words.”
“That was the reason why we ended up with 1,170 units of flats and this was because the public who had applied for HUDC flats had withdrawn their applications. The Member for Potong Pasir is trying to mislead the House as well as the public by saying that HDB had blindly over-estimated the demand for HUDC flats and therefore had built more flats than necessary. In fact, we built less. There were 5,800 applicants on the waiting list and the HDB built only 5,200 flats. We built less than the number of applications. But unfortunately so many applicants withdrew from the waiting list and it landed the HDB with this large number of vacant flats. Another point which the Member for Potong Pasir was trying to mislead the public is by saying that in his considered legal opinion, the HDB ---”
“Not profit motive. HDB's responsibility is to provide housing. Our first responsibility is to provide flats for the citizens under our Home Ownership Scheme. So anybody who applies to HDB to buy a unit of flat, it is the responsibility of HDB to build for him or her a unit of flat. Therefore, HDB proceeded to build more than 5,000 units of flats. In fact, HDB has built 5,275 units of flats. That was the answer I gave to the Member for Cairnhill yesterday for the 5,800 applicants on the waiting list. Unfortunately, from 1982 up to now, 1986, during this period 4,900 HUDC applicants withdrew their applications from the HDB. I have explained again and again in this House that HDB takes at least four years to build flats. It has to clear the land, to do the piling, to get the contractors to build the flats. It takes altogether four years to complete the flats. But it takes only a few hours for a person to apply for an HDB flat. He comes to the HDB counter, signs the necessary forms and he is registered as an applicant. At the same time, he can also withdraw. He can cancel his application easily. He just comes to the HDB counter and says that he has decided not to apply for the HDB flat, and he withdraws. So 4,900 applicants withdrew from the HUDC waiting list and therefore HDB is landed with these 1,170 units of flats. These applicants withdrew when these flats were built half-way. And HDB could not stop the building of the flats because HDB had already entered into the contracts. HDB could not tell the contractors, "Sorry. My applicants have withdrawn and therefore we stop building." It is not possible. HDB had to go ahead and complete the building.”
“In 1982, when HDB assumed the responsibility of building HUDC flats, there were 5,800 applicants on the waiting list to buy HUDC flats. HDB had to assume that these applicants had applied for these HUDC flats in good faith. They had applied for these flats because they wanted HUDC flats. And it is the duty of the HDB to build these flats for them. Therefore, HDB proceeded to build more than 5,000 flats.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion and ask the House to reject the motion. The Member for Potong Pasir talked at length about the buying back of HUDC flats. In fact, this matter has been very extensively discussed for a long time, I think more than a month. The arguments of the HUDC owners as well as the HDB have been widely publicized together with the views of the press, the people who wrote letters to the press and also the debate in the last two or three days during Question Time. So this matter has been very extensively discussed and I do not wish to repeat the arguments again. However, there are a few points on which the Member for Potong Pasir is attempting to mislead the public. I will explain those few points. The first point is that in 1983, when HDB offered HUDC flats for sale at that time, I said that the selling price of those HUDC flats was about 30-35% lower than the market price for similar type of flats sold by the private developers. That is a statement of fact. If the Member for Potong Pasir or anyone wants to check the price, he can look at the selling prices in the Straits Times of properties advertised for sale by the developers or by individual owners. They will come to the conclusion that what I said was true. For that reason, HDB was able to sell 4,105 units of HUDC flats. If the HDB prices were not attractive, it would not be possible for HDB to sell such a large number of HUDC flats, 4,105 units. That is the answer I gave to the Member for Cairnhill yesterday about the total number of flats sold by HUDC. Again, the Member for Potong Pasir is trying to confuse the public by saying that the HDB has over-estimated the demand for HUDC flats and therefore has HDB ended up with 1,170 vacant flats. This is quite untrue.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, the motion states, 'That this House views with regret the Housing and Development Board's refusal to remove all restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats.' The Housing and Development Board has not received any request to remove all the restrictions on the sale and resale of HUDC flats. Since the Housing and Development Board has not received any request, it stands to reason that it is not possible for the Housing and Development Board to refuse such a request. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you may wish to rule whether it is in order for the House to debate an imaginary Housing and Development Board's refusal.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act (Chapter 53), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: Old Title or Name of Office New Title or Name of Office Director of Public Works Director-General of Public Works Deputy Director of Public Deputy Director-General of Works Public Works Assistant Director of Public Assistant Director-General Works of Public Works. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS (Terms of Reference) 3.00 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* that the titles of Director, Deputy Director, and Assistant Director of Public Works be changed to Director-General, Deputy Director-General and Assistant Director-General of Public Works. *The motion, standing in the name of the Minister for National Development, reads as follows: That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act (Chapter 53), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: Old Title or Name of Office New Title or Name of Office Director of Public Works Director-General of Public Works Deputy Director of Public Works Deputy Director-General of Public Works Assistant Director of Public Assistant Director-General Works of Public Works. The changes in the titles will free the title of Director for designating the various heads of functional divisions in PWD in conformity with the prevailing practice in the Civil Service. This will help the general public, grassroots organizations and other Government departments to identify the relevant office in PWD more easily and expeditiously. The changes in the titles will also bring the titles in PWD in line with that of counterpart officers in Asean countries and facilitate our interaction with them. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to the query of the Member for Whampoa, I was not aware, but now I am aware.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir can talk to his own Law Society to reduce the fee, acceptable to the HDB lessee, I will be quite happy to ask HDB to allow the Law Society members to do the work. This is a free market. If you charge a lower fee, I am quite sure you will have plenty of business.”
“But I want to say that those people who want outside legal firms to undertake their conveyancing work, HDB will allow them. HDB will not stop anyone from employing outside lawyers. If at all, HDB welcomes outside lawyers. The Member for Potong Pasir can pass the word around saying that such and such a lawyer firm is charging lower than the HDB, and I think he will get a lot of business.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if they have a valid case, I think they have other legal avenue of recovering their money. The Member for Anson has also mentioned that he has heard from a friend from Sweden or somewhere saying that there is no HDB flat owner sitting on the Board of the HDB. For the information of the Member for Anson, at present the Housing Board has five Board members. Three out of the five Board members are Members of Parliament whose constituencies comprise HDB estates. These MPs have a ready contact with their Residents' Committees, with their CCCs, with their residents in the housing estates. So that provides a perfect feedback machinery to the Board. On the point raised by the Member for Potong Pasir about the forfeiture of flats, I have already explained that. Another point brought up by the Member for Potong Pasir is that the legal work for the purchase of HDB flats should not be undertaken by the legal officers of the HDB. He is suggesting that this work should be given to the private lawyer firms. What I want to explain is this. HDB is selling a large number of flats mainly to the middle and lower income groups. These middle and lower income groups have requested the HDB for assistance in legal service and to charge them at a very small nominal fee. HDB accedes to the request of these people by doing the legal work for them and charge them very small fee. Just take an example. Assuming a 4-room flat costs $80,000. HDB is charging a legal fee of only $91, a very nominal sum. If this person goes to a private legal firm outside, he has to pay a legal fee of $356, in other words, 3(r) times more. Therefore, HDB is doing this service at cost, and sometimes below cost.”
“--- in what he says, take it to court. He knows that. He can take it to court if he believes in what he says. But if he does not take us to court, quite clearly he does not believe in what he says. In his usual style, he is rumour - mongering and spreading untruths. On the question of Clause 9 new paragraph (l) about the recovery of money from families who obtained the grant for small families, the Government has sometime ago, in order to assist the small family with low income, offered them $10,000 if the family were to keep to the Government policy of having a small family. If the family breaches this undertaking, then the HDB will compulsorily acquire their flat. This money which has been paid to their CPF account must now be returned to the Government. I think that is a very fair thing. I do not think there is anything unfair about it. The family has been paid $10,000 and they agreed to abide by certain rules and they have now breached the agreement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on rental arrears, I have clarified. Clause 5, on the powers of the Board, I have also clarified already. On Clause 7, cancellation of applications, the Member for Anson this morning, mentioned that cancellation of application, is illegal and unconstitutional. That is what he said this morning, if I heard him correctly. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think so. Whatever HDB does is strictly according to the law; it is totally constitutional and totally legal. If the Member for Anson believes ---”