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 16 of 25.
“It is the Ministry's ruling. SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (Advertisements in Mass Media) 5. Mr Rohan bin Kamis asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health what is the rationale of the extensive advertisements on the Singapore Armed Forces in the mass media and is he satisfied with the results. The Minister of State of Defence (Dr Yeo Ning Hong) (for the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, the advertisements which have appeared in the mass media on the SAF are broadly of two kinds, namely, recruitment advertisements, and messages on national defence and security. In the first case of recruitment advertisements, the SAF has, as a matter of fact, utilized such advertisements for more than a decade. So they are not new. What is new is probably the better layout and the impact that the recent series have. So far, the campaign has achieved its objectives in terms of generating increased interest in careers in the Armed Forces. In addition to meeting our recruitment targets, this has enabled the SAF to select from a wider pool of better qualified candidates. In addition to the recruitment advertisements, beginning 1st January 1983, MINDEF has been placing in newspapers a series of messages on national security and defence. I have elaborated at some length in this House last week on the importance of educating our entire population on the important role of defence. Our surveys indicate that Singaporeans are now becoming more aware of this. The advertisements form part of an on-going educational programme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not talking about this ruling. What I am talking about is the HDB, the matters presented to the HDB. The hon. Member has asked the question: "Why does the HDB deal with matters concerning a constituent only if they are raised through his own MP?" We are dealing with this aspect, not the whole issue. Most probably the hon. Member wants to bring in constitutional issues and so on. I am only talking about the HDB. This is the ruling which the Ministry of National Development gave to the HDB in 1973 - that the HDB will only deal with cases which are brought to HDB's attention by the MP representing the constituency in which the appellant lives.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this rule of the constituent seeing only his own MP was implemented in 1973 and not just recently. It was not because of the Anson by-election when we have an opposition Member that we adopted this policy. This policy was adopted in 1973. As for the other question, I have already given the answer. The disadvantage of constituents going from MP to MP is that it will create a lot of unnecessary work. To answer the Member's question, if instead of going to his own MP, the person sees other MPs, they may not know what it is all about concerning that person. We expect the constituent to go to his own MP first.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the HDB's rule that any constituent who wishes to appeal through a Member of Parliament should do so through the MP of his constituency. On receipt of the representation made by the appropriate Member of Parliament, the HDB will look into the matter and give a reply to the MP to enable him to explain the issue to his constituent. If this procedure is not adopted, a situation may arise where a person will go from one MP to another requesting similar representations to be made on his behalf. The answer which the HDB gives will invariably be the same on each occasion. Appealing through a number of MPs therefore does not help the appellant. On the other hand, the numerous representations made on the same subject not only lead to confusion but also generate unnecessary work for HDB staff. The time and effort spent by HDB staff in dealing with repetitive representations could be more productively utilized to serve other HDB residents.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, the land is not leased from HDB. HDB is only acting as an agent for the Government to do the reclamation. So the land is a State land and is controlled by the Land Office. Land Office is under the Ministry of Law, not under the Ministry of National Development. If the hon. Member will put his question to the Minister for Law, I think his suggestion will be considered.”
“So if the Member is interested to know how the TOL fee is arrived at, perhaps in future Parliamentary sittings the Member would submit a Question for Oral Answer or for a Written Answer to the Minister for Law for an answer.”
“Another area where the golf course is on reclaimed land is the Sentosa Golf Course, which is partly on reclaimed land and partly on the island proper. As we all know, Sentosa Island is designated for recreational use. The development of the golf course is again considered very appropriate on this Island which has been designated as a recreational island. The capital costs for the construction of these golf courses are provided by the golf clubs themselves, and the Government fund other than the reclamation at Tanah Merah and Sentosa is not being utilized for the development of golf courses and club houses. The land value for leasing out the land or for the granting of TOL is usually based on use, and this again is a standard principle. It is just like the URA sale sites. If we sell a piece of land for office development, the tenderer, including the hon. Member for Chong Boon's firm, is willing to pay a very high price for the land because it has been designated for commercial development. On the other hand, for recreational development like a golf course, usually the charges are relatively low. The charges for golf clubs traditionally have been quite low. In the 1960s membership of golf clubs was not so prestigious and, in fact, a person needed to pay only a few hundred dollars to become a club member. Lately, because of the possibility of making a profit out of the transferable golf member- ship, the golf club membership entrance fee has been increased to quite a high figure. However, the details of the TOL fee are issued by the Land Office and it is under the Ministry of Law and not under my Ministry.”
“Sir, I agree fully with the view of the hon. Member for Chong Boon, and I will ask URA to accept the bank guarantees in lieu of the cash in future URA sales. Sir, on the matter raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah, the Planning authority is aware of the cost of the reclamation of land. In some areas it can be very expensive, if the water is very deep. However, from the land use point of view, it is not possible to allocate all the reclaimed land only for commercial or residential or industrial purposes. If we do so, then we will totally have no recreational areas or green open space or park land. Therefore, some of the land will have to be set aside for open spaces and recreational development. In the case of East Coast Park, we have reserved very extensive areas for open spaces, stretching from Tanjong Rhu to Changi Airport. This is as necessary as the West Coast Park and Pasir Ris Park which are on reclaimed land. The development of the golf courses for recreational purposes is considered appropriate because the golf course is also considered part of the open space. A portion of reclaimed land at Tanah Merah was allocated for development of a golf course and other recreational facilities. The land in the area which is next to the Changi Airport is, as we all know, under the flight path. With the development of the second runway, the golf course will be very near to the runway. Because of the noise and the constraints of height restriction, we cannot build any high structures near the flight path. Therefore, the area has been allocated for the development of a golf course. This golf course is partly on reclaimed land, or almost fully on reclaimed land.”
“Sir, with your permission I would like to ask my Minister of State to answer the queries raised by the Member for Kuo Chuan and the Member for Nee Soon.”
“You are talking about Cairnhill. As for the flats in Cairnhill, we have never, in fact, decided to build HUDC flats there. How the flats in Cairnhill are to be used has still not been decided up till today, honestly. The press release earlier mentioned that there was a committee discussing how to price HUDC flats. It comprises representatives from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Finance, HDB and the Ministry of National Development. The Committee said that there could be two alternatives. One is to take out the two estates at Pine Grove and Gillman Heights and give them to the civil servants, as was suggested by some of the Members, so that they become exclusively Civil Service estates. Another school of thought suggested that some of the HUDC applicants would like to go into these two estates and that they have waited for some time. Eventually there was a compromise. These estates were split up. Some of the flats were given to the civil servants whilst some were given to the HUDC applicants. That was how the decision was made. Whatever decision we make, there is bound to be some unhappiness, some grumbling. If we say we give these two estates completely to the civil servants, I think some HUDC applicants would be even more unhappy than they are now. On the question of the 17% discount given to the civil servants, this is quite natural. The Government, an employer, gives a discount to its employees. It is a natural thing. For example, you are working in a departmental store or a motor-car company. Then if you buy a motor-car, or buy goods from a departmental store, your employer will give you a discount. I do not think this is being unreasonable.”
“But if we do not ask him to pay a levy this time, it would mean that if he were to buy a second flat, then the Government would be giving him a second subsidy. That is the basis of this principle. So the Government says those who buy HUDC flats, Phase 1 and Phase 2, are not allowed to buy another flat again. It is the same principle, so that they will not enjoy a second subsidy. There are people who say that it is unfair that we should not allow the Phase I and Phase 2 buyers to buy another flat. Supposing a buyer's financial position is all right now. Then he sells his flat. Subsequently his financial situation is not so good and he needs to buy an HDB flat, and we do not allow him or debar him for the rest of his life from buying another HDB or HUDC flat, then he may be homeless. That seems to be the argument. I would say that if he is willing to voluntarily return the 30% of the selling price of his HUDC Phase 1 or 2 flat to Government - that is not required at present in his lease - but if he is willing to return the 30%, then I am prepared to consider allowing him to buy a second flat. I hope I have explained the basic principle. Another point is about the civil servants. In fact, these two housing estates, Pine Grove and Gillman Heights - am I right?”
“If we compare them with the cost prices of Government housing, in other words, the construction cost and the land cost, the HUDC flats are still subsidized. They are subsidized in respect of the land cost. We cannot take the market land cost, because if we price the cost of the land for building HUDC flats at today's market price, then the HUDC price would have to be very much higher than what has been announced. As we all understand, in Bedok we are pricing HUDC flats at between $1,200 and $1,300 per sq metre, or about $120 per sq foot. I ask you, where can you buy a flat at $120 per sq foot in that area today? It is obvious that the HUDC prices are still subsidized to a great extent. They are still very much cheaper than the private flats by as much as 30% to 40%. As regards the levy of 30% for the sale, I will just explain the principle of this levy. In HUDC flats, there is an element of subsidy by the Government. The levy is not in the form of a tax whereby the Government just collects the money. I would say that the Government is subsidizing HUDC flats maybe by 30% to 40%. If a person decides to sell his HUDC flat, the Government says, "This 30% to 40% Government subsidy, you return it to the Government, because you can then come back to buy another flat again." That is the basic principle, "So you can come back to buy a second flat." in the case of the first flat, the Government has subsidized a certain amount of money, so he returns it to the Government. When you say "circumstances change", i.e. the financial situation of the person has changed after he has sold the HUDC flat, then if he wants to come back to buy another unit, we will still give him the same subsidy.”
“And there are people who complain that because we allow multi-tier families to jump the queue they have to be pushed back. They are unhappy. But on balance the Government believes that this is a good policy. It will be good for society if we allow joint balloting so that the families can live next to one another and the younger generation can take care of the older generation in future. Also, in the multi-tier families, the younger people can live with the older people and look after their parents. To promote security in HDB neighbourhoods, the HDB has accorded priority in the allocation of flats - I think it is 2% - to police personnel. This, again, allows the police personnel to jump the queue. This is a good objective of the Government because with the presence of police personnel in the neighbourhood I think the security will improve. As you can see, the public housing policy will continue to change in response to social, economic and other changes both in Singapore and sometimes outside Singapore. However, I would like to assure the House that every change of HDB and HUDC policies is made with the good of the community and the country in mind. 7.00 p.m. I have explained the general policy and, perhaps at this stage, I would like to answer in detail the various points raised by the hon. Member for Alexandra. He has talked about the increase of HUDC prices of up to 148%. This increase is reasonable based on two counts. One is inflation of the construction cost and the increase in land price. If you take the 1977 or 1978 private property prices and today's private property prices, the increase is not 148%. The increase is more likely to be 300% to 400%, that is, if you compare our increase with the private property price increase.”
“This is certainly not the purpose of the Government, to build HUDC flats for investment by renting out to the foreigners. That certainly is not the correct policy. The policy of HUDC is that the Government builds HUDC flats to meet the demand for homes for the middle-income group. That means they are for owner-occupiers, not for investors and not for the person who is going to rent his flat to other people. The huge demand for HUDC flats has generated, as I have said earlier, an untenable situation. Therefore, the policy has to be changed. The function of developing and management of the middle-income housing was thus transferred to the Housing Board on 1st May 1982. HUDC housing now represents the apex of public housing. In other words, HUDC housing is now not developed by a private company. It is part of HDB's public housing programme. Therefore, HUDC flats were subjected to the same rules and conditions as other types of housing sold by HDB. This is a very rational approach towards attaining the Government's objective of providing a decent standard of housing and promoting home ownership among Singapore citizens whose incomes are less than $6,000 per month, i.e. the HUDC group of people. Their income ranges from $3,501 to $6,000. This income group is only allowed to buy HUDC flats. Therefore, there is a need to revise HUDC rules. I would illustrate another example of why HDB has to consider changing the rules to attain certain Government objectives. For example, in line with our national goal of preserving traditional Asian values, like filial piety and preserving the family structure, HDB introduces the joint balloting and multi-tier family schemes. This, in fact, is the policy adopted by HDB to achieve that objective which we did not have earlier.”
“But the HUDC, by adopting a very liberal policy, has in fact been unwittingly taking over the role. I will illustrate afterwards what I mean. The company's liberal policy has encouraged a large number of applicants for HUDC flats in the property boom years in 1980 and 1981. As property prices climbed, so did the demand for cheap HUDC flats, or at the time they believed to be cheap. At the height of the boom, HUDC applicants peaked to 600 applicants per month or 7,200 applicants per year. I think the year before last I said that the building materials and the labour involved for one unit of HUDC flat was equivalent to three units of HDB flat, on average. So if the Government had taken over the development of private property for investment, then Government would have to build 7,200 units of HUDC flats every year, and possibly even more, if we did not change the policy. Then Government would have to divert the resources for the construction of HDB flats, about 21,000 units of HDB flats a year, to build HUDC flats mainly for investment. As you can see, this is an untenable situation. The HDB building programme will collapse. We will not be able to build the necessary number of HDB flats to meet the demand of the public applicants and, at the same time, build enough HUDC flats to satisfy the demand for investment. In fact, I have heard from people living in HUDC estates that there are Koreans and Japanese in their estates. The reason is that some bachelors had bought HUDC flats and had locked them up because they did not need the flats as they could stay with their parents or somewhere else for four or five years. After five years, they rented out their flats to Koreans and Japanese, for investment. I am just asking: Is this the purpose?”
“The company set forth to fulfil its mission through a very liberal approach. For example, its rule permits single persons and permanent residents to apply for flats. Applicants were exempted from paying any initial deposit other than $200 registration fee. The flat could be resold freely after five years without a resale levy and flat owners could purchase private properties after five years. On top of all this, HUDC buyers could use their CPF money to pay for their flats. At that time the CPF Board had not liberalized its policy to allow withdrawals, as at present, to buy private flats. That was a very special privilege for the HUDC applicants. The company did not realize that by adopting such a liberal policy, it was in effect taking over the role of the private sector in residential development. The only difference between a private property owner and an HUDC flat owner was the restriction on ownership of another property in the first five years. After five years, HUDC owners were on par with private property owners. The company's policy, in fact, was contrary to the Government's intention. The real objective of the middle-income housing scheme was and still is to provide homes at below market prices for the middle-income citizens who find prices of private residential homes beyond their reach. It was never the Government's intention to supplant the private sector in building homes for investment purposes. I would like to emphasize this point. If we maintain the HUDC's policy, then Government is, in fact, taking over the role of developing private residential properties. That is not what the Government wants. The Government wants an active private sector in developing residential property for investment. The Government has no intention of taking over this role.”
“Numerous factors have a bearing on the property market, including the world and the country's economic situation, political stability and developments in the region and neighbouring countries. 6.45 p.m. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] In Singapore, the Government owns the biggest land bank. This is fortunate because it allows the Government to use land alienation as a stabilizing factor. Depending on the studies of demand, land is periodically released through URA sales of sites. For example, in accordance with the Tourist Promotion Board's forecast for hotel demand, the URA offered land for hotel development in 1979,1980 and 1981. Similarly, in response to residential property demand, the URA offered in 1981 sufficient land for development of 5,000 residential units. Other sales had made land available for office, shopping, warehousing and industrial development. Land offers in URA sales are sold by public tender. The prices are therefore dictated by market forces. I believe we can safely assume that developers place their bids only after due and careful calculations. Now I come to the comments made during the Budget debate. The hon. Member for Chong Boon has said that HDB changes its policy too often. Just now the Member for Alexandra has very eloquently demonstrated that, in fact, the Government has all the time been changing the policy very drastically for HUDC flats. I have to point out that no Government policy can remain static for long periods of time. So Government policy must change and will continue to change. As external and internal environment changes, so also must Government policy change. Among them is the housing policy. The former Housing and Urban Development Company was established in the early seventies to build homes for the middle-income group.”
“In view of the substantial capital outlay required to undertake any project, from several million dollars for small ones to several hundred million dollars for big ones, I believe developers do their sums very carefully before embarking on any development. I am not convinced that civil servants have more knowledge and expertise on properties than developers and can therefore advise them whether and when to proceed. The property market in a free economy is the same as the stock market or the commodity market. It is difficult to direct private developers to start or stop, accelerate or decelerate development. Whilst the supply of property takes some years to complete, demand can surge overnight. Take hotels, for example. Although a large number of developers have been given planning approvals to construct hotels, some take shorter periods to deliver rooms while others take a longer time. There was one hotel developer who obtained planning permission in 1965 and completed construction only in 1980, i.e. 15 years. Projecting demand is an equally hazardous business, and this is undertaken by the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. Based on the high average tourist growth of 11.4% over the period 1979 to 1981, we need to double our hotel rooms in 62 ' years. However, last year's tourist arrivals grew by only 4.5%, owing mainly to global recession. If this trend continues over the next few years, there will be a surplus of hotel rooms. The point I am trying to make is that it is almost impossible to predict the supply and the demand for property with a high degree of accuracy. This applies to all types of property, whether residential, commercial or hotel.”
“Before I answer the queries raised by the Member for Alexandra on the HUDC flats, allow me to make some comments on the matters raised by the Members for Clementi and Whampoa during the debate on the Minister for Trade and Industry's Budget Statement. They have commented on the property development and the land alienation policy of the Government. I recall telling the Member for Whampoa in last year's Budget debate that it was not possible for the Government to control the property market in a free economy such as Singapore's. It is the Government's desire to have an orderly property market where there are no violent fluctuations in prices, no great upswings and downswings and where supply closely matches demand But these are ideals which can never be attained. What the Government can do and has been doing to help developers is to release as much information as possible on the building construction industry in Singapore. In this connection my Ministry produces such publications as Building Statistics Quarterly which contains a wealth of construction statistics. From time to time my Ministry releases the findings of studies conducted on specific sectors of the building industry, and there are plans to collate these studies for publication and sale to the public. Private developers can also obtain the services of various private property consultants to produce market reviews, projections of supply and demand, and other studies. All these statistics and studies, however, are only information inputs for planning and decision making. Ultimately it is the developers themselves who will decide whether or not to proceed with a project.”
“In 1982, a total of $502,002 was spent on the construction of new pedestrian walkways and footpaths. Another $2,309,539 was spent on the repairs and maintenance of existing footpaths and kerbs. Annexure A - EDUCATION CENTRES (Cols. 1023 - 1030)”
“The Housing and Development Board does not rent any education centres to the People's Action Party. The HDB has a total of 151 education centres let out on monthly tenancy to the Advisers of Citizens Consultative Committees. Rentals for the centres are kept low so that the CCCs and other grassroots organisations can offer residents low-cost or even free educational and community services. For example, kindergarten fees are charged at nominal rates to enable even the lowest income group to send their children to kindergarten classes. The centres are listed in Annexure A. (Cols. 1023 - 1030). Annexure A - EDUCATION CENTRES (Cols. 1023 - 1030) OUTPATIENT FEES IN 1982 2. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Health if he will give the total outpatient fees for the whole of 1982 collected in the hospitals and clinics outside the hospitals.”
“The People's Action Party rents 30 premises from the Housing and Development Board as Branch offices. The addresses of these premises, their dates of tenancy commencement, rentals and tenancy status are shown in Annex II (Cols. 429 - 430). Annex II - HDB PROPERTIES OCCUPIED BY PEOPLE'S ACTION PARTY (Cols. 429 - 430) The premises were allocated to the PAP by public tender and the rentals paid are the tendered prices. Any political party or member of the public may tender for such premises. Such branch offices at market rentals should not be confused with MP's offices or space for education centres rented from the HDB. The HDB provides converted void deck space equivalent to one 3-room unit to Members of Parliament for use as their offices in their respective constituencies at the nominal rental of $5 per month. For example the MP for Anson is enjoying such a facility at Block 145, #01-112 Jalan Bukit Merah. The HDB also provides converted void deck space for use as education centres at the rental of $1.30 per sq metre per month. PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD PROPERTIES OCCUPIED BY PEOPLE'S ACTION PARTY 5. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will furnish a statement of all Public Utilities Board properties occupied by the People's Action Party for whatsoever purpose whether as offices or for activities conducted by the Party listing severally the addresses at which the properties are occupied, the arrangements under which they are occupied and the rentals that are charged for the occupation.”
“The list of fees, other than service and conservancy fee, charged to tenants and lessees of Housing and Development Board properties for services rendered by the HDB and for use of HDB facilities is at Annex I (Cols. 423 - 428). Annex I - FEES LEVIED ON TENANTS AND OWNERS OF HDB PROPERTIES (Cols. 423 - 428) HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD PROPERTIES OCCUPIED BY PEOPLE'S ACTION PARTY 4. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for National Development if he will furnish a statement of all Housing and Development Board properties occupied by the People's Action Party for whatsoever purpose whether as offices or for activities conducted by the Party listing severally the addresses at which the properties are occupied, the arrangements under which they are occupied and the rentals that are charged for the occupation.”
“It is therefore logical to restrict applicants to only those in genuine need of public housing and who cannot afford private housing. However, the HDB has been flexible and reasonable in the application of section 48A(1) (b). Three categories of property-owners have been exempted from the provisions of the section, ie - (i) A person who owns a rent-controlled property and is unable to recover possession for his own use, provided the value of his interest does not exceed $100,000. He is required to divest himself of his interest in that private property upon exemption being granted. (ii) A person who owns an interest in a residential property provided his share does not exceed 50% and he is unable to recover possession of the property for his own use, subject to the value of his interest in the property not exceeding $100,000. He is also required to dispose of his interest upon exemption being granted. (iii) A person who purchases a commercial property with prior written consent of the HDB provided the value of his interest in the commercial property does not exceed $250,000 and the commercial property required is intended for his own business purpose. KHMER PEOPLE'S NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT (Supply of arms) 18. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture whether Singapore has supplied the Khmer People's National Liberation Front in Kampuchea with arms and if so will he acquaint the House with what was supplied and the conditions of their supply.”
“Bedok Neighbourhood 5 has eight car parks and two lorry parks providing approximately 2,750 car parking lots and 230 lorry parking lots. The HDB's records from sales of season parking tickets reveal that generally, residents of the neighbourhood who drive their own cars are able to obtain season parking tickets. Every month, an estimated 30 residents who drive mainly company vehicles and goods vehicles are unable to obtain car parking tickets. Another 20 residents are unable to purchase lorry parking tickets. To alleviate the shortage of parking facilities, the HDB will provide another 50 car parking lots around Blocks 543 to 547 by May 1983. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT (Review of Section 48A (1) (b)) 17. Mr P. Selvadurai asked the Minister for National Development if he will review the workings of section 48A (1) (b) of the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 271) with the view to exempting from the provisions of the said section - (a) an owner of a Housing and Development Board flat, his spouse or any authorised occupier who acquired, whether by operation of law or otherwise, a minor share in other living accommodation insufficient to entitle such owner, spouse or authorised occupier to live in such living accommodation; and (b) an owner, his spouse or any authorised occupier who has purchased or acquired any commercial property which is used or intended to be used for business purposes only. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Section 48A (1) (b) of the Housing and Development Act empowers the HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat if the owner, his spouse or any authorised occupier has acquired any other property. This section is necessary because public housing is subsidised and in high demand.”
“04 breakdowns per lift per month 1981 : 106,523 complaints; 0.92 breakdowns per lift per month 1982 : 81,526 complaints; (up to Oct) 0.83 breakdowns per lift per month (c) For cost analysis purposes, the average lifespan of a lift is assumed to be 25 years. The actual lifespan may be longer if the lift is carefully maintained and regularly serviced. It is the HDB's policy to constantly monitor and improve the performance of its lifts. If a lift has excessive breakdowns, HDB engineers will investigate and determine whether it is more economical to refurbish the lift or to replace it. In 1980 for instance, the HDB studied and recommended the conversion of 261 Hitachi AC-1 lifts to the Hitachi AC-2 type which gives smoother rides and fewer breakdowns. Since the completion of the conversion exercise in early 1981, the performance of Hitachi lifts has improved from an average of 1.15 breakdowns per lift per month in 1980 to an average of 0.67 breakdowns per lift per month in the first half of 1982. BEDOK NEW TOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD 5 (Parking facilities) 16. Encik Saidi Haji Shariff asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to increase parking facilities for both cars and lorries in Neighbourhood 5 of Bedok New Town.”
“The objectives of the Highway Committee, which has representatives from the Traffic Police, Public Works Department, Registry of Vehicles and Urban Redevelopment Authority, are to study parking problems on an island-wide basis and to recommend a comprehensive parking policy. The URA is currently conducting a survey in consultation with the Highway Committee to determine the nature and extent of the parking problem for lorries, school buses and other heavy vehicles. The survey will be completed in March 1983. Pending the formulation of long term solutions to the problem and as an interim measure, the Highway Committee has recommended that overnight parking be allowed along public roads in HDB estates which have low vehicular flow. The URA will implement a pilot scheme for kerbside night parking of heavy vehicles in the Old Kallang Estate. The scheme will be effected in January 1983. If successful, it will be extended to other housing estates. HDB LIFTS (Breakdowns and Replacements) 15. Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of lifts in the various Housing and Development Board estates; (b) how many complaints the HDB has received about lifts breaking down in each of the last five years; (c) what is the average lifespan of a lift; and (d) whether the HDB has plans to replace those lifts that break down frequently. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: (a) The total number of lifts in HDB estates as at the end of October 1982 was 5,518. (b) The number of lift complaints (including false calls) and lift breakdown rates over the past five years are as follows:- 1978 : 97,700 complaints; 1.18 breakdowns per lift per month 1979 : 102,970 complaints; 1.04 breakdowns per lift per month 1980 : 108,259 complaints; 1.”
“HDB apartment blocks are fitted with standard 8-passenger lifts. These lifts can comfortably accommodate the wheel-chair. To accommodate stretchers, it will be necessary to install 26-passenger capacity lifts in apartment blocks. The initial outlay as well as the operating cost of these lifts will be substantially higher. In addition, lift shafts and motor-rooms will have to be enlarged if existing lifts are to be replaced. Unlike hospitals, the low frequency of use of stretchers in HDB blocks does not justify the high costs of installing and operating lifts big enough to accommodate them. PARKING PROBLEMS IN HDB ESTATES (Committee's findings) 14. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked the Minister for National Development whether the committee that has been set up to look into the parking problems in housing estates has come out with any solution with regard to the parking of big vehicles like lorries, trailers and school buses in Housing and Development Board estates.”
“Today, the selling price of this 3-room improved flat is $21,000, an increase of 1.7 times. If we compare this to private housing, a terrace house or a semi-detached house, in 1968 and today, the difference in price is easily five to 10 times. Again, as you can see, the increase in the rental and selling price of HDB flats has remained extremely moderate, which means that it involves a continuous subsidy from the Government. But the Government policy on public housing has always been to ensure that it is within the means of our people. I think Singapore can proudly claim that perhaps we are the only country, whether developed or developing, to have housed more than 70% of our population. No other country is able to achieve this. The PAP Government can be proud of this record in the field of public housing. [Applause] Hon. Members: Hear, hear! 8.15 p.m.”
“The monthly instalment payments for the loan which they borrow from the HDB for buying the flats will not affect their take-home pay. I wish to assure the House that the Government has, in fact, repeatedly ensured that the price of HDB flats will always be within the means of the people. Let us look at the lower income group who cannot even buy HDB flats and who are living in 1 -room rental flats. I would like to say that the monthly rental for the 1 -room improved flat was fixed at $30 in 1966. This is for rental plus service and conservancy charges. Today, 16 years later, this monthly rental is $44, including service and conservancy charges; an increase of only 40% over 16 years. It is common knowledge that the increase in rental for private housing in the last 16 years is easily five to 10 times. Sixteen years ago, perhaps the rental for a terrace house was only $200 or $300. Everybody knows that, including the hon. Member for Anson. Today, how much is the rental for a terrace house? It is 10 times, or at least five to 10 times. Maybe $1,500 to $3,000, depending on the locality. But for public housing, the rental has changed very little. In fact, the Government keeps on losing money because the rental includes service and conservancy charges, which means that the Government is taking care of cleansing work, repairs, redecorations, planting trees, etc. In fact, the $44 rental collected from tenants of 1-room flats by the Government is not even sufficient to pay for the maintenance cost. The rental has been increased by $14 in the last 16 years, from $30 to $44. As for the selling price of HDB flats, take for example a 3-room improved flat in a New Town which was sold for $7,800. I always take the smallest flat that the lower income people are buying.”
“If he is serious, we will carry out a pilot scheme along these lines. These are the points raised by the hon. Member for Anson. But I would like to add that the Government policy on housing has always been to charge the selling price that the people can afford. This has always been the policy of the Government. But since the hon. Member for Anson has suggested a different system, and as I have said earlier, maybe we can carry out an experiment for Anson Constituency along the lines suggested by him. On the selling price, the Government has announced on the 23rd September that the selling price of HDB flats would be increased by only 5%. For the future years, i.e. up to the year 1984, the increase in selling price of HDB flats would not be more than 7 1/2 % for the years 1983 and 1984. When we say "1984", it means that this price will be carried up to June 1985. Also, the increase in price for the 5-room flats would not be more than 10% for the next two years. That was the announcement on the increase in prices made by the Government. By making this decision to peg the increase in the selling price, the Government is, in fact, taking a great risk because nobody really knows what will be the inflation cost in 1984 and 1985. But the Government has actually committed itself to the selling price up to the middle of 1985. The policy of the Government has always been to price the flats within the means of the people. From our calculation of the incomes of the people, I think the selling price which Government has fixed up to mid-1985 is well within the means of all the applicants. The idea is that the CPF members need only pay the instalments for their flats from their CPF contributions. They do not have to dig into their savings.”
“We have to pay the building contractor, so much, the sanitary contractor, so much, and the piling contractor, so much, etc. So there is nothing to hide about the construction cost. And also plus the land cost. Land cost, it is very simple. What is the market price of land? Let us take a piece of land which can build 100 flats, and we get the URA to offer it for sale. How many people are prepared to pay for the land to build 100 flats? If the people say they are prepared to pay $5 million, it means that the land cost for each flat is $50,000. Then we add the construction cost, maybe another $30,000 or $40,000. So each unit of 3-room flat to be sold to the people of Anson is $80,000, instead of what we sell in a New Town a 3-room improved flat for $21,000. So for Anson, to follow the hon. Member for Anson's suggestion, it is $80,000. If he is serious, I am prepared to carry out a pilot scheme for his constituents in Anson. They pay the full cost as suggested by the Member. And we can get public accountants to be nominated by the hon. Member, whatever name he suggests, to check or audit the accounts to say, "This is the actual construction cost paid by the HDB." As for the land cost, do not argue. The URA Sale of Sites can establish the actual land cost. So the full cost is the construction cost plus the land cost. The HDB will pay for the architect's fees, interest and other things. That will be a subsidy. The constituents in Anson will pay the full cost as suggested by their own MP. So I hope the hon. Member will consider seriously before we carry out a pilot scheme. Some hon. Members: He is serious!”
“And receiving instalments from several hundred thousand people who are living in HDB flats and who have outstanding loans to pay, and receiving service and conservancy charges from more than 400,000 account holders. We have explained this to the Auditor-General and, in fact, he has been keeping a very close touch with the HDB, talking and discussing with the HDB on the best way to switch the accounting system. So the HDB is not trying to avoid switching the accounting system. This is the reason why the HDB has been taking such a long time to switch the accounting system. In fact, the Auditor-General himself is not able to say, "All right, I recommend that you select this particular accounting firm to switch the accounting system." In fact, we both are constantly in touch and constantly discussing, and we hope that we are able to arrive at the best way of changing the accounting system because it is very complicated. And if the accounting system goes wrong, I think it can create a very serious havoc for everybody. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is really serious in suggesting that the selling price of HDB flats should be its true cost. What is the cost of the HDB flats? Is it the tender price of the flats that the HDB pays to the contractor and also the land cost, and charge the people? If the hon. Member is seriously suggesting that, then perhaps we carry out a pilot scheme for the people in Anson to pay the full cost. So that anybody in Anson who gets a new HDB flat, he pays the full cost. I am quite serious. And if the hon. Member for Anson is seriously suggesting that, then the HDB will charge the actual construction cost because the HDB calls tenders to build flats. There is nothing to hide.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this question of accounting has been heard in this House on many occasions, and I have repeatedly explained to the House the accounting system of the HDB. In fact, the HDB has discussed with the Auditor-General on the best way of changing the accounting system. The hon. Member for Anson must understand that the HDB houses more than 70% of the population and it has more than 400,000 accounts with the people who are living in HDB flats. The HDB also has another 100,000-plus accounts of people who have applied for HDB flats. So altogether there are more than half a million accounts. The HDB spends almost half the Government's Development Estimates, as it stands. I think, by the middle of the year the HDB has borrowed from the Government more than $5,000 million, an outstanding loan. So the accounts is extremely complicating. It is not a simple account like some political party with $18.47. I read in the newspapers that, even then, it has found it very confusing. Just imagine, even with such a small sum, the hon. Member's party finds it very confusing. So the hon. Member should be the first one to understand the problem. When you are involved with more than half a million accounts involving millions of dollars, the accounting cannot be switched in a few months or to switch from one accounting system to another accounting system without creating a confusion. The HDB is a going concern and it is handling millions of dollars every day. For construction alone, the HDB is spending something like $5 million or $6 million every working day, just paying to the contractors for construction.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. RECENT PRICE INCREASES FOR HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS 7.45 p.m.”
“The purpose of the legal proceedings is to enable the Resettlement Department to obtain Warrants of Dispossession to enforce removal of the squatters from the State lands, if it is necessary subsequently especially in cases where irresponsible persons, including politicians, incite squatters to resist clearance. Simultaneously, parallel action is taken to offer alternative accommodation to squatters according to their eligibility and the availability of such accommodation. I must stress that alternative accommodation is an ex-gratia benefit and may be offered to squatters at any point during the legal clearance process. Accordingly, some summonses may have been served prior to the offer of alternative accommodation to the squatters. While the service of notices and summonses constitutes part of the legal clearance process, the Warrants of Dispossession made by the court against the squatters are not enforced until the Resettlement Department has offered alternative accommodation to those squatters who are eligible. The clearance of Kaki Bukit follows the normal procedure adopted for the clearance of all other State lands. They are treated no differently from all other squatters facing clearance action elsewhere. Table - Non-Schooling Population (Cols. 199 - 200)”
“I must point out that when State lands or acquired lands are to be developed, the Resettlement Department has to follow prescribed legal requirements and procedures to clear the land. The Honourable Member for Kaki Bukit has previously raised this matter with my Ministry. He has been told the reasons for this legal process and he has reassured the affected residents in his constituency that the Government's intention is not to inconvenience them or to evict the eligible residents before alternative accommodation is available. However, for the benefit of the Member for Anson, who appears ignorant of the legal requirements, I shall now describe the various steps in the clearance process. Notices to Remove or Notices to Quit are first issued against squatters on the land. These are formal notices to the squatters that they have to vacate the site. Upon expiry of the notices, legal action has to be instituted under the State Lands Encroachments Act for the issuance of summonses. However, the squatters need not attend court in person to answer the charge of unlawful occupation of State land if they plead guilty by means of a standard written statement supplied by the Resettlement Department which provides assistance and advice to the squatters to complete this legal process unless they wish to contest the charges in court. Invariably more than 90% of the squatters follow this procedure and are therefore not inconvenienced. In the case of Kaki Bukit, 98% of the squatters accepted this procedure.”
“The HDB maintains a list to debar the following categories of applicants from applying for HDB flats:- a Persons who misuse the flats for illegal purposes eg gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc. b Persons who assault HDB staff in the performance of duties and are convicted of such offences. c Vandals of HDB properties who are convicted of such offences. d Tenants and lessees who have sublet their entire flats without HDB's permission. e Ex-tenants of HDB flats who have not cleared their rental debts. f Foreign workers allocated rental flats under the Single Unskilled Workers' Scheme who cause nuisance to the public. g Employers who fail to exercise control over their foreign workers who have been allocated rental flats under the Unskilled Workers' Scheme. h Persons who contravene the Government's work permit marriage restriction policy. i Lessees who sell their HDB flats to their own buyers after 5 years of occupation with no intention to reapply for HDB flats. They are exempted from paying the normal 5% transfer fee and are therefore debarred for 30 months from applying to purchase and rent HDB flats. j Lessees who transfer their HDB flats to immediate blood relatives within 5 years of occupation, unless the transfer is to their parents and is due to the lessees' intending marriage. NATIONAL SERVICEMEN PERMANENTLY DISABLED 5. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health if he will state how many national servicemen have been permanently disabled as a result of injury suffered whilst doing national service and say, in each case by reference to the date the injury was suffered, what provision has been made for the serviceman's welfare.”
“On the question of compounding the fines imposed on motorists who have committed offences, although the Bill provides that the Commissioner can compound a fine up to $400, he will not normally impose it except for serious offences, for example, when people give misleading information, such as the wrong name and address of the car owner - this sort of mischievous information. For this type of offence, the composition fine will be high. For simple offences, say, parking a car on the turf, I think most probably the composition fine is likely to be between $20 and $50 and not $400. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Teh Cheang Wan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ECONOMIC EXPANSION INCENTIVES (RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 7.37 p.m.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Jurong for supporting the Bill in principle. The hon. Member has raised various points on the work of the Parks and Recreation Department. On the question of landscaping parks and beautifying our streets and various open spaces, the Parks and Recreation Department has the services of several landscape architects, and I would like to assure him that the staff of this Department have tried their very best to provide the best possible landscape architecture in the various areas. On the question of landscape architecture and landscape gardening, of course, different people have different opinions. While one person may consider a certain landscape architecture to be beautiful, another person may have a different opinion. On the question of cutting down trees, I would like to assure the hon. Member for Jurong and the House that the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation will definitely not indiscriminately cut down trees in private gardens. He will only cut down the trees which he considers are a danger to the public. On the question of providing road-side kerbs to prevent motor vehicles from parking on the grass verge, I have, in fact, put this question to the Public Works Department: that if the expenditure is not too high, we should provide more road-side kerbs so that motor vehicles will not easily get on to the turfed areas and so damage the turf.”
“However, will the Hon. Minister kindly enlighten this House as to what measures are available to prevent the Commissioner from removing trees and plants in a private garden at his whim and fancy? Furthermore, the cost incurred in the removal of such trees will be thrust upon the occupier. How can the Hon. Minister ensure that the Commissioner will not charge an exorbitant fee for the removal of a tree? We all know that the spirit of the law lies in the fact that any piece of legislation passed or amended will not subject any law-abiding citizen to undue penalty. There is also a provision in the Bill to punish car owners for parking their vehicles on the road-side turfed areas. We all know that the Parks and Recreation Department has put in a lot of effort to construct the road-side grass verge. Car owners should therefore refrain from damaging the turf just for the sake of their own convenience. By damaging these turfed areas, these inconsiderate motorists are certainly committing an act no different from that of vandalism. Notwithstanding this, have we considered what measures there are to prevent motorists from committing such offence? Why can we not construct kerbs or low iron railings around the turfed areas? Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to increase the composition fine from $200 to $400. This appears to be excessive. For an ordinary traffic offence, the composition fine ranges from $30 or $50 to $100. Will the Hon. Minister kindly enlighten us as to whether an offender will be fined $400 once he commits an offence? However, I support this Amendment Bill, in principle.”
“The fine for such offence committed under the Act or Rules is increased from $1,000 to $2,000 and the Commissioner's power to compound any of the offences is also enhanced from $200 to $400. Finally, the Bill also seeks to provide an additional mode of service of notices by the Commissioner, namely, by affixing such a notice conspicuously to some part of the premises or to some object on the premises. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education (Mr Ho Kah Leong)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, credit must be given to the Parks and Recreation Department for its contributions towards making Singapore a garden city that is well-known throughout the world. Over the past 10 to 20 years we have planted trees in almost every place possible. As a result, on every Tree-planting Day, we have a problem looking for suitable sites to plant trees. It is a good idea to cover our island Republic with trees but matching the trees with the environment is another problem we have to consider. Of course, we would like to plant as many types of tropical trees as possible so that there will be variety. However, I observe that some of the trees grow tall and slim. There is no beauty in them at all. As a matter of fact, they are rather horrifying to see at night. The present Amendment Bill seeks to give the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation wider powers to remove trees. I hope the Parks and Recreation Department will seek the advice of landscape artists to get rid of ugly-looking trees. Clause 3 of this Bill gives the Commissioner wider powers to remove any tree or plant without having to obtain the prior consent of the occupier. Of course, trees which pose imminent danger to life or property should be removed immediately.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Parks and Recreation Department has encountered some problems in the administration of the Parks and Trees Act, 1975. This Amendment Bill is intended to achieve a more effective implementation of the Act and its Rules. One of the amendments will empower the Commissioner, Parks and Recreation, to take immediate measures to remove any tree or plant which is imminently dangerous to life or property. Under the existing Act, the Commissioner has to serve a written notice to the owner of the property requesting him to remove any plant which is likely to be a fire hazard or a source of danger to the public. If the owner failed to act immediately, the Commissioner could only proceed to remove the plant after the expiry of the notice. This delay is unacceptable in situations where any tree or plant is imminently dangerous to life or property and immediate measures have to be taken. A further amendment is a provision prohibiting the parking of vehicles on turfed areas beside public streets or on other turfed open spaces which are maintained by the Commissioner. In the past, many motorists park their vehicles indiscriminately on the roadside green verges in areas such as the East Coast Park. This causes extensive damage to the turfed areas and the Parks and Recreation Department has to expend public funds to repair the turf. The amendment will allow the Commissioner to take enforcement action against the offending motorists. To facilitate enforcement of the Act, the Amendment Bill will also empower the Commissioner to require the vehicle owner, who is suspected of an offence under the Act or Rules, to furnish the identity and address of the person who drove the vehicle at the material time.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Alexandra for supporting the Bill. I will ask my Ministry to look into his request of bringing in those buildings for which Temporary Occupation Licences have been issued under the ambit of this Bill because generally there are a lot of complaints about the maintenance and management of these buildings. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Teh Cheang Wan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PARKS AND TREES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 7.24 p.m.”
“The managing agent must lodge with the Commissioner a bond for a prescribed amount to make good any loss resulting from his failure to duly account for monies received or held by him. (iv) The developer of a building with more than four units intended for strata subdivision must deposit a sum which the Commissioner may utilize towards the expenditure incurred to rectify defects to the common property discovered within the maintenance period. (v) The developer shall maintain a register of all the flats containing particulars of the proposed share value, the floor area, the purchaser and his solicitors. There are other minor amendments which are incidental and include definitions of the terms "development"p"flat", "maintenance fund", "stratum" and a more comprehensive definition of "common property" for the purposes of the Act. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Amendment Bill before the House seeks to ensure that buildings intended for strata subdivision are properly maintained by the developers during the interim period when such buildings are ready for occupation and before they are handed over to the management corporations for maintenance. The main amendments are:- (i) A developer must set up a maintenance fund for each development which has more than four units sold to more than two purchasers and is intended for strata subdivision. All maintenance charges collected from purchasers of the flats and the income derived from the common property must be paid into this fund which shall be used to manage and maintain the common property and other approved expenditure. The developer will act as trustee of the fund for the purchaser's benefit and any surplus money will be transferred to the management corporation for the development when it is formed. The developer is obliged to keep proper accounts of all income and expenditure relating to the fund. (ii) The purchaser of a flat who fails or refuses to pay the maintenance contributions within 28 days of the date of receipt of a written demand from the developer under the terms of the contract for sale and purchase, will have committed an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 and to a further fine not exceeding $50 for every day during which maintenance fees remain unpaid after conviction. (iii) The Commissioner of Buildings is empowered to appoint a managing agent if he is satisfied that the developer is not satisfactorily carrying out the management and maintenance.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In Singapore, purchasers are allowed to take possession of the premises when the Temporary Occupation Licence is issued by the Development and Building Control Division and before titles are issued and management corporations formed. This leads to a situation where developers are required to manage and maintain the buildings for a period of time. Purchasers will only be responsible for maintenance when strata titles are obtained and management corporations formed. As long as the present system of sale and purchase of residential and commercial properties is maintained, we will have to take measures to ensure that deve- lopers maintain the buildings properly before the purchasers can manage the buildings themselves. From time to time, we have received complaints about the poor maintenance of buildings by developers. This could be due to insufficient funds for maintenance, incompetent management, or indifference on the part of the developers. There are also instances of unscrupulous developers trying to make a profit from the maintenance of the buildings. Some purchasers are also to be blamed for the dilapidated state of their buildings and the common properties in such buildings. Without legal backing, developers face the difficult task of compelling some of the recalcitrant residents or owners to pay maintenance charges. As a result, the common properties are left in a state of disrepair and the building rapidly becomes dilapidated.”
“Discussions have been held with a number of consultant firms on the various problems involved in the setting up of a new accounting system based on the Auditor-General's recommendations. The HDB will soon appoint one firm to provide assistance in developing the new system. PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (Auditing of Accounts) 5. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if there is any reason why the accounts of the Public Utilities Board are not audited by the Auditor-General as in the case of the accounts of the Housing and Development Board.”
“The principle that is adhered to in the allocation of HDB flats is the "first-come-first-served" principle based on priority of registration numbers. Under this principle, flats may be allocated in 2 ways: by ballot or through a selection system in which applicants are called up according to their registration numbers to select their individual flats. There are a total of 276 units in Kampong Silat Estate. The completion dates for these units were, however, spread over a period of 4 months. The HDB decided to sell these units on a selection basis as this would allow the applicants, according to the sequence of their registration numbers, to select their flats and to move into them as soon as they were ready. The selection exercise at Kampong Silat has therefore enabled applicants to get their flats earlier and has also speeded up clearance exercises for redevelopment. This is not the first time the selection exercise was held. In the past, flats in Woodlands Estate, Bukit Batok Estate, Alexandra Village, Zhujiao Centre and Towner Road Estate were sold in this manner. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Accounting System) 4. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has taken steps to change its accounting system to implement the recommendations of the Auditor-General in his report on the HDB accounts for 1979/80 and 1980/81. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The HDB has decided to change its accounting system and is taking steps to implement the decision. However the HDB is operating on an enormous budget and the change in its accounting system is a complex and time-consuming task which has to be carefully planned and implemented.”