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 2 of 25.
“I do not think so. We do not forfeit. If some other party has the chance to come to power, it will forfeit everything. But we do not forfeit.”
“Forfeit. If you deny, I think we can play the tape. This morning you said, "forfeit". "The HDB will forfeit the flat."”
“Yes. If you did not say it, then I am sorry . But I distinctly heard your colleague, the Member for Potong Pasir, say it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the law here is to allow the HDB to compulsorily acquire the flat and not the forfeiture of the flat. In fact, the Member for Anson and subsequently joined by the Member for Potong Pasir are either ignorant or are intentionally trying to mislead the people. They say that the HDB is going to forfeit the flat, presenting a picture that HDB is going to take their flat and pay them nothing.”
“Yes, of course. Dr Toh Chin Chye: Is it in the law? It is not in the law. It is on your word.”
“Sir, the idea that the Opposition MP is trying to put across is that HDB is heartless, very harsh people, that the HDB is purposely trying to inflict pain on the family. I say, it is on the contrary. The HDB is doing this to achieve two things. First, to protect 85% of the population of Singapore from being hit by killer litter. Second, any family who have been thrown out of HDB estates will not be homeless. They will be housed but housed in a less comfortable accommodation.”
“Yes, it is. The HDB action will follow the court's conviction. The HDB will not take the responsibility of declaring so-and-so guilty of this or that. The person has to be convicted in court first.”
“He mentioned that they have to pay interest. That is to follow the tenancy agreement. As I understand it, some owners may charge an interest rate of 2% and some may charge 3% a month. This is quite common in lease agreements, because the landlord is trying to prevent tenants from delaying the payment of the rental. This is a very common feature. All lawyers know that the payment of interest for the late payment of rental is a feature incorporated in some tenancy agreements. I am not saying that it is in every agreement. But the HDB here is not proposing to charge interest. In fact, the HDB is proposing the imposition of a penalty so that HDB is able to recover the administrative costs. I will just give you an example. If a shop tenant's monthly rental is $3,000 and he owes three months'rent, or $9,000, and if we charge interest at 3%, the shop tenant who owes $9,000 will have to pay $270 interest. 1% interest is $90. If the shop tenant owes three months' rent, then he is liable to pay $270 in terms of interest. But the HDB is only proposing to recover the cost of serving notice, etc, which could amount to only a few dollars.”
“All right, the late payment of rental arrears. The HDB informed me that up to the end of the last quarter, the outstanding rental arrears and instalments is about $66 million. In other words, the tenants or the lessees owe HDB $66 million. The HDB incurs a lot of administrative expenditure in trying to chase up the rentals, serving them with notices and so on and so forth. The Member for Anson mentioned that, in the private sector where there is a rental agreement, those who are in rental arrears have to pay interest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to the Member for Anson's point. The Member for Anson talks about clause 3. This morning he was insinuating that if HDB's interest rate were to increase, HDB would do it very fast. So the people would have to pay a higher rate of interest straightaway. If there was a deduction of interest rate, HDB would do it very slowly so that everybody would pay the higher interest rate for a long time. But the fact is just the opposite. Recently HDB has on two occasions made deductions of the interest. In accordance with the lease agreement, if there is a change in interest rate, HDB has to give three months' notice, in other words, the lessee has to pay the old rate of interest for three months, that means they pay more. But HDB has, in fact, taken action on its own by informing the tenants that, in spite of the fact that in the lease agreement there is a period of three months' notice, the HDB is waiving this three months' notice and is giving you an immediate reduction of interest straightaway. So the purchasers of the HDB flats - offhand, I would say there are nearly 200,000 flat owners - have benefitted by the action of HDB to lower the interest rate, and with just one month's notice. On clause 4, the Member for Anson mentioned that the HDB is going to impose a penalty on people who committed various offences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is totally unnecessary and it wastes more time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, now I come to the point ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the same thing applies to shops. I think the shops are also on a monthly tenancy, where HDB can also cancel the tenancy agreement with a month's notice and then have a fresh agreement drawn up and with a new clause incorporated. Of course, the tenant has the right not to accept the new clause. In other words, if the notice of a new tenancy is served and the tenant finds the new tenancy unacceptable, he does not have to accept it. He can cancel it. He can say, "No, I am not prepared to sign." So the tenancy will be terminated. This clause is for easy administrative work. I am afraid the Member for Anson has also got it wrong, thinking that HDB is trying to impose the new fees, this and that, and so on and so forth, and, in fact, he has filed an amendment. That is all wrong. This clause is purely for easy administrative work. HDB has already the power to do it, simply by terminating the tenancy and provide a fresh tenancy with the new conditions, new fees, and new clauses. But that would cause a lot of inconvenience.”
“In any circumstances where HDB wants to take action against the family for killer litter, that means to compulsorily acquire the flat, if the Member of Parliament feels strongly that there are extenuating circumstances that the flat should not be acquired or that special consideration should be given, the Member can always write to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary who will look into the case. And if the Member is still not happy about the decision of my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, he can write to me and I assure him that I will have another look. The Member for Fengshan talks about HDB's power to vary the rent. In fact, I want to say that HDB already has the power to vary the rent, and we are introducing this clause here for easy administration. I give you an example. A rental flat is on a monthly tenancy. So for argument's sake, if HDB wants to increase the rental by $5, the procedure is that HDB will give the tenant a month's notice of termination, saying that the tenancy is now terminated, and ask the tenant to go to HDB's office to sign a new tenancy agreement. In this new tenancy agreement, the rental is increased by $5. This causes a lot of administrative work and a lot of inconvenience to the resident, asking him to bring along his tenancy agreement for cancellation and also to go to the HDB's office to sign another tenancy agreement. So the proposal here is to do away with the administrative work.”
“An HDB flat is to be a home for HDB residents and not a place for harbouring illegal immigrants. HDB will take action against anybody who harbours illegal immigrants. On the point mentioned by the Member for Changkat, I hope I have already covered it. The Member for Changkat has especially mentioned the social implication on families being evicted by HDB. As I have mentioned, if HDB is to evict a family, it will take all the factors into consideration and will not throw any family out into the streets. If HDB considers it is essential to acquire the flat, HDB will offer them an alternative accommodation. The Member for Bo Wen has also touched on the same topic. On top of that, he has mentioned about clause 5 of the Amendment Bill which is about the increase in the payment of fees, and asked that adequate notice should be given for the increase of the fees. I would like to assure the Member that HDB will do so. In fact, I would like to mention here that HDB at present has no proposal to either increase the service and conservancy charges or other fees in this financial year. It so happened that these amendments have come about and so we just put this clause in for easy administration in future. The Member for Bo Wen also suggested that we should set up a review committee comprising community leaders to decide the action to be taken against killer litter. I have already covered that.”
“He cannot see? He feels there is a need? So he is against the proposed law. He finds there is a need for illegal immigrants to be in Singapore!”
“So I hope the House is able to see that it is very important ---”
“But I am saying that just to illustrate that, using statistics, 85% of the illegal immigrants could have been housed in HDB estates. So if HDB really is taking very severe action to evict the people so as to punish them, then I think hundreds, if not thousands, of HDB residents would be debarred from applying for HDB flats. But, in fact, there are altogether only 23 persons out of 2.2 million people housed in HDB flats who have been debarred. So it goes to show how careful HDB officers are in taking action against residents who are harbouring illegal immigrants and how seriously we take the issue of acquisition of flats from people who harbour illegal immigrants. In fact, we consider this is very serious offence. And even then, for those families who harboured illegal immigrants and had their flat compulsorily acquired by HDB, HDB usually offers them alternative rental accommodation. HDB is not in the habit of throwing people out into the streets. In fact, most Members of Parliament have HDB estates in their constituencies and they will know when their constituents are harbouring illegal immigrants and have been thrown out by HDB into the streets. I think when they look around and check the answer is zero - nobody.”
“I would say in all seriousness that the safety of 85% of the population living in HDB estates is of utmost importance. Then we come to the second consideration, ie, we are sympathetic towards the families. If a family happens to be so unlucky to have a father or brother who is very violent and who is a drunkard and habitually throws heavy objects out, then for such cases we will move them to a ground floor flat or a lower floor flat, so that if he throws heavy objects again, it is not likely to seriously hurt anyone. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of harbouring of illegal immigrants, I would like to assure the Member for Rochore that HDB will not take action against anyone who just happens to be offering a cup of coffee or buying a meal for an illegal immigrant. Under the HDB rules, if the HDB wants to compulsorily acquire the flat because it has been used for harbouring illegal immigrants then, first of all, the lessee has to be convicted in Court. In other words, the Court has to convict the resident of the HDB flat for harbouring the illegal immigrant, then HDB will look into the severity of the case, ie, how serious the case is, and HDB will then decide whether or not to take appropriate action. As I have informed the Member for Anson this morning, total of 23 persons have been debarred from applying for HDB flats because they have committed the offence of harbouring illegal immigrants. Just imagine, Members in this House, that in Singapore we have hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal immigrants. HDB is housing 85% of our population. So by just a mathematical proportion, 85% of the illegal immigrants could have been harboured by HDB residents. And there may be some who are harbouring more, outside the HDB estates.”
“It dropped to 14 in 1985. In other words, there was a drop of more than 50%. 1986 up to now, more than half a year as passed already, there were only three reported cases of killer litter. So I am saying that the announcement in 1984 that HDB was going to take drastic measures against cases of killer litter has its effect. In fact, the incidence of killer litter has dropped substantially. Perhaps because of this drop in number, Members of this House and the public most probably have forgotten about the killer litter incidents and then now think that the HDB is being very severe with the punishment. In fact, it is not so. The announcement that HDB was going to take severe action has proven to be effective. When HDB acquires a flat, HDB has to take into consideration the circumstances of the family. There were cases where, when a flat was being acquired by HDB, alternative rental accommodation was offered to the tenant. If a flat has been compulsorily acquired by the HDB we understand that the family has to have a place to stay. We will offer alternative accommodation to the family. In fact, I have asked HDB to look for ground floor in the Jurong area. If the family is so unlucky as to have a drunkard or certain members of the family are very violent in character, just like the display we have seen in Parliament yesterday, and who are likely to throw heavy objects out of the house, then HDB has to compulsorily acquire their flat. I have asked HDB to look into the possibility of moving these families to ground floor flats. If they are living on the ground floor flat and if a member of the family gets drunk and tries to throw a stool or something out of their flat, it is not likely to seriously hurt anybody.”
“In March 1984, there was a spate of killer litters being thrown out of HDB flats. One of the worst cases occurred in the Jalan Eunos area where one woman was hit by an iron pipe thrown out of a flat. She was seriously injured and she was in a coma for a long time. The HDB then made an announcement that it was going to amend the Housing and Development Act so as to take action to acquire the HDB flat from people who have been convicted in Court of the very serious offence of throwing killer litter. There was widespread publicity of this announcement in the press. HDB then started the legal process of amending the Act and so today we have come to Parliament to ask the House to pass the Bill. So, in fact, there is no retrospective effect because the announcement was made by HDB in 1984. If I may just quote a newspaper article. This is the 20th April 1984 issue of the Straits Times where the headlines state "HDB gets thumbs-up from residents. Stiffer penalties meet with approval." At that time when people who were hit by killer litter ended up in hospital in a coma, the sentiments of the people were that those who threw killer litter must be severely punished and, in fact, the press had given the thumbs-up to the HDB. Because of the announcement made by the HDB in 1984 that it was going to take a very serious view on the problem of killer litter and that the HDB was going to amend the Housing and Development Act to compulsorily acquire the flat, there has been a drastic drop in the incidence of killer litter. In fact, I would say that the announcement by HDB was effective and, of course, there were some other reasons too - that hopefully Singaporeans would be more conscious of killer litter. In 1984 there were 36 incidents of killer litter in HDB estates.”
“So HDB will have to try its very best to ensure that when the residents go about their business in the housing estates or their friends and relatives visit them, they will not be hit by some heavy objects dropping from the upper floors of the flat and get seriously hurt or, worse, get killed. The provision in this clause of compulsory acquisition of flat will be used against a member of family who habitually, for one reason or another, throws heavy objects out of his flat. This morning when I moved the Second Reading I gave the example of a family where there is someone who is an alcoholic or a drunkard. When an alcoholic or a drunkard gets drunk, he loses his gravity and senses and he may throw chairs, tables, pots and pans, or other heavy objects out of the flat, and someone below who is unfortunate to be passing by can get hurt and be killed. So HDB has the responsibility to ensure the residents of these 600,000 HDB flats that among the HDB residents this type of dangerous people should not be allowed to continue to stay in the HDB flats because they pose a danger to the residents and should be removed. Therefore, the provision for compulsory acquisition of flat will be used as a last resort. It is only for this type of very serious cases that the HDB will acquire the flat. I will explain why this legislation is retrospective. HDB has proposed that this legislation should take effect from 1st March 1984. I would say that, since 1st March 1984 up to now, in the HDB's opinion, no family has committed such a severe offence as to warrant compulsory acquisition of the flat. Let me just inform the House of the events leading to the proposal for retrospective effect. Perhaps most of the Members could not remember this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank all the Members for bringing up the various points. The Member for Rochore has brought up a few very important points and I think these few points are uppermost in the minds of most Members of Parliament here because most of the Members here have HDB estates in their constituencies. So they are equally as concerned as the Member for Rochore. On the acquisition of flats by the HDB from people who throw killer litter, the Member for Rochore mentions that since the person who threw the killer litter has already been punished by a conviction in Court, the acquisition of the flat by HDB constitutes not only a double punishment, which means the HDB punishes him again, but also a collective punishment. That means the whole family is punished. The whole family will be evicted from the HDB flat and this would appear to be unfair and very harsh. On the surface of it, I even agree with the Member for Rochore and several Members here that the punishment, in fact, is very harsh. But it is the other consideration which I am more concerned about. HDB has more than 600,000 units of flats all over Singapore. 85% of the population of Singapore live in HDB estates. This represents more than 2.2 million people, out of a population of slightly under 2.6 million Singaporeans. It is the safety of the majority of people that we have in mind. Because 85% of the population of Singapore live in HDB housing estates, HDB has the responsibility to ensure that they are living in a safe environment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of persons who have been debarred from applying for HDB flats due to the conviction of harbouring illegal immigrants is 23. There are 337 persons who have been debarred. They are either lessees or tenants who have assigned or sublet the whole of the flat without the approval of the Board. For these cases, of course, there is no problem because they are not living there. This flat is extra; they have sublet the whole flat to other people. So for these cases, there is no problem of hardship.”
“There are also other amendments to the Act to enable the HDB to perform its functions more efficiently and effectively, and to enable ex-JTC flats to be administered along similar lines as HDB flats. These are highlighted in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“I would like to emphasize that the Board will only take action to acquire a flat after it is fully satisfied that the offender poses a serious and continuous threat or danger to other residents and passers-by. The Board will consider each case carefully before taking action. An example would include a drunkard or an alcoholic who is prone to throwing heavy objects or other "killer litter" indiscriminately and repeatedly out of his HDB flat, thus endangering the lives of other people living below. The Board, in managing 600,000 properties, housing 85% of the population, has an obligation to make its housing estates a safe and secure environment to live in. It will fail in its duty if it allows people who throw killer litter to continue to stay in its estates and pose a threat to the lives of other residents. The Government also takes a serious view of HDB lessees who abuse the privileges of public housing by harbouring illegal immigrants. Their flats may be acquired and applications for HDB flats involving the offenders may be cancelled. Here again, I should explain that such a provision will not be invoked lightly. The Board will only invoke it after very serious and careful evaluation of the case at hand, and after giving due consideration to mitigating circumstances. There is provision for any person, who is aggrieved by a decision of the Board to acquire his flat, to appeal to me as the Minister in charge. The Board must satisfy me that its proposed action is fully justified before compulsory acquisition can take place. I am also advised that if the Board's final action in such a case is seen to be manifestly unjust, the aggrieved party can still take the matter to court.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under existing mortgages issued by the Housing and Development Board, the Board can revise the interest rate upon giving three months' notice in writing to be served by registered post. The Government decided in February 1986 to peg the HDB's mortgage interest rate at 0.1% above the CPF rate, which is reviewed six-monthly to reflect market rates of interest. This makes it necessary for HDB to have the facility to vary its mortgage rate quickly. Lessees can then enjoy earlier the benefits of lower rates, if the CPF rate is lowered, as had happened in the last two revisions. One month's notice to the mortgagors by ordinary post is required for this purpose. The proposed amendment in clasue 3 of the Bill is intended to facilitate this. At present, if there is a revision in the rent or maintenance fees of the Board's rental properties, the tenants affected are required to call at Area Offices to sign new or supplementary agreements. This process is cumbersome and time consuming. The proposed amendment in clause 5 will simplify administrative procedures and reduce inconvenience to the tenants as it enables the Board to effect such changes by a notification in the Gazette. The Board will also give publicity in the media to any such revision. Under clause 9 of the Bill, the Board has the power to acquire any HDB dwelling where the owner thereof, his spouse or any authorized occupier above the age of 14 years, has been convicted of the offence of throwing "killer litter" from any HDB property. Any application for HDB flats involving the offenders may also be cancelled.”
“There is no such agreement in the HUDC clause that says HDB has to buy back HUDC flats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this has already been answered and I do not wish to repeat.”
“Sir, there is no such rule to purchase HUDC flats back in five years.”
“HDB flats, the 1-room, 2-room and 3-room flats, are offered for sale and they are also offered for rental. For the rental flats, the rules are different from the rules for sale of the flats, and I just ---”
“I am answering the question. I am just explaining that in all Housing Board flats, each flat type has its own rules. For example, the 1-room flat rules are different from the 2-room flat rules; the 2-room flat rules are different from other types of flats. Let me just quote an example.”
“It is correct. But HDB has made various rules governing, for example, the 1-room flat which has separate rules.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Potong Pasir is confused. Both the HUDC flat and HDB flat are governed by HDB rules. Mr Chiam See Tong: Correct.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained very clearly and repeatedly just now, a lot of HDB and HUDC rules are similar but they are not identical.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the present income ceiling for HUDC applicants of $6,000/- a month is based on the survey of household incomes in Singapore. 95% of families in Singapore qualify to purchase HUDC flats under the present income ceiling. As practically all families in Singapore qualify under the present income ceiling, there is no necessity to review the income ceiling condition for HUDC flat applicants. As HUDC housing provides long-term accommodation for middle-income families unable to afford private properties, it is necessary to impose other eligibility conditions such as requirements for citizenship, family nucleus and non-ownership of private residential property. These additional conditions preclude families who can afford private residential accommodation from enjoying the privilege of HUDC housing and ensure proper utilization of the HUDC flats. The HDB has, therefore, no intention of lifting the income ceiling or the other eligibility conditions for the purchase of HUDC flats. This is also in line with the Government's policy not to compete with the private sector in the property market.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to continue to repeat the same thing. What I want to say is that HDB is strictly following the lease agreement and if the Member for Anson can produce to me the lease agreement which says that HDB has not honoured its obligation, then I will concede that he is correct.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, I said that. They have to offer to HDB but it is up to the HDB whether it wants to buy the flats or not. But nowhere in the lease agreement does it say that HDB must buy back the HUDC flats and that HDB must pay the original purchase price for the HUDC flats and that is what the Member for Anson is trying to mislead the people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I admit that the Member for Anson is dishonest. He is trying to mislead the public. Nowhere is this stated in the lease agreement and perhaps I will senda copy of the lease agreement for the enlightenment of both the Member for Anson and Member for Potong Pasir. Nowhere is it stated in the lease agreement that HDB has to buy back the flats from the HUDC flat owners. Also, nowhere is it stated that HDB has to buy back these flats at the original selling price. So the Member for Anson is trying to dishonestly, in his usual tactic of rumour -mongering, mislead the people by inserting that clause that HDB has such an obligation. I challenge the Member for Anson to produce the lease agreement which states that HDB has to buy back the flat and HDB has to pay the original price of the HUDC flats when HDB buys back from the owners. Please produce that lease agreement.”
“Mr Speaker, as I have explained, to start with, in the first five years they are not allowed to sell. That is the rule. If they want to sell, they have to offer to HDB and, in this particular instance, HDB is unable to buy back the flat. This has been quite clearly explained on several occasions by the Government and I do not wish to waste the time of this House by repeating again. However, the Government has allowed HUDC flat owners to sell the flats to a qualified buyer of their own choice. On top of that, Government has waived the levy of 30%. Usually, anybody who sells the HUDC flat to a third party has to pay a levy of 30% to the Government. The Government has also waived that levy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, no. Anybody who looks at the lease of the HUDC flats will know that there is no such rule that the owners who want to sell their HUDC flats in the first five years must sell them to HDB. They have to give HDB the first option, and it is up to the HDB whether it wants to buy or not. As a professional lawyer in practice, I think the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir must have come across sales agreements on properties and it is not unusual to put conditions on the property to be transacted. I have come across many agreements which say that if Mr A is selling a property to Mr B at a certain price, maybe at a certain concessionary price, and if Mr B wants to sell that property again he has to give Mr A the first option to purchase, and it is for Mr A to decide whether he wants to buy back that property or not. If Mr A decides not to buy back that property, then Mr B is allowed to sell the property to a third party. This is the usual clause.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained on several occasions, HUDC flats and HDB flats are generally governed by similar rules, in the majority of cases. But there are some differences between HDB and HUDC and providing loans for the purchase of HUDC flats is one of these differences. They are not identical, as I have explained earlier. They are generally the same. That means HDB undertakes the management of the estates. HDB does the cleansing work. HDB collects the service and conservancy charges. HDB plants the trees. I can go on for hours on the similarity of the management of HDB and HUDC estates but, at the same time, they are not identical. Not everything is the same. There are some differences. The provision of loans is one of the differences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the policies governing public housing are quite similar for the HDB and HUDC but they are not identical. HUDC has certain separate rules which are different from HDB, and loans for the purchase of HUDC flats is one of them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the plan is to sell these flats slowly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB has built 5,275 units of HUDC flats. As at 30th June 1986, 4,105 units of HUDC flats have been sold. The HDB does not provide mortgage loans to purchasers of HUDC flats. Purchasers of HUDC flats obtain loans from Credit POSB Pte Ltd or other financial institutions. HUDC flat owners who find it difficult to service their existing loans with Credit POSB Pte Ltd may request for: (i) temporary suspension of monthly instalments; or (ii) lower monthly instalments for a period of six months; or (iii) extension of loan repayment period for a maximum period of five years. The above requests will be considered by Credit POSB on a case-by-case basis. The HDB's role in building HUDC flats is to provide long-term accommodation for middle-income people who cannot afford private residential properties. In fulfilling this role, the HDB has provided a range of HUDC flats for prospective owners to purchase what they can afford. 70% of the 1,170 vacant HUDC flats are being sold below $220,000 each, which is well below the market price for private flats of comparable size in similar locations. The HDB will not lower the prices of the unsold HUDC flats as it is not the Government's policy to compete with the private sector in the property market.”
“As at 30 June 1986, there are 1,743 units of one- and two-room rental flats in Anson Constituency, of which 419 units (24%) are vacant. The details of the vacant units and the period of void are shown in Annexure A (Cols. 209 - 210). Annexure A - DETAILS OF THE VACANT 1 & 2-ROOM RENTAL FLATS AND THE PERIOD OF VOID IN ANSON CONSTITUENCY (Cols. 209 - 210) With the improvement in the incomes and standards of living of Singaporeans and with the assistance given by Government, more and more tenants are leaving rental flats to become home owners. As soon as the majority of the units in such blocks become vacant, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will transfer the remaining tenants to other blocks to allow the vacated blocks to be demolished for redevelopment. A detailed programme will be announced when it is finalised. NUCLEAR PLANT IN INDONESIA 12. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Indonesian Government had discussed with the Singapore Government its plans to set up a nuclear plant; and (b) whether the proposed plant will present a hazard to Singapore; and, if so, what has the Government done about it.”
“(a) Our records show that for the three-year period from 1 January 1983 to 15 July 1986, a total of 10 members of the public have been injured as a result of being hit by objects flung up by rotary open blade grass-cutters used by contractors engaged by the Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB). (b) The PRD and HDB require several safety measures to be observed by the grass cutting workers: (i) All grass cutting machines must have protective guards. (ii) Grass cutting workers must carry on their back warning signs to warn passers-by. (iii) Grass cutting workers must stop operating the rotary open blade grass cutters when there are people within reach of the grass-cutters. PRD and HDB carry checks on the grass cutting workers. Penalty actions ranging from imposition of fines to debarment will be taken against those found contravening the safety rules. PRD and HDB are at present testing a new model of grass cutter which is fitted with an all-round plastic guard to prevent objects from being flung up by the rotary cutting blades. If found suitable, grass cutting contractors would be required to use it. VACANT ONE- AND TWO-ROOM FLATS IN ANSON CONSTITUENCY 11. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for National Development (a) if the Housing and Development Board will give, block by block, (i) the numbers of one-room and two -room flats that are vacant in the Anson Constituency and (ii) the periods they have been vacant, splitting the periods into three-monthly intervals; and (b) what the HDB proposes to do with these vacant flats.”
“The pilot scheme at Ayer Rajah Constituency to test out the feasibility of free parking on Sundays and public holidays was monitored closely by the Housing and Development Board during the past six months. The results revealed that during the free parking days on Sundays and public holidays: (a) there was an increase of about 17% in occupancy level of the car parks; (b) the number of vehicles found parked indiscriminately on a Sunday/public holiday increased from an average of 74 to 130 vehicles, i.e. an increase of 76%. It was evident from the pilot scheme that free parking on Sundays and public holidays may give rise to more congestion and indiscriminate parking, especially in car parks where the demand for parking space is high. It is, therefore, not surprising that not all residents in HDB housing estates want to have this free parking scheme. In view of this, the Advisers to the grassroots organisations have been asked whether they want to implement the scheme in their constituencies. If they wish to have the scheme, they can write to me or my Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The scheme can be implemented within one month of request. SAFETY MEASURES FOR MOTORISED GRASS-CUTTERS 10. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many people have been injured as a result of being hit by objects flung by motor grass-cutters up to the latest convenient date; and (b) what measures he proposes to take to ensure that users of such machines will strictly observe safety requirements so as to prevent these ugly incidents from happening again.”
“The one-room and two-room rental flats in Boon Teck Constituency are not under clearance. However, as and when the occupancy rate of any rental block there falls below 50% through natural termination, the Board will request the remaining tenants to vacate the block for other premises. Only when the HDB is able to amass a sizeable piece of land from the demolition of old blocks will the HDB be able to make plans for redevelopment. FREE PARKING ON SUNDAYS AND PUBLIC HOLIDAYS 9. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether the pilot six-month free parking scheme on Sundays and public holidays, which has been tried out in Ayer Rajah Constituency, has been found successful and whether the scheme will be implemented immediately in some selected constituencies or in all other constituencies.”
“As at 2 May 1986, a total of 26,643 flats have been completed in Yishun New Town. Of these, 22,433 flats, representing more than 84% of those completed, have been sold. Thus, 4,210 flats are currently vacant. As at 2 May 1986 there are 2,996 applicants in the Yishun Zone awaiting allocation of flats. DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR VACANT LAND BETWEEN RADIN MAS PRIMARY SCHOOL AND BLOCK 112, BUKIT PURMEI ESTATE 7. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for National Development what are the development and implementation plans for the piece of land between Radin Mas Primary School and Block 112 at Bukit Purmei Estate. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The piece of land between Radin Mas Primary School and Block 112 at Bukit Purmei Estate is a reserved site for future development. The Housing and Development Board has no immediate plans for the area. RE-DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR ONE- AND TWO- ROOM RENTAL FLATS IN BOON TECK CONSTITUENCY 8. Dr Ho Tat Kin asked the Minister for National Development what are the redevelopment plans for the one-room and two-room rental flats in Boon Teck Constituency which are currently under clearance by the Housing and Development Board.”