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 20 of 25.
“Sir, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Changi for commending the good work of the Public Works Department. It is a very rare occasion that any Member has expressed appreciation of the work carried out by my Ministry. I agree with most of the comments of the Member for Changi. In the past, funds for road construction were only given on the basis of actual perceived traffic demands. Therefore, when the roads were built the practice was to set aside a reserved lane for future road-widening. The East Coast Parkway, from Fort Road to Bedok South Avenue 1, was constructed between 1972 and 1976 to open up the East Coast reclaimed land for development. The construction was undertaken before it was decided to build the new Changi Airport. So at that time a dual two-lane road was considered adequate. With the decision to build the new Changi Airport at Changi, the East Coast Parkway has to be widened to cater for the traffic expected to be generated from the airport development. This project is similar to the case with the Upper Changi Road which was built between 1972 and 1975 as a two-lane dual carriage-way with a wide central divider to accommodate a third traffic lane in the future. I share the sentiment of the Member for Changi that additional cost and inconvenience would arise when roads have to be widened. Indeed, I have recently instructed the PWD to seek funds to build new roads to their ultimate capacity even if present traffic count does not warrant the implementation of the additional investment. I can assure the Member that, in future, in any road-widening project, the inconvenience caused to the public will be lessened. 3.30 p.m.”
“Sir, I am not saying that the motorist is a wrong-doer. The motorists are very intelligent people and they follow the rules. The rules say that if he parks longer than the validity of the coupon, he would be allowed a five-minute grace, and for any parking over and above that five minutes, there would be a surcharge. Therefore, he makes his own calculation and displays his coupon. And if we say that there will be a half-hour grace period, then he will take that half an hour grace period into his calculation but he will still come back and say, "Why not 35 minutes?" i.e. an additional five minutes. Therefore, if we say that we are not going to impose a surcharge and that we will only collect the fee for the time in which the vehicle is parked over and above the time covered by the coupon, the motorist will display the minimum coupon necessary. We expect the citizens to be law-abiding. We expect them to follow the law. So when the rules say there will be a $2 surcharge, they will make their calculations and say, "It is not worth the while. Perhaps I should put a 40-cent coupon more." But if the rule says, "No, even if you park longer than the coupon permits, you will not be penalized", then naturally they would put the minimum coupon and there is nothing wrong because he need only pay for what is over and above that hour. He is not cheating. There is no question of cheating. He is just following the rules. So we must have a set of rules which will enable us to use the minimum manpower to look after the car parks.”
“Sometimes even though he knows that it takes three hours to attend to his business, he will display a one-hour coupon because he knows very well that if he finishes his business in two hours, then he only needs to pay for that additional hour. In the end, everybody will pay the minimum charge, which means that the URA will have to engage a sufficient number of car park attendants to man each and every car park. So we will go back to square one. I will be the first person to admit that the coupon system is not a perfect system because, as I mentioned earlier, some motorists may have to pay more than the actual fee required. We have to admit this fact. But taking the system as a whole, when we in Singapore are short of labour and the various authorities are having difficulties in getting staff, I think a system that can save us 60 to 70% of the staff is a good system. If one or two motorists have to pay one or two dollars more on one or two occasions, I think this is unavoidable. But on the whole, for the country's economy, this one or two dollars extra revenue is not too heavy a burden on the motorists.”
“Sir, to answer the Member for Telok Blangah, I think the experiment has not been successful. What it amounts to is asking the motorist to walk up to the slot machine and get the ticket from the slot machine. This is equivalent to buying a coupon. So whenever a motorist wants to park his car, he has to go and buy the ticket from the slot machine and walking back to the car and putting it on the car. This would cause great inconvenience to the motorist. Would it not be better for the motorist to buy a book of coupons at any convenient time and put it in his car. Any time he wants to park his car, he just tears off a coupon and put it on the wind-screen, instead of having to walk to the slot machine and buy one coupon and come back to the car and put it on. Therefore, that system has not been successful. 3.15 p.m. I cannot agree with the Member for Khe Bong's suggestion and the reason is this. The only situation when a motorist will complain that he is losing some money is this. He estimates that he requires two hours to attend to his business. So he puts the coupon for two hours. He goes away to attend to his business and finishes it in one hour or in less than one hour. He then feels very unhappy because he has paid for two hours' parking and feels that he has overcharged himself. If we allow this calculation of overpayment to reverse our policy on surcharge, then every motorist, despite knowing very well that he needs to park for two hours, will say, "Look here. Maybe I can finish the business in one hour because a few weeks ago I had that experience" and proceeds to put the minimum number of coupons, either half an hour or one hour, because he has no fear of any surcharge.”
“Sir, the purpose of the coupon system is to save manpower. With the coupon system, the URA is able to reduce its manpower from 1,000 car park attendants to about 200 or 300 car park attendants. Therefore, there is a manpower saving of about 70%. If we have to station car park attendants in every car park to issue the pink ticket, then we will have to go back to the old system of engaging those staff which we have saved with the implementation of the coupon system. The Member for Khe Bong is, in fact, advocating that we go back to the old system, which means that the URA will have to engage the same number of car park attendants. I would be very happy indeed if the Member for Khe Bong can come out with a system whereby we can save manpower and also at the same time satisfy the motorists.”
“Sir, the allocation of funds under URSC for each constituency is based on the location and the population in the constituency. Constituencies which have bigger projects or require more funds can make use of the savings available from other constituencies which do not make full use of their allocation. The URSC has monitored this procedure and found it to work satisfactorily. Funds so far allocated to the URSC programme have been adequate for projects, which are required by each Citizens' Consultative Committee, to be carried out in stages. The budget rose from $3.98 million in the financial year 1976 to $5.3 million in the financial year 1980. This will rise again to $5.63 million in the financial year 1981 to meet the demand for more services. I would like to assure the Member for Boon Lay that. additional funds can be made available if it is required. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Khe Bong, as I have told the House repeatedly last week, a grace period of five minutes for over-parking is given. In fact, this grace-period is often stretched to 10 or 15 minutes. The motorist should display sufficient coupons if he wishes to park for a longer period. A surcharge for over-parking is necessary as a deterrent to prevent abuse by motorists. If no surcharge is imposed, motorists will invariably display only the minimum number of coupons, and hope to get away with it. And they will not be unduly worried about parking over-time because if they are caught, they would not have to pay any surcharge. This is undesirable because more manpower will be required to check the coupons, to compute the additional fee and to collect the additional parking charges. It defeats the main purpose of the coupon parking system, i.e. to save manpower.”
“Again, this was considered and we did not adopt it because HUDC and HDB have their own policies to follow. In the case of HDB, those people who have given the name of their spouse-to-be will be allocated a flat subject to the condition that they produce their marriage certificates within three months after allocation. But if we allow this for HUDC applicants, we will run into difficulties. In the case of HUDC, the applicant selects his flat. When he has selected his flat, he starts making progress payments. When the full payment has been made and we discover that he is a fake - e.g. he says, "quarrelled with my fiancee. She has left me." - we will have great difficulty in taking back the flat because all the legal documents for the sale of the flat would have been signed. We will then have a lot of complications. In the case of HDB, the applicants are from the lower-income group and if we do not allow this arrangement, a person may not get married at all. But for the HUDC applicants, they belong to the higher-income group and I think they can always manage somehow. I have great confidence in them.”
“Also, if they feel that they really want to get away from the family then, most probably, they can share a flat with their friends, relatives or somebody else or they can even be a subtenant by renting a room either in a private house or in an HDB flat. HDB has allowed the sub-letting of its flats. So I do not think any hardship would be caused to the single applicants.”
“But we think that that is achieving our objective of keeping the family together. So the same thing applies to our policy changes on the single applicants. 6.15 p.m. The main reason, as I have said earlier, is that we do not have the building capacity to sustain a policy whereby we could allow several thousand single applicants a year to apply and to occupy the flats for themselves only. The second reason is that our policy is to try to keep the family together. If we allow .single persons to apply for HUDC flats, there is the tendency of breaking up the family prematurely. We think that is not a good policy, and therefore we are introducing this new policy. The Member for Toa Payoh said that we should have allowed those applicants already on the waiting list to be allocated flats. We think this is undesirable because that would be a compromise of our policy and would not be effective, and, therefore, in the words of the Member for Ayer Rajah, we would be breaking our promise in a way. For all the Government policies that have been formulated, the main point is that we have not changed our policy frivolously. All policy changes have been carefully considered and if we consider it good for the society we will change the policy, for example, by keeping the family together. Personally, I do not think much hardship would be caused to the single persons if they are unable to get their flats early, because they are in the middle-income group and usually they can live with their family. I think their parents would be most happy to allow them to continue living with them.”
“Sir, I would like to try to avoid having to repeat the same thing myself. I would reiterate that Government has been making these policy changes, but not without giving careful thought. In fact, the public housing policy has been changing continuously. There is no question that our housing policy has remained static and unchanged. When the HDB started its housing programme in 1960, the number of public housing available was very small. So we said, "Who should get it?" A family unit must have a minimum of five persons. A family with less than five persons was not allowed to apply for the HDB housing. As we built more houses, we reduced this to four. If the Member for Ayer Rajah's principle is applied, then are we breaking the promise when we changed our policy of a family unit from five persons in the 1960s to four persons today? We are not. With changing circumstances, the policy has to be changed. When we introduced family planning, we reduced the minimum number of people in the family to be eligible. So a family of two persons could apply. Now we are trying to encourage people to stay with their parents. So we introduce this joint balloting system. If one of the children got an HDB flat, the parents would be automatically entitled to jump the queue to have this joint balloting. In fact, parents have been jumping the queue. This is the policy of the Government. We thought that by having this policy of joint balloting, we can achieve the Government's policy of keeping the family together. In fact, we allowed one of the members to jump the queue. We have the first-come-first-served policy. But because we have allowed joint balloting, in fact, we break the first-come-first-served policy. Therefore, we are not following our policy. We admit it.”
“I did not avoid answering the specific question of the Member for Boon Teck. I said that I would ask the HDB architects to look into it. In fact, we will look into all the suggestions of Members. My officials will go and see the Member for Boon Teck and he can make all his suggestions. They will then make a study and suggest how best to go about it. What I want to say is this: I feel that in about five to ten years' time we will convert the one-room flats. So the more we spend on their conversion now, it actually means that more money is going down the drain because these blocks of one-room flats will again be converted in five to ten. years' time and in certain cases they will be demolished. So our architects will make a study of the suggestions and they will take all these factors into consideration. Then we will arrive at a decision.”
“make the public live with the civil servants, it will achieve a better mix of the community. In other words, civil servants do not just live all on their own; University staff do not just live all on their own. We thought that by mixing them in one housing estate, there would be greater social mixing, and that would provide a better make-up of the community. But this will not, in any way, allow the civil servants to jump the queue and the HUDC applicants pushed back. People are worried that if the process goes on they will never get their flats. This is not the case. The case is that we will find out how many HUDC applicants there are altogether, and how many civil servants and university staff require accommodation. We put all the three groups together and we hope to come up with a housing programme which will be able to cater for all the three groups so that they will be able to live together, as a community. I gave the promise earlier, and I would like to repeat the promise, that all HUDC applicants who have applied by the end of 1980 will get the offer of their flats in 2 1/2 years' time.”
“But in future when the demand for two-room flats is reduced, then we may relax our policy because the trend of HDB registrations is that (again, if I might bring in the situation in the early 60s) the number of people who applied for one-room flats was about one-third, two-room flats about one-third and three-room flats about one-third. Today the majority of our applicants go for three, four or five-room flats. At one time the largest number of applicants were those buying three-room flats. Today, there are more people who register to buy four-room, five-room and other larger flats. So the income has improved. Applications for one-room and two-room flats have been dropping. If the applications for the two-room flats drop further, in a few years' time we may be able to relax our policy to allow people with incomes of more than $500 to apply for two-room flats. But for the time being we cannot because we do not have enough flats. The Member for Ayer Rajah raised the point about civil servants and the National University staff wanting to buy or use the HUDC flats as their quarters. The Government has two choices. One is to build HUDC flats as a separate entity and then build housing estates for the University staff and the civil servants. So all these groups will be living in their own enclaves. That means they do not mix with one another. There is no problem for Government to do that, because if it does, there will be less complaints. We will say. "These are the civil servants' quarters and we will build the flats in this particular area. These are the University staff's quarters and we will build the flats near Kent Ridge." Therefore, nobody will complain. Then the HUDC will build separate HUDC flats. However, we thought that if we mix them together, i.e.”
“So we are trying to encourage our people to buy flats, although some of them are still insisting that they want to rent. We have fixed the income ceiling at $800 because we believe that any family which earns about $800 is in a position to buy a three-room flat. That is the reason why we do not want to raise the ceiling in order to encourage or even force people to buy three-room flats. I think this is a good policy and we should not change the ceiling. We should continue to encourage the people to own their own homes. However, on the purchase of flats, the ceiling has been continuously revised and I think with the increase in the selling price of flats, with inflation and with the increase in incomes, HDB income ceiling will continue to be revised upwards. At the last revision, the ceiling for purchase of HDB flats was raised to $2,500 and I expect this ceiling will be further raised in future. On allowing people with incomes of more than $500 to rent one- and two-room flats, if I remember correctly, I have answered the hon. Member for Khe Bong that the HDB has, in fact, already relaxed for two groups of people, that is to say, those who live in one-room flats could transfer to two-room flats, even if the family income exceeds $500. In resettlement cases, however, they usually have a larger number of persons in a household and their incomes exceed $500, but we also allow them to rent one- and two-room flats. But we are not able to relax our policy for public applicants. The reason is that we do not have sufficient two-room flats to go round for everybody. So we have restricted them. 6.00 p.m.”
“There were a lot of applicants and those people who managed to get the one-room flats were very happy. This has been proved. In the 1963 elections, the opposition candidate who stood in Toa Payoh got elected. After we built those one-room flats, the Member for Toa Payoh got elected and has since remained as the Member for Toa Payoh up to today. [Laughter] This is a clear proof in itself that the people are happy, much happier than when they were staying in attap huts. But I am not going to rely on this illustration as being a satisfactory explanation for building those flats. I am just stating the historical consequence of how we arrived at these types of flats. I will ask the HDB architects to look at those flats to see how they can be improved. The HDB is in the process of demolishing all the one-room emergency flats because they have served their useful purpose and their standard is considered too low today. So these types of flats are now being demolished. We are, in fact, hoping that by the middle of the 1980s, maybe we can demolish or convert the one-room improved flats. Since the Member for Toa Payoh and the Member for Boon Teck have made such a strong representation, I will ask the HDB architects to look at those flats to see how we can introduce improvements and to minimize the unhappiness of the occupants. I will now deal with the various points together as they are inter-related. On raising the income ceiling for HDB flats, we have fixed the income ceiling for rental flats at $800. In fact, if I remember correctly, I have explained in this House that the reason is that the Government's policy is to try and encourage home ownership because we believe that people who save their money to buy HDB flats will eventually be benefited by their investment.”
“In 1960, if one were to go around the backlanes of Chinatown, one would find children lining up along the backlanes because the toilets were occupied by the adults and they had no chance of using the toilets. So at that time when we designed this one-room emergency flat, we considered them as very good because it provided one kitchen to a family, whilst in Chinatown, five to 10 families shared a kitchen and a toilet. But we provided one kitchen and one WC to a family compared to five to 10 families sharing one WC in Chinatown. That is why the communal chute has been designed for the one-room emergency flats. So when we designed the first generation one-room improved flats in Toa Payoh, we continued to provide the communal chute. And subsequently we improved it to individual chutes. But once we use today's design of the flats built as the norm against those built in 1960, of course, we will say that it is most ridiculous and that "We should put the Minister next to the chute so that he will be able to experience the result of his design." I have been associated with the Housing Board since 1960, and I was the leader of the team designing the flats. I say this not because I think that that design was wonderful. At that time, when we were given $25 million, we were trying to build the one-room emergency flats at a cost of only $1,500 per flat And for the one-room improved flat, we tried to keep the cost down to about $3,000 per flat. At the cost of $3,000 per flat, we could not have a lot of luxuries. There would have to be very great limitations. In fact, the architect had tremendous limitations in designing those buildings. It is not an unthinking concept. In today's context, of course, Members say it is ridiculous. In 1960, I think those flats were wonderful flats.”
“No, in Boon Teck Constituency. Or in Toa Payoh also. I thought the discussion was confined to Boon Teck Constituency. I will just briefly explain that in the early 1960s our resources were very limited. In 1960, when I was appointed the Chief Architect of the Housing and Development Board, I was very happy to be given $25 million to build public housing because at that time $25 million was a lot of money. The Singapore Government had very limited resources then. So in the early 60s, the HDB's philosophy on public housing was not like the philosophy of today, i.e. how to provide the best possible housing for our people, how to provide more gardens, how to provide more children's playgrounds, how to provide more swimming pools. At that time, when we had very limited financial resources, our policy was how to use this money to build as many units of public housing as possible, to build as quickly as possible and to build as cheaply as possible. When we had to build the cheapest possible flat, then we could not possibly think of the luxuries and the additional amenities. So when the first generation one-room flats were built, we built the one-room emergency flats, that means six-storey buildings. We did not even provide lifts because at that time lifts were expensive. We expected our people to climb up the six storeys. But the people who had been allocated the emergency flats were very happy. Why were they happy? Because they were comparing their flats with the type of housing they had in the city centre where one shophouse unit was shared by 10 families. And the 10 families shared the same kitchen and the same toilet. Of course, the toilet was inadequate.”
“But I think a likely case would be a person who is 39 years may come to the HUDC and pay the deposit, and a year or two later he gets the HUDC flat. If he puts the deposit at the age of 39 years old, then I think he is not going to lose that much interest for the HUDC flat. The Member for Toa Payoh has also spoken about the communal refuse chute in the Boon Teck Constituency. An hon. Member: In Toa Payoh.”
“I have given an assurance outside the House and I would like to give an assurance in this House that all applicants who qualify for HUDC flats and have registered by the end of 1980 will be offered HUDC flats within 2 1/2 years. This means that I will have to pool the resources of the HDB and the URA. In fact, the HUDC itself does not have the organization to build HUDC flats. 5.45 p.m. On the question of the 10% deposit for HUDC flats, I think it is not unreasonable because an HDB applicant who is in the lower-income group is asked to pay a 20% deposit for his house. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable to ask the higher-income group to pay a 10% deposit for their HUDC flat. Let me explain how we have arrived at the 10% deposit of $18,000. We have taken the average selling price of an HUDC flat at $180,000. Some may be cheaper than $180,000 and some may be more than $180,000. This depends on the locality and the type of flats. But we are taking the average price of $180,000 per unit, and therefore 10% comes to $18,000. If the applicant finds difficulty in paying the 10%, then I am just wondering how he is going to pay the balance. If he says that he has difficulty in paying the deposit of 10%, then I think it is not unreasonable to call him a frivolous applicant. The Member for Alexandra raised a point about the interest on the $18,000. He quoted the example of a person who is single at the age of 26, paying $18,000 deposit and having to wait until he is 40 years old before he could get a flat. I doubt there will be such cases. If that person does not intend to get married, the chances are that he would not apply for a flat at the age of 26 years and wait until he is 40 years old to get the flat. It is rather unlikely.”
“The number of single HUDC applicants may increase to 3,000 a year, and this is quite possible if we do not stop it because from 200 applicants a year the number has gone up to 1,400 applicants in three years. And in another one or two years it may possibly go up to 3,000 applicants. The number of 3,000 units of HUDC flats is equivalent to 10,000 units of public housing. Therefore, we are faced with a choice, either we build 3,000 units of HUDC housing for 3,000 single applicants (in other words, 3,000 bachelors or spinsters to live in these 3,000 flats) or we build 10,000 units of public housing for 10,000 families. I am quite sure that all Members of this House will agree with me that we should opt for 10,000 units for 10,000 families rather than for the 3,000 bachelors or spinsters. I hope that the Member for Alexandra is convinced of this, in spite of the fact that he is still single and he may or he may not suffer as a consequence of this policy. But I must emphasize that it is essential that we change the policy because there is no way we can sustain it as we do not have the construction capacity and we do not have the land. It is a question of priority: to build a large HUDC flat for a single occupant or build three HDB flats for three families. I opt for three HDB flats for three families. If I am wrong I stand to be criticized. I am prepared to accept full responsibility for building three units of HDB flats for three families and deny the single person his HUDC flat which he or she wants to occupy for himself or herself. On the general question of applications for HUDC flats, from our records all applicants who applied for flats up to October 1977 have been allocated flats.”
“On the question of the cut-off date in the implementation of new HUDC rules raised by the Member for Toa Payoh, my answer is that I generally agree that the cut-off date in the implementation of new rules is desirable, but it is not always possible to do so in all cases. In the particular case of single applicants, I think it will lose the impact we intend to achieve. For example, single applicants for HUDC flats comprise 46% of the total applicants on the waiting list. The majority of these single applicants have indicated that only one person is going to occupy the flat. If we are going to sustain the policy of allowing single applicants to occupy one flat, then every year the HUDC will have to build several thousand units because the number of single applicants applying HUDC flats has increased tremendously. I have said before that in 1977 there were 207 single applicants. This number has increased almost seven times in 1980. It will increase further if we allow this policy to continue. I must say that our building construction capacity cannot cope and land in Singapore for housing is not sufficient to be able to sustain such a policy. If the number of single applicants applying HUDC flats had been maintained in previous years at around 200 applicants (in other words, 3,000 bachelors or sustain that policy. But if it is going to increase to 1,000 or 2,000 applicants and possibly with increasing affluence it may increase to 3,000 or 4,000 applicants, then we cannot sustain that policy. I can give a simple example of the problem of building HUDC flats. The construction of one unit of HUDC flat is equivalent to building three units of public housing. So the Government is faced with a choice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members have spoken on the HUDC. I therefore intend to make my answers brief. An hon. Member: Less trouble!”
“Sir, according to the traffic engineer, the new Sembawang Expressway and the Central Expressway will have sufficient capacity to cope with the projected traffic in Ang Mo Kio and Yishun New Towns. Of course, with further development we will most probably have other means of transport to meet the increased traffic. I hope by then a decision on the MRT will have been made. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1981 TO 31ST MARCH, 1982 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.13 p.m.”
“Sir, the traffic congestion at the junctions of Lornie Road/Thomson Road and Upper Thomson Road/Braddell Road has been relieved since October 1979 by the opening of Marymount Road between Avenue 1 Ang Mo Kio and Thomson Road. With the continuing development of Ang Mo Kio and Yishun New Towns, the travel demand along the Upper Thomson/Sembawang corridor will rise. To meet this demand, the Public Works Department will be constructing two Expressways, the Sembawang Expressway and the Central Expressway, linking Ang Mo Kio in the North to the Bukit Timah one-way pair in the South via the Keng Lee Road/Kampong Java Road one-way system. Tenders for the Sembawang Expressway from Avenue 1, Ang Mo Kio to Jalan Toa Payoh will be invited in April 1981. Work will be completed by the end of 1982. Construction of the Central Expressway from Jalan Toa Payoh to Thomson Road is scheduled to commence in early 1982 and completed by the end of 1984. These Expressways, together with other major arterial roads in the area, will be adequate to cater for the projected travel demand between Upper Thomson/Sembawang corridor and the City.”
“We will look into the circumstances. Most probably the owner will not be allowed to keep the pet, as it shows that the owner is not able to properly look after his pet. TRAFFIC CONGESTION ALONG UPPER THOMSON CORRIDOR 6. Dr Chau Sik Ting asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry has plans to relieve the traffic congestion during peak hours at the junctions of Lornie/Thomson Roads and Upper Thomson/Braddell Roads which is expected to worsen with the development of Ang Mo Kio and Yishun New Towns.”
“I think the same request was raised by the Member for Radin Mas yesterday in this House. To build a toilet in every void deck is very costly and it is also very costly to maintain. At present HDB is building kiosks with toilets in some of the void decks where a small kiosk is provided for the selling of newspapers and sweets. Though these toilets are not available in every block, they can be found in several places. I hope the provision of this facility will reduce this anti-social habit. Mr Rohan bin Kamis: Sir, it is heartening to hear that the Hon. Minister will evict any residents of HDB flats who relieve themselves in the lift. What would the ruling be if it is found that the residents' pets have been urinating in the lifts? Is he going to consider evicting the pets?”
“Sir, I think we may have to change the law if we want to increase the fine. Under the Environmental Public Health Act the maximum fine is $500 for throwing rubbish or littering. So to increase the fine, we have to amend the law.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board takes a very serious view of offences like urinating in the lifts. Except for very young children and those of unsound mind, the HDB will prosecute and evict persons caught relieving themselves in the lifts, even if the culprit is not living in the same estate. Complete eradication of such anti-social habits requires education of residents. I would like to urge all Residents' Committees to plan education programmes and campaigns against this anti-social behaviour. In the estates where there are such programmes, there has been a noticeable decrease of such complaints.”
“Sir, I can give the Member for Punggol the assurance that in the building of new flats this problem will be avoided. ANTI-SOCIAL PRACTICES IN HOUSING BOARD ESTATES 5. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development what the Housing and Development Board proposes to do to solve the problem of dirty lifts, as practically every lift in the Board's estates is being soiled by people who relieve themselves in it.”
“Sir, the number of high-rise blocks involved is very large. We are carrying out the work in stages. According to the HDB programme, by 1983 this problem of low water pressure at the top two floors in high-rise flats will be rectified. I am sorry to say that the other flat dwellers will still have to put up with low water pressure for a while.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board will be taking steps to improve the water pressure at the top two floors of existing high-rise flats where the pressure is low. Additional mains and separate down-feed pipes for the top two floors will be installed. Work will commence in mid-1981 and will be completed by 1983.”
“Sir, I think I have answered that question. We allow people a five-minute grace period and if they park longer than five minutes they will get a notice. And those who park for less than five minutes, no notice will be issued to them. Usually the enforcement officers do not strictly adhere to the five minutes grace period. For example, if a person parks his car at a car park and the enforcement officer is not around, he may park for 10 or 15 minutes. When the enforcement officer comes round, he looks at that particular vehicle which is without a coupon and he allows a five-minute grace period before he issues a ticket. Quite often, the car may be parked there for 25 minutes and then a ticket is issued. LOW WATER PRESSURE IN HOUSING BOARD FLATS 4. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development what remedial action the Housing and Development Board can take to increase water pressure for residents living in the upper floors, as the present low water pressure causes them considerable inconvenience.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this problem has been looked into. We have found that this is not advisable because if we allow parking on a per entry basis, then what we are afraid of is that on Sundays people might leave their cars for the whole day. If it is on a per entry basis, the charge cannot be too high. So they leave their cars in the car park the whole of Sunday and they may even go somewhere else, to the pictures or visit friends. Then we may have a situation where the season car parking ticket holders come back and find that all the parking lots are full and they cannot get in. Or other casual visitors may come to visit friends and they may find that all the parking lots have been taken up.”
“In this case, I would advise them to use coupons.”
“Sir, our present system allows those who require long-term parking to buy monthly parking tickets. For those who require short-term parking, they can use coupons. I think this is a more satisfactory arrangement. Let them decide for themselves which system suits them best. If they find that they have to visit the place very often, then they may opt to pay $15 for a monthly parking ticket. If they have to visit the place only for a short while at irregular intervals, then in that case it is cheaper for them to use coupons. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Sir, will the Hon. Minister consider allowing season parking ticket holders to opt for an alternative? In other words, they are prepared to pay over and above the $15 for a season ticket that can be used in other HDB estates as well. This will probably alleviate the problems of families visiting one another.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if we have to employ more parking attendants, this would defeat the purpose of coupon parking. The five-minute grace period is for those who need only five minutes, for example, to go into the car park to drop somebody or to pick up someone. But if the person needs to go into the flat and spend a few minutes to attend to his business or wait for somebody, then in that case he will have to pay for the parking.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the introduction of coupon parking in November 1980, the HDB has been converting its season car parks to include short-term parking as well. This conversion is being implemented in stages. The HDB has always been granting motorists five minutes of free parking. In the past, motorists who needed to make short calls were given advice slips by parking attendants, permitting them free parking for five minutes. With the implementation of coupon parking, the five minutes' grace period is still being given to motorists. HDB enforcement officers making their rounds will take note of vehicles without coupons and allow them five minutes free parking before issuing notices.”
“Sir, after having detained them for a long time, they released them, because they had no evidence for their arrest. The two supervisors reported for duty the following day. But how could they face their co-workers? Will they be respected by their families? I do not object to the investigations but they should not be handcuffed in the presence of so many workers and taken to the police station. These two men are honest workers with long service. I hope such incidents will not happen. I hope the Minister will advise the police on this matter. The second incident occurred during the last general elections. The police cooperated very well with us. I thank them for that. However, I wish to bring up a minor incident for the attention of the Minister. Here, I wish to state that this particular incident was not reported to the police. The PAP is the people's organization. It knows what is good and wnat is bad for the people. When the results of the elections were announced, my supporters and I went round in a procession to thank the voters. During that time an empty bottle was thrown at us. Fortunately none of us was injured. I am confident that this was not done by any politician. Maybe it was done by some gangsters. We took part in that procession to thank the people, after having obtained a police permit. I wonder why the police could not take security measures during such occasions. Sir, had such an incident taken place in a procession of a lost Opposition party candidate, it would have been known all over the world. They would have announced to the whole world. Therefore, prevention is better than cure. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind and advise the police accordingly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board has no plans to replace the communal bin chutes with individual units. It would be very costly and technically difficult to do so. Besides, towards the end of this decade when the demand for one-room flats is less, these buildings may be demolished or converted to larger flats. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1981 TO 31ST MARCH, 1982 Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head Q - 2.32 p.m. Mr M.K.A. Jabbar (Radin Mas)( In Tamil): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QA-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore about 20 years ago the Police and the public did not cooperate well. But once the PAP Government was formed, this situation was remedied progressively. And with more disciplined men working hard in the Force, the Police Department became more sophis- ticated. However, even now, at times, the workers are not very happy about certain actions of the police. In this connection I wish to relate two incidents. We must not forget that the trade unions in Singapore today are not what they were 20 years ago. Through trade union courses and the advice of the trade union leaders, the workers now know their duties better. The police should understand this during the course of their duties. The first incident, Sir, happened on 21st October, 1980, at a shipyard when a foreign ship's officer reported to the Marine Police the loss of certain articles from his cabin. The police, without any evidence, handcuffed two supervisors in the presence of hundreds of workers and took them away.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the construction of the pedestrian overhead bridge across Lorong 1, Toa Payoh, near the Toa Payoh Police Station, is scheduled to commence in the fourth quarter of 1981, subject to funds being made available. VOLUNTARY WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS 4. Dr Tay Eng Soon asked the Acting Minister for Social Affairs (a) how many active voluntary welfare organizations there are in Singapore; (b) how much financial aid is being given by his Ministry to those organizations; (c) how many persons are receiving help directly from those organizations; and (d) how many persons are receiving help from his Ministry's welfare services. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng) (for the Acting Minister for Social Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are altogether 156 known voluntary organizations in Singapore, most of which are affiliated to the Singapore Council of Social Service which is the coordinating body for volun- tary welfare activities. About 70 of them are actively providing welfare services to the needy in the form of residential care for the young and the aged, social work services and special education and vocational training for the disabled. In 1980, these organizations received a total of $191,183 by way of token subventions from the Government. In addition, the Government seconded 11 instructors from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Ill teachers from the Ministry of Education to these organizations. Based on available information, the total number of persons being helped by voluntary welfare organizations is around 18,730. The number of persons who received welfare assistance from my Ministry during the period April, 1980 to February, 1981 was 22,485.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope within this year. REVISION OF SALARIES OF MINISTERS, CHIEF JUSTICE, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, CHAIRMAN PSC, JUDGES AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (Statement by the Prime Minister) 2.35 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now studying a proposal to have only one national housing authority. A decision will be made whether to merge HUDC with the HDB when all the implications have been evaluated.”
“Sir, I do not think so. Usually we give a five-minute grace and sometimes the five-minute grace stretches to 10 minutes. PROFITEERING, INFLATION, CONSUMER PRICES AND EXPENDITURE PATTERNS 12. Mr Hwang Soo Jin asked the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Health (a) whether the Committee on Profiteering and Inflation is still functioning and, if so, what steps are being taken to ensure that causes within our control are constantly being identified and dealt with promptly; (b) whether the basket of goods and services used for the computation of Consumer Price Index still reflect the current expenditure pattern of the majority of Singapore households, particularly those living in Housing and Development Board estates; and (c) based on the current Consumer Price Index, what is the minimum income required to sustain an average family of four, i.e. parents and two school-going children, living in an HDB three-room flat.”
“Sir, if they have paid the parking charges, then there will be no fine.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB car parks are meant for the use of residents, visitors and those who have business within HDB estates. Apart from residents who pay season parking rates, other users are charged uniform rates for hourly parking. It will be very difficult to justify and implement a system of different parking charges to favour a specific category of users, namely, children visiting their parents who live in HDB flats. The existing hourly parking fee of 40 cents per hour at HDB car parks outside the Central Area is not exorbitant. It is unlikely that this rate of parking fees is deterring children from visiting their parents in HDB estates.”
“Sir, what I have said earlier is that Punggol may be redeveloped in 15 to 20 years' time. This means that if we construct a pig-waste plant, this plant will be used for 15 to 20 years. CAR-PARKING IN HOUSING BOARD ESTATES 11. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng asked the Minister for National Development whether he plans to modify the car-park charging system to encourage children to visit and spend more time with their parents who are living in Housing and Development Board flats.”
“Sir, at present the Primary Production Department is studying the various options. I cannot give a definite date but I hope it will be in one or two years' time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the pig-waste pollution levy was imposed with effect from 1st January 1980. By the end of February 1981, a sum of $10.7 million has been collected. This money will be used for the development and construction of treatment plants to treat piggery waste. TREATMENT PLANT FOR PIG-WASTE 10. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for National Development what plans there are to build a plant for the treatment of pig-waste with a view to reducing pollution. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, as Singapore does not have vast tracts of arable land to dispose of pig-waste, the only feasible solution to the waste pollution problem is to treat the waste. The Primary Production Department is working closely with the Ministry of the Environment on a strategy for the treatment of pig-waste. Various methods of waste treatment are being studied to select the most cost-effective option. A treatment plant will be built when the Primary Production Department completes its studies.”
“Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for National Development how much has been collected since the imposition of the levy of $10 per pig slaughtered and for what use is such levy intended.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said earlier, the income ceiling will be adjusted upwards periodically. I believe those people whose incomes just exceed $6,000 and at present are ineligible, will become eligible once the income ceiling is revised upwards. IMPORT OF LIVE PIGS FROM THAILAND 8. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for National Development whether it is proposed to import live pigs from Thailand, and, if so, what is the rationale behind the move as local supply is reportedly more than adequate to meet demand and the price of pork has remained reasonable. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, although we are presently self-sufficient in pork, we cannot maintain this status in the long term. Land presently under farming will increasingly have to make way for other development. Even in the Punggol pig-farming area, land may have to be reallocated for other development in 15 to 20 years' time. Meanwhile, the consumption of pork will increase with increasing affluence and population growth. We are, therefore, looking for alternative sources of pork from abroad. We hope that Southern Thailand will eventually become a major source of supply. However, in the next few years, it is unlikely that there will be a large supply of pork coming from Southern Thailand. The Sing Thai Farm, for example, will only be able to export 2,000 pigs by the end of this year. This is less than one day's consumption of pork in Singapore. We will also be encouraging the importation of frozen pork from countries free from infectious animal diseases to ensure a wide range of supply at competitive prices. PIG-WASTE POLLUTION LEVY 9.”