EXEMPTED BUSINESS

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): 6.22 pm

With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Column: 1301

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY: _ Head T (cont.) - _

Column: 1302

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, Ms Lee Bee Wah expressed concern that ceiling leakage and water seepage are widespread problems in HDB flats. I want to assure the House that HDB takes the building quality of its flats seriously.

In 2007, less than 3% of our flats were reported to have ceiling leaks, water seepage or spalling concrete. Most of these defects involved the older flats. To help affected lessees, HDB will arrange to repair without charge, defects that are due to poor design or workmanship, although it is the lessee's responsibility for rectification works due to normal wear and tear, especially in the older flats that are 20 years old. The lessees will have to do their part in rectifying defects. However, HDB has a goodwill repair assistance programme to co-pay for rectification works on ceiling leakage and consequential spalling concrete. In addition, HDB is continually working to deliver better quality flats to its residents.

Since 2005, HDB has offered an extended warranty scheme for new flats called "ASSURE 3". It provides a five-year warranty against ceiling leakage and water seepage and a 10-year warranty against spalling concrete. As for HIP, it will be rolled out progressively due to the large number of eligible flats. Residents will be informed when their block is selected for upgrading.

From hardware, let me move on to the software issue to address Mr Liang's concern. The HDB environment is a highrise and high density one. Residents themselves have a key role to play to make their stay a pleasant and harmonious place to live in by being considerate and sensitive to the needs of their neighbours.

We have Residents Committees, like Mr Liang said, and other grassroots organisations to promote neighbourliness. On its part, HDB organises parties for

Column: 1303

residents of new Build-To-Order (BTO) projects for them to get to know one another. HDB also disseminates "Be a Good Neighbour" leaflets to new lessees and foreign sub-tenants to promote good neighbourly conduct.

Given the high density living in HDB estates, it is inevitable that disputes between neighbours arise from time to time. When neighbours need help to resolve their disputes, they can turn to grassroots organisations that Mr Liang has mentioned earlier or for the more serious cases, they can approach the Community Mediation Centre for assistance.

Preserving neighbourliness is an important matter, whether we know and trust our neighbours, whether we live harmoniously with one another. We have heard stories of how residents who go out of their way to care for their neighbours. But I agree that the situation is less than perfect and more can be done. Therefore, I would like to suggest the formation of a working group of MPs, including Mr Liang of course, to look into what more can be done to promote harmonious living and considerate neighbourly behaviour.

On the issue of duties of landlords in HDB estates and heartland commercial spaces that Mdm Ho has brought up, she is concerned that landlords are not taking enough responsibility for the upkeep of HDB flats and shops after letting out the premises. Lessees of HDB sold flats are responsible for keeping their flats in good condition and ensuring that no disamenity is caused to surrounding residents. This applies even if the lessees sublet their flats. They will be held responsible if their sub-tenants caused nuisance to the neighbours. If sub-tenants continued to cause disamenities despite warnings, HDB can revoke the subletting approval. Mdm Ho may like to know that in the last two years, HDB has issued about 30 written warning letters as well as revoking nine subletting approvals.

Column: 1304

For sold shops, owners must take the interest in maintaining and upgrading their shops and common areas as these affect the shopping ambience and the value of their properties directly. Of course, it will affect the rentals that they can charge for their shops. For this reason, many merchant associations work with their town councils to upgrade the common property in their neighbourhood centres and town centres. In addition, town councils are empowered to carry out improvement works to the common property and to impose charges on shopowners for such improvement works.

HDB has introduced the Revitalisation of Shops Scheme that provides co-funding to help HDB retailers in revitalisation efforts, like the upgrading of common areas and carrying out promotional activities. However, there is a limit to how much the Government can and should do to upkeep and upgrade sold properties. Ultimately, owners must take the responsibility for their properties.

Mdm Ho also asked about actions taken against irresponsible acts that endanger lives in HDB estates. HDB takes a very serious view of such violations. Together with the other agencies, we have stepped up enforcement actions against fire hazards in outdoor display areas of shops. Since October 2007, joint inspections covering over 1,100 commercial units across 16 town councils have been conducted and HDB and the town councils also regularly enforce against other irresponsible acts such as killer litter.

Construction Outlook

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, among the first parliamentary questions that I filed in this House in November 2006 was to ask the Minister for National Development whether there were signs of a bubble or potential waiting in the construction

Column: 1305

sector. The reason I asked that question was that the Government then had just announced going ahead with the two multi-billion-dollar Integrated Resorts. In addition, there were also various mega projects being awarded, like the BFC, Orchard Turn and some of the public projects.

There was feedback from the construction industry that we will be facing a capacity bottleneck. The reply then was that the issue of construction bubble actually does not exist because

the Building and Construction Authority has projected that the annual construction outputs would rise to between $14-$17 billion for the next few years, and up from the $12 billion achieved in the past three years. This is significantly lower than the peak volume of almost $20 billion achieved between 1997 and 1998.

6.30 pm

Just 12 months later, BCA revised its official forecast for 2007's construction demand to between $19-$22 billion, up by 30%. In his recent speech, Parliamentary Secretary, Dr Maliki, mentioned the value for 2007 is actually $24.5 billion. He also said that the value would be even higher in 2008.

We have allowed the pace of construction sector to pick up too quickly after the downturn in 2003 and 2004. Too many projects, all coming in a short span of time, had resulted in the construction frenzy and a severe bottleneck which is unhealthy to the industry and economy. And these heightened pace and activities are expected to carry on in the next few years, given the huge pipeline of projects in the next few years.

Some of the major ones are the $20 billion worth of the new MRT lines; $2.5

Column: 1306

billion worth of Marina Coastal Expressway; $2 billion healthcare infrastructure costs; $1.2 billion Sports Hub and various other projects.

I was told it is now the case of the contract work chasing after the contractors. For example, I heard that there is now a severe shortage of piling contractors. There are piling projects where not a single piling contractor submits the tender. We also heard about the long waiting time for cranes. It is not surprising that most of the capacities are being committed to the two IRs and the other mega projects.

While it is good and necessary that we are improving our overall infrastructure and attracting heavyweight investments, I am not sure that it is a good thing to permit so many construction projects at one go and to ramp up in such a short space of time.

There are implications when we underestimate the construction capacity. Firstly, it leads to rising costs. We have heard that the Sports Hub has now cost us about 50% more to develop. Inevitably, the runaway construction costs would have an impact on the cost of upgrading to HDB and estate improvement programmes. Some of the essential facilities, such as the Khoo Teck Puat Hospital and community facilities, would also cost more to build.

Secondly, quality. Now, more than ever, we have to redouble our efforts to ensure the quality of the projects. Contractors are now facing even tighter deadlines and having to manage even tighter costs and resource constraints. We have to ensure that they will not compromise on the quality.

Thirdly, the tight labour markets. The industry is facing severe manpower shortage - the architects, project managers, contractors, sub-contractors,

Column: 1307

workers. I spoke to some architects and they told me about the nightmare of having to find hundreds of architects overnight, knowing too well that there may not be more projects to sustain them thereafter. They are concerned with the sharp boom and bust in the construction cycle.

Even the local players I spoke to from the industry are not happy with the heating up of the sector. Construction costs have gone up by 20% to 40%, several big projects had already been hit.

I welcome the Government's announcement to delay $3 billion worth of projects to spread out the construction demand. Can the Minister enlighten us on the basis of how these projects are being selected for rescheduling and how are the priorities determined? What more can be done to reduce the construction costs?

Finally, I think it is important that we identify the blind spots which had prevented us from forecasting the construction activity and assessing the construction capacity more accurately. This would help us avoid future overheating in the construction sector.

Sustainable Built Environment

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Sir, may I ask the Minister whether MND monitors on the existing buildings in Singapore with regard to energy conservation and environmental sustainability? Could more be done to improve the facade and airconditioning system of existing buildings to minimise energy consumption and to provide better comfort in keeping the right temperature? What is the percentage of buildings that are failing badly in this regard? Does the Minister plan to incentivise owners of old buildings to achieve the Green Mark or satisfy standards apart from just those new and retrofitted buildings?

Column: 1308

The Chairman: Dr Faishal is not present. Ms Lee Bee Wah.

Private Estate

Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to lend a hand to those living in private estates. They have not been able to enjoy upgrading of basic facilities such as upgrading of the playgrounds. Equipment and flooring should be changed to more durable and safer types. Change flooring to synthetic rubber as this has been a request of many of my residents in Nee Soon South. Next, is to build three-generation exercise stations in order to encourage healthy living. Last, but not least, build bigger pavilions which can be used as both a meeting point and a place to exercise for those living in private estates. Those living in private estates should not be overlooked in the Government's cyclical upgrading programmes.

Mr Ang Mong Seng: ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Sir, the Community Improvement Projects Committee, or CIPC, fund is established by the Ministry of National Development for the purpose of improving and enhancing the public facilities to enable HDB residents to enjoy better basic facilities and, at the same time, enhance the cohesiveness among the residents, the so-called kampung spirit.

At the moment, the CIPC fund caters only for HDB residents but not the residents of the private estates. I would like to ask the Minister whether MND would consider allowing the residents of the private estates to enjoy these benefits too. If that can be done, I would like to know how much can each unit of the private estates be given and for what improvements can this fund be used.

Can the CIPC fund cover the full costs of such improvement items? I understand

Column: 1309

the CIPC fund has to be applied for and executed by the CCC of each constituency, and if there is any shortfall, the CCC would have to bear the remaining cost. The CCC is a grassroots organisation, a non-profit organisation, with limited capital. I hope that the Minister would grant higher disbursement for these improvement projects. I suggest that CIPC pay up to 95% or even 100% of the cost, so that the CCC can execute this job more effectively.

*Cols. 1357-1358.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, I would like to thank Members for their questions on rising construction costs, private estates as well as the upgrading of parks.

The construction industry is indeed enjoying its strongest growth since the mid-90s. Last year, Mr Liang has rightly put that total contracts awarded hit an all-time high of $24.5 billion. We expect construction demand to remain robust at between $23 billion and $27 billion in 2008.

Unlike the previous peak in 1997, the current boom coincided with strong global and regional construction demand. We therefore have to contend with international competition for construction resources. Some of the observations that Mr Liang has made, for example, in contracting resources, supply of cranes are really due to a global shortage of resources.

The current high domestic demand will continue to put pressure on our construction capacity. The Government has anticipated the recovery of the sector and begun easing some manpower policies since early last year. But as we have heard from the Minister for Finance, the ability to forecast is really more of an art, and we will also try to forecast as much as we can, given the information that we have. Given the pace of growth,

Column: 1310

the Government has undertaken several measures to mitigate the situation.

First, we have increased the labour capacity. Working with Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has taken steps to facilitate the inflow of foreign construction workers and supervisors. These include expanding the capacity of its Overseas Testing Centres and reviewing the list of acceptable qualifications for site supervisors. We have also worked with MOM to further review manpower policies like exempting experienced foreign workers from man-year entitlement requirements, as well as raising the dependency ratio and S-pass quota.

Second, BCA is also working with the industry to expand the contracting resources. This includes proactively sourcing and securing competent foreign contractors, together with their management teams and specialist contractors, to undertake projects here.

Third, the Government is moderating its demand for construction resources by deferring about $3 billion worth of projects to after 2009. This will reduce demand for construction manpower by about 17,000 workers and 2,000 professional and technical staff over the next two years. Urgent projects that are essential for meeting Singapore's economic and societal needs, such as key infrastructure development like transportation, and public housing/upgrading projects, will not be affected.

Mr Liang has also expressed some concern over the quality of work, given the tight capacity situation. I would like to stress that ensuring the quality of our built environment remains a key priority for BCA.

Our professional engineers are subjected to stringent registration criteria

Column: 1311

and continuing professional development requirements. To enhance building safety, the Building Control (Amendment) Bill was passed last year to strengthen our regulatory framework. Major enhancements include regulating of underground building works, licensing of builders and provision of adequate site supervision teams.

Sir, while we tackle the current concerns of resource crunch, we must also remain focused on our long-term vision to make Singapore's built environment a safe, high-quality, sustainable and accessible one.

Dr Lily Neo has asked about plans to develop a sustainable built environment. In 2005, BCA rolled out its Green Mark Scheme for buildings. In recent months, through active promotion and industry education, we have seen an exponential rise in the number of buildings applying for Green Mark certification.

Today, over 200 projects are awaiting assessment. By the end of FY07, there will be close to 100 buildings that will be Green Mark certified. Of these, 10 buildings obtained the highest Green Mark Platinum level, achieving at least 30% energy efficiency.

There is now a growing awareness of the business case for Green Mark buildings. To demonstrate our resolve to embrace sustainable development, Singapore will become one of the first few cities in the world to require new buildings and those undergoing major retrofitting to meet minimum green building standards come April 2008.

To spur industry players to vie for higher than the basic Green Mark standard, BCA has put in place a $20 million Green Mark Incentive Scheme since December 2006.

Column: 1312

Nevertheless, the biggest challenge facing many cities, including Singapore, is getting existing buildings up to Green Building standards. To expedite, BCA is working with the National Environment Agency (NEA) to promote energy efficiency in existing buildings. The Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme (EASe) from NEA co-funds the cost of carrying out energy audit for existing buildings.

BCA is also developing a new grant to encourage existing buildings to upgrade their building envelopes. The grant, set at about $9 million for a start, will help offset the cost of upgrading façade features to improve the overall energy efficiency of the building.

BCA will continue to spearhead concerted efforts to adopt sustainable construction in Singapore. It has issued guidelines on the use of steel and high-strength concrete, and will be implementing engineering guidelines for use of steel manufactured to standards other than the existing British standards. Together with the Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore and other agencies, BCA is developing a framework for accrediting construction waste recycling processing facilities within the next few months. This will ensure that recycled aggregates will have a consistent quality to be used as alternative construction materials effectively.

To give sustainable construction a further boost, BCA is exploring the introduction of a $15 million Sustainable Construction Fund to incentivise developers to use sustainable materials in their projects. More details will be released later.

On the issue of upgrading private estates, I would like to thank Ms Lee and Mr Ang for their interest. We have an on-

Column: 1313

going upgrading programme for our private estates, called the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP). Introduced in 2000, it is intended for upgrading of the public infrastructure of private housing estates. So far, 30 of our older private estates have been selected for EUP, benefiting some 23,000 dwelling units.

6.45pm

To allow for smaller scale upgrading works to complement the EUP, Mr Ang Mong Seng may be happy to know that the Government will be introducing the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) scheme for private estates. The scheme is similar in concept to the CIPC scheme for public housing estates, but will be adapted to suit the needs of private estates. It will allow minor improvement works to be carried out on a timely basis. The scheme will be rolled out in FY2008, and more details on this will be made available later.

Beyond EUP and CIPC, the public infrastructural needs of private estates are also met by the regular upgrading and maintenance work undertaken by various Government agencies on an ongoing basis.

Ms Lee has asked specifically about the upgrading of playgrounds in private estates. The upgrading or development of new parks and playgrounds in private estates can be undertaken when an estate undergoes EUP. In addition, NParks also looks into the upgrading of neighbourhood parks under its park redevelopment programme. The main criterion for NParks’ upgrading of parks is the condition of the park. Within the allocated resources, priority will be given to those parks where the facilities have undergone more serious wear and tear, and where conditions are poorer.

Column: 1314

When upgrading park facilities in private estates, NParks would seek feedback from the Neighbourhood Committees to ensure that the facilities meet the needs of the residents.

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong is not present. Mr Masagos.

Food Prices

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Sir, I think we agree by now that food price increases are real and not likely to return to pre-election levels even if the GST had not been raised, or if the increases have been withdrawn. I read in Wednesday’s papers - and the Minister referred to this just now - how wheat prices have jumped 25% in the commodity market just one day after Kazakhstan, one of the largest exporters, imposed export tariffs to curb exports. We already know that bad weather – both droughts and rain - has already destroyed crops in Australia, Germany, France and, recently, in India and Canada. The same report quoted BBC for stating that food prices have risen by 40% as a whole.

I am quite sure that not only are there worries among the public about rising food prices, these reports further alarmed our population. Clearly, I have not heard that the Government is for direct food subsidies that our neighbours have resorted to. But to alleviate the income effect of lower wage rise among the low-wage earners, the Government has chosen the direct-transfers route in amounts of inverse proportion to the income of the populace.

On the food supply side, may I ask the Minister, are there more that the Government can do to help mitigate food price inflation?

The Chairman: Mr Teo Ser Luck, you may take both cuts together. Two minutes.

Column: 1315

Mr Teo Ser Luck: Sir, some Members of this House have already brought up the issue of escalating food prices, whether in our supermarkets or food stalls. I also feel the pinch when I go for my favourite food. So I am glad to know that one of the objectives to moderate the inflationary impact is to diversify food sources. This is because, if we are successful in diversifying the sources, people like me would not need to diversify our search for cheap food.

Sir, what are the diversified sources that we will be looking at to manage this impact and what is the progress so far?

Food Safety

As I was pondering over the cut for food safety, news came that a student care centre had some cases of food poisoning. It has never happened before at the centre, so it caught everyone by surprise. The principal, therefore, called all parents to assure them. That reminded me of the incident last year when China was criticised for its food safety and quality. Then, Singapore took action as well, most notably, the ban on three types of tooth paste from China. Tooth paste is not exactly food, but then we still put it into our mouth. The Chinese Minister responsible for food safety also had to assure the public and the international community about the quality and safety of food imported from China.

I would say that monitoring and administering food safety is not just the responsibility of the Government but that of the grassroots and community at large as well. There must be compliance with basic hygiene and safety measures. It has implications not just on the individual but also the country. I would like to know what are the measures the Ministry has in place to effectively ensure the safety and quality of the food consumed by our citizens. How would they ensure that there are sufficient measures to prevent

Column: 1316

any lapse in the control? Are there any plans for education awareness in this aspect?

Food Supply

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, leading researchers from around the world have warned that global agriculture, already stressed by climate change, could go into steep unanticipated declines in some regions due to complications that scientists have so far inadequately considered. It was also reported that India and China banned rice exports recently, with China being cited to have done so to meet domestic demand. As Singapore imports more than 90% of our food from overseas, what is AVA's risk management approach towards an uninterrupted food supply, apart from broadening our external food sources? A diversified external food sources approach may ensure stability in the supply chain for Singapore in the short term. But if a worldwide food shortage crisis occurs, this approach may not be effective. Furthermore, political pressure in a food shortage crisis will force many food producing countries to ban exports so as to meet domestic demand first.

I would like to ask the Minister:

(1) Can intensive high-tech farming technology significantly boost our local farm production rate, thereby inching Singapore towards a less vulnerable position in the food supply chain?

(2) Can leading-edge technology and new generation scientific methods of farming produce essential food items, such as rice or wheat, in Singapore?

(3) How much land, as a percentage of our total land mass, is currently being used for intensive high-tech farming? Will the Government release more land for such use?

(4) In the latest AVA Annual Report, the phrase "extra big" appears many times in the report. I wonder what is so

Column: 1317

big in the AVA. Perhaps, the Minister would like to tell this House what extra big plans he has in mind to make Singapore self-sufficient in food?

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Sir, I thank Members for raising the issues of food supply, food safety as well as food inflation. These are issues that are very intricately linked.

Ensuring food safety has always been the key priority for AVA, as it adopts a science-based risk management strategy in line with international standards and benchmarked with the best practices. Food items that carry a higher risk of contamination are inspected more frequently and subject to systematic sampling of testing to detect food-borne pathogens, residues and contaminants. Despite numerous press reports concerning the safety of Chinese food products, as Mr Teo had mentioned earlier, the rejection rate for food imports from China is comparable with the overall rejection rate for food imports over the last three years. AVA will remain vigilant, and may introduce additional programmes and checks if necessary.

A robust and effective food safety management system ensures that our import requirements are adequate but not overly stringent. It provides the necessary bedrock to give us the confidence and latitude to consider various strategies to enhance supply resilience and manage food inflation.

Diversification of supply sources, backed by AVA's food safety regime, will remain a key strategy to ensure supply resilience. Diversification enables us to switch quickly to alternative sources to deal with supply disruptions in one or several sources, regardless of whether the disruptions are caused by disease outbreaks, bad weather in certain places affecting crop yields, or temporary export

Column: 1318

bans. AVA has been working closely with the industry on our food diversification strategy for many years.

The food industry manages short-term demand and supply fluctuations through their business continuity plans. These include holding buffer stocks and pre-identifying alternative sources or substitute products.

Sir, let me now address the issue of food inflation raised by Members. The recent trend of rising food prices is a global phenomenon. In 2007, many countries experienced considerable food inflation. Food prices went up by 12.3% in China, 11.2% in Vietnam, and 4% in the US last year. Adverse climate, diversion of agricultural land to produce bio-fuel crops, rising fuel prices, as well as increased consumption in emerging countries like China and India, have all contributed to rising food prices. As we import the bulk of our food, we cannot be totally insulated from this global effect. In 2007, food prices in Singapore rose by 2.9%.

Mr Masagos is right. Subsidies and price controls are not the way to go. To mitigate food inflation, our approach has been to keep our market open so that importers can source for food items from diverse sources at the most competitive prices. Our diversification effort has yielded positive outcomes. For example, taking year-on-year comparison for 2007, the import prices of chicken and pork had not risen significantly, hovering at about 1% on average.

The Government is doing more to mitigate the impact of food inflation. We are working on further diversifying our sources. AVA is expediting the approvals of more countries and establishments to export to us.

To open up even more sources, we also need to be innovative and explore

Column: 1319

new ways to bring in the food safely. One innovation which AVA piloted recently was the sea-freighting of chilled pork from Australia. This has opened up an alternative logistic channel which has the potential to bring down the import prices of chilled pork, for example.

But we need more than the Government and industry efforts to mitigate the impact of food inflation. Consumers have an important role to play in managing their cost of living. They can manage their expenditure on non-cooked foods through various options.

Firstly, they can switch to frozen meat, which are typically around 20% cheaper than chilled meat. Some cuts can go even up to 53% cheaper, such as chicken wings and drumsticks, while frozen pork loins are about 38% cheaper.

We have received anecdotal feedback that some consumers are unwilling to use frozen meat. The perception is that it is less fresh and tasty. It is somewhat ironic that some of them would buy chilled meat, only to freeze it for use some days later. Many people also may not realise that we have been consuming frozen food, such as frozen chicken and pork, which is used widely by the food industries, restaurants and hawkers for preparing their cooked or processed food. In fact, the consumption of both frozen pork and chicken in Singapore last year was about 60% of the total demand for pork and chicken.

Sir, to help consumers make informed decisions, AVA has embarked on a public education programme to raise awareness on the availability of frozen meats, educate consumers on the proper handling of frozen meat products, and dispel the misconception that frozen meat is not fresh, tasty or wholesome.

Second, consumers who are willing to make adjustments to their preferences for basic food items also have other options.

Column: 1320

For most food items, including cooking oil, rice and bread, there are many other varieties and brands that consumers can choose from. For example, house-brand items offered by retailers are 10% to 15% cheaper on average. Consumers can also shop around for promotions which give them greater value for dollar.

Mr Low has also asked on the feasibility of Singapore producing its own food. In land-scarce Singapore, we cannot rely on expanding agricultural land to supply the amount or variety of food for the whole population. This is neither viable nor practical. We have, however, invested in a certain degree of local food production by exploiting technology, as Mr Low has suggested. One example is our long-term plan to develop the aquaculture sector, as fish harvest from wild catch is expected to drop over the years. AVA has invested in high-value upstream technology to produce robust fish frys, which is the weakest link in food fish production. Notwithstanding this, given our land size, there would still be a need for us to partner regional players for the grow-out phase to be carried out beyond our shores.

Sir, the Government will continue to monitor the food safety, supply and price situation. We will remain vigilant and work closely with the industry. We will step up our efforts to raise awareness on the availability of food choices to enable consumers to make practical and informed decisions. More importantly, consumers must recognise their role and play their part in managing the impact of food inflation.

The Chairman: There is some time for clarifications. Dr Lily Neo.

7.00 pm

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, could I seek clarification from Minister on the Lease Buy-Back system (LBS)? I am happy with

Column: 1321

the Minister's assurance on the provision of continued stay in the flats under LBS even if the mortgagee should live beyond 30 years. May I ask him what will happen to the rest of the lease should the mortgagee not use up the 30 years? My second question is that: is the $490 mentioned earlier by him on the steady income for life for one or two mortgagees for each flat under LBS?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: First of all, on the lease itself, if the lessee outlives the 30 years, we will look for alternative housing arrangements for them. But if they do not outlive the 30-year lease, then whatever is remaining in the lease, they are able to return it to the Government. The example that I quoted of about $490 per month for life is for the flat itself. In other words, if that is a two-person family, then it will be $490 for two.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the first question is: is Hougang denied MUP since it is confirmed that MUP is now being replaced by HIP and NRP? Second, what is the average cost per flat of MUP that the flat owners will benefit? Third, why replace MUP with HIP and NRP? Is it for the Government to save money? What happens to the asset enhancement scheme which the PAP promised to Singaporeans? HIP's priority criteria. Does Hougang have to wait for many years again for HIP until the programme is scrapped?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: First of all, let me explain why MUP has been restructured into HIP and NRP. If you look at MUP, basically, there are three components in the programme. There is the improvement to be done to the unit itself, the improvement to be done to the block, including the lifts, and the third component, which is to the precincts. So if you like, MUP was the omnibus kind of upgrading programme. Now that we have committed to do LUP for all eligible flats

Column: 1322

by 2014, you will find that the MUP is no longer suitable for some of the blocks that have undergone the middle portion, which is the block level upgrading. And, therefore, what is left in the MUP for some of these flats, which have undergone LUP, remains the problem to rectify defects within the flats, including some of the upgrading of the pipes and so on, and the precinct.

Thus, the programme is restructured, and if you like, into three parts - HIP which looks inside the flat; LUP which brings lift access to every floor; and NRP, which deals with precinct upgrading. So this restructuring is relevant because of what we are doing with LUP. The fact that we are bringing LUP, the lift part, upfront, by 2014, to all the eligible flats, requires us to restructure MUP. And also, it is to take in the feedback, such as what Ms Lee has pointed out, that there are defects in some of the middle aged flats that many of the residents have voiced concerns. They want Government to do something and do it fast. So how do we have a programme that basically addresses the specific needs, and because it is very targeted and very focused, we think that we can do it faster than the traditional MUP? And of course, the improvement that we have done to MUP is the fact that MUP was previously limited to flats that were built before 1980. But in the case of HIP, we have brought the eligibility to 1986. So this is not a case of Hougang residents being denied an MUP. This MUP actually has been replaced for all divisions and locations in Singapore, whether you are PAP or non-PAP divisions. So this is the reason for replacing MUP with HIP and NRP. There is a need to restructure the scheme and also taking in the feedback that residents have given us.

It is still the Government's intention to have asset enhancement. In fact, I think for HIP, the residents co-pay a smaller percentage than under the MUP project. In

Column: 1323

that case, we hope that, being a more specific project, we are able to deal with a larger pool of eligible flats. But the basic fundamental remains the same, that this is not an entitlement. The fact that you are eligible, it does not entitle you to an upgrading. It depends on the kind of resources that we have. It will have to depend on the kind of budget that is given to us and, therefore, the pace has to be prioritised.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The question on what is the average cost of MUP has not been answered and what is the projected cost for HIP, and whether the house owner will receive almost the same amount. Would the Minister of State agree that while it is not an entitlement to everybody, you are using the national budget? It involves application of funds, and application of funds has to be fair to everybody. So it is important to know how much each household will benefit. I do not know whether the Minister of State is aware, but in the past, the Hougang Town Council wanted to do lift upgrading of a precinct.

The Chairman: Mr Low, please stick to your clarification.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am seeking clarifications. It is related to my clarification on her answer on entitlement. We were turned down, the reason HDB gave was that those were segmented blocks. The fund application of the Town Council will benefit only part of block, it is unfair since the fund application cannot benefit everybody in the block. That was the reason we were turned down. Now, it is the turn of MND to use the national budget to fund upgrading programmes. So I want to know how do we apply the fund equally and justifiably to everybody. She has also not answered the question of HIP. How many more years do we want Hougang to wait?

Column: 1324

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I think this issue about what is that average cost per unit and what is the cost per project is not relevant. Because if it is really relevant, then we will not be undertaking upgrading for some of the more difficult blocks. There are some blocks existing, for example, like lift upgrading, which is relatively simple that the TC can carry out - less than $5,000 per benefiting unit. But there are some blocks which require up to a budget of $30,000 per benefiting unit. So this is not an issue about " fen hong ", everybody fen a little bit. It is not a case that you have a standard allocation of funds to each unit. We have to look at the blocks to see what is required to bring lift access to the floors. The blocks are built in different ages and different times so they have different configurations. Therefore, the cost required to bring lifts to every floor is different. And that has been our principle that we adopt. What we have is a cost cap. And that cost cap is preventing too much financial resources being devoted into specific blocks or specific precincts. That is really to make sure that we do not over-spend and to reduce wastage.

Along the same rationale, we cannot insist that every block must get a fair allocation because the blocks are different and so their requirements are different. Some blocks need less to bring lifts to every floor. Some blocks need less to do MUP or IUP. Some blocks do not need MUP, for example, they are not eligible for MUP. To the residents, is there an issue of fairness? It is not. To us, it is an issue of needs.

On the pace of HIP, this is a very new project. In fact, we are only piloting in several precincts in Singapore. We will look at how we would want to pace up this project. Again, the length in which we are going to carry out the entire stock of flats will depend on the kind of budgets that we have. At the moment, our focus

Column: 1325

is to complete LUP by 2014, and that is receiving the most of our attention. For that, Hougang residents can look forward to by 2014.

Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, by the way, residents in Nee Soon South are also waiting for the HIP. I would like to seek a few clarifications. Firstly, the Minister mentioned that HDB is building basic flats as well as some higher-end HDB flats to fulfil the varying needs of Singaporeans. I would like to ask the Minister: since the private sector is capable of building higher-end housing, should HDB just be restricted to build the very basic flats? The next clarification is that just now, MOS mentioned that HDB repairs some flats without charge if it is due to design or workmanship problems. I would like to ask how many units HDB has done under this "repair without charge".

The next clarification is, just now, I mentioned about the leakage, ie, those recurring leakages in an HDB flat. I would like to urge HDB to scrutinise the repair method of contractors, produce guidelines and good practices so that these leakages do not keep coming back and inconvenience the residents. The next point is that we are competing for construction resources. Are we confident that important projects, such as the Youth Olympic Game Village, can be completed on time?

My last clarification is: just now, it was mentioned that there is upgrading of parks by the National Parks Board. I would like to know how many parks will be upgraded under this scheme. By the way, for EUP, from the number that was benefiting last year, I think we will wait for a very long time.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mdm Lee Bee Wah asked why is HDB not just sticking to basic flats. The answer is very simple. HDB's public housing programme reaches

Column: 1326

out, as I said in my reply, to 80% of Singaporeans. That is far from basic. So we are talking about people who are earning $1,500 as well as people who are earning $8,000. The household who is earning $8,000 wants a different type of flat from the household who is able to afford $1,500. We have got, first of all, different flat types - two-room, three-room, four-room, five-room, etc. Then even within the flat types, within the four-room flat type, we have got 4As, 4Is, etc. We have five-room flats, Executive flats and Executive Condominiums. If we want the public housing programme to remain as something that more Singaporeans, within that target group, still value and treasure, we will have to look into their aspirations and see what is it that they want.

I remember at one time, lessees were throwing out the old doors and the old flooring and re-doing their own, putting their own flooring, doors and windows because the old ones were not good enough. In the end, all of these were wasted. So HDB said, "Look. Instead of you putting your own doors, floorings, etc, why don't I put in better flooring and doors for you? Why don't I put in different bathrooms for you?" And so it went on. The fact of the matter is that Singaporeans' aspirations are going up. That is the reason why HDB cannot just stick to building basic flats.

The next question she asked is: why are we building DBSS flats? As I explained, and I would like to reiterate, DBSS flats will constitute less than 1% of the total stock. This 1% will be a kind of flats which will have a different look, perhaps even a different flavour, but still ultimately, within the HDB umbrella. Why? Because they are targeted at the HDB flat buyers. Two, they will still be maintained by the Town Council because one of the requirements that we have put in is that these flats that the private sector builds must be maintainable. We make it clear to

Column: 1327

them what type of maintenance we want to conduct on these flats and the Town Council must also agree that this is the kind of maintenance that they are able to conduct on these flats. So whether it is the facades or the precinct facilities, it is maintainable. So no swimming pool, no tennis court, those kind of things, because we want the maintenance cost to be kept manageable.

I hope the Member appreciates that while HDB would really like to stick to the basics, its customers are asking for something more than the basics. And I think it is the responsibility of HDB to try to meet these aspirations as far as possible, not going overboard but keeping it within certain budget limits, not just in the basic costs but also in the maintenance costs.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, I would like to beg for Ms Lee's patience. I do not have the data on the first question she has asked about how many flats were repaired without charge. If she likes, she can file a question subsequently and we will answer it.

As far as leakages are concerned, her suggestion about us studying best practices and basically, in a way, upgrading the level of contractors, I think that is a good suggestion, and we will definitely take that up.

As far as NParks is concerned, we would have about 150 parks that are being upgraded progressively - this is a programme that is lined up over the next few years. As for EUP, the pace would be about five to six estates per year and that I would just like to emphasise at this point in time that while we have EUP, many of our Government agencies are doing their ongoing maintenance and upgrading at the same time, it does not preclude them. So I think for residents of private estates, they are not looking forward just to EUP, they are basically having their facilities

Column: 1328

upgraded and maintained on an ongoing basis as well.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to report that there is some progress. The Minister of State did not ask me to wait many years. But there are questions. First of all, she mentioned about the cost cap per unit. What is the cost cap? And what is the average cost per unit of Government expenditure on MUP? She says that now the HIP is based on need. I would like her to clarify whether MUP was based on need as well because the principle is different. I note that for MUP project, carparks were upgraded and some of the flats even got IUP first. Linkways were built and when MUP came, the linkways were torn down and another type of linkway was built. So, is MUP based on need? It is based on asset enhancement, enhancing the whole area and now she is telling me that it is based on need. So why is the discrepancy in the philosophy and principle of using public funds to benefit different households and, depending on your luck whether you are selected first? I think it is not fair to those who are not being selected, not only in Hougang but perhaps in PAP wards as well. Because they do not receive the benefits from the government expenditure put in to enhance their flats and the property agent will tell you, "Yes, those who have MUP, the flat prices are higher." How do you explain that?

Sir, on HIP, I think she has not answered a question. Since MUP is now broken into HIP, LUP and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP), she has said that Hougang residents can look forward to LUP. How about HIP?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I am sure if Mr Low really wants this from me I will say it. HIP, as I said, we will wait because this is a time when we are first starting out, we are piloting in a few areas, so we will look at the progress and depending on the funds we have, and so on.

Column: 1329

The Chairman: Yes, he has heard the answer.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: That is the answer I have given on this issue about HIP for Hougang.

Secondly, I would like to, in a way, correct the perception that because upgrading programme is an asset enhancement and, therefore, every Singaporean household must get the same amount of funds from the Government. I think that is not the right principle to treat upgrading programmes. The upgrading programme is basically customised by flat type based on their age. For example, for someone who has just gotten a new flat, why would she want a MUP? It is just not relevant to the person. So for someone who has just bought a new flat in Sengkang, would she then turn around and say, "I am entitled for MUP because I am one of the Singapore families."? So this is not the way that we look at upgrading programme. It is our way to revitalise estates, as I have mentioned in my speech. We want to basically upgrade the older estates so that it is revitalised and it does not progress into a dilapidated state where only old people who cannot afford to move out remain. We want to attract young people to come in as well. So that is the purpose of the upgrading project.

Er Lee Bee Wah: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to thank the MOS for the clarifications. Just now, she mentioned that 150 parks will undergo upgrading - that is over how many years? She mentioned "several years". I think she did not answer my question. As we are competing for construction resources, are we confident that important projects such as the Youth Olympic Village can be completed on time?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I will answer the second question about the Youth Olympic

Column: 1330

Village first. If I am correct, the commitment that we have made really is related to the youth hostel that is going to be built in Kent Ridge. I think that is one of the projects that we have not deferred and, therefore, it is our commitment to make sure that the project will be on stream to host the Youth Olympic Games.

On the NParks, it will be over several years and, for Ms Lee's precinct, she can look forward to some upgrading over the next few years. Again, we will look at what are the conditions, we have to compare and look at the other parts within Singapore that require upgrading as well.

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, the Minister mentioned earlier that the queuing system for new HDB flats was abolished to ensure real demand of the flats. If I am correct, she mentioned BTO and other major schemes where Singaporeans can get flats directly from HDB and it is basically based on balloting and element of luck. So although there are priorities given to first-timers and to people who want to live near their parents, there are many people who have just been unsuccessful many, many times because they are just unlucky. So I always tell them to just go and " tikam " again. But for many couples who want to get married, and marriage is not a " tikam-tikam ", they are really facing a lot of uncertainty that affects their plans to settle down.

So the previous queuing system, I remember the Minister saying that it is a longer wait for people but at least that gives them some indicative certainty of when a flat is coming and when they can make plans to get married and settle down. I would like to urge the Ministry to consider fine-tuning the system so that we can give better certainty to couples waiting to buy a flat from HDB.

Column: 1331

Mr Mah Bow Tan: First of all, the queuing system for the HDB flats that we used in the 90s, the Registration for Flats System, it required somebody to just show up, pay a small sum of money and then join the queue. At one stage, the length of the queue was 147,000 people. Let me repeat that: 147,000 people. I did not believe it when I first saw the number. People were just queuing up. And at the rate of building flats - let us just say we built 20,000 flats a year - we were talking about seven or eight years' waiting.

In trying to be responsive, HDB saw that this was the queue - 147,000 people were waiting for flats - so they started building. So they built, and they built. Then, when the financial crisis hit, the 147,000 people disappeared. By which stage, HDB already had 20,000 flats built. Where were the buyers? "Sorry, you know, we are not interested anymore." "But I thought you said you were interested?" "Oh, no, we were just queuing." And that is the reason why we said no more. That was not the real demand, so we went for the BTO system. So the question is: is this a " tikam-tikam "? No. In the case of the recent BTOs that we have launched, everybody who wants a flat is able to get a flat. In fact, there are flats still left over.

As I have said, there are 700 flats still left over from recent BTO exercises. So nobody needs to " tikam-tikam ". They can go to HDB and they can actually register for a flat, say, in Sengkang or Punggol. So where is the balloting issue? The balloting problem comes from those who are balloting for the small limited number of flats in the mature estates. 10,000 balloting for 300, right? And then another maybe 8,000 balloting for 200 flats. That is where the problem arises.

So I asked HDB to check, because this was a very constant feedback. Many

Column: 1332

young couples said, "I ballot five times, six times, I cannot get, you know " tikam-tikam ", what am I going to do?". So I asked HDB whether this is true. This is what they told me. In the last six years, 250 first-timers, not 10,000, who applied for a flat in more than four HDB sales exercises were repeatedly unsuccessful. That means 250 people were unsuccessful for at least four times. This is less than one percent of the first-timer applicants applying for a new HDB flat. So I said how can that be? What has happened? Surely people are not telling me lies. Then they probed further and they discovered that among these 250, four out of five of them, applied only for flats in the established towns. In other words, they do not want Sengkang or Punggol. They do not want Jurong West. They only want Bukit Merah. They only want Tiong Bahru. They only want Telok Blangah. They are not interested in everything else. So they kept on applying. You just do the mathematics. If you have 10,000 queuing up for 200 flats, what are your chances of getting it? Even if I give you four tickets, what are your chances? And this is really the issue. And that is why I have been repeatedly advising these young couples: are you really in need of a flat? If you are really in need of a flat very urgently, please consider a resale flat because you can get resale flats anywhere in Singapore. And if you tell me, "Oh, it is too expensive", I ask you again, "What is your budget?" If you cannot buy a five-room flat in a mature estate, because it costs so much money, then consider Toa Payoh, which this reporter that I cited did. She bought a Toa Payoh flat, zero cash over valuation. Or if you are not interested in Toa Payoh, then maybe you can consider Tampines or Woodlands. Or Yishun. Anywhere. So if you are really desperate, this is your option.

But if you can wait and you want a new flat, there is another option for you,

Column: 1333

try for the BTO. There is a good chance you will get it. However, if you say you only want above fourth floor, above fifth floor, above sixth floor, then again we are back to square one. I am sorry. And this is what has happened. That is the reason why when we had 500 flats in the BTO we had 1,000-over people applying but, in the end, only 400 people booked a flat. What happened? Many of them came and they said, "I do not like the facing, I do not like the floor, I do not like this, I do not like that, I do not want it." So they went off. And that is the reason why we still have spare flats available. So when we hear such stories, when your constituents come to you, ask them whether they have tried other places, have they tried BTO in Sengkang.

"Are you prepared to take a different kind of flat, a smaller flat?", and so on and so forth. Probe them deeper and if they really need a flat desperately, suggest to them to buy a resale flat. I think that is a realistic option and, as the reporter said, they have to consider other possibilities and do not just blindly restrict their options.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Finally, I caught your eye.

The Chairman: It is a long queue.

Dr Ong Seh Hong: I would like to seek further clarification from the Minister regarding affordability housing, especially the DBS Scheme where actually some flats were priced in excess of $700,000. If HDB is really committed to building affordable housing and there is a certain cap on the family income, I certainly agree with the Minister that we should not just build basic housing. There is a wide spectrum of housing for those households earning between $1,000 and $2,000, or up to $8,000.

Column: 1334

So, there will be this aspiration. But should the HDB not be looking at the highest end, say, up to $8,000, what is the affordability, and work backwards? In order not to encourage an over-commitment and over-spending on housing, we should, if we think that the most comfortable mortgage payment is a certain amount, work backwards and see how much these flats should be. If the maximum is $200,000 or $300,000, then we should build according to affordability. Then, this is real affordable housing. Because I noted that flats built, say, 20 years ago probably were sold at maybe one or two years of the average earnings of a graduate. But, nowadays, at the high-end, if you say $750,000 -

The Chairman: Dr Ong, please just seek your clarification.

Dr Ong Seh Hong: - it might be 10 years of their income. So I just want to seek Minister's clarification on this.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I think, basically, what the Member is asking is for us to have a cap on the house price. Can I summarise it like that? The Member is saying, "Let's put a cap on the price of a HDB flat". Or, in the case of DBSS, let us put a cap on it - not more than $700,000. If we were to adopt that suggestion, then the next thing is that we would also have to have a cap for resale flats. If you say, let us put a cap on the price of a new flat, then surely the argument also holds for a resale flat, because the next person who comes to me will say, "I cannot afford that Bukit Merah flat that was sold for over $800,000. Why did the Government allow that flat to be sold for that price? I cannot afford." Then, we are in a very dangerous situation.

So my point is, let us make sure that the prices are affordable for new flats. For resale flats, let us allow the market to

Column: 1335

set the price. I think Singaporeans understand this but, of course, when they buy a flat from the Government they want to have it as low as possible, the lower the better. So there are all these arguments about why new flat prices are so high. Why do you base it on market? Why do you not base it on cost, and so on? But when the same person sells the flat, he forgets about all these arguments. He wants to sell the flat at market price, the higher the better. We have a system whereby we allow our people to enjoy a subsidy first time and then if the market goes up, enjoy the increase in value of the flat, because that increase in value of the flat is his safety net for old age, his hedge against inflation. So we want people to enjoy the fruits of Singapore's progress.

Why should we put a cap to it? So similarly for new flats, we will subsidise him. In the case of the DBSS flat, priced at $700,000, for example, that was set by the developer. I am not saying that it is too high or too low. It is for the buyer to decide whether it is too high or too low, and not for the Government. If the flat price is too high, do not buy, walk away, forget about it, and say, "I am not going to buy this." Why must you buy that flat priced at $700,000, which happens to be a high floor price? Why can you not buy a lower floor? Why can you not buy a cheaper flat? You have the option, I am not forcing you to buy a $700,000 flat. However, if the flat is considered to be good value, then you make the decision.

So, that is how we have always operated. Even for our new HDB flats, we say, "These are the flat prices. If you want a flat in Bukit Merah, it will be more expensive than the same flat in Punggol or Sengkang." It has to be. The person cannot come to me and say, "Why is it that your flat in Bukit Merah is so expensive? The same flat in Punggol is cheaper." So, we have to take the market signals, we have to let the market set the

Column: 1336

price. Then, to make it affordable, HDB will provide the subsidies. In the case of the DBSS flat, if you buy a DBSS flat and if you are eligible, you will get the subsidy of $30,000 or $40,000. That will help to lower your loan. If it is still too much and you still cannot afford, please do not buy.

But there are people who can afford, even at $8,000. Maybe they have got parents who will give them a loan, provide them with a start-up fund, or whatever. I do not know. But if they want to buy, it is up to them. But exercise prudence, do not take a bigger loan than you can afford. And if you are taking a loan from HDB, we are going to conduct credit assessment. We are not giving you a loan based on $700,000. We are going to give you a loan based on what you can afford to pay back. That is how we exercise prudence. But I would advise that we do not start thinking about putting a cap on HDB prices because you never know what you are wishing for.

Dr Ong Seh Hong: I think the Minister might have misunderstood me. I am not suggesting that we have a cap on the pricing but rather we should build flats based on affordability, and then we work backwards. If the highest of our $8,000 income household can afford certain amount, then HDB should not build flats that are above this amount. It is not that we cap the flat price regardless of what is the cost but rather you see how much they can afford, then we build up to that. It is different because the flat is worth only that much and you encourage people to be prudent because we think this is the best. If you really want to go beyond your means and do not exercise prudence, then you should go and buy a private condominium or private apartment and you face the risk. Let the market take the risk since this is a market economy and HDB should not be in that business.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I may have mistaken the Member in that respect. In other

Column: 1337

words, he is saying, do not build DBSS flats, for example. I think that is essentially what he is saying. However, as I have explained, DBSS is a special category meant for those 1% or so buyers, who would really like something special. Again, it may or may not work. For example, the next DBSS project, I believe, is now open for sale. I do not know what the results are. Will the flats be sold out? Again, I do not know. But that is the test of affordability. If people are prepared to pay, get a loan to pay for it, and they think it is good value, so be it.

In line perhaps with what the Member is suggesting, we have specified that there must be some 4-room or smaller flats in that development. Why? Because we want to have some 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flat people living there together. We would not allow him to just build all 5-room flats, even though that may be what makes him the most profit. So there is some moderating of the flat type. There is also some moderating of the features because we do not want him to go overboard on the features. So, those are some of the moderating influences that we have introduced. But I am reluctant to say that you cannot sell your flat more than this amount of money. We actually did consider that at one stage, to put a cap on the selling price, ie, you cannot sell the flat more than this amount.

What happens then, of course, is that you have got to start to check what is it that they are putting into the flat. The experience in Hong Kong, which had a similar scheme, was that they started to cut corners on all their materials, construction, and so on. Because if you cap the selling price, then, to maximise the profit, they start to squeeze on the cost, I think that is not what we want to have. The Hong Kong experience was

Column: 1338

quite salutary for us and that is the reason why we did not go in that direction.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have three clarifications for the Minister of State.

Sir, the Minister of State says that the purpose of upgrading is not an asset enhancement scheme. But I would like to ask her whether she has read the PAP's manifesto of the 1997 general election. Secondly, was she aware that her leader, the Senior Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, at one of the election rallies, threatened the voters that, if they voted for the Opposition, their flats will not be upgraded and that Opposition wards would become slums one day?

Second clarification. She said that the cost cap in HIP and average cost per flat of MUP may not be meaningful. Surely, I think she would agree that this has something to do with the transparency of Government expenditure; moreover, MUP and IUP spend a lot of money, eg, IUP at $6,000 per unit.

The Chairman: Mr Low, that is not a clarification.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The question that I would still want to pursue is: what is the cost cap for HIP and would she publish the average cost per flat, per precinct, for different flat types? The Government has completed a number of precincts for MUP. Let the public know how much the Government has spent on the individual units of flats that have benefited from the MUP.

Sir, the third clarification: would the Ministry consider in the future to outsource HIP to maybe Town Councils or HDB Branch Office in order to expedite HIP?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, I like to clarify that I did not say that the upgrading programme is not an asset

Column: 1339

enhancement scheme. I am trying to clarify that it is not a scheme where every Singaporean is given a fixed sum of benefits. The upgrading project would have to depend on the flat type and, again, it is basically prioritisation. Sir, I did not say what Mr Low has suggested that I did.

Sir, about the cost of upgrading, I think the cost per unit is something that is available on the HDB website. I believe that it is somewhere around the region of $30,000 per unit. Again, back to my point, it is not a case of an entitlement. It does not mean that every Singapore household can come and claim for this sum of money. It is something that we will prioritise, it is something that we will do depending on the age, and the quality of the flats that we are looking at.

On outsourcing of HIP, I think we have outsourced LUP in that sense. We have allowed Town Councils to undertake LUP

with the view, precisely as what Mr Low has said, to expedite because, as I mentioned earlier on, this will be our focus. We have committed to the deadline which is a very, very big commitment from the Government's perspective because, as you can see, even in a situation where there is a resource shortage, we are still committed to that deadline. And, therefore, I would suggest that Mr Low would basically take up the offer of outsourcing and undertake TC-LUP in Hougang. That would expedite the Lift Upgrading Programme in his constituency.

7.45 pm

The Chairman: Mr Low, the Minister of State has answered most of your questions, three times each. Just one more point.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, what she has said is asset enhancement needs to prioritise, and not an entitlement. Then

Column: 1340

the question is: how do you apply the Government fund, which is the people's money, fairly to everyone? And is the priority criterion equitable? Is it fair that priority criterion is so designed to deny Opposition wards for upgrading and thereby the benefit of getting the MUP? This comes to the point in my speech that my residents serve National Service and pay the same rate of tax as other Singaporeans. Why should they be treated differently in the priority scheme and why should they be discriminated against because of political affiliation? How do you justify the application of fund and to enhance assets selectively for the PAP supporter's benefit?

The Chairman: Mr Low, that was answered twice already. Mr Khew, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Er Edwin Khew Teck Fook: Sir, I would like very much to thank the Minister, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary for their patience, detailed clarifications and explanations. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

The sum of $760,730,500 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $4,617,768,800 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.