HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Improvement of services)

Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that the standard of service provided by the Housing and Development Board has not improved although the conservancy charges have increased, and what steps the HDB is taking to improve the service.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yock Suan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the service and conservancy charges that the Housing and Development Board collects from residents are used to pay the salaries and wages of cleansing and maintenance staff, water and electricity charges for lifts and other common areas, domestic refuse collection fees, maintenance and repair of lifts, water tanks and other amenities as well as general repairs and redecoration. The charges collected are insufficient to pay for the costs to HDB of providing these services. In spite of this, the quality of services taken as a whole has improved although the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru may not be aware of it. The overall cleanliness could improve further if the residents would give HDB their full cooperation and behave responsibly.

The service and conservancy charges remained static for many years until the first increase in July 1974. After that, there were no further increases until 1980, six years later. Between 1974 and 1980, the cost for the-provision of conservancy services in HDB estates increased tremendously. The main cost items are labour costs, utility charges and the costs of repairs, maintenance and redecoration. We should compare these costs on a per unit of flat basis since the number of flats has increased. On this basis, between 1974 and 1980, labour costs per unit have increased by 89%. utility charges by 100% and the cost of repairs, maintenance and redecoration by 106%. The overall increase in expenditure per dwelling unit was 132% while the average increase in conservancy charges per unit was only 83%.

In 1974, the expenditure incurred by HDB on conservancy services was $34.6 million. The income from conservancy charges was only $30.1 million. The HDB was able to absorb the deficit of $4.5 million. In 1980, expenditure rose to $148 million but income based on the old rates fixed in 1974 would have been only $55 million, resulting in a deficit of $93 million. The HDB could not continue to bear these deficits and had to raise the conservancy charges to recover part of the increased costs. To minimize hardship, the increase was implemented in two stages, namely in August 1980 and July 1981. Despite the increase in August 1980, the HDB incurred a deficit of $47 million for FY 80-81 relating to the provision of conservancy services. Even after the second stage increase in July this year, the HDB expects a deficit of $42 million for FY 81-82.

It is obvious that the recent increases in conservancy charges are not sufficient to cover the increased conservancy expenditure by HDB. Despite this, the HDB has done more to improve the upkeep of the flats and their environment. Among the major improvements to the amenities of HDB estates are the provision of additional lifts, flushing of water tanks and more frequent repairs and redecorations.

The HDB is constantly looking for ways to keep down maintenance and conservancy costs. Some factors are beyond its control: for example, increases in utility charges and salaries of cleansing workers. The Board, however, can control the use of labour and can study ways to increase productivity. One of the most obvious ways is to mechanize cleansing and maintenance operations. Mechanization is also necessary as the HDB is facing difficulty in recruiting cleansing workers. This is partly due to the prevailing tight labour market. Besides, manual work is shunned by our young people. However, there is a limit to the mechanization of most of the cleansing operations and other jobs now performed manually. An obvious example is the sweeping of staircases. This is difficult to mechanize.

HDB residents can play an important part in keeping down conservancy expenditure. The HDB provides a refuse chute for every flat. If residents use these conveniently located chutes to dispose of their household rubbish instead of throwing garbage out of the windows or leaving them in the corridors, the HDB will be able to reduce the number of cleansing workers deployed to sweep corridors, staircases, lift lobbies and other common areas. By making proper use of their refuse chutes and cultivating good social habits they can contribute to minimizing increases in the conservancy and maintenance costs of HDB estates.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of the answer? As I understand the Minister of State, the Board is not collecting enough by way of conservancy and service charges to pay for all the services provided. But I have been making a study of the Reports of the Board for the years 1979 and 1980. I may be wrong, but I find from the accounts that the Board made a profit of $29,018,624 in 1979 on the conservancy and service charges collected, and in 1980 a profit of $32,899,341. Would the Minister like to comment on this?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the explanation is quite simple. The accounts do not completely reflect the situation. Some of the cost items that I have mentioned here may not have been classified or explained clearly in the accounts that the hon. Member has seen. The actual cost figures that I have reviewed and studied indicate, in fact, that there is a deficit. The figures that the hon. Member has quoted do not present a complete picture. I think the hon. Member might have been mistaken by the accounts because of the way they are presented. Unless the Member knows the full picture, it is very easy to miss out certain items.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister of State saying that this House cannot accept the accounts of the Board at their face value?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, certainly not. I think it is in the nature of accounts that we cannot present every bit of information. There have to be summaries. Certain items are grouped together. It is common knowledge that when you read accounts, unless you know the full facts, you may not be able to interpret correctly the information given. It is not an attempt to hide but the way the accounts are done, with summaries and so on, and the way that the items are grouped together, you may not get the full picture unless you know the full story.