HDB FLATS (Exclusion of certain categories of persons)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for National Development whether he has considered whether the policy of the Housing and Development Board to exclude certain categories of persons from applying for HDB flats and the recently announced policy of the HDB to deprive families and relatives of persons, who may be convicted of arson or vandalism, of their right to apply for or stay in HDB flats violate the articles in the Constitution which provide for equality of all citizens under the law besides being contrary to notions of justice among civilised societies.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yock Suan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister.

One of the Government's primary objectives is to ensure that Singaporeans have adequate housing. The Government's public housing programme provides flats for the lower- and middle-income majority, who cannot afford private housing. Today, 70% of the population live in HDB flats. The fact that public housing is so widely enjoyed does not mean that every citizen is entitled to a flat. Public housing is a privilege. It is not a right. The HDB has to make rules on eligibility to ensure that only those in need enjoy subsidized housing. Consequently, those whose household incomes exceed $6,000 per month and those who own private property are not eligible for public housing.

Similarly, rules are made to deny certain categories of people the privilege of public housing. These rules prevent socially irresponsible persons from misusing public housing for such illegal purposes as prostitution and drug abuse. The rules also protect residents from the harmful actions of vandals and arsonists. Vandalism and arson are serious offences against the community. Those who are guilty of such offences should not be given the privilege of public housing.

The HDB's eligibility and debarment rules do not violate the Constitution. It is absurd to suggest that these rules deny citizens the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution or that they discriminate against citizens on g rounds of race or religion. Being responsible, the Government has to make rules to ensure that majority interests are protected against destructive minority actions.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, my question was directed at the families or relatives of persons who might be convicted of arson or vandalism or other offences and who, the Housing and Development Board announced sometime ago, would be deprived of their right to continue to live in these HDB flats. Would the Minister accept that punishment is provided in the Act, Penal Code or otherwise, of persons who are convicted in the courts and there is the punishment for the offence? Where is the legislation in Singapore which says that such persons should also be deprived of his civic rights and not only him but also his family or his next-of-kin, his relatives? Would the Minister point to this legislation?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, the HDB will of course consider each case of arson or vandalism carefully before deciding on appropriate action. For example, there was a recent case of a 13-year old girl who regularly urinated in a HDB lift in Telok Blangah before she was caught committing the offence by an HDB inspector. She was not of unsound mind but for some unknown reason she habitually dirtied the lift, much to the annoyance and discomfort of other residents who had to use the lift. As she was only a minor, the family was severely warned but not evicted. After the warning the offence stopped. I give the example to show that the HDB will, of course, consider the facts of every case. On the point whether there is any legislation enabling the HDB to make these rules and to debar these people, the answer is yes. It is in the Housing and Development Act. I have explained why we need to have rules to debar certain categories of people and to deny them the privilege of this housing. But the Member's original question was whether they iolate the Constitution. To that question, I have given my answer, which is, that they do not violate the Constitution.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination as between one person and another on the question of any benefits that a citizen may be entitled to receive. There is, in the examples given by the Minister, discrimination between families who themselves have not been convicted before a court of law and other families. Where is the legislation for this?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a lawyer like the Member for Anson. But, if I may repeat the last part of my answer, what I said was that it is absurd to suggest that these rules deny citizens the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution or that they discriminate against citizens on grounds of race or religion. If the Member for Anson feels strongly that these rules do indeed violate the Constitution, he is free to take this matter to a court of law to let it be decided by the court.