MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1985 TO 31ST MARCH, 1986

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

11.12 am

Head T (cont.) -

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to answer some of the questions raised in yesterday's sitting.

There were two points raised by the Member for Nee Soon which I have not yet answered. One point is about Seletar New Town, HDB has proposed to build a small new town called Seletar New Town, near the Nee Soon New Town, However, this proposal has now been shelved and, therefore, there will be no development of Seletar New Town in the next 10 or 20 years.

Another point the Member for Nee Soon has asked is whether HDB will reduce the 20% downpayment for some resettlement cases who are not eligible for the concession to purchase HDB flats. On the question of reducing the 20% downpayment, I think, during the debate on the Presidential Speech, a lot of Members also raised the point about helping the lower income group, the 10-15%, to purchase flats so as to achieve our Government's objective of 100% home-ownership by 1999. Once this policy is formulated, I think this group of resettlement cases will also benefit.

The Member for Whampoa, Mr Speaker, Sir, has asked why URA has not sold a piece of land at the junction of Clementi Road. As I have explained earlier to the House, URA will only sell land when there is a demand for such land. So on that particular question, the prices offered for the Clementi land have been extremely low, and URA considers that there is no demand for land in that area, and therefore no sale has taken place.

The Member for Bukit Merah has asked about the possibility of splitting the family to allow the family to purchase two units of HDB flats, and he has quoted the example of a three-generation family - grandfather, father and children. For these cases, they would qualify for purchase of two units of HDB flats because the grandfather and grandmother are qualified to apply separately since they form a proper family nucleus. Therefore, the grand children can stay with them. So this three-generation family is qualified to apply for two units of HDB flats.

The Member for Toa Payoh has raised the point about a divorced family and said that the HDB insisted that the husband should sell the flat to the wife. I suggest to the Member to provide the information to the HDB. If the husband is prepared to give the flat to the wife, it is a gift and therefore no money will be involved.

Another point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh is about the rules on change of trade. The Area Office knows very well about the rules of change of trade. Again, I would ask the Member for Toa Payoh to provide the Area Office with the details. If the Area Office is unable to give the Member a satisfactory answer, then I would suggest that he can write to headquarters or even write to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary and I can assure him that he will get a very satisfactory reply.

On the point raised by the Member for Fengshan about asking HDB to extend the one-year guarantee period or one-year maintenance period for home owners, the HDB cannot grant the request because, for all home ownership flats, the maintenance period is one year. And during this period, any defect will be rectified. However, I can assure the Member for Fengshan that if the defect is a structural defect, or if the defect is a serious defect where the contractor is at fault, then the HDB will grant special consideration and provide the necessary rectification, even after one year. But as far as I am aware, in fact, no HDB flat has a structural defect.

The Member for Ayer Rajah has raised the point about storage space in the hawker centres saying that hawkers selling drinks are unable to find storage space. I would suggest to him that if the hawkers have this problem, they can approach the Area Office which will help them locate a place for storage.

The Member for Ayer Rajah has also raised the point about elderly couples who have difficulty in maintaining their private homes, and they would like to sell their private property and apply for HDB flats. On this problem, the HDB's rule is that anybody who sells his private property must wait for 30 months before he is allowed to apply for HDB flats. However, the HDB is very flexible and very compassionate. I would say for any deserving case, the Member of Parliament can write to the HDB and the Allocation Committee, headed by my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, will look into the case and consider it very compassionately.

The Member for Kuo Chuan has asked about decentralizing the information system. I fully agree with him that the best way is to allow an Area Office to have as many facilities as possible so that the Area Office can provide the necessary information. However, there is a limitation, eg, the central register is maintained in the head office where the allocation of flats is based on a first-come-first-served basis. And it would not be possible for every Area Office to maintain the full set of information on this first-come-first-served scheme. It has to be handled in the head office. But wherever possible, the HDB will allow the Area Office to obtain the information in order to handle the inquiry from the residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have covered most of the points raised by Members yesterday.

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. But before I withdraw my amendment, I just want to ask the Minister to clarify a simple point. I am glad that he has agreed to review the 20% downpayment for the purchase of HDB flats. But will he also relax the rules regarding eligibility for purchase or rental of HDB flats for those who are affected by resettlement and whose hardship circumstances merit special consideration?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Can you repeat your question?

Dr Koh Lip Lin: I just want to ask whether the Minister will relax the rules regarding the eligibility for purchase or rental of HDB flats for those who are affected by resettlement and whose hardship conditions merit special consideration. These are people with very large families.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter involves two points. One is of single persons who marry after the cut-off date. At present, under the HDB rules, this group of people are only entitled to rent and not allowed to buy HDB flats. But in view of the Government policy of encouraging home ownership,l will ask the HDB to relax the rule and to allow this group of people to buy HDB flats if they wish to.

The second point is on resettlement cases. Sometimes they have very large families, father and mother with a large number of children. Most of them were born before the Government implemented its policy on family planning. I think they deserve special consideration. So for these type of cases, I would suggest that the Members of Parliament can take the case up on behalf of their constituents and write to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary. He is a very nice and kind hearted man and I am sure he will consider the case very sympathetically.

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, before the hon. Member for Nee Soon withdraws his amendment, may I be allowed to speak on it because I have four amendments* standing in my name on the Order Paper Supplement, two on resettlement and two on Housing Board. Hon. Members have ranged very widely over all the subject matters covered by the Ministry of National Development.

The Chairman: Yes, carry on.

Mr Tang See Chim: Of course, the Minister has answered them all, some satisfactorily, some not, but all in his inimitable way.

In answering the question on the single person family, the Minister assumes that one in 10 is a single person family and therefore the Housing Board would not be able to cater for them all. That may be correct, Mr Speaker, Sir. But is his assumption correct? There are special cases which really deserve the Minister's consideration. He should consider these cases on their own merits. Hon. Members have given instances of persons widowed. Is the widow to be chased out of her Housing Board flat, simply because she had the misfortune of being widowed, and had the added misfortune of not having any relatives whom she could find to stay with her? Under its present policy, the Housing Board requires her to look for a person to stay with her. At the moment, sex is of importance. She must find a person of the same sex. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you will appreciate the difficulties of getting two single persons together. The Social Development Unit, in spite of all the resources at its command, is not having too successful a result in getting single graduates together. How do you expect a widow, without resources, to find a companion to stay with her? Maybe the Housing Board should take up where the SDU leaves off. And I am sure staying in Housing Board flats would then be less boring.

Sir, there are deserving instances. For example, I have come across cases in my constituency where a single farmer is being resettled and, because he is single, he is not entitled to Housing Board benefits. I strongly urge the Minister to extend such benefits to him. It is through no fault of his that he is being resettled. The Housing Board chases him out of his farm. The Housing Board should therefore provide him with housing benefits.

The Minister also touched on land that has been left vacant, long after resettlement. A case in point is the Murai area in my constituency. The place was resettled, allegedly for the purpose of a commercial poultry farm. Resettlement took place two years ago. The place is still vacant, It has become a waste-land, overgrown with lallang and breeding mosquitoes, At one time, it was used as an illegal dumping ground. The people who were resettled, understandably, were very angry. They could not understand why they had to be chased out when the land was really not needed. If the Minister has good reasons for chasing them out earlier than necessary, I suggest that the Minister puts up a notice board on the site and, in bold letters, explains the reasons. I would urge the Minister to consider that resettlement, especially resettlement of farmers, should be given as much notice as possible so that they could plan to wind down their business and to minimize their loss.

Another point I want the Minister to consider is that he should not change compensation policy in mid-stream. Compensation for fruit trees and cement pavements are two cases in point. Because of some unscrupulous people planting a large number of small trees and cementing a wide area of their compound for the sake of obtaining additional resettlement benefits, the Government put a ceiling on the amount of compensation payable. The result is that the genuine farmer suffers. 11.30 am

I also want the Minister to consider paying adequate compensation, as suggested by my colleague, the hon. Member for Nee Soon. And to pay the compensation money expeditiously! Many people were asked to vacate their land before they were paid their compensation money. They were allocated their flats but they had no money to pay for the flats. Most people live from hand to mouth. They depend upon the compensation money to pay. They have no resources of their own.

There is another point, Sir. Previously when a farmer was resettled, and if he held a farm licence, he was given a 3-room flat free. Today, he is paid an ex-gratia payment of $19,500. But today, the cheapest 3-room flat sells for $37,300. The farmer is worse off. I would strongly urge the Minis- ter to consider reinstating the policy of giving a 3-room flat free to a farmer who holds a farm licence.

Sir, I was very impressed by the Minister's facility for facts and figures. He knew at his finger-tips the number of flats in each housing estate, and he rattled off that there are 3,000 units in the Teck Whye Estate in Chua Chu Kang. Indeed, there are 3,000 units, to the unit. I hope he also knows that in Teck Whye Estate there are very few amenities. There is no market, the bus service does not go into the estate, and no proper site has been reserved for the building of a community centre. I would urge the Minister to look into these problems and to direct the Housing Board to provide these amenities.

The Chairman: Mr Tang, you have four amendments and you have only exhausted seven minutes. Would you like to range over the other amendments?

Mr Tang See Chim: I have spoken on them all, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I would not be moving the other three amendments.

The Chairman: You are not?

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether it is in order for me to speak, but my name is not on the Order Paper Supplement.

The Chairman: You have five minutes then.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Sir, I would like to use the next five minutes to raise two issues which affect my residents in Telok Blangah.

The first one involves the problem of faulty HDB lifts. This is the most recurring problem faced by the residents in Telok Blangah. The lifts in Telok Blangah are about 8-10 years old, and the breakdown includes faulty indicator lights, lift failing to stop at the right levels, tripping, and to a complete breakdown of the lifts. The frequency with which these faults occur is such that it is causing much harassment to the lives of the residents, especially to the old, the handicapped and the pregnant ladies.

The Area Office in Telok Blangah is doing its best under the circumstances and I am not here to make any complaints against them. In fact, I have the most cordial and happy working relationship with the Area Office. They are doing a very commendable job in Telok Blangah, so much so in fact that I personally fail to see the need for any town council in our area. I think what is needed, Sir, is the transfer of more power to the Area Office and a more effective two-way communication between the residents, the grassroots organization, the Member of Parliament, of course, and the Area Office. As I was saying, despite the good efforts put in by the Area Office, our lifts continue to break down. So I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether this constant breakdown of lifts is due to faulty use of the lifts, or due to poor quality lifts, or to acts of vandalism.

The other problem is car parking. Despite having one of the biggest single HDB car parks in Singapore, we still cannot cope with the rising demand for car space in Telok Blangah. Many a time at the Meet-the-People sessions I have to deal with irate residents who were given tickets for illegal parking. Personally I sympathize with them. The group parking system has alleviated the anxiety of overnight queueing for season car tickets. I think it is a more equitable system. However, one drawback of this system is that the late motorists find themselves either risking illegal parking or resigning to walking from one end of the estate to the other to arrive home. However, recently I heard there are some good news coming from HDB, and that is, there is a plan to build a multi-storey car park in Telok Blangah. I would like to ask the Minister to confirm this.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Sir, may I also take this opportunity to relay a request from my constituents, although I am not slated to speak or move an amendment.

May I ask the Minister to really take a look at the situation in Tampines New Town, of which Changkat is a part. The New Town is still under construction and is still undergoing various phases of a relocation of the population. The town centre is not ready and therefore there is not yet a polyclinic, However, the popula- tion which has already been settled in Tampines is roughly estimated to be about 20,000 or more. So a lot of the constituents have been coming to me (and perhaps I can also speak on behalf of the Member for Tampines) that they do require the services of a polyclinic. In fact, as the population of a new town is quite large, would the HDB not consider that up to a certain proportion of the population after having been relocated, some of these basic facilities could be provided even before the new town centre is ready. Mr Minister, I would appreciate your attention to this.

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Sir, I have an amendment on Subhead TG-01, under which I will be talking about lifts and certain facilities in my estate. Can I speak now?

The Chairman: The whole of this Head has been thrown open for discussion. Yes, carry on.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Thank you. Sir, when the HDB took over the management of the Boon Lay Housing Estate from JTC in May 1982, I was given the assurance that improvements would be made to the estate. In reply to my complaints of the frequent breakdown of lifts in the estate, the then Minister of State said in this House that extensive repairs and improvement work had been carried out on the lifts, and that if the performance of lifts continued to be unsatisfactory, despite repairs, they would be replaced.

Sir, there are quite a number of blocks of flats in Boon Lay, which are as large as 440 units per block and each block is served by only four lifts. There is an average of 110 units per lift. The number of lifts provided is insufficient and the usage is heavy. Coupled with the poor quality and the wear and tear, the frequency of breakdowns has gone beyond tolerable limits. In spite of my request for the installation of additional lifts or replacement of the old ones, the HDB believes in keeping on repairing and repairing.

Sir, let me inform the Hon. Minister for National Development that on Polling Day on 22nd December last year, both the two lifts at one wing of one of the blocks broke down, and that was the day when every- one of the households, every voter, including the aged and the sick, had to leave their homes to go to the Polling Stations. I know all my residents who were affected by this breakdown were cursing all their way to the Polling Station. Sir, I must put on record my strongest protest to the Minister for the occurrence of such incidents on the Polling Day, and I want his assurance that such an incident would not occur again.

Sir, on the whole I am still not satisfied with the standard of maintenance in Boon Lay, and I would like to request the HDB to pay greater attention to the improvement and maintenance of this estate.

The second point which I would like to bring up concerns the lorry and heavy vehicle parking facilities. In answer to my question yesterday, the Minister for National Development said that centralized lorry parking lots would be provided at Jurong Stadium. This is to serve the residents of Jurong and Boon Lay. I must point out to the Minister that Jurong Stadium is in Jurong and not in Boon Lay. Jurong Stadium is quite a distance away from Boon Lay. The lorry drivers and the owners in Boon Lay are not asking for parking places next to their flats, but certainly Jurong Stadium is a bit too far away. Sir, although Boon Lay Housing Estate is already fully developed, there are a few vacant lands surrounding the estate which have not been developed. I would therefore like to request the Ministry to consider allocating one piece of land around Boon Lay for the building of a centralized lorry park.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Sir, I have two amendments* and may I be allowed to speak now, Sir.

Sir, the hon. Member for Chua Chu Kang has just mentioned the plight of the residents in Jalan Teck Whye. I would like to join him on the similar plight of the residents in the Ayer Rajah housing estate.

For the information of Members of the House, Ayer Rajah Estate is in Pasir Pan- jang, not in Ayer Rajah. Due to the small catchment of population in the Ayer Rajah housing estate in Dover Road, the residents do not enjoy facilities that are normally available in other new towns. For example, requests for POSB and better bus services were always turned down due to the small population in the area. Stallholders in the wet market at Block 33 are suffering from poor business. Records show that the occupation rate of all available stalls in the market has been very low since the market was built in 1978. The residents complain that they have to go to Clementi New Town or Ghim Moh market in order to get a better variety of items. Sir, I was informed in this House last year that the SAF units in Dover Road Camp would be moving to a new location by mid-1986. I also understand the camp area in Dover Road was included in the original plan for Blocks Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 18, which are non-existent at this moment. I would like to enquire from the Minister whether there are plans to build more flats in Ayer Rajah estate when the army units move out to their new location.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to join in this debate at this point of time? I have an amendment under No. (8) on Subhead TF-01 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, I would like to join my other colleagues in this House to thank the HDB through the Minister for National Development for the services it provides to all Singaporeans, particularly the constituents in Chong Boon. I think the HDB's achievements have been generally taken for granted. The fact that HDB built 66,000 units last year is indeed a tremendous achievement. We in Singapore think that this is a very ordinary achievement. But this does not mean that the HDB is perfect and I would like to join the others in raising a few points which my constituents feel that the HDB could improve on.

Sir, yesterday one Member touched on the question of rusty water. I think this is a problem which is facing not only the constituents in my constituency of Chong Boon but also a number of estates, particularly the newer estates. Sir, rusty water is a serious problem. I have personally taken this up with the Minister and also with the Second Minister for National Development, and I believe something is being done. All I request of the Minister is that something should be done quickly. 11.45 am

Apart from getting rusty water at various times in the day, this does not conform with what we have heard in this House about conserving water. Residents have to waste a fair amount of water, a couple of buckets of water each day, before they can start getting clean water. I am assured both by PUB and HDB that the water is safe to drink, but I hope this problem will be resolved very quickly.

The second problem in my constituency, Sir, refers to general maintenance of the estate. Sir, I agree with the Minister that tendering is still the best system, whether it is for shophouses, or for cleaners or grass-cutters. But I believe that while the tender system is the best, HDB should have people to supervise these tenderers. Flats are not cleaned. Each block of flat is supposed to be cleaned twice a month. Generally, when you go on your house visits, the residents complain that the flats are not cleaned. It is normally cleaned just before the MP makes a visit. This is a normal occurrence. I would suggest that HDB should indicate the cleaning dates of the block of flats and this ought to be posted up in the RC notice boards. If the contractor does not clean up, then the residents themselves can ring up HDB and inform them that the contractors have been delinquent. Hence, the residents can actually participate in the management of the estate.

Sir, my third point is actually a complaint to the Minister for National Development, particularly to HDB. I have here with me a letter which the Member for Anson has sent to his residents, whereby I feel that some special services have been given to Anson which 77 other PAP Members in this House do not seem to receive. If I may just read a section of the letter. It is an undated letter - "A letter from your MP ... signed J.B. Jeyaretnam":

'If a lift in your block is not serviceable or has broken down, please contact Mr Chua, Maintenance Officer, or the inspector under him, at the Tiong Bahru Area Office.'

Sir, I think this is a very special service to residents of Anson, I hope the Hon. Minister will extend such services to other Members in this House.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify the point raised by the Member for Chong Boon. As far as the HDB is concerned, constituencies which elected PAP Members will receive priority on maintenance works over constituencies which elected Opposition Members. This is the HDB policy and also the Government policy. For example, if a lift has to be repaired, then Anson constituency will be the last to be attended to, ie, after the PAP constituency's lift has been repaired. I want to make the point very clearly that Anson constituency will not receive priority. Anson constituency will be served last.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Sir, may I just reply to the threat from the Minister for National Development about discriminating against Opposition constituencies? I know what the answer will be. We will stop paying the service and conservancy charges. You take us to court.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, perhaps the Member for Anson is not very clear on the point about maintenance work. I would like to explain quite clearly how maintenance work is being done.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Threatening.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Not threatening. It is a statement of fact. HDB has 35 Area Offices at present to look after about 76 or 77 constituencies. Each Area Office is looking after two or three constituencies. Even among the PAP constituencies, let us say there are lifts to be repaired, the crew will have to give priority in repairing the lifts in some constituencies firs;t, and other constituencies later. So even among the PAP constituencies, there will be constituencies to be attended to first and the other constituencies to be attended to later. As far as priority is concerned, ie, which constituency is to be attended to first, we leave it to the Area Office because the Area Office will decide what is the most efficient way of doing things.

But as far as Anson constituency is concerned, the instruction is quite clear. If there are two constituencies which require repair work, they will attend to the constituency with a PAP MP first, and then attend to Anson constituency second. It is not that we are not attending to. the repairs. You are getting the same maintenance as any other PAP constituencies. The difference is that Anson will be served last, but last does not mean that it will not be served. You are paying service and conservancy charges for the maintenance work. For example, if people have been trapped inside the lift. In each Area Office, HDB has lift emergency units which usually attend to people who are trapped inside the lifts and they usually .have them freed within 20 minutes. In Anson constituency, if there are people trapped inside the lift, they will also be freed within 20 minutes because this is the HDB's usual standard of maintenance. However, for other maintenance, for example, repairing of doors and windows and so on, then the maintenance crew will go to the PAP constituencies first to do the maintenance and then go to the Anson constituency later. That is no different from, say, in the Toa Payoh constituency. In Toa Payoh New Town, for example, if the Area Office is looking after the Toa Payoh constituency and also the Khe Bong constituency, then which constituency the maintenance crew will attend to first, we leave it to the Area Office to decide. So one of the constituencies will be attended to later. So Anson is placed in the same position as that constituency to be attended to later.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on this very point again. I have other amendments but I want to take up this point. This is a scandalous statement we have heard from the Minister for National Development. We see now that the PAP is coming out in its true colours. Is this what you want the people of Singapore to know - that the PAP is only interested in people who vote for the PAP? Is that how you function as a Government? I say to you, Mr Minister, that if you try discriminating against the people of Anson, you are in for some trouble.

An hon. Member: That is a threat!

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson is threatening me at present. I have explained quite clearly that where there is maintenance work to be carried out, even within the constituency itself, some blocks of flats will be attended to first while others will be attended to later.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Discrimination.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: It is not discrimination. It is logical that the HDB looks after those constituencies with PAP MPs first and then place the constituencies with Opposition MPs without any priority over the PAP MPs and not, as claimed by the Member in his circular letter. I just want to clarify the position that the constituencies that elected Opposition MPs are not going to get priority. It is the constituency which elected PAP MP that is getting priority.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, is any MP free to set up his own maintenance unit?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. If any MP would like to look after his estate and collects the maintenance charges, the HDB will be happy to let him do so. Let him look after the whole constituency. In fact, we are looking into the decentralization of the management of HDB estates. This is an open invitation. Any MP who would like to look after his estate, HDB would say yes, Let them manage and look after their constituency.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan resumed his seat

The Chairman: Mr Teh, you still have not answered a lot of questions from the other Members.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, I am sorry. On the point raised by the Member for Chua Chu Kang about single person families, they will receive special consideration if they are resettlement cases. A single person who has no other member in the family, ie, he or she is just by himself or herself and does not have any children, will be given special consideration for accommodation. This would also apply to the single farmers.

On the question of clearance of the Murai area, as I explained yesterday, those who are interested in running the farms for a short period of three years can apply to the Primary Production Department. PPD will be prepared to lease the farmland to people who wish to run the farms. As for the details on why the Murai area has been cleared and not developed, I do not have the information with me so I am unable to give the Member an answer. However, if the Member can write to me on this Murai case, I will give him a written reply.

On the request by the Member for Chua Chu Kang that farmers should be given as much notice as possible, I agree with him. Wherever possible, clearance cases should be given as much notice as possible to enable them to plan their resettlement properly.

On the question that compensation should be paid quickly, I fully agree with the Member that compensation should be paid quickly. However, there are practical limitations to this problem. Sometimes the farmer disputes the measurements with the Resettlement Department. Sometimes the farmer disputes the rates with the Resettlement Department. At other times where the farm area is very large, it needs a considerable amount of time to survey or to measure the farm. Therefore this causes a delay in the calculation of payment for compensation. However, I will talk to the Head of the Resettlement Department again to see whether we can find a more expeditious way of paying the farmers. 12.00 pm

On the question of lack of amenities in Teck Whye Estate, I would like to assure the Member that when the estate is fully developed, there will be an additional 1,000 units of flats in the estate. HDB will provide a dry market and other amenities. For the time being, I think HDB has converted void decks in one or two blocks to provide shopping facilities for the residents.

On the point raised by the Member for Telok Blangah about excessive breakdown of lifts in Telok Blangah Estate, I will ask HDB to investigate. I think there is a standard policy adopted by HDB. If breakdown of the lift exceeds a certain frequency, or repairs to the lift exceeds a certain frequency, then HDB will consider changing the lift, rather than repair the lift. However, I will ask HDB to look into it and, if necessary, the lifts will be changed.

On the transfer of more power to the Area Office, in fact, Head Office has tried its best to transfer as much power to the Area Offices as possible, because at present HDB Head Office is very short-handed as a result of the enormous expansion of the building programme as well as the increased number of flats to be allocated. I think most Members are aware that the allocation of HDB flats has to be carried out even on Sundays, or in the evenings. So HDB Head Office does not welcome the idea of too many people going to the Head Office to make enquiries. I think the HDB is trying to decentralize to the Area Offices as much of its powers as possible and as much of its functions as practicable.

On the question of insufficient carparks in Telok Blangah, this is a general problem in Singapore. As a result of our prosperity, there is a tremendous increase in car population. Quite often, when an estate is completed, there are ample carparks provided. When the income of residents improve, perhaps the first thing they buy is furniture and other household items like TV, and the next thing they buy is a motor car. Unfortunately, while the income of residents can improve very rapidly, additional car parks cannot be built as rapidly in the old estates because construction of car parks means encroaching into the open spaces, which is undesirable because we must have a certain minimum amount of open space. So the construction of multi-storey car parks is, I think, one of the solutions to the parking problem. I do not have the information with me to be able to confirm straightaway whether multi-storey car parks will be built in Telok Blangah, but I understand that HDB is planning to build a considerable number of multi-storey car parks in various estates.

The Member for Changkat has requested the provision of polyclinics at once, instead of waiting for the development of the town centre. In the develop- ment of a new town, we are always faced with these problems. If we build a polyclinic now at a place not in the town centre, then later on when we develop the town centre, which includes the building of another polyclinic, the earlier polyclinic will go to waste. In fact, there are quite a few polyclinics which have to be converted into kindergartens or for some other purpose. This is very wasteful because polyclinics cost quite a large sum of money to build, and moreover the Ministry of Health is not very keen to have too many polyclinics within a new town. They prefer to have one polyclinic within a new town. Anyway, on the request of the Member for Changkat, I will ask HDB again to look into the possibility of whether certain parts of the town centre can be developed first, so that a polyclinic can be included in the priority projects within the town centre itself.

On the problem of lifts mentioned by the Member for Boon Lay, I have already given the answer to the Member for Telok Blangah. It is the same answer. I do not wish to repeat it here.

On lift breakdown on Election day. HDB provides a minimum of two lifts in each block of flats. And if the residents are more civic-conscious, then when one lift breaks down, someone has to inform the Area Office so that maintenance and repairs to the lift can be quickly carried out. But the whole problem is that when one lift breaks down, most of the residents say, "Don't worry, we still have another lift to use." So nobody is informed, although there is a big notice board above the lift lobby saying that if the lift breaks down, please ring this telephone number xxx, so that the maintenance crew can come to repair the lift. But the residents just keep quiet. Nobody bothers to inform the HDB or the maintenance office. And then the second lift also breaks down because of heavy usage as it is the only lift in use and everybody is using that lift. When both lifts break down, then everybody jumps on HDB. They say, "Aah, this is most ridiculous", and so on and so forth. I think if the residents are more civic conscious, then when one lift breaks down, HDB would be immediately informed. Then the question of both lifts breaking down together - I am not suggesting that it is impossible but the chances are rather slim for both lifts to break down together.

On the question of lorry parks, the Member has suggested that there is a lot of vacant land in Boon Lay which is suitable for construction of lorry parks. I will ask the HDB to look into it because the land may belong to JTC. But anyway, HDB will look into it.

The point raised by the Member for Pasir Panjang about Ayer Rajah Estate market having rather poor business, I will ask the HDB again to look into it to see why the market has poor business. We have a lot of problems of poor business in the market. I think the reason is that if the residents have the choice of going to another market nearby, then the market which sells fewer goods and provides fewer services usually suffers, because the stronger market pulls the customers away from the weaker market. So the hawkers in the smaller market will have rather poor business, and there are a lot of such complaints. These problems are not peculiar to Ayer Rajah Estate only. This is a problem which is quite common in several Housing Board estates. But I will ask HDB to see whether there is any solution, whether we should convert some market stalls to cooked-food stalls or whether there are other ways to improve the viability of the market.

On the extension and development of Ayer Rajah Estate, HDB has plans to extend Ayer Rajah Estate if Mindef is prepared to give up the land to HDB. At present, the surrounding land is under Mindef, and unless Mindef gives up the land, HDB would not be able to extend Ayer Rajah Estate.

On the point raised by the Member for Chong Boon about rusty water, I fully agree with him that rusty water is unacceptable. HDB and other authorities must find a solution to the problem of dirty water. Nobody likes to drink or cook with rusty water. I will ask HDB to look into this problem and, if the water tank is at fault, we must do something to the water tank, and if the distribution pipe is at fault, we must change the distribution pipe.

On the question of maintenance of estates and poor service provided by the contractors, a Member has made a useful suggestion that if HDB informs the RCs as to when the cleaning of the estate is to be carried out, then the RCs can keep an eye on this maintenance contractor. This is a good suggestion, and I will pass it on to HDB and ask them to implement this as a policy directive.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment in my name, but may I be allowed to ask a point of clarification from the Minister for National Development?

The Chairman: Yes, you can have 10 minutes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I just want clarification of a few points from the Minister. I am not going to speak on my amendment yet.

The Chairman: Yes, but I will be counting all the minutes you use.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. I want to know on what basis the Minister discriminates against the HDB residents who have voted for the Opposition. If his basis is that the people who voted for the Opposition will be served last, then I think this is a very serious and bad principle because it does disunite the nation into two camps - those who vote for the Opposition and those who vote for the PAP. I certainly hope that he will review this policy and treat all constituencies equally.

The other one is on the willingness of the HDB to allow residents or MPs to maintain their own estates. Is the Minister willing to supply particulars and details of costs of maintenance of the estate at Lorong 8, Potong Pasir, and at Potong Pasir New Town?

The Chairman: You have used up one minute. Mr Teh.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the basis for serving the constituencies with the Opposition MPs last is a very practical political decision.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, it is not.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: It is. The basis is that the HDB provides equal service to all the constituencies. I am not suggesting that they are not provided. For example, anybody who is trapped inside a lift will be rescued within 20 minutes, in whichever estate. He will be rescued within 10-20 minutes. HDB is providing this emergency or essential service. But coming to the normal maintenance service, as I explained earlier, and I have to repeat again so that the Members will understand, as regards normal maintenance service, even among the PAP constituencies, some constituencies will be served first and some constituencies will be served second. So, on this basis I think it is fair from our Party's point of view -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Discrimination.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: - that we should give priority to the constituencies of PAP MPs, and give lesser priority to constituencies of the Opposition MPs. That is the basis. They are given the service, They are not denied the service. They are given exactly the same service as any other PAP constituency. 12.15 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is no answer.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: And also for PAP constituencies, some constituencies are served last. As I have explained, if one Area Office is looking after two or three constituencies, then among these constituencies, one constituency will be served first, one constituency served second and one constituency served last.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Do not beat about the bush.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the basis for discriminating between PAP constituencies and Opposition constituencies? You do not understand the word "basis".

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, I understand the word "basis". I have explained, but you do not understand the explanation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, day before yesterday, the Member for Potong Pasir mentioned that his Party has published the cost of HDB flats and that the Government has never rebuffed what he said, and so on and so forth, I would like to inform the Member that the HDB was established in February 1960.

Mr Chiam See Tong: A point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister has still not come to my second question. Will the HDB be willing to supply the costs and particulars of maintenance of the 30 flats at Lorong 8 Potong Pasir and the 45 blocks of flats at Potong Pasir New Town.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I am coming to it. The Member has said that the SDP has given information on the construction costs of the HDB flats and that Government has never rebutted his calculations. I would like to provide this information to the Member for Potong Pasir: that the HDB was established in February 1960, and it has been in existence for 25 years. Every year, the HDB publishes an annual report. In the HDB's annual report, the construction costs of the flats are published. The annual report is not secret. Anybody can buy a copy of this report.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We are asking about maintenance.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I am coming to that. One at a time. I do not have two mouths! I have only one mouth. So one at a time.

Logically, if the Member for Potong Pasir's Party disagrees with the HDB's construction costs, he should write to the HDB and say, "Your calculations are incorrect. The cost figures are incorrect." And not the other way round, to claim that the HDB has not read his calculations of costs of HDB flats, and so on and so forth. That is incorrect. In fact, the Ministry of National Development has never received anything from his Party to say that the annual report published by HDB is incorrect. The Member has referred to his calculations on the cost of HDB flats and said that we are keeping quiet and have not responded. I do not think that statement is quite correct. In fact, on 28th of August last year during the National Day dinner at Geylang West, I said that the HDB selling prices for 3- and 4-room flats in the new town were pegged below the construction cost. The HDB is losing money. It is heavily subsidizing the sale of 3- and 4-room flats. I also said in that speech that some Opposition Parties did not understand the calculations. They either do not understand the costing of the flats or purposely ignore it and adopt the policy of Nazi Germany's (Hitler) theory that when lies are repeatedly told, people will accept them as truth.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Nonsense.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: In the last elections, at the SDP rally at the car park between Block 438 and Block 444 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10 on 15th December 1984, the Member said that the HDB made a profit of $22,000 for every unit of 3-room flat and $40,000 for every unit of 4-room flat. If the HDB, as the Member said, is really making $22,000 for every unit -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I am sorry. I want your ruling whether all this is relevant to the second question asked by the Member for Potong Pasir. A clarification is asked for and he goes on into electioneering propaganda.

The Chairman: Mr Teh, please come to the second point.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: In fact, the question has been raised by the Member for Potong Pasir day before yesterday. This is exactly the answer on the same point. He has said that the HDB or the Ministry of National Development has not responded to his calculations. I am now responding to the hon. Member for Potong Pasir's calculations.

The Member for Potong Pasir said at his rally that for every unit of 3-room HDB flat, the HDB is making $22,000. The HDB sells a 3-room new generation flat in a new town at $30,400 per unit. And if the HDB, as he claims, really makes $22,000 per unit, then the construction cost and all other costs, including land, must be only $8,400. Does the Member seriously believe that he can build a 3-room flat for $8,400?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Did you read our article?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes. In fact, HDB -

Mr Chiam See Tong: It shows that there is a slight loss.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I have offered a piece of land to the Member so that he can build four blocks of flats. And I hope that he will build those flats because, as I see it, he is either intentionally telling a lie about the profit made by the HDB for his election purposes so as to persuade the voters or to turn the voters against the Government, or to persuade the voters to vote for him. Alternatively, as I have said, in his Party he has great experts who are able to build flats as cheaply as he has claimed. There are two arguments here. Either he is purposely telling a lie when he said the HDB is making a huge profit, when, in fact, the HDB is not making a profit; or alternatively he really has an expert who is able to build HDB flats at such a cheap price.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the solution to this argument is very simple. I hope the Member for Potong Pasir will accept my offer and build those four blocks of flats. Then at the end of it, we will know very simply. If he is not able to build the flats at the cost he claims that is the cost to the HDB, then quite clearly he is telling a lie. Alternatively, if he builds those flats and he is really able to make so much profit, then I think he has greater experts than the HDB in building public housing. And I think the HDB should invite his experts to teach the HDB how to build public housing, And I would suggest to the HDB that if his experts are able to save on construction cost by $22,000 for a 3-room flat and $40,000 for a 4-room flat, his experts should be paid 10% of the sale price, perhaps $20 million a year. We will not grudge. No Singaporean will grudge if you are able to save $22,000 for a person who buys a 3-room flat. In other words, he buys it cheaper by $22,000. And I think the people will be very happy to pay $2,000 as a fee to that great expert of his, or several experts. I do not know how many of them. And if you are able to save $40,000 on a 4-room flat for the public, I think the people will be very happy to pay 10% more as a fee to his expert. The HDB is not making a profit and the Member says that it is making a profit of $40,000. So I hope that the Member will accept our offer and build those flats to prove whether he is telling a lie or whether really he has greater experts who are able to build flats much cheaper than the HDB.

On the point of maintenance of the estates, I think this information can be supplied to the Member for Potong Pasir.

12.30 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: At last we got the answer.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has brought up a new point in regard to the offer to build HDB flats. As a point of clarification, who is this Minister to give away land belonging to Singapore? We want to know on what basis he is making this offer to give away land. As a Minister for National Development, or is it on behalf of the Government of Singapore, or what?

The other point of clarification is - if the Minister would take this down, please - as regards the Simei Estate (this was published in the Straits Times last year, 27.10.84) the contractor who was successful in the award for construction award was Lee Kim Tah Construction. (1) Can the Minister please tell the House how much that award was, the cost, the value of the award? (2) How much did it cost, under the award, to build 3- and 4-room types of flats in that estate? (3) How much is the selling cost to the public of those flats?

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, would you at the same time speak on the Subhead that you have raised? You have an amendment on Subhead TG-01 here.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I just wanted to ask a point of clarification because the Minister has brought up a new point.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the land, the Member for Potong Pasir has queried me: what authority do I have to give the land away? I think he has misunderstood my offer. I am not giving the land away to him. What I am saying is that the Government will provide him with the land. The Government will carry out clearance of the land but the cost of the clearance will have to be borne by him. And the Member will build four blocks of flats and, at the end of it, he will have to sell the flats back to HDB. Sir, the land always belongs to the Government. I am not giving it away to him. How can the Government give anybody any land? The Government only provides the land so that the Member can build those four blocks of flats. After he has completed the flats, the Government will buy the flats from him at the same price that Government sells to the public. So at no time is Government land given to anybody. The land always belongs to the Government. So the Member should not dream that the Government is going to give away the land to him!

Another question that the Member has raised is about last year's award of the tender. I am really puzzled. The Member was saying, during the last December elections, that in public housing the HDB was making $22,000 for every unit of 3-room flat, and $40,000 for every unit of 4-room flat. Let me just give the Member the run-down of how the actual cost should be calculated. If the flat was offered for sale in 1984, the earthworks, that means filling up the site, would have been done in 1979. So the earthwork costs should be calculated in 1979. The piling would have been carried out in 1980. So the cost of piling should be calculated in 1980. Then in 1981 or 1982 HDB would call for building contracts. The contractors would come in to build the flats, that is the time the tender price should be calculated. So you add up all these prices to find the cost of the flat when it was completed in 1984.

So the answer to the question the Member is asking me on the Lee Kim Tah contract is this. Since Lee Kim Tah's building of the flats will be completed in 1986, the Member is actually asking for the prices of flats to be completed in 1986. So he is jumping to the conclusion that HDB is profiteering on the flats to be sold in 1986. That is the Member's implication. If he is referring to this particular contract, the flats will only be sold in 1986. So I would suggest that in 1986, when we sell the flats, the Member can bring up the question of costs. Now, during the elections in December, the Member was disputing my costs. The Member claimed that HDB was making profit on the flats sold in 1984, 1983, 1982. I certainly do not think that the Member was saying that the HDB was going to make a profit on the flats to be sold in 1986. Am I right?

If you are talking about the Lee Kim Tah contract that was awarded in 1984, then you must be talking about buildings to be completed in 1986 or 1987. And if you are disputing those figures, then when HDB offers the flats for sale in 1986 or 1987, you can submit a question: for this particular contract, how much did it cost HDB, and what is HDB's selling price. And the figures will be given to you. For this particular contract, the building has not even started. You can ring up Mr Lee Kim Tah and find out from him whether he has started building or not.

If you are arguing just to find out what is the HDB's contract price in 1979, in 1980, in 1981, those figures will give you the costing of the flat that HDB sold in 1983 or in 1984. I think perhaps your experts must have given you not-so-straightforward information, and so you are a little bit confused. If you ask me when are the flats going to be completed in Lee Kim Tah's contract and what will be the price, I will let you know only when those flats are completed. But at present we do not know what is the price.

I would suggest that the hon. Member gets a copy of the HDB's Annual Report. It will give him all the figures. I suspect that perhaps the Member has only got information on some of the contracts, and not all the contracts, because in HDB the costs include cost of earthworks, piling, building, and infrastructure costs, that means, the provision of roads, sanitation, electrical and other PUB services.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We know all that.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The Member knows all that. So if he is asking me about Lee Kim Tah's costs of building, I would suggest the Member brings it up in 1986 or 1987. I will disclose the full account of the prices of the flats in 1986 or 1987.

Dr Augustine Tan: Can I ask a point of clarification, Sir. How much variation is there in tender prices in any given year for different estates of Housing Board flats to be constructed? Is there a wide variation in the tender prices? And does the HDB average out these prices to compute the construction cost of each flat?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, there are variations in prices for various areas. It depends on the locality because transport cost is involved. It also depends on the type of estate. If the estate is new, then the cost is higher because the contractor will have to incur expenditure in moving into a new area as the facilities are not there. Perhaps he has to lay a very long water pipe-line for supply of water. In building the extension to a more established estate, the cost will be lower.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, another question. Is it not also true that in the course of a building cycle, if the HDB happens to be building in a boom year or boom years and construction costs have gone up very very high, the HDB does not necessarily pass on the higher prices or higher costs to the flat owners, but that it averages out somewhat over the years as well?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, the answer is yes.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): As usual, I have a long list of complaints for the Minister. So I shall be very fast in order to beat the clock.

Sir, first of all, aluminium windows. One year ago I requested that the old estates would like to have aluminium windows installed in place of the original steel casement windows, The Minister, in reply to me, agreed to this, but unfortunately it took the HDB a year to respond. Only six days ago the guidelines came out. I think they were trying to pre-empt me, but it just goes to show how bureaucratic the HDB can be on matters which are of such importance. I expressed that there was always the danger of old windows falling off and landing on somebody's head, but apparently this warning was not taken seriously and the HDB took a whole year to issue the guidelines.

Now the guidelines have come out, but one of the points raised by HDB is that flat owners who wish to change their windows have to submit plans to the Area Office for consideration. My question is, since all the windows to be changed are of a standard design for everybody, why make the flat owners submit the design? Can the HDB office not provide a standard design for everybody, so that anybody who wants to change a window can just go to the HDB office, pick up the design and give it to the contractor to get it done, instead of the other way round?

Secondly, Sir, aluminium flashings at the rear windows of old flats. I requested for this, I think, as far back to the time when I first became a Member of this House, and in 1982 the HDB agreed to have these flashings fixed for the flats in my constituency. But again, after agreeing, nothing happened. It was not until I pressed for it last year that the Minister finally said the flashings would be installed. And they have already started fixing it. But my complaint is that it is quite a disappointment to see what you get after waiting for so many years. What the HDB has fixed is just a tiny strip of aluminium flashing outside the rear window, which is probably about a few centimetres wide. I think it is a waste of good money because these flashings are supposed to prevent rain water from coming into the kitchen. The residents who have had these flashings fixed behind their apartments are complaining that these do not serve much purpose because they are just tiny metal strips which do not stop the rain from coming in. Sir, these are complaints pertaining to old housing estates like mine. I think it is about time that the HDB seriously reviewed the situation in a lot of the old housing estates, instead of just letting them degenerate, and taking steps on an ad hoc basis, or when complaints are raised. It might be worthwhile for the HDB to set up a unit to study the general condition of all the old estates and see what can be done.

The Member for Ayer Rajah raised quite a few points yesterday about conditions in the old estates. For example, we have heard people complaining about the lifts, the quality of the lifts, even the size of the lifts is a subject of much criticism. The Member for Ayer Rajah said that old people and the sick had problems getting into the small little lifts which were installed many years ago. I wonder if the Minister has ever seen dead bodies being carried upright in the small little lifts.

12.45 pm

I would also like to make a suggestion. Most of the time when MPs complain to the Area Offices about bad conditions of the estate and request for steps to be taken to do certain repairs, there is always a long delay because the Area Office normally tells us, "We have to refer to the architects." And the Area Office, just like the Minister, promises to look into it, and there is always a long "looking into" period. But after a while nothing happens.

For instance, the landscaping problem was brought up yesterday. I have the same complaint in my constituency too. These little hills which the Member described - these are very kind words - I call them "mounds" and my shopkeepers tell me that they are "tombs" or "graveyards." Suddenly these "graveyards" appear in front of the shops, Of course, they are not happy. I have brought this point up with the Area Office many times. I brought it up months ago and, as usual, the answer is, "We will look into it." But nothing happens. So people generally get angry after a while.

I will give you another instance of long delays. In one of my markets, there is a row of lock-up stalls. Then, one day, contractors came in and in the little space in front of these stalls, they erected new lockup stalls. By doing so, a very small, narrow passage way was left between the old stalls and the new stalls. The people who were running the old stalls complain, "Oh, you put up new stalls right in front of mine. It is bad feng shui. So I brought up this complaint. Again, the reply was that the architects had decided and there was nothing they could do. And it took me practically half a year before the reply came and the architects agreed to knock down some of these new stalls. It is a waste of money. I wonder if the architects, in fact, did come down to the market and see the situation themselves before drawing up the plans and giving out the contracts.

I would suggest that we ask our HDB architects to stay in our housing estates at least for one month in the year so that they will know how the people in our estates live. When they get the feel, hopefully the architects would have more sensitivity and sensibility when they draw up their plans. Otherwise, every time the HDB Area Office points a finger at the architects, we do not know who they are. They are all in the MND building, and we never see them on the ground. I think we should make them stay in our housing estates for a certain period a year, in the same way we make our reservists go for in-camp training. I think the architects should do their "in-camp training" in the housing estates.

I also would like to touch on the high-handedness of some of the enforcement officers and hawker liaison officers in the housing estates. It appears to me that some officers are either over-zealous or over-enthusiastic in their work. Some of these people are very young and so, suddenly armed with the power to issue summons, they go round with a whole book of tickets and they just issue summons without sympathy or consideration for the plight of some of the people.

Let me give you an example. I have a resident who is a diabetic. He was walking down a flight of steps and, because he was a diabetic, he felt drowsy at certain times. At that moment in question, he was drowsy, he slipped and fell, and he dropped the cigarette he was holding in his hand. Would you believe it, the enforcement officer was right there? He gave him a summons and said, "You are littering." I would have expected the officer to help the man up from his fall but instead he got a summons.

I had another complaint the other day from a chicken rice seller in my constituency. It was his bad luck that one of his patrons happened to be an enforcement officer who ate his chicken rice. At the end of the meal, he told him that he found a cockroach in his rice. The complainant came to me and told me that the cockroach, in fact, came from the floor. So who is to blame? In the first place, cockroaches should not have been there, in the market or in the hawker centre. And if there were cockroaches around, who is to blame? Not the hawkers. I think the HDB has failed to keep the place clean. That is why there are so many cockroaches around. But instead, these poor hawkers are getting summons for little things,like cockroaches, which are really provided by the HDB.

The Chairman: Your time is up.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, I have an amendment under this Subhead TG-01. Can I speak now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Thank you, Sir. I have only a few points. The first concerns the provision of additional recreational facilities in the HDB estate at Aljunied Crescent, which is in my constituency. I have asked the HDB to consider the provision of jogging tracks in the said estate or along the perimeter of the estate. However, I am told that it is no longer the Board's policy to develop jogging tracks in built-up areas and along the roads. I would like to know why. There is sufficient land and I have observed that such jogging tracks have been provided in other HDB estates. There is a proposal for a jogging track at Geylang East Avenue 1, but this is some distance away from the Aljunied Crescent area. I would like therefore to ask the Minister to get the HDB to reconsider the request for jogging tracks at the Aljunied Crescent estate.

Next, I would like to touch on lorry parking facilities. I share the view of the Member for Boon Lay that it must be within reasonable distance from the estate. In my case, the lorry parking areas are some 2-3 km away and residents find it difficult to go to this lorry parking area, especially in the early morning hours. Perhaps for smaller lorries or prime-movers, it may be possible for them to park in the HDB car parks or perhaps part of the area could be set aside for them. I hope that the Minister would consider this.

Much has been said about lift breakdowns, graveyards in front of shopping complexes, and rusty or yellow water. I have such problems too, and I hope that the HDB will come up with solutions quickly.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, may I have your permission to speak on HDB as I have an amendment under Sub-head TG -01?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB is the biggest landowner in Singapore. There are more than 2 million people living in public housing. Every decision and administrative measure that it directs will affect the livelihood of the people extensively. If the HDB is run properly, the population will benefit from it, and it will be a blessing to our nation. If there is maladministration, then the people will suffer. It will affect the mood and sentiments of the people; and they will complain and question the Government. The people regard their live lihood as of prime importance. Therefore, before taking any measure, much thought should first be given to such measures. With increasing affluence in our society, people have got higher expectations of the HDB. The HDB has therefore speeded up its operations in the past few years and has even invited foreign contractors to use the latest building techniques, the prefabricated method, to build more than 40,000 units of flats every year. As such, since the beginning of last year the administrative workloads of HDB has been increased. Its registration and allocation offices have been crowded with people all the time. Even on Sundays, HDB has to open its doors for business. It is really admirable and laudable. In this way, more people have been able to get their flats in a shorter time under the Home Ownership Scheme. This is all correct and very creditable.

But, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are still many low-income people who are not able to buy flats from the HDB. They have to rent flats from HDB. When HDB announced that it would not build any more rental flats, these applicants for rental flats were very disappointed because they were looking forward to getting their rental flats, which is what they could afford. I hope the Minister will consider their plight and solve their housing problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe PAP Members in the House including yourself must have found that some of the rental flats are vacant when visiting their constituencies. They have been vacant for months, and even more than a year. I do not know what is the reason for this state of affairs. Why are these vacant flats not allocated to those applicants who have been waiting for years? Even if these vacant flats were allocated to the resettled cases, they should not be vacant for so long, for a year or so. The HDB can be nonchalant, but the applicants are anxiously eyeing these flats. I hope the HDB will take note of this.

I would also suggest that the HDB decentralize its functions to its Area Offices. In fact, applications for rental flats or applications for transfer of flats can be handled by Area Offices. Since HDB is not building any more rental flats, and as all the existing vacant rental flats are under the care of Area Offices, therefore, they are in a better position to know how many vacant flats are available, how many can be transferred and how many can be let out. The Area Office should not just transmit communications to and from the headquarters. This will add to the burden of the headquarters, especially for those who now live in HDB flats if they want to apply for a transfer of flats, they must be confirmed by the Area Office that they have lived there for more than two years before they can go to the headquarters to register for a transfer of flats. This will cause inconvenience and a waste of time to the applicants. If Area Offices can tell them and allot to them directly any vacant flats which are available for allocation, this will save the applicants much time and trouble of going to and fro to the headquarters to find out these details, resulting in inconveniences and hardship for the people.

I would also like to touch on the administration of the Area Offices. Most of the residents living in HDB flats are faced with problems which are routine and similar in nature. The personnel in the HDB Area Offices concerned can therefore liaise among themselves, and such problems can be settled or handled straightaway without having to refer them to the head office for approval. All this bureaucracy and time-consuming procedures should be simplified. So long as there is no need to consult the engineers or architects on technical matters, I think the Area Offices should be given the power to settle such cases directly. This will then reduce the number of problems faced by the people, and to avoid unnecessary trouble while at the same time enhance the efficiency and productivity of the Area Office and of the HDB. I hope the Minister will consider these points.

The Chairman: It is already 1.00 pm. Time for suspension.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head T (cont.) -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a little puzzled as to the order in which you are taking these amendments. May I move my amendment No. (8)?

The Chairman: You have three amendments* on this head of expenditure,

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, I have three.

The Chairman: So you can speak on all three at the same time. You have thirty minutes to do so.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I take the first amendment in the order that it appears in the Order Paper Supplement, and this relates to Subhead F-01.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced

$10 in respect of Subhead TF-01.

The Chairman: There is no need for you to move your amendment, Mr Jeyaretnam. You can carry on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Sir. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under this subhead, I am not raising, as it were, the scenic views from windows or the speed along sliproads to expressways. I am raising, which I hope Members will accept, a far more basic right affecting an individual citizen of this country. And I wish to raise before this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, the case of a mother and two children who have been denied their right of alternative accommodation when their house, in which they were living, was torn down under the clearance plans of the Ministry of National Development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this mother, who is a Singapore citizen, was living, as I understand, in Lorong Ah Thia in a temporary hut or structure, and the area came up for clearance and she was thrown out of the house in which she and her two children were living. I understand from her that one of these two children that she has is a permanent invalid. He has got to be constantly looked after and he is incontinent. He. has a tube or something to serve him. So she is really in dire straits. She was thrown out of this house and she was told she would not be given any alternative accommodation. The reason, it would appear, was that she had married somebody who was working here on a work permit. She is a Singapore citizen and she misguidedly contracted marriage with this man. When the Commissioner of Employment found this out, they swooped down on him and sent him back to Malaysia. He thought, "Well, here is good riddance of my burden. I will take my freedom". And he is, I am told, gone permanently away, and she has lost all touch with him. He has abandoned her and her two children. So she was left to look after the two children and she was told she was not eligible for any alternative accommodation. This was in August or September last year when her house was forcibly demolished, with the result that she is now carrying her two children from house to house, staying with some friends for a period of time, and then moving on as soon as the friends discover that it was becoming inconvenient for her to stay with them. She appealed, through her own MP (she is not from my constituency) and also directly, to the authorities but all these appeals have fallen on deaf ears. I even wrote on her behalf to the Housing and Development Board about her plight. I have not received any reply to my letter. I wonder whether the Minister has directed the HDB not to reply to any letters from the Opposition MPs. If that is so, let's have it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we hear so much about this Government taking care of everyone who is in need and, particularly after the elections, that it would adopt a less austere face, wear on a human face and attend to the needs of its citizens. Here, we have a stark situation of a mother and two children who have been denied a basic human right of shelter over their heads. May I know from the Minister whether this woman and her two children will be provided with alternative accommodation?

We were told by the Minister only yesterday that his Ministry considered it is its duty to provide alternative accommodation in resettlement cases. Well, why has this mother and her two children been denied, what I say, this basic human right? And the Minister said, "If there is genuine hardship, HDB will relax its rules." I was very glad to hear that. I hope I am not going to be told by the Minister that, because she had married this man, she is forever to be, as it were, banished from any of the benefits that she is entitled to enjoy as a citizen of this country. That seems to me, if that is going to be the answer, a heartless answer. They have already suffered. As I said, the man has been sent away. He obviously considered it as a conferment of freedom on him, and he has vanished. So what are we doing to do to help this woman and her children? May I know from the Minister whether she will be given alternative accommodation, and soon, because she is desperate. She has been to see me more than once and, may I say, I am not being dramatic, she said, "Shall I throw myself and my children down from one of these high-rise storeys?" I said, "For goodness sake, don't do anything like that." I said, "Our Govern- ment is a caring, compassionate Government, and I am sure something will be done for you." So I hope the Minister will look into this matter, so that my promise to her will be kept.

The second matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the amendment under Subhead TG-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to go over all the inequities of the policies and the rules of the HDB. Enough has been said of them, but may I just make this point - in September last year in an Adjournment Motion I spoke on this subject - I said that the HDB had become a monster, completely indifferent to the feelings and sufferings of the people who occupied its quarters. There was an attempted valiant defence of the HDB by the Minister then. But I was very glad to see that the First Deputy Prime Minister, after the elections, conceded that there was validity in this allegation that the HDB had become indifferent to the people's sufferings. So at least we have got somewhere.

The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): On a point of clarification, Sir. May I know from the Member for Anson the exact date when that remark was made, because I do not recall making that particular remark?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, if the First Deputy Prime Minister wants the exact date, I will try to get it for him. But I tell you that somebody complained and you admitted that he had a point - that the HDB had become indifferent. You conceded it completely.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Give me the exact date.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, all right, I will. I have to ask my librarian to go through the back pages of the Straits Times. I think I saw it. But you will be given that. I tell you that I did see it. Please take my word for it. At least we have this concession from the First Deputy Prime Minister, and I was very glad to note that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB is a public body. It is not a private body. I have been emphasizing this every time I spoke about the HDB. And it is, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, scandalous that the HDB should be allowed to make its own rules and policies as to who should be excluded from its apartments, who should be thrown out, without any control whatsoever from this Parliament. As I said, speaking on the Address of Thanks to the President, Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament should be the sounding board of the nation. Parliament is the conscience of the people that live in this country, and therefore it is only right that policy decisions like this should be subject to constant review and control by Parliament. Funds are provided out of public monies and it is unthinkable, that on decisions like this, it should be left purely to the Board or to its committees. 2.45 pm

At a press conference, Mr Speaker, Sir, I called for a committee to review all policies of the HDB, not only in regard to eligibility for HDB accommodation and the rules that debar certain people from applying to HDB but also to all rules that provided for people to be thrown out of HDB apartments because they have broken this rule or that rule . I repeat that call in this Chamber, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask that it is time that an all-party committee - yes, I say, an all-party committee - of this House should be appointed consisting of Members, not only from the ruling Party but also from the other two Parties represented in this House now, to review the entire policies of the HDB and its decisions, so that a thorough study can be made of their need and the equitableness or otherwise of these rules and policy decisions. And a report be made to this House so that there can be a full debate on it, and the matter can then be put right. That is my suggestion - that an all-party committee be set up immediately to review all policies of the HDB, not only as regards eligibility but as regards the powers of the HDB that it possesses. And I pointed out, these powers are enormous and draconian. They give no right of appeal for the poor tenants. I know the Minister will say, "Oh, yes, you can go to the courts." I have said time and time again that that is very limited, and is not good enough.

Another point under this subhead is the attitude of the HDB towards requests from Opposition MPs in the constituencies where they represent the constituents. Sir, again, if I may say what I read as having been said by the First Deputy Prime Minister after the elections, referring to constituencies represented by Opposition MPs. He was reported to have said, "Well, we will let the Opposition MPs run their constituencies as they like. If they want a racing track, we'll give it to them. Let them do what they like. Let's see what happens."

Well, I am not asking for a racing track in my constituency. Do you recall that, First Deputy Prime Minister?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. I am not asking for a racing track. But I wrote to the Housing and Development Board asking that I be given office space now in a part of my constituency which is separated from the major part of my constituency. This is Bukit Purmei, where there are 10 blocks. I said, "May I have a room there in which I could see the constituents?" It has taken the HDB two months to reply to my letter, and the answer is, "No. You've already got one, so we are not going to give you another room."

Mr Speaker, Sir, another Party would seem to have no difficulty at all in getting HDB accommodation all over the country, in all the constituencies. I see that in some constituencies, there is not just one office for the MP but there are two offices for the MP. And there are, what I call, educational centres. In Bukit Purmei there is one educational centre. On polling day, this Party had full use of this centre. I am told that the classes there are run by this Party. May I know what is going to be the attitude of the HDB with regard to providing premises for the Opposition Parties?

Here we have, on the one hand, the First Deputy Prime Minister saying, "We are not going to be obstructionist. We will let the Opposition MPs do whatever they like to do in their own constituencies." And here is the HDB saying, "No, you are not going to have it." Not only did I ask for an office in Bukit Purmei, I also asked for additional rooms where I could hold my classes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am providing free classes for the children of poor parents in my constituency, classes in English and Maths at the Primary 3 and Primary 6 level. My present office is completely inadequate for that. I asked whether the HDB would help me by providing me with some more space. The answer would appear to be "No" to everything. So may we have it from the Minister whether that is going to be the Government policy. Because he is talking as a Government Minister, and I hope perhaps the First Deputy Prime Minister will reply on this: what is going to be the policy of the Government, as regards requests from the Opposition MPs? If you say you are not going to grant anything, well, say so.

I will leave it to my colleague on this side of the House to bring his problems up. But I understand even he has not got his office yet. It took the HDB eight months to give me an office in Anson after 1981. When I asked what happened to the office that was occupied by the previous MP, they said, "Oh, no, we've given it to somebody else." What has happened to the previous office occupied by the MP in Potong Pasir? Well, I will leave it to my colleague on this side of this House.

If I may now take the final amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Development estimates. The Minister forestalled me by making his statement about the switch in the accounting system. I am sure he anticipated that I would bring it up in the debate on the estimates for the HDB. I am glad to see that, at last, we shall see accounts in the new form in 1986 and we will then know the costing of flats on which, till today, we have still not been fully informed, I took up the costing of the flats the moment I entered this House in December 1981 and I have been pressing for this every time. But I am not going to say anything more about the costing of the flats. I have some questions for the Minister on the accounts.

First of all, may I ask him about the transfer of $42 million from the Service and Conservancy provision in the budget for 1983-84 to Repayment of Loans. It appears that the HDB had over-estimated in the sum of $42 million for maintenance. they have that much of money to transfer. May I know why was there this over-estimation for service and conservancy? Is it an admission that the HDB is perhaps collecting far too much by way of service and conservancy charges? I am surprised to see that the 1983-84 accounts still show a deficit in the Service and Conservancy account. But they transferred $42 million out saying, "We've over-estimated it." Perhaps the Minister will try and enlighten me on how this was done - that you can transfer $42 million and then still show that you are in deficit.

The other thing is the profits of the HDB from the MND Holdings. The Minister maintains all the time that the HDB is not making profits. But we do know that the HDB has stashed away $98,558,159 in profits. This is from its shareholding in MND Holdings. This amount of $98,558,159 was at the end of 1983, and I am sure it must have gone up now to more than $100 million. This profit is not shown in the accounts of the HDB. The Auditor-General drew attention to this, and I have drawn attention to this last year, and the year before. I pointed out that this would be an offence under the Companies Act. I know the answer would be that, "the HDB is not a company. So just keep quiet." But in principle it is wrong. May I know why is the HDB hiding this profit of $99 million, not showing it in its accounts?

A more pertinent question is: why has this amount not been brought over to the HDB? Why has it been left with the MND Holdings? If it has been brought over, it could have been utilized. It could have been invested. The HDB could have earned on these profits. Is this not a gross dereliction of its duties as trustees of the monies? I hope the Minister will give us some answers to these questions.

Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clarify one point. It so happens that the case mentioned by the Member for Anson happened in my constituency, ie, the Indian woman with two children married a Malaysian who was sent back. I think the Member is barking up the wrong tree. The decision came from the Commissioner of Employment, Ministry of Labour. I handled this case. I met her on no less than four occasions. She was brought to me by a very eloquent Indian gentleman who spoke very good English. So I could understand the case very well. I fought the case until the very last moment when - I would say it was almost successful - the Ministry of Labour, (in fact, through the good offices of the Parliamentary Secretary) told me that she has completed all her formalities and her case would be considered favourably. I tried to look for her but she had disappeared. Obviously, she must have gone to the Member for Anson thinking that he could do better. So I stopped short there. Actually her suffering was unnecessary. I am not trying to fight for business. If she thinks that the Member for Anson can do better for her, I can only say, I sympathize with her, as I cannot help her anymore. However, there is no grudge against her. If she feels like coming back to my branch, I am still willing to help her. 3.00 pm

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the resettlement of Madam Kumari, I would like to emphasize that public housing is a benefit to the Singapore citizens. It is not an automatic right. Singapore citizens who want to apply for public housing must comply with certain rules and regulations, such as family nucleus, income limits (i do not qualify for public housing, and I make no complaints), and they must not own private residential property. I own my own house where I live, so I do not qualify for public housing. I want to emphasize this point, that public housing is not an automatic right for all the citizens.

On the question of Madam Kumari, she is in fact qualified for public housing if she is able to comply with the guidelines for a family nucleus. Every application must be applied as a family unit. HDB will not allow the family to break up. For example, if the husband has teamed up with some people to apply for one flat, while his wife applies for a separate flat, this means that the family is going to get two flats. So any family who applies for a flat must be a family nucleus. Madam Kumari does not have the family nucleus.

Mr Jeyaretnam: She has two children.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Two children, yes, but she has a problem with the husband. As the Member for Bukit Batok has quite rightly pointed out, she requires a formality. That means where the husband and wife have been separated and divorced, then HDB will ask for the documents of a legal separation or a divorce. If she can produce that, then she will be qualified to apply for HDB housing. And HDB will give her the consideration of a housing benefit. If Madam Kumari goes to see the Member for Anson, then he can advise her that if she complies with this formality, HDB will consider her application.

Mr Jeyaretnam: So I will send her to you with the separation deed.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: No. Send to HDB. I will not be able to process the application. [Laughter]

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I just ask, by way of clarification, because it is no laughing matter for this woman. Am I to understand from the Minister that if she produces what - a separation deed, is that what you want?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: You are a lawyer.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is it that you want? You want a divorce from the court or a separation deed? Let us have this clearly spelt out.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Legal separation order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I see. All right. So if she produces a separation deed and goes to see your HDB officials, she will be given an alternative accommodation. Is that what you are saying?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Her application will be considered.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Oh, my gosh. It goes from one thing to another. Well, she qualifies for it, Mr Minister, in every way.

An hon. Member: She has to wait.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You said that every one who is resettled, or whose house is demolished because of resettlement, is entitled to alternative accommodation. So she qualifies for it, and she has got two children who are Singapore citizens.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, think she qualifies; I am not denying that If she produces the necessary documents she will be given alternative accommodation. The usual procedure of HDB is that anybody who applies for an HDB flat must submit his application together with the necessary documents. They then process the application and if she has complied with the HDB rules and regulations, she will be given a number which will entitle her to a flat.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why wasn't I told this when I first took up her case?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: No. I think the Member for Anson has forgotten. I have explained in this House many times that only the Member of Parliament can take up the case of his constituents. This is quite obvious. Otherwise a person will go to all the 79 MPs or 77 PAP MPs and HDB will have to make 77 replies to the 77 MPs. This will create a lot of unnecessary work. So if the Member for Anson is acting as an MP when she is not his constituent, then of course the Member does not get a reply. But if the Member is acting as her legal counsel, that is different. He will get a reply.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not acting as her legal counsel.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Then you will get a reply because all the legal counsels will get a reply.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am acting as the MP.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Then she is not your constituent. So you will not get a reply.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I tell the Minister, as the Member who has just spoken, said, "I am not here to compete. I am worried for this woman." So whether she goes through an MP or not, if she produces that document herself to your officials, will you accept it? Please.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, if she is eligible.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, the Member for Anson has alleged that the HDB has become a monster and the HDB is making a lot of rules and regulations which, to him, are unreasonable and unfeeling, and that there is a need to have a committee formed by Members of Parliament to investigate the HDB rules and regulations. Sir, I am the Minister in charge of HDB. Any of the Members here can raise a question, either oral or in writing, in this House, to ask HDB to justify any rules and any regulations. And I will have to justify it because I am the Minister in charge, and I will give Members the reasons why HDB need to have such rules and regulations. So I see that it will be a total waste of time to form a committee. Anybody who is dissatisfied with any rules of the HDB can bring it up and I will justify the rules and the regulations made by the HDB.

On the question of the MP's office, each Member of Parliament is entitled to one office. I myself have one office. In fact my Constituency, Geylang West, covers a very wide area and I only have one office. I am not entitled to more than one. And if I want to have another office, I have to rent a shophouse somewhere in my constituency. So there is no different treatment between the PAP MPs and the Opposition MPs, as far as the HDB is concerned.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What about education centres?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Those are rented out to the CCCs. The Member in talking about the HDB has shown a great dissatisfaction with the HDB. Perhaps I would put the position quite clearly, especially when in the morning the Member was getting a little bit excited and may misinterpret what I said or come to the wrong conclusion. With regard to the constituencies with Opposition MPs, the Member for Chong Boon has shown me a letter giving the impression that Opposition MPs are getting priority treatment from HDB over constituencies with PAP MPs. I put the position that it is not so.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He misinterpreted the whole thing. He does not understand it.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: As far as HDB is concerned, it has to provide an emergency service. This is an essential service: people trapped inside lifts, the light suddenly blown off, the pipes choked, toilet pipes choked. Therefore, immediate attention has to be given. All the constituencies are given the same treatment. I have repeated it in the morning and I would like to repeat it now, that all the constituencies are treated on the same basis.

As far as non-emergency services are concerned, if the facilities are there, for example, there are two repairs to be attended to and the Area Office happens to have two teams of workers, then they will go to both the constituencies, whether they be constituencies with PAP MPs or they be constituencies with one PAP MP and one Opposition MP; they are the same. But if the team can attend to only one constituency, in short, one constituency will receive priority and the other constituency will receive a lower priority. If it is among the PAP constituencies, then one PAP constituency will get a higher priority and the other will get a lower priority. It cannot be helped. If it happens to be one PAP constituency and one Opposition constituency, then the PAP constituency will get the priority. And though the Opposition constituency will be attended to, it will be given a lower priority. I make no apology for it because, as a PAP Government, we must look after the PAP constituency first, because those are the people who supported us, or the majority of them supported us.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What about those who voted for you in the Opposition party?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: That is rather regrettable, and it cannot be helped. Another thing that I would like to mention here is that if both the Opposition Members are unhappy about the arrangement, then as we have already discussed in this House quite extensively about local authorities, ie, the decentralized management of HDB estates, I would be very happy to offer to both the Members the management of the estates in Anson and Potong Pasir, so that both these Members need not complain about the HDB's Area Officers being unreasonable, HDB being so difficult, HDB being this, HDB being that, HDB is not able to respond to their requests. I am quite happy to offer the management of the estates in the two constituencies to the two hon. Members. I hope these hon. Members, with their dynamic leadership, will turn their constituencies into a model constituency for everybody to see. Since the Member for Potong Pasir has claimed repeatedly that he is able to build flats much cheaper than HDB, I think it should not be very difficult for him to manage HDB estates much better than HDB. It should not be a problem. I hope both the Members for Anson and Potong Pasir will keep this in mind. Because the decentralization of the management of HDB estates will come about anyway, and if both Members would like this to come about early in their constituencies, I will be pleased.

I will go to the other points raised by the other Members, The Member for Alexandra has raised - 3.15 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: What about the accounts?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, the account about the transfer of $42 million. I will write to the Member and give him the details of this account because I do not have the information offhand for him.

On the point raised by the Member for Anson on MND Holdings, this has already been discussed. The Auditor-General has also made observations on this and HDB has decided to sell the HDB shares in MND to the Government. So in fact the shares have been sold. The Member is quite right in saying that the $98 million has now increased to more than $100 million. It is more than $100 million. The whole lot of money is coming back to HDB. This money will be shown in the HDB accounts.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, why has this not been brought over all these years?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: It is not necessary.

The Member for Alexandra has raised the point about aluminium windows and asked whether HDB can provide a standard design for the residents rather than getting the residents to submit their own plans. I will ask HDB to look into this and work out a scheme whereby the plan can be made available to the residents. This is a good and a sensible suggestion.

The other point is the provision of aluminium flashings above the windows. These aluminium flashings are to prevent rain water from being blown into the flat during a heavy rain. They have been used successfully in other constituencies. If it is not successful in Alexandra, I will look into it. But I would like the Member for Alexandra and his constituents not to mistake these aluminium flashings for awnings, which means that during heavy rain you can open the windows and no rain water will come in. It is not meant for that. The window has still got to be closed during rain except that water will not be blown into the flat. These flashings have been successfully used in Marine Parade. I pass Marine Parade every day and I see the aluminium flashings there.

On the question of lifts, I have explained to the Member for Ayer Rajah yesterday -

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): You did not explain to me.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I did not explain to you? Maybe not in this House. It is all right. The Member has asked whether HDB can provide larger lifts so that sick people can be transported down in a stretcher. To provide this type of lift, it will mean something like the hospital lifts. It is not only expensive but it will take up a huge area. HDB will have to redesign the flats if we are going to provide lifts of that size. The usage is also not so high because HDB flats are not a hospital where you have to transport sick people up and down.

On the question of long delays in repairs, I have received quite a lot of complaints in this House every year. HDB is trying its very best to attend to the complaints, but we must understand that HDB is managing half a million units of flats. The people who do maintenance work are usually contract workers. HDB does not employ large numbers of staff to do maintenance work on their own. If we have one bad contractor, quite often work is delayed. This is because we are not lucky enough to get good contractors every time. On the other hand, sometimes contractors complain that, at first, they get a group of good workers but subsequently these workers leave and they are unable to get another group of good workers, and that accounts for the delays. This is the reason, but I am not making an excuse or try to justify that the delay is acceptable. The delay is unacceptable, and I will press HDB to push the contractors hard on improving their services.

On the question of a cockroach in the chicken rice, this is rather unfortunate. As we know, in all the markets and hawker stalls you have food droppings all over the place and this leads to the breeding of cockroaches. This is unavoidable, Even in the most well-looked after bungalows you will still find cockroaches crawling around, not just in the cooked food centres.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, point of clarification. I was not complaining so much about cockroaches. I was using that just to illustrate my point that today we seem to have a lot of "trigger-happy" enforcement officers going round issuing summons on very minor offences. My point is that if we intend to mete out justice, if we intend to keep law and order, then it must be seen to be done with an even hand. Cockroaches are just an example.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I agree with the Member for Alexandra and I will pass this message to the HDB.

Sir, on the point raised by the Member for Geylang Serai about the provision of jogging tracks in Aljunied Crescent, I understand that, in fact, jogging tracks have been provided in the nearby area.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Not provided.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: It has not been provided in this area? All right, again, I will ask HDB to look into it.

On lorry parks, I think this is a very serious problem we are facing. We are trying to find a solution. The point is that lorry parks take up a lot of land because the size of a lorry is very large. Quite often we are unable to find suitable land near a housing estate for the provision of lorry parks. It has got to be some distance away, and this is unavoidable. As I mentioned yesterday, HDB and URA officers in charge of car parks have been talking to the lorry owners' association to try and find a solution, and I hope by a series of discussions the lorry owners' association will be able to come out with some solution.

The Member for Ang Mo Kio has raised a few points about vacant rental flats in HDB estates. I myself face the same problem when my constituents come to me. I have got four blocks of 1-room flats and two blocks of 2-room flats in my constituency. My constituents keep coming to me and know my next door flat is vacant and it has been vacant for six months. HDB is very inefficient because when I apply for those flats, so that I can be near to my mother, or father or relative, HDB keeps saying no. They keep on saying that these flats are reserved for resettlement cases. If they are reserved for resettlement cases, why is the flat not occupied?" The fact is that quite often, when HDB has cleared a certain area, a certain number of resettlement cases wants the rental flats. The HDB Resettlement Department will find out the number of units in the area. For example, they need 50 units of rental flats but there are not many vacant rental flats available in the surrounding estate. The Resettlement Department has to reserve these rental flats for a few months so that when the clearance comes about they are able to move the resettlement cases into these rental flats.

On the other hand, there is often the problem that although we have the rental flats available for the resettlement cases, but they know that, being resettlement cases, they are entitled to a rental flat, they go and look at the flat but they say, "It is no good. It is not suitable." They do not want it. What they want is to be able to choose a flat in the right locality, right orientation, and also the right feng shui. Quite often the flats have been rejected by the resettlement cases. We have to make an offer to a resettlement case and say, "This is the flat." We allow him two weeks to say yes or no. The Resettlement Officer will go there. Two weeks later, if there is still no news, the Resettlement Inspector follows up and asks, "What happens?" They will say, "The flat is lousy. I do not like it."

This flat is offered to another resettlement case. There is a lapse of one month. If the flat is rejected by several resettlement cases, this means that the flat will remain vacant for several months. That is the reason for other people asking why the flat has been vacant for so long and not allocated to them. It is because they are not aware that the flat has, in fact, been offered to several resettlement cases and it has been rejected by them. That is the reason for the very long vacancy of that flat.

The Member also raised the point about all-owing the Area Office the authority to deal with the transfer of flats and the renting of rental flats. In fact, at present the Area Offices are processing the transfer but it has to be referred to the head office because the HDB rule is to observe the first-come first-served policy. It is the head office which has centralized information. The individual Area Office does not have centralized information and our computer system has not yet been extended to the Area Offices. So they do not have the updated information as the head office. They have to come back to the head office.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, the Hon. Minister has not responded to my complaint about the insensitivity of architects to problems in the older housing estates, and to my suggestion that perhaps they should spend some time with the residents to understand their problems better.

On this problem of older estates, can I also ask the Minister whether there is a possibility for him to review the levy which is being imposed on resale of old flats. As we all know, the levy was imposed out of envy by people who asked why people should profit from a resale.

The Chairman: Mr Tan, you have exceeded your point of clarification.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I would like to answer the two points. On this levy, the Government will review the levy.

On the question of architects staying in HDB flats, the Member for Alexandra will be quite surprised if I tell him that some architects were, in fact, born in HDB flats (former S.I.T. flats) and are living in HDB flats. They were educated in our schools and, because of Singapore's very open society, they attended University, got a degree and become architects, and work for HDB. A lot of them, in fact, still have relations, parents, in HDB estates, and they do visit HDB estates regularly. In fact, they always comment that their house is much worse than what HDB is at present providing.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have amendment (10). Firstly, the HDB accounts which have been published annually. The Minister, in rebutting our calculations, says in fact that it can be seen from the accounts that the Government is subsidizing HDB flats. We have studied the accounts but there is nowhere in the accounts of the HDB Reports to show the cost of a unit. I believe even the Auditor-General has mentioned that, and therefore how can we know from the accounts whether, in fact, the Government has subsidized the flats. 3.30 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Chiam See Tong: The HDB is going to have a new accounting system with effect from 1st April. The Minister said, besides annual subsidies provided by Government for HDB operations, the Government has been subsidizing public housing through the provision of cheap State land. The Minister further says, in order that the new accounting system will fully reflect the true economic cost of flats, the HDB will return all its undeveloped land stock back to the Government at cost before 1st April. Government will pay the difference between the open market price and the economic price of flat. So this is the definition of subsidy, provision of cheap State land. Now, all the while we thought that subsidy was actual cash grant, grant of money. So there is not, in fact, going to be actual cash grant. It is only accounting.

The Budget has shown that the Government has allocated $5.149 billion to the HDB and out of that, $5 billion goes to "Loan to the HDB" and is repayable by the HDB to the Government. And there is $0.149 billion to actual subsidy for operations. This is only about 3% of the total allocation. HDB is paying Government 7.75% interest, whereas the Government is only paying CPF (the money is strong in any event) 6.5% interest. So there is a difference of 1.25%.

This system of returning the land to the Government at cost and then the Government re-sells the land back to the HDB - I object to this move. In such a scheme, Singaporeans will never know the true cost of land. What is the actual land cost to the HDB? Actually cost should be cost. HDB should charge the public the cost of acquiring the land plus the clearance before the Government hands over the land to the HDB. There never was and shall ever be the actual economic value of land.

As we know, the URA controls the sale of land. What is the value of land? The URA puts the land up for tender. The market says $800 per sq ft, that is, the market value. But has the land been sold? No. It is being held back by the Government. It cannot reach its reserve price. So what is the value of land? Nobody will ever know. It depends upon the URA, the Government. The Government has a control of the cost of land, and the people must know the actual value of the land. I think the people will be very lucky if the Government says that it is charging HDB flat purchasers the economic value of the land.

Now, the cost of the land must be the actual cost of acquisition plus clearance. In accounting practice, I have been informed that in a valuation of assets normally the lower market realizable value or its cost is taken, and not the higher one. They want to know the true or actual cost, the market realizable value, ie, actually what money has been defrayed.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask a point of clarification. Sir, I do not quite understand what the Member for Potong Pasir is saying. I just want to ask this. Does he mean that HDB should sell or price the flat on the basis of land that has been acquired many, many years ago at, maybe, $1 per sq ft? Or does he mean that HDB should actually price the flat at the land price today?

As I am working in a somewhat related profession, I just want to say that I have come across many developers who have had land given to them, maybe by their grandfathers, which probably cost them 50cts per sq ft. But today the value of that land is $80 or even $100 per sq ft. Surely they are going to sell the house based on land value at $80 and not 50cts per sq ft.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that nobody really knows the value of land. What I am saying is that, when the HDB prices its land cost, it must be the actual cost defrayed. That is what I am saying. If the hon. Member can actually say that he knows the true value of land, then I think he must be something special.

If the Government is sincere and would want to show the true cost of land, we want to know what is the actual cash subsidy it gets. Land is a national asset. Public housing is a national policy. People will want or insist on knowing the value of the cost of the land the HDB actually paid, and not its potential value. What is this move of returning the land back to the Government, and the Government selling the land back to the HDB? We know for all practical purposes, the HDB and the Government are one.

I think, in companies, they call this scheme "transfer pricing". You have got a parent company, you have got a subsidiary company, transfer of price from one to another. This is commonly practised by irresponsible multi-national corporations to minimize the tax payable in the host country. Say, a Japanese company is making a part of a good in Singapore. What it does is to price it low and sell it back to the host country so that it pays either very little tax in Singapore, or hardly any tax, and declares a loss. But in the host country, the goods will be sold at a high price and that country will benefit the tax.

Now, is not this scheme of the HDB the same? The Government sells the land to the Housing Board at a high price, and then it says it gives you a subsidy when there is a difference between the market price and its economic value.

Dr Augustine Tan: On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. There is a concept in economics, called opportunity cost. Would the hon. Member for Potong Pasir be able to understand this concept and explain it to this House?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have to repeat myself, as regards the HDB. This is a national policy. When we say "cost", we want to take the actual cost defrayed. We are not concerned with potential cost of -

Dr Augustine Tan: I have a question, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is relevant to the point he is making. What is opportunity cost? Does it cost the hon. Member anything to be here this afternoon for three hours, instead of practising his law and earning maybe $5,000?

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are talking about actual costs. I do not see the relevance of what you can get -

Dr Augustine Tan: Opportunity cost; alternative use of the land.

Mr Chiam See Tong: - and the cost of the land. We are talking about our national policy providing public housing to the people of Singapore. The key issue now is whether the land actually has been subsidized, or whether there is an absolute profit made. That is the point.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, surely the hon. Member would understand that the Government has the option of selling the land to private developers. Surely he also understands that HDB can have an alternative option of tendering the land from the Government and thereby paying the true market price. Now, what does he prefer?

Mr Chiam See Tong: As I have stated, for practical purposes, the Housing Board and the Government are one. And so, for an accounting system, the Government can charge the HDB whatever value it deems to be the open market value. As I said, it is very difficult to determine the true value of land. In fact, there is no value of land. It depends on who wants to pay for that amount. As I have stated earlier, the Prime Minister was not around, -

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, do I understand, the Member to seriously suggest there is no such thing as the concept of value of land, that there is no difference between land in Raffles Place, land in Marina South, and land in Tampines?

Mr Chiam See Tong: There is definitely a value of land, but what I am saying is that we cannot determine the value of land. It depends on who is going to pay for it, and how much, and whether there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. Take the case of Marina South, what is the value of Marina South? To the business people, the developers say, "Well, we are willing to pay only $800 per sq ft." Now, is that the value of land?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But it was not sold. The Government said that was not sold.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Marine Parade, there is a lovely piece of land fronting the sea, which is built up by Housing Board flats. Surely would he deny that that land could have been tendered on the free market to a private developer for building luxury condominiums at several thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are talking about an actual situation of building HDB flats. We have gone through all this in the elections. What we are saying is that if there is going to be a subsidy, let us see the subsidy. Is it an actual cash grant, or is it just accounting? Now, it would appear to be accounting. As the Minister has said, "Subsidy is what? For public housing, provision of cheap State land." Now we know.

The Prime Minister: May I ask whether the Member concedes that there is such a concept called "value of land"? And that there is such a profession known in Singapore as a Land Valuer? That the Government has a Chief Land Valuer? That there are, in the private sector, experts who regularly go to court and give evidence as to what the value of land is? And that the Ministry of National Development, by transferring it from the HDB to the Government, is in fact making the books widely known that the value of each plot of land will be determined, and is determinable, because the land can be used for defence, it can be used for schools, it can be used for condominiums, it can be used for HDB, it can be used for URA - who is prepared to pay what price for what use. Is there no such concept as value of land? 3.45 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, as I look through the budget, we can only see the amount Government has obtained from the sale of land. We do not know how much actually has the land been sold for.

The Prime Minister: Does the Member not concede that by transferring it to the Government, each plot that the HDB now acquires will be subject to open scrutiny in this House and throughout Singapore, that the value is determinable and will be determined?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Now the -

The Prime Minister: Is it or is it not?

Mr Chiam See Tong: If the Prime Minister says so, it must be so.

The Prime Minister: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, I think you have answered the question, and your 10 minutes are up.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I have just -

The Chairman: No, I am sorry.

Mr Chiam See Tong: - because I have been interrupted. Is there an interruption time?

The Chairman: Allowance has been given for interruption time. Mr Teh.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the HDB accounting, either the Member for Potong Pasir does not understand or he tries to twist the accounts. I am not very sure which is which. But let me explain. In the old HDB accounting system, the HDB is receiving subsidies from the Government in several ways. One is that the Government is providing cheap land for the HDB to build public housing. For example, in Queenstown, Government gives land, which previously belonged to SIT, to HDB at no cost, zero cost, to build houses. While in other cases, Government acquires the land and sells it to the HDB at well below market price for HDB to build public housing. This is one form of subsidy.

The other form of subsidy is that Government annually provides a grant to the HDB. In the last financial year, the Government provided $174 million to HDB, and for this year's budget, the Government will provide another $149.6 million to HDB. This is the subsidy to the HDB. That is the cash grant.

The third is that Government provides cheap loans to HDB. In fact, Government has provided two types of loans to the HDB. One is for HDB to build shops, industrial facilities, rental flats, at 7.75% and on 60 years' repayment. In fact, the Member for Potong Pasir made a big fuss about it, saying that the CPF depositor only gets 6.5% while Government gives loans to HDB at 7.75%. I do not know whether the Member for Potong Pasir is purposely twisting, or he is ignorant. This 7.75% loan is for 60 years' repayment. If you ask any CPF depositor, "Can we use your money to lend it to the HDB, and you get it back 60 years later?" And see what is his answer.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are talking about people.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: See what is the answer. Because it is only Government which can provide HDB with these long-term repayment loans. In fact, there is no way that you can get a long-term loan from a commercial bank, not even the World Bank, not even any bank by asking them, "Can I borrow money with 60 years' repayment period?" Of course, there is no way that you can get it and also at the cheap interest rate of 7.75%. In fact, this is a very heavily subsidized rate. The Government can use this money and invest in US dollar deposits and today Government would easily get 10-11% returns. So Government is offering this loan to the HDB at 7.75% and this is a heavily subsidized loan. Because nowhere else in the world can you borrow money with a 60-year repayment period.

Another thing is that Government has lent money to the HDB for construction of public housing for sale at only 6% interest. The CPF depositor is getting 6.5%, while the Government lends to HDB at 6%. And the HDB, in turn, provides loans for people who purchase HDB flats at the interest rate of 6.25%. This is another subsidy.

So, in the old accounting system, the Government is subsidizing the HDB in several forms. But the Auditor-General considers that this form of subsidy, this way of accounting, the HDB is unable to show the true cost of HDB flats. And therefore HDB is switching to the new accounting system. Once we switch to the new accounting system, then we will have a very clear-cut cost of the flats. Because in the old accounting system, we are not able to show the actual subsidy of the Government. The actual subsidy of the Government, as I have explained, is in various parts but we are not able to quantify it as a whole because under the old accounting system, the accounts are treated differently. But in this new accounting system, the actual cost of the flat can be shown very clearly.

The HDB is returning the land to the Government. Previously, under the old accounting system, the Government gives the land to the HDB either at no cost or at very low cost. But under this new accounting system, the land cost is properly reflected. And I am very glad that the hon. Member for Potong Pasir has now conceded that there is such a thing as land cost. The land cost will be determined by the Government Chief Valuer. Then the HDB will be able to show the actual cost of the flat: the land cost HDB pays to the Government, the construction cost, the interest cost, the overheads of HDB, the resettlement cost - all these added together to arrive at the actual cost of the flat. The actual cost of the flat, of course, is going to be much higher than the selling price of HDB flats.

Government is committed to the policy that by 1999 all Singaporean families will become owners of at least their own homes, 100% home ownership. Since we are committed to that, the selling price of HDB flats will be pegged at not what it costs the HDB to build but it will be pegged at what the people can afford to buy. So there will be a very big gap and, as I have said in my statement yesterday, in the new accounting system Government will subsidize this difference to ensure that all the Singaporeans will be able to own their own homes by 1999.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification. Is it true that, under the new accounting system, since the Housing Board will have to pay market prices for its land from the Government; the Housing Board in turn will need a much larger cash subsidy from the Government to the tune of several hundred million dollars a year?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The answer is yes. It will be a very large subsidy. It can be several hundred million dollars, and hopefully it will not go to a thousand million dollars. Otherwise, my colleague, the Minister for Finance, may be very worried.

Mr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the last two days, we have heard various hon. Members bringing up issues, queries and complaints against the HDB, though HDB has in fact delivered its services and its programmes to the people. I feel it is timely that HDB should consider setting up a consumer relations unit, at least at estate level, because many of the problems that we have discussed over the last two days could be solved in a more effective way. I think the scale of these problems will rise with the aging of estates. And even the problems brought up by Opposition Members could be solved when they deal with an effective consumer relations unit at the estate level.

The other issue that I would like to take up is that a number of estates are aging, and many families living in these aging flats are confronted with the problem of not being able to find a capital outlay to carry out renovations of their flats, particularly casement windows, leaking toilets, kitchen and various other accessories. The problem is quite acute if they belong to the working class. I feel that if we do not examine this issue more critically, there will be problems posed or dangers created to the safety of other residents, particularly in older housing estates. In order to enable such families to tackle these problems, perhaps the HDB could look into the possibility of giving a one-time loan, through the CPF, to such families who need to conduct or carry out such renovation programmes within the households to deal with various matters relating to the wear and tear of their flats.

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you will forgive this intervention, but I think it is essential that we do not have a slur cast over the new accounting system because it was not answered effectively. The Member for Potong Pasir will discover that the difference between campaigning and debating is that in a face-to-face encounter, no point which is untrue will be allowed to pass. That is a fundamental principle of this Government.

We have played Robin Hood for too long and we have been too modest about it. Let me explain. Land value is crucial to the concept of wealth, of property. I have been the major formulator of this policy because it so happened I understood the law, the law - acquisitions, the law of property, the law of values of property. 4.00 pm

When we were confronted with an enormous problem of bad housing, no development, overcrowding, we decided that unless drastic measures were taken to break the rules, we would never solve it. We therefore took overriding powers to acquire land at low cost, which was in breach of one of the fundamentals of British constitutional law, the sanctity of property. That had to be overcome because the sanctity of society seeking to preserve itself was greater. So we acquired at sub-economic rates.

When fires took place, in order to get rid of squatters, in order to stop fires, and also prevent owners from getting a profit out of accidental fires, we passed a special provision (which I did personally) in this House in 1961, after the Bukit Ho Swee fire - that we can acquire as if the land had been squattered, and the State would pay forth e land, which was unencumbered, as if it was encumbered. It is unprecedented anywhere in the British Commonwealth or in America.

When we had to reclaim land, we overrode foreshore land, right of compensa- tion for loss of sea frontage, sea breezes, prospect, and we just filled up land. They were overriding considerations.

So we embarked on this Robin Hood adventure. Now, the population has learned a little bit of accountancy, book-keeping, the Member for Potong Pasir comes in with vague allegations of misdemeanour, profit-making, profiteering. So I need to remind the House what this is all about. It is to try and get a unique society set up out of extraordinary circumstances of near despair, to become a 100% property-owning democracy. Quite an achievement if we do it. I am not sure that we can make it a 100%; I think we can make it to 90%. The last 10% will be very difficult and, on some other occasion, I will explain why. But we have been playing Robin Hood and now we are accused of being the highwayman, without any charity. Really? What for?

How have we sold? Just given it away. That is how we have sold, in order that people can become owners. We have prevented land owners from evicting tenants, de facto. The Member for Potong Pasir practises at the Bar. He knows you cannot get rid of a tenant from rent-controlled premises. The government was advised by a U.N. team to repeal this law, allow rents to go up, and collect more property tax. I persuaded my colleagues not to change the law, that it was one method of redistributing wealth. So every tenant now squats and waits until his compensation comes. Good luck to him.

How have we sold without the price mechanism? Housing Board built on prime land in Marine Parade, 1-, 2-room flats for rental, with the prospect of the South China Sea, and we sold it for a song. Housing Board gets more sophisticated, and now breaks it up into six categories. (I was asking; I wanted to be sure. I thought there were six, but I was told there were four.) It is New Town, Outer Suburban, Inner Suburban, Outer Urban, Inner Urban, and Central Area, varying prices. Are they accurate? They are not. It is like Marine Parade. It is like Clementi. Any valuer would tell them that was a mistake. I think it is a mistake. And if we had the price mechanism, that mistake would not have been made. If the HDB had to bid in a Government auction for prime land in Marine Parade and paid the price for it, because it was a marine prospect, it will say, "No, no, that is not for me. Let's go to Hougang."

What is the answer now, with a more sophisticated electorate? Because the Member for Whampoa raised, at a time when there was no Opposition and he was playing the devil's advocate, that the books were not properly kept. So this cloud grew. I said, 'Simple. Put it all out into proper accounts. Every transaction registered. MND Holdings, breakoff. "HDB does not have to buy sand or granite from MND Holdings; buy cheapest. MND Holdings need not sell to HDB; sell it to the developers if they offer more. Let HDB wither on the vine, compete. After all, we have a more sophisticated electorate; they will understand. Should we try and grade them into six, or should we not allow the market to decide? When you pay the same price and, you ballot, you get the top-storey flat with a beautiful view, or you get a third-storey flat with no view, next to the rubbish heap, but you pay the same price - will any private property developer sell on those terms? No buyer buys on those terms. You go there. You look at the view, you see the breeze, you study the sun, bring your geomancer along for fengshui. Then you bargain over price. Well, let's move in that direction. It is inevitable.

People are more educated. But I believe we should educate them beyond the stage of the Member for Potong Pasir. It is not the scare. We will now go through the accounts in detail in this House, whether it is CPF, whether it is Housing Board lands whether it is the cost of housing, and i think we will move into much more sophisticated pricing systems.

The Minister for National Development may speak broken, fractured English. But I can assure the Member for Potong Pasir that his thoughts are well connected, that he comes out with whole solutions to complex problems, He has worked with me for 26 years. We have a difficult problem to resolve - limited land, with too many people wanting more than what the land can yield. If the answer were price alone, and if we solved it the Hong Kong way or, for that matter, Bangkok, or Man- ila, or even Kuala Lumpur, we would not have more than 25% of our population housed; never mind, owner-occupiers.

We make no apologies for what we have done. We are prepared to have everything under scrutiny. But remember, every allegation of bad faith, every allegation of skulduggery, of inhouse double ledgers, will have to be proved, or they will have to be withdrawn publicly. We will not allow such allegations to pass unchallenged. So I would like to make it quite clear, at the very beginning of this debate, that we want the problems to come Out into the open. I think we are moving into a more complex phase.

I do not believe that we have solved the question of price just by putting it into six categories. I think each building block has to be priced differently because they are differently priced. We know when they are resold, whether it is in Tanjong Pagar or in Whampoa, there is a tremendous difference in price. And so I hope that the Member for Potong Pasir will help us educate both the public and, I hope, himself and us, on the intricacies of his thinking.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, with your indulgence, I want to make two clarifications. First, in regard to what the Prime Minister said. Some years ago when I raised my query about HDB accounts in this House, first of all, the intent was not one of mischief. It was purely to determine the extent of the subsidy that Housing Board was giving per flat. I never questioned the fact that HDB is subsidizing and has been subsidizing all along. I was disagreeing with the Minister on the extent of the land subsidy.

Now, may I make a clarification on the point raised by the Member for Potong Pasir, the concept of transfer pricing, Transfer pricing is an attempt by multi-nationals to cheat tax authorities, by so arranging the prices of the materials they buy and the output that they sell, to show no profit or to show a loss, in order to get certain concessions from the host government. So it is a criminal action. It is something designed to cheat somebody. Now, to use that concept against the Housing Board is an allegation of the grossest kind, unbefitting of an MP, whether from Potong Pasir or from anywhere.

The purpose of the new accounting system, as I see it, is to reflect the true subsidy that the Housing Board is receiving from the Government. But I sought assurance from the Minister yesterday, the moment he finished, that, although ( realize that the actual cash subsidy amounts to several hundred million dollars a year, the Housing Board will continue to make its flats available to the people of Singapore at low prices and at affordable prices. I got that assurance for the people of Singapore. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): Sir may I be allowed to say a few words on the HDB because I have a subhead on TG-01.

(In Mandarin) Sir, I appreciate very much the talks given by the Minister for National Development from this morning till this afternoon. Although the talks were given in an off-and-on disjointed manner, his humour has caused much mirth and interest in this House and made the sitting not dull.

Earlier the Prime Minister said to the effect that the electorate's thinking is more complex now, it is not so simple and hoped that whatever we do here is for the benefit of the electorate. This reminds me of what I have learnt as a student of Confucianism for over a decade. I recall a very important matter, and that is, the Japanese have been very successful; it is mainly because they study the Four Books. The most important one of the four books is the Analects. It is saying that if only you have mastered half of the book of the Analects, you can rule the whole world. I would just like to quote one passage from it to express appreciation of what the Minister has said for half an hour about what principle he had resorted to and what criterion to be used to deal with the Opposition Members' constituencies in comparison to how to treat the PAP constituencies. These two different kinds of attitude have been described very clearly in the Book of Analects by Confucius some 2000 years ago. This shows that the Minister who has good Eastern culture has been making good use of Confucian thinking in administering national affairs. In Chapter 14, here it says: To the question "To treat injury with virtue, what about it?" The Master says, "If in this way, how to repay virtue?" To those who are good to us and supported us, how are we going to treat them? Confucius says, "Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness. (" ") We try to be righteous. To repay virtue with virtue and we treat those who oppose us in a just way. Whereas those who have showered on us benefits and showed virtue to us we must repay in kind. If we repay wrongs by our virtue, how are we going to repay virtue given to us? There must be the difference. So this is the way. I believe what we say here would be good for the electorate.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, may I have your permission to speak so that I do not have to move my amendments*, as time is running out?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Thank you, Sir. I just want to make three points. First of all, I wish to thank the Minister for National Development for his quick reply to my questions when he made the Ministerial statement on the HDB having to adopt a new accounting system and, not to my surprise at all, the fee paid to Price Waterhouse, as mentioned, was $2.2 million and the cost of installing the hardware of the computerized system was $8 million and $0.8 million for the software. But I suspect, Sir, that this will be very much more. For the record, I would like to say "thank you" to him.

I will move on to two other matters. One is on resettlement which was very aptly raised by my good friends, the Members for Nee Soon and Chua Chu Kang who made requests to the Hon. Minister to be more humane and to the Resettlement Department officials to make it less traumatic for those affected by clearance. But I wish, Sir, to add that costs have gone up, and our Prime Minister had said that we should make it less traumatic for them. So I am requesting for an upward revision of ex gratia compensation to all those affected by clearance because they are a group of our people who have to make way in the public interest so that we can develop to a higher stage.

The next point concerns the resettlement policies. I do not wish to involve the House into a lot of illustrations, but suffice to say that there should be a total review of the resettlement policies that are now being carried out by the Resettlement Department.

Lastly, Sir, we learn that the Hon. Minister has managed to ask the HDB to withhold the rental increase of shophouses. May 1, in the same way, ask him to consider the plight of those who have applied by tender during the 1981-82 period at exorbitantly high rentals? Would he get the HDB to find a way out to alleviate their harsh experience in the light of the present economic recession?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, may I have just two minutes to speak?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Thank you, Sir. Adding on to the hon. Member for Punggol's plea for review, I would like to say that the last review done was in March 1982 where there was about 50% increase for certain categories, and previous to that, in December 1981, there was a 50% increase for other types of categories, and in March 1982, there was a 30% increase across the board. The increases of CPI as well as the HDB flat prices from 1982 to 1985 have been very minor - 13% increase in average HDB flat prices and about 8-9% increase in CPI during this period. But nevertheless I would still hope that the Hon. Minister for National Development reviews the resettlement compensation because small doses of increases are very much better than 30% or 50% which are large quantum jumps.

On another point, Sir, earlier the Minister mentioned that he will consider favourably and sympathetically those large families and people who got married after the cut-off date. I would like to ask him to consider that in these cases these people who want a second unit of flat would like to be balloted with their parents because they want to continue staying as extended families.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, perhaps I will take the point by the Member for Jalan Kayu first. The request for those people to ballot their flats next to their parents is part of the Government's policy of keeping the family together. That is certainly agreeable.

The Member for Bo Wen has brought up two points. One is to ask HDB to set up a consumer relations unit to act as a bridge between the people and the HDB Area Office. I do not consider this is necessary because, at present, we already have a lot of grassroots organizations. The creation of another unit will only cause delay and not speed up things. We already have CCCs, RCs, MCs and the MPs' Meet-the-People sessions. So creating another organization is not likely to improve the situation.

Another point is about repairing of flats in the old estates. I fully agree that those flats which are more than 10 or 15 years old require a very major renovation within the flat itself. HDB is not a financial institution, and it will not be able to provide loans. I understand that commercial banks, private finance companies, as well as POSB, are granting loans for this type of renovations. So HDB will not provide the facilities as other institutions are already providing this.

On the request made by the Member for Punggol, I would like to make two statements. One is about the resettlement policy. There have been many matters raised touching on resettlement policy by Members of this House during the debate. I would like to wind up today's answer to the Members on the resettlement policy by saying that the Government will set up a Review Committee headed by my Senior Parliamentary Secretary to review the resettlement rates as well as the various resettlement policies. I hope that all the resettlement cases, as from today, will be entitled to the enhanced rate of compensation when these rates are finalized and approved. [Applause]

Again, during the past few days, on the debate on the budget, there have been many requests from PAP MPs to reduce the rentals of HDB commercial premises in view of the current economic climate. I have earlier given a concession to defer rental increase due in September this year to September 1986. I understand the feelings of Members for other shopkeepers whose rents are considered high due to the present situation. However, I have also indicated that it will not be good for HDB to reduce the rentals as it would encourage higher tenders in future. I fully sympathize with the shopkeepers in their present situation and I will ask HDB, in view of the many representations made, to see how the rentals can be reduced without adverse repercussions on the future tender price. However, tenderers for HDB shops as from today will not be entitled to any concession that may be given, as they are aware of the present economic situation before they put in their bids. [Applause]

The Chairman: It is almost guillotine time now. Dr Koh, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Dr Koh Lip Lin: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his replies to the questions and requests made by Members. Before I withdraw my amendment and since there are a few minutes left, may I make one last request?

Sir, I would like to request the Minister to look into some complaints about the market and food centre at Yishun New Town. This market and food centre is very well designed and good looking, but not practical. It is not sun-proof and rain-proof. In the morning and afternoon, the stalls suffer from sunshine. During the rain, the stalls suffer from rain water and stallholders have requested the HDB to rectify them. But the answer was that they could not do anything. They suggested that the stallholders themselves put up the design and then get approval from HDB. But they have to pay for the cost themselves. I think it is the responsibility of HDB, as the designer, to make sure that the building they build is suitable for the purpose it is meant for. If there is any rectification to the structure, HDB should bear the cost.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I fully agree with the Member for Nee Soon that the HDB should be responsible for its design, and if it is defective the cost of rectification to make the market water-proof should be borne by the HDB. I will ask HDB to look into it.

Dr Koh Lip Lin: With that assurance, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $367,213,470 for Head T ordered to stand part of the main Estimates.

The sum of $5,576,675,500 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Order. It is almost moment of interruption.

Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year lst April, 1985 to 3lst March, 1986 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.