MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1986 TO 31ST MARCH, 1987

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

11.37 pm

Head T (cont)-

Resumption of Debate on Question [19th March, 1986],

"That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Chew Heng Ching.]

Question again proposed.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, I would like to touch on a number of issues and would respectfully ask the Minister for National Development for his comments.

My first question relates to the Urban Redevelopment Authority. I would like the Minister to outline to this House what is the future role of the URA in view of the current property market. My second question on URA specifically relates to URA's call for public participation in the Singapore River project. I am informed that the URA guidelines and the time constraint are difficult for members who are interested in the project to meet. I would like to know why it is necessary for the URA to be so restrictive, particularly, in the present time. I believe that the private sector should be given a greater latitude to develop the Singapore River area into a viable business proposition with minimum interference from authorities, particularly, Environment, BCD or the URA itself.

Sir, my second subject refers to the Preservation of Monuments Board. I find it very difficult to accept that a body which is in charge of development is also in charge of

the preservation of monuments. Needless to say, Sir, a change to the Ministry of Community Development or Ministry of Finance would be in order. More importantly, these monuments so defined by the Preservation of Monuments Board get little or no help from the Government. The Preservation of Monuments Board itself has little or no support. Sir, these national monuments, particularly the mosque in Beach Road, the temple in South Bridge Road, need support and financial assistance. They have also become tourist attractions. I am told that approaches for financial assistance to the Tourist Promotion Board have met with little or no success. At the moment, these national monuments are maintained by the generosity of the public. I hope that the Minister will look into this exercise.

My third issue with the Minister refers to the creation of Town Councils. The Minister, in an answer earlier in the week, has indicated that if Cabinet approves, a pilot project will be started in the Ang Mo Kio New Town. I think it will be reassuring if the Minister could inform this House that the Ang Mo Kio New Town MPs would be consulted before any decision is taken on this subject.

Next, I refer to rental of shophouses, both in my constituency and in other constituencies. Many shopkeepers are concerned with the high rental of shops tendered specially during the boom period of 1981. I would like to ask the Minister whether HDB has considered allowing shopkeepers to re-negotiate rentals with HDB as this has been done in the private sector. I believe that if some re-negotiations take place some relief will come to these many shopkeepers.

The final issue which I would like to bring up with the Minister refers to the question of wet markets. The HDB has now ceased building wet markets and more and more dry markets are being built. I am wondering whether HDB has any specific plans to convert existing wet markets into dry markets. Also, Sir, currently, dry markets are offered to people by public tender. I would like to know whether dry markets can also be offered to resettled shopkeepers as well as others on resettlement priority basis.

The Chairman: May I remind hon. Members that the guillotine time for this particular Head is at 6.00 pm.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Sir, I was speaking to an architect recently on the bureaucracy of civil servants and what I heard was soothing music to my ears. I thought I would like to share it in this House. He was giving credit to the Development and Building Control Division for introducing the system of parallel submission to the Development Control for planning approval and Building Control for building plans approval. According to him, this system has expedited the process of submission for an earlier start-up date for the proposed project. Sir, against the backdrop of negative remarks, this architect's comment was certainly very refreshing. It is also plain to see that a little initiative on the part of the civil servants will go a long way. This is an example of what streamlining can do. However, there are many such areas which can be streamlined.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister if he will be looking into streamlining the other procedures for development and building plan applications.

Apart from the procedures, there are also many requirements which the DBCD imposes, some are necessary, some are understandable while there are some which should be revised, postponed or be discarded. I want to cite a case in point. I understand that letters are sent out to some owners of land to clear out all occupiers, demolish temporary structures and, after having done all this, they are asked to plant trees and shrubs to beautify the sites. Alternatively, they can apply to the competent authority for approval to redevelop the site. They must comply with the requirements by 31st December 1988 and they are given 30 days from the date of letter to indicate their choice. To make matters worse, the letter stated that the Government may require the land if the choice is not made.

Sir, arising from this case, would the Minister not agree that during this economic downturn, most land owners cannot afford to clear the land, compensate the squatters and then beautify the land? On the other hand, who will be so foolish at this trying period to commit themselves to redevelop their sites. Surely the Government should be sensitive to the plight of land owners in this bad economic climate. I would then ask the Minister if he will review all the present requirements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have touched on procedures and requirements. Now I wish to speak on rules. I understand that if anyone wishes to have a family barbecue, a permit is required. This permit may be obtained at the Parks and Recreation outlets at a cost of S$6.00. Do we really need to even regulate such wholesome family recreation at East Coast Park or the West Coast Park? We have the anti-litter rules. Are they not enough? Besides, family outings such as this are usually decided at the last minute, as it depends on many factors, one of which is the weather. In addition, it is also a hassle to get a permit.

It will be interesting for me to ask Members of this House if they know where to get such a permit if they want to have a barbecue in East Coast Park or West Coast Park. Try looking up the telephone directory and you will understand the frustration. Even if you have located the place, make sure you go at the right time to get the permit. It is closed during lunch time from 12.30 pm to 1.30 pm and after 4.00 pm. On Sundays and public holidays, I believe the outlets are also closed. This means you have to get time-off from your office just to get a permit for a family barbecue at the beach. I would request the Minister to relook at such rules which really impede the promotion of wholesome recreation in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me go on to the next topic. Recently, the HDB advertised to let out office premises on a pick-and-choose basis and at lower rentals. This is really unusual, as all HDB outlets are let out on the tender system, other than those who have been resettled. If this is HDB's decision to be flexible and adjust with the times, I am certainly very delighted. I understand that the existing tenants are administratively allowed to give up their offices and then have them back at lower rentals. This is definitely a positive move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I then ask the Minister to consider extending this flexibility to the shophouses. This should include those who had tendered at very high prices during the boom time and those resettlement cases which had their rents pegged at 90% of the lowest successful tender. I sincerely hope that the Minister would consider the above requests.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have four amendments. May I lump them altogether and speak as one amendment instead of separating them?

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Speaker, the amount allocated to the Ministry of National Development is $10.8 billion, which is 87% more than the revised expenditure of last year's Budget for FY 85. One would imagine that such a big increase would have programmes set by the Ministry, probably equivalent to the second runway at Changi, or perhaps even a second bulk container terminal. But no such thing. In fact, 81% of it, or $8.8 billion of this amount is allocation for loans to the HDB; only about 10% of the total allocation is for roads, parks, and other infrastructures, and the balance of $255.55 million for resettlement. This figure, again, it is strange that that figure should creep in after the new accounting system of the HDB has come about. This amount constitutes about 2.4% of the total allocation. Under the new accounting system, lands are compulsorily acquired by the Government at 1973 values and sold back to the HDB. So I do not know how we have this $255 million for resettlement which is given usually at the time the land is compulsorily acquired. Perhaps the Minister could explain this to the House.

The $8.8 billion is a loan from the Government to the HDB. It is not a grant, and therefore the loan will have to be paid for with interest. Who pays this interest? Certainly not the HDB. The flat purchasers will have to dig deep into their pockets to pay for it. If we take interest at a low level of 5.5% per annum, the interest on this loan of $8.8 billion will amount to $485 million a year. Now, it is sometimes difficult to comprehend a figure like this, in the abstract. Let me put it in more concrete terms. It is about equivalent in amount required to construct 2(r) Potong Pasir estates. The number of units built in Potong Pasir estate in May 1985 comprised 3,634 units of flats, out of which 104 are double-storey maisonettes. That is the price Singaporeans will have to pay the Government for the loan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the object of the HDB, of course, as it was set up in 1960, is to provide cheap housing for the low-income group. With the high rate of CPF contributions, suddenly there are no more lower income groups. Workers seem to be able to afford to buy flats at over $40,000/$50,000/$60,000 or even over $70,000 a flat. But we know the income of the workers. You look at the statistics last year. About 53% of our workers earn not more than $600 gross per month. Members, of course, will in their mind be wondering what is wrong with these workers buying flats. I say there is plenty.

Most of these flat purchasers will have a financial millstone hung around their necks for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. Now, with the downturn of the economy, the period of repayment has been extended to 25 years. It does not help. A simple calculation will show that the longer the payments, the total amount repaid will be higher. Even over a 20-year period, 80% or even double the original purchase price will have to be paid for. Is this what we call cheap housing? Just to give you an exam- ple. A $46,000 flat with a downpayment of $10,200 and repayment period of $313.50 per month for over 20 years will cost $85,440. That is about 84% more than the original price. I have discovered that many purchasers of new flats are paying over $400 or $500 per month for their flat instalments. I am just wondering how these people can have the financial stamina to keep on paying these hefty loan instalments, often amounting to 30%, 40% or even 50% of their take-home pay. I can only predict that default of repayments of HDB monthly instalments will increase as the recession bites deeper into our economy.

In the last general election in December 1984, I said that HDB was making hefty profits. My Party has supplied a set of calculations to prove that. Sadly, the Minister, instead of coming up with his own set of figures to prove us wrong, has not done that. Typical of the PAP. I have discovered that their modus operandi over one year in this House is that, whenever we say something, the Government will counter with a challenge or with a counter question, instead of coming out with a straight answer. This is typical of the Government. The challenge was to build four blocks of flats at Yishun New Town. A Member has even written to the press, "The Opposition has never come out with a straight answer." Perhaps the Member for Telok Blangah can help the Minister out. This Government purports to have people with brains. Let us have this issue thrashed out - whether or not the Government or the HDB is making profits. Give us a straight answer.

Why ask us to prove ourselves by building blocks of flats? Everybody with whom I meet, the feedback is simple: the Minister just has to come up with his own set of figures. He said, "Take this swampy land." We know this piece of land at Yishun is very soggy. Perhaps you have to put double or three times the depth of piling on it.

We now have the new accounting system for the HDB. It is preposterous to say that the Government is giving the HDB a subsidy. I notice that what I said about the so-called "subsidy" only last Monday on 18th March, was never published in the Straits Times, or even given television time. If I were telling an untruth, you can bet your last dollar that the newspapers will, without fail, splash this news across the front page, and full TV coverage given. But since this was not done, what I said about the alleged Government subsidy to the HDB must be 100% true. Perhaps the Professor of Economics, the Member for Whampoa, would like to prove me wrong on this point when I have finished my speech. The Prime Minister is not here. So he need not be afraid.

I can illustrate the so-called subsidy very simply. A customer is looking for a particular camera. He knows the camera costs about $100, because he has already made inquiries. He gets into a shop. The shopkeeper is an experienced man, a very cunning one. He smiles and says, "You want this camera? Its market value is $900. I am willing to sell it to you for $600. You know I am losing money. I am subsidizing you $300. The price of $600 is very cheap." But the customer knows for sure that the camera is about $100. When he hears the shopkeeper telling him that the camera is cheap and that there is a subsidy on it, of course, the word "subsidy" will be have to be within inverted commas. How do you think he will react? I think the customer will slam the shopkeeper in the teeth. I think this is how the voters will react if there is a by-election. Of course, now we do not have any by-elections. It was announced that there was going to be one. Maybe at the next general elections. The Prime Minister always says, "Let us have it out." Yes, there are 77 PAP Members in this House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Not now at least.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker is not a PAP Member.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Many of them are having a drink in the Members' Room, I suppose!

I have given my version of the so-called subsidy. Please prove me wrong. The truth is that there is no subsidy by the Government to the HDB flats at all. Words like "scandal", "dishonourable", "shame" have been thrown at the Opposition. I say that this new HDB accounting system which is unable, as it were, to reveal the true unit cost of flats is deceitful. And I stand by what I say. The Leader of the House is not here. I challenge him to take me before the Privileges Committee on this.

The hiding of the actual development cost of one unit of flat is an attempt to hoodwink the public into thinking that the Government is subsidizing flat purchasers. Last year, we read in the Straits Times in banner headlines on the 15th May 1985: "Potong Pasir get $226 million in State subsidies". Was there really money out of pocket from the Government, as we know of subsidies? Were there any grants really given to the HDB in respect of building of blocks of flats? No.

As regards the building of the four blocks of flats, I have replied on behalf of my Party to the Minister on 27th April 1985 that his offer of 6th March 1985 to build four blocks would be subject, of course, to 19 conditions. The Minister replied that all the 19 conditions were impossible conditions. I will just read to you the first condition, and you decide for yourself whether it is an impossible condition.

'You must first refute our (the Singapore Democratic Party) figures published in December 84/January 85 issue of the Demokrat with the Housing and Development Board's own facts and figures as verified by the Auditor-General.' The Minister has admitted that that was an impossible condition. The Government is unable to prove that the SDP was wrong. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister in his summing up speech will, once and for all, come out with his own set of figures to show that the SDP has claimed that there is no subsidy by the Government to the HDB. Please prove us wrong.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to be short and sweet.

I would like, first, to compliment the PWD for its efforts to widen three major roads in Pasir Panjang Constituency, namely, Ayer Rajah Road, Pasir Panjang Road and Commonwealth Avenue West in order to improve the flow of vehicular traffic between the city and Jurong.

I would like to appeal to the Minister to request the PWD to consider providing sufficient traffic lights or overhead bridges at strategic points for pedestrians to cross these busy roads, especially along Commonwealth Avenue West near the Ayer Rajah Estate in Dover Road. I would also like to know when these two main projects will be completed.

My next point is on resettlement problems. Sometime last year, the Hon. Minister announced that all slum areas would be cleared by the end of 1988. There are still pockets of villages scattered along Pasir Panjang Road. As most of these villages are on private land, what steps is the Government taking to clear the slum areas? I would be grateful if the Hon. Minister could clarify these two points.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Tanah Merah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two points for the Minister to clarify. The first concerns the cleaning of our HDB estates. From what I know, the HDB, apart from having its own daily-rated cleaners, is also contracting it out to private contractors. Some of these contractors are good while some are not. Could I ask the Minister what are the criteria of the HDB in the selection of the successful contractor for the cleaning job? Is it the lowest tender price only? Does the HDB look into the contractor's experience and also expertise in doing the cleaning?

The reason I am bringing this matter up is that some contractors are not doing a good job and this has resulted in a lot of complaints from residents. I think this is sometimes due to the problems that the contractors themselves have with their workers.They are normally not paid well enough and they leave whenever they feel like it. The residents of our estates are therefore made to suffer. Could I ask the Minister what steps does the HDB take to ensure that contractors do their job properly?

The second point, Sir, I wish to ask is whether the HDB has any intention of waiving the 30-month waiting period for people who wish to apply for HDB flats after they have sold their private property. Many of our people now are facing hard times and I think a lot of their money is tied up with their private property. Some of them who are in business are not doing well and have to sell off their property. But they cannot apply for an HDB flat immediately because of this 30-month waiting period. I understand that the HDB has been very sympathetic. In some cases MPs have written to the HDB and they have waived this 30-month debarment period. The question is why must we wait until these people face legal proceedings and lose their private property before we help them to apply for an HDB flat? Why can we not allow people, who need to sell their private house because of business problems, apply immediately for HDB flats? I feel the HDB should be flexible in helping people who are having problems with their business and who have to sell off their private property in order to keep their business going.

Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Development Estimates for the PWD this year has been raised to $409 million. Last year, the revised estimate was $168 million. There is an increase of more than double the amount. This gives me the impression that the PWD is going all out to build more public roads. It is a good sign. I fully support this. The only point I want to stress here about the projects is to ask whether the Minister would give special consideration to local contractors for these projects. Under this project, there are two items, namely, 8132 and 8133, one relates to Bukit Timah Road/Whitley Road Flyover and the other Bukit Batok extention, I am interested on these two projects and wish the PWD would speed up the construction of these roads.

My other amendment relates to resettlement. In this year's estimate the vote is $255 million. Last year it was $49 million. There is a substantial increase. I suppose there are two reasons for this. One is the need to speed up resettling the remaining villagers. The other reason is perhaps the increase in the amount of compensation. Many constituents complain to me that although they are very willing to move into HDB flats because of better environment, hygienic conditions and good facilities, the present economic recession brings about some difficulties for them. So I appeal on their behalf to the Government to allow them to stay put at their present place for some more years. A greater part of my constituency is rural. These people are not unwilling to move into HDB flats, but they are worried about how to maintain their livelihood in HDB estates. Sometimes there is a split in the family. The younger ones want to move out as soon as possible but the older ones want to remain there, worried about the quantum of their compensation fearing for their future livelihood in the HDB new estate. Therefore, I would avail myself of this opportunity to appeal to the Minister to give them some consideration. I hope the Government can consider their plight in the present situation and slow-down their resettlement.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I would like to touch on the Parks and Recreation Department.

Sir, our success in making Singapore a Garden City results in a record of 600,000 trees under the Parks and Recreation Department alone, with thousands of more trees from the HDB, and more to be planted each year. With so many trees around, the hazard of falling trees and branches is greatly increased. We know that trees give us shade and beauty but we are also aware that, if they are not properly taken care of, they can be a threat to human lives.

The recent death of two persons and serious injury to a third caused by falling trees make both pedestrians and motorists wary of roadside trees, especially during rainy weather. Falling trees and branches snapping have been known to cause accidents and damage to electrical wires and mains, thus causing inconvenience to the public. To ensure minimum damage caused by falling trees, I feel that the Parks and Recreation Department together with HDB must step up action to check all trees more frequently and thoroughly, especially the older trees and bigger trees as they are likely to cause more damage during wet weather.

Sir, an officer of the Parks and Recreation Department was quoted in a newspaper as saying that 51 trees that fell during the first 10 weeks of this year was a very good track record. I feel that perhaps it was the constraints of resources that prompted him to say so. The fact that falling trees have killed two persons and seriously injured another makes the public more conscious and concerned about the potential danger of trees. What the public wants is an assurance that all precautionary actions is being taken to prevent such incidents from happening again and that the Department is seriously taking action to ensure that all roadside trees are safe and do not pose a danger to the public. Also, what is the Department doing about the 1,300 trees that were identified last year as being potentially dangerous? I feel that the Department can do more to minimize damage caused by falling trees and branches. Besides making routine inspection of trees, perhaps the Department should consider the setting up of more rescue and emergency squads, like the Civil Defence Force, whereby men trained with special equipment are ready to quickly rescue people trapped under fallen trees. These squads could also deal with the quick removal of fallen trees and branches which normally cause massive traffic congestion. The squads could also attend to the public's complaint of the danger of falling trees and help to remove quickly to prevent accidents.

Sir, we have established a clean and green Garden City. Let us continue to maintain our good image and let us not let falling trees mar our image as a gracious and safe place for both our people and the tourists.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): Sir, although the Member for Ang Mo Kio has taken some of the wind off my sail, I nonetheless like to join forces with him in an area which concerns the maintenance of trees. He has quoted a tree that fell in Joo Chiat Road, that part of Joo Chiat which comes within my Kampong Ubi Constituency, and which has cost two lives. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to make a thorough inspection of the danger of trees within my Constituency so as to prevent a recurrence of such an incident. Recently I noticed an old banyan tree at the junction of Joo Chiat Terrace and Lorong 101. Perhaps another look at this tree is advisable. Although from the Estimates I observe that there is a reduction in the Maintenance estimates, perhaps this would not hamper the need for active inspection of old and dangerous trees for the safety of the public.

Sir, in talking about trees, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the two big trees in front of Parliament. I consider these two big trees to be of some considerable age. I assume that they are safe because I notice that they have been pruned recently. But what strikes me is that the branches and leaves of these two trees seem to conceal the architectural beauty of this building. The over-arching of these branches and leaves seem to give more prominence to the sculpture of the elephant more than the facade of this building. I do not want tourists or some Singaporeans to mistake this august building as some kind of a museum of natural history. I therefore would like to request the Parks and Recreation Department to try and enhance the frontage of this Parliament with something that would harmonize with the architectural beauty of this building. We notice that at the rear of the building we have a beautiful garden, at the sides we have beautiful palm trees. So perhaps the beautification of the frontage will complete it all, and hopefully with a better beautification of the building it will be one of the popular scenes depicted in the postcards of Singapore.

Sir, talking about trees will not be complete without mentioning the fruits and the flowers. We know that the Parks and Recreation Department has done a remarkable work in planting local fruit trees in housing estates. Just to quote a few, they include the mango, the star fruits, the jack fruits and the guava. Perhaps it is timely that the Parks and Recreation Department now do some research in the preservation and planting of local flowers because, with rapid resettlement and rapid urbanization, these local flowers would disappear from our scene. Just to mention a few of our local flowers, I am afraid I cannot mention their scientific names, they include among other flowers the cempaka (I am told it is called the gardenia), the kenanga and the melor and the melati and, of course, the bunga tanjong. Mr Speaker, Sir, these local flowers found ready outlets in our local markets. I know they are being sold during weddings or ceremonies and, of course, for some floral enthusiasts for floral arrangements. Perhaps the Parks and Recreation Department would consider it timely now to cultivate these local flowers for sale to the public. Perhaps it could be another profitable exercise.

Dr Wan Soon Bee (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join the debate?

The Chairman: You have five minutes.

Dr Wan Soon Bee: Sir, West Coast Park is being developed and many amenities are being provided. The residents in the western part of Singapore welcome the development of this park. They are hoping that eventually West Coast Park will have as many amenities as the East Coast Park. But unfortunately,without a beach, West Coast Park will never be the same as East Coast Park. Besides, the beach is a danger to the people who use the park. To date, nothing has been done and I believe that no plans have been made to create a beach at the West Coast Park. I hope that the Minister will consider providing a beautiful beach for West Coast Park.

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have several amendments on the Primary Production Department as well as on Resettlement, and I wish to speak on these two subjects.

I would, first of all, like to support my colleague, the Member for Bukit Batok, on his appeal to the Minister to consider slowing down resettlement in view of the present economic recession in Singapore. I understand that all the farms in the Lim Chu Kang Constituency will be resettled in two years' time. These farmers will be moved out to make way for what is known as agrotechnology parks. I wonder what these are. Are they some sort of a park where we can bring school children to see what are pigs and what are chickens? I would like the Minister to explain to the House why is it necessary that ordinary farms should be moved out to make way for what are known as agrotechnology parks. I wonder whether this is, in fact, one way of upgrading agriculture. If so, I think the Primary Production Department has succeeded marvellously because by one simple change of the name, farmers are now called "agrotechnologists" and farms are now called "agrotechnology parks". 12.30 pm

I wonder whether this is really necessary because I remember during the debate on the Presidential Address, the First Deputy Prime Minister did say that so long as firms can make a profit, the Government would treat those firms equally, whether they are high-tech or low-tech. There is a saying attributed to Vice-Chairman, Deng Xiaoping, of China, which says that it really does not matter what is the colour of the cat so long as the cat can catch rats. In the present condition, it really befits us to think carefully whether or not we must thrust high-technology farming down the throat of existing farmers. In any case, Sir, how do you measure high-technology or efficiency in farming? As of now, most of the farms in my constituency have an area of about an acre or, at the most, an acre and a half. But under the new regulation it would appear that the minimum size of a farm should be two hectares. And unless the Government is prepared to give land to the farmers, the farmers cannot really farm anything other than in a small one-acre site.

Also, how do you measure efficiency because, as of now, I think Singapore is self-sufficient in poultry and in eggs. Until the recent intervention of the Government, Singapore was also self-sufficient in pork. I think this really is no small credit to a country that has got only 245 square miles of land area, and to a country that is, in fact, a metropolitan city more than a country known for being a big and agricultural country. So how do you measure efficiency? If a farm of an acre in size can, say, produce 10,000 birds of poultry a year, it would then be no less efficient than a farm of two hectares, which is about five acres, which can produce 50,000 birds a year. As of now, some of our small farms are really efficient and have the advantage of being cost-effective because the farms are run by the family. They work hard; they do not have the high salaries to pay. While on the industrial front we are asking our workers to exercise restraint, here is a family farm producing farm products at a reasonable cost, and we are asking them to upgrade. We are moving them out. We are then replacing them with big farms. Then if the big farms become an industry, I think the same ailment that afflicts industry would apply. I therefore appeal to the Minister to give consideration to the small farmers and allow them, at least during this period of recession, to stay on. It would be good for them. It would also be good for the country.

I come to the subject of resettlement, Sir. When farmers are resettled, they are asked to go and select a Housing Board flat. They are not going to be resettled back into another farm. But they cannot select simply because they have not received compensation, the money that is paid to them for resettlement. There is a lack of coordination between the Resettlement Department and the HDB. The HDB appears to be very quick in getting farmers to select flats but the Resettlement Department appears to be a bit slow in paying compensation money.

The farmers have got no CPF, Sir. Unless they receive their compensation money, it would be difficult for them to make the downpayment for the flat. And if they do not finally select a flat after having been invited to do so for a third time, they would be told that they would have to join the end of the queue. This is really not very fair. I would suggest to the Minister to ensure some sort of coordination between the Resettlement Department and the HDB, so that when they are invited to select a flat they would have the necessary money to pay for the flat.

I have also filed an amendment, No. (12). I just want to ask the Minister for information on the type of farming that would be available at Sungei Tengah and Murai, which are in my Constituency. Perhaps the Minister could also let the House know what the type of farming would be carried out in Loyang, which is outside of Chua Chu Kang.

That is all for the moment, Mr Speaker. I shall speak again later, on the Housing and Development Board.

The Chairman: You have got other amendments too, Mr Tang - financing of the HDB and on the whole Head of the Ministry of National Development. You might as well speak on the whole lot.

Mr Tang See Chim: Yes, Sir. Even though my constituency is known as a rural area, it has now a large housing estate, and that is the Teck Whye Estate. At the moment, there are extensions to Teck Whye Estate, to make it into what is known as the Teck Whye Town Centre. But I have not been provided with information on the number of flats to be built or what are the facilities that are to be built. I have asked for reservation of a place for a community centre. I hope that will be acceded to. I complained last year that no market had been built in the Teck Whye Estate. The answer then was that Teck Whye Estate had got only about 3,000 units and therefore it could not support a market. But with the new addition, I hope a market will be available.

Sir, on the question of financing, under the Main Estimates some $150 million is going to be voted for, and under the Development Estimates $5 billion is to be voted for, the HDB has got no information on how this $5 billion is to be spent. This is rather interesting, Mr Speaker, Sir. For a vote of $5 billion, there is just one line to say "Financing of the Housing and Development Board." However, under PWD, for example, at page 518 of the Budget, detailed information indeed is provided. There is a list of the various projects, including a project for an pedestrian underpass at Bedok North Road which costs only $561,000. For half a million dollars, we are given information, but for $5 billion no information is provided as to how this amount is to be spent. I would like the Minister to let the House know how the money is to be spent, where the housing estates are to be built, so that Members will have a clearer idea.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this reminds me of Parkinson's law which says that if you want to build a bicycle stand for, say, $10,000, people will argue and argue for days before deciding on it. But if you want to build an atomic power station which will cost billions of dollars, it will be voted for just like that, simply because, I suppose, people have knowledge about bicycle parks but very little knowledge about atomic stations. So I would like, Sir, that if possible, that the Minister should let the House know how the $5 billion is to be spent.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): May I be allowed to speak, Sir? I have an amendment under Subhead TH-01.

The Chairman: Yes, carry on.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Sir, in my humble view, the objective of HDB to provide low-cost housing to the people is well on target. You only need to compare the price of an HDB flat with that of a private flat, even at the present time of a depressed property market, to know that there is a vast difference.

Without HDB flats, without CPF, many people would not be able to afford the public flats that are available, and they would have continued to live in slums. It is erroneous for the Member for Potong Pasir to say that the CPF is a financial millstone round the contributor's neck. He should remember that, without CPF, there would be no contribution from the employers, and the workers would be the poorer for it. Another thing is that, in his calculation on the interest paid over 20 years, he deliberately missed out one important fact, and that is, at the end of 20 years that property would have been taken over by the borrower. It would have appreciated probably more than two-fold.

I would like to bring up three issues for the consideration of the Minister. A change in Government policy which is aimed to do more good can sometimes do some harm. Let me illustrate this by way of the example of the 152 covered car park lots at the Gillman Heights Estate, a new HUDC estate in my constituency. When URA built the estate in 1980, it had no idea and it could not anticipate the policy change in 1982 which brought in all HUDC estates under the management of HDB. 12.45 pm

The 152 covered car park lots were designed by URA architects for the exclusive use of the residents of the 15% maisonette apartments. Unfortunately for these residents, the HDB rule does not permit exclusive use of HDB car park lots. Residents in the other blocks therefore claim their right to park in these lots. This resulted in a number of unpleasant situations where residents quarrelled and a number of cars vandalized. This issue was unfortunately publicized in the press. I appreciate the press' intention to bring this issue to the attention of the authority but at the same time, I am afraid, it may have given the public the wrong impression that Gillman Heights Estate is an unneighbourly place. This is, of course, not true. The vast majority of the residents are friendly and neighbourly. These unneighbourly acts have been attributed to a very small number of residents. These few residents are more interested in expressing their right to park where they like, rather than show neighbourliness and consideration. And, of course, those who resort to vandalizing neighbours' properties are totally irresponsible.

Sir, I have had several discussions with the HDB Area Office and the pro-tem Residents' Committee chairman. While we recognize that this is a complex problem involving HDB rules, we feel that this issue is generating much ill- feeling among the residents such that a solution must be found and found as soon as possible.

I would therefore like to make a proposal to the Minister for his consideration. The proposal is very simple - that these 152 car park lots should be erased and new car parks created elsewhere in the estate. By doing this, the residents in the maisonette apartments will be inconvenienced but they will not be less well off than residents in the other blocks, and they still have the space. The suggestion that we should impose a higher charge on these car park lots may not solve the problem because residents in the other blocks may be willing to pay these higher charges and claim the right to use the car park lots, and we are back to square one. So I would like to have the Minister's comment on this.

Sir, I would also like to find out what HDB will do when old HDB markets and hawker centres fail to serve the needs of the residents. When bigger and better markets are built in the vicinity, residents by-pass the old markets to go to the new ones where there is a greater variety of food and at a lower price. The stallholders in the old markets are unable to compete because they are catering for a smaller number of customers which is continually getting smaller. The residents shy away from the old market because they cannot get what they want, that is, more variety and of reasonable prices. Sir, such a situation occurs in the Depot Road Estate market. I constantly receive complaints from both the residents and the stallholders of this predicament.

The Depot Road Estate is a small isolated estate comprising 10 blocks of HDB flats. Considering the small size of the estate, I am surprised to see such a large market cum hawker centre. How does HDB determine market size to residents ratio? As it is, there is an acute shortage of land in Depot Road Estate. And residents are constantly asking me to ask the HDB to provide more recreational and communal facilities. So it seems such a waste to have this large centre serving only a small number of residents.

I would, therefore, like to make a proposal for the Minister's consideration. First, hawkers and stallholders who have a genuine difficulty of making ends meet should be resettled elsewhere. These are the people who were given stalls in the first place on hardship grounds, and so I believe they continue to deserve help. The remainder should be re-grouped into one area of the centre so that the remaining areas of the centre can be converted into a recreational and mini-community centre. This will fulfill the request of many of the residents who want to come together to participate in community activities, and bringing them together also means bringing more business to the hawker centre.

Sir, the last issue which I would like to raise relates to the premises for Senior Citizens' Clubs. The Telok Blangah CCC is in the process of setting up such a club in one of the void decks in the estate. Proper premises is necessary so that activities can be better organized, and if club members have a place to themselves, they feel more at home and this will foster better relations. I am therefore astonished to learn that HDB is going to charge the CCC $300 a month for the use of the premises which is equivalent to the size of a 3-room flat. Surely, providing facilities for the needs of the senior citizens is within the realm of HDB's responsibility. $300 a month is going to impose a big burden on the volunteers running the club. They are already hard-pressed raising funds to provide for the senior citizens' activities, the renovation, furnishing, and utility charges for the club. I, therefore, wish to appeal to the Minister to consider reducing the charge, as this is a community service activity to the senior citizens of the HDB estates.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two matters to raise with the Hon. Minister.

The first one is whether the HDB would consider extending the HDB mortgage loan scheme to HUDC applicants or lessees. Sir, when the HDB took over the management of HUDC estates, rules and regulations applicable to HDB lessees were extended to applicants and lessees of HUDC properties. Therefore, they should be accorded equal treatment, bearing in mind the reduction in CPF contributions, and a possible reduction in income because of the current recession. Applicants or lessees of HUDC properties can then save on interest payments.

The last point I would like to raise, Sir, is to urge the HDB to review its current tenancy regulations on sub-letting of shop space. Presently, the HDB allows sub-letting of owner-occupied residential properties as well as rented properties in supermarkets, emporiums and coffee shops. I would suggest that the HDB extend this concession to tenants of HDB shophouses to allow these tenants to sub-let counter space to small scale service industries, like watch repairers, locksmiths, etc. This will help shopkeepers meet part of their rental cost and also provide for more viable means to small scale traders for doing business.

Mr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a number of issues related to his Ministry.

The first area that I would like to draw his attention to is the need for improvement of the HDB Area Office enquiry service. Increasingly there will be more complaints in the near future. As it is, there have already been more complaints by residents at the HDB Area Office. I feel that the services provided are rather diffused at the Area Office itself. As a result, there are perception gaps between the residents and the Area Office itself. So, I feel that, through time, it will have a cumulative negative effect on HDB itself, in terms of its image to provide a friendly service to residents. In order to build better rapport between the Area Office and the residents, there is a need to reorganize the enquiry services provided at the HDB Area Office. I feel that there is a need to look at this area more critically because, with the aging of housing estates, more complaints and enquiries can be expected in the near future. I assure the Minister that if he is able to reorganize enquiry service at the Area Office, probably half of the problem that is encountered at the local level would be followed up more closely.

The other area that I would like to touch on is the follow-up service provided by the Area Office to residents based on their complaints that they raise. From time to time, the HDB Area Office has to coordinate with the term contractors to carry out repairs and maintenance which are required or requested by residents. There is a time lag between the time that response is made and the time that matters are resolved. So I feel that there is a need to see how the services of the term contractors could be better coordinated so that the residents who bring up the complaints could be followed up fairly quickly.

The other area which has been brought up is the 30-month debarment by my colleague, the Member for Tanah Merah. What I would like to point out is the ceiling of $100,000 of property value placed on people who sell their private property in order to apply for an HDB flat. I feel that this ceiling itself is rather low because currently the cost of executive flats and 5-room flats in the Outer Urban area and Urban area are priced higher than this ceiling. I feel that joint property owners who, in fact, each have more than $100,000 value, find that they are disqualified from public housing. I feel that this 30-month debarment plus the $100,000 ceiling set in terms of the share of private property could be reviewed.

The other concern that I have is the increasing backlog of flats which are not chosen by people who have registered to purchase flats. In time to come, as more and more of these flats are found to be unsuitable, the backlog will grow. I am concerned about what Housing Board will do with this increasing backlog of flats which are not taken up. Are they going to lie idle for longer than necessary? So I feel that one needs to look at how this backlog could be quickly disposed of. Otherwise, I think increasing public expenditure will be spent on flats which are going to be empty for more time than is necessary.

The final area that I would like to touch on is this 5% downpayment or deposit required to help low-income families. Though the objective of the Board is to encourage a 100% home ownership, I feel that the objective could be better achieved if you look at the needs of those who do not have CPF contributions. There are a lot of workers on seasonal jobs, those who work on contract jobs. These are people who do not have CPF savings and they are still living in the 1-room and 2-room flats, and they will never be able to move out to upgrade themselves. I feel that, for these people, we would probably have to make special exceptions if they can show that they are on seasonal jobs or contract workers and that they cannot, in fact, hope to become home owners. I feel that the Board should review and look into the needs of such people.

The Chairman: It is 1.00 pm.

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]

The Chairman: In view of the resolution this morning, extending the hours of sitting of the Committee of Supply on the Main and Development Estimates for FY 86-87, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for FY 86-87 in the Committee of Supply for today and tomorrow.

These times have been notified to Honourable Members and will appear in the Official Report. (Cols. 867 - 870) Official Report - MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1986 TO 31ST MARCH, 1987 (Cols. 867 - 870)

Head T (cont.) -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments, the first of which is under monies allocated for Resettlement, Subhead TG-01 of the Development Estimates. The second one is under the Main Estimates of the Housing and Development Board. And the third one is on the Development Estimates of the HDB. So I propose to take them in that order, and I assume that I shall have 30 minutes, if necessary.

First of all, if I may deal with the amendment under the Resettlement subhead. I was amused to hear two Members of the Minister's own party this morning making an appeal to him to delay the resettlement of people because there are people who are unable to afford the purchase of HDB flats at the present time. Only a little while ago, we had been told by the Minister glibly, "Oh, there's no problem. Singaporeans are all queuing up to buy houses and we are making it ever so cheap for them." Well, there seems to be a contradiction somewhere or a breakdown in communication between the Minister and his own Members. Perhaps we should look into that breakdown in communication.

I am concerned for people who are to be resettled generally, particularly for people in my constituency. There are a whole lot of them in Tras Street who are to be resettled. May I ask the Minister,first of all, what is the likely date before which they will all be told to move out? Or will there be some lapse of time? Secondly, may I ask the Minister, where will they be resettled? I have advocated in this House that resettlement should be so arranged that people are resettled, if not in the same area, at least in adjacent, surrounding, areas. I would like to know from the Minister what will be the position of these people in Tras Street, the shophouse owners, the tenants of flats or of residential accommodation in the area?

Mr Speaker, Sir, no one disputes that it is necessary to have urban renewals from time to time, that when properties wear out and are dilapidated, there should be slum clearances. But in all this, one must not forget that we are dealing with human beings and regard must be paid to their preferences, to any inconvenience or to any hardship that may result to them. The whole purpose of the exercise is to benefit our citizens. And if this objective is lost sight of, then the whole thing becomes a meaningless exercise.

Sir, I am particularly concerned with the ruling that is followed by the Resettlement Department on the eligibility for accommodation when they are resettled. I have two families in

532 Kampong Bahru Road. They have been told that they cannot be resettled and that they will have to look for their own accommodation. The reason is that they are all permanent residents. Why are they permanent residents? Because they have not got their citizenship, not because they have not tried to get citizenship. I am told they have been living here since 1945-1946. But under the enlightened policy of this Government, citizenship is only granted to those who show that they have got big bank balances. Of course, these two families are unable to show that they have got any big bank balance. So they have been denied citizenship. They have been told, "You've got to find your own accommodation."

I have got another case at 88 Tiong Poh Road. This is the Singapore General Hospital quarters and I am told that it is needed for MRT work. In this case, the woman is a Singapore citizen. She works in the General Hospital but she is married to a Malaysian. That, of course, disqualifies her because only one applicant is a citizen and the other is not even a permanent resident. So she has been told, "You will get no help from us. You've got to go and find your own accommodation."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is time this Government recognized the rights of people to have their own homes. Here you have a situation where you are throwing them out of their own homes. You are uprooting them and then, with arrogance, you tell them, "We are not going to provide you with any homes." We have got to recognize the right of people to homes. We have got to recognize their rights as houseowners. May I say quite clearly to the Minister, and I give notice, that I have told these families that they are not to move out. I have said this in my letter to the Resettlement Department, but I give notice. I have told the resident, "You will not move out and do not move out unless alternative accommodation is provided for you." I want to tell the Minister that it is simply because they cannot find accommodation themselves. They cannot afford any other accommodation. That is the only reason. So I wish to ask the Minister what does his Ministry propose to do. Bulldoze them? Bury them under the ground? May I have a clear answer to that question, please, because they have been to see me two or three times and are anxious about their fate? And I have said to them, "You stay put. And if they come with bulldozers, I'll be there." So may we have an unequivocal answer from the Minister to the problems of these families? There are several others I am sure. But these are two families in 532 Kampong Bahru Road and this woman in Tiong Poh Road who, as I said, works in the Singapore General Hospital. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is all I wish to say about the Resettlement amendment that I moved.

If I may now move to the HDB Main Estimates. I asked this morning about the ruling of the HDB to disable persons under the age of 29 from applying for HDB rental accommodation. And we had the usual answer from the Minister which we have heard, if I may say so, I am sorry, ad nauseam, that the HDB is making it ever so cheap. So everybody must buy their flats. What I wish to query this afternoon is this. After selling these flats to them, they are not told at the time when they are sold, that they will lose their flats on the happening of a contingency. Of course, I refer this afternoon to the position of two occupants of a flat where one of them dies or, in the case of a husband and wife, where they are divorced. Then immediately the HDB steps in and says, "Well, you can't continue to own this flat. You've got to surrender it back unless, of course, you can find somebody else."

If you have sold the flats to these persons, it is theirs. And why should they be visited with this requirement just because one owner of the flat dies in the family or, in the case of a husband and wife, they get divorced? We seem to get the impression that there is an abundant supply of HDB flats. Very soon we might reach a position, if we have not reached it, of saturation because of oversupply. Is it then necessary for the HDB to still continue with these practices? Or is it not time for the HDB to review these policies, and for the Ministry too? I have suggested that these things should not be left to the HDB. I have suggested last year, and the year before that, that there should be a parliamentary committee to decide on these questions of policy. The HDB should not be allowed to decide on these questions of policy. Will we hear something about this from the Minister in reply? 2.45 pm

We were told after the 1984 elections, "We are going to listen now. We are going to relax. We are going to have more consultations with the people." But I cannot see any change, and a number of our people cannot see any change. The same thing continues unabated. It would appear that it was simply show-talk when statements were made after the 1984 elections.

May I know from the Minister about the position of rental flats? I asked this sometime ago and I cannot remember the numbers now. But would he tell us how many flats are lying vacant in HDB apartments, ie, flats for rental. In my own constituency, Sir, there are four 1- room blocks and one 2-room block, making a total of five blocks with units available for rental. Walking through these blocks, I notice several of the flats are vacant. Some of them have been vacant for six months, nine months. What is the HDB doing about these vacant flats? What are they keeping them for? I wrote to the Senior Estates Officer at Tiong Bahru on the 17th of February, asking him to let me know how many flats in these blocks were vacant and how long they have been lying vacant. I have not heard from him. Today is the 20th of March. I do not know when I will hear from him, or whether I will ever hear from him. Perhaps the Minister can oblige and tell him to give me a reply on these flats. I want to know what the HDB proposes to do with these vacant flats. Keep them for how long? There are people in my area who want rental flats in Anson itself, who have not been moved out. What about giving flats to the families in 532 Kampong Baru Road. Why? They should, as I said, be really counted as Singapore citizens. But even if they are not (they are permanent residents), may I remind the Government about the observation in the Report of the Constitutional Commission in 1966 that there is an obligation and a duty not only to look after citizens but also to look after strangers within our gates. But these are not strangers. So may I hear from the Minister about these vacant flats.

If I may move on to the Development Estimates. First of all, I have two questions for the Minister and I hope I am going to get answers to all these questions at the end of the day and that I have not asked them in vain. First of all, my questions centre around a project in Yishun New Town. I understand there is a Town Centre Contract II for four blocks of 5-room improved flats and four blocks of low-rise 3-room and 4-room flats, providing a total of about 450 units. May I ask for some information about this project? My infor- mation is that the HDB is spending a considerable sum of money on this project in fitting it with external aluminium curtain walling which one finds in Orchard Road hotels and other showpiece buildings, and that the cost of these projects will be considerably more than for the other projects. May we know for whom are these flats being constructed? I am told there will be a special viewing gallery at the top. What will be the cost of these flats? What I also understand is that the HDB has even specified, by brand name, the aluminium curtain walling to be imported from the United States at a cost of $4 million. May I ask the Minister for confirmation of this?

Moving on to the showpieces of the HDB, may I ask him about the new Toa Payoh shopping complex project, on top of the Tao Payoh MRT station. I said yesterday that it is not the business of the HDB to build huge shopping complexes and to try and compete with the private sector. The purpose and object for which the HDB, I should have thought, came into existence was to provide low-cost housing. I am told that one of the specifications for this Toa Payoh shopping complex are very expensive Italian marble wall finishes. It is going to cost a lot more than the Tanjong Katong Shopping Complex built by the HDB. Why is the HDB spending our monies, taxpayers' monies? They keep talking about subsidies in providing housing. Should not the benefits, if there are benefits, be passed on to our tenants and occupiers of these flats? If Yishun New Town Centre project is meant for our people, is the increased cost going to be passed on to them? We heard yesterday (was it?) somebody complaining about our citizens hacking off floors and removing doors immediately after the HDB gave possession to them, because they were not satisfied.

This brings me to my point which we have been trying to get across, and that is, the high cost of HDB flats. I do not want to repeat what I have said earlier. We have been saying this since 1981. It is patently clear, if not to the Minister, that the HDB should be able to build flats much cheaper. But why is the HDB not directing its energies to that end? We heard from the Minister yesterday (was it?) an admission that the cost of building materials had come down. But he said, "Oh, we are introducing new features. That is why we have got to keep the prices at the same level." But no sooner had he sat down, there were other Members of his Party saying, "Yes, but the tenants do not want your doors. The tenants do not want your floors." So what are these better features that are being incorporated into the new flats? Can we have less of mumbo jumbo and get down to basic facts? I want to know from the Minister, please, for the tenth time, for the twelfth time: why is it not possible for the HDB to reduce its prices? Do you not want to make an effort? If you do not want to make an effort, well, tell us, so that the people will know. But do not try and hide behind a lot of general statements. I have asked twice for this question about costing to be referred to the experts. Why is the Minister reluctant to do that? If your case is that the HDB is not making profits, that the HDB cannot build flats any cheaper than they are doing now, then what have you got to hide? I should have thought you would welcome an examination by quantity surveyors and architects into the whole question of the cost of HDB flats. The very fact, as I said, in the course of this week, that you do not respond to it is a clear indication that the HDB is making profits and is not prepared to allow a public scrutiny of its operations.

We come back again and again to accountability. The statutory boards must be made accountable. I have been preaching this: Government must be made accountable. I ask that the HDB be made accountable to the people for the cost of the flats. Let us have them. Let them open their books. Tell us how much it is costing them and why it cannot be made any cheaper. Nothing short of that will satisfy us, and nothing short of that will satisfy the people. Especially at this time of the recession, the HDB should make an effort to reduce its prices, and quite honestly I hope that I shall hear the Minister say, "Yes, we will try and reduce the prices. We will direct our energies to that and I will announce the result of our attempts as soon as I can."

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. That I think takes up all my time.

3.00 pm

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Sir, I would like to speak on the HDB. Yesterday, the Minister answered an Oral Question as to whether there is a possibility that HDB may overbuild. He pointed out the fact that since HDB reviews its building programme once every six months, there is therefore very little chance for HDB to overbuild. Here I would like to raise two points. First of all, the HDB should gear its building programme not just to the length of its current waiting list but it should plan according to the projected demand based on long-term demographic trends and also the rate of household formation. And these trends indicate that in the future (and not too far off a future at that) the HDB may have to slow down its building programme.

The second point is that there is still a possibility of oversupply if the types of flats built do not closely match the types of flats demanded. Could the Minister inform us as to whether the demand and supply situation is well in balance for the different types of flats at the moment, and if there is some kind of oversupply with regard to certain types of flats, what does the HDB propose to do about the situation?

A Member of the House has suggested that additional incentives should be given to people to purchase the smaller-sized flats. Incentives can be given both by way of giving easier loan terms or by other kinds of incentives which need not be monetary consideration. I think this idea is worth pursuing not for the simple reason of clearing the backlog if there is an oversupply in certain types of flats but for a more important reason, which is, to cater to the housing needs of certain segments of the population. First, the aged. The aging couples living by themselves need smaller flats which are not only cheaper but also easier to maintain in terms of performing household chores. In the future, HDB will have to build proportionately more small-sized flats to provide for the rising number of the aged in our population.

Although our national policy is to encourage married children to live with their aged parents, the fact is that young couples truly desire privacy and autonomy on their own. Thus, you find that the three-tier family priority scheme is not as successful as the joint balloting scheme or the joint selection scheme, because the joint balloting scheme allows the younger couples to still lead a life of their own while staying close enough to their parents in order to take care of them. Neither is the three-year headstart given under this three-tier priority scheme very much of an incentive because the average waiting period now is rather short. Therefore, the HDB should from now on further promote, over and above the other schemes, the joint balloting scheme and also the joint selection scheme where the aged couples can stay in smaller flats close to their married children who may opt for the larger flats.

The three-tier family priority scheme has already produced some problems. At our meet-the-people sessions we have aging parents who come to us asking for a waiver of this 8-year requirement because they are experiencing tremendous problems of family conflicts with their married children. Is the HDB prepared to give genuine cases of this kind its very sympathetic consideration?

Apart from giving incentives for people to opt for the joint balloting scheme and such like, the HDB should also start to think about special flat designs which are catered to the needs of the aged.

A third point regarding the aged arises from a point raised by the Member for Fengshan. He pointed to the recommendation in the Howe Yoon Chong Report on the Aged: that the HDB is to consider giving the aged an option to buy an annuity through the HDB from an exchange of the flat or selling the flat back to the HDB. I would like to ask the Minister whether the HDB is seriously giving consideration to this very good recommendation.

The second group of people who need smaller flats are the divorcees. Whether we like it or not, the trend of divorce is increasing and you are going to have increasing numbers of divorcees. At the moment, the divorcees can apply for purchase flats once they can produce separation documents. But the divorce proceedings as well as the process of selling the previous flat and recovering their CPF moneys before they can use them to pay for the new flat takes a long time. Meanwhile, they are facing tremendous difficulty in getting temporary accommodation, be it with their relatives or friends who are prepared to put them up. The problem is especially serious for divorced women because very often the women are given the custody of the children. So my question for the Minister is, whether he will consider relaxing the rules on rental flats so that the divorcees can at least find some temporary accommodation on an urgent basis before their turn for allocation of a purchase flat comes about.

A third group of people in need of smaller flats are those people who for one reason or another cannot succeed in finding a life partner - call them confirmed singles if you like. We can reasonably assume that the desire to marry and to have a family is almost universal. But for those people who remain single for a great part of their life well past the age of 27 or 29, it is most probably because they cannot find a suitable life partner. Should these people not be allowed to own a home of their own? If their parents are already being taken care of by the other siblings, I see no compelling reason why the HDB should not let these people apply for a home of their own. This calls for a relaxation of the rules, and I would even submit that the number of cases of non-consummate marriages would decline if the rules are relaxed.

A fourth reason why the HDB should continue to build smaller flats, in spite of the current pattern of demand which is heavily weighted towards the 5-room and executive flats, is that many families are sinking in a huge proportion of their savings into housing consumption. They are buying flats which are far larger than what the small family needs, and probably more than what they can afford if they encounter periods of unemployment. I think it is time that our population's expectation with regard to flat size and space requirement should be brought to a more realistic level, especially in view of our land scarcity problem. The HDB on its own part could try to come out with innovative and cosy designs, better finishes and better locational layouts that could in some way meet the housing aspirations of the population.

Finally, the rental flats are smaller flats and they should be so. In pursuing the 100% homeownership policy, would the Minister not think it is reasonable to encourage 100% homeownership mainly among those who desire to own their own home? In a society where more than 70% of the flat dwellers are owners already, it is seldom a case where a person would not want to have a home of his own. With the great deal of help we are giving to the poor families now to own flats, it would seem to me that anyone who is willing to own a flat would be able to do so. In my mind, the number of rental flats should not be further reduced. There is always a demand for rental flats, apart from the needs of those groups that I have mentioned. In fact, I would even argue for the re-opening of the 3-room rental register on a limited basis so that the housing needs of particular sections of the population would also be catered to by the HDB.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, in my constituency there is a brand-new HDB estate called Serangoon North. It is located on land bounded by Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 and Yio Chu Kang. Residents have begun moving in since about two years ago, and already there are many complaints concerning the conditions of the flats. Many of these complaints have been referred to the Area Office, and I must express my thanks to the HDB Estate Officers for promptly responding to these complaints and remedying some of these problems. There are, however, two issues which have not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner and I feel that they are sufficiently important to bring up because they do have a general application.

One deals with the workmanship concerning the quality of the flats. The other concerns the naming of the streets in HDB estates. Sir, I do not need to stress at this time that the question of workmanship, the quality of the flats, is a serious matter, especially when we are talking about high- rise buildings and we are referring to the new modern HDB estates. I have received many letters from the constituents complaining about the quality of the flats in Serangoon North. One complainant stated and I quote, "All my rooms and halls are cracked." Sir, this is no exaggeration. I have seen photographs of the cracks on the floors, on the walls, on the ceilings, and I intend to visit these units this Sunday.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Take action.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, will the Member for Anson please refrain from interrupting me as I am speaking?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Giving a little advice.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I do not need his kind of advice.

I hope, Sir, that in the course of the visit, HDB officials will accompany the grassroots leaders and look into the problem. When the matter was brought up to the HDB, the HDB promptly looked into the matter and the structural engineer did give the assurance that the columns, beams and slabs of the units there are structurally sound. But when these cracks are repaired and subsequently cracks reappeared, you can imagine the anxiety of the residents in this housing estate. So I hope the Minister will look into the matter.

Concerning the naming of the streets, as far as Serangoon North Estate is concerned, there is a specific problem. The main road there is called Serangoon Avenue 5 and, as I said just now, the estate is located along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3. So what is the problem? The problem is that Serangoon Avenues 1, 2, 3 and 4 are located about 2 km away from Serangoon North, and the location of those Avenues, Serangoon Avenues 1 to 4 are separated by at least four private housing estates, including Chuan Gardens, Tai Hwan Gardens and two other private housing estates, all of which are located in Braddell Heights Constituency.

Residents have complained to me that it is very difficult for their visitors to locate their addresses. If they travel along Upper Serangoon Road, they get into Serangoon Avenue 2. Then they come to Serangoon Avenue 3 and then they look around and wonder where Serangoon Avenue 5 is. Is it the next street? No. Is it just located near the next block? No. Is it round the corner? No. It is 2 km away. When I brought this matter up to the HDB, the answer I got was that it would be difficult to change the name of the street because it would mean that the residents who have moved in would have to change their IC addresses. 3.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the request for a change of name has come from the residents represented by their grassroots organizations. They do not mind the inconvenience of going to the community centre to change their addresses because, in the long run, it would be more convenient for them and for their visitors. Once the Central Expressway is completed, Serangoon North can be reached via the Expressway and through Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3. I would propose that the Minister look into this matter and hopefully agree to re-name the street either Serangoon North Avenue 1 and 2 (since there are two avenues there) or it can be called Ang Mo Kio Avenue ... (whatever the number) because it is just adjacent to Ang Mo Kio housing estate.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Boon Teck): Sir, while the recession hits everyone in Singapore, there are two groups of small shopowners in housing estates which are affected by MRT work, as well as the moving out of 1-room and 2-room tenants. Sir, in my constituency I have two such groups. One group is the small retailers which are affected by the construction work of MRT stations in front of their shop houses. Before construction began, the car park in front of the shophouses was very convenient to consumers and residents to stop by to purchase goods. When construction work started two years ago, the car parks were taken over for construction work. Consumers and residents found difficulty in getting access to the shophouse. The dirt and the mud that were dug out piled in front of them, blocking the frontage of the shophouses. So this type of work has been going on for two years and it is expected to continue till 1988. While their business have dropped tremendously, rental charges by HDB have not changed and it seems that in April HDB will want to increase rental some more. Sir, while I can understand why MRTC is not compensating the shopowners, I cannot understand why HDB cannot help them by giving them a reduction in shop rentals, at least for the period during which construction work is carrying on.

Sir, another group of small shopkeepers badly affected are those in the old towns like mine, where there are many 1-room and 2-room rental flats. I have in Boon Teck 11 1-room rentals and 2 blocks of 2-room rentals. HDB has succeeded in upgrading many of the 1-room and 2-room rental tenants directly to purchase 4-room and 5-room apartments in new towns. There is real progress and I think we are all very proud of it. But at the same time, HDB must do something about the 1-room and 2-room rental flats left vacant. In my constituency nearly half of these rental flats have been vacant for the last year, and therefore the few shophouses which used to serve a clientele of around 7,000 are now serving less than half of that. One shopowner told me that he could only sell an average of 16 cups of coffee a night from 6 pm to 11 pm. And another shopowner told me that business was so bad that he could not afford to open after 6 pm. So the main problem is that those who have the buying power are those who have left. Those who cannot afford to leave are those who lack buying power. Business is so bad that these shopkeepers are wondering how long they can afford to stay in business. These shops are mainly family operated, with very minimal employed labour. Hence the cuts in payroll tax, skills development levy, and reduced CPF contribution have greater impact on their operating costs.

Sir, I think HDB will need to make a decision fast as to what they want to do with these flats. Does HDB want to fill the vacant flats with tenants or to demolish them or to rebuild better flats there, or does HDB want to convert these 1-, 2-room flats to bigger flats? But meanwhile, Sir, can HDB help by giving these shops special rental reductions, maybe a reduction that is based on the average percen- tage of vacant flats in the last year? Sir, these small traders and shopkeepers in the old housing estates still provide a very essential service to the residents. I think HDB must help them to survive.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a few points and request some information from the Minister.

As we know the HDB flats are probably one of the most prevalent sights in Singapore. Over 80% of our people live in HDB flats. So whatever the HDB does, it will have a profound impact on our lives. I would like to suggest to the Minister that when the HDB imposes or establishes any new policies or measures, it should be extra-sensitive in explaining to the people and to make sure that any adverse impact is minimized.

Sir, at the moment, many people own HDB flats. Many people actually have paid up for their flats. Some of them might feel that it would be necessary for them to use their HDB flats as collateral for bank loans or as security against some form of guarantee. At present, as far as I am informed, the HDB has been quite restrictive in terms of giving approval for using HDB flats as collateral for loans or for security. I was told that only a few cases havebeen approved for use by HDB flat owners to have their flats used as collateral. This is important as most people now own HDB flats and to most people their flats could be their only fixed real assets. And for some of them, they might want to use their flats as a means to raise some money if they want to start small businesses. So if the HDB could be a little more flexible, a little more expeditious in terms of its rules or regulations in allowing people who have applied to use their flats as collateral, I am sure they will be very pleased. Then their flats become more valuable and banks could be more ready and more prepared to accept HDB flats as collateral for bank loans. So I am asking HDB to be more flexible in its rules.

At the moment, again as many people live in flats, I would like to ask the HDB to be more liberal in terms of allowing people to conduct small businesses in their flats. For example, in future many people may want to work at home in writing computer software programmes, in providing secretarial services or even just doing simple homecraft or cottage industry products. So long as these people are not disturbing their neighbours, are not creating too much noise, or too much waste material, or too much flow of human traffic, I would urge the HDB to allow such people to conduct business in the house.

Related to this matter, many requests have been made, Sir, to allow HDB flat owners to install telex machines in their houses. This conceptually, I believe, is no different from a telephone. If a person could have a telephone in his house, why should he not be allowed to install a telex machine in his house so as to assist him in conducting small businesses?

Sir, for HDB estates, one of the most important areas is the void decks below the blocks. This has become the centre of most activities in HDB estates. Void decks have been used for Malay weddings, for the Chinese to mourn the dead, conduct rites; even the RCs conduct many activities in the void decks. But there is one thing that is quite missing in the void decks, and that is they have no toilet facility. This is a request which many residents have referred to me and they suggested that perhaps the HDB should consider at least, for new blocks, to install or build toilets in void decks. This will allow people when they conduct some functions or activities in void decks to make it easier for them when the urgency calls. I know at the moment the HDB can provide mobile toilets for such functions that are being organized, but mobile toilets are very often inconvenient and also quite untidy at times.

Sir, I think the fear that HDB has in providing toilets in void decks is, perhaps, it could pose a difficult maintenance problem. But I believe our people are getting more civilized, more civic-minded. I think they are beginning to realize that they must keep their estates clean and that they want to have good facilities in their estates. They want to have good reputation for their estates. So if we do provide toilets in the void decks, I am sure they will do their best to keep their estates or the toilets clean.

Sir, we have the case where the Ayer Rajah Constituency conducted a six-month pilot scheme for free weekend parking in their estate. I think my residents will be prepared to accept a six-month trial of having toilet facility being provided in the void decks.

Sir, on a last point, which is on the design of flats. I find something quite inexplicable that happened in my constituency. There are, as I was told, two blocks in my constituency where the level of the flooring of the kitchen is higher than the level in the living area. This seems to be opposite from what we know normally, which is the kitchen should be lower in level compared to the living area, so that when you wash the floor, the water will not get into the living area. But somehow for some inexplicable reasons, HDB has now got a new concept, I believe, in having a higher level for the kitchen area and a slightly lower level for the living area. Perhaps the HDB is using my constituency as a test pilot scheme. I think most Members present in the House today would find this matter perhaps quite surprising. I am not sure whether other Members also encounter the same problem in their estates. I am sure this is something that the Minister could provide good reasons for the HDB having done that. I wish the Minister could give us a good reply.

Dr Augustine Tan (Whampoa): Perhaps I can have my tables distributed. [Copies of tables distributed.]

Sir, I have got two amendments under my name. May I first make reference to a concern of my residents in Whampoa about the future redevelopment of Whampoa Constituency which comprises the old St. Michael's Estate and part of Balestier Estate.

The residents have gotten to know that some of the blocks are going to be demolished and redeveloped. But for the moment, the greatest concern has been expressed by the hawkers at the Jalan Tenteram Hawker Centre. Sir, this hawker centre was built some 15 years ago and from its inception had its difficulties because of poor location. There are no car parking facilities and no direct access from main roads. However, in spite of the difficulties, some 93 or so hawkers have through perseverance, hard work, and the production of good quality food, been able not only to survive but to do fairly well. Recently, they received a notice informing them that they have to quit their present stalls and that they have to be relocated elsewhere.

Sir, I would like to appeal to the Minister to redevelop that hawker centre, if not on the present site, on a better site within the constituency, because these hawkers live in the area and many of them have lived in the constituency for 10 to 20 years, and so understandably they would like to be in the same place of business. So I would appeal to the Minister to look into this request.

Earlier this morning, Sir, I was challenged by the the Member for Potong Pasir. I suppose he was really hoping to go after the Prime Minister. But in the absence of the Prime Minister, he began to hit this way and that and one of the blows came my way. So I hope I am not pre-empting anything that the Minister might say but I would like to put my tuppence worth. 3.30 pm

Sir, I think the fact that 84% of Singaporeans live in Housing Board flats, both purchase and rental, should be ample testimony to the affordability of HDB flats.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Nonsense!

The Chairman: Stop interrupting, please.

Dr Augustine Tan: Anybody from any country visiting Singapore would be able to see this fact. In fact, our visitors from Japan look with tremendous envy upon the living accommodation which the people of Singapore have. Anybody who has travelled to Tokyo would know that executives, people in managerial capacities, live in 1-room apartments with no toilet facilities, with the size of the apartment smaller than even our 1- or 2-room flats here in Singapore. So we have much to be thankful for.

At the same time, Sir, the hon. Member for Anson stated that having to purchase a flat over 20 or 25 years is a commitment over a long period of time. Well, one is understandably concerned about this. But I would like to point out to a few facts, some of which I have laid out in the Tables that I have passed around. First of all, the HDB has a policy that says that anybody can sell back the flat to the HDB at the original price plus the cost of renovations with suitable depreciation. Sir, that at once put a downside risk to any acquisition of HDB flats. I wish, and Members in this House wish, those of us who have bought private apartments and private houses, that we could sell back our houses and flats to whoever we bought them from at the original acquisition price. Those who bought flats and houses, say, in the 1981-1982 period would be very thankful if they could do such a thing. So let us be mindful of this, that there is a guarantee by the HDB to buy back at original cost.

Furthermore, Sir, even if the purchaser cannot pay at some future date, he can always rent out one or two rooms, provided he stays in one room himself. And currently the rental goes from $100 to $200 per room per month or more, depending on location.

Thirdly, the purchaser can always sell to anybody he likes after five years of occupation. If you refer to my Table 1, Sir, you will see there Future Value of HDB Flats. I have made some hypothetical calculations, assuming different rates of increase of prices or inflation of the value of prices of flats over the years at 2%, 3% and 4%. So under one column you have five years hence and another set 25 years hence. And I have hypothetical calculations for 3-room improved flats, 4-room 'A' model and 5-room 'A' model flats. The compound factor is taken from a book called "A Dictionary for Accountants" by Mr Koler, Third Edition.

Let us look at some hypothetical calculations. Suppose somebody bought a 3-room improved flat today at $22,700. In five years' time, even at 2% per annum, that flat will be worth $25,061. In 25 years hence, even at 2%, that flat will be worth $37,241. And the value goes up as the rate of increase goes up, and I have used very conservative rates of increase, no more than 4% per annum. And we are now in an age of inflation and we have seen certainly property prices appreciating by much more than these values.

In Table 2, I have calculated the future wages of a worker 25 years hence. You can easily do the calculations five years hence and 10 years hence because the compound factor is also given there. A worker earning $500 today, 25 years hence, at 2% increase per annum, would get $820; at 3% per annum, would get $1,047; at 4% per annum, would get $1,339 per annum. What I am trying to say, Sir? I am trying to say that the capacity of anyone who purchases a Housing Board flat today will be increasing over the years while his liability to repay the Housing Board stays at a fixed quantum. And that is another feature in the purchase of Housing Board flats which is absent in private transactions. Many of us would wish in a purchase of private apartments and houses that we could get a loan from any bank for 20-25 years' duration at a fixed rate of interest over that period of time. Can we find such an arrangement privately in the commercial world? The answer clearly must be no.

Sir, my third table shows the effect of extending loan repayments from 20 to 25 years. These figures are based upon the press release of the Housing Board last week. Suppose we have a loan amount of $22,400. That is the first line. The second line shows the monthly payment over 20 years before the 15th March announcement. That works out to be $160 per month. The third line shows the monthly payment over 25 years at the reduced interest rate; it should be 5.88%, and that works out to $144 per month. That means, on a monthly basis, there is a saving of $16 per month or $192 per year. Sir, if we assume that this amount of $192 per year is invested at 6% per annum regularly each year over 20 years, the total amount at the end of that time would be $7,063. The extra five years' payment that has to be made by the purchaser at $144 per month would be $8,640 and that liability is incurred 20 years from now, from the 21st year to the 25th year. The shortage to the purchaser at the end of 25 years is only $825. And discounted 25 years to the present, taking the present value, is a much smaller sum of money.

Sir, we can see from these three tables that I have given out and my arguments that what the Housing Board has done is to make the repayments of the housing loans very easy indeed and no one should complain.

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) was set up with the primary objective of promoting and upgrading the construction industry in Singapore. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for National Development whether significant progress has been made towards achieving the Board's objective. I would like to pose the following questions to the Minister.

(1) Has the CIDB been successful in upgrading the building construction industry in Singapore? It has been commented that our construction technology and productivity still lag behind those of the developed countries. Is this assessment correct?

(2) Has the Board been able to help local contractors to upgrade their operations and secure more projects both in Singapore and overseas?

(3) Has the Board been successful in attracting more Singaporeans to join the building construction trade and undergo skills training? Are we less dependent on foreign workers today?

(4) In view of the slow-down in the construction industry, what are the employment prospects for Singaporeans in this particular sector?

Encik Yatiman Yusof (Kampong Kembangan): ( In Malay): Sir, first I would like to thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I have six matters to raise with the Minister for National Development. Firstly, it concerns resettlement. Kampong Kembangan Constituency has undergone three resettlement exercises. The first was for Kampong Pachitan Neighbourhood, second for Kembangan tributary and the third for the MRT line. Many residents have already been resettled and to date, the resettlement work has almost been completed. I would like to ask the Minister in charge as to the specific plans for Kampong Pachitan Estate, ie, how many blocks will be built; what types of housing units will be available and what are the facilities that will be provided for the estate? I would also like to ask the Minister how many from among the affected families will enjoy compensation according to the new approved rates.

My second question is how were the owners of the semi-detached houses at Lorong Sarina compensated? What was the highest and the lowest compensation payments? Thirdly, I underestand that two or three families have not as yet been relocated. How much longer will they be resettled from this area?

The next important matter that I wish to touch on concerns the construction of the underpass which links Chai Chee with Kembangan. I wish to thank the Ministry for the proposal, but many people are asking as to when will the underpass be completed.

My third point is in connection with trees in Kampong Kembangan Constituency. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Kampong Ubi that active attention be given to large trees. In Kampong Kembangan Constituency, there is one private housing estate called Frankel Estate which is 30 years old. In this particular housing estate, there are many large trees with roots blocking the free flow of water in the drains and overhead electrical wires. I am keen to know whether the Ministry has any comprehensive plans to carry out a survey on trees in Frankel Estate and also trees at Jalan Ismail, Jalan Awang and Lorong Marzuki.

I also understand that plans are afoot to overcome the traffic congestion in Siglap Road consequent upon the construction of a condominium in Flamingo Valley. May I know whether the Ministry has plans to improve the conditions of this road? The residents also wish to convey their thanks for the measure to asphalt the road in Lengkong Lima. I wish to ask whether each resident of the area will have to pay for the construction of the road.

The last matter, Sir, is in connection with a notification sent to several residents in Kampong Kembangan requiring them either to (a) demolish their timber houses and instead build brick houses or (b) pull down their houses and plant trees so as to enhance the aesthetic value. May I ask what is the rationale behind the proposed measure? And is the Ministry prepared to consider the merits of each individual case in respect of landlords who cannot afford to build such houses. Thank you. 3.45 pm

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to start off with the Urban Redevelopment Authority. During the debate on the Presidential Address and on the Budget, a lot of Members have been talking about the property market in Singapore.

In today's climate of economic recession and low property prices, numerous complaints have been voiced about the property market, especially by the developers. Let us see what actually happened to the property market. After the slump in property prices from 1974 to 1978, property prices turned around in 1979 and escalated very rapidly to reach their peak in 1981. Rentals and property prices increased by four to five times in this very short period. During the property boom, we heard a lot of complaints about high rentals and high property prices. Property prices were even out of the reach of the upper middle income group. People were queuing up every day to book properties. We saw pictures published in the newspapers showing people queuing overnight in order to be able to place their bookings the next morning. Requests were then made inside and outside this House for the Government to curb the property price increase and also to curb speculation. Requests were also made that the Govern- ment should supply more land to stabilize the property market.

In response to these requests, URA launched three land sales in 1981 and 1982 to provide more land for development. The effect of high property prices attracted a large number of people into the property market to become developers. They considered that property development was the easiest way to make huge profits. As long as they could get a piece of land, they need not require any expertise to become a developer. Architects and engineers could be engaged to prepare the plans, contractors could be employed to build the houses and property agents could be engaged to sell the units. The high property prices attracted an enormous number of new developers into this field. This was the main cause for today's oversupply situation. The high residential rentals increased the cost of living for the expatriates. During the property boom period, many businesses were forced to reduce their office space and a considerable number of expatriates found it too expensive to continue to be stationed in Singapore. Today there is a glut of properties. Prices and rentals have come down. This has made it cheaper to do business in Singapore and should provide an impetus to our economic recovery.

Singapore's property market problems are not unique. Other countries have also experienced similar property cycles. It is not possible to predict the supply and demand of properties with accuracy and certainty. Fortune Magazine in February 1986 published an article about the glut of office space in 33 United States cities, headed by Houston with a vacancy rate of 31% of the total office space. Singapore, according to the last survey, has 19% of office vacancy.

Mr Chiam See Tong: 9-0 or 1-9?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: 1-9. It cannot be 9-0. If it is 90%, then the whole of Singapore city will be empty! Just imagine, the Member for Potong Pasir has suggested that at present 90% of office space in Singapore is empty!

Mr Chiam See Tong: I was not suggesting.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: He is imagining it. As we all know, the United States is the most sophisticated free market economy in the world with the most up-to-date computerized information collection system and yet they could not prevent a glut. We also know that in the United States there is no URA to be blamed for the property glut.

The Member for Alexandra complained that URA has contributed greatly to the oversupply. I do not blame the Member for saying so. Many other people have the same wrong impression. Since the first URA sale of sites in 1967 up to the last URA sale of sites in June 1982, the URA has contributed 3.5% of all private residential units. In other words, 96.5% are not URA land sales. The office space contributed by URA land sale is 19% of office space in Singapore. In other words, about 80% of office space in Singapore is contributed by non-URA projects.

The Member for Alexandra also complained that URA acquires private land at low prices under the 1973 Land Acquisition Act and sell the land at high prices, thereby making huge surpluses of $900 million in the last five years. However, from the URA sales records, a total of 157 hectares of land were sold by the URA since 1967, and only eight hectares, or 5.1%, is land acquired by the URA under the 1973 Land Acquisition Act. So the total land sale by URA is not very large. As we all know, the British Government and the Chinese Government have agreed to allow Hong Kong to sell 50 hectares of land every year. But the total URA sale in the last 20 years, from 1967 up to 1986, is only 157 hectares. This is roughly equivalent to about three years of Hong Kong land sales agreed between the British and the Chinese Governments. Anyone can see that if the Singapore Government is only interested in generating revenue from land sales, it would be rather cumbersome to acquire the land and take the trouble of clearing the land, assembling the land together, and offer the land for sale. If the Government is really interested in land sales to generate revenue, there is marina land, reclaimed land along the sea front, and the State land owned by the Government in the City which easily amount to more than 1,000 hectares. So with the enormous amount of land available, why would Government want to take the trouble to acquire the small pieces of private land? If the Government is interested in making a lot of money, it could easily sell during 1981 and 1982 the reclaimed land and the Government would have generated enormous amounts of revenue. So the notion that Government acquired the land at a low price from the private sector and sell it at a high price is not true.

The objective of URA is to comprehensively redevelop the City. The Golden Shoe area has been identified by URA in the 1960's as an area ripe for redevelopment. Therefore, the Control of Rent Act was lifted for the Golden Shoe Area to enable the private property owners to develop their land. URA only moved into this Golden Shoe Area 10 years later when some of the owners in the Golden Shoe Area were unable to develop their land. Therefore, the claim that the URA is the "Banker in the Property Casino" is totally unfounded.

The surpluses made by URA is mainly from the sale of the State land alienated to the URA at the earlier lower market prices, and not from the sale of acquired land. The URA has no huge cash surpluses to speak of. Its surpluses are held in land stock which has to be obtained early so that the land can be cleared and made ready for development. Notwithstanding its poor cash position, the URA recently announced several additional measures to help purchasers of URA land to overcome some of their difficulties during this economic recession. As a result, URA will have to borrow more than $300 million in the next five years to finance its development expenditure.

There is no short cut to solving the problem of the property glut. As the Minister for Finance has stated quite clearly in his Budget speech:

'While property values will generally rise, given the scarcity of land in Singapore, one should expect it to peak and trough in accordance with the economic cycles. In time, the property glut will be absorbed.' Sir, I hope I have clarified the position of the property market.

On the question raised by the Member for Chong Boon about the Singapore River development scheme, I would like to explain that the objective of the URA is to redevelop the properties along both banks of the Singapore River, with a view to preserving the area. In other words, URA does not wish to drastically change the character of the architecture on both banks of the Singapore River. The other reason is that the present properties are not attractive enough. So the URA allows the owners to redevelop their properties and make them attractive, with restaurants, shops, souvenir shops and other activities. Hopefully, Singapore River will have more life again, with games and sea sports to be introduced there. The URA therefore has to stipulate that the owners of the properties on both sides of the River will redevelop their properties in accordance with the guidelines of the URA scheme.

The Member for Chong Boon touched on the Preservation of Monuments Board. He said that since the function of the Preservation of Monuments Board is quite different from urban redevelopment, it should be detached; that it should not be brought together under the same Ministry. The function of the Preservation of Monuments Board complements that of the URA. The objective of setting up the Authority is to redevelop the City of Singapore and part of the function of redevelopment is the preservation of monuments, that means individual buildings of architectural and historical merit as well as that of the whole area, such as Chinatown, which has a historical and architectural value, are to be preserved. Preservation and redevelopment, in fact, go hand in hand. They are not two separate activities or unrelated functions.

Now I wish to move on to the Parks and Recreation Department. Several Members just now have shown concern about falling trees. I share their concern because falling trees are dangerous and sometimes, as happened recently, even fatal. I would like to inform the House that the Parks and Recreation Department will computerize the information on more than 600,000 large trees in Singapore. Inspectors from the Parks and Recreation Department make periodic checks on each and every tree under their control. Usually, checking is done every 12 or 18 months. If a tree shows signs of decay or a likelihood of being uprooted, the inspectors make more frequent checks, perhaps at 6-monthly intervals and, if necessary, at 3-monthly intervals.

Action is being taken by the Parks and Recreation Department to prune the trees regularly because in the tropical climate of Singapore trees grow very fast. Sometimes trees with a large canopy of leaves may collapse during a heavy rain or during a strong wind. This pruning is an on-going project. Members can see Parks and Recreation Department'slorries with teams of workers going round cutting down branches and leaves. The Parks and Recreation Department is constantly checking the trees and if they are found diseased they will be cut down altogether. If some of the trees require treatment, then treatment will be given.

Members will remember that a few weeks ago, there was a rather unusually heavy continuous rain in Singapore. The soil around the tree absorbed a lot of water and the roots became weak, and the strong wind that followed uprooted the tree.

As a result of the recent incident, I have asked the Parks and Recreation Department to find out whether there is anywhere in the world we can obtain the most up-to-date equipment to test the firmness of the soil because the tree which fell recently was due to a softening of the soil caused by continuous rain. But their answer is no. Nowhere in the world is there such an equipment that we can stick it to the ground and tell whether there is a lot of water in the soil and that the roots have loosened. Unfortunately, nobody has that equipment. So we still have to rely on the expert eye. The inspectors go there, look at the soil, check the tree, and make the best estimate they can.

As regards the trees at Parliament House, I would like to assure Members that the two trees in front of Parliament House, ie, the Yellow Flame, are in very good condition. There is no possibility of the trees falling down. Architecturally, those two trees in front of Parliament House blend very well with the building. So they should be preserved. They are a good feature because a building without trees looks very bare. So the trees have been preserved and well looked after.

The Member for West Coast touched on the West Coast Park and the development of the sandy beach along the West Coast. Perhaps the Member is wondering why we have such a beautiful beach in the East Coast but not in the West Coast. I would like to explain that the sea current along the East Coast is favourable for a beach. Unfortunately, the same condition does not exist along the West Coast, and therefore the West Coast is unlikely to have a beautiful beach like that in the East Coast.

The Member for Paya Lebar raised the point about barbecue pits and the need for a permit at $6 to rent a barbecue pit. The Member for Paya Lebar has quite emotionally asked why a family who wants to have a barbecue has to obtain a permit for $6. I want to explain that the purpose of this permit is to control the use of barbecue pits to avoid a situation where there are not enough pits. For example, at a certain part of the beach, there are only six barbecue pits. So we can issue only six permits, and no more. This is to control the usage. The second point is that this $6 is not a tax or a fee. It is to pay for part of the cost of cleaning up after the barbecue because people usually throw paper cups, plastic bags, coca-cola tins, chicken bones, pork ribs, and many other things all over the place. So workers have to be sent there to clean up. In fact, the $6 is not enough to pay for the cost of cleaning up the place. Quite often, it is not the family who use the barbecue pits. In fact, the people who use them are usually the young people from associations or even from trade unions. The occasion for a family to hold a barbecue party is relatively few.

On the question of the Public Works Department's programme on the construction and widening of roads, the Member for Pasir Panjang talks about the widening of Pasir Panjang Road and West Coast Road, while the Member for Bukit Batok talks about the development of Bukit Timah/Whitley Road flyover, Bukit Batok Road and the pedestrain overhead bridges. If Members look at the Budget allocation for PWD for the construction of roads, there is an increase of more than 100%. In fact, at present, during this recession, the Government has allocated a large amount of money for PWD to do road construction work, and PWD will make full use of this opportunity to build as much road as possible. Of course, I am not suggesting that we are building a lot of roads in areas where these roads will not be used. PWD will build roads according to development plans. For those areas which require development, PWD will spend the maximum amount of time and effort to build the roads. The Ministry of Finance is quite supportive of the road development scheme. So PWD does not have to put so much effort to convince the Ministry of Finance officers that the expenditure is justified.

There is also mention about BCD planning procedures. I would like to thank the Member for Paya Lebar for bringing this matter up. BCD has introduced new planning procedures so that plans for development can be approved very quickly. These new procedures have already been in force and engineers, architects and other professionals,who have submitted their plans, are quite happy with the new procedures. But here, I think we need the cooperation of the architects and engineers. Quite often, when they submit plans, they are informed of the additional requirements by BCD. So the architects and engineers must respond quickly. So for the plans to be approved without delay, we require the cooperation of not only the officers in BCD but also architects and engineers, and sometimes other authorities too.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to the topic of the Housing and Development Board. Many Members have raised various problems connected with the Housing Board. First of all, I would like to deal with the prices of public housing. Both Members of Opposition, ie, the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson, complained that HDB flat prices are too high. We all know that both the Opposition Members, since they entered Parliament, have continuously been complaining about high prices of Government services. In fact, I have not once heard the Members of the Opposition saying, "Ah, these Government charges are very reasonable." Not even once. They always say, "Ah, PUB bill is too high. Housing Board prices are too high. Everything provided by the Government is too high."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell me one charge which is reasonable.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Every charge by Government is reasonable. Not just one, but every charge, and they are justifiable.

We come to the prices of public housing. I would like the Member of the Opposition to think why Singaporeans are not as enterprising as people of Hong Kong, not as hardworking as the Koreans? We have seen how the Koreans work in Singapore. We have heard of how enterprising the Hong Kong businessmen are, and that Singapore is not as developed as Japan. This is a statement of fact. And yet Singaporeans live in very much better housing than people in Hong Kong, in the city of Korea, than people in the city of Japan. Why?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the population of Hong Kong?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The population of Hong Kong is 5.5 million. Hong Kong has a territorial area twice the size of Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All that is available for residents.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes. He can see the development in Hong Kong. So I am asking this question: whyare Singaporeans able to live in better housing than these three countries? My answer is a very simple one. It is because of the PAP Government's decision to give top priority to its policy of providing housing for the people. That is the reason why today 84% of the population in Singapore are living in public housing which is one of the highest, if not the highest, standard of housing in Asia. In fact, it is comparable to any developed country. We have a lot of visitors coming to Singapore to look at our housing. Not one has failed to admire our housing, or failed to praise the Govern- ment's housing policy. Everyone, without exception.

If the Opposition Members have any scheme of providing better housing, I am quite sure there will be a queue of foreign delegates waiting to call on the Opposition to ask for their expertise. And, as far as I know, no one has yet called at the office of the Member for Anson to ask for his expertise on how to reduce housing costs. And nobody has called at the office of the Member for Potong Pasir to ask for his advice on how to reduce housing costs. But there are thousands who call on HDB every year to look at HDB housing, to admire HDB housing, and to study the expertise developed by the HDB. I think this fact speaks for itself.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What about Yishun New Town Centre?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I would like to come now to the issue of housing costs. I thought that this question has been settled with the Member for Potong Pasir. But Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has again brought up the housing cost question and made claim to his letter dated 27th April 1985 stating the 19 conditions before accepting my offer to build four blocks of flats in Yishun New Town. He said that these 19 conditions were very reasonable. I just want to quote my reply to the Member for Potong Pasir dated 7th May 1985. I do not want to take up too much time of the House, so I will just read a paragraph.

'The HDB has budgetted $3.3 billion for the public housing building programme this financial year [that was last financial year]. Your condition No. 17 requires that SDP should be given the first option to construct all future housing projects on the same terms and conditions [that is his 19 conditions] and HDB will pay the Member for Potong Pasir 20% of the purchase price even before building.'

You see the audacity of the Member for Potong Pasir - that the HDB housing programme should be completely entrusted to him? After knowing him in the last year, I would not trust him to build even a dog house! He does not know anything about housing. Imagine, even before building, HDB has to pay him 20% of the total housing development, that is, HDB has to pay him $660 million first before he starts. On top of this, his condition No. 19 says that "in any dispute with HDB, the SDP shall have the final say and its decision shall be conclusive." In other words, the Member for Potong Pasir is saying that having taken $660 million from HDB and he decides, "I am not going to build and my decision is final. Too bad for HDB!" And yet this morning the Member for Potong Pasir was trying to persuade the House that his 19 conditions are very reasonable.

Mr Chiam See Tong: This is the feedback we get from the construction industry.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Very simply, without going into the figures, I think I would just mention that, in Potong Pasir Constituency, the HDB sold the 3-room new generation flats at $41,500 a unit, and the area of the flat is 68.8 sq metre. In other words, the selling price is $603 per sq metre for a 3-room new generation flat. The Member for Potong Pasir can check with his constituents to see whether or not that is the price and also that the floor area is 68.8 sq metre. This works out to be $603 per sq metre; a more familiar figure is $56 per sq foot. Just ask around, where can you buy a flat at a price of $56 per sq foot, anywhere near Potong Pasir,that is in Serangoon Road/in Braddel Heights area? That is very cheap, a very low price. And why is the price so low? Because it is heavily subsidized by the Government.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Nonsense.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The figure speaks for itself.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why do you not put it to the test?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Come out with your figures.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The Member for Anson is saying that HDB should build cheaper flats. I am not going to challenge him. I just want to advise him.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You give one figure and you say it is subsidized.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Okay, if the Member wants another figure, I will give him. The Member for Potong Pasir has mentioned in this House (I think not so many days ago) that the selling price of a 4-room Model A flat in Potong Pasir Estate is $78,000. He mentioned it here. Am I right?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: He mentioned that the selling price of a 4-room Model A flat is $78,000 which works out to $742 per sq metre or $69 per sq foot, with a floor area of about more than 1,100 sq feet. Just imagine, Potong Pasir area, which is near Serangoon Road, is a very nice residential area and each flat with an area of more than 1,100 sq feet is selling only at $78,000 or $69 per sq foot. Is that not a very cheap flat?

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is not the point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: That is the point. The point is that Government is providing very cheap flats for the citizens of Singapore. And if the Member for Anson claims that HDB should build the flats at a cheaper price, then the logical conclusion is that the Member knows how to build flats cheaper. I am not challenging him. I am only suggesting to him that when HDB calls for tenders to build the flats, he should put in a bid of more or less the same price as what HDB accepts.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Do not start that all over again.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The Member for Anson will then be able to make a huge profit if he is able to build the flats cheaper.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Just give us your figures.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have asked you not once but three times to submit your price.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have sufficiently dealt with the prices of HDB flats. I do not wish to deal with it any longer because I do not think I can convince the two Opposition Members, and I do not believe they wish to be convinced.

I would now come to the various points raised by the Members here. On the question of the wet market in Teck Whye Estate raised by the Member for Chua Chu Kang, I would like to inform him that HDB is going to build another dry market in Teck Whye Estate. Construction will start, sometime towards the end of this year and the market is likely to be completed in 1988. Teck Whye Estate will eventually become part of Chua Chu Kang New Town.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.30 pm

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: On the question of renovation of HDB flats, various Members have raised the point that a lot of purchasers of HDB flats do not like the design of the doors in the flat, the colour of the kitchen floor tiles, and also the wall tiles provided by the HDB. This is true. In fact, some of the purchasers throw the doors away and install new doors of their own choice. HDB has been monitoring very carefully on the number of HDB flat owners who discard their doors within the first three months of the renovation period. The latest figure the HDB obtained is 8.5%. In other words, 8.5% of HDB flat owners throw away their doors. So acceptance of the suggestion that HDB should not provide doors will put the 91.5% into serious trouble. And since 91% are quite happy with the doors provided by the HDB, in the development of HDB housing estates, we cannot help it. We have to provide the doors because we have to listen to the opinion of the majority. Similarly, in this House, we have to listen to the opinion of the majority!

As regards kitchen floor tiles, the HDB has made a record of the number of residents who after three years hack up the tiles provided by the HDB in the bathrooms and in the kitchen. Again, the figure came up to 6(r)%, less than 7%. In other words, the majority of the residents are quite happy with the kitchen tiles provided by the HDB.

One point raised by the Member for Thomson is that HDB has come out with a new design where the kitchen floor is higher than the living room floor. I think there is a misunderstanding. At present, the HDB's design for the living room floor level and the kitchen floor level is the same. From our experience, the situation where people pour buckets and buckets of water to wash their kitchen floor is no longer true. This is true in the days of squatter huts, and shophouses where people were in the habit of pouring buckets of water on the kitchen floor. At present, almost everybody just mops the kitchen floor. That is my understanding. In my house, my wife does not pour several buckets of water on the kitchen floor. I believe Mrs Leong also does not do that!

So it is not necessary to have steps between the kitchen and the living room. To have different levels is quite dangerous and can cause accidents because people might take the wrong step. In new flats, the living room has a lower floor level. After renovations, ie, after laying the ceramic tiles, marble tiles or whatever that is preferred by the owner, the level of the living room floor will be raised to the same level of the kitchen floor. So if we had the living room floor at same level, then after renovation we will go back to the position of different floor levels between the kitchen and the living room.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I ask a point of clarification? If a flat owner wants the floor levels of the old style where the living room floor is higher than the kitchen floor. Then, if after renovation, he makes the living room floor slightly higher than the kitchen floor level. In that case will he be allowed to keep the tiling? The reason why I am asking this is that in those cases where flat owners have actually made the living room floor level slightly higher than the kitchen floor level, they have been asked to remove the new tiling that has been laid. Moreover, the contractor who did the renovation has been debarred.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: That is because of the disciplinary action that the HDB takes against renovation contractors. All renovation contractors know very well the rules and regulations of the HDB, and they should be able to achieve the same level. Any renovation contractor who cannot achieve the same level is not a good contractor and his workmanship is doubtful. It means that he has put an extra-thick base between the concrete floor and the tiles. In fact, it puts an additional load on the building. It is undesirable. Although the structure of HDB blocks is able to carry additional loads, we do not encourage that. So the fault is the poor workmanship of the renovation contractor. The HDB has to discipline the renovation contractor. Word will get around and later on every contractor will acquire better workmanship.

As regards water supply, the Member for Kaki Bukit wants to know who owns the water pipe between the PUB meter and the flat. I want to clarify here, Sir, that the water pipe after the meter is owned by the flat owner. So if the pipe has to be changed, it will have to be changed by the owner of the flat. But if the owner has any problem changing this pipe, because it may be a bit complicated, then the HDB will be quite happy to do the job and charge them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: For a fee!

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Not a fee. They pay for the cost.

The Member for Fengshan spoke about the possibility of algae growing in the concrete water tanks. This is not likely to happen, according to the experience of the Hong Kong Housing Authority. They have been building concrete tanks all these years. In fact, they have experience with concrete tanks for almost 25 years and they do not have any problem of algae. I think that as long as the water tank is covered and there is no sunlight, there is no likelihood of algae growing in the water tank.

Quite a few Members have mentioned about providing flats for senior citizens. The Government's intention is to try to keep the family together for as long as possible. It is most desirable to have senior citizens in Singapore living with their children. So any suggestion that facilitates the break-up of the family will be rejected by the Government. This is against Government policy. The Govern- ment will stick to the policy of three-tier family that stays together, and will continue to give them priority, such as the joint balloting scheme. If the priority is not good enough, and if any Member can come up with suggestions that will help the family to be together, the Ministry will be very happy to consider the suggestions. We would like to keep the family together. Once we encourage the breaking up of families, this will go against the Government's social objective.

On the question of senior citizens' clubs, the HDB has been charging a rental of $3 per sq metre for senior citizens' clubs. I think this rental is reasonable. In fact, most grassroots organizations have no problem meeting this rental. I am quite sure that the Member who raised this question will, if he consults his CCC, most probably find that they have no problem paying this small amount of rent.

On cleansing service, the Member for Tanah Merah wants to know how the HDB chooses its cleansing contractors. At present, the cleansing work in slightly under 40% of the housing estates is carried out by HDB daily-rated workers, while in slightly more than 60% of the housing estates the contractors do the cleansing work. This ratio is essential because HDB is facing difficulty in recruiting daily-rated workers. Also, the daily-rated workers in HDB are faced with the aging problem. If you look at the daily-rated workers, they look much older than general workers in factories or in other places of work.

The HDB has been quite strict in the supervision of these contractors. I admit that the performance of the contractors is not uniform. Some contractors do a better job while other contractors do a bad job. This goes for almost everything, including the construction of HDB flats. For those contractors with poor performance, the HDB usually imposes a penalty and will not allow them to tender again. For those contractors with good performance, the HDB usually awards them with a merit star to encourage them to perform even better. This problem of poor contractors who cannot do their job, I think we cannot help it. This problem will always be with us as long as we use contractors.

The Member for Ayer Rajah has suggested the mechanization of cleansing work. His photograph shows cleansing work done by the Ministry of the Environment, and I am quite sure that my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, will take note of his suggestion and maybe take a look at the machine.

On the mechanization of cleansing work, the HDB has been carrying out mechanization of its cleansing work over the last few years. The HDB has even gone to the extent of providing loans to contractors to purchase machinery to do the cleansing work. I think most of the people who live in housing estates can see that machines are used to reduce labour and to relieve the task of the cleansing workers.

On the question of free parking on Sundays and public holidays, I informed the House that we are carrying out an experiment from December last year in several car parks in Ayer Rajah Constituency, and that if the experiment proved successful, this would be extended to other car parks. I would suggest that if Members of the House wish to introduce free parking in their constituencies, they should consult their grassroots organizations. After the experiment, most probably the HDB will extend the scheme to other car parks. There is no reason for HDB to reject the requests by Members to introduce free parking on Sundays and public holidays in the car parks in their constituencies. So I would suggest that Members consult their grassroots organizations, the CCCs and RCs. If they are happy with the system, it will be introduced. But after the introduction of free parking, if we run into serious problems, then it is very difficult to reverse. We have to live with it. So Members must realize that once this scheme is introduced, everybody has to cooperate and make it a success in the car parks in their constituencies.

On the car parking problem in Gillman Heights raised by the Member for Telok Blangah, this is a very sad state of affairs. The residents of Gillman Heights are in the upper middle income group, and all of them are highly educated. They are leaders of our community and yet they cannot cooperate with one another. They quarrel and there is even vandalism in the car park. It is a sad thing. I would suggest that the residents solve these problems themselves. It is very good, if they can. If the problem cannot be solved, then there is no choice but the authorities will have to step in. I will ask HDB to discuss with the Member for Telok Blangah to look further into this problem.

On the encouragement of home ownership, I think I have answered this question raised by the Member for Anson this morning. I said that HDB has reduced the downpayment to only 5%. Any prospective home owner should make an effort to save the 5%. If they have CPF, I think there should no problem. If they do not have CPF, like those people who do odd-jobs or are self-employed, I suggest that they make an effort to save the amount of downpayment. Generally, odd-job workers do get quite a good pay. I understand that on the construction site they get about $25-$30 a day. Some get even as much as $40 a day. So they should try to save, say, $150 a month. If they do that, then within a year they would have saved almost enough for this 5% downpayment.

I think the Singapore Government has tried its very best to enable our citizens to own their homes, to become home owners. So the citizens must do their part by making the necessary effort to save and buy their own homes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: As usual, force the people.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The Government is not forcing anybody. The Government is encouraging the people. I am quite sure that the young people, that means people between 21 and 29 years, are young and healthy people. They should be able to save the necessary sum of money to meet the small 5% down payment to own their own homes. But HDB will consider very special cases where there is genuine hardship. If there are genuine hardship cases, then HDB will even waive the 5% down payment, if necessary.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But if they do not wish to buy?

An hon. Member: Then don't buy.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: HDB's objective is to encourage every Singapore citizen family to own the flat they live in. I think this is a good objective and we should support this objective. The question of using the flat for business activity has been raised by several Members here. I would like to make this point. HDB flats are for residential use. In other words, it is not allowed for other uses. This is because we want to preserve a good residential character, to provide a good environment for our citizens to live. Once HDB allows a flat to be used for commercial or industrial or other non-residential use, the environmental situation is likely to deteriorate. There will be noise pollution, for example. And if they use it for industrial purposes, there may be a fire risk. So this is undesirable. I think the Members here make this request because we are facing a recession and times are hard. I would like the Members to consider the long-term objective. The request is actually a very important departure from the objective. The departure is that HDB residential units are no longer used solely for residential purposes. HDB residential units will be used for commercial and industrial purposes. I think this is a highly undesirable move because that will lower the environmental standards of our housing estates.

One Member has raised the matter that HDB Area Office should be more responsive to requests so that there can be better public relations with the residents. Since the formation of HDB, the HDB has continuously emphasized to their staff that it is essential for them to provide a good service to the residents, they should try to respond quickly to any request by the residents. I would like to mention that there are two areas of work. One is the work that HDB can do. The response in this area would be faster because the work is done by HDB. The other area is beyond HDB's direct control. For example, certain work has to be done by term contractors, like repairs. The HDB then has to request the term contractor to do the job. That will be slower because the contractor may not respond so quickly as he may have a problem with the workers. Therefore, HDB does not seem to be able to respond very quickly. But the HDB will try its best to respond as quickly as it can.

Now I want to come to the rental of HDB shops. Many Members have made continuous requests that HDB should try to help shopkeepers by lowering the rental of HDB shops, wherever possible. I am very sympathetic too. The HDB therefore has reduced the rental by 15%, and this 15% rental reduction is being extended up to the end of next year. Secondly, the HDB will pass all the 50% property tax concession announced by the Minister for Finance to the shopkeepers.

Another area of rentals is the requests made for reduction of rentals for shopkeepers affected by the MRT. I understand that some shopkeepers are adversely affected by MRT because the car park in front of their shops has been taken away for the construction of the station. Several Members here have made such a request. The PAP Members have been talking to me in the Members' Room about the need to help the shopkeepers who have been adversely affected by the MRT. I agree with them. I have asked the HDB to study this request. I hope HDB will soon announce a policy decision to reduce the rental for those shops affected by the construction of the MRT.

There is the other matter about people who tender for HDB shops. They have put up too high a tender, and as a result they find it difficult to carry on their business. They are now asking HDB to reduce their rental. This is a very difficult problem. Although HDB may be sympathetic and I may be sympathetic, it is very difficult to find a satisfactory way to resolve this problem. I will explain to you. Suppose the HDB reduces the rental of a shopkeeper who claimed that his tender was too high and that he could not continue his business. So HDB reduced the rental to accommodate the request of some Members here. Then HDB would be unfair to the person who had submitted the second highest tender. For example, a shopkeeper has tendered for a rent at $2,500 and his tender is the highest. The second highest tender is $2,300. After some time this highest tenderer says that the rental is too high and he wants to reduce it to $1,800. That would be unfair to the other person who has tendered at $2,300, and the second highest tenderer will say, "Look, if you were going to reduce the rental to below $2,300, then why didn't you inform me first? Because if I knew, I would have tendered higher to get the shop. So if we allow this, I think the tender system will be chaotic because every shopkeeper will realize that the best way to get the shop would be to tender at very high rates, at $3,000 or $4,000.

Once they get the shop, they will then appeal to the Member of Parliament, saying, "Look, my rental is $4,000. It is very unreasonably high." Then HDB must reduce the rent. Therefore, it is not possible to reduce the rental. It will bring about a chaotic situation. So the HDB now allows the shopkeepers to give up their shops and tender again for the same shop. If they believe that the market rental is lower, they can submit a lower tender bid.

Here I would like to inform Members that as from the first of next month HDB will introduce a new tender system for shops. This new tender system will allow tenderers to submit two tenders. Every tenderer will be allowed to submit two tenders. If both the tenders are the highest, that means, one is the highest and the second tender is the second highest, then HDB will rent the shop to them at the rate of his second highest tender, not the first highest tender. This will avoid the situation where people in their eagerness to get the shop would put up a very high tender price and get stuck with that high tender price. So HDB will have this new system. Simply explained, it is like this. For example, there is a shop for rent. Mr A makes a bid. Mr A puts in two tenders at $2,000 and $1,500. If nobody tenders higher than $1,500, then HDB will rent the shop to him at $1,500, ie, his second highest tender. But if there are other people tendering at $1,800, then HDB will rent him the shop at $2,000, his first tender price. In this way, high tenderers will be saved from their own eagerness to put tenders at too high a price.

Several Members here have raised a lot of detailed questions on their own constituency matters. I do not think I can answer these matters offhand. If Members can write to me on these specific matters, I will get the information and reply to them. So I do not propose to answer here all the detailed queries about matters in their constituency. But Members are welcome to write to me on the matters they have raised in this House and I will assure every Member that he will get a reply from me on the various matters that they have raised.

Now I propose to let my Senior Parliamentary Secretary answer questions on two areas, one is on resettlement and the other one is on agrotechnology parks.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, before the Minister gives up, may I, by way of clarification, ask him one or two questions. The Minister seems to have missed the point of my suggestion. The point is this. Does he or does he not concede that it is possible for the HDB to build its flats cheaper? Is the HDB prepared to go into an examination of cost-cutting to see whether flats can be built cheaper? The Minister has admitted, on behalf of the HDB, that the contruction cost, including land work, legal fees, everything, is still cheaper than the sale price. There is no question about that. So is he prepared to submit to public examination to see why the cost cannot be made any cheaper?

The other question is: would he give us some details about this Yishun Town Centre project? Why is it necessary for the HDB to spend $4 million on providing aluminium wall coverings from the USA? For whom are these flats intended, and are they going to cost more than the other flats?

Then about the Toa Payoh shopping complex with Italian marble wall coverings. Is the rental going to be much higher than other shopping complexes? This is the whole point: why is the HDB incurring all these expenses? Who eventually bears the cost? The purchasers, our citizens?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the first point is: can HDB build cheaper flats? The answer is yes, HDB can build cheaper flats but it is not the policy of HDB. HDB wants to continuously improve on the quality of the flats. That is what Singaporeans want. Singapore wants to have better housing. For example, HDB can reduce its cost by changing the aluminium windows into steel windows or timber windows. HDB does not have to provide ceramic tiles in the kitchen but instead provide mosaic tiles. To make it even cheaper, HDB just provides cement flooring and not even mosaic tiles. It can be cheaper. The flats can be built cheaper but they are of poorer quality and poorer finish.

Sir, the Member for Anson seems to be deaf. He does not listen to what other Members have said. Other Members have said that the HDB floor tiles are not good enough. They want to have better tiles. I have just informed the House that 8.5% of HDB flat owners throw away the doors provided by the HDB because they want better doors. The Member for Anson is not listening. He wants HDB to provide a poor standard of housing. HDB is providing low-cost high-quality housing. But the Member for Anson wants HDB to provide low-quality housing. That is not acceptable. If the Member for Anson wants low-quality housing, he can build it for himself. He should not impose his ideas on the citizens of Singapore. HDB will continue to improve the quality of public housing to make the flats better and better, irrespective of what the Member for Anson thinks. The Member for Anson's ideas will be rejected.

Another point is that the Member for Anson is in the habit of rumour-mongering in this House. Since the Member entered this House in 1981-82, when he wants to spread a rumour, he usually says, "I heard a rumour about this and that." Then he goes ahead and spreads the rumour.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you going to answer the question?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The Member for Anson has spread a rumour. If he has any information about HDB purchasing $4 million of curtain walls from America - that is what you have said just now, is it not?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Answer it. Are you or are you not doing that for the Yishun Town Centre project?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I suggest that the Member for Anson produce the evidence and not just guess or be a rumour-monger. Then I will give him an answer.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why don't you answer the question?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The second point the Member for Anson has mentioned is that HDB is building a shopping centre in Toa Payoh with Italian marble all over the shopping centre. The answer of course is no. He is rumour-mongering.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Lee Yiok Seng): ( In Mandarin): Sir, the Member for Chua Chu Kang has raised the question that certain small farmers in his constituency have been affected by resettlement because the land is required for the development of agrotechnology parks. His first question is: what are the plans for this agrotechnology park, and secondly, would these small farmers be allowed to remain there a little longer? The development of agrotechnology park arises from the Government's estimate that the land available for farming will diminish from the present 5,000 hectares to 1,500 hectares by 1995. The local production of fresh food and primary products will be significantly reduced by 1995, causing a shortage of supplies if we do not quickly introduce the appropriate advanced agrotechnology to further increase the productivity of our farmlands. It is thus necessary to stringently plan for the use of available farmland for maximum productivity. With this in mind, the Primary Production Department has planned for the development of agrotechnology parks.

Unlike traditional farming, agrotechnology farms will require heavy capital investment and the application of appropriate technology for intensive farming. Therefore, existing farms that are less efficient will have to be cleared to make way for these farms. The progress of clearance and development of agrotechnology parks could take up to five years. We do not have very much time left from now to 1995. In order that there could not be any disruption to our supply of primary products and fresh food, the clearance and development of the area could not be slowed down.

There are three areas in Chua Chu Kang for agrotechnology farms, ie, Loyang, Murai and Sungei Tengah. At Loyang, there will be aquaculture-farming, like the breeding of fish and prawns. At Murai and Sungei Tengah, there will be mixed farming activities, like growing of vegetable and ornamental plants, breeding of ornamental fish and poultry farming but no pig farming.

I will now answer some other questions relating to resettlement matters. The Members for Bukit Batok and Chua Chu Kang have raised the question on whether we could slow down the pace of resettlement in view of the economic downturn. The Resettlement Department intends to resettle certain farmers and residents according to the development needs of the Ministry of National Development for the next two years. The squatters, including farmers have to be cleared according to scheduled times so as not to hinder public development projects, such as HDB housing projects, road construction projects, MINDEF projects, MRT stations and, what I mentioned just now, agrotechnology farms. There are also water catchment schemes, etc. All these projects are related to our future interest and needs for the benefit of all of us and must not be slowed down. Therefore, we must proceed according to our original plan and take steps to resettle the affected farmers and residents in these areas. Among those affected, some of them will encounter some difficulties. I can well understand that because in my own constituency, of which I have been an MP since 1972, my constituents have also been affected by resettlement schemes. So I know very well the problems and difficulties faced by the affected residents and farmers. The Resettlement Department is also trying to lend a helping hand to such people. Where the problem is one of administration or other difficulties, then after a representation to the Resettlement Department, the Department will try to solve each case on its merit and according to approved policies. I think this is the request made by the Members for these two constituencies.

As regards the question mentioned by the Member for Kampong Kembangan about the number of cases involved in resettlement, I hope the Member can write to me. Then I will try to get the figures for him.

The Member for Anson, of course, also requested to postpone or slow down the resettlement clearance. He mentioned two separate cases.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification. I think he has got it all wrong, what I said.

The Chairman: He is not giving way.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He didn't understand me.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: I have not started to answer. (In Mandarin) He mentioned two separate cases. I said it is difficult, as I have mentioned, because the Resettlement Department has to deal with each case according to its merit. The Resettlement Department is trying to help each and every individual case encountering difficulty based on certain principles. Discarding the principle or policy, nobody is able to help him. Therefore, there must be certain policy, principle or basis on which certain rules, regulations and standards are set. If there is no policy, no regulation, or standard to go by, it is anarchy; then it is not possible for anybody to help him. Therefore, I would advise all those people affected by resettlement that if they have individual difficulties, they should not listen to other people blindly because they themselves know their own problems better. So they should express their own difficulties themselves. It will be clearer and straightforward. Do not readily take in what other people say. So raise your own problems directly. Then we will try to solve each problem on the principles enunciated.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary quite understood what I was saying. In the first place, it was not a question of postponement - that is what I understood from the translation that he thought I was asking. My question related to three families, two in Kampong Bahru and one in Tiong Poh Road. These people have been told that they are not eligible for alternative accommodation because they are permanent residents. And my question is: what are you going to do about them? Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary answer me here, without beating around the bush: is he going to provide them with alternative accommodation, or is he going to send the bulldozers there? It is as simple as that. Because there is no other way. They are not moving out, as I said.

The other thing I asked is about the families in Tras Street. What I want to know is: when will they be asked to move out? So I hope he understands my questions and tries to answer them.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I have already replied to the questions he raised. Those people affected by resettlement will be dealt with according to our development plans and related principles. Those people affected will have been notified on the date of their resettlement, when they are required to vacate, and how to apply for alternative accommodation or matters relating to that. As regards the two cases he raised, I have said just now that we cannot do anything without regard to the policy, principle or standard. Non-citizens under our HDB policies could not enjoy the same right as citizens. He mentioned about a citizen woman who is the wife of a non-citizen. Our policy is that we cannot allow a non-citizen to own a house subsidized by our Government, which is the right of our citizens alone. So we are not duty bound to provide accommodation for non-citizens. The other point is that nobody knows yet whether or not this non-citizen can stay in Singapore.

Therefore, as I have said just now, if and when we meet with individual cases encountering difficulty, we should just tell the people affected that they should raise their problems directly with the Resettlement Department or the Department concerned, and not do as what the Member for Anson said, "I have already asked this person not to move out and to stay put there." This is an approach without principle and reasoning, and such action without reference to any policy would, lead to anarchy if taken by some people. This is a kind of unscrupulous action.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary say whether he will send the bulldozers there if they do not move out? Yes or no?

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, to carry on with unprincipled talk is very difficult and troublesome. I have clearly said that anybody having difficulty can personally go to the Resettlement Department to raise his problem or difficulty, and we will try our best to help. But if he should resort to force, or unprincipled argument unreasonable action, then I would not keep on with this kind of unprincipled talks. It is rather tedious.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not seem to be getting anywhere with this, talking at cross purposes. I have said that the Resettlement Department had told these families that they are not eligible. Now, is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that if they go and see him, he will get them alternative accommodation? Or is he saying that they are not eligible for alternative accomodation and that he is going to send the bulldozers there? Can we not have a simple yes or no to these questions?

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, let me spend some more time. I have clearly said that there must be an approved policy. Under this policy either such and such a person is eligible, or is he not qualified. So the first thing you must ascertain is whether you are eligible under this policy or regulation. So that is the first step. Next, when there is some special problem or difficulty, then the person affected can go to the Resettlement Department where, if there is room to accommodate him within the constraints of approval policies, the Department concerned will try to help.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

The Chairman: Are you still not satisfied?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to inform the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that these are long residents of Singapore, if he has not heard me. They should have been citizens but this Government has denied them citizenship. And I said this woman in Tiong Poh Road who works with the hospital is a Singapore citizen. But please do not be evasive. Do not beat around the bush. Give me clear answers.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: ( In Mandarin): I do not want to answer his question further.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as usual the Minister is very quick and witty with his replies. He seems to have an answer for every question. But before I withdraw my amendment, may I ask the Minister to answer two of my queries which he has yet to answer. One is HDB's plan to combat lift vandalism, and the other is whether HDB would consider extending the hours of activation of the booster pump.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will answer the last question first, about this booster pump. I think HDB will make a study of this because the pumping hours were based on the demand of water during the peak hours. But if there are problems of water supply during the non-peak hours, I will ask HDB to look into it and to extend the pumping time, if necessary.

The second question is on lift vandalism. Lift vandalism is quite a serious problem. HDB has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair the lifts. Usually vandalism is caused by urinating in the lift or throwing of rubbish in the lift; at times vandals even set fire to the lift or use a cigarette lighter to burn the lift button; sometimes chewing gum is stuck on the lift button, or scratching the wall of lift car as well as the lift door, or putting an obstruction to the lift door rails so that the lift door cannot close properly, and at times impatient people even kick the lift door and thus damage the lift completely. HDB has been publicizing in the Home magazine these very undesirable and anti-social activities of vandalism of lifts. HDB has also been conducting anti-vandalism campaigns together with the grassroots organizations. I hope the residents will cooperate with HDB and report to the HDB the vandals who damage lifts and who urinate in the lifts. But although the number of vandals in housing estates is very, very small, this minority of anti-social elements is causing serious problems for the residents who are using these lifts. The HDB's anti-vandalism campaign will therefore continue.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has made some rather critical remarks on the residents of Gillman Heights. As I have said in my speech, the unneighbourly acts were committed by only a very small number of residents. In fact, the vast majority of residents of Gillman Heights are friendly and neighbourly. I think it is a bit unfair to label all of them as unneighbourly.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, in view of the satisfactory answers given by the Minister and his Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the assurance that they will take up some of the suggestions separately, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $762,998,570 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $10,073,806,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head 0 - Ministry of Foreign Affairs -

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I am pleased to note that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not join the other Ministries to reduce its expenditure. In fact, it has projected for a modest increase and the bulk of this increase is for manpower costs. It is precisely for this reason that I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a shift in the emphasis for the Ministry. While politics and political development is still important, I believe the shift is more towards economic problems. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is gearing for this additional role. If so, how?

My second question for the Minister relates to ASEAN. We have just witnessed the change in government in the Philip- pines and we are now reading about troubles in Sabah. Hopefully, Sir, political stability will return quickly to our region. That ASEAN is a strong political entity is beyond any doubt. But I believe, and many of us here believe, that much more has to be done in the field of economic cooperation. This is all the more important and urgent because of the current international situation. Protectionism and depressed commodity prices is hampering growth in our region. Hence, Sir, I believe that positive steps must be taken by ASEAN governments as a whole to improve regional cooperation further.

Sir, it is quite some time since the ASEAN Heads of Governments met. Maybe another meeting of the ASEAN Heads of Governments should be convened, particularly to give a boost to ASEAN economic cooperation. We have read in the papers that Thailand has called for a summit. It is also reported in the papers that the Malaysian Prime Minister is reported to be in favour of such a meeting. Maybe the Minister for Foreign Affairs can enlighten this House on the possibility of an early ASEAN summit.

Sir, my final question, which is my favourite question, refers to the purchase of properties by our Foreign Ministry. I note that a sum of $16 million is provided for the financial year 1986 to purchase properties for our overseas missions. This is the revised provision for the financial year 1985. Maybe the Minister would like to inform the House where were the properties purchased in the last financial year, and what properties his Ministry hopes to purchase for financial year 1986.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has now been more than seven years since the Vietnamese invaded and occupied Cambodia. But yet the Vietnamese occupation of the country continues. The Vietnamese are in control of the Heng Samrin administration. They have begun to colonize the land in Cambodia and they maintain their domination through military force.

The United Nations members have condemned the Vietnamese aggression and occupation of Cambodia. They have continued to support and recognize the legitimate government of Democratic Kampuchea led by the President, Prince Sihanouk, and the Prime Minister, Son Sann.

Singapore together with the other ASEAN members are in the forefront in the political offensive against Vietnam. And they have succeeded in obtaining the support of more than two-thirds of UN members. My question to the Minister is: will this strong support for the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea continue? Further, I would like to ask the Minister what is the prospect of more support for the legitimate Cambodian government.

Sir, various peace proposals have been made in an attempt to solve the Cambodian conflict peacefully. ASEAN has its 12-point proposal and just recently the President of Democratic Kampuchea, Prince Sihanouk, has come out with the coalition's 8-point proposal. I would like to ask the Minister what efforts are being made by ASEAN to solve the Cambodian issue? And what is the prospect of an early settlement of the conflict?

Sir, ASEAN has progressed from strength to strength, especially in political and diplomatic terms. I have no doubt that it would become a viable organization, provided the cooperation and dedication of the ASEAN leaders do not weaken. In this respect, I am concerned about the interest in and commitment of the younger political leaders of ASEAN. Recently, I read a report that in Indonesia the younger military leaders are not as committed to ASEAN as the present generation of military leaders. If this is so, then I think it is not a good sign for ASEAN. It is essential that the younger political leaders in the ASEAN countries get to know each other better, exchange views and appreciate the aspirations and problems of each country. I would like to ask the Minister what efforts are being made to establish contact and rapport among the younger ASEAN leaders.

Finally, Sir, I would like the Minister's comment on the statement made by a politician in a country, a country which is supposed to be close to us, a statement made by that politician concerning our Government and policies. We all know that Singapore is not a perfect society. We do make mistakes. But when politicians in foreign countries make false and scurrilous remarks about our country, I think it should not be left unchallenged. Since independence, many governments have tackled the problems of nation-building. Such a problem is particularly difficult for some societies which are multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual in character. In Singapore, our multi-racial harmony has been a pillar of our political stability.

These countries which have multi-ethnic populations have also the problem of distribution of wealth. How do you distribute the wealth in a just and fair manner, without discriminating in favour of one community? In Singapore, Sir, we distribute the wealth of the country on the basis of merit.

Sir, the politician in question pointed to various aspects of our political system. I would like to deal briefly with these. First, we have adopted a political system which is derived from the British model of parliamentary democracy. A main feature of the system is the supremacy of the Constitution and the law. Thus, for example, in Singapore, we have the right of appeal right up to the Privy Council. In the country of the politician concerned, this avenue of justice has been abolished.

Secondly, in our Parliament, we have our Opposition Members who happen to be absent just at this moment. Sir, I wonder at the patience of our Speaker. I wonder at Mr Speaker's forbearance and tolerance of the Opposition Members. Here, the Opposition Members, in my view, have nothing to lose; they have little if anything to sacrifice for the good of the country. Thus, they go all out to oppose the Government. In the process, they become reckless and emotional, rude and unruly. But in the country of the politician concerned, Sir, such antics of Opposition members would not have been tolerated. Instead, they would have been unceremoniously hauled out of the Chamber by the Sergeant-at-Arms. In Singapore, Sir, we conduct ourselves in the right way, by referring any possible abuse of privilege, of parliamentary immunity, to the Committee of Privileges.

Thirdly, with regard to press freedom, I agree that there is prohibition here that issues of race, religion and language should not be played up in the newspapers and other publications. That is not so in the country of that politician concerned. In fact, some of the editors of their newspapers rely on such issues as race, religion and language to boost their circulation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I have said is merely to point out certain features of our society which have been commented upon by the politician in question. While we sympathize with them in their difficult moments, especially in view of economic and political uncertainties, I hope that such politicians in these foreign countries will have some understanding and rationality in their views concerning our country.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the two Members for speaking and raising points on this head because some of these subjects are subjects that the Members of this House ought to think about now and then and not just be concerned only with parochial issues.

The first point that was raised by the Member for Chong Boon is whether there is a new thrust or new emphasis in the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sir, the Ministry has always tried to balance political and diplomatic activity with supporting the efforts of the various specialized agencies in economic matters. Obviously, Sir, with the present state of the economy and with the problems we will face in the coming years, all Ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will have to lay greater emphasis on economic matters. Therefore, the Ministry will shift its focus, its emphasis, and give priority to working with the other specialized agencies and Ministries in protecting Singapore's economic interest overseas.

We have to protect the markets that we already have. We have to protect not only access to markets but also to protect the flow of foreign investments into Singapore. Therefore, we need to very closely monitor developments in those countries which are very important to us both in terms of markets and investment. We will also have to concentrate on monitoring and working together with the other Ministries to counter the protectionist trends that are so prevalent in the developed countries today. We will have to identify and explore new trade and economic opportunities and look towards markets which have not been our traditional markets. There are opportunities that are beginning to emerge in the People's Republic of China, in India, in Latin America and in Eastern Europe. All these countries will be the focus of attention of the Ministry.

An issue that will also concern us increasingly in the coming years is the issue of graduation. This has been a subject that has engaged our attention for some time in the past, and it will become an increasingly urgent and important problem to deal with. There are countries that feel that because of our high per capita GNP we ought to be graduated out of the class of developing countries. We have to persuade these countries that per capita GNP is not the only measure, that in fact it is not a fair measure of the state of our development. Members are already aware, I am sure, of the problems that we had with New Zealand. But I am glad to report that other countries have taken a more enlightened view on this subject and it will be the function of the Ministry to continue to, as I said, monitor and work to inform policy makers in the countries of interest to us of our problems and persuade them to have consultation with us before they take any decision.

In the ASEAN context too, we will have to explore new areas for economic cooperation. Also, and this is a very important point, we need to work closely with them to maintain and strengthen confidence in the region. We all, I am sure, realize that the attractiveness of Singapore as a place for investment depends not only on sound and wise policies within Singapore but also in maintaining regional stability and harmony. It is in this context that I would like to say a few words about the subject of an ASEAN summit.

It has been some time since the ASEAN Heads of Governments have met together, and the reason why they have not met earlier is that there seemed to be no pressing and urgent business for them to discuss. The arrangement in ASEAN is not to have regular and periodic meetings among the Heads of Governments but only to meet as and when required, which I think is a very good system. With the kind of economic problems that all our neighbours are facing, we think it is important for the ASEAN countries to get together to ensure that, in the midst of economic difficulties, we do not begin to concentrate on differences and problems with each other, and thus adversely affect the very harmonious relations that we have maintained so far.

There have been proposals already made by other ASEAN members to have a summit, as was mentioned by the Member for Chong Boon. Thailand has made a proposal which has been generally supported by all the ASEAN countries. What we need to do now is to work out in some detail the specific subjects that the Heads of Governments can discuss and which lend themselves to progress. As to where the summit will be held, there is an informal understanding that summits will be rotated in alphabetical order. We have had a summit in Indonesia and Malaysia, and the next in line will be the Philippines. But it is still too early to say exactly where it will be held and when it will be held. But Singapore is keen, as are the other members, to have an early summit. As I said, we are now working on the detailed agenda for the summit.

The next political problem that, I think, is worth saying a few words about is the Cambodian problem. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has asked whether the strong support for the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea will continue, and what are the prospects for more support. I am glad to report, and it is important to note, that with the efforts of ASEAN as well as the efforts made by the Cambodian themselves, we are confident that support from the international community for the aspirations of Cambodians will be maintained. This support, of course, has to be garnered not only in the United Nations but also in our bilateral efforts with our friends in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe. As far as the support in the United Nations is concerned, I think we have just about reached the maximum. 114 countries voted with ASEAN on the Cambodian problem, and I think it will be very difficult to increase this support any further. If for some reason support slips by a few, we should not be unduly alarmed. The voting in the United Nations is not only dependent upon the support of the governments but it is also sometimes dependent upon whether the member or the representative of the country concerned happens to be in his chair to press the button. So an increase or a decrease of a few in the number of members supporting the ASEAN resolutions on the subject should not, I think be read too much as an increase or decrease in the number of support for ASEAN.

As to what efforts are being made to solve the Cambodian problems, basically the approach remains the same, ie, to deny Vietnam consolidation of its occupation of Cambodia and to continue to make Vietnam pay a very high price in political, economic and military terms. Let there be no mistake. The effort to deny consolidation cannot be confined only to diplomatic and economic fields. Every support must be given to the Cambodians who are waging a military struggle against Vietnamese occupation. Such support, to be quite candid, is not with the intention that the Cambodians can, with force, throw out the Vietnamese. They do not have the numbers nor the capacity but the military efforts of the Cambodians can increase the cost to the Vietnamese and help tip the balance against them. Because of the efforts of ASEAN, the US Congress, for example, came out openly in support of the non-communist resistance groups and voted a sum for their support. ASEAN also sent delegations to various countries to mobilize support for the Cambodians both in the United Nations as well as general support for the Cambodians in terms of continuing to deny Vietnam economic assistance. I think the price paid by Vietnam is much more than they had ever anticipated when they invaded Cambodia in December 1978. What we need to do now, Singapore and ASEAN, is to maintain the pressure and show Vietnam and the supporters of Vietnam that the non-communist countries have the staying power and the patience to outlast the Communists. We have been able to demonstrate that so far, and we hope to continue to demonstrate that in the coming years.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens also asked, what is the interest and commitment of younger leaders to ASEAN, and what efforts are being made to establish further contacts? This can be seen at two levels. At the bilateral level, Singapore with the individual ASEAN countries as well as with ASEAN as a group.

I think it will not be true from the few reports that the Member has read, and so have I, to conclude that the younger political and military leaders, whether in Indonesia or in any other country in ASEAN, are not as committed to ASEAN as the older leaders. Many of the younger leaders are already very heavily involved in many ASEAN activities and although it is fashionable to decry and criticize the many ASEAN meetings that we have, one good aspect of these meetings is that when people meet and talk, they get to know each other and understand each other. This is a very important aspect of creating and maintaining understanding among ASEAN countries. I am satisfied that the present activities are such that enough younger leaders of all the ASEAN countries are involved and that lasting understanding is in the process of being forged and that no special effort is needed. This is not to say, of course, that we should not continue to bear this in mind but I do not see the need to embark on any new projects to do this.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens also brought up the question of some disparaging remarks and very critical speeches made by politicians in some of our neighbouring countries. Our relations with all countries, including our immediate neighbours, are friendly, cooperative and at the very least correct. We have very good relations with our neighbours at the level of political and administrative leaders. Of course, our immediate neighbours belong to the same group, ASEAN, which over the years has evolved an approach of emphasizing points of agreement and not points of differences. We do have our differences but the great importance about the experience of ASEAN is that we have deliberately emphasized to our people those areas where we have common perception, those areas where we can cooperate for the common good, and we have evolved an attitude of dealing with differences quietly, bilaterally, without making them into public issues or without arousing public sentiment. I think this is the way to continue to build solidarity within ASEAN. But we must recognize that in all these countries, there are of course politicians who think that the easy way to advance their political progress is by making disparaging speeches or attacking us in public. They may think that this is a convenient way to distract attention from their own personal inadequacies, or they may think that this is an easy way to garner support.

We know of politicians who think that they can advance their interest by attacking their own country while overseas, in other countries. So we should not be surprised that there are politicians in foreign countries who think that the easiest way to advance their cause or their personal interest is to attack some neighbouring country. We should not get too excited by this or pay too much attention to such statements. Our relations with the people in these countries at the levels which matter are good and we should ignore the speeches of others who do not matter.

Now I come to the last point, Sir, ie, the question of properties. The Member for Chong Boon wanted to know details of properties purchased for the fiscal year that is coming to an end and the plans for the next fiscal year. In the financial year 1985, the Ministry bought residential properties in Bangkok, Brussels, Canberra, Hong Kong, London, New York, Paris and Washington. We also made progress payments for the construction of the chancery and residential complex in New Delhi. This project was completed in this financial year. We are also in the process of building a new chancery block and staff quarters in Jakarta.

In the coming year, we will complete the projects that we have in hand as well as start new projects in several other places. For example, we intend to purchase land in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to construct a chancery and an ambassador's residence. In Bonn too, in West Germany, we shall buy land and build a chancery. In all these projects, the Ministry will continue to consider Singapore architects as consultants. We shall also be embarking on a project in Brunei to build a chancery and staff accommodation.

The general policy of the Ministry remains the same on the question of properties. We constantly monitor rentals and property values and, whenever we think that it is advantageous to purchase properties, we try to identify properties that will serve our needs as well as hold the promise of appreciation in the coming years. And where we are able to identify such properties, we have not found the Ministry of Finance unsympathetic to buying these properties.

I hope I have answered all the points raised by the two Members.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies to the various questions which I have raised. Can I seek clarification on some other matters? I notice that at recent ASEAN meetings, there have been observers from other countries close to ASEAN. May I ask him what is the prospect of an expanded membership of the regional organization?

The Minister mentioned about the support which has been given to the Government of Democratic Kampuchea. Clearly the government requires both economic and military assistance so that they can enhance the prospect of victory in their struggle against the Vietnamese aggressors. May I ask the Minister what efforts have been made to obtain more support, both economic and military, for the Democratic Kampuchean Government to increase their prospect for victory?

Finally, Sir, I think we are all relieved at the outcome of the crisis in the Philippines and often we have been asked how can Singapore help that country to recover from the problems which they are experiencing, particularly in the economic field.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, there is one country that has sent an observer to ASEAN meetings for a number of years now, and that is, Papua New Guinea (PNG). In our discussions with PNG, it is quite clear that it is both their desire as well as the view of the ASEAN members that PNG should continue to be an observer. PNG belongs to the group of nations comprising the Pacific island nations, and I think they feel that they have a more important and useful role to play in that group. While they are welcomed to continue to attend ASEAN meetings, there is at present no plan to expand the membership of ASEAN further.

It is not easy for a number of countries to come together and over a period evolve a common approach to problems. In fact, the more the number of members in the group, the more difficult will it be to achieve this. It is for this reason that, when we had an approach from another country outside the region to become a member, ASEAN had to very reluctantly decide that it is not in the interest of ASEAN to throw open its membership to that country. So I would say, in short, that there are no thoughts at present of expanding the membership of ASEAN.

As far as the non-communist resistance groups in Cambodia are concerned, the Member is right. We have made strenuous efforts to obtain support for them, political and financial, and we shall continue to do so. As far as the subject of military support is concerned, I am sure the Member will realize that it will not serve the interests of the Cambodian resistance groups for the details of such support to be made public. All I would say is that it is quite obvious that they cannot wage the kind of military struggle that they have been waging and they could not have grown to the size that they have grown to without substantial military support from their friends.

On the last point, Sir, Philippines, I share the sentiments of the Member. We are all extremely relieved at the outcome in the Philippines. For a moment, the situation looked really ugly and it could well have developed into a really bloody civil war and whatever the outcome of such civil war the country would have been in very serious difficulties, in ruins. So we are glad that events took the turn that they did and that the Philippine people have managed to find a solution with the minimum of disruption of their society and economy.

As to how we can help, Singapore cannot pretend to be in the same league as the United States, Europe and Japan in the kind of help that they can give to the Philippines. Certainly the economic relations of Philippines with the US and Japan are much more and greater than their relationship with us. But to the extent we can help by way of training and technical assistance, we shall certainly do so. I have not had an opportunity yet to discuss with my counterpart in the Philippines and I hope to do so soon. If there is any way that we can find to extend the kind of technical cooperative programmes that we have to the Philippines, we shall certainly consider them seriously.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his very clear and direct answers. I can assure him that next year I will still come back to the question of properties again.

On this note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $49,245,600 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $16,000,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.