MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1987 TO 31ST MARCH, 1988

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

11.45 am

Head T (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [17th March, 1987],

"That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Ng Kah Ting.]

Question again proposed.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned yesterday, I was replying to the Member for Clementi on the remarks that he made about the construction industry and I agreed with him that the industry is going through difficult times and that if we are realistic we cannot expect to see the industry recover to its peak levels in 1982 and 1983. In 1983, the industry had $9.6 billion worth of jobs awarded by the public and private sectors. This volume fell by 25% to $7 billion in 1984 and further declined by another 30% to $4.8 billion in 1985. Of course, the slowdown in the industry also meant a loss in jobs. In 1984, 18,000 jobs were lost and in 1985, 48,000 jobs were lost. Fortunately, most of the workers who were retrenched were work permit holders or employment pass holders so that the brunt of the impact of the downturn was felt by the foreign workers. The industry will continue to decline and it is expected to stay at a level of around $2-3 billion a year. This means that at the expected levels in the immediate years only a third of the construction capacity will be employed. Even though the public sector is accelerating some of its projects, especially road construction and some of the infrastructural projects, the fact remains that we cannot go back to the peak and the industry will undergo a shake-out with weaker firms closing down and stronger firms cutting costs and employment.

The Construction Industry Development Board is of course well aware of this problem. It has tried to identify new areas and potentials for the industry, such as the maintenance and retrofitting sector and the export market. Total construction maintenance and renovation expenditure is about 8% of the total construction activity. This is still small compared to levels of 20-30% that is commonly found in developed countries. So there is some scope for expansion here. In the area of export markets, local contractors have been fairly successful but obviously they still have a long way to go.

As I said yesterday, the area that requires most improvement in our construction sector is the area of project and construction management and it is only when this improves that we will be able to become competitive in the export market. The Construction Industry Development Board will continue to monitor the sector and identify potential for growth in new areas and conduct continuous dialogue with the industry to help the industry.

The Member for Clementi also made the point that we ought to be very concerned with the glut, as he put it, in trained manpower. Of course, the reduction of activity in the sector is no indicator of the real surplus because, as I said, many of the workers involved in the industry were foreigners, especially at the tradesmen level and at the unskilled level. The surplus of skilled workers will be less than is indicated by the downturn in the industry as a whole. So far as the professionals are concerned, that is the architects and engineers, the industry used to face a shortage of this personnel. The result was that the type of work which is normally done by these professionals in other countries was done by technicians and other personnel of lower levels. The result of this of course was that fresh graduates in engineering and architecture found themselves being promoted or being given important jobs and responsibilities far in advance of their counterparts in the more developed countries where construction has reached a stable level. In fact, only last night I was talking to an architect who told me that the days when architectural graduates could join and expect a partnership in four or five years are gone. This applies not only to the engineering and architectural profession but to all the professions and to graduates as a whole.

In a period of very rapid growth, people found themselves being promoted rapidly and we had in Singapore many who were like the proverbial MBAs from Harvard who, upon graduation, expected to get a corner room on a high floor and be labelled as Vice-Presidents. I think those days are gone. Advance will be slow. Much will depend upon actual practical experience and we have to get used to a more stable and slower growth. As I said, this will have its impact on the architectural and engineering profession. So the relatively more junior architects and engineers will find themselves doing jobs which for some time now people have considered as being the responsibility of technicians and lower level personnel.

This process of adjustment of the role of the professionals in terms of adapting themselves to slower growth will be painful for some of our professionals but it is a necessary process for the industry if it is to become a more healthy industry in the longer run.

I would not like to leave the impression that it is all gloom. There is some light at the end of the tunnel. In a survey conducted by the Construction Industry Development Board in July 1986 covering 526 consultancy and construction firms, 62% of the consultancy firms and 77% of the construction firms surveyed indicated that they are unlikely to reduce their staffing levels further. But of course this would be no consolation for those coming into the job market in the coming years.

As regards the other parts of the construction industry - the equipment and material suppliers and so on - fortunately, since the major part of our construction equipment as well as building materials are imported, the impact of the downturn is not as great as it would have been if all these had been manufactured locally.

I would now like to take some of the other points brought up by various Members. The Member for Siglap made a very valid point about our neglect of preservation of old areas in the past, that we were too quick to knock down the old and to build the new. Fortunately, we have become more conscious of late and, as Members are aware, there are areas in Chinatown, in Little India, in Geylang which are now subjects of preservation. But it is unfortunate that some older buildings which we should have preserved are not with us any more. I can think of, for example, the Arcade building in Collyer Quay. Really, under present standards and under the present approach, it is a building that should be preserved. But that is one price that we have to pay for rapid development but I hope we are getting wiser in this respect.

As to the change of names, yes, I also have been very confused sometimes with names that I have never heard of before. But the Housing Board will follow a policy of preserving old names, not just names which are non-Chinese but also dialect names, because some of these names have strong historical meaning for Singapore. Children who read the history of Singapore may see the words "Nee Soon". If you read it in Chinese you would know it is "Yishun". But if you read it in English, not many would connect "Nee Soon" with "Yishun". It is important that we preserve some of these names so that our future generation will know the origin of these names.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Dhanabalan: Some of the names that have already been changed, to change them now back to the old names would cause confusion. But I generally subscribe and I think Housing Board is aware that we ought to preserve the old names. In some areas the development is so great and so many features are created in the landscape that it makes sense to discard some old name and put in a new name. For example, Bedok Reservoir, which was not there is now there and it makes sense to call the road there Bedok Reservoir Road rather than the old Peng Ann Road which I think only those who live there would know and the likelihood is that those who lived there are not living there any more. They have been resettled elsewhere. The HDB will continue to liaise closely with the Street Naming Committee and the Street Naming Committee has been given some indication of what the present policy in this matter is going to be.

The Member for Pasir Panjang raised a point about Pine Grove residents who want to upgrade from smaller HUDC flats to bigger HDB flats. The HDB has already explained why it is not buying back HUDC flats. This policy also applies to those residents who wish to upgrade to HDB flats. Incidentally, I have always thought people upgrade from HDB flat to HUDC flat. But obviously there are some areas where HUDC residents consider themselves as upgrading when they move into HDB flats. If a resident in Pine Grove estate wants to upgrade to a larger flat, he can apply now to purchase a bigger flat from HDB. He is required to sell his existing flat within two years upon allocation of his new flat to a buyer of his own choice.

The Member also spoke at some length about the Wholesale Centre in Pasir Panjang. This centre was built as a resettlement centre to rehouse fruit and vegetable wholesalers from the central area, and it was very essential that they had to be resettled because they were a major source of pollution to the rivers as well as, of course, causing other problems such as traffic congestion. So there was no possibility of leaving them where they were. In the relocation, of course, HDB attempted to make sure that they have as many facilities as possible to carry out their trade efficiently. But if they are facing competition - from what I understand to be really illegal wholesale operators who operate from roadsides - then I think I will ask my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, to send his inspectors out and be more rigorous in dealing with this problem. Incidentally if we go out and deal with them, I hope Members will not come and make appeals here that we should be more lenient with them.

In the Wholesale Centre the operators are provided with quite an array of facilities which they did not have in their old place. They have cold rooms, auction areas, special loading/unloading bays, carparks, as well as parking lots for their lorries. HDB will continue to monitor the situation and see whether there is a need to upgrade the infrastructural facilities in the Centre. But whatever the HDB can do, ultimately the fact cannot be escaped that the viability of the operation must be dependent upon the business acumen of the wholesalers themselves.

The Member for Henderson raised the question of lifts in low-rise flats. The general policy, both in HDB and private development, is that you can have buildings up to four storeys without lifts. They are designed as walk-up flats. Usually such blocks have so few units that it does not make sense, economic sense, to install lifts. But I understand that there are some old blocks which are five storeys. I am told there are none which are seven storeys but I am prepared to be enlightened on this. But there are some five-storey blocks which, strictly speaking under the guidelines, should not have been allowed without lifts. Where these blocks are rental blocks, they may be part of a redevelopment exercise. But where they are purchased, of course, the problem is a little more complicated. People who bought these flats knew clearly that they were flats without lifts. And to install lifts wouldreally mean serving people only on the fifth floor because that is the extra floor. I am afraid that in these cases they have to live with the inconvenience. But where people have grown old or become crippled or incapacitated in some way and they find it difficult to climb stairs and they want to sell their flats or give up their rental flats to move to flats at lower levels, HDB will always consider such requests sympathetically. Special consideration is given to allocating ground floor flats to people who obviously cannot climb staircases. The problem, of course, is those who are young and fit and active today, may not be so 10, 20, 30 years from now. Even in the case of the high-rise blocks, the lifts do not stop on every floor. So if you happen to live on a floor that is two or three floors above the lift landing, you still have to climb a few flights of steps. It is for this reason that I mentioned that in the design of new flats, special consideration will be given to the needs of an ageing population.

The Member also made the point about lack of attention being paid to hawker stalls that have been empty for a long long time and that HDB seems to be more concerned dealing with petty problems such as hawkers encroaching on to passageways. Of course, the inspectors who go round the markets to deal with the way in which hawkers conduct their business are different from those who deal with allocation. But I must say this. There are many markets which have vacant stalls. And these stalls remain vacant not because the HDB does not want to rent them out. Ask yourself, "Why should HDB want to maintain these vacant stalls?" It does not make sense. They want to rent them out. But the problem is that every time they try to let them out, hawker stall applicants do not want these stalls. They say the market has got insufficient business, or is poorly located, or for various reasons they do not want the stalls in these markets. So we are aware of it. I myself have vacant stalls in my own constituency, as well as in adjacent constituencies. Every time somebody says he wants a market stall, I say, "Are you interested in this market?" Some of them say yes. But after they go and make enquiries, they come back and say, "No. I don't want." Everybody wants a market that is well situated, that has got plenty of business. That is not possible. So it is not for want of trying. It is just that there are markets which are poorly located or which do not have sufficient business and you cannot attract stallholders to take up stalls in these markets.

I think I have covered all the points brought up by Members. If they want any more clarification, I should be pleased to deal with them.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Chairman, Sir, the announcement by the Hon. Minister yesterday that a committee has been set up to review Singapore's public housing policy, under the chairmanship of the First Deputy Prime Minister, is indeed a step forward and very relevant to Government's declared policy of home ownership.

We in the GPC on ND and Housing welcome the setting up of this committee. But we would like to pose some questions for the consideration of the committee before its report, as indicated that it will be out in the middle of the year. First, will it take into account the question of buying land from Government at the so-called market value? How will this value be arrived at? Second, in the past, land value was not clearly explained and determined. Because, to my mind, lands that were acquired and which were cleared were either heavily squattered and in areas outside the busy business district; in other words, in the numerous constituencies which are suburban or rural and also within the central business district where there were many old buildings with rent controlled premises. Therefore the question of cost of acquisition of land was not that high. Now, Sir, the picture is different. May we ask what is the position with regard to this question of land value in the context of the future public housing policy? This brings me to the next question.

Will it not be more economical or, to borrow the Hon. Minister's phrase, will it make more economic sense to demolish some of the older estates, particularly those that were built by the Singapore Improvement Trust, more than 30 years ago? Earlier in the day, we had a reply from the Hon. Minister of State to Oral Question No. 2 on the Order Paper on rejuvenation of these old housing estates. I do not think by rejuvenating them, they will be attractive. People are moving out. People are upgrading themselves. So the net analysis for these old estates is, I believe, that the older folks probably will be left behind. What I am trying to say is that it makes more economic sense if we were to demolish the older estates to make way for the new. This question is addressed with regard to making optimal use of land. We have been talking so much about the scarcity of land, and that land is almost our only commodity and therefore it is very very valuable. Therefore, we need to make optimal use of land. I hope the committee will give its consideration in this respect.

I will go on to suggest that urban redevelopment be reviewed more often, say, once every five to 10 years on a rolling basis. Now that URA has come within the ambit of the HDB and a lot of urban renewal development has indeed taken place but more needs to be done.

In this respect, with HDB building some 20,000 units from now, the question of core contractorship may have to be reviewed. This was already mentioned by the Chairman of the HDB in the Annual Report for 1985/86. On page 7, he says:

'The Building Core-Contracting Scheme was extended for another year. This Scheme is designed to upgrade the technical and management capabilities of our better contractors so that they not only produce better quality flats but also improve their potential for exporting their services. The performance of our core contractors has gradually improved since the inception of the Scheme in 1982.'

Would the committee then consider the question of the open tender system? That is, with better quality design in housing. Earlier on, in reply to the comments of the Member for Clementi, the Minister did point out that the construction industry has been adversely affected in the last couple of years. My suggestion is by opening up the tender system, instead of having the core contract system, it may well be that more competitive and much cheaper but, of course, without sacrificing the quality and design and that professional workmanship will be brought in. This is all the more necessary in view of the fact that HDB in future will be more concerned with the building of flats (quality flats, quality designs) as stated by the Hon. Minister yesterday. So therefore the pricing will have to be considered, in other words affordability. How will this committee under the chairmanship of the First Deputy Prime Minister address this question?

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): May you allow me to comment on one thing? I am very happy to hear the Minister announce earlier that traditional names of Singapore places will be used in naming future or new developments at these places. I do not know whether he proposes to change Yishun back to Nee Soon.

But there is one particular name in Singapore which I strongly feel should be changed, and that is, the Kandang Kerbau Market, now known as Zhujiao. There are two good reasons why I think the name should be changed. First, the word Zhujiao in Hanyu pinyin is exactly the same as the word Zhujiao that means pigs' legs. So Zhujiao Market to someone who comes from outside will mean the Market of Pigs' Legs or the place where they sell pig's legs. But another more compelling reason for change is that Zhujiao is a trans-literation of the Hokkien name Tekkah into Mandarin; and unfortunately the translation is wrong. Because what Tekkah means in Hokkien does not mean the "legs of the bamboo". I checked with the botanists in the NUS and they told me that bamboos do not have legs. The Kah in Hokkien means "underneath" or "below". So Tekkah means "underneath the shade of the bamboo trees", a very beautiful poetic name. And it also reminds us of the history of the place where, in the early years, the first settlers traded under the shade of the bamboo trees. So the Kah is a very frequently used name in Hokkien. We have Tek Kah, Goh Chang Cheu Kah, Lau Chi Kah, Mang Kah Kah and also the common min cheng kah toh kah. The kah here does not mean "leg" but it means "underneath". So I would like to know whether the Minister is prepared to change the name Zhujiao Market back to Tekkah Market.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I want to refer to the Minister's reply to my queries on the financial statement. When I talked about the financial statement, especially the notes, I did not expect him to have all the answers in hand. But I thought that he has his Permanent Secretary and his Minister of State ready to take down the questions and probably give the answers today. But since he has indicated that I would have to write in to get all the answers, I suppose I have to, although I really dissent it as I may want to pursue this a little bit further.

The point I want to bring across to this House is that I do not see why the Minister should be so concerned about the flat dweller knowing the cost of his flat. The papers reported that the Minister was concerned as to whether he should allow the flat owner to know the cost of his flat. Maybe the papers quoted him wrongly. I thought that this issue has been talked about at great length in this House but we have not come to any form of conclusion. All that has been said is that HDB flats are subsidized. And this House has been categorically told that the HDB as well as the HUDC flats are subsidized flats. I live in an HUDC flat. I have been asked by my neighbours about it. I have HUDC flats in my constituency. I have also been asked about it. I thought I might as well bring this up to this House so that we could settle this once and for all, whether or not the HUDC houses are really subsidized by the Government. To my knowledge, the people who are really subsidized in the purchase of HUDC flats are the civil servants who pay less than the normal applicant for an HUDC flat. I think it is 15-20% lower.

To my mind, I think the Minister for Education did a wonderful job in listing down the subsidy for primary schools, secondary schools up to tertiary education and then the seriousness of this subsidy is being reckoned with by the people who have been subsidized. I thought that this could be done for the flat dwellers, 3-roomers, 4-roomers, 5-roomers, maisonettes, HUDC flats and so on. So that the people who have been subsidized will learn to be grateful to the Government. But for the people who have not been subsidized, it should not always be said that they have been subsidized. I think we should come out in the open to say whether it is true or not. If it is not true, then I suggest that we acknowledge the fact that in some quarters the flats are not subsidized. And if need be, I think on balance, especially the HUDC flats, we should remove the HDB rules which are imposed on HUDC flats, if it is found that they are not being subsidized. I hope that the Minister will take this into account.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Chairman, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

I would like to join the hon. Member for Nee Soon to express our sincere thanks to the Minister who is now reviewing the policy on the naming of streets in HDB estates. However, I would like to point out, as a member of this committee, we found that it was the HDB which is mainly responsible for the confusion and public unhappiness when it comes to naming streets in its estates. As an example, the committee during its deliberations had recommended that the new town in Bukit Panjang should not be named Zhenghua. However, the HDB was adamant and stuck to the name and we are glad somehow it has now been changed back to Bukit Panjang, a name which has a history and relevance to the people of Singapore. And with that I do hope that the HDB will consider, eg, with its new declared policy to retain Ponggol Road which has now been half expunged and probably retain Telok Mata Ikan, Tanah Merah and Somapah when it starts building Simei Estate.

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Chairman, Sir, may I join in the protest of this indiscriminate naming and changing of names. For example, my constituency is now changed to something that is possibly pronounced as Kai Ko Gang instead of Chua Chu Kang which is a well distinguished name and has a history behind it. After getting away from previous indecent translations of street names, we are now having this indiscriminate changing of names. For example, previously, Raffles Place was translated as Lai Fu Se Pu Li which means that Raffles was indecent. But after having gone through that, we are now having another bout. I think it should really stop.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think there was some misunderstanding yesterday when I answered the questions raised on the HDB accounts. I said that the HDB cannot publish accounts in a manner where anybody can pick up the accounts and find out exactly how much his 3-room flat in Block 107 in Bishan costs, because it is just not practical to publish such details. But I said that the accounts quite clearly show that there is a subsidy and I explained what the subsidy is all about.

The Member for Paya Lebar raised, in particular, a number of points about the notes to the accounts. He raised some queries on Note 14 which deals with sale of flats. There he read to us the proceeds of sale, which is $2.766 billion, and the cost of sale which is $4.113 billion, the cost vastly exceeding the proceeds of sale. This cost of sales includes the construction cost, the land cost, overheads in administration, infrastructural cost and interest during construction. It has one item there which is covered in Note 11 of the accounts which the Member also referred to, which is the amount relating to flats which are not yet sold, in stock. It is $311 million. The flats in stock cost more than their realisable value and that will be quite clear, even from Note 14. "Realisable proceeds of sale exceed the cost of sales." So the cost of the flats in stock which are not yet sold exceeds what the HDB estimates as the realisable value under current selling prices. That difference in normal accounting practice should be attributed to cost of sales. But that is only $311 million. So even if we take that out, you will see that as against the proceeds of sale of $2.766 billion, the cost of sales is $3.8 billion approximately. Therefore, there is a deficit of $1 billion, and that is the subsidy for the flats sold in the year dealt with by these accounts for the year ending March 1986. That is clear enough I think.

But as to what type of flats are subsidized and to what degree, certainly the HDB has those figures. Perhaps in the next annual report they should give those figures. But it could be a little misleading. A 4-room flat in Ang Mo Kio could cost different from a 4-room flat in Bishan, or a 4-room flat in Hougang or Bedok or something in the city. Then you will have to lay out zone by zone. It can be quite voluminous. But perhaps some broad classifications can be given to enable people to judge for themselves the degree of subsidy that they enjoy. I think there should be absolutely no doubt. If you look at all the various items, sale of flats, service and conservancy, the amount that the HDB collects either through sales or through service and conservancy charges, is much less than what the HDB incurs. I am surprised that the Member is still not clear that there is a subsidy. But if he has any specific questions to raise I shall be very pleased to further clarify.

He also raised the point on Note 14, whether the cost of sales includes other facilities like commercial facilities, industrial buildings, and so on and so forth. He said that he could not find anywhere in the HDB's accounts these items reflected. If he looks at the balance sheet of the HDB's accounts, he will find Fixed Assets of $18 billion. That is where all the other assets of the HDB, the rental flats, the shops, the markets, the industrial buildings are all included. That is where they are and they are not reflected here under Cost of Sales for Sale of Flats. This item under Note 14 covers only those costs attributable to the dwelling units that were sold. As I said, it includes not just the construction cost but also the land cost, infrastructural cost and all other costs which are directly attributable, in terms of administration overheads, to the sale of flats. And there the subsidy is quite apparent.

The Member for Punggol raised the subject of core contractors and asked whether an open tender system would not result in a more competitive situation which will make our construction industry better able to export their services. I think Members will be aware that the core contracting scheme was introduced in a period when we could not persuade enough local contractors to bid for Housing Board jobs. Because of the very rapid increase in prices, contractors were not prepared to commit themselves by bidding for jobs which may take two to three years to build, and they did not know what the cost situation would be during the period of construction.

The other main reason for the introduction of the core contracting scheme was to give contractors sufficient jobs over a period of time to enable them to invest in equipment and undertake training of their workers. The argument was that if contractors live from job to job and each job was 12 to 18 months, they had little incentive to invest in equipment or in training because, after the job is over, they would probably not have another job to carry on. So in order to assure them a continuous load, this scheme was introduced. I think the basic thrust of the scheme is still valid. We must have a scheme that will enable contractors to plan over a period of maybe three to five years. But what can be improved is how contractors are allowed into the scheme or how they are selected for the scheme.

I think a more competitive system can be introduced. Instead of pre-selection, maybe there can be some sort of a tender system. I can think, for example, of con- tractors who are involved in road construction. Although we do not have a core contractor scheme, but tenders are awarded on a term basis without specifying exactly where the work has to be done and contracts are awarded on the basis of quantities on a term basis so that the contractor can invest in equipment knowing that he will have enough jobs for maybe the next three years. Some similar system can be introduced and this is being looked into by the Ministry so that we can preserve the basic thrust of the core contracting scheme but improve the way in which contractors are selected for the scheme. The improved method would ensure that there is a competitive element and not a pre-selection based on criteria which are difficult to justify. So the scheme as a whole, as I said, will continue but we will improve the scheme, and that is what the Ministry is considering at the present moment.

The Member for Punggol also asked whether the Committee on Public Housing chaired by the First Deputy Prime Minister will look into various other aspects of public housing and he raised, in particular, the question of land value. Perhaps I should explain a little bit about how the land value for public housing is determined.

Under the present system, all land that is acquired by the Government is in the Government's account. And when the Housing Board wants a particular piece of land, it then applies to the Government and buys the piece of land, and that piece of land is sold to the HDB at market value. The market value is determined by professional valuers based upon a comparison with market values of residential land in the private sector, but of course adjustments are made for the peculiarities of the particular parcel of land which is the subject of the sale. So Government sells the land to HDB at market value, and that is what goes into the cost of sales for HDB's flats which are sold.

The principles followed in valuation are well established principles which all valuers are aware of and there is nothing hidden about it. If the land is heavily squattered, squatters will have to be cleared, they have to be resettled - all those costs are imputed into the land cost. But since acquisition is on 1973 values under the present law, in most cases, of course, the land cost, including all clearance costs, will be less than the present market value. But the Government has the responsibility to ensure that land is used for the good and for the benefit of the economy and society as a whole. Land has many competing uses from different Ministries. And it is right and proper that land for housing should be valued at what land is valued for housing in the private sector, or close to it, as I said, with the adjustments which valuers are always aware of. The Housing Board, of course, sells the flats at affordable prices and these affordable prices are well below the cost of the flat, construction cost plus land cost and all the other costs. The difference is the subsidy.

It is not possible to say that the land value in a particular block should be only the cost to the Government and not the market value. Because if we were to adopt that approach, then the Housing Board would not be operating a public housing programme but a big State lottery because land values vary. There are some parcels of land in the city, for example, which revert to the Government. After 99 years they are reverted to the Government. They cost zero. Does it mean that flats which are built on that land should have land valued at zero? Obviously not. So land has got to be valued at market rates. The people who buy the homes will know clearly what is the extent to which they are being subsidized. Subsidy does not mean just anything that is sold below cost. I am sure that when people talk of friendship prices or even if Members were to sell one of their homes that they have to a sibling, brother or sister, below market price, they would consider that as a big favour even though it may be above cost. What you compare is, what can you get for the land today for the use that you want to put it to.

The present system of accounting in the Housing Board makes that very clear. Housing Board does not retain the land that is acquired. All land that is acquired is in the Government account. As and when Housing Board wants to develop housing, it applies and purchases the land at market price. The fixing of the sale price of the flats is a different exercise, based upon what people can afford. But we hope over the years to move the prices closer and closer to what the market price should be.

The Member for Punggol also asked whether it would not be more economical or make more economic sense to knock down old SIT blocks, especially in the city, and redevelop them. Yes, that is, in fact, part of the programme of relocation, to make better use of the land. There are low- rise blocks which can be knocked down and more high-rise flats can be built and to bring in younger and higher income groups into the city.

The question of pricing of flats is one of the subjects which has been dealt with by the Committee chaired by the First Deputy Prime Minister. As I said, we hope to come out with the report sometime in the middle of the year.

I have also noted the comments made by various Members on the change of names. I want to thank the Member for Nee Soon for explaining to me what zhujiao means. I always thought zhujiao was the Mandarin pronunciation of Tek kah and I thought it still meant under the shade of a bamboo tree. I am now told that it is pig's leg. It is most unpoetic compared to the meaning of the original name. But I will take their views and comments into account and look at the subject again. But I cannot give any undertaking at the present moment that these names will revert to the old names. I can give the undertaking that I will give it serious consideration.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has not replied to a suggestion of mine with regard to urban redevelopment. I was suggesting a review on a rolling basis of five to 10 years and be bold enough to make the necessary redevelopment.

Mr Dhanabalan: I am not very clear what the Member for Punggol has in mind, but I can say this. That urban development plans are reviewed constantly, not just every five years. They are constantly updated in the light of latest knowledge, latest needs and so on. For example, the plans to preserve Tanjong Pagar and certain parts of China Town and the other areas that I have mentioned, were not the result of a five-year review, but a constant review. The present situation is one where we think we should proceed with these preservation plans. We do not prepare a plan and we say, "Well, we will follow the plan for five years and then review it in five years." No. There is a constant review and it may be, what you say, a rolling review every year. That is what the present situation is.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I think the Hon. Minister just got my point on the last part of his answer. When I said urban renewal development programme, I mean there are certain parts within the city where one can see these high-rise buildings as opposed to some low-rise buildings which were built many, many years ago, and I do not know whether the leases are up or not. To me, this question of optimal use of land has always been of concern. In this respect, that question has been asked.

Mr Dhanabalan: I will take note of his comment but I just want to make one point. It does not mean that if you see a low-rise development in the city it is uneconomic use of the land. You must look at the area as a whole, and in planning you do have high-rise and low-rise development. You cannot have high-rise everywhere. So where you have a mix, you may think that certain areas are not being put to economic use. But it is necessary that we have this mix in order to have a good living environment.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Apparently so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am glad that the Hon. Minister has taken note of our comments. On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I want to touch on the tender system adopted by the Ministry of National Development.

According to recent press reports, the Ministry has rejected the tenders submitted last December for the Central Expressway. Could the Minister explain why, and also on the way the tenders received were evaluated. According to a report in the Business Times of 10th March 1987, many contractors were surprised when the Ministry of National Development released the bids of the aborted tenders. One of them was reported to have said that the practice was unusual. And he also said, and I quote him, "Now everybody knows where the bottom line is and will price his bid accordingly." Could the Minister explain when and how the new bid would be called? Would it be restricted to the same group of shortlisted tenderers? Could this tenders be limited to local contractors only or at least preference be given to them in view of the current depressed state of the construction industry? Could the Minister explain, please?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Ministry released a press statement explaining why tenders for the Central Expressway had to be recalled. I thought that statement was quite clear and comprehensive. As that statement explained, this particular tender was a design-and-build type of tender. In other words, the contractor had to submit within broad parameters his design of this particular project and then indicate what it would cost to build this particular tunnel of his design.

The tenders had many qualifications and assumptions and conditions which the PWD found unacceptable and made it difficult for the PWD to compare one tender with another tender. And in spite of repeated attempts to get clarification, none of the tenderers submitted a fully conforming tender. In the initial stages, of course, all the tender prices were kept confidential and when the Tender Evaluation Committee went through the tenders, they were not satisfied with all the clarifications that they obtained. They were not satisfied that the changes that the tenderers made in the course of the clarification were fair and reasonable changes. The Government therefore decided to recall the tenders from all the original eight tenderers who bid for the job and made it clear to them what the clarifications were that they had to incorporate in their tender and they were also told about the original tenders, all the eight, so that they knew exactly where they stood. When the tenders come in, they will be evaluated and the successful one will be awarded the tender.

As to whether this tender can be confined to local contractors only, I am afraid that will not be possible. This is a very large tender. It is expected to cost more than $300 million. It is a very complicated job, involving two very long tunnels starting all the way from Clemenceau Avenue down under the Singapore River and emerging in Chin Swee Road. It is a project that cannot be parcelled into smaller lots because you cannot say so many feet of the tunnel should be awarded to one contractor and so many feet to another contractor because there are great problems of management, making sure that all the contractors work in tandem. It is for this reason that the PWD decided that the whole contract should be awarded to one contractor. There are local contractors who will bid. There are also joint ventures between local and foreign contractors who are bidding for this job. If we were to confine this only to local contractors, we may be selling ourselves short.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): On a point of clarification, Sir. The question that some people have raised about this project is why did not the Ministry's engineers design the whole expressway and then let it out for tender instead of inviting by designs and tenders?

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, can I take it from the Minister that the procedure is the normal procedure used for the tender system, and that there was nothing unusual about the way the tenders were evaluated or the bids were released? Because one of the contractors stated that the procedure seemed a bit unusual. So I would just like to get a clarification.

Mr Dhanabalan: Design-and-build is not the normal way of doing things. Normally, PWD will design and then call for bids. But where jobs are very large and complicated, there are reasons for calling design- and-build tenders. If the PWD were to design this, then it will have to confine itself to the expertise available within the PWD, and tunnels and long complicated jobs like this are not jobs that PWD undertakes all the time. It is not like building schools or building normal roads or expressways. To have confined ourselves to the expertise available within the PWD would not have been good. International contractors who have done this job elsewhere have the expertise and I think it was right that we tried to tap the knowledge and expertise that was available from these international contractors. While it is not normal, it is not unusual to ask for design-and-build tenders.

Dr Augustine Tan: Could not the designs have been submitted through separate tenders in the first place and then having chosen an appropriate design a tender exercise for the actual construction could have been done?

Mr Dhanabalan: The choice of a design would depend very much on what it will cost to build it. So you cannot separate the design from what it will cost to build it. How do you choose which is the best design without knowing what it will cost to construct the tunnel according to that design? So it is not unusual to do what PWD has done. It may not be very common in Singapore but in other countries it is quite often done. You set out what you want in broad terms. As I said, broad parameters are laid out and then the contractors design according to those parameters and bid.

Dr Augustine Tan: Was it because the terms of reference were rather too broad so that there were problems in interpretation of the specific details that were required by the Ministry? I raised this question because tenders can be faulted on the basis of technical specifications or mis-specifications, and if one wanted to do things out of the ordinary one could use this as an excuse for getting the tenders rejected.

Mr Dhanabalan: I would suggest that the Member waits until we process the new tenders before coming to any conclusion as to whether a particular excuse was used to reject a tender.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: I thank the Minister for the answer. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-2140 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely have a question to ask of the Hon. Minister, ie, the estimated amount to be voted for is only $1,300 as opposed to the estimated and revised figure of $602,000.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, the difference arises out of a difference in organization within the Ministry. First of all, the HDB and the departments of the Law Ministry are moving out of the National Development building this year and PWD will assume responsibility for maintenance of the building. So for better financial control, Utilities provision is now reflected under the Public Works Programme and not under this Head. Therefore, only a sum of $1,300 is required for fuel for office vehicles.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Sir, 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.*

Sir, I would like to open up a number of issues with the Minister in response to some of the topics that have been raised.

Sir, it is indeed reassuring to know that the Minister will look into ways to minimize the difficulties of the people affected by relocation. HDB manages about 20% of HDB flats under the rental scheme. The number of 1- and 2-room units is around 108,770 as at March 1986. Not all the people living in these rental units are able to make it to home-ownership or even under the relocation scheme. With the waiver of deposit they will be able to enjoy the plans under relocation. This is because of financial difficulties, old age with very little savings, some of them are on contract employment and others have unsteady incomes. Most of them whom I know earn salaries of less than $800 a month.

Sir, I see that it will be realistic at least within the HDB policy to assess the extent to which rental flats need to be retained. I know that it is our aim to ensure that we achieve full home-ownership for all but I think there are some of them who would not be able to get into home ownership not because they cannot get on to it but simply because they do not have the means to do so. This current resettlement scheme is likely to unsettle some of the low-income families. If they are going to be resettled into other estates and new towns it is going to incur a greater burden to these families that have children.

From what I know, there are operational implications. Taking my constituency into consideration, it has eight blocks to be affected. People living in these blocks are are going to be resettled. Of these, two blocks are 1-room flats, six blocks are 2-room flats and only one block is being retained. I know that there are a lot of old people and younger families with children who have been staying in these flats for the past eight to 10 years. To resettle them into other new estates or neighbouring estates would disrupt their own social network of support. The move towards resettlement of these people is a good thing because it provides them opportunities to have better housing. However, I feel that adequate steps will have to be considered to ensure that these families would not be unnecessarily disrupted.

Sir, the other dilemma I see is that we have an over-supply of 3-room flats in many outlying new towns and many of these flats are not taken up. I do not know what plans are there for these flats to be taken up or be allocated to people. Some of these flats may never be bought because they are in places which are out- side the suburban precincts. Unless one allows for three-tier families to have special arrangements to purchase these flats and convert them into 4-room type where they can accommodate their multi-tier family members, such flats that are available in the outlying areas will remain unallocated. I would want to know what specific plans will be made to encourage people to take up these flats. Otherwise we will have quite a lot of resources tied up. This will be what we call the non-performing assets. I view that such resources could be better deployed if we could work out a scheme to allow these flats to be taken.

The other issue that I would like to raise is with regard to the urban renewal policy. Much of the urban renewal policy relating to the central city area would need to be reviewed. I note that parcels of land, old historical sites and others have been acquired and these places are subsequently renovated. Thereafter they have been tendered out by URA to private people. I am wondering why these parcels of land and places of historical interest could not be allowed for private initiatives to develop them and to allow private property owners to refurbish and renovate these places and to maintain such places of interest. They will probably inject new innovations and creativity in terms of the preservations of these places.

Sir, touching on Town Council, which is becoming an interesting topic, I share the sentiments of my colleague, the Member for Kebun Baru, about the need to establish Town Councils because it provides a new dimension for estate management. I assess that there are several issues that we need to address ourselves in order that Town Councils could become effective and can be managed effectively.

The Chairman: Order. It is 1.00 pm.

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

Mr Deputy 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 Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head T (cont.) -

Dr Vasoo: Sir, before we broke off for lunch, I was trying to identify some issues relating to Town Councils. Sir, in order that the Town Council can be an on-going organization, it must not be delegated just with maintenance functions alone. There is a danger that it may be landed up with this task. A Town Council should be able to do more than this. It must enhance the creativity of the Town Councillors as people who are interested in trying to manage this enterprise. Also, for a Town Council to be effective, the parameters of its function should be broadened. It should not just act as a managing agent of HDB. It should be allowed to have ownership at least in decision-making with regard to the improvement of the neighbourhood itself.

Sir, I think the fundamental question we should ask is: how do we make Town Councils more effective? I would like to bring up a number of points for the Ministry to consider. In order that a Town Council could be effective, it should be involved in the development of reserved sites found within estates. Involvement could be to provide inputs in terms of improving these reserved sites and also be charged with the responsibility of managing these reserved sites or even the developing of such reserved sites which are available. This responsibility should also be extended to the development of non-reserved sites.

In terms of financial resources, Sir, Town Councils should be given the flexibility for cross-subsidy and also be allowed the opportunity to invest its funds in any area of investment as long as the level of risk is deemed to be low. At the moment I think the responsibility of financial matters is charged to the Chairman. The Chairman becomes liable, I see a need for more shared responsibility in the management of funds.

Sir, in relation to manpower and also professional services, I note that there is no economy of scale. Town Councils will still have to depend on consultancy and professional services of HDB. I think the Town Council itself should be allowed easy access to these services that are available and that an exorbitant charge should not be slapped on the Town Council. Otherwise, the Town Council will have to incur additional expenses.

The final area is related to personnel. I note that at the moment the Town Council staff are unsure as to what their future will be and what their career prospects will be like. I feel that, unless and until these issues are settled, the staff will not be able to know how they can organize themselves and give their best to the Town Council. This is a rather important area and I suppose a personnel policy will be welcomed.

The Chairman: Dr Vasoo, your time is up.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I am obliged to you, Mr Chairman. First of all, I would like just to carry on from where the Member for Paya Lebar has left off, and that is the unit cost of a flat. This issue, in fact, has been brought up even before the 1984 general elections. After the 1984 and 1985 elections, I had tried in vain to get the former Minister for National Development to give us a calculation of how this was arrived at. There was some kind of a promise made, that after a new accounting system had come into being, the HDB would be able to give a unit cost. Now we have got the new accounting system and yet today the Minister is unable to tell us the unit cost of a flat, whatever area he may choose. Of course, the excuse he gave was that it was difficult to work out how much a unit costs. But this is an important area and I think 85% of the people who live in HDB flats are dying to know what exactly it costs the HDB; how much it costs to build a flat. Of course, the only answer we got from the former Minister was, "If you all the time say that the HDB has been making profits, we will allow you to build four blocks of flats." That is no answer. On our part we have produced some calculations. If the Minister would like, I would be more than willing to hand a copy to him. Perhaps this is already in his file. We have calculations to show that the HDB does make not only profits but hefty profits in certain areas. As the Member for Paya Lebar has said, let us resolve this issue once and for all - whether or not the Government is giving subsidy to the HDB. Of course, in accounting there are all kinds of things that can be done. Now we hear that the HDB has to buy the land from the Government at market value. I think this is the crux of the matter.

To be fair to members of the public, in particular those HDB flat dwellers, I think they must be told how much the land has been acquired for, how much out-of-pocket money the Government or the HDB previously had paid for these lands which were compulsorily acquired, how much it cost to clear the land and how much this land was sold to the HDB at the market value. Of course, in the market everybody more or less knows what value has been paid for by the Government, but I think what we do not know is how much the Government has sold the land to the HDB, at the so-called market value. I think this is an important issue and I agree with the Member for Paya Lebar that this must be resolved once and for all so that the flat dwellers would know whether there is subsidy. But, of course, the definition of "subsidy" to the layman would mean out-of-pocket money. We do not want some book subsidy. "Subsidy" means actual money taken out from the pocket and paid to the HDB, and not some accounting or juggling with the accounts gimmick or a transfer of high pricing of land at so-called market value. I think I am in agreement with the Member for Paya Lebar. Let us have this issue resolved.

Mr Dhanabalan: State your own argument. Why have you been quoting him?

Mr Chiam See Tong: We brought this issue up for the last two years. This is not a new issue. Perhaps the Minister is new. He does not realize that there was a long debate between myself and the previous Minister on this very issue. He might remember that there was an offer for me to build four blocks of flats, and we accepted the offer with 19 conditions. His reply was that every one of them was impossible. He dared not go further with us. Well, we accepted the offer. It is all in your file, I believe.

The next issue, the important issue, is this Town Council that has been talked about so much. As I sat there, I have the benefit of first-hand view from the horses' mouth, so to say, of what the Town Council is all about. The Member for Kebun Baru first initiated the idea. As I sat there and listened, this Town Council does not really come up to most people's expectations. It has got a big name. In fact, I think it should more appropriately be called "estate management committee" or "maintenance committee" or, as we have it in case of the private flats, they are called "management corporations". If the HDB wants to be different, you can have the prefix, "HDB management corporation". It is no new idea at all. The first time I heard of it, a big name "Town Council". It was almost similar to the City Council that we used to have until the PAP abolished it. And I suppose you cannot revive it because one of its 11-point manifesto in 1959 was to abolish the City Council. I do not think you probably have the moral right to re-establish one again. But, nevertheless, when the name "Town Council" was tossed about, I thought it was some kind of a local government, but nothing of that sort. And this has been put by another Member, that it is probably just a maintenance agent of the HDB. Why is the PAP making such a big fuss and trying to tie up elections of group MPs with this Town Council? What are its duties? Nothing more than just management and maintenance of the housing estates.

Now, again there is a big difference between private flats run by a management corporation and this supposedly Town Council to be run by elected MPs. The management corporations only manage and maintain the common property and not their own individual units. Common property means the walls outside, common walls, common corridors, staircases, even the roof is common property. Then we have got the common pipes, sewage pipes, water pipes, and we have of course the common ground or carpark. In the case of the management corporation, the land belongs to all the flat owners. But HDB does not sell the flat together with the land. There is the distinction. Once this Town Council is formed, do the residents have to pay also for the management of the land which does not belong to them? Maybe you can say that they have an interest in the common property in the building itself. But what about the land? It does not belong to them. So in principle, the Government is asking residents to maintain something which does not belong to them. In the first place, when they first bought these flats, were they told that eventually they would have to maintain these pieces of land? They were not told in the first place. Now suddenly a new thing pops out - "Well, you have to pay also for the maintenance of the land." This is certainly not in the contract of the sale and purchase. This is a new term which is included in the contract and which the residents will have to abide. So we now know that this Town Council idea is not, in fact, a form of local government. There is probably no autonomy, no self-government. I do not think the PAP would allow it because it is an authoritarian type of government.

The Chairman: Order. Your time is up, Mr Chiam. Encik Zulkifli.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos): Mr Chairman, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate at this stage.

I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of HDB's supervision of its contractors during the various construction stages. Lest I be misunderstood, let me state from the outset that I am not implying that the HDB is lax in this area. The success of public housing over the past two decades is sufficient proof of HDB's achievements. But no matter how efficient a system of control one may have, some things are bound to go amiss. In this instance, I am referring to the complaints of major defects and design faults in some housing estates. A relevant example is the problem of iron grille gate and the wooden door at the main entrance of certain blocks in the two-year old HUDC neighbourhood in Bedok North which happens to be in my constituency. For the past two years, residents who are big built, fat or even expectant mothers suffer the incon- venience of having to open both leaves of the iron grille door in order to get in. In doing so, they expose themselves to a security risk, especially when they return home late at night. This problem is compounded by the warping of the main entrance wooden door. To date, Sir, the problem has not been satisfactorily resolved.

Acknowledging that the source of the problem can be attributed to a fault in the design and possibly the supply of poor quality material, the best the HDB did was to allow residents to replace the iron grille gate and main entrance wooden door with one of a better design and quality but at the resident's own expense. In relating this incident, Sir, my concern is that there could be other residents elsewhere in Singapore encountering similar problems and are suffering in silence.

In this connection, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister that, in the circumstances I have just described, whether the HDB would consider a more equitable solution as a gesture of goodwill to the HUDC flat dwellers, bearing in mind that they have paid a substantial sum for their HUDC flats. Secondly, I wish to ask the Hon. Minister whether HDB has sufficiently tightened its control measures to check or minimize "sub-standard" quality work by errant contractors?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Chairman, Sir, can I take the points made by the Member for Bo Wen first? He asked for an assurance that in the relocation exercise sufficient consideration will be given to old people who are used to living in a particular area and who may suffer disruption if they are moved to areas far from where they are living now. Sir, we are aware of this problem and HDB will try its best to relocate those who are now occupying 1- and 2-room rental flats which are due for demolition to relocate them as close as possible to where they are now. But we cannot give an assurance that this can be done in all cases. In a total context of this relocation exercise, we have enough flats to relocate all those who cannot afford to buy flats. The HDB estimates that 50% of the tenants who are now the subject of relocation will purchase flats and the other 50% will have to continue renting. Over the period that the relocation would take place, it appears that we will have enough flats to house all those who cannot purchase flats. The problem is whether they can get a new rental flat in an area that they desire or prefer. I think this problem will have to be tackled constituency by constituency or area by area and it is difficult to give an overall answer that everybody will be satisfied. But the general principle is quite clear. We will try our best. But because of the location of the flats that will remain on a long-term basis, it may not be possible to rehouse everybody in their desired locality.

I have asked the HDB to be very flexible in this relocation exercise and not implement the programme according to the initial concept without regard to the problems that arise during the course of the implementation. So the HDB will be quite flexible. They will assess the impact on the people concerned and try as much as possible to minimize the problems of relocation.

The Member also brought up the question of the over-supply of 3-room flats. I think in an answer to a question for oral answer, I gave details of the number of flats that are completed but unsold. In that answer, I indicated that on an overall basis we have 60,000 applicants on the waiting list as against about 22,000 completed but unsold flats. But when you look into the details and compare the number of applications against the number of flats available, Members would have noted that we do have at the present moment an excess of 3-room and 4-room simplified flats. And I explained the reason why we have ended up in this present position, because the construction programme started before the change in demand pattern. Although the HDB has been constantly reviewing the supply or the construction of flats to keep it as close as possible to demand for the different types of flats, it has not been possible to completely match supply with demand. Applicants change their preference from area to area, some of them even upgrade, some downgrade and some reject flats even in the areas that they requested for.

I mentioned that in order to ensure that supply would match demand more accu- rately, HDB will have to look into a system whereby applicants will be asked to give more firm commitments on the area that they want their flat. It is true, as the Member pointed out, that resources are locked up. It is more than a billion dollars. The 3-room and 4-room simplified flats alone account for close to a billion dollars.

The HDB has taken various measures to encourage applicants to purchase these flats, especially those in the new towns. For a start, of course, HDB has stopped building the 3-room and 4-room simplified flats and so we have to deal with the existing stock as well as 3-room flats which will be sold to the HDB or sold to the others as a result of HDB residents upgrading.

There are still 80,000 tenants in rental flats. Even if half of them, as I said just now, were to purchase flats, there is a potential 40,000 buyers there. Special incentives are being given to these residents in rental flats to upgrade themselves and buy flats. I am told that in the last two months, 5,000 applications have been received by the HDB from the 1- and 2-room rental flats. The HDB will continue to persuade applicants to take up flats in the new towns such as Yishun, Tampines, Pasir Ris and Chua Chu Kang. And as there are plans to improve the transport network including MRTC to these new towns, I think that we should get an increase in applications for flats in these new towns. It has always been the experience of HDB that every time a new town is built, it is difficult to get people to go there. I can remember long before Toa Payoh and the other new towns were built, it was difficult to get people to go to Queenstown because it was considered as too far. So it was with Toa Payoh when Toa Payoh was first built. So it was with Ang Mo Kio when it was first built. Somehow or other, people never seem to learn. They hold back and then when they are prepared to go into the new town, they find that all the flats around bus services or the town centre have been taken up. So I would urge those who are being offered flats in new towns to accept them and perhaps suffer minor inconveniences in the initial stage because of lack of transportation and other infrastructure. But in time to come, these new towns will be fully supplied with all the transportation and other facilities and they will be able to enjoy the facilities and amenities that fully matured new towns enjoy now.

Regarding the urban renewal policy, the Member made the point that perhaps the private sector should be given a greater role. The URA is well aware of this. In fact, URA's plans, especially the conservation plans, for the city cannot be achieved without an active role and commitment by the private sector. 75% of the identified conservation areas are owned privately. And URA strategy is to encourage as much private initiative as possible, recognizing that this is a practical way of tapping the resources and expertise in the private sector. Detailed guidelines for such conservation will be drawn up by URA for each area in the same way that such guidelines were drawn up for Emerald Hill and Boat Quay shophouses along the Singapore River. There should therefore be plenty of opportunities for the private sector to be involved in the conservation projects. But one must realize that in many areas, private owners may face difficulties in undertaking projects, eg, where ownership is fragmented or where properties are subject to rent control and they cannot get rid of existing tenants. Where the Government feels that the private sector is unable to proceed and there is urgency for action, the acquisition may be necessary as a last resort.

The URA sees its role not as one of just acquiring and doing things itself. It sees its role as a facilitator in this process of conservation. So it will identify conservation areas, draw up overall plans for these areas. It will initiate projects in areas where the land is owned by the Government. It will provide infrastructure like pedestrian malls and plazas where the private sector can develop the adjacent plots, and it will provide general guidelines for the private sector for such conservation activity.

The Member then spoke on Town Councils. The Member is right. The Town Council is not purely a maintenance manager of the area. He said that Town Councils should have the opportunity to participate in certain decision making, especially regarding improvements in the neighbourhood. That will certainly be one of the areas where Housing Board would work closely with the town council. But as to whether the town council should be involved in the development of reserved sites, that is an area which I think requires further consideration. Reserved sites are quite often sites which are left undeveloped for some future use and there are also empty lots in some of the new towns because certain demands will only arise when the town becomes more mature, when more people move in. It is not as if a new town is developed completely with all the facilities and then the town council takes over. In such a case, of course, any reserved lots or empty lots may be given to the town council to develop. So I think this is a little more complicated. But the general principle that HDB should work closely with the town council in providing certain facilities in the area is accepted. I think this will be followed.

As to whether cross-subsidy should be allowed, this again is quite a complicated and complex problem. At present, as I understand it, HDB allocates to the town council certain funds for particular areas of activity. For example, funds are given maybe for maintenance of commercial areas or industrial areas and so on. At least during the pilot stage we want to establish what the town councils can do within the limited funds that they are given. One factor to bear in mind, of course, is that town councils will be under tremendous pressure from the residents to do all kinds of things and very often you find that those who are the lessees of the shops or the industrial buildings are not necessarily the residents or the voters in that particular area. I certainly have some reservations about allowing complete cross subsidy because when the pressures are put on the town council the chances are that those who do not have the vote in the constituency may rank last in priority for the town council. So at least during the pilot stage we want to make a proper assessment of what would be required for different types of activity which the town council would be responsible for.

The present pilot stage must be treated very much as a learning stage. The general policy is very clear. We want to try and give the maximum that we can to a town council to do the things for the residents in their area. It is not that we want to yield the minimum. That is not the approach. The approach is to try and give the maximum. I think during the period of the pilot stage we can discuss these things and try and arrive at a solution that will keep everybody satisfied. Things like opportunity to invest funds, these are all matters of detail which I think we will have to look into.

Regarding the service that HDB provides, the Member said that HDB should not charge exorbitant rates. Well, HDB will charge what they think are reasonable rates. But one of the purposes of the town council is precisely this. That if the town council feels that it can get somebody else to provide a service, whether it is consultant service or any other kind of service, at a lower price than what HDB can provide, then the town council should be free to make use of such services. This will mean not only that the town council would be able to get the maximum for whatever funds that it has, but it will also mean that the HDB will have to be on its toes. So for the question of exorbitant charge, there is always a way out. If there is an alternative cheaper way of doing it, by all means the town council should be allowed to pursue this alternative and cheaper solution to the problem.

Terms of staff of the town council, this again is a matter of detail. We will have to look into this how the staff in the town council should be employed, what terms and conditions, who should employ them, what continuity of tenure they will have and so on. I think these are all matters that we have to discuss further during the pilot stage.

I now come to the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. He wants to know what is the unit cost per flat. This will certainly depend upon where the flat is, what is the cost of the land, what is the cost of construction. It varies from area to area, block to block. It depends whether the block stands on good ground which does not require piling or whether it is on a former swamp which required a lot of piling. It is not possible for the HDB to publish, as I told the Member for Paya Lebar, so detailed an account in its annual report that anybody opening the account would be able to find out exactly how much his flat costs. It is just not possible to do that in a report. It does not mean that the HDB does not have the costs. But it is not possible to publish it for general information. I have already stated that we will consider whether some broad categories can be made public, but I will have to discuss further with HDB on this.

It is very clear from the accounts that have been presented that there is a subsidy. Whether the Member for Potong Pasir agrees with the definiton of the subsidy is beside the point. When somebody gets something below what is available on the market, that is a subsidy. It must be so. It does not mean below cost. Suppose an oil-producing country sells us oil at $8 a barrel, will we say, "Well, the oil comes almost free from the ground and therefore you are not doing us a favour"? When that same barrel can fetch $18 per barrel? That cannot be so. As long as HDB's price per flat is such that it cannot recover the market price of the land, it is a subsidy. It must be so. After all, the Government is the steward of the property of Singapore, and it cannot say, "Well, just because a particular piece of land was obtained free because it reverted to it after 99 years, therefore anything that is built on the land must have land cost attributed at zero." That certainly cannot be the case. So based on market price of land, HDB flats are subsidized to the tune of $1 billion that I referred to in the accounts for the year ending March 1986.

HDB does not acquire land. The State acquires the land. HDB is a mere agent acting on behalf of the State. Previous to 1986 the land which the State asked the HDB to acquire on its behalf was left in the HDB, which I think was an error. State land should be vested in the State and the State should then allocate the land for different uses to different Ministries depending upon the needs and the reasons that the Ministries can give to justify the use of the land. So all the land is now vested in the State. HDB has to buy the land from the State as and when it wants to build flats. As and when it requires, it obtains it, or it buys it at market price. But it sells the flats at prices which do not recover the cost of the land, and the difference is the subsidy. It is $1 billion in 1986. I think it is very simple, very plain. Even the Member himself, I am sure, will agree. As I said just now, if he has a house and he sells it to his brother at $100,000 and the market price is $250,000, and the brother says, "Well, it cost you only $20,000 20 years ago, so you are making a profit of $80,000," I do not think the Member is going to be very pleased. After having done such a big favour to his brother, the brother comes round and tells him, "Well, you made a profit of $80,000 from me." As long as assets are being sold at less than market price, it is a subsidy. It is a special favour.

Town councils, well, I have already given my answer to the Member for Bo Wen. But I do note that the Member for Potong Pasir seems to be getting cold feet because it appears that he is afraid to take on the responsibility of managing his own area.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, can I clarify?

Mr Dhanabalan: You can clarify later.

The Chairman: The Minister is not giving way. Will you please sit down.

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

The Chairman: You can continue, Mr Minister.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not getting cold feet.

Mr Dhanabalan: He says the town council is a mere management corporation and then he began to make a long comparison between management corporation and the town council. Well, he can try and compare it to anything which is completely different and make a long speech about what is the difference between maybe a landlord and a town council or management corporation and a town council, or anything for that matter at all and the town council. But that does not convince me that the town council is just merely a management corporation. As I already said, the town council will have more than just mere management functions or maintenance functions. The idea is to try and give the town council maximum powers to do things.

Mr Chiam See Tong: They need to manage the land as well?

Mr Dhanabalan: No, Sir.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, can you stop interrupting?

Mr Dhanabalan: I think that if the Member wants to make his point he should stand at his seat and, until you recognize him and until I sit down, he should not speak.

So as I said, Mr Chairman, Sir, the town council will be given maximum latitude. The policy is very clear. As I explained, what is this all about? We want the people to learn to make decisions for themselves. And we want to do this as much as possible. The pilot scheme that we have now in Ang Mo Kio New Town, the town councils, will enable us to learn over the course of the next maybe six months to a year what exactly ought to be done. This is a very complex problem. We cannot determine before we even start implementing what exactly are the problems that will emerge. So we will in the light of experience formulate a framework for town councils that will be established elsewhere.

I come now to the point made by the Member for Eunos about iron grilles and wooden doors. I am not completely familiar with this problem. It could be a design problem or it could be just a problem of workmanship, but I will certainly look into this matter. I do know that there have been instances in the past where poor designs have caused problems but I will have a look into this matter.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, I am much obliged to you. I have got two questions. I shall be grateful if the Minister could tell us that in any HDB housing estate the cost of the land per sq ft, including clearance cost, ie what it costs the Government, and the cost at which it is being sold to the Government. Can you just give us some figures? What is the cost of acquiring and clearing the land per sq ft of any housing estate you may wish to name, and what is the market value which has been pegged to the selling price of the flat? That is the first question.

The other question which you have not answered is whether or not this Town Council that is to be formed will have to manage also the land and perhaps even the car parks in the estate.

Mr Dhanabalan: I cannot give the Member offhand the price but he can put in a Question for Oral Answer and he will get it for any particular new town. In some cases, the selling prices of HDB flats have not even covered construction cost, let alone any part of land cost. In other cases, it covers a part of land cost. The part that it covers varies from area to area. I am not able to give him any specific area but overall the fact remains that Housing Board subsidized to the tune of $1 billion in 1986.

Mr Chiam See Tong: A book subsidy. Isn't it right?

Mr Dhanabalan: When the Member sells something below market price, would he consider that as a mere book subsidy? Surely not. Would he consider selling his house for, I would say, 20% above his cost?

The Member also made the point which I overlooked just now. He has identified various areas where HDB is making a loss or has shown that it is making a loss but the Member claims that it is, in fact, making a profit. Will he give me the area and will he also give me an undertaking that he would take over some of these operations? [Interruption] Yes. It is very simple. HDB says it made a loss in maintenance. HDB says it made a loss in the sale of Housing Board flats. Any other area which HDB says it has made a loss, he claims it has made a profit. Identify the area. Will he take over that function for the same price?

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are seeing the ghost of Mr Teh Cheang Wan here speaking. We have been asking for this matter for the last two years and yet the Minister at this time is unable to tell us. Now he has given an example of selling my house at 20% above cost. Now I will give him an example. This is just an example. It is possible that Government acquires the land at, say, $1 - I know they are paid 90 cents but, say, $1 and the clearing costs another $1. So it is out-of-pocket by $2. Assuming the market value is $80 per sq ft. When the Government builds HDB flats in that area, it says, "All right. It does not matter. We will charge the HDB at $60." Therefore, are you saying that this difference of $20 is the subsidy? Is that not correct? That is the position?

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes. But that is not the way it works.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right, you say yes. So this is book subsidy. Who is the person really giving the subsidy? It is the poor landowner as you have taken the land from him. If you have not forcibly evicted him, he could have sold the land for $80. So who is giving the subsidy? Let us get all this straight now. It is the landowner. He has lost the land.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, first of all, to just pursue his example. Yes, if the land costs $2 out-of-pocket and the market value is $80, the land will be sold at $80 to HDB. If the HDB is able to recover only $60 by fixing the price at affordable levels, then the $20 is a subsidy. The Government has to give the $20 as subsidy. It is not just a book subsidy. By no means. The Government has a responsibility to the whole of Singapore. When it gets a piece of land, is the land to be used only for public housing? Aren't there other claimants? What about future generations? What about people elsewhere where the land may have cost more and affordable prices have to be kept low? Does it mean that a block of flats must be priced purely according to the direct cost of the land? Does not the Government have a responsibility to Singaporeans as a whole?

Yes, as I mentioned yesterday, our public housing policy has succeeded because of the land acquisition policy. It is the political philosophy and the will of the Government that has made it possible. If not for the Robin Hood operation in which the Government is involved, public housing would not be possible.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You say "Robin Hood". My goodness? Please explain what you mean by that. I really cannot understand your logic. Please explain what you exactly mean by "Robin Hood". You are taking from the landowner at $2 and you are selling to the poor HDB flat purchasers at $80, and who is the Robin Hood? The Government pockets the vast profits out of the sale of the flats, and now you say that you are giving these flat purchasers a subsidy. I really cannot see your logic. Now we are sure that there is no out-of-pocket subsidy. It is only a book subsidy. I think this position is very clear now.

An hon. Member: Acquire his house!

Mr Dhanabalan: I think we should seriously consider acquiring the Member for Potong Pasir's house at a little above cost and say that he is only making a book loss. After all, what is a book loss? It is not a real loss and I think he should not feel too aggrieved.

Sir, if he does not understand the Government's role as Robin Hood in the land acquisition policy, then I am at a loss as to where to start to explain to him. It is because of our policy that we have made public housing possible - acquiring land at cheap prices, 1973 values, resettling the people and selling it below market value. That is a real subsidy. It is not just a book subsidy. The Government could have sold at market price and used the money for some other purpose or reduced taxes so that taxpayers benefit or we could have provided some other service at cost to the people. It is a real subsidy. It is not just a book subsidy, and I think this fact must be realized - that the Government has a responsibility to Singapore as a whole and home owners, of course they are large in numbers, but they are only a part of Singapore. We also have a responsibility to future generations. If we just sell our land at out-of- pocket cost, then I think we would have done our future generation a very great injustice.

Mr Chiam See Tong: One last question. Since we know that, in fact, there is no out-of-pocket subsidy, is the HDB willing to consider reducing the price of flats sold?

Mr Dhanabalan: The answer is obvious. No.

Dr S. Vasoo: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for giving an elaborate answer, though the Member for Potong Pasir chose not to understand him. I feel the answers are appropriate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-8102 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I notice that there is a project to renovate the MND complex, and this project costs $51 million. For FY 87, $9.3 million is being sought. I would like to know how long it will take to complete this renovation project for the MND complex. Is it really necessary? After all, if my memory serves me right, the MND complex is about 20 years old. How will this huge sum of $51 million be apportioned, ie how many years will it take to enable renovations to be completed?

The Minister of State for National Development (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, in about two weeks' time, the National Development Building will be celebrating its 17th anniversary. The building was completed in April 1970. After 17 years of dedicated service, I think renovation and refurbishment is due. The amount of $9.3 million that has been allocated for the next financial year is in anticipation of the progress payment on building, mechanical and electrical renovation works. The work itself is expected to start in the middle of this year and the estimated expenditure on building work is $2.9 million. On mechanical work, it is $4 1/2 million. The rest of the $9.3 million that has been budgetted will be used for internal partition system, furniture and also other costs such as insurance expenses.

The project itself is going to be carried out in stages. It will take several years to complete the renovation of the whole building. As to whether it is necessary or not, I would say that it is long overdue because I have been told that a lot of the mechanical equipment, such as the air-conditioning equipment, are very old and have deteriorated significantly.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I think that concerns replacement of certain equipment rather than renovation, as I understand it to mean. In other words, the MND complex needs to be renovated and renovation certainly, to my mind, means that some renovation work must be carried out to certain parts of the buildings. That is why I notice this new appropriation for which the project cost is $51 million. For FY 87, it is $9.3 million. Just now the Hon. Minister of State has just replied that it is only for the mechanical and electrical works. What is the programme? $50 million is a huge sum of money. I am quite sure that for this provision to be made for this project, it must have been worked out into a number of years, and over the number of years the various areas of renovation works must have been worked out. Could the Hon. Minister of State enlighten this House?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, I have pointed out in my answer that part of the $9.3 million which is budgetted for the next financial year will be spent on building works, ie, renovation works. This is $2.9 million, and only $4(r) million out of the $9.3 million will be spent on mechanical and electrical works. If the Member for Punggol would like to have a detailed breakdown of the estimated expenses for the rest of the entire project, I will be very happy to provide him.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I am not entirely satisfied with the answer given, with due respect, by the Minister of State and I am not withdrawing my amendment.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-8103 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, again, this is an item which has attracted considerable attention, and that is, the Singapore International Garden Festival. A sum of $26.16 million is envisaged for this project, out of which $1.35 million has been spent in FY 86, and this year $10 million is being sought. In this respect, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister what programme is being planned to meet this appropriation which will cost some 40% of the project, what publicity is being carried out, and what benefits Singapore will derive from the Singapore International Garden Festival.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, the Singapore International Garden Festival was conceived as a means of utilizing the Marina South land for the next 10 or 15 years. My Ministry is now reviewing the plans and objectives of the Singapore International Garden Festival and a decision on its implementation will be announced soon.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, may I ask how soon will it be?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Very soon, Sir.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, with due respect, how soon is very soon?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Next month, Sir.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, although the answer given by the Minister of State is that it is next month, I am not quite satisfied. But since he has at least given me an answer to that question, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01-8401 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, this concerns the question of purchase of lands and also land acquisition. One need only look at this item to understand that huge sums of money have been spent on acquiring land and even purchase lands. In FY 84 the actual figure is $1,000 million; Actual FY 85 - $323 million; Estimated FY 86 - $44 million; when revised, it was $44 million. But for FY 87 (Estimated), it is only $29 million. There is a sharp decrease of some $15 million in the need for such appropriation.

Sir, we have heard from Hon. Ministers that acquiring land will be at market value because a lot of representations have been made. May I know how this will be done? Will there be a need to have the Land Acquisition Act amended? On top of this, how will such a move affect the cost of public housing, particularly when an announcement has been made that there is going to be a review of public housing by a committee which is chaired by the First Deputy Prime Minister? In short, what will be the impact?

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): Sir, I would like to support my colleague, the hon. Member for Punggol, for his comment and his questions. In addition, I would like to make a few points regarding the acquisition of farmlands and the use of these lands.

In answering the question by the Member for Punggol the other day, the Minister of State for National Development stated that some of the State lands which were acquired but not immediately needed for development had been leased out for commercial farming on a short term basis. This is, of course, the correct measure to take to maximize the use of land. I hope the Government can apply this principle more freely, and with more flexibility, on farmlands which have been acquired for development.

Over the past few years, a number of areas in Nee Soon Constituency, namely, Mandai Tekong, Lorong Sunyi, Lorong Pelita, which were traditionally very good farmlands in Singapore and which used to produce substantial quantities of vegetables and farm products, have been acquired by Government and have been cleared with the intention of developing public projects. However, owing to changes in planning or delays in projects, these acquired lands are now left vacant and unused. It is, therefore, a great pity and a great waste to see these formerly productive farms now left useless. Requests by farmers to rent these lands for farming on short term basis have not received positive response from the Government.

Sir, if a piece of land is to be used immediately for development, there is no justification to allow farming to continue. However, if the land has been acquired but is left unused for two or more years, it means the Government has acquired the land too early. And to leave these lands lying useless for a number of years after acquisition is yet another mistake. I hope the Minister can look into ways to rent the lands to farmers who are interested in making good use of these lands on a short term basis.

In connection with this, I wish to ask the Minister to consider the possibility of setting aside some areas in Singapore for use as farmland or for agricultural activities on a more permanent basis. Singapore is a land scarce country. It is not possible for Singapore to set aside large areas of land for farming. However, under the overall planning of the use of land, it may be worthwhile to consider assigning certain areas in Singapore for agriculture, not for the conventional type of farming but for the development of high technology, high density farming. These agricultural areas of farmlands can serve a number of purposes. First, to serve as green zones like catchment areas or golf clubs or nature reserves. Secondly, to produce a certain amount of food supplies so that we have something to fall back on if there is any sudden shortage of foreign supply in certain items like the recent case of vegetables from Malaysia that contain too much pesticides. And thirdly, to be used as the base for developing consulting and technical services in agrotechnology which is an area Singapore can serve and develop as a regional centre.

I understand that last year the Ministry of National Development earmarked certain areas to be used as agrotechnological parks. This is a step in the right direction. But I hope the sites were chosen with care and foresight to avoid the same mistakes made with pig farms in Lim Chu Kang, Jalan Kayu or Punggol. I also hope that the lease of these lands should be long enough so that those interested can really find it profitable to invest in high technology agriculture.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, the reason for the decrease in allocation for Land Acquisition is quite simple. The private land to be acquired in FY 87/88 is 105 hectares as against 250 hectares for FY 86/87. So a smaller area of private land is to be acquired. The main thrust of the Member for Punggol's question was the new acquisition values for land. I would like to inform the hon. Member that this is not really within the purview of the Ministry of National Development. Acquisition and acquisition values are within the purview of the Ministry of Law. So perhaps he can file a Question for Oral Answer since the Ministry of Law's head of expenditure has already been passed.

On the question of acquired land which has been left idle for a long time, I would like to inform the Member for Nee Soon that for a comprehensive development of a new town, which normally takes 10 to 15 years to complete, it is not possible to acquire land in small parcels. They have to be acquired well in time, amalgamated before actual construction can begin. There has also got to be enough time for earthworks to settle, infrastructure to be laid and many other things that have to be done before the actual construction work of the new town can commence. So it may appear, of course, that, while the new town is under construction, large parcels of land are left idle. I would say this: that where land is estimated to be not required for some time, may be three to five years, some temporary use should be found for it. The problem with allowing temporary use is this. If you require the land three years from now and meantime you let somebody have a TOL, on the basis that he will be there for three years, it is the invariable experience of HDB Resettlement Department that people who take land on TOL, with the full understanding that they will have to quit at one, two or three months' notice, never quit according to the notice period. And a lot of effort and time is required to clear them. So if land is likely to be used within a few years, two or three years, the tendency, I think, has been to leave it vacant rather than go through the hassle of giving a TOL and then finding that at the time you require it, it is difficult to clear the person holding the TOL.

But the general principle I will accept. I shall certainly ask that if the land is within the responsibility of Housing Board (which I doubt is the case now) and if not I certainly will discuss with my colleagues and if some temporary and productive use can be made of the land, then we should do so. It makes sense.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have got two questions for the Minister regarding land acquisition. The first concerns the case where land has been acquired for a certain use and the Government has found that that use no longer exists. Would this piece of land be returned to the original owner? Or what does the Government normally do in such a case? The second question is: if land has been acquired, under what circumstances will the Government return either the whole piece of land or part of the land to the owner?

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, this question is addressed to the wrong Ministry. It should be addressed to the Minister for Law.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I am aware that the Ministry of National Development is only acting as an agent in the acquisition of land by way of providing services with regard to resettlement, etc. But as the Hon. Minister has mentioned that this provision of $29 million is for the acquisition of some 105 hectares of land, it does seem to me that he is quite aware of the question that I have asked of him, and that is, the move towards acquiring land at market value. This is being asked by the public, particularly those who fear that their lands will be acquired. And, if it is so, "at market value" means at what particular date? Certainly, not 1973.

The other part of my question is that this will have an impact on the future housing policy, the cost of which is centred on the word "affordability". I hope he will try to answer that, then I will withdraw my amendment.

Mr Dhanabalan: This is a very important policy matter, Mr Chairman, Sir, and I really do not think that I should venture into this area to try and give an answer on what the policy is or when it is going to be implemented. This important policy will change land values. As the Member knows, under the present law, land is acquired at 1973 values. If land is to be acquired at values at a later date, what date it will be, and what other principles will be followed, I think it will not be fair for me to try and answer on behalf of the Minister for Law because he really is in charge of this policy. The Ministry of National Development merely carries out the implementation. The Ministry of Law tells us what to acquire. That is what MND does. So I think it being a very important matter, it can be raised at some other point.

On the Member's comment that it will have an impact on the cost of land for public housing, certainly it will have an impact. It will have an impact in terms of what it is going to cost the Government. It probably will also have an impact on the subsidy.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for his very frank reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TB-01-8103 of the Development Estimates.

Again, Sir, I notice that in this development exercise under the subhead Computer Services, there is this item of Integrated Land Use System for which the project cost is $36.2 million, and that a sum of $4.275 million is being sought for FY 87. I would like to know how this money will be spent. The Hon. Minister for National Development is not here now but his Minister of State is here to reply, I hope. Will he elaborate: how long this will take and what is the benefit to Singapore? And how will it help to achieve the objective of optimal utilization of our land resources? As we all know, land resource is finite in Singapore.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Integrated Land Use System (ILUS) is a computerized database on land and building information. The system will have both graphic information such as maps and architectural and engineering drawings as well as text and numeric data.

Sir, the $4.3 million which is allocated for the next financial year will be used to acquire computer hardware to develop the following systems:

(a) a computerized indexing and retrieval system to facilitate the retrieval of historical information which is currently stored on microfilms and microfiche;

(b) an electronic information system to expedite the flow of inquiries of building professionals, developers and property owners on the status of development and building applications that are being processed.

Sir, the integrated land use system is a complex project involving the use of advanced software technology and conversion of large volumes of manual records. As such, the implementation of the project will stretch over a period of about seven years. The project itself will have to be undertaken in phases. The first on-line system which is a partial information service system to cater to public inquiries is expected to be completed by 1988.

Sir, the project will benefit people who need information on land and buildings. They will be able to enjoy speedier responses to their inquiries regarding the legal status of land and buildings and the status of various applications under consideration. Government agencies such as the Planning Department and the Development and Building Control Branch will be able to retrieve data expeditiously. These departments will therefore be able to process development and building applications in a shorter time.

Sir, the ILUS project will also provide Government staff with tools to analyze a wider spectrum of social economic data. This improvement will help ensure optimum usage of our scarce land resources.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, in view of the huge sums of money to be spent on this project and that it will take seven years to complete and the benefits will be felt thereafter, could the Hon. Minister of State enlighten the House whether greater publicity on this particular project will be given? So that the users, the professionals, be they the architects, engineers or the developers, will have access to such information.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Chairman, Sir, the benefit to the general public arising from the ILUS project will not only be available after seven years. As I pointed out, the project will be implemented in phases and the first on-line system will be available to the public by 1988. So as and when various phases of the project are completed, the public will be able to enjoy the benefits. Publicity will also be released at the right time and the professionals in the field of development and construction will be kept fully informed of the status of the project.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I thank the Hon. Minister of State for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (9)*. Encik Othman is not here. Dr Vasoo.

Dr S. Vasoo: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-01-1210 of the Main Estimates*.

Sir, PWD has undertaken an island-wide programme to concretize bus lanes. (1) What is the rationale for this against the conventional method that has been used? (2) How much is being spent on the execution of such a programme? (3) Are there no other cost-saving methods over the recent method that has been used?

The other question is that many users of the Central Expressway (CTE) have inquired why is the CTE truncated at Ang Mo Kio, Avenue 8? Are there any plans for the CTE to be further extended to Yishun or Sembawang?

The third matter is the overhead bridges in Ang Mo Kio New Town. They are no man's land. Neither the Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for them because there are creepers on the overhead bridges, nor the PWD is responsible for maintaining them, nor is the HDB looking after them. Sir, I am wondering about the state of affairs of the overhead bridges which is in disrepute. Is the PWD actually responsible for managing and maintaining them?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Chairman, Sir, on the subject of concreting many sections of our roads, basically we are concreting the bus stops. Only in certain areas are we concreting whole bus lanes. The major work is at bus stops.

Our experience in the past has been that whenever there is a prolonged period of continuous rain, asphalt road surfaces at bus stops and certain sections of bus lanes and even some junctions break up easily as these areas are subjected to heavy traffic loads; not just heavy traffic loads but traffic that is turning in and out so that there is a lot of side pressures. Funds and manpower are expended every year to repair such damages. And I think all Members are aware that whenever there is a period of prolonged rain, the roads tend to get into a serious state of disrepair.

The past practice, as I said, has been to repair as and when the roads are damaged by continuous rain. In the case of bus stops, the PWD had to re-mill and resurface twice a year at an annual cost of about $2,000 per bus stop. Concreting costs about $7,000 per bus stop and the concreted bus stop will last much more than the 3(r) years that is required to recover the cost of $7,000. So in the long-term sense, it is more economical to concrete the bus stops. The programme that the PWD has is a 3-year programme involving $16 million.

On the CTE extension, Sir, I thought this question was raised this morning by way of a Question for Oral Answer, and the Member was informed that the CTE will be extended to reach Yio Chu Kang Road by the end of this year. Whether there will be further extensions, I cannot give him an answer right at this moment.

On overhead bridges, I am surprised that the Member is under the impression that nobody is responsible for the maintenance. I would have thought that the PWD should be responsible. I do not know whether he has been told by PWD that they are not responsible. If so, I would like to know. There are, of course, always minor defects in some of these overhead bridges but these defects are not so serious as to affect the safety of the bridges. But Members would have noticed that there is now a programme to change some of these old steel bridges into better designed concrete bridges. This programme will go on and we will try and replace the old pedestrian bridges, as and when they have served their useful life, with concrete bridges.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, just to point out to the Minister. The sweeping of the place is left to the town council but the managing and repairing is very much the PWD's purview. But nobody seems to be responsible. In view of the clarification, I beg leave to withdraw, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, it was reported in the newspapers recently that PWD is introducing high technology into our expressway system. I am sure when this work is completed, the traffic condition of the expressways will be greatly improved. Indeed, travelling on such expressways will be fully a 21st century experience. The driver will be monitored, taped, or whatever. However, if the traffic management system of the other routes of Singapore were not correspondingly improved, at some future date once one exits from the expressway system, one would be back to the present situation where some of the technology used on our roads have hardly been changed since the time they were introduced; traffic lights being one of them. I would like to say that there is already a large number of signalized traffic junctions which are not integrated with the computerized green wave system. This number is increasing.

Often times a driver would stop and wait at such a junction when there is no cross-traffic at all, in particular in the late hours of the evening or small hours of the morning. I would like to highlight to the Minister the frustration of many a motorist who waits at such a junction facing a red light, with no cars coming from the other directions, especially when the cross-road is a minor one. I would say that, through many of these experiences, the motorist would acquire a distaste for dumb traffic lights and perhaps a disrespect for the red light. This might indeed be one of the reasons why Singapore drivers are beginning to disobey the red light in increasing numbers, until the recent introduction of junction-surveillance cameras. Indeed traffic flow has shown that between a stop sign and a traffic light, motorists would obey the traffic light, more readily because the traffic light system is perceived to have more intelligence than a dumb stop sign. So if traffic lights are perceived to be dumb as well, it is not difficult to understand why motorists would disregard red lights.

So I would propose that PWD embark on a programme to convert all traffic lights at junctions where a minor road joins a major one to demand-actuated lights, ie, there will be devices on the road surface to sense whether there are vehicles in either direction or not, and that when there is no vehicle on the minor road, the lights on the major road will remain green.

Sir, besides speeding traffic flows, I would say that the better use of our road system would delay the future road tax increases. Perhaps also by introducing a more intelligent traffic light system, we can restore the respect Singaporean motorists have for traffic lights and there would be no need to install any more junction- surveillance cameras. It would also reduce the time wasted by all motorists while waiting for the lights to change at empty road junctions.

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, the Government is spending vast sums of money on building new roads and upgrading them. In doing so and until the works are completed, a great deal of traffic chaos is created. The chaos is added on by contractors who are not properly controlled and supervised by the PWD engineers. Let me give you an example, Sir. In Chua Chu Kang Road where the new Bukit Batok extension joins the Chua Chu Kang Road, traffic in a four-lane road with a central divider is squeezed into two lanes and merging with traffic in both directions separated only by a double white line. And worst of all, the merging of the traffic is at a bend. The bend is not properly banked and there are inadequate warning signs to indicate the merging of traffic at the bend. The merging of traffic at the bend remains in spite of protests to the PWD by the Chua Chu Kang Citizens Consultative Committee. The only concession the PWD engineers made was to put in a few more warning signs. It is a miracle, Sir, that nobody has been killed so far.

Generally, there are not enough warning signs to alert motorists of repair works or diversions ahead. And these signs, if there are any at all, are placed too close to the diversion point or to the repair works to give motorists sufficient time to react. And the PWD does not seem to be doing anything about it.

Also, our roads are badly sign-posted. Examples are: (1) Merging traffic without warning. Sample location: Clemenceau Avenue by the side of the Istana. (2) Lanes for traffic going straight and turning is suddenly restricted to turning only. Sample location: Orchard Road turning into Paterson Road. (3) Signs indicating closure of left-lane but right-lane closed instead. Sample location: East Coast Parkway at Benjamin Sheares Bridge going from Changi to City.

There are many, many examples of these, Sir, and I am sure Members of the House can tell you many, many more. But I think I have made my point.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam See Tong.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not speaking.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I was quite intrigued by the comments of the Member for Bukit Timah who wants not dumb traffic signs but smart traffic signs attached, I assume, to the latest artificial intelligence in order to be able to operate according to traffic conditions. I wish we can have this at all junctions. As Members know, all these things cost money and we try to install the latest technology and equipment where they will give us the greatest results.

Signals at isolated traffic junctions at present use simple sensors to adjust timings according to traffic situation. Signals which are close to each other use fixed timings. This is to facilitate the linking of the signals to provide a green wave, a progression, for motorists. These fixed timings are, of course, based on historical data of traffic through those junctions and they are programmed according to the historical data, and when the actual traffic situation is different from the historical data, of course, the signals do not respond to the current situation. But I must say that these fixed timings are periodically updated. They are updated on the basis of data over a period of time. We do not respond to the immediate traffic situation. What the Member would like is to have some sort of sensor, especially at the junction between a major road and a minor road where the lights for traffic in the minor road will only be actuated if there is traffic on the minor road. I will ask the PWD to look into this. I do not know how much it will cost. But ultimately, of course, all this has got to be paid by the taxpayers.

Since 1981, 181 sets of traffic lights within the city have been under the central control of a computer using a number of fixed-time plans which are brought into use at different times of the day to suit the daily traffic situations at that time of the day. Work is now in progress to update the system to be traffic-responsive, in other words, not based on a programme based on past experience but to respond immediately to the traffic situation at that time. The sensors will be an integral part of the new system. I hope that when we have this system, at least in the city, and the signals are not dumb signals, the Member when passing by will give a wave of thanks to the traffic light.

Regarding the chaos created by contractors which the Member for Chua Chu Kang spoke, yes, Sir, it does happen. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. In the process of building roads, contractors sometimes, even often, do not take into account the trouble they create for road users. I think we have discussed this and we can discuss this further. But I want to tell all Members that I am very conscious of this and since this matter was brought up in this House I have talked to PWD as well as all the other departments that are responsible for various road works. I myself have taken the trouble many times whenever I spotted works without proper signs and signals to draw the attention of the PWD and they have taken immediate action to rectify. If Members do come across examples, and the Member for Chua Chu Kang quoted a number of examples, and if he can ask his Personal Assistant to just give my PA a call, immediate action will be taken. I think we must keep the pressure on our contractors. Apart from having emphasized this point to the engineers who are in charge of the works, we must continue to demand a very high standard of safety from our contractors. If Members of the House can play their part, I think in a very short while the contractors will get the message that they cannot get away with shoddy signs at their worksites.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I also note that the Minister has kept up to date with the latest development in technology. On this note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-02-1210 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, our road system is probably one of the best in the world. Our roads are spacious, clean, well-maintained and beautified by shrubs and trees. On the whole, it is very pleasant to drive in Singapore. However, although efficient, our roads are far from being the safest. Last year 241 persons were killed on our roads. The number has been falling over the years, thanks to the good work of the Traffic Police. But the number of persons killed is still high.

We know that there are various causes of traffic accidents. But under this amendment, I would like to make a few comments on the dangers posed by the obstacles on the roads. Road works form the most common obstacles to traffic flow. Almost every major road in Singapore is subjected to dig-and-cover activities carried out by the various Government departments, namely, PWD, PUB, Telecoms, MRT, MOE. The question that is often asked is, why is it not possible to coordinate all these work activities? After all plans have to be submitted long before these activities are carried out. Surely it is not impossible to form a committee or a department to coordinate all these plans before their implementation.

We have just been talking about road warning signs. This is another obstacle on the road. On the whole, the sign stand is poorly designed and sometimes placed very precariously on the side of the road. Moreover, the first warning sign is usually poorly positioned. It is not placed in a prominent position to enable the approaching motorist to see at a good distance. Also, it is placed too near the worksite so that the approaching motorist does not have enough distance and time, especially when travelling at high speeds on the expressway, to change course. I would like to suggest to the Minister that perhaps on the expressway the first warning sign should be placed at least 500 metres from the worksite and the signs thereafter should be placed in such a manner as to allow the motorist to make a gradual change of course over the 500-metre distance. I have raised this point once before during a Question for Oral Answer session but the Minister did not assure me at that time that action will be taken.

Sir, I too, like the Member for Bukit Timah, welcome the proposed plans to install sophisticated electronic monitors on the expressway and I would like to suggest to the Minister that perhaps he should include on those electronic boards, which they are going to put across the expressway road, safety messages and the daily updated death toll on our roads.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about our roadside trees. The trees on our roads provide shade and scenery and it is part of our grand design to turn Singapore into a garden city. However, trees, pretty as they are, are also a source of danger. Cars can smash into trees. Falling branches and falling trees can kill. Trees, branches and shrubs can obstruct the view of the motorist and cause traffic accident, and trees, like our population, are getting older and can cause more trouble. I would like to find out from the Minister what the present measures are being taken to ensure that the trees along the roadside are safe both for the motorist and the pedestrians. Should we not plant less trees and perhaps select trees for their beauty rather than just for the shade? Do we need that much shade on our roads today now that most of the vehicles are air-conditioned?

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I would like to inform the Member again that there is a committee under the chairmanship of the PWD called the Roads Opening Coordination Committee. Perhaps what we are all looking for in terms of coordinated road opening is not possible and I will explain why in a few minutes. But first may I take again the question of warning signs at road works.

As I mentioned just now, after the last discussion here in Parliament during a Question for Oral Answer, I did take up with the PWD and with the Committee as a whole. In fact, I personally called the heads of all the departments and statutory bodies who have at one time or other to dig the roads to lay services - the PUB, the MRT, Telecoms and so on. I emphasized to them the need to pay more attention to road safety signs when road works are in progress. I take this as a serious point because to me it is indicative of the inability of many Singaporeans to adjust their thinking to using modern technology. We can afford to buy cars but we have not learned to use expressway lanes properly. Contractors can afford to buy the latest equipment but they have not learned to use them with safety consciousness. In the same way, we have the money to lay cables for the best telecoms system, good electricity and water system, to build the MRT and so on. We use the best technology to do these things in terms of equipment but the people who use the equipment do not quite realize the dangers of misuse of this equipment or the dangers of not paying enough attention to the power of this equipment. That is why I spoke to the Committee to emphasize to them that much more attention must be paid to safety signs.

As a result of these discussions, a number of measures to improve safety on the roads will be implemented. Firstly, top management in each one of the organizations will emphasize the importance of safety to their own engineers and supervisors. I think safety is something that must be the concern of the supervising engineer on the job as much as of the contractor. Engineers and supervisors will have to check on the adequacy of signing before they allow works to commence. Engineers, supervisors and contractors will have to be further trained on proper signing procedures. There is already a manual and this manual will have to be brought to the attention of every engineer and supervisor and the manual will have to be updated. I do not know whether this manual requires that the first sign should be posted 500 metres from the site of the work. I would assume that the distance of the first sign from the site of work will depend upon the road. If it is an expressway, it must be much further away. If it is a minor road, it can be nearer and so on.

Each department and statutory board will implement their internal feedback by their own contractors. Each department and statutory board will also step up enforcement action against the contractors for infringement of safety rules. The Traffic Police will also assist with the enforcement of safety rules using the road traffic rules and PWD itself will step up enforcement action on errant contractors who persistently flout the safety rules.

As I said, there is a Committee that coordinates and controls all the road works and the Committee has, under the chairmanship of the PWD, representatives from the Ministry for the Environment, PUB, Telecoms, MRTC, HDB, JTC, Parks and Recreation and the Traffic Police. They are all represented on the Committee. The Committee meets monthly to discuss matters relating to the coordination of road excavations. The Committee also formulates rules and regulations and related matters such as safety on the roads, reinstatement standards and other conditions. The Committee also ensures that investment spent on road resurfacing is not wasted as a result of ill-coordination of works.

I think what many Singaporeans are looking for is a road to be opened once and then all services to be laid in that trench and covered up and not opened again for a long time. I think that is not possible. What the Roads Opening Coordination Committee does is that when a particular statutory body or department wants to open up the road for any particular purpose, they try to see whether that service can be laid outside the road. In some cases, it is possible, on the sidetable or even beyond the sidetable. But in many cases it is not possible. In countries where they have plenty of land, they set aside a tract of land beside the road to carry services. We do not have the land to do that and so it is not feasible for us to sterilize land for the purpose of laying public utilities.

But as to whether we can have a trench into which we can lay all the services, there again there are problems. We cannot lay a water pipe next to a sewer pipe because there is a danger of contamination. We cannot lay an electric cable next to a gas pipe because if there is a leak there can be an explosion. So it is necessary to dig up the roads separately because these services cannot be laid too close to each other, and this is the problem. Some services are laid on one side of the road and other services on the other side of the road. We try to carry out the excavations separately in order not to occupy too much road space at any one time. Of course, the ideal is to build a tunnel under the road, like the sewers of Paris or London, and then they are big enough where you can lay all the services without digging up roads. But I think it is a very costly undertaking and it is not feasible for us to build such a facility under our roads.

Within our constraints we will try and ensure that roads are opened up in such a way that they cause minimum disruption. But I know that the layman sometimes wonders why is it that the road is dug on the left side by PUB Electricity Department and two months later it is dug up on the right side by the Gas Department. Why cannot they all dig at one time and put everything together? As I said, there are problems. It cannot be done. But as far as possible, we try to lay services outside the road but in most cases that is not possible.

The other point that the Member for Telok Blangah made was about trees beside our roads. He says there are too many instances of trees smashing into cars! It reminds me of the story of the proverbial woman driver who filled up her insurance claim form and said that she was driving quite carefully along the road when a tree suddenly jumped in front of her. Sir, we plant trees not only to give shade to the roads but to generally make our living environment more pleasant. Yes, more car owners have air-conditioning but there are other users of the roads. There are bus commuters. There are motor-cyclists and, of course, there are also pedestrians.

What we are trying to do now is that on major roads, especially the expressways, we are installing safety guard rails so that the cars, if they go off the road, would not run into a tree but would be pushed back on to the road. It is not to protect the tree. In fact, if not for the trees, in many cases the cars would have gone right across to the other side and smashed headlong into an oncoming car. So the guard rails are not meant to protect the trees but to keep the cars where they are supposed to be, which is, on the road. In spite of the persistent attempts by some drivers to get off the road, we try to keep them on the road.

Dr Koh Lam Son: I thank the Minister for his action and his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-03 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, over the past several years, there were many reported instances of floor area shortfalls in many private condominium developments. Some of the area shortfalls even exceed 10% and some reach as high as 13-15%. As a result, Government has instituted a regulation stipulating that area shortfall within 3% is tolerable. However, within this limit the buyer has no protection under this regulation from the developers except by resorting to bring the developer to court under a civil action.

To begin with, I believe the 3% ruling for the residential property area shortfall is still too generous and favour the developers. What is the 3% shortfall?

Mr Chairman, Sir, with your indulgence, I would like to illustrate the matter by a drawing done on my son's drawing block which I have borrowed. On this chart I have drawn a square representing the floor plan of a square floor area, to a scale of 10m by 10m.

On one side I have drawn out the measurement of 10m, and on the other side of the square, of course, another 10m, giving a total floor plan of 100 sq m, which is of the order of an average apartment. An average apartment floor area will range from about 100 sq m to 200-300 sq m. Take this plan of about 100 sq m, a 3% variation means that there is a shortfall of 3 sq m. In other words, the resulting floor plan will be 97 sq m. On this chart, I have illustrated that the builder will build a smaller square of this nature, the shaded area will be the area of shortfall, giving us the resulting area on this block of 97 sq m.

Mr Dhanabalan: It is misleading. It is more than 3%.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Of course, this is not to scale, Mr Chairman.

I would suggest that even a primary student can work out what is the distance from here to here [indicating]. By my calculations, it will be the square root of 97, working out to about 9.85 m. The difference between 10 m and 9.85 m is about 0.15 m which is precisely about 15 cm. What is the distance of 15 cm, Mr Chairman, Sir? I have drawn it over here using a ruler - this is a distance of 15 cm.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: You should use a whiteboard.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: I do not have a whiteboard; so I use my son's drawing block. I would say that given this distance, even the ordinary layman, using a measuring tape from the handy store, would make an error of, at most, about 1 cm in such measurement. So if our builders can make such an error, can we trust the safety of the structures, given his engineers and surveyors using the latest laser measuring devices? Can they be trusted to build safe structures of this nature? Should they be licensed in the first place to build multi-storey condominiums using his faulty yardstick? Surely in this day and age, 3% variation in floor area by the construction industry is not defensible. I would urge the new Minister for National Development to review this matter and tighten this rule and thereby give the ordinary citizen better protection when he makes his biggest investment in life, that is, buying his own home.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Chairman, Sir, first of all, I must thank the Member for Bukit Timah for his delightful exposition on the science of measurement.

Sir, prior to 4th January 1985 the sale and purchase agreement entered into in respect of conventional housing, that is, detached, semi-detached and terrace houses, provided for no adjustment in the purchase price if the final resurveyed area, the actual area, was within a 5% margin of the area estimated in the sale agreement. If the area is found to be outside the 5% margin, any adjustment in the purchase price would have to be agreed upon between the developer and the buyer. If there is any dispute, they usually end up in court. In the case of the sale and purchase agreement of flats and condominium units signed prior to 4th January 1985, there was no provision for adjustment whatsoever. However, with effect from 4th January 1985, the prescribed sale and purchase agreement for both conventional housing and condominium flats has been revised to give the purchaser the benefit of retaining any excess area without any price adjustment. However, where there is a shortfall in area by more than 3%, the developers are required to reduce the selling price accordingly. So you can say, Sir, the revised sale and purchase agreement is in favour of the purchaser and we will monitor the situation regarding the desirability of amending this margin of error.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, my assertion is that 3% is still too lenient on our developers. Would the Minister of State agree?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, that is a question of opinion, whether it is too lenient or not.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Mr Chairman, Sir, although I do not agree with the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-02-8108 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I am going to pay tribute to the PWD. Very often we tend to take for granted the good work done by PWD and attribute that as part and parcel of their duties. However, when the PWD makes a slip somewhere, very few would sympathize with them. My tribute to the PWD in this instance refers to the excellent job in the construction of our beautiful expressways. These expressways have made driving that much more pleasant. And with the recent announcement by the Minister that the PWD is making preparation to install a 24-hour electronic watchdog system along the expressway, it will further make driving along these expressways that much smoother, faster and safer.

Driving to and from the Changi International Airport along the expressway, which is lined with colourful plants and shrubs, is always a joy. May I therefore request whether the other expressways could also be planted with colourful plants and shrubs. If tourists travelling along the expressway from the Changi Airport are treated with beautiful and colourful Bougainvilleas, could we not extend the same treat to our Singaporeans who frequently travel along the other expressways of the Island? I suggest we start with the Bukit Timah Expressway as it is the most popular route for travellers, local and overseas, going to and from Singapore.

And with particular reference to the Bukit Timah Expressway, may I know for what purpose is this small allocation needed for? I would have thought that the Bukit Timah Expressway has been completed and commissioned for use for quite some time. Which part of the Bukit Timah Expressway still needs further development?

The other point, Sir, is the abbreviation of this expressway, Bukit Timah, which is abbreviated as BKE. I would have thought that it should have been abbreviated as BTE. If you refer to the topographical maps, the abbreviation for Bukit is Bt. Thus, the proper abbreviation would have been BtTE. May I know on what linguistic basis is this present abbreviation chosen? This goes also for the abbreviation of Ayer Rajah Expressway. It is written as AYE ("aye" maybe), instead of ARE. Has the PWD liaised with the appropriate body before using these abbreviations? Your response, Mr Minister.

Mr Dhanabalan: I thank the Member for Kampong Ubi for his very kind remarks about the colour that he appreciates along our expressways. Yes, we try to add more colour to the plantings along our expressways in addition to the greenery that we have. So far we have planted, I am told, 61,000 colourful shrubs on our existing five expressways. Although every effort is made to plant colourful shrubs along expressways, it may not be possible to achieve the same kind of result that we have for the East Coast Parkway because the East Coast Parkway has very wide central dividers and plenty of land on both sides. And, of course, the East Coast Parkway has a park all the way from Tanah Merah Golf Course and a park almost all the way into the city. So we cannot create the same kind of impression but we will continue to try and secure as many colourful shrubs and plants as possible to plant along our expressways.

Regarding the abbreviations used for expressways, it is not that the PWD is not aware about spelling and they are not using some other language or a new way of spelling these words. It is very simple. Basically, it is felt that expressways should be abbreviated to three letters rather than two. It is always easier to remember three letters. Like Singapore Airlines, it should really be SA. But it is called SIA. It is not Singapore International Airlines. It is just Singapore Airlines. But it is called SIA because it is easier to remember three letters. In the case of expressways, the manner in which the abbreviation is chosen is the letters of the first two syllables of the word. In other words, Bukit Timah, the first syllable is "Bu", the second syllable is "kit", so it is "B" and "K" Expressway. That is why it is BKE. And in the case of Ayer Rajah, it is "A-yer", "A" and "Yer". The idea is to try and use the first letter of the first two syllables so that when we have a Kallang Expressway and a Kranji Expressway, we would not have KE for both. One will be maybe KLE, the other one of course we will have to choose something which is a little different, like KRE or KJE. So that is the reasoning behind it. It is a little involved. One would have thought that we just choose the first letter of each word. But some areas have only one word, like Tampines, then it will be TE. Right? And then if it is Telok Blangah, it could be again TE. Punggol will be PE obviously. So that is the reason why BKE, AYE, and so on are chosen. Of course, then you ask me why it is PIE - Pan Island Expressway. Well, the same theory applies - Pan, the first letter is P, and Island, that is the second syllable I. So that is the theory.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Mr Chairman, Sir, I find it rather interesting the way PWD comes up with its own linguistic ingenuity. I am not sure what authority the PWD has in abbreviating names based on syllables. I would have thought that it is normal for Bukit Timah, Bukit is one word, we could just use "B" for Bukit, and Timah is "T", so BTE, we still come to the three initials; similarly, Ayer Rajah, Ayer one word, "A"; Rajah, "R". Then I do not see how you want to pick the syllables instead of the words which are already there. It is so obvious that these two are a bit strange in its abbreviation.

The other point is this. Is it true that it is easier to remember three letters than two letters? I thought we remember few things faster than more things.

Mr Dhanabalan: Whether it is easier to remember three or two, I think we will have to ask a psychologist. People tell me that it is easier to remember three letters in a row than two.

The reason why we chose syllables is quite simple. It is more likely that we have single words than single syllable words. So if we just use the first letter of a word, then you will have quite a few expressways with just two letters. Ponggol Expressway would just be PE. And since we started off on the premise that three letters are easier to remember than two, then we looked for a way where we can ensure that in most cases we would have three letters. That is how they chose the syllables rather than words.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: If the Central Expressway is CTE and you began with one letter, you could use Ponggol, put another letter somewhere and it becomes three letters. Anyway, I leave it to the ingenuity of the PWD which now has an added expertise in linguistic discipline. But on the colourful answer of the Minister in trying to line the expressways with more shrubs and plants, I take it as very encouraging.

On that note, I beg leave to withdrdaw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Tang See Chim:

Bukit Batok Extension:

(14) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-02-8108 of the Development Estimates.

Upgrading of Roads and Bridges:

(15) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-02-8145 of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Tang is not moving amendments (14) and (15). Amendment No. (16), Mr Ng.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-02-8100 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, if one takes a look at the amount to be voted in FY 87 for the planning and development of expressways, interchanges, road widening and so on and so forth, it is quite a big sum. It is $321.7 million to be voted for. But I am just wondering whether the PWD is able to complete the projects. I ask this question because I am a bit intrigued by the footnotes (i) to (vi) in page 557, (i) to (vii) in page 558, etc, right up to page 560. Therein one can see that there have been a lot of revotes. In other words, large sums of money are being revoted and this has been going on for years, year in year out. For example, if one takes (vi) which refers to the Ayer Rajah Expressway, from Alexandra Road to Jurong Town Hall Road. Last year, it was $41.2 million, revised from $59 million. And this year $40 million has been sought for. But it includes a revote of $17.78 million. In other words, Sir, the question is whether progress on the large number of roads and expressways to be constructed has been satisfactory, or were they slow? There is also this question of whether these expressways when completed, say, after they are used for about 10 years or so, will they again become congested?

If one takes another look at the cost of these expressways, the sums are very huge. Would the Ministry not consider farming out tenders to the local road contractors in terms of packages? I am aware of the earlier reply of the Minister in the morning in reply to a Question raised by my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Geylang Serai, with regard to the CTE. I make this suggestion with regard to encouraging our local road contractors to consolidate and pool together their resources so as to upgrade their skills and to purchase better equipment for our road network development.

I also notice that there has been a lot of money to be spent on grouting works that are now being carried out on two expressways, one at the Central Expressway (CTE) - we just got the explanation on how CTE came about - and there is another one which is being carried out at the foot of the Benjamin Sheares Bridge. Sir, how much will this cost and whether other expressways need to have similar treatment in order that these expressways will last longer? When such treatment or grouting works have been completed, how long will they last? And what will be the position of the other expressways?

Furthermore, Sir, I would like to make a comment on the Minister's announcement that in future the expressways will have a computer system to better manage traffic flow on them. We welcome this and it is a very necessary step if our expressways are to be more than satisfactorily used by the road users. In other words, the efficiency of the expressways to be able to carry the traffic, particularly during the peak periods in the morning and in the evening, during and after office hours. Since there is pressure on the need for land in order to meet the ever increasing demand for road works, making of roads, extensions and so on, and that the availability of land is again another question, could I suggest that a comprehensive study of the entire road network be carried out by setting up a committee which will look into this question as to how we can improve the efficiency of the road networks, maximizing the usage of them and with a view to reducing the demand for land, maybe by way of multi-tier roads and flyovers to connect to the arterial trunk roads and expressways.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I thank the Member for Punggol for drawing attention to this problem of revotes. When an amount is provided for a particular project, it is based on the estimated cost, in-house estimates and implementation schedules of the project, both on-going projects as well as new projects. The reasons for the revotes are obviously because there are unspent balances. And the unspent balances arise out of a number of reasons. One main reason will be the delay in the project because we may have under- estimated the time taken to clear encumbrances. For example, if the road is to be laid through an area that is squattered, it may take longer than anticipated to clear squatters. Another reason is that we do try and plan our road works such that we spread out the load on our contractors. During the peak of the construction boom, some of the works were phased to later years.

So those will be the two main reasons but, of course, there are also other reasons why there is a difference between original estimate and the actual cost. One very good reason which is a welcome reason is that tender prices have been lower than estimates because construction activity as a whole has come down. There is keen competition and costs have come down. Another reason for the difference would be changes in design in some of the projects. In some cases, heavier loadings were originally planned for the bridges as well as the roads and then when we started designing, less loadings were required. So costs were less. In other cases, more loadings were required and costs were more. So when more loadings are required, then of course you have to make more provisions. So these are the various reasons for the differences.

Whether this fine network of roads that we have will become congested in two years or not, we hope not. But one thing is for sure. If they do become congested, the answer is not to build more roads because we just do not have the space to keep on building more roads. I have already stated about two weeks ago that more than 10% of our land is taken up by roads and we cannot keep on building more roads. What we need to do is to put in new types of equipment which will enable us to make better use of the roads. The type of computerization that we have been talking about is one way of doing it. The other way, of course, is to just reduce the number of cars and try and get more people to use public transport. All these measures will be necessary. Unlike other countries where the constraint in building roads is usually money, in our case, it is partly money but even more so it is land. We cannot keep on building more roads. So we must put in place measures that will ensure that we get the maximum out of our roads. I can well envisage a situation - I am not saying that this has been decided - where perhaps our expressways should be used only for cars carrying at least four passengers. That may well have to come in 20-30 years from now. So we have to make sure that we get the maximum out of our investment in roads, and that is the direction of our policy.

The Member also raised a question about local contractors. Yes, whenever it is technically possible, as I have mentioned, PWD has been breaking down its road construction projects into small parcels so that local contractors can successfully bid for these jobs. Between September 1985 and January 1987, a total of 56 road development contracts were awarded. Of these 56 contracts, 53 were won by local contractors and the other three by local/foreign joint ventures. None of the contracts were awarded to a foreign contractor, solely foreign-owned contractor.

In the case of the Central Expressway, I have already explained why it has been necessary to open it to foreign contractors and why it is not possible to split up the tunnelling contract. But other parts of the contract for the Central Expressway from Yio Chu Kang Road to the Ayer Rajah Expressway in the south, these have been split up into many small jobs. No less than 11 separate contracts were awarded. But the big part, which is the tunnel, unfortunately cannot be broken down into smaller contracts.

Grouting works. I think Members must have noticed, I am sure they have been caught in traffic jams approaching ECP and CTE because of grouting works. These grouting works are necessary because, in the case of the CTE and in the case of the ECP, a part of the road work is on reclaimed land, soft undersoil, and part of it is on bridges or on foundations. So at the part where the road starts running on foundations, it is harder, it does not sink, but the other part begins to sink. So the difference arises between the levels of the road at this point. That is why we have to resort to grouting. Now Benjamin Sheares Bridge. The approach to the Bridge is built on reclaimed land. Similarly, the stretch of CTE from the PIE to the Ang Mo Kio Avenue I was built on what was formerly swampy land. So ground settlement caused by the very deep underlying soft marine clay up to 45 metres deep was expected when the road was built. Soil treatment was carried out to minimize settlement at the approaches to the bridges. Because the bridges are on foundation, they do not sink. But the road approaching the bridge is not on foundation. So if that begins to sink, you have this difference in levels.

Technology and equipment that were available at that time, when these roads were built, for deep soil stabilization were not such that they could resolve the settlement completely. In other words, we did not have the equipment or technology at that time. So what happened was that the difference in settlement was tackled by frequent road resurfacing. You just keep on filling where the road is sinking. This frequent resurfacing has greatly disrupted traffic flow. In the upgrading programme to improve the road riding quality, PWD found that recently high pressure jet grouting methods have been introduced into Singapore, partly because of our MRT construction. And this, PWD concluded, was a more permanent solution to the problem. So they have now started these grouting works. The total cost of all the grouting works is estimated to be $11 million. We expect that no further grouting work will be necessary after the present contract is over.

In the case of settlement problem in the other expressways, it is a minor problem and it is not expected that these minor problems would require jet grouting.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, the Hon. Minister has not covered my suggestion on the setting up of the Committee.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, certainly the subject of improving efficient use of our roads has been engaging the attention of our PWD and the Ministry for a long time. But whether a Committee is the best way to resolve this, I am not sure. I certainly will look into it. I think quite often while a Committee can tap expertise from many different departments and statutory bodies, it is not the best way of implementing a programme. But I will take his suggestion into account.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I am aware just now of what the Hon. Minister has said. I was trying to highlight the point that so much money has been spent on the expressways and on our road networks. Therefore we must make optimal use. In other words, value for money. So I welcome his perception that sometime in the not too distant future it may well be that our expressways may have certain restrictions on the traffic. Sir, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TD-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the Parks and Recreation Department has done well in bringing colour to Singapore but the colour it has brought about is rather monotonous. It is green all over. If you go around all over the island you probably see everything is almost green. Sometimes to my wonder I thought it is part of this Social Defence programme to bring about jungle green in its nature.

Sir, if you go along the housing estates further you will see that there can be no distinction between one neighbourhood and the other. From Kebun Baru, if you walk over to Bo Wen, you cannot distinguish which is which, and if you go over from Bo Wen to Ang Mo Kio, that is even worse. So I think though they have spent a tremendous resource in the greening of Singapore, I feel that it is necessary at least to become more imaginative. They may have to consult perhaps the Ministry of the Environment to see what technical service and support could be given. So I feel that more flowering shrubs, particularly in housing estates and new towns, could be provided for so that it would create at least a neighbourhood identity. Coupled with this, there is also the problem of overgrown trees. Sometimes I wonder whether they do select the right type of trees for planting. Many trees are overgrown. As earlier speakers have suggested, some trees have aged and these have also caused danger to people, particularly in Frankel Estate and Siglap area. From what I gather from my Parliamentary colleague for Kampong Kembangan, trees have in fact overgrown and have created problems there too. So I am wondering what is being done to see if they are pruned and also select the appropriate trees that could be planted in our greening of Singapore. With that note, I would like to see that future resources are spent more appropriately and more imaginative colours can be brought to the various new towns in the estates.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, the Member for Bo Wen has bemoaned the excess of green in our landscape. Perhaps it is a case of suffering from being green with envy over the luscious profusion of colours that you see on the picture postcard of scenes in the spring time sceneries in temperate countries. We must remember that we are in Singapore and Singapore is only 5A North of the Equator. We can only grow what nature decrees we can grow in this climate, unless we are prepared to pay exorbitant costs to maintain exotic and more colourful species of flowering plants. Notwithstanding that, Sir, the Parks and Recreation Department has already been planting flowering trees and shrubs along our major roads, parks and open spaces in an effort to add colour to the environment. Since 1980 the Department has planted about one million flowering shrubs and trees. Although such a large number of flowering plants have been planted, it is true that the impact of colours achieved by these plants is not as spectacular as those you would see in the temperate countries. The main reason, Sir, is that unlike temperate countries, we do not have a clear four seasons. We do not have any seasons at all. The months are the same in every respect as far as the climate is concerned. So various plants flower at different periods. They do not flower in unison, unlike plants in the temperate countries. So you would not have this dramatic impact of a profusion of colour during certain times of the year. Sir, the Department continues to introduce flowering plants from overseas for testing under our climate and environment. Where the plants are able to establish themselves, where they possess flowering characteristics, they are hardy and easy to maintain, the Department would use them extensively.

The Department would look at the possibility of planting more colourful plants. However, many of these plants are annual plants and they require, as I mentioned earlier, very intensive care and maintenance. And in view of the high labour requirement and cost to maintain such plants, they are not very practical for our climate. Only those plants which are hardy and easy to maintain can be planted extensively in our country.

As to the lack of distinction between housing estates from the park environment, this is an area that the HDB and Parks and Recreation Department are always looking into as to how to improve the identity of each estate or each neighbourhood. Perhaps with the formation of town councils, many more minds will be brought to bear on this problem.

The Chairman: Are you withdrawing your amendment?

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I am just making some observation. I hope the Parks and Recreation does not have too many green horns, in the sense that they do a lot of green things around. What I am just suggesting is that it does not take a green horn to know that Singapore is a temperate climate. It takes a fair bit of imagination to bring colour to our life. With that note, I beg leave to withdraw.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I just ask the Minister of State what sort of balance in housing estates do they have when they are planting trees in regard to flowering shrubs, in regard to beauty and also in regard to attracting birds? Do they have this provision?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Chairman, Sir, when HDB design the planting programme for each estate they will take into account the locality, the design of the block, the type of soil that is available there, the amount of land that is available and plant the appropriate kind of trees, whether it is flowering shrubs or it is just some other trees which are meant to cater for birds nesting.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I thought that if you want to attract birds, you must plant trees either with berries or with some kind of a fruit to attract them. Surely, the Minister must also know that you do not plant flowering shrubs to attract birds. Where there is the food for the birds, the birds will be attracted there. I hope they will bear this in mind in respect of attracting birds.

The other question I would like to bring forward is this. We have tried to plant one tree at Potong Pasir and the last Minister had it uprooted and rudely thrown in front of my MP's Office. Fortunately it was a very hardy tree. It is still surviving after over a year. We planted it in a pot. Since then the HDB has planted many other trees in that area, and this poor tree was left out. There is no excuse really to say that there is no provision for just one more tree. Perhaps would the Minister of State consider giving a space somewhere in the Potong Pasir Estate for this tree, which is really a worthwhile tree to be planted.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Chairman, Sir, the point that the Member for Potong Pasir has brought up that if you want to attract birds you must plant trees with berries. Well, some birds eat berries and some birds eat worms. So you can have all kinds of trees and it can serve as an attraction for all kinds of birds. Birds do not have to just feed off the fruits in the trees that they nest in. Perhaps this is one of the problems that we have encountered in some of our housing estates that there are congregations of birds which do not actually feed on the trees. They feed elsewhere but they come and make their nests and create a nuisance of themselves to the residents in the area.

On the point about his wanting to plant a tree in Potong Pasir, the late Minister for National Development has made it very clear, more than clear, in this House that it is not the policy for the Housing and Development Board to allow any resident to decide on his own to plant any tree that he wishes to. There has to be a certain planning in the type of trees that can be planted. You have to take into consideration the particular nature of the tree, how big an area is required for its root system. You have to consider the balance, in his own word, a balance with the neighbouring trees and shrubs that have already been planted. It is not so simple that any HDB resident can just go out to his front door step and dig a hole and say, "Here I plant my tree, and this shall be my tree. You will not move it." But if the Member for Potong Pasir is prepared to donate a tree to the Housing Board and say, "In your next tree planting programme, perhaps you want to consider planting this tree", we are prepared to consider that, if there is space available.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TD-02-1210 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, like the Member for Bo Wen, I would also like to see a lot more flowering plants in our parks. But I really would like to see more fruit trees too. We could have a lot of fruit trees, maybe not too near the housing estates if you do not want birds there, but in some of the parks certain areas could be used to plant fruit trees, especially fruit trees which are slowly becoming extinct. A lot of our farmlands have been acquired. They used to have a lot of fruit trees. I do not know whether you know them - duku, langsat. You do not see them nowadays. Perhaps some of these local fruit trees could be planted in our parks. It would also be educational for our children as some of these fruit trees are not seen any more. So I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he would consider this. Is there a programme to plant more fruit trees in our parks and, if so, could he give the details?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, in response to the Member for Geylang Serai, yes, there is indeed a programme to plant more fruit trees throughout Singapore. In fact, this programme started a long time back since 1971. In the early days of the programme, fruit trees were planted in Mindef camps and schools. Later, they were planted in enclosed public grounds, such as the grounds of police stations, community centres. More recently, the HDB has intensified its fruit tree planting programme and the Member is perhaps aware of the fact that many Residents Committees are taking a very active part in this fruit tree planting programme. They are helping to look after some of the fruit trees planted in their zone. They fertilize these trees. They look after the fruits and they harvest the fruits for distribution among themselves.

At present, the department is extending this programme of fruit tree planting to selected public roads. For example, Hougang Avenues 5 and 7, Tampines Avenue 4, Boon Lay Way, are some other major roads where fruit trees are being planted on the sidetable. We are evaluating the results of this programme.

As to whether more fruit trees could be planted in our public parks, this can be considered. But one point we must remember is that the more fruit trees you plant in these public parks, the higher will be the maintenance. Unlike housing estates where fruit trees can be planted because the Residents Committees are keen and enthusiastic about coming forward to look after these trees and to harvest the fruits, in the park, it would mean that someone else would have to maintain these fruit trees and the fruits would have to be harvested regularly.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: I thank the Minister for his answer and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Koh Lam Son:-

(19) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TD-03-1210 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (19), Dr Koh is not moving. Amendment No. (20), Mr Ng Kah Ting.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TD-02-8100 of the Development Estimates.*

Sir, in moving this amendment, I just wish to speak more on the development of parks. Particularly in the Development Estimates, two parks stand out and they involve some $50 million in terms of development. One is Pasir Ris Park which will cost $24.6 million; in fact, it is nearly completed. The other one is the Fort Canning Park redevelopment which is projected to cost $26.2 million and, out of which, for this year FY 87, $9.5 million will be needed.

I just want to ask the Hon. Minister the concept of parks with regard to the planning and design where you have different types of facilities. For example, in Pasir Ris Park, as you know, there is a children's play area of varied designs where during the weekends and public holidays parents can bring their children along and have a family picnic whilst their children can make use of the various apparatus available in the park. Also, the Pasir Ris Park is developed into other uses for the children, for joggers, and even for the senior citizens, I am told.

What about this Fort Canning Park redevelopment? What will be the unique character of this Fort Canning Park? I ask this question, Sir, purely to illustrate the point that in Singapore, as I see it, some of the parks are almost all the same, with due respect. If each park were to have its own unique character and facilities, then during the weekends and public holidays our people could go there. We must note the fact that some 80% of our population live in high-rise HDB flats and if there is no outlet for these people, such as recreational areas and facilities, I think the pressure of living in these flats is great. So we must consider this point very carefully.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Sir, when I put up a question to the Minister on the amount of land for golf courses, I think quite a lot of people misunderstood me to be an anti-golfer. Far from it. I really think that golf is a good game and we should have more of it for Singaporeans if they can afford it. But my attention was drawn to the fact that the amount of land reserved for golf courses comes to 1,005 hectares, which is about 1.6% of the total land in Singapore. The amount of land that is set aside for East Coast Park is about 206 hectares and 12 hectares for Changi Beach Park. These two areas are very popular with picnickers but there are really inadequate facilities in these areas to cater for so many people.

I remember last year I took issue with the Parks and Recreation Department and told them that there were not enough bathing facilities in the East Coast Park. I was told that they were very expensive and the Finance Ministry would not give the budget. Subsequently, I went to the Minister for Finance and he agreed that there were not enough bathing facilities in East Coast Park and that it was not true that they objected to the budget. So I went back to the Parks and Recreation Department and said, "Would you put it in the budget now because the Minister has said so?" But when I look at the Budget for 1987, I find there is no amount set aside for facilities to be added to the East Coast Park, although the Minister did say that studies have been made on the intensity of usage in East Coast Park. I thought the survey should also centre on whether the facilities are adequate or not.

If you go to East Coast Park, you will find that people congregate normally near the bathing facilities for reasons of convenience. If we are able to build more of these bathing facilities along East Coast Park, then I think more people will benefit from these added facilities.

Over at West Coast Park, I wonder whether the Minister can consider building an artificial lagoon at West Coast or a swimming pool in the park and drawing water from the sea for the purpose of swimming for picnickers. If I am not mistaken, many years ago we used to have a swimming pool, called the Haw Par Villa swimming pool, where water was drawn from the sea, or something along that line.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Tiger Swimming Pool.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: I do not know about Tiger Swimming Pool. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, the Member for Punggol has raised the question of park design and the type of facilities that are being provided in parks. The design of parks depends upon the location and existing condition of the site itself. There is variety in the design and facilities provided in our parks to cater to the interest of Singaporeans. For instance, the design of Pasir Ris Park, Fort Canning Park, Bukit Batok Park, Mount Faber Park Extension and East Coast Park, they are all different.

Sir, Pasir Ris Park is being developed along the coast. It is near a holiday resort area. In addition to the normal park facilities, it has some special attractions, such as the one pointed out by the Member for Punggol. It is the largest public children's adventure playground. It has also a mangrove swamp with catwalks and children's cycling circuit and look-out points.

The East Coast Park attractions are mainly the different recreation centres, such as the Tennis Centre with a range of sports and leisure facilities, Golf Driving Range and the Big Splash. In the case of the Fort Canning Park, when completed, it will highlight the historical and cultural features of Fort Canning Hill. It will have a Fort Canning History Centre, a Walk of History, and some other facilities for picnickers.

Bukit Batok Park itself will have an even more unusual ambience. It will have a nature park with a very special feature of cliffs and reflecting pools and have a track and glades. The attraction of the Mount Faber Park Extension lies in its height, its elevation and the view. There is a terrace garden and a formal garden with a ridged promenade. There is also a hilltop physical fitness course.

In the design of parks, the Parks and Recreation Department endeavours to provide each park with special touches such as the type of furniture that are chosen, the hard landscape, the lighting, the post, the shelters, all these are made different to give each park its own identity.

The Chairman: Order. It is 5.30 pm.

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

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1987/88, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.