HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to amend the Housing and Development Act so that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) can discharge its functions more efficiently and effectively. The amendments are necessary to help HDB meet:

(a) the Board's operational needs;

(b) the move towards greater private sector involvement; and

(c) the transition in estate management from HDB to the Town Councils.

Clause 2 of the Bill will allow the Minister to increase the number of Board members other than the Chairman and Deputy Chairman from five to seven members. It will also allow the Chief Executive Officer to be appointed a member of the Board. I shall also be moving, Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Committee stage a further amendment to allow Board members to be appointed for up to three years. The present provision requires Board members to be appointed for three years, no more no less. This is too inflexible.

Clause 3 will allow the HDB to form companies in the future for purposes which are approved by the Minister. At present, HDB cannot enter into joint ventures or bring in other partners into its projects. It can only form wholly owned companies. This is too restrictive. The Bill will allow HDB to participate in forming companies with others and to grant loans to such companies.

Clause 4 will revoke the HDB's power to request the President to acquire private land for purposes of the Board. This is to comply with the directive of the Ministry of Law. All such acquisitions must now be undertaken by the Land Office. Clause 5 contains the consequential amendments.

Clause 6 will enable HDB to make rules regulating the use and enjoyment of common property and open spaces of any land vested in or held in trust for the Board, and to impose a penalty on owners of HDB and HUDC properties for the late payment of loan instalments or other fees due to the Board. The imposition of such a penalty is to deter owners from habitually delaying payment of instalments and fees. HDB has to incur costs in sending reminders, monitoring the arrears that accrue and in recovering them.

As at the end of April 1989, 11.1% (or 37,115) of all lessees were in arrears amounting to $30.2 million. Many are habitually late in their payments for no valid reasons. They put off paying their instalments until the HDB threatens them with legal action. The imposition of penalties to deter late payments is widely practised. Credit POSB, for example, charges 1% per month on any late payment of its loan instalments. Penalty fees will discourage such habitual late payments.

Clause 7 of the Bill will give the HDB the power to compound certain minor offences under its rules, for example, parking offences and burning of incense papers on grass turfs. The amount of composition shall not exceed $400. This will enable HDB to deal more effectively with all offences under the rules.

To facilitate action against those who commit parking offences, the owner of a vehicle that is not properly parked will be assumed to be the actual offender. He will, however, not be penalized if he can show that the vehicle was stolen or illegally taken or used. This provision is similar to the provision in the Parking Places Act. The provision is necessary if HDB is to effectively enforce its rule against motorists who park their vehicles indiscriminately in the void decks or on the Board's common property.

Clause 8 of the Bill will assist the Town Councils to carry out their mandatory estate management duties effectively. This clause will allow the HDB to delegate to Town Councils, and its employees and agents, the enforcement powers contained in the rules made under section 27 of the Housing and Development Act.

Clause 9 deals with the appointment of the HDB's auditor in line with the Auditor-General's financial and auditing guidelines that statutory bodies have to comply with. The auditor appointed in consultation with the Auditor-General must be an approved company auditor, and be allowed to report directly to the Minister on any matter arising out of his audit work.

Clause 10 will bring HDB's system of collecting and refunding tender deposits in line with Government's tendering procedures. The clause will allow HDB to accept a cashier's order and other forms of bank drafts instead of using cash for the collection and refund of tender deposits. It will also allow the HDB to retain tender deposits without banking them until the outcome of the tender is known. It gives tenderers and the public greater flexibility in choosing the most convenient form of payment.

Clause 11 will enable HDB to use its funds for investment purposes. It will allow the Board to invest in the shares of any private company including its partially owned companies permitted under clause 3 and in any public company or in trust funds.

Clause 12 of the Bill will help enforcement officers to be more effective in enforcing the Act and any rule made under the Housing and Development Act. This clause will empower HDB officers, members and employees of the Town Councils who reasonably suspect a person of committing an offence within the estate or town to request that person to furnish evidence of his identity. If the person fails to do so, he will be guilty of an offence. He will, upon conviction, have to pay a fine not exceeding $200.

Finally, clause 13 of the Bill will enable HDB to serve summons for any offence under its rules or regulations, and any notice or document on persons other than owners of flats sold by the Board. The Board can do so by sending the summons, notice or document by registered mail addressed to the usual or last known residence or place of business of the person concerned or by leaving it at that address in a cover addressed to that person. This is similar to section 17(2) of the Parking Places Act.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly on clause 6, (Section 27(2)(d)) which allows the HDB to prescribe a charge for late payment of rents and mortgage payments. As the Minister has mentioned, there is a real economic cost on late charges. One is the administrative expense which he mentioned. The other, of course, is the $30 million in rental arrears. If you take it over a period of one year, interest charges work out to something like $2-3 million lost.

Sir, the HDB gets a subsidy from the Government and late payments by those who do not exercise financial discipline result in subsidies and costs to other taxpayers. I have only three points to raise with the Minister when he implements these charges. One, there should be sufficient publicity and time given so that all HDB tenants and flat owners will be fully apprised of the status of these late charges. Two, there should be a reasonable grace period for those who are not used to paying their bills on time; and lastly, Sir, the HDB should exercise some flexibility in dealing with cases where there is real financial hardship. Out of 11.1%, I am sure, some must have come from the lower-income group whereby meeting the payment is actually a real problem.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to allow the Board to grant loans and to invest in shares. The Minister has just told us that it would help discharge its functions more effectively and efficiently. I have some queries, Sir.

Why is it necessary to do that, that is, to grant loans and to invest in shares? Are there going to be huge profits to be made from the investments and loans? What are these private or public companies the HDB would like to invest in? The Government's own Report of the Economic Committee has recommended that Government should participate less and less in business, especially business that can be carried out by the private sector. Why then does the HDB go against its own Government's recommendations and again invest in private business?

Government has its fingers already, Sir, in hundreds of business enterprises and many of them have gone bust in the past, incurring substantial losses. What if the HDB's new investments should also go bust? And what if the loans later on should not be recoverable? Who is then going to be responsible? And if the losses are incurred, will that also mean that the HDB will in future increase the price of the HDB flats?

Sir, I have been given to understand that the HDB is a statutory body incorporated to build cheap rental housing for all the people. But the HDB has not kept its original objective. From the building of cheap flats for rental, it has moved into sale of flats, more and more expensive flats and also into the leasing of land. The proceeds of such sales and leasings have amounted to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and this has been clearly stated in the reports of the audits of accounts of the HDB since 1980, and repeated yearly for several years after that. In 1981, the Auditor-General stated that the activities of some of the subsidiaries of this company (it was referring to the MND Holdings Pte Ltd) were not connected with the functions of the Board and that the investment of the MND Holdings Pte Ltd was not in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

I believe, Sir, the same position still holds, that is, until today the HDB has made investments and gone into business which the law has not authorized. And in the case of the MND Holdings, which is a holding company, HDB has been doing that unlawfully since 1976.

The Bill's amendment to section 15 by inserting the new section 78 is intended to legalize what has been done unlawfully for many years. I do not know whether the Minister will agree with what I have said. But, of course, the Government is adept at first doing things unlawfully and then legalizing them after some time. his has happened with the amendment to the Constitution early this year, and again when Government amended the Code of Conduct for Ministers through the Command Paper presented to the Parliament but not debated, in order to legalize the position of the Second Deputy Prime Minister as the Secretary-General of the NTUC, a position which he had been holding unlawfully for some years.

In 1982, Sir, the Auditor-General reported, under the Housing and Development Act, "the Board may, with the Minister's approval, invest in funds in companies having as their object any or all of the functions of the Board set out in the Act." And the object and functions of the Board are set out in section 13 of the principal Act. In the new amendment as set out in clause 3, the private company to be formed will have "such object as may be approved by the Minister," that is, the amendment allows the Minister to have a carte blanche to do as he likes in forming a company or/and whether or not the company has functions and objects set out in section 13 of the Act. This is most unwise, Sir, as funds may be recklessly squandered. If we pass such amendments and if investments turn into losses, then we shall all be responsible for the losses. I suggest that the HDB confine itself to what it can do best, that is, to build flats. Go back to building cheap rental flats for those who cannot afford to buy flats and the HDB should not dabble in jobs which should be done by other departments or by the private sector.

Clause 7, Sir, seeks to impose liability on owners of vehicles in respect of which a parking offence under rules made under the Act is committed. The owner of the vehicle is now supposed to be guilty of the parking offence in all respects as if he were the actual offender guilty of the offence. I believe this is most unfair. It imposes the liability on the people and penalize people unnecessarily.

Recently, Sir, in the Enlistment Act, the reservist is made to bear the burden of proof of not knowing about the mobilization call-up early enough, and now we have this Bill trying to impose unfair liability on the vehicle owner. I understand that there are provisions in the Road Traffic Act under which notice can be served on the owner as to who was the driver of the vehicle at the material time. And the owner can be punished if he fails to provide the information required. Why cannot the same provision be applied to the parking offences in the HDB estates and in parking lots?

In principle, Sir, no one should be punished for what he has not done. The position of vicarious liability on the owner is morally wrong. Or is it intended just to render it administratively easier for the HDB? I hope the Minister will answer some of the queries I have just raised.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged to you, Sir.

Sir, first of all, I would like to ask the Minister a question in regard to clause 6. Under the principal Act, section 9 --

''There shall be paid to members of the Board out of the funds of the Board, such salaries, fees and allowances or expenses as the Minister may from time to time determine.'' Can the Minister please tell us, for our information, what are the present remuneration rates, if any, and salary expenses to members of the Board, including the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman.

Sir, I would think that if the Minister has increased the number of members on the Board from seven to 9, he should also have amended section 10 of the principal Act to increase the quorum which is fixed at three. If you increase the number of the Board, I would imagine that you would surely increase the quorum accordingly.

Sir, I will next dwell on clause 3 which has been dealt with by the NCMP. But I will view it from a different Looking at clause 3(1) -

''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, form or participate in the formation of a private company or companies (referred to in this section as the company) having such object as may be approved by the Minister.''.

Sir, this is a very material amendment because the Minister will be given full authority to form companies and to approve whatever objects the company may have. I am told that private developers have been complaining against the Housing and Development Board. They said that they were not allowed to do certain things which the HDB is allowed to do, thus giving the HDB an advantage over them in the construction industry.

Today we are being asked to give companies formed by the HDB unrestrained advantage over all other businesses in the private sector in that the HDB companies can carry out any business activities they like as long as they get the approval of the Minister. These HDB companies will have extra legal powers so to say. They need not comply with the ultra vires rule of the Company law. As you know, any company formed under the Companies Act can carry out only certain businesses for which they have been registered. Those businesses which are not included in the object, if they do them, will be considered illegal or ultra vires. In the case of future HDB companies, they can carry out any businesses even outside the objects for which they were formed as long as they get ministerial approval. So these are very sweeping powers.

Sir, Dr Lee has pointed out the law. Section 13 spells out basically what the HDB can do - to build flats, to develop land, to acquire land, to maintain, lease out, sale, and so forth. And if you read the old section 15, Sir, they are not given such widespread powers. At least the principle of the ultra vires rule is adhered in the old law. Sir, may I refer you to the old law, section 15(1) -

''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, cause to be formed, under the provisions of any written law for the time being in force relating to companies and incorporated private company or companies (referred to in this section as the company) limited by shares to be held by the Board and having as its or their object, all or any of the functions of the Board set out in section 13.'' In other words, the HDB can form companies but the activities must relate to those activities mentioned in section 13. But now with these sweeping powers given in the new section 15, the HDB can carry out any businesses they like as long as the Minister approves of the business. Naturally, I think as long as the company makes money, I think the Minister will approve.

Sir, there is nothing to stop the Minister from approving as long as the company approved seems to be making money. This, as Dr Lee has pointed out, is not a very good policy because there will be unfair competition as the HDB companies are not stopped by the ultra vires rules. There will be a proliferation of activities. They can carry out any business they like, not necessarily related to those mentioned in section 13. As it has already been mentioned, at the ground, the Government has carried out all kinds of businesses, including maintaining funeral parlours, except they say that the Government has not gone into coffin-making. Maybe the HDB will go into this business. We will never know, because I hear it is a lucrative business.

Small business enterprises are already feeling the competition, very keen competition, because of the participation of Government also in small businesses. Sir, with the introduction of these new laws, I think that competition for small businesses will be even keener. I hope that the future HDB companies will not go into traditional local businesses, thus making life more difficult for our local businessmen.

Sir, the other clause I want to turn to is clause 6 which reads:

''Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Board may, with the approval of the Minister, make rules for or in respect of all or any of the following matters:

(a) regulating the use and and enjoyment of common property and open spaces in any land vested in or held in trust for the Board.''

Sir, as I read this section, it would appear that it would be repugnant to the Town Councils Act. Under section 18 of the Town Councils Act, the Town Council has authority to control, manage, maintain, and improve the common properties. They are supposed to control the property. How can the Town Councils control the property and have use of the property if the HDB can make regulations? If regulations are made not to allow the Town Council to carry out certain activities, the Town Council will thus have no controlling power. So the Town Councils Act would, in fact, be overruled by this particular section.

Sir, I would suggest that this section should be further amended. After the words "in trust for the Board", to add the following words:

''except those common properties and open spaces in land controlled by the Town Councils;'' Because the Town Councils are allowed to make by laws. Therefore, they can make by laws which will control these open spaces and common property in lands controlled by them.

Sir, I see that the HDB is given power to compound fines and that the amount is $400. I think this is too high an amount and I would suggest that it should be reduced to $200.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, first of all, to deal with the points raised by Mr Chng Hee Kok. I not that he is not here. I am glad that he supports the need for penalty for late payment of instalments. As I mentioned, many cases of arrears arise not out of difficulty in paying,but because people know that there is no penalty interest and therefore they wait until the last moment. The interest is calculated on six months rest. So they wait until just before the six months before they pay the instalments. We shall certainly give sufficient publicity so that all HDB owners who owe money to the HDB will know that penalties will now be imposed.

As to whether a reasonable grace period is required, this is something that can be looked into. I think with sufficient publicity, I do not see the need for a grace period. We shall certainly exercise flexibility in the sense that those who have genuine difficulties in meeting the mortgage payments, if they come early to the HDB and put forward their problem with a revised payment schedule and the payment schedule is reasonable, HDB will then revise the payment schedule. But what we do not want is the present situation where HDB has to write many letters of reminders, visit the owner many times and then ultimately threaten to take legal action and only then the mortgage payments are made. So where there are genuine difficulties, HDB will be prepared to be flexible. Let us say a main wage-earner has lost his job or is temporarily unemployed, if he approaches the HDB with a revised schedule HDB will be prepared to consider it. We will give as much publicity as possible. We will exercise flexibility in the same way that we have exercised flexibility until now. But I am not so sure whether a long grace period is needed. Maybe one or two months before the law comes into operation.

Now I take the points made by Dr Lee and Mr Chiam. First of all, Sir, quite a number of comments have been made on the amendment that will enable HDB to enter into joint ventures. This amendment has two results.

(1) Under the present Act, HDB can only form wholly-owned companies. It cannot enter into joint ventures even for the purposes set out in section 13. This is very restrictive. Just to give one example, Mr Speaker, Sir. With the establishment of town councils, HDB set up a company to provide management services as well as cleaning and other services to town councils. Under the present law, these companies must be wholly-owned by the HDB. And HDB does not want to go on doing these functions. In fact, it wants to bring in other private shareholders into the companies and after some time divest its interest in these companies so that these functions can be performed by the private sector. But as the law now stands, it cannot do so. It cannot go through this interim period of bringing in the private investor and allowing the private investor to learn to do the job and then ultimately divest all the shares in the company. So the amendment now will enable HDB to form joint ventures to carry out any functions so that functions like estate management, estate cleansing and maintenance and so on can be done by the HDB together with other private investors. And at some future time, HDB can either completely divest itself or be just a minority shareholder. That is the first purpose that will be achieved by this amendment.

(2) As has been pointed out, the amendment is a material one, I admit, in that HDB will now be able to form companies to carry out functions other than the functions that were set out in section 13. There is a very good reason for this. HDB has now been in existence for almost 30 years. It has accumulated vast knowledge and expertise in building and maintaining public housing as well as factories, as well as other public amenities, swimming pools, stadiums and so on. There is a tremendous market for this expertise outside Singapore. And I think we will be foolish if we do not take advantage of the knowledge and expertise that HDB has gathered so far to work with other private investors in Singapore or on its own to export these services. It will also be foolish for HDB not to enter into joint ventures with others to spread this expertise and knowledge within Singapore in the private sector. That is the reason why the present Bill amends the Act to enable the HDB to carry out these other functions.

Of course, as drafted, HDB can do almost anything. But obviously commonsense will say that HDB will only go into areas where it already has expertise, or where it is necessary for HDB to invest in order to carry out its objectives. For example, HDB invested and owns brick factories and granite quarries. These were necessary in order to maintain a steady supply of essential building materials for HDB to carry out its functions.

I am not a lawyer, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I was quite dumbfounded with the interpretation of Mr Chiam that because this clause enables HDB to perform functions as approved by the Minister, it therefore follows that the HDB can form companies to carry out functions ultra vires the Companies Act. I do not see how that follows. Clause 3(1) says:

''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, form or participate in the formation of a private company or companies ...'' I would assume that when you form a company, you form it under the Companies Act. And when you form it under the Companies Act, you must be subject to the provisions of the Companies Act. Just as if this clause had read, "the Board may form societies", then it might form societies under the Societies Act and they will have to be subject to the provisions of the Societies Act. There is nothing here which says that a company formed under this clause will enable the company to completely ignore or act ultra vires the Companies Act. I do not know how that interpretation follows. Certainly, the people who drafted this never had that in mind and I am sure that that is not the reading of this particular clause.

The second point I would like to make is the point that was much elaborated by Dr Lee. He said that HDB has formed companies which are illegal and that this is an attempt to make past illegal acts legal. I think Dr Lee knows that as far as this Government is concerned, we are always ready to be challenged on any Act and if he thinks that we have formed illegal companies, please by all means take the necessary action, take us to court, take the HDB to court to show that we have formed illegal companies. I deny certainly. All the legal advice that we have has enabled us to ensure that whatever HDB has done is within the HDB Act.

The other point that he made was that this amendment would enable HDB to enter into all kinds of businesses which may end up in HDB losing money. And in passing, he mentioned, "many Government investments have gone bust." I think Dr Lee owes this House an explanation on a list of Government investments that have gone bust, a list of Government investments that are doing well, a list of Government investments that are doing extremely well, to justify or to back up his statement that many Government investments have gone bust. This is news to me and I am sure it is news to many Members here.

The HDB was set up to build flats for the population. Earlier in the sitting today, I explained how people's aspirations have changed. And for HDB to now confine itself, as Dr Lee suggests, to just building cheap flats for rental, it is just utterly ridiculous. I do not know where to start to explain the changes that have taken place in Singapore. We cannot even find buyers for 3-room flats, let alone cheap rental flats. Singapore has changed a lot. People can afford things quite different from what we thought they could afford 20-30 years ago. And if HDB is to build only cheap rental flats, I think it can just wind up. Because we have enough flats to last us for a long time for rental purposes.

On the other point that Dr Lee made, I am afraid he just read the first part of the clause and did not read further down. He said that new section 27B is unfair as it puts the liability on the owner of the vehicle when a parking offence has been committed. And he said, "Why can't we follow the provisions of the Parking Places Act?" In fact, that is exactly what is provided for in this clause. If he reads further down, new section 27B, subsection (3) says:

''Notwithstanding subsection (1), [this is the one that Dr Lee quoted] no owner of a vehicle shall by virtue of this section be guilty of an offence if he -

(a) within 7 days after service on him ... furnishes ... the name and address of the person who was in charge of the vehicle ...'' This is exactly the point. We lifted it completely from the Parking Places Act and this, I think, meets the point that Dr Lee made. I just wish that he had read further down instead of jumping to conclusions after just reading the first section.

The last point is on remuneration to Board members. I cannot give the figures now. I doubt it amounts to anything very much. It is probably just enough to cover transport expenses. We do not pay Board members. All Board members give their services virtually free. But if Mr Chiam would like to put in a Question, I shall certainly give him the answer.

Regarding quorum, I think it is quite right to leave it as it is because the amendment enables the Minister to appoint up to seven members. I may not appoint seven. I may leave it at five. So I think to keep the quorum at three is quite proper.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Some clarifications, Sir, from the Minister.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: He said that everything was done legally. May I quote him, Sir, the Report on the Audit of Accounts by the Auditor-General in 1981, and here under (4), it says:

''As the activities of some of the subsidiaries of these companies [he was referring to the MND Holdings] are not connected with the functions of the Board, Audit expressed the view in August 1980 that the investments in MND Holdings Pte Ltd is not in accordance with the provision of the Act. The matter is under review by the relevant Government authorities.''

That is what it says, Sir. And now he asks me to take legal action. The Auditor-General was already complaining. Why has not the Government done anything about that? Does he not realize that he has got to give us an explanation instead?

Again, Sir, he says everything is legal. I have here a name of one of the subsidiaries of MND Holdings, Primary Industries Enterprises, which is meant for animal husbandry and trading in foodstuffs. What has that got to do with the HDB? I just like to know. I cannot see anything that is there. And he has asked: what are the companies that have gone bust? I think all he has got to do is to go back to the early 1970's and I am sure the Minister for Finance will be able to produce all the answers. I cannot remember any offhand, but straightaway I can remember Firestone, not Firestone, but one tyre company anyway and a few others. I am sure the Minister should know. He should provide us the answer, not me.

As for cheap rental flats, does he not realize that there are quite a number of poor people today who have not been able to provide even the first downpayment for the buying of so-called cheap flats from the Government? Does he not think that it is only fair that those people who cannot afford to buy flats be allowed to rent flats, cheap rental flats? That is what I have been trying to drive at, Sir.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I really admire Dr Lee's capacity to create facts out of his ignorance by just throwing so-called examples.

First of all, I think he referred to Bridgestone. Government had absolutely no interest in that company.

Primary Industries Ltd is not an HDB company. It is a company in which MND and now I think Temasek has the investment. It is not an HDB company.

As to MND Holdings, yes, there was a dispute. MND Holdings is not held by HDB. I think it is held now by Temasek or by Minister for Finance. There was a dispute in the sense that whether certain operations such as the ownership of brick factories or granite quarries is entirely in accordance with section 13. I think it is. I think the Board's legal advisers held that it was so because it does say here expressly in section (e) "to do all such other matters and things as are necessary for the exercise and performance of all or any of the functions and duties of the Board." So I think it is a matter of interpretation. But in any case, to put this matter beyond doubt, that company is not held by HDB any more.

Cheap rental flats. We have enough rental flats to meet the needs of all those who want to rent flats. We have enough 1-room flats, we have also enough 3-room flats for sale. We have more than 8,000 3-room flats. There are only 2,000-odd applicants on the waiting list. So we have something like four times the number of registrants for 3-room flats.

The mortgage payment of 3-room flats, I have already explained, is almost equal to the rental for 3-room flats. And the terms for the purchase of a 3-room flat are so generous that I do not think anybody can say that he cannot afford it. In fact, the way we worked it out, anybody who is earning $500 per month should have enough in his CPF to be able to afford a 3-room flat. And if he still cannot afford that, he can rent a 1-room flat or, where it is available, a 2-room flat. So we have enough flats to meet the demand. And I think Dr Lee must really go around Singapore and find out for himself what the present situation is. It is not the early 60's. They are not. We do not have thousands of people wanting to just rent cheap flats. People now have savings. They want to buy good flats. And that is what HDB intends to provide.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Dhanabalan].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -- ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 --

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, after line 9, to insert -

"(c) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection:

"(2) Members of the Board shall hold office for such period, not being more than 3 years from the date of their respective appointments, as the Minister may determine and shall be eligible for reappointment on completion of that period.'.".

The amendment will give the Minister the flexibility to appoint Board members of the HDB for any period up to a maximum of three years. This is similar to the provisions in the principal legislation of other major statutory bodies such as the Port of Singapore Authority, the Economic Development Board and the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will have to be made:

(1) In page 2, line 4, to leave out "and".

(2) In page 2, line 9, to leave out the full-stop at the end, and insert "; and".

These will be done.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.