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."

The main aim of this Bill is to enable the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to implement the Upgrading Programme for public housing estates. The Bill also includes amendments to enable HDB to sell its tenanted shops to sitting tenants, as well as to expedite the execution of lease and mortgage instruments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 11th July 1989, I informed the House that HDB will implement a major programme, spread over 10 to 15 years, to upgrade the quality of older HDB flats and improve the common areas and open spaces within HDB estates. The Upgrading Programme will be carried out precinct by precinct. Each precinct will be a small area, comprising between five and seven blocks, which residents can identify with, and relate to, as their own.

The first phase of the Upgrading Programme involves six "demonstration" precincts in Marine Parade, Kim Keat, Telok Blangah, Ang Mo Kio, Clementi and Lorong Lew Lian. By the end of next month, residents in all six precincts would have confirmed whether or not they want their precinct to be upgraded. HDB expects to commence upgrading works in the demonstration precincts starting from the end of this year. The Upgrading Programme will be extended to other precincts in phases over the next 10-15 years. The Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill sets out the legislative framework necessary for the smooth implementation of the Upgrading Programme.

Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new Part IVA, with new sections 65A to 65L, in the Housing and Development Act dealing with the implementation of the upgrading works in HDB housing estates. In particular, the new section 65A defines the key terms relevant to the Upgrading Programme such as "precinct" and the various types of "upgrading works". A distinction is made between "specified upgrading works" which affect only specific blocks in a precinct, and "general upgrading works" which cover improvements to all the blocks and the common property in a precinct.

The new section 65B empowers the Minister, after consulting HDB, to declare any HDB housing estate, or any part of it, to be a precinct for the purpose of carrying out upgrading works.

We will not impose the Upgrading Programme on flat owners. We will be guided by their views. Flat owners in the precinct will decide whether or not to proceed with the upgrading works. The new section 65C requires HDB to conduct a poll of eligible flat owners within the precinct to find out whether or not they want the proposed upgrading. HDB may, with the approval of the Minister, proceed to carry out the proposed package of "general" upgrading works for the precinct if the poll shows that 75% or more of eligible flat owners in the precinct agree to the carrying out of such works. HDB may also carry out "specified" upgrading works affecting a specific block if 75% or more of eligible flat owners in that block are in favour.

As Members are aware, HDB has conducted polls in Marine Parade and Kim Keat, and an overwhelming majority of flat owners there have supported upgrading. The new section 65C also regularises such polls conducted prior to the coming into force of the amendments proposed in this Bill.

The new section 65D authorises HDB to carry out upgrading works in a precinct6, after approval has been given by the Minister, in such a manner as HDB thinks fit. We want to make sure that only improvement works that are valued by flat owners and Town Councils will be carried out under the Upgrading Programme. Affected flat owners and their respective Town Councils will therefore be required to share in the upgrading cost. The new section 65D allows HDB to recover from flat owners and Town Councils their share of the cost of upgrading works. I want to assure Members that flat owners and Town Councils will be well informed of their financial obligations, viz, the percentage and dollar share of upgrading costs before polling begins. The amount to be paid, termed as the "improvement contribution", by each flat owner and Town Council will be determined by HDB.

From time to time, it might be necessary for HDB to carry out certain improvements in a precinct which are in the public interest, such as the installation of dry risers for fire fighting, upgrading of electrical load and replacement of lift car cage. Such improvement works should be carried out, wherever possible, together with upgrading works that require the majority support of flat owners. This will minimise disruptions to residents. The new section 65E empowers the Minister to direct HDB to carry out such improvement works in a precinct, without conducting a poll. HDB will bear the full cost of such works.

To help flat owners pay their share of upgrading cost, HDB will provide loans repayable in instalments, by cash or from CPF savings, over a 5- or 10-year period. Arrangements have also been made to help lessees in genuine financial hardship, eg, those who are unemployed. Based on the merits of each case, HDB will consider allowing such lessees to defer their instalment payments with interest for a certain period of time. Lessees who are 55 years of age or older and have no employment, investment income or CPF savings, may be allowed to defer the instalment payments with interest until they sell or transfer their flat.

There may, however, be some lessees who, despite being able to pay, deliberately delay or simply refuse to pay up. The new section 65F empowers HDB to impose interest and a penalty for late payment on such lessees. HDB is also empowered under the new section 65H to sell off a flat to recover the improvement contributions if they remain unpaid by such lessees. New section 65I enables HDB to recover any unpaid improvement contributions in any court of competent authority or in any Small Claims Tribunal.

"Space-adding" items, such as an utility room, bathroom or service balcony, will result in an increase in the floor area of the flats. The flat owner must be given proper title to the additional space created. Normal conveyancing practice requires flat owners to sign a number of legal documents and pay the necessary stamp and legal fees to vest the title. The new section 65G simplifies this procedure to involve only HDB and the Registry of Titles. HDB will lodge the necessary legal documents with the Registrar of Titles. The flat owners will not be required to sign any legal documents, or pay any stamp or legal fees.

The new section 65J empowers any officer or person authorised by HDB to enter any flat or building within a precinct to carry out upgrading works within the flat or building. Those who wilfully obstruct the authorised officer or person will be guilty of an offence, and will be liable to a fine on conviction.

The powers of entry into a flat provided by new section 65J are necessary for the smooth implementation of upgrading works. They will also minimise disruptions to the daily life of residents in a precinct. HDB will have to work out very carefully and adhere strictly to the implementation schedule for upgrading works. Each flat owner will be informed in advance of the exact date and duration that works will be carried out within his flat. A flat owner can then arrange for someone to be present in the flat when work is being carried out within the flat. Any delay in carrying out upgrading works in one flat will upset the schedule for the remaining flats to be upgraded. It is therefore necessary to have this section to give HDB officers the authority to enter flats where the owners refuse entry or for some reason are not prepared to allow the works to carry on.

The Minister is also empowered under the new section 65K to make rules to give effect to the various provisions in the new Part IVA of the Housing and Development Act. The new section 65L specifies that the provisions under Part IVA do not in any way prejudice HDB's existing right under the Housing and Development Act to enforce breaches of tenancy, mortgage instruments, etc.

In addition to the provisions relating to the Upgrading Programme, the Bill includes an amendment to facilitate the sale of tenanted shops to sitting tenants, and an amendment to expedite execution of lease and mortgage instruments. These are covered by clause 2 of the Bill.

Leases of HDB flats sold before November 1983 contain a restrictive covenant prohibiting the use of any unit in the block for commercial purposes. Of the total 12,000 existing tenanted shops earmarked for sale to sitting tenants, about 5,300 are located in blocks with flat leases containing this restrictive covenant. To enable the sale of these 5,300 units of shops to sitting tenants, a new section 48A is proposed. This will discharge HDB from such a restrictive covenant in so far as the shop units are concerned.

A substantial number of HDB lessees and mortgagors fail to come forward to sign the necessary lease and mortgage instruments despite many reminders. At present, HDB has nearly 11,900 unexecuted leases, some dating as far back as 1978. Of these unexecuted leases, about 10,700 also have unexecuted mortgage instruments. HDB has to spend a great deal of time, effort and money every year to remind these lessees and mortgagors to come forward to execute the necessary legal instruments. This is unproductive and a waste of public funds. The new section 48B empowers HDB to execute a lease or mortgage instrument on behalf of a purchaser of an HDB flat should the purchaser fail to do so.

Sir, I beg to move,

Question proposed.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill standing in the name of the Minister for National Development.

The Bill, as stated by the Minister, is to allow HDB to implement a major upgrading of our older HDB flats and to improve the common areas and open spaces within HDB estates. It is the correct thing to do, as some of our older flats have deteriorated and with it its value and comfort. It is clearly specified in the Bill that the upgrading will be in precincts, in other words, a cluster of 5-7 blocks will be identified as a precinct and the work will be carried out precinct by precinct. My question is: why upgrade by precincts? Can individual blocks in a well-defined neighbourhood be upgraded without going through this precinct concept? Should the number of blocks to be upgraded be only from five to seven? Can there be more flexibility by not fixing this number and allowing future planners to determine the best mix according to the lay-out of the town?

The Bill separates the upgrading works into specific and general upgrading. This is obviously related to costing. One of the biggest concerns in this upgrading exercise is cost. How much will the individual pay, how much will the Government pay, and how much will the Town Councils pay? As stated by the Minister, HDB will bear the cost of such works like installation of dry risers for fire fighting, upgrading of the electrical load and replacement of lift car cage, because these are of public interest and no poll is needed to seek approval. I understand, however, that the cost for general upgrading of the common areas, open spaces, will be shared with the Town Council, while the specific upgrading by the individual flat owners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Town Councils run on a very tight budget. It has its own upgrading programmes like covered linkways, improvements to lift landings, lift replacement, landscaping and cyclical works like painting, etc. To prevent unnecessary wastage of Town Councils' funds, it is important that HDB gives advance notice to Town Councils or makes known its upgrading plans, including cost, to Town Councils when requested. This will help to dovetail the work of the Town Councils and the HDB's upgrading exercise.

With regard to the cost sharing of the specific upgrading of the individual flats, I learn that at present the flat owner pays 10%, either through cash or by way of CPF. I hope this percentage remains at this figure, and I would like to request HDB not to up it. Because the value of upgrading will not be as it is today, which is about $45,000. Maybe it will be about $50,000 in the next five years. Thus, if the cost to flat owners is pegged at 10% of the upgrading cost, he pays only $5,000 in five years time as compared to $4,500 now. To increase this percentage to, say, 20% of the increased upgrading cost of $50,000 will mean $10,000 on the part of the flat owner. I hope capping the flat owner's share at 10% is reasonable. As this is not spelt out in the Bill, I would like to get from the Minister some assurance on this matter.

I would like the Ministry to make available to Town Councils and flat owners, a list of the costing for upgrading within the flat, item by item, stating clearly what items are compulsory and what are optional. I am concerned about over-providing, ie, giving more than what is necessary. For example, if a balcony costs $5,000 to build and a flat owner thinks that it is not worth the cost of having it because the view is not much to look at, unlike Marine Parade, and the increased space can only have standing room for one plus a few flower pots, can he opt out and save this $5,000? I make this point because we must plan what the flat owner needs and not what we think they need because plans, once drawn and presented, are very reluctantly changed. So I want to be sure that this can be done, ie, of course, after a poll has been taken.

I would also like the Government to show clearly the areas in the flat that are upgraded at HDB's cost. I think this is important because there is a need for the residents to know about this. In the upgrading exercise, a conscious effort must be made to have a barrier-free environment. It is well and good to have different layers in the precincts to bring out the aesthetics of the area. But what use is all this if an old or disabled resident cannot have access to it to enjoy all these new developments in the precinct. Or a young couple cannot push the baby pram around because of too many barriers. With all this upgrading of the flat and increased space, two questions invariably must be made known to the residents. One is the question of property tax and the other is the lease period of the newly renovated flat. How much more will he need to pay for his property tax? Some indication should be given and will his present lease be altered, say, back to 99 years.

The rest of the amendments refer to procedures of recovery of cost from those who refuse to pay up. It is quite clear and I would not comment on them. The section on procedure and regulation on the sale of shops has been discussed in the Committee of Supply. So I would not repeat.

Finally, I would like the Minister to consider an alternative upgrading of the estate. There are, I am sure, old and poorly designed estates, like Teban Gardens, with its long standing intractable problems of leaking toilets, damaged water pipes, spalling concrete and window casements falling apart. Moreover, these flats have no void deck. Sir, I have an album of such defects which I will hand it over to the Minister. I hope that, after viewing it, he would sympathise with me, as the Member of Parliament of that constituency, and also to sympathise with my poor residents.

Sir, would it not be more prudent, rather than try to do patch work surgery on such buildings, to construct new flats instead? This, of course, would be on condition that there are vacant lands to, say, build a precinct of five blocks, so that we can move a section of the old estate into this new precinct, tear down the blocks left behind to build another precinct, and then move another sector into this place and so on. I think this is less traumatic, less disruptive, less problems of dust, noise and neater, and the whole estate can be renewed and residents can remain in that neighbourhood. These new flats can be sold to the sitting flat owners at a special price which takes into account the Government's saving on refurbishing cost. The details can be worked out later.

Thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker, Sir. I support the Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is noticed that the upgrading of residential flats is being done in tandem with the sale of HDB shops. Of the two, I would think that the sale of HDB shops in the open market has greater implications to the residents of HDB housing estates.

Sir, I would like the Minister just to clarify whether or not, when the HDB changed its policy to sell the commercial units, they are treating the commercial units just like private commercial units, or there is still going to be a set of rules and regulations governing these commercial units in regard to their sale, rental and transfer of title, and the type of business they can do there. The HDB has got a string of regulations tying down owners of residential units. Although they pay and say that they are owners of the flats, in fact they have to get permission from the HDB for renovation, for bringing in tenants and many other aspects in connection with the flat.

Sir, there are reports in the papers that there are already business people wanting to acquire shops in choice areas, and they are willing to pay very high premiums, and large sums of money have been mentioned in the papers. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the HDB is willing to treat these shops as commercial units. In other words, if the sitting tenants are allowed to purchase and if they re-sell it for a profit, is the HDB going to impose a levy on the profit? Is the HDB willing to allow a sitting tenant, after purchasing it, to rent out for a good commercial rental? Also, if the sitting tenant has already purchased the unit, is he allowed to sell it straightaway, or is there going to be a waiting period before he is allowed to sell? These are important questions for those who are now in fact tenants of these shops. Perhaps the Minister could clarify these points.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I share the concern of Dr Tan on the upgrading of HDB flats, especially the cost after upgrading which the Town Council will have to bear. In so far as I know, the cost has not been spelt out clearly, ie, how much or what percentage the Town Council will have to bear.

Secondly, I would like the Minister's view on whether it is prudent to allow HDB to execute contractual instruments on behalf of purchasers who fail to execute the legal documents.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Ang Mo Kio GRC): Sir, on the sale of the shops to sitting tenants, I asked a question during the debate on the National Development Ministry. Unfortunately, there was no time for the Minister of State to answer. I would like to bring it up again, and this is in regard to the conditions under which the proceeds or compensation money from fire insurance will in fact go to HDB, even though the premium had been paid by the purchaser in the first place. So effectively there is no protection for the purchaser of the shop. I am wondering if the Ministry has plans to modify the proposed memorandum of lease for these cases.

Secondly, at the present moment, as it is worded, there is a set of wide ranging conditions under which HDB can re-enter or re-possess the premises. These conditions have been loosely or generally defined, and I believe they are not in the interest of the purchaser. I am wondering whether the Ministry would look into this area and suitably improve the wording to protect and safeguard the interest of the purchaser.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, the HDB's Upgrading Programme has generated tremendous interest among residents, particularly residents of older housing estates. Although I would agree with my Parliamentary colleague that Teban Gardens is old, the housing estate where I am associated is older. If you go to Tiong Bahru, Bukit Merah, Henderson housing estates, and ask the residents, Sir, many of them would say that they are looking forward to the implementation of the Upgrading Programmes. I think the older housing estates deserve much closer attention because there are visible deteriorations of the precincts and there is an urgency to look into how the problems could be solved.

Sir, in the last debate we have discussed the implementation of such a programme. But it seems that it would take 10-15 years before the Upgrading Programme would be implemented in my constituency. With the passing of the Bill, I am wondering whether there would be a subsequent review in terms of increasing the upgrading tempo to ensure that people would not have to wait that long, particularly people who are living in older housing estates like those in my constituency.

The other matter that I would like to ask the Minister is whether, instead of waiting for such a long period for improvements to the precincts to be implemented, there will be marginal or small package programmes to improve perhaps the facade of the house, particularly the windows, the corridors, the doors and the kitchen balcony windows. If you go through some of these estates in my constituency, you will find that many of the facilities have deteriorated. There is an urgency to see whether these facilities could be improved. Besides the Upgrading Programmes that the Ministry has in mind, would the HDB be prepared to look at small package programmes for improvement of older housing estates?

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I thank the Members who have made various comments and supported the Bill, and who also raised questions which now give me an opportunity to clarify for Members of the House as well as for Singaporeans as a whole what this Upgrading Programme and sale of shops are all about.

I will take the points in the order in which they were raised. First of all, Dr Tan Cheng Bock's points. He asked whether the precincts, which I said in my speech will be between five and seven blocks, can vary in size and whether single blocks can be upgraded. The precincts can be of various sizes. In fact, in the demonstration precincts, they range from three blocks up to eight or nine blocks. I do not think it is likely that there will be a single block which will be so distinct and separate from the rest that it can be upgraded on its own. But the size of the precinct is flexible. It will depend on the physical features on the ground because what we are trying to achieve is to create a precinct which will have a distinct identity so that the residents in the precinct can have a sense of belonging to that area. In order to create a sense of belonging, there must be certain physical boundaries which also will serve as psychological boundaries creating this sense of belonging to the area. So we would take into account the particular factors in the estates and be very flexible. This number of five to seven blocks is just a broad indication. But we would want to avoid doing block by block for the reasons that I have stated.

I think I ought to correct a point made by Dr Tan. If I heard Dr Tan right, he said that specific upgrading cost will have to be borne by the owners. The general upgrading is subject to contribution from both the owners as well as the Town Council. Specific items are those items which I have mentioned which are considered as items required for various purposes like fire fighting or change of lift car cages and so on, and the cost will be paid for by the HDB. And because HDB will pay the full cost, there is no need to conduct a poll. But these items will be done at the same time as far as possible with the general upgrading. This is, as I said, to minimise disruption and inconvenience to residents.

Dr Tan made the point that it is important for HDB to tell Town Councils in advance, of the programme and to itemise the programme. I agree with that entirely. In fact, this is exactly what we have done with the 2demonstration precinct. What happens is that the HDB or, if a precinct wants to use a private sector architect they can also do so, the architect would prepare a list of suggested upgrading items within the budget. In the case of the demonstration precinct, we have discussed these items with grassroots leaders and residents for about a year. And they know exactly what the different items are and what they will cost. And they made many suggestions which is part of the reason why in the demonstration precincts the programme has been a little delayed. Having taken the suggestions into account, we prepare a final general upgrading package which is subject to the 75% poll of the residents in the area.

The list that is submitted to residents for them to decide is not something that is decided by the HDB. It is something that is worked out after very long discussion between the grassroots leaders, residents and the HDB. And then it is subject again to the poll where 75% must support.

The other list of items where residents want something extra for which they are prepared to pay 100% of the cost, that again is an item that is generated by the residents. And that again is subject to the poll. So if a balcony or an additional bathroom or some other improvement is not needed or not felt as being of value by the residents, then we would not include them. This is the whole purpose of sharing the cost. If we do not share the cost, the HDB can then just do anything and people will say, "Well, you do what you like, because we do not have to pay." But when they share the cost, they are very concerned that the items are items of value to them. So there is long discussion, and there will be long discussions. And no list of items will be just foisted on the residents without discussion. I agree entirely that we must only do what the flat owners want and not what the HDB or anybody else think that they should want.

Barrier-free environment, yes. In the upgrading, we will as far as possible include the latest standards of barrier-free provisions so that old people and disabled people can move freely. And in fact in some of the blocks where we are installing new lifts stopping on every floor, this is a very important barrier-free feature.

Property tax - when the value of the property goes up, the property tax must go up. I do not know how much it will go up. HDB owners in fact pay very little property tax. And if it goes up at all, I expect it to be marginal.

Whether the lease can be extended by another 99 years - I think when I first spoke on this in 1989, I explained why it could not be done. Seventy-odd years, which is about the minimum that most of the HDB lessees have, is more than enough to last two generations.

Dr Tan suggested an alternative form of upgrading. I think he really meant not so much an alternative, but something that can run parallel to the proposed upgrading. The idea and principle is acceptable. In fact, we are doing it. In the older areas where there are many 1-room blocks, we have cleared the 1-room blocks, demolished the buildings, and we will be building new flats there. That is one kind of upgrading that we are doing. In fact, in the older HDB estates where the people who are living there have also got older, we are trying to renew their estates by redeveloping parcels that are available, or as a result of demolition of old 1-room blocks, to bring younger people into their estate.

We have not yet thought about acquiring and demolishing sold blocks. So far, we have confined this programme to rental blocks. But I would not rule it out. There may be instances where either the land may be so valuable or it may not be worth upgrading an old block, where it may be better to pay off the owners and then knock the place down and redevelop. And of course, his idea of trying to give them some sort of priority for allocation of flats within the vicinity is something that we will consider.

Mr Chiam raised a number of points, all of them, I think, relating to sale of shops. All the points were in fact covered in the press briefing that we had when we announced the sale of shops. But I would repeat the points. The shops will in almost all features be like shops in any commercial centre. The type of business is not controlled. They can do any type of business, provided it is something that the planners would approve, which also applies to private commercial developments. For example, we would not normally allow, say, a provision shop to be converted into a coffeeshop. We are trying to restrict the number of coffeeshops on the ground floors of HDB flats because coffeeshops operate late, they create a lot of noise and heat, and they affect the quality of life of residents in the block. That will be one of the considerations that planners will have when a change of use is applied for. But the change of use applications will apply not only to the HDB shops but also the shops in the private sector. HDB itself would not control the type of business they can conduct.

A sitting tenant can rent out the shop. In other words, he can just treat it as an investment. He can sell it to anyone without restriction. There will be no levy on any profit that he makes and there is no minimum time that he has to retain the shop before he can sell. If he wants to do certain things to the shop such as renovation and so on, he would have to apply for permission just like any owner of any shop in any private building would have to. It is not something special. We would want to know what kind of renovation he wants to do, what kind of changes he intends to do, because it might have an implication on the structure of the building. So those things are no different between the HDB shops and those in the private sector.

I think I have answered all the questions that Mr Chiam has raised.

Mr Low said the cost was not clearly spelt out. When we declare a precinct for upgrading, we will discuss with the Town Council what are the items that we propose, and the cost of the items. The Town Council can have full discussion with the HDB, together with the residents and the grassroots leaders. As I have said, we do not have any pre-conceived notion as to what should be there and what should not be there. We have a suggested list, but that can be changed, and this would be done in full consultation with the Town Council.

He also asked whether it is proper for HDB to execute instruments on behalf of the purchaser. I was myself very surprised to hear from the HDB that there are so many thousands of people who have not executed their leases and their mortgages. The trouble is that once they have collected the keys, they think everything is over and they just do not turn up, and they have got a thousand and one reasons why they are not free to come and sign the documents. It would not happen anymore. For all the new flats that are being sold, the keys will not be given until they sign the documents. But for the older flats, we need this clause in the Bill to go ahead and execute the mortgages and also register the titles. Very often the lender, for example, a bank in the private sector, would ask the borrower to sign a document giving the bank the authority to execute the mortgage. So that is not unusual. I think where probably it is a little more unusual is where HDB will have to execute the title part of it. But we have to do it because these people just do not want to come. I think they have got such a lot of trust and faith in HDB that their flats will not be re-possessed that they just do not bother. So we want to regularise it, but this is a one-time process. For all the new flats, we have a system which will make sure that this does not happen again.

Mr Lau Ping Sum asked about proceeds of fire insurance and some of the conditions relating to re-possession of shops. I have already asked HDB to look into this. I agree with him entirely that the HDB, having sold the shop, should not feel that it is entitled to the proceeds of any fire insurance payments. So the necessary changes will be made in the memorandum of lease.

Dr Vasoo has once again raised the plight of the old estates. All I can say is that in the scheduling of the upgrading in the different precincts, the age of the estate or the precinct will definitely be an important factor. It does not make sense for us to go and upgrade something that was completed five or six years ago. This will be a very important factor.

As to whether we will increase the tempo, yes, if the programme goes well and the construction industry can cope with the increased tempo, we will increase the tempo. I have just given a rough idea of 10 to 15 years. It does not mean that Tiong Bahru will be upgraded only at the end of the 15 years. It could very well be next year.

Dr Vasoo asked whether there are any other plans or package programmes which can run parallel to the general upgrading programmes. Yes, in fact, Town Councils can put up proposals so that some of the items that we have in mind for upgrading can be done quite separate from the general upgrading programme, and we will consider them. I think I did mention this also in the House sometime ago in answer to a question that some of the items in the Upgrading Programme can be done much earlier in the precinct than are scheduled under the general upgrading programme. So Town Councils can put up their proposals and we will certainly look at them.

Sir, I think I have answered all the points.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Minister has not answered one of my queries, and that is in regard to the levy imposed on a sitting tenant should he get a sizable profit on the resale of his flat and also the premium.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I did answer. It is not the flat. The flats are subject to levy. I am talking about shops. For shops, I have made it clear that there will be no levy.

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 S. Dhanabalan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.