TOWN COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.44 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Town Councils Act came into operation on 5th August 1988, and was last amended in November 1990. Since then, a number of developments have arisen that make further amendments to the Act necessary.

The proposed amendments fall into four categories. The first category covers membership of Town Councils and Town Council committees. The second category of amendments deals with transitional arrangements following a general election. The third set of amendments allows Town Councils to share the costs of upgrading of the common property in their estates. And the final set of amendments is consequential to the recent transfer from Town Councils to HDB of responsibility for the maintenance of the Central Television Antenna (CATV) system in the HDB estates.

Let me first touch on the first category of amendments, ie, membership of Town Councils and Town Council committees. The current provision in the Act states that, in addition to the elected MP or MPs, a Town Council shall comprise not less than six nor more than 30 other members appointed by the Chairman.

Sir, the GRCs have expanded from three to four Divisions. Towns which are made up of, or which include, GRCs, now cover more public housing estates. For example, there are now 11 Towns with four Divisions each, and four Towns with five Divisions each. The Act also allows a Town to comprise up to three constituencies. If all these three constituencies are GRCs, then the Town will cover 12 Divisions.

For such large Towns, the present limit of 30 appointed members for a Town Council may not provide adequate representation from the various Divisions. To remedy this, clause 3 of the Bill amends the Town Councils Act to raise the upper limit on the number of appointed members of a Town Council to 30 per Town Council, or 10 per MP in a large Town Council, whichever is the greater. For example, in the case of Bedok Town, which comprises Bedok GRC and Changi SMC (Single-Member Constituency) and, therefore, has five MPs, the maximum number of appointed Town Councillors allowed under the amendment will be 50. This is 20 more than the present limit of 30.

I must stress that the Town Councils Act sets the upper limit on the size of a Town Council. It would, of course, be up to the Chairman and the other elected members of each Town Council to decide how many members should be appointed to a Town Council. They would have to ensure that there is adequate representation from the various housing estates under their charge, without at the same time making their Councils too large and unwieldy.

The existing section 8(2) specifies that two-thirds of the appointed Town Councillors shall be residents of the Town. This would include residents of non-HDB estates, who are not particularly involved in the day-to-day problems of HDB estates and, therefore, are not usually affected by the Town Council's decisions. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend this section to make it clear that two-thirds of the appointed members of a Town Council shall be residents of HDB estates within the Town.

The other amendment relating to the membership of Town Council committees is clause 7 of the Bill. At present, at least half of the members of each committee of a Town Council shall be members of the Town Council. Clause 7 seeks to amend the requirement to reduce this requirement from one-half to one-third. This will enable Town Councils to invite more residents to sit on their committees. It will also help lighten the work burden of Town Councillors, many of whom are also grassroots leaders in their estates.

The next category of amendments deals with the transition immediately after a general election. The existing provision stipulates that a Town Council Chairman shall be appointed within seven days after any general election or by-election. This, in our experience, is too short a period for the MPs in larger Town Councils, or those whose boundaries have been changed, to choose a Chairman. Clause 4, therefore, amends this section to provide up to 30 days for the appointment of a new Chairman.

The existing legislation allows the Minister to prescribe the period, not exceeding 180 days, within which a Town Council shall take over the management of an estate from HDB. This section was applicable at the time when Town Councils were first established, but does not cover situations where Town Councils are affected by boundary changes, such as after a general election. Clause 2 of the Bill introduces a new provision allowing the Minister to prescribe the period, not exceeding 90 days, given for a Town Council affected by boundary changes to take over the management of estates from the Town Council previously responsible for those estates. This will also ensure that services to residents will not be disrupted during the transition period.

The remaining amendments in the Bill are necessitated by HDB's Upgrading Programme, and by HDB's takeover of the maintenance of the CATV system in public housing estates.

The upgrading costs for the six precincts included in the first or demonstration phase of the Upgrading Programme will be met largely by Government, with each flat-owner paying no more than $4,500. When the Upgrading Programme is extended to other estates, the costs will be shared by Government, flat-owners and Town Councils in a proportion to be determined. The Town Councils will have to meet their share of upgrading costs of common property from their sinking funds. This was something which Dr Tan Cheng Bock alluded to just now. We think it is fair that Town Councils share in the cost of the upgrading because the Town Councils benefit from the upgrading of the precinct in that future cyclical maintenance and routine maintenance may be minimised. On another point raised by Dr Tan, we also try to coordinate the upgrading with the cyclical maintenance of the Town Councils. That is the reason why we would like them to contribute from their sinking funds. Clause 8, therefore, amends the Act to allow Town Councils to use their sinking funds in their share for the upgrading project. We would like to encourage Town Councils to transfer part of their operating surpluses to their sinking funds to meet such upgrading costs.

The final set of amendments deals with the maintenance and management of CATV systems. HDB took over the maintenance and management of CATV systems in the early part of this year. The takeover was necessary as HDB has the technical expertise and is in a better position than individual Town Councils, to upgrade and maintain the systems to facilitate reception of new services such as subscription TV and Teleview. As Town Councils are no longer responsible for the CATV system, the references to CATV systems in sections 22 and 33 of the Town Councils Act have to be deleted. The deletion will be effected through clauses 6 and 8.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Town Councils Act was first drafted, we tried to be as comprehensive as possible. However, amendments are inevitable in the light of experience. The amendments I have listed earlier, Sir, have been shown to be necessary through our experience. They are intended to further facilitate the operations of the Town Councils and to enhance their effectiveness.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, does this amendment Bill indicate future plans of the Government to further increase the size of GRCs from the present four constituencies to six constituencies?

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon South): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Town Councils (Amendment) Bill. However, there are a few points I wish to seek clarification from the Minister.

The first point is on the increase in the maximum number of members of the Town Council. It is desirable to increase the number for large towns so that all wards can be adequately represented. However, under the Town Councils Act, a town can be as big as three GRCs, with a total of 12 Members of Parliament, which means the Town Council can have as many as 120 members, and including the 12 MPs, it will be 132 members which is about more than 1 1/2 times the number of Members of Parliament. Although the Minister has commented that it is up to the MP to decide how big the Town Council should be, there is no guarantee that the MP will agree on a small Town Council. So my question is: is it better to impose a maximum number on the membership of the Town Council?

My second point is on the amendment to enable the Town Council to use the sinking funds for upgrading of estates. Sir, many Town Councils are already faced with the problem of not having sufficient money in the sinking funds for routine cyclical works, such as the R&R, re-roofing, lift overhaul, etc. If upgrading projects are to be paid from the sinking funds, some Town Councils may end up in financial difficulties. Would the Government consider giving more grants to Town Councils for upgrading purposes so that the Town Councils need not deplete their sinking funds? Otherwise, some Town Councils may have no choice but to increase the rate of contribution to sinking funds which now stand at 25% of the income of the Town Council. In doing so, the Town Council may have to increase the SC&CC charges. Sir, I would like the Minister to comment on these points.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, one of the common complaints against the Government is the frequency at which our laws are changed or amended, and the Town Councils Act is one of them. It has been mentioned that it was amended only in November 1990 and now we are back here to amend it.

The formation of Town Councils was a big election issue in the 1988 general election. The election law was also changed, which was, to my mind, for the worse because it introduced communalism into our electoral system. It should have been more properly considered but it was not so. So we have to come back to this House again to amend this law. No doubt, there shall be further amendments to this law because, I believe, the Government considers this law as a very sensitive one.

Clause 2 seeks to give more transfer time when one constituency is absorbed by another, or one constituency is given up. But the HDB now sees fit to allow 90 days for a takeover. But after the last general election, when the SDP won two more seats at Nee Soon Central and Bukit Gombak, they were only given 30 days each to carry out the transfer. I am just wondering why such a short changeover period was given for those two new constituencies. Clause 2, I believe, also envisages that there shall be further changes in our electoral boundaries. What does the Government have in mind? I do not think that the Government intends to reduce the size of present day GRCs. At the moment, each GRC can comprise up to four single-member constituencies. Is the Government considering enlarging the GRCs to make them into five single-member constituencies, or even more, instead of the present four?

Members will remember that the rationale behind forming multiple single-member constituencies was to ensure that there was minority representation in this House. At first, it was suggested twinning two single-member constituencies but suddenly there was a change of mind on the part of the Government, and instead of only two single-member constituencies joining up to form a GRC, we were told that there should be three. And then before the 1991 generalelection, suddenly again there was a change in the law to bring it up to four.

With the amendments to the Town Councils Act, are we soon to be further told that the number of single-member constituencies in a GRC shall be increased? This change shall certainly come into being if the Government perceives that its electoral success will be enhanced.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, may I remind you that we are debating the Town Councils (Amendment) Bill and we are not debating the Bill on Group Representation Constituencies.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is connected.

Mr Speaker: Could you get to the point then?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, there is a connection. At the moment, the number of residential and commercial units of flats in a four-member GRC is large enough to enjoy the economies of scale in running it. From this point of view, there is no need to enlarge it further. Potong Pasir is only a single-member constituency and its Town Council is doing just fine. Since a single-member constituency Town Council can manage, there is no reason why a four-member GRC cannot manage. From the management point of view, there is indeed no need to change the four-member GRC.

I believe one of the reasons why the HDB is divesting the maintenance work of housing estates is that as the estates get older, such maintenance work becomes more and more troublesome. So the HDB passes this part of its difficult task to the Town Councils. In doing so, the HDB reserves for itself the more lucrative and politically sensitive parts of the common property, such as the car parks and the open spaces which may be used for public dinners, fairs or political rallies.

The central TV antennae (CATV) did not, at first, come under this category. In fact, the two most troublesome areas of maintenance work are the CATV system and the lifts. Complaints of poor TV reception are received frequently, in particular, during such events as the World Cup or if there are popular films being shown. Now suddenly the HDB wants to take over the maintenance of the CATV system.

Contrary to what the Minister has said, I do not believe the real reason is that HDB has the technical expertise. The Town Councils have the means to maintain any kind of CATV system and maintain it well. It does not need the HDB to do so. I believe the reason is that money is involved.

We have been told that the Government will soon introduce subscription TV. How does subscription TV work? Each subscriber has to pay to the commercial TV station for a modem or a device to unscramble the signals before he can get a clear picture on his TV screen. Apparently, if such a device or modem is attached to CATV, the residents in the block of flats will be able to get clear signals. So the Government will not be able to sell their devices or modems to the individual residents. Of course, if the HDB allows the Town Councils to look after the common TV antennae and when this subscription TV comes into being, I think the residents will be happy. Certainly it will be fine for the residents, but not for SBC which, we presume, will be owning this commercial TV station.

Hence, to prevent the loss of revenue, HDB wants to take back the maintenance of the central TV antennae in the HDB estates. The grant, of course, given to the Town Councils for maintaining the CATV system has been taken back by the HDB.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take Mr Low and Mr Chiam's comments on expanding the GRC separately.

First, I think it is not relevant to the Bill under discussion. The Town Councils Act presently allows the amalgamation of three constituencies to form a Town Council. The definition of a "GRC" is one constituency. So what we are providing for in the Bill is to increase the number of town councillors to be appointed. It has got nothing to do with increasing the size of individual GRCs. The number of town councillors that can be appointed, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, is only intended as a maximum. We will leave it to the Town Councils to strike a balance between ensuring adequate representation from the various estates within the Town Council as well as not appointing too many town councillors as this will be so unwieldy.

On the question of sinking funds, I think this is a very important issue. I share Dr Koh Lip Lin's concern that with the rising cost of cyclical maintenance, the sinking funds accumulated by Town Councils may not be sufficient for future commitments for cyclical maintenance. In fact, the Government is taking a look at this and we may require the rate of contribution of 25% to be increased to make sure that future generations will have access to adequate sinking funds for their cyclical maintenance. The reason why we want the Town Councils to be able to use the sinking funds as contribution to the upgrading is, as I have explained earlier, we will coordinate the upgrading together with the cyclical maintenance of the precinct. And in so doing, Town Councils can make use of their funds set aside for cyclical maintenance as part contribution to the upgrading.

Mr Chiam made a comment on the frequency of changes to the Act. Let me assure him that the objectives of the Town Councils Act have not changed. We are coming to the House today to make procedural changes that are required based on experience. In particular, he mentioned clause 2 which is intended to reduce the number of days during the transition. In the present Act, it is 180 days. We think that 90 days is sufficient for the transition. Previously, we provided for 180 days because it was a transition from HDB to Town Councils when the Town Councils were first formed. Now the Town Councils have been in operation for three years. They are going concerns and we think that we need only 90 days for a transfer after a general election or a change of boundaries after a general election.

He mentioned that Bukit Gombak did the transfer in 30 days. I think that goes to prove the point that, in fact, we are able to do it within 30 days. The Act gives 90 days. This is to give the Minister the flexibility of up to 90 days. We, in fact, feel that it can be much shorter.

He made another comment on the CATV. I think Mr Chiam has a very fertile mind and I thank him for the suggestion that the TV reception can be very poor if the CATV is poorly maintained. But let me assure him that that is not our intention. The reason why HDB took over the CATV is that HDB has the technical and the supervisory expertise to upgrade the CATV for the new facilities that will now be available to Singaporeans, in particular, subscription TV. I think Mr Chiam said that money is involved. Indeed money is involved. To upgrade all the antennae systems so that residents will be able to receive Teleview and subscription TV will cost the Government more than $60 million. He claimed that if you attach a modem on the antenna, you can pay for the entire block. The subscription fees, I think, will be covered by the Minister for Information and the Arts. I do not think he will allow the Town Councils to install a modem on the CATV that will facilitate the TV reception for the entire block without paying for all the units in that block. If a Town Council wants to install a modem on the CATV for the entire block, it will be charged for 100 units. So if the Town Councils want to pay for all and not pay according to individual user, I am sure he is quite happy to subscribe en bloc for the residents.

Sir, I think all these are not intended in the change of the CATV. The taking over of CATV by HDB is very simple, very straightforward. We want to take it over so that we can upgrade the CATV reception for subscription TV in the quickest way possible. And even then, that will take us three years before the whole upgrading exercise can be finished.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Minister says that the HDB will be installing an antenna suitable for receiving Teleview. Will it also be suitable for receiving TV3 of Malaysia?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: The Government policy on TV3 has been explained in previous discussions in the House. As I read in the Hansard, it is quite clear the Government, through HDB, does not intend to provide TV3 reception in HDB estates.

Mr Chiam See Tong: My point is that if you have got an antenna that can receive Teleview, you can also receive TV3. Is that correct?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Technically, you can upgrade the antenna to receive any station that you want. But there is the stated policy of the Government that it would not upgrade the CATV in the HDB estates to receive TV3.

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 Lim Hng Kiang].

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