ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1996 TO 31ST MARCH, 1997 (Paper Cmd. 4 of 1996)

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head U (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [15th March, 1996],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Chng Hee Kok].

Question again proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Sir, I have four points to raise with the Minister regarding the sale of HDB shops.

(1) The sale of HDB shops has been going on in batches. As the sale of each batch proceeds, because of the buoyant property market, the prices are increasing. We, therefore, can understand the fear of those who are awaiting their chance to buy. Will the Minister consider a fair system of discounting so that those offered their shops later need not fear that they cannot afford to buy the shops?

(2) Sir, it would also help if the shop-owners are given broad time-frames, eg, 5-year time frames, to know when their shops will be sold to them. This is because in the older estates some of the shop-owners are elderly, and their children or relatives may not want to continue in the business, eg, grocery and provision shops. Some may also want to make other business decisions. Knowing when the shops will be sold will give them the ability to plan. Can the Minister enlighten us?

(3) In relation to shops having been sold, quite a significant number of these shops are subsequently leased or rented out. These lessees tend to be less cooperative in working with Town Councils in matters of common interest. The Government should insert into the contract on selling the units a clause to give the town councils more control so that the owner can be held accountable to the town council without the town council having to incur excessive legal expenses.

(4) Lastly, when town centres were managed by the HDB, and units rented to shop-owners, the Government through HDB managed these estates or town centres. Now, some of them are very old. Upgrading a whole town centre is a multi-million dollar affair. However, upgrading is necessary as the business of the centre will be affected if the town is not upgraded, and experience has shown that the business in upgraded town centres indeed improves. Sir, the HDB or MND earns from the sale of shops. Should not a sum from this be allocated to town councils for the upgrading process?

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tampines GRC): Sir, the privatisation plan of HUDC estates is proceeding well. It is popular with HUDC flat owners and there is value-added in that the value of the properties has in fact risen upon privatisation. I wish to suggest to the Minister that we should now look into further privatisation of HDB estates. Existing estates in which there are no clear or logical precinct boundaries do not make good candidates for privatisation. However, those built under the design-and-build concept are excellent for this purpose. The estates are well designed and built up with natural boundaries, and there are ample common areas. In fact, some of the designs have areas which you can build a swimming pool and a clubhouse. More importantly, it has the right mix of different housing types, starting from 3-room flats. This is in many ways similar to private condominiums where there is a mix of housing. Privatising such estates will also bring the process of privatisation to benefit 3-room flat owners. Will the Minister consider this proposal and let this House know if there is any plan in this direction?

Sir, the next topic is on Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme. This scheme actually enables the HDB to take over an old estate and redevelop it as an HDB estate. But I believe that in the longer run where these estates are situated in prime locations, especially in the old parts of Singapore, Government should consider redefining this scheme. Use the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme concept and have the land privatised, ie, the land could be acquired from house owners and sold to the private sector. In this way, all those who are current HDB flat owners and living in those estates may have the benefit of higher compensation and at the same time, in the longer run, choice properties can then be privatised. Perhaps this is more beneficial to Government in that such land can be tendered out for private purposes. I shall like to know whether the Minister will look into this matter.

The Chairman: Dr Wong Kwei Cheong is not here. Mr Lew.

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin): Sir, first of all, let me commend the Government for the HDB upgrading programme. It has created a lot of enthusiasm among HDB dwellers and of course created a lot of value to old estates. Unfortunately, it has also created some anxiety and unhappiness among the people in the estates not selected yet, especially when they see newer estates being upgraded before theirs.

I would like to ask the Minister to consider using the age of the estate as the most important criterion for the selection.

Next, I notice that in the upgrading programme, usually by precincts, public facilities and amenities like hawker centres or markets within the precinct would not be included in the upgrading programme. In my view, such public places should be included to make the upgrading complete. Otherwise, they would literally stand out like a sore thumb. Besides, after upgrading, these hawker stalls or shops can be sold at a higher price during the sale of shops or stalls programme and of course the HDB would then get back its investments. Furthermore, upgrading causes a lot of inconvenience and I think we should not cause inconvenience more than once if we can help it.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): The Government has announced that it shall spend about $15 billion to upgrade HDB flats over the next 15 years or so. The HDB has carried out sample upgrading of flats under its Interim Upgrading Programme. Under this programme, there does not seem to be any rationale in picking the flats for upgrading. Some flats which are upgraded so far are only 17 years old. These flats which are fairly new are upgraded in preference to older flats. Many flats in Singapore which are over 20 years old are not included, like those in my constituency at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh and other older estates are bypassed. Can the Minister explain why younger flats are upgraded and older ones are not?

Some other aspects of the upgrading programme are also unclear. Apparently, there is talk that if people support the PAP their flats shall get upgraded sooner. Is this true? I personally do not think so. Perhaps the Minister can answer.

All Singaporeans must be treated equally, whether they support one party or the other at the polls. Singaporeans pay their taxes and do what is required of them under the law, like making good their national service liabilities. If they do not do their national service, they can be jailed. There is no favouritism for any Singaporean in the eyes of the law. Under the Constitution, all Singaporeans have the freedom to vote who they like. Why then should one be discriminated in not getting priority by the way he votes?

The Senior Minister has said that it is the essence of government for the Government to give good things to the people so that they can vote it. What about the case where the Government threatens to withdraw its services and not give priority, say, to upgrading of their HDB flats unless the people vote for the Government? Is it right? I do not think so.

Last November, the Minister was reported to have said in relation to the upgrading of the Toa Payoh estate:

`Upgrading was necessary to prevent flats in the older estates from degenerating into slums.'

The Government does not want older flats to degenerate into slums. That is perhaps the more true reason why Government wants to upgrade older flats. If that is the rationale, then the Government should go ahead to pick the oldest and the most run-down flats for upgrading rather than choose those flats for upgrading for other reasons, be they political or otherwise. The Government should be seen to be transparent and open in its upgrading programme. In order to be open and transparent, the HDB should compile a list of all the HDB blocks of flats that are going to be upgraded and give the people a time-table to show when each of those blocks will be upgraded. I think this is the fairest way of carrying out the HDB upgrading programme.

The HDB is implementing its plan to give Toa Payoh a facelift in 1997. A report in the New Paper on 3rd November last year said that:

`Based on strong support by residents for the renewal plans, the Government has decided to upgrade Toa Payoh estate.' In fact, the Government is going to do a lot of things. They are going to build a road network, improve a neighbourhood park and also build a new bus interchange. Also, there shall be Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). Under this scheme, Blocks 145, 147, 151 and 152 at Toa Payoh shall be developed. I also read that there shall be en-bloc redevelopment of HDB estates in other estates, such as Tiong Bahru. My question to the Minister is: with all this upgrading of the whole estate, like Toa Payoh, and en-bloc redevelopment of older blocks of flats, does the sum of $15 billion put aside include all the other upgrading which I have just mentioned? Or is there going to be a separate budget for them?

Of course, en-bloc redevelopment shall not be a loss to the HDB. In fact, I believe the HDB shall be making some money on it. Therefore, if there is any excess from the $15 billion, will some of it be taken away? 12.45 pm

I have complained of this before. At Potong Pasir, Toa Payoh Estate, there are widespread sunken apron problems. I note that the hon. Member for West Coast also has similar problems. The problem of sunken aprons is due to bad workmanship. If there were proper piling, the aprons would not sink with the sinking soil. The HDB should make good these sunken aprons. Can the Minister treat the repair of these sunken aprons as part of the HDB's upgrading programme and get them repaired as part of the Interim Upgrading Programme in respect of the problems at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh?

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, listening to Mr Chiam, I find it hard to believe he is saying that, with the limited resources given to the Government, all HDB estates for upgrading should be treated in the same manner. Assuming his estate is the same age as mine, I think my constituents will be most upset if they find out that he is able to get his estate upgraded, and not mine. Surely he cannot believe that good Government is for everybody, especially those who have voted against the Government. I just cannot subscribe to his point of view, Sir.

Sir, with the completion of the first pilot scheme of the Main Upgrading Programme and now with several Interim Upgrading Programmes in progress, Singaporeans now realise that there is indeed wealth creation as it is being demonstrated that the upgrading of estates does create value. Therefore, private property owners should now be given serious consideration. There are several private estates where upgrading of the environment will be much appreciated by property owners. The process of applying the principle of the Interim Upgrading Programme, that means, just upgrading the environment of the private housing estates will also build up closer rapport between the Member of Parliament of the area and property owners in private housing estates. Will the Minister consider implementing a number of pilot projects to demonstrate that all Singaporeans can benefit from the good and continuous economic growth of Singapore?

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Sir, listening to Mr Chiam, I would imagine that his constituents would have to wait a little bit longer going by the age of flats to do upgrading. The PAP is a very fair Government. The oldest high-rise public housing block in Singapore which is called Forfar House, or the locals called chiap see lau, is in my constituency of Queenstown and, until today, they are still waiting for upgrading. So that shows that the PAP Government is actually very fair.

I have made various proposals and counter-proposals to the Minister. But, somehow or other, it does not fit the scheme, how to upgrade this stand-alone block of sold flats in the midst of several seven-storey rental flats in the location that has been designated for relocation and redevelopment more than 10 years ago. So far, the flats in Forfar House are not in the upgrading announcement although they are the oldest high-rise flats in Singapore. Many of the concrete and the pipes inside the flats are corroded. I urge the Minister to allow the appending of Forfar House together with the latest precincts for upgrading in Queenstown. For example, the last announcement was in Tanglin Halt. Although the distance may be a little bit further away, I urge the Minister to consider attaching it to a precinct a little bit further away for upgrading so that there are some economies and some externalities involved in doing this upgrading.

With this magnanimous decision, the Minister would have shown his helicopter vision by cutting the Gordian knot that has caused these old residents there waiting and waiting for so long.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, I would like to highlight only two problems of mature estates. Firstly, the sale of flats. The sale of flats in mature estates is by ballot. In old estates like those in Bedok, the new flats that come up for sale are usually isolated redeveloped blocks. Thus, there are few in number. Again many of those staying in these estates have family, or extended families staying in the vicinity. These estates are coming to around 20 years old. The children of the initial occupants are getting married. They want to stay near their parents. This is in line with Government policy and is indeed to be encouraged. They of course also want to stay in a town or neighbourhood where they grew up in.

In Fengshan, my experience last year of one block, ie, Block 140, being redeveloped and sold really saddens me. Many of those who came to see me were considering their first upgrading, ie, they had stayed in their flats ever since moving to Bedok for the last 18 to 20 years, or were first-time applicants, ie, they were children who had grown up in the estate and wish to set up their own homes near to their parents. They were not exploiting the generosity of the HDB and they are not by any way speculators. Can the HDB not have a more rational way of allocation of flats in mature estates to allow (1) families to stay nearby each other; and (2) for greater social cohesion? At least the application of a resident first-time applicant and a resident first-time upgrader in a mature estate should be given heavier weightage in allocation.

Sir, with growing affluence, many homes want to install airconditioners. In the residential units, the cost of rewiring of electrical supplies is also not included in the Interim Upgrading Programme. Will the Minister consider providing for the cost of rewiring and upgrading of electrical supplies to these older blocks and to the Interim Upgrading Programme.

The Chairman: Dr Wong is not here. Mr Sinnakaruppan.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Sir, in my ward in Moulmein, there is a row of single-storey terrace houses in a side road off Balestier Road. Apparently, a developer bought one of the corner terrace houses in that row and began to build a two-storey house. I visited this row of houses last year during my house-to-house visit. The owner of this intermediate terrace house next to the one that the developer bought was in tears when I shook hands with her. I was very concerned and asked what the problem was. She took me into the house and showed me the damages caused to her kitchen and the bedrooms that were leaking as a result of the redevelopment next door. I was shocked when I saw the cracks and asked her son why they did not resolve this with the developer. They told me that they had tried to do so, but to no avail.

So I took the matter up with MND. An MND officer replied some two months later, stating that, and I quote:

`Torts involving damages to property inflicted by one neighbour on another are in the realm of common law, a matter to be resolved between the parties concerned.' The letter also stated that there were no structural damages to the family's house and, I quote:

`As such under the existing law, there is nothing further that the BCD could do in respect of the damages done to your house.' The letter also said that BCD would urge the developer to settle the matter as quickly as possible.

If supposing that this house was affected structurally, then I think under section 23 of the Building Control Act, I believe the family and not the developer would have been asked to get a professional engineer's report done, say, at a cost of a few thousand dollars, and if the report of structural damages was affirmative, then the affected family would have to move out for safety reasons whether or not the dispute is settled. What if such a family has no financial means to find alternative accommodation?

With greater liberalisation of renovation guidelines for private properties, more and more people are renovating their houses. Even in HDB flats, many renovations are being carried out. As the MND officer has pointed out in his letter, under the present law, BCD, MND or the Ministry of Law cannot do anything to resolve such disputes.

Very often, affected families are in a dilemma because going to the courts prolongs the agony and makes it very costly. And after all that process, there is no guarantee that they would be awarded costs. In the case that I have mentioned, I cannot take side with the family or the developer as I have heard only one side of the story. But the point that I am raising here is that the Minister must recognise this growing problem and find a conciliatory or an arbitration means to settle such disputes. Also, very often, families who renovate their houses end up with endless problems with the renovation contractor due to poor quality of work, materials used or missing of schedules, etc. The Small Claims Tribunal can only handle claims up to $5,000. CASE or RADAC are not in a position to do this. Either CASE or RADAC should be restructured to do this or I urge the setting up of an arbitration board, or an appeals board, as Singaporeans do not like to go to court on such matters and I am sure we do not want to encourage a litigious society. Could the Minister look into this matter urgently please?

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Sir, Singapore has a very successful home ownership programme. Our standard of public housing is among the best in the world and it is improving every year. I thank all the MPs for raising suggestions and comments relating to housing. I guess the close scrutiny of public housing every year in this House by MPs keeps us on our toes and makes sure standards are maintained.

Sir, let me first address the key issue of affordability which seems to be one of the big themes this year and respond to the various proposals put up by the MPs. First of all, I would like to reiterate that HDB caters to the housing needs of all Singaporeans, the various income groups, by providing a range of flat types which Singaporeans can then choose within their affordability. The Government will keep the prices of HDB flats, particularly 3-room and 4-room flats affordable to first-time home buyers. Those with higher incomes can then opt for the bigger flats.

HDB will always take into account the income of Singaporeans when it prices its flats. As a guide, HDB will price the flats such that the average mortgage instalments payable by first timers will be around 25% of their household income. In other words, first-time home buyers can service their mortgage instalments entirely out of their CPF contributions.

In 1995, the average selling price of a new 4-room flat in a non-mature estate was around $125,000. At this price, a buyer with a household income of $1,750 can easily buy it with a mortgage of 80% and a mortgage loan of 25 years. In the case of a 4-room budget flat, the average price in 1995 was $103,000 and a buyer with a household income of $1,450 will be able to afford it and also able to service the mortgage loan at around 25% of the household income, that is, entirely out of their CPF contributions.

For those who purchase 5-room flats, the proportion of their household income spent on repayment of housing loan is around 27%, also out of their CPF contributions. Therefore, new HDB flats will remain very affordable to Singaporeans. Moreover, as the selling price is fixed at the time of the purchase of the flat, the household income of the purchaser will increase over the years as long as the economy continues to do well. This will further enhance their affordability of the flats.

What are the other indicators to show that HDB flats are affordable?

(1) The trend of application shows that more and more Singaporeans are buying bigger flats. For the month of January 1996, 65% applied for 5-room flats. Five years ago, only 30% applied for 5-room flats. So we are seeing more and more Singaporeans applying for bigger flats. Obviously, they can afford it. 1.00 pm

(2) Approximately, 75% continue to pay their deposits and their mortgage instalments entirely by CPF. In other words, owning an HDB flat does not eat into their disposable income.

(3) The mortgage default rate is very low. In 1995, HDB repossessed only nine flats out of 383,000 mortgage loan accounts, because the lessees could not service their loans. So we can see that we have 383,000 mortgage loans. Only nine could not service their loans and HDB had to take back the flats.

The overall picture of affordability, therefore, remains very good. By and large, Singaporeans have little difficulty in owning HDB flats. I have given this assurance many times in this House and I guess it bears repeating. The Government would keep HDB flats, particularly the 3-room and 4-room flats, affordable to first-time home buyers.

Let me now turn to low-income families. Many MPs raised suggestions about how to make HDB flats affordable to low-income families. This is an issue of great concern to us. In 1993, the Government announced several strategies to assist low-income families to own flats. I am happy to report that these measures have been very successful. In the last two-odd years, these measures have assisted nearly 8,000 low-income families to own their flats.

The first scheme is sale of flats to sitting tenants. Usually, more than 80% of the tenants, when they are offered to buy over their rental flats, do so. Since we implemented the scheme in June 1994, a total of 1,000 tenants have bought over their rental flats.

The second scheme is to introduce 4-room budget flats. HDB first offered this for sale in the fourth quarter of 1993. As of March 1996, about 3,700 units of such budget flats have been offered for selection.

Dr Ho Tat Kin asked whether these 4-room budget flats can be priced lower. As I said earlier, the average price of the 4-room budget flats is about $103,000. This is already 14-17% lower than the standard 4-room flats. The budget flats are supposed to be smaller and simpler in finish. I have visited some units in Woodlands recently. The differences are minimal. As I mentioned earlier, at this price of $103,000, a buyer with a household income of $1,450 can easily afford to pay for it over a 25-year loan.

The third strategy to help low-income families own their flats is priority allocation of 3-room and 4-room flats for tenants. This was implemented two years ago to encourage tenants of HDB flats to upgrade to 3- or 4-room flats, instead of continuing to rent HDB flats. As of December 1995, more than 2,000 applicants have been invited to select their flats on this scheme.

The fourth scheme is buy-back of 3-room flats. As at December 1995, HDB has bought back more than 1,600 3-room flats. A total of 1,300 of these flats have been selected by the 3-room applicants under the buy-back scheme. The average subsidy of each flat is $40,000.

Let me now discuss the various suggestions put up by Members. First, for the 3-room buy-back scheme. We revised the income ceiling from $1,000 to $1,200 per month in January 1996. In the last one month, 116 families whose incomes are between $1,000 and $1,200 per month have registered to buy the 3-room flats.

Dr Ho Tat Kin and Dr Vasoo asked whether we can raise the income ceiling from $1,200 to $1,500. Let me explain that our intention is to help the low-income families to own the 3-room flats and we have to increase the income ceiling gradually, so that those with lower incomes can get on to the queue earlier. As we continue with this scheme, it is our intention to raise the income ceiling. If we raise the income ceiling too quickly, then the low-income families below $1,200 will also compete with families with income between $1,200 and $1,500. I would like to assure Members that we take this suggestion and we will consider and raise the ceiling in due course.

Similarly, Encik Othman Haron Eusofe also asked whether an owner of a 4-room flat can apply for this buy-back scheme of a 3-room flat. Again, we must focus on the objective of the buy-back scheme. This is targeted at the low-income families. Therefore, in the initial stages, we want to keep it for first-time purchasers of flats, to make sure they have priority and they can be home owners. For those who have already bought a 4-room flat and because of financial difficulties they want to downgrade to a 3-room flat, ie, they want to buy a second flat from HDB, we will have to look at their financial position first. If we open up the buy-back scheme to second time buyers, then I am afraid the scheme will be swamped by the second time buyers. So let us keep this scheme for the low-income first-time buyers first, and then we liberalise the scheme as we go along.

Dr Vasoo also asked whether this 3-room buy-back scheme can be extended to young couples who want to live near their families. I am afraid this is very difficult to match, because when HDB goes into the market to buy the 3-room flats, it has no control of where it can buy the flats. We buy whatever is available. Therefore, these 3-room flats are distributed all over Singapore. We allocate the flats according to the queue position of the applicants. So it is only sheer coincidence if the first-time buyer of a 3-room flat is able to choose a flat near his parents. To have a scheme which allows them to choose a flat near their parents would mean upsetting their queue positions. I am afraid we are not able to modify the scheme right now. What we like to suggest is that young couples make use of the $50,000 CPF grant and buy their own 3-room flat near their parents. If they buy a 3-room flat near their parents, they can apply for the $50,000 housing grant from the HDB. So it is better for them to choose a flat near their parents, buy it in the resale market and apply for the $50,000 grant.

Let me now turn to the suggestions put up by several Members, particularly Encik Othman Haron Eusofe about smaller downpayments and longer mortgage terms. For families with low-income, ie, those with $1,200 per month or below, HDB grants very generous mortgage loans. If their income is below $1,200 and they buy a 4-room budget flat or smaller, they need only pay a downpayment of 5% of the selling price of the flat. They are allowed to take a mortgage loan of the remaining 95% to be repaid over a 25-year period.

Encik Othman asked whether we can extend this loan period to 30 years. HDB's calculations show that this will not help the purchasers substantially. For example, extending it from 25 years to 30 years will only lower their instalment payment slightly. What HDB has instead is three special ballooning repayment schemes for families with low income. These schemes allow them to pay smaller instalments in the beginning and then the instalments will increase gradually until the full sum is paid by the end of the 25-year term. This is a better approach than stretching it to 30 years.

Let me assure Members here that HDB pays special attention to low-income families and we make sure that as many as possible can be assisted to own their flats. So if there are special cases with financial difficulties, feel welcome to refer these cases to HDB and HDB will try its best to help them on a case-by-case basis.

There have also been calls by Members for the HDB to build new 2-room and 3-room flats. Let me just explain to the House that HDB today has 35,000 2-room flats and 241,000 3-room flats. HDB stopped building 2-room flats in 1984 and stopped building 3-room flats in 1986. This was because Singaporeans are becoming more affluent and they are applying for the bigger flats. HDB does not see the need for us to build more 2-room or 3-room flats, except in special localities where there is a mismatch of demand and supply, where there is very few supply of 2-room or 3-room flats. But, by and large, HDB will not build any more 2-room or 3-room flats.

The better approach is for Government to buy back 3-room resale flats and sell them to first-time buyers at a $40,000 discount. Similarly, we are prepared to do so for 2-room flats, although I am reluctant to gauge the success of such a scheme. Because in the buy-back scheme, it is very location specific. We can only buy back flats which are available and this seldom matches the location of the applicants. That is the reason why we relax the CPF grant recently to allow first-time buyers to purchase their own 2-room resale flats and apply for this $40,000 or $50,000 grant. This is a better approach to meet their location needs.

Sir, let me conclude this segment by again assuring this House that our home ownership scheme can work only if we take special steps to assist the low-income families in purchasing their first homes. HDB has come out with several schemes to do this. We will continue to modify and refine these schemes to make sure that more and more families will be assisted in owning their flats.

Let me now turn to housing for young couples. The Government recognises that young couples want to buy their own homes as early as possible so as to start their families. Last year, we introduced several policies to address the housing needs of younger Singaporeans. First, in the pricing of new flats, we make sure that the prices of 3-room and 4-room flats will always be affordable to a young couple. Second, in the allocation of new flats, we allocate 60% of the new flats to first-time buyers and 40% to upgraders.

Dr Vasoo asked whether the HDB has any plans to adjust this ratio. Let me explain that today there are about equal numbers of first-timers and upgraders. So the 60-40 allocation ratio already favours the first-timers. But HDB is monitoring the situation and we will adjust the allocation ratio if we feel that the first-timers are not getting their flats early enough. I am sure all the Members here have a similar situation of upgraders coming to them and say, "Why is the Govenrment favouring first-timers? A young couple buys a 5-room flat. The flat is empty. They get a flat and they play hide and seek in it. Whereas I have a mature family, I have got three-four children, all teenagers and they cannot share a room any more, and therefore I should have priority in upgrading the flat." So we have to balance the needs of the two groups, the first-timers and the upgraders. And the present way of balancing them now is to have this 60-40 allocation ratio.

The third way to help young couples is that for those who are waiting for their flats to be built, they can rent a flat from the HDB under the transitional rental housing scheme. They are eligible for this interim housing rental three months after they apply for a flat. To lighten the young couple's burden of renting this scheme, HDB made two major changes last year. First, HDB gives a rental discount for those who opt for 2- or 3-room flats. The rent now is very competitive and very affordable. It is around $350-$400 for a 3-room flat, much lower than what they would have to pay if they were to rent a similar flat in the open market.

Secondly, the flats are provided with basic fittings, such as kitchen cabinets, refrigerators and water heaters. With these improvements, the young couples can save up their money during their stay in the rental flats. They need not incur so much expenditure in setting up their home in these transitional rental flats. As a result of these changes, the transitional rental scheme has received a very strong response from young couples.

Dr Ho Tat Kin asked whether the HDB can offer a wider range of choices in location and flat type under this transitional rental housing scheme. Let me say that HDB tries its best, but we are limited in the number of 2- and 3-room flats availabe for this scheme. Let me urge the young couples who are choosing these schemes to look upon the rental flats as temporary stay and therefore be prepared to accept locations which may not be their first preference. 1.15 pm

Again, the choice is left to them. We call them up based on their balloting position and we find that for the first 500 that we called up to choose, nearly half rejected the flats. Then we called up the next group. So apparently they still have very high standards in location when they choose a rental flat. I would like to urge the young couples to be prepared to accept the flats which are allocated to them.

The fourth scheme which the Government introduced last year was to increase the CPF housing grant to $40,000 for those who make use of this grant and $50,000 for those who buy a resale flat to stay near their parents. This will make it easier for them to own their homes and start their families earlier. The response has been very good since we made the change in August last year. We are receiving more than 500 applications a month over the last five months since the revision to the scheme. Before this, when we had the $30,000 grant, we were only getting 120 applicants per month. So this is more than a four-time increase in the response.

Dr Ho Tat Kin asked whether the HDB can consider bridging loans because the $40,000 grant is deemed to be too low. Let me explain that we are targeting the grant as a means of helping young couples to purchase their flat. If you look at the average resale price of a 3-room flat at $150,000, a $50,000 grant for a young couple who buys a 3-room flat near their parents is one-third the price. In other words, in buying their resale 3-room flat, the couple is assisted by the Government. They get one-third of the price paid for by the Government. If they buy a 4-room flat which costs about $250,000, $50,000 grant is one-fifth, 20%. I think this is a very generous leg up for young couples to buy their flat as between 20% and 30% of the purchase price is helped by the Government.

If you look at it in terms of downpayment, it is even better because to buy a 4-room resale flat of $250,000, 20% downpayment is $50,000, which means the Government, through its CPF housing grant, is paying the 20% downpayment for the young couple. So if the young couple buys a 5-room resale flat, say, at $400,000, 20% of $400,000 is $80,000. With the $50,000 grant they need only save $30,000 in the CPF to be able to afford the downpayment for a 5-room resale flat. I must say that the CPF grant is very generous and serves its objective in helping young couples buy a resale flat of their choice. I do not see the need for a bridging loan at this moment.

For those young couples whose incomes are above the $8,000 income ceiling to purchase HDB flats and who cannot afford to buy private property, the Government has also introduced the Executive Condominium housing scheme to meet the aspirations of this group of young Singaporeans. These Executive Condominiums will be similar in quality and finish as private housing. But because of the subsidy in the land cost to the tune of about $100,000 and if they are first-timers, they will also be eligible to apply for the $40,000 CPF housing grant, so young couples buying Executive Condominiums are assisted to the tune of $140,000.

With this wide range of measures introduced over the last two years, I feel that the Government has catered to the needs of the full range of young Singaporeans who aspire to own a home. So if our young Singaporeans continue to work hard and excel, I see no reason why they cannot find and own a suitable home quickly.

While we are on the subject of Executive Condominiums, let me address some of the issues raised.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked why we cannot let the Executive Condominiums to be provided by the private developers. As I have explained in this House when I moved the Second Reading of the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme Bill, in this first stage when we are introducing the Executive Condominiums, it is more prudent for us to let this scheme be done by wholly-owned Government companies because we do not know how the prices will be set by the market. If we want to help the young Singaporeans to buy this category of flats, then it is better to start off with the Government-owned companies. But it is our intention that we will open this up to the private developers once the scheme gets underway.

Prof. Low Seow Chay asked what would be the impact of the Executive Condominiums on the private housing prices. Let me explain that I see the Executive Condominiums providing a moderating influence on the increases of private property prices. If private property prices were to increase sharply over the next few months or next one year, the developer of the Executive Condominiums cannot follow suit by raising his prices for the Executive Condominiums because all the buyers have below $10,000 income level. So the developer cannot raise the price to the extent that families with $10,000 income cannot afford the Executive Condominium. In the event that private property prices move up, the developer of the Executive Condominiums cannot raise his prices. If private property prices drop, I think the pressure is on the developer of the Executive Condominiums to lower his prices because families with $10,000 income per month can now go into the private housing market. So I see Executive Condominium prices serving as a moderation to steep increases but it will not provide a floor for decline in the prices. I think that is one of the objectives of the Executive Condominium housing scheme.

Let me now turn to the issue of privatisation. Both Mr Chng Hee Kok and Mr Peh Chin Hua suggested that the Government consider privatising other HDB flats. Before we discuss this, let me set out the long term objectives of the Government on private housing and privatisation.

Today, private housing constitutes 15% of our housing stock. We recognise that as Singapore develops, more and more Singaporeans will want to aspire to own private property. As a medium term target, we hope to increase the proportion of private housing from 15% currently to 25% by the year 2010. This means an increase of 160,000 units over 15 years or around 10,000 to 11,000 units every year, ie, from about 130,000 units in 1995 to about 290,000 units in the year 2010.

The main thrust to achieve this is through the sale of land programme. The Government will have a steady release of land for private housing in our land sales programme. We started on this policy six years ago. In 1991, the Government released land for about 2,000 units and we built this up gradually to 6,000 units last year. This means that we can expect around 10,000 new private housing units every year, 6,000 from the Government land sales programme and 4,000 from the private developers' land banks.

Besides the main strategy of releasing land for private housing, the second avenue is to privatise existing HUDC flats. In May last year we announced the pilot projects in Gillman Heights and Pine Grove Estate. Since then we have been progressing according to schedule. Residents in these two estates have voted for privatisation, 93% in Gillman Heights and 82% in Pine Grove. Based on the current progress, the privatisation exercise for these two estates will be legally completed by September this year. HDB has commenced preparation works for the second batch of HUDC estates. The second batch is in Lake View, Farrer Court, Jurong East and Hougang.

Through these pilot programmes, we have now streamlined the process and in the steady state we are able to identify two HUDC estates for privatisation every three to four months. It would take about 1 1/2 years to complete the legal process to convert to strata titles. So if the residents in these HUDC estates demonstrate strong support for this programme, we are in a position to convert all the HUDC estates by 1998. But if the residents are lukewarm to the conversion and are unable to secure the 75% vote for the conversion, then they can continue to remain as HUDC estates.

The third approach to generate more private housing opportunities is the introduction of the Executive Condominiums. These are, for all intents and purposes, private properties. They are strata title units. The only restriction is that for the first five years the owners must stay in them. After five years they can sell to Singaporeans and PRs. They can only sell to foreigners after 10 years. So for all intents and purposes, Executive Condominiums are private housing. You can see them as private housing with a time capsule in it. So where do we go from here? Both Mr Chng Hee Kok and Mr Peh Chin Hua suggest that we consider privatisation of HDB flats, whether it is design-and build flats or executive flats or even 5-room flats.

Let me say that it is too early right now to decide whether to extend the privatisation scheme to other HDB flats. We need to study the implications and the response from the residents. Although the idea is a good one, we need to assess whether the residents will support this programme. For example, not all the HDB flat owners own cars. Therefore, will each of them pay $25,000 for his car park lot so that collectively they are able to buy over the common property from the HDB? Secondly, are they all prepared to pay full SC&CC charges in order to manage the estate themselves? So there are many imponderables. But I have not ruled out privatising design-and-build, executive, 5-room or even 4-room HDB flats. Our experience with the privatisation of HUDC flats shows that it is technically and legally feasible to do so. Whether or not we extend the scheme depends on the support of the residents for such a programme.

Like many of the MPs here, I know many of them have come across Singaporeans who are concerned about the affordability of HDB flats. Let me round up this segment by again stressing that the way we approach the building of HDB flats for Singaporeans in pursuit of the home ownership scheme allows Singaporeans to buy the flats according to their affordability. In particular, let me touch on a few key points raised. First, should we lower the downpayment? As I have explained, the 20% downpayment is a prudent way of making sure that Singaporeans buy the flat which they can afford. Encik Othman Haron Eusofe cited the case of an applicant who claims that he is able to pay the downpayment for an HDB flat when he first applied, but because of the increases over the years he now finds he cannot pay the 20% downpayment. I think simple calculations will show that the downpayment is only 20% of the flat prices. If your income is one-fifth or even one-tenth of the HDB flat prices, there will be enough CPF contributions each year to pay towards the downpayment. So anybody who comes to you and says that the downpayment has increased because of flat prices, I think your response would be that his income is probably too low for the kind of flat that he wants to buy. If you look at the experience of most countries, you will find that young couples will buy flats around five times, or at most 10 times, their annual income. As long as Singaporeans keep within that rule, they will find that they will be able to service their housing loans entirely through their CPF contributions.

1.30 pm

I am reluctant to lower the 20% downpayment because if we do so, we are likely to invite more mortgage loan default cases. Like all of you, I would prefer to explain to someone who tells me that he cannot afford the downpayment, rather than having more and more default cases coming to me where HDB has to repossess their flats because they have stretched themselves and have bought the flats beyond their capability.

The second issue is how should we assist young Singaporeans in purchasing their flats. Our approach is to give them a leg up through the HDB's pricing of new flats as well as through the CPF housing grant of $40,000 or $50,000 if they stay close to their families. We are helping them to the tune of between 20% and 30% of the price of a flat. I think the rest must be up to their own effort to be able to afford their flat. We will, however, review this housing grant to make sure that this level of assistance keeps pace with the prices in the resale market.

Like some of you, I have Singaporeans coming up to me and say that they are worried that their children cannot afford to own homes in the future. Like many of you, I am too polite to ask them what is the income level of their children. So I probed further. I asked: Can their children afford a 3-room flat under the buy-back scheme? No problem. Can their children afford a 4-room budget flat or a 4A flat, or a 5-room flat under the Registration for Flats Scheme? Also no problem. So I discovered that for many of them, their concern is that their children cannot afford private properties. I tell them that depending on the income level of their children, there is a fairly wide range of private property and quasi-private property which they can buy. They can buy an HUDC flat, which will be privatised over the next three to four years. Or they can buy an Executive Condominium, stay in it for five years, and after five years it is as good as private property. Or as Mr Chng Hee Kok and Mr Peh Chin Hua suggested, they can buy a design-and-build flat or an executive flat. The layout, design, construction quality are the same as private properties. Of course, they must stay in it for at least five years. Like HUDC estates, in five or 10 years, such flats may also be considered for privatisation if the residents support such a programme.

In the medium term, we have programmes to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans for private housing. The concern that some parents have that their children cannot afford housing, even private housing, is groundless. The Government's housing policy is to assist all Singaporeans to own their home and stay in it. If the parents' concern is that their children cannot afford private housing so that they can buy, sell and re-sell for profit, then I am afraid that is beyond the role of this Government.

Let me now turn to upgrading and estate renewal. I take the sentiments of Mr Lew Syn Pau and Mr Chay Wai Chuen about the success of the HDB Upgrading Programme and their queries on how we could rationalise the selection of such estates for upgrading and make sure it is a fair and open system. As I have explained in this House several times, the HDB Upgrading Programme proceeds only if the Government is able to generate budget surplus. So it is very dangerous for us to plan five or 10 years and give a schedule and commitment to Singaporeans that their flats would be upgraded in each of these five or 10 years when we have not generated the budget surplus for each of these years. So we are required to have a yearly programme provided we have budget surplus expected for that year.

But so far we have done very well. We have completed the 6,000 flats under the Demonstration Phase, and all in all, we have a total of 46,200 flats in various stages of upgrading under the Main Upgrading Programme. In addition, we have a total of 43,000 flats so far for the Interim Upgrading Programme. So nearly 90,000 flats are involved in one type of upgrading or another. This is spreading out to all estates and to all Singaporeans.

Mr Chiam asked why flats which are less than 17 years old are selected for Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) whereas flats which are older do not enjoy any upgrading. The Main Upgrading Programme is targeted at flats beyond 17 years old and we will select the flats primarily based on the age of the flats. However, there are also other criteria. We also want a fair geographical distribution of the flats. As I have explained many times, if we go strictly by age, then the Main Upgrading Programme will only be carried out in the Queenstown and Toa Payoh estates. All the other estates will not enjoy the Main Upgrading Programme. So to be equitable, we want a fair share of the Main Upgrading Programme in all the estates so that all Singaporeans can enjoy it, but the primary criterion will continue to be the age of the estate.

While we are upgrading all these older flats, we thought we should introduce the Interim Upgrading Programme so that flats which are less than 17 years, those in the category of 10 to 17 years, can also have some form of upgrading outside their flats, and they can be queued up for the Main Upgrading Programme five, seven or 10 years later when their turn is due. That is why you will find the Interim Upgrading Programme being carried out in the younger estates (those between 10 and 17 years old).

Mr Chiam suggested that we should pick the oldest and most run-down flats for upgrading. I think this is a sure formula for Singaporeans to run down their flats. I am not inclined. Age is a criterion, and we choose the oldest flats as far as possible. But we also want evidence from the residents that they will take care of their flats after they are upgraded. That is why the Prime Minister suggested recently that the cleanliness of the estate be also considered as a factor for selecting the flats. It is no point spending millions of dollars upgrading the precinct only for it to be run down again. If we adopt Mr Chiam's criterion of the most run-down flats for initial upgrading, this is giving the wrong signal to Singaporeans.

We have extended the Main Upgrading Programme to cover the estate renewal of entire towns. Again, this follows from PM's suggestion in January 1995. He wanted to see the upgrading not only at individual precincts but carried out throughout the whole town, so that the gain from upgrading is more than the sum of individual upgrading of precincts. We have tried this as a pilot programme in Toa Payoh. We have looked at the estate renewal strategy for Toa Payoh and how each precinct can be upgraded and the entire town renewed. We have presented this plan to the Advisers of the grassroots organisations. We have conducted dialogues with the grassroots organisations, and we are very encouraged by the very strong support of the residents to this programme. More than 92% voted in favour of the estate renewal strategy in Toa Payoh. Encouraged by this show of support, we are now proceeding to other estates. We have identified Bedok and Ang Mo Kio as the next two towns in which we will do similar consultations with the Advisers and the grassroots leaders to see how the town can be renewed.

There are several key elements in this estate renewal strategy. First, I think many of the residents want to buy a new flat in the town in which they grew up. This has been put up very eloquently by Dr Arthur Beng and I entirely empathise with him. Unfortunately, we do not have enough land in the mature estates to build the flats desired by the residents. In Bedok, whenever we build one new flat for balloting, we get 30 applicants. In Toa Payoh recently, when we put up the new flats for balloting, for every new flat we have 75 applicants. So there is no way we can satisfy the desires of people to buy a new flat in the mature estates, unless we are able to generate more redevelopment. That is why in Toa Payoh, we tried out the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme in four blocks. Again, that received overwhelming support. Once that site is redeveloped, it will generate many more new flats and through that, start a small chain reaction to allow more and more new flats to be built in Toa Payoh, so that at the end of the day we will be able to transform Toa Payoh with many more new flats than if we have not gone on to this Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme.

Mr Chiam asked why the people need to support the PAP in order to get the Main Upgrading Programme. I think he is distorting the criteria. What we are saying is that the people must support the programme in order that the Main Upgrading Programme comes to them. It is for very simple reasons. Mr Ling How Doong had in this House called the upgrading programme a "joke". So can you imagine if I were to implement the Main Upgrading Programme in Bukit Gombak. We spent one whole year coming up with proposals and ideas, then put them to a vote by the residents, and Mr Ling How Doong was on record to say that it was a joke. If 75% of the residents do not vote for the Main Upgrading Programme, and we are back to square one. I might as well use those resources and implement the Main Upgrading Programme in areas where the residents, the MPs and the Advisers, and the grassroots leaders are clearly in support of the programme. Then we know that when we go in with the designs, we will receive overwhelming support and the programme can start off. 1.45 pm

Similarly for the estate renewal strategy, it involves a lot of work with the grassroots leaders. It involves cooperation from the residents. For the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme, it involves some disruption. If you are going to redevelop the town centre, it involves disruption to the business. So we want to make sure there is strong support for such a programme before we start it. So it is entirely legitimate for us to present the programme to the residents and ask them whether they are prepared to take some of the disruption and inconveniences involved in such a programme. If they consider it a joke or an inconvenience, then we will not proceed. But if they strongly support the programme, then we are very encouraged and we will work closely with them to implement the programme quickly.

Let me now touch on some of the other issues raised. Mr Lew Syn Pau asked whether in the upgrading programme, we could involve the upgrading of the hawker centre as well. My response is that I am prepared to do so. But we want a check and balance because if they are not owners of the hawker stalls and HDB is upgrading the stalls, it is not unusual for the stallholders to be asking for a lot of upgrading works. Whereas it is better for us, as in the sold flats, to sell the stalls to them so that when we upgrade, there is a cost sharing formula. The town council, through the assistance of the IUP and the hawker stall owners, will co-pay the upgrading that they want. Then I think we will get value for money and we will not have unreasonable requests. But if individual MPs or advisors are prepared to tell us that when they upgrade the stalls and the stall owners are prepared to pay the full price of the upgrading cost, as suggested by Mr Lew Syn Pau, HDB is prepared to consider. We have tried one case in Holland Estate under Mr Peter Sung. He was able to propose the resiting of the market and cooked food centre and he was also able to get the support of the stallholders that the costs involved in restructuring the hawker centre and the wet market would be paid for by the stallholders. In that case, HDB is prepared to put in the investment because the stallholders know that whatever they ask for and whatever is spent, they will have to pay for it. Then there is some discipline and some checks and balances. If HDB were to go in and upgrade the hawker centre without this sense of payment by the beneficiaries themselves, then I think there is a danger that there will be a lot of waste.

This is similar to my response to Dr Arthur Beng's request about upgrading of town centres. Our approach is to sell the shops in the town centre to the shopkeepers and then we go in and upgrade the town centre with co-payment and co-sharing by the shopkeepers. In this way, there is a sense of ownership and what is put in the upgrading scheme is what is desired by the shopkeepers. If it is a blank cheque from the Government, I can assure you there will be a lot of waste.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen asked whether Forfar House can be included in the Main Upgrading Programme. I have explained to him many times the difficulty with Forfar House is that it is a stand-alone sold block amongst many rental blocks. We are not prepared to go in and upgrade the entire precinct because plans for the rental blocks cannot be confirmed beyond five years. We need these rental blocks because there is still a strong demand for rental flats in the Queenstown area. But we have projected that, with a very high rate of home ownership, the demand for rental flats will drop and in five years or so, these flats may be redeveloped. In the meantime, I understand Mr Chay's request and I have asked HDB to do some upgrading either as part of the Interim Upgrading Programme or through specific works because, as Mr Chay puts it, Forfar House is the oldest block in Singapore and deserves upgrading.

Dr Arthur Beng asked whether electrical supply upgrading can be incorporated as part of the IUP. This is entirely up to the residents and grassroots leaders. We allocate a budget of $6,000 per unit and it is up to the residents whether they want electrical supply for their airconditioning or they want lifts to stop at every floor. But there is a budget cap and they have to work within that budget.

Mr Chiam asked whether funds can be given to repair sunken aprons. We have debated this before. Sunken aprons are meant to be repaired using the sinking funds. HDB builds the blocks based on the foundation that rests on compacted soil. In many situations, there is no need for piles. As the soil consolidates over time, we can expect parts of the apron to have differential settlement and there may be parts which sink. So it is part of the town council's programme during the R&R maintenance programme every five or seven years to just top up the sunken apron to make it level. HDB, however, will come in and help on a goodwill basis if the differential settlement affects the sewerage pipes and creates a health or hygiene problem. Then HDB will come in and repair the sunken apron. But if it is just the differential settlement and cracks arising out of it, then it is entirely within the town council's R&R budget to make good this sunken apron during the R&R maintenance programme.

Let me now touch on shops. Again, the sale of shops to sitting tenants was started to help restructure the retail sector in HDB estates. We want the shopkeepers to buy over the shops and have the incentive to restructure their business to keep up with competition and changing consumer demands. By and large, the sale of shops scheme has been very successful. So far, we have conducted 14 sales and nearly 6,300 shops have been offered for sale, of which 99% was accepted by the tenants.

Some time last year, the feedback received was that some shop tenants find the prices unaffordable. So HDB introduced the Shopkeepers Loan Assistance Scheme. Under this scheme, the shopkeepers pay 70% of the shop price and HDB lends the shopkeepers 30% to be paid over a longer period. So far, out of 546 shops sold between August and December last year, only 17 cases, or 3%, had opted for this loan assistance scheme.

Mr Chng Hee Kok feels that because of the high prices of these shops and the burden imposed on the shopkeepers to pay for the mortgage instalments of the shops, there is a risk that this will lead to higher cost of business and also higher cost of living. MND is prepared to consider Mr Chng's suggestion. We will look at whether, if we were to sell the shops at shorter leases, say, at 30-year leases so as to lower the burden of owning these shops, this will make it easier for the shopkeepers to buy over the shops and therefore put less pressure on the cost of business in our HDB estates. So HDB will consider shorter leases, such as 30-year leases, under the sale of shops programme.

Mr Chng also suggested whether we could restrict the businesses of the shops and only when they change their trade, do the shopkeepers have to pay a top-up premium. I am reluctant to adopt this because one of the objectives of the sale of shops scheme is to allow the shopkeepers to restructure in response to the market demand. So we want to give the shopkeepers the flexibility to change trade or change their operations freely in response to consumer needs and demands. If we were to restrict their operations, then I think it may not achieve one of the objectives of the sale of tenanted shops scheme.

Dr Arthur Beng asked whether, with the increase in shop prices, we will consider a discount for later phases of sale. I will ask HDB to consider this but this is not catered for when we explained the sale programme to our shopkeepers.

Dr Arthur Beng also asked for a time-frame so that the shopkeepers can plan for the sale of their shops. Again, I will ask HDB to consider this. One of our difficulties is that we are modifying the sale of shops scheme to meet the feedback that we have received, eg, the suggestion of shortening the lease. And it will be very difficult for us to plan a 5-year programme and then later on find that there is less flexibility to change it.

Dr Arthur Beng also asked whether the town council can control the shops after they have been sold. This is within the powers of the town council and my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Matthias Yao, will elaborate on this later on when we discuss about town councils.

Let me now take the other issues raised earlier. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked what are the guidelines on foreign workers in HDB estates. Let me explain that we have a sizeable number of foreign workers in our economy. They contribute to our economy and it is our obligation to find decent housing for all of them. We try to have different types of housing to cater for the different types of foreign workers. For example, those in the construction industry normally will stay on site and we have certain standards that the contractors must meet in housing the foreign workers on site. Those working in the shipyards and heavy industry, we have encouraged the big employers to build dormitory-type housing for them. So far, Keppel and Sembawang have done so. For those working in shipyards and heavy industry, they will house them in specially constructed dormitories.

For those who work here on single work permits, particularly Malaysian women, we need to find proper housing for them, and this is done through the dormitory housing scheme provided by HDB. HDB will provide such housing to the companies and the companies will house these female workers in these flats. I do not think we have many problems from such workers. Many of these workers also rent single rooms from HDB flat owners and I think they fit in quite well.

As we need to employ more and more foreign workers, particularly the skilled foreign workers, HDB is not able to provide housing for such workers. So, recently, we have tabled a Bill to be considered by this House to allow JTC to buy flats, selectively from the resale market, to rent to such workers, primarily skilled workers. Because the JTC will only be allowed to buy flats from the resale market, and the number will not be very large, we do not see this having a major impact either on resale prices or in the HDB estates. These flats will be spread out throughout Singapore. 2.00 pm

I would like to assure the House that for every flat which is used to house foreign workers, HDB sets a limit on the number of workers per unit, as well as regulations on the use of these flats by the company as well as by the workers. So there are some rules regulating the use of such flats. But we cannot avoid it. Now, about 20% of our workforce are foreign workers. They are a major contributor to our economy and part of our obligation is to house them decently. And we can do so by spreading them within a housing estate, provided they meet these regulations and observe the rules governing the use of such flats.

On Friday, Mr Chiam made some remarks about privatisation, the use of either private developers or private engineers. Before I respond, I like to remind Mr Chiam that his debate with the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan was on whether or not HDB flats were subsidised. During that debate, Mr Teh offered Mr Chiam to develop flats if he thought that HDB flats were not subsidised. Since that debate, I think there is ample evidence to show that HDB flats are subsidised. So I think that issue has been addressed.

What Mr Chiam raised was the example of a French engineer who feels that he can design flats cheaper than private engineers or HDB engineers. As Mr Chiam knows, 10% of HDB flats are put out to the private sector under the design-and-build scheme. Under this scheme, the contractors will team up with architects and engineers and offer a design to HDB and compete, based on the design-and-build proposal. If this French engineer of his feels that he can come up with a better design, I suggest that he team up with any number of contractors and bid for projects under the design-and-build scheme.

If I were a consultant engineer outside, I would feel very aggrieved at Mr Chiam for saying that our civil and structural engineers do not know their stuff, and that they are over designing or over building HDB flats. Both HDB structural engineers and the private structural engineers who compete under the design-and-build scheme work within our design code, and the contractors can offer the best and most cost effective design.

Mr Chiam asked for more private sector participation in our housing programme. Since his debate with the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan, this has indeed been the case. Right now, we have released land for 6,000 units every year for private developers to build private housing for Singaporeans. Under the Executive Condominium scheme, 2,000 units every year will be built by Government-owned companies in the first instance and, later on, the scheme will be opened up to the private sector. Under the HDB's building programme, 10% is put out under the design-and-build scheme. As I have explained earlier, we have private contractors teaming up with architects and engineers to offer the best design at the lowest cost to HDB. So the private sector is now deeply involved in the HDB programme. In the Main Upgrading Programme, 50% of the Main Upgrading Programme is designed by private architects. Under the Interim Upgrading Programmes, almost all the town councils employ private architects in designing the Interim Upgrading Programme for the residents. So we are now seeing more and more participation of the private sector in the housing programme.

Mr Chng Hee Kok asked whether, under the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), the sites could be tendered out to private development. Again, this would be a natural extension of the SERS scheme. When we started the SERS scheme, it is best to educate Singaporeans by choosing sites immediately adjacent to the SERS site. As the scheme gets more readily accepted and Singaporeans understand the benefits of the scheme, I think Singaporeans will be prepared to accept a site slightly further from where they are staying, but still close enough for it to be seen as a choice site for them to be relocated. When that is reached, then the original site can be tendered out to private developers. But one of the objectives of the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme is to generate more HDB flats for Singaporeans who desire to stay in a mature estate. Let me assure this House that although we may selectively put out one or two sites for development by private developers, the bulk of the sites freed up under the SERS programme will be developed by HDB to create more HDB flats for Singaporeans.

Mr Peh Chin Hua asked the HDB to simplify the rules and make them more comprehensible. This is an on-going process. HDB tries its best. On the one hand, we try to simplify. On the other hand, we also try to respond to MPs who think of many more refinements to the policies and make them more complicated. So we have to seek a balance. But we are aware of the situation and we try our best. For example, Dr Arthur Beng asked whether, in the sale of flats in mature estates, residents can have higher weightage. Today, we give them twice the weightage compared to non-residents. As I said, for every flat, there are 30-35 applicants. No matter how we juggle the priority, there will be a lot of disappointed people. So I am reluctant to create more micro schemes and give an excuse for Mr Peh Chin Hua next year to say that we have not simplified our system.

Mr Sinnakaruppan raised the problem about arbitration of renovation related disputes. This is one of the difficulties we face. If it is a clear structural problem, the Building Control Department (BCD) can go in and, under public safety, act decisively. It is not true that we will ask them to get their own professional engineers to do the job. And if they cannot afford, they are in trouble. I think if it is a question of public safety, the BCD will make their own structural assessment and set out an order to evacuate the residents, if the situation requires it. If the situation does not require immediate evacuation, then, of course, there is time for the residents to employ a professional engineer who will assess what is needed to be repaired and make good the structural damage.

Our difficulty lies with defects which are not structural in nature. Here, the market practice is that if your neighbour is doing a major rebuilding or construction, you will do a site inspection before he starts his piling work. And you would mark out all the existing cracks. After the piling and the construction, there will be another assessment by the insurance agency who will employ professional assessors and you will mark out all the cracks which have occurred as a result of your neighbour's construction. And then the insurance agency would make good these damages. By and large, we have had very little problems with this approach.

If the system breaks down and the neighbours seek recourse, then, as he suggests, they can either go to the Small Claims Tribunal if the amount is small, or if the amount is big, they can engage lawyers and take out a civil suit. If they do not want to spend money, they can seek arbitration under our legal system. So there are several avenues. It is very hard for a Government agency to intervene because this does not affect public safety. It affects their taste, eg, if their cabinet is cracked, they want the same tiles; they want better tiles; they want the same colour. For this kind of disputes, it is very difficult for a Government agency to get involved.

This will also be my comments to the Member's suggestion about CASE and RADAC. It is better that such problems be resolved by the consumer groups and arbitration done jointly with the association of renovation contractors. It is difficult for a Government agency to get too deeply involved with problems and issues affecting taste. Nevertheless, I will take up the Member's suggestion with the Ministry of Trade and Industry which is responsible for CASE.

Sir, I believe I have answered all the questions.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, the Minister has not touched on the question of upgrading of private housing estates.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the Minister has said that I mentioned the word "run-down" for blocks of flats. I wish to clarify that the flats are not run-down due to neglect by the residents, but by sheer age. Therefore, we are not going to encourage people to run-down their flats to have them upgraded. Assuming that the flats are old and the fact that they are old and run-down, is that not a criterion for upgrading?

Take the case of Forfar House. It is old. It is run-down. The pipes are all leaking and not working. Should the Minister not consider this as a priority for upgrading? Or is it because of the fact that it is not situated somewhere else?

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I heard the Minister saying that in the case of a sunken apron with broken sewer pipes, the HDB will carry out the repairs. Can the Minister confirm that under such circumstances, the HDB will pay for the full cost of reinstatement of the sewer line and also the repair of the sunken apron?

In the Minister's answer on housing for foreign workers in HDB flats, it appears to me that there are no male foreign workers being housed in HDB flats. Is my impression correct?

What about the regulations? Specifically, how many foreign workers are allowed to be housed in, say, a 1-room flat rented out to companies for this purpose? What are the guidelines in terms of renting such units to companies to ensure that it is equally distributed over Singapore, and not concentrated in a particular block or in a particular estate?

The other matter is allowing JTC to buy HDB flats from the open market for housing foreign workers. Is this not in conflict with HDB's philosophy that HDB flats are for owner occupation, rather than allowing them to be let out to foreign workers? 2.15 pm

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, the Minister did not reply to my question on how many units of Executive Condominiums would be built in the next few years.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, my apologies for leaving out some of the questions raised.

First, on private housing estates. As Dr Richard Hu explained in his response in the debate on the Budget, we have a Committee chaired by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary of MND to look at this upgrading of private housing estates. We want to explain that the upgrading would be very different from the Main Upgrading Programme. It will be more akin to the Interim Upgrading Programme. It will cover only the public areas in the estate. It will not enter the flat or the house.

I welcome Mr Chng Hee Kok's suggestion that we should also look at some pilot projects to initiate this programme. I think this is what we intend to do. We hope to settle the scope and the cost-sharing formula for such programmes and at the same time identify deserving pilot estates to start on this programme.

Mr Chiam said that when he says "run down" he does not mean run down. Let me tell him that there are many blocks of flats which are much older than Toa Payoh and although they are old they are not run down. So if he says "old" I agree. But if he says "run down", they should not be run down, provided the town council does its work.

For Forfar House, let me explain that Forfar House is 40 years old. I think Mr Chay Wai Chuen has been very patient in pushing the case for Forfar House and I have asked HDB to see how we can do some interim upgrading of Forfar House. So when Potong Pasir is 40 years old, I will pay similar attention to Mr Chiam's persistent requests.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked whether male foreign workers are housed in HDB flats. Yes, they are. In the past, HDB had run several schemes for housing foreign workers. The main scheme is the dormitory housing scheme where HDB rents out the flats to companies and they house their foreign workers, including male foreign workers, in these flats. There are certain rules. For example, they should not have more than four persons to one room and they have certain guidelines on how the workers should behave and the companies are responsible for the foreign workers. We try to distribute them as widely as possible, but he must try and appreciate our difficulties. For example, in Pasir Ris New Town, it is not possible for us to allocate brand new flats for housing foreign workers. So you cannot distribute foreign workers geographically all over Singapore. Many of the new housing estates do not have foreign workers. The dormitory housing units tend to be in the older housing estates where HDB has surplus rental units to let out to the companies.

One of the reasons why we are moving this Bill to seek Parliament's approval to allow corporate bodies, such as JTC, to buy a limited number of flats in the resale market to rent out to foreign workers is that HDB cannot set aside more flats for the needs of our foreign workers. It is inconceivable that we build new flats to house foreign workers. At the same time, for example, the old rental flats are being sold to the sitting tenants. So the stock of HDB flats available for renting is fewer and fewer. One way to generate more units to be made available for rental to foreign workers is to allow JTC to buy selectively. In this way, we meet the housing needs of our foreign workers and this is more evenly spread out in Singapore.

Prof. Low asked how many Executive Condominium units will be built in the next few years. I have explained that the target is to build 2,000 this year and, depending on the response, we will tailor the programme in subsequent years.

Mr Low Thia Khiang also asked whether HDB would pay for the full repairs of sunken aprons with problematic sewage pipes. The answer is that HDB will only pay for those parts of the sewage pipes which are damaged. The repairs to the sunken apron will have to come from the sinking funds of the town councils.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister has not answered whether allowing JTC to buy HDB flats to let out to the foreign workers is in conflict with the philosophy of HDB of owner-occupation.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: As I have explained earlier, this is part of HDB's role to provide housing for foreign workers. We have done so in the past. We have had the dormitory housing programme run by HDB in the past. So housing foreign workers in HDB flats is not a new thing. It has been done in the past. We set aside 5,000-6,000 units of HDB rental flats to house foreign workers. As we have more and more foreign workers in our economy, HDB could continue with this programme. But how does HDB generate the flats to rent to foreign workers? I think we cannot build new flats to house foreign workers when there is such a long queue from Singaporeans. HDB could buy resale flats and house foreign workers. Alternatively, we could allow JTC to buy resale flats to house foreign workers. So there is no conflict with the principle of owner-occupation. If you own a flat, you should live in it.

But as the national housing authority, we not only have people who own their flats, but we also have people who need to rent flats. So not everybody who lives in a HDB flat must be an owner. Some are renting. HDB can either rent to them or, in this case, we are asking JTC to buy the resale flats to rent to them so that JTC is more responsive to the needs of the companies, particularly companies who are bringing in skilled workers. They do not have to go through so many channels. Theoretically, HDB could buy the resale flats, rent them to JTC which could rent them to the companies which in turn could rent them to the foreign workers. So we are coming to Parliament for approval of the amendment to the Housing and Development Act to allow JTC, as a corporate body, to buy resale flats and rent them out. But, Sir, maybe we can reserve debate on this when the Bill comes up for Second Reading.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and the very patient manner in which he has replied to the questions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Harun Bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UC 1500.

As we know, the Causeway was built during the colonial time. The colonialists could not imagine that the population of Singapore will grow and the people will live a comfortable life and keep on progressing and excelling.

Sir, the Causeway prevented the sea water from flowing into the Strait of Johor. This has somehow caused pollution and destroyed marine life in the area. We do not want our water to be polluted. What is the Ministry of National Development's plan to overcome this problem? Is it possible for the Ministry to replace the Causeway with a bridge? If the Ministry builds a bridge, it will not only tackle the environmental problem, but it will also overcome the traffic congestion along the linkage between Singapore and Malaysia.

Lastly, Sir, could the Minister update the progress of the construction of the second bridge in Tuas?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, the problem at the Causeway is not the capacity of the Causeway but the problem of clearing the vehicles and the passengers at the checkpoint, whether for immigration or for customs purposes. So the solution is not to build a bridge to replace the Causeway. The Causeway's capacity is not exceeded. The source of the problem of congestion is the clearance facilities. That is what we are doing at the Woodlands checkpoint. We are rebuilding the checkpoint facilities and that would be completed by the end of 1997/1998.

The problem of pollution in the Strait of Johor as a result of the Causeway should be tackled at source. The Ministry of the Environment takes steps to clear the rubbish and the problem of pollution, but the more important approach is to minimise the pollution at source. Towards that objective I believe the Ministry of the Environment is working with its counterparts across the Strait to minimise the source of pollution.

The efforts to rebuild the checkpoint and to build the second link are proceeding according to schedule and we expect both projects to be completed towards the end of 1997/1998. So by the beginning of 1998, Singaporeans can look forward to smoother traffic across both links.

Encik Harun Bin A. Ghani: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UG 2100.

Sir, since the 1960s, the Government has been acquiring land belonging to the people for development purposes. In the process of acquisition, naturally there would be the problem of resettlement. For national development and the total benefit of the people in general, land acquisition is necessary. But we all know that in acquiring the properties and land, and resettling the people, there are a lot of stories of tears and blood, pains and sufferings. Because of the sacrifices of these people, our country now prospers. Singapore has taken a new appearance. But let me tell the House that even up till today many people are still feeling very bitter because of the resettlement. Their unhappiness is due to the following reasons:

(1) the compensation was unfair and unreasonable;

(2) the acquisition was carried out not in accordance with the right and proper procedure, for example, some houses were demolished even before the owners were compensated or given alternative accommodation;

(3) the officials in charge bamboozled the people into signing the acceptance of compensation;

(4) the officials in charge did not carry out the land measurement and evaluation seriously;

(5) at the time of acquisition, the Government said it was for one purpose, and later it was found out that the land was acquired for another purpose. 2.30 pm

My next point is that when the Government wanted the people to move out, no alternative site was provided. For example, when the Government asked the tenants to move out from the 62 plots of land at Woodlands Avenue 9, no alternative site was offered to them. Thus the tenants could not carry out their business as they had no place to store their goods.

Another point I wish to bring up is that sometimes a number of Temporary Occupation Licences (TOLs) may be taken out in respect of one site. The compensation given to each holder of a TOL is therefore divided into very small amounts. Another point is that when the people went to the Government department concerned to appeal for higher compensation, they were pushed from pillar to post, from one department to another, or even from one Ministry to another Ministry.

Let me give the Minister three real examples in regard to the abovementioned points:

First, the case of Tan Chiang Nee. Tan Chiang Nee's father had a number of fish ponds and prawn ponds, and a number of buildings in Tampines. Tan Chiang Nee lived with his parents in this area since he was born. Sometime in mid-1960s, the Government acquired their land, ponds and buildings. In 1967, before they were compensated or offered alternative accommodation, the officials from Ministry of Health, and later Ministry of the Environment, came and filled up their ponds. Because the ponds were filled up with land fill, there was a strong stench coming out from there. Their family, about 10 people including their assistants, had to endure all the flies and stench in that area, from 1967 to 1972. They were living in constant fear and uncertainties, and in extremely unhealthy and unhygienic conditions.

In 1972, Tan's father was offered a compensation of only some $36,000 and a three-room flat in Toa Payoh. As for Tan Chiang Nee himself, no flat or compensation was offered to him, even up till today. His two assistants, who had been living there for quite a long time were also not given any compensation. This is because of mishandling of the case by the officials. The whole family suffered as a result, so too their assistants. According to Tan Chiang Nee, he had written to the Prime Minister and BG Lee Hsien Loong, and had met the MP for Toa Payoh, but all to no avail because the case was mishandled by the officials in the initial stages. Tan Chiang Nee's father died in sorrow and anguish, and one member of the family attempted suicide, but was fortunately rescued. There were other unhappy incidents that took place in the family.

The second example is the case of Ang Chin Siew. Ang Chin Siew had a property in Sembawang, known as 85 Lorong Pikat. He was resettled by the Government, but was not given any compensation. The reason was that he was not at home when the officials called there. When Ang Chin Siew pursued the matter, the officials told him that he had to write in to make a formal application to re-open his case. He told the officials that he was illiterate, and was thus unable to write the letter. Consequently, he was given no compensation, nor any alternative of a HDB flat.

The third case involved one Wong Lee Siong. Wong's family lived in Sembawang. He was also affected by resettlement. He was very unhappy with the quantum of compensation offered to him. He sought the help of MPs, not one but eight hon. Members of this House. But so far, no good news have been forthcoming.

We can see from these instances that the people have been very, very wronged, and they have grievances because of these resettlement and compensation problems. All these people appealed to the Ministry of National Development for justice to be done, but without success. They could not afford the legal cost to take the matter to court. So, I would suggest to the Minister that the Government sets up a special committee to look into cases and complaints from people who are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. Some people could not find their title deeds earlier on. Now they have found their title deeds, or if they can produce evidence to substantiate their claims to the title, then they should be given compensation with retrospective effect.

The Chairman: Mr Cheo, you have exceeded the time. Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, can I suggest, if Mr Cheo wants to set himself up as the champion of all resettlement cases in Singapore's history from all over Singapore, that he get his understanding of the policies and the individual cases right in the first place?

Let me explain. There are different categories of resettlement. Singapore has come this far because the Government has worked together with Singaporeans to make the necessary changes to progress and to develop Singapore. The way we compensate Singaporeans who are affected in this redevelopment process depends on the ownership status of the land. The first category are people who own the properties. For example, in the North-East sector line, the Government is spending $4-$5 billion to build the line. As a result of this development, there is a need to redevelop certain parts along this line, so that we can progress and the benefits of the redevelopment can accrue to all Singaporeans. The owners of such properties along the line are therefore compensated according to the Land Acquisition Act, namely, the market price of their property as at 1st January 1995 or the market price today, whichever is the lower. If that property is their sole property, the Land Office will make sure that there is a top-up element to bring the compensation award to the market price of today. So these people are not worse off. They will be compensated the market price today and they can buy another property elsewhere. We know that they have to sacrifice because if their property was not acquired, they may have been able to reap windfall capital gains. But I think such capital gains should be enjoyed by all Singaporeans, and not by these individual owners. So when we acquire such properties for redevelopment, we pay them fairly under the Land Acquisition Act, ie, according to market price as at 1st January 1995, and if this is their only property, we top it up to the current market price.

The second category which Mr Cheo is championing are squatters. They are not owners. These are the squatters on state land who over the years have farmed the land. We could continue to let them squat on state land and farm, and Singapore will be a farming country. But we need the land to build housing estates, to build industrial estates, to build new sources of employment, and new sources of economic growth. So we have to resettle these squatters. They do not own the property. They are squatting on state land. Nevertheless, the Government gave them an ex-gratia payment, depending on the extent of their farming activities. In the past, we paid them for every fruit tree that they had grown because the argument was that if they had grown a durian tree, that would have given him so much income. So we paid them $200-$300 per durian tree.

As Mr Cheo knows, this led to tremendous abuse. They started planting durian trees, small durian trees, next to one another and claiming $200-$300 per durian tree. Some of these farmers were given $400,000. One was given $500,000 for a poultry farm. How did he claim this amount? He took spare wire cage and built chicken coops all over, reared a few chickens which he bought from the wet market and he made a claim. All these abuses led to CPIB investigating the cases. These were squatters who did not own the land but the Government paid them ex-gratia payments - $26,000 for a farming licence and different amounts for the different things which they grew on their farm. Many of them abused the system. CPIB had to go in to investigate. In addition, we offered an HDB flat so that instead of living on the farm, they now live in an HDB flat.

I think the Government had been very fair to these people who squatted on Government land, by offering them an HDB flat to live in and fair compensation for loss of their livelihood. With the booming Singapore economy, they could continue to find employment and continue a new lease of life.

The third category which he brought up regarding Woodlands, Avenue 9, are people on TOL. TOL stands for Temporary Occupation Licence. They tendered for the land knowing that they are on TOL. They tendered for the land to store their equipment, knowing that at the end of the Temporary Occupation Licence, the Government will take back the land because it has plans for redevelopment. As businessmen, they went in with their eyes open. They can make use of the land for storage, for their business, for a couple of years on TOL, and they are expected to give up the land upon completion of the TOL. Do these people deserve compensation?

For the three cases which Mr Cheo raised, can I ask my officials to take down these particulars and respond to him?

The Chairman: Mr Cheo, we have reached "guillotine" time on this amendment. Can you withdraw your amendment?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: Sir, can I clarify certain points with the Minister first before I withdraw?

The Chairman: Okay. Just one short clarification very quickly. We are running out of time.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to respond to the Minister's reply.

Firstly, the Minister said that many of these people who were affected had planted a lot of trees. This was because the Government department concerned had not conducted the matter properly. At the time of resettlement, they should make a register of the existing trees. Any tree planted after the registration date will then be ruled out from any claim for compensation.

Secondly, many people planted more trees because the Government's compensation was not reasonable, eg, a durian tree takes about seven years to mature and bear fruits. Then, the owner can reap in a lot of money from the sale of durians. Now, the compensation is only some $200 per tree, which I think is manifestly inadequate. Of course, I am not encouraging the people to plant more trees to deceive the Government.

With regard to the site in Woodlands Avenue 9, I did not say that Government should compensate them. But when the Government is going to resettle them, they should offer them an alternative site so that they can have a place to store their goods because most of their goods are very bulky. 2.45 pm

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: I think the older Members of Parliament in this House will remember the abuses of the resettlement policy which were debated widely in this House in 1988/1989. It is not just planting of fruit trees. We paid them for the improvements done to their homes. So they got concrete dump trucks to lay out concrete in the weekend before the officials came and because of the new and freshly laid concrete, they were compensated. It went on and on - wells, chicken farms, fruit trees, fish ponds, prawn ponds. We went about it in a very enlightened way. We felt that, as farmers, we ought to pay them a fair compensation in dislocating them even though they did not own the land. So we itemised each item of compensation but they abused the system. In the end, CPIB had to come in. The case is now settled. Many of them were required to pay back some of the excessive claims.

For the TOL case, it will be beyond the role of the Government to offer alternatives for every businessman who tenders for a Temporary Occupation Licence. They went in, knowing that these are on TOLs and when the land is required, the land will be taken back. If you are renting a shop in a private shopping centre and when the owner wants to refurbish it, does the owner offer you another shop in the shopping centre?

The Chairman: Mr Cheo, can you withdraw your amendment?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: Sir, I wish to seek clarification.

The Chairman: Order. Mr Cheo, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: Sir, can I request the Minister to reply---

The Chairman: We have reached "guillotine" time. Are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4), Mr Lau.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Ang Mo Kio GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UI 5100.

Ang Mo Kio estate is a popular one. It is only a mere 15-minute MRT ride from Orchard Road and, for a 20-year old estate, it is very spacious and well laid out. The blocks are not as closely clustered as those in the new estates. Residents enjoy a full range of excellent facilities, social, educational and recreational. It is therefore not surprising that numerous requests for new flats within Ang Mo Kio town have been received by the MPs, both from the young couples who wish to live near their parents and from families with grown-up children.

Last year, several blocks of new 5-room and executive apartments were completed at the junction of Avenue 4/Avenue 5. The demand for these units had been overwhelming. We notice that there is some vacant land near the Ang Mo Kio library. Many residents hope that more HDB flats will be built here instead of transferring it to URA for public tender.

In the last few years, several plots of land near the Ang Mo Kio Community Hospital had been sold to private developers and despite periodic forecasts to the contrary, private condominium prices continued to climb to levels beyond the reach of most HDB households. So it was good and welcome news to hear that the Minister has plans to upgrade the whole of Ang Mo Kio town. I would like to ask the Minister when these long-term development plans would be available for public information, how many precincts will be included for MUP and IUP and, in view of the solid support that Ang Mo Kio GRC and Cheng San GRC have given to the Government over the last 15 years, whether Ang Mo Kio town will be given priority in this exercise.

Dr Ho Tat Kin: Sir, I was told that each day about 6,000 people approach HDB to file applications and make enquiries about different HDB policies. While HDB has helped to make it easier for people to make enquiries by allowing people to phone in or to check on the waiting time through Teletext, I believe more can be done to make it easier for those who need to check various information of HDB. HDB has started its own Web site on Internet. Will HDB now allow applicants to check the waiting time and find out other information through Internet or communicate with HDB through electronic mail? This method would help many young applicants who have Internet access. However, Sir, those without such on-line access, they still have to use the phone or visit HDB to make personal enquiries.

I understand, currently, HDB does not practise a one-point enquiry system. A person making enquiries on rental matters need to get a number and join a queue. If he needs to find out something about purchase flats, he has to get a new number and join another queue, and so on. So making enquiries at HDB can be a half-day leave affair. I would like to suggest to HDB to consider implementing a one-point service for all matters, whether it is filing an application or making enquiries. Not only will this be more convenient to the HDB applicant, it will also improve productivity of HDB and improve HDB service to the public. With distributed computing technology, HDB could even consider allowing applications or enquiries to be made at the Branch Offices in the future.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC): Sir, one of the main objectives of the Registration for Flats System (RFS) introduced in the second half of 1994 is to ensure that first-time home buyers are given priority over upgraders. However, quite a number of first-timers are still unhappy as they feel that the waiting period is now longer. It is more like four years, and some were even told that they have to wait five years before they can get their flat. They attribute this to the fact that the current ratio of 60:40 for first-timers and upgraders is inadequate as it has not cut down the waiting time for getting their flats.

Sir, I am fully aware that the waiting period hinges upon the location they apply for. But some of my constituents have informed me that even their applications for the West and North zones are now experiencing a longer waiting period. What I would like to know is whether the 60:40 ratio is working satisfactorily or is there a need to further fine-tune it in favour of the first-time home buyers?

Secondly, with regard to the spread of applications, what is the current position? Has there been a better spread? Last year, the Minister mentioned that more than 55% of the applicants preferred the North-East zone.

The Chairman: Dr Tan, can you take your two subjects together?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I shall not take up this subject on the purchase of HDB flats by corporate bodies. I will take it up later on.

The Chairman: All right. Please proceed with your next cut.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: The next cut is on transitional rental housing. I will be very brief. I think these flats were rented out on a 2-year plus one basis if the new flat is not ready for the occupant. If there is a delay in the housing programme and some of the flats may not be available within the 3-year period, will it be possible for this rental housing scheme to cover that period till he gets his flat?

The Chairman: Mr Zulkifli is not speaking. Mr Cheo, please take your two topics together.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, let me deal with the first cut on HDB shop rentals. HDB has a formula to increase rental by 30% every three years, that is to say, a 10% increase every year. When the economy is good, people can bear the increased rental, but if the economy is poor, then by this formula, many of the tenants will not be able to shoulder the heavy responsibility. So I hope the Government can be more flexible in increasing the rental.

Let me move to the next cut on HDB rental flats. Sir, from my meet-the-people sessions I learnt that many people, for various reasons, have to rent HDB flats. But these people often have to wait for a very long time. For those who are in urgent need of rental flats, the waiting time is disheartening. I hope that the Government can build more flats and reserve some for rental to satisfy this need of the people.

A few days ago, I made a telephone call to the HDB's Rental Division and I was told that we have more than 500 empty rental flats available, but there are more than 1,000 families waiting for rental flats. So, it is necessary to increase the number of rental flats. I hope that the Government can provide some specially designed flats for rental to the single senior citizens at nominal charges so that they can afford to rent them.

The Chairman: Dr Soin is not here. Dr Tan.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I shall be very brief. The request by the Minister to use sinking funds to repair the sunken aprons means less money for the upgrading of lifts and other essential facilities, especially in an IUP programme. In some cases, it means putting aside a fair sum of money and I know that in one upgrading programme in the Jurong East Town Council, they have to put aside about a million dollars. But the sinking of the aprons is not due to the residents' doing but due to ground settlement. In Pandan Valley where the estate is built on prawn ponds, it would seem not very fair to use the sinking funds, which have been saved for wear and tear repairs to take care of a settlement problem. So may I ask the Minister to look into this problem again?

Maybe it is the method of repair that needs looking into. What HDB is doing, as I gather from the Minister's reply, is to fill up the gaps and top up the apron to the required height. But, again, I believe this will sink with time. Of course, the pipes may be dislocated, and pipes need proper anchoring and support, and by just filling the sunken aprons will not do that job. So maybe the HDB should look at the method of repair. Perhaps, you need proper piling and this is where I think it will pose a problem because the Minister will tell us to use our sinking funds. Perhaps, we can come up with some deal, like cost-sharing basis. 3.00 pm

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): Sir, there are many private estates which provide car parking facilities to their residents without extra charges. But, in the case of HDB estates, residents have to pay a monthly parking fee of $55 for a surface car-park lot and more for a covered car park.

In the past, to control the car population, the Government increased car park fees from time to time, and later on the fees were increased again on the ground that the construction cost of the car parks had to be recovered. In 1994, I asked the Minister three questions, but they were not answered. Now I would like to ask the Minister again one of these three questions. I hope the Minister can answer it this time.

My question is: Can the HDB allow a season car park ticket holder to park his car in every one of HDB's car parks and not be confined to only one or two car parks in a certain estate, during the valid period of his season ticket? In this way, it will be more convenient for the car owners and it will give them more flexibility in parking their cars.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Sir, my questions are:

First, under what circumstances does the HDB decide what kind of work should be classified as "Specific Works" programme?

Second, apart from the lift and the water tanks, what are the projects that can be considered as specific works?

Third, would the HDB consider installing the new booster pump activating system for old blocks so that people on the higher floors will not suffer low water pressure because of the poor distribution system and inferior booster pump design of the past?

Fourth, in some low rise blocks, the HDB used concrete roof tiles for the blocks. Because of the porosity of the tiles, water seeps through and many tiles crack, resulting in leakage from the roof. Would the HDB consider replacing the existing concrete roof tiles with zinc-roofs instead?

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the tea break now.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.03 pm to 3.25 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head U (cont.) -

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, Mr Lau Ping Sum asked about the development projects in Ang Mo Kio. The HDB and URA will be working closely with the advisers and the grassroots leaders to develop the estate renewal strategy for Ang Mo Kio, along the same lines as the pilot project for Toa Payoh. We hope to be able to draw up the first draft proposals by June this year. This would incorporate not only redevelopment of the town centre, but also ideas for bringing in more HDB developments in Ang Mo Kio. To do so, we have to identify some Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Schemes so as to generate new flats and start a small chain reaction of redevelopment in Ang Mo Kio.

At the same time, some of the vacant lands in Ang Mo Kio have been set aside for private housing so that those who live in Ang Mo Kio can aspire to upgrade to private housing also within Ang Mo Kio New Town. But I want to assure the Member that there will be a judicious mix between public housing and private housing in Ang Mo Kio. So we are looking towards a June target date for the first draft to be ready. In that plan, we will also demarcate the precincts for the Main Upgrading Programme.

Dr Ho Tat Kin asked whether applicants' inquiries to HDB can be better improved through the use of Internet and E-mail. Let me assure the Member that HDB will consider his suggestion. HDB tries to improve the various avenues by which the public can phone in to check with the HDB on certain developments. But at the same time, we have to be careful to make sure that all Singaporeans are served, not just those who have access to the computer, Internet or E-mail.

On his point about a one-counter service, HDB tries to do this as much as possible, but there are some limitations on how far this can be extended. Whenever we set up a one-counter service, as we have done for many situations, we lose the specialisation of having separate services. It is not possible for that one counter to be extremely well versed, particularly in the intricacies of individual programmes. I am sure, as MPs, they would have come across some of their constituents who have alleged that they had been wrongly advised by the counter staff. This invariably happens because there is miscommunication or the way they ask the questions or they do not provide sufficient details, particularly through the phone. Although we try to have a one-counter service, we must recognise that we do lose specialisation and the intricacies may not be available at that counter. So we need to have a mix of one-counter service that provides general inquiries and, whenever there are complications, the resident is referred to a senior officer who can deal with the intricacies of the case. 3.30 pm

Mr Zulkifli asked whether the 60-40 allocation is adequate. As I have explained earlier, HDB is monitoring the situation. We have to strike a balance between the first-timers and the upgraders. Right now, we are giving priority to the first-timers with the 60-40 allocation. If this is inadequate, over time we may have to adjust this ratio. But residents who want faster allocation can choose the North Zone where the allocation is faster. The pattern has remained unchanged. There is still a very high proportion applying for the North East Zone, particularly the bigger flats. As a result, the queue for North East Zone is very much longer.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked whether it is possible to extend the tenure of the transitional rental housing scheme, until the residents are able to take delivery of their new flats. This is a reasonable request. I will ask HDB to consider this and to extend the tenure from two years plus one year to cover the entire period until the new flats are ready.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen raised the issue of HDB shop rentals. When the shop tenants sign the tenancy agreement, they agree to a 30% increase after the 3-year tenure or to the market rent, whichever is lower. This allows the increases to be cushioned by this cap of 30% over three years. If, as Mr Cheo says, the economy does badly, then we can imagine the retail rental market to also soften, in which case the market rent will be much lower and the increases will not be beyond the market rent.

Mr Cheo also asked for increased allocation of HDB rental flats. Let me inform the House that because of the success of our various schemes to encourage low income families to own flats, we have seen a drastic reduction in the number of applicants for rental flats. In July 1994, there were 3,100 applicants in the waiting list for rental flats. Now, we have only 1,400. We are trying to process the applications for rental flats quickly. The main difficulty is the choosiness of the applicants. We have a certain stock of rental flats but this may not correspond to what the applicants want. Therefore, we find repeated rejections of the offers.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked whether HDB will study the matter of repairs of sinking aprons, particularly in the way we anchor the sewerage pipes. I will ask HDB to take a look at the specific situation of the softer ground in Pandan Valley and Teban Gardens. We will see whether there is any justification to have a different method of repair. I will ask HDB to look into it.

Mr Cheo asked whether HDB can introduce a car park season ticket that will cover all areas in Singapore. That would mean the price of a season ticket will be very large if we want to cover all car parks in Singapore. I do not know whether the HDB will find that feasible. Let me just say that the way we manage the car parks in HDB estates is to try and ensure that anybody who buys a season ticket has confidence that there is a lot for him when he comes back. This is done by a judicious matching of demand and supply. If you allow a season car park ticket to be used anywhere, then there will be over demand in those areas which are very popular and the residents who have bought the tickets will not be able to park in those car parks. Right now, we are managing in such a way that residents living in that area have first priority in buying season tickets in the car parks in that area.

Mr Low Thia Khiang raised several issues under specific works. First, the objective of specific works. This is a carry-over in the transition from HDB to the town councils. In the past when HDB was responsible for maintenance of HDB estates, HDB took upon itself to undertake what it termed as specific works to improve and maintain the estates and to carry on upgrading them. When the function of maintenance was transferred to the town councils, many of these functions ought to be done by the town councils because many of these are cyclical maintenance. But we recognise that in the transition, when the town councils are building up its resources and capabilities, it will not be fair for the town councils to undertake many of these responsibilities immediately. Therefore, HDB had several programmes from 1988 till 1991, and some continued till 1993, in which HDB undertook some of these specific works. For example, during this transition period, HDB continued to repair the stainless steel water tanks or to replace the steel lift cages into stainless steel lift cages. So HDB undertook this responsibility during this transition. Now that the town councils are firmly on their feet, HDB is tailing off some of these specific works. But HDB will still come in for specific works which are necessary for public safety. For example, recently we decided to bring HDB housing estates to the latest fire code standards. We know that if the town councils were to do this they would incur heavy costs. So we sought approval from the Government for HDB to do this as a one-off specific work. HDB got the funds to do so. By and large, the other responsibilities should be undertaken by the town councils through their sinking funds.

On the issue of booster pumps, this is something which was highlighted in the press recently. I remember an article written by a Straits Times' reporter reflecting tremendous anguish that she could not bathe when the booster pump was not working. HDB has this responsibility to undertake research and development and through its research and development efforts, HDB has come out with a flow sensor device which allows the booster pump to be activated whenever the sensor detects a demand for water. As many Members know, now that they are in charge of town councils, our booster pumps used to operate either on a pressure device or on a timer device. Now, with modern electronics, it is possible to have a sensor device. In so doing, even though few families may be affected, the booster pump would be activated and water will flow through with adequate pressure. This is not a very expensive device. HDB has briefed the managing agents and we hope some of the town councils, during their repair cycle, will undertake to refurbish their booster pumps with this new sensor mechanism.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A clarification, Sir. Would the HDB consider installing the new device or sell the device to the town councils at a discount?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: These new devices are installed in all new HDB flats and town councils should retrofit these devices when they next do R&R of their blocks. These are not very expensive. We need to gear up the manufacturing of this device. It cannot be that all blocks will be fitted with this overnight. HDB will work with the manufacturer to make sure there is an adequate supply of this device and work out a system by which the blocks can be progressively retrofitted.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen: ( In Mandarin): I think the Minister could have misunderstood what I meant just now. I was asking the Minister to consider allowing the present season ticket holder to park his car in every HDB car park. I am not asking for a new type of season parking ticket.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Would the Minister indicate the price range of the flow sensor which HDB is manufacturing? In my speech just now, I also asked whether the HDB would consider retrofitting those low-rise flats which have concrete roof tiles which were used during the construction stage. Because of the porousness of the concrete, there is a lot of leaking in the roof tiles. If you were to replace them with concrete roof tiles again, I think the problem will recur. To retrofit with some other zinc roof or metal roofing will cost the town council a substantial sum. Therefore, I would ask the Minister whether HDB will consider including this project under the specific works programme.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: I understand the booster pump device costs around $1,500 per device. So it is not something which is too expensive. You probably need one or two such devices per block. It is something within the capability of the town councils. HDB will ensure that there is an adequate supply and work with the town councils to do a progressive retrofitting.

Re-roofing is part of the town councils' responsibility. So I am afraid they have to pay for it with their sinking funds.

For season car park tickets, again, I am not quite sure what Mr Cheo has asked. My explanation is that the season car park ticket is meant for the resident to park his car in the car park near his flat. For parking in town centres and neighbourhood centres, we want faster turnover and therefore we normally implement hourly parking so that people will go and patronise the shops. So it is not feasible to use a season ticket throughout the new town or throughout Singapore.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: In the case of the new housing projects in Ang Mo Kio, in deciding on the judicious mix between public and private housing, would the Ministry take into account the fact that a large number of Ang Mo Kio residents have indicated a preference for more HDB flats within the town?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: This is something that we will work together with the advisors of the grassroots organisations. By and large, we are targeting 75% public housing and 25% private housing mix. By and large, in each estate or each region, we should have that ballpark mix. Everybody should have a fair share of public and private housing. But we will work closely with the advisors and settle on the actual mix for Ang Mo Kio when we develop the estate renewal strategy.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UJ 2600.

Sir, the concept of town council is now firmly entrenched as part and parcel of the HDB landscape as well as our political process. In the last four years, the town council's role has been expanded. Town councils are not only responsible for the cleanliness and general state of maintenance in HDB estates, it has an increasing role in enhancing the value of HDB estates through the implementation of projects, such as children's playgrounds, covered walkways and Senior Citizens' Corners and so on. As a result, the town council has an impact on the lives of Singaporeans. In short, the town council has achieved its original objective. The town council is making a difference to the lives of Singaporeans and, I believe, it will continue to do so.

Hence, it is timely to review the Town Councils Act, particularly in the area of financial control and procedures. Presently, these are too restrictive, especially on the investment of surplus funds of the town council. The town council is a government in miniature and the liberalisation of financial rules is one further move to gauge the ability of MPs and town councillors. I believe it is in the best interest of the further development of our political system. Will the Minister indicate if he will review the Town Councils Act to this end? 3.45 pm

The Chairman: Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay is not here. Mr Choo Wee Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong are also not here. Mr Yao.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Sir, as defined under the Town Councils Act, the town council is to manage, maintain and improve common properties within the HDB estates in a town. Also, under the Act, the monies received by the town council should only be spent on the common properties within the town, so that these monies are not misused for any other purposes outside of what is defined under the Act. But I do understand the concerns raised by Mr Chng. For example, in building a linkway between HDB blocks of flats, one can only build up to the boundary of the common area, and if the linkway is supposed to be attached to a bus stop, sometimes there is a gap between the bus stop at the end of the linkway, because that is where the boundary falls, and money cannot be spent outside of this boundary to build that stretch of the linkway. Another example could be that of the town council's contractors who are engaged to do grass-cutting. They cut the grass of the common areas, but only up to the boundary where the common areas are, and beyond that, if it is a drainage reserve under the Ministry of the Environment, there is a patch of grass there, the contractors cannot go and cut that place because money cannot be spent there.

These are genuine concerns and my Ministry is indeed prepared to look at amendments to the Town Councils Act to refine the financial procedures. When we do so, we will invite Mr Chng and his GPC members to give us more inputs and suggestions.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $430,065,800 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $10,620,375,900 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head M -

The Chairman: Head M - Ministry of the Environment. Amendment No. (1), Dr Tan Cheng Bock. Take your two subjects together, please.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, my GPC members, including the Resource Panel members, met a couple of times to brainstorm the role that Singapore can play in the field of environment in this region. And this is roughly what we have discussed.

We feel that Singapore should capitalise on its position to establish itself as a regional centre and hub for environmental technology and business development. Our Government has spent millions of dollars over the last 30 years to develop Singapore into a clean and green city and we have incorporated the best technologies to treat our drinking water, liquid waste, solid waste, and in the generation of power. We are studying the latest technologies now to effectively desalinate water for drinking and implementing technologies to allow us to build and operate sewage treatment plants underground, out of sight and aesthetically pleasing both to the eyes and to the nose. Also, our three new general hospital extensions, like Kandang Kerbau, Tan Tock Seng and Eastern General Hospitals, will have the most advanced full vacuum conveying system for garbage and soiled linen and, therefore, protecting the environment and patients from contamination and infection.

It is now an appropriate time to take advantage of what Singapore has developed and to enhance it by embarking on a fast track programme to establish Singapore into a regional centre for environmental technology and business. We have in Singapore a model that other developing countries can follow, and we need to act fast to consolidate our position. According to various economic reports and experts, the market for environmental technology and services in the Asia-Pacific region is valued conservatively at US$70-$80 billion for the next three to five years, and doubling to US$140-$160 billion by the year 2002.

My GPC members and I feel strongly that the Singapore Government, jointly with the private sector, should formulate urgently a national strategy to establish Singapore into this regional centre for environmental technology and environmental and infrastructural business. We feel that there is an urgency because a number of regional players also realise this huge potential and have already taken positive steps as a country to establish themselves into a similar centre, in particular the country of Australia. The time-frame we have to work on is to be fully operational in the next one to two years, otherwise this window of opportunity could be closed to Singapore.

To expedite the process of establishing Singapore into this centre, my GPC proposes that a central body or authority be set up to streamline and focus the functions of each of the Ministries, Government agencies, private sector organisations and non-government organisations which are already involved in this field. This body or authority will consist of the various Ministries, agencies and private sector organisations which have currently programmes or agendas relating to environmental technology and environmental business development and promotion within and outside Singapore.

The national strategy formulated by this body or authority should include market and market intelligence, research and development, manufacturing, ie, developing an integrated manufacturing base in Singapore to facilitate the transfer of technology, training, funding and financing, facilitation and development, and of course environmental technology park where R&D work in that area could be concentrated.

Within this broad-based strategy, there should be clear incentives to attract the best environmental technology companies to Singapore, prominent leaders in the field of environmental technology R&D, and to establish and support indigenous private sector and Government-linked companies, so that they will be strong enough to regionalise and compete effectively for a portion of this large regional environmental market. My Committee realises that there are already efforts made by the Ministry of the Environment to encourage environmental technology sharing with Germany and other developed countries. The NSTB is in the process of establishing an R&D centre for environmental technology that the TDB is promoting environmental and infrastructural missions to selected emerging economies, that the EDB is promoting Singapore as a regional business hub and encouraging technology companies as a whole, including environmental technology companies, to come to Singapore, and that there are private sector organisations like the Singapore Association for Environmental Company, the Regional Institute Environmental Technology, the Singapore Manufacturers' Association, and the Singapore Confederation Industries which are involved in promoting environmental business and environmental management.

But there is not enough done to jell all these efforts together to ensure an effective national strategy. More importantly, my Committee feels that there should be a national endorsement and commitment that Singapore wants to be this regional centre for environmental technology and environmental business development. This will put Singapore on the environment map that we not only look clean and green superficially, but we are clean and green to the core. Therefore, my GPC applauds the Minister for Finance for introducing this incentive of accelerated write-off on capital equipment needed for energy conservation and high-efficiency pollution control. My Committee feels that this incentive is introduced at an opportune time to encourage industries to act on preparing themselves for the imminent ISO 1400 standard which will be implemented world-wide before the end of 1996. Like ISO 9000, this will affect businesses and manufacturers who export to markets in Europe, USA and Japan, and to demonstrate to the industry that the Government is very serious about protecting the environment and about achieving the status of a green city by the year 2000. Singapore has committed this to the world in our Singapore Green Plan and we can only achieve it if every sector plays its role.

The Minister for the Environment (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the GPC for the Environment for the efforts that they have made in the subject of environment.

Before responding to the various issues that the Chairman of the GPC has raised and before responding to the other issues which will be raised this afternoon, allow me to put forward some principles to place today's discussion and debate into context.

Sir, the mission of my Ministry is clear. We have to strive for the best possible living environment for Singaporeans and to do so within the limitations of our land and also our manpower constraints. Land limitations affect us in two ways. Firstly, we live, work and play in close proximity to each other. Our activities impinge on the living space of others, consume resources, and leave behind waste water, exhaust fumes, solid waste, and create noise pollution. These have to be controlled and managed, otherwise life in our city state will soon become unbearable. This means that our environmental infrastructure and services must be of world-class standards to preserve public health and prevent the outbreak of infectious diseases. We must provide sewerage, drainage, solid waste collection and disposal facilities, all at world-class standards. We must maintain high standards of food hygiene, air, water quality and vector control.

Land limitations affect us in a second way. The provision of environmental infrastructure such as sanitary land fills, refuse incineration plants, sewage treatment plants is land-intensive and adds to the pressure on our scarce land resources. To provide our services and operate our infrastructure, we also have to compete for manpower. Overcoming our manpower constraints will be a major challenge for the Ministry in years to come. Added to these are the challenges presented by a booming economy that generates more wastes and pollution, and a growing population that requires more environmental infrastructure and services and demands higher standards.

There is, for example, a very close correlation between the volume of solid wastes generated each year and the strength of our economy. Since 1985, the amount of refuse generated in Singapore has grown at a compound rate of about 6% per year. GDP has grown at about 8% per year. In 1995, last year, the growth rate for refuse generated was 10.3%. This exceeded our GDP growth rate of 8.9%. 4.00 pm

Faced with these limitations and challenges, the Ministry has adopted certain strategies to continue to fulfil its mission of providing the best possible living and public health environment for Singaporeans. And these are careful land use planning in conjunction with other agencies, such as the URA, building of environmental infrastructure and the provision of environmental services, public education and community participation and law enforcement.

Environmental consideration in our land use planning has successfully separated our housing estates from our industries and further ensures that our industries are sited away from our water catchment areas. This has provided a basis for the good environment that we enjoy. Those industries that are especially pollutive, for example, but necessary for our economic development are sited on offshore islands. It is only when land use planning has taken environmental requirements into consideration right at the outset that subsequent use of pollution control equipment by the industries to minimise emissions becomes effective. Once we have sited a very pollutive factory in the middle of a housing estate, there is not much else we can do in trying to clean it up and to keep it quiet.

Many developing countries that have not recognised this fact are now facing environmental problems with no technical solution in sight. With proper land use planning in place, we can then put in environmental infrastructure of international standard to effectively manage the various emissions.

Finally, public education and effective enforcement has to be carried out to augment the planning and services provided and ensure that these are not circumvented to the detriment of the environment. But we cannot forever depend on armies of maintenance workers to clean up after us nor platoons of enforcement officers to make sure that we do not litter. Ultimately, we must depend upon the civic consciousness of every Singaporean if we are to succeed in keeping Singapore clean and green.

Such a strategy is paying off handsomely. Our living environment has earned a worldwide reputation of being clean and green. We have one of the lowest incidence of infectious diseases. Our air and water are clean and within the confines of our small island, we have even managed to set aside areas for nature reserves and nature parks even though these are necessarily limited in size and must vie for space with other requirements for land use in Singapore.

Sir, environmental issues are also not just national issues. They transcend national boundaries. Singapore will play its part in the international arena on global and regional issues. We are a responsible member of the community of nations and have been espousing the importance of environmental protection well before the subject attracted global attention. But my Ministry will always retain a clear focus to safeguard and improve upon the clean, healthy and green living environment that contributes so much to the pleasure of being Singaporean.

On the specific subject of developing Singapore as an environmental technology centre and environmental hub, I would like to say that I agree with Dr Tan that Singapore should capitalise on its years of experience and expertise. My Ministry has staged more than 10 regional seminars and workshops and no less than 50 training courses and technical assistance programmes in the last three years. And my Ministry has also provided environmental training to developing countries under the Singapore cooperation programme. All these activities have helped to showcase Singapore's urban environmental management and create avenues for the private sector to seek joint ventures for environmental business with the regional counterparts. My Ministry has also established a commercial consultancy arm called the Singapore Environmental Management and Engineering Services (SEMES) so that local companies engaged in environmental business can tap the expertise of my Ministry.

The Ministry is also on the look out for new and established technology that can be brought into Singapore to maintain our leading position in the field of environmental technology. The use of pneumatic methods, as pointed out by Dr Tan, for the collection of refuse is actively being considered and its cost feasibility is being studied. It will be implemented in selected HDB blocks and private condominiums and we are looking at the possibility of using this in commercial areas like Marina Centre, for example.

For pollution control technologies, our industries are being encouraged to use the latest established technologies and the tax incentives are designed to give this a boost. I am pleased to report that the Singapore Association for Environmental Companies (SAFECO) had capitalised on the doors opened by the Ministry. SAFECO has established cooperative agreements with its counterpart associations in Australia, Canada, the US, Vietnam and they are looking at market opportunities and partnerships that require Singapore's expertise. Local environmental companies should work together to create a niche market for themselves and to form useful strategic alliances for business in the region.

Sir, the suggestions put up by the Chairman of the GPC are certainly very good ones. My Ministry will take up the matter with EDB, TDB and SAFECO to identify, facilitate and create opportunities for Singapore to export its environmental expertise to the region, and in those areas where Singapore companies have built up expertise.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Chin Harn Tong.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500.

Sir, the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for, among other things, keeping our environment clean and attractive. To be fair, the Ministry has done quite a good job with our environment. However, there are odd lapses, which make for irritating eyesores here and there.

Sir, a particular eyesore I have in mind is the trail of unsightly spatters of mud left behind on our roads by trucks, tractors and other vehicles going to or coming from the construction sites. Some may say this is the price of progress we have to pay. Therefore, we must suffer a bit of inconvenience from all the hustle and bustle of construction activities in Singapore.

But I have reason to believe that the wheels of the construction industry can keep turning without the wheels of construction vehicles having to dirty our roads as they roll along. Not too long ago, it was the prime movers, not the wheels, of the bullock carts, which were the guilty parties. At least, the bullocks had the excuse of the unstoppable call of nature.

What excuse can the owners or operators of the construction vehicles give, except the bottom line of profit? My point is that, with a bit of effort, contractors can ensure their vehicles do not transfer earth from the construction sites to our road system unnecessarily and gratuitously. Members of this House have seen for themselves how clean the roads around Parliament House are, despite having a busy construction site next door to us.

This is because the contractors flush away the mud from the wheels or tracks of every vehicle before it leaves the site. Surely, it cannot be because the site is next to Parliament House that the Ministry's officials make sure the contractors carry out this practice.

But it is an inescapable conclusion. Contractors in construction sites other than the one adjoining Parliament House seem to carry out in a most perfunctory manner this practice of cleaning the wheels or tracks of their vehicles before they leave the work sites. In some areas, the roads around work sites are perpetually covered by a thick layer of earth from the work sites.

Sir, when there is no rain for a few days, passing vehicles on the roads whip up an unhealthy cloud of dust to plague pedestrians and the residents of houses and apartments lining the roads. After a rain shower, the pedestrians and residents have their cloths spattered and their footwear dirtied when crossing the muddy roads.

Regardless of the volume of construction work going on in Singapore, it should not be beyond the means of the Ministry's officials to make the contractors ensure their trucks, tractors and other vehicles do not litter the roads with mud and earth on their way to and from the work sites.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Thomson GRC): Sir, despite many years of having anti-littering campaigns, the problem of littering is hard to eradicate. Some blocks of flats in our towns are always littered even though our conservancy workers have done their cleansing work regularly.

Sir, the Ministry implemented the Corrective Work Order (CWO) in 1992. Although the CWO offenders are being brought to the various HDB estates, I feel the duration of the punishment is not long enough to have an impact on others, especially those living in our estates. I hope the Minister would give his Ministry's assessment of the effectiveness of the CWO and whether the Ministry has any plans to increase its duration. I also wish to ask whether the Ministry has any other plans to solve this littering problem.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, the Corrective Work Order was introduced in 1992. Its main objective was to serve as a deterrent against those who have the habit to litter. We thought then that because this kind of punishment in our society would bring shame to the offenders, it would be an effective deterrent against littering. And because such punishment to shame the offenders was unprecedented here and considered as severe, the intention of the Government then was to apply CWOs to only the recalcitrant offenders and those who commit serious littering offences.

Sir, it is time to review how the CWO has evolved over the last 3 1/2 years. My concern is that the CWO has lost its sting as a deterrent. On the one hand, we are seeing more and more CWOs being served on relatively minor littering offences. And on the other hand, we read from the press reports that litterbugs who were served with the CWOs were turning up with friends and loved ones. I think both developments in the way we apply the CWO and the way offenders attended the CWO session, are detracting from the original aim of the CWO. In the end, would the CWO degenerate into a situation where it is considered as a casually issued "invitation" to an outing, and friends are also invited?

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Family picnic! 4.15 pm

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Mr Das says family picnic.

May I ask the Minister what he intends to do to prevent this kind of development, and make sure that the CWO would serve its original purpose?

The Chairman: Mr Chin, you may take your two subjects together.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: Sir, the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for ensuring, among other things, that the foodstuff we buy to eat and drink is not harmful to our health. That is why we have a law requiring packaged foodstuff to state the expiry date for fitness for consumption.

However, I notice packaged preserved fruits do not have expiry date. There is no way of finding out whether the fruits are still fit for consumption without unwrapping the packaging. Some retailers are gracious enough to allow obviously stale products to be exchanged for more up-to-date products. But it would save the consumers a lot of frustration and inconvenience if the packaged products carry an expiry date in the first place.

Sir, I also notice that some canned foodstuff, eg, abalone, do not state an expiry date. It is possible that abalone is an immortal food fit for the gods. But it is desirable that the manufacturers should clearly state, if not the lifespan, at least the age of the canned product. Consumers have the right to choose to buy or forgo a tin of foodstuff that is canned more than three years ago. Now, they cannot so decide, especially if the can is in a mint condition.

I am well aware that most packaged foodstuff contains figures or legends which indicate to the manufacturers and the importers the date of manufacture. But these figures or legends are gibberish to consumers. What the consumers need is a simple, intelligible statement of the date of manufacture or expiry of the products.

Sir, I have previously expressed my misgiving about the Ministry of the Environment's plan to privatise all food centres. My misgiving is based on my worry that food prices will spiral upwards as a result. Stalls in privatised food centres can be expected to change hands at ever higher prices.

It stands to reason that the new owners of these stalls have to recoup their capital outlay from the patrons of their stalls. The stallholders do it by jacking up their prices outright or, if the competition is too strong, cutting down on the quality or quantity, or both quality and quantity, of their wares.

The Ministry's response has been that market forces must prevail if consumers pick and choose carefully the food stalls to patronise. This is easier said than done. The scope for consumers to manoeuvre is less and less, as more and more food centres synchronise their prices.

Sir, an apt illustration in point is the seasonal jacking up of prices of goods and services during Chinese New Year throughout Singapore. The only realistic option open to consumers is not to celebrate the festival.

NTUC Fairprice was established to keep down the prices of rice, sugar and other basic commodities. NTUC Fairprice achieves this objective by making less profit than it could have made.

I would have thought the Ministry would help to keep prices down by not privatising all the food centres. True, the Ministry would have to continue to bear the cost of administering the remaining food centres. But it would be easier for the Ministry to regulate prices in the remaining non-privatised food centres where the stallholders are renters rather than owners of their stalls.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman: Sir, the Ministry of the Environment has embarked on the sale of hawker stalls a few years ago. This scheme has allowed hawkers to own their stalls and to run them efficiently. I wish to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's time-frame in its plans to sell all the stalls to incumbent hawkers.

Like Mr Chin, I also wish to ask whether the Ministry is still monitoring the prices of food at the privatised hawker centres. Has there been any increase in prices?

I also wish to ask the Minister whether the Ministry has any immediate plans to allow tenants, who are still renting their stalls and waiting for the sale of stalls, to sublet their stalls to others in order to maximise the usage of the stalls.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I have a cut on pasar malams.

Sir, pasar malams have been organised by the Potong Pasir Town Council for several years now. And as far as I am aware, for the past few years, the Potong Pasir Town Council has not taken more than eight days per year to hold its pasar malam. Because the pasar malams are organised at two places - one at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, and the other at Potong Pasir Estate.

In July 1995, we were taken by surprise when the CCC suddenly used up two years' pasar malam quota, up to 1st July 1997. We were taken by surprise for two reasons. Firstly, it would appear that the ground rules have suddenly changed for issuing permits for pasar malams. Normally, the permit is given for only one year at a time. But this time, suddenly two years' permit was given to the CCC, thus cutting out completely the Potong Pasir Town Council's chance of holding pasar malams for the next two years.

More importantly, if the ground rules are changed, there is a fear that pasar malams, which are a source of revenue, will not be available to the town council forever, just like CIPC funds which are not made available to the town council.

The Minister has said that the principle of allotting permits for pasar malam is based on equality. I want the Minister to clarify this point. As far as I know, there are four RC zones in Potong Pasir, a CCC and a CCMC. Under the present rules, it would appear that if all these bodies were given permits to hold pasar malams for one year, they would be allotted 44 days. Three days for each RC zone, making it 12 days, 16 days for the CCC and 16 days for the CCMC. All these add up to 44 days. Whereas for the opposition, we only have one organisation applying for pasar malam permit, ie, the town council. And we can only get 16 days for one year. So, where is the equality? If the full quota is given, the Government side will get two and three-quarter times more in number of days than the opposition. Perhaps the Minister could explain.

The other point I would like to bring up is with regard to application for future permits. The Minister has said that applications are open two months before 1st July 1997. Does it mean that the organisations will have to queue up the whole night before 31st May, just to be first in the queue? Perhaps the Minister can explain this point.

The Minister is fearful that there is a proliferation of pasar malams in housing estates. But I can assure the Minister, as far as the Potong Pasir Town Council is concerned, we have done it very responsibly. In fact, before a pasar malam is organised, we send men to go round and get clearance from the shopkeepers first. And if we are told that certain items cannot be sold, we will make sure that the pasar malam contractors are banned from selling those items, just like pillow cases and plastic pails.

As far as abusing the system is concerned, we can assure the Minister that we have never been guilty of that. I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that this is not the latest move to cut out the town council from ever holding a pasar malam.

Dr Ho Tat Kin: Sir, the amount of refuse produced by factories, offices and households has been doubling every 10 years. In 1995, this reached a record of 7,315 tonnes a day. Even a fourth incineration plant costing an estimated $1 billion by the year 2000, this will only provide temporary relief in getting rid of rubbish here. We therefore need to encourage households, factories and offices to reduce waste at source. While eliminating household refuse at source is more difficult to achieve, it may be easier to start with the factories and manufacturing plants.

To improve their competitive position, not incrementally but theoretically, forward-looking companies from around the world are embracing the ultimate environmental goal, ie, zero emission of waste. This means no smoke up the stack, no toxic chemicals down the drain and no trash to the dumping ground. This is not just a public relations move to support the green environment. It is also a cost saving and quality enhancement move for the company. By doing this, the factories eliminate waste before it is created. Two well-known Japanese companies, Nissan and Hitachi, are achieving this standard.

Retail business will need to re-engineer their service and eliminate unnecessary carrier bags and packaging, as well as other methods which would not lead to extra waste.

Sir, I would like to suggest that the Ministry form an advisory committee to advise retailers, factories and manufacturers on how to reduce waste at source. The Ministry can also consider various incentive schemes to help and motivate local factories to go for zero emission of waste.

The Chairman: Dr Koh Lip Lin, you can take your three subjects together.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.30 pm

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon South): ( In Mandarin): Sir, with population increase, social and economic development and a higher standard of living, there is a trend for Singaporeans to churn out more and more rubbish, including solid and liquid waste every year. The Minister and Dr Ho Tat Kin have already referred to this. The Ministry of the Environment treated 2.7 million tonnes of rubbish last year and 400 million cubic metres of sewage water. With so much waste, we need a lot of money and resources to treat them. The problem we face is that Singapore has limited land and there is continuous increase of rubbish and sewage water. At the moment, we can still cope, but what is going to happen in the future. I agree with Dr Ho Tat Kin that the most effective way is to treat it at source and that is to reduce the production of waste. In the industrial and commercial side we can do this. Generally speaking, among the residents and office workers we can also consider doing this.

There are a few ways that we can consider. One is the recycling of waste. This is not a new proposal. We have already experimented on this in several places in Singapore. That is the classification of waste to facilitate recycling. After this scheme was implemented I do not know what sort of achievement we have made. Can the Minister give us a progress report on this?

The next point is that we can educate the members of the public, businessmen and manufacturers in the packaging of their products. They should design the products in such a way that the packaging materials can be reduced as much as possible and to avoid unnecessary packaging or to use recyclable packaging materials.

The third way is to consider using a more flexible charging system for waste disposal so that people who generate more rubbish will have to pay more and those who generate less will pay less. For example, at the moment there is a standard flat rate charge for all the residential houses, ie, irrespective of the amount of rubbish you have, you pay the same rate. This kind of charging system does not encourage people to produce less rubbish. I ask the Minister to consider this point.

Next, let me deal with the disposal and treatment of solid waste. Dr Ho said just now that we treat over 7,000 tonnes of waste every day. About two-thirds of this is sent to incinerators and the remaining that cannot be burnt away is sent to Lorong Halus for land-fill dumping. With more and more rubbish being generated every year, we have increased the number of incinerators from one in 1979 to three. It would appear that after a few years we would have to build another incinerator. The Lorong Halus dumping ground will soon be completely filled.

Singapore is a very small country. It is not possible for us to continue building all kinds of incinerators and dumping grounds. In 1994, the Government decided to build in Pulau Semakau a rubbish land-fill. The increase in the number of incinerators and the building of dumping grounds in the outlying islands will cost more money. What sort of plans does the Government have for the future? Do we have to keep on increasing the rubbish collection fees and what will be the percentage of increase in the fees? Do we also intend to privatise the rubbish treatment business? After privatisation, will it lead to higher increases in fees? Will it be able to maintain the present standard of services?

Recently, residents living in landed property have a different kind of a rubbish collection system. In other words, rubbish cannot be put outside the house overnight. They must take out their rubbish every day in the morning. A reader wrote to the Lianhe Zaobao this morning, and expressed his unhappiness over this arrangement. I do not know what progress has the Ministry of the Environment achieved and what are their views on this.

Finally, Sir, I would like to refer to something that the Minister has mentioned, ie, environmental education. This is very important. To maintain public health and environmental cleanliness, we need also the cooperation from the people, apart from the efforts of the Government. This is because the people do not realise the importance of environmental health and cleanliness. The Ministry of the Environment, in conjunction with other Ministries, like the Ministry of Education and MITA, should launch educational and publicity programmes to ensure that Singaporean acquire good habits on environmental cleanliness, production and protection. I know that the Environment Ministry has done this but what is the result. What would be the emphasis in the future? I hope that the Ministry will also work in conjunction with the schools and grassroots organisations to make sure that environmental education can be promoted in keeping with our policy.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, the Government has decided to corporatise refuse collection and allow other private companies to compete for the business later on.

My concern is: how is the Government going to prevent what had happened to the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council in 1989 from happening again?

In 1989, the pilot Ang Mo Kio East Town Council engaged a private contractor to remove refuse. But the contractor abandoned his job when his workers stopped working because he got into financial trouble and could not pay them. The result, according to the 20th April 1989 issue of the Straits Times, was that 25 HDB blocks were affected and rubbish in the chutes piled up as high as two storeys in some blocks. The smell was so bad that residents living at the highest floor could not also bear it. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what measures he will take to handle this potential problem when refuse collection is privatised.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: First, allow me to respond to these issues of solid waste management and waste minimisation. I would like to thank all the Members for having made their contributions during this debate.

The amount of refuse generated in Singapore has increased significantly over the last decade. In 1985, Singaporeans generated 4,105 tonnes of refuse a day. Today, we are generating 7,315 tonnes of refuse per day. The continued increase will put a severe strain on our resources, namely, land and manpower.

There are three parts to solid waste management. They are waste generation, what we throw out and how much we throw out; waste collection, how we collect it from households, industries and commercial installations; and finally, waste disposal. Let me address the issue starting from the disposal end, ie, what do you do with it after you have collected it all.

Sir, exporting our waste is not an option. Some limited quantities of specialised recyclable waste could be exported but the rest must be dealt with locally. We either have to incinerate our waste or, for the waste that cannot be incinerated, we will have to bury them in perpetuity in sanitary land-fills.

When waste is incinerated, only about 10% remains as residual ash and this requires less space to dump and is therefore more land efficient. But for us, both methods, incineration as well as land-fill, are expensive. We will soon be building our fourth incinerator plant. It will be one of the largest in the world. It will have a capacity of 3,000 tonnes per day and will cost about $1 billion. Our estimate is that if the quantity of our refuse grows at the rate at which it has been growing, we will have to build one such $1 billion plant every five years or so, not counting the replacement of the older incinerator plant.

We will have to find the land to build the plants on, and each plant occupies a space of several football fields. We need to build incinerator plants because the alternative, which is to dump them in land-fills, is also not good for us because we just do not have enough land. In three years' time, our last dumping ground on the main island at Lorong Halus will be used up. We are spending about $1 billion over the next few years to build a new sanitary land-fill in Pulau Semakau. This will last us 30 years, perhaps 40 years, if we use it carefully. After that, there is no place else to go.

The high capital investments in disposal facilities are necessary. This is because we do not have vast tracts of waste land and large numbers of disused mining pits where we can keep on dumping refuse. We have to make heavy capital investments in order to make up for our shortages of land.

In Singapore today, we are charging about S$40 per tonne at our disposal facilities, whether it is in the incinerator plants or the dumping ground of Lorong Halus. In much larger countries, in the United States and Europe, the average disposal cost is about $120 per tonne.

Let me now turn to refuse collection. Refuse collection has already been highly mechanised in Singapore but manpower is still needed to collect the refuse from premises. We have to make the collection process as efficient as possible to keep costs down and to use as few people as possible. For these reasons, we have asked the public to cooperate. For those in landed properties, placing their refuse in plastic bags and leaving them outside their homes each morning before 9.00 am enables our collection workers to collect refuse more quickly and efficiently. We have successfully introduced this in many housing estates and received good response from the residents. Estates are neater and not cluttered by rubbish bins. This system has also been the experience of many overseas countries.

We also need public cooperation to reduce littering. Each piece of litter that is thrown has to be picked up by a man. But half the public cleansing workers in my Ministry are already more than 50 years old. What will happen in 10 ten years' time. We are not able to recruit many younger people to come and work for us. My colleagues in the House have said that in spite of extensive public education, the littering problem is still with us. I hope that those who question the need for tough littering laws will now understand the gravity of the problem and why in the space of, say, the next 10 years, we will have to completely change the mindset of Singaporeans with regard to littering and refuse collection.

To increase efficiency, our refuse collection service, which removes refuse from the domestic and trade premises will be corporatised on 1st April 1996. This is to allow the company greater flexibility to recruit, deploy and reward its staff. The current practice where refuse from industrial and commercial premises and some condominiums is collected by private waste collectors will continue. Eventually, we will open up the entire market to competition.

Competition will spur service providers to be more efficient and this will help to keep any future price increases to a minimum. This is the concern expressed by Dr Koh Lip Lin. Privatisation itself will not cause prices to rise. Privatisation will be a strong measure where market discipline is applied to waste collectors to keep them efficient and keep any price increases down to a minimum. The Ministry, of course, will regulate to ensure standards of collection are maintained and we will take into account the concerns expressed by Dr Chen about ensuring that service will not be disrupted, for example, by specifying minimum paid-up capital and track record of the companies. 4.45 pm

Members should know that about half the refuse in Singapore is already collected by private waste operators, and this comes from industrial and commercial premises. So the private waste collectors actually do have quite a lot of experience in collecting and dealing with wastes in Singapore.

Let me now go to the source. A number of Members have spoken about recycling and waste minimisation at the source where waste is generated. We need to learn to reduce, reuse and recycle. In particular, we are targeting our industries for recycling because a little more than 50% of the waste generated in Singapore is from industrial and commercial premises. And this is growing at a very rapid rate. In 1994, this grew at a rate of 12.7%. Last year, this grew at a staggering 20%, accounting for almost the entire increase in refuse collected last year.

Dr Ho suggested a zero emission programme. I think this is in practice very difficult to achieve. We have to look at the economics of this - to have no smoke, no waste water, no waste products. It is going to be a very difficult and expensive thing to achieve. We can achieve the first step, which is to try and minimise wastage, and for this we do have a Waste Minimisation Department in my Ministry which works with industries and also with the Singapore Environment Council which has got quite a few active companies involved in trying to encourage companies to reduce wastage, to recycle, and to reuse.

Today, already 38% of our refuse is being recycled and again they come mainly from the industries, because it is much more efficient to recycle industrial waste. Recycling must be an economically viable activity. Otherwise, it will just remain a fad and it cannot be sustained in the long term. My Ministry will do more to encourage recycling. Several new recycling plants handling horticultural waste and wood waste have been opened at Sarimbun Recycling Park. This was originally the Lim Chu Kang land fill. In just last year, we had, as I said, horticultural waste and wood waste recyling plants and we are looking at a tyre recycling plant.

Finally, as suggested by Dr Koh again, we want to bring the cost of disposal closer to the generator of the waste. Those who throw out more rubbish should bear a proportionately higher part of the cost. My Ministry is looking at the various ways of achieving this. We are doing these studies. In landed properties, there are many models to go for. In Europe, America, Australia and Korea, there are various systems, either a fixed charge for a rubbish bin of a fixed size, or tags which you pay for, or rubbish bags which are standard and cost a certain price. But very few countries have the experience of working with what they call "community housing" which is a large block of flats, many people living together, sharing a common rubbish chute, common rubbish facility. To allocate the cost specifically to each household in such a situation is very difficult, although it would be possible to allocate it either to a town council, or precinct or even a block, in which case, there will then be some encouragement for the town council or precinct or block also to do waste minimisation.

My Ministry will be looking at the various possibilities. We have not completed the studies and when we do so, we will inform the public and seek their cooperation. I am sure with public understanding and cooperation, we will be able to keep our cost down and continue to maintain a high standard of refuse management which is crucial to our strategy for a clean environment.

I will now move on to littering and CWOs. Encik Ibrahim asked for an assessment of the CWOs. Sir, last year, 5,707 litterbugs were caught for littering. This was an increase from the 4,201 in 1994. There are various reasons for this, one of which is increased enforcement because of issues brought up by Members of the House during the debate last year. Of these 5,707 litterbugs who were caught last year, 383 were served with CWOs. This again is an increase from the 316 in 1994 and 309 in 1993.

What can we do with littering? We have an education programme to keep Singapore clean and green since 1960, and this is something which we have to persist in. As I have said earlier, we cannot depend on armies of cleansing workers nor can we depend on platoons of enforcement officers to keep our environment clean. We have to depend on Singaporeans to feel that it is worth their while to do so. So public education is one of the most important things and we will be working with the schools, for example, to form environmental clubs. We will be working with the institutes of higher learning to get the students to become involved with keeping their environment clean and green. And I believe that when they do so, they will be much less inclined to litter indiscriminately or to forgetfully drop a bus ticket or a plastic bag unthinkingly. And also there will be an atmosphere where a person will feel bad to throw litter away because he knows others are watching him and this is not the thing that is done in our society. That alone, unfortunately, may not be enough.

We have various announcements about linking upgrading to cleanliness and so forth. I think there is some merit in that once Singaporeans realise that littering is something which affects them. If somebody litters, it affects them directly, because it dirties the place, and what they have to pay for cleansing goes up. It affects the ambience of the place and the value of their properties and so forth. I think Singaporeans may be motivated to be a little more proactive in telling people who litter, "Please don't do this. You are doing me harm too." It is not just a piece of paper on the ground that is doing nobody any harm; it is doing me some direct harm; it is doing our environment and Singapore some direct harm. So we hope that with some of these measures, we will be able to continue to drive the anti-littering message through to Singaporeans.

Sense of shame - CWOs. Yes, those who litter should have a sense of shame for carrying out an anti-social act. I agree with Dr Chen that CWO is something which should not be trivialised and therefore I would appeal to members of the public, and the press as well, not to trivialise this. There must be a sense of shame that they have done something anti-social. The picking of refuse itself is not something shameful. In fact, the picking up of refuse is something which should be encouraged. If you are walking along the street, it should be quite a noble thing to do, bend down and pick up that cigarette box or the plastic bag which you see there and dispose of it in the right place. So the act of picking up rubbish or cleaning up the place is in itself not shameful. Those who carry out CWOs should be shameful because, in the first place, they carry out an anti-social act, something which is not good for their fellow Singaporeans and their neighbours. That is a sense of shame that we want to get across to those who litter, and especially those who are served with CWOs.

I will move on now to hawker centres. Mr Chin expressed some concern about food prices. Since the launch of the Stall Ownership Scheme in April 1994, a total of 1,210 stallholders in eight hawker centres have bought their stalls. Some 147 stallholders have subsequently resold their stalls at prices above the original purchase prices. Typically, a market produce stallholder makes a profit of about $20,000 upon resale, while a cooked food stallholder makes a profit of about $60,000. There is of course quite a wide range. In the extreme, some have made three or four times more. However, surveys on food prices show that the majority of stallholders have maintained their prices after buying their stalls. Market produce prices remained largely unchanged. Prices at 25% of the cooked food stalls have risen by 10 to 50 cents. So prices at some of the cooked food stalls have indeed gone up. But these increases were similar to increases experienced in other centres. They have gone up in those centres where the stalls have been sold, but they have also gone up at about the same rate as those centres where the stalls have not been sold.

Overall, prices are still comparable to those in other hawker centres where stalls have not been sold. To remain competitive, stallholders have become more efficient. They are open for longer hours. They have been able to generate more business from the same stall either by operating it themselves for longer hours or sub-letting it. And the customers have also benefited from the longer opening hours and a larger variety of food.

Has it increased cost pressures? The monthly loan repayments, property tax, service and conservancy charges, when added up, are still lower than the rentals paid by stallholders in coffeeshops in the same area. Food at hawker centres and at coffeeshops is comparable in price. So really it is the efficiency of operation which is the key, and we have seen an increase in efficiency of operation and the use of the stalls in those centres where the stalls have been sold.

To regulate food prices, I am afraid this is something which is not going to be very practical. We do not regulate prices in Singapore and to regulate prices of many food items in many centres is not going to be workable. Nevertheless, we understand the public's concern about food prices. It is a good suggestion and my Ministry will be taking this up.

We intend to sell some stalls to NTUC Foodfare Cooperative Limited. Just like NTUC Fairprice which gives consumers a fair price on household goods and provisions, NTUC Foodfare will play a similar role in hawker centres helping to stabilise prices and provide a marker for both quality and service. We will also look at how we can let NTUC Foodfare operate a whole hawker centre. This, we are in discussion with them. So this will help to allay the concerns that Singaporeans have about food prices getting out of hand.

Since both stallholders and consumers have given good feedback on the first two phases of the scheme, my Ministry will launch the third phase of the sale programme in the middle of this year. The details will be announced later.

Encik Ibrahim asked what is the time frame for the whole programme. This is a long-term programme and we have talked about 10 years before. We have not changed our time-frame, and will depend on support from hawkers and consumers. 5.00 pm

Mr Chiam has raised the subject of pasar malams again. We had a fairly long exchange on this about three weeks ago. I did not notice any new points that Mr Chiam has brought up. So, unfortunately, I am going to have to give him the same reply. The allocation of dates and the number of times in the various constituencies is completely fair. All the constituencies are treated in exactly the same way. Mr Chiam has got some of his calculations wrong. It is not that the CC, CCC, CCMC and the town council have 16 days each. All of them have 16 days. They have one opportunity and from my perspective, that sounds reasonable. The residents in a particular constituency will have the benefit of having one 16-day fair. Residents in each of the Residents' Committees' areas will have the benefit of having a three-day fair, so that the stallholders are not unduly inconvenienced.

I am also glad to know that Mr Chiam, when he does organise such fairs, takes care to make sure that all the rules and regulations are followed. That is certainly very commendable. And if he continues to do so, I see no difficulty because that is about what we are asking for under the rules anyway.

I will request the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to answer the other questions.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Clarification from the Minister.

The Chairman: Can you let Mr Ho reply first, and then you can have your clarification?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Ho Kah Leong): Sir, may I respond to the points which were so vividly raised by the hon. Member for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chin Harn Tong, just now. Firstly, be brought up the issue of road littering.

Sir, let me assure the Member as well as the House that my Ministry is as concerned as the Member in keeping our public roads clean. In fact, every contractor is required to ensure that vehicles leaving the work site will not litter the roads with earth from the wheels. For large construction work sites where a lot of vehicle movements are expected, the contractor will provide a wash bay at the exit of the site. Every vehicle leaving the site will have its wheels and undercarriage washed. The washings are channelled to a silt trap where the silt is separated. The driver of a vehicle that causes earth littering on the road will be prosecuted under the Environmental Public Health Act.

Sir, for the information of the Member and the House, in 1995, 851 summonses were taken against such offenders. If the Member comes across any vehicle littering our roads with mud in future, I suggest he should keep my Ministry informed.

Sir, the next issue brought up by the Member is in regard to date marking of foodstuff. I wish to inform the Member that not all foods are required to be date marked. Those that are required by law to be date marked are listed in the food regulations. At present, a total of 19 groups of prepacked food products are required to be date marked. These are foods which can perish or deteriorate in quality during storage. Generally, these foods have a relatively short shelf life. Some of the foods that are required to be date marked are milk, milk products, tofu, flour, raisin and cooking oil.

Sir, we do not require canned food to be date marked because they are sterilised during canning and will not spoil over a long period of storage. These foods have a long shelf life.

Sir, My Ministry does not intend to date mark all foods since there is no need to, from public health considerations. Unnecessary date marking will pose problems to retailers. Customers are known to avoid foods that have an earlier expiry date and choose one that expires later even when the food is to be consumed soon after purchase. Such consumer behaviour can lead to wastage and financial loss.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Clarification from the Minister. The new point that I have raised is the fear that with a change of ground rules, my Town Council shall be shut out from holding pasar malams. Can the Minister give an assurance that this will not happen?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I do not quite understand this issue about town councils being shut out. The residents in every constituency have the same opportunities. Each constituency has 16 days in which they can have a major fair. So the residents in every constituency enjoy the same opportunity to have a 16-day fair. So I really do not understand Mr Chiam's point.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Now the ground rules have been changed. A permit for two years is given at once. In the past, it was a yearly affair. So every time one of the PAP grassroots organisations has applied, they get two years' quota at a stretch. If they are given two years' quota every time, the town council will not have a chance to hold any pasar malam at all.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: As I have explained, the processing of the applications is done in the same way for all the constituencies. The way I look at it is that the interests of the residents have to be looked after. The interests of the shopkeepers and stallholders in the constituency have to be looked after. That seems to me to be more important than the perspective which Mr Chiam is taking, which is, the interest of his Town Council must be looked after. It seems a rather strange perspective to take.

The Chairman: I remember the answer was given three weeks ago. We are getting the same answer.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Not on this new point.

The Chairman: What is the new point?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Under the new ground rules, we are shut out forever. The Minister has not given us an assurance. He says that everybody gets the same chance. But it is not like that when it is worked out.

The Chairman: Can you give him a one minute reply?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Just to illustrate my point. Potong Pasir Town Council actually held a fair from 19th to 21st September 1994. So Potong Pasir Town Council did hold the fair and to say that they cannot hold the fair is obviously not true.

Mr Chiam See Tong: With effect from July 1995, you changed the plan.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: Sir, I think Mr Chiam is happy with the answer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3), Dr Wang.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MD 1500.

Sir, there are two items on our monthly utility bills relating to the handling of household sewerage. Both items are collected by PUB on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment. The first is the water-borne fee at 10 cents per unit and the second is the sanitary appliance fee at $3 per toilet per month. I am not complaining about the charges, Sir. I think they are very reasonable. In fact, those charges have not been changed for several years. I suspect that the amount collected does not even go towards recovering the cost of operation or the treatment.

However, what I would like to address is the basis for these charges. I find the basis for the first fee reasonable but that for the second is not in tune with the time. Because Singaporeans have become more affluent and more and more of us are staying in homes with more than one toilet. In fact, all HDB flats, from 3-room flat upwards, have two toilets and the number of toilets would increase in the case of condominiums and private homes. However, the number of people living in a house does not automatically go up when the house gets bigger. In fact, often times, the smaller the housing unit, the higher the number of occupants. As the amount of waste produced is actually dependent on the number of persons and not on the number of toilets per household, I think the current formula for charging sanitary fees needs a review. This formula might be appropriate in the old days when housing was in short supply and people lived in crowded quarters. In those days, the higher the number of toilets, the higher the number of occupants and therefore the higher the amount of waste.

Today, thanks to the successful housing programme by this Government, the situation is completely different. People prefer more toilets in their homes for the convenience and not to squeeze in more people. So I think the current formula penalises people who opt for more convenience. I know the fee of $3 per toilet per month is not a large amount. Even in the largest home with four or five toilets, we are talking about no more than $15 per month. But the basic principle seems out of place. This formula reminds me of the formula used by Singapore Telecom when they charged for every extension phone in the house. Today, Singapore Telecom has moved on to the time-based system where the charge is based on usage and it no longer charges for an extension line.

Sir, I suggest that the MOE follow the same principle and scrap the sanitary appliance fee. Perhaps, an entirely usage-based water borne fee could be implemented and this new structure can go a long way also to control the amount of waste generated as well.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, the Member is right that the sewerage fees comprise two components, a fixed fee and a variable one. The sanitary appliance fee, which is the fixed fee component, is based on the number of sanitary appliances. It is a charge towards the cost of providing the sewerage infrastructure which I think the Member should have no quarrel. The water borne fee, which is the variable component, is based on the actual usage, that is, the amount of water used. If you have less people in your household, of course you use less water. So it is a charge towards the cost of sewerage treatment. Sir, my Ministry feels that the present system of fixed and variable charges is a reasonable one and we have no intention of changing it.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, I think the reply does not address my point about the fixed fee. The fixed fee should be based on the number of persons in the household and not based on the number of appliances which you have already paid for when you built the house or when there was a levy on property tax and so on. So I thought the fixed fee formula should be changed.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, the points are taken. If there is a need to review them, we will take the points into consideration.

The Chairman: Would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Yes. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4), Dr Koh is not here. Amendment No. (5), Encik Ibrahim. 5.15 pm

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MF 1500.

Sir, the Ministry has done a wonderful job in cleaning up the Singapore River and also the Kallang and Geylang River basin. I think marine life has begun to come back. And the coastal areas, especially along the East Coast, have become a very popular place for Singaporeans. While we can be proud of the clean water areas south of the island, I think the same cannot be true in areas on the northern part of the island, ie, in the Straits of Johor. The water in the Johor Straits is polluted due to uncontrolled discharge of waste from both sides, Singapore and Johor. I wish to ask the Minister what steps are being taken by the Ministry to ensure the cleanliness of the Johor Straits.

Next, I move on to noise pollution. Singapore has become fully urbanised. We are living more close to each other and noise becomes a problem amongst residents, especially those living along MRT lines and facing main roads. I wish to ask the Minister whether the noise generated by MRT trains are at an acceptable level, and whether it affects residents living in HDB blocks situated beside MRT tracks and stations.

Another source of noise irritation comes from motorcycles. During my house visits, I often get complaints from residents about motorcycles emitting loud noises, especially during late nights and early hours of the morning. These motorcyclists tend to speed and thus rev up their engines, much to the annoyance of residents living along main roads, because it affects their sleep. I wish to ask the Minister whether the Ministry has any plans to overcome this irritation.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, I also wish to reflect a similar noise problem. A few HDB blocks in my constituency are located next to Bukit Batok Road. I have visited residents there a number of times since a few years ago. The latest visit I made was during the recent Lunar New Year and Hari Raya period. Each time during my visit, residents there complained that the noise from the vehicular traffic along Bukit Batok Road was quite unbearable. This is not something which they, after living there for a while, can get used to. Because every time I go there, they will repeat the same complaint. They told me that sometimes in the middle of the night, a single motorbike screeching through would wake everybody up in the house. Many of them have asked me to seek help from the Environment Ministry. They have asked whether the Ministry could work with other Ministries to implement the following measures:

(1) Resurface the road and coat it with noise absorbing material;

(2) Erect noise barriers, so that the noise will not travel up into the flats;

(3) Instal a speed camera at the stretch of road near their blocks of flats.

May I know whether the Minister would look into such noise pollution problems and help my constituents?

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg your indulgence. Rather than answering the questions on pollution in a piecemeal manner, I would like to use the opportunity to say something about the principles upon which we do pollution management in Singapore.

Our policy has always been to tackle pollution at source in various ways, which I will enumerate for air, water pollution and, lately, also for noise pollution. Air pollution, for example, comes from fuel burning equipment. And to control air pollution, we therefore specify the design of the fuel burning equipment, eg, how a car is designed, whether it needs catalytic converters. We specify the quality of the fuel to be used, eg, unleaded fuel. Then we specify the performance standards of the equipment that is used to clean the exhaust gases. For example, in some of the factories, we have electrostatic precipitators and other devices to clean exhaust gases.

Careful land use planning and control of pollution at source have ensured that the air we breathe meets international standards. And because our roads are not clogged up and our city is not choked with traffic, our lungs are also not clogged up and we also are not choked by vehicle emissions. We have achieved these high standards despite the fact that we are one of the most industrialised countries in the world. Lead in the air, for example, is 0.1 micro grammes per normal metre cube, as compared with the US EPA standard of 1.5 micro grammes per normal metre cube. We are only 0.1.

We have also worked closely with our neighbouring countries to control and mitigate the effects of transboundary air pollution. Members of the House are familiar with the complex system that brings fresh water to our homes and workplaces. But they are probably less aware that an equally complex, costly and extensive system of pipes, pumps and treatment plants has been built and is operated by my Ministry to collect practically every drop of water that comes out of our taps and treat it before discharge into the sea. I believe we are one of the few nations to be fully sewered. We charge reasonably for it as well. I was not sure what Dr Wang was after just now when he was comparing sewerage charges with telecom charges. I thought he might be going for time-based charging for using toilet facilities!

Our open drains and water courses are meant to carry clean rain water. And water from 42% of our land area, including heavily built-up areas, such as Bedok and Tampines New Town, flows straight into our reservoirs, water that we eventually drink. Hence, my Ministry has been taking firm action against anyone who pollutes our drains and rivers. And Singaporeans should also remember that every piece of litter that is not picked up will eventually find its way into our rivers, and then end up in our reservoirs or in the sea. Unlike in the former days when our rivers were convenient dumping grounds, they are now an attraction, and rather than turning their backs to the rivers, residents now prefer their houses to face the rivers. We have come a long way and we must not slacken.

Members have asked about the Johor Straits. I would like to inform Members that I have met with the Malaysian Minister for Science, Technology and Environment last year, and also the Chairman of the Johor State Committee on Environment and Consumer Affairs, to work out a joint five-year action programme to clean up the Straits of Johor. The plan involves identifying sources of pollution, making action plans to tackle them, exchanging information and monitoring progress. The plan is scheduled to be ready by the middle of this year.

The Government also takes steps to monitor and control noise pollution. Over the years, my Ministry, together with URA, LTA and MRTC, has made sure that our urban infrastructure and our urbanisation do not lead to excessive noise pollution. For example, MRTC has incorporated features, such as continuously welded tracks and wooden sleepers and uses low-noise wheels, to keep the noise down at MRT stations.

We also set noise standards for motor vehicles, including motorcycles. These are international standards. It is not practical to have my officers posted in every part of Singapore at all times of the day and night to look out for that lone motorcyclist. So we have tried to do it at the registration and the inspection end. Noise from motorcycles, with illegally modified or ineffective silencers, is a problem. Last year, 1,085 motorcycles were booked for excessive noise. So my Ministry, together with LTA, is taking action against motorcycles.

We have tightened the noise requirements for motorcycles from 106 dba to 99 dba, from 1st January this year. And we will be working with LTA for tighter enforcement.

The suggestions that Dr Chen has raised for resurfacing the roads and so forth, I can take them up with LTA. I am sure that if he wants a speed camera there, the Traffic Police will be glad to oblige.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman: Sir, I thank the Minister for his answer and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $301,865,470 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $542,654,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head J -

The Chairman: Head J - Ministry of Community Development. Amendment (1), Mrs Yu-Foo.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, one special characteristic of this year's Budget is that it is pro-family, one that enhances family cohesiveness.

I am happy to note that for the last three years, the budget allocated for the Ministry of Community Development has been gradually increased. For FY96, the allocation for the Ministry of Community Development is $379 million, which is $130 million or 9% more than the revised expenditure for FY95. In this allocation, the People's Association gets the most, some $90 million to finance its various operations and activities. This includes the promotion of more social activities, development of new plans which include building of more recreational facilities at void decks, upgrading of Residents' Committee facilities and promotion of social cohesiveness and community spirit. Besides that, we have also provisions for expenditure on Small Families Improvement Scheme, and the scheme to help low-income families. More importantly, in order to assist working mothers, the subsidy for child-care centres has been increased to more than $40 million. In addition, the expenses also include building homes for the aged, and subsidies for the construction and maintenance of facilities for organisations looking after the disabled and low-income families.

In order to encourage our citizens to have a strong and healthy physique, this Budget has allocated more than $30 million for the development of sports facilities.

As in previous years, the allocation for social and community development this year takes up 42% of the total budget. But the expenditure for the Ministry of Community Development is only 2% of this amount, the second lowest among all the Heads of expenditures, the lowest being the Ministry of Information and the Arts.

As we are approaching the status of a developed nation, we have to make a lot of adjustments. What I am concerned about is, for the last 20-30 years, our economic development has been advancing rapidly. With the changes in social structure and functions, the expectations and needs of our citizens in terms of clothing, housing, food, transport and material needs are now different from the past. Due to a higher standard and quality of living, the needs of the citizens and their expectations have increased.

In this Budget, will the Minister consider spending more money on the promotion of public education and social awareness? I feel that for a nation, while pursuing economic development, it should also concentrate on developing a gracious society. Although the latter's performance cannot be measured by statistics, the benefits of a gracious society are long term.

Besides defending the country, the promotion of individual stability and proper family values, moral standards, family and social cohesiveness are also important. I hope that more funds could be allocated to these areas. It should be treated as a long-term investment to attain our goal of enhancing better social behaviour of the individuals in particular, and the community in general, building up stronger family ties, and making Singapore a nation of happy people.

In the past 10 years, our income has increased by an average of 5.9% every year. The Government has introduced various measures to increase the assets of the people. At a time when most Singaporeans are enjoying comfortable lives, there is still a small group of people who are having problems in making ends meet in their daily lives. They are unable to keep pace with our economic development, and may be depressed because of family problems or pressure from work. Although the Government, charitable organisations, religious bodies, voluntary organisations, and grassroots organisations have extended a helping hand to them, I hope that our society would also find some ways to help these less fortunate and poor people, while pursuing economic development. We should help members of these families to get out of their hardship and poverty as soon as possible. No doubt, we do not advocate welfarism, but we could try counselling and train them to be self-reliant and self-supporting.

The role and portfolio of the Ministry of Community Development have been expanding over the years. I suggest that the role to be played by MCD should be fine-tuned in line with the time, the target group and the demand. They should not be confined to its traditional role and modes of operation. Otherwise, the Ministry may find itself unable to cope with the increasing demand, and because of limited resources it may conveniently transfer its responsibilities to other organisations, thereby affecting their efficiency.

We know that the scope of service and the service target of the Ministry of Community Development are getting more and more sophisticated and they are expanding. It is now serving a wide spectrum of people and involving various activities, starting from creches to teenager's problems, problems of the aged, the handicapped and the lower income families and also to settle family disputes. It also includes the promotion of family values and civics education. Under the proposed amendment to the Women's Charter, it has to help in the mediation and conciliation in family disputes. It has to enhance social cohesiveness, liaise with grassroots organisations and provide sports activities for the people.

Although we are unable to quantify the work of the Ministry of Community Development, its mission and responsibility and duties have far-reaching effect on the nation as well as everyone of its citizens. I would like to ask the Minister whether, with the widening scope of activities, we have new plans to cope with the requirements of the various quarters. Secondly, how do we enhance our cooperation with other organisations and to tap their resources, coordinate activities and plans with them so as to attain our target? Thirdly, with the present resources, are they enough to cope with the promotion of these activities, particularly those activities which have to be sustained over a long period of time? Also, are we having enough manpower and expertise to cope with the increasing volume of work in future?

Mr Chandra Das: Self-help groups like Mendaki, CDAC, SINDA and the Singapore Eurasian Association have done much to help their respective communities.

Also, the organisations have the support of their respective communities. Government assistance and support has also been extremely useful. When these organisations were set up, the primary role envisaged was that of the upliftment of the educational standards and levels of persons concerned. As such, Sir, I must congratulate them as they have done much in the field of education for the various groups. The tuition classes and the various motivational programmes have certainly helped many border line students. We have also seen improvement in performance of the students in the various landmark examinations.

Today, the role of the self-help groups has extended well beyond providing tuition for weaker students. They also cater for brighter students in the community. The self-help groups are also now getting actively involved in other areas, such as provision of family services, vocational training and, more recently, drug abuse, just to mention a few.

Sir, these activities are inter-related and it is also connected with the problem of low academic achievement. The self-help groups cannot but get involved in these new areas. Also, Sir, they are well placed to take on this additional role.

Sir, if the individual communities can help and do well and solve part of the problems, then the nation would be richer for it.

The respective communities have been supportive of the programmes, both in terms of providing voluntary services as well as making financial contributions through the CPF cbeck-off scheme.

Sir, these organisations are finding it more and more difficult to finance the new and additional programmes. There is certainly a limit as to what volunteers can do. These organisations can do with additional funding from the Government. With additional funding, I believe the self-help groups can do much more.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the various support and assistance given to the self-help groups in Singapore. Also, whether he is satisfied with the work and progress of these self-help groups.

Lastly, whether his Ministry or the Government has any plans for giving them additional funding.

The Chairman: Dr Vasoo, you can take the two amendments together.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I will proceed with the two amendments that I have.

Sir, first, I would like to persuade and urge the Minister and perhaps to nudge him to see whether he could increase the subventions for voluntary organisations. I hope that he is not affected by compassion fatigue as a result of my urging him over the years. But I know that he is looking actively into it.

First, many voluntary organisations have expanded their work and they are playing a major role in the voluntary welfare field. Increasingly, over the years, they have been expected to undertake many other functions, right from the services for children to the elderly. With the increasing role, thet face a burden in terms of funding and they need to find additional funds to deliver these services.

The second cogent reason is that fund raising has become very competitive. There are many organisations out there, including the self-help organisations and others. They are competing for funds and many of these organisation are approaching the same pool of people and persuading them to contribute. I think many Singaporeans are doing their fair bit and I must say that they have been very charitable. But then the donor pool is limited and therefore it poses a problem for many of these organisations.

The third cogent reason is that many of the organisations have outdated and old facilities which require to be upgraded. This also poses a problem for them to find additional funds to renovate their buildings and upgrade the facilities.

The Government has helped by providing a dollar-for-dollar funding programme but this formula needs to be reviewed. Perhaps a better formula of 60-40 funding might be helpful to many of these organisations.

As we know, the Community Chest, which is a national voluntary organisation in terms of funding, has been able to raise and distribute about $37 million this year to the various charitable organisations. The Community Chest itself is finding increasing difficult to raise the dollar. I feel that perhaps the Government could consider boosting their Share programme, which is contributed by the public, by matching on a dollar-for- dollar basis, up to a cap, to meet funding needs. Perhaps by doing so, the Government will be able to encourage others in the community to further fund the Community Chest to help other voluntary organisations. They are providing useful services to the community. In short, I feel that it is urgent to review the funding formula itself so that the voluntary organisations could be helped to deliver new programmes which are expected of them, and also to reduce the burden of fund raising. This will also enable those who manage the voluntary organisations to redeploy their time to look at how they could efficiently deliver services and manage their organisation more effectively.

What I want to find out from the Ministry is the amount of grants that has been given out over the years, the amount of funds allocated to voluntary organisations and whether the Ministry could look at the issue of providing on a dollar-for-dollar basis to fund new areas of services and help to relieve organisations of their burden of fund raising.

Sir, we should ask ourselves this question. If tomorrow, many of these organisations cease to operate and they have real funding problem, would the community be any better? I do not think so. Many of these organisations are promoted and supported by volunteers. We should try and assist these volunteers to do a better job and help them to manage these organisations more effectively. We should try and see how their task could be made more effective and efficient and we should persuade many other volunteers from the community to do their fair bit and to help others who are less better off in our community. I feel the Government can provide a signal by doing its fair share in encouraging and supporting voluntary organisations to relieve their funding problem. The voluntary organisations can do a better job and I hope that the Government can do its part to support them by bringing sunshine to the lives of those who are less better off.

The other issue that I would like to bring up is the challenge of new emerging social problems and issues that our society will face by the turn of the century. The problems of the care of the aged will become very acute. In 20 years from now, it is expected that one in five families in Singapore will have an aged parent. A large proportion of these families are likely to have parents who are disabled and aged sick. In this respect, many of these families too require the support to manage the aged sick members of their household. This problem is likely to become very acute and I am glad the Government is taking various measures to see how these families could be supported, how the aged themselves could be kept healthy and able to manage the tertiary aspects of their life. 5.45 pm

The other crucial factor that we are likely to face is the problem of youth aggression and delinquency. By the turn of the century, we will confront the problem of affluence and youth delinquency would be one area that we need to address.

The other aspect will be singlehood and I think there will be a growing number of persons who will remain single and unsupported and, to some extent, they are the community's problem. One needs to look at that. There are also increasing signs of family breakdowns and domestic conflicts, which will be an emerging problem. Our community needs to address it. The problem of latch-key children is likely to come about as many parents are going out to work, particularly those low-income families.

Finally, the erosion of social values. This and others are some emerging problems that our community is likely to face. All these problems will have to be examined more carefully to see what we can do to rally the community to deal with them by the turn of the century.

What I wish to enquire, Sir, is whether the Ministry have got plans to deal with the new emerging problems that we expect in the near future. In the interim, the Ministry has set up the Inter-Ministry Committee to study the problems and it has come out with a report to deal with dysfunctional families, juvenile delinquency and drug abuse. What I want to find out from the Minister is what plans has the Ministry made so far in the implementation of the Report of this Inter-Ministry Committee? What are the plans that the Ministry is likely to implement in the next two years to address these urgent problems?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Sir, in recent years, the Government has been advocating the cultivation of a more caring society. Looking at the social services available now, most Singaporeans who need help are being helped by the voluntary charitable organisations and volunteer social workers. These voluntary organisations are the main force behind our caring society. They are the ones looking after the under-privileged people in our society. The Government has been pushing away its responsibility of looking after these unfortunate people to these volunteer social workers, charitable and religious organisations. The Government thinks that by providing 50% of the operating expenses, it has already fulfilled its social obligations. As a result, these organisations not only have to look for volunteers to do social work, but also devote a large portion of their time and efforts to go all over Singapore to raise funds to meet the other 50% of the expenses. This is the so-called social services provided by the Government.

No doubt the Government can provide figures to say that they have done their part, but from what I have seen, the situation is indeed regrettable.

Sir, according to a report in the Straits Times dated 22nd May 1995, some 166 handicapped children are waiting for places in the two special schools in Singapore. I quote: "There are a total of 166 children waiting to enter just these two institutions and they may have to wait for years."

On 9th September 1995, again in the Straits Times, there was a report with the caption: "Long Waiting List for Autistic Programme". It seems that some have waited for up to 3 years for admission to the programme.

On 21st November 1995, the Straits Times carried this headline on its home page: "What I Want for Christmas? A Roof That Does Not Leak, please?" highlighting the plague suffered by Ramakrishnan Mission Boys' Home.

On 25th December 1995, again in the Straits Times, I quote: "A 56-year old woman went into shock when her husband died and kept his body in their Housing Board flat for days before police found them on Friday night."

These are some problems we read from newspaper reports. They are many more social problems not reported in the newspapers.

Sir, the Government is advocating a more caring society. We should not only ask Singaporeans to dig out from their pockets to do charitable work. We should show more care and concern for our fellow citizens. The Government is providing only very limited resources and they are leaving it to the voluntary organisations to do all the work.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, the Singapore Family Values Committee was set up in 1992 with a $1 million fund to promote these values for a period of five years. It is part of the plan to promote the five shared values which have been identified in the White Paper on Nation Building. During the first year of the setting up of this Committee, various projects have been implemented. However, since then the visibility of the promotion has diminished.

During the last five to 10 years, the fabric or structure of an average Singaporean family changes rapidly. This is due to many factors such as rapid urbanisation, more and more females entering the workforce, pressure of career building and an increasingly competitive environment. More working mothers mean that parents will have less time for their children. Young married couples tend to neglect the elders. The number of divorce cases has increased steadily through the years and more and more aged parents are having problems with their children.

While we all recognise the importance of upholding our traditional family values, we can see that these values are slowly being eroded. We must find ways and means to halt this trend, as family values are one of the most important pillars of a strong and stable nation. Therefore, it is important to intensify our effort to promote the virtues of family values. In this respect, a sum of $1 million is much too small to sustain a meaningful campaign. Organising one or two projects will most likely exceed the budget of $200,000 per year. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can source a larger funding for his Ministry in order to achieve the objective of the Singapore Family Values Committee.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan (Nominated Member): Sir, the female labour force participation rate has increased from nearly 30% in 1970 to 50% in 1995. In other words, half of all women of ages 15 and over are either working or looking for work. However, the labour force participation rates for the age groups where women are most likely to be mothers of young children are even higher. For the 25 to 29 age group, it was 77%; the 30 to 34 age group, 64%; and 35 to 39 age group, 58%. Note that the female labour force participation rates are higher for the younger age groups than for the older. In other words, it has probably become more the norm than the exception for women to continue working after they become mothers.

Singapore is short of labour and women can contribute to society by working. My question is: are there implications for the quality of child care of the increased female labour force participation rate and in particular of working mothers? Is there a danger that the quality of child care will suffer? Is there any evidence linking the increased lack of discipline, for example, in schools to the lack of quality child care at home, or of the rise in juvenile delinquency? I simply do not know. In terms of child care itself, one can say that it all depends on the quality of child care, whether there are extended family members and/or domestic help who share the responsibility of looking after the children during the day, the quality of child care centres, and so on. Societal factors, friends, etc, also play a part. Nevertheless, I think that this complex question does bear some thorough examination.

I would like to propose that the Ministry of Community Development initiate a research project on the societal implications of the increasing female labour force participation rate in Singapore, particularly on the implications for child care. We have already emphasised the importance of having children, three or more if you can afford it. This is to correct the rapid decline in the national birth rate in the past. I believe that since the beginning of this policy, the birth rate has indeed gone up. However, this is not enough. In the bringing up of the young generation, to realise their full potential in the future there is probably no other more important factor than that of the parents, and for the younger children, that of the role of the mother. If indeed the results of the study do show that there is a positive link between working mothers and child care, then as a society, we need to do something about it. If not, and if the results show that there is no relationship, then there is nothing to worry about in terms of the increased female labour force participation rate. In my mind, it is always better to leave no stone unturned than to discover the mistake 20 years too late.

The Chairman: Mrs Yu-Foo.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: Sir, could I speak on my amendment tomorrow?

The Chairman: Do I have the assent of Members that we stop here?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

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

The Minister for Community Development (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1996/1997, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.