TOWN COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang asked whether my Ministry will release the study of cyclical works. In fact, I would encourage every Town Council to do this study on their own. They would know what they are required to do to undertake the cyclical works over the next five and 10 years. I would urge Members to do a cash flow analysis of their sinking fund situation over the next five to 10 years. I am sure some Members have done so and some Members must have realised that they need to build up their sinking funds to a better level to be able to meet the increasing cost of cyclical maintenance in the future.

The second point he asked was: why is it necessary to seek the approval of HDB to maintain or establish facilities on the common property. This is a similar point that Mr Ling How Doong raised. We had this debate some time in the past. The amendment is to establish the fact that the common property in the HDB estates belongs to HDB, the landlord. The Town Councils were established to maintain the common property. The Town Councils do not own the common property and therefore the amendment is to establish in no uncertain terms the relationship between a Town Council and HDB. You will need the written permission of HDB as the landlord to maintain or establish new facilities within the estate on the common property.

Some Members raised examples of some improvements or some changes which they wanted to do but which did not get the expeditious reply from HDB. I will be happy if they send me the details and I will get HDB to explain the time taken. Mr Ling, for example, wanted to know why the wishing well took so long. Perhaps if he has his wishing well, it will come faster. But covered walkway is a standard requirement and I am surprised to hear that he faced difficulties. I am sure Mr Chiam - he is not here - has put up many covered walkways in Potong Pasir and I do not believe he faced any difficulties getting permission. I do not believe Mr Low Thia Khiang has put up many covered walkways. So he also does not face great difficulties.

Mr Low asked which agent will HDB exempt and whether a HDB contractor will be deemed as a HDB agent. Let me assure the Member that we will exercise these powers judiciously. The amendment is meant for HDB when HDB goes in to upgrade the estate, for example. We need to clarify the relationship about HDB going back into the town, ie, the common property, to do the space-adding item. HDB contractor is doing so. We do not want the Town Council to say, "Look. You are now coming into the common property. We impose $1,000 per day for you to do works on the common property." So the amendment is to establish the relationship. It is not intended to impose additional burden on the Town Councils.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Further clarification, Sir. I have asked what are the organisations that the Minister would exempt to be charged by the TC, and I think the Minister has not answered. The Minister in his clarification has said that some Town Councils have done their own studies and he encourages Town Councils to do their own studies on sinking fund. My point was this. Based on the study on sinking fund, I believe the Minister said that we do not have enough sinking fund in the future and therefore 80% of the accumulated surplus should be transferred to the sinking fund. I would like to know what is the basis of the studies. I would appreciate it if he could release the studies so that I can study and see how they arrived at the figure of 80%. Because we did some similar studies, not in detail of course, but I do not think that we face a similar problem, based on the current situation of Hougang Town Council

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the other agents that HDB will exempt will be, for example, Telecom when they come in to relay some of the wires on the common property. I know some Town Councils also have this difficulty where Telecom wants to relay the wires in the wet market or cooked food centres. So for such statutory bodies, we will designate them as agents in improving the common facilities and to get this job done quickly, to avoid all this bureaucratic wrangling, we will exempt them from charges by the Town Council.

Mr Low asked whether we will release the studies of the cyclical works. Again, I will leave it to every Town Council to do so and to publish these studies to its own residents. For example, in Potong Pasir, over the next five years, for example, they will need to incur something like $4.8 million in their cyclical maintenance works. If you look at Potong Pasir, I think their accumulated surplus is about $300,000-plus and their sinking fund is much less than the $4.8 million. But these are studies which we do ourselves. I will leave it to Mr Chiam to do his own study, if he is re-elected for the next five years, and to convince his own residents whether or not his sinking fund, and even by locking up his accumulated surplus, would be sufficient to fund the future projects in Potong Pasir. This is for him to justify to his own residents.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Further clarification, Sir. My question was: what was the basis, based on the study, to come to the conclusion that at least 80% will be transferred to the sinking fund? Please do not quote me individual examples. Because we are talking about the Amendment Bill here and you are making 80% transfer across-the-board.

The Minister talked about exemption. In his answer, he said TAS is a public authority. I have no problem with that. But in the Bill, it mentions about public authority and any community-based organisations. So what are the community-based organisations or organisations that he will exempt?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Some of these organisations are statutory bodies but with privatisation, for example, TAS has become Singapore Telecom; PUB has become Singapore Power. Community-based organisations refer to CDAC, Mendaki and SINDA. They may require some improvements and we do not want this fighting over levying of charges.

The proposal in the amendment is to lock up 100% of the surpluses in the sinking fund. The reason why we have the 80% is that we recognise that MPs do deserve credit for building up the surpluses and when they start off the new term, they should enjoy part of these surpluses. That is why we allow a 20% to be carried over. I would have preferred locking up everything, 100%. But discussing with my colleagues here, they put up a very strong case that if the same party continues a second term, surely they must get some credit for use of the old surpluses, and that is why in this amendment, we propose 20% to be carried over and, as I have explained earlier, 20% in the normal term of the Government will be equivalent almost to the surpluses of one year. So that is enough to start you off. That is the explanation for the 80%.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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