LIFT UPGRADING PROGRAMME

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Minister for National Development, if the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP)'s main objective is to provide barrier free access to all residents in light of our ageing population, will his Ministry consider (a) extending the Programme to all HDB blocks without the need to vote; (b) if voting is insisted upon, setting it at a simple majority rather than the current "YES" vote of 75%; and (c) if the 75% "YES" vote is insisted upon, conducting a re-poll of those blocks with lower than 75% as this may not have been reached not because of "NO" votes but because some residents have not voted.

The Minister of State for National Development (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was introduced in 2001 to provide flats in high-rise HDB blocks built before 1990 with direct access to a lift, as long as it is technically and economically feasible. It was implemented in response to requests from Members of Parliament for more and earlier lift upgrading works to provide greater convenience to the residents, especially the elderly.

As lift upgrading is very costly and heavily subsidised by the Government, one of the requirements is that all benefitting residents must vote and co-pay for the programme. This is to give HDB residents a sense of ownership of the programme and ensure that those who stand to benefit consider carefully the need or the desirability for the upgrading works in their block. The same principles have been successfully applied to the Main Upgrading Programme.

It is important that the Government has a clear mandate from those who benefit and have to co-pay before proceeding with the upgrading works. Under the Housing and Development Act, the legal requirement is to have at least 75% of those who are eligible to vote to agree to the lift upgrading works before they can be carried out. This is clearly indicated in the LUP brochures given to eligible households. As every single vote is important, all eligible HDB residents are encouraged to come forward to vote during the LUP polling. Those who cannot be personally present during the exercise can cast their votes through a proxy. However, those who choose not to vote, even though they are advised to do so prior to polling, will have their votes registered as a "No" vote.

In the event that a polling falls short of the 75% mark, the outcome of the polling exercise must be respected and safeguarded. There are no legal provisions under the Act to allow for a re-poll.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): Sir, is the main objective of LUP not to provide 100% barrier-free access for our residents in view of the fact that our population is ageing? Therefore, if that is the main reason, is there really a need to have 75% support or "Yes" vote? Would the Ministry consider lowering this requirement because, at the end of the day, what we want is 100% lift access for our population which is ageing?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Sir, there are actually two points. Let us deal with the first point about 100% barrier-free access. In my earlier reply, I said that we would aim to provide convenient access where it is technically and economically feasible. I do not believe it is tenable to aim for 100% access at all costs and disregarding the technical aspects and indeed the preferences of the residents in any particular block. You must understand that HDB blocks have been built with a variety of housing forms. Not all blocks are standard blocks with common corridors. There are blocks with staggered configurations, in which at the time they were built the priority was given to privacy.

It is not a simple exercise of saying that there will be 100% access for everybody at all costs regardless of the preferences. There are still residents in some of these blocks who prefer not to have a new lift shaft. Some of them claim that it obstructs their view and some of them do not feel that it is an essential item. It is a convenience and not something which they are willing to pay that amount for.

The next figure, which is the second point, is the 75% level. I think we can argue whether it should be 51%, 65%, 75%, 90% or 100%. But the point is that once Parliament has passed a law, in effect, setting a certain threshold, then that threshold has to be respected. If you say that we should make it 74.5%, then you set a new threshold. But once that new threshold is set, that threshold has to be implemented and implemented exactly, fairly and transparently.

I empathise with the residents in the block concerned. But there are clear legal principles involved here which I think should be best adhered to.

Dr Ong Seh Hong: Sir, as I see it, LUP and MUP are quite different. Under MUP, we add in extra rooms, etc, so as to enhance the value of the flat. But under LUP, for those blocks of flats which are technically and economically feasible, should not MND consider looking at the policy to see whether there is a need to set a "Yes" vote at 75%, because the objective of LUP is quite different from MUP? The objective of LUP is to improve accessibility. So for blocks of flats which are technically and economically feasible, maybe a simple majority would be good enough for LUP.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Speaker, Sir, in both MUP and LUP, we have set a 75% threshold. So there is no difference in that respect. I think it is important to understand why we have set a 75% threshold. Once a poll is conducted successfully, even those who are not in favour of upgrading, whether it is MUP or LUP, will have to pay for it. This is not a trivial exercise. We believe that there should be polling so that this reflects the desire of the vast majority and they will then have a sense of ownership and a stake in the decisions which are being made by the community. I think this is the correct direction.

But having said that, you want to ensure that that majority is a significant majority because their decisions will have a financial impact on the minority who may not be in favour of upgrading. For those reasons, I think it is safe and reasonable to set it at a significantly high level and 75%, as far as we are concerned, is the right level at this point in time.