EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column: 855

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Column: 855

TOWN COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, notwithstanding what the Minister had said that it is an option, the fact is that if it is a LUP under the HDB, HDB will pay up to 90%. If the Town Council decides to go ahead with TC-LUP, then it is the Town Council that will pay together with the residents. So where is the Government's part of the payment that they are supposed to contribute to the lift upgrading? Is it wrong to say that if the Town Council wants to go ahead with that lift upgrading, they actually pay more and the Government pays nothing? Is it wrong to say that?

The other clarification is that the Minister has said that the Lift Upgrading Programme will be shortened to 10 years. I would like to ask the Minister whether the 10-year target also includes lifts in the Opposition wards to be upgraded, or only the PAP wards.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: On the second point, I really do not know what is going to happen in 10 years to the Opposition wards. So it is very hard for me to answer that question. For all you know, there may be no Opposition wards by then. But that is really pure speculation. So I think I should not answer his question. But seriously, Sir, it is true that,

for the TC-LUP, the Town Council will pay the bulk of the cost and the residents will

Column: 856

pay some of the cost. To the extent that some of the Town Councils' sinking fund comes from the residents, yes, it is true. But let me remind the hon. Member that part of the sinking fund also comes from the Government grant. I think the Member knows that. So, it is not quite correct to say that it is all coming from the residents.

Having said that, I stress again that this is an additional option. If Members will recall, I think Mr Chiam came to this House and asked why he could not use his Town Council's sinking fund to replace the lifts in a particular block and, if Mr Chiam could correct me if I am wrong, that particular block would fit the $5,000 cost cap. So, if Members choose the blocks carefully, have sufficient sinking funds and can persuade their residents that they should also co-share the cost of the LUP, then this is a win-win situation for everybody, ie, the residents as well as the Town Councils and, of course, for the Government as well, because we will be able to accelerate the programme. That is the reason why we went back to look at all the requirements of the Town Councils to see how we can speed up the Lift Upgrading Programme, so that in 10 years' time, we will be able to bring this very, very important programme to more of our residents. We know that our population is aging, and we know that if we do not do this, then, as time goes on, more and more of our residents, whether in Potong Pasir, Hougang, Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio or elsewhere, will face difficulties.

So, the objective of this exercise, as my Minister of State pointed out, is to bring this programme to residents as quickly as possible. For that purpose, Town Councils would need to spend part of their sinking funds. If they do not do that, then, based on the budget that we think we can set aside for this exercise, it is going to stretch a little bit longer. Of

Column: 857

course, Mr Low may ask: why does the Government not give him a grant so that he can do it faster? But he might as well ask why do we not pay for everything. Here, again, I have already answered the question about why residents must also co-pay. It all comes back to what is a reasonable budget that the Government feels needs to be allocated for this particular exercise. And we feel that, based on our housing budget, we are able to achieve this 10-year target which we have presented in Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, is this a new point? I think the clarification has been sought and given.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, on the Minister's answer just now, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister says that he does not know what will happen in 10 years' time in Opposition wards. I also recall that in the Budget debate, it was clearly said that the completion of lift upgrading will be in 10 years. So, I would like to ask the Minister, since he does not know what will happen to Opposition wards in 10 years' time, can I presume that Opposition wards are excluded from the objective of 10 years to complete the lift upgrading?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: No. I think if the hon. Member will go back and look at the Hansard , he will see that the Government will undertake to complete the LUP in 10 years. There is nothing in there that says that it includes or excludes Opposition wards.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. What does it mean that it does not include or exclude Opposition wards?

Column: 858

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, I think the point has been answered. Mr Mah, do you wish to respond?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Yes, Sir, of course, I wish to respond.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I recall this debate with Mr Low a few years ago when Mr Low asked when he would get MUP at that time, and I remember saying to him that so long as we have PAP Town Councils or PAP advisors also asking for the same upgrading programme, it is very difficult for me to look them in the eye and say, "I am going to give it to an Opposition Member and not to a Member of the ruling party." Does the hon. Member recall that? Did I say then that there would be no upgrading for Opposition wards? I did not say that. All I said was that, realistically speaking, the Opposition wards must expect that, in the prioritisation exercise, we will have to weigh their demands versus those of the PAP Town Councils.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, I will allow you one last clarification.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, Sir.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, so long as Opposition wards are not upgraded, is it not equivalent to the exclusion of Opposition wards? Even the Minister did not mention that they are going to be excluded. But the fact is that Opposition wards are not upgraded thus far. So, can I take it that, thereby, Opposition wards may not be seen in the eyes of the PAP as part of Singapore?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I just want to inform Mr Low that there are blocks and precincts in PAP wards, eg, in Ang Mo Kio, that are older than those in Hougang which have still not been upgraded.

Column: 859

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 Heng Chee How].

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