MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1979 TO 31ST MARCH, 1980
Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Bedok has brought up a few points. I will attempt to answer them. One point raised is that the Housing Board should provide some recreational facilities in the void decks. This has, in fact, been done by the Housing Board on an experimental basis. The Housing Board has provided tables for residents to play chess. From our experiment it appears to be a success because chess does not usually cause any nuisance to the other residents. So the provision of tables for chess will continue. 3.30 p.m. On the question of table tennis facilities, we have provided these to a few blocks purely as an experiment. We are worried because teenagers and young people make a lot of noise when they play table tennis. This will disturb the residents on the first floor, and they may complain. From the feedback of the experiment, if the residents are quite happy and accept table tennis on the void decks, then we will provide table tennis facilities. But if we receive a lot of complaints from the first floor residents, then these facilities will not be provided. On the question of providing facilities like a club house or accommodation for community activities, in fact, the Housing Board has adopted a plan to partition the void decks and provide enclosures to be let out to MPs, the Social Welfare Department or other organisations willing to provide these facilities. The Housing Board on its own will not provide these facilities. If the Housing Board is to provide these facilities, then it may end up having a department or an organisation bigger than the Social Welfare Department, bigger than the Singapore Sports Council, perhaps bigger than anything else. This is quite obvious because we have about 65% of the population living in public housing estates. Therefore, if the HDB is going to provide these facilities, then it is going to duplicate the functions of other Ministries and departments. We provide accommodation for the People's Association for its community sub-centres. This is one example. If a Member of Parliament is able to persuade other organisations to run these facilities, then the HDB is very willing to wall up the void decks and rent it out to the MPs at a nominal rental. On the problem of urine in lifts, this is quite a, difficult one. In fact, in the early 1960s, there were a lot of complaints on this matter. At that time, many people thought that because of a lack of public toilets, therefore, the people had no choice but to urinate in the lifts. The largest number of complaints came from one of the blocks in Bukit Ho Swee. The lift in that particular block virtually was dirtied every day. So we said, "Let us build a toilet near the lift and see what is the result." The result was that the WC cistern was damaged and despite the damaged cistern people continued to use the squat pan. The wash basin was broken and the tap was stolen. Then the residents said, "Previously we had to put up with the smell of urine. Now an additional flavour had been added." They requested that the WC ought to be demolished and we demolished it. The problem of urine in lifts continues. As Members can see, the solution to the problem does not lie with the construction of the toilet. The construction of toilets is not a problem at all because it does not cost very much. Probably one unit of WC plus a wash basin will cost less than $1,000. The difficulty is looking after the toilets properly. That is the problem. In fact, previously the public toilets in the markets were very dirty. Eventually, the HDB found a solution by stationing a permanent caretaker at the toilet. Thereafter, our public toilets in the markets and cooked food centres have been kept clean because of the permanent caretakers. So if we are going to provide toilets in individual blocks, we will have to employ an army of toilet caretakers. And that is not very realistic because Singaporeans are not very keen to work as toilet caretakers. On the question of smell from the bin centres, I think this complaint is not just confined to the markets near Bedok. It is found in many housing estates. This is quite understandable because the markets and cooked food centres have a lot of rubbish. Unsold fish and food leftovers are dumped at the bin centres by the hawkers. The offensive smell is bound to occur. What the HDB is now doing is to cover all the bin centres so that the smell from the bin centres will not spread a great distance away. Also, the HDB is trying to get its workers to clean the bin centres regularly, and will liaise with the Ministry of the Environment to do the regular carting away of the rubbish. I assure Members that the HDB is aware of this problem. We are trying our very best to minimise the smell nuisance from the bin centres. On the question of community halls, we had a discussion with the Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office, recently on the launching of the Residents' Committees and we have decided to provide another community hall for those constituencies whose Residents' Committees have been initiated. In other words, in each constituency we will provide two community halls instead of one. On the point raised by the Member for Jurong about the difference in the rules governing the JTC and HDB flats, a few years ago the JTC had separate rules for the application of JTC flats. The hon. Member for Jurong is aware that the JTC previously did not allow Singapore citizens to apply for JTC flats unless they were working in Jurong itself or in the JTC industrial estates. As the JTC had a different set of rules, the JTC flat owners were treated differently. But, in the last two years, the JTC rules have been constantly amended and are now very similar to the HDB rules. Also, the function of development of public housing in Jurong has been taken over by the Housing Board from the JTC. So the Housing Board rules will soon be applied to the JTC. In other words, the JTC flat owners will soon be treated like Housing Board flat owners and will be allowed to buy Housing Board flats. On the point raised by the Member for Alexandra about cleaning contractors and the unsatisfactory work they do in the housing estates, to some extent this is true because the HDB finds great difficulty in recruiting daily-rated workers to do cleaning work. The HDB has to rely on contract workers, and even at the present moment the HDB's Daily Rated Establishment is still not filled up. The problem here is the same as in the case of toilet caretaker, i.e. not many Singaporeans are keen to become cleaners. In fact, the HDB has relaxed the requirement for DRE's. Previously, the HDB only employed male workers but it has since relaxed this requirement. Now, one-third of its workforce comprises female workers and two-thirds male workers so that the female workers can do lighter jobs while the male workers do heavier jobs. Even with this relaxation, the HDB is not able to recruit enough workers to do all the cleaning work. So in a substantial number of our estates, the cleaning work is being done by contract workers. As Members know, some contract workers are good and some are bad. The good contract workers with relatively little supervision are able to do satisfactory work, while the poor contract workers, even with very strict supervision, are not able to do satisfactory work. So in some of the estates, the cleaning work has been unsatisfactory. The point raised by the Member for Kim Seng and the Member for Alexandra is true, i.e. some cleaners have not been doing their work satisfactorily. The HDB keeps a record of the cleaning contractors. The contractors who are doing unsatisfactory work are warned and, if they do not improve, they will be debarred from tendering future contracts. In fact, such action is being continuously taken against contractors. Those poor contractors who are not able to do good work have been debarred from tendering Housing Board contracts in future. I am afraid this problem will continue. Perhaps next year the Member will again raise the same problem in this House, and most probably I will give him the same answer. As regards the staff in the HDB Area Offices, they have been told that they are employed to serve the residents in the estates and that they should try their best to deal with any complaints or problems brought by the residents to them. Generally, the Housing Board adopts the rule that if there are complaints against any officer from the top right down to the lowest level of the staff in the Area Office, i.e. the counter clerks or even the peons, the Board will investigate into the complaints, and if any complaint is found to be justified or substantiated, disciplinary action will be taken. In fact, if a Member of Parliament complains to the Housing Board that an estates officer is ineffective, then the Housing Board will arrange for him to be transferred. If the officer has breached the Housing Board's rules, then disciplinary action will be taken against him. If Members of Parliament feel strongly that they have justifiable complaints against any HDB staff, they should bring them to the attention of the central administration or to the attention of Mr Liu Thai Ker, the Chief Executive Officer of the HDB. That is why I have brought Mr Liu here so that by listening to the problems raised by the Members of Parliament he will appreciate them better. I therefore hope that he will be able to find the solutions to the problems much better than I can. I would say that if the Member of Parliament finds that his persistent requests to the Area Office still bring no result, then I would suggest that he write to Mr Liu direct and put the problems to him. I am quite sure he will be able to find a solution. If Mr Liu cannot find the solution, then he can come and discuss the problem with me, and I will try to find a solution. 3.45 p.m. On the ineffectiveness of my staff, raised by the Member for Mountbatten, I have already touched on it and so I will not repeat what I have said. The Member complained of defective doors which have not been repaired for some time. But from our record, more than 100 doors have been repaired. So action has been taken. We will soon call the redecoration contractors to repair the defects in these two-storey artisan quarters in the Guillemard Estate. I can assure the Member that all the defects in these 470 units of two-storey terrace houses will be rectified. If he is still not happy after they have been repaired, he can still bring this matter up either to the Area Office or to Mr Liu. On the question of lifts, its maintenance has improved considerably. The Housing Board has a monthly monitoring report of the number of breakdowns, the.kind of repairs undertaken, and the time taken to repair the lifts. I can assure the Member that the repair services have improved. From our record, in the last few years, the time taken to repair the lift has been shortened and those contractors who still take a long time to repair lifts have been called up by the Housing Board to improve their services. We have also put a penalty on the contractors for not doing the work expeditiously. As for those lifts which break down recurrently and continue to give problems, we usually send our engineers to examine them. If they cost a lot of money to repair and are beyond economic repair, then we will install a new lift in place of the old defective one. On the matter of demolition of one-room flats, raised by the Member for Kim Seng, as I have said yesterday in this House, we have altogether 17,000 of these one-room emergency flats. So it has to take quite a long time to relocate the residents and to demolish these flats either for redevelopment or as open-spaces for recreation of the residents. So because of this, in our circular to the residents we do not say when they are required to vacate because this involves a very large number of residents and not all of them who live in these emergency flats are economically in a position to buy or rent a larger flat. Therefore, in our circular we do not give them a deadline for them to move out. The purpose of the circular is to get the feedback as to how many residents want to move out. From this feedback we can do the planning. For argument's sake, let us take the Member for Kim Seng's case. There are four blocks, A, B, C and D. If the feedback is that in Block A 90% of the people are prepared to move out, then we will say, "All right, we will clear Block A first because 90% of the residents are willing to move." We give them priority in alternative accommodation. For the remaining 10%, we apply a little bit of pressure or we ask the local Member of Parliament to use a little bit of persuasion so that we may be able to move them out. Then this particular block can be pulled down and redevelopment can take place. That is the reason why no deadline has been given. In fact, the Housing Board has given itself a period of five to six years to clear the whole lot. It is a very long period and very much depends on the percentage of people who want to move. In those estates where a larger number of people want to move out, and quickly too, the clearance can be done faster and redevelopment can take place earlier. Just now the Member for Changi, who spoke on behalf of the Member for Katong, mentioned that there were only 16 families left in a block. So the Housing Board offered them good accommodation for them to move out quickly. The situation is not the same in other blocks. Therefore the residents are complaining that they are not being offered alternative accommodation in a locality of their own choice. Our feedback is that 90% of them are still there. I have not got the full information but I guess that most of the people have indicated that they do not want to move out. They would like to remain in the same housing estate. In that sort of situation, it is not the policy of the Housing Board to force a large number of residents to move away from the place against their wishes. Most probably we can ll right, if you do not want to move, we will allow you to stay until such time as your economic position improves and you are ready to move." Only after a large number of people have moved away, will we be able to re-develop the place. That is the reason why sometimes the plan has to be changed and sometimes some of the blocks have been cleared while others are not.