MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES - OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL - YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1981 TO 31ST MARCH, 1982
No, it is not because of the Member's request but for some other reasons. I am just giving an example. The flats have been vacant for two or three years. Since we offered the flats on a first-come-first-served basis, that accounts for the long period during which the flats have been vacant. It is not because we are not trying to fill them. We are trying very hard. In Punggol, the HDB tried 11,000 times in order to fill up the flats. On the question of misleading information given to the applicants by the Area Office, I do not think that is so. Again, we know this from our experience, and quite often what happens is something like this. A person goes to the HDB Ares Office and says, "Look here, I want to get married" or "I have been thrown out by my former landlord." He then says, "I need a flat quickly." Those in the HDB Area Office know that it must be on a first-come-first-served basis and it is therefore not possible for that person to jump the queue. Thus, it is not possible to allocate a flat to him. He will then say, "Look here, if you do not want to allocate a flat to me, I am going to see my MP." He may threaten the officers in the HDB Area Office by saying, "If you do not want to give me a flat quickly, you are being very unhelpful. I am going to complain to my MP." So the officer may reply, "If you want to complain to your MP, what else can I do? You can go and see your MP." It is not the HDB Area officers who are really misleading these people. A constituent who goes to see his Member of Parliament will not normally tell him the true story of what has happened. He will just say, "I have been sent by the officer from the Area Office to see you, If you can give me a letter, it will help me." I get similar problems during my Meet-the-people sessions. A person may come to me and say, "The Immigration Department says I need a letter of introduction from a Member of Parliament." Some of my constituents genuinely believe that a letter from me will help them get their citizenship earlier, or it would help their sons to do part-time national service instead of full-time; or if their children have been detained under the criminal law provisions and are in prison, a letter from me will enable them to be released immediately. They hope for such things. They come and tell me all sorts of stories which, I would say, may be untrue. But we can well appreciate their situation. They are desperate for something to be done, and so they do not mind coming up and telling a story to the Member of Parliament in the hope of getting something done earlier. I would like to assure the House that the HDB staff know very well that the policy is first-come-first-served and they should not send any applicant to see his Member of Parliament. They know full well that this will only create additional work for them because if a Member of Parliament writes to the HDB, it has to be replied. I do not think the HDB staff will do that. I have been there for quite a long time. As regards the question raised by the Member for Changi, previously, when the HDB offered flats for sale, the maintenance period was six months. In other words, all defects have to be reported to the HDB within six months, after which period the owner is responsible for making good any defects. But as a result of complaints made in this House, I think the maintenance period was extended. I was not here then. It was the time of my predecessors, i.e. the present Minister for Law and Science and Technology, Mr Barker, and the former Minister for National Development, Mr Lim Kim San. Eventually we extended the liability period to one year. In other words, after the sale of a flat, all defects have to be reported to the HDB within one year. The HDB will then arrange for the contractor concerned to make good all the defects. After one year, any defect discovered will no longer be the responsibility of the contractor. Some Members of Parliament have suggested that we should extend the period from one year to 18 months or even two years. But we thought that this would be rather unwise because the contractor will put a very substantial amount of money in his tender to cover the extended period. In fact, when we extended the period from six months to one year, the contractors added in a substantial amount of money in the tender. We had several meetings with the contractors. They brought up some problems faced by them. For instance, there is a small defect to be attended to, such as a door cannot be closed properly, and it needs some slight adjustment which may take a carpenter one hour to rectify. But when the contractor and his workmen go to the particular flat in the day and knock at the door, the lady inside will tall them, "My husband has left word with me that I should not open the door to strangers if my husband is not in." So the contractor cannot do anything. 4.45 p.m. Then they ask the lady, "What time does your husband come back?" She tells the contractor, "My husband comes back at 6 p.m." At 6 p.m. the contractor goes back to the flat and knocks at the door but nobody is in. Perhaps the husband and wife have gone out for dinner. Then the contractor goes to the Housing Board Area Office and says, "Look here, you are chasing me to make good the defects. I have called at the flat twice but I am unable to get into the flat." Then the HDB will ring up the owner of the flat and make arrangements for the contractor to go to the flat to make good the defects. The repair cost is very cheap, maybe $1 or $2 for adjusting the door which may take one hour of the carpenter's time. But if we add up the transport costs - he went to the flat three times with his tools - instead of $1, it becomes $50 for making the three trips. This is a quite common occurrence. On the one hand, the owner of the HDB flat complains that the repair work is too slow. On the other hand, the contractors complain to the HDB, "Whenever I go to do the repairs, I cannot get into the flat." Today, Singapore is experiencing a great shortage of construction workers. Wages of construction workers are very high and, therefore, if we are going to extend the maintenance period to more than one year, even perhaps for as short a period as six months more, I think for each flat we will have to pay several thousand dollars more. The HDB thinks so, and I personally agree that it would be rather unwise to extend another six months and to allow the contractors to charge several thousand dollars more. Also, if we extend it for another six months, there is no guarantee that the defects will not occur in the 19th month. Still we are going to have a lot of complaints. Previously, when the maintenance period was six months, they said, "I have defects appearing after eight or nine months." So we extended it to one year, and the complaints appear after the 12th month. And if we extend it to 18 months, there is no guarantee that the defects will not occur on the 19th month. As regards the complaints on defects, the HDB has rationalized the response to the complaints. The HDB has set up the 24-hour emergency service. The HDB has separated the complaints into two groups, namely, defects which can wait and which can be attended to by the contractors. But for serious complaints, such as somebody being trapped inside a lift, or the WC is choked and overflowing, or the electricity is out of order and emergency repairs have to be carried out, the HDB has a 24-hour emergency service unit which will respond to these emergency calls. The other defects will be attended to through the normal procedure. Of course, I must admit that there are good contractors who respond reasonably quickly and there are also bad contractors who respond rather slowly. In our experience with the not-so-good contractors, we find that the owner of the flat suffers the frus- tration of having to wait for the repair jobs or maintenance work to be carried out slowly. But in a situation like Singapore where at present the HDB has a very large building program me, coupled with development in the private sector, we have a serious shortage of construction workers. We must therefore accept that the response to requests for repair work cannot be as quickly as we would like it to be. The Member for Changi complained about poor standard of cleaning work. The Member for Bedok also touched on the subject and asked whether or not the HDB has sufficient cleaners. My answer is "No." In fact, less than 90% of the vacancies in the HDB's establishment are filled. In other words, we have a fairly large number of vacancies of cleaners as the job of cleaning is not popular. Singaporeans generally shy away from it. For most of the time the number of vacancies remains large. In the HDB, we have allowed 50% of the cleaning work to be done by our own HDB workers and 50% by the contract workers. Again, we find that in the last two or three years, the contractors are also facing the problem of getting sufficient cleaners in spite of a very substantial increase in the contract price. They are facing this problem because cleaning is a very dirty and unpleasant job and the social status of a cleaner is relatively low. Young Singaporeans generally prefer other jobs to cleaning. Because of the shortage of cleaners, the HDB is not able to do as much as they would like. But I would certainly not give the excuse that because there is a shortage of workers, therefore, the housing estates should be dirty. That is not an excuse. But this is a fact - we are short of workers and the HDB is trying to do the best possible job with its limited workforce. Our supervising officers are very strict on the contractors who do the cleansing job and make sure that they provide sufficient workers under the contract to do the cleansing job. On this matter, I would say that the Residents' Committees, another grassroots organization, can help to get the message across to the residents that littering, or the throwing of rubbish, all over the housing estate only increases the cost of cleaning and maintenance. Vandalism or damaging the amenities in the housing estate, again increases maintenance cost. If the residents can cooperate with the HDB by reducing acts of littering and vandalism, the HDB will be able to save on maintenance and cleaning costs and our housing estates will be much cleaner. The Member for Changi raised a point about deposit. The HDB's rule is that if a person already owns an HDB flat, let us say he has been living in a three-room flat for less than three years and wants to buy a five-room flat, he is only required to put a deposit of $200. But if he has lived there for more than three years and, having been allocated a five-room flat, he intends to sell his three-room flat in the open market and make a profit, then the HDB will ask him to put a deposit of $600. I think the hon. Member is aware of the prices advertised in the newspapers on the sale of old HDB flats. The owners are, in fact, making a very substantial profit and I believe the additional $400 deposit will not cause a hardship. The Member for Radin Mas complained about lifts. I am aware of the situation. The breakdown of the lifts in Blocks Nos. 1 to 6, Telok Blangah Crescent - which are not in Telok Blangah Constituency but in Radin Mas Constituency - these six blocks of flats have a much higher rate of breakdown. The HDB has carried out a series of checks on the lifts and has replaced the defective parts. The frequency of breakdown of the lifts in these six blocks has been reduced from 2.3 breakdowns per lift per month in December 1980 to the rate of 1.53 breakdowns in February 1981, which means that the defective parts have been replaced and there has been a very considerable improvement. I would like to give the hon. Member for Radin Mas an assurance that we will continue to try to improve the lifts. A lift has an average service life of 20 years and some of the lifts installed by the SIT are still functioning quite well for more than 20 years. The lifts in these six blocks of flats are only 7 1/2 years old. I would like to give the Member the assurance that if our efforts to reduce the frequency of breakdowns are not successful, then we will consider replacing these lifts at an earlier date. On the question of poor lighting in the common corridors, I will ask the HDB to look into it and, if necessary, we will switch on some of the lights in the day-time in these corridors. On the question of housing subsidy raised by the hon. Member for Boon Lay, the subsidy to the HDB is based on the overall deficit in the income and expenditure account of the HDB. Though there was a provision of $64 million for subsidy to the HDB for the financial year 1980, the actual deficit incurred by the HDB in the year was $53 million. This year's provision is $55 million, and there is therefore no reduction in the subsidy. Another part of the subsidy which is not shown here is actually the land subsidy which means that the HDB actually provides a nominal land cost when it computes the prices of flats for sale. As all hon. Members here in this House know, if the HDB is going to use the market price of land, then the cost of HDB flats will be much higher than the present selling prices. So this land subsidy is not reflected in this provision. While the Government would like to be able to progressively reduce the subsidy over the years, this is not possible. In fact, the housing subsidy has continuously increased with inflation and with the increasing oil prices. The Government recognizes that there is a need to keep housing price within the reach of the lower income-group. Therefore, I would like to assure the Member for Boon Lay that it is not possible for Government to pass on all the cost to the purchaser even if the Government wants to because this is not practical. This would price the house well beyond the reach of many Singaporeans. Hon. Members must have read the newspapers about the sale of private flats in the Katong area. A 500-square foot flat which is slightly bigger than a one-room improved HDB flat but much smaller than a two-room flat has been sold at $240,000 and people are queuing up overnight to buy these flats. So it is quite obvious that the HDB flats cannot be priced at market price because this will be beyond the reach of our citizens. On the few points raised by the hon. Member for Telok Blangah requesting for more facilities, the policy of the HDB is to continuously upgrade the facilities in all HDB estates. So Telok Blangah is included. Additional sports and recreational facilities such as jogging tracks, hard courts and keep-fit playgrounds will be provided in Telok Blangah Constituency, and I hope work will start soon because I am told that the tender has already been called. On another point raised by the hon. Member about the bin centre, bin centres at all HDB housing estates will be modified so that the collection of refuse can be done within the bin centre itself. Improvements will be made and it will include Telok Blangah. 5.00 p.m. Several Members have questioned the need to provide aeration slabs. They consider it a waste of public funds. I want to assure hon. Members that it is not so. In fact, several Members have questioned the need to spend large sums of money on aeration of trees in car parks. Since the "Make Singapore Green" campaign in 1963, the Parks and Recreation Department of my Ministry has been monitoring the growth of trees in all parts of Singapore under different conditions. Observations show that trees planted in tarmac car parks grow very slowly because their roots are unable to obtain the necessary moisture. Results from a series of tests and experiments conducted by the Department indicate that the most efficient way to channel moisture to the tree roots in large tarmac areas is to dig up the tarmac and replace it with perforated or aeration slabs. To a layman, trees planted in the tarmac car park appear to be growing well and aeration seems to be a waste of money. In reality this is not so. Aeration is essential to promote the tree growth and it is not a waste of public funds. As all Members know, the Ministry of Finance has been very careful about approval of public funds. If this is a waste of money, I am quite sure the Ministry of Finance will not grant its approval for the provision of aeration slabs. On the point raised by the Member for Kaki Bukit about the lack of essential facilities in a housing estate, such as a police station, I would like to inform the House that a revised procedure is now being worked out to ensure that the essential facilities are provided in time when a HDB new town is ready for occupation. When this procedure has been finalized, the facilities will be provided together with the development of public housing. On the question of street lighting of PWD streets, the point is that HDB will not hand over the keys to the owners or tenants of the flats when the facilities such as street lighting around that neighbourhood are not ready. But PWD roads are a separate matter because PWD roads have their own programme, and this is not part of the HDB programme, I will pass this information to the PWD to see what can be done in the Kaki Bukit area about the PWD roads and the public lighting. On the point raised by the Member for Tiong Bahru, the pre-war flats sold to the residents in Tiong Bahru come under a different set of conditions. They are not similar to the Home Ownership Scheme. In other words, the owners of these flats are allowed to sell their flats, to assign or rent their flats. They are allowed to do virtually the same as private flat owners. For this reason, they are under different conditions. The hon. Member has requested that the residents be allowed to pay their maintenance service and conservancy charges at quarterly intervals. I will ask the HDB to look into it and, if at all possible, I will ask them to accede to the request of the hon. Member. As to the lack of a playground, the position is this. Previously when there were some open spaces they complained that there was the lack of car parking facilities. So the open spaces were converted to a car park to satisfy the parking requirements. Once the open spaces were converted into car parks, naturally there were no more open spaces for the construction of a play-ground. This is one of those situations. To solve the problem, we may have to resort to acquiring the whole area for redevelopment. But I would like to assure the Member and the residents there that the HDB has no such intention. Therefore, they can continue to own the flats but they have to put up with this lack of open spaces because the open spaces have been used as car parks. As regards the relocation of residents which was brought up by the Member for Kim Seng, the HDB allows the family members to live together on relocation. That is to say, brothers and sisters with their parents can live next door to each other. But as far as the request that neighbours be allowed to live together, I say that each case will have to be considered on its own merit. Just for argument's sake, if there is a senior citizen who is very old and some neighbour is willing to look after him upon relocation, I would say that the HDB will be prepared to consider the allocation of adjoining flats to the senior citizen and his neighbour only if the neighbour can give an undertaking that he is going to help the senior citizen. But this will not be the general case with neighbours both of whom are old citizens. I think I have touched on most of the points raised by the Member for Bedok. On the point raised by the Member for Whampoa on the provision of lifts for the six-storey flats, I will ask the HDB to make a study of it. If we want those flats to remain after this decade, i.e. after 1990, we will most probably have to consider installing lifts. But if HDB intends to demolish those flats within this decade, then the installation of lifts would be a waste of public funds. What we will do is to allocate the flats at the top floors to those families with younger members who are able to climb up to the upper floors, and to allocate those on the ground floor to families with senior citizens or older people. On the question of allowance for removal expenses, I will deal with this matter together with the Resettlement vote which is going to be discussed subsequently. On the area of choice, HDB's policy is that whenever residents are relocated, if accommodation is available in the same constituency, we will give priority to the residents. That has been the existing policy all the time. They are considered as resettlement cases and they are given priority. On the question of 20% deposit for the purchase of flats, we cannot waive this condition. This is the standard requirement and it does not apply only to the emergency one-room flats. It is applied uniformly throughout. Although I am quite sympathetic towards the emergency one-room flats owners, I am sorry to inform the Member that I cannot waive this requirement. As regards overcrowding in the swimming pool in Toa Payoh and that it is essential to have a swimming pool either within the Whampoa constituency or nearby, I generally agree with the Member's observation and I will ask the HDB to look into it. We will find a place to build a swimming pool either within the Whampoa constituency or around Whampoa constituency.