Hansard, 1995-03-22

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Lee Boon Yang - on 23rd March and on 7th April, 1995. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 26th March to 2nd April, 1995. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 24th to 25th March, 1995. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day].

Head M (cont.) -

Head M - Ministry of the Environment. Amendment No. (2). Dr John Chen is not here. Mr Charles Chong.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500. Sir, food waste disposers or garbage disposers are used in households to grind food waste before being discharged into the sewerage system. This appliance was introduced in the United States in the 1930s. Its use has since spread to many countries in Europe, the Middle-east and Asia, including Australia and New Zealand. However, the use of food waste disposers remains prohibited in Singapore. If wet food waste can be eliminated from our present waste collection and disposal system, the attendant problems associated with wet garbage in our hot and humid climate, such as offensive odour, flies, rodents and bacteria, would be significantly reduced. The quality of life of Singaporeans would also be significantly improved. If studies show that the use of food waste disposers would not increase water consumption, is there any reason why our sewerage system cannot be upgraded eventually to allow the use of garbage disposers in Singapore? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us his views on this subject.

Sir, with economic growth and affluence, the amount of waste produced in Singapore is increasing. We need to provide places to be used as landfill for the rubbish and maybe also build an extra incineration plant. As it is now, we do not have the extra space to use as landfill. I wish to ask the Minister what kind of waste can be recycled and what programme does the Ministry have to encourage waste minimisation and recycling. Sir, in November 1993, Bishan-Serangoon Town Council, together with the Sony group of companies in Singapore, launched a waste paper recycling project. This unique recycling for a charity project aims to make recycling a way of life for Singaporeans by educating residents on the values of environmental preservation and resource conservation and, at the same time, making it an opportunity for them to contribute to charity. After the year-long project, a total of 711 tonnes of old newspapers and magazines were collected from residents in Bishan/Serangoon town. With the generous dollar to dollar match of the collection proceeds by the Sony group of companies, we raised $160,000 and contributed it to the National Kidney Foundation. Sir, I wish to ask the Minister whether the Ministry intends to continue this recycling programme to other areas in Singapore.

Sir, food poisoning bugs strike where dirty or unhygienic conditions favour them. The Ministry's enforcement officials have done a good job in helping to reduce the incidence of food poisoning bugs in their favourite haunts in food centres and coffeeshops. But, lately, there seems to be a rising number of cases of food poisoning in top-bracket hotels and restaurants. These are the places we least expect to favour the food poisoning bug. The Ministry's enforcement officials have apparently been taken by surprise to find the food poisoning bugs among the luxurious and plush decor and fittings of hotels and restaurants. The officials may have been beguiled into taking for granted the condition of kitchens in these hotels and restaurants does not favour the bugs. I do not think it is fair to accuse the enforcement officials of neglecting their duty. It is more a question of mental attitude. They are only human beings and, as such, cannot help being lulled by the imposing appearance and reputation of the establishments they visit into thinking their kitchens are out of bound to bugs. I trust the Ministry will now instruct all its enforcement officials to subject all places where food is stored, prepared or cooked for sale to the public, to the same degree of the most stringent scrutiny. The officials should follow the example of the food poisoning bugs, that is, not to take any establishment at its own awe-inspiring face value.

Sir, there is an area of common interest which urgently needs to be addressed by the Environment Ministry, that is, the standard of food hygiene practised by food outlets in Singapore. I am concerned with the increased number of food poisoning cases involving large groups of people as reported last year. The Environment Ministry recorded 409 such cases in 1994. The cases of food poisoning in hotels had more than tripled. There were only 35 cases of food poisoning involving hotel outlets in 1993. In 1994, this shot up to 127 cases. This occurred despite the continued surveillance and enforcement by Environment officers. I wonder whether the present demerit point system is adequate to ensure that food establishments in hotels and other big food outlets take food hygiene seriously. I was told that in most instances, hotels only appoint officers to review its food preparation process or set standards for food hygiene after cases of food poisoning were reported. By then, it is too late as the outbreak of food poisoning has already occurred. However, at best, these are only remedial and not preventive measures. Singapore has been promoted as a food paradise for tourists and locals alike. Surely we do not need to want our 'clean' city reputation to be tarnished by unhygienic food handling practices. Basic food hygiene is essential and must be taken seriously. Food outlets in hotels serve many people and tourists at any one time. Therefore, is it not sensible for the Environment Ministry to stipulate compulsory preventive measures requiring hotels and other bigger food establishments to appoint food hygiene officers to ensure that a high standard of food hygiene is maintained at all times? I need only to refresh the House on the adage that "prevention is better than cure". So much for food outlets in hotels. As we know, good and tasty food can also be found in many food centres, snack shops, market places and kopi tiam outlets which are sprouting in many housing estates. Parallel to the growth of such outlets, I understand that between 1989 and 1993, cases of food poisoning from these outlets were the highest at 43%. Many Singaporeans and their families are eating out nowadays. It is said to be one of our national pastime activities, and for most Singaporeans, eating out has become a necessity due to dual income family. The food sold at our hawker centres is of reasonably good quality and standard. However, we must not compromise these qualities at the expense of good food hygiene. I have noticed an increasing number of food outlets selling raw seafood. The enterprising ones have included yusheng in their menu during the Chinese New Year period. Raw food can get contaminated easily. The level of food hygiene for preparing such food is even more demanding than the cooked ones. In view of the large number of local people patronising these food outlets, it is extremely important, therefore, that the food served is prepared under strict hygiene standards. The utensils used for cooking and food preparation must be properly cleaned. All food handlers should be educated or screened routinely to make sure that the food they prepare is safe for public consumption. May I ask the Minister whether regular inspections are being carried out on the food outlets and whether a continuous public campaign could be launched to impress food handlers and consumers on the essentials of food hygiene and food preparation. With these preventive measures in place, and together with the continued vigilance of the Environment officials, I am sure we can continue to enjoy clean and quality food in Singapore.

Sir, I rise to speak on a topic which I think is quite important, ie, to request the Minister to re-educate food handlers on the use of disposable gloves. This could provide some answer to Mr Teo Chong Tee's concern about the spread of food poisoning cases. Sir, disposable glove, by its name, implies throwing it away after use. However, if you watch our food handlers wearing gloves to prepare food, both in our hawker and food centres and even at food courts, you wonder whether the use of these gloves is to protect us, the consumers, or the food handlers themselves. As far as I am concerned, its use protects the food handlers, and not us, the consumers. These food handlers, if you watch them carefully, are fully gloved. They prepare the food, they receive the money from you, they wipe their gloves on the apron, and get back to preparing food. This ritual is repeated without changing gloves. What does this mean? You do not need to be a medical doctor, like me, to see how soiled the disposable gloves have become after a few preparations. These disposable gloves are harbouring a lot of germs and bacteria from this exchange of cash and food preparation and it is no wonder we get sporadic outbreaks of diarrhoea, vomiting and food poisoning cases. I understand our Asian way of preparing food. They need to use their hands a lot. But it should not be used as an excuse to do away with gloves. Therefore, I would like to request the Ministry to have a re-education programme of these food handlers on simple basic hygiene and how germs are spread, why they should wash and wipe their hands after each preparation of food. Finally, and most important of all, those who are preparing food should not handle or receive money. 12.45 pm

Sir, since we have sufficient time, may I seek your permission to take the two cuts, ie, waste minimisation and hawker control?

You have only one cut.

I missed the earlier cut on waste minimisation. I was held up slightly just now.

You were late for the first cut.

I was held up by a phone call.

Yes, carry on.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, rapid economic development and an increasingly affluent population have brought about a corresponding rise in the amount of waste generated. In 1994, about 2.4 million tonnes of waste were disposed of, representing about 9% growth compared to the previous year. Waste disposal is costly, especially in land scarce Singapore. The present Lorong Halus landfill site is expected to be used up by 1998. The new landfill site at Pulau Semakau will cost us about $1.2 billion. At the rate refuse is growing, we will probably need a fourth incineration plant in three to four years' time. It will cost us another $800-$900 million. It is therefore important for us to have an effective waste minimisation programme so as to reduce the burden of waste disposal on ourselves. Industrial and commercial waste forms about 50% of the waste generated. We should encourage companies to minimise waste by systematic waste audits. Waste audits can help companies to minimise the use of raw materials and energy, and to reduce, recycle and reuse waste. In the context of waste recycling, "waste exchange" is an option that deserves serious consideration. What is waste to one industry may be raw materials to another. Through cooperative and mutually beneficial "waste exchange" schemes, substantial cost savings can be accrued to the companies concerned. I would therefore like to know what measures the Ministry has taken to actively promote both waste audits and waste exchange to reduce industrial and commercial waste. Sir, domestic and trade waste forms the other 50% of the waste generated. Minimising this type of waste is perhaps a more difficult task because we have become a consumer society. Some even say that we are a throw-away society. There is therefore an urgency for us to make every effort to encourage Singaporeans to consume less and recycle more. I notice that there is presently over 900 recycling schemes in schools, condominiums, housing estates, offices and hotels throughout Singapore. I wonder how successful they are. What is encouraging and has attracted the attention of the media recently is the success of a waste-paper recycling project by the Bishan-Serangoon Town Council. My colleague, Mr Ibrahim Othman has mentioned this. The project was successful because it combined recycling and charity. It shows that with innovative ideas, recycling projects can be successful. If the success can be duplicated throughout other parts of Singapore, then we will have made significant progress in shaping public attitudes positively towards waste minimisation and recycling. Does the Ministry plan to do that? Sir, food waste forms a large part of our domestic waste. At the moment, this type of organic waste is disposed of together with other non-organic waste through refuse chutes in housing estates. Because food waste decays and decays very quickly in our climate, it causes smell problem in the chute, at the collection point and the bin centre. Food waste also dirties our estates when it is disposed of and collected. As our society progresses, Singaporeans aspire to a better standard of living, we should consider disposing our food waste through an electric grinder attached to the kitchen sink. I believe my colleague, Mr Charles Chong, has spoken on this. Food waste can then be discharged as pulp and liquid through pipes into our underground sewage system. This will get rid of the rotten smell from our estates and enhance its cleanliness. It will also greatly reduce the amount of domestic waste which will otherwise have to be collected and disposed of. Will the Ministry consider implementing such a food waste disposal system? Sir, I now go on to the issue of hawker control. The primary objective of privatising hawker stalls is to make hawkers owner of their stalls so that hawker stalls can be run more efficiently. Hawkers welcome this ownership scheme. However, those who were not included in the first phase sale programme are concerned that stall prices in the subsequent phases will go up substantially. If the stall price translated into monthly payment is much higher than their current monthly rental, hawkers will have difficulty to adjust overnight and run the stall in such a way that it will make up for the increase in cost. The stall price may also be so high that it may not be worthwhile for them to purchase their stall and resell it to another person. There will therefore be no incentive for them to purchase their stall, thus defeating the purpose of privatisation. There is also concern from the general public that higher stall prices will result in higher hawker food prices. Will the Minister therefore speed up the sale of hawker stalls and ensure that stall prices will not be too high for hawkers to want to own their stall?

Sir, with effect from 1st April, the rental and service and conservancy charges for hawker and market stalls under Environment, HDB and JTC will be increased. The quantum of the increase for rental of cooked food stalls will be $40 whereas for market stalls, the increase will be $20 more. Service and conservancy charges will also be increased by a quantum of $5 to $17. About 20,000 stalls will be affected. The reason given by the Ministry was that the costs of maintaining these centres have increased. The Ministry further added that even with this increase, the rental and service and conservancy charges are still very much below market rates. Sir, my concern is that this announcement will lead to further price increase by the hawkers. If one out of five hawker stalls can increase prices during GST period, using GST as an excuse, I do not see what is stopping them to use this raise in rental and S&C charges to increase their prices further. For those who have withheld the temptation to increase their prices during the GST period, this may be their last straw. I have no doubt that this raise will provide hawkers with a ready excuse to increase their prices by an even bigger quantum. This increase will be passed on to the majority of Singaporeans who shop at the wet markets and lunch or dine out at the hawker centres. There will be repercussions affecting the Singaporean households, working population and, worse, the retirees. For a long time, our wet markets and hawker centres have provided low cost food, cooked or uncooked, to Singaporeans. They have helped to keep our expenses on food low. Therefore, why can the Government not continue to subsidise the rental and S&C charges for hawker and market stalls? After all, this raise will only bring in about $1 million more to help defray partially the costs of running these centres. So why can the Government not absorb this amount and help to reduce the burden on the people? Sir, in addition, the Government is progressively selling hawker stalls back to the operators. I understand that four hawker centres and wet markets have already been sold. What is the situation now? May I also ask the Minister whether his Ministry is monitoring the price increases in these hawker centres?

Sir, like my two colleagues, I wish to ask the Minister whether there has been any substantial price increase in food prices by stallholders who have purchased their stalls. I also wish to ask for the number of stalls that has changed owners after they have purchased from the Government. How many of these stalls are designated for selling Muslim food and halal market produce? And how many of them has been redesignated to sell non-Muslim food and non-halal market produce?

Sir, I share the concern by Mr Teo about the increase in rental by the Ministry of the Environment, Housing and Development Board and JTC. While I understand why rental has to be increased, I would like to comment on the manner in which the price is being increased. I remember Mr Dhanabalan, the then Minister for National Development, had explained the rationale for pricing HDB flats according to location. I think this same rationale should be applied to rental stalls in hawker centres. In the recent sale of hawker stalls, the stalls were valued from $38,000 to $168,000, depending on their locations. For those hawkers who have applied to sell their stalls, profits were estimated to be between $34,000 and $110,000. Therefore, the rentals of hawker stalls in different locations should similarly be varied to reflect the volume of business as well as the pricing of the goods. There must be a difference in value for hawker stalls located in a more popular location than those in outlying neighbourhoods. In this regard, the Ministry of the Environment should take into consideration the hardship of hawkers who can barely cope with arrears due to either insufficient business volume or remoteness of location. Therefore, I propose that the Ministry of the Environment should consider a scale of charges for rentals of hawker stalls at different hawker centres and different locations.

Sir, despite the Ministry of the Environment's ample public education programmes warning the people of the danger of dengue fever as well as measures taken to wipe out the Aedes mosquitoes, the number of cases of dengue fever reported has not declined. On the contrary, it has been on the increase. In 1993, there were 946 reported cases. In 1994, the figure climbed to 1,239. This is indeed cause for concern. Sir, dengue-prone areas have been identified and curative and preventive measures taken to rid the plague, yet the Environment Ministry seems to be fighting a losing battle. Why so? Why do we seem to be fighting a losing battle? The question, in my mind, is: Have we done enough? Or maybe our approach is found wanting. I would like therefore to call for a concerted effort by all, to get down to the root of the problem, and find a means to eradicate this deadly disease once and for all, if it is humanly possible. 1.00 pm In my opinion, resorting to a once-off clean up of infected areas is not the ultimate solution. Apart from stepping up the inspections of dengue-prone areas like construction sites and drains by Environment officers, and taking deterrent measures against irresponsible people contributing to the spread of the disease, I feel that a more comprehensive approach may be the answer. For example, the grassroots organisations, the town councils, the HDB and even the civic organisations should all be lending a hand to eradicate this deadly disease. The schools too should participate in this important task. Maybe talks on the danger of dengue fever can be given at school assemblies.

Sir, first of all, let me respond to the points made by the Member for Hong Kah GRC and also by the Member for Thomson GRC about waste recycling in Singapore. They are correct in pointing out that waste recycling is one way to reduce the increasing amount of waste which is generated each year. Just to give Members an idea of the urgency of the problem, in 1984, we generated 1.5 million tonnes of waste. In 1994, this figure shot up to 2.4 million tonnes, as Dr John Chen mentioned just now, more than one and a half times in 10 years. At this rate, we will be generating almost 4 million tonnes of waste by the year 2004, in other words, in the next 10 years. And just to give an idea of what 4 million tonnes of waste represent, this amount of rubbish, we estimate, would fill, say, 20 National Stadiums up to a height of 12 metres. It is a serious problem. In any society, waste must be generated, but the trend in any near affluent society is that the waste that is generated keeps going up at a rate which is faster than growth of GDP. We have to dispose of this waste. In Singapore, we do it in two ways. One is by incineration and the other is by landfill. The majority of waste in Singapore is incinerated, but there is still a sizable amount of waste that has to be dumped and filled. Both of these methods of waste disposal are very expensive. Incineration plants cost between $500 million and $1,000 million each. Our latest incineration plant at Senoko costs about $600 million. We have three such plants. We will need another plant very soon. As for landfill, it is a huge capital investment. The Pulau Semakau offshore landfill is going to cost us $1.2 billion. Apart from the question of cost, there is the question of availability of land. There are simply no suitable landfill sites left on Singapore. That is why we have to go offshore to Pulau Semakau. My Ministry therefore has been actively promoting waste recycling and waste minimisation. At the moment, one-third of total waste generated is recycled. The two-thirds that are not recycled are the 2.4 million tonnes that we generated last year. This one-third of waste that can be recycled is mainly industrial waste, metal scrap, demolition rubble which is generated from demolition of buildings which can be recycled into hardcore and hardstandings. Other waste that can be recycled includes wood waste, bottles and waste paper. The other two-thirds must be disposed of by incineration and landfill. We have to promote recycling and we have done so, but I think the effort has to be stepped up. To-date, there are almost a thousand waste recycling schemes which are in hotels, hospitals, schools, offices, factories, clubhouses, residential buildings. And, of course, there are also public recycling centres throughout the island. We need to expand this number and to encourage more to join this scheme. As far as commercial buildings and warehouses are concerned, waste audits are now being carried out and conducted. The majority of office buildings, I am glad to say, have implemented waste paper recycling schemes. And warehouses which generate a different kind of rubbish are also looking into recycling of plastics, glass, metal waste and wood waste. As Encik Ibrahim Othman explained to the House just now, Serangoon-Bishan Town Council is very active in the area of recycling, especially recycling of waste paper. They have done an excellent job and my Ministry would like to commend them for this. We are now looking into working closely with other town councils to see whether similar schemes or new schemes using innovative methods can be implemented. We must encourage residents, for example, to separate newspapers and other waste paper for recycling, to make the effort to bring them down to a central collection point. It is this kind of additional effort on the part of residents that calls for a lot of cooperation between the Ministry of the Environment, town councils, grassroots organisations like Residents' Committees and so on. That is for domestic waste. To provide for commercial recycling, the Government has set aside a piece of land within the old Lim Chu Kang dumping ground to provide land for a commercial recycling plant. The first such plant will deal with wood waste recycling. The tenders have already closed and the company has accepted and will start soon. The other projects in the pipeline include used tyre recycling and wood-chipping plants. I come to the question of food waste grinders which was raised by the Member for Hong Kah GRC in the context of recycling, and also by the Member for Eunos GRC who asked why we cannot use food waste grinders in Singapore. Let me just inform the House that food waste grinders use water to flush food waste into the sewer system. It is used in the United States and in other countries like Australia, France, Germany and Japan. Based on the experiences in these countries, they tell us that the use of food waste grinders increases water consumption by something like 2% per household. So if we extrapolate to the Singapore situation, if all households in Singapore were to install such grinders, this works out to an extra 12 million litres of water a day. I do not need to emphasise that water is very precious in Singapore. We cannot afford to use water to dispose of food waste when it can be disposed of as solid waste. In any case, let me also add that even if food waste grinders were used, we would still have to treat the food waste when it reaches the sewage treatment plants. The cost of treating food waste in this manner is much, much higher than by incineration. So for all these reasons, my Ministry does not intend to allow the use of food waste grinders in Singapore. Sir, I turn to the questions raised by Members on hawker stalls. Dr John Chen, Mr Teo Chong Tee and Mr Ibrahim Othman have all asked various questions about Government's sale of hawker stalls programme. Let me first start off by reiterating the main objective of this programme. The main objective is to sell the stalls to the incumbent stallholders to allow them to own their stalls, so that once they own their stalls, we can free up all the restrictions on sub-letting and so on. This way, stallholders will find it easier to improve their businesses, to improve the level of service, to improve the quality of food, general ambience of the centre and also to extend the hours of operation. If all these improvements come about, it should translate into benefits both for the stallholders as well as for their customers. That is the objective. We started off with the first phase last year. It involved four centres. There was, I should say, overwhelming response. 95% of the stallholders bought over their stalls. We have done a survey recently. Many stallowners are now operating their stalls over longer hours by sub-letting or by getting friends and relatives to run a second shift. Others have added food items. Some have resold. They resold their stalls to younger stallholders. They decided that they are probably too old and that this business is too difficult for them. Fine. They sell to younger stallholders who are in a position to upgrade and to improve the service further, which will benefit consumers. So I think consumers are beginning to see the benefits of the improved service. It has been less than a year. I think we should allow time for these benefits to flow through. There is concern expressed as to whether the sale of hawker stalls has caused food prices to increase when the stalls are sold. The Member for Thomson has asked whether the prices are being monitored and whether Government controls them. My Ministry has made a survey, as I said, of the four centres that were sold in the first phase of the ownership programme. We surveyed, among other things, the food prices. And we found that most of the stallowners have not increased their food prices. Those who have, they have raised their prices marginally, but these new prices are still comparable to those in other centres. However, as I said earlier, it is a little bit too early to tell and we will continue to monitor the situation closely. There are many hawker food stalls in coffeeshops, in Government food centres and also in private hawker centres. The large number of stalls has, I believe, helped to keep prices reasonable and affordable. Ultimately, the best protection really lies in the hands of the customer. If the customer feels that prices are unreasonable, then he should not patronise the stall. And I think stallholders will get that message very quickly. Dr John Chen asked whether Government will speed up the sale of hawker stalls. The Government has no fixed timetable for the sale of stalls scheme. We will evaluate each phase of the scheme carefully to ensure that the benefits, both to stallowners as well as to consumers, do come about before we proceed further. He also asked about the selling prices. The selling prices of hawker stalls in the later phases of the programme will, of course, have to depend on the prevailing market conditions then. But let me say that incumbent stallholders will continue to enjoy the discount that the Government has promised them. In other words, first generation stallholders who were resettled from the streets or who were given stalls under the hardship scheme will be given a 30% discount off the Chief Valuer's assessment of what is the market rate at that time. The majority of stallholders fall under this category. Then the second generation stallholders who took over their stalls from their kins will be given a 15% discount. 1.15 pm The Member for Changi expressed concern about the increase in stall rents that was announced recently and will take effect from 1st April 1995. His fear is that this will give hawkers reason to increase their food prices. The new rents, which have not been increased for the last 10 years, are still way below market rates and are still heavily subsidised. As he has correctly pointed out, there is an increase of $40 per month for cooked food stalls and $20 per month for market produce stalls. These increases are minimal. There is no excuse for hawkers to raise their prices based on this kind of increase in rental. In fact, my Ministry has received feedback that hawkers in general feel that the new rents are fair and reasonable. But let me just add that rentals alone do not determine food prices. A chicken rice stall in a coffeeshop paying a rental of $2,000 per month sells a plate of chicken rice for around $2. The same plate of chicken rice in a hawker stall paying $120 a month is also around the same price. So the price appears to be the market price which customers of hawker stalls are prepared to pay. If hawker stall rentals were a factor, then one would expect that prices in the heavily subsidised Government hawker centres would be much less. It is not so. Sir, the Government will continue to subsidise the rental of hawker stalls but the gap between the subsidised rent and the market rate cannot be too wide. Mr Kenneth Chen is of the opinion that rental prices should vary according to locations. I agree with him. In fact, that is the reason why the Newton Hawker Centre and the Satay Club, which are the two very popular hawker centres, are now paying much higher rents than stallholders in other centres. The monthly rents for Newton Hawker Centre and Satay Club were revised twice since January 1994, and are now $920 for Newton Hawker Centre and $390 for Satay Club. Stallholders in other hawker centres are paying a much lower rental, even after the rent revision from 1st April 1995. The rents will still be $160 a month compared to $920 for Newton Hawker Centre. This, of course, is still way below the rentals paid by stallholders in private eating establishments. There is one point that Mr Ibrahim Othman raised about the number of Muslim stalls that have changed trade since the sale of the hawker stalls scheme. I do not have any numbers on this. I will revert to him when I do. But I just would like to inform him that under the scheme, the change of trade is controlled in such a way that Muslim food must always be made available even after the centre has been sold off. Sir, I would like to ask my Senior Parliamentary Secretary to respond to the other questions.

Sir, let me respond to the points raised by Mr Chin Harn Tong, Mr Teo Chong Tee and Dr Tan Cheng Bock regarding food hygiene and related matters. Sir, I cannot agree more with the Members that all food establishments in Singapore should maintain a high level of food hygiene at all times in order to prevent food poisoning. In fact, every food establishment in Singapore, be it a hawker centre, a kopi tiam, or a snack bar, or a restaurant, is subjected to the same stringent system of checks by my Ministry. Those with poor track records are checked more frequently, at least once a month whilst others are checked once in six weeks. There is no distinction made in the regularity of checks between hawker stalls and the big restaurants. Sir, in 1994, out of 19 licences suspended, four were restaurant licences. My Ministry is satisfied that hotel restaurants are taking steps to ensure that food hygiene standards are maintained at the highest level. We demand a high standard from them, just as we demand a high standard from every food outlet in Singapore. I am glad to inform the Member for Changi that every hotel has engaged or appointed a food hygiene officer responsible to ensure a high standard of food hygiene in its kitchen. My Ministry has also recently conducted a refresher training course for these food hygiene officers. Sir, the overall standard of food hygiene in our licensed food establishments is high because of our stringent requirements. As a result, the incidents of food poisoning cases in Singapore have remained low. In a recent worldwide survey conducted by WHO, it was reported that food poisoning cases have increased significantly in many countries in the world. In Europe, for example, the number of cases grew three-fold in the past 10 years. We have done better. There were 1,182 food poisoning cases in Singapore in 1985. Last year, the number dropped to 409, as observed by Mr Teo Chong Tee. Of these, only 13 were attributed to hawker centres. Sir, Dr Tan Cheng Bock also asked whether hawkers be re-educated on the use of disposable gloves. Yes, if need be, my Ministry will conduct re-education programme for hawkers. However, the Member may be pleased to know that a survey conducted by my Ministry late last year showed that, by and large, food vendors' knowledge of food hygiene is generally good. There will, of course, be the few recalcitrants. I can assure the Member that my Ministry takes a very serious view of those who neglect proper food and personal hygiene, for example, the handling of money with gloves on, as mentioned by Dr Tan just now. With every conviction, demerit points will be given and their licences can be suspended or revoked when they accumulate a certain number of points. Mr Teo Chong Tee just now asked whether the demerit points are adequate. My Ministry is of the view that the present Points Demerit System is adequate. Mr Teo also touched on raw fish salad or yu sheng served during Chinese New Year. Let me inform the Member that each year, before the start of the Chinese New Year, environmental health officers from my Ministry will remind those planning to sell yu sheng of the hygiene standard to be complied with. During the festive season, samples of raw fish sold in restaurants, hawker centres and other food outlets are taken for analysis. Members may be pleased to know that this year the result was very good, despite the increase in the number of outlets serving this food. Out of 34 outlets sampled, only one was found to have prepared the food in unsatisfactory conditions. There were also no reported cases of food poisoning resulting from the consumption of yu sheng this year. Sir, let me now turn to the point raised by Mr Teo Chong Tee regarding dengue fever. Although there has been an increase in the number of dengue cases in 1994 compared to 1993, the increase is not considered alarming. The number of cases in 1994 at 1,239 is far below the epidemic level of 1992 at 2,800 cases. Sir, in 1994, there were several outbreaks caused by the breeding of Aedes mosquitoes at construction sites, which added to the figure. To deal with this problem, my Ministry launched a training programme for site supervisors on how to prevent mosquito breeding in their workplaces. Those who have attended the course have indicated that they have benefited much from it. My Ministry will continue to keep a close watch on construction sites. If we examine beyond the construction sites, there was in fact an overall improvement in 1994 in terms of the Aedes mosquito situation. Fewer premises were found breeding the Aedes mosquitoes in 1994 compared to 1993. This is an indication that our public education programme is working. Sir, I agree with the Member for Changi wholeheartedly that the eradication of dengue calls for a concerted effort by all. In this respect, I would like to share with Members the experience of a project carried out in Joo Chiat last year. The Member for Marine Parade GRC, RAdm Teo Chee Hean, together with grassroots leaders, launched a well-planned and comprehensive campaign to eradicate mosquito breeding and dengue in the Joo Chiat neighbourhood. The campaign involved active participation by all the residents. After months of hard work and with the full cooperation of the Joo Chiat residents to spruce up the neighbourhood, the situation showed immediate and impressive improvements. The number of premises found breeding Aedes mosquitoes dropped. Correspondingly, the number of dengue cases also dropped from 28 in 1993 to 11 in 1994. This is a clear example of how a quantum leap in the quality of our living environment can be achieved when everyone lends a helping hand. Sir, my Ministry is committed to work closely with residents and grassroots leaders and the schools to further improve the quality of the environment and to make it a safe place for all. Having said that, Sir, however, I would also like to add that my Ministry will consider tougher measures against those who repeatedly breed mosquitoes in their premises.

Sir, since the Minister said that the rental for the hawker stalls differs from place to place, I would like to ask the Minister whether it would be fairer to peg the increase in rental on a percentage basis rather than a blanket one because, if it is a blanket increase, those who are paying less rental would have to pay the same amount as those who are paying a very high rental.

Sir, the increase for most of the hawker stalls, in fact, 99% of hawker stalls, is already considered minimal. Where the increase is above the minimum, and this refers to the two hawker centres that I have mentioned earlier, the reason for increasing it much more is a very clear one, because business is good, location is good and, in fact, the market values of the hawker stalls in those two centres are much, much higher than anywhere else. That is the reason why there was not very much protest from the hawkers themselves when we raised it twice. 1.30 pm But the point is that we do make a differentiation between locations. What the Member is asking perhaps is that we make even a finer distinction between hawker stalls in one location, in one constituency, or one district compared to another. I think we would have to look into the mechanics of doing that. For example, how do we do that without the hawkers maintaining that their business is slow even though they are in a location or in a hawker centre which is considered to be popular. So there will always be disputes. I think, in such cases, it would be very difficult for the Ministry to arbitrate or to decide whether this is so or not. Under those circumstances, I would rather that we keep the rental increases for most of the hawker stalls uniform but make adjustments to some of the hawker stalls which are obviously more popular.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (3). Encik Ibrahim.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MF 1500. Sir, recently three Singapore-registered vessels were arrested by the Malaysian authorities for allegedly dumping sludge into their waters. However, two of the vessels fled detention. The Malaysian authorities then sought Singapore's cooperation in locating and apprehending the ships. Singapore was accused of dragging her feet over the matter and the Malaysian press had distorted many facts. Even the Malaysian Environment Minister was reported to be very unhappy about Singapore's lack of cooperation. Sir, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on the above incident. Illegal tanker cleaning poses serious pollution problem. Such activities affect the waters of both Malaysia and Singapore. We must therefore take adequate control measures and stringent enforcement to control tanker cleaning in our waters. I wish to ask the Minister whether the present control measures are adequate and whether we need to improve further to help prevent improper tanker cleaning in other countries.

Sir, Encik Ibrahim has already raised the points that I intended to raise. I will not be speaking on this amendment.

Sir, my Ministry was first made aware of the allegations that Encik Ibrahim Othman mentioned from newspaper reports that 12 vessels were involved, of which seven were Singapore-registered. However, Singapore received requests from the Malaysian authorities for information on three vessels, and these three vessels were those which were found with oil sludge on board. Information regarding these three vessels was provided expeditiously to the Malaysian authorities. We understand that the three vessels were detained by the Malaysian authorities, two of which subsequently fled detention. A subsequent meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Committee on the Environment (MSJCE) was convened promptly in Singapore on 17th February 1995, a few days later, to discuss and coordinate action against these three vessels. Singapore reported at the meeting that they had urged the owners of the two vessels which had fled detention to quickly resolve the matter. The ensuing discussions between the Malaysian authorities and the owners enabled the matter to be settled speedily. The owners of all three vessels pleaded guilty and paid up their fines. Sir, contrary to the impression created by some press reports, relations between the environment authorities of both countries have been good and remained good. The fact that the meeting of the MSJCE was convened so quickly testifies to that. Also, the MSJCE readily agreed to set up a special working group to study whether coordination should be further strengthened. The primary concern of both countries is to prevent pollution caused by illegal tanker cleaning. Vigilance through surveillance and enforcement by both countries must continue. In addition, measures are needed to make it difficult for the tankers to be cleaned illegally. Singapore has implemented measures such as registering tanker cleaning operators and not allowing them to operate outside Singapore without permission. These are preventive measures which seek to deny access to services for illegal tanker cleaning. As a result of these measures, pollution from illegal tanker cleaning is not rampant. Nevertheless, Singapore and Malaysia must not let up in their effort to prevent illegal tanker cleaning. Sir, I would like to emphasise that Singapore does not condone illegal tanker cleaning and the dumping of oil sludge into the sea. Such activities affect us as well as our neighbours. We will continue, therefore, to pursue greater coordination between Singapore and Malaysia and also among the Singapore, Malaysian and Indonesian authorities to jointly prevent such activities.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his clarification and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $294,400,100 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $454,773,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head U -

Head U - Ministry of National Development. Amendment No. (1), Assoc. Prof. Low.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. We can use the blood vessels in our body to describe the traffic situation in Singapore. If any part our blood vessels is blocked, the body system cannot function properly. Similarly, if there is congestion everywhere on our roads, then all the traffic dependent activities, whether it is economic, cultural or social activities, will be affected. With the economic prosperity in Singapore and with more and more middle-class people aspiring to own cars, the public road system in Singapore must be improved, whether in quality or quantity. In order to improve the traffic situation and cater for the increase in cars, we must build more roads. For example, not too long ago, following the opening of the new Kranji Expressway it effectively solved the traffic problem in the Chua Chu Kang area and relieved the traffic volume for part of the Pan Island Expressway. The road surface of part of the Ayer Rajah Expressway, from Jurong Town Hall to Taman Jurong, is very uneven. This and the misalignment of part of the road have caused vehicles to travel at a slower speed and the maximum limit is set at 70 kph. This is actually part of the Ayer Rajah Expressway and the usage is very heavy. I hope that the PWD would quickly improve this part of the road so that it could befit its description as an expressway. Some areas which are fully developed, for example, in the city area, we would have to either build viaducts or underground tunnels if we want to increase the road capacity. After many years of study, I do not know whether the Ministry has any new recommendations to make. If we have spent a lot of our resources on public roads and do not have a good system to manage our traffic lights, then it is very regrettable. We know that in the city area we are already using computerised management of our traffic lights so that we have a "green wave" all the way, to enable the cars to travel with minimum disruption. This "green wave" concept should also be used on other roads so that all the important trunk roads in Singapore could be put to maximum use. Not long ago, the PWD announced that it would have a surveillance system to detect traffic offences. I think this closed-circuit system should be used instead to monitor the situation at the heavy traffic junctions for more effective control and to improve the traffic situation. Sometimes, because of very heavy traffic at these junctions, congestion becomes a daily occurrence. I am glad to see that multi-level flyovers are being built at the junction of Farrer Road and Holland Road and the junction of Farrer Road and Bukit Timah Road. These flyovers are very good and I am sure they will solve the congestion problem in those areas. There are some other traffic junctions, for example, the junction between Bukit Timah Road and Clementi Road, where such a flyover should be built to improve the traffic situation there. The design of roads can also affect the traffic movement. For example, the design outlet at Jalan Anak Bukit for the BKE is problematic. When the traffic is heavy and if the cars were to leave the expressways, you have to keep to the right, particularly for the cars coming from Bukit Timah Expressway. This has caused other cars to slow down, resulting in a bottleneck situation during the peak hours. And some slow-travelling vehicles, for example, heavy trucks and buses, they have to accelerate in order to enter the fast lanes before they could leave the expressway. It is against the general norm of driving. It is very dangerous too. Some junctions of expressways, for example, at Toh Tuck Road and junction with PIE, there are only two exit ways and one entrance. The cars will have to go round to either Bukit Batok or go through Clementi Avenue 6 to get into the Jurong end of the expressway. This results in unnecessary congestion to other roads. In order to allow the residents in Clementi to get into the expressway, Clementi Avenue 6 was built. This led to unnecessary expense. This is something that has to be rectified in appropriate time. I think in our future designs, we should also try to minimise such design shortcomings. Expressways are meant for fast travel. If we allow slow-moving vehicles to use the expressways during the peak hours, it would bring down the speed of the other vehicles. In some countries, for example, in UK, they have a minimum speed imposed on the expressways. In other words, if you travel below the minimum speed, you are not allowed to travel on the expressways. I do not know whether the Minister would consider setting this minimum speed restriction on some vehicles, for example, on the part of ECP where Government would impose the ALS, we should impose a minimum speed limit. In Singapore, heavy trucks are not supposed to exceed 40 km per hour. For some buses and mini-buses, the maximum speed is 50 km per hour. These speed limits are applicable to ordinary roads. However, on the expressways, the roads are straight, there is no obstacle, no traffic light and also better materials are used on the construction have made the road surface safer to travel on. With these favourable conditions on expressway, buses and trucks should be allowed to travel on the expressway at a higher speed. At present, there are some countries which allow buses and trucks to travel on the expressway at a higher speed. This would help to improve the movement of vehicles on the road. I do not know whether the Ministry would consider raising the speed limit of buses and goods vehicles on the expressways.

Mr Das is not speaking. Dr Wong is not here. Dr Ong.

Sir, in the coming years, the CBD and city areas are expected to grow in terms of business expansion and development intensification, both commercial as well as residential. The number of vehicles and traffic volume in these areas will increase significantly. I would like to ask the Minister what are the plans for ensuring that the road network will be able to cope with the increasing demand or usage, especially bearing in mind that it is probable that we are not able to cater to the surface road traffic, what are the plans for the underground road network in the city areas. I am sure the underground network of roads would help relieve traffic congestion and allow more cars on our roads. This would possibly bring some cheer to the motorists and commuters and members of the public. In my mind, the Ministry should try to finalise its plan as soon as possible and release the pertinent information to members of the public, so that those who are planning developments, or making choices regarding purchases of commercial or residential properties can take such factors into consideration.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to declare my interest. I am a member of the Housing and Development Board but my speech is unrelated to my position as such. Sir, last year, the Government revised the method of selling flats to the people and, by right, the waiting list should have shortened but, in fact, it has increased instead, from over 90,000 to 100,000. 60% of the applicants are upgraders, ie, those who are already living in HDB flats. Why should there be such a great demand? Some people feel that housing prices are going up everyday. The earlier you buy, the better. I think there is one other important factor which merits our attention and, that is, the big gap between the original prices of HDB flats and the open-market prices of the resale flats. There is a wide gap between the two. Take a HDB flat in Chua Chu Kang, for example. The posted price for a 4-room flat is $105,000 and the open-market resale price is $220,000, more than double the price. For a 5-room flat, I believe, the posted price is $150,000, but the open-market price is $300,000. For an Executive flat, it is $251,000 for the posted price and $380,000 for the open-market price. When you sell a 4-room flat, you have enough money to buy a new 5-room flat. So when you sell a 5-room flat in the open market, you have sufficient money to buy a new Executive flat. As a result, those present owners think that it is worth their while to upgrade to bigger units. To those first-time applicants, they also feel that buying a new unit is worthwhile because the price is half that of a re-sale flat in the open market. Why should there be such a wide gap between the posted prices and the open-market prices? Let me give an illustration. If there is no need to wait and everybody can buy a new HDB flat, irrespective of whether you are married or not, whether you are a permanent resident or citizen of Singapore, then the resale flats will not fetch such good prices. As a matter of fact, the resale flats should be cheaper because they are older. The gap in prices has spurred on the demand for new HDB flats. During the past few years, the announcement of several new measures has stimulated the demand for resale flats, for example, allowing single persons to buy 3-room flats and below and allowing permanent residents to buy any resale flats from the open market. We have also increased the quantum of housing loan for resale flat which has further stimulated the demand. Those who are buying a resale flat near to their parents are entitled to a $30,000 top-up in their CPF account, and private property owners can also buy resale HDB flats. All these measures have stimulated the demand for HDB resale flats. As a result, prices of resale flats are going up by leaps and bounds. That is the reason. The wider the gap between the posted and open-market prices, the greater will be the demand, and so will the pressure be on the Government. I hope that, in future, in the formulation of new policies for HDB flats, we must remember that we should not introduce measures to further stimulate the demand for resale flats.

Sir, at present, for first-time applicants who want to purchase Housing and Development Board flats from the open market to stay close to their parents, the Government will assist them by giving $30,000 through their CPF accounts. This is to encourage children to stay close to their parents. There are many benefits for children and parents to stay close to each other. First of all, young couples who stay close to their parents can make use of the extended family network to help look after their children as well as to look after their aged parents. Secondly, it also helps to build strong ties among the family members. They can visit each other more often and assist each other more conveniently. To further encourage the children to stay close to their parents, I would like to suggest that the Government should consider giving priority in the allocation of flats for those first-time applicants who apply for new HDB flats close to their parents. Sir, the Housing and Development Board's Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP) has so far received very good response from the residents. From the voting results of the first batch of IUP, more than 90% of the residents supported IUP. Many of my residents had approached me and asked when would be their turn to have IUP. The benefits of IUP not only help to enhance their flat value, it also helps the town council to provide better facilities to make their estate more user-friendly. At the same time, town councils could take the opportunity to carry out major repair to rectify some of the building defects. Since there is a strong demand for IUP, can the Government consider speeding up the IUP so that the residents can enjoy the benefits of IUP earlier?

Sir, we have been informed in this House that slightly over 30,000 flats that HDB intends to build every year will be sufficient to meet the present demand. And, in particular, the Board's target is to meet the needs of the newly-married couples, namely, the 26,000 new households which are formed every year. However, if you include the upgraders, bearing in mind that more than 50% of the applicants for HDB flats are upgraders, then that figure of 30,000 would appear to be on the low side. This has caused some anxiety amongst upgraders and first-timers who want to purchase flats as quickly as possible to avoid the rising cost of flats each year. They want to buy ahead to beat the rising cost. Building HDB flats takes some time. From the time the land is cleared to the time the flats are built, I learn that it is about four to five years. Therefore, there will be price differences between those neighbourhoods built earlier and those built later. This is inevitable because of increased material and labour costs. Meanwhile, the purchaser's monthly mortgage payment plus the initial downpayment for his future flat will also rise. Can he meet this rise with his monthly income which has also gone up? Therefore, may I request the Minister to assure this House and those waiting to purchase flats that their monthly mortgage payment, as a percentage of average monthly income, is still within the figures he gave some time ago in this House, that is, for a 3-room flat, about 9% of their monthly income (ie, the 1992 figure) and 22% to 23% for a 4-room flat (this figure was given to me some time ago). In other words, can an HDB purchaser be able to meet his monthly mortgage payment, through his CPF or cash or using both cash and CPF, in the light of the increased price of HDB flats? Sir, the Government has promised that HDB flats will always be very affordable to the average income household, that is, within the reach of most Singaporeans. We must honour this pledge by assuring Singaporeans, especially the first-time buyers of HDB flats, that this will be so and will continue to be so in the future. Is there, therefore, a proposal to increase the number of HDB flats that is currently being built, that is, about 30,000? Do we have any intention of increasing this number to meet the demand? Finally, HDB's measures to assist the low income groups to own flats, as outlined recently by the Minister, by way of special financing schemes should be complimented. My GPC will continue to monitor this.

Sir, there are two issues that I would like to address. The first issue is that the prices of HDB flats have increased quite significantly in the last five years. Therefore, there is a demand, particularly by young couples to purchase flats more urgently, and the rise of this demand has been quite significant in the last few years. Sir, young couples are concerned that HDB flats would become unaffordable in the long run. Is it the future plan of HDB to reduce subsidy for public housing and work towards cost recovery? If this is the policy direction, then quite a number of young families living in 3- and 4-room flats with their parents will be priced out of the market. In short, would HDB continue with its policy to provide affordable housing? 2.00 pm The second issue relates to the allocation policies for purchased flats. Despite the changes in the allocation policies for flats, there are still uncertainties about the way in which the flats are allocated amongst applicants under the queuing system. It is not really very transparent and there is insufficient information about the waiting period. Although they are given some indications, they still feel that waiting time comes to about four years or so before they get a flat. This is what they have been informed when they seek information from the HDB. Sir, has the reversion to the queuing system reduced complaints and improved the take-up rate for flats allocated? Sir, the other area of allocation policy is related to applicants for flats in the urban areas. I think the allocation for flats in urban centres based on open balloting should be modified, particulary for applicants who choose to live with their parents. There are a lot of applicants who live in 3-room flats in the urban areas and they, more often than not, cannot get flats nearer their parents. I wish to find out whether HDB will modify the current allocation policy and provide first priority to this group of people as it will be in line with the Government's policy to strengthen family support.

Sir, during the early 80s, we used to get a lot of requests from residents for early allocation of flats. But with the accelerated construction programme that HDB undertook during the mid-80s and the late 80s, the number of such requests dwindled. In the last few years, we noticed that the number of such requests has gone up again. This could be due to the rapidly rising prices of private housing and there are many residents who are getting more and more worried because, to many of them, private housing prices are simply beyond their reach. I know it is impossible to devise an allocation system which can satisfy everybody. However, in some cases, perhaps some fine-tuning is still necessary. For example, in a family with three children, they get certain priority. But we do not, I understand, differentiate between a family with three teenage children and a family with three young children. For a teenage girl, it is rather inconvenient and awkward to have to share a room with her two brothers. But in the case of a family with three young children, there is no such problem. Would the Ministry consider some fine-tuning for families with three teenage children? The second case I would like to bring up is the allocation of flats for our grassroots leaders. Our successful housing programme is due not only to the excellent design and architecture of HDB flats but also to the quality of life that exists in our HDB estates. And to a large extent, our grassroots leaders, our CCC, MC and RC members have played a significant role in bringing about a safer and better environment in our HDB estates. The activities that they organise are many and varied and it is common knowledge that many of our foreign guests are impressed by the safety and the quality of life that we get in HDB estates. Sir, I would like to make a plea for our grassroots leaders who wish to continue to stay on in their existing estates to be given a greater number of flats for allocation among them.

Sir, upon allocation of an HDB flat, an applicant has to pay 20% of the purchase price as downpayment. If there is not enough money in the CPF ordinary balance, then the applicant will have to make the difference in cash and this is usually very difficult for young people who have just embarked on their careers. I would like to submit to the Minister that this requirement of 20% downpayment upon allocation of an HDB flat poses a substantial problem to an average young couple who are planning to get married and applying for their first HDB flat. And I would like to urge the Minister to reduce this downpayment to 10% for first-time applicants. Let me explain this, Sir. According to the 1990 Census, 132,500 single people earned between $1,000- $1,499 per month. If we look at the table by age group, then 125,900 people between the ages of 20 and 29 years earned between $1,000-$1,499 per month, and this youthful group constitutes nearly half of the people in this income band, ie, between $1,000-$1,499. Although the two groups are not necessarily synonymous, the single people and the young people between 20 and 29 years are likely to come from the same income band. The average income of this group earning between $1,000 and $1,499 is $1,250 per month. The CPF contribution to the ordinary account will be $374 per month and if we multiply this by 13, then the CPF balance for one year will be $4,800. According to the Cost Review Committee, the average price of a 4-room Model A flat in 1992 was $103,000. To buy this flat, the downpayment has to be 20% which works out to be about $20,000. To be able to reach $20,000 in the ordinary account, it will take our hypothetical applicant about four years as the yearly amount adds up to less than $5,000. Taking the years 1988-1992, the price increase for HDB flats averaged 12% a year. During the same period, average yearly earnings rose by 9%. To make the comparison simpler, I have discounted the wage increase of 9% per year and the HDB flat price increase of 12% per year. Thus, we can see that for a single wage earner between the ages of 20-29 years earning an average income of $1,250, it takes about four years to build up the CPF ordinary balance for the downpayment for a 4-room flat at the 1992 prices. After that, there is an estimated wait of 2-3 years before the flat is ready. Thus, it will take nearly seven years before a young couple can move into their own flat. Is it any wonder then why young people delay their marriage until the late 20s? If we change the scenario to a dual income couple applying for a flat and in the same income band but wishing to apply for a 5-room improved flat which in 1992 was $143,000, the downpayment works out to be $28,000. For a couple earning the same amount, ie, about $1,250 per month, it will take about three years to build up their combined CPF balances to pay for the downpayment, and then they also have to wait 2-3 years. Therefore, their total wait will be about 5-6 years. Not only do young people have to wait a few years for the HDB flat, but the other difficulty is that as the prices of HDB flats go up quite substantially each year, it becomes harder and harder to reach the 20% downpayment target. It is like chasing your own tail. Thus, if we want to help our young people to get married early and to move into their own home, then we will have to reduce the downpayment to 10% of the purchase price of the flat instead of the present 20%. I am only recommending the lowering of the downpayment to 10% for first-time purchasers of HDB flats and not for upgraders. For first-timers who want to buy executive flats, we could leave the downpayment to 20% and only allow the 10% for those first-timers who wish to purchase 4- or 5-room flats. We would thus not be enticing young people to purchase flats beyond their means and we would really be helping those young people who genuinely find it difficult in the first few years of their working life to have enough CPF savings for downpayment for their first home. Needless to say, these same young people would hardly have any savings to top up their CPF balances and each year the target of 20% downpayment for their flat always seems to be out of their reach. By reducing the downpayment to 10% for first-timers wishing to buy 4- or 5-room flats, we would be helping young people to acquire their homes more quickly and settle down to a married life of bliss and, hopefully, the children will come soon after. With this national objective in mind, how can the Minister say "No" to this request.

Sir, before I speak on HDB Building Programme, can I have your permission to speak on Roads Development Programme that I missed just now?

Yes.

Thank you. Sir, the number of vehicles on our roads will increase with greater affluence of our people. Hence, travel demand towards and within the city is expected to increase considerably. May I ask the Minister (a) the plans for additional road capacity to cater for the projected traffic growth in the city in view of land constraints; and (b) the feasibility of building road tunnels in the city. I understand that the Government is considering to build a ring tunnel network referred to as the Singapore Underground Road System (SURS). Can the Minister give us more details of the SURS network, the estimated cost of construction and when construction work will start? Next, on the HDB building programme. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the HDB's building programme from 1994 to 1996, in particular: (a) the number of HDB flats built in 1994 and planned to be built in 1995 and 1996; (b) the number of HDB flat applicants in 1994 and the number of HDB applicants expected for 1995 and 1996; and (c) in order to meet the increasing demand for HDB flats, will the Government consider building more flats to meet this demand?

Dr Ong, you can take your two topics together.

Sir, the introduction of the Registration for Flats System for the allocation of HDB flats, I think, is a step in the right direction. As we heard earlier, there is, of course, scope for fine-tuning, but I think now the applicants can know roughly when, as a first-timer or an upgrader, they can expect to have their flats allocated to them. There is more certainty in terms of timing. The allocation system having been emplaced, the residents would now like to know whether they can receive their flats in good time, and whether the waiting time can be cut down, without, of course, sacrificing the quality of the building programme or adversely affecting the resale price of their existing flats. We do not want the earlier period when there was a rush and the quality went down. It is therefore a matter of balance and a matter of assessment on the impact of each move. It will be good to hear the reasoning behind the current HDB building programme of 30,000-plus flats a year, and to ascertain that what can be done is being done. Because many applicants are rather worried that if they wait for a few more years, costs will escalate and the prices of new flats will go up. Sir, can I move on to the next topic?

Yes. 2.15 pm

Sir, as our population profile changes with the greying of the population, we need to do more for the elderly, especially those staying in rental flats. Many are very pleased with the Government scheme to upgrade the rental blocks for the elderly in selected HDB housing estates. I think the Government has pumped in millions of dollars into this very worthy scheme. Indeed, it demonstrates, in my mind, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the Government is committed to the care and interest of our senior citizens. We must, of course, take steps to ensure that such blocks for senior citizens would not degenerate into ghettos. They should be spread out among other blocks in the HDB heartland and they can be close to their neighbours and relatives. With the demonstration phase well in place, I want to ask whether the Minister would consider extending it to the other parts of the island so that more senior citizens can enjoy this advantage and the fruits of this labour can be seen by all.

Sir, residents of old housing estates are eagerly looking forward for upgrading programmes to be implemented in their neighbourhood. The Ministry is teasing them by saying that the programme is coming, and when they ask me when is it coming, I tell them it is coming soon. They asked, "How soon?" So I tell them that the Minister says, "Very soon." They asked, "How soon is soon?" I tell them that they say, "Quite soon." All these provide them with hope in terms of upgrading of the neighbourhood. They feel that it is not moving as quickly as it should have been. Some residents have remarked that the way HDB is undertaking its upgrading programme, they will not be able to "smell" it in their lifetime. This is quite real because quite a number of the older housing estates have older residents and the estates look quite run down. In fact, there is an urgency for the Minister to look into the matter, especially when the Minister is also the MP in the same constituency. I hope that he can look at it and try to get the upgrading programme to this neighbourhood quickly. Sir, the Ministry should provide a tentative time-table for the upgrading programme to be implemented. At least, this would become transparent and people would know when the plans are going to be materialised. Could a larger precinct rather than a smaller parcel of eight to ten blocks be targeted for upgrading? This will therefore provide greater visibility and better improvement to the neighbourhood. The other issue is that many of the older residents are concerned about their ability to participate in the upgrading scheme as they are not sure whether they would be able to get the loans and support from the HDB. It would be a pity if we are not able to provide them the necessary support and reassurance to encourage them to take advantage of the upgrading programme of their neighbourhood. I can understand that many of them are concerned because they are retirees and they have no means to commit themselves to such a programme. It would be a setback that while we are planning to rejuvenate and improve the neighbourhood, this group of retirees and older residents cannot join in to participate in such a relevant and important scheme. The other aspect that the Minister may wish to address is that residents in larger flats are questioning the rationale why they should not be paying the same charges for the space-adding item. Residents in 3-room flats are charged quite differently from those living in larger flats. The residents in 4-room and 5-room flats are saying that they are having the same space adding item and why are they paying more for the same space. Would the Minister care to clarify?

Sir, I understand that the HDB's upgrading programme is progressing smoothly and hope the Minister can give this House an update of the latest development such as: (a) When will the five demonstration precincts in Marine Parade, Telok Blangah, Ang Mo Kio, Lorong Lew Lian and Clementi be completed? How many HDB flats in these precincts have been upgraded and how much the Government has spent in upgrading these HDB flats? (b) Which are the constituencies that have been selected for upgrading and when will HDB flats in Kampong Glam GRC (Cairnhill) be upgraded? (c) How many HDB flats will benefit from the Interim Upgrading Programme and when can this programme be extended to Kampong Glam GRC (Cairnhill)?

Sir, an estimated amount of some $21.4 billion will be spent by the Government over a 25-year period under the upgrading programme. In the coming financial year, in FY95, from the Budget document, another 7,394 units will commence the Main Upgrading Programme while another 20,000 units will be improved under the Interim Upgrading Programme. In the Budget document, a further amount of some $408 million has been budgeted for current FY95 under the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP) and the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP). The MUP and the IUP programmes will pick up momentum in the next few years, as more and more HDB flats are due for upgrading. Due to popular requests by residents and now MPs, I am not surprised that the programme may be speeded up to meet the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans, especially now that private properties are beyond the reach of many Singaporeans. Sir, given this trend, there will be implications on Government financial resources as well as on the capacity of the construction industry. My questions to the Minister are therefore two-fold. The first question pertains to the funding of the upgrading programme. I understand that currently the upgrading programme is funded through current Government revenue because the amount involved is still small. When the number of flats due for upgrading picks up very quickly within the next new years, this will certainly put a strain on current revenue resources of the Government. My question is: how is the Government going to fund the MUP and the IUP programmes in the long run? Will it continue to be on current revenue, which means that taxes will have to be raised in future? Or do we dig into the reserve, which means that presidential assent may be required? Since we are now enjoying healthy budgetary surpluses, I propose that the Ministry look into considering setting aside money now for future funding of the MUP and IUP programmes. The second question pertains to the capacity of the construction industry. How is the HDB going to cope with this demand for upgrading of flats without over-straining the construction industry in the next few years? In other words, are there plans to increase the capacity of these industries and, if so, how and when?

Mr Leong and Mr Chay are not here. Dr Ong.

Sir, by all accounts, the Major Upgrading Programme is a huge success. The demonstration precincts in Kim Keat, Marine Parade and other places have served to whet the appetite of Singaporeans for more of such upgrading programmes. There is an air of excitement as well as expectation for the upgrading to come earlier, or as Dr Vasoo says, sooner, to their housing estates. Many are worried that they have to wait a long time for their turn, and also costs would go up in the meantime. I am sure the Minister would take pain to reassure them that they do not have to wait that long. For those who are not due yet for the Major Upgrading Programme, but whose blocks of flats are within 10-17 years old, they can be eligible for the Interim Upgrading Programme, which the town councils are helping to implement on behalf of the HDB. The Interim Upgrading Programme has also proven to be a winner. It is a simple yet cost effective way of enhancing the assets and living environment of fellow Singaporeans. The residents as well as the town councils would very much like to see an expansion or speeding up of this programme. Of course, many are very worried that they have to queue up and wait a long time and, as Dr Vasoo says, they want to have it earlier. I hope they do not have to say, tan chin ku, wait a long time.

Sir, my residents also have the same concern as those mentioned by earlier MPs, in particular, those residents in the older part of my estate at Toa Payoh, Lorong 8. The flats there are about 20 years old and they are situated at Lorong 8 Toa Payoh Estate. They have seen the upgrading of flats in the neighbouring area at Kim Keat and much publicity has been given to that part of the upgrading at Kim Keat. They are just wondering when their turn will come. I hope the Minister has not overlooked Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, which is just across the road from Kim Keat Constituency. The flats at that part of my Constituency are definitely ripe for upgrading. In fact, the sunken apron problem is very prevalent there. Any visitor who comes to visit his friends in that part of Potong Pasir will see ugly gaps below the void decks. Like the other MPs, I hope the Minister will give an indication of when the upgrading programme will come to that part of my Constituency. On average, about 10-20% of the residents have not voted for the upgrading programme. Can the Minister give the reasons why these people do not want to have their flats upgraded? Is it because of their old age that they prefer the status quo, or is it because they just cannot afford to pay the contribution of between $2,000 and $14,000? What happens to those residents who genuinely suffer hardship and cannot afford even to pay the minimum sum that is required of them when their flats are upgraded? Does the Government pay for them? Maybe the Minister could enlighten me on these points. During the upgrading programme, of course, there will be inconvenience caused to residents. I know that Singaporeans are generally a hardy lot. They are very adaptable and can quickly adjust to their immediate surroundings. There must be a few among them who just cannot take the inconvenience and do not want to remain in the flats. What happens to them? Does the HDB provide alternative accommodation of rental flats to these families? I am referring to some of them who have got chronic sickness and maybe infant children who cannot take the noise. Maybe the Minister could also enlighten me on this point. We have just been told of the importance of water conservation. The water conservation tax has been increased. In line with the water conservation programme, I am asking the Minister whether in these upgraded flats there are provisions made to collect and store rain water so that it can be used maybe to water the plants in the estate or residents could wash their cars with this rain water. I believe rain water is certainly quite clean for washing cars, especially if sufficient filters are provided in the tanks that store the rain water. If the HDB has not provided these water tanks to collect and store rain water, will the Minister consider doing so? 2.30 pm The other issue I have already brought it up. Will the Minister consider extending the 99-year lease of upgraded flats to, say, maybe six years more, to 105 years? I hope the Minister will consider this because I am sure upgraded flats will have their usable life extended.

( In Mandarin): Sir, in the Budget Statement the Minister for Finance confirmed the stand of the Government on the supply of private property. According to the blue-print, private residential properties will eventually constitute 20% of all residential properties in Singapore. At present, we have only about 10% private property. According to information from the Urban Redevelopment Authority, from now until the year 2001, 79,000 new private residential units will be supplied to the market. Compared with the present rate of construction of HDB flats, I think by the year 2002, private property will take up 20% of the total housing in Singapore. The Government is the biggest land owner in Singapore. To reach this long-term percentage of 20% for private housing, the Government will have to release land more liberally for development by the private sector, and the amount of land to be released by the Government will affect the prices of land and private property in Singapore. The question of most concern to the people in Singapore now is the high prices of private housing. Over the past four years, the prices have gone up by 1.5 times. According to reports over the past few months, prices of private property are softening. This is also reflected in the tender prices declining over the past few months for the sites offered for sale by the Government. If prices are going down, will the Government continue with the promise to provide more land for private development? How many parcels of land will be provided for the building of private housing? If tender prices keep dropping, will the Government revise downwards the reserve price? If Government continues with the tender of land and yet cannot moderate the increase in the prices of private property, will the Government consider allowing land to be purchased by the private developers for development of medium-price condominiums? As a wedge between the two types of properties, like in Malaysia, the price of a medium-price condominium unit is about half that of the high-class up-market condominium. The differences between the two are the plot ratio, design, finishing and building materials used. If this concept of medium-price condominium flats can be implemented in Singapore, we will enable more medium-income Singaporeans to own their own private properties and thus relieve the pressure on prices of private properties.

Sir, the Government wants to have a better mix of public housing and private housing. This is a good move. By the year 2010, it is hoped that the ratio of public to private housing units will be 75:25. In other words, 25% of Singaporeans will live in private housing estates in the not so near future. A sizeable portion of this 25% must come from HDB dwellers, that is, the HDB upgraders. Sir, I was told that HDB flat owners who bought their flats some 10 years ago can make a tidy profit of more than $100,000 if he sells his flat today. This capital appreciation of HDB flats has made many a Singaporean very wealthy and they are now eyeing the private property market. They can, with a loan of $200,000 to $300,000, be able to live in a private condominium worth about $600,000, if they sell their HDB flat today. This is a dream of not only the upgraders but of fairly young graduate couples whose combined income rules them out of the HDB housing and the increasingly high prices of private flats are becoming a dream of the past for some of them. A few have expressed their frustration by contemplating emigrating to places like Australia, where the cost of housing is very, very much cheaper than here. I think their concern is real. We do not want to lose them. They are born and educated here. They feel sandwiched between the two sectors - private and public housing sectors. It would be a pity if finding a roof over their heads becomes such a frustration. We may argue that they may be unrealistic in their expectations. Yes, while there may be a few who have unrealistic expectations by expecting to live beyond their means, most are down-to-earth and very realistic. Nobody wants to go and live in a foreign land. It is starting all over again. Our young graduates must not feel that they have missed the boat and that what the older generation Singaporeans with similar qualifications have, that is, a car and a house, seem too distant a dream for them. We must try and do something. But, first, let me give you some figures that I read from a cover story of the Straits Times, 1st September 1993. It headlined: "Private homes: Unaffordable now?", and I quote: `But have private property price increases outpaced household earnings? Looking at the basic correlation of an index of average earnings over the residential property price index (PPI), used as a broad measure of affordability, it can be seen that prices have been climbing faster than earnings since 1989-90. And last year, residential property prices moved up 16 per cent against an average of 7 per cent rise in earnings.' So, you see, Sir, I share the concern of many young graduate couples whose earnings are not able to match the rising property market prices. This relationship between earnings and property prices cannot be too far apart because in the middle-class Singapore society, salaries are used to pay off property loans and taking a loan to buy properties is the usual practice here. Thus, I support the Government in releasing more land for private residential development, hoping that this move will cap, if not slow down, the property prices which have gone up substantially over the past two years. I learn that 6,000 units will be added into the private residential market this year. Of these 6,000 units, I hope most will be for condominiums and private apartments as they will be more affordable to Singaporeans.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong is not here. Dr Ong.

Sir, Singaporeans generally wish to upgrade to better housing, from 3- or 4-room HDB apartments to 5-room or executive apartments. Those in HDB 5-room or executive apartments may aspire to own private condominiums or landed properties. There is therefore this legitimate aspiration and constant effort to upgrade and improve, and enhance our assets for ourselves as well as for our children. Property is, of course, not everything in life, but we should do all we can to ensure that there is a reasonable supply of private residential properties so that such common aspirations of Singaporeans are not dashed or that the prices would escalate beyond the reach of most Singaporeans. The Government should periodically release more land and review the building regulations, plot ratio and mix of housing in the various parts of the island, so as to keep pace with the changing profile and preferences of Singaporeans. I think the public would like to know whether all that can be done is being done and that they would still have a chance to upgrade themselves socially and in terms of housing.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I am glad that over the past six years I have been able to see the entire Chua Chu Kang New Town being developed so rapidly. However, living in a new town can be a problem. The facilities in a new town cover a wide range, including shopping centres, eating shops, public transport, car parks, schools, child care centres, kindergartens, police posts, hospitals, clinics, library, sports facilities, parks, and so on. If these facilities are not properly coordinated, we will not be able to provide the necessary services for the residents there. In some cases, you will not be able to see any service at all. For all these facilities I have listed above, quite often the grassroots leaders and MPs need to urge on and exert pressure on the various departments before they could materialize. These facilities are controlled by the various departments. When the HDB builds a new town, they are unable to keep pace with the building schedule. This is a question of coordination. If the representatives of the various agencies do not come together and reach an understanding on the development plan, or if there is no follow-up action, then there will be dislocation, as I have already mentioned. If nobody kicks up a row or exert pressure on the departments, the facilities, like sports facilities, will not come about until very much later. I feel that developing a large new town is a big matter and it must not depend entirely on the Ministry of National Development alone. You must also get the direct participation and assistance of other Government agencies. There should be proper coordination to let all the agencies understand the development and progress rather than each agency going its own way. Certain agencies which are more active will do what they should do. But other agencies may have different priorities and so there is a lack of coordination. Because of this lack of coordination, the facilities in new towns, especially the smaller ones, which should be there are not there. In the development of a new town I feel that it is necessary to set up a multi-agency coordinating committee headed by senior Government officers. This Committee must also have an effective head or chief executive whose job is to direct and decide on the facilities to be built, so that they can be properly coordinated with the building of a new town where all the facilities can be introduced at the right time to reduce the inconvenience of the people.

Sir, can I speak on the next amendment?

Yes.

( In Mandarin): Sir, the traditional agricultural sector in Singapore has already diminished because of our resettlement programmes. Now we have a high-tech agro-technology industry. We have been using new technology, introducing new products and automation for agricultural activities. By present standard, you need to invest about $7 million in an egg laying farm and the Primary Production Department has also set very high standards to ensure that the products of the farm are of a high quality. Apart from the requirement that no excessive antibiotics should be used, there are also very strict regulations on the control of diseases. If the farm is infected with any disease, like salmonella disease, then all the chickens in the farm have to be destroyed within a couple of days. This kind of hygiene standard, I believe, is the highest in this region. I do not think any country in this region can catch up with our standard here. I think our egg production, apart from a high standard of hygiene, there is value-added. We have low cholesterol eggs, omega 3 enrichment and so on. But the consumers are not able to distinguish between the good local product and an imported product. Presently, although there are a number of chicken farms or egg farms stamping their trade-mark on the eggs, how many consumers can really distinguish the trade mark. Furthermore, in the market and sundry shops, when they sell eggs, they will display a sign saying "local fresh eggs", irrespective of whether they are genuine local eggs or imported eggs. More seriously, some of the local egg-farms even import eggs from other countries and brand them as local eggs. You pay a premium to buy good local fresh eggs but what you actually get are imported eggs of a lower quality. To protect the interest of the consumers, the Primary Production Department should also legislate to ensure that all eggs are marked with particulars like place and date of production and the name of the importer. This will serve to encourage our local farmers to invest more on high-tech agro-technology. At the same time, the interest of consumers is protected.

Sir, after a long period of waiting, the construction of a second crossing between West Malaysia and Singapore was confirmed. This will definitely help to relieve traffic congestion at the existing Causeway and enhance trade and tourism between the two close neighbours. I would like to know the progress of this important bridge of crossing between these two ASEAN nations, which I will call the "Bridge of Goodwill", and when the first vehicle from Singapore will be able to move across this bridge into Johor.

Order. I propose to take the tea break now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.48 pm until 3.20 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head U (cont.) -

Sir, first, I would like to thank Members of the House for their views and comments. I would take the responses by subject rather than going through according to their order. First of all, I would like to discuss the road construction programme. Several Members have asked about the progress of the road construction programme, in particular, the underground road system and whether this will allow for more car ownership. Sir, first, let me explain that while we will build roads as much as we can in order to increase road capacity, we are running smack against our biggest problem, ie, land constraint. Building more roads, therefore, can only be part of the solution. Let me elaborate. Today, we have 310,000 cars. This means one car for every 10 persons. If we control the annual growth to 3% under the present COE system, there will be 490,000 cars by the year 2010, or one car to every seven persons. If we continue with this 3% growth, by the year 2030, the car population will increase three times, to 890,000 cars. Today, we have 2,900 km of roads. Roads take up almost 10% of our land, about the same amount of land that we use for building homes. If the car population triples to 890,000 in the year 2030, are we going to set aside three times the existing land for road construction? Obviously, not. Even if we limit growth, say, after the year 2010 to 1% and not 3%, the car population will double in the year 2030. Again, we are not likely to be able to set aside twice the amount of land for roads as we have today. Therefore, we must increase road capacity without using too much land. The strategies we adopt are two-fold. First, outside the city, we will expand the road capacity by building up our network of expressways. Here, I must explain that our expressways in Singapore are not like the autobahns of Germany or the motorways of England. We are a city state and, therefore, although we try to improve the speeds in the expressways, we have to be careful how much land we take. Our expressways are not even full interchanges with all the turning movements allowed. The example given by Prof. Low about Jalan Anak Bukit is a reflection of this problem. We have to build our expressways with the land constraints in mind and, therefore, sometimes we have to compromise on the design. So we do not expect cars to be zooming past at 110 km an hour. If we provide all the interchanges with all the movements, all at the left hand side, then I think we have to acquire a lot of land. So in many of our interchanges, in many of our expressways, particularly in the PIE where we built by upgrading existing arterial roads, we had to compromise. For example, in Toa Payoh, we allow bus stops along the PIE. This is unheard of when you talk about expressways, but this is the constraint. Secondly, when we look at the main trunk roads, we will try to improve the capacity of the bottle-necks, eg, the intersections. And here, we are building three-tier intersections starting with the one at Farrer Road/Adam Road and the other at Adam Road/Queensway. On the suggestion by Prof. Low to also build such an interchange at Bukit Timah/Clementi, we will take a look at it. Thirdly, we will try to improve the flow by computerising the traffic lights wherever possible. We have done so in the city area and in selected suburban areas. PWD has a programme to extend this island-wide. So the traffic flow will improve. What about increasing the road capacity within the city? The land constraint is even more severe. As many MPs observe, the city will continue to build up even though we are decentralising and building up regional centres. The built-up area in the city will double in the long term, and there is no way we can double the number of roads in the city. Where we are building the city in a new area, say, in the Marina South area, we will introduce new roads to take the services into the new areas. But where the city is growing within existing areas, eg, in Shenton Way, in Raffles Place, in Havelock Road, there is no way we can expand the road capacity by widening the roads. Therefore, we plan to do so by going underground. We are looking at building an underground road network that will increase the capacity in the city by 40%. This network is planned to be implemented in segments. We hope to do it in six segments, each segment operating on its own as an independent road tunnel. The cost of the whole network is estimated at $4.8 billion. This is about the same price as the MRT North-east sector line. In view of the very high cost, the underground road network has to be carefully evaluated. Sir, we will continue to invest in road building to increase the road capacity in order to meet Singaporeans' aspirations to own cars. But given our land constraints, we have to accept that building more roads is only just one measure to meet our growing transportation needs. The emphasis must be to make use of other public transport systems including demand management systems like the electronic road pricing. As Mr Mah Bow Tan announced last week, the Government will establish a new organisation, the Land Transport Authority, to provide a more integrated mechanism to tackle our transportation problems. That is the only way to ensure that mobility is maintained. Another question raised by Prof. Low is whether we can increase the speeds of some of the slower moving vehicles on the road. This is a balance between safety and traffic flow. I will ask the PWD and the Traffic Police to evaluate this need. Right now, they have established the balance at the present 50 km per hour. Let me now turn to the various questions on HDB. Let me start first by addressing the building programme in HDB. Before I do so, I would like to explain the nature of the demand in our applications for HDB flats. I think Assoc. Prof. Low has struck the nail on the head. The demand for HDB new flats now not only stems from people wanting a roof over their head, I think the demand now stems more by people wanting to make a capital gain out of their old flat or new flat. And that is why you see a high percentage of upgraders. The nature of the demand is different from the 1980s to the 1990s, and our response also has to be different. Mr Lau Ping Sum asks why we cannot accelerate the building programme as we did in the 1980s. He remembers that in the 1980s when there was a big backlog, we increased production by over 60,000 units per year, and the number of requests for earlier allocation dropped in his meet-the-people sessions. Today, if we do that, we will have a lot of problems, which I shall explain later. 3.30 pm Because a high percentage of our demand now are upgraders, if we were to accede to all their requests and build 50,000 or 60,000 flats a year, when they take delivery of those flats in two and a half years' time, these upgraders must sell away their flats. With 30,000 flats being put into the resale market, in a very short period of time the resale prices will drop. So the whole scenario will change for those people who are applying today. Many people apply today because, as some MPs have remarked, for the price of a 4-room flat they can sell it in the private sector market and buy a new 5-room flat. But if we were to accede to their request and build 60,000 flats, then their whole calculation will go astray. The resale prices would drop and the capital gains that many of them are calculating upon or hoping to get would not be there. I am not sure that is what Singaporeans want. So taking all these into consideration, we are building HDB flats at a higher rate but not at a rate that would cause a major collapse of the HDB resale market. In 1992, we built 24,000 flats. For 1994, we raised this to 30,000. This year, it would be 33,000, and in 1996, it would be 31,000. This is a significant increase since the late 1980s and early 1990s. The reason why we do not want to build more is not only the impact on the resale price but also the impact on the construction sector. The construction sector is enjoying a very high growth. In 1991 and 1992, the construction sector grew by 20% per year. Last year, it grew by 15%. There is a great danger that if we accelerate the building programme, both for the new flats as well as for the upgrading programme, as many Members would wish for, the construction sector would overheat. Then construction prices would go up and quality would drop. So this is the level that we feel comfortable at without overheating the construction sector, but still maintaining quality and without causing a major disruption to the resale prices. Having settled on the number of flats that we would build over the next two to three years, which is averaging around 30,000 flats, why should we not build more? We must also take the number of houses being built in the private sector into consideration. The private sector is generating, on the average, more than 10,000 flats a year now. So together with HDB's building programme, we are creating 40,000 new housing units every year. Dr Tan Cheng Bock estimates new household formation to be about 26,000. So if new household formation is around 26,000 to 30,000, and we are creating new housing units at the rate of 40,000 every year, somewhere down the line, occupancy will drop and this will be reflected in the prices. So we have to settle on 30,000 HDB flats. Having settled on this, how do we set the prices and how do we allocate the flats? There is a lot of concern and misperception that HDB prices in the new flats have gone up very drastically over the years. Let me assure the House that this is not so. HDB new flats are still very affordable. Over the last two years, from 1993 to 1994, the average increases in selling prices of HDB 4-room, 5-room and executive flats are 6%, 12% and 16% respectively. As this is the objective of the Government, we try to keep the selling prices of the 4-room flats as affordable as possible and therefore we keep the increases limited. So overall, if you take across-the-board, there is an average increase of about 10%. To HDB, however, the average costs have gone up by 34%, primarily due to increases in land cost. So the subsidies in the HDB programme have increased. When we set the selling prices of HDB flats, one of the key considerations is affordability. So you can look at the various parameters of affordability. One parameter is that the average price has gone up by about 10% over the last two years. Wages on the average have gone up by about 7% and 8%, 7% in 1993 and about 8.8% in 1994. So the average prices of HDB flats have lagged behind wages. If you look at the upper end of HDB flats, for example, executive flats, then HDB prices have increased more than the average wages. But that is because the prices of private property have gone up very significantly and there is a comparison between executive flats and private property. Nevertheless, if you look at executive flats and private properties, for example, a new HDB executive flat in Jurong West in the first half of 1994 was priced at $256,000, less than one-third the price of a private apartment of the same size in Parc Oasis which averaged around $800,000. Another measure of affordability is to assess the burden of the mortgage instalments. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked: has this burden increased? The average mortgage instalments payable on the selling prices of all HDB flat types did not exceed 24% of the median monthly household income. This is the kind of percentage which I explained to the House some time ago. We look at the median household income of the applicants and we try to make sure the burden of servicing their mortgage instalments does not exceed more than 25-26% of their median household income. So for the median applicant, he can service his mortgage instalments entirely through his CPF contribution. In fact, that is indeed the case. If you look at the mode of payment of HDB applicants, 81% pay for their downpayments and their mortgage instalments entirely by CPF. This percentage has not changed very much over the years. That means 81% of HDB home owners are servicing their burden of home ownership entirely through the CPF. If you look at the low-income group, then I think Members can be assured that the many assistance schemes would help them buy over their flats. I do not want to elaborate the schemes. We discussed this last year and I am happy to report to the House that the four strategies which we have adopted to help the low income families own flats are progressing very well. Let me address the coffeeshop talk that the prices of new HDB flats are pushing up prices of resale HDB flats. That coffee-shop talk is unfounded. The HDB prices of the new flats are set by Government and we purposely set it such that it is affordable for all Singaporeans. The HDB resale prices are set by the market depending on the demand and supply. Prof. Low is correct in saying that over the years since 1989 the HDB has liberalised the rules so that there seems to be a higher demand in the HDB resale prices. That is the long term strategy of the Government. We want the resale market to reflect the private housing market. Therefore, we will liberalise the rules so that there is free transaction in the resale market. As Members will notice, since 1989, we have allowed more mortgage loans, we have allowed permanent residents to buy, we have allowed singles to buy in the resale market and so on. But if you look at the supply side, over the next few years there will be more resale flats coming on to the market. In 1994, upgraders who bought new HDB flats released 6,500 resale flats into the open market. This figure will increase. In 1995, this figure will go up to 7,000; in 1996, to 10,000; and 1997, to 30,000. So already we are seeing the pattern. As the upgraders take possession of their new flats they will release more flats into the resale market and this will help stabilise the resale sector. There is another source of resale flats in the market, and that is, from HDB upgraders to private properties. Again, if you look at the private property market, this year there will be a completion of 9,200 new private flats. In 1996, this figure is expected to go up to 16,400, and in 1997, 15,700. So there is a big increase in the completion of private housing units. About 20% or more of this completion will be taken up by upgraders from HDB flats. So again these people will have to put their HDB flats into the market. Therefore, another 2,000 to 3,000 HDB flats will come into the resale market from this source of HDB upgraders into the private market. Over the next three years, you will find these two big sources of HDB resale flats - those who upgrade into new HDB flats as well as those who are upgrading into private properties. Looking at this picture down the road, the increase in the supply of resale flats, as a result of Singaporeans upgrading, whether to new flats or private flats, will have a stabilising effect on the prices of resale flats. Let me now talk about the allocation of the flats. We have switched to the Registration of Flats System which is essentially a queuing system and the transition has been very smooth. But there is still some unhappiness over the waiting period in some areas. Dr Vasoo quoted the example of a four-year waiting period. The waiting period differs, depending on where you apply. If you apply for a 4-room flat in Woodlands, you will be allocated a flat within six months. If you apply for a 5-room flat in Woodlands, in the Northern region, you will get your allocation within nine months to a year. But the bulk of Singaporeans want to go to the North-East sector. More than 55% of applications are in the North-East sector where we have very few flats coming up over the next few years because we have to reclaim the land in Punggol before we can start the building programme there. As a result, if you are an upgrader waiting for a flat in the North-East region, then you have to wait four years to be allocated your flat. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked what about giving priority to young couples. The Government's objective to encourage young couples to live with or near their parents has been in place for many years and we have many programmes to encourage this. For example, the Multi-tier Family Priority Scheme, the Joint Selection Scheme as well as the policy of allowing existing lessees to mutually exchange their flats. Last year, of course, we introduced the $30,000 grant to the CPF to any first-timer who buys a resale flat close to their parents' home. As a result of all these schemes, the situation in fact has been quite good. More than 21% of HDB home owners have married children staying with them or in a flat next door. So 21% are staying together or next door, another 20% stay in the same block or in the nearby block. So because of the various schemes working over the years, almost 40% are staying very close to one another. Family ties remain strong. More than 71% in a survey say that their children visit them at least once a week. Nevertheless, we will continue to think of other schemes to encourage younger couples to stay with their parents, only where it is feasible. The suggestion by Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon and Dr Vasoo about giving priority to young couples to stay with their parents in a mature estate, I am afraid, is just not workable. As I have explained many times in this House, the demand for such flats in a mature estate overwhelms the supply. We have tried to favour existing residents by giving them twice the priority compared to non-residents. But there is no way we can give priority to young couples to stay with their parents in the mature estates. As my Senior Parliamentary Secretary gave the response to Mr Yeo Toon Chia about Ang Mo Kio flats, for example, after the balloting exercise at the beginning of this year, there is just not any more vacant land within Ang Mo Kio to build new flats. And where there are limited vacant lands, say, in Toa Payoh or in Bukit Merah New Town, the demand ratio is 20:1. So you cannot assure the young couples that they can stay with their parents in a mature new town. If they want to stay with their parents, then, by all means, apply under the Multi-Tier Family Scheme or the Joint Selection Scheme in a new town where we are building more flats. If you want to stay in a mature town, then make use of the $30,000 CPF grant and buy a resale flat in the mature town. Mr Lau Ping Sum also asked whether we could have an allocation system that would favour families with teenage children versus younger children. I know there will be many more requests for such schemes and the more we cater for these programmes, the more complicated the housing programme allocation will be. I remember the exchange between Mr Mah Bow Tan and Mr Peh Chin Hua over taking a bus. So I would not want to go into an exchange with Mr Lau Ping Sum. But I still remember, when I was young, staying with my sisters in the same room, and none of us were any worse off. So there is no need for teenage daughters to insist on having a separate room by themselves. Mr Lau Ping Sum also requested for higher priority for grassroots organisations. We all recognise the role played by grassroots leaders in building up the community and organising activities within their communities. And we have increased the quota set aside for grassroots members from 2% to 5%. By and large, most grassroots leaders are able to get the flat of their choice in the New Towns. Unfortunately, grassroots leaders also cannot get their flats in the mature town because of the very limited supply and MND is not prepared to raise the quota for grassroots leaders in the mature towns because we have to balance this group of applicants with the public applicants. Dr Soin asked about downpayment. The HDB's requirement for 20% downpayment at the time of signing of the sales agreement is intended to make sure that people select the flat that they can afford to buy. It is a matter of prudence on the part of HDB to discourage applicants from buying a flat beyond their means. So far, this 20% downpayment has served us well because the percentage of mortgage defaults is very low in HDB flats. Dr Soin also gave a series of calculations about some couples who are not able to afford the downpayment. Listening to her calculations, in fact, I drew the opposite conclusion, ie, even a single person earning between $1,000 and $1,500 would be able to afford the downpayment for a 4-room flat or a 5-room flat. That is because most couples would work for about three or four years before they get married. The average marriage age is about 27 and they would have worked for at least four or five years. During these four or five years of working, they would have accumulated enough savings to pay for the downpayment. And, in fact, our statistics show this to be the case. Again, more than 81% of applicants who purchase their flats pay the downpayment entirely through the CPF. An average household income of $1,400 over four years would accumulate enough savings in the CPF to pay for the 20% downpayment of a 4-room flat. An average household income of $2,000 per month would be able over four years to save enough to pay for the 20% downpayment for a 5-room flat. All these are well within the affordability ranges of our young couples. We do not want to encourage our young couples to buy flats beyond their means because they must recognise that in their life cycle, at some point in time when their children and the wife withdraw from the job market, in fact they will end up with only one income. So they must make sure they calculate their mortgage instalment payments carefully and cater for the day in which the wife may not work. So we prefer to continue with this 20% downpayment so as not to send the wrong signal and encourage Singaporeans to opt for the flat type beyond their reach. For the low income earners, we have many schemes and some of these schemes, in fact, do not require them to pay 20% downpayment. For example, in the sitting tenants scheme where we encourage the rental tenants to buy their flats, there is no downpayment at all. In the Low Income Family Incentives Scheme and in the Smaller Families Improvement Scheme where we encourage them to buy 4A and smaller flats, we only require 5% downpayment. By and large, I would say the problem is not a significant one. The average couple who marries after four or five years of work would have accumulated enough to pay for the downpayment. Dr Vasoo also asked about the take-up rate of those who were allocated flats. The take-up rate has remained fairly consistent - about 90% have booked their flats when they are called up for booking. This is no different from the balloting system. Let me now turn to upgrading. Like all of you, when I go for my block visits, seven out of 10 questions are: when is our turn for upgrading? Like Dr Vasoo, I will tell them that the Minister says, "Coming soon." The progress of the upgrading has been very satisfactory. The demonstration phase with the six precincts will be completed by the end of this year. The first batch of the steady state phase has already started construction and will be ready by end of next year, and subsequent batches are in the various stages of completion. So the steady state main upgrading phase is progressing well. Under the Interim Upgrading Programme, we select at least 20 precincts every year. We have done so for two batches. In fact, we have accommodated the requests of the various Advisors and in each batch we have selected 26 precincts comprising about 21,000 flats in each batch. Again, the support has been overwhelming. We have received more than 90% votes in each of the precinct that we have organised the exhibitions for. The upgrading programme is a long-term programme and here I would like to urge Members to look at it in perspective. It will take 15 to 20 years to upgrade all the old estates. That is why we divide it into two parts. The older estates (those which are more than 17 years old), we schedule them for the main upgrading programme first, whereas those between 10 and 17 years old, we do the interim upgrading as a first step and then the main upgrading when their turn is due. To enable as many of the older flats to be upgraded as soon as possible, we have already announced that the pace of the Main Upgrading Programme will be accelerated from 10 precincts to 15 precincts, starting from this year. This is the pace that we feel we can cope with without over-heating the construction sector and without compromising on the quality. Let me explain that this is a very important point because in the upgrading programme we are entering into somebody's flat and making the renovations while the lessees are staying in it. And we cannot afford to have unskilled workers without close supervision in such situations. You find that in the upgrading programme, we use twice the number of skilled workers compared to the building of new flats, and we use twice the number of supervisors. So there is a constraint on how fast we can accelerate the Main Upgrading Programme. The second constraint is funds. Mr Chew Heng Ching referred to this and asked how we are going to fund future upgrading programmes because he has observed that the upgrading programme is funded by current revenue and not by reserves. Here is where I would urge Members not to grill Dr Richard Hu too hard. All the surpluses that are generated, we require almost $1 billion to fund the upgrading programme every year. If we do not generate that budget surplus, then the upgrading programme will have to be scaled down accordingly. There is no provision at the moment to use past reserves for the upgrading programme. I think it will be very difficult for any government to request the Elected President to release past reserves for upgrading. So the upgrading programme will have to be funded by current surpluses. And if a new government comes in and is unable to generate that budget surplus and the rules continue to apply, then I am afraid the Main Upgrading Programme will have to be curtailed drastically. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked about Cairnhill constituency. All the sold flats in Cairnhill are less than 20 years old and therefore they will be included in the later batches of the Main Upgrading Programme. One precinct from Cairnhill, in fact, has been chosen for the Batch II of the Interim Upgrading Programme and my Ministry will consider including more precincts from Cairnhill in future batches of the Interim Upgrading Programme. Besides the upgrading programme, let me also explain to the House that we are now looking into a process of drawing up master plans for the rejuvenation of the older estates. We have started with Toa Payoh as a pilot and we will subsequently progress with all the older estates. This master plan will involve several steps. The first step is we will divide up the estate or the whole town into the various precincts for upgrading so that we can have a schedule for the main upgrading as well as provide the framework for the town councils, whenever they do any improvements, to upgrade within that framework of what is coming in the upgrading programme in the subsequent years. Secondly, having divided up into various precincts, we will talk to the MPs and the grassroots leaders to work out some kind of scheduling for the upgrading programme. The third step is we will redevelop any vacant sites within the town, particularly sites which were formerly occupied by rental blocks and which have now been demolished because of lack of demand. Fourth, we will in this master plan revitalise the town and neighbourhood centres. We will also take this opportunity to improve the road linkages and the transport network serving the town. Finally, in consultation with the grassroots leaders, we will also work out a programme for the construction of new community facilities to service the town. So we are using Toa Payoh as a pilot and, as I said, we will progress to the other older estates.

3.58 pm The objective of doing so is that we want to achieve the effect for the whole town and not just for the precinct. So at the end of the whole programme, the whole town will be given a new look which will be more on par with the newer towns the HDB is building. This will therefore encourage residents of the older towns to remain where they are and preserve their community ties. While on the subject of upgrading, let me also take this opportunity to explain our thinking on the upgrading of private housing estates. We announced the setting up of a committee, chaired by my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Matthias Yao, towards the end of last year. The position now is that we are able to designate 180 private landed housing estates in Singapore and we have taken steps to preserve them and allow developments within an acceptable way in these private housing estates. Mr Matthias Yao's committee will look at each of these housing estates and coordinate the efforts of the various Government departments to improve the common areas outside the homes of these private housing estates. This committee is now working on the programme and they are working out some proposals for some of these housing estates. Their intention is to choose one or two estates again as a pilot project and see what can be done to improve the common areas, such as improving the roads, covering the drains to serve as walkways, improving the planting and providing children's playground or a small garden. For the apartments and condominiums, we are now doing a survey of the extent of requirements of these private properties in Singapore. As you know, condominiums really became very popular only in the mid-70s. So most of our condominiums are not all that old. However, we do have some much older private apartments. The difficulty is that many of these old private apartments are stand alone apartments and not a precinct. So there will be limited scope in what we can do to improve the surrounding of these private apartments. But, nevertheless, my Ministry is studying into the extent of requirements of the private housing estates, the apartments and condominiums, and we will make an assessment of what can be done. Before I raise Members' hopes, let me stress the priority in the upgrading programme. The Government's priority must be to improve the older housing estates in the HDB old towns first for two reasons. One, we want to improve the environment in these areas and, two, it is a means of enhancing the asset value of these older flats. In the private properties, the asset values had increased significantly over the years, and although we want to help them improve the external environment, the priority must be given to the smaller flats in the older HDB estates first. Let me now turn to private properties. Members have raised the issue of very high private property prices over the last two years and what the Government intends to do about the release of land. Basically, there has been a structural change in the private housing sector. Unlike in the past, where the demand for private housing averaged around 3,000 to 4,000 units every year, as Singaporeans became more affluent, the demand had increased very significantly. The Government recognised this trend very early in 1990/1991 and took steps to release more land for sale for private housing development. And we have taken steps to increase this gradually by releasing land for 3,000 units, then 4,000 units last year, and 6,000 units this year. The Government takes a long-term approach to land sales. The land sales quantum is based on the projection of long-term demand. As I have explained on other occasions, we will assess the long-term demand of Singaporeans who aspire to own private properties, and the strategy is to try and provide up to 25% of our housing stock in the private housing sector. Today, it is 14% for private property and 86% for public housing. We hope that by the year 2010, we can reach a ratio of 25% for private housing and 75% for public housing. Today, we have about 120,000 private housing units. To reach this 25% level, or around 290,000 units, we need to have another 170,000 new private housing units. As I have explained earlier, 9,200 private housing units will be completed this year, 16,000-odd units by next year, and 15,700 units in 1997. So over the next three years, 41,000 units are expected to be completed. In the following 10 to 15 years, we will want to encourage the construction of approximately 10,000 private housing units every year and by then we will reach the 25% share of private housing. To reach there, the Government will release enough land to build 6,000 private housing units, about 1,500 for landed properties and 4,500 for apartments. So the emphasis is on more apartments and condominiums. How then would developers respond to this strategy? This has been explained many times. It is in the public domain and developers are adjusting their development programmes to cater for this new scenario. As Singaporeans become better educated - we have 20% university graduates and 40% polytechnic graduates - the percentage of people who want to own private properties will increase. How then would prices reflect this change? If developers feel that they can sell 10,000 units every year at $1,000 per square foot and there is demand for a huge number at such prices, then of course they will build to meet the demand. If, on the other hand, developers assess that there will be 10,000 private housing units every year and some of these private housing units must cater for the mid-price range of apartments and condominiums, then I am sure there will be developers who would want to meet this niche in the market. So the overall strategy is to let these plans be made known and allow the developers to meet this demand according to their own market assessment. And in this way, Prof. Low can be assured that there will be developers who will be targeting at the mid-price range. Before I go to the other areas, let me address some of the issues raised by Mr Chiam. I seem to have missed them out. He has requested MND not to overlook Toa Payoh Lorong 8. I was about to say that this is constantly on my mind. But since I did not answer him, obviously I have overlooked it again. He asked what has happened to the 10%-20% who did not vote for upgrading and what were the reasons. There are several reasons why these 10%-15% did not vote for upgrading. Most of the reasons are personal to the lessees. Some may feel that they are getting on in age, so why is there a need to upgrade. Some may be putting a "no" vote because they are quite confident that all their neighbours will put a "yes" vote, and they want to be different and want this to be a "protest" vote. The advisers will go round explaining to the residents that, by all means, they are free to vote what they like. And if they put in a "protest" vote, they should not be surprised that they may end up with more than 25% protest votes and no upgrading. And I am stating very categorically here that I respect the voting results of every precinct. So if any precinct did not succeed in getting the 75% vote, there will not be a re-vote. As to those who feel that they cannot afford, we take due care to explain to them that, in fact, there are many avenues which Government will help them to pay for the upgrading. This is the issue which Dr Vasoo raised. In fact, for those who cannot afford, the loan which they take to pay for the upgrading is kept in abeyance until they resell their flat. So there is no reason for anybody, who cannot afford, not to participate in the upgrading programme. Those who want to participate in the upgrading programme but cannot pay, we will give them a loan and, of course it will attract interest. They need not pay the loan until after they have resold the flat. Then they must pay back the loan. So there is no reason for people to say that they cannot afford to vote for the upgrading. On the question of inconvenience, our experience shows that, in the various upgrading programmes, inconvenience has been kept to a minimum. We provide airconditioned study rooms. We make sure that the work within the flat is contained and does not stretch more than 14 or 17 days. And each time, any work is to be done in the flat, advance notice is given, so that the resident can make alternative arrangements. Overall, there will be noise and dust but this is acceptable. The contractors and the supervisors take utmost care to make sure that inconvenience is minimised. As to whether we should extend it beyond 99 years, Mr Chiam has suggested six more years. I am not sure why he suggested six years because many of these flats are 25 or 30 years old. By the time they are due for upgrading, and giving them six years' extension to their lease from 75 to 81 years, does not seem to help them very much. I can understand the request if, at the time of upgrading the remaining lease was 75 years, and Government tops it up to 99 years. But to extend it by another six years, I am not sure what is the purpose.

Reasonable request.

Mr Chiam also suggested that HDB flats be reconfigured to collect and store rain water during the upgrading. I am not sure whether Mr Chiam understands. The problem with Singapore is not a space for storing water. The problem is catchment and clean catchment areas to collect water. So if you provide a big tub on the roof of HDB flats to collect water, you will not collect very much water. You need to collect water from a much bigger catchment area. Maybe Mr Chiam was inspired by the New Paper cartoon in response to the debate on conservation of water. There was a cartoon which shows HDB flats with umbrellas to collect rain water. But I can tell you that this is not feasible and therefore it is not part of our upgrading programme. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked about our programme for the elderly. I would like to report that this has been very successful, primarily because of the efforts of MCD and the voluntary organisations that MCD has been able to identify for this programme. Some MPs tell me that I should explain about the project. The project is a joint project between HDB and MCD. HDB does the physical renovation of the flats to make it more comfortable for senior citizens to live in. For example, HDB will provide pedestal toilets, bars, holding bars in the toilets, alarms so that when the senior citizens encounter any difficulty, they can pull the alarm. They will improve the cooking area and generally improve the flat, so that it is more conducive to living by senior citizens. And this is complemented by the voluntary organisations identified by MCD which provide the human touch. They will provide voluntary organisations in the void deck whose members will visit the senior citizens almost every day to find out their difficulties and to provide assistance. This programme has tremendous potential, because I have visited the programme in Telok Blangah run by Dr Vasoo. He has managed to get the voluntary organisation also to provide meals in the void deck, not only for the senior citizens in that block but also senior citizens in the surrounding blocks. So there is tremendous potential in allowing this nucleus to be built up to service other senior citizens in the area. 4.15 pm Some MPs who have joined this programme have also suggested involving the youth organisations working with nearby provision shops that will provide home delivery of heavy foodstuffs like rice, flour and sugar. Once a month, the youth organisation would take orders from the various senior citizens and, working with the provision shops, provide home delivery service. The ideas have been flourishing and HDB is very encouraged. We have done the pilot project in three areas and we have expanded this to another six areas. And I would like to encourage other MPs and grassroots leaders to do so. If they are able to find partners in this programme, HDB will be very happy to extend the programme to their areas. Let me clarify that this is intended for single aged. This programme is not intended as an old folks' home for Singaporeans to put in their parents when they find that they cannot take care of their parents. We have about 6,000 aged singles in Singapore living in HDB flats. These are primarily the old immigrants who did not come with families or who did not marry and have no direct family members. So this programme is intended for this particular group of people. Assoc. Prof. Low also asked about inter-Ministry coordination in providing facilities in new towns. This is a very massive responsibility. Every time we build a new town, we have to make sure that all the facilities and services are provided, and that they are provided on time. To do so, HDB chairs two committees: one on services and the other on facilities. The committee on services, I think, has very little problems. Provision of services, such as water, electricity, sewerage, telephone lines, among the various implementation agencies, I think, is done in a very coordinated way and I have not heard of any complaints about this. I think the problem seems to be one of other facilities such as schools, sports facilities, etc. Here, I think it is an understanding of how the various agencies provide such facilities. Although HDB coordinates this with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community Development, Singapore Sports Council, etc, we have different standards on when such facilities will be provided. For example, the provision of schools, polyclinics or libraries will only be considered cost effective after a certain critical mass of the population has been reached. Of course, the residents feel that this is too late, but it is very difficult for the Ministry of Education to build a primary school and run it only when it is 10% full. So the Ministry of Education, given the data of the rate of inflow of residents, will have to estimate when there will be enough catchment for primary school children and then activate the building of a primary school in that area. The Ministry of National Development will review this situation with the other Ministries such as Education, MITA and MOH to see whether coordination can be improved, or even whether interim facilities can be provided in those cases where early provision of the full facilities cannot be justified. Assoc. Prof. Low also asked about agrotech industries and whether or not we could encourage the branding of eggs. Land and labour in Singapore are expensive and therefore farms in Singapore must go for the higher value products. With regard to eggs, we produce about 330 million eggs per year or about 32% of our local consumption. All this is done by just seven farms. So it is very productive, very high quality. The example given by Assoc. Prof. Low on salmonella, I just want to explain that the standards that PPD imposes on all the food products in Singapore are the same, whether it is locally produced or from overseas. So it is not true that PPD is stricter on the local farmers and more relaxed with foreign farmers. PPD imposes the same standards. But our farms being high-tech, more modern and more hygienic far exceed these standards. Therefore, I think there is a premium for local farmers to charge higher for their products, eg, eggs. PPD encourages our local farmers to brand their eggs and to educate local consumers that there is indeed a difference between local eggs and imported eggs, and that they should be prepared to pay for this difference. The local farmers could get together and add the words "Produced in Singapore" on their eggs and they can differentiate the locally produced eggs from the imported eggs.

Sir, may I be allowed to say a few words?

Yes.

Sir, I would like to make a few points. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that his Ministry has plans to upgrade the old private apartments. As we know, the HUDC estates were also a form of public housing of executive flats constructed previously by the Government under the HUDC housing programme. I have such an HUDC estate in Thomson Constituency called Lakeview HUDC Estate. Some years ago, the Government terminated the HUDC programme and passed on the management of these estates to the respective management corporations of the HUDC estates. These HUDC flats, like their HDB cousins, are also of old design and suffer from general wear and tear. They too need to be upgraded. The HUDC estates intend to undertake their own upgrading programmes. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would provide funding support for the upgrading works implemented by the management corporations of HUDC estates, somewhat similar to the schemes implemented for HDB estates. Sir, I feel there are two arguments in favour of this request. Firstly, at the time of the hand-over of the HUDC estates to the management corporations, the Government did not give any grant or subsidy to them. Secondly, actually had there been no change in the administrative arrangement to put HUDC estates under their own management corporations, they would in fact continue to be managed by the HDB. HUDC flats, therefore, would similarly be enjoying HDB upgrading privileges. In view of the background and association with the HDB, I feel that the HUDC estates should get some form of financial support from the Government for their upgrading programme. My second point, Sir, is on the queue for upgrading of HDB estates. In Thomson Constituency, I have four blocks of HDB flats at Sin Ming Road, Blocks 22, 23, 24 and 25, which were built in the early 70s. These flats are over 20 years old. The residents are very keen to know when their flats would be scheduled for main upgrading. I raised this issue with the Minister a few times previously. I look forward to a very favourable reply from him today. Sir, my third query is that in the void decks of these four blocks of HDB flats in Sin Ming Road, there are some shops which are also very old. The tenants of these shops are very keen to be included in the proposed sale of shops programme of the Government. I understand that some of these shops are, in fact, not suitable for sale as they are engaged in trades which are not compatible with the residential surrounding. I would like to appeal to the Minister that if the tenants of these shops who are engaged in non-compatible trades are prepared to convert their shops to other suitable trades, would the Minister be prepared to include them in the forthcoming sale of shops programme?

Sir, let me first clarify that I did not say that Government is looking into upgrading private housing estates. Let me again clarify what I said about the landed housing estates. There are 190-odd landed housing estates. Mr Matthias Yao is heading a committee that will coordinate all the improvement works that are currently being done by departments, whether it is roads, P&R, sewerage, environment, etc., and do it in a systematic way for the private housing estates. Of course, in looking at these plans, they may suggest improvements beyond what the departments are doing today. But it is by no means the equivalent of the upgrading programme that we are doing now for HDB flats. Similarly, for the condominiums and the private apartments, what I said was that we are studying the extent of the problem, the extent of the requirement, and that the problem is divided into two parts. The condominiums are newer and there is less urgency for upgrading. There are some older apartments but many of these are stand alone apartments, and there are limited things that we can do to the surroundings. Again, we will study the problem and see what can be done. In any case, the priority of such programmes must come after the programme for the main upgrading of HDB flats, particularly those catering to the 3-roomers in the older estates. Similarly, within this framework, I will put the request of the HUDC flats in context. HUDC flats are, by and large, private property, and I will put them under the same category as private property, notwithstanding what the Member has said about the transfer, management corporation and all the funds. HUDC properties are run by management corporations and in all respects, they are treated like private properties. The Member also requested the upgrading for the old blocks in Sin Ming Estate. HDB will consider his request and schedule it accordingly in the Main Upgrading Programme. As to HDB's policy on sale of shops, for shops which are engaged in industrial trades, if that row of shops is due for sale, and a particular shop is engaged in industrial trade, we will allow the shop tenant to convert to an approved trade, and thereupon we will sell the shop to him. The reasoning is very straightforward. When we are selling a row of shops in a neighbourhood centre, if you are operating a tyre repair shop and you mess up the whole walkway and you take up all the space in the car park, then you are depressing the value of your surrounding shops. And that trade is not an approved trade in that row of shops. So we will sell to the shopkeeper if he is prepared to convert his trade to an approved trade. As to the request for the sale of those shops in Sin Ming Road, we will schedule them according to the request from the various MPs and when they are due for sale, they will be sold if they convert to a non-industrial trade.

( In Mandarin): Sir, if importers of eggs stamp the imported eggs with the words "Produced in Singapore", what will be the effect on the local producers? How are we going to control such practices? The other thing is that the Minister has not answered Dr Ong Chit Chung's point on the second Causeway.

Sir, let me clarify the answer I gave about eggs. I think there is very little that PPD can do to enforce branding. It is just like if you are selling Gucci and you bring in counterfeits. "Egg" is a very generic item. What is an egg? An egg is an egg. According to the PPD, they have not had any complaints from our local farmers about imported eggs being disguised as local eggs. We have not had this problem so far. But PPD is prepared to work with the Farmers' Association and see how we could encourage branding and encourage Singaporeans to buy locally produced eggs and convince them that locally produced eggs are fresher, better and more hygienic and therefore command a premium. So we will work with the Farmers' Association. 4.30 pm My apologies for not replying to the question by Dr Ong Chit Chung on the second crossing. Basically, the progress has been very good. We have reclaimed the land at the checkpoint. We are upgrading Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim to a full expressway. We have worked with the Malaysians on the design parameters and all technical aspects of the bridge. In fact, we have confirmed the design. PWD has invited tenders for the construction of the Singapore part of the bridge. The tenders are currently being evaluated and we expect construction work to commence in May this year. All seems to be going well. Piling work for the checkpoint has also commenced and we are on schedule. So the first car to cross the second link would be in early 1998.

( In Mandarin): I thank the Minister for his complete answer and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UC 1500. Sir, time seems to stand still in the Ministry of National Development where its Car Park Division is concerned. The dimensions of a parking lot in a public car park have apparently been frozen some decades ago, when most Singaporeans owned cars the size of the "Hillman Minx" or the "Austin 7". Now, cars on Singapore roads are not only more powerful but also longer and wider. Just look at cars in the 1,000-1,600 cc range and in the 1,600-2,000 cc range. Parallel parking poses a problem because the parking lot is frequently less than one and one-quarter the length of a car. Room for manoeuvring becomes considerably less when the cars on the adjoining lots in front and behind are parked by drivers as if their grandfathers own the road. Parking lots for reverse parking pose a different problem. The car lots seem to be only slightly wider than the cars. After successfully manoeuvring their cars into the narrow spaces, the drivers have to spend some time trying to wriggle out of their cars. The problem is aggravated if the cars in the adjoining lots on the left and right are improperly parked or if there are thick pillars in-between car lots. I bring up this problem in the hope that the Ministry will revise the dimensions of car park lots to be more in keeping with the dimensions of most cars on the road in Singapore. Cars cost a package, with or without COE. Car owners do not like their cars to be unnecessarily scratched or dented because of unrealistically small parking lots. Moreover, car owners are paying a hefty fee for parking in a tight squeeze.

Sir, to control the problem of heavy vehicle parking, the Government now requires heavy vehicle owners to obtain a vehicle parking certificate from a licensed heavy vehicle park before they are allowed to renew their road tax. A few of the heavy vehicle owners from my constituency told me that some industrial property landlords do not want to apply for a parking licence for their property. As such, the tenants who own the heavy vehicles could not get a vehicle parking certificate at their own factory site. They have to obtain one either from a licensed private parking place or the URA roadside parking lots although they are not parking their vehicles there. I do not know exactly why these landlords refuse to apply for a parking licence. Maybe they thought it is costly or maybe they are afraid of any liability. Can the Ministry help to convince these landlords?

Sir, with the opening of Kaki Bukit Avenue linking Bedok Reservoir to Jalan Eunos and Paya Lebar, there is heavy traffic jam daily during the morning peak hours along Bedok Reservoir Road. Sir, the jam is so bad that it is quite impossible for motorists living in HDB flats in Bedok Reservoir estate to get out of their car parks in the Bedok Reservoir Road. Sometimes it takes as long as five to ten minutes to leave the car park to gain access to Bedok Reservoir Road. Sir, the congestion is due to motorists from Tampines New Town using Bedok Reservoir Road as a short cut to Paya Lebar and Jalan Eunos. I am sure when the PWD built Bedok Reservoir Road some 10 years ago, the road capacity was not meant to cater for this huge traffic flow from Tampines New Town to Paya Lebar. Some measures have been taken to try to solve the problem, ie, drawing of yellow boxes at the road junctions fronting the car park to enable motorists to get out of the car park into Bedok Reservoir Road. But this measure alone cannot solve the problem. I am therefore asking the Ministry what other measures will be taken quickly to solve the traffic jam problem along Bedok Reservoir Road. And in the long term, what is the Ministry's plan to ensure that traffic from Tampines New Town to Paya Lebar and Eunos is diverted elsewhere? Will other access roads be built and how soon?

Sir, first let me answer Mr Chin Harn Tong's question. Time has not stood still. The problem is just parked in the Car Parks Division. That is all. The size of the car park lots is set out in the parking regulations. In fact, in 1990, the PWD carried out a review of these regulations and studied the sizes of cars which were registered in Singapore. They did some field tests and found that most cars could comfortably be parked within the standard parking lot which is 4.8 metres long and 2.4 metres wide. HDB car parks follow the standard set out in the regulations, especially in HDB multi-storey car parks. However, I agree with Mr Chin Harn Tong that the position of the concrete columns in HDB multi-storey car parks may restrict the opening of the car park doors. HDB's new design will shift the concrete columns away from the parking lot. Anyway, since it is five years since the last review, we will ask PWD to carry out another review. On Dr John Chen's query, it is the normal practice to require the factory owner to apply for the parking place licence. The factory owner then rents or allocates these lots to his tenants and issues them with a vehicle parking certificate. This is because the factory owner manages the common property in his factory. In some factories, however, there may be insufficient heavy vehicle parking spaces for all the tenants. Such factory owners, therefore, may decide not to apply as they may feel they may encounter difficulties allocating the limited parking lots to their various tenants. In such a situation, if it is brought to PWD's attention that the factory has ample heavy vehicle parking spaces but that the owner does not wish to licence them, then PWD would persuade the factory owner to apply for a parking licence. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked what would the PWD do about the traffic congestion along Bedok Reservoir Road. Bedok Reservoir Road was designed to serve the residents and the industrial estates in the area. Unfortunately, as Mr Chew explained, it is also used by other vehicles in bypassing the Pan-Island Expressway, from Tampines to Paya Lebar and Eunos. PWD will look into this problem. They will try to expand and improve the junctions along these roads so as to increase the capacity. PWD will also invite tenders in June this year to bring all the traffic lights and all the pedestrian signals under computer control so that the traffic flow would be smoother. If drawing yellow boxes will help, we would also do so. I think the big question is whether we should expand Bedok Reservoir Road to increase the capacity. Here is where we always face a problem. In local estate roads like this, the more you expand the more you attract extraneous traffic. So this is something which we will have to work with his grassroots leaders and see whether in fact they are in favour of expanding the road. It would mean the road will come closer to the flats and attract extraneous traffic.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UD 1500. Sir, I would like to commend the Parks and Recreation Department and the National Parks Board for providing green belts and parks for recreation. These parks should be linked up and connected into a national network of parks. It will surely optimise the use of our park land and maximise the use of our limited land resources. It will enhance facilities for walking, jogging and cycling, adding to the simple pleasures of life for all Singaporeans. I think some work has been done. In this regard, I want to ask whether this will be rapidly expanded to cover all the major parks throughout the island. Many are indeed unaware of this connecting network. I believe that more publicity should be given to this so that more Singaporeans can be aware of such facilities and avail themselves of the recreational outlet and connecting links so that we will have a healthy nation of Singaporeans.

( In Mandarin): Sir, Singapore has a hot spring in Sembawang. This hot spring is a very precious natural resource of Singapore. We are in the non-volcano belt and the existence of the hot spring here is indeed rare and very valuable. I believe that this hot spring is the only one that we have. You cannot find a second one anywhere else in Singapore. As such, we must treasure it and develop it into a tourist attraction or simply a place of interest for the local people. According to a report, the temperature at the spring could be as high as 70 degrees Celsius and there is a lot of sulphur and other minerals in it. This water is good for the treatment of skin diseases. In some countries like China and Japan, hot springs are used for the treatment of certain ailments, as well as for relaxation. Why is Singapore not paying attention to the hot spring in Sembawang? Here I would like to ask the Acting Minister for National Development four questions: (1) What is the condition of the Sembawang hot spring now? Is the hot spring destroyed because of the construction of Gambas Avenue? (2) Is the water from the hot spring still being used for the bottling of Seletaris mineral water? (3) The site of the hot spring in Sembawang has been acquired by the Ministry of Defence. But I do not think the Ministry of Defence needs to use that land. Will the Ministry of National Development consider recovering this land from Mindef for the development of this place into a tourist attraction? (4) The former Minister for National Development, Mr Dhanabalan, had told this House that the Government would consider allowing private developers to develop the hot spring in Sembawang. Why is it that nothing has been done? I would like to ask the present Acting Minister whether there is any intention to call for tenders to develop this site. Sir, I personally feel that even if no private developers want to develop the hot spring into a tourist attraction, the Government should use Government fund to preserve and develop the Sembawang hot spring. Otherwise, this hot spring may be damaged and may disappear. It will be a great pity.

Sir, Dr Ong wants to know how soon all the parks can be connected up. The park connector network is a long-term plan to link up all the parks and it makes use of existing drainage reserves and other veneer green corridors to link up all the major parks and nature sites. In this way, you can walk, jog or cycle from one park to another. The master plan to develop 71 park connectors totalling some 360 kilometres has been drawn up. This is a long-term plan which will connect all the major parks in Singapore. Before the year 2000, it would be possible to cycle all the way from the nature reserves down to Bishan Park, past Potong Pasir, down to Kallang, all the way to East Coast, Bedok and Tampines into Pasir Ris. So this is a major plan and the Parks and Recreation (P&R) Department will step up its programmes to try and develop this connection as quickly as possible. P&R plans to develop 41 kilometres of these park connectors in the next five years. Priority is given to those park connectors passing through existing densely populated housing estates. In another 10 years, another 192 kilometres of these park connectors will be built. We appreciate Dr Ong's point about the value of these park connectors and we would try to expedite the construction. Mr Cheo asked about the hot spring in Sembawang. He asked four questions. First question: what is the condition? I am afraid I do not know what is the exact condition. The site of the hot spring has been acquired by Mindef for its use in the expansion of Sembawang Air Base. So the actual site of the hot spring is within Mindef's property. Whether Seletaris is still being bottled, again I am not sure. F&N has a lease for the water spring, but the site itself has been acquired by Government. So the same position still stands as in Minister Dhanabalan's time, ie, we will allow the water to be piped to a separate location where either the water will be drawn up for bottling or for development into a recreational resort. That position has not changed. We have not had any enquiries about private developers wanting to build a resort, so we have not tendered out such a proposal. But, indeed, if there are potential investors keen to build up a hot spring resort in Singapore, then our position remains, ie, we are not going to re-acquire the land from Mindef. I think Mindef's requirement for Sembawang Air Base remains and is of higher priority than building a hot spring resort. But we will allow the water to be piped to another location, whether to be bottled or for recreational purposes.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (4). Mr Choo Wee Khiang.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UG 2000. Sir, I have received complaints from some tenants living in the shophouses in my GRC that when they were asked to vacate their premises by the landlords, very often they were given a very short period of time to move out. Worse still, the HDB did not even give them priority in terms of allocation of flats. I was also told that the Tenants' Compensation Board (TCB) did not award them with an appropriate sum, ie, the sum awarded to such tenants was too low. So I would like to know from the Minister whether the Ministry will be able to help in terms of getting rental HDB flats or purchase flats fast for such tenants. Secondly, can the minimum sum awarded by TCB be raised? Thirdly, would TCB be able to impose a longer grace period of time for the tenants to move out or until they have an HDB flat?

( In Mandarin): Sir, the Ministry of National Development has rented out a large open space in Woodlands Avenue 9 to some companies to store their building materials and bulky motorcar spare parts. The lease will expire on 31st March this year. Many of these companies are very worried because their lease is expiring and they have to move out. Now they are faced with a big problem, that is, they cannot find an alternative site to store their building materials and other goods which are very bulky. Therefore, I would like to ask the Acting Minister two questions. First, is the Ministry of National Development going to arrange for some other sites, which have no immediate development plan, to be leased out to these affected tenants, so that they will have a place to store their building materials and motorcar spare parts. I observe that their materials are all very bulky items and cannot be stored in a normal warehouse. The second question I would like to ask the Acting Minister concerns the site at Woodlands Avenue 9. What plan has the Government made for the development of this site? The Government's policy is to help the local small and medium enterprises so that their business will prosper. So for all these companies whose leases are running out, can something be done to help them?

Sir, Mr Choo Wee Khiang asked about compensation. I presume he was talking about tenants from rent-controlled premises. Sir, under the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act, the Tenants' Compensation Board is required to award such amount of compensation as the Board considers fair and reasonable. Factors such as loss of income and goodwill arising from the recovery of the premises, annual rent paid and the cost of re-location are taken into consideration when deciding the amount of compensation. The Board will make every effort to ensure that a fair amount of compensation is awarded. The compensation sum is only intended to provide a reasonable amount to tide the tenant over the interim period as he relocates. It is not intended to be sufficient for him to buy alternative premises. The compensation should also be viewed in the light that claimants do not hold any proprietary right in the controlled premises and have in fact used the premises for a long time at low rents. On the time given for relocation, the Controlled Premises (Special Provisions) Act stipulates that the Tenants' Compensation Board must grant the claimants a period of at least 90 days to vacate the premises. The Board will grant a longer period if valid reasons are given. In addition, before a matter is fixed for a Board hearing, the landlord is required to give two to three months' notice to the tenant. This will give advance notice to the tenants to look for alternative premises for relocation. The formal process takes more than half a year from the date when the tenant is formally notified of the landlord's intention to recover the premises to the date when he is required to move out. Adding in the informal discussions which usually take place between landlord and tenant, the tenant has more than a year's advance notice which is sufficient for him to relocate. On priority housing, tenants who are aged and single can apply for priority to rent an HDB flat. Families who have been living in the premises since 27th December 1991 or before can also apply to rent or buy an HDB flat. Sir, Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked about the open space at Woodlands Avenue 9. The 62 plots of open storage land along Woodlands Avenue 9 are let out under monthly TOLs, except for two plots where the 10-year leases will be expiring on 31st March 1995. It has been clear to the tenants and the licensees from the start that these open sites are intended for temporary use. The issue of providing alternative site therefore does not arise. On the use of the site, the 62 plots along Woodlands Avenue 9 are located on industrial land. HDB plans to build flatted factories on this site to meet the demand for industrial premises. This will also benefit the residents who live nearby as they will provide more employment opportunities for them. HDB will announce the details when they are ready.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (5). Dr Wong Kwei Cheong is not here. Dr John Chen. 5.00 pm

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UI 5100. (In Mandarin): Sir, in February this year, a number of shopkeepers wrote to the Lianhe Zaobao complaining of the difficulties they faced from the sale of shops. Originally, this shop ownership scheme was welcomed by the shopkeepers, but the sale prices of the shops at the later stages are about 30% to 60% higher than the first phase, and these prices are worrying the neighbourhood shopkeepers. Some neighbourhood shopkeepers are operating from shops situated at a remote, little corner in my constituency. Their locality is very bad. Although they are within one kilometre from the MRT station, they are just out of the way, devoid of pedestrian traffic and their only source of business is from just a few blocks of flats in that end of the neighbourhood. According to my understanding, some shops have changed management and ownership a few times within a short space of a few years. Yet, they are paying the same rentals as the other shopkeepers whose shops are better situated, and hence are enjoying better business. These shopkeepers hope that the shops would be sold to them as early as possible so that it would solve the problem of rising rentals. But also, at the same time, they are afraid that when these shops are offered for sale to them, the prices may well be beyond their means. So these neighbourhood shopkeepers operating in the little remote corner of the neighbourhood are in a very difficult situation. Their efficiency is already very low. In the past, the rentals were comparatively low and they were able to survive on a tight budget. But now, with more and more chain-shops and bigger retailers coming into the housing estates, and on top of this if they have to service the heavy loans for the purchase of the shop premises, I think very soon their survival would be threatened. Sir, these shopkeepers are hoping that the Government will sell the shops to them at more realistic and suitable prices. In the formulation of the sale prices, the HDB must take into consideration the locality, as the advantages vary from one locality to another, even within the same small town. Some are in a very secluded corner and are in a very disadvantaged position. Only if all these factors are taken into consideration that these shopkeepers will have a chance to upgrade their shops and operate with higher efficiency. I hope the Minister will look into their plight and do his best to help them.

Sir, before I go into the details raised by Dr Chen, I would like to brief the House on the progress of the programme to sell tenanted shops to the tenants. As at December 1994, 4,550 shops were put up for sale to sitting tenants. Of these, 4,400 were sold. This represents 97%. The remaining 3% of the shops were not sold due to infringements of tenancy conditions, incompatibility of trades or financial problems faced by the shopkeepers. I am happy to report that the response to this scheme has been overwhelmingly good. Furthermore, to-date, only 245 units, or 6%, of all the shops sold have been put up for resale. In other words, 94% have kept the shops. The programme has contributed to the restructuring of the retail sector in HDB estates. The shops are operated more efficiently. From July 1992 to December 1994, there were a total of 3,449 assignments and sublettings of shop tenancy. The programme has also encouraged more shopkeepers to upgrade their own shops. 15% of sold shops requested for approval to upgrade their shops compared with the usual figure of 10% for tenanted shops. In addition, owners of sold shops have also grouped themselves together to upgrade their commercial centres. Two retail centres in Yishun have completed their upgrading programme. Another seven retail centres have approached the Retail Promotion Centre for assistance in upgrading their retail centres. It is thus evident that the objectives of the Sale of Tenanted Shops programme and the intention of insulating shopkeepers from future rental revisions and encouraging them to further invest and upgrade their operations have been achieved. The booming property market in recent years has resulted in increases in prices of both new and resale shops. HDB has received 25 appeals involving 732 shops against the high prices of shops being sold. Some shop tenants, particularly those who are already 50 or 60 years old, feel that the current sale price of shops is beyond their affordability level. HDB is thus reviewing the programme as it is appropriate, after three years, to study the problems and develop solutions. The review will take into consideration feedback from the Advisors to the CCCs who are in a good position to assess what is best for the residents and shopkeepers. Dr Chen has raised the issue of valuation of the shops under the programme. At present, the selling prices of shops are assessed individually by HDB based on market values of comparable shops. In the valuation, HDB takes into account relevant factors, such as shop size, shop type, location, age, tenure, layout, accessibility and the catchment area. For the purpose of consistency and fairness, HDB also engages private valuation firms to assess the market values of some representative units for comparison. In response to the request to review the prices, HDB will consider changing the procedure such that HDB will prepare valuation reports individually and give the reports to the tenants. This will, of course, entail much more work in each sale cycle for HDB and its valuers to cope. Four months, or more, may be required in between sale batches. But the tenants will benefit in getting more accurate valuations individual to their shops. The details will be announced in one or two months' time.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chew Heng Ching is not here. Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UJ 3400. (In Mandarin): Sir, in page 33 of the Budget book there is an amount of $82,500 as Capital Grant to the town councils for cyclical repairs.

Have you finished?

Yes.

Sir, the sum of $82,500 is given to the town councils as part of the Government's grant to top up the sinking funds of the town councils. I do not know which particular town council is involved. But the sum is very small, and it must be the tail-end of the programme. In previous years, the sum was much larger and we have distributed the money in phases and this is the tail-end.

Sir, I am not convinced by the answer because if you were to refer to paragraph 6, page 23 of the Budget book, it is stated that the full amount of cyclical works grant has been disbursed to all town councils by FY93. That is what is stated in the Budget book. So I am puzzled why there is this sum of $82,500 to be paid into the town councils' sinking fund for cyclical repairs.

Order. Mr Low, you started speaking in Mandarin. Could you please carry on in Mandarin?

I am seeking clarification, Sir. I am not making the same speech.

No, you carry on in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin): Sir, on page 23 of the Budget book, it was similarly stated that the full amount of cyclical works grant has been disbursed to all town councils by FY93. But then on page 33, there is an amount of $82,500. Is it for the same purpose?

Sir, may I point out first that he has moved this cut under the wrong subhead but, be that as it may, I shall try to respond. Sir, it is referred in the item which Mr Low has talked about that the full sum of the cyclical works grant had been disbursed to all the town councils by FY93. But, in the process, there were other claims from the town councils and these were evaluated according to the formulas which we have promulgated right from the start and, in evaluating them, some additional claims were made and these were found to be correct and the funds were disbursed.

( In Mandarin): Sir, can I clarify? Does it mean that, having received this grant, and the town councils find that it is not enough, they can claim for more funds from MND? Or is there a wrong calculation somewhere?

This sum of $82,500 is a very small sum compared to, for example, what was given out in FY93 which was $106.7 million. In the course of building flats, some flats were put up before the financial year ended while some were put up after the financial year ended. And in the calculation for certain particular units, some were left out of the calculation while some were added in later. So in reconciling the numbers, there were supplementary grants to be given to the town councils which made those claims. And if the claims were correct, we would give the money.

( In Mandarin): Sir, the impression given to me is that some town councils can still claim from the Ministry of National Development for this cyclical works grant. Is that correct?

The claim is based on how many dwelling units in that estate are run by the town council. For example, HDB assesses that there are 6,000 units there, so the grant was given for 6,000 units. But in the course of the building programme, in the redevelopment, some rental flats were knocked down, new flats were put in, so the number might be different from the 6,000 by 100 or 200 units. At the end of the day, when we consolidated all the numbers, supplementary claims were made and they said, "Look, we have got 6,200 units whereas the grant was initially given for 6,000 units." So based on the formula, we give the extra grant if they are correctly calculated.

( In Mandarin): From what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said it means that the HDB will also give a cyclical works grant to those new flats which have just been completed.

Not at all, Sir. These were left over from FY93.

( In Mandarin): Sir, does it mean that in HDB's calculation, every town council manages a certain number of dwelling units? Were there some mistakes in their calculation and now they are giving some sort of supplementary grant to make up for the difference?

No, there is no implication of that. It is that in estimating the numbers based on the available data, an initial grant was given and when the town councils made their calculation, these were reconciled with HDB's numbers and where there was discrepancy, we would give the extra grant.

( In Mandarin): Sir, according to my understanding, HDB has based the grant on the number of units managed by the town council. Does it mean that HDB had made a mistake in their calculation? 5.15 pm

No, it is not a matter of calculating whether the number of flats is correct or not. It is that in the course of redevelopment, some flats are torn down, some flats are put up, and the actual date of completion may be before or after the financial year. When the contractors hand over the flats and they happen to be before the financial year, whereas the estimation was just after or the other way round, there will be some discrepancies. It has got nothing to do with us not knowing what the numbers are. We know exactly the numbers.

Mr Low, are you withdrawing your amendment?

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (7), Mr Chiam See Tong.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UJ 5100. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to change the rules in the application for CIPC (Community Improvement Projects Committee) funds. Under the present set-up, it would appear that Opposition wards shall never get any allocation of CIPC funds for community projects. Let me explain. Before the CIPC funds can be released to any constituency, it must first have the recommendation or support of the CCC. In the case of PAP constituencies, there are no problems at all. Why? Because the PAP MPs are the advisers to the CCCs. In other words, they can advise themselves in a way that they need the funds. Whenever a PAP MP needs funds for community projects, he as the adviser will advise his CCC to support his application for funds from the CIPC. As long as he meets the CIPC guidelines, funds from the CIPC shall, as a matter of course, be disbursed to him. So in the course of this kind of exercises, the PAP MPs have managed to get $51 million of CIPC funds. Whereas, of course, understandably, the Opposition MPs have got none. In the case of constituencies held by Opposition MPs, the advisers of the CCCs are not the incumbent MPs, but the PAP prospective parliamentary candidates. Of course, his main aim is to try and win back the constituency for the PAP. Therein lies the great problem. Assuming that a PAP prospective parliamentary candidate supports the Opposition MP's request to CIPC for funds and the funds are released for the project, and the project is completed, the Opposition incumbent MP shall probably get most of the credit for the project, and that will enhance his prestige. In such circumstances, would any prospective PAP parliamentary candidate want to do something that will lessen his chances of getting elected and improve the chances of the Opposition MP to get elected? The other problem is that neither the prospective PAP candidate nor the incumbent MP can complete a project with CIPC funds. Because, normally, CIPC funds are only given for 70% of the cost of a project. Therefore, they cannot get the full amount. On the other hand, in a constituency like Potong Pasir which is rather small, to raise the full amount for the whole project would be a financial burden on the town council. Take the example of the walkway project which Potong Pasir Town Council intended to embark on. It was estimated to cost $300,000 and the Potong Pasir Town Council applied to the CCC for support of CIPC funds. But, of course, it was flatly turned down without a reason. So we had to put the project in abeyance for the time being at least. I hear that in the case of Hougang CCC, just before Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Workers' Party was elected, it had supported several recommendations for CIPC funds. But as soon as Mr Low was elected, it quickly withdrew its support. This is a rather strange thing. When it was a PAP MP, the project was good for the constituency. But when an Opposition MP got elected, it was not good and they quickly withdrew the recommendation. I think the important issue is whether the Government is going to recognise Opposition MPs who are constitutionally elected. Are they not MPs? Are they not serving the constituents? Why treat them differently? Under the present system, it is manifestly unfair against the Opposition MPs and unfair also against the constituencies which elected Opposition MPs. Why are they deprived of taxpayers' funds to improve their constituencies? I think a whole new look has to be made into the disbursement of funds to Opposition wards. This is an important issue. Otherwise, the PAP wards will have a great advantage of taxpayers' funds and the Opposition wards are completely deprived of those funds.

Sir, can I seek clarification from Mr Chiam?

Yes, on what Mr Chiam said.

Sir, whether Mr Chiam is now the Leader of the Opposition or whether he belongs to the Workers' Party, I thought he should actually drive home the point of what he really wants from the Ministry for Potong Pasir, rather than Hougang because Mr Low Thia Khiang did not even file a complaint about Hougang. If so, he would have put in an amendment.

Sir, I would like to ask Mr Choo Wee Khiang on what position is he questioning.

It is all right. We will proceed with the business. Mr Low.

( In Mandarin): Sir, having confirmed with the HDB that the mild steel water tanks in Blocks 3 and 4 had not been replaced with the fibreglass reinforced polyester tanks in 1991, the Hougang Town Council made several attempts to seek clarification from the HDB on its stand on the matter, but to no avail. At that time, the HDB claimed that it had other plans, and therefore decided not to replace the water tanks. It has been four years since then, and the condition of the water tanks on these two blocks is such that it can no longer be restored by ordinary servicing and repair. The Hougang Town Council has estimated that it would cost approximately $100,000 to undergo a major repair in order to resolve the matter thoroughly. Even then, we do not know when the HDB is going to make a decision. If the Town Council spends $100,000 to extend the lifespan of the water tanks by 10-15 years, and if the HDB decides to demolish these two blocks of rented flats within this period, will this not be a waste of public funds? I would like to know whether the HDB has made any decision. If not, when will it make a decision?

Sir, I will take Mr Low Thia Khiang's question first. The water tanks in 13 blocks of flats in Hougang Constituency were changed under HDB's programme to replace the mild steel water tanks in those blocks constructed before 1982 with concrete or fibreglass reinforced polyester tanks. HDB did not replace the tanks in Blocks 3 and 4 because HDB is reviewing its long-term plans for these two blocks of rental flats. As these are long-term plans, they will take a bit longer to be finalised. Mr Chiam is very persistent with his questions about CIPC. I shall be consistent with my reply. As usual, he contradicts himself. He says that the CIPC procedure now benefits the adviser of the constituency who may not be the MP. In the case of Potong Pasir, he thinks that Mr Andy Gan who is now the adviser to the CCC benefits from the scheme. And yet in the same breath, he says that neither party can put up any projects because both parties will have to foot 30% of the funds. Therefore, how can it be beneficial to Mr Andy Gan and yet, at the same time, he cannot put up any projects? I think Mr Chiam ought to sort this out in his mind before he raises the point.

Can I clarify? Mr Andy Gan is the prospective PAP candidate in Potong Pasir. An hon. Member: How do you know?

He is always there. He has already tried once anyway and he is making his presence felt there. I am assuming that he must be the candidate. I am glad to hear now that he is probably not. An hon. Member: You are scared?

Anyway, I am not worried about whoever stands there. The disadvantage to Potong Pasir Constituency is that he will always try to impede or stop any application from the incumbent MP. I am not stressing more on the amount that it will get. Of course, the MP wants the projects to go on and he has to put in his application. But he will never approve the projects. In that way, it is a disadvantage to the constituency.

Sir, can I seek clarification before the Senior Parliamentary Secretary answers Mr Chiam's question?

Yes.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary says because it is a long term plan, therefore they have not made a decision. If the Town Council forks out the money and they make a decision in the next three years or so, the money will go down the drain. It is a waste of public funds. Could he tell me at least when are they going to make a decision?

Sir, I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I did not say that HDB will not make any plans for these two blocks. There are long-term plans and the plans are not just for these two blocks. When we decide on the plan for rental flats, we have to take into consideration other rental flats within the same locality and also the rest of Singapore, whether there are enough rental flats to cater to all the residents who are applying for them. And if we want to do any relocation, where can it be relocated, in what locality and whether they will be dispersed all over Singapore, some to Potong Pasir or wherever, or should we put them nearer to where they are used to living. Therefore, it is not a question of deciding on these two blocks of flats. Sir, I hope that Mr Low will understand this. I think Mr Chiam is not afraid of any PAP candidate there. Good for him. He still does not understand what he fails to understand. Never mind. He asked that we change the rules of CIPC. I would like to ask him: what changes does he propose?

The Ministry of National Development should give proper respect to the elected MP. And if there is any recommendation, it should come from the MP and not from the CCC.

Sir, I propose that they do away with the requirement of CCCs submitting the proposal to CIPC direct. That is the first step. We should allow the town council to submit the proposal which could be evaluated based on the merits of each proposal.

Thank you. Mr Chiam could not come out with a proposal.

I said the MP should make the recommendations.

He did say that. I am sorry. Sir, improvement works to the constituency, whether it is in an HDB estate or private estate, must take into consideration, not just the MP's opinion of what he wants to be done but, more importantly, what the residents, the shopkeepers, the hawkers and so on, think is best for themselves. So the Ministry of Community Development has got CCCs, RCs and various other committees to help decide these things for the entire constituency. Therefore, the best people to look after this aspect of development work will be the CCCs.

No, it should be the MP. That is what he is elected for.

Order. It is 5.30 pm. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1995/1996, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang]. Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Five o'clock pm.