Hansard, 2000-05-23

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: NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr J B Jeyaretnam 23 May23 May Assoc Prof Chin Tet Yung 23 May23 May Mr K Shanmugam 23 May23 May Mr Lee Kuan Yew 23 May23 May Mr Davinder Singh29 May17 Jun NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr Goh Chong Chia6 Jun11 Jun 15 Jun21 Jun TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether he will consider banning or introducing stricter laws on the carriage of people, in particular workers, on the open backs of pick-ups and lorries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government allows the carriage of workers in goods vehicles. This will help reduce business costs. We should continue to do so, provided the workers' safety is not compromised as a result. Under the Road Traffic Act, the owner or hirer of a goods vehicle is allowed to use the vehicle to transport his workers to their place of work or business subject to various safety rules and requirements. For example, the workers must be properly seated and in a manner that would not cause them to fall off the vehicle. For pick-up trucks, the vehicles are required to have proper side railings to further protect the passengers. In addition, the drivers of such vehicles are not allowed to carry an excess number of passengers or travel faster than the stipulated vehicle speed limit for goods vehicles, which is currently set at 50 km per hour. Penalties for the violation of safety rules and requirements are stringent. The LTA monitors the situation closely and, if necessary, they will work together with the Traffic Police to step up enforcement action against drivers or vehicle owners who violate the safety rules and requirements while conveying workers on their goods vehicles.

Sir, I would like to ask whether allowing the continuance of carriage of workers in open trucks is a contradiction of trying to build a gracious society in terms of how we treat foreign workers.

Sir, I think the answer is no. What is more important is safety. So if safety is not compromised, and if they are seated properly, I think it is an acceptable way of transporting workers in this part of the world.

Do we have an assurance that there will be a step up of enforcement? Because it is evident travelling on the road every day that there are breaches of these rules.

Yes, indeed, LTA and the Traffic Police have been stepping up their enforcement and will continue to do so. We will also publicise the rules so that companies know how to behave.

Sir, in what way does the LTA monitor the carriage of these passengers? What has been done? Because I see that many of them are packed and some of them appear to be over-packed from time to time.

Sir, in the same way that we enforce traffic rules, speeding, and so on and so forth. Just to give the Member an indication, in 1998, 206 goods vehicles were booked for committing these offences and in 1999, this number has increased to 486. So we will continue to send a strong message to these companies.

Sir, is message enough? That is what I am trying to find out. Because many of the passengers are perched in very dangerous positions, and if safety is one of the basic requirements, then other alternative arrangements would need to be undertaken. So I want to know what plans there are for improving transportation conditions for these workers.

It is not just a message. We have stringent rules. For instance, depending on the floor area of the vehicle, there is a formula that calculates the permissible number of passengers. The fines are also quite steep. And we are also looking at other measures, for instance, hand straps or hand holds and, if practicable, we can get them installed.

Sir, may I ask the Minister of State how many workers have been injured using this mode of transportation so far, and have any workers died because of this mode of transportation?

According to Traffic Police statistics, they have monitored accident rates involving goods vehicles, but they have not divided them, eg, whether the injured are open back passengers or passengers in the vehicles. But even this figure shows that the number is quite low compared to, for instance, motorcycles. If you are concerned, motorcycles are even more risky. But, of course, the point is that if you observe safety rules, then there is no concern about safety. The reason why motorcycles have high accident rates is that a lot of them speed and do not observe traffic rules. My point is that as long as we observe safety rules, there should not be any safety concern. And if the Member is interested in the actual figures, I can give him a comparison. For instance, number of passengers killed in 1999 for pick-ups and lorries, 2 (and we do not know whether they are the open back passengers or the drivers); number of people killed for motor-cycles, 11 (5 times). So I do not see the concern.

May I ask the Minister of State so far, how does the Ministry enforce the rule that the workers are safely transported during the night, especially during the early morning where construction works are going on along the roads?

Sir, as I said, there are traffic regulations, whether it is the proper lighting of the vehicles, or whether it is our road conditions, road lighting, and so on. And, of course, there are measures that we can look further into, for instance, fixing of luminous tape at the back of the vehicle. All these can be measures to enhance safety.

Sir, I do not think we should wait for an accident to happen before acting on it. Will the Minister of State consider stiffer penalties such as impounding the vehicles that are caught breaching the rules?

Sir, I think the present penalty is stringent enough. Let me just give the Member the figure. The punishment for first time offenders is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three months.

Will the Minister of State consider labelling the vehicles on the maximum number of persons they can actually accommodate?

Yes, I have just said that there is a formula, depending on the floor area of the vehicles.

Can you label it on the vehicle itself?

I will ask LTA to look into this.

asked the Minister for Finance, in the light of the Singapore Pools' intention to open 50 more betting outlets in various parts of Singapore, whether his Ministry has considered that by allowing legalised gambling to be more accessible to the public, it can have a long-term unintended effect of indirectly influencing and promoting undesirable values amongst more Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in any society, there will always be people with the propensity to gamble. It is far better for the Government to provide legal channels for gambling; as otherwise, those who wish to gamble would be encouraged to do so through illegal operators. The number of Pools' outlets of 150 has been kept constant for 14 years despite a 12-fold increase in sales. The growth of the lottery market has therefore created the urgency for new outlets. If we do not make it equally convenient for people to bet at legal outlets and offer a reasonable standard of customer service, the long queues could well drive them into the laps of the illegal operators. Retailers appointed will have to observe strict operational procedures prohibiting service to persons under 18 years of age.

Can I ask the Minister if there are any studies to substantiate that opening more legal betting outlets will help to reduce the number of illegal betting outlets? That is the first question. Second question: May I ask the Minister whether, as a means of counter-balancing any ill social effects of making betting outlets more accessible, there will be a public education campaign, similar to the anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns, to remind the public of the ill-effects of gambling or excessive gambling?

On the first question, it is impossible to obtain accurate statistics. We would have to ask the public at large: do you patronise illegal outlets? What do you think the answer is going to be? So I think it would be quite difficult to obtain the figures he wants. On the issue of a public education campaign, I think that is something we can do, although excessive gambling is undesirable. But I do not think the level of gambling in Singapore has reached a stage where we need to mount a major campaign. We are nowhere near the propensity of gambling compared to many other countries.

Sir, by opening 50 more outlets, is that not a signal to the people of Singapore that it is all right to gamble or to condone gambling?

I do not think so. We have 150 outlets. Another 50 outlets will be provided to make it more convenient. We believe that unless you can say that gambling can be wiped out altogether, which I think it is impossible, then we have to make it reasonably convenient for those who want to have a flutter to be able to do it conveniently, and that is the main purpose. From 150 to 200 outlets over 14 years is not a large number.

Could the Minister consider making such premises nondescript and enclosed so that under-aged people are restricted from entering the premises?

To do that defeats the purpose. I think he would appreciate that the locations selected are reasonably far away from places where children will gather, schools, places of worship, and so forth. Pools will exercise due care and not to place outlets at places where children might be attracted to, although legally children are not allowed to patronise them anyway.

Sir, on the one hand, the Government tells the people of Singapore that gambling is anti-social, it is bad for the family. On the other hand, it is making it more convenient, opening more outlets for people to gamble. How does the Government reconcile the two?

I think it is very difficult to reconcile human nature.

asked the Minister for Finance, in regard to renewal fees of Certificates of Registration of Business Firms, what is the reason for those who pay by Giro paying less (i.e. $75) and those who pay by cash paying more (i.e. $105).

Mr Speaker, Sir, the differential fee structure for the renewal of Certificates of Registration for Business Firms was implemented on 1st April 2000 to reflect the different costs of processing the different modes of payment. Before 1st April, the annual renewal fee was $25. This rate has remained unchanged since 1974. As a result of increasing costs over the years, the fees for renewal by cash and cash equivalents had to be increased to $105 for three years to reflect the higher operational costs. If, however, renewals are done by GIRO, the processing costs are lower. Therefore, MOF is able to pass on the cost savings to the business firms, and keep the renewal fees unchanged at $75 for three years, or at $25 per year.

Sir, people are asking why there is such a big differential rate. When you pay by GIRO, it is only $75 and when you pay by cash, it is $105. So they are asking: as far as the registration of business firms is concerned, cash payment does not have the same value as paying by GIRO.

By paying cash, you require someone, a clerk, at the counter to receive and process the cash. For GIRO, you do it by just pressing a button. Surely, the difference is quite significant, in terms of cost processing. Lower cost of electronic processing is not only applicable to business registration but to other activities where you are moving away from counter services to electronic services.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Simon S C Tay - 4. To ask the Minister for National Development what are the policies and practices relating to the licensing and control of cats.

Question No. 4, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, cats are not licensed in Singapore. Unlike dogs, cats would not play an important role in the spread of rabies in the event of an outbreak in Singapore. Hence, the licensing of cats to enable quick location of the animals for disease control is not necessary. However, under the HDB Rules, lessees are not allowed to keep cats in HDB flats because it is difficult to confine a cat within a flat. By nature, they tend to wander around and can find ways and means to get out of the flat thus creating a nuisance to other residents. The Agri-food and Veterinary Authority's (AVA) policy on the control of stray cats is to promote responsible cat ownership within the community through a voluntary Stray Cat Rehabilitation Scheme implemented by various town councils. This scheme was successfully tried out as a pilot project in Tanjong Pagar Town Council in 1998. A survey of residents in this area showed that more than 80% of them were agreeable to having the stray cats around, provided the cats are sterilised and managed so that they do not cause problems. To date, 39 areas under 12 town councils are registered under the scheme. Under the Stray Cat Rehabilitation Scheme, volunteers get the stray cats in their community sterilised. They assist town council officers to attend to complainants of cat problems and help to resolve them. The volunteers feed the cats in an organised and hygienic way. They clear away the food remnants after feeding the cats. The sterilised cats do not reproduce and their presence deters other non-sterilised cats from settling in the area. Unsterilised cats and cats causing nuisance can be removed from the area. AVA loans cat traps free of charge to residents who are bothered by stray cats and will collect the trapped cats without charge. Impounded cats which have been tagged, ear-tipped (to indicate that it has been sterilised), or have any other indication that it is owned, will be detained for five full working days after they are collected by AVA. Subsequently, cats that are not claimed from AVA will be put down humanely. Stray cats are usually found in areas where food is readily available. Hence, the effective control of stray cats requires cooperation of every member of the public to dispose food waste properly and also not to feed the strays indiscriminately. Very often, well-meaning citizens feed strays indiscriminately and leave food scraps lying around. Such unhygienic practice not only increases the stray cat problem, it also exacerbates other animal nuisances, such as crows, pigeons and especially vermin. The AVA is currently reviewing its policies and practices with a view to control indiscriminate feeding of animals as well as the abandonment of pets.

Although cat is not my problem, I am asking on behalf of somebody else. If the Minister of State is in agreement that we should control cats, why do you not license them so that at least we do not shoot the wrong cats, to begin with, and whoever is the owner will have a responsibility in making sure that the cat does not stray around, but is confined to the flat?

Sir, I do not think licensing is the solution to stray cats. The cat can still move around and create nuisance, or scavenging on food, and so on. So I do not think there is a need, at this point in time, to license cats.

If you can license dogs, what is the difference for licensing cats?

If something is not necessary, why do you want to create that machinery and system, just to do something which some people want.

asked the Minister for Education whether any secondary school has adjusted the daily reporting time with the introduction of single session so that students do not have to wake up so early to get to school on time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no secondary school has done so.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister that since secondary schools have gone into single sessions, do we not want to encourage schools to start later so that their children will not tire themselves out by having to wake up so early to catch the school bus?

Mr Speaker, Sir, principals are free to decide what time they wish to start school in the best interest of their students.

Sir, generally, the feedback from principals is that school bus operators have to operate within certain hours. Without the Ministry coming out with a suggested later starting hour, most schools will be reluctant to make the change.

Sir, most secondary school students find their own transport to go to school and they do not usually take school bus. Principals are free to decide for themselves what time they wish to start school.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether his Ministry has any long-term plans for theme parks such as Haw Par Villa and Tang Dynasty, for which the number of foreign and Singapore visitors has been dwindling over the years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Tourism Board has accepted the surrender of Haw Par Villa by International Theme Parks (Singapore) Pte Ltd, or ITP. ITP had sought to operate the park based on its theme of Chinese mythology, but found that this is not commercially viable. STB will keep the park open to the public for the time being, while it explores options for the park's future. Tang Dynasty has also incurred losses since it started operations in the early 1990s. The park is currently under judicial management, and talks are ongoing with a third party to take over the park. Failing which, JTC would re-tender the site out and retain the use of the land for recreational purposes.

Would the Ministry consider opening up the attractions free of charge to the public, as in the past, as heritage attractions, in the case of Haw Par Villa?

Our plan is to find a third party to take over the park, to redevelop it, to enhance its attractiveness and manage it.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Objective of Bill The objective of the Bill is to amend the Housing and Development Act to enable the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to introduce a new class of upgrading works, known as "special upgrading works", to cater for block works that will directly benefit only some flat owners in a HDB block and to remove the restrictive covenant that HDB flats can be used only for residential purposes to enable the flats to be used as home offices under the Technopreneur Home Office (THO) Scheme. Sir, let me now explain the rationale for the amendments in greater detail. Special Upgrading Works In implementing the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), MND and HDB have been receiving requests from Members of Parliament and residents for upgrading works which are outside the scope of the standard upgrading packages offered to MUP precincts. This has arisen due mainly to the many different designs and configurations of HDB blocks, and the diverse needs of our HDB residents. Take, for example, lift upgrading works. At present, HDB provides lift upgrading only to HDB blocks that meet a set of criteria, such as lift-to-flat ratio and the accessibility rate. These criteria are necessary to ensure that the upgrading works carried out are cost-effective. Some HDB blocks are unable to meet the criteria, mainly because not all the flats are served by common corridors. For these HDB blocks, it will be necessary to add extra lift shafts and lifts in order to provide direct lift access for all the residents in the block. The benefits of such works are obvious, especially for the elderly and those with mobility problems. Some Members of the House have fed back to my Ministry that lift upgrading is one of the more appreciated items in the MUP. However, these works can cost anything between $10,000 and $30,000 per flat. There is therefore a need to obtain a strong endorsement from residents before we proceed with the works. The Bill seeks to introduce a new class of upgrading works, known as special upgrading works, to cater for block works of this nature. The objective is to give HDB greater flexibility to do more during the MUP to bring maximum benefits to the largest number of Singaporeans living in various types of HDB blocks. The special upgrading works will proceed only if they are valued and endorsed by the residents. To gauge the level of support for such works, HDB will conduct a separate poll among flat owners who stand to benefit directly from the works. HDB will implement these works only if the minimum 75% "yes" vote is obtained. The Government will pay a majority share for such upgrading works. However, flat owners who stand to benefit directly from such works will be required to co-pay part of the cost. This is only fair. It also helps to ensure that flat owners consider the need for such upgrading works carefully. Use of HDB Flats As Home Offices Let me turn now to the subject of allowing HDB residents to use their flats as home offices. Sir, in order to create a conducive environment for technopreneurs to start a business easily and at low cost, the Technopreneur Home Office Scheme was set up. This scheme allows technopreneurs to operate their IT-related start-up businesses from HDB and private residential premises. However, HDB flat leases issued prior to 1983 contain covenants which impose on lessees the obligation to use the premises solely for residential purposes. These covenants are made between the lessee, HDB and all other lessees in the same building. This means that consensus amongst all the lessees living in the same building is required if a particular lessee or tenant wishes to conduct activities beyond those of a residential nature. This Bill discharges HDB and the affected lessees from this obligation under the lease and allows all HDB flats to be used as registered offices of companies. This will facilitate the use of HDB flats as home offices under the THO scheme. Nonetheless, NSTB and HDB will regulate the scheme to ensure that the residential character of public housing estates and the safety and comfort of surrounding residents are not affected. Administrative Measures In addition to the two main amendments that I have highlighted, the Bill also introduces some administrative changes to improve the enforcement of public housing regulations and policies. Firstly, the Bill allows HDB to prosecute any person who knowingly makes any false statements to HDB in relation to the sale, purchase, mortgage or transfer of an HDB flat. Secondly, the Bill confers on HDB the exclusive use of HDB's logo and the acronym "HDB" by making it an offence for other persons to use HDB's logo, the acronym "HDB" or one that is so similar as to cause any deception. Thirdly, the Bill removes the requirement to obtain the sanction of the Public Prosecutor before HDB takes prosecution action for offences committed under the Housing and Development Act or Rules. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, most Members in this House must have heard about this IQ question: A man who stays on the 12th storey of a flat always takes the lift up to the 9th storey and walks up three storeys to his flat. However, when he leaves for work every morning, he always takes the lift on the floor where he stays, ie, the 12th storey. Why? The answer is that the man is short, not tall enough to press the upper button. He can only press the lower button so he can reach only the 9th storey. But in many of our mature housing estates, many residents living on the upper floors are doing exactly the same as the short man though they are not short. Why? It is because our lifts do not reach the top floor. Our lifts do not stop on every floor either. Thus, residents living on the upper floors have to walk up or down a few storeys to take the lift. This is especially so for residents of the 4-room segmented blocks. Due to structural constraint, some need to go a few storeys down to the common corridor floor, and walk past a few units to take the lift; as not all staircases are equipped with a lift. As a standard, only two lifts are provided in a block where there are five pairs of staircases. Thus, residents wish that a new lift can be added to the segment. As a result, when we urge residents to vote "yes" for the Main Upgrading Programme, the most frequently asked question is, "Will the new lift stop on every floor?" or "Will there be a new lift in our segment?" Residents also comment that in the lift that serves a 12-storey block, we normally can find only five buttons. The buttons numbered "5" and "9" are to enable you to reach the 5th floor and the 9th floor. And one more button is for everyone to go down. The other two buttons do not bring you up or down. It is just meant for the door to open or close. An hon. Member: What about emergency?

For emergency, it is the green button. Normally, we do not press this button. Sir, HDB's existing lift upgrading criterion is that each new lift landing must serve at least four dwelling units. This has caused disappointment and unhappiness to residents of 4-room segmented blocks as there are only two units in each of the segment on every floor. Residents are of the view that they should benefit from the new lift landings at every floor if there is already a lift and should not be deprived of it just because the proposed lift landings cannot comply with the criterion. During my meet-the-people sessions, there have been several requests from senior citizens or families with aged parents of swapping their flats with those on the floor where there is a lift landing. I must commend Mr Mah for moving this amendment. As Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population, he is in the best position to understand the frustration and disappointment of residents who cannot enjoy easy access to the lift due to the existing regulations. It is timely that we made these amendments to meet the needs of an ageing population. It will be too late if we do not make this amendment in time as such segmented blocks constitute 22% of all the high-rise blocks built by HDB. More and more of these blocks will undergo the Main Upgrading Programme. Though similar blocks in the earlier MUPs were not given the full lift upgrading, it cannot justify that all other segmented blocks should not be given full lift upgrading just because the earlier blocks could not. The Bill empowers HDB to carry out selective polling and payment for special upgrading works. I support this as this will give the affected HDB blocks a more realistic chance of achieving the minimum 75% vote as only flat owners who will benefit directly from the works will vote and pay for it. However, the residents are concerned about the cost of sharing as it may be too high that they cannot afford. The Minister did not mention the percentage. Thus, I would like to urge the Minister to set a lower ratio so that the owners need to pay, say, 15% to 20%, instead of the normal 30% for the additional upgrading item, especially if they opt for a new lift. Sir, I support the Amendment Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is one of the countries with the fastest ageing population. Sir, we have now about 370,000 people above the age of 55, accounting for 10% of the population. Among our senior citizens, about 90% live in high-rise HDB buildings. In the earlier generation of HDB flats, lifts do not stop on every floor. Because of the design, many residents do not have the lifts serving the floor on which they live. Just now, Mr Seng Han Thong had already mentioned this. For the younger population, walking up stairs does not pose a problem. But "time and tide wait for no man". With the ageing population, there are now more and more older people in our population. These senior citizens are finding it difficult to cope with the flights of steps to walk up and down every time they leave their flats as the lifts do not stop on their floors. In the Budget debate this year, I suggested to the Minister for National Development that the Government should make a comprehensive study on how to improve the existing lifts or install new lifts for the convenience of our senior citizens. I am very happy to note that this suggestion of mine has been taken up by the Minister. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and the Housing and Development Board staff for introducing this Amendment Bill so speedily. I would like to thank them sincerely from the bottom of my heart for this effort to provide better lift services to our older citizens. In principle, I support this Amendment Bill. But I would like to comment on certain clauses of this Bill. Firstly, section 65A, as amended, defines "special upgrading works" as works to be carried out in buildings comprising 2 or more storeys. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister whether those four-storey HDB flats will also be provided with lifts when they are being upgraded. Secondly, the amendment to section 65C provides for a poll to be conducted in connection with any proposal to carry out special upgrading works, for which the support of 75% or more of the occupants having direct benefit from the special upgrading works must be secured for the project to be carried out. Sir, I feel the upgrading of lifts is the most important item in the entire Main Upgrading Programme. It is a basic item that should be regarded as a necessity. It must be an essential, compulsory provision which requires no separate voting to decide whether new lifts should be installed. Lifts are very essential for high-rise buildings. So to add new lifts to old buildings is to improve existing facilities and to provide equal services for all residents. It is not a new project, so there is no need for a separate voting. Sir, I feel that the amendment to section 65D, which states that the cost of upgrading works should be co-shared by the affected residents, is unfair. There are four reasons for this: Firstly, flat allocation. In the early days, flats were allocated to applicants by ballots conducted by HDB. Applicants themselves have no free choice to select their own flat. If you are lucky, you get a flat on the floor with lift landing. If you are not, you may get a flat one or two storeys above or below the lift landing. The only choice you had was to accept it or reject it. Once you accepted it, you cannot change your decision. Secondly, the sale price of the flat. During the earlier days, whether your flat was on a high floor or a low floor, with or without lift landing, you paid the same price for the flat. There was no different pricing. As a result, those who had bought flats on the floors with no lift landing will have to suffer a disadvantage. Thirdly, market price. In the open resale market, a flat on the floor with lift landing commands a better price than the other flats without a lift landing. Those who live in flats without lift services will suffer another disadvantage. Fourthly, lifts as public facilities. In public housing, the installation of lifts is not restricted to only certain residents. It is not their monopoly to use such lift services. Everybody is allowed to use the lift in a block of HDB flats. It is part of common property. It does not belong to any particular group of residents. Sir, lifts in high-rise buildings are very important facilities, particularly to the senior citizens. It is a very important item in the upgrading programme. So the cost of installation of the lifts should be borne by the Government and the residents should not be required to co-share in the cost. The Housing and Development Board should therefore regard the lift installation as part of the overall upgrading cost. It should not be shared separately by the residents affected. All residents should be encouraged to "share weal and woe". We should promote the "kampong spirit" and the community spirit. We should not discriminate against one another. We must create a better living environment and a better home for everybody. Just now, the Minister said that the residents would have to bear only a small part of the total cost. My colleague, Mr Seng Han Thong, also mentioned that if the Government cannot bear 100% of the cost of installing new lifts and the residents are asked to co-share in it, then I think the co-sharing should not exceed 20% of the total cost, and it should be borne by all the residents and not just the affected residents. Sir, if upgrading and installation of lifts is considered only in conjunction with the Main Upgrading Programme, then the HDB should consider bringing forward the age criterion of 20 years to 15 years, and the IUP should be coordinated so that the upgrading programmes could be accelerated, and the financial and human resources better utilised to provide a better environment for all the residents, and better homes for everyone.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we can make HDB estates more luxurious with continued improvements and upgrading works. But this will not make them as attractive as the private housing estates as long as HDB continues to maintain and enforce a standard set of very rigid, restrictive and outdated covenants and rules which stifle the creativity, resourcefulness and initiatives of its lessees and the tenants at home or work. With this thought in mind, I am particularly pleased to note that HDB is now taking such a big and bold step to remove the restrictive covenants in its standard list of instruments which will impede the reasonable use of HDB flats as a home office for any commercial purpose. This is certainly the most welcome move for both our young and old enterprising HDB flat dwellers who aspire to have their business start-ups established in their HDB home for good reasons. Singapore is well-known for its over-regulation because civil servants, like HDB officers, are good in making rules and regulations to ensure law and order, especially in HDB estates. This might be important in our early days of nation-building and community development. But such regulatory approach, if carried out to the extreme in the modern day, would have the adverse effect of making life increasingly difficult and stressful in Singapore. This is definitely detrimental to our current effort of attracting and nurturing talents for the new economy. To make the estates more attractive, HDB has challenged its planners and architects to design flats to rival those of condominiums. But I want to pose yet another challenge to HDB. Instead of trying to create more rules and regulations to plug loopholes in its administration, can HDB officers use their creative minds to actively revise and relax more of its restrictive and outdated rules and regulations to make every HDB estate a more conducive and attractive place to live and to do business. For example, can HDB revise its parking rules and charges to make visiting friends and relatives in HDB estates not always an inconvenient and costly affair? Can HDB allow shopowners or tenants to use or sublet the underutilised dwelling units in their shop premises for commercial purposes? Can HDB allow its lessees and tenants to build proper flower boxes or install suitable facilities with safety features to grow plants at balconies or corridors of their HDB flats? The proposed amendments to the Housing and Development Act will also allow the Minister to approve such upgrading works as additional lifts, especially upgrading works for HDB apartment blocks if more than 75% of the flat owners affected supported the proposal. Such special upgrading works may, in some cases, give rise to the need for HDB to compulsorily acquire certain units of flats for the intended purpose. Would the Minister ensure that in such a situation, the flat owners affected would be given adequate compensation as well as alternative accommodation within the same block or the same estate before approving the upgrading works? Yesterday, the House expressed a great deal of concern over the killer litter problem in HDB estates, and suggested various ways, including public education and enforcement action, to address it. I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest that HDB and town councils seriously look into the common aspirations and interests of many HDB flat dwellers who want to beautify their monotonous high-rise flats with colourful plants and flowers. Besides education and enforcement action, can HDB and town councils also pool their efforts and resources together to design and build proper and attractive flower boxes with safety features to replace all the existing movable or hanging flower pots which can be potential killer litter in HDB estates? I am sure such a special or general upgrading works are worth pursuing, as we all share a common aspiration to make every HDB estate a safe, clean and green living environment that also makes Singapore a garden city. Mr Speaker, Sir, with my sincere hopes and appeals, I support the motion to pass this Bill in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill. The introduction of the new sections 13A and 13B that confer exclusive rights to HDB to use its name, symbol or representation will provide added protection to HDB residents. This will also prevent unscrupulous or unconscionable traders or individuals from abusing the name of HDB to take advantage of less informed HDB residents. Over the years, there have been several cases of cheating when traders, especially renovation or trade craftsmen, who claim to be accredited HDB contractors, carry out poor quality repair works for HDB residents at unreasonable prices. Very often, it is difficult to trace these culprits, and not much redress is made to the affected residents. With the introduction of these powers, I hope that the HDB can provide better protection to its lessees. To ensure that this legislation is effectively implemented, I would urge HDB to conduct more public education programmes to keep HDB residents better informed of the authentication procedures for HDB instructed works or accredited contractors. This will ensure that better quality of services and products can be rendered to HDB residents. To further protect HDB residents, the Ministry should also make similar amendments to the Town Councils Act. Sir, for the amendments to sections 65A, 65C and 65D regarding the introduction of special upgrading works, I would like to highlight some concerns. Although the amendment may seem logical and acceptable to HDB residents undertaking upgrading works, it has an undesirable impact on the concept of communal living and the definition of "common property". The concept of communal living in HDB flats is similar to that of a private condominium where residents agree, at the time of purchase, to live together within a block or precinct and share facilities that are defined as common property. Common property includes items such as roof, building structure elements, external walls, lifts, stack pipes, playground, swimming pool, etc, that benefit residents within a block or a precinct. In a private condominium, the voting rights of the flat owners are specified in the Land Titles Strata Act where owners can exercise their voting rights according to share value. In the HDB context, the voting rights of lessees are normally only exercised during the Interim or Main Upgrading Programmes. Each eligible flat owner has one voting right irrespective of the size of the flat. The cost of maintaining and upkeeping of all these buildings is usually apportioned according to share value or voting right respectively. By segregating special upgrading works comprising additional lifts or such other works that are declared by the Minister and introducing selective voting for such work items, we are eroding the spirit of communal living and tampering with the rights of HDB lessees. The lift is a common property that benefits every resident in a high-rise block, irrespective of which floor he or she stays. Therefore, all residents should share the cost of maintaining, upgrading or installing new lifts. These are existing practices of both town councils and management corporations. Sir, I do not believe that selective voting for special upgrading works will work, and it is also not fair to the affected residents. Sir, if we were to start introducing selective voting for common property, the result will be disastrous. Many HDB residents will question why should they pay for the cost of maintaining the roof, water pumps, lifts, structures, playgrounds, senior citizens' corners, etc, as some of these facilities do not benefit them directly. This will lead to potential conflicts among residents, thus weakening community bonding. Therefore, I would urge the Minister to consider either removing the proposed amendments in sections 65A, 65C and 65D or make it compulsory for such special upgrading works to be included in the IUP or MUP works, where necessary. These special upgrading works can be packaged in the list of essential works such as water proofing of toilets or changing of stack pipes which are presently included as compulsory works in the MUP standard package. In addition, I would urge HDB to bear the cost of making all HDB flats elderly and handicapped friendly, so as to meet the needs of a fast ageing population. As a good landlord, HDB has a duty to improve the accessibility and functionality of its flats, in particular, the installation of lifts that stop on every floor. The provision of lifts that stop on every floor is no longer a privilege but a necessity in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to focus my comments on what I deem to be the main aspect of this Bill, ie, pertaining to special upgrading works. I believe this Bill is worthy of support because of three essential principles that underpin it. The first is the flexibility it endows the HDB with in the implementation of upgrading projects. The second is the choice it will give Singaporeans so that more Singaporeans can benefit from upgrading works. And the third is the principle of equity, to ensure a certain degree of matching or congruence between those who benefit and those who bear the cost. Sir, the MUP projects that we have seen so far implemented attempt to strike a balance between these three principles of flexibility, choice and equity, by adopting a layered approach. In a typical MUP project, we have, at the first tier, precinct works which, it could be argued reasonably, are of benefit to all residents, and therefore all should bear the cost and all should have the right to vote. At the second tier, we have block works. They are specific to the block but of general benefit to all the residents in the block. And in these instances, because all blocks in the precincts are given the same form of privileges and benefits, it could also be argued that there is a general benefit that stems from them and therefore all should vote and all should pay. We then have a third tier of what are called space adding items which give specific additional space to individual units, and here the voting is done separately at the block level and the residents of each block can decide whether they wish it, and if they meet a threshold, they can have that item. Sir, this has been a very pragmatic and balanced approach to our upgrading projects, but the key limitation of this really is when we want to consider a project at the sub-block level, ie, where we want a project which will benefit a substantial but not necessarily all units in a block. The implementation of such projects will be stymied and I think this is not a hypothetical exercise. As my colleague, Mr Seng Han Thong, has pointed out, a case in point is the provision of lifts for segmented 4-room blocks. Sir, the inclusion of such lift provisions in the main or general programme of HDB which everybody votes on has been suggested by some of the Members, but I would like to point out that, in practice, this is not going to work out for two reasons. Firstly, the cost of such projects is unusually high, unlike risers or roof repair works, etc. I have been told that each new lift well - and I speak with some degree of experience, although I am not a man of the industry, because I have been involved in some of these projects - can cost anything from $1/2-$1 million. And if you have that three-fold, that is a substantial cost. And if you are to argue that this substantial cost of a particular block's benefit is to be borne by the whole, the argument may be untenable and that may result in the entire project being defeated unnecessarily. It is also difficult, from what I can see, to conduct a vote for this special item like a lift upgrading at the block level in the way it is carried out for, say, the space adding items. Because even within a block, there are only specific beneficiaries who directly derive benefit from it. For those who know the topography of a 4-room segmented block, you would understand what I am getting at. Essentially, if I take a 100-unit block, there will be 30 or so units who are already benefiting from some form of direct lift access, either because the lift stops on their floor in front of their doorstep or they are served by a common corridor. It is the remaining 70-odd units who need this facility but are deprived of it. But if you put it to a vote and subject it to a 75% test, I think it is obvious that the odds are stacked against this project being carried through. The question really is this: how can such improvement works be carried out? The options are, first, as has been suggested by some Members, a generalised Government programme for lift upgrading fully funded by Government. That would be like manna from heaven and nobody would object to that. But in the absence of such largesse, I think we have to look at the next most pragmatic option, and that really is the nub of this special upgrading works that are being proposed. The Bill enhances flexibility. It means that, when implementing the project, we can now look at some worthwhile projects which might benefit a sub-set of a particular block but we still deem it to be worthwhile to endeavour to deliver. Second, it offers choice. The direct beneficiaries can decide for themselves: is the price worth the benefit and they vote for it. If they want it, and enough of them vote for it, it will be delivered. If not, it will not be done. That really leads on to the point of equity, ie, only those who benefit will have to pay. I think it is a reasonable proposal and it has the added advantage that such projects can be bundled into a larger scale MUP project which will achieve economies of scale and a lowering of cost. I do share some of the concerns about the implications for common property which my colleague, Dr Teo Ho Pin, has raised. But there is a spectrum of works involved in any upgrading, from those at one end which are very clearly of general value to all residents, to the other extreme where there are those which are of specific value to individual units or blocks. This lies somewhere in between and I think we have to make some pragmatic choices in this regard. I do have one concern for the Minister to address, ie, how do we safeguard against frivolous proposals with regard to these special upgrading works? The provision of lifts on every floor is a serious matter. With an ageing population, the need is obvious and we ought to make our best effort to deliver this. But one can imagine that there might be other less important and more frivolous requests coming from a sub-set of residents in a particular block. How does the HDB and the Ministry of National Development propose to deal with this? Should there be some form of criteria, at least requiring a certain minimum percentage or proportion of units in a block to be beneficiaries of a project before it can be considered under this special provision, or should it be confined to certain types of works? I know the Minister has considerable discretion based on the way the Bill is worded, but I would appreciate it if he could shed some light on how these safeguards can be put in place. With that, I support the Bill, Sir.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. First of all, I would like to commend the Minister for introducing the Bill to amend the Housing and Development Act. It is indeed very important that the HDB looks very seriously at the estates which have more elderly population. Those would be the estates that are going to benefit very much from the special upgrading works. Sir, as the Minister would appreciate, when residents first moved to these estates, they had very little choice because the flats were balloted and many of these flats are about 30 years old which require a good face-lift and upgrading. Many of the old flats would be benefiting from the Main Upgrading Programme. Sir, with regard to the design issue, many of these residents have very little hand in the design because they are designed by architects. When these flats were first conceived in the planning stage, they were thinking of a very vibrant and young population that never ages. That is a serious problem and many of these places have aged today. I am glad that the Minister, being the Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, has realised that there is a need to really provide accessibility to the ageing population. Sir, what will happen is the problem of affordability. In many of these old estates, there are the retirees and the elderly who are not fully employed and many of them have low income. I feel that it is going to be a serious problem if they are unable to take advantage of the special upgrading works. It will be a pity that we have a very good objective, but this objective remains on paper and may not be achieved. That is my basic concern. Knowing that more than half of them are going to be retirees with very little income, I would say that with the very exorbitant payment for lift upgrading, it will be very difficult for the residents to take advantage of it. It will be a tremendous pity that many of them may have to struggle and manage to find access to their flat in the near future. Sir, what is important is to make it really affordable. The question is: how affordable is affordable? Many of these residents are going to appreciate what the Minister will do because each time they press the button, they will remember the Minister for enabling them to get access. If the prices are expensive, each time they press the button, they are going to be very sorry. They may press the wrong button and it may never get to his notice. They will be remembering him for life too if they cannot really find access. The real question is the question of affordability. The HDB is one of the prime movers in making estates accessible. The Ministry has a building code which I am sure HDB was one of the prime movers in proposing this to make estates accessible. Building codes ensure that buildings are accessible. I think the onus is on HDB to ensure that the buildings are accessible. These are common user properties. Being common user properties, it is obviously the role of HDB to ensure that these buildings are accessible to residents, whether they are disabled or elderly. Realising that a large number of them are going to be the elderly population, they will thank the Minister if he takes their interest into consideration. I would suggest a very low co-payment that will make it really affordable, and there is no need for a second ballot because many of these estates have already undergone the MUP itself. It is the public and social responsibility of HDB to ensure that many of these flats, particularly the segmented blocks where there is a large number of growing elderly, will benefit from the changes that are going to be introduced. I hope the Minister will ensure that the charges are really within the means of the elderly retirees who have very little income.

Sir, I thank all the Members who have supported this Bill. I do not think anybody has objected in principle to the idea of having special upgrading works in order to give the HDB more flexibility to improve the upgrading package. However, the Members have made several very important points which I would like to address. First of all, the question of why selective polling and whether it will destroy the concept of community living or collective responsibility, as Dr Teo Ho Pin and other Members mentioned just now. It is an important point because the concept of collective responsibility, of sharing in the maintenance and the cost of upgrading of common properties, is an important pillar of communal living in HDB estates. So whether or not they use the playground or the Senior Citizens' Corner, or even the linkways, they pay their share of the cost of upgrading and of maintaining these common facilities. Indeed, this is the case for the standard package of the Main Upgrading Programme. It includes many of the items that were mentioned by the Members, booster pumps, Senior Citizens' Corners, linkways, playgrounds, etc. But that is the standard package. Some of the items that are desired by residents may not be in the standard package. They are outside the scope of the standard package of the MUP. This is the reason why the Ministry and the HDB, in response to many of these requests, came up with this particular amendment to the Bill to introduce what is called "special upgrading works" in order to give the HDB greater flexibility to do more, in addition to what is being done in the standard package and in the space-adding items, ie, to do more for residents during the Main Upgrading Programme. One of the common requests on the wish-list of Members of Parliament is lift upgrading for those blocks which do not meet the HDB lift upgrading criteria. Right now, such blocks would not have their lifts upgraded. The reason why this is so, we have discussed in this House many times. Lift upgrading is an extremely expensive exercise. As Mr Iswaran pointed out just now, to install a new lift shaft and new lifts can cost anything between $500,000 and $1 million or more. When we are talking about lift upgrading for these special blocks, those Members who are familiar with the issue, who have such blocks in their constituencies, the so-called segmented blocks, would appreciate the exercise. We are not talking of just installing one or two additional lift shafts. We can be talking about three or even more lift shafts. If we are talking about three lift shafts, we are talking about $3 million and dividing this across, say, 70 or 100 residents. That is a lot of money. We are not just talking about one or two blocks. We are really talking about, throughout the whole of Singapore, something like 900 to 1,000 blocks. These are the blocks of flats which were built before 1990 and which were built with this special design. They were popular at that time because there was a certain degree of privacy involved in these blocks and quite a few residents actually opted for these blocks. Be that as it may, there are many of these blocks around. They do not meet the lift upgrading criteria set by HDB. These criteria are put in place in order to make sure that in embarking on the lift upgrading exercise, there is a certain financial discipline involved. As it is already, the HDB has undertaken under the Main Upgrading Programme in the standard package to upgrade all those blocks which do meet the lift upgrading criteria. Here, we are talking about something like 3,000 over blocks. As we progress in the Main Upgrading Programme, the lifts will be upgraded to give direct lift access to the residents in these 3,000 blocks. So we are coming back to the issue of what do we do with the segmented blocks. We all know it is an extremely expensive exercise. But at the same time we also realise that the issue of mobility for the aged is a real problem. The IMC on the Ageing Population has made this recommendation, as Mr Seng pointed out, that the HDB should retrofit its blocks in order to make sure that the aged can grow old graciously in situ, in other words, to remain where they are in the flat and not have to move out. HDB, in fact, has already embarked on such an exercise to retrofit most if not all of the blocks. As I explained before, there is a certain financial constraint involved in trying to upgrade all the blocks. There is a certain financial discipline that they have to observe, and this upgrading programme must comply with certain criteria. So the purpose of this particular Amendment Bill really is to give HDB that flexibility to do more, over and above what is currently being done under the standard package of the MUP. It allows residents, in consultation with their Members of Parliament, if they really desire such additional works, to vote for these special works, like lift upgrading, and by so doing, to signal their intention and their agreement to co-pay part of that cost. In other words, this is an additional option for them. We are not taking anything away. We are saying, "Look, if you really feel that this is necessary, then here is another choice for you, here is another option." And then once we get past that hurdle, the next thing we need to do is to work out the mechanics of it, such as how do we decide whether to proceed or not, what constitutes majority vote, how do we decide that there is this very strong endorsement, and so on and so forth. So we have for want of a better percentage taken the same percentage that we do for the other polling exercises that we conduct for upgrading programmes. We use 75% yes vote as an indication of strong support. Members have asked why should they pay in the first place. Mr Ang Mong Seng gave several reasons why it is not fair to get the residents to pay, that it should be the Government that should be paying for it. I think, in the first place, the upgrading package under the MUP is already a very generous package. There is a budget per flat for MUP. The budget ranges from $40,000 to $60,000 per flat for MUP, depending on whether there is a space-adding item or not. And this budget of $40,000 to $60,000 per flat allows a certain amount of work to be done. There is a certain list of works that is required to be done under the standard package - precinct works, block works, and even some works within the flat. At the last Budget debate, I had announced the revised budget for MUP which involves more works within the flat. But the total budget is a generous one, and the co-payment by the residents is minimal. The value that they get is very much more than what they pay. So this Bill is not about increasing the MUP budget. It is about giving the residents more options during their MUP. It is in a way a bonus for those residents who benefit directly from the works. If we are talking about lift upgrading for segmented flats, as Mr Iswaran will be able to tell you, not every resident is going to benefit from it. The lifts are already there. They do stop at some of the floors. If we were to ask the residents who already have a lift that stops on their floor, whether they would like to vote yes for the lift upgrading, I think the answer is quite obvious. So really it is a bonus for residents who do not have this benefit today but who will be benefiting directly from such works. Therefore, on the basis of fairness, on the principle of equity, it is the residents who are benefiting directly who should be co-sharing this cost with the Government. On top of this, as I have explained earlier, these works do not come cheap. They are expensive. And I think it is a very good test of whether you really need such upgrading works to be carried out if you are also required to co-pay. If we were to go around and say, "Look, this is free, would you like to have it, I do not think we would be here in this House debating this issue today." And I think such manna from heaven, as the Member has suggested just now, does not come very often. The fact remains that this is a necessity for many residents. I think we all recognise that, many Members of Parliament also recognise that. So, how do we within the existing budget, within the amount of the money that has been allocated for upgrading, try to accommodate such requests? In the first place, should we have such an additional option? The answer is yes, I think we should. In the second place, how do we work it, how do we make it happen in such a way that there is equity? This is where we have a selective polling and the requirement for those who benefit directly and who vote yes, pay for it. And the Government on its part will also allocate part of its MUP budget for the purpose of embarking on these selective upgrading works. Mr Seng Han Thong, and I think Dr Vasoo also, asked whether the cost of sharing will be affordable. Will it be too high, therefore making it an academic exercise, as it were? I mean, what is the point if they cannot afford? I have two points to make here in response to the Members. The first point is that we will have a fair co-payment formula. What that co-payment formula will be must vary from project to project, and it depends on the type of work that is going to be undertaken. So I cannot at this point in time tell the Members what that particular percentage will be. But we will make it a point that it will be a fair percentage and the Government's share will be the majority share. What about those who cannot afford to pay? I think what the Members can do is to inform these residents who are either not working, who are retired, or who are low-income families, that there are schemes available in the upgrading package which will allow them either to defer their payment for up to a year or even longer to stretch their repayments, or even to avail themselves of schemes whereby they do not have to pay upfront at all, if they can demonstrate that it is not within their capacity to pay, but to pay only at the end when they sell off their flats, if they were to sell off their flats. So it is really a deferred payment scheme. But, of course, such schemes are not available to all, only for those who demonstrate that they cannot afford. So we will make it a point to make sure that those who cannot afford will be given assistance and in such a way that they will not lose the opportunity to benefit from this scheme. And we will make sure that it is not an academic exercise. Mr Iswaran also asked about frivolous proposals, what happens if some residents were to come up and say that they want something to be done, which he would consider frivolous. I think I would entrust this responsibility to the Members of Parliament. If they feel that the proposal is worth considering and they bring it up to my Ministry, I would take it that it has passed the test of the Members of Parliament's scrutiny and therefore it cannot be frivolous. Anything that comes up to the Ministry is not frivolous. But if it is frivolous, then I do not expect it to come up. The last point I would like to address is Mr Tay Beng Chuan's point about the home office. I think he may have been mistaken because the amendments do not allow HDB flats to be used for any commercial purpose. Under the Technopreneur Home Office scheme, it requires the business to register with NSTB to meet certain criteria in order to be allowed to register their office in an HDB flat. This, of course, is different from using the HDB flat for businesses. I think we know that many people use their HDB flats to conduct small businesses. Some do sewing; some do other work, like making boxes and so on. There are also others who use their flats for drafting, like some architects who use their flats for doing their work at home, and many people, of course, who telecommute, work from home. So that is quite in order. So long as they do it without creating a nuisance to their neighbours, HDB does not have any rules against it. But what the THO scheme does is that it allows the entrepreneur to register his office address as his HDB flat. That is the special requirement or special dispensation that is being given to these start-up companies. So this Amendment Bill does not actually open up the scheme to all commercial enterprises but only to those registered by the NSTB under the THO scheme. But having said that, of course, we will continue to monitor the scheme on an on-going basis, and if it does not create any disamenities, I see no reason why we cannot extend the scheme later on. Mr Tay also made several other points. I think the general point he made was that HDB should actively revise and relax out-dated rules and regulations. I do not think it would be a fair statement to say that HDB's rules and regulations are so stringent as to stifle creativity or innovation. In fact, I wonder whether the rules that are enacted by, say, the management corporations of private estates, are not as rigorous, if not more so. For example, I know that there are many management corporations who do not allow the flat owners within their estate to renovate their flats, to change their windows or to do other things of that nature, because it may mar the general outlook of those particular blocks. I think it would be too sweeping a statement to say that HDB's rules and regulations are over-stifling. Take the three examples that he mentioned, for example, parking rules. Why are there parking rules, why can HDB not encourage friends and relatives to visit by, say, waiving fees? This, indeed, is being done. I think most Members of Parliament who have made a request on behalf of their residents will find that HDB has been quite accommodating in this respect. But there is a certain limit. There are certain times and certain areas where the answer is no, and the answer is no simply because the residents themselves object. Why? Because if it so happens that their block is next to a neighbourhood centre, on Sunday, all the customers of the shops would come and park their cars there and shop, and instead of having friends and relatives coming to visit them, it would actually be free parking for the benefit of the shops in the area. When Members of Parliament put this proposal up, they know that, on the ground, there are certain problems associated with just opening it up completely. That is the reason why in some areas there is free parking and some other areas, there is not. So HDB has been accommodating and will continue to be accommodating in such instances. But for every rule that they change, while that benefit is appreciated by one group, at the same time, another group would be quite against it. On flower boxes and other safety features, HDB informed me, when I was looking at the killer litter issue, that they in fact did incorporate flower troughs in the design of several blocks of flats in Pasir Ris and Queenstown. I believe that was about five years ago. It was one of the design innovations that HDB embarks upon on a regular basis, arising again out of requests by some residents who say that they would like to plant flowers. But five years down the road, they have gone back to revisit the situation and they find that, lo and behold, instead of flowers in the troughs, you have all sorts of other stuff in the troughs. So it is being used for rubbish disposal, for storage, for anything, but putting flowers. So another well-meaning gesture goes down the drain. I do not think we should go and start this process all over again. But what really worried me about that particular design innovation was not so much the fact that they were using it to put rubbish, but that it could be a receptacle for breeding mosquitoes. The question of dengue fever and breeding of Aedes mosquitoes is still a big problem for high rise estates, and it has not disappeared. It is still there. People are careless, people are either ignorant or they just could not care less. But the Environment Ministry still has to go around putting pressure on town councils to keep chasing residents to make sure that they do not breed mosquitoes. And dengue fever is not a laughing matter. Every year, there are people who die from dengue fever and there are many others who suffer from dengue fever and get very ill. So I have told HDB that if they solve the problem, make sure that they do not create other problems. When people suggest these things, it may appear reasonable at first glance, but there are many other implications involved, which I think need to be thought through carefully before we implement. Finally, there was one last point he made about whether, in the special upgrading works, we are going to compensate them if an acquisition is involved. The answer categorically is no. The special upgrading works do not involve any acquisition. It is just a matter of lift upgrading or other types of works which would require selective groups of residents to vote. There is no question about Government acquiring the flats for any purpose. Mr Speaker, I think I have answered all the questions that have been raised. I thank the Members once again for their support.

Sir, may I be allowed to clarify two points with the Minister? What is the rationale for making the town councils pay for the special upgrading works? Under the statutory duties of the Town Councils, we are only asked to maintain the common property. Sir, in the case of the opposition town councils, we do not receive any CIPC fund and, if we are made to pay more contributions through all these upgrading works, we will be at a disadvantage compared to the PAP-controlled town councils. The other point that I would like to raise with the Minister is that, at first, I was quite elated that they are going to allow HDB flats to be used for business purposes. But now, as it is, it is only confined to IT start-up companies. Sir, I am wondering whether the Minister is willing to expand this usage of HDB flats to other business activities as long as they do not create a nuisance. Sir, 80% or more of Singaporeans are living in HDB flats. At the moment, all these flats are only for residential purposes and, as such, they are only used for consumption. If you allow them to be used for other business purposes, they will be converted to productive use. Our national income would increase significantly if these flats were allowed to be converted for business use as long as they do not create a nuisance. Like in Hong Kong and other places, they have been used for making artificial flowers, assembling of wrist watches and taking parts from the government factories to do them at home. There are so many uses which are being carried out. It will be beneficial to Singapore economically.

Let me take the easy one first. Mr Chiam is under the wrong impression that town councils have to pay for the special upgrading works. No, they do not have to pay. The special upgrading works are special works which are over and above the existing standard package of the MUP. Town councils are not involved in this. So far as the THO scheme is concerned, whether it should be expanded to other activities, in my answer just now, I did allude to the fact that this is already being done. HDB allows for other activities, like allowing people to work from home if they are using their phone, fax and modem, whether they are architects or whether they are draughtsmen, that is perfectly all right. And indeed, there are many other activities that are carried out in the HDB flats which, so long as they do not cause nuisance to their neighbours, are not disallowed. If you go around your block visits, from time to time, you will come across homes where they bring back work to do, whether it is sewing, or other small cottage type industries to assembly at home. That is already practised and HDB does not say no to that. The only distinction that they make is that when you indulge in such activities, you do not cause nuisance to your neighbours. If your neighbours find that you are operating a factory in your flat, no matter how productive they are, we will come down on them.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes past Two o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.