Hansard, 2001-03-14

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 (2001)(2001) Mr J B Jeyaretnam14 Mar16 Mar Mr Chng Hee Kok 16 Mar16 Mar Mr Loh Meng See16 Mar18 Mar Dr Ker Sin Tze17 Mar2 Apr NameFromTo (2001)(2001) Assoc Prof Toh See Kiat21 Mar30 Mar Mr Yeo Guat Kwang24 Mar27 Mar Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam24 Mar28 Mar Mr Wong Kan Seng1 Apr3 Apr Mr Goh Chee Wee5 Apr9 Apr 18 Apr26 Apr TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 12 March 2001 (1) Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Bill; (2) Health Sciences Authority Bill; and (3) Health Promotion Board Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Deputy Prime Minister (a) if he will give an update on the Government's divestment programme for Government-linked companies (GLCs); (b) whether the large Government shareholdings in GLCs have hindered their efforts to grow in the region; and (c) whether the Government has any plans to reduce these shareholdings, especially in companies like Singapore Telecom and DBS Bank.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's programme to divest its shareholdings in the Government-linked companies is progressing smoothly. We conducted the initial public offering of Singapore MRT last year, bringing the Government's shareholdings down from 100% to 62%. The Government also divested Semac and Indeco Engineers completely in 2000 and 2001 respectively. Looking ahead, PSA Corporation and Singapore Power are slated for listing, while the three power generation companies (Power Seraya, Power Senoko and Tuas Power) will also be divested. With regard to our GLCs' ventures abroad, many have been successful. PSA Corp, for example, has gone as far as China, South Korea, Middle East and Europe. SingTel has footprints in Asia, including Thailand, Taiwan and India. DBS bank is in Thailand, the Philippines and Hong Kong. In some regional ventures, the Singapore Government shareholding in GLCs has been an advantage. It has given the GLCs' partners and host governments confidence that this is a bona fide operation with a reputable, long-term shareholder, which will uphold high standards of integrity and not cut corners for quick returns. But not all regional ventures of GLCs have been smooth and successful. Many companies treat certain industries as "strategic" and fundamental to their national interest and economic development. But they are cautious about allowing foreign players to enter or buy into their domestic market, especially players with significant foreign government ownership. In banking, for example, regulators typically apply stringent standards and single shareholding limits. In telecommunications, many countries limit foreign participation in their domestic market. Where the Singapore market has substantial and visible shareholdings in a company, regulators, political leaders, the press and local constituents tend to perceive the GLC to be Singapore Government-controlled, operating on an agenda that overrides normal commercial considerations. Such perceptions can unnecessarily politicise and complicate mutually beneficial commercial deal strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. From time to time, GLCs, like SingTel and DBS, have encountered such problems in their regional ventures. As a policy, the Government does not interfere in the strategic and commercial decisions of GLCs. All GLCs must operate strictly commercially, and are expected to yield proper economic returns. They are supervised by their boards of directors and accountable to all their shareholders, including the non-government shareholders who often own the majority of the shares. However, if these perceptions exist, we need to address the issue. In many industries, the scale of economic activity is increasingly global. To be competitive and have growth prospects, companies need to transcend national boundaries, especially in a small economy like Singapore. The recent wave of mergers and acquisitions in industries, like banking and telecommunications, reflects this. The Government has stated that its shareholdings in GLCs are not sacrosanct. With very few exceptions, GLCs are in play, free to acquire or be acquired in accordance with commercial dictates. If anybody wants to bid for them, whether the bidder is foreign or Singaporean, friendly or hostile, we will consider the proposition seriously. We cannot afford to take a parochial, xenophobic approach. Companies, like SingTel and DBS, are large players in Singapore, but small by world standards. To become significant players, they must, over time, evolve into more than Singapore companies. This is why we have lifted requirement for banks and telecommunication companies to be majority Singapore-owned. The Government presently owns 78% of SingTel, and 37% of DBS. We do not regard these as strategic stakes, to be permanently maintained. We are prepared to reduce significantly our shareholdings in SingTel and DBS over the medium term. How this should be done will be studied further. It can be by dilution through a merger, private sale to institutional investors, a SOTUS-type asset enhancement exercise for citizens, or some other means. Any divestment should naturally take place at the right price, and under the right market conditions. For SingTel, we will remove the "special share" which gives the Government the right to veto major decisions in the company. Instead, we will meet our national security needs through appropriate safeguards. For DBS, we will need to ensure that the Singapore character of the bank is preserved, following any divestment by the Government. It is important that we will be able to rely on the local banks to keep Singapore's financial system on an even keel in a crisis. The Banking Act and MAS Regulations help to ensure that the local banks retain their commitment to Singapore, even if they form strategic linkages or merge with foreign partners. First, MAS approval is required before single shareholdings can exceed three threshold levels, 5%, 12% and 20%. Second, MAS requires at least half of the board of directors of the bank to comprise Singapore citizens or permanent residents. This specific requirement may need to be modified, for example, in a merger with another party of comparable size, which is able to contribute to the bank and its continued growth and commitment to Singapore. But even in such a situation, MAS will continue to ensure a strong and meaningful Singaporean presence on the board of the merged entity. I hope that this statement of our intentions will dispel some of the misapprehensions about the nature of the Government's shareholdings in GLCs, and give them a freer hand to pursue M&A deals with prospective parties.

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister two supplementary questions. The first is that, with regard to the report in the Straits Times that the Department of Statistics is doing a review of the scope and range of GLCs, whether the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of this study and whether this study will be coming up soon. It was mentioned in the Straits Times recently. I am not aware of this until I read it in the Straits Times myself. The second question is whether there is a need to do another review of the role of GLCs. I recall that the first review was done more than five years ago. A very comprehensive review was done. Could the review be conducted by a joint committee from both private and public sector representatives since this committee can actually look into the benefits of the GLCs, how their strengths can be exploited, areas of cooperation between GLCs and private sector as well as to give guidelines on how GLCs can avoid future encroachment in the private sector and, finally, maybe even ask the committee to hear complaints, if any, of GLCs' unfair competition versus the private sector?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Leong is referring to a study recently done by the Department of Statistics which was aimed at determining what proportion of the Singapore GDP was accounted by GLCs. There was a time inflated number of 60% to something originally. And DOS re-estimated this and came out with some number of less than 20%. I think it was 13% --- An hon. Member: 12%

12%. That was the main purpose of the study, just to clarify the figure. The study is completed. It is not ongoing. On review of the role of the GLCs, this is something which we have continued to do. It is Temasek's responsibility and the Ministry of Finance oversees this. As we have explained, in nearly every case, GLC's function has to be to operate as a commercial entity. There are cases where there are social considerations as well as the DBS/POSBank which we have discussed extensively. But even with that, DBS still should have a free hand to operate without being subject to undue impositions. As long as they are operating completely freely and without any hidden Government assistance or subsidy, they should be free to do their business as they think fit. I do not think there should be areas where we push them to go and I do not think there should be areas where we prevent them from going. I know that, every now and then, the newspapers will come out with the story of a GLC which went into the roast duck business. I believe the GLC subsequently sold the roast ducks and the business, but that has not been regularly highlighted in the newspapers. But it is not our business to micro manage. They have their business. They know what their focus is meant to be. If they are not properly focused, the shareholders will do something about it. In most cases, the shareholders will include minority non-Government shareholders, in some cases, it is fully owned. Then Temasek has to do something about it.

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister when are the expected dates of the IPOs for Singapore Power and PSA Corp. At the same time, what is the size of these offerings?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a little bit premature to say that now. In the case of PSA, the bankers are now in the final stages of their due diligence work. The exact timing of the listing must be carefully studied because of the uncertain and very difficult market conditions. Members will be aware of how the US market has come down sharply over the last few days and weeks, and the Singapore market has followed it down. In the case of Singapore Power, its preparations are not quite as advanced, but bankers have been appointed. I cannot commit to when they would be listed because it depends on circumstances.

To follow up from my question, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it is not the intention of the Government to micro manage the GLCs. But will the Government look into GLCs which are not covering non-strategic areas? Are there plans for them to be divested, especially if there are parties out there who are prepared to either invest in them, or acquire them, in areas like the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned about roast ducks and other non-strategic areas?

I think the Member means GLCs which are participating in non-strategic areas. Yes, indeed. As I explained in my main reply, the Government is not fixed to hold all these GLCs. In very few cases there are strategic reasons why we want to maintain a stake. In most cases, we are open, and if there is a buyer available who makes us an attractive offer, we will be happy to transact. And in many cases, over a period of time, we would be happy to reduce our shareholdings down below where they are now and, maybe even divest completely. Because the original rationale for building up and maintaining these companies has to be reviewed and may or may not continue to exist. But these are listed companies, so I would not like to speak lightly about what we will or will not do until we have firmed up our plans.

We will allow one last question. Mr Chng.

This is a follow up of my earlier question. If the market sentiments are favourable, will the IPOs take place this year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, PSA and Singapore Power would not have appointed investment bankers and proceeded with due diligence unless they have very serious intentions. And we have said our intention is to list them. But can we be ready this year? We have to judge the timing. The timing is a tactical decision. If it is not this year, it will be next year, or the year after. But we are not seeing it as a very long drawn-out process.

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

Head U (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [13th March, 2001], "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Teo Ho Pin]. Question again proposed. 12.46 pm

Head U - Ministry of National Development. Amendment No. (1). Mr Loh Meng See is not here. Mr Ang Mong Seng.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the Government is very concerned about the competition and challenges faced by the HDB neighbourhood retailers, and has established the Retail 21 Development Plan to help them to upgrade and develop their business. A sum of $16 million has been allocated for this purpose. On the question of how these neighbourhood retailers could upgrade their management and break out of the difficult situation, may I make the following observations: 1. Change in shopping behaviour. In the past, when people went shopping, they would have some specific needs in mind. For example, Minister Mah mentioned that in his younger days, when he went to the provision shop to make his purchase, he would already have in mind certain goods to buy, eg, sugar, oil, etc. However, with the changes in time and lifestyles, people nowadays enjoy going to the shopping centres just to look around, without having anything in particular that they would like to buy. If a certain display at the window attracts the shopper, he would go into the shop and examine it before buying. On the other hand, if the goods are displayed in a haphazard manner, they will not attract the young shoppers. Furthermore, in the old-fashioned provision shops where the goods are stacked up disorderly, some dishonest customers may take away certain goods and walk out of the shops without paying for them. The shopkeeper may not even notice it. Therefore, these neighbourhood retailers can learn a thing or two from the 7-Eleven stores where there are always a good product mix and the goods are displayed in an orderly and attractive manner. 2. Changes in shopping environment. One reason why shopping centres could attract the crowd is the comfortable and spacious environment. Neighbourhood retailers can attract shoppers by improving the surroundings of the shopping areas. Chong Pang Town and Hong Kah Plaza are good examples of how retailers got together and worked with the Town Council to improve the shop facades and the general surroundings, thereby making them move spacious and attractive. The Gombak Town project which is underway will be yet another example. 3. Changes in rental. At present, all shops, whether located in the residential blocks, neighbourhood or town centres, are charged market rental rates. How does HDB determine the market rents? These rents are computed according to the 6-month tender price of the shops. However, two things happen when shops are tendered: (a) The "kiasu" tender where the bid is extremely high, for fear of failure to secure the place; and (b) The "kiasi" or "afraid to die" tender where the bid is very low for fear that the capital cannot be recouped and the business will die. Neither of these should be used as a benchmark for determining market rate rental. A more reasonable computation would be the highest tender rental plus the lowest tender rental, divided by two, eg, $3,000 + $1,000 divided by two, giving a rental of $2,000, which is more reasonable. But this market rent should be charged only on shops in the town centres selling consumer and expensive goods, such as watches, jewellery and cosmetics. I am sure Mr Speaker is very familiar with the watch trade. A watch which is sold for $1,000 can bring the shop owner a profit of $100. However, in a sundry shop, a bottle of soya sauce is sold at $1 and the profit is only 10 cents. Therefore, rental for shops in residential blocks or in the neighbourhood should be benchmarked according to the type of residents living in the area. They should be charged a reasonable rental rate to help lower their business costs, so that they can carry on with their business. 4. Government buy-back package. Some ageing shopkeepers are finding it difficult to continue with their business. They could have been doing the business from a tender age and stuck with it until a ripe old age. They cannot carry on with their business. According to the present HDB regulations, those who want to return the shops to the HDB cannot get any compensation. They would have to fork out some money to refurbish the shops before such premises are returned to the HDB. When the shopkeepers are old, there is no one to take over. Therefore, can HDB change this rule? It should render a helping hand to these shopkeepers. HDB should consider allowing them to return the shops and pay them a sum of, say, $48,000 as compensation, as is the practice under the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). I hope the shopkeepers, trade associations and HDB would consider the above suggestions. I believe retailers in the HDB still have good prospects.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the poor business of HDB neighbourhood shops is a problem which has been in existence for a long time. Part of the reason is that their trades, as specified by the HDB, are not relevant to the demands of the market in the present day and the shopowners are not allowed to change their trade. As such, they just had to carry on doing their business in very difficult circumstances. I think the solutions to this problem are: (1) Greater flexibility on the part of the HDB to allow the shopowners or tenants to change their trades; and (2) Permission by the Urban Redevelopment Authority to allow those neighbourhood shops in the out-of-the-way localities to change the use of their shops. In places where there are too many shops, resulting in many shops being left vacant, URA should allow them to be used for other activities. In any estate, the HDB specifies what trade the shops should be engaged in. It is, of course, good to have a proper trade mix, for the convenience of the residents. However, when the convenience shops, like 7-Eleven and Cheers, come into the neighbourhood, the traditional provision shops could not compete with them. On the other hand, the HDB does not allow the provision shops to change their trade, so they have to just carry on with the same trade, even when there is no longer any demand for such a trade. So, to solve this problem, the HDB should have greater flexibility to allow the shopowners and tenants to change their trade and let market conditions decide the number of various types of business in the neighbourhood shops. The HDB should also help those who cannot carry on, eg, the ageing shopowners, and let them exit by giving them some form of compensation. Only then can the shops in the HDB estates be re-packaged to serve the residents under a new and fresh look. Next, I would like to talk about change of use. URA specifies that the neighbourhood shops in HDB estates could only be used for retail business and not for other purposes. This is understandable. However, in some out-of-the-way localities, there are too many shops, resulting in a surplus, and many of the shops could not attract tenants and they are closed throughout the year. If URA could permit these shops to change their use and allow the tenants to use them as showrooms or offices, then at least these shops could be fully utilised and it could also bring more life to the housing estates. The Government has already allowed those who are involved in the Internet-driven companies to use their residence as an office. Why is it that we cannot allow the vacant shops to be converted to offices and allow the start-up companies to start their business at a lower rent to cut their overhead expenses? Another related question is the request of the residents to convert the upper floor of the shops for other purposes. According to the original design, the upper floor of the shops was meant for the shopowners and their families to stay in. By staying on the upper floor, the shopowners will enjoy great convenience in looking after their business downstairs. This was a good conception, but this was 20 years ago. Now, with the changes of time, most of the shopowners have their own flats elsewhere and they use the premises upstairs as warehouse or offices. According to the rules, they would have to apply to the URA for change of use and, very often, it would be very difficult for them to get the approval. My parliamentary colleague, Mr Leong Horn Kee, mentioned during the debate on MTI's budget, that the owners of the shops along Upper Thomson Road applied to convert the second storey of their shops into offices or other commercial purposes, but their applications were refused and the reason was that it would cause traffic congestion. As for HDB, they refused to allow the shopowners to convert the upper floor into a warehouse because the floor was not strong enough to withstand the extra weight of the goods to be stored there. So, using the upper floor for storage would pose problems. But if there are people just working there as an office, would there be additional weight as compared to people living there? I hope that URA could reconsider these applications for conversion of use and give them more sympathetic consideration. In fact, URA has approved applications for the change of use by some of these premises. However, the approval is valid only for one year. So if they want to carry on using the premises for the changed purpose, they would have to resubmit their application every year. This is time and energy wasting. As a result, the shopowners would not dare to spend money on renovation, because of the uncertainties. So we should allow them to convert the upper floors into offices. This will put the premises to optimum use and allow the owners to save their business cost so as to cope with the uncertainties in the next couple of years.

I would like to inform hon. Members that the "guillotine" time for this discussion is 3.00 pm. Dr Tan Boon Wan.

Sir, our neighbourhood retailers face difficulties. I join my parliamentary colleagues in expressing our concern, and to urge the Government to help them. I support many of the suggestions made by my colleagues. However, no business can survive if the customers do not support them and do not need their products and services. The issues of the management of the shops, and their relevance to the community, impinge upon their long-term viability. They need help with these issues. But to overcome their difficulties, they must want to change; they can help themselves. Today, in many neighbourhood centres, retailers have come together to form merchants or business associations. To help themselves, they can carry out market surveys to determine the needs of the communities they serve. They can get consultants to advise them. They can organise courses to upgrade their management skills and the skills of their workers. They can also organise visits to learn from successful shopping centres. 1.00 pm The Government recently unveiled a slew of supports under Retailers 21. I am confident that it will go a long way to assist retailers. However, if retailers want to help themselves, I hope that the Government would consider making available this support, both funds and expertise, to the neighbourhood merchants and business associations. If this is possible, this help will be brought closer home. The help can then be specifically tailored to the needs of each neigbourhood shopping centre. By being directly involved, the retailers will be better motivated with a sense of ownership of the support programmes. Training will be more accessible and convenient to the retailers and their workers. Sir, I also want to make an appeal to our landlords. HDB has sold many of the neighbourhood shops. Many owners have rented out these shops. I have seen shops that enjoy good business fold. A common refrain is that landlords have increased the rent. There is nothing left for the tenants after that. Landlords should charge a fair market rental that reflects a reasonable return on their investments. Reasonable rental means reasonable cost. This translates into lower prices for the customers. Everyone benefits. The landlord gets a good steady rental, the retailer makes a satisfactory return for his hard work and the residents enjoy fair prices and good service. Hence, I urge our landlords: please do not raise the rent just because your tenants enjoy good business. Tenants go into business to make money. They work hard for their profit. It does not motivate them to work if the fruits of their efforts are being creamed off. Neighbourhood retailers bring convenience and needed services and products to the community. We should help to ensure their continued viability and presence.

Sir, I understand that the Government has stopped the sale of HDB shops. In my experience, I see several plus points for this programme to continue. Some years ago, I spoke against the sale of HDB shops on 99-year lease and I called for a change in the policy of selling HDB shops instead on 30-year lease, which is in line with industrial properties. The then Minister for National Development, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, accepted this suggestion, and except for a small number of units, all the shops in my constituency were sold to the sitting tenants on a 30-year lease. This was sometime in late 1995 and early 1996. There was resistance from a number of shop tenants for various reasons. It was not a popular idea at that time. Most of them see shopowners in town centres buying shops and making huge profits out of that. The advent of the Asian currency crisis in July 1997 and the recession that followed after, made all my shopowners today thankful that the decision they made was a right one. Almost all of the shopowners rented out half of their shops. This rent which they receive is sufficient to pay for the mortgage and, in some cases, turn in a surplus. This means that the shopowners can continue to operate a smaller unit and continue their business. In other words, the shopowner has his mortgage paid by someone else and, at the same time, can continue his livelihood. Today, I believe my shopowners in my constituency are a much satisfied and financially healthy lot. Hence, I strongly urge the Government to continue the sale of HDB shop programme as this is one avenue to alleviate the hardships and difficulties of our neighbourhood shopkeepers.

Sir, I would like to join in Mr Chng Hee Kok's call for the Government to resume the sale of HDB shop scheme because, since the last sale, there has been no further activity in this particular scheme. HDB has also not announced when it would resume the scheme, nor indicate whether it has been cancelled altogether. There are, in fact, many neighbourhood centres whose operators are still waiting to participate in the sale of shops scheme, on the assumption that the sale prices would always be pegged at a discount to the market price. This was so when the market was on the way up, and should be so when the market is on the way down. One of these neighbourhood centres is in my constituency at Clementi Street 13 in Bukit Timah GRC. Their desire has been highlighted in the press recently. Not all businesses were negatively affected by the scheme. Some of the more vibrant ones would like the scheme to continue. If HDB were to continue to do so, those currently settled down will find their assets further depressed if HDB were to sell the shops at the current market price. In a way, I can understand why HDB is silent on this matter because no matter what it does, it can please no one. If HDB were to suspend the scheme, it would be equivalent to denying the opportunity to those who are still waiting for the privilege granted to many others, including the early batches. I would like the Minister not to leave everyone waiting for the scheme in limbo and to state very clearly and explicitly whether the scheme will be continued or suspended.

Sir, the HDB Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes have received much support from many HDB residents. The upgrading programmes have revitalised our older housing estates and, at the same time, kept our communities together. The success of these programmes has spurred a lot of interest among HDB residents. Many are now requesting for their flats to be upgraded. I would like to suggest the following for the Minister to consider. 1) Revised MUP and IUP cut-off dates. Due to the age criterion, and the cut-off dates set by HDB, many blocks of flats are not eligible for upgrading. I hope the Minister can consider revising the cut-off dates of flats so that more Singaporeans can benefit from the upgrading programmes. 2) Lift upgrading programme. Last year, I requested for a special lift-upgrading programme. I hope the Minister will consider implementing a Special Lift Upgrading Programme to expedite the installation of lifts on every floor. Our fast ageing society has created an immediate demand for such added services in a high-rise public housing. 3) Design rectification. Many old HDB flats have design features which encourage mosquito breeding, for example, bamboo pole holders, concealed drains, canopies, metal decking roofs, etc. These design features are costly to rectify to prevent mosquito breeding. The Environment Ministry has been working closely with the town councils and HDB to resolve such problems. But the lack of funding has slowed down the efforts, leading to frequent outbreaks of dengue fever. To address this problem, I would urge the Minister to consider implementing a one-time goodwill repair programme for these flats.

Sir, the HDB's Interim Upgrading Programme and the Main Upgrading Programme have indeed benefited many Singaporean households living in the public estates. Many are anxiously looking forward for their turn to have this upgrading. Sir, I would like to ask what is the status of these upgrading programmes so far, in terms of how many precincts have already undergone Interim Upgrading Programme or the Main Upgrading Programme. Also, I would like to ask how many more precincts are left, based on the revised criteria which would go through the IUP and MUP. In recent times, in the new announcements of precincts for MUP, I notice that in some precincts, for instance, in my constituency, there are two point blocks which are considered for MUP, while there are five or six blocks in the same precinct. By just selecting two point blocks, for instance, does not give the economies of scale. Secondly, it also makes it very difficult for us to explain to the residents of the other blocks within the precinct as to why they are not selected for the upgrading. If there are other plans like SERS or things like that, this should also be announced simultaneously so that unnecessary rumour-mongering can be prevented. The other point is on the lift upgrading programme, as Dr Teo has just mentioned. Many residents find that, whether it is the IUP or MUP, lift upgrading has the most impact on these programmes. We find, especially in the older estates, like in the city centre, Kim Seng, Kampong Glam, Moulmein, and even in Toa Payoh, many residents are senior citizens and they look forward to the MUP, but it takes some time. Therefore, you find that the town councils are not able to provide lift landing on every floor because of the cost. I would also like to ask that this lift upgrading programme, on a pilot scheme that has been planned, can be expanded and more of the mature estates in the city centre can be considered for this upgrading. It is possible to farm it out for the town councils to manage this project because this can be done within a year or so, as opposed to waiting for a MUP which takes a long time. At the same time, there are many in mature estates which have gone through IUP in the first phase, but they did not get their lift upgrading. I hope that this scheme can be introduced for them as quickly as possible.

Sir, unlike Dr Teo Ho Pin, I would urge the Government to make a total review of the IUP and MUP. The reason is because of the recommendations encompassed in Concept Plan 21 where the land use review envisions Singapore with a population of 5.5 million. Based on current land utilisation ratio, there is a potential shortfall of 4,000 hectares of land. The focus group on land allocation, in its report, called for a higher plot ratio in general. In high density private and HDB estates, the focus group urges that the GPR be increased from 2.5 to 3.

65. The reason I call for a review is that there is limitation with the IUP and MUP. As no new additional units will be built in those estates, existing residents have to move out before new residents could move in. Thus, there is always a shortage of younger and more energetic residents to rejuvenate the older housing estates. IUP is, of course, always welcome by the residents as the improvements are free to them. But MUP requires co-payment by the residents. Furthermore, during the construction period, those affected have to live in the midst of a great construction site. Most of those who have lived through it would not recommend it to their friend, but perhaps to their enemy. With the falling of HDB prices in the resale market, it seems to me that MUP is losing its appeal to the residents nowadays. As I said, the MUP and IUP do not change the landscape in line with our future scenarios. The Minister, in his reply yesterday, has already agreed that higher GPR in existing HDB estates would be more cost-effective, in particular, if we were to include the infrastructure cost of building new towns. If we are planning for a population of 5.5 million, would it not be more cost-effective to pursue alternative schemes like SERS with immediate effect, where possible?

Sir, when you speak to young couples who have applied for new HDB flats, you will hear complaints that they continue to face difficulties in meeting the downpayment, even with the present arrangements of two instalment payments of 10% each. To make it easier for them, could the Minister reduce the downpayment to 10% and in two instalments? This will encourage them to get access to housing much earlier and that would also be enhancing our family policy of more than two children, if they can. Turning to young couples who want to live near to their parents in mature estates, we have encouraged them to do so. Yet, we are not making it easier for them. It should not be seen as a lip service to them. It is important to find ways to enhance the capacity to live near their parents. The cash upfront and downpayment are major hindrances. Could the Minister consider reducing the downpayment to 10% and provide an additional housing loan to enable young couples to meet some part of the cash upfront payment? That seems to be the problems of young couples who want to live near parents in mature estates.

Sir, the HDB has ceased the building of 3-room flats and smaller units. It has stopped the build- ing of executive apartments. It has established a fairly successful partial privatisation of its activities in the design and build scheme. There is no question that the Executive Condominium scheme has taken off very nicely. This leads me to revive a suggestion I made before in this Chamber. I suggested about five years ago that HDB should stop building large flats and leave this to the private sector. I suggested that there was no reason for HDB to go beyond providing basic housing and should restrict to building 4-room flats and smaller units. However, today, with the slowdown in demand for new flats to no more than 10,000 units a year, and unlikely to rise as a result of demographic changes, there is compelling reason today for the HDB to privatise the building of flats altogether. The design-and-build scheme and the Executive Condominium scheme should be able to take care of the annual needs of the demand for public housing. This move is similar to the devolution of the maintenance role of the HDB to the town councils. 1.15 pm Sir, with these changes, the continuing role of the HDB should be in setting policy, planning and upgrading of old estates. This move of leaving the building of flats to the private sector altogether will strengthen the building industry, give consumers a wider choice of public housing and the HDB need not have an organisation when the demand for public housing drops. Will the Minister highlight to the House whether there is a review of the role of the HDB as a result of this shifting of demand? Sir, I spoke of the continuing role of HDB in the upgrading of old estates. About five years ago, I spoke of the need to launch a lift upgrading programme to complement the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP) and the Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP). The Government turned down the suggestion. Three weeks ago, I conducted a survey at an exhibition of an area in my constituency chosen for the Main Upgrading Programme. Almost to the last resident, there were questions and requests made for the upgrading of lifts to stop on every floor. Unfortunately, in the Main Upgrading Programme, this item is to be entertained only when there are funds left over after the tender exercise for the MUP. A small number of residents even said that they were not in favour of the MUP if the lifts were not upgraded. One even asked why we do not demolish the flats altogether and do a SERS. MUP was much sought after at one time, but I do not know for how long. I hope that this is not a sign of escalating expectations that one day we cannot meet. Coming back to the MUP, these flats, which were meant for main upgrading, were built 23 years ago. The emphasis then was on the speed of supply of public housing. The population was also younger and more robust then. This has changed, and my recent experience tells me that next to the MUP, a lift upgrading programme (LUP) will certainly be not only popular but, I believe, much needed. I am confident that the area I spoke about is similar in character to many other parts of Singapore. Will the Minister heed the call this time, Sir?

Sir, we must review the registration for flat policy to be more pro-family and to better meet the needs of Singaporeans. I would like to suggest the following proposals for the Minister to consider: (1) Build on demand flats. HDB can adopt a similar approach, as adopted by private developers to build flats based on demand of the population. Selected sites of about 500-700 units can be chosen for development at specific locations. Singaporeans can then be invited to select these flats based on specific location. If there is no demand for a specific location, HDB will not proceed with the development, and an alternative site will be sought. In cases where the take-up rate may not be 100%, the remaining flats can be rented out to families who need transitional housing such as bankrupts, widows, retirees, singles and young married couples. (2) Reclassification of zones. Can HDB consider reclassifying its zoning system? Many flat applicants would like to choose flats by specific location such as town or constituency. (3) Master listing of available flats. Can HDB consider consolidating a master listing of all flats available, so that flat applicants can have more choices for a flat?

Sir, I have a specific cut on lift upgrading, but I find that many of my colleagues have already spoken on this. And following in their wake, I would like to join in the call for lift upgrading. On lift upgrading, I want to emphasise that we are not just talking about installing new and faster lifts. By lift upgrading, I want to call for lifts on every floor. As the population ages, we need lifts on every floor, even for low-rise buildings. In the past, buildings below 4 storeys did not have any lifts at all. Many of our blocks of flats are built in columns, in which there are only two flats per floor, and some blocks do not have common corridors. And if we need lifts on every floor, new corridors will have to be constructed. This would cost a lot of money, and I think the Government would best be undertaking this and giving a separate lift upgrading programme on top of the Interim Upgrading Programme and Main Upgrading Programme. Sir, I would also like the Ministry to consider more carefully in its planning and think of the handicapped and the people who are elderly. In terms of choosing of materials, for example, pavements could have non-slippery materials, or material that is not uneven so that people with walking sticks would not stumble against them. Sir, we should also have ramps and other handicap-friendly community facilities, because as the population gets older and there are more disabilities, these would be important considerations.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the phenomenon of an ageing population stands out very clearly in the older HDB estates. The issue of providing and enhancing facilities in the estates for the convenience of the elderly is very much on the mind of town councils, HDB and grassroots leaders. Among the various amenities, the upgrading of lifts has become more and more important. For the past few years, I have been pestering the Ministry of National Development to upgrade the lifts in the old estates. So they called me a friend of senior citizens. At present, there are nearly 1,000 blocks of flats which do not have common corridors. These blocks should be installed with lifts to make it convenient for the elderly citizens. We all know the importance of lift upgrading in these blocks, but the question is when to upgrade them. MND suggested that it be done during the Interim Upgrading Programme or the Main Upgrading Programme, but I think this is not a good approach. The Interim Upgrading Programme is co-sponsored by the town council and the HDB, and the residents do not have to pay for the cost. If the work of lift upgrading is included in the IUP, residents will have to bear the extra cost. This will have the effect of discouraging residents from voting for the IUP, thus impeding the progress of IUP. If the work is included in the Main Upgrading Programme, it is not very ideal either, because the cost of MUP has to be partially borne by the residents. With the added cost of lift upgrading, they will have to bear a greater financial burden. Those less well off residents would opt out of this programme. Sir, I would like to suggest that lift upgrading be treated as a special programme by HDB where tenders are called on a collective basis, and carried out in stages. Within five years, all the 1,000 blocks of flats would have their lifts upgraded. Those blocks which do not have lifts would have lifts installed. This will be more convenient to the elderly citizens. An overall tender system will lower the cost by 20% and will therefore benefit both MND and the residents who would have less to pay. May I also find out how much will each resident be expected to pay? Will the residents be allowed to use their CPF savings to pay for the cost? Can those who are unable to pay be allowed to defer payment until after they have sold their flats?

Sir, the HDB has built some studio apartments in my constituency in Bedok North, as part of a pilot project to enable senior citizens to sell their existing HDB flats and downgrade to smaller apartments, thereby enjoying additional income and maintaining their independence and privacy. Completion of these blocks of flats in my constituency is scheduled for June this year, but I was told that the take-up rate has been very poor. I believe the poor take-up rate is because the scheme is no longer as attractive as when it was mooted some three years ago, given the current state of the property market and because the rules governing eligibility to purchase these flats are too stringent. Sir, I attribute this to the following reasons. Firstly, the lease for these flats is only 30 years. Although there was popular request to increase it to 50 years, the HDB had turned it down. Secondly, these flats are non-transferable upon the death of the owner. In fact, many people have asked what would happen if the elderly lessee dies prematurely. Thirdly, the prices of between $60,000 and $80,000 per unit for these flats appear high. I believe the HDB has recently revised its prices downwards by as much as 20%, but not enough to make up for the drop in the prices of existing HDB flats that these elderly lessees currently own. Fourthly, eligible applicants must be existing owners of HDB flats. My question is: why can't we open the scheme to owners of private apartments and properties as well? Or, alternatively, remove this last criterion altogether, as there are Singaporeans who are willing to buy these flats for their parents. Sir, in summary, I would like to ask the Minister to review this scheme, make it more attractive and ease the eligibility criteria for the purchase of these apartments.

Sir, presently, the HDB's rental programme is meant only for those who are very poor and cannot afford to purchase flats, and also for those waiting in the queue to purchase flats and are eligible for transitional rental flats. I would like to put up a case for HDB to consider renting out flats to young married couples who are eligible for the purchase of flats but have not decided whether to purchase one yet. Their incomes, however, are not low enough to qualify for a rental flat under the existing rules. This group may want to rent one for the following reasons. Firstly, they may not have decided in which location to live in on a long term basis. Secondly, they may be preparing to work or study overseas for a few years before returning home to Singapore. Thirdly, they may need the money to start up and nurture their companies rather than spend it on purchasing a property. Fourthly, they may just be waiting to go straight into the private property market at the appropriate time, rather than be tied down by the 5-year time bar imposed by the HDB. Right now, there is a social stigma attached to the renting of HDB flats. It is associated too much with poverty and low income. If we liberalise the rental scheme and take into consideration this group of young couples, we remove the stigma and meet the needs of many young people at the same time. To prevent abuse, we can have some rules to allow couples to rent up to a maximum of 3-5 years. Older couples can also use the scheme later in life for short periods of time, such as when their flats are being renovated and they need somewhere to live in temporarily, or when their houses are being rebuilt and so on. Sir, I hope the Minister will look into this proposal. 1.30 pm

Sir, I would like to touch on the philosophy that Government adopts when determining affordability of HDB flats and therefore prices. Government's stated commitment is to price new HDB flats such that 90% of Singaporeans will be able to afford at least a 3-room flat and 70% at least a 4-room flat. This affordability refers to the ability to service their monthly mortgage repayments using both their monthly CPF contribution and cumulative balances. Eligibility is capped at 40% of gross income. This philosophy appears to be linked more to income levels and overall economic health than housing price levels in general. In fact, it should theoretically be independent of HDB resale prices, executive condominium and private property prices. However, in reality, I believe there are expectations not met, given the apparent disconnect between the new HDB flat prices and the overall property market cycle. Hence, there are expectations that HDB prices must be adjusted downwards, for example, during the current downturn in both the HDB resale and private property markets. Earlier on, an upward adjustment in new HDB flat prices was made on account of the design-and-build programme. But it may have coincided with the upward cycle. Hence, the perception that new flat prices are somehow tied to market trends. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to clarify whether new HDB flat prices are independently set based on income levels primarily. This is critical as it would provide a lot of assurance to Singaporeans, especially first-timers and upgraders, that HDB flats would always be within their reach and that there would not be wild swings in these prices.

Sir, first of all, let me address Members' comments about the plight of HDB shopkeepers. I believe this subject has received considerable attention and airing, both inside and outside the House. Yesterday and today, we heard many Members speak up about the intense competition that HDB shopkeepers are facing and how Government must do something to help them. I share these sentiments. In fact, at the parliamentary sitting on 22nd February, I assured the House that Government will do something for this group of retailers. But we should not forget that a HDB retail shop is, first and foremost, a business. As with other businesses, HDB shopkeepers have to take the initiative to adapt to changing consumer demand and to manage their business risks. In the long run, whether a shop survives and thrives is not how much assistance the Government gives but whether the shop can attract and retain customers. This is the point that Dr Tan Boon Wan made just now. However, the Government will lend a hand to help them overcome some of these present difficulties that they face. Last week, Mr Lim Boon Heng, Chairman PSB, unveiled the Retail 21 Plan. This plan recommends that we reinvent the retail sector by raising retailing standards, enhancing industry efficiency through upgrading and retraining, and managing the restructuring of the HDB retail sub-sector. Sir, I am pleased to inform Members that MND and HDB, together with other relevant agencies, have formulated an assistance programme for HDB retailers that dovetails with the Retail 21 Plan. Our guiding principle is that the Government will do what it can to help HDB retailers who are willing to help themselves. Hence, the programme focuses on enhancing the long-term viability of the HDB retail sector and not just on short-term quick fixes. Specifically, the assistance programme consists of three main elements. Firstly, we will provide assistance to both HDB shop lessees and tenants who wish to upgrade their businesses. Secondly, we will review HDB rules to grant both shop lessees and tenants greater flexibility to adapt to changing market conditions. Thirdly, we will facilitate the exit of HDB shop tenants who wish to voluntarily retire from the business. First, business upgrading. Business upgrading can be in the form of software, for example, business skills, processes and rules; or hardware, in other words, the physical environment. The Government's assistance will be in both areas. I would first touch on the software aspect. PSB's assistance programme. The Retail 21 Plan includes two programmes, namely, the Retail Essential Assistance Programme and the Franchise 21 Assistance Programme, both under PSB. These programmes can help HDB shopkeepers upgrade their businesses. I would like to encourage HDB retailers to make full use of them in order to compete with both the huge malls as well as the convenience store chains, like 7-Eleven, as some Members have brought up in this House. Mr Sinnakaruppan asked whether the programmes will be available in languages other than English. The answer is yes. Next, flexibility in use of shops. Many Members, including Dr Lily Neo, Dr Ker Sin Tze, Prof. Toh See Kiat, have suggested the HDB grant greater flexibility to HDB shopkeepers for change of use. However, at the same time, I hear Dr Teo Ho Pin, for example, say that the HDB should not be too free granting this flexibility, and that indeed HDB should proactively determine the retail mix, so that the residents' needs are met. Of course, there are other Members who seem to suggest that HDB should somehow do both at the same time. In other words, control the mix on the one hand, and yet be more flexible. Obviously, HDB has got to weigh the pros and cons of both approaches and find the correct balance, guided of course by the interests of both HDB retailers and residents. This is not an easy balance to find. If necessary, I may have to ask HDB to consult the advisers on what their views are as far as specific approvals are concerned. Nevertheless, HDB will be more flexible in granting approval for change of use and trade, such as shop showrooms and offices, as suggested by Dr Ker, but we will continue to be cautious with conversion to, say, eating houses or industrial trades as these are likely to cause nuisance to their residents - nuisance such as parking, noise, and so on. I do not think Members would want to face the wrath of their residents when they find that their convenience store or shop downstairs is suddenly turned into a shop selling spare parts for lorries, for example. So such a move will allow HDB lessees and tenants to keep up with the changes in the environment and the residents' needs. But, in the long run, it is the residents, as well as the consumers, and not HDB, who will determine the retail mix for the area. This new policy will apply to HDB shops in the traditional neighbourhood as well as shops in stand-alone neighbourhood centres that are at least three years old. The reason for this is because some of the stand-alone centres have only recently been built and the shopping mix there is not stabilised yet. HDB feels that it needs three years at least for the shopping mix to be stabilised. Bearing the concerns of some Members in mind over such trade liberalisation, HDB will monitor closely the outcome of these relaxation rules and, if necessary, make adjustments as we go along. Yesterday, Mr Peh Chin Hua mentioned that some shopkeepers find that their shop areas are too big. Dr Lily Neo, in fact, suggested the idea of splitting the shops into smaller units. I am pleased to inform them that HDB will allow tenants to sublet up to 50% of their traditional neighbourhood shops if the floor area is at least 50 square metres. This will allow them to maximise the use of their space. They will also be allowed to sublet their living quarters for residential use. And for sold shops, HDB will allow shopowners to use the living quarters for commercial purposes, as recommended by Dr Ker. But, as pointed out by Prof. Toh See Kiat, and correctly so, most living quarters are structurally designed only for residential use. So if the shopowners wish to conduct commercial activities in these quarters, they would have to find some way to strengthen the floors of their quarters. They would have to make the necessary application to HDB who will conduct some structural analysis of the situation. Apart from software, upgrading the physical environment will also help to improve the business of HDB shops. Dr Lily Neo suggested sometime ago that HDB shops should band together to form commercial streets with distinctive features. This is a very workable idea. In fact, there are many examples - Marine Parade, Chong Pang city, Tampines, Toa Payoh Town Centre, and so on. All these examples show that such projects are successful when they originate from the local community. I would therefore like to encourage HDB shopkeepers to market their shops and their town centres in conjunction with their town councils and grassroots leaders. I will ask the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) to consider extending funding support for more of such projects. Mr Peh Chin Hua yesterday expressed concern over the cost of the Main Upgrading Programme for the shopowners. I am pleased to inform him that the Government will make MUP more affordable to shop lessees. Currently, HDB shop lessees have to pay full cost for the standard MUP package. With immediate effect, all MUP precincts that have not undergone polling, the HDB will subsidise 50% of the cost of the standard package. HDB will also give a 50% discount off the market value of the space-adding item, up from today's 30%. With this change, shopkeepers can save some $10,000 to $15,000 per shop on the upgrading work. Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Ong Kian Min and Mr Sinnakaruppan, among others, observed that there is an oversupply of shops in older HDB estates. This observation was borne out by the findings of the Retail 21 Committee which has suggested that the HDB reduce the number of shops. The question, of course, is, reduce by how much? HDB does not have the answer. The market and the shopkeepers themselves must decide. The Government understands that some shopkeepers in these areas, especially the elderly first-generation shopkeepers, may wish to retire from the business. To facilitate this, HDB will introduce a pilot Voluntary Retirement Scheme for HDB shop tenants this year. The pilot scheme will involve about 500 HDB rental shops at selected areas where business is weak. Eligible shop tenants who wish to retire can voluntarily give up their tenancies and receive an ex-gratia payment of $48,000. If response to the scheme is favourable, it will be extended. I would like to emphasise that the scheme is entirely voluntary. This should allay Mr Chay Wai Chuen's concern expressed yesterday about the implications on the livelihood of those who depend on their shops for income. Shopkeepers who wish to seek a fresh career in another sector will be able to seek help from the Ministry of Manpower which will advise on job opportunities and suggest suitable training courses. Those who choose to continue operating in the vicinity will receive assistance to upgrade their business. Their shops will be grouped together for greater business synergy and each tenant will receive a removal allowance of $5,000. They will also be encouraged to make use of the two new programmes under Retail 21 to upgrade and modernise their operations. 1.45 pm Let me stress that the $48,000 ex-gratia payment is not in lieu of running their shops. It is an ex-gratia payment from Government to help them to decide whether they have the stamina and the strength to carry on. If they do not, they have a sweetener from the Government. And if they do want to carry on, there is a package to help them to upgrade and to compete. Mr Ong Kian Min yesterday suggested that HDB should advise shopkeepers on how to set up shops, how much to tender, etc. This is really not HDB's job, and I do not think HDB is in the best position to do so in the first place. I would advise anyone who wishes to set up shop to do their sums and weigh their risks before taking the plunge. Sir, the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is meant for shop tenants. A few Members asked whether HDB could also buy back shops from owners who wish to exit. Sir, the answer is no. It would not be appropriate for the Government to do so. The Government cannot protect HDB shopowners against fluctuations in consumer demand and the property market. Those who decided to buy their shops have to accept this business risk. If they wish to sell their shops, they can do so on the resale market. HDB tells me that most of the first-hand owners will be able to sell their shops above their original purchase prices. Alternatively, to lighten their mortgage repayment burden, owners of 99-year lease shops can adopt Mr Peh Chin Hua's suggestion to request HDB to convert their shops to shorter 30-year leases. Some Members suggested that HDB should give ex-gratia payment to such shopowners. I would like to highlight that the shopkeepers who bought their shops from HDB have already enjoyed very large upfront discounts: $96,000 for shops that were sold on the 99-year lease and $48,000 for those that were sold with a 30-year lease. Members have also asked for rental and property tax rebates. I would like to point out that, in addition to the new assistance programme, these measures, in other words, property tax rebates and rental rebates, are already in place. The 25% property tax rebate has been extended to June this year after which it will be replaced by a reduction in the property tax rate from 12% to 10%, as announced by the Finance Minister. The Government will also continue with the current rental rebate until the end of this year and will review the situation before that. Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Mr Chng Hee Kok enquired whether HDB will again sell shops under the Sale of Tenanted Shops Scheme. Based on what we have heard so far, the HDB retail sector is still very weak and my view is that it will not be prudent for the HDB to sell shops at this juncture. Nevertheless, if there are specific requests from advisors, I will ask HDB to consider each case on its own merits. In conclusion, Sir, there are fundamental changes affecting the business environment and livelihood of HDB retailers. Shopkeepers themselves must understand and take active steps to respond to these changes. They have to assess their individual situation and they have to decide whether they want to remain in this trade and, if so, how to revitalise their businesses to successfully ride the wave of change. On its part, the Government will support HDB retailers in ways that will reinforce what they do for themselves. I hope that, over time, these measures will bring sustained benefits, not only to the retailers, but also to their customers who are HDB residents. Sir, the Minister for the Environment would be announcing similar assistance measures for stallholders in markets and hawker centres which are managed by HDB and the Ministry of the Environment. Sir, let me now turn to the comments made on the upgrading programme. First of all, I wish to address Dr Wang Kai Yuen's point about a review of the MUP and IUP. Sir, over the last 10 years, the Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes that are being carried out by the Government have transformed the landscape of many parts of Singapore. Older HDB towns and estates, like Toa Payoh and MacPherson, have been spruced up. They have new facilities, like walkways, playgrounds, and parks. The flats themselves have seen improvements to their homes, like new bathroom finishes, main doors and front windows and, in some cases, an additional utility room. Flat owners have seen their flats increase in value. When their friends and relatives come to visit them, the transformation is immediately obvious. They can see the difference. So I believe that the MUP and IUP programmes are valued by the residents and that they serve a very important purpose in transforming our HDB estates and making sure that they do not deteriorate into the slums that we see in many other parts of the world when we talk about public housing. The upgrading programmes fulfil the promise by the Government that it will share budget surpluses with the people, especially the lower income. And that is the reason why the upgrading programmes are heavily subsidised by the Government and skewed in favour of the smaller flats. For example, the 1- to 3-room flat lessees pay around $3,000 per flat for the standard package, and this represents only about 7% of the total cost of the upgrading. And if they opt for the additional room, the space adding item, their co-payment amount is around $10,000. Is this good value for money? If you take the last 10 years, the number of precincts that had been polled, so far, we had 98 precincts that had been polled for MUP, at least 90% of flat owners had voted in favour of the standard package. So I believe the answer is, yes. Residents do find them very good value for money. Sir, the upgrading programmes are possible only because our people continue to support the Government which consistently generates budget surpluses through policies and programmes which generate growth and which prudently manages national expenditures. That is why in the implementation of the MUP and IUP, the Government has given priority to those who have actively supported these programmes. Without them, it would not have been possible. It is as simple as that. Several Members have asked specific questions about the upgrading programme for this year. I am pleased to inform them that my Ministry will be introducing three initiatives that will allow more HDB residents to benefit from upgrading. First of all, MND will revise the age criterion for the Main and Interim Upgrading Programmes to enable the programmes to cover more flats. Secondly, we will step up the upgrading schedules this year. And, thirdly, we will introduce a new Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to complement the MUP and the IUP. Firstly, MUP and IUP. The age of an HDB block is one of the considerations when MND selects precincts for the upgrading. Currently, HDB blocks which are completed in 1975, or earlier, can be considered for the MUP. HDB blocks that were completed between 1976 and 1983 are considered for IUP. Based on these existing criteria, the Government has announced MUP and IUP for more than 230,000 HDB flats. To increase the number of HDB flats that can benefit from upgrading, I wish to inform Dr Teo Ho Pin that the new cut-off age for the MUP will be HDB blocks completed by 1980, while HDB blocks completed between 1981 and 1986 will be considered for the IUP. In other words, HDB blocks that are between 15 and 20 years today can look forward to the IUP, those that are at least 21 years will be considered for the MUP. This revision of the age criterion signifies the Government's commitment to the upgrading programmes on a long-term basis so long as our financial situation allows. Furthermore, as the IUP is intended as a precursor to the MUP, hence the term "interim", the revised criteria will allow some HDB blocks that have already undergone IUP to be eligible for MUP. With the revised criteria, another 240,000 flats can be considered for upgrading, making it a total of 540,000 flats, almost two thirds of the total stock of HDB flats which are now within the ambit of the IUP and MUP. The additional Government expenditure is estimated at $3.9 billion for the MUP and $760 million for the IUP in the next 10 years. Sir, MND will use the new age criterion to select MUP and IUP precincts for the year 2001 this year. In view of our strong budget position in financial year 2000, the Government will increase the number of precincts for upgrading this year. And MND will select 18 precincts for the MUP and 22 precincts for the IUP. The numbers will be sustained next year if we continue to enjoy budget surpluses. Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). Several Members have asked about lift upgrading for those blocks whose lifts do not stop on every floor. There are about 4,000 such high-rise HDB blocks and they were all built before 1990. Many Members, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Chng Hee Kok, Mr Sinnakaruppan, Mr Ang Mong Seng, among others, have spoken about the need for a separate lift upgrading programme. Last year, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population also recommended that the Government should progressively retrofit HDB flats with lift landings on every floor to improve accessibility and mobility for our residents, especially the elderly and the disabled. I am pleased to announce that MND will introduce a new and separate lift upgrading programme for this purpose. The new LUP will provide all flats in high-rise HDB blocks built before 1990 direct access to a lift, where technically feasible of course. The scope of works will include addition of new lift, lift shaft, lift landing and refurbishing of lift lobbies. The LUP can be carried out on its own or together with the MUP and IUP. This is a major exercise. The total estimated cost is about $4.8 billion, if we are talking of all the flats before 1990. We certainly cannot afford to implement it overnight. It will take us many years. As lift upgrading is very costly, HDB will require all flat owners in an HDB block, except those who live on the ground floor, because they do not benefit from it, to poll and to co-pay for the lift upgrading works. The co-payment arrangement is in keeping with the philosophy adopted for the MUP, where the Government subsidises most but not 100% of the cost. It will give residents a sense of ownership of the project and ensure that they consider carefully the need for such works when they are asked whether they want it or not. As in the case of the MUP, the Lift Upgrading Programme will proceed only if at least 75% of eligible owners vote in favour. The exact co-payment ratio and amount will depend on the flat type as well as the type of HDB blocks. Generally, the smaller flat type will pay less, as in the MUP. The Government will bear the lion's share of the cost to ensure that the programme is affordable. Several town councils have also indicated that they would like to help make lift upgrading more affordable for their residents. Hence, MND has included town councils in the co-payment arrangement to help flat lessees defray the cost of lift upgrading. The town council should be allowed to use their sinking funds for this purpose. With the contributions from Government and town councils, the co-payment amount will be a few hundred dollars per flat for the majority of lessees, where the provision of lifts is relatively straightforward, a few hundred dollars. But for the so-called segmented blocks, which Prof Toh mentioned just now, where additional lifts and lift shafts are needed, it can be more expensive. However, the Government will set a cap of $3,000 per flat on each share by the lessee and the town council. In addition, flat owners who need help in paying their share of the costs can make use of several assistance schemes that are currently available for MUP. HDB will release further details on this soon. 2.00 pm As far as other elderly and handicapped-friendly features are concerned, such as those suggested by Prof. Toh See Kiat, I wish to assure him that HDB will continue to incorporate these features in the upgrading programmes, as well as in the design of new flats, and it will continue to be mindful of the need to provide such facilities in HDB estates. Dr Wan touched upon the issue of SERS. I think he asked whether we should do SERS instead of MUP and IUP, and I explained earlier why I feel that there is still a continuing need for the upgrading programmes. Yes, we will do SERS, because MUP, IUP and SERS all contribute to the overall rejuvenation of our HDB estates, but they serve different purposes. The MUP and IUP serve one purpose, and SERS serves another purpose. SERS is, in effect, a redevelopment programme that helps to optimise land use, as he pointed out. So we will continue to do all three, and we will select SERS sites as and when they are appropriate, and announce them at the appropriate time. I turn now to the issues of allocation, pricing and financing of HDB flats which some other Members brought up. First of all, on the question of allocation, I agree with Dr Teo Ho Pin that HDB's flat allocation system can be reviewed to provide more options for flat buyers. In fact, several MPs earlier alerted me that flat applicants are actually getting their flats faster than they want them. This is certainly a turnaround from the time when MPs would approach the Ministry and HDB to ask for flats to be brought forward because their residents were waiting a long time to get their flats. But I realise that, in certain cases, it does present certain problems. I have, therefore, asked HDB to review its flat allocation system to make it more responsive to applicants' needs. I am pleased to inform him that HDB will pilot a new system called the build-to-order system later this year, which will give flat buyers more flexibility in timing, as well as a greater say and control over the location of their new flats. Again, I will ask HDB to release the details later. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua wanted to know whether the pricing of HDB flats is linked to the prices of resale flats and private properties, or whether they are independently set. The Government's objective is to encourage home ownership, so that every Singaporean family can have a stake in the nation. So, the primary consideration in the pricing of HDB flats is to ensure that the vast majority of Singaporeans, especially the young couples and the lower-income families, can become homeowners. So, HDB takes into account the prevailing prices of HDB resale flats, when it reviews the selling price of its flats every quarter. This is because resale flats represent the true market value of HDB flats at any point in time, and they give an indication of Singaporeans' willingness and ability to pay for their HDB flats. It is not appropriate for HDB to peg the selling prices of HDB flats to, say, the private residential property prices because, obviously, they are catering to different markets. But I can assure Mrs Lim that affordability of HDB flats is a paramount consideration in the pricing of our HDB flats. Mr Lew Syn Pau suggested that we should introduce a rental scheme. Again, I reiterate that our objective is home ownership, so it does not make sense for us to encourage or set up a separate rental scheme in parallel with the ownership programme. Yes, some young couples or families may want to rent. There are ample opportunities for them to do so. So, HDB has no plan to implement a rental scheme. Dr Vasoo asked whether we can help young couples to purchase HDB flats in older estates. What this means, of course, is that those young couples who wish to move into older estates would have to buy resale flats from the open market. To help them to do so, the HDB has the CPF grant scheme, either $30,000 or $40,000, depending on where the flats are, which can be used to meet the 20% downpayment for the resale flat. They can also use their CPF Ordinary Account contributions for the 20% downpayment, and this, I must point out, is already a special concession for buyers of HDB flats. So there are no other schemes that are available for young couples to buy into older estates, apart from these two. Two more quick points. Mr Chng suggested that HDB should leave the building of flats to the private sector. Over the years, HDB has in fact taken active steps to involve the private sector in the public housing programme, through the design-and-build scheme and, in fact, even through the upgrading schemes, ie, the MUP and IUP. With the closure of the Executive flat queue about four or five years ago, the HDB also farmed out the development of ECs to private developers. So, yes, HDB is already doing so and will continue to look for ways to involve the private sector in public housing projects. But it is not yet in a position of saying that it is not going to build any more flats, or it is not going to build any more of the bigger flats. Finally, Sir, Mr Chew Heng Ching's point about studio apartments. He asked for a review of the scheme for studio apartments. I wish to inform him that we will take note of his comments, and I will ask HDB to review the studio apartment scheme to make it more accessible to the elderly.

I remind hon. Members that we have fallen very far behind schedule on this amendment.

Can I obtain a clarification, Sir?

I think we allow the other Members who have spoken earlier to make their clarifications very quickly. Mr Sinnakaruppan.

Sir, I would like to clarify that in the present IUP where there is a budget for upgrading of the lifts, the residents do not have to co-pay. Is that a change in the policy, now that the Minister says there is a need for co-payment?

Sir, we will detach the Lift Upgrading Programme from both the MUP and IUP. In other words, it will now become a stand-alone programme. So, if there is any lift upgrading to be considered for any precinct, this will now come under the Lift Upgrading Programme and, therefore, a co-payment will be necessary.

Dr Tan. Very quick clarification, please.

Sir, I just want to seek a clarification from the Minister about this lift upgrading. We need 75% to agree for this upgrading. But if the lift landing is on alternate floors, there will only be 50% who is going to support it. And, if it is on every third floor, it is very likely that the others, who have lift landings, will not support it. So I am not so sure whether we can get 75% of the residents to agree.

Sir, I think the general principle is that where there is benefit to the residents - the benefits may be more to certain residents because they happen to be on the floor where there is no lift, and the benefit to the resident who already has a lift landing may be less - but it is in the overall interest of the block - so they will have to take the overall interest into account. There is already a precedent in the sense that some residents, in blocks that have already voted under the additional Lift Upgrading Programme that was introduced last year, have demonstrated, through the encouragement of their Member of Parliament, the Adviser, that there are benefits accruing even to those who already have the lift on their floor. I am confident that they will be able to get that 75% approval vote. It really depends on how we sell the benefits of the lift upgrading programme and, of course, ultimately, on the amounts that they would have to pay. So I am a little more confident than the Member.

Mr Chiam, can you make your clarification quickly?

Sir, can I ask the Minister what he means by giving priority to those who actively support the Government?

I think it means exactly what I said, Sir. There are several criteria required to be met by the precincts or blocks, if they are to be chosen for the upgrading programme. These criteria include the age of the block, the location of the block - because we want to make sure that there is a spread throughout the island - and an indication of support for the programme. So, if there is no indication of their support for the programme or if, indeed, the residents in that area do not want the programme, then that precinct will not be chosen for upgrading, or it will be chosen for upgrading at a lower priority than other precincts. So, that is what I mean. I think it does not make sense for us to select a precinct which does not ask for upgrading.

Dr Ker, can you carry on?

Can I make a further clarification, Sir?

I am afraid we have run out of time.

Sir, as an Opposition Member, I felt ---

Mr Chiam, I said we have run out of time, and I have to ask Dr Ker to continue.

(In Mandarin): Sir, HDB residents are often troubled by two problems: 1. Spalling concrete from the ceiling, exposing the rusty metal bars; and 2. Leaks from the kitchen and bathroom ceilings. Faced with such complaints, the HDB's reply is, invariably, that the residents concerned should be jointly liable for the repairs. For the problem of spalling concrete, the HDB would normally undertake one repair job free of charge but, thereafter, if the same problem emerges again, the lessees would have to get their own contractors to carry out the repairs, at their own expense. The problem of spalling concrete occurs in the older flats. It is said that, at that time, the HDB was in a hurry to complete the construction of the flats, and the sand imported from Indonesia and Malaysia for use by the contractors had very high salt content. After some time, the metal bars became corroded because of the salt in the concrete. The rust formed on the metal bars caused them to expand, resulting in the spalling of the cement. At the time of repair, if the rust on the metal bars is not properly treated and thoroughly removed, the bars will become rusty again, and the cement will spall again. Looking at the exposed metal bars on the ceiling, the residents cannot help feeling uneasy and stressed. When the HDB asks the residents to rectify the matter themselves, the residents would normally engage some small-time contractors to do the job. Not having the relevant expertise, the contractors would just patch up, plaster and paint over the part of the ceiling. Soon after, the spalling would appear again. Leaks from the kitchen and bathroom ceiling are another nagging problem. This may be due to the water-proof membrane at the flooring of the unit above being defective. It could have been damaged by the resident upstairs when he was repairing the floor tiles too. The dirty water dripping down from the ceiling would certainly affect the daily living of the residents downstairs. What HDB does is to ask the residents to share in the cost of repairs. The resident downstairs is not at fault at all. Apart from suffering the inconvenience of the dripping water, he has also to bear part of the repair cost. This seems to be somewhat illogical and unfair. It is like the stupid rulings made by the foolish mandarins who punished both the plaintiff and defendant irrespective of who was at fault we saw in the Teochew wayangs in our younger days. Sometimes, even when the resident downstairs is willing to pay for his share of the repairs, the resident upstairs may not be prepared to come up with the money. This will result in the matter being dragged on indefinitely and unsettled. So I hope that the HDB will take some positive steps to help the residents. For the problem of spalling concrete from the ceiling, the HDB should engage contractors with the relevant expertise to carry out the repairs. Otherwise, the small-time contractors engaged by the residents themselves may not have the expertise and they may just do some perfunctory job of patching up. The same problem will re-surface again. As for leaks from the ceiling, HDB should investigate whether the water-proof membrane has been damaged by the resident upstairs. If so, the resident upstairs should be solely liable for the repair costs. If not, HDB should arrange for contractors with the expertise to carry out the repairs and, subsequently, ask the residents to jointly bear the repair costs. In this way, the repair work will be carried out expeditiously and properly, and the pointless quarrels between the affected residents can be avoided.

(In Mandarin): Sir, for ceiling leakage, I support what Dr Ker has said. According to the current HDB regulations, if there is a leakage in the ceiling of a flat, both the residents above and below would have to be responsible for the repair and pay for the costs. Upon receiving complaints about the ceiling leakage, HDB often tells the residents affected that the ceiling is a party structure, separating the unit above from the unit below. Hence, the two families have to share the cost of repair. HDB would not be responsible. The officials would tell the resident below to discuss with the resident above on how to proceed with the repair and share the cost. 2.15 pm As Singapore is a multiracial society, there is sometimes some difficulty in communication. So misunderstanding could arise when they try to communicate with each other and this may lead to a conflict. It is bad for our social cohesiveness. When such a problem is not resolved, the residents staying below will have to carry an umbrella whenever they use the toilet. As both lack the knowledge of flat maintenance, they could have different views when approaching the contractor to repair the leakage, and on the question of cost sharing. I propose that HDB, as the landlord, should come in to help. After ascertaining the cost of the leakage, the HDB could get a qualified contractor to undertake the repair under a standard package, and at a reasonable cost. The work done should be checked by the HDB. To alleviate the hardship of the residents, HDB should bear one-third or more of such repair cost. I hope that HDB would accept my suggestions so as to render a better service for the bulk of the residents in their estates.

Sir, many of the flats in Potong Pasir estate, which were completed in a hurry in 1984 to be in time for the election that year, were poorly built. The workmanship was sloppy and the materials used were of poor quality. The gable end of the building has two walls. The outside wall comprises fence-faced red bricks and the inner wall is made of cement blocks. What has happened is that over the last ten years or so, rainwater has seeped into the gable end walls and the water gets collected in the space between the two walls. Due to bad workmanship, the water trapped in the space between the two walls is unable to escape. The holes in the lower end of the outside wall are blocked by fallen cement during construction. As a result of poor workmanship, the water in the space between the two walls is unable to escape and got trapped in the space. The water can rise to about five or six feet. The trapped water seeps into the wall in the inside of the rooms and causes them to be very damp. The paint in the wall would peel off, no matter how many times the residents repainted the walls over with a new coat of paint. For this kind of a problem, my town council at Potong Pasir has to break the inner wall, draw the water out, get rid of the fallen cement debris at the bottom of that space. After that, we build the wall and give that wall a fresh coat of paint. We have done this operation for many flats. The operations have taken up a lot of effort and finances on the part of my town council. These repair works need not be necessary if the HDB had, in the first place, done its work properly. Not only had such complaints of water seepage and peeling walls been satisfactorily done up by my town council, but other complaints of spalling concrete, choked sewage drains, uneven drains, sunken aprons and water seepage at the ceiling had all been repaired by my town council at great cost. I bring these matters up to highlight the poor workmanship of the HDB and ask the Minister whether the HDB is willing to accept responsibility for the poor workmanship in those flats and whether it is willing to absorb the cost of repairs. After all, HDB is the landlord and it has been 17 years since these flats were built. It is time that HDB spent some money to make good the faults due to poor workmanship. We, at Potong Pasir, do not receive CIPC funds and the HDB should take this into consideration and be more generous on us. Those repairs are necessary. They are not to beautify the flats, but are required to make them livable or tenanted condition.

Sir, I was chatting recently to a young woman. She was telling me about her family. It is a very typical Singaporean family, a family of five - mum, dad, two children and grandma. Mum and dad are both 50, "O" level holders, both working. She is a graduate, about to get started to work. Her youngest sister is about 20 and is in university. They live in a HDB apartment, for which there is a loan, still being paid over the next 10 years or so. The family income is about $4,000-plus. They are a happy family and life has been very comfortable. Dad is your true-blue solid Singaporean, very appreciative of how he has seen life improve over the years. It puts a human face to the recently published Census 2000 report. The family sits squarely in the 50-60th percentile of average household incomes. Mum and dad are also your typically asset rich, cash poor Singaporean couple. There is very little in their CPF balance and they would not be saving very much between now and retirement. There is not much left over monthly, with putting the younger daughter to university, plus some additional expenses for medication for dad who had an angioplasty done a few months ago. Presumably, the daughters would make some contribution to mum and dad after they started working, even after they get married and start families of their own. Apart from this presumption, mum and dad's financial planning for retirement rests entirely in converting their apartment they live in into funds to see them through their retirement years. In a recent sitting of Parliament in February, the Minister of State, Dr John Chen, shared with us that the Ministry had explored reverse mortgages as a possible source of additional income for elderly HDB lessees for their retirement needs, but had come to the conclusion that it was not a good idea as the monthly returns were meagre and there was a risk of losing their homes at the end of the term. Dr Chen also shared that other schemes were available to assist elderly lessees, for example, those with 3-room flats could sublet one or two or even the whole flat to derive some income. The last option, of course, is for the senior citizens to downgrade to a smaller apartment. There was also a detailed discussion in the Inter-Ministerial Committee Report on the Ageing Population of many good ideas of building more smaller flats, integrated with housing estates for senior citizens. In fact, HDB has already done very good work in developing its studio apartment scheme which, by all accounts, has been very successful. While this seems like a very good proposition right now, might there be concern that when the aging baby boomers double and triple the numbers of over-65 a couple of decades down the road, would there be too many downgraders in the market at the same time, looking to sell, and in fact, would the aging properties be able to hold their value by then? Perhaps, the Minister could share with us his views of the scenario at that future time and what else we would have to be paying attention to or addressing to try and make sure that that scenario is a happy one.

Sir, it is in the interest of the nation to promote family values. It is right to encourage people to get married and to have children. However, in our enthusiasm, we must also recognise the rights of individuals to choose their future. There will be some who choose to remain single. There will be others who end up being single after the breakup of a relationship. These would include single parents. Whilst we can and should do more to encourage people to form family units and to remain together, some marriages would just not work out. There are a myriad of reasons why people would choose to remain single and why some marriages break up. As a successful nation, we can and should cater for those who by choice, or by default, are singles. Being single does not prevent them from being active contributing citizens. Some may even care more for Singapore than families which care only for themselves. The most important possession for anyone must be the roof over the head. Having a home provides the security and peace of mind. It is the base from which one can function. It is a place one can return to, after a hard day's work and enjoy the privacy and comfort invested in. Not every single would wish to live alone. Some would prefer to live with family members who welcome them. However, there should be provisions for such individuals to make a choice, especially if he or she matters. I hasten to add that when addressing this issue, the Ministry must avoid the convenience of clustering units to be made available for singles. They are not infirm and do not require special services. Clustering tends to stigmatise. Singles are also Singaporeans and should be catered for like any other Singaporeans. Whilst it is essential that more people get married earlier and have children, we cannot and must not marginalise the singles.

Sir, I had intended to speak on the problems of ceiling leaks between neigbours. But my fellow parliamentary colleagues have already spoken in depth on this issue and I would not repeat it. I would, however, like to join them to appeal to the HDB to use its influence, resources and power as the landlord to expedite the solutions to the problems wherever necessary and appropriate.

Sir, I would first reply to Members on the problems of spalling concrete and water leakage. First, ceiling leakage usually is due to wear and tear and natural deterioration of the water proofing membrane on the toilet floor over time. Because the ceiling is a common party structure, under HDB's lease agreement, the two flat owners, who share the structure, are jointly responsible for its maintenance and repairs. I think Members have noted that. I want to first make clear that the responsibility is on the lessees. However, I want to assure Members that the HDB will assist flat owners to resolve their problems. Flat owners who require assistance can approach HDB branch offices and HDB will help to investigate the cause of the leak and suggest remedial action. HDB will also help to bring the two parties together and recommend suitable contractors. HDB cannot take over the responsibility of repairing the leaks because the lessees have to assume responsibility. This is because the problem is due to normal wear and tear. Let me inform Members that HDB build flats according to prevailing standards of building control. Therefore, if there is poor workmanship, the HDB will usually ask the building contractor to make good. But if it is due to wear and tear, then after the liability period of one year, the lessees would have to assume responsibility for repair. For spalling concrete, let me correct Dr Ker that it is not related to the salt content of the construction materials used, but is a result of a natural deterioration process caused by carbonization. When the surface concrete is carbonated, corrosion of the steel bars within the slabs sets in, causing the concrete surrounding the steel bars to crack. Again, here, HDB flat owners will have to repair the spalling concrete in their flats on their own. In response to Mr Chiam's question about poor workmanship, as I explained, HDB buildings met prevailing building control standards and very likely, as the flats were built in 1984, I am sure, after so many years, deterioration will take place. He mentioned about the specific cases. I would ask HDB to take another look if it is really due to poor workmanship. 2.30 pm I now come to Dr Jennifer Lee's points. Last year, the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on the Ageing Population recommended a policy framework to deal with the challenges posed by a greying society. The IMC recommended that we should allow residents to age in place. So the ageing in place is a very important concept for the future housing needs of our elderly. Also, the IMC recommended other housing options for the elderly and ways to reinforce financial security in their retirement years. So, to prepare for this greying population, HDB will continue to incorporate elderly-friendly features in the design of new HDB flats and estates, and also in the upgrading of older ones. Dr Lee also mentioned about studio apartments that HDB has built. The studio apartment scheme will enable the elderly to sell their existing flats and move into smaller apartments to generate income for their retirement needs. HDB also grants the elderly who are in financial difficulty, priority allocation to its rental flats on a case-by-case basis. And HDB will continue to monitor the demand for these housing options and adjust its supply accordingly. It will also continue to explore other ways to meet the housing needs of our elderly. Having said that, let me remind the Member that HDB's responsibility is to provide a roof over the head for the elderly. What is important is that these elderly must also do active financial planning during their golden years because, if they do not, then they will have difficulties in later years. That is why the IMC also recommended other financial security programmes, like increasing the Special Account contribution and also introducing the Supplementary Retirement Scheme. Coupled with the housing options provided by the HDB, the ageing in place concept can be fulfilled in future years. Sir, I now turn to Mr Gerard Ee's question about singles. I would like to assure the House that the Government recognises the contribution of singles. However, there are two important considerations when we address the housing policies for singles. First, our pro-family social framework which is critical to our social stability and economic survival and, second, the need for optimal space allocation in land scarce Singapore. Based on these considerations, we have decided to allow singles aged 35 and above to buy 3-room resale flats in non-urban areas. This would give them a sufficiently large pool of flats throughout Singapore to choose from. So it is not clustering them into some areas. All in all, there are 160,000 HDB 3-room or smaller flats that are available for the singles under this scheme. Two singles aged 35 or above may also apply to buy a resale flat of any flat type in any location. To assist singles in their flat purchases, HDB provides each single, who is a first time flat buyer, a $11,000 CPF housing grant. On rental flats, HDB has a limited stock of such flats that are let out at subsidised rents. These flats are available only to low income families who have a greater need for housing than singles. Singles who wish to live in rental housing may sublet from HDB lessees, or pair up with another single to qualify for a HDB rental flat. Sir, I believe I have answered all the questions.

Sir, in speaking on this topic, I wish to declare my interest as a director of a company involved in the construction trade. Sir, the construction industry is going through difficult times. The Government's efforts to pump prime it by stepping up infrastructural projects and public sector building programmes within the next 1-2 years will help relieve some of the pressure the industry is facing. Nevertheless, there will be a shake up in the industry and many smaller construction companies or contractors are likely to fold up within the next 1-2 years. Our local construction industry is made up of numerous relatively small to medium sized contractors, mostly family run and controlled. There are a number of larger publicly listed construction companies but, generally, they are also controlled and run by families and a few principal shareholders. Sir, I believe the way forward is for the industry to quickly consolidate, and the Government could force a marriage among the construction companies. The current phase of reform in the construction industry is too slow. This is understandable, given that many of these companies are owner run, and owners of different companies have their own pride and cultural differences. This makes their marriage difficult, if not impossible. Sir, the Construction 21 Report, which was released in October 1999, calls for a revamp of the contractors' registry with the aim of introducing more rigorous criteria for contractors' turnover, financial resources, track record, professional management and so on. These will differentiate the better contractors from the rest, quicken the consolidation of the industry, encourage the mergers of contractors and help build a core of able local contractors, which could compete competitively for the bigger projects, both locally and abroad. I therefore urge the Minister to ask the Building Control Authority to speed up the revamp of the contractors' registry. Sir, the longer term forward is for us to consciously develop and strengthen our promising local contractors in order that they could compete offshore for projects. Our banks have expanded overseas. Our manufacturing companies are penetrating overseas markets and investing abroad. Our service companies are also regionalising. There is no reason why our construction companies cannot do the same. Some of our medium to bigger and more established construction companies have good track records. They are good in their respective fields or expertise. Collectively, they can be a force to be reckoned with, and could compete competitively for projects abroad. Sir, I would like to propose that we look into forming a consortium of construction companies, which could include one or two GLCs, with the aim of exporting our construction expertise overseas by tapping on the huge market for infrastructural projects available in our ASEAN neighbours, India, Bangladesh, Middle East and China. Over time, this consortium of companies can expand to be world-class companies. I would suggest that the Government, through the Building Control Authority or the Trade Development Board, conduct a study on the viability of this proposal in consultation with the industry players, and perhaps initiate the formation of this consortium.

Sir, players in the construction industry range from entrepreneurs, builders, suppliers, professionals to home buyers. I wish to declare that I am an architect in private practice. My colleagues in the construction industry said that I must convince the Minister that the SMEs and the construction industry continue to suffer, and have still not recovered. More importantly, there are no signs on the ground that indicate the likelihood of recovery soon. The four years of decline since 1997 had hurt the industry and its sustainability. They are trying to cope. The need to reduce the cost of business without affecting quality is a continuing struggle. The reduction of tax in the Budget will help, but tax rebates will only benefit those who have made profits. The industry is not in this happy state. While the Government agencies streamline and rationalise their operations to be more productive, too often, their unproductive works are simply passed to the private sector. I ask the Minister to look into operational procedures which have an impact down stream. In a downturn, public sector work is critical to the private sector. Of the $12 billion works in the public sector, a disproportionate volume was undertaken by a Government-linked consultancy corporation, leaving very few to private consultants. Contracts, on the other hand, are being tendered and awarded at unrealistically low prices. This situation cannot go on without detriment to the whole industry. The Construction 21 blueprint is a historical milestone for the industry, as it adopts a total system approach to deal with the problems of the industry. The consultative approach involving all players in the construction value chain is especially significant. Following the Construction 21 blueprint, the construction industry joint committee, comprising the presidents of the various professional bodies and trade associations, was formed to respond to the Construction 21 initiatives. They identified the need for the present exploitative attitudes to be discarded, and a common code of conduct to be drawn up. It is clear that every player has to act fairly, equitably and ethically towards one another, serving the public and their clients with honesty and impartiality. It is becoming increasingly obvious that for the advancement of the construction industry as a whole, and for the achievement of a level of professionalism, it is vital that the role of each player in the industry must be sustainable. I ask the Minister to support the industry in its endeavours and to license all parties in the construction industry, so that a code of conduct can be enforced. Consultants and contractors undertaking public sector projects face a procurement procedure called the IM. All Government agencies follow it faithfully, but its contents are shrouded in mystery to the private sector. Will the Minister make the IM transparent to players in the industry? It seems that the selection of consultancy services must follow a tender process, similar to buying pencils. Surely procuring professional services cannot follow this same route. The Minister for Law, last week, confirmed that the Government will respect intellectual property rights, and yet we see conditions in the procurement process requiring all design submissions to be surrendered to Government agencies. The design and build (D&B) tender system, while it is supported, is only one procurement method with the intention of bringing about an integration in the industry. In fact, application in Singapore is less than perfect with diverse versions with the sole intention to passing all risks. In Japan, it has been successful because D&B tenders generally involve a more social conscious mindset, and only a very small handful of contractors are invited to participate per project. In addition, they are often negotiated contracts, rather than contracts by tender. The industry wants to be more productive, but how can it if for some Government projects, it is not unusual to have 30 teams of consultants and builders preparing designs and details sufficiently for pricing. The manpower cost and wastage of resources is debilitating. As an example, in the current D&B tender for the Defence Science and Technology Agency, for an expansion of a single building block, together with some alterations and additions, 48 teams have signed up to participate, giving an extremely conservative cost for the preparation of the tender at $50,000 per team. The cost expended would be $2.4 million, when the contract of $3-$4 million is 10-12 times the value of the eventual professional fees for the project. There must be a more intelligent system to reduce the amount of wastage of manpower and resources. Perhaps the HDB's system of pre-qualifying not more than five teams and inviting them to tender on a rotational basis could be adopted. Alternatively, there could be two stages, where the first stage is based on pricing of the rough order of merit where the extremely high and extremely low tenders are discarded, and only a reasonable range of tenders in relation to the budget goes on to the next stage. I ask the Government, through its champion agency, the BCA, to review the various D&B tender processes devised by the various agencies to optimise the use of valuable and limited human resources. Otherwise, the D&B process will bleed the consultants and, eventually, it will come to a point where less effort will be invested and the country will suffer the poor work due to the unproductive misuse of D&B tenders.

Mr Goh, "guillotine" time is at 3 o'clock.

Yes, Sir, I am about to finish my speech. The D&B is not a cure- all solution, and we must not forget the perfectly good conventional design and build. 2.45 pm Finally, we must not forget the many young Singaporeans who are aspiring to buy private property for the first time and for their own use, especially at present when the prices of property have dropped dramatically due to the economic crisis. The Government's anti-speculative measures which have been successful in dampening speculation are now preventing these young Singaporeans from achieving their dreams. Would the Government consider reducing the downpayment from 20% to 10% of the cost of the property or stipulating a cash downpayment of 10%, with the balance 10% paid from CPF? As these buyers tend to live in the property, the anti-speculation tax could remain. If the original anti-speculation rules are not modified, these young people would miss their one chance in a lifetime to buy their own private homes now when there is a surplus of units and the prices have bottomed out. The Minister tells us that spring has arrived and maybe there are even some blossoms in the flower beds. But, please, Sir, there are still patches of snow on the ground.

Sir, on world-class construction companies, I would like to ask the Minister some questions: (1) What are the measures taken by BCA to nurture world-class construction firms? (2) How do we benchmark local construction firms against global construction players? (3) How is BCA acting as a regulator or authority to upgrade the construction industry? How do we measure the performance of BCA? What are the targets set for the construction industry to upgrade? Next cut, Sir, on building defects, my questions are: (1) What are the measures adopted by BCA to reduce the occurrence of building defects in newly completed buildings? What are the yardsticks used by BCA to monitor the effectiveness of such measures? (2) Is there a set of national building quality standards made available to consumers as a layman guide on building defects? (3) Can BCA allocate funds to conduct regular consumer education programmes on building defects? Sir, my questions on tender award system are: (1) Can BCA review the tender award criteria and provide guidelines on how tenders can be awarded according to track record and performance for both the public and private sectors? (2) Can BCA set up a web-based database with information on the quality of work of completed projects such as on time completion, CONQUAS score, buildable score, etc? On licensing of contractors: (1) Why is BCA refusing to license contractors and sub-contractors to ensure that construction works are done professionally with high quality and safety, despite widespread bad practices in the industry? (2) What further measures can BCA do to promote good construction practices? (3) What teeth does BCA have against contractors who adopt unscrupulous practices at the expense of consumers?

With so many questions, I think, Prof. Koo, you better respond now, otherwise there may not be enough time for you.

Sir, on behalf of my Minister, I want to thank all Members who have spoken on behalf of the industry. MND and BCA are both very concerned about the issues raised and, indeed, we have been applying our minds religiously and diligently to these problems. Mr Chew and Mr Goh painted a rather pessimistic picture of the state of the industry. To be sure, the boom times of the 1990s were temporarily over. But the industry is consolidating and the worse, I think, may be over. I have distributed a table on the state of the construction industry to all of you, and you will see from the table that the construction demand in the year 2000 actually grew by 42% over 1999 to $18.6 billion. So this is the first sign that the worse has turned around. The second indicator is that the building and the civil engineering components of the construction demand have actually gone up. Building demand, $3.8 billion last year; $5.5 billion forecast this year. Civil engineering, $1.1 billion last year; $2.8 billion this year. Insiders will know that most of the jobs generated for local contractors and workers lie in the building and civil engineering works. Mr Chew asked how fast can BCA speed up the revamp of the contractors' registry system. We are working on a fast track. We have spoken to SCAL. We have formed a committee together and we intend to firm up the register sometime in the middle of this year. The register will tighten the requirements for some grades of contractors, and the idea is to make sure that these contractors who qualify for the best grades are of certain size and competence. Size is important because competence is the function of size. As Mr Chew has rightly pointed out, banks need to merge to become bigger to go abroad, and so do contractors. Dr Teo asked many questions. I am afraid I may not have time to answer him. But he asked several relevant ones. One is why do we not license contractors now? Licensing of contractors would be a long-term agenda. In the short and medium-term, we would like to revamp the contractors' registry system to make sure that our contractors are of certain size and with certain competence. As it is now, it is impossible to enforce licensing requirements because a licensed contractor can always sub-contract his or her job to unlicensed contractors. How do we judge BCA's performance? BCA is both a regulator as well as a promoter. As a regulator, you judge BCA's performance by the buildings in Singapore. Are they safe or not? The answer must be a "yes". BCA is also a promoter. So BCA promotes the industry. It is trying to revamp the industry. It also tries to educate consumers. It is working with CASE to raise awareness on the quality consciousness. It has implemented over the years the CONQUAS score, which is the national benchmark on quality, and this CONQUAS score is available on BCA's website. How is the Government helping contractors? There are many schemes. Government is providing a $10 million R&D Fund and a $10 million Industry Productivity Fund. There is the existing Local Enterprises Technical Assistance Scheme which contractors are already tapping into. There are also the existing Trade Development Board Scheme and Investment Allowance Scheme. All these schemes are being tapped by the contractors. Tender prices - this is a perennial complaint. Dr Teo and Mr Goh Chong Chia have raised it. Government tenders are not awarded solely on price. Price is one of the criteria. It is an important criterion. It is not the only criterion. Many contracts over the years have been awarded to contractors who did not submit the lowest tender. Because many contracting jobs are prequalified, contractors who submit their tenders are judged on a level playing field, and price becomes an important selection criterion. On Mr Goh Chong Chia's question on whether the IM procedure can be made public, I will raise this concern with the Ministry of Finance, which is in charge of IM procedures. For the questions which I do not have time to answer, I will ask my staff to reply to Members directly.

Sir, the question I really have is this. While it is very encouraging to see that the Government has started this scheme late last year, I would like to ask whether, in addition to looking at the priority for older estates, there are wards where there are more private estates than public estates. Can there be greater priority given to the many residents who have been supporting the Government? The two MPs, who are raising this topic, are from Kreta Ayer-Tanglin GRC, and we know that there are a lot more private estates there. I hope that the Government can consider upgrading the flats in this GRC.

Sir, I would like to add my call again for more funds to be set aside for the upgrading of private housing estates and for this programme to be expedited. Last year, only five lucky estates were selected. There are many more old estates that could do with a comprehensive and systematic upgrading programme. As the construction industry has been in a slump for a number of years now, perhaps bringing forward some of these upgrading programmes would also help to boost the construction sector and save money for the Government, as the cost will be lower too.

Sir, I thank both speakers who have spoken on behalf of their residents. This time last year, the Ministry announced the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP). I am pleased to announce that this year we will be calling for nominations from the advisers again, after the COS debate, and we will do a selection towards the end of this year and, hopefully, we will be able to announce a second batch of EUP candidates at the end of this year or early next year. The Government has set aside an EUP budget of $40 million, up to the year 2005, and this includes the $18.4 million set aside for batch one EUP. As to whether priority will be given to estates which have predominantly landed property in character, I will ask my staff to consider the criteria.

Sir, the fish farms that I would like to speak on are ornamental fish farms and not fish farms that rear fish for the table. Singaporeans have a talent for breeding ornamental fish. The rearing of ornamental fish for export has become a big home-grown industry. Singapore has made a name for itself as the ornamental fish capital of the world with a 30% share of the international market. Singapore is the largest exporter of ornamental fish. The total export value of such fish is about $76 million. Sir, therefore, I was a bit surprised that in the Straits Times, there was a report of the Government clearing up many of these fish farms which are in the outlying areas. The report concerns 36 fish farms in Fish Farm Road 1, 2 and 3 of Old Tampines Road. My fear is that with resettlement, these ornamental fish farms may be bogged down by heavy costs when they are resettled in agrotechnology parks and they may not be able to survive. My concern is whether or not the Government should slow down on this resettlement and give them a chance to survive.

Sir, Mr Chiam is right that we want to promote the export of ornamental fish. In our agrotechnology park in Lim Chu Kang, we have set aside farms for such activity. The farms that he mentioned were being relocated from Tampines because the land there will be required for industrial development. The tenants have been informed about this long ago, and they are also compensated. On top of that, to enable them to continue with their business, AVA has made over-30 blocks of farmland in our agrotechnology park available to them for tender. Four of them have successfully tendered for such land and the rest did not participate in the tenders for reasons of their own. AVA will help those relocating to the agrotechnology park to complete the development of their new farms as soon as possible. AVA will also continue to provide them with technical support and training, to enable them to upgrade their farming operations to export higher value-added fish.

Dr Teo, I think we have time to let you ask your question.

Sir, may I ask the Ministry whether they will allocate agricultural land for high-rise farming in Singapore?

Sir, the answer is that the farmers are allowed to do so, if they find it economically viable.

Sir, can I ask the Minister whether he will set standards, foster and certify organic farming in Singapore and supplying countries for vegetables?

Sir, AVA allows the use of any farming methods, as long as the produce is safe to eat. For those who are interested in organic farming, there are already available international standards to follow. If they find it economically viable to do so, they are welcome to do so.

Since we have one last person, we might as well allow Dr Lee to finish her topic.

Sir, may I ask for a clarification?

All right, very quickly.

I said to "set standards, foster and certify organic farming". He only answers the first question. Does he mean he will not foster and will not certify?

Sir, there is no need to do that. As I said, there are already existing standards and the farmers can use those standards. AVA will look at them and will support those standards. 3.00 pm

Thank you, Sir. I guess I should cut everything down and just ask a question as well. We were talking about golf courses yesterday and parks as well have a tremendous feel-good feeling for all our residents if we want to make this little city state of ours a really good place to live in, both for our own citizens as well as to attract talents from abroad. Could we also please allocate more land for our parks and actually speed up developments? If you just take a look at utilisation these days, there is a tremendous number of people out there trying to get some fresh air. It is respite from day-to-day work and it is a haven of greenery for our people.

Sir, my answer to her is that, in the next three to four years, NParks plans to complete some $40 million worth of park development and redevelopment projects. So those parks, like the Pasir Ris Park and East Coast Park, where there is congestion during peak periods, would be upgraded and special areas would be created for high activity uses.

Sir, I would like to thank you for accommodating all the cuts for this amendment. I would also like to thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their high speed and positive responses to all the questions put forward by Members. I am confident that many Singaporeans will benefit from the initiatives announced by the Ministry. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (2), Dr Wan Soon Bee. Please take your two cuts together.

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 UA 1200. Sir, I believe that the HDB studio apartments are built for all elderly Singaporeans, and not just for elderly HDB lessees. I have two suggestions which will make this housing scheme more accessible and more equitable for all elderly Singaporeans. Removal of some of the conditions will also help HDB to improve the success of the scheme which I understand has not been great. With an ageing population, the HDB's studio apartment scheme is an appropriate measure to alleviate the need of the elderly for suitable housing. However, some of HDB's existing rules and regulations are, in my opinion, too restrictive and unfair, and therefore defeat the desired objectives of the scheme. In my mind, the two objectives of the scheme should be as follows: First, to build appropriate housing with special amenities for the elderly. Second, to enable the elderly to live independently while remaining in close proximity to other family members. With these objectives in mind, the HDB should reconsider the condition of sale that only existing HDB lessees who have lived in their flats for at least 10 years are eligible for studio apartments under the scheme. This regulation assumes that all elderly Singaporeans, who are not currently HDB lessees, will always have the financial means to afford non-governmental housing. This is incorrect. Circumstances can change for anyone. Even if the issue of finances is discounted, let us not forget that some elderly persons may choose to live among other elderly persons. I know of many elderly Singaporeans who, because of changing circumstances, are in need of more economical housing. For example, one can imagine the situation of an elderly couple that has lived with their children in private property. They themselves are not rich. Such a couple may be forced to look for alternative accommodation as a result of problems within the family or relocation of the children overseas, whether for work or through immigration. The HDB studio apartment could be the only financially feasible option for the couple - but the existing HDB regulation makes them ineligible. Or an elderly couple may need to downgrade to a smaller, more economical property as a result of a change in its financial situation. Let us also not forget that the elderly generally require more amenities - amenities which the studio apartments are especially designed to cater for. Finally, living among other elderly persons can enhance the quality of life for many elderly citizens. I want to emphasise again that an important objective of the scheme is to provide housing for all elderly Singaporeans, and not just elderly HDB lessees. For all the reasons I mentioned above, elderly Singaporeans who are not existing HDB lessees should not be excluded from the scheme. I therefore strongly urge the HDB to reconsider the condition that makes only existing HDB lessees who have lived in their flats for at least 10 years eligible for this scheme. All elderly Singaporeans should be eligible. My second suggestion to improve the scheme relates to the conditions that the owner is prohibited from selling the studio apartment in the resale market. I am recommending that this condition be reviewed for the following reasons:

Dr Wan, "guillotine" time on this amendment is 3.12 pm.

Yes, Sir. This condition restricts the mobility of owners and consequently undermines the objective of the HDB elderly housing scheme to encourage elderly Singaporeans to live near their families, while allowing them to maintain a degree of independence. For example, what happens when an elderly couple's children move to a different location? While it would make sense for the elderly couple to sell their present unit and to buy another to be closer to the family, the current HDB condition only allows owners to sell apartments back to the HDB. This will totally deter people from selling and therefore limits the mobility and flexibility of the elderly owners. Allowing the sale of the studio apartments in the resale market will provide an alternative to potential buyers in the queue, similar to the circumstances existing in the general HDB flats resale market. I certainly appreciate that precautionary measures are needed to prevent speculative purchases. But since the scheme is available only to those aged 55 and above, it is highly unlikely that those who apply for these studio apartments are purchasing the flats for profit. Furthermore, there are already other restrictions for purchase, such as non-ownership of private property and a household income ceiling of $8,000 which provide sufficient protection against speculative buying. Given the other HDB restrictions governing eligibility for housing under the scheme and the fact that there is a limited pool of potential buyers, the danger of widespread speculation in these studio apartments is, I believe, highly exaggerated. The studio apartments scheme is an excellent housing scheme for the elderly. All of our elderly have contributed to the success of our nation, let us not discriminate amongst them, but instead ensure that each and every elderly Singaporean can enjoy the benefits of this scheme. Can I proceed to the next cut?

I will ask Dr John Chen to respond to you and if there is time, you can then move on.

Sir, my response will be shorter than his. As my Minister mentioned earlier, he will ask HDB to review the eligibility criteria for studio apartments. The review would take into account the Member's suggestion to allow other categories of the elderly. Sir, on his second point, I would like to point out that the studio apartments are sold on a 30-year lease. HDB will give studio apartment residents who wish to move out before the end of the lease period a pro-rated refund of the purchase price. However, they cannot sell their studio apartments on the open market. This restriction is a necessary condition for the discounted land rate of studio apartment sites. If this restriction is removed, the HDB would have to pay a much higher land rate for the studio apartment sites, which will translate into more expensive studio apartments for the elderly. So, to answer Dr Wan, the elderly can return their flats to HDB and they will get a pro-rated refund and they can move to elsewhere if they like to.

Dr Wan, there are three minutes left.

Sir, one of the conditions for the purchase of new HDB flats is that the household monthly income must not exceed $8,000. This condition does not apply to the purchase of HDB flats in the resale market. I suggest that HDB review this condition in the light of the changing expectations of the citizens. With rising affluence, Singaporeans are demanding better quality housing and, indeed, HDB has also changed its role from one that provides subsidised housing to the lower income group to one that provides affordable yet high quality housing to Singaporeans in general. The rationale of restricting the purchase of new flats to households with a certain level of income is outdated and needs to be re-examined. Some Singaporeans whose household incomes exceed the ceiling may nevertheless prefer to purchase HDB flat instead of private property. Such Singaporeans should not be penalised by being forced to buy a private property, where prices are prohibitive and the quality may even be inferior to that of an HDB flat. I believe that, generally, Singaporeans who can comfortably afford a good private property would tend to prefer a private property. Therefore, I believe that there is relatively little danger that people with higher incomes would queue to acquire an HDB flat unless they have some good reasons to do so. Further, if we believe that every Singaporean matters, then even though HDB flats are subsidised, we should not discriminate between citizens with different household incomes. If HDB strongly feels that there should still be an income ceiling, then at least it should review it periodically as the profile of household incomes changes over time.

Sir, HDB imposes an income ceiling because HDB flats are heavily subsidised. It is a means to allow Singaporeans who cannot afford private housing to also become home owners. The household income ceiling of $8,000 per month for the purchase of new HDB flats is equivalent to the 88th household income percentile of Singaporeans. In other words, nine out of 10 Singaporean households are eligible to buy a subsidised flat from HDB. The top 10% of Singaporeans who can afford private housing and wish to live in public housing can buy resale HDB flats. In any case, if they start young, they probably would qualify for HDB flats because their salaries would be lower and, later on, they can upgrade. So, in practice, almost every Singaporean can buy a HDB flat if they know how. Also, the last review was in 1996, just before the crisis. And we have not even gone back to the pre-crisis level, in terms of property prices. Nevertheless, HDB reviews the income ceiling to purchase subsidised flats from time to time. At the moment, HDB has no plan to raise the income ceiling.

Dr Wan, can you withdraw your amendment, please?

I would like to thank the Minister of State for the answer, although I am not satisfied with what he has said because these are standard answers which have been given to us year after year. However, I still beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (3), Dr Ker Sin Tze. "Guillotine" time on this is 3.24 pm.

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 UA 1500. Sir, URA has designated the use of each plot of land and enforced it strictly. As a result, we have built Singapore into a cosmopolitan city with vibrant activities in an orderly manner. With the emergence of the electronic age, the time has come to take a review of the existing planning rules and regulations to see whether some of these rules can be modified to suit the needs of the new era. It is heartening to note that URA has now designated more white sites which allow flexibility in the land use. URA has also allowed residences to be used as home offices for specific trades, such as electronic and Internet-related business. There are however some other areas which warrant our attention. I note from the recent trend that the vacancy ratio of office space in the town area has declined and the office rental has risen. It is difficult for small and medium-sized companies to pay high rentals, and there are not many office buildings in the fringe areas. Many have, therefore, moved into industrial buildings in various industrial estates. However, there are restrictions on the maximum area within an industrial building which can be used as an office. Even within each unit in an industrial building, there is a restriction that the area used as an office cannot exceed 40%. These restrictions make it difficult for small and medium-sized companies to be housed in industrial buildings. 3.15 pm In the same spirit that URA allows home offices to be set up in residence, I would like to appeal to URA to relax its restrictions and allow industrial space, particularly light industrial space, to be used as offices. In this connection, I would like to declare my interest that some companies, within the group which I am associated with, are involved in the development of industrial properties. I would still appeal to URA to consider allowing more space within each industrial unit to be used as offices. It should also consider allowing certain floors within existing light industrial buildings to be used as offices. The reason is that some of the activities, which are classified as light industry, such as research and training, are fairly similar to office activities. In fact, the inclusion of offices in light industrial buildings will not cause inconvenience to the existing industrial users. It will alleviate the pressure on the demand for office space in the town area, and enable small and medium-sized companies to reduce their business costs. This is essential for their survival in the years of economic uncertainty ahead.

Dr Ker, would you like to allow time for the others?

All right, Sir. As a fine tuning to satisfy the long-term need, the Minister may wish to consider replacing the existing category of light industry use by a new category of a combined light industry and office use.

Sir, arising from the case of polluted drinking water at Bukit Timah Plaza, I would like to ask the relevant authorities if there are plans to set standards for property management, apart from looking into the issues of the responsibilities of the parties, as spelt out in the Land Titles Strata Act. As buildings age, problems resulting from poor maintenance and management will increase. Although there are statutory regulations that building owners must abide by, there is currently no legislation to ensure that the managers looking after the buildings need minimum professional standards. Just as there are controls on the professionals involved in the construction of a building, there is also a need to ensure that there are controls on professionals who manage buildings. I would therefore urge the relevant authorities to look into the control and regulation of property managers, to whom we entrust the safety and security of our buildings.

Sir, the planning guidelines for industry, warehouse and business park zones have already been relaxed in June 2000 to allow e-businesses and dot-com companies to start offices within these zones. URA is also looking into the feasibility of freeing up the airspace above low-density industries for other land uses. We will take note of Dr Ker's recommendations and see how they could be implemented in further liberalising our guidelines. I am pleased to inform Dr Wan that the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) has formed a working group to develop a code on the roles and responsibilities of managing agents. The working group comprises members from REDAS, the Association of Property and Facility Managers, and a sizeable MC, apart from a managing agent. The working group intends to come up with a technical reference for performance of property managing agents by April this year, and this will be a reference for all management corporations (MCs).

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

Amendment No. (4). Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

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 UL 3100. Sir, every time I drive past the Padang, I cannot help but wonder whether we can replicate such a setting in our HDB new towns, ie, an open field, with the CC as the anchor building at one end of this field, just like the Singapore Recreation Club. The CC is an important institution in the constituency. It allows different races with different religious beliefs to interact and socialise. The CC is, thus, the common ground for all. A big field fronting a CC, I believe, is the best setting. In the evening, children and families can enjoy the open space and, more rewarding, I am sure the CC activities will attract more residents to attend. National Day can be celebrated on a grander scale at our constituency level. Can I, therefore, ask the Ministry to plan the constituency parks, allowing a big field for the CC, in future new towns?

Sir, I fully agree with the Member. It is indeed a good idea as it will provide a wider range of community and recreational opportunities for residents at our parks, and also bring about better land use. I am pleased to inform him that NParks has been proactively working with URA and the relevant authorities to co-locate compatible facilities with parks, where feasible, and these include not just CCs, but also other facilities like child-care and so on. The examples include the child-care facilities at Katong Park, Telok Ayer-Hong Lim Green Community Club at Hong Lim Park, Tanglin Community Centre at Malcolm Park, and Tanjong Pagar Community Club at Duxton Plain Park, and they will continue to look for places to implement the idea.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $337,078,850 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $9,727,568,500 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

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 3.45 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.24 pm until 3.45 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head J -

Head J - Ministry of Community Development and Sports. Amendment No. (1), Mr Charles Chong.

Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, Singapore aspires to be a regional sports hub and among the top 10 sporting nations in Asia by 2010. We also want to achieve 50% sports participation rate among our population by 2005. Judging from the current state of sports in Singapore, it is obvious that we have still some way to go before we even come close to achieving these objectives. Sir, I do not think that there is lack of political will to give sports a higher profile and more attention in Singapore. MCD was re-designated as MCDS in April last year and the Committee on Sporting Singapore, chaired by the Minister for Community Development and Sports, was formed in September last year to review sporting policies and programmes, and to chart the future of sports in Singapore. This Committee, comprising several Ministers, released its wide ranging interim recommendations in February this year at a public forum. Many suggestions were also put forward at the forum by the sporting fraternity and members of the public. The recommendations and suggestions, excellent as they are, cannot really succeed if there is no mindset change among our population, especially parents towards sports. The Sports School, for example, is a marvellous recommendation to nurture our young, the sporting potential to become regional, if not, world-class athletes. However, this facility will become a white elephant if there were no mindset change of parents towards their children's education and the mere obsession for academic achievement. In order to facilitate this mindset change among parents and school children towards sports, I would like to request MCDS to consider introducing sports excellence, sports merit and good progress awards, similar to the Edusave Scholarship Merit and GPA Awards, given to citizens each year for academic performance. The proposed sports awards may convince students and parents that equal recognition can be achieved for performance in sports, as well as in their studies. MOE should also be persuaded to make it easier for promising athletes to cope with the demands of their sports and their studies by committing them a longer timeframe to complete their studies and also time-off to prepare for major competitions. Students with outstanding achievements in sports could perhaps be permitted to combine their "O" or "A" grades obtained at more than one sitting for advancement into institutions of higher learning. Sporting excellence in many sports also requires athletes' involvement in regular and sustained training, even after they leave school and join the workforce. Many employers must also change their attitudes towards the employees who are sportsmen. In order to help bring about this change, could MCDS consider including a make-up pay system for our best and most promising athletes whenever they are required to be away from work for sports training, similar to the NS make-up pay that MINDEF provides to employers with NSmen employees? Many of our promising sportsmen also experience disruptions in their training schedules when they are enlisted for National Service. While national security is of vital importance and must take precedence, MINDEF should exercise flexibility, wherever possible, to release sportsmen who are non-key appointment holders for sports training. I would therefore like to urge MCDS and the Committee on Sporting Singapore, when formulating our sports policy, to introduce measures and concentrate its efforts to facilitate these mindset changes in order that sports would finally be recognised as the main stream pursued by Singaporeans.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, have we run out of steam in producing sportsmen and sportswomen to increase our medal tally in the SEA and Asian games? I hope not, Sir. Based on records, we have not produced respectable numbers of champions in the last 10 years. Gone are the heydays when we hear of household names such as C Kunalan, Jayamani, Ang Peng Siong, Patricia Chan and others. We are so lean now that we also have to import sporting talents. Is the Ministry actively scouting for talents from outside? What would be the outcomes of the sports schools that we have set up which are supposed to nurture local talents? Are public funds for promotion of sports effectively used? Sir, I have another point. In order that we can bring more innovations to promote sports, what new policy directions and targets are being set by the Ministry? May I suggest, for a start, that we invite various capable sporting associations and country clubs to manage our sports complexes, obviously with grants from the Ministry? This will bring more innovations and competition in the promotion of sports.

Sir, many countries in the world know the value of sporting champions to bond the nation together, to bring glory to the nation. In many countries, there are sports ministries which actively fund the development of sports. Until recently, Singapore did not have such. And now that we have a Sports Minister, we can re-look at some of the policies that we have. The importance of sports in drawing people together cannot be too little emphasised. The policy that Singapore had in the past has been Sports for All, let everybody enjoy the sports, and it is a rather lukewarm programme. It is a programme like a bus going up Fraser's Hill. It goes puttering on slowly. We know that it will get somewhere, we just do not know when. Sir, it is important for us now to look at some of the ways of grooming champions so that we can inspire a whole generation of youths to bond together to say, "This is my nation. I am proud of it." Sports, of course, is just one of those many things that we can do to do this. For example, we have got some very attractive programmes to encourage champions to be involved in sports. We give a million dollars, for example, if we can have an Olympic champion. Unfortunately, we are doing it wrongly because we are giving a million dollars' reward to the person after he wins an Olympic medal. The correct approach should be to take that one million dollars and develop the potentials that we spot until they become champions. Perhaps after that, if we still want to reward them, that is another story. If we do not develop these champions over a number of years and we leave them to struggle until they accidentally become champions, this is not the correct approach. One of the most focused ways of doing something will be to set up a national school for sports. My daughter has been selected to run track and field in her school. She does not do it for a profession. It is just a co-curricular activity but she has to spend four days a week running and training, because nationals are coming up. Sometimes, we have to realise that people, like my daughter, do not need to do this as a profession. They do it in a less intensive way. But for those who are spotted, and are real talents, they should then be put into a special school where they can do both their studies and sports in a balanced way. Otherwise, they would end up like my daughter, too tired to do her studies when national training is on. The other thing is to draw people together. We can have a new national stadium that people can be proud of, that is not something that we are ashamed to boast about because it is grey, and greying even more. When we have a status symbol, an icon that all can aim for, we can then both do the sports for all programme; and a programme for those who are inspired and have great dreams to be the Michael Jordans and be the great stars of track and field that we want them to aspire to be. Other than importing talent, we should also be developing our local talent. I do, however, support the programme to import talents and I hope that the Ministry could do it more proactively by going out into the world to look for the talents and bringing them or their parents to Singapore.

(In Mandarin): Sir, both the press and MCDS reports have highlighted the fact that we are committed to the effort of building up Singapore as a nation of excellence in sports. MCDS has also laid down a goal to build up Singapore as one of the sporting hubs in Singapore. This is a very challenging objective, but with concrete measures, we can achieve this goal. Indeed, there is room for enhancing and developing many sports events in Singapore, be it individual or group event. I myself am the President of the Volleyball Association and the Wushu Association. I would like to touch on three points. Firstly, manpower and finance. Before formulating a national goal in sports, the Government should discuss with the various sports organisations to formulate plans to train our national team. Presently, all the officials in the National Sports Associations are volunteers and they spend a lot of time in fund-raising activities rather than promoting sports. All these sportsmen are voluntary and these organisations have spent a lot of time in raising funds. Therefore, at the same time, the Government should also provide them with financial assistance. The funding could be in the ratio of 1:1 or 1:2. We should give them enough funds if we want them to perform well. With enough funding, they would perform better. Secondly, MCDS intends to set up a sports institute in 2003. This is a good idea but before embarking on this, we should provide a site of software for the training of sportsmen and sportswomen so that their potential could be developed to their fullest. Is the Singapore Sports Council in a position to select people with potential for training and award the scholarships for training in foreign countries? Our local training has not been able to achieve this purpose because our sportsmen have to go to school at the same time when they go for training. They should be awarded the scholarship for training in foreign countries, for example, PM hopes that by 2008, our football team will be able to go into the World Cup. Promising players should be sent to Brazil and other countries for training. I believe when they come back in two years' time, we will be able to achieve such a purpose. For example, Japan accepts full-time training for volleyball players. I have seen their training in Japan. It is full-time training. If our volleyball players could be given opportunities to train in Japan, they will perform better and win honour for our country. Thirdly, on career prospects of professional sportsmen and women. Most parents would like their children to take up a lucrative profession. Hence, we should change the mindset of parents that sports is not a perishing profession. As a matter of fact, in US, Australia and other countries, the sports profession is a very lucrative one. What a sportsman earns is not inferior to that of any other profession. I would like to urge the Government to assure the parents that the sports profession has a future and that sportsmen's career is taken care of. Therefore, we have to change their mindsets. MCDS can also plan for this to ensure that our sportsmen, especially our national team players, after they have contributed to the nation, could carry on as instructors in schools or in training up our national teams. We will better develop our sport programmes. 4.00 pm

Sir, our talent pool needs to be educated and trained in order to sustain a sound workforce, to support the growth we have experienced over the past three decades. We understand from the Budget Speech 2001 that the Government is investing significantly in education, training, investment schemes, endowment funds, etc. The flipside of this must be the development of a physically sound and a healthy workforce, because the workforce is only as productive as its state of health. It is scientifically established that the only mechanism to ensure healthy and good quality life in the labour force is through life-long physical exercise regimes. The setting up of the Health Promotion Board is timely. The MCDS' policy to promote the development of the physical health of the school children will ensure that people carry on a healthy lifestyle throughout their work life and even in their later years. Sports could be developed at several levels. (1) Sports as a lifestyle to ensure a healthy population throughout life. In schools, sports must be developed as part of curriculum activities in parallel with the critical academic curriculum. (2) Sports as a recreation and means of community development to ensure social bonding, allegiance and loyalty. Mr Minister, you encourage us each time we see you in your running shorts and shoes. (3) Sports with the aim of allowing individuals to set their own challenges and goals. We remember the folk heroes like Wong Peng Soon of Thomas Cup fame, Khoo Swee Chiow who reached the summit of Mount Everest and Singapore's plan to attain a position in the World Cup. However, we have also failed to honour Tan Howe Liang, our only Olympic silver medallist. Ronald Soo got to the All-England quarter finals recently. No Singaporean had achieved this in two decades. Will we forget him now that he is not in the semi finals? I read in the newspaper recently on a question put to a foreign Olympics medallist. He was asked whether he was rewarded a million dollars after he won the Olympics gold medal. He was puzzled but after some explanation, he said that he would have preferred to have the financial support before he won, and not after. (4) Sports as a career path. We must encourage people with sporting skills to excel. A career path in sports must be treated as equal to academic skills. I would like to know what is the Minister's policy towards a holistic and comprehensive approach to health and sports. Will the Minister set up one or more focus groups to collect information, analyse data and come up with plans on two levels? First, the software plans for the development of human capital, education, health and sports. Second, the hardware plans, inclusive of feasibility studies, design briefs, master plans and plans for the development of a sports hub. We need better and world-class sporting facilities. Finally, as an architect in private practice, I cannot help but want to ask the Minister whether he will agree to organise a national design competition to tap the best ideas for the new stadium and sports hub.

Sir, I mentioned earlier the need for both a Sports for Champions programme and a Sports for All programme. I mentioned that our Sports for All programme is rather lukewarm at the moment. The reason I say this is that we are not doing enough to provide facilities in every community. One of the reasons that American kids, for example, grow up aspiring to be Michael Jordan is that they can find in schools and in their communities, even outside schools, facilities to play their games. Sometimes even on the streets, because they are so keen to play games that they form their own three against three teams and play games in the streets. We are now doing this, Sir. Increasingly, we are building street soccer and street basketball pitches, and I think we should do more of this. Because, ultimately, if people are aspiring to be Michael Jordans, Shaquille O'Neals, Fandis and Peles, we must give them facilities. In the national development debate that has just terminated, there was this indication that schools and other facilities could be open to the youths of the community. I know the Ministry of Education, in fact, has asked principals to encourage this. But not every principal is able to do it because sometimes they are concerned about the security of the schools, and the ultimate decision of opening up the school field is really at the discretion of the principal. In the end, it is too much of a trouble sometimes for people to use the school field. And yet we have got patches of land all over which are being reserved for future use, and the land sits there for years and years and nobody is using them. And when the grassroots organisations ask for these fields, they are charged market rent. If a grassroots organisation applies for it, they only pay 30% of the market price. And I am asking whether the MCDS could consider either helping to pay for this or fully subsidise the rental, so that the grassroots organisations can indeed build facilities for the community. Just looking at the fields near my place, levelling them, putting up fences, it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars - not to mention the TOL fees that we have to pay later. I would therefore urge the Minister to consider ways of releasing funds to help the communities build more facilities for sports.

Sir, I have a very simple request and appeal to the Minister. When we think about sports, let us not just think about the structured facilities and the stadiums. They are very important. But sports is enjoyed and played by people, amongst friends and neighbours, in a very casual way, before they get into something more serious. And this is where I think facilities must be accessible, and close as possible to our people. Therefore, I think the HDB is important. The parks and recreation areas are important. While we are trying to promote sports, I feel, as a soccer player, as if there is a war against soccer players. When you look at a piece of very nice ground which looks very inviting, you just want to put on your boots and kick a ball around. There is always a suspicious looking mound or some trees somewhere. What could be a goal post, they put two trees and some other obstacles. And sometimes more blatant, they put a signboard which says "No Ball Games". Sir, I think we have to be very consistent about this, because we really want to encourage sports at the casual level, at the grassroots level. People just want to run around. If we go to the NIE and Chinese High School - these are two very excellent examples - on a weekend, there is a whole sports community that is being developed here, simply because the institutions allow people from the neighbourhood to come and play at no charge. At other places, it is more difficult. And I sympathise with the principals of schools where on weekends, boys will climb over the school fence or break into the fence just to get into a piece of ground where they can play soccer together. While we think about all the big things, there are many small things that we can do in our neighbourhood that can make individuals, young boys and children, to enjoy sports in a more casual manner.

(In Mandarin): Sir, as we progress in the 21st century, Singapore has begun to place more importance on the other aspects of life. We begin to be more concerned with the lighter parts of our life, such as the arts, sports, etc. All the time, we have high expectations of ourselves, and whatever we do, we must do well. In sports, I think we should also have some achievements, because sports is a very important aspect of our nation building. Sir, Singaporeans are now better educated and they are more mature. Now they would want to have better quality of life in order to balance off the stressful city state life, because sports is a good way to help Singaporeans digress from their stressful life. The promotion of sports is gradually falling into place, particularly with the formation of the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. Now, all the national sports associations come under the purview of the MCDS. Already, we have seen many great sporting events being held in Singapore, such as the Singapore Golf Masters, and we have the Soccer 2010 Vision, etc. Of course, we need to improve on the facilities for all these sporting activities. Recently, a conference was organised by the Committee on Sporting Singapore to review and present the findings from its various sporting committees. We need to build a culture among Singaporeans to appreciate and accept sports as another worthwhile endeavour and achievement. In all these presentations, there were many creative and useful recommendations that could raise the awareness and standard of sports in Singapore. Sir, in this year's budget, the Singapore Sports Council is only allocated $45.59 million. This is only 4.1% or just $1.8 million more than last year. If we compare it with the tasks that the Singapore Sports Council needs to undertake to meet the increased demands, I think this is very negligible. This increase in budget is mainly provided for the subvention of land cost, provision for the operating of Jurong East swimming complex, salary revision and CPF adjustments of the staff. As for the national sports associations, they were totally neglected in this year's budget provision. Are we saying that the national sports associations have to survive on their own? Under such circumstances, how can we expect these national sports associations to carry out their mission, not to mention the promotion of sports activities and the advancement of sports? Nowadays, many of the national sports associations are struggling in their fund raising efforts. Willing sponsors are increasingly difficult to come by, as national sports associations need to compete with so many other activities to fight for a slice of the sponsorship pie. We all know that not all the sports associations can be as lucky as the Football Association of Singapore, which has a very huge sponsorship. Many associations need to get grants from the Singapore Sports Council to promote their cause. So I strongly call upon the Minister to consider increasing the budget in line with the increased tasks and responsibilities that are expected from the Singapore Sports Council. Meanwhile, I would urge the Government to increase the subsidy to the national sports associations. I hope that the Minister will consider giving an off-budget subsidy to these national sports associations. Then, with all the support and infrastructure in place, this will be the right time for us to correct the negative perception and enhance the image and status of sports in Singapore.

Sir, my topic is on the community sports clinic. The sports for life programme, launched by the Singapore Sports Council, has been successful in promoting healthy lifestyle among Singaporeans, especially the elderly and housewives. Many Singaporeans are beginning to participate in the sports for life programme, such as brisk walking and many other games. As we have a fast ageing population, we should continue our efforts to keep our people healthy. But the push for a healthy lifestyle by the community must also be supported by the necessary sports clinics and medicine infrastructure. Presently, we have only one sports clinic at the Sports Council serving mainly our national and school athletes. The centre has basic sports medical facilities but lacks the modern equipment for sports injury diagnosis and therapy such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment. The limited resources also do not permit the centre to conduct sports medicine research, and education to the general public. 4.15 pm As we become more active in mobilising the masses into sporting activities, we need to provide adequate, accessible and convenient sports clinics at the community level. These clinics can provide consultations for sports injury, physiotherapy and rehabilitation services at affordable costs. It is a form of primary healthcare for sports injuries at the community level. Sir, I would like to seek the following clarifications from the Ministry: (a) What are the plans the Ministry has in providing sports medicine infrastructure in Singapore? (b) What are the resources committed to train sports doctors and physiotherapists? (c) What is the appropriate ratio between the population and sports doctor as compared to other developed countries? (d) Will the Ministry build more sports clinics at the community level?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen is not here. Mr Chiam See Tong.

Sir, if Singapore wants to promote sports, then I think the Government and the people in general must show respect for our sportsmen and sportswomen who have brought honour to Singapore by winning in international competitions. I want to highlight the case of two brothers who represented Singapore in water polo. The two brothers altogether won 11 medals for Singapore, comprising seven golds, three silvers and one bronze at the Asian and SEA Games. They are both Singaporeans. They are born in Singapore and are blue-blooded Singaporeans and not imported ones. They are Mr Gan Eng Guan and his brother. Although they have contributed so much to Singapore, they are shunned and ignored by our sports officials. In 1998, there was a much publicised social function called "Reunion (Water Polo) 1998", organised by the Singapore Amateur Swimming Association, where other prominent past and present water polo players were invited, including some from overseas. But the two prominent brothers who are genuine Singapore products were not invited. They were really outstanding water polo players in the 50s and 60s, and there was no excuse for the officials of the Singapore Amateur Swimming Association not to know them in 1998. Yet, they were not the ones invited as guests. If that is the attitude of our sports officials towards our better known sportsmen, we can then understand why the sports scene in Singapore is in such a sorry state. I can also understand why a female official in the Netball Association said that 95% of the Singapore sports officials should be sacked. Our sportsmen spend many long hours to achieve international standards and bring honour to Singapore. Yet, when they retired, they were thrown into the dust heap and forgotten. Can we then wonder why the standard of sports in Singapore is so low? I hope the Minister can look into this problem of the two brothers. They have brought honour to Singapore, yet ignored by the Singapore Amateur Swimming Association. I hope the Minister can investigate and get to the bottom of the matter.

Sir, I would like to thank Members for their views and questions on sports. This is something close to my heart and close to the hearts of many officials in MCDS. Let me address the issues and questions Members have brought up. What I would do is to sketch the broad plans of what the Ministry has on sports, and along the way address Members' concerns. Sir, my Ministry was renamed the Ministry of Community Development and Sports in April last year, to signal the greater priority the Government intends to give to sports. And we are ready to do more. Mr Charles Chong, Dr Vasoo and Prof. Toh See Kiat are keen to know what our plans are. Sir, over the past year, the Committee on Sporting Singapore (CoSS), which I chair, has been discussing the various ways in which sports can be further developed in Singapore. Our vision is that of a Sporting Singapore based on three pillars: sports for all, sports excellence and the building of a sports industry. We shared some of the key recommendations of CoSS at a public seminar about three weeks ago. I would like to repeat them. These are to: (i) Promote a sporting culture in Singapore; (ii) Strengthen the National Sports Associations; (iii) Establish a Sports School; (iv) Enhance sports science and sports medicine; (v) Develop the sports industry; and (vi) Build a sports hub. I am indeed very pleased to announce that the Government has accepted in principle the interim recommendations of CoSS. Let me talk about these in detail. Our sports participation rate was about 34%, according to a survey in 1997, an increase of 10% from 24% in 1992. Beyond improving the participation rates, we aim to get people excited about sports by nurturing a sporting culture. Because when we talk about sports, we are talking of passion, commitment and discipline. When people play sports together, they develop bonds which help build a cohesive society. During those Malaysian Cup days when the Singapore team was playing, you would notice how the audience rooted for Singapore, how everyone became one. When our table tennis player Jing Junhong played at the semi-finals in the recent Olympics, everyone in Singapore - even those who did not know the difference between a golf ball and a tennis ball - rooted for Singapore. I would like to thank Mr Chiam for his support for sports and assure him that the Government has always been supportive of sports. We want to continue our sports promotion efforts and do more to raise the status of sports here. The Singapore Sports Council (SSC) and the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) are already giving out several awards. This is in answer to some of the Members' questions on whether we are giving out sports awards to our athletes. We do. SSC, for example, awards sports scholarships. Nevertheless, we will see how we can further improve on this. Sports clubs and associations also have important roles to play in building a sports culture in Singapore and providing sports programmes to the public. Mr Goh Chong Chia mentioned having to develop our young in sports. We agree. In particular, we need to actively promote sports among our youth. We will see how we can help the clubs improve the quality of their programmes and services so that more Singaporeans can play and enjoy sports. Dr Vasoo asked if we should allow sports clubs and associations to manage sports complexes. There are strategic reasons for retaining the management of these facilities under the SSC. It would be in a better position to promote sports to the general public and help build a sporting culture in Singapore. For example, the Sports Council's Regional Sports and Fitness Centres are housed within sports complexes, and they have comprehensive programmes to increase the sports participation rate of Singaporeans. Perhaps over time, when the sports clubs and associations have developed further, we can consider privatising the management of sports complexes in Singapore. I note the concerns of Prof. Toh See Kiat and Mr Zulkifli Baharudin regarding the availability of sports facilities in Singapore. I take Mr Zulkifli's point about the importance of informal sports activities, like just kicking a ball around or just playing catching, as it were, with your kids. Having adequate sports facilities for Singaporeans is a prerequisite for building a sports culture here. In FY 2000, the Singapore Sports Council committed about $37 million on sports facilities for the public. In land-scarce Singapore, there are limits on how much land we can set aside for sports. However, we can find innovative ways to maximise the use of land in Singapore for sports. To do this, my Ministry and Singapore Sports Council are considering three strategies: Firstly, we can explore the use of temporarily vacant state land for sports. Secondly, existing facilities such as school fields and open spaces, as mentioned by Mr Zulkifli, are indeed important resources that could be tapped. As a pilot project, SSC is negotiating with a few schools to manage and maintain the school fields. Under SSC's management, these fields can be made available for public use outside school hours. This, hopefully, would avoid the problem which Mr Zulkifli has mentioned about schools' property and premises being damaged. Thirdly, we can make use of technology to maximise the use of facilities. For example, as an alternative to grass fields, artificial surfaces which are not affected by wet weather and can withstand heavier continuous usage with minimal damage, will be introduced. The utilisation rate can be increased three-fold. SSC has in fact installed an artificial field at St Wilfrid Sports Complex as a pilot project. If this is successful, we will try to see how the use of such artificial surfaces can be extended. I would agree with Mr Ang Mong Seng that much can be done to raise the standard of sports in Singapore. I think we all agree to that. The National Sports Associations (NSAs) must take the lead in developing and promoting their respective sports. They are in the best position to do so. They know the athletes, they know the sports, and they have the expertise. Our proposals to develop sports can be successful only if the NSAs have the expertise and resources to support the implementation of the recommendations of CoSS. Contrary to Prof. Toh's remark, we already have quite a number of schemes in place to develop athletes, either through the NSAs, or directly. For example, since 1993, $8 million has been set aside for sports excellence annually. Besides the $3.5 million for schemes to support athletes directly, NSAs are also given assistance to develop their administration, coaching expertise and youth development programmes, and we will definitely see how we could further improve to help develop athletes. To further strengthen the NSAs, we intend to work with the NSAs to establish long term plans for developing their sports. More resources will be given - we have thought about this - to help them achieve their goals, so long as their performance targets are met. In other words, we are willing and will be working into providing them more financial support, provided they are more accountable. They would be held accountable towards the development and promotion of their sports. 4.30 pm Sir, last year I mentioned the possibility of setting up a Sports School in Singapore. This institution has been mentioned by several Members. Some call it sports institute, some call it sports school. And I am pleased to announce that the Government has approved this initiative. The sports school will give students with talent for sports the opportunity to hone their skills while ensuring their studies are well taken care of. The time is right for such a concept, albeit a new one, in Singapore to be tried out. It is vital that we get the concept right and put in place a strong team to establish and run the sports school. The principal would be key to ensuring the success. He must have good standing in both sports and education and have the ability to build up an organisation from scratch. We are in the process of searching for such a principal for the school. It is also important the sports school provides the best sports training available for students, while maintaining a robust and rigorous academic curriculum. Parents, as you know, must feel confident that their children's sporting and educational needs are well taken care of in the sports school, and this addresses some of the Members' concerns. And a clear pathway must also be available for graduates of the sports school. In this regard, the sports school needs to forge strategic alliances with tertiary institutions and sports organisations. Definitely, a lot of ground work needs to be done to set up the school, and we schedule one to be ready in 2003 or 2004. Dr Teo Ho Pin has asked about our efforts in building up sports medicine and sports science expertise. Sir, we are now in an era where raw talent is no longer enough for sporting excellence. At that level of competition where physical prowess and talent are almost equal, technology can give you that edge, a milli-second, that extra inch, to win your event. The last Olympics, for example, we saw swimmers wearing ribbed swim suits where it helps them glide through the water. You see how runners wear spectacles, instead of having them over the ears, go over their heads, and they have to have a bald head to wear such spectacles. So elite athletes will increasingly require sports science and sports medicine support to give them the extra edge during competitions at international level. Sir, the fourth CoSS interim recommendation is to develop Singapore as a centre for sports science and sports medicine. The Sports Council will continue to take the lead in providing sports medicine services, especially to national athletes and to the National Sports Associations. The NSAs will also be encouraged to develop sports medicine and sports science committees with the Singapore Sports Council's assistance. For the general public, SSC intends to improve sports injury management among doctors and physiotherapists. It will do this through organising seminars and sourcing for appropriate sports medicine courses here and abroad. But rather than the Government setting up sports clinics at the community level, we feel that it would be more viable to leave this to market forces. Because already there are a few private sector clinics, which practise sports medicine. And I believe this market will continue to grow as Singaporeans become more aware of the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle. Besides these traditional areas of sports for all and sports excellence, we also see a need to build a sports industry to provide viable careers for athletes and to sustain the sports delivery system in Singapore. This will address Mr Ang Mong Seng's and Mr Goh Chong Chia's point about providing a career development path for athletes. With regard to sports awards and full-time training scholarships overseas, there is already such a scheme under SPEX 21. Several athletes, including thrower James Wong and swimmers Joscelin Yeo and Sng Ju Wei, have benefited from this scheme. We have also signed Memoranda of Understanding with Korea and with China which facilitate full-time training stints overseas for all the athletes. The SSC also talks to athletes and counsels them when they embark on full-time training, to help them formulate their long-term plans for sports, for their career and for their individual development. So indeed, there is already some counselling and guidance by the Sports Council. The SSC has also provided employment to many national athletes for a number of years, so long as they fulfil the entry requirements for such job vacancies. But in the long term, the solution must be to grow the sports industry in Singapore to provide wider career opportunities in sports. We therefore plan to institute a sports industry development programme to cultivate a vibrant sports sector in Singapore. We will set up a marketing team to promote Singapore as a venue of choice for world-class sporting events, sports service providers and international federations. Such events will help create that buzz in Singapore, and make Singapore an even more attractive place to live. Mr Goh Chong Chia mentioned about building a new stadium; several others too. This is precisely what we have in mind. To complement the development of a sports industry, we intend to redevelop the National Stadium into an integrated sports hub. Our Kallang Stadium has served us very well. It is decades old now and is becoming outdated. A sports hub will provide Singaporeans with a world-class venue to watch top level sports, as well as provide excellent facilities for sports participation. My Ministry will conduct a feasibility study on what form this sports hub would take and confirm where it should be located. And I take the suggestion by Mr Goh Chong Chia about organising a national design competition for the stadium, which we can consider. Sir, the initiatives I have outlined will require additional resources. To build up the momentum, Members, and especially Mr Ong Ah Heng and Mr Chiam See Tong, will be pleased to know that the Government, together with Singapore Pools, will be committing $500 million to sports over five years to implement these initiatives. And this excludes the redevelopment of the National Stadium, which will take a little longer to study in detail. In reply to Mr Ong Ah Heng's comment about the $45.59 million, this is actually the budget allocated to the Sports Council and is only for the annual operating grant for operation of programmes and maintenance of sports facilities. Lastly, on Mr Chiam's point about recognising our past sports heroes, I take his point. This is something we should be looking into and, certainly, we will accord proper recognition to our sporting heroes. I would like to thank the many MPs who have spoken in support of sports. Singapore sports seem set for exciting times ahead. The initiatives recommended by CoSS will set the scene for a paradigm shift in the way we view sports in Singapore. The CoSS will finalise its report by June this year.

Sir, a lot has already been said about the widening income gap by many Members during the past few years. I shall try my best not to repeat the arguments.

4.40 pm While we may not be able to do much as a small economy to influence this global trend, we can and we should start working on measures that would ameliorate the consequences of this widening income gap. However, attempting to do so by slowing down the most able from accelerating ahead, squeezing the rich or artifically boosting wages of non-competitive jobs would be disastrous. There are countries that have tried some, or all of these measures, and invariably the results were not quite they expected. Yes, it is true that we are a meritocracy, that every Singaporean, regardless of how humble his or her family background, can succeed. And we read with admiration from time to time of cases of students from humble families doing brilliantly in their studies. But are all our children, including those with disabilities and those who fall or choose to remain outside the mainstream education system, given an equal opportunity to succeed in life when they grow up? Or are these people likely to contribute to the widening income gap when they join the workforce? The Government, working with the community, should carefully monitor and fine-tune our systems to ensure that every child is given the best chance to achieve his or her full potential and equipped with the relevant skills to get a decent job when they join the workforce. It is also true that low skilled workers can get ahead if they were to upgrade their skills and to attend retraining. But those that could should upgrade their skills to stay relevant in the new economy. However, we must be aware that there will be a small number who would, if only they could. Our policy makers must realise that there will always be those who, despite their best efforts, will not be able to keep up with the best, or the rest. Some may not have the literacy and numeracy skills, or the intellectual ability, to upgrade themselves. Singaporeans are to bond as a cohesive society, the low income, the less able and the disabled should never be made to feel disenfranchised and neglected. As the Finance Minister so aptly put across in his Budget Statement when he stated that, at the end of the day, we have to ensure that every Singaporean has a place in the Singapore of the new millennium. Sir, the number of public assistance cases, although comparatively small, is beginning to show a gradual upward trend over the last two years. Even though the criteria that qualify for public assistance have not been made any less stringent, are more Singaporeans falling into poverty amidst our apparent prosperity? Could the Minister explain the cause of this disturbing trend? We must also find ways to create adequate social safety nets for these people, but in a manner that would not destroy the sense of self-worth, or the incentive for them to give out their best however humble that may be. Could the Minister tell the House what measures and strategies MCDS has adopted to assist low income families to cope with the rapid changes taking place in the economy and to improve the situation? Sir, children from low income households who do not have a strong family support home environment benefit the most from attending good childcare and before-and-after-school care centres. Unfortunately, many low income families may not be able to afford to send their children to childcare or before-and-after-school care centres. Would the Minister therefore consider introducing schemes to make it more affordable for these families to send their children to good childcare and before-and-after-school centres? We should also institute measures that will make it easier for the more successful to assist the less fortunate in order to enhance social cohesion. For example, the CPF top-ups are automatically credited into the accounts of the eligible Singaporeans, regardless of whether they need or want the money. I therefore support the suggestion by Dr Jennifer Lee that eligible recipients of CPF top-ups should be required to submit applications for their entitlements. Those who are better off and who want to help the less fortunate should be permitted to have their entitlements channelled to the CDCs in order to help the poor in the community. Would the Minister support such a measure to make it easier for more able Singaporeans to assist the less able?

Sir, I share the viewpoints expressed by Mr Charles Chong. With the restructuring of the economy, low-income families with semi-skilled and unskilled backgrounds are more likely to be affected and they will also face economic setbacks. The unemployment rate has increased, more older-person households have been affected and they are the ones who are likely to face various difficulties. It can be seen that low-income families with dependent children are, particularly, the ones having low skills and unskilled backgrounds, and are most vulnerable to problems. 4.45 pm Sir, in view of this situation, it is important that the Ministry takes a more pro-active step by taking a comprehensive review of various issues that are likely to affect the low-income families. By doing so, the Ministry would be able to come up with a more comprehensive plan to deal with the problems of these vulnerable families, in the light of various economic restructuring and changes that are likely to take place. I would like to ask the Minister what new plans and programmes the Ministry will put in place to particularly help low-income families.

Sir, even as we find many positive things to note in our economic progress and achievements in Singapore, we are also very aware that the bottom 10%-20% of our households has seen the average income stagnate even as the cost of living continues to rise. I would like to touch on two issues in extending a helping hand to such families in need. Firstly, while we know that we have good social safety nets and many assistance schemes in place, it is often the case that those people who are most in need of help are the ones who least know how to access it. Last Saturday, Dr Tan Cheng Bock spoke of the need for people to be aware of how to access the healthcare system appropriately, so that they can have maximum benefit of the available subsidised services. I would, therefore, like to propose to MCDS that it conduct an educational programme to provide comprehensive but easy-to-understand information targeted at the lower-income households, to inform this target group of the various subsidised services provided by the Government and how to access these services, through channels that will allow them the best benefit of the available subsidies, and of the variety of assistance schemes available and how to go about applying for them. In reaching out to needy families on a case-by-case basis, especially the lesser educated and the isolated, it is obviously very difficult to be sure that no one who needs help is missed. In this context, the passing over of the disbursement of subsidies, fees and other assistance, and community-based facilities from MCDS to the CDCs, is a good move, as the latter should be able to be more focused on residents in their jurisdiction who need a hand, and be able to reach out more extensively to them. This is a heavy responsibility for the CDCs, and it is imperative that they gear up to discharge it well. The second issue is flexibility in implementing assistance schemes. We understand that regulations and guidelines for various assistance schemes may have been drawn in ways to attempt to control or minimise the possibility of abuse. However, there are often people in need who may not fit into pre-determined criteria, or may be genuinely hard-luck cases. It is therefore important that officers in charge of implementing assistance schemes have the flexibility to exercise judgement in cases of genuine need. Only in this way can we truly say that any one who needs a helping hand in Singapore can be assured of getting it.

Sir, recent data from Census 2000 indicated that 8.7% of the total resident households are households with no income earners, up from 7.5%. But translated into absolute numbers, that is a total of 80,000 households, which is not a small number. The statistics also show that the average monthly household income for the lowest 10% of families was a startling $61 per month. Sir, these figures do not represent the true picture, as the Chief Statistician himself admitted that the figures were misleading. Firstly, it is actually impossible for the lowest 10% to have an income of only $61, unless they are not aware of the public assistance scheme or, for various reasons, do not qualify for public assistance. Anyone with such low income would have qualified for public assistance, which gives a minimum of $230 per month. Secondly, also as indicated by the Chief Statistician, the figures, for those without income, include retirees with savings, stocks, working children who support them, and some who own landed properties. Sir, could MCDS help to normalise these data, using the retiree factor, so that we can have a more accurate picture? What I would like to know is the actual number of the really poor no-income families. For those families, how do they survive? Is public assistance able to help them? How does MCDS tackle the income inequality of these households? How do we make sure that children from these no-income families can get a decent education?

Sir, I note that the amount of money we give to needy families is a subject of review from time to time. However, with the changing demands and requirements of the people, the categories, by which we use to assess what is adequate for families, may well have to change. I would like to ask the Minister whether in the light of the changing needs of Singaporeans today, and taking into account the higher cost of living, the assistance given to needy families properly reflects these changes. Secondly, I would also like to know whether our means test should be reviewed, in the light of the fact that the cost of living is now higher in Singapore and the general wage level has gone up. Thirdly, is the Ministry working closely with the Ministry of Manpower to work on the prospect of employability for those who are on public assistance?

Sir, the increase in the number of dual-career families would pose problems for the care of the elderly who are frail, because this will become a tremendous burden in terms of care by such families. About 82% of our households are one-family nuclear families. It is therefore expected that many of these families will be facing tremendous stress in having to care for the elderly who are frail. Sir, there is a need to review what comprehensive support network will be available to these families. It is very important that we develop as quickly as possible some support system within the neighbourhood or the locality where there are more elderly persons living, to provide support for such families. I would like to ask the Minister what comprehensive plans are there to provide programmes at the neighbourhood level to support families which have frail elderly.

Sir, with a rapidly aging population, there is a need for a comprehensive infrastructure for eldercare. Currently, most of the eldercare facilities and programmes are operated by VWOs. My questions are: Are the current eldercare facilities sufficient? What measures will be taken to improve the quantity and quality of elderly care? What role can the private sector play in caring for the senior citizens? What incentives do we put in place to encourage the involvement of the private sector in developing an eldercare service industry? Eldercare, by nature of its work, is very labour intensive. Currently, there is a great dependency on volunteers and befrienders. But many of these volunteers and befrienders are themselves aging. Efforts will need to be made to develop a sufficient number of suitable care-givers for the aged. What measures will be taken to ensure that there will be sufficient human resources to take care of the aged? Sir, the majority of our elderly population is healthy and is a valuable resource to our nation. There should be as many opportunities as possible for them to remain engaged in society, and to continue their contribution to it. One problem, Sir, is the mindset of employers. While retraining will help to a certain extent, however, not all jobs are suitable for the elderly. Many jobs would need to be re-engineered to make them suitable for the elderly to perform. What measures will be taken to encourage and help organisations re-engineer some of their jobs, to make them suitable for the older people in our community?

Sir, I thank Members for speaking up for our low-income families, as this is another subject which is actually very close to my Ministry's heart. Many Members, including Mr Charles Chong, Dr Vasoo, Dr Jennifer Lee, Dr Ho Tat Kin and Mr Sin Boon Ann, have expressed concern about the growing income divide and the needs of the low-income families in Singapore. We, at MCDS, empathise with this concern. Our approach has always been to facilitate self-reliance among Singaporeans, including the lower-income, by helping them to develop skills and the capability to help themselves because, usually, this is the best way to help the low-income families. As the saying goes, if we give someone fish to eat, it would only make him full for a day, but if we teach him to fish, he would have food for a lifetime. At the same time we promote the "Many Helping Hands" approach, where the more successful help those who are less fortunate, a point mentioned by some Members. But the transition to the new economy has brought the issue of helping low-income families into sharper focus. We hear that there are more and more families not being able to cope, and that there is a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. But I agree with Dr Ho Tat Kin when he says that the data, which we have, do not really show the actual extent of the problem among the low-income in Singapore. My officers will certainly work with the Department of Statistics to refine the data on retiree and low-income households, so that we get accurate data. With accurate data, we will be able to assist low-income families more effectively. The Government recognises that the less educated workers, especially older employees, are very vulnerable to retrenchment and slower re-employment. The recent economic downturn shows this very starkly. Dr Vasoo spoke at length about this problem. These people need to keep their skills relevant through continuous learning and upgrading, and helping them to remain employable is a priority of my Ministry. The Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will help the lower skilled by subsidising relevant skills programmes. My Ministry will complement these efforts by enhancing the social safety net for families in difficulty. Indeed, a range of resources for social assistance has been built up over the years and, together with the private and people sectors, we will do more. Those in need of long-term financial assistance can turn to Public Assistance (PA). PA recipients not only get financial assistance, but they get other assistance too. This is, I think, something which a lot of people do not know. For example, PA recipients get free medical attention at the polyclinics, and many charities also, over and above the PA amounts, regularly provide them with assistance, either in cash or in kind. My Ministry regularly reviews the various schemes to align them with the needs of the recipients. In January this year, we increased the PA rates by between 15% and 32%, and we will continue to review this according to the cost and standard of living. However, the churn and uncertainties of the new economy mean that there is an increasing need for short-term financial assistance, to help families tide over difficult periods, either due to retrenchment, illness or slower re-employment. To meet this need, we will merge two charitable funds that we have now, ie, the 25th Anniversary Endowment Fund and the Silver Jubilee (Singapore) Fund, into a new endowment fund called the Community Assistance Fund (CAF). The Government will inject a further $200 million into the Community Assistance Fund on 1st April this year. The interest from the CAF will fund various short-term assistance schemes, such as the Rental and Utilities Assistance Scheme (RUAS), the Centre-based Financial Assistance for Childcare and Back-to-Work Childcare Schemes, and the Short-term (Interim) Financial Assistance Scheme. These schemes would provide short term financial assistance in the community. 5.00 pm Apart from financial assistance, social workers from family service centres will work with needy families to help them address related social problems and acquire the life-skills needed for them to stand on their own feet. Providing educational and developmental opportunities to children from low income families is another critical strategy in breaking the poverty cycle. School-going children already receive various forms of assistance from the Ministry of Education. There is also a range of free tuition programmes run by self-help groups and other charitable organisations. No child in Singapore, I repeat, no child in Singapore, is deprived of an education for reasons of poverty. Many studies show that quality childhood programmes can help improve the development and functional achievements of children, especially those from disadvantaged families. Therefore, my Ministry will help ensure affordable childcare services for low income families. At the same time, this allows their mothers to work, and therefore, also boost their family income. We currently have two specific financial assistance schemes to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds. One is the Centre-based Financial Assistance for Childcare (CFAC). The second is the Back-to-Work Childcare Scheme. The CFAC helps subsidise childcare fees of children from low-income families by between $50-$200 a month, while the Back-to-Work scheme gives a one-time grant to pay for the costs of entering childcare, such as fee deposits, registration fees and uniforms. From 1st April this year, MCDS will step up the subsidy levels of the CFAC to between $150-$230 a month for the first two children of low income families. Together with the universal childcare subsidy of $150 and funds from the Children Development Co-savings (or Baby Bonus) Scheme, which will be having the Second and Third readings soon, low-income families will not need to pay more than 5%-25% of childcare fees for the first two children. Dr Jennifer Lee has pointed out that part of the effective delivery of social services is to ensure that people know where to get help when they need it. We agree. Often enough, our experience has been that the very people who need the help are the most difficult people to reach and certainly we will look at ways to try to reach them better. The pilot scheme to delegate the administration of financial assistance schemes from MCDS and the National Council of Social Services to the Marine Parade and Tanjong Pagar Community Development Councils (CDCs) has proven very beneficial. CDCs, as you know, are closer to the ground and they are able to exercise more flexibility and speed in advising and responding to the needs of their constituents because they know what their constituents want, they know the situation and the conditions of those living in the district. From 1st April this year, we will delegate all financial assistance schemes to the remaining CDCs. Sir, let me thank Dr Vasoo and Dr Ho Tat Kin for their interest on eldercare issues. I would like to provide a consolidated reply to both of them. But allow me first to report generally on the implementation of the recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on the Ageing Population (IMC for the Aged). Progress made on the implementation of the 78 IMC recommendations has been good. Overall, about 75% of the recommendations have seen significant progress in implementation. In the area of providing community-based services, MCDS recently announced its new $93 million 5-year Eldercare Masterplan for FY2001-FY2005. The formulation of the plan was guided by two key policy considerations. One, the emphasis on the social integration of our senior citizens. Older people should age gracefully in the community, and continue to be valued as contributing members of society, and there are programmes under the plan to engage our healthy elderly. Second, the family will continue to be the first line of support in the care of our aged. My Ministry, together with the Ministry of Health, will ensure that more attention and support will be given to care-givers, in the form of services, information and training. We will seek to provide integrated, accessible and affordable services to the elderly and their care-givers. Sir, the care of our aged requires a coordinated and concerted effort of the Government, as well as all sectors of our society - the people and private sectors, the elderly themselves and their families. My Ministry will continue to help the VWOs set up eldercare facilities through acquiring suitable premises and providing capital funding for new facilities. We provide clear guidelines to VWOs on the provision of these services. More significantly, from 1st April 2001, we will revise the funding framework to lighten the VWOs' burden of fund raising. My Ministry is currently studying two key measures to encourage and facilitate the entry of private operators into the eldercare sector. First, we will be building purpose-built facilities for subsidised rental to eldercare providers, or to private operators, at market rates. Second, we will fund the majority of eldercare services on per capita basis. We envisage moving eventually to a means-tested user-subsidy system where an elderly can receive a subsidy, regardless of which service provider he or she goes to. We will ensure that the number of facilities planned is sufficient to meet the demand. The needs of the various groups of elderly will be assessed regularly and we will adjust the supply of services accordingly. Where possible, the facilities for eldercare services will be co-located in multi-service centres, together with services for other age groups such as childcare centres. This will promote inter-generational interaction and convenience for the public. My Ministry, together with NCSS, has developed a programme evaluation system to evaluate programmes and services based on a set of output and outcome indicators. This, we hope, will help raise the standards in the eldercare sector. Dr Ho pointed out that it is important to make available adequately-trained manpower. We will work with NCSS and the service providers to identify the training needs of the eldercare industry. We plan to work with the educational institutions such as the polytechnics and ITEs to develop suitable training modules for new entrants to this field. An important human resource is our elderly volunteers themselves. Over the next five years, we will expand the avenues available for our seniors to contribute their time, energy and experience. Resources will be given to promote an active volunteer movement and mutual help among our seniors. My Ministry will also work with NCSS to look into measures to better support and sustain the interests of these volunteers. Dr Ho Tat Kin mentioned the issue of employment for older people. Sir, the continual employment of our senior workers remains a key challenge to the Government. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Manpower to help older workers. I am pleased to inform the House that the first Golden Manpower Centre is being piloted at the Central Singapore CDC. The Centre sources for employment opportunities for those more than 55 years old at the community level, and works towards changing mindsets of employers, vis-a-vis, the employment of older people. It also links up with training facilities to source for appropriate training opportunities for people who register with them. If the GMC pilot is successful, we will certainly look into the feasibility of extending the concept more widely in Singapore. Sir, we will continue to monitor the need for community-based services for the elderly. My Ministry will also continue to follow-up with the implementing agencies on the recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for the Aged.

Sir, point of clarification. I had earlier asked the Minister on the criteria in which Public Assistance is given to needy families. The underlying principle in respect of extending Public Assistance to needy families is one of basic necessity. I have made the point earlier that the definition of basic necessity may change over time. Is the acquisition of IT equipment, IT lessons, music lessons or dance lessons a luxury or a basic necessity? Parents these days would want to enrich their children's lives as much as possible. Is it unreasonable for a family from a lower income group to want to extend these benefits to their children? Can they rely on Public Assistance to help their children attain these skill sets?

Sir, it is reasonable for us not to include activities like music lessons, ballet lessons or IT lessons to recipients of Public Assistance. After all, the very concept of the assistance itself is to help the destitute, ie, those who are unable to get an income. It would not be right for us to go into supporting or financing activities like IT lessons, dance lessons or music lessons for such families. If children of such families go to school, and if these are provided in the school, the school will definitely be helping the children from such families to attend these lessons and activities.

Sir, I recall asking the Minister to comment on the rising trend of PA cases. I do not recall hearing a response.

Mr Charles Chong did ask that question. I will give him some statistics on the cases approved. In 1998, we approved 2,246 cases; in 1999, we approved 2,295, and last year, we approved 2,603. The possible cause of this is the economic recession when more members supporting the aged dependants find it difficult to do so, especially during this period. The ageing population is also a factor in explaining this rise in the number of people who have asked for PA and we will monitor the numbers. As I mentioned earlier, we review the amounts we give to our PA recipients and we adjust them according to the cost of living as appropriate at the moment.

(In Mandarin): Sir, MCDS is currently actively encouraging Singaporeans to have more babies. The Prime Minister also announced the baby bonus to encourage young couples to have second and third babies. In my dialogue with the people, I found out why they did not want to have babies. One of the questions asked was, "Who is going to look after my baby?" Apart from help from the extended family or hiring a maid, the provision of childcare services is the best solution. I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what is the projected number of childcare centres which will be needed in the next three years? Is there any plan to build new childcare centres? Second, will the Ministry set up childcare centres in community centres in the constituency? In my constituency, childcare centres are sited in the community centres. This will make it more convenient to the young couples. Third, will the Ministry consider setting up infant centres for babies between the ages of 18 months and two years? If not, why not? 5.15 pm Sir, the traditional style of weddings seems to be out of fashion among the young couples nowadays. Instead, we have various packages to attract the young people. Young people think that getting married entails a lot of trouble and expenses. They have to give dinners in a big ballroom in a hotel. Friends have told me that young people nowadays do not want to get married, because of the high expenses. Recently, there was an English friend who came to Singapore. He told me that there are many single persons and unmarried mothers in England today. I hope this will not happen in Singapore. Therefore, I would urge our young people to get married before they have babies. Sir, I would like to make the following suggestions in order to encourage young couples to get married. They need not spend a lot of money in planning for their weddings. I hope MCDS will conduct mass weddings for the young couples. This is quite popular in Taiwan and China. We can conduct mass weddings during Valentine's Day, June and August, and also arrange for honeymoon cruise tours for these young couples, with MCDS footing part of the bill. After they are married, and if they have babies during the first two years, the Government should give them a special ang pow of $888. In this way, this will encourage them to have second and third babies. We should also encourage Government departments and the private sector to grant one week's paid leave to the husband in order to keep the wife company during her post-natal confinement. HDB could also hasten the process of allocating the flats they applied for. Newly-wed couples normally do not have much money. Therefore, HDB should reduce the quantum of deposit to 10%, and payable in two equal instalments of 5% each, and the rest can be repayable in 25-30 years. Therefore, encouraging young couples to get married should not be the responsibility of MCDS alone. It should be the joint responsibility of the Ministries of National Development, Manpower, Education and so on. We should have an Inter-Ministerial committee to work on how to encourage young people to get married. Another problem is this. I have not been to the Registry of Marriages (ROM) for the last 20 years. Recently, MCDS arranged for members of the GPC to visit the ROM. I found the building to be very old and very crowded, and there is a lack of romantic atmosphere in the building. Our HDB flats have been upgraded and many Government buildings have been upgraded. Our Parliament House has also been rebuilt. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a plan to build a new Registry of Marriages, to provide more space, more romantic surroundings, so that our young couples can invite their friends and relatives there to share the most memorable moment in their lives with them.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I feel that if we were to give a wedding ang pow, it should not be just $888 but $999. In Chinese, the figure "9" depicts eternity. New technology and the widespread use of IT has changed the way we work, and has tremendously increased the pace of work. At the same time, intense competition has compelled companies to reduce cost, by maintaining a leaner workforce and thus increasing the workload of the existing employees. The worst is that, with all these changes taking place at work and because of our ageing population, all these people who work very hard in their office will have to take on the additional responsibility of taking care of their elderly folks and raising young children as well. In other words, all our working people will have to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to cope with all these changes. More importantly, there must be more willingness on the part of the employers to explore initiatives such as flexible work arrangements and adopt pro-family work practices. For example, there is a necessity for our employers to extend childcare sick leave to the male employees to look after their children who are sick. The Government, on its part, should consider innovative ways to provide incentives and motivate companies to adopt such pro-family practices. While we should not try to legislate for pro-family practices at the workplace, we should examine the existing laws to see whether there is any provision therein that would encourage our companies to provide such pro-family practices. I hope that MCDS would encourage the media to support and give more publicity on pro-family practices, to create better awareness of such practices. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, besides the Family Friendly Firm Award, what measures would the Ministry consider to effectively encourage more companies in the private sector to implement work options and pro-family practices.

Sir, it is great to hear Mr Ang and Mr Yeo speak in support of the family. For today, I would like to focus just on one subject, one that is of great concern to families with young children, which is childcare or child-minding arrangements. Dr Vasoo also earlier spoke of helping to facilitate young couples live close to their parents in HDB estates, and that is one aspect of it, because the assistance of grandparents in supervising childcare is one possible solution. On childcare centres, many families are already sending their kids to childcare centres. I think the acceptance level has increased a lot over the years. And, increasingly, there is also an added demand for infant care cases, and this is a need that should be addressed. But number of centres and places aside, the fees that you have to pay for child and infant care can take a significant bite out of the average family's income, particularly if you have more than one child. So the ability to use baby bonus dollars towards fees will certainly be most helpful. Apart from institutional care, however, there are also less structured child minding arrangements that already exist, to some extent, in the community. Some families foster out the kids during the weekdays to bring them home on weekends. In addition, suggestions have been raised on developing neighbourhood baby sitting networks, which can do child-minding on a daily basis. If these can be organised, it will not only be helpful for working parents, it would also bring income to a group of women who would otherwise be unemployed. Payment for these services would also surely be a legitimate use of the baby bonus account. If we can put all of these things together and help with the fees that parents will have to bear, they will surely give families the wider range of childcare and child-minding options possible, so that they can come to arrangements that will best suit their circumstances.

Sir, I would like to thank Members for their concern on family issues. We all know that strong and stable families are important for social cohesion and nation building. To help nurture such families, the Government, together with the people sector, had been providing resources, promoting family values, sharing knowledge and skills for family life, and giving support services. Sir, let me explain, first, providing resources. Many families struggle with the lack of two critical resources - time and money. Many parents say that they face the "time bind". This is very true in a new economy where we are expected to work longer and faster, and upgrade continuously. To help such families, my Ministry has set up the Work-Life Unit last September to promote family-friendly practices in the workplace. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has asked about the measures that my Ministry is considering to promote family-friendly work practices. We have made quite substantial progress. MCDS and the Ministry of Manpower, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers' Federation have formed a Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy. It sets directions and promotes pro-family practice at the workplace. The Ministry of Manpower is reviewing the Employment Act which, among other things, will also examine the existing legislation to ensure that it will not impede the implementation of family-friendly practices that would be adopted for family-friendly practices in the company. So far, MCDS has conducted 17 sharing and training sessions on work-life strategies to more than 2,000 employers and human resource practitioners. We will continue to do this. We have also leveraged on family-friendly champions to help persuade employers that it is in their business' interest to help their employees find ways to manage the "time bind". For instance, the Nominated Member, Dr Jennifer Lee, is also a champion in this area. If employees cannot manage their work and family commitments well, they cannot be productive at the workplace. My Ministry and the Public Education Committee on the Family, which I am chairing, are already working closely with the community and the media to generate publicity on work-life issues. We will continue to work with the media. For example, we have an excellent partnership with the Straits Times on a regular 24 x 7 Life column every Tuesday. With the multi-pronged approach that we are taking, employers will progressively buy the need to create a family-friendly work culture. So far, NTUC has been supportive in promoting family life. I urge Mr Yeo Guat Kwang to join us in this call to create family-friendly workplaces. Next, let me explain what my Ministry is doing to inculcate values. We seek to work in partnership with the people and community to promote family values, especially amongst our young. The Public Education Committee on the Family (PEC) has a special focus on getting our young people to marry and have more children. We are very pleased that the people sector has stepped forward to help address common concerns. We thank the Workgroup Chairman and members for working so hard, as well as the media and members of the public for their enthusiastic support. Let me emphasise that decisions on marriage, procreation and the family are private matters of the individual. Ultimately, we must want to marry and have children simply because we want to. We must also be realistic and be prepared for the responsibilities and the commitment involved in keeping a marriage fulfilling and in raising a child well. In the last six months, the PEC has been actively reviewing how we can strengthen the Singapore family. We will finalise our recommendations by July this year. 5.30 pm I now come to my third point, that is, sharing knowledge and skills of family life. Public education is not just about influencing values and attitudes. It is also about sharing tips on how to live our roles as couples and parents. We will explore innovative ways to reach various target groups, for example, developing an interactive family life website, developing more real life stories on TV, radio and media, bringing mobile kits to workplaces, etc. In October last year, MCDS launched the Family Life Ambassador (FLA) programme to build resources in the community. The FLA programme is a partnership of individuals, civic groups, schools, businesses, Government and private organisations to promote and implement family life education programme. It aims to make family life education more accessible and convenient to everyone. Since October last year, we have appointed 227 family life ambassadors. These FLAs have been organising events, talks, seminars as well as distributing family life education materials. We will be appointing another batch of FLAs during the National Family Week in May this year. Now, let me come to my fourth point - giving support services. Sir, as I have mentioned earlier, building a total social environment conducive to raising a family is an important goal of my Ministry. A key programme is to have good quality childcare centres which are accessible. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked about the demand and supply of childcare places. Enrolment in childcare centres has increased from 33,000 to 35,200 over the last three years. With the trend towards dual income families and the injection of fund from the baby bonus into the early childhood industry, MCDS forecasts that the demand for places in childcare centres will increase. My Ministry pledged in August last year to increase the number of childcare places by 25%, from 46,000 to 58,000 over the next three years. We have already seen an increase of 28 new centres in the last six months providing nearly 2,400 more places. We expect to see 60 new centres by end of FY2001. For FY2002 and 2003, we expect to develop another 50 centres a year. This should increase the number of childcare centre places to our 58,000 target by FY2003. My Ministry has delegated social service functions to the Community Development Councils or CDCs. Mr Ang mentioned about setting up childcare centres in community clubs. CDCs are in the best position to decide on the location of childcare centres and how these centres best serve the needs of the local community. I would like to assure Members that the increase in the number of childcare places would not be at the expense of quality. MCDS has also put in place a new licensing instrument for childcare centres to improve their quality. The criteria of assessment of centres are transparent, holistic and comprehensive. Centres find it useful in their preparation for licence renewal and in maintaining quality childcare programme. Under the new Joint Teacher and Accreditation Framework introduced together with MOE recently, all pre-school teachers and supervisors will be required to be trained in the Certificate in Pre-School Teaching and the Diploma in Leadership respectively. Currently, 82% of the teachers meet the training requirement. By the year 2004, MCDS requires all supervisors and at least one teacher in a centre to be Diploma trained. I am happy to report that reception by the childcare industry has been positive. This will further raise the quality of pre-school education in Singapore. Mr Ang, as well as Dr Jennifer Lee, has asked about the setting up of infant care centres. We have reviewed the licensing requirements to facilitate the setting up of such centres. There are currently seven centres providing infant care service. Although it is generally believed that home care is best for infants for bonding between parents and child, MCDS will facilitate the provision of this service if suitable operators wish to set up infant care centres. Dr Jennifer Lee asked about the promotion of a formal care arrangement. Family-based care for infants is an option once used by parents who prefer closer attention and supervision of their children. CDCs are already providing such a service for their residents. We can help to promote this further through registration and matching of users and caregivers at the local level. We are looking into some basic training for caregivers. But we should allow this informal service to grow without too much regulation. As for subsidy, they should go to the end-user and not the care provider. Part of the baby bonus scheme will be given as direct cash grant and may be used to cover such expenses. Mr Ang Mong Seng has made a number of proposals to promote marriages and procreation. With regard to organising a group wedding package, Mr Ang may be pleased to know that MCDS and People's Association are supporting an effort by Times Periodicals of Singapore Press Holdings to organise a Mass Wedding 2001 in September this year. I hope he can encourage more couples to join in this wedding. There is no necessity for the Government to organise mass wedding or honeymoon packages. The private sector and community will be in a better position to promote such programmes. As some wedding expenses are optional, we will continue to encourage couples, through public education, to spend on what is necessary to go for the marriage of their lifetime and not wedding of the year. Mr Ang also suggested that we should look into the development of a new ROM. Mr Ang would be pleased to know that we are actively looking into new premises for the Registry of Marriages and the Registry of Muslim Marriages. Apart from a conducive garden setting befitting such an important occasion, we also make sure that we will try to be romantic as possible. Our concept is also to co-locate a resource centre for the family. As for couples who want a flat early so that their wedding plans could proceed earlier, Mr Ang is requested to refer such couples to HDB. Mr Ang has proposed lowering the downpayment for new flats. MAS has set the mortgage financing limit at 80% of the purchase price or valuation of the property, whichever is lower. This limit is for financial prudence and to discourage couples from buying a flat bigger than their needs or means. To further assist young couples, HDB has allowed those buying a new 4-room flat to pay the downpayment through staggered downpayment scheme. The couple need only pay a 10% downpayment upon signing the agreement for lease. The remaining 10% will have to be paid only when they are called to collect the keys to the flat which may be one to two years later. Thus, there is no need to lower the downpayment for now. Mr Ang has also suggested giving incentives to couples having their first child within the first two years of marriage. According to feedback, we learn that generally our young couples can manage financially for the first child. After their second or third child, they may have a bit of problem. The baby bonus however would help these couples with their second and third child. Mr Ang has recommended giving one week's paternity leave to fathers. He would be pleased to know that since last October, male civil servants are eligible for three days' paternity leave. Many private sector companies already provide paternity leave or even sick leave for the parents to help their children. We hope the rest would follow suit. Sir, the future for the family in Singapore is both challenging and exciting. Challenging because tension brought about by modern living could place a strain on family life. Exciting because my Ministry has built a strong partnership with both the private and people sectors, and together we are putting in place many services and programmes that will make Singapore one of the best places to raise a family.

Sir, the disabled and the elderly are an integral part of our society. They do not need our sympathy. They only need our understanding and consideration. I have four suggestions for the Minister: (1) For many disabled people and the elderly, especially those who have severe physical disabilities, engaging a foreign maid is something they could not do without. The maids help in the activities of daily living, such as bathing, toileting, cooking, feeding and movement. Most of these severely disabled are usually unemployed and are dependent on their family members for financial support. However, the cost of employing and maintaining a maid is very high and is unaffordable to many deserving cases. Therefore, I hope MCDS will coordinate with the Ministry of Manpower to consider waiving or reducing the foreign worker levy for maids employed by this group of people. It may not be an across-the-board waiver or reduction, but on a case-by-case basis. To minimise any abuses and that only deserving cases enjoy such privileges, a certified assessment by a qualified medical practitioner or a therapist must be made. (2) Disabled citizens spend a substantial amount of their income on medical fees, transport expenses, mobility aids, like wheelchair, calipers, etc. Currently, the handicapped earned income relief for a disabled taxpayer of below 55 years is $2,000. I propose for consideration that the earned income relief be increased to $4,000 for disabled taxpayers below 55 years. Similarly, I would like to propose for consideration that the handicapped dependent spouse relief, handicapped child relief and handicapped brother and sister relief be increased from $3,500 to $5,000. This is on the same rate as the aged parent relief. Financially, there is not much difference in supporting a handicapped person or an aged parent. Therefore, it makes sense to adopt a uniform rate applicable to both reliefs. I would like to ask MCDS to study the above suggestion with the Ministry of Finance. (3) With the recent announcement by the Government to upgrade all food centres and markets throughout the island, may I suggest that provision be made to ensure that all upgraded facilities be made family-friendly and accessible to the disabled, the elderly and babies in prams. Besides providing toilets with facilities for the handicapped, there should be gentle ramps and gradients for the less mobile patrons. The spaces between the fixed tables and stools should be wide enough to allow children in prams and wheelchair users to sit closer to the table. Currently, the fixed tables and stools of many food centres are located so close to one another that it is impossible or difficult for children in prams and wheelchair users to manoeuvre through. I request MCDS to study this suggestion with MND to make the upgraded food centres more user-friendly to the disabled. (4) I have seen disabled people in wheelchairs playing a form of football, mountain climbing, and I have even seen a one-legged skier. With the current emphasis on Sports for Life for all Singaporeans, it is imperative that the needs of the disabled and the elderly for sporting activities are not marginalised. I think it is important that adequate accessibility provisions must be made in all public sports facilities, so that people with disabilities and the elderly can participate and/or patronise these areas. This would enable them to keep themselves fit and healthy. If we incorporate such features during the planning stage, it would certainly be less costlier than to revamp or renovate them at a later stage.

Sir, I am speaking to the Minister in his capacity as Minister in-charge-of Muslim Affairs. It is a bit odd to be speaking just after Mr Goh Chong Chia who spoke about the disabled. Sir, first, let me compliment the Minister and the Malay-Muslim MPs for taking this initiative to want to lead the Malay-Muslim community to face new challenges in the KBE era. My view is that the Malay-Muslims now face a challenge far larger than they have ever faced before. This requires three very important things. (1) It requires enormous financial resources which as a minority community we are very short of; (2) A major change of mindset, one that focuses on the future, one that focuses on new challenges and opportunities; (3) We need structural and organisational changes within the Malay-Muslim community. This is where I want to focus some of my thoughts today. We have seen how, through the mosque building fund, the Malay community has been able to raise huge mosques which resulted in all kinds of activities, not only religious but social and educational activities in mosques. It has brought about a wealth of infrastructure for the Malay-Muslim community that we should all be proud of. But this came about because of the resources that are behind it. Secondly, we have seen how the establishment of the AMP and Mendaki resulted in an entire upliftment of the educational achievement of the Malay-Muslim community. And something else that is far more important is that the Malay-Muslims now realise education is the primary and most important factor that will bring them forward. But when we look at the challenges in the future, like I said, this is a far larger challenge that we have seen, even far larger than mosque building fund, or setting up Mendaki and AMP. This is where I hope the Minister will consider looking into ways in which the entire Malay-Muslim community could be restructured in a way so that they provide some organisational capability to make sure that whatever programmes and schemes that you are going to introduce can be better executed. By this, I mean two things. One, perhaps as much as possible, a lot of programmes should be done in tandem and in association with the national programmes which have already infrastructure and organisational capability. It is also part of, what we have talked about the last few days - integration. I hope this must be the main thrust in the way we go forward. Secondly, there is also a problem of duplication and competition amongst the Malay-Muslim organisations. Already we are short of resources and if we carry on to duplicate having different people competing with the kind of programmes that they have, we are not going to achieve our objectives. Other than these two things, I hope the Minister could also enlighten me and the House, ever since the convention and the publication of the report, what other resources and support is the Government prepared to help in these initiatives. I certainly look forward to a better enlightened response from the Government to make sure that the Malay-Muslim community is prepared to take on this enormous challenge.

Sir, the Singapore 21 Report acts as a very important pillar, the idea of active citizenry. To this end, last year, the Prime Minister in July opened the National Volunteer Centre. And in his opening speech, he mentioned that 74% of those who have not volunteered for community work cited work and family commitments as their main reason for not volunteering. Also mentioned in the speech was that less than 10% of Singaporeans are volunteers, as compared to 25% in Japan and over 50% in the United States. Sir, this problem has to be tackled quite seriously if active citizenry is going to be an important concept in Singapore 21. And we should be targeting the young working population - and if we do that, then obviously the key is in the companies they are working for. And the question is how public spirited are the companies or the corporate sector. The idea of corporate social responsibility has at least three elements. The first is, of course, straightforward philanthropy, that is for financial support for community projects. Many companies do support this. The second element is to allow their workers, employees to have time off to do charitable or community work, to be involved in the community. But the third element, the element that I do not see much of, is to take into account the social work that is done by employees in actually assessing the quality of their employees for the purposes of promotion or upgrading in salaries, and so on. These are very important concepts that have to be taken into account. I would like to ask whether MCDS has actually taken steps to involve the corporate sector to increase the social responsibility of the corporate sector in the building up of an active citizenry. Has there been an improvement, for example, in the number of volunteers in Singapore and, particularly, has there been an improvement in the number of young workers in the volunteer movement in Singapore?

Sir, I would like to thank Members for their contributions. Let me first address Mr Goh Chong Chia's question on the help that he thinks the disabled and the elderly will need. Sir, I would agree with him that the disabled and the elderly are integral members of the community. We should not make it difficult for them to live within the community because that is what we want them to do. He has called for more help for families with disabled dependants. Sir, my Ministry works with the various VWOs to set up social services and programmes to help persons with disabilities to integrate with the community and support families in their care responsibilities. MCDS and NCSS in fact heavily subsidise the services which range from day care activity centres to residential homes providing both respite and long-term care. A family with elderly dependants can also turn to equivalent facilities, such as day care centres, respite care services and home care services, also funded by MCDS and the National Council of Social Service. From 1st April this year, lower income families using elderly day care centres will enjoy sliding scale subsidies. Sir, families maintaining their parents or disabled dependants are being helped with tax reliefs already. The savings from the tax reliefs, for example, $5,000 for each elderly dependant, $3,500 for each disabled dependant living with them and $3,500 for each elderly dependant not living with them, could partially offset the cost of employing foreign domestic maids or workers to be used to purchase other care services of professional care givers. With regard to whether tax reliefs could be increased or not, this would have to depend on the Ministry of Finance. Mr Goh has also asked that maids be made more accessible to encourage marriage and procreation. Sir, engaging foreign domestic maids, whether to look after children or to look after the disabled or the elderly, has been an issue which has been recurring. But it is just one of several care giving options for family relief. With regard to barrier-free accessibility, I understand that the Ministry of National Development is currently updating the code on barrier-free accessibility in buildings. This we feel will ensure that buildings and public facilities, such as hawker centres mentioned by Mr Goh, would be accessible not only to physically disabled, but also to the elderly, to mothers with wheelchairs, pregnant mothers, etc. MND will continue to look further into this area and see whether it could make this area more accessible to these members of the community. I also agree with Mr Goh that sports should also be for the disabled, just as it is for the able. There is already a separate organisation, I am not too sure whether Mr Goh knows about it, but there is the Singapore Sports Council for the Disabled (SSCD) which looks precisely after the sporting activities and interests of persons with disabilities. In FY 2000, for example, the SSCD received $95,000 as funding support from the Singapore Sports Council. We will certainly be looking into more ways to help the disabled with their sporting activities and also to help them to go into more sports. Under the code for barrier-free access, it is also now a standard equipment or requirement that all new sports facilities be accessible to persons with disabilities. These facilities include Bishan, Jurong East and Chua Chu Kang Stadiums. And over and above what is required by the code, these facilities have reserved spaces for disabled spectators, and these spaces are near the designated parking lots for the disabled to make access easier for them. The older sports facilities that do not have such features as yet will be made disabled-friendly when they are upgraded. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin asked how we could prepare the Malay-Muslim community better for the new economy. I agree with Mr Zulkifli about the seriousness of the challenge of the new economy to the community. This is precisely what the Malay-Muslim MPs are worried about; which keeps us awake at night. We feel that the Malay community must be single-minded and serious in facing the challenges of the new economy. The Malay-Muslim organisations must coordinate their efforts as well as leverage on the national programmes and resources because it is no point re-inventing the wheel and set up new organisations or new initiatives, when they are available nationally. The Member may wish to know that the KBE Facilitation Committee (FC), which is chaired by Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, has been working closely, in fact several months now, with key Malay-Muslim organisations to identify critical programmes which meet the needs of the Malay community. The committee took into account the existing programmes to avoid duplication of efforts and it has proposed at the moment three programmes. One is a parent centre to be managed by the Young Muslim Women Association (PPIS), and the other is a worker mentoring scheme to be managed by Mendaki, and three, the IT Student Development Programme to be managed by the Malay Youth Literary Society, or more popularly known as 4PM. In fact, this programme has started already. This initiative has been incorporated into the Malay MPs' blueprint to uplift the Malay community for which Government funding is being sought. The FC also launched the Technopreneurship Club, called Mind 2000, and it also formed the Malay Internet Steering Committee. These two bodies, we hope, will help the community better understand the challenges of the new economy and what they have to do to face the challenges in the new economy. 6.00 pm Sir, the project partners of this project are fully committed to achieving the objectives of the programmes and clear lines of accountability have been established between the Facilitation Committee and the project partners that we are working with. Also co-funding by the project partners will enhance accountability. Therefore, I am rather reluctant at the moment to create new organisations or new structures which, I feel, would add another layer of bureaucracy. What is needed, really, is effective management in the implementation of the programmes and this, we feel, could be achieved by having a committee which is directly responsible to me, with enough resources to attract participation from the community. Nevertheless, we will monitor the situation to see whether restructuring is really necessary, because restructuring of the whole organising capability of the community is a big job in itself. We do not want to be distracted in our pursuit of trying to prepare the community for the KBE, and instead concentrate our resources on restructuring the community's organisational structure. Prof. Chin Tet Yung asked about volunteers and corporate responsibility. He has highlighted the need for the more able in society to help the less able, and for the corporate sector to engage in community involvement, and for volunteerism to strengthen these social bonds. We cannot agree more with this. In fact, my Ministry, together with the National Volunteers Centre (NVC) and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), is actively encouraging community involvement in volunteerism, from the young to even the elderly. The NVC, which was set up in July last year, promotes volunteerism as a way of life, to all levels of society. The response, I must say, has been most encouraging. Some 3,000 individuals have signed up for volunteering opportunities through the NVC's website, while some 60 organisations have in fact expressed interest in doing community work. NVC also administers an annual grant of some $600,000 to provide seed capital for new volunteer initiatives. It also provides training and research, and work with volunteer host organisations to develop good volunteer management practices. With regard to companies, many companies and public sector organisations are, in fact, already giving donations. They help raise funds, and involve staff in volunteer work. Both NVC and NCSS work closely with companies to set up Community Involvement Programmes for their staff and, since July 1999, the NCSS has signed up about 110 companies from both the private and public sectors in the programme. The Community Chest Awards are presented to outstanding corporate donors and fund-raisers to recognise their contributions. The NCSS-organised "Tribute to Volunteers" is yet another occasion to acknowledge outstanding individual and corporate volunteers, and a new category of awards will be introduced in September this year, in conjunction with the President's Challenge for 2001, to recognise outstanding individuals and corporations for their contributions to the social service sector. This, we hope, would further incentivise people to go into volunteerism. The public sector is yet another key partner that can mobilise many people to do their part for the community. My Ministry is working with the PS21 Committee on Staff Well-Being to launch a movement called the "Public Sector in Action for the Community" (PSAC) in April this year. It will highlight what public service organisations are doing for the community and encourage even greater involvement by them. Leading organisations have, in fact, deliberate policies to encourage their staff to volunteer, eg, Keppel Corporation and DBS Bank grant their employees two days off a year for volunteer work, and the staff of Jurong Town Corporation spend Friday mornings helping out at the Spastic Children's Association. My Ministry, NCSS and NVC see our role as promoting, sharing and recognising such practices, but it is really for the employer to decide how to encourage staff in their volunteer efforts. But, certainly, we will try to motivate them and enthuse them into getting more of their staff to get into volunteer work and, I think, the trend is moving upwards. This year is the International Year of Volunteers. I hope many more companies will seize this opportunity to bring out the volunteers in their people.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their responses to the Members, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (2). Mr Yeo.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JA 1500. Sir, besides childcare centres, Before-and-After-School-Care centres (BASCs) are another important facility to help the working parents and reduce our dependence on foreign domestic workers. For parents who have no relatives to help look after their children, they wish to know if there is a plan to ensure that the need for BASCs in all the housing estates, particularly in a newly developed estate like Sengkang, is met. Does the Ministry conduct any study on the demand and supply of such facilities, and what is the projection for the next 3-5 years? Last but not least, would the Government consider extending the same level or amount of subsidies, granted for childcare, to parents sending their children to BASCs?

Mr Charles Chong.

Sir, the Minister has already answered my question.

All right. Mr Shanmugam is not here. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi.

Sir, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked about Before-and-After-School-Care. By the way, Before-and-After-School-Care has now been renamed Student Care Centres. The SCCs provide a useful service in the care of children. However, current overall demand is still low for these student care centres. For example, a survey conducted by the Ministry in 1998 shows that only about 3% of children between seven and 14 years old need student care services, as most parents have alternative care arrangements at home, with relatives or foster families. The number may have gone up since, but we do not think it would have increased much. Our data for the 136 student care centres operated by non-profit organisations show an average enrolment rate of about 70%. There are another 70 student care centres run by commercial operators, but I do not have the information on their enrolment, as we do not license these centres. Sir, when planning for the SCCs, we work closely with non-profit organisations, schools and local grassroots advisers, to assess the demand and to site them at locations where both usage and demand are highest. For the next 3-5 years, our projection is for 20 SCCs to be set up each year. Twenty new centres will indeed be set up by the end of this year. Sengkang, a new estate with one centre currently, will have six new ones over the next two years, and we will continue to monitor the demand closely. Sir, instead of having a general subsidy for all, as in childcare, our preference is for the subsidies for the SCCs to be targeted at low-income families. For children enrolled in centres operated by non-profit organisations, the fee assistance is up to 75%, which is extended to families earning below $2,500 per month. Anyway, we are still monitoring the situation and will try to improve the help that we can give to such families and centres.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (3). Dr Lily Neo is not here. Amendment No. (4), Prof. Chin is not speaking. Amendment No. (5), Mr Charles Chong.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JI 3100. Sir, as Singaporeans, we often take pride in the fact that we always strive to reach world-class standards in everything we do. We regularly collect accolades for our achievements in education, and economic and infrastructural development. It is therefore timely to review our sports facilities, to ensure that they keep abreast of the latest, if we hope to produce world-class sports talent. At the apex of our sports infrastructure is the National Stadium, which is, by now, a rather middle-aged facility. I was therefore delighted to hear the Minister inform the House that a new stadium would be built. Without doubt, it will require a substantial investment to build a stadium of international standards. Therefore, it is crucial that we do not develop a facility that buzzes only once a year, on National Day, or during the occasional football match. We should have an integrated stadium, with sufficient commercial facilities and at a convenient location, to ensure high usage and pedestrian traffic, making it therefore a viable enterprise.

Sir, we aspire to be a sporting nation, where sports excellence will strengthen national pride. We hope to be a society where sports binds our multi-racial community. We want to encourage our people to exercise regularly and enjoy sports for a healthy lifestyle. And, if we can increase the size of our sports industry, that will create and add value to the country, offering many new career opportunities. To achieve all these ideals, we will need not just a new building for the National Stadium, but a whole new sports and recreation complex, which will be a focal point for all things related to sports and healthy recreation. The new sports complex must have transportation convenience, with easy access from a nearby MRT or light rail station, to cut down traffic build-up and car park congestion. To encourage Singaporeans to be a sporting nation, our new sports complex should be one of the best in this region, comparable to some of the best in the world. After all, we are now a developed nation, a First World economy. To be commercially viable, the new sports complex must have sufficient commercial abilities to ensure viability and that it will not be a dead town in between major competitions. It should be located where people could go to on an average evening in a normal day, for workouts, games and recreation, and therefore it should not be tucked away in some outlying location with difficult access. Sir, I would like to quote an example of such a sporting complex that has been built in Wales, at Cardiff, the Millennium Stadium, right inside the city. This new stadium was rebuilt with a seating capacity of 72,500, with a roof that can be fully opened and closed within 20 minutes, to enable events of all kinds to be held under all weather. The only other stadium with a retractable roof in Europe is the Amsterdam Arena, which has a capacity of 50,000. The stadium has an adjoining retail, leisure and pleasure development, including shops, restaurants, pubs and hotels. There is a full year-round programme of international and local activities. To promote arts, we are spending a sum of $594.8 million for the building of the Esplanade Concert Hall, which will be completed next year. For the promotion of sports, we should spend no less for a first-class all-weather sports stadium which would be the centrepiece in our efforts to make Singapore a sports hub. This sports hub would help to increase our capabilities in sports science and sports medicine. May I have the Minister's views on this? 6.15 pm

Sir, I cannot but agree more with the MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh and the MP for Pasir Ris that our National Stadium is outdated and should be redeveloped. Sir, I mentioned the need to develop a sports industry in Singapore. To do this and to attract world-class sporting events in Singapore, we need world-class venues to host these events. Our intention is to go beyond simply redeveloping the National Stadium. Instead, we have planned to build an integrated multi-purpose sports hub, with entertainment, convention, commercial and other revenue-generating facilities. It is important that the place would have to be a viable one. As Dr Ho has aptly pointed out, this is increasingly the trend world-wide and this new concept will help ensure that the sports hub is viable by keeping the place active all the time outside of match days. He also mentioned the stadium would have to be conveniently located so that people can go to the place easily, which means you need to have good communications and transport facilities. This certainly will have to be looked into. We will do a detailed feasibility study to ascertain what the commercially viable model for the sports hub would be. This would include ascertaining where the sports hub should be located, what sort of activities should be included, and how it should be run. If need be, we will go to other countries to see what their experiences are with such facilities.

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

Amendment No. (6), Mr Ibrahim Othman.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JJ 3100.

MUIS is managing many wakaf properties. These properties include mosques, lands, houses, apartments and commercial premises. Some of these wakaf properties have the potential for redevelopment and thus would generate better income for the beneficiaries. At present, the management of these wakaf properties is under a small department within MUIS. I wish to ask the Minister whether MUIS has any plans to privatise this department so that they could perform better, especially in the process of redeveloping their wakaf properties so that they can get better returns because some of these wakaf properties have the potential to get better returns. I am also made to understand that an established management company was awarded a three-year contract to manage MUIS properties. Perhaps, MUIS could also get advice from this company on how to privatise this department. Next, I wish to seek some clarification with regard to the Mosque Building Programme. We are now in the third phase of the Mosque Building Programme. I wish to ask the Minister to give an update on Phase III of the Mosque Building Programme. At the same time, I also wish to ask the Minister whether MUIS has decided on the number of mosques to be built under Phase IV. Apart from the number of mosques to be built, where will the locations of these mosques be?

Mr Ibrahim Othman has asked about the mosque development programme. I would like to report that there are six mosques under Phase III of the Mosque Building Programme under MUIS. The first mosque, Masjid Khair at Choa Chu Kang was completed in 1997. Masjid Istiqamah at Serangoon and Masjid Istiqhfar at Pasir Ris were completed in 1999. MUIS is now building three mosques in Bukit Panjang, Sembawang and Bishan. The mosque in Bukit Panjang will be scheduled to be completed in 2002, while those in Sembawang and Bishan will be expected to be completed in 2003. MUIS has started planning for Phase IV of the Mosque Building Programme and it will submit its proposal to the Government soon before it is being announced. With regard to corporatisation, Mr Ibrahim Othman has also asked about MUIS' plans on corporatisation. Under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, MUIS undertakes the development, maintenance and management of mosque and wakaf properties, amongst other functions. Such property development and management functions are more efficiently and effectively carried out, we think, on a commercial basis. Hence, MUIS is now embarking on the corporatisation of its property development and management activities. This is expected to take place sometime in July this year. MUIS will continue to be responsible for policy and regulatory matters in respect of mosques and wakaf properties. With the corporatisation of the property department, MUIS, we feel, could better focus on its core functions of legal, administrative and social development and, at the same time, develop the wakaf properties more efficiently and effectively.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (7), Mr Charles Chong.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code JM 1500. Sir, there are children with varying forms of disabilities and handicaps. Some of these disabilities, such as physical, sight and hearing impairment can easily be identified. However, there are dysfunctions such as attention deficiency, mild intellectual and other learning disabilities that may not be so easily diagnosed. How many of our children suffer from such disabilities? We may not know for certain as I am not aware of any population survey done to ascertain this figure. However, we do know that such children have special needs. Many will be capable of achieving their full potential with early diagnosis and professional help. Some would need special facilities with specialist teachers. Some can be integrated into the mainstream schools, while others may benefit from a combination of both special and mainstream schools. Are we doing enough for this group of children? I was told that there is currently a two-year waiting list for admission into some special schools. I think we can, and should be able to, do better in this area. Although SPED schools come under the purview of the Ministry of Education, and I am told that MOE is working vigorously to address this situation within the next few months, I do not think that we should leave the responsibility of children with special disabilities solely with MOE. I would like to urge MCDS, working with strategic partners, including VWOs, to try and fill the gaps in order to ensure that every child with a disability also receives an equal opportunity to attend special childcare centre or a special school, in order to receive an education and, wherever possible, be integrated into the mainstream education system in order to pick up a skill like any other normal child. It will be timely for MCDS to initiate a committee involving the relevant Ministries, NCSS, CDCs and VWOs to review the services to the disabled, especially for the young so that they too can have an opportunity to develop and live meaningful lives when they grow up.

Sir, my Ministry will continue to work with our partners from the public, private and people sectors to help children with disabilities achieve their potential and to live as independently as possible in the community. There is already a wide range of services for children with disabilities in Singapore. The comprehensive services for the diagnosis and management of children with developmental problems are already provided by the Child Development Unit in KKH and the Child Development Centre in NUH. Outside the hospital system, children with disabilities are referred to organisations that can best meet their special needs, for example, autistic children are referred to the Autistic Association of Singapore. These are associations which have the expertise and the people are committed to working with these kids. To-date, there are six VWOs and three special schools that have set up what we call EIPIC, or Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children below five years old with various disabilities. The EIPIC programmes help these children acquire the necessary learning and life skills. In terms of formal education, children with certain disabilities who can attend mainstream schools are already assisted by specially trained resource teachers in the schools. MOE's programme for rebuilding and improving existing schools (PRIME) will, in five years' time, provide one school in every cluster of 8-9 fully-equipped schools which are accessible to children with disabilities. At present, there are 16 such primary schools and 14 such secondary schools over the island. Other children with disabilities, such as intellectual or visual or cerebral palsy, for example, whose needs cannot be met in mainstream schools, attend special education or SPED schools. To-date, there are 18 such schools with a total of 3,978 pupils. The Ministry of Education chairs a Coordinating Committee for Special Education with representatives from my Ministry, NCSS, NIE and the ITE. My Ministry recognises that more could be done in the areas of early detection and intervention, as well as in providing childcare and other resources to help parents who have children with disabilities. My Ministry will continue to work closely with Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and NCSS and other partners in the community to improve the network of services for such children.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (8), Prof. Toh is not here. The sum of $490,683,530 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $157,950,400 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow." - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi]. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2001/2002, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi].

Adjourned accordingly at Half past Six o'clock pm.