Debated in Parliament on 13 Apr 2015.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".
The Housing and Development Act, enacted in 1960, empowers HDB to carry out its duty to build good, affordable public housing and provide a safe and pleasant living environment for Singaporeans.
The Act may be 55 years old, but we have amended it from time to time. The last time we did so was in 2012 and it is timely to update the Act, to enable HDB to better meet residents' needs and address emerging challenges. In particular, this Bill empowers HDB to better tackle misuse of HDB property, especially when it involves public health and safety concerns to residents.
Madam, let me now highlight the key aspects of this Bill.
Clause 3 of the Bill introduces two new powers that will allow HDB officers to enter a flat to investigate whether any urgent work or repair is required and, if so, to carry out this work. The first, under new section 26A, permits entry with a warrant obtained from the Court. The second, under new section 26B, permits entry without need for a Court warrant, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is an imminent danger from within the flat which would affect public health or public safety. Let me explain the purpose of these amendments.
HDB inspects its buildings regularly to ensure that they are safe and in good condition. Homeowners also play an important role in ensuring the safety of their own flats. Sometimes, homeowners, because of ignorance or carelessness, do things that may endanger themselves and their neighbours. For example, they may unknowingly demolish an important structural wall.
With your permission, Madam, may I display a few slides on the LED screen?
Page: 60
Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Thank you, Madam. In June 2013, a Bishan homeowner and his friend removed part of a structural column while renovating the flat, as Members can see on the LED screen. The owner did not even apply for a renovation permit from HDB. Had he done so, HDB would have told him right away that he could not demolish the structural column because it was critical to the structural integrity of the building. Fortunately, a concerned resident alerted HDB about this. HDB engineers rushed in to prop up the affected beams and worked throughout the night to reinstate the column. The home owner was prosecuted in Court, convicted and fined. His reckless act may have endangered an entire block of residents.
Just a few months later, in Simei, a renovation contractor demolished part of the prefabricated Reinforced Concrete or RC walls by creating three openings. Members can see two of them on the screen. This is strictly not allowed, because the RC walls serve as supporting structures of the building. Again, HDB engineers had to rush in to carry out urgent repair works. The contractor was prosecuted, convicted and fined. In both cases, fortunately, the owners had the good sense to allow HDB officers to enter their flats to conduct emergency repair. Had the owners refused entry, for whatever reason, HDB could have been caught in a legal grey zone and many residents would have been placed in unnecessary danger.
In such situations, it is imperative for HDB to be able to intervene and intervene quickly. They must be able to investigate and rectify the situation without delay. New section 26B will give HDB the power to enter the flat for such repair works without the need to apply for a warrant. Members will agree with me that imposing a statutory requirement for HDB to only enter the flat with a Court warrant will lose precious hours, when there is severe risk to life and property.
Let me now explain the need for section 26A, which gives HDB the power to enter a flat, with a Court warrant, for urgent repair works. This will help to address cases, for example, where ceiling leaks have become serious and urgent, which can be a source of distress and frustration or potential danger for some HDB residents if not resolved quickly.
Currently, when HDB receives feedback from residents on ceiling leaks, HDB will help them seek their upper floor neighbours' cooperation to investigate and to repair the leak, if they have not already done so. HDB also helps to carry out the investigations to identify the cause of the leaks, on a goodwill basis. Most upper floor neighbours are mindful of the inconvenience that their lower floor neighbours face and will agree to the repairs once they are told of this. To facilitate repairs and early resolution of the leak, HDB has implemented a Goodwill Repair Assistance (GRA) Scheme to assist lessees to repair the ceiling leak and to co-pay 50% of the cost of repairing the leak. While the GRA Scheme has helped many flat
Page: 61
owners resolve leak problems effectively and at a subsidised cost, HDB has encountered some upper floor neighbours who refuse to cooperate and delay the repair unnecessarily. Over the last four years, on an average per year, one in four cases takes more than four months to resolve.
For such cases, HDB will engage the upper floor neighbours a number of times to seek their cooperation to carry out the repairs. Grassroots leaders may also be asked to step in to persuade them to cooperate. If all these efforts fail, HDB will have no choice then but to take legal action and apply for a Court Order to compel the upper floor neighbours to carry out the repairs within a specified period. From 2012 to 2014, HDB took legal action against 400 households, after it had exhausted all efforts to engage and persuade the upper floor neighbours to cooperate. But this process of reaching resolution is protracted and can take up to 12 months. In the meantime, the delay could cause the leak to worsen and spread or result in severe spalling concrete, inconveniencing and, in some cases, even endangering the safety of the lower floor neighbours. We hear of many cases of residents who are frustrated and who hope that HDB can do more to help them.
Let me cite two actual cases to give Members a sense of the circumstances where we envisage section 26A may be used. In the first case, in Yishun, the ceilings in the master bedroom toilet and kitchen toilet were leaking so badly and for such a long time that stalactites had started to form in the toilets. Members can see it on the slide. The leaks had also resulted in spalling concrete on the ceiling where the reinforcement bars had been exposed. Imagine the inconvenience and anxiety of the lower floor residents. Should the spalling concrete deteriorate further, loose chunks of concrete, small and large, could fall and hurt the occupants. The case remains unresolved since it was reported to HDB in June 2012 and HDB is still trying to resolve this.
In the second case, this time in Bukit Batok, the leak from the kitchen ceiling was so severe that the lower floor residents had to perpetually place pails in the kitchen to collect the water. Similar to the Yishun case, stalactites had formed on the kitchen ceiling. What started as a ceiling leak in the kitchen, because it was not resolved, had also spread to other walls in the living room. For these two cases, HDB and the local grassroots leaders had tried tirelessly to help these residents by persuading the upper floor neighbours to cooperate, but were met with limited success. It took almost two years for this case to be resolved.
The proposed power of entry with a warrant will allow HDB to better help those suffering from serious ceiling leaks, among other things. Prior to HDB's application for a Court warrant for entry, HDB will give the relevant unit 24-hours' notice at least. Should they still refuse to cooperate, HDB may then apply to Court for a warrant to enter the flat to investigate the leak and carry out repairs.
Page: 62
We are mindful that the proposed powers to enter a flat without the owner's permission can be perceived as a drastic measure. Let me assure this House that HDB will only do so as a last resort, after exhausting all other avenues to get the owner's cooperation. HDB will use these powers sparingly and judiciously.
These powers will also be balanced with proper safeguards. The Bill mandates that only officers authorised by the Board are empowered to enter the flat to investigate and to carry out repairs. The officers will be required to show proof of identity to the lessees or occupiers. There will be at least one HDB officer present in the flat during the investigation and repair work and the officer will be required to show proof of identity to the owners or occupiers of the flat.
Madam, let me now turn to clause 4 of the Bill.
From time to time, some HDB homeowners will hire contractors to renovate their flats to suit their lifestyles, tastes and preferences. To ensure that these renovation contractors do not unintentionally, in the course of their work, damage the block or compromise the structural integrity of the building, HDB has in place, since 1975, a Registered Renovation Contractors' (RRC) Scheme to regulate renovation works carried out by renovation contractors in HDB flats. Flat owners who wish to renovate their flats must engage RRCs, who are qualified contractors and should be familiar with HDB's requirements for carrying out renovations. To complement the RRC Scheme, HDB has also put in place a demerit point system and they could also be debarred from carrying out future renovation works in HDB flats.
For more serious cases, HDB will bring the errant parties to Court. In 2006, HDB further enacted Rules to govern how renovations should be carried out in HDB flats. Renovation contractors, including those not registered under the RRC Scheme, as well as flat owners would be held accountable for breaches to these Rules. If convicted in Court, they face a fine of up to $5,000.
While the absolute number of unauthorised renovation works remains small, we have observed a gradual increase. In 2014, there were five cases of major structural infringements, compared to three cases in 2005. Overall, for the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014, there were over 60 cases of both major and minor infringements.
We are concerned about this increase in numbers, because any compromise to the structural integrity of HDB blocks can have catastrophic consequences. Hence, clause 4 of the Bill will amend section 27, to do three things. First, any security deposit placed by the RRC for contravening any obligation imposed on the RRC in the permit may be forfeited.
Page: 63
Second, HDB may impose a financial penalty not exceeding $10,000 on errant renovation contractors and flat owners for contravening any condition of a licence, the contravention of which does not amount to an offence. And third, the penalty against errant renovation contractors, including those not registered with HDB and flat owners, will be raised, by increasing the maximum Court fine from $5,000 to $20,000 and providing the Courts with an option to impose an imprisonment term of up to one year.
Madam, let me now move on to clause 12 of the Bill, which allows HDB to impose variable penalties for lease infringements.
HDB stipulates a set of conditions in each lease agreement for two main reasons. First, they ensure that HDB flats are used for its intended purpose. The Home Ownership Scheme was introduced in 1964 to enable Singaporeans to own their homes and have a stake in the country's future. Thus, HDB flats are highly subsidised and are meant primarily for owner occupation. To ensure that this system is not abused, potential buyers must meet certain eligibility criteria, such as citizenship requirements and household income, before they can apply for an HDB flat. In addition, lessees must live in their flats for a minimum period before they can sell or sublet their whole flat. Second, HDB also plays a key role in building communities and fostering neighbourly ties in our public housing estates. The conditions in the lease agreement facilitate this by spelling out appropriate behaviour, so that all residents can enjoy a pleasant living environment in a densely populated city.
From time to time, however, some flat owners have abused the system. Most commonly, flat owners contravene the lease terms, such as the five-year Minimum Occupation Period (MOP), and sublet their whole flat without obtaining HDB's approval to do so. HDB has also encountered cases of flat owners using their homes as illegal gambling dens, or as illegal worker dormitories, which create an undesirable and, sometimes, unsafe living environment for genuine HDB residents.
Under the Act today, HDB may compulsorily acquire a flat, vest a flat or terminate the lease of a flat. Under the Rules, HDB may impose a penalty instead of compulsorily acquiring the flat. However, HDB is unable, at this time, to vary the magnitude of the penalty to make it proportionate to the severity of the infringement in some cases, even if there are good reasons to do so. This puts HDB in a very difficult position: should it exercise compulsory acquisition, which can be draconian and traumatic to the home owner, or should it impose a penalty that it feels may be out of proportion to the severity of the infringement in that particular case? In some of such cases, the practical reality is that HDB has erred on the side of compassion and waived the penalty in full. But this is not ideal and can create a moral hazard.
Page: 64
To set this right, clause 12 of the Bill amends section 65 of the Act to allow HDB to impose a variable range of penalties, not exceeding $50,000, instead of compulsory acquisition or vesting of the flat, depending on the severity of the infringement under sections 47, 55 and 56 of the Act. With these amendments, HDB can now implement a calibrated penalty framework instead of being faced with the stark choice of compulsory acquisition on the one hand or a fixed quantum penalty on the other.
Madam, let me now elaborate on the enhanced powers to investigate lease infringements.
As I have explained earlier, HDB takes a serious view of the misuse of public housing. This is because HDB flats are highly subsidised and are meant primarily for owner occupation. The misuse of flats can cause disamenities to fellow residents and HDB needs to be able to investigate suspected cases of misuse and take appropriate action where necessary.
Today, HDB's powers to conduct a thorough investigation into suspected lease infringements are limited. From time to time, HDB officers meet resistance from flat owners. Some have refused to cooperate with HDB. Others go so far as to challenge HDB's right to investigate the matter. However, HDB is not able to compel flat owners to cooperate with the investigation. This makes it very difficult for HDB officers to carry out their public duty.
Clause 8 of the Bill, therefore, introduces two new provisions that will give HDB officers the power to investigate the serious infringements set out under section 56. New section 56A authorises HDB officers to enter and search any flat or other premises that the owner or occupier may be residing in and record evidence in the form of photographs, videos and audio. As a safeguard, the Act requires HDB to first obtain a warrant from the Court. The officer must also identify himself to the flat owner or occupier and show him the Court warrant as well as official proof of identity. New section 56B enables HDB officers to examine witnesses, take statements and produce documents relevant to their fact-finding.
These powers will enable HDB to conduct proper fact-finding and establish whether there have been serious breaches of HDB rules that may require action to be taken. HDB will use these powers judiciously and only when necessary and officers who carry out such investigations will be properly trained to use them professionally.
Madam, let me now move on to the remaining miscellaneous amendments in the Bill.
Section 61(1) of the Act makes it an offence for HDB home owners to sublet their flats without HDB's prior written consent. As HDB is already empowered under section 56 to take action against unauthorised subletting, we think that should suffice. Moreover, HDB has not
Page: 65
charged any person under this section. Clause 11, therefore, repeals section 61.
Section 59(1) empowers HDB to remove the belongings of ex-lessees or occupants after recovering possession of the flats that have been compulsorily acquired. Clause 10 inserts a new provision to allow HDB to sell or dispose of any unclaimed moveable property found in the flat if the owner does not take delivery of the property and to pay the proceeds, less expenses, to the owner or into Court.
Currently, compulsory acquisition notices arising from serious infringements of HDB rules can only be served on flat owners or, if they have passed on, on their personal representatives. Clause 7 rationalises this procedure to allow compulsory acquisition notices to be served in situations where no personal representative has been appointed. In such situations, HDB will affix the notice on a conspicuous place outside the flat.
Section 58(2) allows HDB to deposit the compulsory acquisition compensation with the Court under two circumstances. First, when HDB is unable to pay out the compensation to the relevant parties if the persons refuse to accept the compensation or dispute the amount of compensation. Second, when HDB is unable to locate the lessees or interested parties. Clause 9 widens this and introduces three additional circumstances under which HDB can deposit the compensation in Court so that HDB will not have to hold on to the compensation monies indefinitely. These are: (a) where the person is mentally incapacitated and has not executed a lasting power of attorney or appointed a deputy to manage his affairs; (b) where the person has passed on and has no personal representative; and (c) where the persons involved have a dispute as to the entitlement to the compensation.
Clause 14 amends section 81 to provide that all fines paid or recovered under the Act are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Madam, the amendments proposed today will enable and empower HDB to be more nimble, effective and relevant, for current and future generations of home owners. Madam, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Mdm Speaker, the majority of Singaporeans live in HDB blocks. Unlike private developers, HDB's job is not done after it has sold a flat. HDB continues
Page: 66
to play an important role in ensuring that the HDB estate continues to be a safe and pleasant living environment for all HDB residents.
The Housing and Development Act provides the legal instrument for HDB to do its job effectively. The last time the Act was amended was in 2012. This latest amendment is timely, particularly in dealing with three issues we face in the community: first, protection of the structural beam to preserve the structural integrity of HDB blocks; second, ceiling leaks; and, third, illegal subletting.
As a professional engineer, I can fully appreciate the importance of the structural beams or columns. The structural beams or columns bear the load of the building. If these elements are damaged, the structural integrity of the building may be affected, which may, in turn, potentially endanger the safety of residents in the building and the public.
There have been some cases whereby renovation contractors hack the structural beam or column during renovation works, due to lack of awareness, supervision or carelessness.
We also do not rule out the possibility where residents of unsound mind hack off the structural beam or column, though, fortunately, there have not been any cases so far. So, there is no cause for alarm, but we should not be complacent, too. Just one case can result in a huge human tragedy. It is, therefore, necessary for HDB to have some powers to enter flats to investigate and repair, to prevent a catastrophe.
Currently, HDB already has a registration regime which helps ensure that the registered renovation contractors are properly trained and familiar with HDB property. However, in cases whereby errant renovation contractors and lessees carry out unauthorised renovation work, we must strengthen HDB's ability to take them to task, through the imposition of financial penalties.
Many of my residents, knowing that I am a professional engineer, very often, when I walk around for house visits or even at the coffee shops, would show me very beautiful plans done by their interior designers and say they want to hack away some of the walls or columns. Normally, I would advise them to submit their plans to HDB to get proper approval before proceeding.
There was one recent case in Pasir Ris where frequent loud knocking noises were heard coming from a unit. HDB, together with other agencies, visited the unit during the day and night but there was no response from the occupier. There was a concern that the structural integrity of the building might be compromised as some occupants in the block mentioned that they could feel the vibration from their units. But the occupant refused to allow anyone
Page: 67
to enter the flat. Eventually, HDB managed to enter the flat with the help of the Police and found that the occupant had been knocking part of the two walls with a wooden plank. Fortunately, both walls are non-structural walls. What if the occupant had hacked a structural wall? The potential consequence could have been undesirable.
Some people are concerned about giving more intrusive powers to HDB. But I think these powers are necessary to ensure safety. There are safeguards in place. I am sure HDB will use the powers sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. The day may come when we are thankful that we have passed this Bill to give HDB the powers to intervene.
Ceiling leakage is a common problem, especially in older buildings, particularly in wet areas, such as the toilets and kitchens. It occurs when water from the upper floor unit leaks into the ceiling of the lower floor through the concrete floor slab. As a Member of Parliament, over the years, I have had residents approach me to give feedback about how they had to deal with persistent ceiling leakage problems. While most neighbours are cooperative and take steps to fix the leak to their neighbour's flat below, there are others who do not act, perhaps because the leak does not affect them directly, or they may have other reasons, for example, a sick family member or an expectant wife.
Today, the responsibility of maintaining the flats rests with the HDB owner. In the case of ceiling leaks, both the upstairs and downstairs units are collectively responsible to fix the leak. HDB's Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme is helpful in absorbing half of the costs. I think that more should be done so that HDB dwellers who have ceiling leaks in their flats, especially the more serious ones requiring urgent attention, do not have to suffer and be inconvenienced without any hope of resolution.
I remember during one of my house visits, a resident took me to her toilet and showed me how serious the leakage was. She has to place an umbrella in the toilet because where the leakage is, it is just directly above where she does her business. So, an umbrella is placed there. And she blamed HDB for not taking action. But then, when I checked, of course, HDB had some problem in getting the upper floor unit to be cooperative.
The Ministry's proposal to empower HDB to enter the flat to investigate and do repair works, such as serious ceiling leaks and spalling concrete, is a reasonable and balanced approach. In fact, it should have been done earlier. It would help alleviate the misery of some of my residents who had been suffering in silence.
Besides keeping our HDB blocks safe, HDB must continue to ensure that the HDB estate is a pleasant living environment for all HDB dwellers. HDB flats are primarily meant for owner occupation, but there are owners who try to circumvent the HDB's rules by locking up one
Page: 68
room and subletting the flat without physically staying in it. They are subletting their flats in an unauthorised manner and should not be allowed to continue. I am glad that the Ministry is looking into enhancing HDB's levers of investigation and enforcement against lease infringements, including illegal subletting. HDB officers must be able to investigate fully and take effective enforcement action against unauthorised or illegal activity. Hence, I strongly support giving HDB officers enhanced powers of investigation so that they can build up a strong case to take errant lessees to task.
Apart from illegal subletting of flats, there are other instances of flat misuse, such as operating an illegal gambling den, housing vice-related activities and short-term stay to tourists. In the interest of their safety and that of the residents in their blocks, I would urge all residents to do their part to alert the authorities if and when they observe their neighbours engaging in such activities.
Other horror instances include one which I read about in a news report last year, of a hoarder whose flat was consistently smelly and pest-infested. The neighbours had to put up with the stench and unwelcome visits from cockroaches for a few years, even after he passed away. His next-of-kin could not be located and nobody could gain permission to enter his flat to clean it up. The Town Council only managed the common areas and the HDB did not have the authority to enter the premises.
I believe this Bill may give rise to some resentment among HDB flat owners who feel that their ownership rights are being infringed upon. I urge them to put themselves in the shoes of the lower floor residents or neighbours. These residents are the ones who are having their ownership rights infringed upon if they have to suffer from your uncooperative attitude. Why should your neighbours have to bear with the leaks and the stench? Put yourself in the shoes of the one at the receiving end.
Entering someone's property without the owner's explicit permission is, indeed, a very serious matter that bears a great responsibility. The right to do so must come with some precautionary measures. First of all, there needs to be an established protocol that determines when it is necessary to exercise this authority. Surely, all viable options must be exhausted before the HDB can consider it. A suitable deadline for the occupant to take action must also be established. How long does he or she have to call in a plumber before HDB takes action? The HDB officers must make efforts to give ample advance notice, ensuring
Page: 69
that the recipient is aware, before they simply turn up at the resident's house. Preferably, this can be done by phone calls and letters. The proposed Bill cites that the Board must give the occupant at least a 24-hour notice of its intention to enter the premises. I believe we could perhaps extend this to 48 hours, unless the damage is potentially life-threatening.
We must ensure that HDB officers have proper identification before they enter the homes. Photographs should be taken if there is no one in the house so that any subsequent complaint can be addressed. There should be proper documentation and video recording of the works being carried out in the absence of the owners. I do not know if HDB has worked out the process to prevent any accusation of theft or damage to belongings to protect its own interest.
It is disappointing that we have to resort to such enforcement methods to resolve problems between neighbours. If everyone could be more neighbourly and generous with their goodwill, such problems can be easily resolved without the need for intervention by Government officers or the law. We must step up efforts to promote neighbourliness and mutual cooperation among residents.
Finally, it is befitting that in talking about HDB we pay tribute to our founding father, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. It was his foresight in building affordable public housing across our country that we were able to nip in the bud the housing problem for Singaporeans. I believe, today, we have the highest homeownership in the world. I have a lot of foreign friends who visit Singapore and they tell me that they really admire our public housing. And they tell me that our public housing is better, in many aspects, compared to even some of their condominiums back in their own country. With this, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, firstly, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Having carefully examined the relevant clauses, I support the Bill. However, reading through more than 20 pages of this Bill has stirred up many thoughts in me. I hope that using legislation to solve such problems would only be the last resort.
The objective of amending this Bill is mainly to empower HDB officials to enter the HDB premises to investigate or arrange for renovation work. Are these matters so serious that they warrant legislation before they can be resolved? When I was young, having neighbours help each other out was very common. Everyone would reach out to help whichever household needed assistance. Whenever we patronised the kopitiam, the proprietors would
Page: 70
remember which customers preferred to have less sugar in their coffee and whose children attended which schools; if we went to the neighbourhood provision shop to buy soya sauce, we would always linger to chat with the proprietors. This frequent interaction among neighbours, watching out for each other and helping one another, was part and parcel of the kampung spirit we always talk about.
In the 50 years since Singapore gained Independence, HDB has provided the majority of Singaporeans with their own homes and has continually upgraded their living environment, with the establishment of neighbourhood shops, coffee shops, hair salons, clinics, activity centres and so on to increase the interaction among residents and promote social bonding and cohesion. This has been a major contribution to social development. Although kampungs have vanished from our modern urbanised city, HDB has already tried its best to preserve the "kampung spirit" in designing HDB flats and neighbourhoods.
If we move back in time to 30 or 40 years ago, two households from the kampungs together moved into new HDB flats. If the Zhang family's ceiling springs a leak, they would simply go upstairs to the Tan family's flat to take a look. Legislation would not be necessary. It is a different story now. Residents seldom interact even if they live in the same building and are not familiar with one another. They do not know each other's surnames, professions and do not talk though they may take the same lift. Relations are quite estranged. If there is any knock on the door, residents would speak from behind their iron gates and be very guarded. Hence, we need to amend the Bill to give HDB officials more empowerment. If problems among neighbours need to resort to legislation, this could solve the problem, but it would sever ties that may be impossible to mend.
People's lifestyles are also gradually changing, in keeping with the times. Different generations have different focuses in their life and the social functions of neighbourhood shops and public facilities also need to adapt to the changing times. Unlike the supermarkets and large shopping centres, neighbourhood shops can create a congenial meeting place for all residents and they need to adjust their business model according to the residents' composition and lifestyle patterns to provide even more unique products and services. Hence, the management of neighbourhood shops should not only be viewed purely in terms of commercial profit, becoming an investment tool or an asset to be resold.
Early this month, the SCCCI specially invited Merchants' Associations from several neighbourhood centres to attend a lunch meeting. Everyone reached a consensus that rebuilding the "kampung spirit" in their neighbourhoods and new towns would require the coordination and hard work of many parties. HDB needs to be even more forward-looking in their design concepts and, correspondingly, there needs to be mutual support and coordination amongst the Town Councils, Citizens' Consultative Committees, Community Development Councils, Community Centres and Residents' Committees. Shop owners need
Page: 71
to consider ways to do their business better and should actively support the Merchants' Associations. The leadership of the Merchants' Associations needs to demonstrate team spirit in strategic planning and come up with innovative ideas and marketing concepts unique to their areas. Although each community congregates in organisations with diverse backgrounds, they all serve the same group of people, with the common objective of looking after the interests of their respective residents.
Singapore is a land-scarce country and we have no choice but to construct high-rise buildings. With a more diversified population structure, we need a longer time to establish better understanding and trust among the people and tighten the bonds of social cohesion. This social cohesion pertains to the concern and help from family members, neighbours and friends and cannot be measured by monetary value. Thus, when we face problems, we have to tackle them at the root and not only on the surface. We should not forget that the social function of public housing is to create the opportunity for Singaporeans from different races and ethnicities living in HDB estates to interact and live together in harmony.
Mdm Speaker, the amendments in this Bill affect 87% of our citizens who live in HDB flats in Singapore.
I welcome HDB's stance to take a more proactive approach to compel errant and stubborn residents fix the negative externalities of water seepage from ceilings, over-hoarding of goods and erecting permanent features that may cause structural damage to the building.
I support the stricter penalties for flat owners who use non-HDB approved contractors which the amendments in this Bill propose and would also suggest that there should be stricter vetting of approved contractors for HDB flat dwellers.
Mdm Speaker, it concerns me that the amendments in this Bill may present many ambiguous areas in the law leading to potential abuse.
Under clause 3, section 26A, authorised officers or persons may enter any premises at any reasonable time by giving a 24-hour notice to investigate or carry out urgent repairs or works. A 24-hour notice period is too short. It is insufficient in cases where the owner of the flat may be away, hospitalised or living overseas. More effort should be made to contact him or her. The notice should include text messages, phone calls as well as written notices to their place of residence. Could the Minister give us a reason why such a short 24-hour notice period and not a longer period of one week, unless it is a life-threatening case? The Bill
Page: 72
should allow flexible time for HDB officers to investigate and carry out urgent repairs or works after office hours and even on weekends until 10 pm to facilitate those who are working late.
Under section 26B of the Bill, HDB is given sweeping powers when it confers one or more authorised officers and authorised persons to enter a premise with force if necessary to investigate and carry out urgent repairs or works to prevent or remove the danger if there is reasonable grounds to believe there is imminent threat to public safety or public health.
Under this Bill, HDB need not compensate the flat owners for any mistakes or intrusion as long as it had acted in good faith and in accordance with its rules.
Considering the costs which may be prohibitive for flat owners or occupiers who may have to rectify the forced entry into their premises and also the huge hurdles to take HDB to Court for any wrongdoing, perceived or real, will there be sufficient safeguards for flat owners?
Will HDB be held accountable should the emergency not exist and is not caused by a problem in the flat for which forced entry has been obtained?
For this, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on what constitutes a reasonable ground to believe that there is an imminent danger in a premises which affects public safety or public health which warrants urgent repairs; and (a) the definition of urgent repairs; (b) the list of specific examples which warrant urgent "repairs", public safety and public health.
HDB employs many estate managers in branch offices who are Arts, Science and Business graduates who may hold dual roles as customer service managers and technical officers and may not have the expertise to inspect the damages.
The HDB officer who is assessing the damage to the neighbour should ideally be a trained Building Science graduate to assess if it warrants urgent repairs.
I would recommend to make it a statutory requirement for all HDB officers to wear a recording device before entering the premises, much like Police Officers who wear it nowadays for the prevention of disputes.
With the proposed amendments to the Bill under sections 56A and 56B, authorised HDB officers are given Police-like powers to enter HDB flats which it suspects are flouting its rules. They have the power to make audio and video recordings, interrogate suspects and seize evidence. HDB officers are not Police and do not have the necessary training. Is this a clear
Page: 73
case of a conflict of interest whereby the HDB is both investigator and judge as to whether the owner has breached its rules? It should be the Police to carry out such investigations.
Mdm Speaker, despite the current problems with non-cooperative flat owners and breaches of HDB rules, the proposed amendments give too much power to the HDB with insufficient safeguards. How many residents will be aware of their rights and legal representation on HDB's new sweeping powers?
I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.33 pm until 4.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.50 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
Debate resumed.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. A key feature of the Bill is the power of entry for HDB for investigation and urgent repairs. For many long-suffering residents whose neighbours have been uncooperative or, worse, acting in violation of the law, this measure is overdue and provides much welcomed assurance of safety and security.
In cases where there are looming dangers, such as structural damages, where the safety of residents is at stake, HDB's right to access the problematic units is indisputable. With the amendment, HDB will no longer require a Court warrant and necessary action can be taken immediately.
I would like to ask the Minister: how many of such cases have occurred in recent years which are the most common hazards and what measures are in place to prevent the recurrence of such incidents?
Page: 74
On the other hand, where the situations are not quite as dire, such as a ceiling leak, there are some criticisms about the proposal to allow entry with Court warrants in cases where owners ignore a 24-hour notice period and have not allowed HDB staff's entry.
Some feel that such a measure is heavy-handed. Others worry about abuse of such powers. The critics in the first group may not be aware of the severity of this problem. As the Minister of State had shared before, each year alone, there are about 2,800 ceiling-leak cases which take more than three months to resolve.
In addition, every year, HDB has to take about 120 flat owners to Court to compel them to provide access to their flats for investigation and repairs.
It is important for the Ministry to highlight to all HDB owners that the 24-hour notice is only given in cases where the flat owners have been persistently uncooperative. It would be useful for HDB to clarify what constitutes uncooperative behaviour.
Would the Ministry elaborate on what actions HDB has to take and exhaust before it acts to force the flat owner to allow access to carry out the investigation and repair works? How long will the whole process take before forced entry is made as a last resort, as pointed out by other Members in the House?
What would happen if the owners need a longer time to accede to the request due to, for example, medical reasons, but the owners of the unit below cannot accommodate? Or if the owners of the upper floor unit claim that they cannot comply at all due to medical concerns? There may also be cases where the owners are away for extended periods or are so-called "uncontactable". What alternatives are available to HDB officers?
I would like to suggest that HDB conduct thorough investigations of affected units to ensure that causes of problems originating from other sources are excluded before approaching the suspected units. For example, there had been cases where the ceiling leaks tend to occur only on rainy days because they were caused by cracks in external walls on the upper floor, not from the upper floor unit per se. Sharing information about such prior investigations with the owners of the units above will assure them that they are not being inconvenienced unnecessarily.
I would also like to ask what would happen if the remedial works still fail to rectify problems. Would the owners still need to pay for additional costs of further investigations? What if further investigations reveal that an errant diagnosis is due to a HDB contractor?
Page: 75
Presently, HDB bears half of the repair costs of leakages and spalling concrete, with the other half shared equally by upper and lower floor flat owners. Generally, flat owners pay about $180 for each ceiling-leak repair. Despite this heavily-subsidised price, there are owners who face financial hardship and cannot afford to pay. Does HDB have assistance schemes in place to help such families to pay for such expenses?
Another important advantage of allowing HDB officers to enter flats with warrants is that we now have another tool to stamp out the illegal subletting of flats or their use for non-residential purposes. Presently, owners and tenants can refuse to let HDB officers enter their flats to investigate lease infringements. Many of such cases include overcrowding leading to disturbances and an unsafe environment for the neighbours. Hence, I am in full support of providing our enforcement officers with this new tool for a safer neighbourhood. Let me continue and conclude in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support this Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill. On the surface, provisions of the Bill may appear to be giving HDB officers excessive power to enter HDB flats which are suspected to have problems to conduct investigation and repair. However, the HDB would only do so as the last resort.
Every year, there are as many as 2,800 cases of ceiling leak cases which take more than three months to resolve. In some cases, it may take even more than a year to be dealt with. And there are more than 100 households who refuse to cooperate and HDB has to apply for a Court warrant in order to enter the unit to investigate. This is time-consuming and taxpayers' money is wasted.
Some residents are worried that after the Bill is amended, some people may pose as HDB officers and coerce the residents into opening their doors for them to get in. Although HDB has reminded the residents to verify that they are HDB officers, some residents say that they cannot tell whether the documents are genuine or not. And they are also concerned whether their privacy could be preserved.
I hope that the Minister could take into account these concerns and worries of the residents and put forward the relevant measures that HDB is going to take.
Mdm Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the proposed Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill.
Page: 76
Having lived in a low-floor HDB unit for 10 years, I can fully appreciate the distress and anxiety suffered when flat owners experience cracks on ceiling or walls and water leakages, be it in our bedrooms, kitchen or living room, causing damage to our furniture and fittings. I remember at least two occasions when the unit directly above mine did major renovation works for months, which created some concerns for us. In such a situation, we would have been grateful to have a hotline for us to report any damages or leakages in our unit and would have appreciated that such problems are resolved promptly. With the proposed amendment, HDB will be able to do more to help residents resolve such problems quickly.
Madam, with this Bill, HDB will have greater powers in entering premises, with or without a warrant, to investigate and to carry out urgent repairs. But I feel that central to this amendment, first and foremost should be the residents' well-being and safety and not so much to make it more convenient or easier for HDB to carry out their work. I also feel that giving more powers to HDB to gain access to residents' flats is a double-edged sword because, on the one hand, it can please residents whose problems get resolved, but, on the other hand, it can upset those who are unhappy with the intrusion or who feel unfairly treated. I, therefore, hope that HDB look carefully and thoroughly into residents' concerns, address them in a fair manner and ensure that, with these new powers, HDB can gain more trust from the public instead of more distrust.
Madam, from the standpoint of residents, there are a few concerns, some of which have already been raised by hon Members previously and I hope for some clarifications on these areas.
Firstly, it is on communicating to the public on the need and intent of the Bill. A home is a sanctuary and I think residents will have concerns on invasion of their privacy. Hence, HDB should clarify on the circumstances where such forced entry is warranted and why it is justified, so that the general public can clearly understand the need for such forced entry.
Secondly, occupants that are present during the forced entry should be treated with dignity and decorum. This could be a live-in maid, an elderly, the incapacitated or a child who may feel intimidated by the presence of officials.
I hope HDB implements a code of conduct on the behaviour of the officers in engaging occupants present during the forced entry, so as not to cause undue distress to these persons. It is also ideal to have officers who can converse in dialect or ethnic Mother Tongue to communicate with non-English speaking occupants.
My third concern is the probability that this amendment will create an opportunity for criminals to gain access to residents' premises. I think there is a danger that parties with
Page: 77
criminal intent may take the opportunity to gain access to premises which may then result in undesired and serious consequences. It may be worthwhile to consider providing a hotline for owners or occupants to verify the identity of the officials. Owners or occupants should be encouraged to verify the identity of officials and the purpose of gaining entry, as identity cards and documents can be forged and can fool unsuspecting residents.
My fourth concern is on potential dispute on costs of repairs. The Bill states that HDB will claim from the owner the costs incurred in the repairs. For costly bills, this may be problematic. The owner may dispute that he or she was not consulted on the potential costs of the repair work and may not have the funds to pay for it. How then will HDB handle such a scenario?
The fifth concern is damages done as a result of forced entry. The amendment Bill states that HDB is not liable to compensate the owner for any losses incurred due to the damage done at the premises. I think this is an area that may cause much unhappiness to residents as it appears unfair to owners who may not be aware of HDB's intention to enforce entry. Can HDB explain the basis for this and will HDB consider on a case-to-case basis to compensate owners, for example, in hardship cases?
Finally, can HDB explain the justification for the 24-hour notice, which I find, just like other Members here, to be too short? Will HDB consider a longer notice period to give owners more time to respond? Madam, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sometimes, we are unfortunate enough to experience cracks on walls or the ceiling of our HDB flats, spalling concrete or water leakages because of renovation work done by our neighbours. In such situations, what can flat owners do? With the proposed changes to the Housing and Development Act, HDB will have greater powers to gain entry into HDB flats to investigate the cause of the problems and to undertake repairs urgently. This is beneficial to residents and residents should take advantage of this change by proactively alerting HDB of renovation works which may jeopardise the structural integrity of the building and create danger for residents.
However, there will be some occupants who may not be comfortable to let in strangers even if they are HDB officers, especially if the flat owner is not around and have given them instructions to not allow these officers into the premises. In such situations, I hope HDB officers will be mindful to engage occupants with due respect and give occupants proper assurances.
Aside from empowering HDB with the power to enter premises with or without a warrant, there are other areas which I hope HDB can provide more clarification. One of the
Page: 78
clauses states that HDB will be able to claim the cost of repairs from owners. I think this may create a problem, especially if the flat owners were not consulted and the cost turned out to be high. Another clause states that HDB is not liable to compensate the owner for any losses incurred due to damages caused at the premises. For both these scenarios, I hope the Ministry can reconsider and provide assistance to cover the cost partially, if not wholly, for those who may have difficulty to cope with the expenses.
Another concern I have is the possibility that criminals may pose as HDB officers to gain access to flats and commit a crime. I hope there are sufficient education efforts and safeguards to protect residents from those who may take advantage of unsuspecting residents.
(In English): Madam, I would conclude in English, please. While I support the Bill, I hope HDB will provide clarifications on some of the concerns that have been raised today and give the public greater assurance that the well-being of the public is at the heart of these proposed amendments.
Mdm Speaker, many hon Members of the House would have experienced residents' complaints about ceiling leakage issues taking months to resolve. A quick check of my mailbox revealed two latest incidents. One incident happened in a Jurong West flat. The feedback was received in October last year. The neighbour upstairs who was responsible for the leaking ceiling in the flat downstairs, refused to use the renovation contractor recommended by HDB and decided to engage his own contractor to do the repair. Unfortunately, the repair was not carried out properly and the problem was not resolved. The case dragged on until last month, taking a good six months before the problem was finally resolved.
I have another similar case of ceiling leakage in a Jurong East flat this time round and it also took six months to resolve, from July to December 2014.
During the six-month period, you could imagine the agony of the residents who had to endure the ceiling leakage. This amendment Bill is thus very helpful and timely to help mitigate the suffering of the residents who are victims of their inconsiderate neighbours. This is especially so when we have more than 80% of the resident population in Singapore staying in 940,000 HDB flats across the island and not all residents are cooperative.
However, critics may perceive such honourable intents as being draconian and autocratic. When we introduced the ban on the sale of chewing gum, we were the laughing
Page: 79
stock of the western liberal societies who disregarded the rationale behind the policy. In fact, The Guardian, a London newspaper, devoted an entire article to the ban on chewing gum when Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed on, instead of acknowledging that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had transformed Singapore from a Third World country to First in less than a lifetime.
When we introduced caning against vandalism, we were called less than favourable terms, never mind the need to protect the property and public amenities. When we used hanging as a measure to control drug abuse and other very serious crimes, we were still very much condemned for being a cruel regime. Hence, the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill that confers authorised HDB staff with the power to enter a flat with force and without prior notice to the occupier could go down as another example of Singapore's harsh autocratic laws. We must, however, decide what works for us.
Having said that, we need HDB to convince us of their proposed safeguards to prevent abuse of power. At this juncture, Madam, please allow me to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, section 26A of the Bill allows HDB officers to forcibly enter an HDB flat with a warrant to remove illegal renovation features or conduct emergency repair work. I urge HDB to exercise this power with a human touch and show compassion.
In Jurong, there are some illiterate elderly residents who go out early in the morning and come back late in the evening to earn a living. In the worst circumstance, we do not want to see a situation whereby an elderly person living alone leaves his home and, two hours later, HDB officers paste the warrant on his door. When the elderly person comes back in the evening, because he is illiterate, he may take down the warrant and intend to find a friend to explain to him what the warrant is all about the next day. However, the following day, after he goes out at 7.00 am as usual, HDB officers make a forced entry. We also do not want to see the situation whereby families returning from a week-long holiday find their flat being forcibly entered into by HDB officers under the powers provided by section 26B when a forced entry is allowed without a warrant.
Hence, I hope HDB can put up some safeguard mechanisms to prevent the powers from being abused inadvertently. I would like to ask the Minister of State three questions.
First, Minister Khaw revealed last December that, every year, there were about 9,000 ceiling leakage cases. Among them, 2,800 cases took more than three months to resolve. I would like to ask the Minister of State, suppose the Bill was passed a year ago, then how many such ceiling leakage cases for which the power provided under section 26A or 26B
Page: 80
would potentially have been applicable to deal with those uncooperative residents?
Second, the power provided under section 26A and 26B is very comprehensive. I would like to ask the Minister of State how HDB is going to train its officers to make sure that they use this power appropriately and with a human touch? At the same time, will HDB set up a special committee to establish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for forced entries?
Third, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether HDB can first consider using other channels to engage and persuade residents to cooperate, such as working together with grassroots leaders, to work out a solution. Section 26A and 26B should only be used as a last resort.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, as mentioned in my Chinese speech, all of us prefer to resolve disputes informally and amicably. In many instances, our grassroots leaders and community leaders could try to get involved and act as mediators. Even if the amendment Bill were to be passed, we need a structure and system to deal with such matters fairly, consistently and efficiently and ensure that the powers provided in the amendments should only be used cautiously and only as a last resort, as mentioned by the Minister of State.
Madam, in this regard, I would urge HDB to perhaps study the Hong Kong Housing Authority's Marking Scheme for Estate Management in Public Housing Estates before exercising the powers of forced entry into a flat. The Hong Kong system, although meant for the public rental housing estate tenants and similar to our traffic offence demerits system, could be a preferred softer approach in dealing with recalcitrant HDB flat owners before applying the harsher law of forced entry and financial penalty.
In the Hong Kong Marking System, a public housing flat tenant may be terminated from renting public housing if the owner has accumulated 16 demerit points or more within two years. For example, denying a public servant to enter the flat for inspection would yield a penalty of seven points and refusal to repair a leaking pipe another seven points, rendering the tenant close to being expelled from his flat. Similarly, HDB could consider a similar demerit system to soften the harsh law stipulated in the amendment Bill. With that, I support the Bill.
Minister of State Desmond Lee.
Madam, I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Thomas Chua, Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Mohd Ismail Hussein and Mr Ang Wei Neng for their thoughtful
Page: 81
comments and questions. They understand the need for this Bill and support its objective, but they would like to know how the new powers will be exercised and what safeguards will be in place.
While Er Dr Lee Bee Wah supports the Bill, she reminds this House that entering someone's property, abode, home, without his explicit permission, is a very serious matter that bears a great responsibility. Mr Mohd Ismail spoke about the need to explain clearly to the public the circumstances under which HDB will make a forced entry, so that they understand the need for this to be done. I agree with both of them.
As I shared earlier, HDB will make a forced entry, without warrant, only under exceptional circumstances if, and only if, there is imminent danger to public safety or health and time is of the essence and HDB has no other means to gain entry into the flat to solve the problem. In other words, HDB will only contemplate a forced entry in response to a "distress call" and not just to undertake any repair. So, rest assured.
The most likely situation under which HDB will exercise this power, which Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mrs Lina Chiam had asked about, is when structural walls and columns are demolished, thereby threatening the structural integrity of the building and the safety of all the residents and the owner or occupier cannot be contacted despite HDB's best efforts or, worse, they refuse HDB entry in such dire circumstances. In such cases, HDB needs to be able to intervene and intervene quickly, a point reiterated by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah who had shared with the House the importance of structural beams in bearing the load of the whole building.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh had asked about the measures that HDB has to mitigate the risk of damage to HDB flats in the course of renovation. Currently, HDB adopts a three-pronged approach. First, under current renovation guidelines, HDB flat owners are required to engage HDB-registered renovation contractors (RRCs) to do any renovation works. These RRCs are trained. They understand where the structural walls are, where the beams are and they know better than to knock those down. They also have to obtain HDB's prior approval before starting any renovation work, especially those that involve demolition or hacking. This is to ensure that any demolition works proposed will not affect the structural integrity of the building and compromise public safety.
Second, HDB requires all HDB RRCs to engage only certified workers. So, it is not just the contractors who must understand, but the workers must also be certified. These workers must have been trained by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Academy, to carry out demolition or hacking works of walls during the renovation of HDB flats. So, we control both when they renovate – at the contractor level, but also at the individual worker level.
Page: 82
Third, HDB conducts checks on units during demolition or hacking works. This is to send a strong signal to the industry and the renovation contractors to be vigilant and careful in carrying out demolition or hacking works.
Most flat owners also play their part in ensuring the safety of their homes by only engaging HDB RRCs and obtaining HDB's prior approval for proposed renovation works. But there are some owners who will instruct the workers to carry out demolition works that have not been approved by HDB. Sometimes, the contractors themselves are not aware that the instructions have gone directly from the home owner to the workers onsite. In the past three years, there were, on average, five cases of unauthorised demolition or hacking of structural walls and columns each year. The numbers are not big, but you would agree with me that each and every case is a cause for concern.
Mr Ismail had asked whether owners have to bear the cost of damage in the course of HDB's forced entry into the flat and Mrs Lina Chiam was concerned to ask if there are sufficient safeguards for flat owners since the cost of damage could be prohibitive. Allow me to first set the issue in context: most residents will readily oblige when HDB explains the necessity for their entry into their flats.
Mr Thomas Chua's analogy, let me extend it. If the Teo family downstairs had explained to the Tan family upstairs that, "You know I have this problem", in most cases, neighbours will oblige even if they may not have talked to each other in the lift. I think it is just out of basic humanity because the unit upstairs causing problems to the unit downstairs may, in turn, be the unit downstairs of the future some years down the road.
For the small number who refuse to cooperate with HDB and their neighbours despite HDB's best efforts at engagement, most will comply if HDB, as a last resort, invokes these new legal powers or obtains a warrant issued by the Court. So, it will probably be very rare, if at all, that a flat owner will refuse to comply either with an order of Court or ignore a legal order issued under this Act and cause HDB to have to make that forced entry causing damage. I think it will be very rare. The mere fact that it is an order or a Court order ought to suffice. But please be assured that when HDB officials do have to do this, they will try their best to avoid or minimise any damage in the course of doing so. And when the families are indigent and they face hardship, these are things that we all will look at, in totality. Madam, allow me to continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In all other situations where there is no imminent danger, HDB will continue its existing approach of engagement and persuasion, for example, to deal with ceiling leak cases, which many Members of Parliament have received feedback on. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Ang Wei Neng mentioned, about 30% of ceiling leak problems, or 2,800 cases a year, took more than three months to resolve, even
Page: 83
though actual repair works took only three to four days.
In some instances, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh pointed out, there may be understandable reasons why the upper floor neighbours may not grant HDB access to address the problem.
First, the upper floor neighbours may happen to be overseas for a long period of time or cannot be contacted. In such a situation, HDB will continue its current procedure of trying to contact the owner for permission to enter the flat to check. If the owner remains non-contactable or cannot be present because he is overseas, HDB will make an effort to contact the next-of-kin.
Second, the upper floor neighbours may not want the work to be done, or they may ask for it to be delayed, because of medical reasons. For example, someone living in the flat may be pregnant, or a family member may be very seriously ill. In such a circumstance, HDB will continue to explore other avenues. These include explaining to the lower floor residents about the predicament of their upper floor neighbours and trying to facilitate a mutually agreeable timeframe for repairs. Generally, most lower floor owners are understanding and willing to accommodate and postpone the repairs to a later date.
Third, the upper floor neighbours may not be able to pay for the repair costs due to financial hardship. HDB will continue to help by subsidising 50% of the cost of fixing the leak under the Goodwill Repair Assistance (GRA) Scheme. If they still face financial difficulty, HDB will arrange for the repairs first and offer them the option of paying for their share of the repair costs by instalments.
To answer Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question on whether owners need to pay for additional investigation costs if the repair works fail to rectify the ceiling leak problem, let me clarify that HDB's investigation is on a goodwill basis, without any charge. Owners will, however, have to bear their share of the repair costs incurred. If the remedial works fail to rectify the problem due to workmanship issue, HDB will still carry out the repairs for the owners without additional charge.
Let me assure Mr Gan, Mr Ang Wei Neng and other Members that HDB will continue its current approach of engaging and persuading both upper and lower floor neighbours to reach an understanding, with the help of community leaders. HDB will continue to take the time and effort to understand each case and to work out the best way to resolve the problem. HDB will only apply to Court for a warrant to enter the flat to investigate and do repair, as a last resort, when the upper floor neighbour is clearly unreasonable and HDB has exhausted all avenues of engagement. The legal powers are not meant to replace, or to short-cut, the
Page: 84
current community-based approach of engagement and persuasion.
Ultimately, this is about being good neighbours. I agree with Mr Thomas Chua that the kampong spirit is very important and we need to continue to nurture it in our communities and estates. If neighbours on the upper and lower floor can empathise with each other, understand each other's predicament and reach a mutually-acceptable arrangement to resolve the ceiling leaks, then there will be no need for HDB to exercise these powers to intervene.
(In English): Madam, let me continue and wrap up in English. While most residents are understanding and cooperative, there will always be a small handful that are inconsiderate and unreasonable to the concerns of their neighbours downstairs. They cause great inconvenience to their neighbours living on the lower floors. If allowed to persist, the ceiling leaks will worsen and require urgent repairs.
HDB will need legal powers to intervene as a last resort. Because the legal powers are available, like what Mr Mohd Ismail had said, they may send an unambiguous message that HDB will intervene if it really has to. This should prompt action even without the need for HDB to exercise these new powers. This is where and how we hope the new powers can make a difference to significantly reduce the time taken to resolve a small number of protracted ceiling leak cases and bring life to normality for residents who suffer from this.
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for the number of cases in the past year for which the power of forced entry with warrant would potentially have been applicable. In 2014, HDB had about 30 cases of serious ceiling leaks where upper floor neighbours persistently refused to cooperate despite repeated appeals by HDB and their neighbours. If we had the legal provisions in place then, we might have considered applying for a warrant to enter the flat for some of these cases, but we will never know. Hopefully, with the possibility of HDB entering with a warrant – just a mere possibility – upper floor neighbours will agree to cooperate and we reduce the need for such a course of action.
As Mr Thomas Chua mentioned, do we really need a law to intervene? We need so for a small number of cases but the vast majority of Singaporeans are reasonable, compassionate, understanding of the pains that neighbours go through and I think human compassion ought to resolve most of them.
Indeed, as we do not expect a large number of cases, there may not be a need to set up a specialised unit to deal with forced entry cases, which Mr Ang Wei Neng has suggested, but we will take his ideas into consideration. What HDB will ensure is that all officers handling such cases are fully trained and adhere strictly to clear, established protocol, with an
Page: 85
unambiguous code of conduct, which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Mohd Ismail have asked for.
Allow me to elaborate. For cases where the powers are invoked under warrant, first, HDB will give at least a 24-hour notice period to the owners or occupiers before proceeding to apply for a Court warrant to enter the flat. Mr Mohd Ismail asked if the 24-hour notice period is too short. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mrs Lina Chiam suggested a longer period of, say, 48 hours and one week respectively. But as these cases actually would not have been fresh cases and HDB and the neighbours would have tried time and time again to ask them to cooperate, to explain the necessity of doing so, actually, 24 hours would have been sufficient notice for them to take action. So, these are not cases that are a bolt out of the blue. They are known cases, dragging on for weeks, months and years.
Second, before entering the flat, the Bill requires the HDB officer to identify himself to the occupant and to show his staff identity card as proof of identity, as well as the warrant showing his authority to enter the flat, which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has also suggested as necessary safeguards.
Third, if asked, the officer will also have to give the occupant a copy of the warrant for record.
Fourth, the Bill also mandates that at least one HDB officer be present in the flat at all times, together with the contractor.
Mr Mohd Ismail suggested that HDB send officers who can speak dialect or ethnic Mother Tongue to communicate with non-English speaking owners or occupiers, especially our elderly. HDB, in fact, already does so, even in the early stages of engagement, when seeking the owners' cooperation to enter the flat for checks.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Mohd Ismail are concerned about possible impersonation of HDB officers. Mr Mohd Ismail further suggested that HDB provide a hotline for verification of the identity of HDB officers. We fully appreciate their concerns and encourage all residents, especially the elderly, to take precautions by asking to see the original identification card or staff pass of the HDB officers. If flat owners have doubts, they can call the HDB Branch service line – this is the hotline that Mr Mohd Ismail suggested – or the Essential Maintenance Services Centre, to verify the officer's identity. That number can be provided by the HDB Branch officers easily.
HDB will also work with the Police and the local grassroots who currently reach out and educate residents, especially our elderly, about crime prevention and how to guard against imposters trying to get into their homes. So, it is a work that is ongoing. It is work-in-progress.
Page: 86
Let me emphasise that impersonation of HDB officers, or any public officer for that matter, is a very serious offence and will be dealt with sternly under the law.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about safeguards against accusations of loss or damage to belongings of home owners. Currently, HDB already adopts various safety and security measures when it does upgrading or repair work within flats. It will continue with these measures. HDB will also remind residents to lock up their valuables and be present in the flats when work is being carried out. In fact, the officer will also be there when the contractor is in the unit.
Mrs Lina Chiam has made some suggestions about the need for HDB officers to wear a recording device before entering the flats and that it is to safeguard their interests and the interests of the residents. HDB will certainly look into the feasibility of that suggestion.
Mr Ang suggested that HDB adopt the penalty points system used in the Hong Kong Marking Scheme for Estate Management Enforcement. In Hong Kong, the scheme is applicable to public rental housing estate tenants and Interim Housing licensees, as he has also observed. If the tenants receive 16 penalty points within two years under the penalty points system, then the tenancy or licence may be terminated and the resident has to leave. This system may not be immediately applicable to Singapore, as the vast majority of our flats are sold to home owners. But we will, of course, study the best ideas from around the world. Our key objective really is to facilitate entry into the flat to carry out investigation and undertake necessary repairs to alleviate the concerns of neighbours.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mrs Lina Chiam asked whether HDB's authority to intervene and enter flats can apply in cases of hoarding. The proposed powers in the Bill do not extend to hoarding, but HDB is separately stepping up efforts to better deal with hoarding cases, together with other agencies. Currently, when HDB receives feedback on hoarding inside flats, HDB officers will inspect and advise the hoarder to remove the unwanted items and most residents are cooperative. In some cases, however, the residents may suffer from compulsive hoarding, which is a behavioural or health problem, requiring professional intervention. HDB works with the social workers and grassroots leaders and, in some cases, enforcement agencies, to persuade the hoarder and next-of-kin to clear the clutter and offer assistance if needed.
In the case that Er Dr Lee had mentioned, given the circumstances of that particular case, the National Environment Agency (NEA) invoked its powers under the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act to gain entry into the flat after the Police had removed the body of the deceased and agencies entered the flat to clean it up. HDB will strengthen coordination amongst agencies, so that the living environment remains safe, the hoarder is able to receive the counselling and support and uncooperative cases do not remain
Page: 87
protracted.
I shall now move on to another key amendment, which is to augment HDB's investigation powers. Mr Gan was concerned that these powers could be abused and HDB's residents' privacy affected. Let me take the opportunity to reiterate the rationale for the enhanced investigation powers for cases of lease infringements.
As I have said earlier, HDB flats are highly-subsidised and principally meant for owner-occupation. When a flat owner signs the agreement with HDB, they commit to use their flat for its intended purpose. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has shared with the House, unfortunately, there are flat owners who blatantly infringe the terms of their lease, such as by illegally subletting their flats, operating an illegal gambling den, hosting vice-related activities and leasing their flats to tourists for short-term basis. These actions pose risks and can cause serious problems for genuine HDB neighbours. When these cases are reported, HDB officers are duty-bound to do fact-finding and investigate.
But some flat owners have prevented HDB officers from carrying out their duty, by refusing to grant access to the flat for inspection or refusing to provide the documents that have been asked for. This cannot continue. Hence, it is important that HDB be given appropriate powers to do fact-finding and to identify those who misuse their public housing flats, in order to ensure a safer and more pleasant living environment for all in our public housing estates.
Nevertheless, HDB will exercise these powers professionally, carefully and with good judgement. In response to Mrs Lina Chiam's concern about whether HDB officers have the expertise, whether they are Arts background or Science background, rest assured that HDB will train its officers and consult more established enforcement agencies. There are certain skills and certain background that you need to identify certain leaks. I would like to reassure the House that, similar to the powers of forced entry, HDB will only invoke such powers when the owners or occupiers repeatedly hinder HDB officers from carrying out their duties to investigate.
Mdm Speaker, the amendments proposed today will empower HDB to better discharge its duty to build good, affordable public housing and provide a safe and pleasant living environment for all Singaporeans. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had very aptly recounted earlier, this is a duty that started 55 years ago, thanks to the vision of our founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
When Mr Lee saw the urgent need to provide housing for an overcrowded Singapore dotted with slums and squatter settlements, he set up the HDB in 1960. When he was
Page: 88
convinced that if every family owned its home, the country would be more stable, he launched the "Home Ownership for the People Scheme" in 1964. Fifty years on, HDB flats are home to over 80% of Singapore's resident population and Singapore has achieved, as Er Dr Lee has pointed out, one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.
And to quote Mr Lee: "Housing was and is a most important public policy, one with profound influence on the lives of our people and has moulded the cohesive society we have". Over the years, we have moved from providing simple and utilitarian flats to developing comprehensively planned and integrated modern towns where residents can comfortably work, live, learn and play. We must continue to build on the proud legacy Mr Lee has left us, to better serve the current and future generations of home owners.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Mdm Speaker, may I ask my supplementary clarification in Mandarin?
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Minister of State mentioned earlier that if the water leakage problem still persists after repair, then HDB will repair it again free-of-charge. I welcome such a practice. The residents living upstairs may be unwilling to repair the ceiling because they say "I just paid for the repair a few months ago. You are asking me to spend money now on this again!" So, they are rather reluctant. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether there is a time limit for this. Is there a certain time period during which if the water leakage problem recurs, HDB will do the repair again for free? This is because water leakage problems may not appear immediately. Sometimes, they may take a few months, or even a year, to appear. That is why I want to ask whether there is a time limit for this.
Ceiling leaks through wear and tear arise because, over the years, water-proofing membranes, the floor, toilets and kitchens wear out and, from time to time, will cause problems to units downstairs. When I first started serving in the capacity as a Member of Parliament in 2011, I, too, like many seniors before me in this Chamber, was faced with residents suffering from spalling concrete and ceiling leak problems. I think this is a problem all of us encounter from time to time. I did ask engineers of HDB, perhaps, "Could you give me a briefing?" And they did give me a briefing as to why these things happen. It is due to the wear and tear of the water-proof membranes.
Page: 89
Sometimes, when residents engage contractors on their own – and this is what we hear anecdotally – they get the job done as quickly as possible because repairing a ceiling leak or spalling concrete requires some time to treat. So, it may take three to four days to identify the source of the spalling concrete and leak and, from the lower units' point of view, you need time to repair, treat the metal, replace the plaster, concrete and so on. But if you compact that time and if things are done quickly because you do not want to spend the time or you think that is the recommendation of the contractor that you bring in, then, invariably, very quickly, you will find that the problem recurs.
The request that the Member had made to provide that certainty, I think we will look at it on a case-by-case basis. But certainly, if from the upstairs units' point of view that they are unwilling because they fear that you will not solve the problem, I think they should rest assured. We will look at the source of the problem. This is scientific but it is not a perfect science. Leaks are small, sometimes micro, and if it does recur, HDB will look at the situation and render assistance.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Lee.]*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
Page: 90
PAPERCUTS