Non-religious Entities Bidding for Developments Zoned for Places of Worship

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the current criteria to determine the winning bid of tenders for places of worship; (b) whether it is the practice to allow non-religious business entities to bid for such projects; and (c) whether the Ministry will review its criteria on who can qualify for such projects so that religious groups can have a fair chance to compete in the bidding.

Ms Lee Li Lian asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many commercial companies are operating in land zoned for religious use; and (b) what are the considerations used by the Ministry to award such land to commercial entities.

Places of Worship, or PWs, serve the spiritual needs of our people and are essential community facilities. That is why the Master Plan has reserved and zoned specific land sites for PWs to be built. We tender out such sites to meet new demand and invite religious organisations to bid in such tenders. We have also opened such tenders to participation by companies. This is because some religious organisations form companies to enable and facilitate their ownership and development of such PW sites. This has been the practice since 1991 – that is some 24 years ago -- when state lands were put up for tenders for PW use. The assumption is that only companies affiliated to religious organisations would participate in such tenders.

Page: 11

For each tender, the highest bid among eligible bidders will win, as this is a fair way to allocate the site. Since 1991, seven sites have been won by companies, all affiliated to religious organisations.

Until the recent case of the Chinese temple site in Sengkang, the Government has never awarded a PW site to a company that is not affiliated to a religious organisation. We now understand that the winning tenderer for this site, Eternal Pure Land Pte Ltd (EPL), is actually a private company without any religious affiliation. From what we know, the plan of the company is to run a commercial columbarium on the site. This is not in line with our plan for the PW site at Sengkang.

The Master Plan sets aside and provides sites for private columbaria. We have occasionally tendered such sites as "columbarium", but not as "place of worship". The tender documents are differently worded.

The Sengkang site is not intended for a commercial columbarium. HDB awarded the site to EPL, under the impression that the company is a vehicle for a religious organisation to build and own a Chinese temple.

We will ensure that the land is restored to the original plan of a Chinese temple. We are in discussion with EPL on how this can be achieved.

The intent of a Chinese temple was clearly stated in the Master Plan and the HDB's marketing brochures for their BTO flats there. Many temples provide an incidental columbarium service for their members and devotees. Whether the eventual temple in Sengkang will also provide such a service is a decision for the temple trustees to make. But to minimise disamenity to residents, there are clear URA planning guidelines for such ancillary facilities.

Late last year, we launched a review to improve our land tender process for places of worship, for example by tightening eligibility requirements for tenderers. We have been engaging religious groups on the review. The Sengkang temple case has highlighted the necessity for such a review. I will provide more information when the review is completed.

Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Minister what lessons can HDB and other Government agencies learn from this episode? Secondly, is it possible for URA, in its Master Plan, to indicate the possible sites for the development of places of worship; make it compulsory? And is it possible for it to be made compulsory for HDB to be specific in its future sales brochures to indicate a site meant for development of places of

Page: 12

worship? A third question in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  I would like to ask the Minister this: in the past development of Singapore, what experiences have we gained in the building of temples, churches, mosques in residential areas? Many of our residents believe that if they live near to a temple or places of worship, they will be blessed. Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery has opened up to become a tourist site. In the case of Fo Guang Shan, they were able to be developed to provide both temple and columbarium services without any problems. Why is the development a problem?

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. One take-away for me from this episode is that times have changed and some of our tender procedures have not caught up with time. For example, for over 20 years, we would never have thought that a for-profit company would participate in a non-profit making venture like building and owning a Chinese temple. In this instance, the motivations of the successful bidder are very different. But having reached such a situation, I will find a way to try and unwind this.

The key point is, for that Sengkang site, we want a Chinese temple; and we will deliver that. For that Sengkang site, we do not want a commercial columbarium; and we would not have one. Members can be assured about this point.

As for reservation of PW sites, they are clearly marked in our Master Plan. Every five years, we review the Master Plan and when adjustments are needed, we publish those proposals and seek public consultation before we confirm them. So, there is full transparency. Likewise, HDB's BTO brochures are very clear. In this instance, for example, that the site would be reserved for a Chinese temple was clearly marked. There was no ambiguity about that. But I can understand some of the residents' unhappiness because of the possibility that there will be a commercial columbarium cropping up in their neighbourhood. I think those concerns are legitimate and reasonable.

We make a strong distinction between a commercial columbarium and an incidental columbarium service which is provided by temple or church. I remember that in Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's constituency, there is a church which has an incidental columbarium service. As Mr Seng Han Thong pointed out, temples like Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery and Fo Guang Shan also provide a columbarium service. I visit Fo Guang Shan occasionally and I am impressed with their careful planning of the columbarium. Most temples hide them in the basement, so, it is dark and gloomy. But in this instance, they put it on Level 3 or 4. With sunlight coming in, it is bright and when you walk in, you do not feel uneasy about the

Page: 13

columbarium.

In other words, there are ways to provide a good columbarium service without causing any kind of disamenity. I hope that answers the Member's queries.

It is not necessary. We already do it as our Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. It is not just the residents who are not happy. A lot of temples are not happy as well, since commercial companies were allowed to tender for the site. I would like to ask the Minister, since it is a commercial company which has the intention of setting up a columbarium, will the Ministry consider disqualifying this company and recalling the tender. By allowing a commercial company to build a columbarium and later on bringing in a temple, the nature of the operations is very different from a temple operating the place.

A second question is, moving forward, will MND disallow commercial companies to tender for religious land in the future?

Mdm Speaker, as I have indicated, a review is on-going. In fact, the review has been going on for several months. There are different kinds of religious organisations – a church's needs and a temple's needs can be quite different. We have done many rounds of consultation and the consultation will continue to see how best to tighten some of these tender rules to achieve our planning objectives. If we want a temple, we really get a temple, and not a commercial columbarium cropping up out of the blue. The review is ongoing.

The reason that triggers the review was not this incident in Sengkang. It was that we have got quite a bit of feedback from some of our temples and churches. When they take part in a tender, they often lose out to some other bidders whose congregation is much smaller and who already own an existing place of worship. So, they asked if the Government could build in additional criteria to ascertain needs rather than to simply award the tender to whoever has the deepest pocket. Often, the latter also has external links, being foreigners.

Page: 14

And with deep pockets, they were more able to win the tender.

That was what triggered the review. As Members know, it is not easy to assess needs, especially when different kinds of religious organisations are involved, but we will find a way. We will seek religious wisdom. We will meditate on it.

Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. It is good to hear from the Minister that that plot of land will still be a place of worship. One supplementary question: how can such an incident take place or be overlooked? What other safeguards are there in place to prevent it from happening again?

Mdm Speaker, as I have said, this is a case where, for many years, the tenders are open to commercial companies without problem. The assumption is that the companies are affiliated to some religious organisations and are a convenient vehicle for the religious organisations to take part in a tender and to execute a project.

In fact, some of us recall that the request to include commercial companies came from the religious organisations because some of them found it more convenient to do so. Because temples and churches are non-profit making, we just assume that profit-making companies would not be taking part in a non-profit making venture. That is how it came about.

Mr Seng Han Thong would know a very popular Chinese opera – Butterfly Lovers. It was in an era of old China when girls, unfortunately, were not allowed to join schools. But there was this young and beautiful talented lady, 祝英台, who wanted to study. So, she disguised herself as a boy and succeeded in attending the school for three years. The classmates just assumed that girls would not turn up. In hindsight, they asked why they did not suspect. They had noticed that the student looked a little girlish, but just brushed the thought aside as it would be too incredible. And "he" turned out to be a girl.

It is a similar situation here. The officials assessing the tender assumed that it must be a company affiliated to some religious organisation. Because they made the highest bid, it was awarded to them. But as I have said, we will find a way to forge a middle path forward. The key point is we will restore the planning objective.

Mdm Speaker, my first question earlier was since the company that tendered for this site is not a temple or a company set up by the temple, will the Ministry disqualify this tenderer and recall the tender, so that the temples, especially the smaller temples can take part in the tender and make it more affordable? Many say that if you allow the commercial company to tender such land, it would drive up the bid price and the smaller

Page: 15

temples have difficulty in getting land.

Yes, that is the intent. We are in discussion with the company to see how we can restore this site to its original purpose. Their plan and our plan do not coincide. We are in discussion; I do not want to go into too much detail here. But we will find a way to restore this site to its original intent.

Mdm Speaker, the Minister had alluded to the fact that the intention of the winning bidder might not coincide with the state's land use planning. I would like to ask when the agency assessed the tender, would information about the parentage of the bidder and the fact that it was incorporated in Singapore only recently, not arouse some suspicion and prompted checks. Therefore, I ask the Minister what is the due diligence that was taken in assessing this tender and whether lessons learnt could be applied to prevent such instances from happening, not only just for religious sites, but other land use tenders as well.

Certainly, out of this incident, we have learnt some lessons, which Mr Seng also asked about just now. But as I have said, for a quarter of a century, we never had a for-profit company taking part in such temple tenders. Therefore, it never crossed the minds of the officials evaluating the tender. But it is not too late to unwind the situation.

Mdm Speaker, I would just like to ask about the issue of temples and religious organisations. Some of the temples and religious organisations in my constituency have bidded for a long time and have waited many years, but they have no choice and their hands are tied.

Since there is a review ongoing, can the Minister ensure they also look at the extension of lease for some of these religious organisations as well, and perhaps update us at the relevant time?

Madam, as I said earlier, the review was meant to look at larger issues and various aspects have cropped up. Shortage of land for PWs is indeed a real issue, because Singapore, unfortunately, is very handicapped as far as land is concerned. That is why in recent years, we have allowed existing PWs to intensify their land use so as to be able to meet the greater demand that they are now facing. We have reserved enough sites, but there is a need to intensify land use. We will bear the Member's points in mind.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for the clarification. One supplementary question: on the issue of transparency, one of the sticking points from the many potential buyers of flats was that the columbarium was seen to be a

Page: 16

fine print. Moving forward, from URA's perspective or sales perspective, how does HDB plan to change this practice? Transparency is important. Any associated or incidental columbarium, or any other services that could be sensitive, should also be included in sales plans and booklets.

Madam, in this instance, there was no question of a lack of transparency. The site was clearly marked out as a temple. In fact, for completeness, the HDB put in a footnote to indicate that there may be a columbarium. We cannot assume that the temple will build a columbarium. I am closely associated with three temples which I visit quite regularly. Out of the three, two have a columbarium service. It is not all three; and not all zero. Some do and some do not. Even for this new temple that will eventually crop up when we re-tender, we will not know yet if they want to put up a columbarium service or not. We cannot make that assumption. But I think the unhappiness of the residents over the last few weeks was that they thought we were going to allow a commercial columbarium to be built there. And this is quite a different entity from an incidental columbarium service.