Applicants with More Than One HDB Invitation to Book BTO Flats in Different Projects

Sir, this question has been addressed in the written reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on multiple flat applications which was issued on 7 August this year.

Speaker, I have two supplementary questions, also taking reference to the answer that the Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How referred to.

In the earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition's question in August, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has explained that it needs to manage supply and demand. I think that was the gist of it. And it wanted to also disincentivise applicants who behave irresponsibly by not taking up the bookings that they were offered.

I would like to ask whether HDB has actually considered the effect of this policy on the applicants themselves and, if I may explain, the scenario we are talking about is where the applicant has applied in a Build-To-Order (BTO) exercise, received a queue number that is beyond the supply of the first project. Then, they are permitted to apply for a second project because they were exceeding the supply of the first and they were fortunate in the second application to receive a queue number within the supply given.

This expectation of them being able to select a flat in the second project is left undisturbed for months until HDB comes back to them to inform them that the first project is actually undersubscribed and now they have to stick to the first project, otherwise they would risk being counted as a non-selection and so on.

So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he recognises that this has resulted in frustration and great disappointment in these applicants, because a legitimate expectation was given based on this second letter of offer and, only months later, to be sort of pulled from under the applicant's feet because the first project has turned out to be undersubscribed. Does the Senior Minister of State recognise that there is frustration and disappointment?

Secondly, I understood from the earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition that the number of applicants in this situation is very small. It is only 2% of the total number of applicants, 116 people since October. That was what was mentioned. I am just wondering, since the number is small, could HDB give some special consideration to these people and perhaps let them choose which project they want, maybe on the same day, to recognise the fact that it is not their fault and they have been given these two letters of offer by HDB?

Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the two supplementary questions, which are in a way related. Allow me to set the context of the reply to Mr Pritam Singh's earlier PQ. The context of why we imposed some of these requirements is that, in the past years, about 40% of our BTO applicants who were invited to book a flat did not do so.

There are many reasons why applicants who were invited to book a flat did not choose to do so, but the effect of it would be that it crowded out those who are still waiting to get a flat. Because of this, we decided to impose certain requirements to allow those who have genuine needs to get their flats quickly.

As part of that, we have tightened the rules for non-selection of flats. Since October last year, applicants in BTO and Sale of Balance Flats exercises who received a queue number within 100% of the flat supply at an earlier exercise are not eligible to apply for a flat in subsequent sale exercises. So, that is to be fair to those who are not yet able to get a chance to book their flats.

But HDB gives queue numbers up to 300% of the flat supply. This gives more people a chance to be able to choose a flat, even though the queue number is slightly more than 100% of the flat supply. Those applicants who receive a larger queue number and hence, have a lower chance of securing a flat may be anxious to apply in another sales exercise as soon as possible.

That is very understandable. So, you get a queue number that is in excess of 100% of the flat supply, you are anxious to get a flat. So, we allow those applicants who receive a queue number outside 100% of the flat supply to proceed to apply in a second sales exercise, even before their first flat booking appointment.

So, what Ms Sylvia Lim described earlier were applicants who got a queue number in excess of 100% of the flat supply in the first exercise and we allowed them to book for a second flat exercise where their queue number could well be within the flat supply allocation. That is why they are in a situation where they could be invited to apply for a first flat but they prefer to choose from the second flat selection because they have gotten a queue number that is very favourable to them.

These are the groups of people that Ms Sylvia Lim pointed out. There were about 116 applicants, about 2% of the total applicants. That is the first point of clarification to set in context why we have this group of people.

The second clarification I will make is that Ms Lim talked about expectations, that they can choose both flats. Actually, when they apply for the flats in the first exercise, we do set expectations with them as part of the application that, if they are invited to choose a flat within the first exercise, they would have to give up the queue number in the second exercise. Those expectations are set upfront. But we understand that some of the applicants in the first flat exercises may have very limited choices to choose from, for example, a limited number of flats, say, a small number of remaining flats available. We do not count the non-selection against them if they do not choose. So, it is not a non-selection count. They can then continue to choose in the second flat exercise.

That is how we set expectations upfront and we have given flexibility to those applicants who may not have many flat options to choose from in the first place.

The third related point to Ms Lim's question is whether we understand their frustration. I empathise and acknowledge that. And I have come across, like Ms Lim, residents who have come to see me saying, "Is it fair? I have got a chance to choose a second flat and I prefer that location. But can I give up my first one and choose the second one?"

And I always explain to the residents that we want to be fair to all applicants. Firstly, by allowing those applicants to put in a second application, even while the first application still in process, we are already providing flexibility. And if you allow them to choose between first one or second one, it might be unfair to those who may be waiting in a queue. It may be crowding out others who are waiting for a flat; and that is the rationale.

But if Ms Sylvia Lim, or Members in the Chamber, come across residents who really feel that, on a case-by-case basis, on compassionate ground, that there are strong reasons for the appeal, please let us know. We will look at them. But really, it is on the basis of fairness and consistent application of the rules across all applicants, whether they are in the first exercise but rather choose from the second one, or those who are still waiting in a queue for their flats.

Thank you, Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, I do acknowledge the rationale for HDB's policy, but since the Senior Minister of State has asked, we have come across constituents, our appeals have failed and so, we have to bring it up in Parliament to try to understand the issue further.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether, in the fact that the numbers are very small and the fact that these are not the irresponsible applicants that HDB is concerned about. In fact, these are people who legitimately received two letters of offer and the second one that resurrected the first project came months after the second offer. So, I would like to ask HDB to please be open-minded about this issue, because there is a legitimate expectation set there and it would be good if HDB can cater to do that.

Sir, I thank the Member for the further clarification. Just a couple of data points to set in context the Member's question.

First, in terms of timeline, applicants will receive their ballot results about two months after the flat application period closes. The booking exercise commences from about four weeks after release of the ballot results. So, it is quite fast. The exercise will take several months to complete because it depends on the flat supply and the take-up rate of other applicants. Applicants would be invited to book a flat based on their balloted queue number and will receive HDB's invitation about two weeks before their booking appointment. So, from HDB's point of view, we do want to facilitate the applicant in booking the flat as soon as possible.

The second data point that may be of interest to Ms Lim will be that of the 116 applicants who had been invited to book a flat in two sales exercises, 14 applicants appealed to HDB for a non-selection count waiver, so that they can proceed to select a flat at their second flat booking appointment. HDB took a look at the cases and we tried to understand where they were coming from and we tried to provide flexibility. HDB acceded to five of these appeals, as they were at the tail-end of their selection process and had limited flats to choose from. And as I explained earlier in my reply, we exempt such applicants from incurring a non-selection count. The remaining nine applicants who appealed were rejected. Of these, eight of them proceeded to book a flat at the first flat booking appointment and only one eventually incurred a non-selection count.