Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill second reading speech (Round Up) by MOS Desmond Lee
Apr 13, 2015
1. Madam, I thank Er 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 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.
HDB’s Entry into Flat to Investigate and Repair
2. While Er 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 you.
3. 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, time is of the essence, and HDB has no other means to gain entry to 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.
4. 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 RRC as I have said earlier, the Registered Renovation Contractors, to do any renovation works. And these RRCs, they 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 its not just the contractors who must understand, the workers must also be certified. These workers must have been trained by the Building & Construction Authority (BCA) Academy, to carry out demolition or hacking works of walls during the renovation of HDB flats. So we control both at the contractor level, but also at the individual worker level. And 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.
5. 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 homeowner to the workers on site. In the past 3 years, there was on average 5 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.
6. 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. But 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 ask the Tan family upstairs that you know I have this problem, most cases neighbours will oblige, even if they may not have talked to each other in the lift. I think it’s just out of basic humanity, because upstairs units causing problems to units downstairs, they may in turn be the downstairs units 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’s 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 families are indigent and they face hardship, these are things that we all will look at, in totality.
Mdm, in Mandarin please.
7. 在处理其他没有迫切危险的个案时，像是议员们经常接到的天花板漏水投诉，建屋局会沿用现行的对话与劝导手法。颜添宝议员和洪维能议员刚才也指出，大约百分之30的天花板漏水个案，也就是相等于每年两千800个个案，花了超过三个月才解决，但实际上，修补工程只需要三四天工夫。
8. 正如李美花议员和颜添宝议员所指出的，楼上居民不愿意让建屋局人员进屋处理问题，有某些情况是可以理解的。
9. 首先，楼上居民有可能长时间身在海外，或者无法联络上。如果碰到这样的情况，建屋局会沿用现行的程序，尝试联络屋主以取得批准进屋检查。如果完全无法联络到屋主，又或者因为屋主在海外而无法露面，建屋局就会设法联络屋主的亲属。
10. 楼上居民也可能因为有健康问题而不愿意展开修补工程，或者要求延期进行工程。比如说，家里可能有人怀孕，或者是有人生了重病。如果是这类情况，建屋局将会研究其他可行的方法，包括让楼下居民了解楼上邻居所面对的困难，并且尝试拟定双方都能够接受的时间表来解决问题。一般来说，多数的楼下居民都能够谅解，并且愿意延迟展开修补工程。
11. 再者，楼上居民可能因为有经济困难，所以无法支付维修费用。建屋局会继续通过“友好协助计划”(Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme)津贴百分之50修补漏水天花板的费用。如果屋主仍然没能力支付剩余的费用，建屋局就会先安排维修，再安排让屋主通过分期付款等方式支付他所必须承担的维修费。
12. 颜添宝议员刚才提问，如果进行了修补工程，却仍然无法解决天花板漏水的问题，屋主是否得承担额外的调查与勘察费用？让我在此澄清，建屋局人员展开调查与勘察，完全是出于善意的一种协助，是不收费的。不过，屋主们必须分担维修费用。如果修补工程因为作工因素而无法解决漏水问题，建屋局将会为屋主再进行修补，而不额外收费。
13. 让我向颜添宝议员、洪维能议员和其他议员保证，建屋局将延续目前的做法，由社区领袖协助，同楼上和楼下的居民对话，劝导双方达成协议。建屋局将继续投入时间和精力来了解每一个个案，并找出解决问题的最佳办法。只有当楼上居民明显不讲理，而且建屋局已经用尽所有沟通方式，建屋局才会走最后一步棋，向法庭申请庭令，进屋勘察情况及展开维修工程。法律授予的权力并不是要来取代现行的社区性对话与劝导手法，也不是一种捷径
14. 到头来，这是关于如何当个好邻居的问题。我同意蔡其生议员的观点，甘榜精神是很重要的，我们必须继续在社区和邻里间培养这种精神。如果楼上和楼下的邻居都能够设身处地去了解彼此的困难，达成双方都能够接受的安排来解决天花板漏水问题，建屋局就没必要动用法律给予的权力来进行干涉。
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 MPs 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 3 months to resolve, even though actual repair works took only 3 to 4 days.
In some instances, as Er Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested, 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 in 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 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.
15. While most residents are understanding and cooperative, there will always be a small handful that is inconsiderate and unreasonable to the concerns of their neighbours downstairs. They cause great inconvenience to their neighbours living on the lower floor. 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 these.
16. 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 may 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 co-operate, 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 that human compassion ought to resolve most of them.
17. 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 has suggested but we 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 unambiguous code of conduct, which Er Lee Bee Wah and Mr Mohd Ismail has asked for. Allow me to elaborate.
18. For cases where the powers are invoked under warrant, first, HDB will give at least 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-hours’ notice period is too short. Er Lee Bee Wah and Mrs Lina Chiam suggested a longer period of say 48-hours and 1 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.
19. 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 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 records. And fourth, the Bill also mandates that at least one HDB officer be present in the flat at all times together with the contractor.
20. 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.
21. Mr Gan Thian 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 officials. 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. Now 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’s a work that keeps on going, it’s work in progress.
22. Let me emphasise that impersonation of HDB officers, or any public officers for that matter, is a very serious offence and will be dealt with sternly under the law.
23. Er Lee Bee Wah asked about safeguards against accusations of loss or damage to belongings of homeowners. 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. Now, Mrs Lina Chiam has made some suggestions about the need for HDB officers to wear a recording device before entering the flats and that is to safeguard their interests and the interests of the residents. HDB will certainly look into the feasibility of that suggestion.
24. 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 2 years under the penalty point 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 homeowners. But we will of course study the best ideas from around the world. And 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.
25. Er 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 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 protracted.
Increased Investigation Powers for HDB Officers
26. 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 residents’ privacy affected. Let me take the opportunity to reiterate the rationale for the enhanced investigation powers for cases of lease infringements.
27. As I have said earlier, HDB flats are highly-subsidised and principally meant for owner-occupation. When a flat owner sign 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 dwellers neighbours. When these cases are reported, HDB officers are duty-bound to do fact-finding and investigate.
28. 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 has 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.
29. Nevertheless, HDB will exercise these powers professionally, carefully and with good judgment. In response to Mrs Lina Chiam’s concern about whether HDB officers have the expertise, whether they are of arts background or science background, rest assured that HDB will train its officers, and consult more established enforcement agencies. There are certain skills, there are 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.
Conclusion
30. Madam 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 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.
31. 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 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. 50 years on, HDB flats are home to over 80% of Singapore’s resident population and Singapore has achieved, as Er Lee has pointed out, one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.
32. 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.