Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Madam, we all know that HDB estates built in the early period have many inherent defects and maintenance problems. It is, therefore, unfair to ask the town councils to shoulder the full liability of maintaining the flats due to poor workmanship and design.

In the past, I could not unfairly accuse the Government of abrogating its duty and passing the buck to town councils, as the HDB did provide some help to town councils for certain costly repairs to HDB estates. Of course, the Government does not want to admit that it is its responsibility. So, these helps are called "goodwill". However, the town councils were informed that these goodwill repairs would be withdrawn. So, now there is no goodwill, but "badwill", bred by the HDB as owner and builder of the HBD flats, with inherent maintenance problems conveniently dumped to the town councils. I would like to highlight two examples below.

One, sunken apron and manholes. Hougang Town Council frequently comes across instances of sunken aprons and poorly graded sewer lines in our estates. HDB, in its most typical fashion, will say that these are common properties managed by the town council, and thereby the town council should make the necessary repairs and pay for the repair bills. What the HDB conveniently forgets is that these aprons and manholes are not, in the first place, designed and constructed with supports which will prevent them from sinking with soil settlement. In contrast, the aprons constructed in new HDB estates are supported now. However, the HDB was unwilling to carry out repairs for the town council when aprons are badly sunken and sewer lines below are also badly damaged. But, Madam, this is now withdrawn.

Two, dislodged ceiling boards on pitch roofs. Members may think what is the big deal with ceiling boards. It should be relatively low cost to repair. But the ceiling boards are located on the roof of 18- and 20-storey highrise buildings with no access from inside the building. In my constituency, there are seven such blocks which are relatively new developments, with similar design and with the problem of falling ceiling boards. The total cost to solve the problem, based on our quotation, was about $0.5 million, with about half of the cost, being the need to install horizontal platforms and scaffoldings with boomlift to access the ceiling.

I wonder why they design such flats that will result in high maintenance costs. Subsequently, the town council established the problem of falling ceiling boards is due to the detailing and fastening systems used. The HDB was good enough to want to rectify the problem and, in November 1988, notified us in writing that the HDB contractor would carry out the work. However, despite numerous verbal communication, nothing happened and, in June 2003, Hougang Town Council wrote to the HDB to remind them that the matter was still outstanding and, currently, it is still outstanding. Now, the HDB has also withdrawn this category of goodwill repair. So, it is a case of promised repair on specific work by the HDB and then withdrawn.

The other problem, Madam, concerns the recent restructuring of HDB. The privatised part of the HDB is now called Surbana, which sounds like the name of a holiday resort. On matters of estate maintenance problems, in the past, when the town council dealt with the HDB directly, at least we had a clear answer and guidelines on repair matters. Now, we are like a ping-pong ball, played between HDB and Surbana, being referred here and there. To give just one instance, the Hougang Town Council recently repaired some external wall finishes and, based on established cost sharing principles, submitted a claim for reimbursement, first to the HDB, then Surbana. It was not a big amount, but it took more than six months, and the matter is now still pending. My question really is whether these are fair deals which the HDB metes out to town councils, or are these only special deals that HDB metes out to Hougang Town Council simply because we are an Opposition town council.