1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government will look into deploying smaller and more discreet surveillance cameras for capturing high-rise littering so as to avoid alerting potential offenders to the deployment of these cameras.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): The National Environment Agency (NEA) is continually looking to enhance its enforcement capabilities, including for high-rise littering surveillance, by keeping pace with the latest developments in camera technology. Cameras that are smaller in size tended to have a shorter optical range and duration. NEA will consider the effectiveness of surveillance equipment comprehensively in its adoption.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Madam, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Could I just ask whether there is a timeframe in terms of reviewing the effectiveness of the current surveillance cameras? I just did my home visits again and I still have the same feedback about the same debate that we had a few years ago, about how, when we put the surveillance camera there, it is good deterrence – people stopped littering or throwing out their cigarette butts. But the minute we remove the cameras, they start again. So, it is a cat-and-mouse game and it really is a waste of our current resources.
Can NEA look into this; look into deploying smaller, more discreet cameras so that we can have more effective enforcement on the ground?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Let me explain. We are mindful of the feedback that we have gotten and indeed, we are aware of this. As I have said, we continue to look at developments in camera technology for more effective and better deployment. But in the mean time, to make it less conspicuous, we deploy the camera quite a distance away from the suspected units. We try to deploy at ground level where site conditions permit and, only in cases where this is not possible, do we look for an adjacent block to deploy the camera.
We also need to consider other factors that will help us in apprehending the high-rise litter bugs. For instance, you need to deploy the camera over a sufficient surveillance duration, which is maybe, a few days; five days or even more. Therefore, you will require a battery pack. You will also need to make sure that the cameras are tamper-proof, not subjected to mischief, for instance. And to mount it securely, you need a camera pole. Actually, it is not just the size of the camera but the entire system, which comprises the camera plus the battery pack.
There is also this trade-off between size and efficacy. You need cameras with wider optical range because you usually do not have good enough information to know exactly which floor and, in fact, even which stack. So, you need a wider optical range from which to increase the chance to apprehend the high-rise littering offenders. That is the reason why, if you look at it, it is not just the size of the camera, but the entire system.
As I have said, we will continue to look at developments in camera technology, including better image resolution and detection capabilities. At the moment, smaller cameras mean shorter surveillance duration capabilities as well as very limited optical range.
At the end of the day, enforcement does act as a deterrent, but for a long-term sustainable solution, it must be that we want to encourage all Singapore residents to take collective responsibility, to encourage and influence each other to be civic-minded and to have positive social norms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Nature of Discrimination in Cases that Breached Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower for each of the past three years, where penalties were imposed for breaches of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (a) what is the percentage breakdown of the cases related to different bases of discrimination such as nationality, race and gender; (b) what is the number of firms which have been penalised; (c) whether any penalties have been levied that do not involve the curtailment of foreign work passes and, if so, how many of such cases; and (d) whether harsher penalties have been imposed on firms which are repeat offenders as compared to first-time offenders.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Manpower): Over the past three years, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) handled an average of 400 discrimination cases annually, including those arising from proactive checks by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) on discriminatory hiring practices.
In about 50 cases each year, the employers were found to be in breach of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices and had their work pass privileges suspended. About 60% of such cases involved nationality-based discrimination, and about one-third involved gender and age discrimination, split about equally between the two. The remaining cases involved other types of discrimination such as race, marital status or family responsibilities.
Apart from suspending work pass privileges, MOM also issues warnings to employers for less severe breaches, such as lapses in their HR practices which resulted in miscommunication and discrimination in the recruitment process. In these cases, TAFEP will step in and advise the employers on the required rectifications. MOM issued an average of 40 warnings annually.
MOM takes a serious view of discrimination at the workplace. Over the past three years, there has not been a repeat offender.\t
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I think that was very helpful. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Government consider publishing these statistics on an annual basis?
Secondly, does the Government regularly conduct a survey on perceptions of discrimination? I did actually ask this in the House in the last term and my understanding is that such a survey is carried out occasionally. But could there be a regular cycle to understand within the job market what are the perceptions of discrimination on the part of jobseekers?
And thirdly, could the Minister of State share if there are cases of companies from this group who have been found to engage in discriminatory practices who have not been amenable to pressure by way of having their foreigner work passes curtailed, because they do not employ foreigners, and therefore, they are not amenable to the warnings and the pressures from MOM based on the current tool-kit.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the hon Member Mr Leon Perera for the supplementary questions. I will take the three questions together. On whether MOM tracks perceptions of discrimination, we do track public perception of fair employment practices through regular opinion polls, and also, more detailed surveys of employment practices over time. Notwithstanding the progress made by employers over the years, MOM did observe an increase in the percentage of local jobseekers who perceived discrimination during the job search process between 2014 and 2018. MOM will continue to conduct regular surveys so that we have a good pulse of public opinion on this matter.
On whether there were companies that were not amenable to the warnings and pressure from MOM because they did not hire foreign workers, for cases of discriminatory dismissal, as an example, the employer can also be ordered by the Employment Claims Tribunals to compensate the employees. In addition, if the firm is an employment agency, demerit points could be imposed. If sufficient demerit points are accumulated, the licence could be suspended or revoked.
We also take companies to task for false declarations of fair hiring practices. In the past, we have sought legal action against such companies.
On whether we will publish statistics regularly on companies in breach of fair hiring practices, we will consider doing so if we think it helps in clarifying public opinion of the situation on the ground as well as in shaping employers' behaviour, to correct their behaviour towards fair employment practices.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I ask if we are going to review the penalties under the tripartite guidelines? It sort of makes sense if you discriminate based on nationality, we curtail your work pass privileges. But if you discriminate based on gender, on family responsibility, then the penalties to curtail the work pass privileges sort of do not make sense. I know the Minister of State shared some of the other penalties earlier, but I am just wondering overall, we can review the penalty framework so that it is aligned with what the discrimination is about.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: We just reviewed the penalty framework in 2020 and we will continue to review it further if necessary. Thus far, we have not seen any repeat of discriminatory practices from the companies that were penalised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pilot Programme for SMRT Taxis to be Equipped with Booster Seats for Young Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the six-month pilot programme by SMRT Taxis to progressively equip its fleet of 2,800 taxis with booster seats for young children; and (b) whether the pilot will be extended to all taxis companies.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Madam, SMRT commenced a six-month Booster Seat Pilot Programme in March 2020, but due to the circuit breaker, it was extended to December 2020.
About 1,750 SMRT taxis were equipped with booster seats for young children. However, the utilisation rate for these booster seats was low, as there were very few requests for the booster seats from commuters. The booster seats remain in the taxis, and SMRT will provide further updates on their usage soon. If there are other taxi companies who are keen to conduct similar pilots, LTA will be glad to consider.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I am just concerned why we are looking at utilisation rate versus safety. We know that children are getting injured because they are not in child car seats during the accident. We know that being in a child car seat can reduce the incidents of death by over 50% if you are in a car seat. So, I urge MOH to look into this as more of a safety issue rather than how many people are going to use it.
Secondly, I know there is a previous MOT reply that it is more practical for taxis to not carry the child car seats. Again, I hope we do not look at it as practicality versus safety. The practicality concerns are addressed already because nowadays, as I have showed the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, the child car seats are really compact; so, it does not take up much space. In fact, some of the booster seats can fit under the driver's seat. So, there is no issue of practicality and again, I hope we look at this at the safety angle.
For private vehicles, if your child is not in a car seat, you could go to jail for it. But somehow, I find it strange that the same car, same model, when it becomes a taxi, the safety considerations just disappear. I hope the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can clarify why.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: I thank the Member for his clarification. As always, every policy needs to strike a good balance, and in this case, for taxi drivers, the cost and also, operational considerations for them. Because taxis are used for livelihood. Taxi drivers make multiple trips throughout the day, serving the diverse needs of different passengers. In fact, we came to this position after public consultation with different stakeholders. Naturally, there was a range of views and one, as advocated by the Member Louis Ng, was that there should not be any compromise. So, all children in all vehicles must be in a booster seat or seat harness.
But taxi operators did highlight the constraints because taxis need to satisfy a boot size requirement for luggage or things carried by passengers. If we add on the booster seat requirement, it may pose a challenge, especially for the new hybrid car models which tend to have a smaller boot.
\t
I thank the Member for showing me a compact booster seat that may be easier to store, but we must also look at – if the rule was or the law was implemented on taxis, it means that every child passenger in all taxis must be seated on a booster seat. First, it is not feasible for taxis to be fully equipped with different permutations of child restraints to cater to the children who may board the taxi. Also, this current exemption will facilitate taxis to offer street hail service for commuters with young children. Because the \"flag, board and go\" nature of street hails will be slowed down when the taxi drivers need to fix up the booster seats when stopping alongside the road.
This also may lead to some unhappiness among families with multiple young children, because they will need multiple taxis as there may not be sufficient child restraints in a single vehicle; or a larger capacity taxi with the various seats. So, it means that higher costs will be incurred on the families. And I do not think it is wise to impose this during this current economic situation.
But, parents have option of using private hire cars, or PHCs, already, as they are included in this Act. Because PHCs are pre-booked, the passengers can indicate upfront, the seats required and the drivers have ample notice to prepare the seats for the passengers. Therefore, PHCs are included. Today, most if not, all parents of young children should be quite savvy in using ride-hailing apps.
Therefore, I seek the Member's and parents' understanding that the current position does offer options and it strikes a good balance.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I agree with Senior Parliamentary Secretary that there is a cost concern, but I hope then it is not the third element where it is cost versus safety. I am speaking up for the private hire drivers as well. We make it compulsory for them, for PHCs that they have to be in car seats. Then again, it is a bit strange that for taxis, it is not. The rationale given is because taxis do street hails. But really, how many street hails are there nowadays, for the taxis? I think a lot of them are based on bookings as well.
For parents with young children, I really doubt that in today's context, they would actually do street hail. They would also book the taxis rather than go down on the streets and try and flag one down.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: I thank the Member for his push for this. Safety for all people, especially young children, is important. MOT will continue to monitor the situation. I think while safety is important, but we really also need to consider other implications, especially when it affects the livelihood of people.
One option we could look at, I think, if we see that there is a need for it, would be good to look at maybe ride-hail type of journeys to look into. But we will continue to consult and work with the different stakeholders as we look into this area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Consider Wholesale Insurance for Banks and Other Credit Card Issuers to Permit Easier Write-offs for Smaller Transaction Amounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister in light of the rise in fraudulent credit card transactions, whether the Government has considered encouraging more widespread wholesale insurance for banks and other credit card issuers that will permit easier write-offs for relatively smaller transaction amounts.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung) (for the Prime Minister): Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked if banks and credit card issuers should be encouraged to obtain wholesale insurance cover for card fraud losses, so that they can write-off smaller losses incurred as a result of fraud.
There is little demand from credit card issuers to purchase insurance to cover fraud-related losses arising from their credit card portfolios.
Instead of insurance, which will lead to higher costs for consumers, it is more important for credit card issuers and customers to play their respective parts in preventing fraud.
Credit card issuers such as banks have invested considerable resources in building fraud surveillance systems and controls to combat card fraud. These systems have been enhanced over the years in response to changing technologies and methods used by the fraudsters. Today, major banks share fraud trends with one another, enabling them to continually refine fraud rules to tackle the latest fraud techniques.
Customers should keep their cards safe and immediately report to their issuing banks if they lose their cards. A timely report will cap a customer's liability at $100 unless he is subsequently found to have acted fraudulently or negligently. For online payments, customers should not disclose credit card details or One-Time PIN, or OTP, to anyone, and should practise strong cyber hygiene such as by regularly updating the security patches and anti-malware software on their devices. I find myself repeating this in Parliament and reminding people: practise good cyber hygiene.
For unauthorised payments to merchants that are not secured by OTP, banks have the right to recover the lost amounts fully from the merchants, and hence customers will not bear any loss.
We will continue to monitor the fraud situation and ensure that banks do their part to provide their customers with clear steps to take in order to protect themselves from such losses. In addition, the industry Code of Practice for Banks on Credit Cards issued by the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS), sets out the liability of cardholders under various circumstances, is currently being reviewed to consider emerging scenarios for fraud and further risk mitigating measures.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response and for sharing with us about how the system is being continually refined. I have just one supplementary question for which some motivational context behind the original question, I think, would be useful.
The US has the Fair Credit Reporting Act which, by limiting the liability on consumers, has actually shifted a significant part of the burden of fraud detection and policing away from the consumer and government, and back toward credit card providers. Even, as the Minister had shared, we have some elements of this in place, I think the routine reporting of fraud and in our own Meet-the-People's sessions, when we have residents coming into us, fearful for the loss of their life savings due to fraud, makes me feel that consumers are often still in lurch for liability for unauthorised transactions on their credit card accounts.
So, to build on my question, I wonder if the MAS has considered other forms of regulation that would potentially shift the burden of responsibility away from consumers constantly just improving their cyber hygiene, and toward better deployment of fraud detection technology and tools by financial institutions because they are held more liable for fraud-related losses.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: I mentioned just now, I keep reminding people to practise cyber hygiene, but that is by no means the only thing that we do. As I mentioned, there is a system that strikes a balance between the liability on the banks as well as on the part of consumers. In fact, for consumers, so long as they are not negligent, they are responsible, they report quickly, the losses they suffer is very much minimised and these are all encapsulated in the industry Code of Practice for Banks on Credit Cards. As I mentioned in my reply, it is also being reviewed.
So, I know we are all plagued by cyber crimes and scams. We are all victims of it. Every day, we open our emails, we see some of them. So, we will continue to be there and we will continue to have to strike a balance – educating but at the same time protecting consumers, but also to be fair to banks and the industry. This is something that is evolving and we will continue to work on it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Improve Road Safety Given Pedestrian Fatalities amongst Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked asked the Minister for Home Affairs given that 15 out of 18 pedestrian fatalities in 2020 involve seniors aged 60 and above and with half of the cases due to jaywalking, what else will the Ministry consider doing to improve road safety measures as the population continues to age.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Madam, the Traffic Police (TP) puts in significant effort to try to bring down the number of accidents involving elderly pedestrians. TP partners Senior Activity Centres and Lion Befrienders to educate the elderly on road safety. It launched the Eye Care Kit in February 2021, which allows elderly pedestrians to make a self-assessment on their eye health and encourages them to seek early intervention to address any issues.
As mentioned in MHA's Committee of Supply debate, MHA will be enhancing enforcement against irresponsible motorists in Silver Zones. Motorists who commit offences at Silver Zones, such as speeding or using mobile communicative devices while driving, will incur two additional demerit points on top of the usual demerit points for their offence. They will also be liable for an additional $100 in composition fine. The aim is to encourage motorists to exercise greater caution when in areas frequented by elderly pedestrians. Further details will be announced later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Calls for More Enforcement Actions at Roads that are Prone to Car Racing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the fatal car accident along Tanjong Pagar, whether the Traffic Police will consider more enforcement actions at roads that are conducive for car racing especially in the late nights.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Madam, the Traffic Police (TP) conducts regular enforcement operations at known hotspots. Further, when public feedback is received on such activities, TP will also assess and where necessary mount additional enforcement operations.
The penalties for conducting illegal speed trials include a fine, mandatory imprisonment and forfeiture of the vehicle. First-time offenders are liable for a fine not less than $1,000 and not more than $2,000 and mandatory imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. Repeat offenders are liable for a fine not less than $2,000 and not more than $3,000 and mandatory imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. Police may seize the vehicle used in the illegal speed trials and the Court may order its forfeiture.
From 2015 to 2017, there were five cases of illegal speed trials and 10 persons were convicted. There were four cases from 2018 to 2020, involving 31 persons arrested, which are pending investigations or court proceedings.
\tMs Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): First, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his reply. I would like to ask the Minister of State if there is an overview of Traffic Police of the roads that are more prone to speed trials and whether there are more prevention measures that can be put in place besides enforcement, to deter. Reasons being that there have been increasing numbers of a residents giving feedback of certain stretches of roads that are very prone to car racing into the midnight. So, my question is whether there are some preventive measures that MHA will consider?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, we have a strategy to look at, not only illegal speed trials, but also the overall road safety aspects of how we can keep our roads safe, and at the same time, that road users are able to use the roads to carry out their daily activities.
So, with regard to speed trials, we receive feedback and we also conduct enforcement operations. One is when we received the feedback through our sensing and intelligence that we get, not only from the community, but also from people who are working with us and our stakeholders. We know of the areas that are prone to have speed trials and conduct enforcement operations regularly in such areas.
For the Member's concern, we have received feedback relating to some of the issues that she faced in her constituency in relation to illegal speed trials. We have been and continue to conduct enforcement operations.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the order of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 8-11 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question No 7 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 5 Mar 2021.]
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates for the Financial Year 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022","subTitle":"Paper Cmd 5 of 2021","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mdm Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head L (Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment)","subTitle":"Building a liveable and sustainable home","sectionType":"OS","content":"Head L (cont) –
[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [3 March 2021], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\" – [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang]. (proc text)]
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mdm Chair, the annual ice loss from Greenland Ice Sheet rose seven-fold annually during the last decade and the Antarctic ice loss nearly quadruple per year in the last decade as well. To meet the expected long-term sea level rise, the minimum land reclamation level in Singapore was raised from three to four metres above mean sea level in 2011. We have been continually shoring up our coastal areas, especially those which were reclaimed not so long ago.
Increasingly we are feeling the impact of rising sea waters. During the 2019 National Day Rally (NDR), Prime Minister presented the long-term plan of coastal protection against rising sea levels. He mentioned that from the city to our east coast areas are low-lying grounds that will be vulnerable to flooding when sea level rises. One of the exciting projects he mentioned was the building of polders following the example of the Netherlands along the coastline. These are seawalls built further out at sea and the water is then pumped out. It will create new land that could be used for housing and other purposes.
The alternative is even more exciting. This is to reclaim a series of islands offshore, from Marina East all the way to Changi, then join them up with barrages and create a huge freshwater reservoir similar to Marina Reservoir. In this way, we can further enhance our water resilience.
Prime Minister mentioned that these will be huge investments amounting up to $100 billion and we need to long-term planning up to a 100 years. Last year alone, the Government spent $100 billion in four Budgets. Since the projects will yield huge benefits for our country in the long term, can we consider bringing in these large infrastructure projects forward so we can realise the benefits even earlier? It also helps to promote and build our SMEs in their capabilities as well.
Building polders and creating new land that can also be sold and raise funds for the project. Given our finite land and sea space, how will the building of the polders and offshore islands affect our shipping lanes? Will our Navy have any more waters to sail after the construction?
Can the Ministry provide an update on this very exciting project, with what has been done since 2019? And I would like to ask the Minister whether can he share with the House how does our Government ensure that coastal adaptation measures are cost-effective and adequately resourced, given this is a long-term and large-scale effort?
Like what our Prime Minister said during the NDR 2019, we must make this effort now. Otherwise, one day, our children and grandchildren will be ashamed of what our generation did not do.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, growing up, we teach our children that Singapore is an island city-state and many of us have fond memories by the beach or enjoy fishing, boating or watersports. Our blue spaces are precious and debris pollution, coastal development and high usage of these spaces can have lasting negative impact on our marine environment. When we factor in climate change and the fact that only about 30% of our island is only less than five metres above the mean sea level, I believe that coastal protection needs to be a priority for now and for future generations. The announcement of the PUB assuming the role of the nation's Coastal Protection Agency in 2020 is heartening, as efforts are coordinated.
Can the Minister update on PUB's effort, since assuming this role, and what are the future plans? What are some examples of coastal adaptation solutions that will be examined under the site specific studies mentioned and to what extent will nature based solutions be considered as we must be careful about reclamation. And will there be a coastal protection masterplan similar to the Green Building masterplan?
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, flash flooding has steadily become more frequent in the last 10 years. With climate change, we can expect such extreme weather events to become more common. As we continue to convert more of our forests into developments, we lose the many protective benefits of forests in moderating the impacts of extreme weather. For example, forests help slow the flow of water into our drainage system, reducing flooding risks. Therefore, when floods happen, we cannot point the finger solely at climate change, when we ourselves have been partly to blame. As we cut down more forests, we will have to spend more on ensuring that our physical drainage infrastructure and flood response systems can keep up.
While the Ministry has an established monitoring and response system for flooding, what are the plans to address the root causes of flooding in vulnerable areas? Does the Ministry's flood protection plans adequately account for possible future increases in extreme rainfall?
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Madam, climate change has resulted in more unpredictable and intense rainfall culminating in more frequent incidences of flash floods around Singapore. Just last November, flash floods occurred in three areas and water levels in drains and canals rose to 90% of their capacity in eight other locations.
Beyond flash floods causing destruction and inconveniences, the incessant rainfall had also resulted in the uprooting of trees, posing safety concerns for Singaporeans. Thus, it is pivotal that we have a comprehensive and coordinated understanding on Singapore's level of flood resilience.
I would like to ask the Minister what is Singapore's plan in ensuring we have adequate inland flood management system to handle the increasing unpredictable weather? I would like to raise three areas for MSE's consideration.
One, improvements in existing drainage systems and buildings in low-lying areas. Many of these flash floods occur in low-lying areas with some in private estates. Unlike the public housing, the private estates do not have a dedicated Town Council to handle and address these municipal issues. Would any support be provided to enhance the infrastructure on drainage system in existing private estates and older buildings?
Two, periodic assessments of efficacy of measures to allow for nimble, adaptive changes. Since the BCA Coastal Adaptation Study was concluded in 2019, can Minister provide an update on the measures undertaken in response to this study? From the findings, are there more areas that need to be further reviewed and what would the periodic assessment on the efficacy of the measures entail?
Three, introducing contingency measures. While extensive measures have been adopted to protect our coastal areas and reduce and flood risks, however, with the best of efforts, we are always vulnerable to the forces of nature. Do we have any contingency measures in place should an incessant heavy downpour coupled with high tide conditions and maximum canal holding capacity coincide? I suggest we increase the vegetation topsoil to serve as absorbent layer for water drainage especially in areas like park connectors along the water banks or planting along the roads.
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, please take your three cuts together.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): With climate change, comes more extreme weather conditions. Singapore is no exception and we are experiencing more unpredictable and intense rainfalls. Going forward, we can continue to expect more of such sudden and heavy precipitation. What are some of PUB's plans to mitigate inland floods in the face of this challenge?
As we continue to develop and become more densely built up, how can we ensure that we have enough green lungs and basins to absorb the surface run-off? Do our reservoirs and catchment tanks have sufficient capacities?
What upgrading and assistance measures have we implemented to protect and help residences and shophouse in older, low-lying areas? Would the Ministry provide an update on the safety measures, such as higher barricades for pavements next to drains, for the protection of pedestrians during floods?
Temperatures have been rising in Singapore, and our residents have been feeling it outdoors and in their homes. There are some measures that we, as individuals, can take to help reduce heat emissions.
Firstly, we should reduce the use of air-conditioning and switch to fans whenever possible. Air-con cools an interior by releasing the waste heat to the outside. Adjusting the air-con to a comfortable temperature of around or just above 25 degree Celsius instead of blasting colder air, will help reduce the amount of heat that it generates to the exterior.
The use of refrigeration has a similar impact on external temperatures. Reducing our demand for non-essential cold items, for example, drinks, ice-cream and desserts, is another way to help reduce heat emissions. Would the Ministry advise what more can we do to reduce heat emissions from human activities?
Increasingly, due to human activities, such as transportation and intense use of air-conditioning, Singapore is experiencing worsening Urban Heat Island effect, in short it is called UHI. This is generally understood to describe the air temperature difference between urban and rural areas. However, in the Singapore context, it would mean the difference between our built-up and green areas.
How will Singapore's urban temperature rise as a result of global warming, and how would this exacerbate the UHI effect? How does the Government measure the extent of the UHI effect and has any research been conducted? Which sectors are the main contributors to the urban heat island effect in Singapore and what has the Government done to mitigate or reduce it? Does the Ministry have any new measures to reduce this and how can we, as individuals, contribute to this effort?
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, please take your four cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I have asked several times in this House for the Government to disclose data on top emitters in Singapore. As I mentioned during the climate change Motion, Singaporeans increasingly live their lives in a sustainable way. They should be given more information with which to make their consumption decisions.
The UK already requires all big companies to include emissions data in their annual reports, and the EU provides large amounts of emissions data on all facilities level across its member states. The German Institute of Economic Research has found that such company-level disclosures work, reducing emissions by 17% permanently.
The Government has shared that company-level emissions may reveal confidential business performance. In this case, I propose that we publish a ranking of the top emitters without sharing their exact emissions level. This allows the public to make more informed consumption decisions without compromising the business confidentiality of our businesses.
Will the Ministry consider this proposal? It strikes a fair balance between the trade-offs.
As Singapore pursues its Smart Nation initiative, we must also be smart about how we manage our e-waste. We generate more than 60,000 tonnes of e-waste annually. This astounding amount of e-waste will only increase. If not handled properly, e-waste contains small amounts of harmful substances that can threaten our health and our environment.
I am heartened that the Government has been building up its e-waste recycling facilities and capabilities. I have been raising this issue in Parliament since 2016 and I am glad that MSE announced that the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for e-waste will be implemented from July this year. Can MSE share whether we are on track to meet this target? Can MSE also share its plans on how it will raise awareness on the EPR and make recycling e-waste convenient for all, so that we can all do our part to make the EPR a success?
Last year, I shared with the House about the Zero Waste Masterplan in Nee Soon East. I talked about how we had saved 39,792 disposables since the launch of our Zero Waste Masterplan in April 2019. COVID-19, unfortunately, threw a spanner in the works but we will restart the Zero Waste Masterplan once we can.
I commend MSE for putting together a diverse Citizens' Workgroup to tackle this issue of excessive consumption of disposables. How will MSE incorporate the recommendations from the recently concluded Citizens' Workgroup into its plans to better manage disposables in Singapore? Will the public service take the lead by committing to end the use of all disposables at all public service events?
The Ministry also announced that it will put in place a Deposit Refund Scheme for beverage containers by 2022 as the first phase of the EPR framework for packaging waste, including plastics. Can the MSE share more details on the progress on this?
Lastly, food waste is one of the biggest sources of waste in Singapore. In 2019, we generated over 700,000 tonnes of food waste.
I am currently working on a Private Member’s Bill to tackle food waste and hope to introduce a Good Samaritan's Food Donation Bill. We have completed our first round of consultations and I am glad to have the strong support from civil society and industry players.
I am also glad to see the Government taking active steps to address food waste. MSE announced that it will introduce mandatory food waste segregation requirements for large commercial and industrial premises. Beyond segregation, it is also important for companies to be aware of the amount of food waste they dispose of. Food waste represents a cost to companies. Data about food waste generated will help companies better manage their processes to reduce waste. This is both a win for sustainability and for the companies’ bottom lines.
Will MSE consider requiring companies that have to segregate food waste for treatment to also report the amount of food waste segregated?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mdm Chairperson, with Singaporeans increasingly aware of the need to be environmentally conscious, we should bolster our fight against the use of plastics. In the Green Plan, one of the key pillars is sustainable living, where policies will be geared towards propelling us into a zero-waste nation powered by a circular economy. Physical recycling is the main channel to reuse plastic, but our current recycling rate of only 4% for plastics is poor. To tackle our plastics waste issue, we will, therefore, also need a reduction of plastics consumption, especially single-use plastics. When we are just focusing solely on recycling, this neglect on reducing our waste is what drives production which, in turn, creates carbon footprint.
To put matters in perspective, a recent research by researchers from NTU and their colleagues in Finland has shown how single-use plastic bags have a global warming potential 14 times more than a reusable plastic bag. I understand that the citizens' workgroup on reducing excessive consumption of disposables was convened and it called for a fee for each plastic bag if they take three or more of them at supermarkets. I wish to lend my support to this call and ask that the Ministry also study a single-use plastics charge across retailers and F&B outlets, phased in over five years, to encourage a reduction in plastics waste and look for alternatives.
Concerns raised on the potential negative effects on lower income households can be tackled by having a rebate scheme. The authorities can also work with charity groups and non-profit organisations to give out complimentary reusable bags. I repeat my call in my Budget debate speech last year for mindsets to shift in the way we consume, to only use what we need to use. In supermarkets or shops, can we use more of good quality reusable shopping bags like this one, something that I have been using for the last nearly 20 years? If we only need to use, say, one or two plastic bags for refuse disposal a day, can we not take more plastic bags than we need? In this way, we may end up using fewer plastic bags and may still have enough bags for our refuse.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Chair, the NEA's newly-launched Toilet Improvement Programme (TIP) extends grants to Town Councils at an amount capped between $60,000 and $90,000. The grant seeks to raise the hygiene and cleaning standards of public toilets. A corollary aim of the TIP is to encourage the removal of smoking corners. For the grant to be disbursed, Town Councils have to ensure the renovation works to their toilets – provided they are approved for innovation – are completed by 31 March 2022.
Madam, I seek clarity on the policy reasons behind tying the upgrading of toilets with the removal of smoking corners at hawker centres. While the grant can be tapped upon should a smoking corner not be removed in a hawker centre, the quantum of the grant is quite significantly reduced.
In designing the grant parameters, what impact does NEA foresee in the event of the removal of smoking corners from hawker centres with existing smoking corners? Specifically, what is the assessment of the displacement effect of smokers from hawker centres out into the community?
While I appreciate NEA and the medical advice would lean on the very reasonable hope that some smokers would quit the habit as a result of the removal of smoking corners, there is a greater likelihood, at least in the immediate term, of smokers migrating from hawker centres to other areas in the community. This includes smoking in the comfort of their own homes, potentially leading to more nuisance complaints from their fellow neighbours.
To this end, what is the policy connection between toilet upgrading and the removal of smoking corners? Quite simply, the TIP grant and its objectives, while independently commendable, will create the prospect of new disamenities in other Town Council-managed areas and, possibly, between HDB flat dwellers. Town Councils may well have to create new smoking areas somewhere else close to the hawker centres shortly after the grant is given to the Town Council, or even reinstate a smoking corner in the market after the grant has been disbursed. Would it not be a better policy for NEA to tie the TIP grant with specific compulsory criteria related to the renovation of toilets that are energy-saving, green and come with lower life-cycle costs, in line with the Government's Green Plan and targets?
To this end, some of the recommended features in the TIP include the toilet feedback management system – something I believe is akin to those found in shopping centres and/or the airport where users rate toilet cleanliness. Other additions NEA has recommended include the installation of toilet pedestal mounted bidets.
Sir, public toilets at hawker centres are heavily utilised. It is open to question whether some of these recommended features under the TIP are practical in the long term. It is difficult to imagine how much care must be taken by a cleaner to hygienically clean a toilet pedestal mounted bidet and, separately, how easily such a feature can be damaged in a heavy-use setting. I would like to make two suggestions to the scheme, along with some other questions.
Firstly, extend the programme beyond March 2022, by when toilets are expected to be completed to qualify for the grant.
Secondly, NEA should conduct a pilot scheme at a very heavily-utilised public toilet in a busy hawker centre to field trial and assess the viability of the recommended TIP features. It would be important to study the steady state condition of the pilot toilet at this hawker centre, which should be perceptible after a few months of use, allowing for a better perspective on the effectiveness of the measures proposed. With hawker culture recently added to the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, it would be important to get this done right so that a broadly consistent toilet hygiene standard is consistent across all hawker centres in Singapore.
Thirdly, the TIP also envisages an enhanced maintenance regime, the details of which have not been communicated to Town Councils. Does NEA envision an increase in manpower to achieve the cleanliness standards required?
Finally, can I also check whether market associations or committees were spoken to, along with Town Councils that manage NEA markets, for their feedback before the TIP scheme was considered? And in light of the tiered nature of the grant, how many hawker centres in Singapore currrently do not have smoking areas and, out of these, how many are newly constructed hawker centres and how many are legacy hawker centres?
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Mdm Chairman, as we build more offices, factories, medical institutions, eating places, the demand for manpower in the environmental service sector will continue to rise and it will rise to a level that will not be sustainable, unless we tap on technology and automate. One good example comes to mind is NEA's $10.8 million Environmental Robotics Programme, with the support of National Robotics R&D Programme, for the development of robotics solutions to improve productivity. Through various agencies, including NTUC, the Ministry is working with them to support SMEs to build up their capabilities, carry out our product development and carry out job redesigning and so forth. I hope that the Ministry can speed up this particular programme and put more resources into it.
The outbreak of COVID-19 has put even more demands on this industry now as public hygiene and cleanliness come into the spotlight. Almost overnight, to control the spread of the pandemic, the use of face masks, gloves, plastics and various containers used for food deliveries has become an environmental nightmare. The indiscriminate disposal of face masks and gloves, especially if not properly done so, could choke up our waterways and pose a hazard to our environment. The situation was exacerbated during the circuit breaker period when many of the foreign workers in this particular sector could not work. Water got clogged in the drains, open parks and, in many areas, grass was not cut, mosquito breeding and outbreaks of dengue clusters became another hazard.
Then there is the volume of waste coming from medical centres, hospitals which needs to be addressed, ranging from syringes, face masks to disposable personal protective equipment. Are the existing waste facilities able to cope with this unusual volume of medical waste?
As the COVID-19 period prolongs, may I also ask what is the Ministry’s plan to support and help the industry to transform so that they are able to better cope with the new challenges they face in this particular sector?
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Chairman, for the past few years, I have been involved in litter picking in my constituency. Sadly, I do not see much improvement in the state of cleanliness in the estate. My grassroots leaders and I still see cigarette butts, empty cigarette packets, drink bottles, plastic bottles, plastic bags, used tissues, used face masks thrown all over the floor. At hawker centres, you will see chopstick wrappers strewn all over the ground as well.
Despite the increased number of summonses issued against litterbugs, I feel that the littering situation has not improved in the past five years? If this is the case, NEA should consider other options to signal that littering is not acceptable.
I urge NEA to consider amending the law to allow imposition of a corrective work order for all littering offenders, instead of only for the second offender. NEA must send a message to all litterbugs that their acts of littering have negatively affected the environment and that the litter must be picked up by others. Hopefully, with a Corrective Work Order stint, the offender will see the mess caused by their own actions and acknowledge their role to keep the environment clean. Why should the average Singapore citizen have to live with a dirty environment caused by a few inconsiderate litterbugs?
The Chairman: Ms Rachel Ong. Please take your three cuts together.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Thank you, Madam. My first cut relates to fostering individual ownership for a clean Singapore.
Good personal and public hygiene are our first two lines of defence against diseases. Last year, the pandemic had catapulted to public attention new standards of hygiene required in the fight against public health threats. It was timely that MSE launched the SG Clean movement in February 2020 to galvanise a whole-of-nation effort to strengthen cleanliness and public hygiene in Singapore. Over the years, the Ministry has rolled out different initiatives to raise cleanliness and hygiene standards in public spaces and promote positive social norms, such as the SG Clean Quality Mark. Sustained collective action will be imperative to inculcate a sense of personal and social responsibility in the community. Could a Ministry share more on its efforts and progress of the various initiatives to soster individual and social responsibility?
My second cut relates to the transformation of our Environmental Services industry, specifically Pest Management. The Pest Management industry plays a critical role in securing premises against vectors and vector-borne diseases in Singapore and in safeguarding our public health. In 2019, the Ministry announced that the Pest Management sector will be integrated with the Environmental Services Industry Transformation Map. Many regard this to be timely as this will also accord opportunities for our local enterprises and provide meaningful jobs for Singaporeans. I would like to ask the Ministry for an update on its efforts in supporting the industry in the transformation in light of the new challenges.
My third cut relates to sustaining the hawker culture. Singaporeans enjoy hawker food. Many of us celebrated when our hawker culture was recognised by UNESCO in December 2020. The Ministry had previously announced that 20 new hawker centres will be built. Seven centres have been completed and the remainder 13 are to follow. We understand that the key reason we engage operators through the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model was to leverage their private sector experience so as to better improve the management of hawker centres and meet our community needs.
The initial implementation saw resistance from hawkers due to higher cost and inflexible contract conditions that had to be worked out. Since then, the Government has announced that the remaining 13 centres will be run under the SEHC model. How will NEA continue to work with social enterprise operators to ensure that the success of these new hawker centres while also factoring in the earlier feedback from hawkers relating to the challenges they face under the SEHC model?
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chair, we salute our hawkers who had toiled to provide affordable food for generations of Singaporeans and we congratulate them, our Government and all supporters on our achievement in getting Singapore’s hawker culture inscribed on the UNESCO intangible cultural heritage list.
However, to protect and preserve the heritage and traditions of our hawker culture in an authentic manner is challenging.
Hawker centres were built rapidly throughout the 1970s and early 1980s to resettle the street hawkers and to cater for the demand of the population in the new satellite towns, but they have actually been declining in popularity since the late 1980s as Singaporeans looked for a better eating environment. As a result, the number of hawker centres peaked in 1985 at about 140 and began to decline to about 100 by the turn of the millennium.
As our F&B scene become more sophisticated and diverse but also more expensive, hawker centres remain a source of good, affordable meals for Singaporeans.
However, high rentals and running costs have caught up making it very difficult for new hawkers to enter the market. Even allowing some hawker centres to be run by social enterprises did not solve the high running cost problem. But the most pressing problem of the hawker trade is to replace an entire generation of retiring hawkers. Today, the median age of hawkers is 60 years. Many of them do not have successors because their children mostly do not want to take over the back-breaking trade and it is also their wish not to have their children taking over from them.
There is also the inherent clash between providing affordable meals which means that the hawker trade will be of low profitability and attracting young Singaporeans into the industry. Hence, there may be a need to review the policy of positioning our hawker food as a source of cheap meals.
Perhaps our focus should be on the preservation of our food culture and recipes, much like the intellectual property in other industries, whilst allowing the form of the hawker centre to evolve in tandem with society.
But above all, when promoting a hawker culture, we should not forget to take care of our ageing hawkers to ensure that they have a well-deserved retirement for preserving our local food culture and recipes through their decades of hard work.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Madam, I would like to suggest to make our hawker culture industry more inclusive, compassionate by re-introducing the Hardship Scheme for hawker centre stalls. This scheme was started in mid-1970s and was meant for those aged 40 and above whose family income fell under stipulated threshold and who had dependants to support to rent hawker stalls at subsidised rates.
I made the call to introduce this scheme in 2016. The Ministry responded that the scheme was discontinued in the early 1990s as was deemed ineffective due to low take-up rate and there is no intention to revive it.
I am repeating my call today as within the last four years, I have met a number of needy residents, a couple of them are ex-offenders, who shared that they have culinary skills and expressed their aspiration to run hawker stall with an affordable operating cost.
The hardship scheme may not be a standalone scheme. It could be a sub-scheme under the Incubation Stall Programme or ISP, specifically targeting two groups – needy Singaporeans and ex-offenders which are specifically beneficiaries of ComCare scheme and Yellow Ribbon Project. I suggest that the scheme be re-introduced and to implemented as a Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model which would be congruous with its social mission, a point which Senior of State Dr Amy Khor has alluded to before in this House.
Providing such opportunity and support to needy individuals and ex-offenders, among us, via the hardship scheme for hawker centre stall is, indeed, a very noble social mission.
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, please take your three cuts together.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Our efforts to honour our hawker trade had culminated in the successful inscription of our Hawker Culture on the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage. We must continue to support and sustain the hawker trade so that it will prosper for many more generations to come.
NEA and SSG launched the Hawkers’ Development Programme last year to attract and train prospective hawkers, aspiring hawkers. I would like to ask if the programme will ensure the teaching of diverse heritage recipes and preparation methods.
I support the Government’s effort to match older retiring hawkers without successors with suitable aspiring hawkers, so that they can pass on their crafts or stalls. How would the Government identify these hawkers, and what will be done to support both the retiring and aspiring hawkers during these transitions?
Our hawker centres are our national canteens and provide a wide range of affordable and delicious food. They are highly desired in neighbourhoods and many residents in the newer estates request for them.
The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted our everyday lives significantly, including our construction sector. Many building projects had to be postponed and works are being delayed. I would like to ask the Government how has COVID-19 impacted the progress of the construction of new hawker centres? Would the Ministry give an update on the new completion dates of the centres in the pipeline? I would also like to find out if the new centres will continue to come under the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model?
One of the most important qualities of a civilised society is public hygiene. Each one of us need to step up to keep our environment clean. Over the years, the Government had conducted several campaigns to encourage individuals to do their part. The encouragement include keeping premises clean and pest-free, refraining from littering, keeping toilets clean and dry and so on.
I agree with many concerned citizens that we need collective action to achieve our vision of a clean Singapore, instead of a \"cleaned Singapore\" relying on an army of cleaners to pick up after us. We should aim for high cleanliness standards even after the pandemic is over. In what other ways and through which channels would the Ministry tap on to continue to encourage socially desirable behaviours, and foster individual and social responsibility?
The Chairman: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, please take your four cuts together.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Madam. These cuts are about food.
First, our hawker centres. The recent recognition of Singapore's Hawker culture as an intangible cultural heritage under UNESCO and the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us many lessons about our wet markets and hawker centres. Wet markets are such an important part of our culture and I recently had the opportunity to interact with two young women Pam and Tahira, who initiated the Pass the Pasar Movement to encourage more Singaporeans to visit our wet markets and share the experiences.
Such efforts continue to make these precious spaces relevant for the next generation and, as someone from the younger generation I disagree that hawker centres are less popular among my generation today as many of us \"tabao\"-ed these places during the circuit breaker.
Will the Government be considering further enhancements to the infrastructure of our hawker centres to ensure they will: firstly, be safe and clean; and secondly, continue to be relevant and exciting for our people from all walks of life.
As we embark on our sustainability push, will the Government also be looking into how to make hawker centres and wet markets more sustainable in the long run and reduce food wastage at scale?
COVID-19 has shown that food security is of utmost importance. During critical periods when supply chains could be disrupted, the delivery of vital goods could be impaired and in Singapore we are investing in increasing local food production as a safeguard.
In 2020, SFA launched the 30 by 30 Express Grant to help farms accelerate the ramp up in local food production. What is the progress of the farms that were awarded the 30 by 30 Express Grant and successful tenderers of the agri-land and MCSP plots and are we on track to meeting our goals? How will the Government ensure that the new support schemes meet painpoints and are effective in helping our farmers to grow the local agri-food sector capabilities? Can we also have the Government's assurance that the boost in locally produced food will go first and foremost towards meeting domestic consumption, or if they are grown for export, will that count towards our \"30 by 30\" target?
As of 2019, there are around 220 licensed land-based and sea-based farms in Singapore. The Deputy Prime Minister highlighted Eco-Ark, our first high-tech fish farm, which is able to produce 166 tons of fish a year. Achieving our aquaculture goals should be done in a sustainable and resource efficient manner that is friendly to our marine environment.
Some of our sea-based farms are located near community spaces. For example, near Bendera Bay in the Southern Islands. For such farms in close proximity to our blue spaces, I hope we are extra mindful of the potential impact. Could the Government elaborate how close containment sea-based farming systems are more energy efficient and environmentally friendly than traditional sea-based farming systems? Does the Government have additional plans to increase the resilience of the aquaculture sector? And does the Government plan to have support for the labour market to adjust to these new technologies?
Finally, on safeguarding food safety. It has been more than a year since the formation of SFA. How has the consolidation of food functions into a single agency benefited the industry?
As we evolve into a new norm, food delivery services have also played an important role over the past year with more people handling food before it reaches the consumer. Beyond consumers indicating how many stars out of five on food delivery platforms, can we indicate cleanliness and hygiene, for example, and will delivery riders be equipped and trained to better handle food?
Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Chair, during the COS debate last year, the Ministry announced that it would masterplan Lim Chu Kang to optimise food production using our limited farming area. Given the potential impact on livelihoods and the environment, how had the relevant stakeholders been involved in the masterplanning process?
Will these experienced farmers and their staff be invited to participate in the new plans and be given assistance to change or upgrade their operations so that they can be part of the new production initiatives? For those who choose to retire or discontinue, what assistance or compensation will be provided for them?
Will there be any disruptions to our food production during this transition period.
Next, I declare my interest as the Council Member of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants and I am working with a Singaporean bank. For a new eco-system to flourish, availability of financing is important. Will the Ministry consider working with MAS and Association of Banks of Singapore to develop Singapore into a global, if not a regional green trade financing hub.
Next, concepts like sustainable financing and carbon credits are still relatively new to many local companies which are unsure of the accounting treatment. Thus, I also urge the Ministry to work with the Accountancy body or Singapore Accountancy Commission to formulate a prescriptive set of accounting standards and framework. I am confident we can be the credible accountancy and financing hub for sustainability.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mdm Chair, the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic certainly jolted many in Singapore about the importance of a robust supply chain system in place. The scenes of panic buying at the supermarkets are still fresh in our mind from last year.
As an island state, while we are ranked as number one in the EIU Global Food Security Index against countries like US, Switzerland, Norway and Germany. But this does not give us comfort when you start to read about countries shutting down their borders, sea and airports and also thousands of workers, farmers and truckers stricken by the virus.
Ninety percent of our food comes from overseas, and we buy from 170 places worldwide.
Yes, during this pandemic, we did well. We were able to draw on our stockpile each time the shelves were emptied. We were able to ensure not only food but medical and petrol supply were flowing and essential services were not disrupted, giving assurances to the population.
Now that the pandemic has gone global, I am sure many countries who did not do their maths would be scrambling to get their supplies of essential food stuff and others. The market would be more competitive for everyone.
Disruption in supply can not only be caused by a global pandemic. Today, we live in an age of increasing uncertainty. We have in recent years seen unforeseeable disasters, some man-made and others natural. For example, wars, terrorist attacks, earthquakes, tsunamis, epidemics and nuclear reactor accidents, and even climate change resulting in crop failure or destruction of farmland due to wild fires.
As a land-scarce country, limited manpower supply and not exactly having the best climate for growing crops, is it realistic for us to aim for 30% of our food supply being produced locally by 2030? Maybe we should aim to get Temasek and our other local enterprises to increase their overseas investments in food production, in food supply so that we can further enhance our food security together with our neighbours.
Are we building up a pool of talents in the field of agriculture technology? Can Minister share with the House what is the Government's overall plan to strengthen our food security, to prepare for any unforeseen supply chain disruption?
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Madam, in December last year, Singapore approved the sale of Eat Just's cultured chicken. We became the first country in the world to grant regulatory approval for the sale of cell-cultured meat.
Increasingly, with the growing demand for meat substitutes, we will see more novel foods for sale, such as plant-based proteins, cultured or lab-grown meat and edible farmed insects. Without the history of safe use, how can we ensure that new food production technologies, such as lab-grown meat, are safe for our consumers?
In the past, we had referred to the guidelines and the experience of other nations with bigger populations. As a pioneer, we do not have such data on human consumption to depend on. How will the Ministry assure the public?
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mdm Chairman, water usage in Singapore is about 430 million gallons a day. This consumption rate will likely double in 2060. Taking into consideration that water treatment technologies can be energy intensive, what are PUB's targets to improve its energy efficiency of water treatment?
In 2020, PUB announced that it has commenced the construction of the 60 megawatt-peak floating solar photovoltaic system on Tengeh Reservoir. What is the progress of that project and how many other reservoirs will be similarly equipped with floating solar panels?
In 2018, PUB and NEA announced that Tuas Nexus will be first in Singapore to treat both used water and food waste in the same facility to generate bio-gas for electricity production. Are there more plans to develop similar facilities to enhance sustainability? I hope the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment would shed light on these queries.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Chairman, despite new challenges to our water supply, Singapore has been successful in closing the water loop. We are collecting every drop of water and recycling it where possible. Some of it is purified into NEWater, one of our four national taps and recycled into our water supply. This is made possible with PUB's robust network of tunnels and sewers, including the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, which funnels used water from households and industries to our water reclamation plants for treatment. This water is then further treated into NEWater in the NEWater factories.
I will talk about three areas in enhancing our water resources.
First, safeguarding used water resources. Used water is a precious resource that must be protected. Some companies irresponsibly discharge toxic waste and prohibited substances into our sewers. This could potentially disrupt the water reclamation process, and even compromise our NEWater supply. What are the Ministry's plans to deter such harmful and dangerous practices? In 2019, it was revealed that over a five-year period, nearly 120 companies were fined for illegal waste discharge. Some were even repeated offences. Do the penalties serve as adequate deterrence? Will there be more surveillance and harsher deterrent measures to protect our water supply?
Second, we need to improve our water efficiency. Singapore's success in re-using water is borne out of necessity, as we have very limited water resources. We cannot rest on our laurels, as we face significant challenges ahead. Our water demand continues to rise and is projected to almost double by 2060. Most of this demand will be driven by non-domestic use. Many older buildings which have older fittings, they are less efficient in using water compared to the newer systems. Older toilets also use more water when flushing, compared to newer and more water-efficient systems. This can contribute to higher water consumption, particularly in the buildings with higher human traffic, like shopping malls and offices. What plans does the Ministry have in place to manage the increasing water demand and improve water efficiency?
Third, we need to leverage on technology. It is insufficient to rely on regulations alone to manage water demand. Every individual, household and organisation in Singapore must make an effort to manage their water consumption and reduce usage where possible. Educating the public and businesses on water use can help to identify abnormal water usage and encourage the adoption of water-saving habits.
The Smart Water Meter Programme by PUB presents a good opportunity to leverage on technology to help people to save water. Some of my residents informed me that while they would like to reduce their water usage, they are unable to identify which activities consume the most water from the monthly data in their bill. Some even come to my Meet-the-People sessions to enquire about this and about their water bills. Daily water usage data tracking would be very helpful to help consumers quickly identify and change water wasting habits. Can the PUB provide updates about the new technologies to monitor and improve the efficiency of water use?
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mdm Chairman, Singapore has some 5,700 km of water pipelines, supplying potable water to 1.6 million customers island-wide. Ageing waterpipes, corrosion and changing soil conditions can lead to pipe leakages. When pipes leak, precious water is lost and wasted from the system. There have been cases of large leaks or pipe bursts where a huge volume of water shoots out from the ground. Water supply is thus disrupted in some cases, causing inconvenience to some residents and businesses. As most of the pipelines are underground, small leaks can go unnoticed and may eventually develop to bigger leaks.
What are the steps by PUB to manage these pipelines and whether they are new technologies that can be adopted to better detect and prevent leaks?
The Chairman: Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mdm Chairman, climate change is the defining crisis of our time. In 2020, the world had to battle record-breaking forest fires, the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record until they ran out of alphabets to name the hurricanes, more frequent floods and droughts and other weather events leading to large-scale devastation.
As a low-lying island, Singapore remains fundamentally vulnerable to the impact of climate change, which poses an existential threat to us. We take a considered, committed and collective approach to the global climate crisis. My colleagues from five Ministries which are taking key measures for climate action in our Green Plan, are collectively responding to the points that Members have raised during this Budget debate and Committee of Supply and presenting the comprehensive action we are taking to put words into action to fight climate change.
I chair the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change which was established in 2007 to coordinate a whole-of-nation response. While we respond as individual Ministries, we have a collective thought out action plan behind this. This Committee has two important tasks. First, to formulate and execute our national plans to prepare ourselves for the impact of climate change. Second, to ensure that Singapore contributes to global climate action.
Last year, we submitted our enhanced 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) under the Paris Agreement – our NDC and our LEDS. We made these commitments, well aware that they are challenging, given our national circumstances.
Mr Louis Ng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Poh Li San will be glad to know that the goals which we have set are not meant to be static. We will press ahead with the measures which are within our control, and we will halve our emissions by 2030. But how soon we can achieve net zero, that means eliminate the other half, depends not only on what we do but it depends on what is done internationally in areas such as evolving and maturing key technologies, as well as international collaboration on key areas, such as carbon markets as well as the import and export of green electricity. We will continue to review our climate goals with the aim of achieving net zero emissions as soon as viable.
Allow me, Mdm Chairman, to take a step back to explain the thinking and guiding principles behind how we approach this global crisis.
For a small island city-state like Singapore, climate change poses an asymmetrical challenge. While Singapore contributes around 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the totality of global emissions, 100%, including the other 99.9%, affects us too and often, more seriously than it affects larger better endowed countries. So, we must do our best to tackle climate change, but ultimately, we depend on a collective global effort to address the issue at a global level.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about what Singapore is doing to promote this global collaboration. Singapore has been working hard to strengthen consensus and galvanise climate action regionally and globally. This has been especially critical at a time when the multilateral system is under strain from protectionism and unilateral action, further exacerbated by the challenges of COVID-19.
Singapore is often called upon, as a knowledgeable, fair and honest broker, to facilitate discussions to forge consensus for the work under the UNFCCC and its implementation rules. Unfortunately, COP-26 did not take place in Glasgow last year due to COVID-19. But our officials have continued to work actively on important international issues, such as rules for carbon markets and more stringent reporting of national emissions and climate action. We are also actively shaping multilateral discussions on reducing international transportation emissions, as suggested by Ms Mariam Jaafar.
At the same time, we have been carefully planning and implementing, in an integrated and coordinated long-term manner, the measures we need to take domestically for a low carbon future. As a small country with limited alternative energy sources, land and manpower, our trade-offs are much starker than what most countries face. Our carbon emissions set real cross-cutting constraints on our development and the daily lives of Singaporeans. We need to find ways to break out of these constraints through careful long-term planning and innovations in policy and technology. We look for synergies to give ourselves the space to grow, but when it is needed, we also have to make well-considered, real trade-offs.
Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about these trade-offs and how we are pursuing decarbonisation despite our constraints. Let me cite a few examples.
First, land use. Singapore is both a city and a country. Within our small land space, we need to accommodate not just housing, parks and commercial centres, but also power plants, reservoirs, air- and sea- ports, and industries. The trade-offs are real, and often the choices are difficult. We cannot wish these away. For example, unlike bigger countries, we do not have large plots of land for extensive solar farms. There are many competing land users, as we have debated in this House over these last few weeks. But we do strive to maximise solar energy by aggressively deploying panels on the rooftops of suitable HDB blocks. My colleague, the Minister for National Development will update us on this later.
Nationwide, we aim to deploy at least two Gigawatt-peak (GWp) of solar power in Singapore by 2030, which supplies energy equivalent to the consumption of about 350,000 households for a year.
We look for synergies. To supplement our limited land, we are also using our reservoirs for floating solar farms, something which several Members asked about. This allows us to use our reservoirs not just for water but also for solar power and to provide green lungs for recreation and water activities as well.
Last year, the new solar farm at Tengeh Reservoir began construction, and this will be among the world’s largest such facilities. It will generate enough solar power to meet the demands of our five local water treatment plants, making Singapore one of the few in the world to have a fully green waterworks system.
Second, securing our water and food supply is a key national priority. We are making significant progress for water. When I hear Members speak about recycling, do not forget that water recycling is recycling too, and we are one of the leaders in the world in water recycling. And when we count water recycling, our recycling rate is really very high. Last year, our desalination plant in Marina East commenced operations – our fourth such plant. We are making a major push for food security as well. Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced the new Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund for technology adoption in our agri-food sector.
We actively engage A*STAR and our Institutes of Higher Learning to develop novel, resource efficient approaches for food and water. These will help us break out of our constraints to secure our food, through careful long-term planning and innovations in policy and technology, and keep costs affordable while minimising carbon emissions. In that one long sentence, we can see the dilemmas and the trade-offs that we have to make in each one of the steps that we take.
Third, economy and jobs. Since the time Mr Lee Kuan Yew called for us to create a metropolis out of mudflats, we have always balanced development, conservation and the environment. This is reflected in Singapore being among the best 20 countries in the world today in terms of Emissions Intensity (EI), that is, emissions per GDP dollar. We have been able to grow our economy, create jobs, while keeping our emissions per GDP dollar one of the lowest in the world. And this is in spite of all of our constraints.
I listened very carefully to the speeches made by all the Members, but was particularly struck by the thoughtful analyses made by Ms Mariam Jaafar and Prof Koh Lian Pin. They have deep knowledge of these areas and they understand well the trade-offs as Singapore seeks new ways to grow our economy within a carbon-constrained envelope, and how we can balance conservation, development and jobs. They have made several good suggestions and useful proposals which we will certainly study very closely.
Mdm Chairman, companies will have to adjust their business models. Our workers have to shift to jobs in new areas of growth. One example is the energy and chemicals sector. Mr Abdul Samad, who is with us in this House, will be well aware of this. He and his unions are doing the actual work – they are doing the work helping workers to cope with this challenge and make the transition.
The switch to cleaner energy will reduce demand for more carbon-intensive fossil fuels. However, demand for sustainable fuels and higher value-added petrochemical products and specialty chemicals will grow. The modern green eco-system needs such products, such as in solar panels, batteries, thermal insulation for buildings, durable and light-weight parts for electric vehicles. And we are investing in sustainable energy too. Neste, the world’s largest producer of renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel, is expanding its production capacity here. They are already here, and they are expanding their production. When completed, Singapore will be home to Neste’s largest renewable products plant, creating new jobs.
Many of the major energy and chemical companies in Singapore have also committed to reach net zero by 2050 and Singapore will partner them in this shift.
The public sector will lead by example, by embarking on a comprehensive whole-of-Government programme, called GreenGov.SG, to reduce our resource footprint and carbon emissions, and to enable the rest of the economy to do likewise. The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment will speak more about this later.
At the national level, our comprehensive carbon tax, which covers 80% of Singapore’s carbon emissions, one of the most comprehensive coverages in the world, encapsulates these trade-offs by better aligning the real cost of carbon emissions with the emitter. Mr Sharael Taha asked about our plans for carbon tax and the resulting impact. As Deputy Prime Minister Heng said in his Budget speech, the Government will be reviewing the trajectory and level of the carbon tax, post-2023, in consultation with industry and expert groups. We seek a carbon tax level that will incentivise companies and consumers to switch to carbon friendly products, services and activities, while promoting industry innovation and new green growth.
There are already significant new investments in sustainable industries in Singapore. I just spoke abut Neste. Hyundai is constructing a research and development centre and electric vehicle pilot production facility in Singapore. These examples illustrate how Singapore can leverage and is leveraging our strengths in R&D, advanced manufacturing and logistics to create more opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans.
In addition, we are taking steps to establish Singapore as a centre for carbon credits trading and services, for sustainability consultancy, and to play a significant role in green finance for sustainable development in a growing Asia. In fact, we are calling on Prof Koh Lian Pin on his expertise to help us develop in this area. This will also create new high quality jobs.
We are similarly taking a proactive approach to protect ourselves from the effects of climate change. This requires forward planning as climate change threats require solutions that span many decades. We have not been sitting on our hands. In fact, we are taking significant steps to protect ourselves from a rise in sea levels of up to one metre, which can be upon us by 2100.
Ten years ago, in 2011, we had raised the minimum level for new land reclamation by an additional metre to take this into account – to bring the minimum reclamation level of new land to two metres above the highest ever recorded tide in Singapore. Taking early action will often cost less in the long run, than trying to raise land levels or put in protection later. Minister for Sustainability and the Environment will be elaborating on our plans.
Being prepared for the future also includes developing new sustainability solutions, not just for ourselves but also for the rest of the world. Our $25 billion five-year Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan includes a significant portion for Urban Solutions and Sustainability (USS).
R&D plans in our USS domain include enhancing our resilience in energy, water and food, and developing more cost-effective solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We will also increase our R&D efforts in the use of renewables and emerging low-carbon technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, a subject which Miss Cheryl Chan is very knowledgeable about and spoke very lucidly on.
We will also develop solutions against rising sea levels, urban heat island effects, and other challenges brought about by climate change. As a “living lab”, we will continue to serve as a test-bed for innovative solutions that can be exported globally in cities around the world.
Mdm Chairman, I have outlined the principles which have guided our considered, committed and collective strategy on climate change – first, supporting and galvanising global action; second, finding synergies and addressing our trade-offs with creative solutions; third, turning constraints and challenges into new opportunities; and fourth, planning many decades ahead to prepare for the future and taking action now, and not waiting for the future to be upon us.
But most important of all, we need to overcome this existential challenge together, as a whole-of-nation. Ms Hany Soh asked how the Government intends to achieve this whole-of-nation effort.
Mdm Chairman, I am heartened that on 1 February this year, this House unanimously passed a Motion moved by Mr Louis Ng and his fellow Government Parliamentary Committees (GPC) Members, that acknowledged the seriousness of the global threat of climate change and called for action. This augurs well.
Last month, five Ministries collectively announced our Singapore Green Plan 2030. The Green Plan reflects this Government’s aspirations and commitment towards sustainable development for us. Many Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, are motivated and energised by this vision and want to play an active role. And our desire is to partner every Singaporean to transform Singapore into a glowing global city of sustainability. My colleagues from the respective Ministries will be elaborating on the initiatives under the Green Plan and responding to the specific comments from Members.
Our enhanced NDC, LEDS, and Green Plan have set challenging and ambitious goals for Singapore. I am confident that by rallying together as one, we will rise to the challenge, re-invent Singapore and create a brighter and sustainable future for all Singaporeans. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Chairman, with your permission, I would like to ask for a few requests. First, 4 March being the World Engineering Day for Sustainable Development, I think it is an appropriate time for this House to recognise the many hard-working engineers that are contributing impactfully, positively to the sustainable development in Singapore. So, with your permission, may I put on record our recognition for all the engineers out there. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Yes, Minister.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Second, with your permission, Mdm Chairman, we will like clarifications on the various speeches given by Senior Minister, myself and the fellow Ministers coming after me on the Singapore Green Plan 2030, to be taken after Minister Chan Chun Sing's speech.
The Chairman: Yes, Minister.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: With your permission, Mdm Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the factsheets and infographics?
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you. Mdm Chairman, Senior Minister Teo has set out the principles that guide Singapore’s response to climate change, taking into account our challenges, and the opportunities before us.
Climate change is one of the gravest threats facing mankind and Singapore. What is at stake is the survival and future of our small island state. One or two more degrees Celsius increase may not sound like much but if sea level rises a few metres, our sunny island could literally be in the sea. Climate change could also threaten our food and water supply. We have to take climate change seriously, study its impact and start preparing ourselves now. We have to develop a long-term climate action plan to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. This plan will span several generations to protect Singapore and our children.
This was why the Prime Minister spoke at length about climate change during his 2019 National Day Rally, and I quote: “Both the SAF and climate change defences are existential for Singapore. These are life and death matters. Everything else must bend at the knee to safeguard the existence of our island nation.” We must take climate change seriously. The Government is fully committed to take decisive action to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impact.
Last month, following a six-hour debate on the Motion tabled by six PAP Members after extensive engagements by the Young PAP, this House passed a motion to acknowledge climate change as a global emergency and a threat to mankind. I was most encouraged by the passion and concerns shown.
But our efforts alone will not turn the tide. Climate action requires urgent, collective and coordinated efforts by all countries, big and small. We have been working actively within ASEAN and the broader international community to deliver a global response to climate change and contribute to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Madam, the course of human history has been shaped by innovation and discovery and we are on the cusp of yet another revolution today – a global sustainability revolution. Just as the invention of the steam engine and discovery of fossil fuels propelled us into the industrial age, the energy transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy will redefine how we power the global economy. This revolution will be driven by policy makers, consumers, inventors and investors who recognise the opportunities that will arise from a circular, low carbon economy. We must catch and ride this new global wave of sustainability.
Many MNCs are putting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) considerations at the core of their business and investment decisions. I am happy that companies like Temasek are strongly committed to sustainability, embedding it in both their operations and investment approach. Singapore is well-positioned. We are not starting from scratch.
Since Independence, instead of pursuing growth at all costs, we have insisted on quality, inclusive and sustainable growth. Each generation of Singaporeans must see ourselves as stewards of our nation. We must pass on a better Singapore to the generations of Singaporeans that will come after us, just as the previous generations had done for us. We must build on our past achievements, strive to overcome our present limitations and pioneer new solutions for a more sustainable future.
Getting to that future will be a whole-of-nation effort, requiring every Government agency, individual, business, research institution, community group and civil society organisation to work in unison.
Sustainability is not an isolated programme or initiative but about engineering a whole system and cultivating a new way of life. Each challenge and its associated solution will impact on another. This requires hard trade-offs to be made and close coordination in execution.
This is the purpose of the Singapore Green Plan 2030.\tIt is a commitment of this PAP Government to our present and future generations, to chart a common vision for a sustainable future and a roadmap for everyone.
Through the Green Plan, sustainability will shape our economy, our infrastructure, our way of life. It will fundamentally change how we live, work and play. The Government will set the broad policy direction and the public sector will lead the change. Through the GreenGov.SG initiative, it will exemplify sustainability in its actions and lead market demand for sustainable products and services.
More importantly, we want the Green Plan to spark a national conversation and energise Singaporeans to take action. Every Singaporean must be involved in this transformation because, first, sustainability is not costless. Just as we pay for our security and social services, we will have to pay a bit more for greener goods and services, adjust to less convenience in our daily lives, or reskill for green jobs in new industries. We cannot incur these costs without a national consensus.
Second, while climate change may feel abstract for individuals, it is our individual actions that determine the collective outcome. For example, if every household in Singapore raises the aircon temperature by one degree, we will cut carbon emissions by 23 kilo-tonnes, equivalent to the annual carbon emissions from 7,000 cars. Our consumption patterns drive industry. If we avoid disposables, buy locally produced food and prefer energy-efficient appliances, greener and more sustainable business models will emerge.
Third, we are excited about the new business opportunities that the sustainability sector can bring that will benefit Singaporeans and Singapore.
The Green Plan will also contribute to the international sustainability agenda and global climate goals. The Green Plan will lay out our priorities for collaboration with our international stakeholders. It is in our interest, and that of the world, to catalyse the development of green solutions, such as green hydrogen, and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.
We are well placed to contribute to the global effort. As a living lab, where new solutions can be test-bedded and exported to the region and beyond. And as a financial hub and talent hub, where green capital can find common objectives with skilled entrepreneurs and workers. This will allow us to pace our green transition correctly and stay in sync with the global trajectory so that we do not move too hastily and hurt our economic competitiveness and the livelihoods of Singaporeans, or move too slowly and get left behind.
Some have asked if the Green Plan is just a compilation of existing initiatives. Madam, it is not. The Green Plan is a long-term and living plan that will evolve as we go along. We will update our targets and strategies as new technologies and practicable solutions avail themselves.
The Green Plan is also not just an MSE or even a Government plan, but a blueprint that we have set out for ourselves as a nation and therefore, we have six other Ministers speaking on it.
Everyone must work together to achieve our vision. While some targets are existing, new and enhanced targets have been included. Even in areas where targets remain the same, we are putting in place comprehensive and concrete near-to-medium term plans to achieve our targets.
The Green Plan positions us to achieve our goal of net zero emissions as soon as viable. Beyond the specific mitigation strategies, it envisions a new future where sustainability is embedded in our DNA.
Madam, our targets and strategies are both ambitious and credible. Climate change is a global emergency. Our efforts alone will not turn the tide. Singapore contributes only around 0.1% of global emissions. But if we can succeed in our plans, we will show the world how a small country with severe constraints is nevertheless able to take bold action and pave the way for other countries to adopt new solutions.
Let me now give an overview of the Green Plan. There are five pillars: City in Nature, sustainable living, energy reset, green economy and resilient future. They represent the priority areas in Singapore's sustainable development over the next decade.
The first pillar on City in Nature seeks to create a green, liveable and sustainable home for Singaporeans. Minister Desmond Lee will talk about our efforts to infuse nature into our urban fabric.
Sustainable living is our second pillar. Conserving resources must become our way of life – consume less, recycle more and take public transport. Minister Lawrence Wong will share how we will nurture future generations to be more environmentally conscious. Minister Ong Ye Kung will speak about greening our commutes at MOT's Committee of Supply. I will elaborate on our transition towards a zero-waste nation.
To lower our carbon footprint, we will need to employ cleaner energy, and use it more efficiently and this is our third pillar, energy reset. Minister Tan See Leng will speak on plans to make our energy and power systems cleaner and more efficient. Minister Desmond Lee will share how we will make our built environment and urban spaces more sustainable and Minister Ong Ye Kung will make the case for electric vehicles.
Sustainability can be a new engine of jobs and growth as we pivot towards a green economy, the fourth pillar. Minister Chan Chun Sing will share how we will help our enterprises seize new opportunities in sustainability and prepare Singaporeans to take on green jobs. With our position as the regional financial and services hub, carbon services and green financing will be new areas of growth.
Finally, we must adapt to climate change to ensure Singapore's long-term survival. This is what the fifth pillar of the Green Plan is about – building a resilient future.
Let me speak on three aspects of the resilient future pillar. Additional details will be shared in my second speech later.
First, coastal defence, which Ms Poh Li San asked about. PUB, as the lead coastal protection agency, will work with other agencies to conduct site-specific studies and develop coastal adaptation pathways and protection measures that are adaptive to climate uncertainties. We target to complete the formulation of adaptation pathways at coastlines along City-East Coast, Lim Chu Kang, Sungei Kadut and around Jurong Island by 2030.
Second, keeping Singapore cool in a warming world. According to the Meteorological Service Singapore, it is almost one degree Celsius hotter today than in the 1950s. Apart from global warming, it is also driven by the Urban Heat Island effect, or UHI for short – a phenomenon where an urbanised area is warmer than its surroundings because of the built environment and increased human activities. The UHI effect is a complex topic that requires in-depth studies.
We will chart a science-based roadmap to holistically and decisively moderate temperature rise in Singapore.
Third, strengthening Singapore's food security by growing local in a resource-efficient way. With climate change bringing about widespread extreme weather events and soaring global demand for food, the global food market will be more volatile and unpredictable. And this is a critical risk for Singapore as we import over 90% of our food supply.
In 2019, we announced our \"30 by 30\" goal to produce 30% of our nutritional needs locally by 2030. We will do so with a keen eye on energy, water and land efficiency. This complements our other strategies of diversifying import sources and growing food overseas to strengthen food security.
To support the agri-food sector, we will make available space and infrastructure, ramp up funding support to build R&D capability and provide incentives for conventional farms to adopt technology to transform into highly productive, climate-resilient and resource-efficient farms.
While the five pillars of the Green Plan will map the way forward, the public, private and people sectors must come together for us to succeed, as Ms Hany Soh highlighted.
The Public Service will lead on sustainability as part of the GreenGov.SG initiative which Deputy Prime Minister announced in his Budget speech. We will have four shifts.
First, we will set more ambitious goals for the Public Service, including a carbon target for the first time. We aim to peak the public sector's emissions around 2025, ahead of the national target of around 2030.
Second, we will expand the scope of GreenGov.SG beyond Government offices, to include other public sector infrastructure and operations. GreenGov.SG will encompass a far wider array of assets to include waste-to-energy plants, public transport infrastructure, hawker centres and healthcare facilities. With this expanded scope, the public sector will take on a greater responsibility to enhance the sustainability of our operations.
Third, we will embed sustainability practices in the public sector's core business areas and influence our service providers and suppliers to be more sustainable. One key tool is in green procurement. As a major consumer of goods and services, the public sector can and will influence the industry towards sustainable business choices and practices by incorporating more sustainability requirements in our procurement framework.
Fourth, we will build an organisational culture of sustainability and grow the movement amongst Public Service officers. More details on GreenGov.SG will be released over the course of the year.
Besides the public sector, the private sector plays a critical role in the Green Plan, as Ms Janet Ang so eloquently argued for.
We will support companies in their sustainability journey through the green economy pillar. They can both do well and do good, particularly as consumers and investors increasingly prioritise sustainability.
This includes working with our researchers and companies to develop new solutions that push the frontiers on sustainability, such as through the Research Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plan.
As part of Singapore Together and to involve every Singaporean in the movement, as Ms Hany Soh, Miss Cheryl Chan have highlighted, the Government will launch a series of Green Plan Conversations. This is part of our efforts to partner, encourage, and support ground-up efforts and catalyse new partnerships. Projects in line with the Green Plan, and Alliances for Action will be launched in the coming months.
Through the $50 million SG Eco Fund, we will also support ground-up projects that involve the community and advance environmental sustainability. Ms Hany Soh asked about the current progress of the fund. The first grant call saw overwhelming interest with over 200 applications received, in areas like waste management and urban farming. We are evaluating the proposals and I look forward to sharing about them in the coming months. Madam, in Malay please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Climate change poses grave threats for Singapore. Last year was one of the hottest ever, with frequent and heavy rainfall events. We need to make deep transformations in all aspects of our lives and work together to tackle climate change.
To chart our pathway to a sustainable future, the Government has launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030, for a whole-of-nation action.
Everyone, regardless of age, race, and background can and must play a part.
As individuals, we can change our daily habits, by consuming and wasting less resources, recycling more, taking public transport where we can, or turning our air-conditioner up by one degree higher.
As businesses, we can use less packaging materials, adopt energy and water efficient manufacturing processes, and recycle our waste better, into useful resources.
The public sector will drive a nation-wide push towards sustainability using the tools and levers at our disposal, such as green procurement.
Our children' future depends on what we do today, to preserve our resources and protect the earth.
Let us work together to make Singapore a City of Green Possibilities.
(In English): In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Climate change poses grave threats for Singapore. Last year was one of the hottest we have experienced, with frequent and heavy rainfall events. Climate changes has also brought about more severe natural disasters more frequently. We need to make deep transformations in all aspects of our lives and work together to tackle climate change.
To chart our pathway to a sustainable future, the Government has launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030, for whole-of-nation action
Everyone, regardless of age, race, and background can and must play a part.
As individuals, we can change our daily habits, by consuming and wasting less resources, recycling more, taking public transport where we can, or turning our air-conditioner up by one degree higher.
As businesses, we can use less packaging materials, adopt energy and water efficient manufacturing processes, and recycle our waste better.
The public sector will drive a nation-wide push towards sustainability using the tools and levers at our disposal, such as green procurement.
In the spirit of Singapore Together, through conversations and other channels, we will engage Singaporeans and businesses to harness more ideas and put them into action to enrich the Green Plan.
We will also update our strategies and targets as new technological solutions emerge.
Our children's future depends on what we do today, to preserve our natural resources and protect the earth.
Let us work together to make Singapore a City of Green Possibilities.
(In English): Let me conclude. A few months ago, I was struck by a question from my son. He is in his early 20s. He asked if I would still have had children, given how our planet is struggling to support a growing population, with the daunting challenges that climate change will pose. For him and his generation, the question is not hypothetical. My reply to him was absolutely, yes! Because I believe that humanity has the wisdom and ingenuity, and the collective will to find solutions to combat global warming.
The Green Plan is a solemn pledge to future generations of Singaporeans that there will always be a Singapore, come 30, 50 or even 100 years from now: a shining jewel in the oceans, if we work together. We will face many grave threats, but we will transform challenges into opportunities. This is the Singapore DNA.
We will take bold and collective action to create a sustainable and liveable home. This is a pledge that Singaporeans today must keep to give our children the confidence to pursue their dreams, raise their families with hope and optimism, and look forward to a brighter, better future.
Madam, climate change must not be exacerbated on our watch. Let us make the right choice today, so that our children and grandchildren can look back and be proud of the direction we have set. Together, let us work to make Singapore a City of Green Possibilities. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Senior Minister Teo, you have some clarifications?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you, Mdm Chairman. I would just like to take the opportunity to correct two dates which I mentioned in my speech.
First of all, we are halving our emissions by 2050. I may have misspoken and said \"2030\".
And when I referred to sea-level rise of one metre, it should be 2100, not \"2010\". I think the future is going to be upon us faster than we think. Thank you very much, Mdm Chair.
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Chairman, Senior Minister Teo has just laid out the nature of the climate challenge facing Singapore, while Minister Grace Fu has set out the impetus for the Green Plan and outlined its five key pillars. I will now describe our plans to make our urban environment more green and sustainable under the City in Nature and Energy Reset pillars of the Green Plan.
As an island city vulnerable to climate change, the development of climate-resilient buildings is crucial to our survival. Beyond climate adaptation, we must also reduce carbon emissions from our urban environment. And we must continue greening Singapore. Given our tight land constraints, we must find innovative ways to weave nature into our urban fabric more intensively. And even as we face developmental pressures, we must strive to protect our most ecologically important areas.
Members have also asked about our plans to achieve these goals. We will make a big push on three fronts. First, transforming Singapore into a City in Nature; second, making our buildings, HDB towns and districts even more sustainable; and finally, driving research and development in urban sustainability.
Let me first start with our City in Nature push. Last year, we set out our goal to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. Ms Nadia Samdin asked for an update on our efforts. I will give a fuller update at the MND COS debate later today, but I will set out our plans for the future now.
First, we are greening our urban areas more intensively. Under URA’s Master Plan 2019, we will be adding another 1,000 hectares of green spaces over the next 10 to 15 years. As part of these efforts, we will add over 130 hectares of new parks over the next six years. At the same time, we will also enhance about 170 hectares of existing parks. These parks will feature more lush vegetation and natural landscapes. Altogether, Singaporeans can look forward to over 300 hectares of such parks by end-2026 – almost four times the size of the Singapore Botanic Gardens.
As part of our plans, we are also expanding our nature park network, by setting aside 50% more land for nature parks. This will provide 200 hectares of new nature parks by 2030. Singaporeans can immerse themselves in the nature parks’ lush forests and enjoy nature-based recreational activities. Our new nature parks also act as buffers to protect our nature reserves against urbanisation, and provide more habitats for native flora and fauna to thrive.
Ms Nadia Samdin and Prof Koh Lian Pin also asked about how we can continue to improve connectivity between our natural spaces. This is important. It is a key strategy of our City in Nature vision. Not just to conserve specific pockets of greenery and nature, but to look at Singapore and our map from an ecological connectivity point of view. Habitats that are ecologically connected increase the chances of survival for flora and fauna in our city. That is why we have been strengthening Singapore’s ecological connectivity. We are doing so by studying faunal movement patterns and flora dispersal mechanisms and pathways both on land and in the water. This understanding of the connections between our natural spaces has, in turn, enabled us to conserve key habitats that are important for ecological connectivity.
For example, we recognised that the forests at the future Bukit Batok Hillside Nature Park and Bukit Batok Central Nature Park are important stepping stones between the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and the future Tengah Forest Corridor. That is why we dedicated these nature parks as part of the Bukit Batok Nature Corridor. They will be kept lushly forested, so that they can strengthen not just the area’s green network, but also ecological connectivity between the Nature Reserve and Tengah. We also designated Sisters’ Island as a Marine Park, because modelling studies indicate that it is a key source of coral larvae, which are widely dispersed and enrich other areas in the Southern Islands.
And we will do more. For example, as I shared with the House last week, we are developing a more comprehensive picture of our islandwide eco-system and connectivity of green and blue spaces, so that we can better consider how specific sites connect to our nature cores, buffers, and corridors. And we are creating ecological corridors on the ground by doing physical planting, to better connect our green spaces. For example, we are planting native trees and shrubs more intensively to re-create forest-like structures along our roads known as Nature Ways, to augment our network of ecological corridors between key habitats.
At the same time, we are expanding our Park Connector Network, so that we will have 500 km of Park Connectors by 2030. I am glad to share that we will develop new recreational routes across our island, in the next phase of expansion of our Park Connector Network. We will provide more details on these new routes at MND’s COS debate later today.
Together, these moves will not only strengthen ecological connectivity, but also provide Singaporeans with greater access to green spaces close to home. By 2030, every household will be within a 10-metre walk from a park.
Our urban areas will also be naturalised and greened even further. By incorporating natural designs and plantings into our parks and streetscapes, they can serve as nature-based solutions to help provide shade, cool the environment, improve air quality, enhance flood resilience and beautify our city. These are just some of the benefits and outcomes that we hope to see from our City in Nature efforts, which Prof Koh Lian Pin had asked about yesterday.
One example of this can be seen at Jurong Lake Gardens, our third national garden. We converted a concrete canal into a series of meandering streams with vegetated wetlands that play host to charismatic wildlife, such as otters and herons. Such naturalised waterways can help slow down water runoff from surrounding areas, reducing the risk of flash floods. We will naturalise more waterways and waterbodies in parks and gardens in this manner as part of our City in Nature efforts.
We are conserving our rich biodiversity too, through habitat restoration and species recovery programmes. For example, as part of our Marine Conservation Action Plan, we placed purpose-built intertidal pools along a barren stretch of seawall, to provide a habitat during low tide for coastal and marine biodiversity to thrive.
We are also working with the community to improve how we co-exist with nature and wildlife, by taking a science-based approach towards wildlife management and harnessing both ecological and social tools to minimise human-wildlife conflict.
The active support of the community is crucial to making our City in Nature vision a reality. That is why we are working with the community across many areas, from continuing to support community gardening, to the OneMillionTrees movement. Through this movement, we are doubling our annual tree planting rate and planting one million additional trees across Singapore between 2020 and 2030, to underpin our City in Nature efforts.
Madam, some Members of this House have asked why there is a need for the OneMillionTrees movement, when we could instead forgo clearance of vegetated land and conserve all existing greenery.
We appreciate that many Singaporeans have a strong sense of affinity for our existing green spaces. That is a good sign of the maturity of a City in Nature.
However, the OneMillionTrees movement is not merely a quantitative effort to increase our island's tree numbers or to engage in ornamental planting. Instead, it underpins our qualitative transformation into a City in Nature – not just nature, but a city as well.
Indeed, even if we were to hypothetically forgo some of our people's needs and halt all new development on vegetated land, we would still need to plant more trees at an accelerated rate in light of our climate challenges.
The trees we are planting offer us many benefits. I mentioned some of them just now – mitigating urban heat to increase our climate resilience, providing more habitats for local biodiversity in our existing green spaces and strengthening our eco-systems' resilience by creating ecological corridors.
Indeed, even in the heart of our core forests, we are doing tree planting and forest restoration, as part of our OneMillionTrees movement.
At the same time, we are also proactively removing invasive species, like Albizia trees, Dioscorea and oil palms, to allow our native rainforests to regenerate.
This is because we need to actively manage our forests to make them stronger. By doing so, we are assisting our early secondary forests to transition into more mature and diverse rainforests over time and improving habitats for native biodiversity. These efforts strengthen the resilience of our forest landscapes to climate change.
This is painstaking, long-term work and we are deeply appreciative of our community of volunteers who have rolled up their sleeves and have been working alongside us to make our native eco-systems healthier and more resilient.
But even as we continue greening Singapore, we must also continue to meet our people's needs. This balancing act between conservation and development will become even more challenging given our tight land constraints.
Prof Koh Lian Pin also spoke about our Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA framework and public consultation on preserving green spaces.
As I shared last week, we are reviewing whether it would be better to centralise the management of EIA consultants, instead of having individual developers manage their own. I thank Prof Koh for his views on how the EIA framework as a whole can be improved and strengthened. We will take them into consideration as we continue our study.
And as I mentioned earlier, NParks will continue to study and model our biodiversity's movement patterns, to inform our understanding of ecological connectivity across Singapore and how to strengthen it. So, studying ecological connectivity, in a city and urban environment, to infuse City in Nature all through our urban landscape.
Given Singapore's land constraints, we will not be able to keep every vacant land undeveloped. As a city-state, we must cater for everything that a country needs within just our city limits. We need space to continue meeting our people's needs, ranging from industry and food production, to more public housing for Singapore families.
However, we adopt a range of strategies to make good use of existing land, as good stewards ought and in so doing, enable us to retain more green spaces of significant biodiversity.
We are also committed to engaging stakeholders, including members of the public and the nature community, further upstream in our planning process and will work with them at suitable platforms to identify these areas of interest. My colleague Minister Indranee Rajah will share more about our plans to discuss these issues with Singaporeans as part of our national conversations on long-term land use planning, at MND's COS debate.
Madam, I now move from City in Nature, to Energy Reset. Buildings account for over 20% of our emissions, so we need to push hard to make our city more sustainable. To achieve this, we will use cleaner energy and increase our energy efficiency.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked for an update on the Singapore Green Building Masterplan. Over the past year, BCA and the Singapore Green Building Council have worked together to develop the next edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan together with industry stakeholders and the community. The Masterplan captures our collective commitment to pursue more ambitious sustainability standards in our city.
We have set ourselves three targets – I call them \"80-80-80 in 2030\".
First, we will green 80% of our buildings by Gross Floor Area by 2030. This is an existing target, to ensure that the majority of buildings that we use in our everyday lives will be sustainable and energy efficient.
To date, we have made good progress by greening over 43% of our buildings, but we have more to do.
Beyond that, we must push more owners of buildings to pursue best-in-class standards and become Super Low Energy buildings, or SLE buildings.
SLE buildings, which achieve at least 60% improvement in energy efficiency compared to 2005 levels, represent the next wave of our green building movement. They are key to our transition to a more sustainable, low carbon Built Environment.
Hence, our second target is for 80% of new buildings to be SLE buildings from 2030. The Government will take the lead in SLE buildings. In so doing, we will build industry capability to develop SLE buildings and provide more use cases for the private sector to take reference from.
Our third target is for our best-in-class green buildings to see an 80% improvement in energy efficiency compared to 2005 levels by 2030, pushing the boundary further. We will ramp up research and innovation efforts to push the boundaries of energy efficiency and accelerate deployment of cost-effective green technologies.
Since 2014, our Green Buildings Innovation Cluster (GBIC) programme has supported the research, prototyping and demonstration of green building technologies and helped to bring these solutions to market. We are seeing how we can further enhance funding support for GBIC to help us achieve this ambitious third target.
Sustainability has always been integral to our transformation plans for the Built Environment and we should build on the green movement to drive transformation across the entire value chain and create more opportunities for our firms and our local workforce. Minister of State Tan Kiat How and I will elaborate on how we plan to do so at MND's COS debate later.
Beyond individual buildings, we also want our towns and our districts to be more sustainable.
Our new HDB towns will be greener and more sustainable. For example, Tengah will have centralised cooling systems, electric vehicle charging points and extensive deployment of solar panels.
HDB is also incorporating technology into the design of towns to improve ventilation and reduce heat gain.
Within their homes, residents will be able to use technology and apps to monitor and optimise the use of their home appliances and equipment, enabling them to conserve electricity, save money and participate in our sustainability efforts too.
Members also asked about our plans to make existing towns more sustainable. MND and MSE are working together to turn every town into an Eco Town, by encouraging residents to live more sustainably. To achieve this, we will make use of infrastructure solutions under the HDB Green Towns Programme to help our existing towns reduce their energy consumption by 15% by 2030, from the levels in 2020.
We will achieve this through both technology and design. For example, we are using smart LED lights to reduce energy use, doubling total solar capacity on HDB rooftops and converting the top decks of suitable multi-storey carparks into urban farms, community gardens and green landscapes.
Since we announced the Green Towns Programme last year, we have made good progress. So far, HDB has called or awarded tenders to implement solar panels on more than 5,700 HDB blocks. Installation of these solar panels is in progress and will be completed in the next two to three years, achieving more than 50% of our 2030 solar capacity target of 540 megawatt-peak.
HDB and SFA have also awarded tenders for urban farming at nine multi-storey carparks and will be working closely to do more.
In addition, residents or organisations with interesting ideas to promote sustainability can tap on MSE's Eco Fund for their initiatives. And if these prove workable, MND and MSE will work together to see if these can be scaled to more HDB estates under the Green Towns Programme.
We will share more about our efforts to enhance liveability and strengthen predictive maintenance in housing estates at MND's COS.
We are also developing eco-friendly districts as demonstration projects to show how it can be done. For example, Jurong Lake District will be developed as a model sustainable mixed-use district. Future developments in the District will seek to meet higher sustainability targets that are above our national goals, where possible.
We envision the District to be a model for how innovative solutions and technology can enable a more liveable, sustainable and healthier urban environment. It can also serve as a testing ground for such innovative urban solutions.
Indeed, innovation enables us to keep moving forward on the journey of sustainable development. That is why R&D is part of our long-term strategy for urban sustainability.
Since its launch in 2017, our Cities of Tomorrow (CoT) research and development programme has supported R&D that helps to address urban sustainability challenges. For example, HDB and NUS are exploring urban designs that harness solar heat to create temperature differences that enhance air movement through a building. This can help create natural drafts to cool the environment, thereby minimising residents' air-conditioning needs. We will build on the good progress of CoT and extend it for another five years.
Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Nadia Samdin asked how we will support R&D into nature-based solutions. Under Cities of Tomorrow, R&D that supports our efforts to become a City in Nature will be a key research area that we will significantly invest in. For example, we will support research and development of technology that seeks to enhance biodiversity, explore nature-based solutions for climate adaptation, and more.
Madam, transforming Singapore into a City in Nature, making our buildings, towns and districts more sustainable through an Energy Reset, and driving sustainability-related R&D all have one thing in common: they require all hands on deck.
Transforming our urban environment to be greener and more sustainable will always be an on-going task, which requires the Government, the private sector, academia and our communities to come together – each playing our part but working together.
Sustainability is a marathon which we cannot run alone. We must be in it for the long haul – to be responsible stewards not just for our children, but for their children after them. In that spirit, let us come together: to push ahead in the next bound of our sustainability journey, to make the Green Plan a reality, and to build a Singapore that we can be even prouder of.
The Chairman: Mr Lawrence Wong.
The Minister for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Chairman, my colleagues before me have shared about the SG Green Plan that will take us a major step forward in building a more sustainable Singapore. Beyond specific policies, we want to instill a broader mindset change and new environmentally conscious habits. These will take time to take root in our society. We must start young and inculcate these mindsets in our students through education. Several Members have highlighted this in their speeches, including Mr Abdul Samad, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Ms Nadia Samdin, Dr Shahira Abdullah and Mr Xie Yao Quan. I thank them for their speeches and suggestions.
Environmental education is not new in our schools. It is part of the curriculum and many schools have programmes to help our students learn to be more environmentally conscious. We will build on our foundation and take it further.
In particular, we will strengthen and deepen the current strands of environmental education in schools and weave these together to create an Eco Stewardship Programme in all our schools, from Primary to Pre-university. The term \"stewardship\" represents our individual and collective responsibility to take good care of the environment – not just in the short term, but always with an eye for the future and for future generations.
Doing so requires responsible and informed decision-making, and choosing to do what is good and right through our daily habits. It also entails an innovative spirit and a mindset of growth, where we can pioneer new ways of doing things in caring for the environment.
Through this Eco Stewardship Programme, we aim to inculcate informed and responsible sustainability habits in our students for life. We aim to empower them to make a positive difference in their schools, in their homes and in the community. Under this Programme, environmental sustainability will be holistically integrated into the school environment and we will do this through four approaches which we call the 4Cs.
The first C is the Curriculum. Environment and climate change education is already integrated into subjects like Science, Geography and Social Studies. As Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Miss Cheng Li Hui highlighted, we can do more to enhance the teaching and learning of sustainability in both the Sciences, and the Humanities. For example, in the new upper Secondary Geography syllabus, the topics will be organised around the theme of sustainability where students will understand the impact of sustainability issues. We will also refresh and strengthen the Singapore perspective on sustainable development.
To make the learning come alive, we will develop more learning resources which feature sustainability initiatives within our school environment. These learning resources will help students connect their learning to their actual lived experience in schools, and make the learning more authentic and engaging.
The second C is Campus. We will progressively enhance the infrastructure of our schools with a range of green features. We now have about 130 schools on the SolarNova programme with solar panels being progressively installed on their rooftops. We will extend this to cover most of our remaining schools in the coming decade.
We will improve energy efficiency of all our school campuses. We will embark on a programme to gradually have LED lights as the main light source in our classrooms, and more energy-efficient Direct-Current fans.
Some schools have already actively harnessed sustainability features within their campuses to enrich students learning. For example, I visited Commonwealth Secondary School recently. They have several eco-habitats, including the Rainforest, the Stream and the Wetland. These outdoor classrooms provide students with real eco-systems that they can study and observe. Students also plant their own vegetables in the school’s nursery, which are harvested for the canteen’s use. Through this immersive environment, students develop a better appreciation for nature and biodiversity.
MOE will, therefore, continue to green our schools and testbed new innovations, so that our school buildings can be more sustainable and our school campuses can become learning laboratories for our students to see sustainability in practice.
Beyond academic learning and infrastructure, we also need to instill the right habits in our students. This includes encouraging them to reduce waste, to recycle right and to reduce energy use as a matter of habit.
The third C is, therefore, about Culture and through the Eco-Stewardship Programme, we aim to strengthen the eco-culture in schools towards sustainability. We will build on existing efforts to instill daily habits of environmental consciousness. We will expand our everyday responsibilities to include sustainability habits. It could be simple activities like switching off lights and fans upon leaving the classrooms and, in fact, some schools have also encouraged students to reduce and recycle food waste.
For example, Elias Park Primary School has a food waste management programme, where students are taught and encouraged to order only what they can finish and use the bio-digesters in the canteen for food waste recycling. We will expand such good practices to more schools and pilot ways for students to see that their daily habits can make a discernible impact on the environment.
We will also help students champion sustainability mindset and practices through leadership opportunities so that they can encourage their peers and friends towards more sustainable living.
Building a culture of sustainability requires schools, families and the community to complement one another’s efforts. The learning from schools will reinforce our community efforts, and in turn, will encourage and cultivate more good habits to create a ripple effect on society.
The Eco Stewardship Programme will also encompass the Community and that is our fourth C. Schools are part of a larger community eco-system. We will work closely with partners, across different Government agencies and also with the private and people sectors. We will widen and enhance the platforms for students to participate in meaningful community projects to care for the environment and to promote sustainable living.
MOE will also work with partners to strengthen students’ awareness of future “green jobs”. Dr Shahira Abdullah suggested a greater push for youths to consider a career in the environmental and sustainability sector. And I agree that this is, indeed, a growing sector where we can raise awareness and appreciation amongst young people of the opportunities in this space. So, we are equipping our teachers and school Education and Career Guidance counsellors to build students’ awareness of these future opportunities and to help them discover and explore their interests.
These opportunities to explore and prepare our students for more careers in the environmental and sustainability sector will continue beyond schools to our Institutes of Higher Learning, or IHLs. Our IHLs will connect students with relevant industry partners through career fairs and the support of Education and Career Guidance counsellors. They will also work with industry partners to curate internships to expose students to jobs in these sectors.
Beyond a greater push for our youths to consider a career in these sectors, the IHLs are also enhancing green infrastructure and promoting sustainable living initiatives within their own campuses. For example, The National University of Singapore has developed a Climate Action Plan 030 to cool its campus by four-degree Celsius and to build a carbon neutral campus. Other Universities, too, are embarking on their own sustainability journeys.
To further complement these education efforts at the school and IHL level, we will also leverage on the new Science Centre at Jurong Lake District. The Science Centre will champion public education on sustainability. It will serve as a showcase for innovative technologies through programmes and exhibits to engage youths and the public. With all these, we hope it will also inspire sustainable lifestyle changes among Singaporeans and in our society.
So, Mdm Chair, through the Eco Stewardship Programme, we aim to reduce carbon emissions from our schools significantly. We aim to achieve a two-thirds reduction of net carbon emissions from the schools sector by 2030.
We will work towards at least 20% of our schools to be carbon-neutral by 2030, with the rest to follow thereafter.
We will start by piloting sustainability features and related concepts in some schools. We have identified as a start four schools to be on-board and they are Elias Park Primary School, Mee Toh School, Commonwealth Secondary School and Tampines Secondary School. These schools have already adopted a holistic school-wide approach to sustainability. So, we will work with them to further reduce net carbon emissions from the school buildings and to encourage students to actively reduce their individual carbon footprint. We will learn from their experiences in the pilot, and progressively scale up good and practical solutions across all our schools.
Mdm Chair, we have set ambitious plans for ourselves. They are not just hard targets in reducing carbon emissions. But, equally, if not more importantly, they are about nurturing our young with the values, skills and know-how to become responsible stewards of the environment.
We hope to see in every student an eco steward for life – where they will have a sensible sensitivity towards the environment, and understand what it means to live sustainably.
Through our concerted efforts, we can seed and grow a sustainability movement where we can create a greener future for our children to harvest, then they can look forward with confidence to a better and brighter future for their own children, and for many more generations to come in Singapore.
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Madam, I wanted to make a correction on what I said earlier. I said earlier that by 2030 every household would be within 10 metres' walk from a park. I suddenly realise that we do not have enough land for that.
The Chairman: That would be nice, though!
Mr Desmond Lee: Our target is every household will be within a 10-minute walk from a park. Thank you.
The Chairman: It would have been nice to have a park every 10 metres. Minister Ong Ye Kung.
The Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Chair, I will try to get all my dates and all my numbers right.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Mdm Chair, I will be talking about electric vehicles. Throughout my speech, I will refer to electric vehicles as EVs, then as for traditional vehicles running on fossil fuels through an internal combustion engine, I will just refer to them as ICEs.
Let me start with Prof Koh Lian Pin’s question, which is the net carbon savings due to transition from ICEs to EVs. There is a net carbon abatement by switching from ICEs to EVs, even if the electricity is generated by fossil fuels. In Singapore, where most of our power is generated from natural gas, the net carbon savings by switching from ICEs to EVs is about 50%. You halve it.
Today, in aggregate, vehicles on the whole emit about 6.4 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year. If the subset of light vehicles all ran on electricity, the total net carbon abatement would be about 1.5 to two million tonnes per year of CO2-equivalent per year. So, this abatement is about 4% of our total annual emissions, so not insignificant.
Hence, the Singapore Green Plan includes a push for EVs. We have a 2040 target to phase out ICEs and have all vehicles run on cleaner energy. To realise this vision, and given that COEs for cars last for ten years, we will require from 2030 all new car and taxi registrations to be of cleaner energy models. They can be electric, they can be hybrid, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and so on. As these technologies are evolving rapidly, we will monitor developments closely, and finalise the definition of registrable models well before 2030. To further pave the way for greener vehicles, we will also cease new diesel car and taxi registrations from 2025. As we know, diesel cars emit PM2.5 and they are even more pollutive.
Several Members have asked what steps will be taken to encourage the take up of EVs in Singapore and meet these targets, the 2030 and 2040 targets. Some Members have asked whether there are further interim targets. We used to have a 2040 target; we have just set a 2030 target. So, give us some time. When we gather momentum, maybe we can have more interim targets. For now, it is just these two.
I think three aspects will make a difference: taxes, regulations and chargers. Let me talk about them in turn.
First, vehicle taxes. The objectives of the COE system and upfront vehicle ownership taxes such as the Additional Registration Fee (ARF), are mostly to manage congestion, to which there is no difference between ICEs and EVs. Therefore, it is not appropriate to waive all or almost all vehicles, on electric cars, as suggested by Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Technological advancement is narrowing the price differential between ICEs and EVs rapidly. Experts think price equalisation will happen in 2025 or earlier. To give Members an illustration: the main cost of an EV is in the battery. In 2010, the cost was about US$1,000 per kilowatt-hour of battery power. By now, it is about US$140. So, it fell, in 10 years, from US$1,000 per kilowatt-hour to about US$140. Experts feel that when it reaches about US$100 per kilowatt-hour, this is the tipping point when there will be price equalisation between EVs and ICEs. In the meantime, while the prices are falling, we will offer tax incentives to EV owners.
We introduced the EV Early Adoption Incentive this year. Together with the enhanced Vehicular Emissions Scheme, the cost of owning an electric car can be lowered by up to $45,000. Since the start of the year, there have been about 100 new electric car registrations in Singapore. It is a small number, but we will ramp it up. Many mass-market electric car buyers still cannot benefit from the full $45,000 rebate, because there is a minimum payment of $5,000 for the ARF. So, to enable mass-market electric cars to benefit from the full rebate, we will remove the $5,000 minimum ARF.
As for road tax, it is a more complicated matter. We just implemented a significant downward revision for electric cars from 1 January this year. For certain models, the reduction is significant, as much as 40%. Notwithstanding this, we decided to review the matter further. Let me explain why.
A large part of road tax is a luxury tax. But luxury is subjective and hard to measure. So, for a long time, we have been using engine capacity as a proxy for luxury. The bigger the engine, the bigger the car, the higher the road tax. The same approach can be applied to electric cars. They do not have engine capacity, but we can design the road tax schedule based on propulsion power, measured in kilowatt-hour, as a proxy for luxury. Then, we should set the electric car road tax schedule such that electric and ICE cars with roughly the same look, feel and level of luxury are subject to the same road taxes. And this is inherently a subjective exercise and would not be very scientific. But it reflects the policy objective, which is that a large part of road tax is a luxury tax.
And if we take that approach and we then eyeball through the models of ICE and electric cars using their prevailing road tax schedules, we find that for the small and medium electric and ICE cars, their road taxes are quite comparable. But for the larger cars, they are a little bit off.
To illustrate, let us compare a 105 kilowatt MG EV, that is the most popular EV in Singapore now, and a 1,800 cc Renault Megane. Both are medium-sized family cars. Both subject to similar annual road taxes of around $1,000.
But for the slightly larger, mass market segment cars, it becomes a bit off. To illustrate again, a 150 kilowatt Hyundai Kona Electric Standard Utility Vehicle (SUV) is subject to about the same road tax as a 2,000 cc Audi Q5 or Q7. But I think Members will agree with me, the level of luxury between the two models is quite different.
Similarly, an entry model of the Tesla, which is the 225 kilowatt Tesla Model 3, and 3,000 cc Porsche Cayenne are subject to about the same road tax. So, also a bit off.
This problem exists because we have thus far linked the road tax schedules of electric and ICE cars by propulsion power, so quite scientific. And hence, we have inadvertently penalised the more power-efficient electric cars.
To address this, we will adjust the road taxes further for electric cars in the 90-230 kilowatt band.
With your permission, Mdm Chairman, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout showing the current and new electric car road tax schedules?
The Chairman: Yes. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Mr Ong Ye Kung: I have been reminded by the Clerk to tell Members that you may also access these materials through the SG-Parl MP mobile app. That will save paper.
So, we will merge the current electric car road tax bands of 30-90 kilowatt and 90-230 kilowatt, merge them into one band and subject them to the current road tax formula of the lower band, the 30-90 kilowatt band.
The long and short of it is, we will bring down the road taxes of electric cars in the upper band. Using the examples earlier, a Hyundai Kona Electric will see its annual road tax fall from about $1,400, to $1,100. That of a Tesla Model 3 will drop from $2,300 per year, to $1,500. And this will make their road taxes comparable to ICE models with a similar look and feel.
Some car enthusiasts have observed that for big electric cars, those 230 kilowatt, 300 kilowatt, the road tax schedule is also a bit off. To illustrate, some have told me an electric Porsche Taycan is subject to significantly more road tax than a Porsche Cayenne. I acknowledge the concerns. But these are all big luxurious cars. I prefer to leave them alone for now. What is important is that we have now established the principles and policy for charging road tax on electric cars. As more models emerge, we will review the road tax schedule further, with a view not to over-charge electric cars vis-à-vis ICE cars.
The second area of work is to improve our regulations and standards. With your permission, Mdm Chairman, may I show an illustrative slide on the LCD screens please?
The Chairman: Yes, go ahead. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Members may be wondering what these are. They are not the latest emojis, they are different kinds of plugs for EVs used around the world. And we have settled on two of these plugs, the one that is with a red border around it, which is Type 2 for AC charging and CCS 2 for DC charging. These are the most widely adopted now internationally, and we will adopt these as our national public charging standards.
The set of technical standards and safety precautions that governs the EV charging systems in Singapore is called the Technical Reference 25 (TR25). It is administered by the Energy Market Authority (EMA). To give dedicated focus to this work, we will amend legislation to transfer the role of regulator of EV charging systems from EMA to LTA.
LTA is also leading a comprehensive review of TR25 in partnership with industry players and various stakeholders and experts. We expect the review to be completed by end of this year. The idea is to make TR25 friendly to industry development, while ensuring safety.
While the review is on-going, LTA plans to set up regulatory sandboxes for commercial players to test and introduce new charging solutions. It is very important we get this right, because it will determine the level of private sector involvement in finding solutions to build up the infrastructure and drive EV charging and adoption.
A couple of Members also raised the issue of disposal and recycling of used EV batteries. This comes under the regulation of NEA and will be addressed at the MSE's COS speeches later.
But this leads us to the third point, which is how to expand the EV charging network, and is a point raised by several Members.
We are doubling our 2030 targets, from 28,000 to 60,000 by 2030. This comprises 40,000 in public carparks and 20,000 in private premises. If we assume one-third of cars are EVs by 2030, this translates into a EV to charging point ratio of about 5:1. And this ratio is better than many public estimates of the optimum ratio, which ranges from 10:1 to 5:1. But we are aiming for 5:1 by 2030.
The key to unlocking more charging facilities is to not insist on high-powered, or \"fast\" charging. Because that would require a major upgrading of almost all the power substations and the grid infrastructure all over Singapore, as envisaged and raised by many Members. It would be costly, time-consuming, stall the development and expansion of charging infrastructure, and severely impede the adoption of EVs.
I understand why Members like Mr Ang Wei Neng want charging to be faster. Given a choice, I think we all want charging to be faster. But the cost will be immense. And I think for most drivers, the deterrent to switch to EVs for now is the sheer lack of charging points. We can move much faster in making charging points available if we accept that for most users, instead of high-powered \"fast\" charging, \"slow\" or \"overnight\" charging is actually alright.
In US, Europe and Japan, EV users predominantly use slow charging, with fast charging, and they define it as 22 kilowatt and above, estimated to account for 10%-20% of charging demand. So, this requires drivers to change our habits. Drivers are used to a very quick visit to the petrol kiosks, pump, buy a drink and go. And so a mindset shift is required. After all, we are used to patiently charging all our electronic devices whether they are smart phones, smart watches or laptops, while we sleep, or while we are in office doing work. It will be the same for EVs. For this mindset shift to happen, we will need to make chargers available and accessible.
The average electric car, now, it has a range of 300-500 km, typically and it is increasing. That should require a typical user to fully charge about once every five days. Not every day. But once every five days. So, charging points will need to be shared, with different drivers charging on different days and at different times, especially in public car parks.
That way, we will be able to minimise electrical infrastructure upgrades. We can tap on the spare electrical capacity in all our public carparks and install charging points as quickly as possible.
And where the infrastructure supports it or where we decide to selectively upgrade the infrastructure, fast chargers can then be installed. And today, we can already find fast chargers in certain petrol kiosks, shopping malls, industrial and commercial premises.
As for fleet operators, P2P operators, for example, and in response to Mr Xie Yao Quan, about 60% of our taxis are already petrol hybrids. Our car fleet operators are committed to 100% cleaner energy fleets by 2040. But unlike typical car users, fleet operators will need fast charging in order to support their business operators. Mr Ang Wei Neng mentioned charging farms. It is not far-fetched. These are issues that Government and fleet operators will need to sit down, discuss and try to work out.
But let me say this: fleet operators will need to be prepared to invest in building up the infrastructure to support their operations. They can amortise the investment over many vehicles over many years of operations. Cost of electricity will very likely still work out much cheaper than petrol or diesel now.
How do we go about installing charging points? Where do we start? As Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested, we plan to make it mandatory for carparks in HDB towns, private residences like condominiums and commercial buildings to cater sufficient electrical capacity to support EV charging and ensure that a minimum number of charging points is installed. But we can only do this for new developments or developments undergoing major changes.
As for existing carparks, if they are in public housing estates, public sector agencies, such as HDB or URA, will drive the installation. We will implement this in phased packages, well-spread across the island and we will take a town-centric approach.
We aim to have at least seven \"EV-Ready Towns\" by 2025, where every HDB carpark will be fitted with charging points. They are, in alphabetical order: Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Choa Chu Kang, Jurong West, Punggol, Queenstown and Sembawang. I should really add Tengah. So, there will be eight.
By the 2030s, we will strive to make every HDB town an EV-Ready Town.
For non-landed private residences, such as condominiums, in fact, mainly condominiums, we will introduce an EV Common Charger Grant to catalyse implementation. This is part of the $30 million allocation announced in the Budget, to kickstart the build-up of EV charging infrastructure.
The condominiums will be able to apply for the grant to defray part of the cost of installing a charger, subject to a quantum cap per charger. This will be made available to the first 2,000 chargers installed from July 2021. LTA will release more details.
But there is another practical problem which Mr Lim Biow Chuan has mentioned. To install charging points in condominiums, the management corporations (MCSTs) will need to convene general meetings and seek approval, which may not be forthcoming even with the grant.
The private sector can provide a solution. There are already a number of EV charging players, such as SP Mobility, Greenlots and Charge+, some of which are prepared to undertake all the upfront installation costs, in return for a period where they can collect charging revenue. So, the right tender specifications and commercial model can get this going.
Today, several of such projects already exist. They price charging at about 39 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour. And this covers cost of electricity, the grid charges, installation cost plus their margins. What does this translate into – 39 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour translates to about seven to nine cents per km travelled, which I think is competitive and attractive.
Mdm Chairman, I have just outlined the key steps we will take to drive EV adoption. In many countries, inter-city driving is common and that causes a lot of anxiety amongst EV users because they are afraid of battery depletion – in middle of a highway, you run out of battery, you are in trouble. But with our urban environment, Singapore is quite ideal as a test-bed for the rapid adoption of EVs.
We can be at the forefront of this technology, to advance this significant thrust of the Green Plan.
The Chairman: Second Minister Tan See Leng.
The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tan See Leng): Mdm Chairman, over the last 50 years, our energy sector has evolved tremendously.
As we face a rising need to tackle climate change and, at the same time, competing higher energy demands from our population and industry, we will have to transition gradually away from natural gas and find low carbon energy sources to meet our needs progressively.
However, Singapore lacks alternative energy such as wind or tidal power, as Ms Yeo Wan Ling pointed out. Our main source of renewable energy is solar energy which has its limitations, due to its intermittency as well as the need for space.
Therein lies the challenge for all of us here in Singapore. How can we obtain energy that is: one, secure and reliable; two, affordable; and three, that is environmentally sustainable for ourselves over the the long haul. These three objectives constitute our \"energy trilemma\", as seeking to achieve each will entail trade-offs for the others.
I wanted to set this context in place by explaining further how we will forge ahead in our efforts to incorporate more renewable energy in our energy sources and enhance the efficiency of our power systems, and how we can continue to manage these trade-offs arising from our energy transition and the \"energy trilemma\", including smoothening price volatility as well as conserving energy together.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the Government's efforts in decarbonising our electricity grid. We are greening our energy sources, by developing our four \"supply switches\": natural gas, solar energy, regional grids and low carbon alternatives, such as hydrogen.
First, solar energy. We are accelerating our efforts to maximise and densify suitable solar deployment spaces, which Mr Liang Eng Hwa has also asked about. This includes scaling up the deployment of solar panels on rooftops and open spaces, such as reservoirs.
Today, as we speak, we are already one of the most solar dense cities, in terms of power generation, in the world. Nonetheless, we will continue to explore even more innovative ways to deploy solar and maximise solar deployment across all viable sites, such as untapped spaces, including existing land, canals and roads. For example, Terrenus Energy, together with JTC, will be extending their Solar Land project on Jurong Island to include multiple renewable energies onsite – solar, we are piloting tidal, wave and wind. Once this project is completed, this will be Singapore's first four-in-one renewable energy site and we could potentially have the highest renewable energy produced per square metre in the world.
As solar deployment increases, we will have to match this with Energy Storage Systems or ESS deployment. Beyond 2025, we target to deploy 200 megawatts (MW) of ESS. In order for us to enable this, EMA is test-bedding innovative solutions with the industry as well as the research community. For example, we are piloting Singapore's first floating ESS which can power over 600 4-room flats and this will enable us to study how batteries can be stacked vertically to reduce land use.
I am also happy to announce that we have awarded a grant to a consortium led by a local small and medium-sized enterprise, Eigen Energy, to pilot Singapore's first smart and clean energy powered service stations in Tampines, Pasir Ris and Lakeview. These stations will have a smart energy management system to integrate solar, energy storage and electric vehicle or EV chargers to help power their operations and provide one of the fastest public EV charging, when ready in the first quarter of 2022.
As we increase solar and ESS deployment, our power system will become more decentralised. To enhance our capabilities in grid planning, maintenance and asset management, we are developing a digital twin of Singapore's physical electricity grid. And we are working closely with the industry to progressively upgrade and refresh our physical grid.
The second switch of developing regional grids. EMA will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a two-year trial of 100MW of electricity imports from Malaysia in March 2021. It is also initiating a cross-border power trade of up to 100MW under the Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project or the LTMS-PIP. This will also allow us to tap on the abundance of hydropower and other renewable energies that some of our Southeast Asian neighbours have.
Prof Koh Lian Pin asked what the Government is doing to assess the carbon footprint of our electricity imports. For the upcoming trial with Malaysia, EMA will put in place steps to verify the cleanliness of our imports, including requiring importers to submit documentary proof of carbon output. And the cleaner the proposal, the higher they will be scored and the more favourably will they be scored.
But these are just first steps, small steps towards a regional grid.
In MTI, we have plans to import more electricity and these trials will help us learn and build confidence in importing electricity over the longer term, to diversify our energy sources while tapping on clean energy in the source countries.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about how we could help our existing power systems to become more efficient. Singapore, over the middle to long-term, will need and will continue to need and rely on natural gas as we transition towards cleaner energy.
We are encouraging, therefore, our power generation companies, or gencos, to adopt more efficient technologies for their generation sets through two grant calls for the Genco Energy Efficiency Grant.
We will also facilitate the entry of advanced Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT), which is the most efficient gas-fired generation technology that is available today, for new generation needs or to replace retiring generation sets.
These measures will make our economy more sustainable, but they will inevitably involve trade-offs. For instance, while we seek to accelerate solar deployment, our land constraints and the need for back-up storage adds to the costs.
Mr Dennis Tan asked during the Budget debate last week about our plan to step up electricity infrastructure for use by EVs in the coming years. MTI will work closely with MOT and LTA to enhance our electrical infrastructure to support the onboarding of EVs. This is why we call this prong of the Green Plan an \"energy reset\" strategy. Because some upgrading of power generation and grid infrastructure will be required. We will pace the upgrading of the infrastructure alongside with the adoption of the EVs.
Mr Saktiandi also asked about whether the current low electricity prices would pose a challenge in encouraging consumers to adopt more energy efficient measures to cut down on their electricity usage.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa also asked how importing electricity will impact electricity prices and the considerations that the Government has in managing any price volatility.
Indeed, wholesale electricity market prices are well-depressed today. Let me explain how we came to this situation, and what we will see, going forward.
Singapore has an open and competitive electricity market where prices rise and fall depending on demand and supply. Around 10 years ago, generation companies made commercial decisions to build power plants and contract natural gas based on the bullish projections of demand growth. However, these projections did not materialise and this has led to the current glut in our electricity market. Intense competition among the different gencos to sell electricity has led to electricity prices falling below the full cost of producing electricity.
With your permission, Mdm Chairman, may I display one slide on the LCD screen, please?
The Chairman: Go ahead. [A slide was shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3]
Dr Tan See Leng: Please take a look at the slide. As you can see, in red, it represents the long-run marginal cost of producing electricity. So, that is the true cost of what it takes to produce electricity today. The black line shows the current market's spot price that fluctuates over the last many years. This is the result of over capacity, currently.
This over-capacity situation will likely be alleviated in the near future. Wholesale electricity prices will also rise and normalise, with rising demand driven by the growth of sectors such as data centres, 5G networks, agri-tech, as well as the adoption of EVs. The low electricity prices today are currently also dis-incentivising the generation companies from investing in new plants.
Over the medium to long run, electricity prices normalising is inevitable. You can see from the chart, no company that is commercially-run will sell electricity below cost perpetually.
What we need to do is to prevent a swing from a glut to a severe shortage of capacity, and this will result in sharp price spikes; perhaps, even blackouts as what we saw in Texas just last month. Many electricity markets have encountered similar experiences. EMA has studied how these jurisdictions have managed their situations and we are also consulting the industry on the way forward. We will announce more details later this year and we are committed to smoothening these price surges and volatility.
Besides power generation capacity, electricity prices are also affected by the supply of energy. Please remember, all of us, we are importing close to 100% of our energy needs today. Of course, they are mainly natural gas.
In spite of our best efforts to deploy solar energy in Singapore, we will still need to rely on energy imports one way or another, and be subject to global prices, going forward.
Fuel prices had dipped to their lowest levels in the last 20 years due to the COVID-19 pandemic last year, but they are expected to rise, going forward, as global demand recovers. This will also likely cause electricity prices to increase as well.
The Government will do our best to manage our energy trilemma by introducing more renewable energy in our energy mix, by enhancing the efficiency of our power systems, and minimising the impact on prices. However, \"right-pricing\" of the energy prices is critical to encouraging prudent use of electricity.
We must adopt energy conservation as a way of life for all of us here in Singapore.
Besides managing the amount of energy we use, consumers can also help us reduce our carbon footprint by electrification. Minister Ong has already spoken about our ambitious plan to electrify vehicles.
Another example is how we can switch from using gas to electrical appliances for our cooking. It is also safer as the risk of gas leaks and fires are reduced. And some of the newer electrical cooking appliances, they do produce very, very good \"wok hei\", the heat that is required to give you very good hor fun. Mdm Chairman, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today, Singapore's energy needs are almost 100% met by imports, mainly of natural gas. Even with our best efforts in using solar energy, we will still need to rely on energy imports. Thus, we have limited control over prices.
The Government will do our utmost in reducing the impact on Singaporeans. The key is that everyone should conserve energy and make corresponding adjustments to our lifestyles. Energy conservation must become a way of life for all Singaporeans.
(In English): In conclusion, Mdm Chairman, the Government will continue taking a long-term approach in planning our energy needs, while balancing the need to be more environmentally sustainable; ensuring continued energy reliability and security, as well as managing price fluctuations and volatility. Even when prices do go up, we will do our best to ensure that this gradient is gradual, and the Government will act, where necessary, to minimise excessive surges.
Most fundamentally, it is our exhortation to all of us as fellow Singaporeans, that we must do our part to conserve energy, just like how we conserve water, and we all have to adjust our lifestyles accordingly.
It is only when we work together, we can maintain a sustainable, secure, reliable and resilient energy future for all of us.
The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Chairman, all of us in this House have spent the last 55 years defending and securing this little red dot of ours. We tried all ways to keep it going, growing and glowing.
In the next 50 years, we will have a chance to turn this Little Red Dot into a bright green spark – a bright green spark with a new economy, with a new way of life, that will provide our future generations with more options and look back with greater pride.
To achieve this, we will do three things. We will all need: (a) to go green by embracing a sustainability mindset in our production and consumption; (b) to grow green by embracing and seizing the new opportunities in the green economy; and (c) to glow green by being an inspiration to the world on how we can demonstrate positively, constructively, how a dense urban society can use our resources sustainably and leave behind a better future for generations to come.
Let us begin by going green. We must review the way we consume. In an increasingly carbon-constrained future, our personal consumption choices will have greater bearing on the environment. Whether it is choosing to use less air-conditioning, opting for public transport, or purchasing products that are more sustainably produced, all of us – as Minister Tan See Leng said – can adjust some bits of our lifestyle to make this transition. This is a commitment that we can all make. As Minister Grace Fu said, it is a commitment not just for our own benefit, it is a commitment to our future generations.
This commitment applies not just to individuals but also to corporates. In a carbon-constrained future, being able to operate and produce more sustainably will be key attributes of successful enterprises. Increasingly, consumers are much more discerning and place a greater emphasis on sustainable products and services.
This is where Enterprise Singapore (ESG) comes in, to help build a strong breed of local enterprises that can harness sustainability as a competitive advantage. We envision these enterprises to be pioneers and experts in developing solutions that are highly demanded in the green economy. Such solutions could range from clean energy, energy efficiency, waste valorisation, water treatment, and so forth. These enterprises would also possess the mindset that every project they undertake should account for the impact on the environment. More details on the Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP) will be released later this year.
Businesses will be increasingly mindful of the need to embrace Environmental, Social and Governance imperatives in their business practices. For those new to this journey, we can all start small. Success is the sum of many small steps, and success belongs to the determined. Sustainability must be in our mindsets.
As we commit ourselves to a greener future, we must also grow green, by seizing new opportunities in the green economy.
Our existing industries will continue to transform. For traditionally energy-intensive sectors such as petrochemicals and agri-tech, we will need to achieve breakthroughs in carbon and energy efficiency, through innovation. With our Industry 4.0 push, we are striving to manufacture more efficiently, using less materials, as well as producing more sustainably for the world.
Our Energy and Chemicals sector is becoming more vital in accelerating our change towards environmental sustainability. It will continue to enable many parts of our economy and it will continue to produce for the world. But it will do so much more sustainably. To get there, we are taking active steps to transform the sector.
We are partnering companies that are developing cleaner products and decarbonisation solutions. We are enhancing the Investment Allowance for Emissions Reduction (IA-ER) scheme, previously known as the Investment Allowance for Energy Efficiency Scheme. Apart from improving energy efficiency, the IA-ER scheme will also support projects that result in direct reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Details will also be announced later this year.
We are also stepping up decarbonisation and resource optimisation efforts at the plant and systems levels, to transform Jurong Island into a sustainable energy and chemicals park.
Ten years from now, we will also expect that global tourism will have sprung back into a more vibrant sector. But tourists will have a greater interest in sustainable travel options, for example, eco-friendly hotels and attractions. To prepare ourselves for these opportunities, we are transforming Sentosa into a carbon-neutral destination by 2030. Through such efforts, we will strengthen Singapore as an exemplary sustainable tourism destination.
But there are also new opportunities. Leveraging our strengths as a business hub, we envisage that our future industry mix will comprise more green growth sectors. We can envisage:
Singapore as having leveraged our brand of trust to grow a carbon services sector, with a strong value chain anchored in Singapore. People will turn to us for services including project development, financing, trading, for the credits market, as well as measurement, reporting and verification services.
Singapore’s capabilities and offerings in green financing will also be deepened, to catalyse the growth of new businesses in the green economy, while enhancing our competitiveness as a hub for sustainable solutions. Just as cashflow is the lifeblood of businesses, financing is a key enabler for the green economy.
But we must also pace our transformation. We must ensure that our industries are not displaced by sudden economic structural changes. I am certain Members of this House will agree with us that when we review our carbon prices, we must be very conscious of the impact that this will have on current and future competitiveness and the consequent impact on our jobs and livelihoods for all Singaporeans.
This brings me to the next point on opportunities for our people – the centrepiece in Singapore’s economic journey. We expect to see high demand for skills to help corporates, even governments, to navigate the complexities of the green transition. The transformation of our industries and the rise of the green innovation will germinate new jobs, to help solve sustainability problem statements faced by the region, and globally.
And Singaporeans can take advantage of these bright spots by upskilling and re-skilling ourselves. We can be better placed to capture these new opportunities. We can also help our corporates deliver on their sustainability mandates, and countries to advance their charge towards a more sustainable economy. And we will continue to find our place in the green economy.
Finally, we aspire to glow green. We can be a bright green spark, by being an inspiration to the world on how we overcome sustainability-related constraints. We have done so for water over the last 50 years. We have done it also for transportation, and the way we build and organise our city. We are going to do so for energy because that will be a big part of glowing green. Not just for ourselves but for the whole world. Singapore’s birth and growth have never been defined by circumstances, challenges or constraints. Instead we have always been defined by the way we respond, overcome and create opportunities for ourselves through it all.
This is why under the Research, Innovation, and Enterprise Plan (RIE) 2025, we are attracting companies to anchor their R&D activities in Singapore. We will continue to support the start-up and innovation eco-systems in sustainability-related sectors. We endeavour to help others overcome their sustainability constraints, both regionally and globally. Innovation and transformation are symbiotic. We can strive to overcome our challenges and in turn our solutions can provide options for the world.
Mdm Chair, ultimately, growing our green economy entails a stewardship of reserves – financially, socially, and environmentally. We must strive to go from brown to green, carbon to clean. Only then can we pass on a healthy and sustainable portion of these reserves to future generations.
Growing our green economy is also about a stewardship of opportunity. The bright spots that I mentioned and the ambitions that I have shared are not lofty ideas. These are potential real outcomes that we believe Singapore and Singaporeans can achieve – together. So, we urge everyone to consider how we can each contribute, how our economy will be greener, our people will be more relevant, and our society, ever resilient. This will be our new normal, our new charge and our new opportunity.
So, yes, there is a lot at stake for the environment; but also, for Singapore’s future and our economy and the livelihoods of Singaporeans. The road ahead may be long. But with resolve and cooperation, we think we can go fast, we can go far, and we can go together. And together we will not only defend this little red dot, we will turn this little red dot into a bright green spark to be an inspiration for future generations and the world. [Applause.]
The Chairman: We will take clarifications now. Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Madam. I was quite excited for a while when Senior Minister said we would reach half of our emissions by 2030 but then he burst my bubble. But I really hope that we can try to reach net zero emissions by 2050. If not, could I ask whether we can at least narrow the timeframe. So, instead of by the second half of the century, which could be 79 years' time, when I was hoping we can actually see net zero emissions within my lifetime. But if we can at least reduce here, maybe by 2060 or 2070. If not, can the Government at least consider to focus it on a per sector basis? So, something like what MOE has done which is that 20% of the schools will achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.
The second question really is for MOE – when can we expect the other 80% of the schools to reach carbon neutrality?
Third, Minister Tan mentioned about how we are planning to import hydro power from Lao PDR and that sounds environmentally friendly. But I just wonder whether we have also studied the environmental impact of building this hydro-electric power station, how destructive it is for the environment there and for the wildlife. I hope MTI can consider not just importing the renewable energy but making sure that it does not have that big an impact on the environment in other countries.
The Chairman: Senior Minister Teo.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Indeed, Madam, I think inherent in the series of questions that Mr Louis Ng asked, are all the trade-offs that we have to balance when we try and achieve the targets that he is talking about.
One of the things which we have to consider is whether we want to import electricity. Other jurisdictions, for example, claimed to have to achieve this target, but actually, they are importing nuclear energy from their neighbours. Is that something which Mr Louis Ng thinks is a good idea? There are different things that we need to do.
When we are considering importing clean and green energy from other countries, there are also other considerations which we have to take into account. All these things, inherently, have trade-offs.
Our targets, our LEDS by 2050 are based on what we can control ourselves and all the things that we are doing in all the different sectors within our control. We will do that to bring our emissions down by half. Roughly speaking, half of what we emit, we can control. The other half depends on what other people do and whether or not we are able to develop the technologies, some of which do not exist today; whether we are able to get importation of electricity; whether we are able to get carbon markets to work properly. Those are not things which are wholly within our control.
And as Mr Louis Ng said himself, even if we did all that, we have to consider the other consequences of all those actions.
These are imponderables which we need to consider with the passage of time. I am not in the business of bursting bubbles. And I certainly do not want to create a bubble which future generations will have difficulty trying to meet. We do not make promises which would cause future generations problems in trying to keep as well. I think Mr Louis Ng would probably agree with that.
The Chairman: Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mdm Chair, on Mr Ng's question on the school sector, we have some schools getting into net zero by 2030. Mr Ng asked what is the timeframe for the rest of the school sector. We will strive to do this as soon as possible. Certainly, I hope within my lifetime; but post-2030, we will try very hard to get all schools to be net zero.
It is not so difficult for the school sector compared to the whole of Singapore. But beyond just putting in the infrastructure to achieve net zero, what I had highlighted earlier which I think is much more important, is to get mindsets to change. We want to inculcate in our students from an early age the mindset of sustainability, to appreciate the importance of habits. I think that is far more important than just putting in solar panels and then putting in new technology and getting the school infrastructure to be net zero. That we will do; I think that for schools, because it is more compact, it is relatively easier. But getting the software, getting the understanding, the habits and the mindsets – that is an important endeavour we want to do in the school sector as well.
The Chairman: Minister Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Louis Ng for the question. For the import from Lao PDR, in terms of the hydro power, it is a pilot. We will consider all possible sources of renewable energy. One of the key aspects of this thing would be that we would be getting all prospective importers to submit information on their energy sources as well as environmental studies that have been done to see what the impacts are. And that is why at this particular point in time, it is still a pilot. We are piloting from Lao PDR, we are also piloting from Malaysia.
And as we learn more in the months and in the years ahead, we will collate and find the best way forward.
The Chairman: Mr Saktiandi.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Mdm Chairman, thank you. First of all, I like to thank Senior Minister and all Ministers for giving a very detailed explanation on this issue. I have got two questions for Minister Tan. First is on the switches. He mentioned the range of switches, the regional grid switch, for example. It was answered somewhat. The first question is on the weightage of the regional grid – how many percent is it, as a whole, part of the switch, a consolidation?
Second is I am concerned about the impact on electricity prices for Singaporeans. Maybe you can share with us to reassure Singaporeans over the next five to 10 years, the impact on the increase in prices. Because you mentioned that: one, the electricity prices will normalise; second, data centres and digitalisation and EV charging will come on-stream; and third, the switches on boarding, including our exposure to regional grid exposures.
So, can I ask the Minister if he can share the plans to mitigate this rise in prices, if any going forward, given the possibility of convergence of these factors.
The Chairman: Minister Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you. Mdm Chairperson, as far as the weightage in terms of the four switches is concerned, as I alluded to earlier on, at this particular point in time, we are still managing it in a form of a very fine balance. As I have stated in my speech, we are really in this trilemma. What I am hoping to achieve is to send a message to everyone and I hope to get the support of everyone in the House, that a fundamental pillar that underpins the entire four-switch strategy is really energy conservation.
At this particular point in time, in terms of the regional power grid, they are pilots. We are trying to see how we can diversify and how reliable and how resilient and how hedged we can be in terms of applying our diversification strategy in terms of these energy imports from the different countries that is part of this regional ASEAN grid.
We are not able to commit to a long-term target in terms of how much percentage, weightage we are going to give each one of these switches. What we are doing is that we are accelerating all three of them contemporaneously, the regional power grids we are exploring. We are also working very closely under the RIE initiative in terms of looking at the R&D of developing low carbon alternatives, and of course, going very, very long into renewable energy as well.
With time, we should be able to provide this House with greater clarity and details of that strategy and how much traction we are able to gain.
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Madam. I thank the Ministers including Senior Minister Teo for sharing the more intricate details of the Green Plan. From an observer's perspective – a Singaporean looking at this – the targets are a very interesting part of the plan because with technology moving so quickly, I can imagine it is difficult to say when a certain thing can happen by.
I have got two questions. One was actually pertaining to a point with regard to the trade-offs that Senior Minister Teo alluded to in reply to Member Louis Ng's question about nuclear power. I recall seeing in the Government financial statements, a consultancy study that was done to study the prospect of the safe disposal of nuclear waste. And this was I think, a study that cost in excess of a $2 million. I can file a Parliamentary Question on this matter as to what were the findings of the Government, but certainly in terms of clean power, nuclear power that is a source that potentially should be looked at. So, it will be helpful to know what the Government's findings were in that regard.
My second question is for Minister Desmond Lee. We read in the mainstream media allusions to how land, forested area should be dealt with, just like how we deal with our fiscal reserves, very carefully, with a second key, almost. My question is for the public to better understand the trade-offs, because it is a sensitive subject for the members of the public to have open areas and green lungs in the country, what sort of processes take place in Government to ensure that the trade-offs that are taken to, for example, remove a forested area, is a very careful one; and there are checks and balances in that process to make sure that all other alternatives have been considered carefully?
The Chairman: Senior Minister Teo.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Could I just ask Mr Pritam Singh whether he is saying the Government should study nuclear power as an option?
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, I am not saying that because I do not have information on what could be the impact of that study or that proposal. But it would appear that the Government has looked into it, so it would be helpful to know what the Government's position is.
The Chairman\t: Senior Minister Teo.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: The Government's position on nuclear power is quite clear and we have said so several times. We are not foregoing this as a long-term option, and we do not give up any of the options that are available. However, we do not see the current generation or the coming, in fact, even one and a half generations down, of nuclear power plants as being suitable for deployment in Singapore. But we are keeping a very close eye on new developments in nuclear power plants to see whether sometime in the future, as their safety and their capabilities improve, with inherent safety of nuclear power plants, might make them viable or feasible for Singapore.
But we keep an open mind on this. We are looking even at nuclear fusion and tokamaks.
We also have to study, and I am not sure whether this is in fact the study that the Member had referred to. We fund a research centre for nuclear and nuclear safety in Singapore, in order to keep a watch on all these issues including nuclear safety. Although we may not develop a nuclear power plant in Singapore, our neighbours may well do so. So, we need to understand the safety implications of nuclear power plants within a certain radius of us.
The other thing which we need to be prepared for – and this may well be the subject of the study; I do not know which study Mr Pritam Singh is referring to – is that we need to be prepared for nuclear contamination in Singapore, either through a nuclear accident somewhere in the region or by deliberate action, say a terrorist action with a dirty bomb. We have to look at how we clean up such a device or such nuclear radioactive substances that have been dispersed in Singapore, say by terrorist action – how we collect them and how we clean them up. We actually have plans for such a thing. We have to think ahead and we do have plans for this. This may well be what Mr Pritam Singh was thinking. I do not know because I do not know the specific reference.
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I had gone into significant detail in two recent Parliamentary Questions and the exchanges after that. One on Ulu Pandan and one on Kranji, where I set out in a lot of detail, the processes, both at the Concept and Masterplan level, as well as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework that goes into the assessment of ecological and environmental impact.
So, I will not go into all that detail unless the Member has specific questions on my answers in the last two rounds.
But broadly speaking, we have a long-term plan or what we call currently the Concept Plan. I had told Members of the House that we will soon be launching a conversation to relook at the concept of Singapore, which will then input into our land use plan.
But in finer granularity is the Masterplan. And in the Masterplan, you can see the different parcels of land, even land that is vacant or vegetated, and what the land use intention is, for that land.
But beyond that, this is an iterative process, it is a living process and the different agencies that have land use needs like transport, parks and greenery, our water body agencies, our economic agencies, our housing agencies, having consulted their respective constituencies – the interest groups, the cause-based groups, members of the public, community groups – then, discuss regularly to look at the land use and see whether to proceed with certain plans because of the needs that the agencies have forecasted, or to make some changes to the usage of different parcels of land.
So, for instance, over the last few years, a number of parcels of land that have been intended, say for industry or housing, had after discussion amongst agencies and with the input of members of the nature community and researchers, been safeguarded instead because of their ecological value as natural green spaces.
Then, of course, from the environmental point of view, from the point of view of biodiversity, there is a Nature Conservation Masterplan that was launched in 2015, a four-pillar Masterplan. The first being the conservation of cores, buffers, corridors for nature; second, species recovery and habitat enhancement; third, scientific research into ecology science and its application in our eco-systems in an urban environment; and lastly, citizen science.
And then, of course, I spoke also about the EIA framework, the processes that go into how to do an environmental impact study, when it needs to be called and the kinds of agencies that are involved, as well as the enhancement we made in October of last year to put in place Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA) guidelines to enhance the standards and to put in place uniform standards for BIAs, as well as to provide for enforcement through the Wildlife Act and greater transparency of environmental studies.
I also talked about the new things that we have been working on including an ecological connectivity survey at a high level with researchers as well as with the nature community, as well as looking at the feasibility of centralising EIA consultancy.
The Chairman: Minister Grace Fu.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mdm Chairman, several Ministers have spoken earlier about climate change and our responses under the SGP30. I will now share MSE’s work in three areas: (a) building our climate resilience; (b) decarbonising our water sector; and (c) moving towards a Zero Waste Nation.
COVID-19 has underscored the importance of building resilience in our systems. We have started preparations to deal with the long-term effects of climate change. This includes investing strategically in R&D and our infrastructure.
Sea-level rise poses an existential threat to Singapore. Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Ms Poh Li San and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about our plans to protect Singapore’s coastlines against rising sea levels.
In April last year, PUB was appointed the national coastal protection agency to safeguard Singapore’s coastlines against the threat of rising sea levels, while managing inland flood risks. We will implement coastal protection measures in phases, beginning with the more vulnerable parts of our coastlines.
This year, PUB and JTC will embark on site-specific studies at the coastlines of City-East Coast and Jurong Island. Potential measures to be examined include sea walls, polders and nature-based solutions like mangrove planting. In developing these plans, we will search for innovation in complementing our land use, sea space needs and the natural environment. Some of the suggestions from Dr Lim Wee Kiak are interesting and we will take them into consideration.
Climate Change has caused more intense rainfall, and more serious and frequent flooding. As Miss Cheryl Chan has said, it is important to develop a comprehensive and coordinated understanding of Singapore’s level of flood resilience.
To holistically manage both inland and coastal flood risks, PUB will be developing the Coastal-Inland Flood Model this year. This computational model will simulate flood risk events and evaluate effectiveness of coastal infrastructure designs against different climatic scenarios. This will equip PUB with capabilities to plan and implement adaptation measures.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Hazel Poa asked about PUB’s long-term measures to mitigate inland flood risks. In the last decade, PUB has invested almost $2 billion on drainage works. When designing drains and canals, PUB considers factors such as the extent and type of development, overall terrain and design rainfall intensity. Key projects include the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal and Stamford Detention Tank.
Over the next five years, we will invest another $1.36 billion. Ten projects will commence this year, including drainage works at Seletar North Link and Serangoon Avenue 2 and 3.
Despite our best efforts to improve our drainage system, it is not possible to completely eliminate flash floods. It is not practical to build ever bigger drains to meet every extreme rainfall event in land-scarce Singapore.
This is why we introduced the holistic \"Source-Pathway-Receptor\" approach to managing flash floods. This addresses flood protection by arresting water at source such as detention tanks, expanding capacity of pathways such as drains and canals, and deepening capacity of receptors in low-lying areas.
As Dr Lim Wee Kiak rightly pointed out, coastal and flood protection are a long-term and large-scale effort. To ensure adequate and reliable resourcing, we established the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund under PUB last year with an initial injection of $5 billion.
The Deputy Prime Minister announced at Budget that the Government intends to issue new bonds under the proposed Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA, to finance infrastructure, including for coastal and flood protection.
Global warming and rising temperature is another issue that we must grapple with. This is compounded by the Urban Heat Island effect, or UHI for short. When temperature rises, we turn up air-conditioners, which in turn generate more heat in the surrounding, resulting in a vicious cycle. Built-up areas, such as the CBD, can be more than three degree Celsius hotter than our parks. High temperatures can be uncomfortable for our daily activities, or increase the risk of heat injuries at the workplace, sports and military training. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the measures taken to reduce the UHI and heat emissions. We will adopt three mitigation strategies.
First, we will measure, gather data and close our knowledge gaps on the UHI effects by deploying a network of sensors islandwide.
Second, we will develop simulation models of the UHI effects under the Cooling Singapore 2.0 Research Project. This will help us better plan and right-site open spaces and greenery to provide comfort for our residents.
Third, we will develop and implement a UHI mitigation action plan. This will include piloting the use of cool materials, increasing urban greenery and reducing heat emissions through district cooling.
Decarbonisation and improving energy efficiency will continue to be our focus. Mr Louis Ng asked if we can publish a ranking of top emitters. We agree on the need to provide a strong impetus for companies to reduce emissions and we will continue to study how we can spur this meaningfully.
Next, on decarbonising our water sector. Ensuring resilient water supply has been our focus since Independence. With bold and innovative solutions, we have closed the water loop and reused our water endless times. However, our water demand will continue to rise with population and economic growth, even as climate change brings about more erratic rainfall and dry spells. Weather-resilient sources, such as NEWater and desalination, will be key pillars of our future water strategy.
We must ensure that in achieving water sustainability, we do not become more reliant on energy and increase our carbon footprint. In the same bold and innovative spirit that enabled us to close the water loop, MSE will strive to break new frontiers in decarbonising the water sector.
Last year, we announced the construction of one of the world's largest floating solar panel system at Tengeh Reservoir. We are on track to complete construction this year. This will generate enough solar power to meet the energy demands of our five local water treatment plants, making Singapore one of the few in the world to have a fully green waterworks system.
Ms Poh Li San asked for our plans for future floating solar panels and for improving energy efficiency of water treatment. PUB will complete the deployment of two floating solar panel systems at Bedok and Lower Seletar Reservoirs this year. PUB and EDB are also exploring potential deployments in Upper Pierce and Kranji Reservoirs respectively. The environmental impact assessments are underway.
Decades of R&D efforts led to our NEWater and desalination solutions. Today, PUB is undertaking R&D efforts to reduce energy use. One promising example is the Flow Reversal technology in the reverse osmosis stage of NEWater production. This has been shown to improve NEWater recovery rate from 75% to 90% with the same energy consumption.
Through scaling up more efficient technologies, PUB aims to reduce the energy required to produce one cubic metre of desalinated water from 3.5 kilowatt hours to 2 kilowatt hours, by 2025.
Even as we opened our fourth desalination plant in Marina East, I am pleased to announce that our fifth desalination plant in Jurong Island will be completed this year. The Plant will be co-located with Tuas Power's existing Tembusu Multi-Utilities Complex, boosting resource synergies across energy and seawater intake and outfall structures.
Last year, we reported that work has begun on Tuas Nexus – Singapore's first integrated solid waste and used water treatment facility. It is set for completion in phases from 2025. It will harness synergies across the water-energy-waste nexus to maximise energy and resource recovery, enabling it to be fully energy self-sufficient and even export electricity to the grid.
Building on Tuas Nexus, NEA and PUB plan to co-locate a food waste treatment facility at Changi Water Reclamation Plant. The co-digestion of food waste and used water sludge generates additional biogas, providing more electricity for Changi Water Reclamation Plant. Co-location also reduces the carbon footprint, as food waste collected in the east can be sent to Changi, instead of to Tuas Nexus in the west. NEA expects to embark on the preliminary design study for the food waste treatment facility in the first half of this year.
Through our green waterworks, low-energy water production and low-carbon water treatment, the next chapter of our water story will be written in a green and sustainable manner.
I will now touch on waste. We set ambitious targets under our Zero Waste Masterplan in 2019.
Our national goal is to achieve a 70% overall recycling rate and reduce the amount of waste sent to Semakau Landfill per capita per day by 30% by 2030.
Under the Green Plan, we aim to frontload our waste-to-landfill reduction efforts over the next five years, to achieve a 20% reduction per capita per day by 2026.
We can achieve this if everyone plays their part, consuming less, wasting less and recycling more. At the same time, we need a paradigm shift from a linear \"take-make-throw\" economy to a circular economy where waste is turned into resource and used over and over again. The Government surely cannot do this alone. We need businesses, individuals and all partners to come on board.
Let me share our plans on three priority waste streams: e-waste, food waste and packaging waste, including plastics.
Let me start with e-waste. As Mr Louis Ng pointed out, Singapore generates about 60,000 tonnes of e-waste a year.
E-waste contains valuable resources like precious metals, which we can recover to reduce mining of raw materials. However, only about 6% of the e-waste disposed of by consumers is recycled via public recycling programmes.
This is why we have introduced the Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR framework for e-waste. This places responsibility on producers to collect and send their products for proper end-of-life treatment at e-waste recyclers licensed by NEA.
Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about EV batteries. It will be included in this framework. The recyclers will have to adhere to depollution requirements and meet material recovery targets. This ensures that our e-waste does not pollute the environment and useful resources are recovered for reuse.
To Mr Louis Ng's query, we are on track to start the EPR this July. We recently appointed ALBA Group as the Producer Responsibility Scheme, or PRS Operator to manage the physical collection and treatment of e-waste on behalf of the producers, who will finance the scheme. NEA is working closely with ALBA and industry stakeholders to set up the collection infrastructure.
Come July, the public can look forward to more ways to recycle e-waste. In addition to the mandatory requirement for large retailers to offer instore collection service, we have secured support from owners of other premises, such as shopping malls and Community Clubs, to place e-waste recycling bins at publicly accessible areas within their premises.
To ensure the success of the EPR, NEA is working with premises owners and ALBA to raise awareness. ALBA intends to launch a website and mobile app to provide information on the EPR, including the types of e-waste covered and the recycling locations.
Individuals, too, can drive ground-up efforts on e-waste recycling. Take Mdm Lalitha for instance. She chairs the Woodlands Environmental Committee and led an initiative to install e-waste recycling bins that was well-received by residents in Woodlands. Between October 2018 and March last year, about 338 kg of e-waste was collected. Mdm Lalitha had the following message to share, and I quote, \"Environmental conservation is a self-initiated mission. When you lead by example, others will be inspired to follow.\" Let us play our part for the environment, just like Mdm Lalitha and inspire our families and friends to do the same.
Next, on food waste. We are driving nationwide efforts to reduce and recycle food waste through outreach efforts and regulatory measures.
Last year, we announced the requirement for food waste at large commercial and industrial premises to be segregated for treatment. Mr Louis Ng asked if these premises should also report the amount of food waste segregated. Indeed, we are considering a framework for these premises to measure and report the amount of food waste segregated for treatment. This will highlight to them the amount of food waste they generate and the potential to reduce wastage. We will start industry consultations on this in the second quarter of the year.
Aside from mandatory measures, we will closely support businesses in their efforts to close waste loops. NEA has been seeking applicants for its 3R Fund, a co-funding programme to support businesses in implementing waste reduction projects. Parkway Parade received funding to install a new food waste treatment system on its premises and actively reached out to tenants to segregate their food waste to be treated. Between 2017 and 2020, Parkway Parade successfully diverted 1,200 tonnes of food waste from disposal.
Packaging waste is our third priority waste stream. It accounts for about one-third of domestic waste disposed of, comprising materials, such as plastic, paper, metal and glass. While incineration reduces the volume of packaging waste, we can do more to reduce, reuse and recycle them. We will put in place an EPR framework for packaging waste, starting with a Deposit Refund Scheme, or DRS, for beverage containers.
To Mr Louis Ng's question, we have been engaging the community and industry to develop a DRS framework for Singapore. We plan to introduce the legislative framework for the DRS by 2022 and implement it in 2023. The transition period will give industry time to set up the collection and recycling infrastructure. We will continue to engage stakeholders and we welcome all to participate in shaping Singapore's own DRS framework.
Another important aspect in recycling packaging waste is building up our local recycling capabilities.
More than half of our domestic packaging waste disposed of is plastics. We are pursuing both mechanical and chemical recycling solutions, the latter which can take in contaminated plastics that are not suitable for mechanical recycling.
NEA and Shell are jointly studying the feasibility of chemical recycling in Singapore, including the carbon savings potential of diverting plastic waste from incineration to produce pyrolysis oil, or NEWOil, as feedstock for petrochemical plants.
One issue that has captured public attention is the excessive consumption of disposables. This includes single-use plastics which Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan have asked about. Disposables have a short lifespan and contribute significantly to our carbon footprint and waste. Under GreenGov.SG, the public service is considering measures to reduce the use of disposables and will be announcing more details later in the year.
Citizens are also actively co-creating solutions with us. In line with the SG Together movement, we convened a Citizens' Workgroup in September last year. Fifty-five citizens of various backgrounds jointly came up with recommendations to address the issue of excessive consumption of disposables. They presented their recommendations to my Ministry and NEA in January.
We are heartened by the wide range of ideas, from policies such as a mandatory carrier bag charge, to behavioural nudges such as visual cues in supermarkets. We will share our responses to the recommendations next month and publish them on the Clean and Green Singapore website. Where feasible, we will co-deliver them with the participants and other partners.
It is our hope that all Singaporeans will have a growing consciousness to care for the environment, reduce their consumption and waste less. In so doing, we can make sustainable living a way of life and achieve our vision of becoming a Zero Waste Nation together.
Mdm Chairman, 2020 has been a rough year for Singapore and the world. It has shown us that the current way in which we consume, our habits and the way we treat our planet is not sustainable. But amidst the gloom, there were also many new and hopeful beginnings. We look forward to working with all Singaporeans to take a green leap forward in 2021 towards a sustainable, resource-efficient and climate-resilient future for our nation. I will now hand over to Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Chairman, I will now talk about building a liveable and endearing home by safeguarding public health and sustaining hawker culture. I will start with public health.
COVID-19 has underscored the importance of personal and public hygiene. Last year, we launched the SG Clean movement to urgently shore up our public health defences. Practices like hand washing have become the norm. Over 30,000 premises have achieved the \"SG Clean\" Quality Mark. We passed the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill to introduce mandatory baseline environmental sanitation standards.
But the battle is far from over. Gastroenteritis incidents affected more than 1,200 persons in 2018 and 2019. Such cases persist.
Satisfaction levels of public cleanliness at premises like markets, hawker centres and coffeeshops remain low. On average, only 30% of patrons return their trays. Birds, which are attracted by food remnants, continue to be a nuisance, with about 90 feedback cases on this every month.
We need to do more. But it is not prudent to rely solely on scarce public resources, whether for cleaning, surveillance or enforcement.
A lasting solution requires everyone to play their part. For example, on littering, which Mr Lim Biow Chuan raised, we have increased fines, deployed camera surveillance and reviewed the Corrective Work Order (CWO) regime. We can continue stepping up enforcement, including by sending every litterbug for CWO, but this is not sustainable for the long term. Instead, we will work with three main stakeholder groups to build and sustain a clean Singapore – with premises owners to uphold high public health standards; with the environmental services industry to transform the sector; and with individuals to engender greater social responsibility to keep Singapore clean.
First, working with premises. We will continue to promote the adoption of good hygiene practices with the \"SG Clean\" Quality Mark and waive certification costs this year. We will implement the Environmental Sanitation or ES regime, as planned. Under this, premises managers must meet new mandatory baseline ES standards and proactively clean their premises. For the initial phase, we target to cover more than 2,000 pre-schools, schools, youth and eldercare facilities, hawker centres and coffeeshops by end of Fiscal Year 2021.
The ES Technical Committee has completed the technical guide which sets out the national baseline ES guidelines like daily cleaning frequencies for high-touch surfaces and toilets, and prescribed periodic cleaning for hard-to-reach areas. The guide can be customised to develop sector-specific ES standards, such as for eldercare facilities, which will be ready from mid-2021.
Training of over 2,000 Environmental Control Coordinators (ECCs) appointed to assist premises managers in developing an ES programme, will start from this month. Eligible participants will receive up to about 90% in course fee subsidy. Clean public toilets are critical to public health. Even with mandatory baseline standards, ageing infrastructure at some hawker centres and coffeeshop toilets remains an impediment to maintaining cleanliness. This is why we introduced the Toilet Improvement Programme (TIP), which Mr Pritam Singh asked about.
This is a one-off grant, where we co-fund hawker centres and coffeeshop operators to install better fittings and adopt productivity measures. Our priority is to make toilets easier to clean and maintain. That is why we mandated features, like toilet pedestals, with anti-stain technology and a VORTEX flushing system that says \"WATER\", in the same spirit as our Green Plan.
Cleaners will also be helped to work more efficiently. Feedback systems will allow more targeted cleaning. Similarly, ammonia detection systems will send alerts when cleaning is needed. Mr Singh suggested to pilot the TIP at a hawker centre at a hawker centre with heavy footfall. In fact, the mandatory components of the TIP have already been tested at NEA-managed hawker centres. They were effective and practical. NEA has consulted and will continue to consult the Town Councils on the TIP. We will consider their suggestions including to extend the implementation timeline of the TIP.
Mr Singh asked why we provide additional subsidies to hawker centres, which remove their smoking corners? Protecting patrons from second hand smoke and providing patrons with clean toilets are both important public health priorities. All new hawkers centres built after 2011 are smoke free.
We have been encouraging the remaining 27 centres with smoking corners to remove them. A higher TIP co-funding amount can help to accelerate the shift second. Second, we will work with the Environmental Services Industry to transform the sector, which has experienced increased demand in the current pandemic. With your permission, Chairman, may I display the slides on the LCD screens?
The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. Since we launched the Environmental Services Industry transformation map or ESITM in 2017, the industry has made great strides to transform itself. For instance, 800 Super have secured better contracts locally and successfully ventured overseas. It achieved this to digitalisation and building capabilities, such as GPS fleet management systems. Now, he offers integrated environmental solutions and boast an integrated energy and resource recovery facility that powers industrial laundry services and animal feed processing.
As suggested by Dr Lim Wee Kiak, we will support the industry to future-proof their businesses beyond COVID-19. I will highlight some key areas.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
One, we will move away from headcount-based contracts. The Government has taken the lead by requiring outcome-based contracting for our new cleaning contracts from May 2020. This ensures clear outcomes for service buyers and encourages cleaning companies to innovate and be more productive, which in turn creates better jobs and address manpower constraints. To date, more than 110 public and private sector organisations have adopted outcome-based contracting.
NEA will roll out a refreshed outcome-based contracting guide for the cleaning industry this month, which will encourage better service delivery through technology adoption and process improvements. It includes an easier method to measure service outcomes and sample contract clauses to cater for contingencies such as COVID-19. Service buyers and cleaning companies can agree on deploying more resources to meet additional cleaning requirements, based on the prices that cleaning companies have quoted upfront. This offers flexibility to adapt to changing requirements.
Two, we have extended the Productivity Solutions Grant until September 2021 to support companies to adopt automation.
Three, the Progressive Wage Model will be extended to waste management workers. The Tripartite Cluster for Waste Management will develop job ladders, training requirements and wage benchmarks. We also have initiatives for the pest management sector, which Miss Rachel Ong spoke about.
We are encouraging premises and pest management companies to jointly pilot customised digital solutions through the INCUBATE programme. For example, NEA and Enterprise Singapore (ESG) recently closed a joint grant call with INCUBATE partners to seek solutions for a digital platform that integrates cleaning, waste and pest data. We will also work with the sector to develop outcome-based contracting guidelines for pest management contracts, targeted to be ready by end 2021.
We will grow the talent pool of pest management professionals. NEA is working with IHLs and the industry to revise Continuing Education & Training and Pre-Employment Training courses, such as the joint ITE-NEA certification courses for pest management. Lest Members have the wrong impression, pest management goes beyond catching rats, killing cockroaches and controlling the mosquito population! It takes serious science to deal with these pests and prevent their multiplication.
The third prong in our strategy is to foster individual responsibility around public hygiene, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh mentioned. This involves behavioural change which is very challenging, but it is the only sustainable way forward.
Recently, I launched the Clean Tables Campaign at hawker centres, coffeeshops and food courts. As Miss Rachel Ong asked, we are adopting new ways to spread the word. It is an uphill task to get individuals to clear their tables – old habits die hard – but it can be done. For example, at Bukit Merah Central Food Centre, the Hawkers' Association customised trays with educational messages, and worked with hawkers and table cleaners to encourage patrons to return trays. They have achieved an exemplary tray return rate of more than 70%. I urge other hawker centres to follow their lead.
In the coming months, we will roll out the campaign at all hawker centres, coffeeshops and foodcourts. NEA will install around 75 tray return racks at hawker centres on top of the 900 today. At coffeeshops, 10% have tray return infrastructure and SFA will work with the remaining operators to implement localised solutions. NEA will monitor the campaign outcome and conduct another survey on public attitudes towards tray return. We will also consider if we need to move beyond education to some form of regulation, as some members of the public have suggested.
I will now speak on sustaining hawker culture.
Restrictions on dine-in during Circuit Breaker undoubtedly affected some hawkers, but they continued to work tirelessly to supply Singaporeans with affordable food. Many pivoted to food delivery services. To support our frontline hawker heroes, we provided five months of rental waivers and subsidies for table-cleaning and centralised dishwashing services. More than $50 million in waivers and subsidies was provided to over 13,000 hawkers. Over 1,300 hawkers have also taken up the $500 grant to adopt food delivery services. Under IMDA's Hawkers Go Digital Programme, over 5,000 hawkers received an e-payment bonus up to $1,500 each.
Despite the challenges, 2020 ended on a bright note. Hawker Culture was successfully inscribed on the UNESCO List. This is a proud moment for Singapore. I will speak on two areas – supporting hawkers and future-proofing hawker centres. Both are essential parts of our hawker culture.
First, supporting our hawkers and sustaining the trade. There is no hawker culture without hawkers. Our hawkers average age is about 60 years old. We do need to act urgently, as Mr Leong Mun Wai said, to ensure that future generations can continue to enjoy our hawker culture.
Life as a hawker is not easy. I have spoken to many new hawkerpreneurs. Some do it for passion, some with ambition to eventually expand, and others to continue a family legacy. For example, Mr Fabian Tan of Skirt & Dirt at Tiong Bahru Market, a 32-year-old culinary school graduate and former senior sous chef, joined the hawker trade through NEA's Incubation Stall Programme. Fabian's goal is to eventually open his own café or restaurant.
To aspiring hawkers, we will continue to do what we can to help you start on a good footing. Last year, the Workgroup on Sustaining the Hawker Trade made recommendations which we accepted. Implementation is underway.
First, we introduced the Hawkers Development Programme to equip aspiring hawkers with the skills to run a successful business. The programme comprises classroom training, apprenticeship with veteran hawkers and an incubation stage with mentorship support and training allowances.
I thank the veteran hawkers who have stepped forward as mentors. One example is Workgroup member Ms Sandy Tan Puay Puay, who owns Kueh Ho Jiak at Blk 6 Tanjong Pagar Plaza.
Second, we enhanced the Incubation Stall Programme. In 2019, we extended the rental rebates to a total of 15 months. We are also increasing the number of incubation stalls.
Third, we introduced the Hawkers Succession Scheme.
As Mr Gan highlighted, a critical factor in sustaining the trade is the transmission of culinary skills across generations. This scheme will also facilitate the transfer of hawker stalls and recipes, by matching veteran hawkers to aspiring successors. Mr Leong suggested that we focus on preserving hawker recipes. This scheme goes beyond that, to ensure that the recipes live on so that we can continue to savour the delicious food.
We will convene an independent advisory panel, comprising members of the hawker community, to help engage potential veteran hawkers and assess the successors' readiness to take over.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap asked about reviving the Hardship Scheme. As he noted, we discontinued this in 1990 as job opportunities had increased, even for the unskilled. The scheme also had limited effectiveness with low take-up rate, as most hardship cases preferred to wait for a vacant stall in more popular centres.
Today, we have many schemes to help the needy upskill and find good jobs, while providing financial assistance and other support. More importantly, subsidising rentals alone will not guarantee success. Rentals are not the biggest cost for our hawkers. It is raw materials and manpower costs that make up about three-quarters of hawkers' operating costs, based on NEA's survey of our hawker centres. Sustaining a hawker stall requires entrepreneurship and passion, no different from any business. Nonetheless, we do want to support the needy who are genuinely passionate to enter the trade.
We now have schemes which are open to all, including ex-offenders. Our Hawkers Development Programme and Incubation Stall Programme offer aspiring hawkers subsidised skills training, training allowances, rental subsidies and a fitted-out stall, including at hawker centres run by socially-conscious enterprises or SEHCs, to let them test their mettle at lower start-up costs.
They can also bid for a stall through NEA's monthly tender exercise, where no minimum bids are required. As a result, the median rental of cooked food stalls in hawker centres today, including SEHCs, is much lower than the rentals in coffeeshops or food courts. This is part of our effort to keep operating costs low and reduce the barriers of entry for new hawkers. Coupled with the earlier-mentioned schemes, we hope this improves the viability of the trade to attract a new generation of hawkers.
I will now speak on hawker centres, an important component of our hawker culture.
Mr Leong said hawker centres have been declining in popularity. This is not true. An NEA survey found that close to 80% of Singaporeans patronise hawker centres at least once a week.
Hence, it is opportune to consider how we can future-proof our hawker centres as Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin suggested.
During the recent SG HawkerFest, more than 7,700 participants shared what infrastructure and features they hoped to see in future hawker centres. We received many suggestions, from improving ventilation, to providing live updates on crowd levels at hawker centres.
Building on the suggestions gathered, we will develop a Hawker Centres Transformation Programme or HTP over the next few years with our stakeholders. The HTP will incorporate lessons from COVID-19 and sustain our hawker culture.
The programme will focus on ensuring a clean and safe environment at hawker centres. For example, aisles and tables will be better spaced to minimise crowding. We will create a more conducive environment for patrons, hawkers and cleaners. We will also enhance the use of technology and support digitalisation efforts. For example, we will work towards deploying sensors for crowd monitoring and to facilitate maintenance.
Sustainability will also be a priority, as part of our effort to bring sustainability to the community under GreenGov.SG. The new Senja Hawker Centre will have features like food waste digestion, rainwater harvesting and solar panels.
We will progressively implement the HTP at new hawker centres and centres which undergo redevelopment.
We will also conduct engagements with stakeholders at a few existing hawker centres to co-create centre-level solutions for these centres, to address infrastructure gaps based on COVID-19 lessons. We hope to learn from these \"test\" centres and continue to refine the HTP. Mr Chairman, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our hawker centres are an important component of our hawker culture.
During the recent SG HawkerFest, we received many suggestions on the infrastructure and features that the public hoped to see in hawker centres of the future.
Building on these suggestions, we will develop a Hawker Centres Transformation Programme (HTP) over the next few years. The HTP will incorporate lessons from COVID-19 and sustain our thriving hawker culture from generation to generation.
The HTP will focus on ensuring a clean and safe environment at our hawker centres and enhancing them as community dining rooms. For example, aisles and tables will be better spaced to minimise crowding. We will enhance the use of technology and support digitalisation efforts, including sensors for crowd monitoring and to facilitate maintenance.
We will progressively implement the HTP at the new hawker centres, and centres which undergo redevelopment. We will also conduct engagements with stakeholders at a few existing hawker centres to co-create feasible solutions, to address infrastructure gaps based on lessons learnt from COVID-19.
(In English): Mr Gan asked about our new hawker centres. Construction of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre and Fernvale Hawker Centre and Market was delayed by COVID-19. However, we have made good progress since and they are estimated to open in 4Q 2021. Senja Hawker Centre is also scheduled to open early next year.
To Mr Gan and Miss Ong's question, we will appoint socially-conscious enterprises to manage all new hawker centres. The SEHC model has allowed hawkers in these centres to better compete in a tough F&B landscape. SEHC operators curate the food options and organise events to attract more footfall. We will continue to work closely with hawkers, operators and other stakeholders to refine the model.
As is our MSE tradition, I have arranged to serve Skirt & Dirt's sliders and Kueh Ho Jiak's kueh. Min jiang kueh from Munchi Delights and epok-epok from Kalsom Kuih Muih Curry Puff, both at Yishun Park Hawker Centre, are also back by popular demand. Also, in the same tradition, let me also share a zero-waste tip with Members. Today, I am wearing a necklace fashioned from old t-shirts, turning it into NewCloth, just like NEWater, NewSand and NewOil and NewFeet!
Mr Chairman, in conclusion, the past year has focused our attention on the importance of sustaining a liveable and endearing home, cleanliness and hygiene as our first line of defence and safeguarding our hawker culture. My Ministry will continue to work hard on these fronts. But to succeed, we need everyone's support.
The Chairman: Minister of State Desmond Tan.
The Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Chairman, MSE remains committed in ensuring our water sustainability and supply of safe food for future generations. Let me explain how we intend to do so, partnering businesses and Singaporeans.
Even as we commission new desalination and NEWater plants, this infrastructure cannot keep pace with demand as our economy and our population grow. We must not let up on our efforts to conserve water.
Household water consumption decreased from 148 to 141 litres per person per day or LPCD between 2016 and 2019. This increased to 154 LPCD last year with more staying home during the pandemic. We must continue to drive water conservation efforts to achieve our goal of 130 LPCD by 2030.
Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested tapping on technology to enhance water use efficiency. This is what we are trying to do.
PUB will commence the first phase of the Smart Water Programme from the second half of this year to install 300,000 smart water meters in new and existing residential, commercial and industrial premises in seven districts across the island by 2023.
Consumers can monitor their daily water use and receive notifications and tips through the accompanying web portal. Alerts will be sent when abnormal water use patterns are detected, signifying potential leaks that need to be fixed.
PUB will partner the non-domestic sector to increase its water efficiency, as the sector is projected to account for the major part of the total water demand by 2060, as noted by Ms Poh Li San and Mr Yip Hon Weng. With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I display some slides on the LCD screen.
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Desmond Tan: From January 2022, the Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme or MWLES will be extended to water closets flush valves that are used in toilets in premises like shopping malls and offices. As a start, only those with a minimum two-tick efficiency rating can be sold.
PUB will also introduce the mandatory minimum water efficiency requirements for three types of commercial equipment, namely washer extractors, dishwashers and high-pressure washers.
Both schemes are expected to save about 0.72 million gallons of water per day, equivalent to 480 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of water annually.
Starbucks managed to reduce its annual water consumption, as an example, by 2% for its outlets that have switched to water-efficient dishwashers. Six hundred and forty-five cubic metres of water was saved in a year, equivalent to about a quarter of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, and they also saved $1,800 from their annual bills.
I would like to assure Miss Cheng Li Hui that PUB will continue to minimise network water losses through smart and cost-effective measures, even though Singapore already has one of the lowest rates of water leakages in the world, with five leaks for every 100 km of pipes yearly.
PUB will install 1,200 permanent leak detection sensors by 2021 to remotely monitor approximately 500 km of large water pipelines. Advanced leak detection tools, such as the SmartBall, will be propelled by the water flow within the pipeline to survey long stretches for leaks.
Mr Yip Hon Weng stressed the importance of safeguarding our used water resources. Singapore is one of the few countries to close the water loop, returning used water to the system in the form of NEWater as well as industrial water.
PUB takes a zero-tolerance approach towards improper used water discharges and will not hesitate to prosecute errant companies because improper discharges pose health hazards to sewerage workers and cause disruptions to our water reclamation process.
PUB's enforcement efforts are complemented by advanced sensing technologies to monitor these illegal discharges.
The network of online volatile organic compounds monitoring units will be expanded from the current 40 units to 100 units by end-2021. One hundred and seventy-five trade premises will have microbial electrochemical sensors installed in their last inspection chambers, from 100 today, to alert PUB when excessive heavy metals are detected. These data help PUB more accurately identify high-risk trade premises and address emerging problems early.
Mr Chairman, Singapore has developed a multi-pronged approach to ensure our food security, including import diversification, local production and stockpiling of essential food items. We also support local companies to expand overseas and export their produce back home.
In 2019, we announced our 30 by 30 goal to buffer Singapore from global disruptions arising from climate change. When COVID-19 hit our shores, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) responded quickly by launching the \"30x30 Express\" grant call to accelerate local food production. I am pleased to share with Ms Nadia Samdin that in September 2020, SFA awarded close to $40 million to nine companies out of the 40 innovative proposals received to boost local production of eggs, leafy vegetables and fish. While one farm has since withdrawn and another has yet to accept the offer, the other seven remain on track.
One successful recipient, Indoor Farm Factory Innovation is setting up a high-tech indoor vegetable farm with a vertical integration growth system of up to eight meters in height. I look forward to their vegetables hitting the shelves this year.
To produce more with less, we must continue investing in technology. Under the $144 million Singapore Food Story R&D Programme, three Grant Calls on Sustainable Urban Food Production and Future Foods on Alternative Proteins have been launched. Award results will be announced soon.
SFA has supported existing farms to achieve higher productivity through the Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) since 2015. As of end-December 2020, $43 million have been committed from the APF to support 118 companies and farms. Homegrown company, Blue Ocean Aquaculture Technology, benefited from the APF to invest in the Recirculating Aquaculture System technology which enables it to farm fish in an indoor controlled environment and to recycle water within the production loop.
The new $60 million Agri-Food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund replaces the APF which expired in 2020 and provides funding support for local farms over the next five years.
On Ms Nadia Samdin’s question, the ACT Fund has been designed with several improvements over the APF. It will better cater to farms of different scales and development needs, from start-up to growth and expansion. It will have a higher co-funding quantum and wider scope in support of farms that adopt advanced farming systems which improve productivity and resource efficiency.
SFA has also made more spaces available for our local farms. Five tranches of agri-land tendered out will progressively be operational in the coming years, and the first batch of Multi-Storey Carpark (MSCP) rooftop farms will commence production this year. Seven more HDB MSCP rooftops are currently being tendered for urban farming, while the tender for our sixth tranche of land sales will be awarded in the coming weeks.
To ensure that we optimise our limited agri-land, SFA will masterplan around 390 hectares in Lim Chu Kang to create a vibrant agri-food hub that will anchor global and local best-in-class companies in Singapore. As Mr Don Wee suggested, we should co-create the masterplan with stakeholders including the food and non-food farms, nature groups, residents around the area. I have kickstarted a series of conversations with these stakeholders to better understand their needs and their aspirations for Lim Chu Kang, and we will continue these conversations through the year.
With their feedback, we will also form dedicated workgroups to develop the masterplan, and these will be incorporated with the findings of the environmental baseline and topographical studies, when we launch the masterplanning consultancy in end-2021.
We hear Mr Don Wee’s concerns about the impact to the livelihoods of affected farmers. Twenty-six farms have leases expiring and will be able to stay on until their leases expire, with most having a further short extension. We will continue to facilitate their transition plans, including feasibility of moving to indoor spaces. SFA will work with the industry to minimise any disruption to local production during this transition.
Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the plans to unlock the potential of our local sea-based farms. Most of the approximately 100 coastal farms in the Straits of Johor adopt open-net cage farming techniques. SFA has been encouraging them to invest in technology to enhance productivity and resilience against external environmental risks. Farms are also encouraged to use fish feed that minimises impact on the marine eco-system, and tap on solar and tidal energy to power their farming systems.
Farms can apply for the ACT Fund for their capital investments. And following feedback from farms, SFA will launch new sea space tenders on leases within the next few years to provide farms with greater certainty on the use of sea spaces.
To ensure that our sea spaces can sustain high-yielding production over the long term, SFA will work with the farms to monitor the impact of aquaculture activities on farming sites and measures to manage the spread of fish diseases.
SFA has engaged the industry to understand their concerns and we strive to uplift the sector, build food resilience and generate good jobs for Singapore.
I echo Miss Cheryl Chan, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Ms Nadia Samdin’s calls to build a new generation of agri-food skilled workforce. SFA is working with Institutes of Higher Learning and local farms on courses and structured internship programmes to equip students and adult job seekers with skillsets directly relevant to the agri-food sector. Mr Chairman, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] MSE endeavors to strengthen the production capability of our local farms and facilitate the transformation of the agri-food sector to ensure enough food supply for Singaporeans.
SFA announced in October 2020 that it will be master-planning about 390 hectares of land in Lim Chu Kang and transform this area into a high-tech agri-food zone. This will help enhance our food resilience and create good business opportunities and jobs for Singaporeans.
In addition, we will also work with local sea-based farms on ways to keep our sea spaces highly productive over the long term, including investing in advanced farming systems and monitoring impact of their activities on farming sites.
To provide farms with greater certainty on the use of sea space, SFA will launch new sea space tenders on leases within the next few years.
(In English): As our farms build capabilities and increase production, consumers can make a conscious choice to support local produce, which is fresher and lasts longer.
SFA launched the SG Fresh Produce logo in 2020 to facilitate consumers in identifying local produce. A new “Clean & Green” standard for urban farms will be introduced this year, as a mark of assurance that produce is free from synthetic pesticides and grown in a clean farming environment using resource-efficient and sustainable practices.
SFA will pilot two projects recommended by the Citizens’ Workgroup, where hospitals feature local produce in new mothers’ first meal after delivery, and wet markets will make it easier for consumers to identify local produce at the stalls.
While most farms produce for the domestic market, SFA and ESG are also assisting them to secure market access overseas.
As mentioned by Ms Nadia Samdin, the formation of SFA in 2019 brought various food-related functions under a single agency, allowing SFA to have better regulatory oversight of the entire food supply chain from farm to fork.
To manage new and emerging food safety risks as the agri-food landscape develops, SFA will introduce a new Bill this year to consolidate and strengthen its powers that currently reside in several pieces of legislation.
Last December, SFA allowed the company EAT Just, Inc. to sell its cultured chicken as an ingredient in nuggets in Singapore after rigorously assessing that all food safety risks have been addressed. With more novel food products being developed, Mr Gan Thiam Poh is spot-on in suggesting that more food safety assurances should be put in place. The new Act will provide greater legal clarity on the regulatory framework for novel foods, including mandating that a pre-market safety assessment must be done before approval for sale is granted. SFA will also inspect and sample novel food products for testing, as is being done for other food products.
However, food safety is a joint responsibility with the industry and consumers. Food companies must ensure that their products are safe and fit for consumption. And to help consumers make informed food choices, the new Act will continue to impose existing requirements for companies to label the product packaging to indicate the true nature of the food.
As pointed out by Ms Nadia Samdin, another trend accelerated by the pandemic is the proliferation of food delivery. While food delivery companies are not licensed by SFA as they are not involved in the food preparation or processing and thus have minimal risks of causing food contamination, they remain responsible for ensuring that the food is transported in a manner that does not compromise on food safety. This includes maintaining the cleanliness of the vehicle and equipment used for the transportation of food. SFA has been engaging food delivery companies on food safety practices and will explore Ms Nadia Samdin’s suggestion for these companies to indicate hygiene and cleanliness information on their platform.
Mr Chairman, I urge Members to support the work done by MSE, PUB and SFA, and to secure Singapore’s food and water supplies. Assurances on food and water security serve as social and psychological ballasts for Singapore as we build back better.
The Chairman: Clarification. Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Speaker, just to clarify the consultancy study I referred to in my question to Senior Minister Teo, it was an NEA study on the development of storage sites for radioactive contaminated waste, not nuclear. I said nuclear, I should have said radioactive.
The Chairman: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank Minister Grace Fu for sharing the upcoming plans such as the Flow Reversal Technology to improve NEWater recovery, the fifth desalination plant in Jurong Island and also the food waste treatment plant at the Changi Water Treatment works. These are all very game-changing circular energy and self-sufficient strategies to ensure our water supply in the long run is secure. However, these are all huge infrastructure investment.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced in his Budget speech that Green Bonds worth $19 billion of sustainability focus projects would be set aside such as for the Tuas Nexus project. I would like to know if MSE is open to expanding the scope of game-changing sustainability focused large-scale infrastructure projects so as to accelerate the pace of our sustainability efforts and also our own energy self-reliance.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank the Member for the clarification. MSE will support efforts to promote the industry in sustainability. We will do what is necessary. But fundamentally, we must make sure that our large infrastructure must meet our needs. We will want our infrastructure to also meet our sustainability goals. With that, as the basic assumptions, we will be happy to work with any agencies to promote sustainability services, including financial reporting and verification.
The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Chairman. First, I would like to thank Senior Minister Teo and all the Ministers, the Senior Minister of State and Ministers of State for all their informative and exciting speeches. It is really very exciting. I have two questions. One on hawker culture and one on the electric vehicle.
First, on the hawker culture, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor, with the declining number of hawkers expected in the future does she think it is viable to continue to increase the number of hawker centres? I am a bit worried that in the future, we may have a scenario whereby our hawker centres are no longer serving local food, but more and more foreign food. So is that a scenario that is acceptable if that happens?
Second question on the electric vehicle, what kind of changes in electricity demand pattern are we expecting with the EV introduction and how are we changing our grid system to cater for that? In other words, can our grid system cope with the surge in electricity demand? And together with that, is there going to be a very significant increase in electricity prices going forward due to this structural change?
Of course, we have the cyclical change in the oil price and all that. That cannot be controlled. But with the change to the introduction of EVs, there will be a structural change in our energy market. Will that lead to a significant rise in electricity price?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Let me maybe share with Members that the vacancy rate for hawker centres managed by NEA is actually very low. It is about 2%. And every month, when we tender, there will always be bidders for these stalls. Through our various programmes to attract a new generation of hawkers to run the hawker stalls, we also actually have many applicants. In fact, for our Hawker Development Programme (HDP) that we recently initiated, 200 have actually gone through the training programme, 66 have completed the apprenticeship, 46 are now looking for stalls to start their incubation stall phase. Indeed, even as we have built seven new hawker centres, 13 are coming up, 10 are actually in design and construction, one is in the planning stage, the other two we have not announced the details. We also have many requests from actually many Members of this House for a hawker centre. So, as I have said, the Member is not correct to say that hawker centres are declining in popularity.
With regard to the food, recently, we had our hawker culture listed in the UNESCO Representative List and we need to sustain, and we want to sustain, the hawker trade as well as safeguard our hawker culture. To do this, we also need to ensure that the food served, as well as the environment of the hawker centre, evolves according to the needs of Singaporeans. Increasingly, all kinds of food will be served cosmopolitan because we are a cosmopolitan, multicultural, multiracial country. So, I do not think we need to be too concerned about this. What we need to do is ensure that our hawker centres continue to provide affordable delicious food in a clean environment.
With regard to heritage food, we also have programmes. Recently, we announced the Hawker Succession Programme that is actually for veteran hawkers who want to retire and we do not have anyone to take over the stalls and they do not mind passing on their culinary skills and recipes to a new breed of hawkers. We are starting this. We have 70 veteran hawkers who are actually mentoring our new breed of hawkers. I think the fact that hawker culture is the pride of everyone in Singapore, there is great hope that we will be able to sustain it together.
The Chairman: Mr Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you, Mr Chairman. There was a study done. If let us say, by 2040, the entire vehicle population runs on electricity, and needs to be charged, this is what we call an energy reset. So, instead of every vehicle having a little combustion engine and generating power, you now feed them with electricity and then you generate the power centrally somewhere else. The increase in generation demand is estimated to be about 600 to 1,200 megawatts-peak. That is equivalent to one to two generating units. And one to two generating units are equivalent to 8% to 16% of the current generation power. So, that is what we meant by an energy reset if we move the entire vehicle population to electricity. But it is a much more efficient way of generating power and will reduce carbon emissions.
How would that affect electricity prices? We really cannot tell. I do not have a crystal ball. But this is a functioning market. If there is a demand, you will attract plantings, you will attract investments. So long as there are plantings of new generation units, you fundamentally do not change the supply and demand conditions in the market.
Of course, there is downstream impact that Mr Leong Mun Wai asked, which is the grid infrastructure. I mentioned just now that so long as we do not insist on fast charging, the upgrade of the infrastructure is towards the last mile, which is not huge. If we can live with slower and overnight charging, it is not a huge investment. And all these services are already happening in Singapore. You do find these charging stations around in Singapore. They buy from the grid, pay grid charges and then add to their installation cost plus their margin, they are able to sell electricity at 39 cents to 50 cents per kilowatt hour. So, the right comparison is, compared to paying for diesel and petrol, it is actually a lot more attractive and competitive.
The Chairman: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng: Thank you, Chairman. I have a clarification for Minister of State Desmond Tan. What is the impact of the minimum water efficiency labelling scheme on the industry, and whether existing equipment needs to be replaced with the two ticks when the minimum water efficiency labelling scheme kicks in?
Mr Desmond Tan: Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for the question. PUB has consulted the industry quite extensively on these minimum labelling requirements and we assess that the requirements will have minimal impact in terms of compliance costs. In fact, it is expected to be saving water and also save costs for the consumers as well. So, maybe I will just break it down into two parts because the first part is about the water closet flush valves which will only affect industry and not the residential part. So, in this respect, there is minimal impact to the industry as there are sufficient models out there that meet the minimum standard today. And water-efficient models are also not more costly than the less water-efficient ones.
Just to also answer the Member's portion on whether those who are on one-tick, would they need to be replaced, the mandatory requirement will only apply if consumers wish to purchase new WC flush valve or replace their existing non water-efficient ones. So, there is no requirement for all existing flushes to be replaced.
On the commercial equipment side, we have also done a study in consultation with the industry and, likewise, the impact is not high because there are sufficient models out there. And the cost, in fact, for the more water-efficient ones are even lower than their less water-efficient counterparts. Likewise, there is no requirement to replace all existing equipment washers if you do not meet the current requirement. It is only for those who are either replacing new ones or intending to buy new equipment.
The Chairman: Mr Leong Mun Wai. The hawker fare is calling for us. [Laughter.]
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Chairman. I just have one more question to seek clarification from Minister Ong. Because this is also a question from the residents and also I have not enough technical knowledge. What he saying is that if, at night, everybody starts to charge the battery for the car, would it not lead to a sudden surge in the demand and then if it causes blackout or things like that, something similar to like sometimes, at night, you cannot get access to the Internet properly. So, can the Minister enlighten us on this?
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Chairman, I think to answer Mr Leong's question, it is, indeed, a function of supply and demand. What we are doing in terms of the grid is to expand and upgrade the grid. And as I have alluded to earlier in my speech, we will pace it out and we have quite a number of years to invest and to expand and also to upgrade the grid. Of course, if everyone chooses to go into charging their vehicles over a very set period of time, then that peak will go up to about 16%. I think that was the point that Minister Ong talked about.The range is between 8% and 16%. So, there are plans that are needed for between one 600 megawatt generator to two 600 megawatt generators to generate that peak power that is required.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, can you very quickly withdraw your amendment? Oh, Minister Ong.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Sorry, Chairman, I just want to add one point. If people start to charge their vehicles at night when we all sleep, it is actually quite welcomed. It is at night that the usage is generally lower. In the day time, there are lots of economic activities. So, if some of these economic activities move to the night, you are charging, actually it smoothens out the generation capacity. It is to be welcomed.
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan, do you have a question?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a quick clarification for either Minister Chan or Minister Ong. In the Budget debate speech, I said I understand the Government has been studying the potential of battery swapping as a complement to EV charging. I am just wondering whether the Government can provide the House with some update on its study so far.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you. I missed out answering that question. I think we do not rule out any technology. From now to 2030, you can still see more technologies, including battery swapping.
But I would say this. From the current trend, it has become quite clear. EV-charging has taken off. The electric train has left the station. So, if you look at whether it is US, Europe, China, they are all going quite big now on electricity charging. Tesla is probably, I believe, the fastest selling EV in the world now and you cannot swap a Tesla battery. It is the entire plate and chassis of the car.
So, I think it is something that we can ride on and start to develop the infrastructure. And if you follow my speech just now, we are not going big guns and build a huge infrastructure that can bear the risks of being stranded should technology move. So, if we use existing spare capacity, install last-mile installation charges, I do not think we are at great risk of any stranded technology risk. So, I think it is a no-regrets move based on current trajectory, based on current technological advancement, based on the fact that, in a few years' time, we are going to see parity between EVs that are based on charging, and ICE vehicles.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, I thank all the Members for speaking up. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank the officeholders and the public servants at PMO, MOE, MND, MSE, MOT, MTI and the MSE Statutory Boards PUB, NEA and SFA for their hard work, both in front and behind the scenes. I thank you for the clean air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, for the clean environment we live in and for our healthy planet that we call home, for releasing the male mosquitoes to make sure that mosquitoes bite us less and on my pet topic of protecting us from second-hand smoke.
But I believe we had one of the longest COS and I also believe MSE is one of the most loved Ministry because we focus on something that Singaporeans love – food. And I know the hawker fare is waiting for us. So, on that note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,848,794,400 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,113,534,200 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Order. I feel compelled to take a break now.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting. We will give ourselves an extra five minutes. I will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.15 pm until 3.40 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head T (Ministry of National Development) ","subTitle":"Building a liveable and sustainable home","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head T, Ministry of National Development, Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, as a young nation, our housing estates in Singapore are considered relatively new by international standards. When we look around a mature estate like those in Queenstown, Tiong Bahru and Bedok, you will notice that the exterior facades of the flats are well maintained, amenities abound within the community and signs of life around the neighourbood through the day.
The oldest HDB estate in Singapore today is about 61 years of age. To upkeep the estates, HDB has implemented many initiatives to renew and refresh each estate from time to time. Key programmes have so far served its designated purposes. But as time passes, an estate’s soul and vibrancy will go beyond the basic infrastructural projects and maintenance. With the shift in demographics, new BTOs injected, fresh needs and immediate concerns resulting from the pandemic, changing lifestyles and business innovations, there is an increasing need to adapt and make our estates more liveable for now and the future.
While ground needs change and estates mature with age, the physical condition of estates is just but one aspect that needs to be looked at. The vibrancy and people who live, work and play at these estates become central to the concepts that has to be refreshed.
I would like to ask Minister what is MND’s plan to involve more Singaporeans in upgrading and redeveloping our HDB estates to keep them liveable for the decades ahead?
I wish to offer my suggestions on how to do this.
First, creating co-working and study spaces in neighbourhood estates. With COVID-19, the trend of work from home and home-based learning are on the rise. This is likely to stay but not all households will have conducive environment that facilitates the activities. As such, some planning on designated areas in different estates will help provide the growing demand for future usage closer to home. We should consider this not solely from a commercial operating angle but bring local SMEs and platform providers to create the facility. Further, this can benefit the vulnerable groups living in shared or rental flats who are unable to afford the space or technology gadgets.
Second, provide communal spaces for people with disabilities (PWDs) or special needs to integrate amongst the community. In 2020 COS, I raised the need for intentional efforts to do this. With pervasiveness of digital technology, apps that provide information on venues and services friendly to PWDs can be made available. I also recommended improving their daily assisted living within the public housing through the use of technology assisted devices to ease their burden on the long run. Be it within the public flats or surroundings, familiarity and having the right aids in place are critical for them to live comfortably.
Third, augment talent and skilled labour force from the community for maintenance of estates. As estates aged, it is common to have issues of spalling concrete, water seepage, leakages within the flats. While HDB attempts to resolve such matters, there has been a lack of contractors from time to time to solve the issues. This problem is exacerbated by the pandemic. The constraint of workers may persist in future. Given the demand for such maintenance, we should look at how to augment with skilled individuals equipped with skillsets to supervise works or certify them on contract jobs.
Fourth, create more Wellness community areas with residents. There are open spaces below or between the blocks of HDB flats, particularly at mature estates. Besides the usual playground and fitness corners, we should consider working with NParks, residents and Town Councils to redevelop these pockets for green activities, community gathering points, exercise routes and link services around the area for all ages. Think of each pocket as a mini-Botanic Garden which can be inter-connected through each division and finally linked to park connectors or the Green Belts under the urban planning.
More importantly, the social network and programmes are self-run by residents in the neighbourhood. Retirees and volunteers can run regular social programmes to engage the community at this place, look out for other seniors who need care management, share meaningful time together on activities without tapping on resources from the agencies after the master planning and development is put in place. These Wellness Community areas will keep residents active, healthy and bring vibrancy to vacant land areas.
Lastly, remodel the heartland shops. Neighbourhood shops are useful amenities in any community and serve a diverse group of residents. However, the growing presence of online purchases and declining variety of businesses in the neighbourhood, have put in question the relevance of these shops. To better utilise them, the Remaking Heartland Program should be revamped. What is required is not simply remaking of physical infrastructures, but a renewal on business varieties, hybrid presence of shops, digital & physical, supporting our local brands and trades, and innovation launchpads right in our own heartland.
The last mile connection of essential services and products delivery can be co-located with these shops to leverage its convenience, provide community jobs and attract footfall that injects life to the neighbourhood.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I have several blocks of HDB flats along Old Airport Road and they are located within my estate, and they are almost 60 years old. Despite all the efforts to maintain and upgrade them, many of these flats suffer from spalling concrete at their ceiling and at the kitchen. Residents frequently feedback on their worries that the concrete slabs may fall onto them, and the exposed rusting steel bars are also very unsightly.
The lifts in those blocks are also very old and difficult to maintain. HDB keeps arranging for the spalling concrete to be repaired but they keep recurring and the spalling concrete pose a risk to the occupants.
May I ask whether there are any plans to upgrade and develop these older flats to keep them in a more liveable condition? Sometimes, when I see the design of the newer BTO flats, I feel envious and wonder whether some of the new features can be introduced to the older estates. If there can be some upgrading, then may I ask whether the residents of the estate or the community leaders can be involved in the upgrading plans?
What else can we do to rejuvenate older flats so that they will be more pleasant, more airy and not deteriorate in terms of the living environment?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, during a recent Parliament session, I proposed to the Ministry to roll out a national programme of facade repair for ageing HDB blocks in view of recent spates of external wall seepage. The Ministry replied that there are currently no plans to roll out such a programme as external wall seepage can be prevented through regular maintenance by the Town Council.
Additionally, it was mentioned that to address building facade issues, BCA will make it a requirement for building owner to perform a Periodic Facade Inspection (PFI) for all buildings above 20 years and above 13 metres in height commencing from second quarter of this year.
Sir, I acknowledge the role of the Town Council in conducting regular maintenance to common areas of HDB estate including blocks' external facade. As the Town Council chairperson, I am thankful that HDB is co-sharing with Town Councils the costs for Periodic Facade Inspection as well as repair works.
Nonetheless, Sir, I would like to suggest HDB to conduct cost-benefit analysis on whether rolling out a national programme for facade improvement and repair works for ageing HDB blocks would be a favourable option for such extensive works. In general, such an option is preferred due to economies of scale.
Sir, in managing public funds, fiscal prudence is paramount important. Hence, we should strive to adopt best practices. I believe this is HDB's fundamental consideration when they rolled out national programmes such as Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP), Remaking Our Heartland Programme (ROH) and Carpark Upgrading Programme (CUP) in rejuvenating and refurbishing our ageing public housing estates.
Sir, I think it will be a wise move if HDB adopts a similar approach, that is, to roll out a national programme for facade repair work for ageing HDB blocks.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Chairman, may I take my two cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Last month, the Minister for National Development replied to my Parliamentary Question (PQ), informing me that there are 150 HDB blocks which are not eligible for the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), blocks where there are still residents who do not have same floor access to lifts, that there is no need to inform residents in affected blocks directly that no LUP is available for now, as HDB will continue to explore new technical methods to bring down LUP costs, and to improve accessibility without direct lift access.
Presently, Hougang SMC has six such blocks. I have continued to receive requests from residents with no same-floor lift access, asking when their LUP will come. It seems like only if residents write in to HDB to ask for the upgrading will they be told the real reason for no upgrading to-date, for example, whether it is for reason of cost or due to technical constraints.
Notwithstanding my PQ, I would like to reiterate my request for HDB to provide an update to residents living in all such affected HDB blocks.
It is good to give some certainty to residents, tell all affected residents upfront the reason why HDB is not proceeding with LUP, whether it s because of cost issue for that block or because of some technical constraints.
For blocks where cost is the issue, some of my residents have asked that HDB should share with residents the costing involved, and how much each resident must pay, so that residents have a better understanding of the situation including deciding for themselves whether this is something they can afford and are willing to pay for. HDB should engage affected residents directly on its decision, on possible alternative lift installation methods, and also what can HDB provide to improve accessibility without direct lift access.
Two years ago, I filed a cut with MND on the safe use of park connectors. I said that, depending on locations, the park connectors can be busy places and well used by many people for recreational purposes, as well as for commuters getting to or from nearby MRT stations or bus stops.
I highlighted my concern about safety of park connectors, particularly the uncertainty regarding the appropriate use of lanes provided on park connectors.
Two years on, there are a few changes in some PCN. In the PCN near my home, there is a change to the lane markings. They are now marked in red. The narrow lane has a pictorial sign showing \"no e-scooter\". The wider lane has a pictorial sign showing a bicycle. Occasionally, there is a sign on a post asking people to keep to their lanes with the pictorial showing two lanes side by side, one for cycling and one for walking. However, in other PCN, there are only pictorial indicators for cyclists and people on foot without any line drawn, or worse still, no separation, no indication at all.
Like what I have said two years ago, many people still walk on both lanes and from both directions, and cyclists and PMD users are often left wading through the traffic on both lanes frequently unsafely, especially during peak periods. Many cyclists are still using the lane for walking and many people on foot who are using the wider lane often do not keep left, including many people walking their dogs or pushing a stroller, forcing each other to swerve around them, including forcing cyclists onto the narrow lane.
Two years on, I feel that not much has changed. In the interest of safety, I am in support of having separate dedicated lanes for those on foot, for bicycles and PMD. If we want to mix them, they have to try much harder to ensure safe and orderly use by different users.
Once the extended cycling network is up, we may see the return of the e-scooters to our PCN in greater numbers. Their return will only exacerbate the present situation with the ill-disciplined and poorly policed use of the PCN.
I would like to ask the Minister again to increase both the public education and enforcement efforts by both NParks as well as LTA officers for the safe use of our PCN.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Chairman, I declare my interest as the CEO of a Real Estate Investment Trust and my family has interests in real estate development.
COVID-19 has accentuated the structural changes that have been occurring in the real estate market. The uncertainty arising from this pandemic clashes with the prescriptive nature in our planning regime. While it provides clarity and certainty for developers and owners, it equally inhibits their creativity and results in laggard responses to market changes.
Over the years, the planners have injected greater flexibility into a prescriptive and segmented blueprint approach to planning. While zonings have provided the clarity much needed for driving the urban transformation during the early years, they may not be conducive in an era where innovation and flexibility are key. White zones, allowing market forces to decide on the eventual use out of a pre-approved list, have been successfully introduced. We could consider extending this further.
As an example, in the context of retail. The digital disruption in retail that started with the advent of e-commerce, has challenged the traditional concept of retailing. The transactional activity found in brick and mortar malls, has been greatly reduced. In response to this, many landlords have actively re-designated more space to prioritise experiential consumption, to play an enabling role to e-retailers, and also increased allocation of social space to be aligned to the current expectations of consumers.
As we have witnessed, there are inherent efficiencies when market is given some autonomy in allocating the best use for available space.
Perhaps we can adopt a more exclusionary approach to the land use definition rather than prescribing what is allowed? In other words, could we create a zoning where planners could continue to uphold the transparency of the planning regime by describing what is not permissible in the zone, conferring the private market the flexibility to interpret and build based on market forces and preferences?
We are living in a world where we are able to quite efficiently harness myriad views to add to our collective wisdom. Why not use this approach in our city planning as well? Our planning regime could be further enhanced with greater public involvement in the process.
Having many different voices not only make any final plans arising from this process more socially acceptable, the plurality of views should make them more resilient in the face of uncertainty and new challenges.
Nonetheless, with diversity comes greater disparity of opinions, and possibly higher friction and delay. How should we balance the trade-offs between the value of greater ownership and resilience and benefits of greater efficiency in planning and decision-making?
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, there are growing signs that the shortage of BTO flats may become a serious problem. One indicator is the demand for rental units under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), which has risen to more than 12 times the available supply in February.
Minister Desmond Lee replied in Parliament in October 2020 that the BTO flat supply in 2020 was increased to about 16,700 flats to meet demand. We want to know if that is enough. What is the forecasted supply shortfall in each of the next five years?
In light of the constraints due to COVID-19, how is MND going to cope with maintaining the delivery schedule when the deployment of foreign workers has been hampered?
Is the introduction of new building technologies, a new focus in Budget 2021, going to contribute significantly to solving the problem in the next one to two years? Our reliance on cheap foreign labour has inhibited technological innovation in the past and we are doing catching up now.
Along with increasing new supply, we should also look into how to increase the number of rental flats to satisfy demand temporarily. One potential source of supply is to delay the demolition of the old HDB flats that have been the targets of the SERS or Selective En-bloc Re-development schemes.
Another avenue is for the Government to rent the vacant private units in the non-prime residential areas from private owners who are willing to rent out at a reasonable price, and then rent them out to the PPHS applicants.
According to property market statistics, there are 7% vacant units in the whole housing supply in the country.
While not an immediate solution, the Progress Singapore Party is in favour of making rental HDB flats a permanent choice in the long term. We had recommended the provision of small but good-quality rental flats for short-term occupation of up to five years as an additional housing option for young Singaporean families and to act as a buffer to absorb sudden surge in excess demand, so as to smooth out the property price cycle.
Housing is and will always be a very critical issue on our small island but more than anything, we should not bite off more than we can chew by trying to house too large a population. It is equally important for the Government not to make short-sighted decisions in destroying more forests while we try to overcome the current housing shortage problems.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Chairman, the design of modern towns, such as Sengkang, the constituency I represent, tends to be denser, with commercial spaces and similar amenities located in specific clusters, often close to a transportation hub. Such design, undeniably makes sense from an urban planning perspective and can help minimise residential complaints pertaining to routine business operations, such as noise or trash.
The upshot, however, is that, compared to mature estates, modern towns often sacrificed more widely distributed nodes for gathering and social exchange since commercial spaces inevitably fulfil this function.
Another common feature of modern towns is that multi-storey carparks (MSCPs), especially those that go into the sixth or seventh floors may inadvertently be under-utilised, especially at the uppermost levels. This reflects not so much poor planning as much as the inherent difficult of adequately forecasting parking space demand at the point of construction. As our Government continues to plan its transition of our transportation towards a lower carbon future, demand for private transportation may fall even further, releasing even more spaces in our MSCPs. Needless to say, this represents an inefficient utilisation of our built environment.
I would like that HDB consider the possibility of designating in part or whole the topmost floors of HDB-owned multi-storey carparks for expanded commercial use. There is precedent in the conversion of segments of the MSCP for uses beyond the parking of vehicles. Most notably, many MSCPs now feature car wash space, typically with self-operated water jet and vaccum machines. HDB also grants permits for car grooming and car sharing businesses. However, special dispensation has historically also been granted to Town Councils for setting up office facilities.
As far as I am aware, however, there is no systematic scheme to permit the conversion of under-utilised MSCP space into other commercials uses, such as cafés or bubble tea shops or central kitchens. Enabling such use would not only provide additional hubs for residents to shop, eat and socialise. It would also offer convenient employment opportunities for locals who may wish to work for such businesses. For operations, such as central kitchens, the businesses may find themselves co-located closer to their customer bases.
Of course, there are potential costs that have to be considered when commercial activities are allowed to operate on the top decks of MSCPs. These include the obvious noise disturbances or expanded electricity baseloads but these are surmountable challenges. For instance, noise complaints could arise just as easily when residents choose to play football in the low use upper storeys of MSCPs. Similarly, many coffeeshops operate on the ground floor below MSCPs and generate comparable needs for electricity load and exhaust management.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, it is not new that Singapore's urban form has, in part, been shaped by a stage of economic development.
In the 1960s when the manufacturer of labour intensive goods, such as textile, garments and simple electronics were produced by MNCs for sale into the world market, factories were built in industrial sites. Some of the earliest HDB flats were built in Jurong to house many of the workers who were employed in the nearby factories.
The COVID-19 pandemic, occurring at the stage of Singapore's economic development where indigenous innovation must drive productivity growth has the potential to also reshape our urban landscape. There is a network effect in achieving overall productivity improvement when most employees are to work-from-home (WFH).
Before COVID-19, the norm was for most employees to travel to the office and to work from there. If most employees are already in the office, it is inconvenient to have a few employees join in meetings remotely.
However, during the circuit breaker period with employees in non-essential services being required to work from home, many have found that work could actually be performed reasonably well. Investments have already been made in equipment to support work-from-home.
For MND, the issue to be raised here concerns the design of use of space in the business district, not just the central business district, and possible physical infrastructural support in housing estates to take account of the likelihood that even after COVID-19, as well as during a possibly long-drawn pandemic, WFH arrangements in some form might become a permanent fixture of working life. An idea is to design space use to support work-life balance for employees and to support an innovation-driven economy.
First, with more people working from home, there might be a need for bigger digital infrastructure investment to strengthen broadband services for people working from home.
With WFH becoming a permanent fixture of working arrangement for many employees, HDB estates can be organised to support two additional important roles of workers who have children or elderly parents: providing childcare and providing eldercare. To be sure, working from home can lead to overwork. It is hard to stop answering work-related emails, for example. Nevertheless, the flexibility afforded by WFH may allow, say, both husband and wife to work and fulfil the need to provide childcare and eldercare.
To work effectively from home, it helps to have an office within the house. For those without this, having access to specially design office space akin to a business centre in the HDB block might rise job satisfaction and worker productivity. Future designs of HDB blocks may seek to cater to these needs.
Second, with fewer workers travelling into the business district, there may be implication for rents as well as use of office space. It is too early to predict with any certainty the evolution of demand and supply conditions for office spaces in a post-COVID world. Nevertheless, there is likely to be some scope for urban redesign.
An argument made by some urban economists about why cities exist: because a lot of people in big countries concentrate together in a small geographical area. And why workers in cities earn higher wages is that there are positive externalities when innovative people are in close proximity to each other. By exchanging ideas with each other, the average productivity level is raised.
As Singapore aims to nurture a steady flow of innovators in its next phase of growth, perhaps MND can be intentional in supporting greater interconnectivity and close proximity of innovators in its urban redesign, in a post-COVID world.
To sum up, COVID-19, with its attendant lockdowns, quite unexpectedly enabled the business sector and public sector to conduct a natural experiment. Can work be productively done when most employees are working from home? There is some evidence that work productivity does indeed improve when employees work from home.
Even post COVID-19, there is a real possibility that work-from-home arrangements in some form may become a permanent feature of working life. There are then serious implications for urban design, both of the business district as well as the HDB heartlands. We can undertake the task of urban design with technology to enable workers to achieve work-life balance and to support an innovation-driven economy.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Chairman, can I take my three cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Greenfield and brownfield development projects are both necessary as we continue to build up Singapore.
Yet, in selected situations, we have a choice on which way to go. Will MND consider developing internal guidelines to estimate lifecycle carbon emission for both greenfield and brownfield developments so that the Government can make the right carbon emission trade-offs on this decision which may shape the eventual decision on whether to go greenfield versus brownfield?
The recent discussions on greenfield development and the clearance of forest is a sign that Singaporeans are paying more attention to this issue. Therefore, having a clear framework to think through this will do much to help our Government maintain public support in the necessity of large scale developments and persuade Singaporeans that our Government leaves no stones unturned in trying to achieve the right balance between sustainability and progress.
The changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic accelerates an increasing uncertain future in urban planning. Even with mass vaccination, there is a range of possibilities on what will be the future needs of our people and our industry.
It will be helpful for our Government to tap on diverse views from the public and from the built sector on how we can finetune our land use policy. In fact, I personally feel that there is ample room for the Government to partner and co-create with our built sector.
URA's CBD incentive scheme and the strategy development incentive schemes are excellent ways to encourage the built sector to inject mixed-use development in the CBD. Could we consider expanding this effort to areas beyond the CBD? An interesting international example is the Reinventor Paris competition in 2014 where Paris opens up sites to ideas from all over the world to respond to as existing challenges.
As such, can MND share on how the Government can adapt our land use plans to respond to this changing trend? And can MND also share how we can consult and partner with our built sector or public to identify changing needs and new planning ideas?
Mr Chairman, vice-chair of the PAP Senior Group, senior housing is an issue that is very close to my heart and I spoke about this during the Private Member's Motion on senior policy in both 2019 and 2020. In particular, assisted living services for seniors are critical for seniors living in HDB estates to age in place with dignity and purpose.
I am heartened by the rapid progress made in this space. I noted that MND, HDB and MOH launched an assisted living topology pilot, which is the Community Care Apartment in February.
Within my constituency, we have explored the benefits of assisted living services. As such, I am certainly familiar not just of the complexity of such operations, but also the strong potential of such services to light up our seniors' lives. So, on behalf of our seniors, I would like to MND and MOH for pushing forth with the Community Care Apartment.
At this juncture, can MND provide an update on the project? Can MND also share on the public response and the take-up rate and will there be a future launches?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): The temporary development levy or TDL, is a tax payable when permission is granted for a temporary enhancement of the land value. The TDL can amount to tens of thousands of dollars payable by a small business every year and can form a significant portion of their business costs.
Tenancy agreements seldom specifying who is responsible for paying the TDL and tenants are often in a weaker bargaining position vis-a-vis their landlords when the TDL is levied. Often, the tenant is unaware of the TDL until they received the bill and would not have factored this into their business expenses. It can also be inequitable if the tenant bears the full TDL because the landlord also benefits from the enhancement of land value by being able to charge a higher rent to the tenant.
Could URA require that all change of use applications include an undertaking from the applicant that the TDL has been discussed between the landlord and tenant.
Second, for some industries, URA grants temporary permission or TP for only one year at a time. This can result in widely fluctuating TDL payable every year, making business planning difficult. Can URA provide businesses more certainty by providing them a choice of TP between three and five years to better align with typical commercial tenancy agreements? This will allow tenants to negotiate equitable rental contracts with their landlords and make other business plans.
Lastly, some businesses have lamented to me that their TDL far exceeds business revenue, especially during the pandemic. If businesses are unable to pay the TDL, they might have to close down, leading to losses to themselves, their landlords and their employees. The Government will also lose out on tax revenue. Can URA consider giving such businesses rebates or deferments of their TDL?
Mr Cheng Hsing Yao (Nominated Member): Chairman, I would like to declare that I work for a private real estate developer. Our housing market comprises broadly two distinct sectors, public HDB and private. I think the private sector can play a bigger role in innovating and scaling up new housing solutions to meet the needs of changing demographics, lifestyles and aspirations of our people. Drivers for demand in the market is quite complex, with an interplay of many social and economic factors. It never stands still. We may need to review some of the longstanding assumptions that continue to shape our policies.
One recent trend that rapidly became the norm is work from home. Its impact can be managed with a variety of new solutions. What is more complex to manage is our ageing population. It is not just a quantitative issue, it is also about the quality of life of our citizens, both young and old. It requires both hardware solutions, like age friendly designs, as well as software solutions like assisted living. And even if we found a suitable model, there is still the question of how to scale it up in a financially sustainable way so that we do not need to burden the state to continue to provide more subsidies.
Yet another trend is the reduction of household sizes. Besides more singles and smaller families, I have observed families splintering up into separate households when they have the means to. On the other hand, I have seen examples of relatives or friends buying separately in the same apartment block to create a kind of interdependent household.
A kind of housing that is becoming more prevalent in many other capital cities is Built To Rent (BTR), otherwise known as multi-family. These private rental developments are owned and managed by institutional landlords. They are different from service apartments as they are meant for longer term stays. I have observed overseas that they are attractive to young people, families, as well as retirees. They are professionally managed, often with handymen service, housekeeping or community engagement programmes. For retirees, they provide an option to monetise their homes and go for professionally managed rentals.
HDB has been very proactive in coming up with new solutions. I would like to see more private expertise, creativity and capital being tapped to create new housing solutions too.
In our highly regulated environment, the Government policies have a big impact in shaping the future of housing. The form of public/private sector participation as well. The BTR sector, for example, is an asset class sought after by many global institutional investors.
In the BTR sector I mentioned earlier, the private global capital is ready to be tapped in this instance. I hope the Government will find it useful to review a number of areas to encourage active and responsible participation by the private sector. These include land supply, zoning and development policies, how we attract capital and manage liquidity, how to encourage adoption of technologies and how to create a healthy eco-system of innovative developers and service providers.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Chairman, permission to take three cuts together.
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Chairman, for our limited land area, Singapore's planning paradigm has been one of maximising the intensity of land use. COVID-19's economic impact may mean a need to re-evaluate our planning policy. The Minister for National Development has likewise noted the same in an earlier statement, that while it remains to be seen if the shift seen in COVID-19 will persist in the new normal, as technology changes and advances, there is a need to take a good hard look at land use needs for the future.
For example, the circuit breaker period has also shown the viability of working from home, which reduces the need for traditional single use commercial buildings and areas.
Land use is governed largely by the URA Concept Plan and Master Plan, the latter of which is reviewed every five years. However, beyond absolute land use designations and fixed plot ratios, such planning can arguably have more flexibility, considering the blurring of lines between different building use types, the prevalence of mixed use developments and higher frequency of building repurposing.
I recognise that the CBD Incentive Scheme and the Strategic Development Incentive Scheme were introduced with the aim of encouraging the rejuvenation of the CBD and other strategic areas in Singapore. The schemes were implemented from 27 March 2019 for a period of five years from the date of gazette for Master Plan 2019. Two years after they were introduced, how many developments have fulfilled the conditions of these schemes? Is the Government re-evaluating the conditions of the scheme to adapt to the post COVID-19 landscape today? And would the Government consider extending the rejuvenation schemes across the island to recognise and encourage greater creativity and flexibility in maximising the best use of our land and buildings?
Chairman, divorce proceedings are unfortunately more common than we would like them to be in Singapore, and the ownership of HDB flats is likely to come up as an issue in many of them. Individuals from the marriage without children are only allowed to retain the flat if they meet eligibility conditions such as being a Singapore Citizen, are at least 35 years old, and other prevailing conditions for retention of the flat under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme. I recognise therefore for those with care and control of their children, they will be able to retain the flat subject to financial capabilities and other eligibility conditions.
Chairman, while I am aware that our housing policies are pro-family and current HDB rules allow for some residents in the middle of a divorce to retain their HDB flat, others have not been able to do so.
Individuals who are going through divorce proceedings are already going through a stressful period and mandating a sale of the flat adds on to the stress. Individuals who are forced to sell off their flat may not be able to readily relocate and it may not be the most financially prudent option, adding on to the pressures. Further, some of them do have the wherewithal to continue servicing the housing loan by themselves.
While the HDB may be concerned about abuse, I believe couples do not enter the marriage with divorce in mind. If divorce is already a source of significant stress, is there room to allow divorcees under 35 to retain their HDB flat, subject to meeting some prevailing eligibility conditions?
Chairman, the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) currently enables couples or single parent families to rent from the Government while waiting for the completion of their BTO HDB flat. However demand often outstrips supply.
Chairman, when I last checked on 24 February, PPHS applications have exceeded the number of flats available by 13.5 times. I believe this oversubscription is not unique to February alone with the PPHS for March two times oversubscribed despite being just two days into the month. With COVID-19 delays in HDB flat construction, there will inevitably be higher demands for HDB rental from families affected by the delays.
Beyond the PPHS, public rental scheme flats for the low income are also narrowly supplied, with demand outstripping supply despite a $1,500 household income per month cap for applicants. Tightened controls for rental applications may lower the number of applicants, but not the real demand for the rental market. There is a clear need for expanding a supply of rental public homes for those in need as well.
On the broader landscape of change how is MND readying itself for a growing millennial preference to rent rather than own a house. We have already seen the sharing economy take root in various areas of everyday life such as in transport, for example. This preference likely stems from both concerns on the affordability of home ownership and a preference for work mobility and flexibility. Is MND considering expanding the supply of rental housing by the HDB to meet this growing demographic trend?
The Chairman: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, can I take both cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, for the past few years, 2014, 2015 and 2020, I had urged MND to review the policy of not allowing singles to rent flats on their own.
The reason is that some of these tenants may be elderly singles, who due to their age or behaviour, just cannot get along with another person in the same flat. Others may be Singaporeans who had married a foreign spouse but cannot rent a flat due to the foreign nationality of their spouse. And then, there are also divorcees who had to sell the flat after the divorce but cannot rent a flat because they do not have custody care and control of the children.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, when two singles who may be strangers to each other, and they are required to share a small space with each other, it does pose a huge stress point for both occupants. Their living environment would not be comfortable and they may have certain ingrained habits which make it difficult for them to adapt to living with each other. They have different standards of hygiene, different habits or medical conditions, and this may result in frequent quarrels. There may also be occasions when one of the occupants may just then shift out and sleep in the void deck.
There was a survey done a year ago, where 15% of the homeless interviewed say that they are a registered tenant in a public rental flat, but they had problems getting along with their co-tenant, and hence, they moved out and lived in the void deck.
Sir, I want to repeat my appeal to ask the Government to consider allowing singles to rent a 1-room HDB flat in exceptional circumstances. We should always encourage families to stay together; but on a case-by-case basis, allow singles to rent a 1-room flat. While it may be costly to allow a heavily subsidised flat to be rented to such singles, the government can show compassionate for singles who are truly in need.
I also urge the Government to consider having slightly bigger rental flats for families which may be larger. For example, if you have a couple with three or even four children, they would find it a squeeze to have to stay within a 2-room flat. Basically, a 2-room flat would be a single bedroom with hall. So there will be only one bedroom for the parents and the children, whether it is three or four of them, they would all have to sleep in the living room.
So I urge that HDB to review the policy of only having 1- to 2-room rental flats and allow larger rental flats for families which are larger.
Sir, COVID-19 has changed the way we live, work and play. Many residents have to spend more time at home because of the work from home policy. This has created more tension within the neighbourhood and the HDB estate because the working adult who used to work in an air conditioned office may not be used to the home living environment. There is more noise, there's possibly cigarette smoke from neighbours, and sometimes you may face unhygienic droppings from pigeons or cats. Over the past months, I have received more complaints from residents about noise from their neighbours, about smokers who smoke outside their windows and the smoke drifts into their flat, about pigeons and cat droppings.
The silver lining, Sir, is that we get to spend more time with our families at home, and we are in closer proximity with our neighbours more than ever. This is really a good opportunity to encourage residents to get to know our neighbours better, foster a sense of ownership for the shared living environment.
During the COVID-19 circuit breaker, some neighbours had set up a WhatsApp chat group so that they can order food together to enjoy economies of scale. The question is whether we can tap on this source neighbourly friendship to look out for one another. May I ask, what else can MSO do to encourage community ownership and good neighbourliness so that we can live harmoniously with each other? In that way, we can develop more mutual respect and understanding with our neighbours.
The Chairman: Miss Carrie Tan.
Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, permission to take two cuts together.
Ms Carrie Tan: In 2018, there was a study done to examine the healthcare utilisation of the low-income community in Singapore. It found that staying in public rental housing was associated with poorer health outcomes and health status. Another study found that patients living in rental housing were more likely to have heart disease commonly associated with stress, were more likely to use anti-depressant medication, staying in hospitals longer than other income groups and more frequently re-admitted into hospital.
A resident of mine, Mr X, has a knee condition but kept delaying his surgery, in order to feed his four kids. His wife is unable to work due to a slipped disc for which she needs surgery. Mr X cycles for hours every day as a Grab delivery rider to make ends meet, and I worry about what happens when his knees finally give way.
Another resident Mr Y in his 50s has to go for another surgery or one surgery after another. The first to fix a workplace injury preventing him from working for two years, and then a stomach surgery for ulcer, and now he is being assessed for possible cancer. He cried to me, saying he feels so defeated because he cannot even afford to buy small snacks or treats for his grandchildren. He feels that he has failed as a father and grandfather.
Although some of these residents already pay very low rent each month, thanks to the subsidies from HDB, the fear that they may lose having shelter over their heads is a real one and a real stress point. Even $100 rent a month is a stress point for someone in Mr X and Mr Y's circumstances, and there are many of them. High stress leads to more ill health which leads to more medical bills and more stress. It is a vicious cycle.
I urge MND to waive the rental fees of all public housing residents for a minimum of six months to a year. Even though HDB does provide additional subsidies when appeal letters are sent, the stress of having to go see a Member of Parliament, and uncertainty about outcomes is still a stressful process. A blanket waiver of rent for at least six months will give much needed reprieve to these families who live on the brink.
Land scarcity in Singapore is a fact of life. Amidst increased public pressure and attention on inequality, we need to provide better public rental housing in order to rehabilitate low-income families more effectively. How can we do so without incurring larger costs?
On one hand, we have large families in small rental flats, struggling with overcrowding. Single mothers and fathers are struggling to find care so they can go out to work. On the other hand, we have isolated elderly in HDB flats, suffering loneliness, with rising risk of elderly suicide.
We can kill two birds with one stone, by putting isolated elderly and single parent families together to optimise resources for better social outcomes.
The cost savings from building new rental flats can be used instead as rent paid out to financially challenged and isolated elderly flat-owners, if they are willing to open up their homes to single parents and their children.
Such a programme would provide a larger housing supply without incurring more building costs, improve retirement adequacy for the poor seniors, reduce their social isolation as well as provide informal care and support for the children and youth of single parents. Chairman, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In Singapore, we have two groups of people who face different difficulties. On one hand, many large families live in a small rental flat and do not have enough space. Single parents often do not have anyone to take care of their children when they want to work. On the other hand, many isolated elderly live alone in HDB flats. Data shows that the risk of them committing suicide is higher. Hence, I would like to propose this scheme whereby we put single parent families with isolated elderly together, killing 2 birds with 1 stone and solving the problems mentioned above.
Under this scheme, if the elderly are willing to let single parent families to move into their home, the authorities can convert the cost of building new flats into a sort of rental income for the elderly, and help reduce their financial burden. This will increase the supply of newer and larger rental flats and save construction cost. More importantly, the elderly will have company and children from single parent families will not become “latch-key kid”.
(In English): I urge MND to consider this mutual rental programme as an opt-in programme and to pilot with elderly who are willing. Implementation is bound to be challenging, as personality dynamics will play a big part in the success of such a programme. Getting a good match is critical. It is key that the matching of elderly to families is done socially and not purely administratively.
I believe by having close collaboration amongst the ComLink agencies on the ground on such an initiative, we can see much improved social outcomes, with less costs, to optimise the care and well-being of our people.
The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Chairman, can I take my two cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Thank you. The Joint Singles Scheme, which requires a single tenant to rent a flat together with a flat mate, can lead to difficulties if the flat mates do not get along. Can MND and HDB do more to address this issue?
We have seen cases from time to time of flat mates not having an easy time living together in the same flat. While they are thankful for being provided a roof over their heads, and at a level of affordability which is in line with their income, they are under a lot of stress to get used to living with someone who may be very different from their own personalities and backgrounds and who may not share the same habits and lifestyles.
We have to be mindful that these are two strangers who have to stay together. I hope the Ministry can do more to increase the level of comfort for them. Has HDB done any research or survey to find out what are the common issues raised and whether it had been able to resolve them? If not, would the Ministry consider doing so and keeping the records for future reference to inform officers assisting these tenants?
In addition, I have some other suggestions.
Firstly, would HDB consider allowing applicants to specify some parameters in terms of their ideal housemate so that HDB can use these criteria to match the different applicants, for example, whether they are on shift work, smoker or non-smoker, along similar demographics such as age or dialect group and so forth?
Secondly, would HDB consider assigning dedicated counsellors to assist the flat mates to familiarise themselves with each other in the first month of sharing the flat, and giving advice at the early stage to prevent future problems?
Finally, could HDB set up a task force to address issues pertaining to conflicts and complaints between flat mates? The task force should be empowered to mediate and make recommendations such as early termination of the Tenancy Agreement and matching or replacement of tenant and so on.
Chairman, I would like to request if MND and HDB would consider supporting larger families in public rental housing by providing larger flats?
They may be families with more children or have elderly parents and parents-in-law. Due to personal circumstances, they are unable to live apart and it is not always possible to find them separate rental flats in the same block to house them all. Hence, overcrowding becomes a big problem for such families, leading to tensions.
Due to a lack of space, some members of these families might be staying out of the assigned flat due to the cramped or hostile atmosphere in the home. This is not safe for them, to be sleeping rough outside. Their health and ability to study or work productively are also affected.
For youths who loiter outside of home more often, this may lead to higher chances of them becoming wayward and delinquent, and expose them to crimes.
I would like to ask the Ministry what is the average family size of those applying for rental flats? Are there options for bigger rental units for families with four members or more?
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of the work-from-home movement. With the current trend of working and learning from home, the need for more space at home for each member of the family has become more pronounced. It is no different for these families living in the rental HDB flats.
Can the Ministry provide more information on how these needs have been met in the past and how can we provide better living environment for rental flat residents? This is especially so for families with school-going children.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I am glad that we have reformed our housing policies for single unwed parents. I thank HDB for providing the much needed helping hand to the single unweds.
We can do more also for singles. Many of the lower income singles are in need of rental housing due to various circumstances and many are seniors.
HDB does help under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS), which requires single tenants to rent a flat together with a flat mate. As they are single, many are unable to find a flat mate and are in the end housed with a stranger. I am sure many Members in this House would have handled MPS cases of flat mates not getting along.
I do understand HDB’s concerns that there may not be an ample supply of rental flats to cater for every single to rent a flat alone. However, I understand MND does allow a person to rent a flat alone on a case-by-case basis. Can MND review the JSS and consider publishing a set of specific criteria under which a person can rent a flat alone?
I spent more than a quarter of my life speaking up about our policy of not allowing the keeping of cats in HDB flats. I last spoke up about this last year, providing various solutions to the concerns MND has.
I hope we can change our policy to reflect what we already accept in reality – that HDB residents are allowed to keep cats, which can be removed if they are found to cause disamenities in the community.
This is an issue that affects thousands who currently live in HDB flats and keep cats. It also affects Singaporeans overseas. Sallie wrote to me recently and said, \"Thank you for raising this issue again. It is one of the reasons why I can’t come back to Singapore. I have two cats here in Bangkok and I have no place to keep them. I can only afford to buy a HDB flat if I go home as I can’t possibly afford private properties.\"
I hope this year and at this COS, we will finally have the good news that we will allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats with specific conditions that will address any issues of disamenities. I should add that Speaker supports this change in policy as well.
The Chairman: I am supposed to be neutral. Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Chairman, the Minister for National Development has answered questions in this House on Community Care Apartments which is an assisted living typology pilot that is not just about housing but also the integration of care and social services.
Can I ask the Ministry to share more details about its plans for future launches to keep up with market demand and, at the same time, because this is about care and social services as well, what are the Ministry's plans to ensure quality and sustainable development of services?
Also, bearing in mind that the services can cost quite a significant amount, how would the Ministry ensure that applicants who need these services, applicants for whom the assisted living typologies clearly designed for but may, nonetheless, have difficulties affording such services, how would the Ministry ensure that such applicants would not be excluded from the scheme simply because of financial means?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, the ethnic integration (EIP) policy remains an important policy in Singapore. It prevents the formation of ethnic enclaves and encourages Singaporeans of different races to mingle in the same community. It ensures that there is adequate minority representation of the population within the neighbourhood estate.
But there are unexpected or unintended economic consequences from the EIP for the last few minorities in the block. The problem with the EIP is that it restricts the pool of potential buyers and sellers of HDB flats for minorities, potentially creates artificial inequalities or negative externalities in the medium to long run.
Amidst the pandemic, some Singaporeans who faced financial difficulties are seeking to monetise their flats and downgrade to a smaller one. For a pocket of minority Singaporeans, this is particularly challenging as they have fewer to no prospective buyers to sell their flats to. They may have to sell their flats at a much lower than market rate to make it more appealing to same ethnicity buyers. This price may barely cover what they have to pay for their new purchase which greatly impacts on their financial plans.
I have been approached by a number of my Malay, Indian and Eurasian elderly and middle-aged residents want to downgrade and sell their flat as they are in part affected by the COVID-related crisis or need extra funds for an emergency or healthcare needs.
Besides the case-by-case basis now via time extensions, would MND consider helping these flat owners by providing a discount on their next purchase and EIP price harmonisation grant to potentially reduce an indirect negative market effects of the EIP? It could also encourage them to sell their flats at a lower price to buyers of the same group.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, housing is an essential part of our lives. My flat is more than just an address. It is my safe space and home.
During the 2019 National Day Rally, Prime Minister announced that prime land in Singapore Greater Southern Waterfront will be slated for urban development. More public housing projects are also slated to be launched in city centre locations. However, flats situated on prime land suggest a higher cost than most current BTO flats.
I would like to ask the Minister what are the plans to ensure that new HDB flats, regardless of the location, will remain affordable for all Singaporeans and given that prime locations will appeal to many, what are some of the measures being considered to give Singaporeans an equal chance and if there are measures to maintain the inclusive and diverse characteristics of HDB estates in prime areas?
To meet the diverse housing needs of our population, including first-timer families, seniors and singles, the HDB has also introduced innovative types of public housing such as the Community Care Apartments which other hon Members have spoken about. These flats can start from prices as low as $52,000 and have variable leases and even come with advanced care options such as housekeeping. I am very grateful that we are piloting new models. This is critical and I am also glad that we are caring for our seniors.
I would also like to ask the Minister whether there are studies or information on the potential impact of the new housing models on the values of existing flats around them and how can the Ministry ensure that new models of flats will not adversely affect existing home owners in the same area.
When we stay in our homes, we do not just stay alone. Each block or street, houses the community and COVID-19 has shifted our lifestyles and many of us are spending more time at home and in our neighbourhood. As a result, there was an increase in reports of feedback on social disamenities from 280 per month to about 2,100 per month in April to June 2020.
However, COVID-19 has also brought about many positive stories and examples of neighbourliness. For example, sanitisers in lives or people who volunteered to buy food for those who may not have been as mobile.
How is MSO leveraging this opportunity to nudge or grow community ownership of common spaces in good neighbourliness, and where neighbour relationships have broken down, how can agencies better work together to intervene and help resolve neighbour disputes in both public and private estates?
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, I am glad to hear that the Municipal Services Office (MSO) improves service delivery by leveraging on technology.
The AI-powered chatbot and OneService app appear to share some overlapping features. With the Chatbot introduction, what are plans for the OneService app to keep it relevant? What functions are the Chatbot able to fulfill, which the OneService app cannot, and vice versa?
I am concerned about the chatbot's ability to accurately predict the case category and owner, based on the feedback. What accuracy is it able to achieve? What will happen if the chatbot is unable to make the correct prediction? Does it only accept feedback on municipal issues? Residents may not be able to distinguish between municipal and non-municipal issues. Can residents be assured that their feedback will be adequately handled with no compromise to service quality, even if there is a mistake in the category?
Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Mr Chairman, in Tampines North, I have been quite involved in the block repainting projects done by the Town Council. I feel that it is important that our blocks look good and residents live in a neighbourhood that they can identify with and have a sense of belonging.
Therefore, I have been working closely with the contractor to design colour schemes. Only when personally satisfied with the designs, do we offer the options for residents to choose from. We even give names to the design themes and I am happy that so far, we have completed the #TampinesTVscreen and #TampinesTudor series, and we are in the process of painting the #TampinesTingkat and #TampinesKuehlapis designs.
Some of them have become popular spots for Instagram postings. The Tampines TV Screen has even inspired UNIQLO's 2019 National Day neighbourhood t-shirt design for Tampines, and more recently the TV Screen block façade was featured in Disney+'s promotional video. I am happy that this design and colour scheme was selected by residents in 2015 with an overwhelming 58% vote among three options.
There are many other estate improvement projects like Neighbourhood Renewal Programme and the Home Improvement Programme which require, and rightfully so, residents' support through a voting process. Voting is typically done manually, requiring physical forms or manual voting. Given the popularity of OneService app, I hope that the MSO could look at providing a voting or straw poll function. This is especially so during the current pandemic when we need to minimise gatherings of people and physical interactions.
Such a feature could also be useful in gathering inputs from the community on local issues. For example, sometimes, we have residents complaining of people gathering at the void deck seating area during wee hours causing a noise nuisance, and requests to remove the seating. However, there could also be responsible users at other times of the day, for instance neighbours having a chit chat at the void deck or elderly taking a rest on the way home from the market.
We typically ask grassroots leaders who live there for their observations, but these tend to be anecdotal and may not be very data driven. A digital survey could reach a potentially different and bigger segment of the population to supplement the information for a better considered decision.
However, local organisations like Grassroots and Town Council would not have the critical mass or scale to develop a robust platform for such surveys. So, I hope that MSO could consider developing one and offer the platform for the Town Council or organisations to reach out to residents so that we can promote greater community ownership and good neighbourliness.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Chairman, during circuit breaker last year, many services came to a halt. In a few months, trees and grass areas were overgrown, drains and common area maintenance were affected around the island. While some people enjoyed the nature and welcome the sights of wild flora and fauna around the neighbourhood, there were others who were concerned about safety of overgrown tree crowns or affected due to allergy and sensitive health condition.
I know that essential services had continued to be provided in as many areas as possible, but we had to face the reality that some services were unable to be carried out for a variety of reasons. Can Minister share during the pandemic, to what extent were the delivery of municipal services affected, what were the challenges the Government agencies faced, and how did the agencies address these challenges to maintain the municipal service standards in Singapore?
Since the introduction of OneService app, I have received positive feedback from residents about the app. I am also a user of OneService app and agree with this view. However, there are other feedback that closing the loop on matters can still be further improved. Sometime, the approach used and resolution of the matter does not effectively address the fundamental problem or had not met the expected outcome of the complainant. How can closing the loop on such matters raised be better managed moving forward?
MSO announced last year a series of technological improvements such as improving accessibility to services through OneService Lite and AI-powered chatbot. I am certainly supportive of using technology to enhance efficacy of processes and deliver more impactful results. Can MSO provide an update on the improvements that have been made and what other technology-enabled service and improvements can residents look forward to?
Over time, we need to evolve the OneService app beyond a reporting tool. During the re-opening of Phase Two, we have seen that the app being used by public to notify the agencies on cases of violation for not wearing masks and not complying to safe social distancing. This may have helped the management of safe distancing and accelerated the habit of public complying to new measures. But, it may also have inevitably created the effect of some divisiveness in the community and not promote a positive sense of active citizenry.
Given the strong calls for strengthening kampung spirit in the community, can the app be used as a one-stop neighbourhood platform to connect the community, enable residents' participation and pull resources from a social support angle? Let me give a few examples.
First, provision of community services. With an aging population, there is possibly an increase of seniors living without extended family support. The app could serve dual purpose. One, for individuals with handy skills, they can help families do simple jobs of plumbing, changing fixtures, and so on, and earn some side income. Two, volunteers nearby schools and community partner organisations can take this as value in action community project, to give back to those who are in need, such as assisting in grocery shopping and also help with the cleaning of their homes.
Second, green community resource panel. As we encourage more to join us on the sustainability journey, I am sure those who do not actively participate today, may want to know more or where they can begin. The app can provide information for those interested to do community gardening, corridor gardening or urban farming; an opportunity to learn from others with green fingers, exchange notes and other green initiatives to be more successful gardeners. Or the community can exchange secondhand items to reduce usage of new purchases and help some families save on expenses if they have spare resources available. This way, we can become more environmentally conscious with more rallying each other to learn, exchange and reduce wastage.
Lastly, build neighbourliness in the community. High-rise littering, cat feeding, noise disturbances and smoking at unauthorised areas are long-standing issues that we have been tackling. There is no silver bullet on how to resolve these. But through availability of data uncovering the root cause and with the help of artificial intelligence, it may minimise the issue if we leverage technology, establish community groups and link them to outreach the offenders or the trigger points, so that they can work on education, encouragement of behavioural change together with various agencies.
We may, in the course of action, meet vulnerable individuals and families who need social or mental healthcare that the community can provide to make a difference. This goes beyond a carrot and stick approach in managing sticky issues. I believe we should be open and pilot initiatives to check should this approach help reduce neighbourly disputes, while creating active participation from the complainants and others in the community to tackle the problems and find solutions together.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Chairman Sir, can I take my cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: There is an urgent need to reorganise the entire built sector which is facing a large number of simultaneous challenges, namely: the changing nature of demand of the built sector in the post-COVID-19 world; uncertainty in future source availability and cost of both skilled and unskilled foreign workers in the sector; the challenge of encouraging Singaporeans to come into the sector even as more jobs in the construction sector are more skill-based and working conditions have improved; the need to drive productivity through prefab, digitisation and capital intensive technology; the need to rebuild and remake our buildings not just new, but also current buildings to factor in new green standards; and last of all coping of the current industry cyclical downturn.
The sector's direction is spelled out under the Construction Industry Transformation Map. Previously the Government has driven industry transmission in three key areas. One, design for manufacturability and assembly; two, integrated digital delivery; and three, green buildings. Moving forward, what are the Government plans to encourage industry transmission in these three areas and are there any other areas of transmission that MND is looking for?
Buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emission. As such, there is a need to remake our city to prepare for climate change. On this note, I would like to share some feedback on the Green Mark scheme. On the good side, the influence of a Green Mark goes beyond our shores and increasingly it is the go-to standards that the private sector in nearby countries adopt.
However, there could also be an improvement. One common feedback is that we need to ensure that the Green Mark Standard is able to capture the big picture of sustainability. For example, how do you build a building to maximise external air flow which will fundamentally drive down the cooling of the entire building. This is in comparison, making sure that the Green Mark Standard become more than just a checkboard place off, achieving high quality green standards.
As such, can MND share on what more can be done to improve energy and resource efficiency in the built environment sector?
The Government announced or at COS 2020 that various stakeholders will be invited to co-create the next edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan. While necessary it is also adding in a new layer of complexity at the time when the built sector was at the crossroads, as per what I mentioned earlier.
The built sector has to juggle foreign and local manpower shortages, industry transformation, changing demand and industry downturn. So, while the many in the built sector whom I spoke to welcome the challenge, it is also important that we strike the right balance by consulting as many stakeholders in the built sector.
As such, can I get MND to share on the progress made on the Green Masterplan? I also want to voice a word of caution as a Member of Parliament, passionate about sustainability, having green standards out is very good. But we must live sufficient room for added inputs to factor in the rapidly changing Singapore built industry landscape, as well as the post-COVID-19 need, so the new Green Building Masterplan can remain as relevant as possible.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Chairman, can I take my three cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Xie Yao Quan: Chairman, the built environment sector has been hit hard by COVID. The Government has stepped forward decisively to help the sector tide over with support measures such as the Construction Support Package, which co-funds additional costs that construction companies have to incur to put in place safety measures, as well as the Job Support Scheme and its various extensions to help businesses in the sector defray salary costs for Singaporeans and protect jobs and capabilities in the sector.
The Government has also committed to providing relief for some of the non-manpower costs that construction firms in public sector projects will incur due to the prolongation of projects and there has been legislation such as a universal extension of time to help all contracting parties bear fair share of the impact of project prolongation. So, a whole suite of measures. And yet the sector continues to face an uncertain outlook this year. In this light, how will the Government continue to support firms in the sector to recover in the near term?
At the same time, COVID-19 has shown we must transform the built environment industry to improve productivity and, importantly, reduce reliance on foreign manpower.
Under the construction industry transformation map (ITM), the Government has identified two key areas. One, design for manufacturing and assembly, or DFMA; and, two, integrated digital delivery, or IDD.
On DFMA, there has been encouraging progress. In 2019, the sector achieved a 31% DFMA adoption rate in terms of gross floor area. I also understand that amongst construction tenders to be called in the next two years, up to 85 of these projects, both public and private, will require DFMA technologies. In particular, for prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction, or PPVC, and advanced precast concrete system, or APCS technologies, BCA is looking to raise the adoption rate to up to 70% by 2025.
For IDD, I understand that there are over 35 public and private sector projects piloting this, such as the Health Sciences Authority Building and Rochester Commons at 19 Nassim by private developers.
Can the Ministry share further updates on the progress of both DFMA and IDD within the construction ITM framework? And moving forward, what are the Government's plans to further drive industry transformation in these areas? And more specifically, what would this mean for Singaporeans in terms of the number and type of job opportunities?
Mr Chairman, the built environment sector is made up of many interconnected stakeholders along the value chain, including developers, builders, consultants, contractors, facilities managers. Rather than a single firm or segment of the value chain transforming on its own, Deputy Prime Minister has announced the Growth and Transformation scheme for the entire built environment sector. Can the Ministry share further details and, again, what would it mean ultimately for job opportunities for Singaporeans?
Buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions. To-date, more than 40% of our buildings have been greened under the BCA Green Mark certification scheme.
Last December, Keppel Bay Tower became the first commercial building in Singapore to be certified Green Mark Platinum Zero Energy. Besides a low energy use index of less than 115 kilowatt hour per square metre per year, the building has all of its energy supplied through renewable sources, both on and offsite. However, as Minister Desmond Lee said earlier today, we need to do more to ensure that both our existing and future buildings in Singapore are designed to conserve energy and water and minimise materials wastage.
Minister also shared about the \"80: 80: 80\" by 2030 targets under the next edition of the Singapore Green Building masterplan. And as the Member Mr Henry Kwek said just now, the Government has also announced at COS last year that various stakeholders will be invited to co-create this next edition of the masterplan. In this regard, can the Ministry provide an update on its progress and what are the plans going forward?
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, echoing the views of Members Mr Kwek and Mr Xie, the built environment sector took a severe hit as a result of the pandemic. Many construction companies are badly affected due to the drastic reduction in the supply of foreign workers in the construction sector. As a result, there is a significant increase in the daily wages and other associated costs of hiring foreign workers. Understandably, cashflow becomes a major problem as project milestone payments are delayed. In view of this tight situation, how can MND and BCA help the construction industry tide over this difficult period?
Looking ahead, the construction industry will have to accelerate industry transformation, to shift from heavy manpower-intensive processes and leverage technologies that enable higher productivity and effectiveness, for example, using drones for land surveillance and progress updates, robotics and autonomous platforms to assist workers in the heavy lifting tasks in construction sites.
Having said that, many of such enablers would require heavy initial investment in equipment and software and the retraining of existing staff. How can the built environment sector be further incentivised to adopt the latest technology solutions in construction, either to reduce the dependence on foreign workers or improve productivity in construction?
I would also like to ask about property prices in Singapore. Property prices have continued to rise, defying the typical downward trend in a recession. As the costs of construction increase, we can expect the property prices to rise further and developers will obviously pass the higher costs onto the buyers. With more than 80% of our population staying in public housing, can we assure Singaporeans that public housing will be kept affordable, inclusive and liveable even with the rising cost of development?
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Chairman, this past year, we have all had to wrestle with the challenges thrown at us by COVID-19.
It has not been easy. But through close cooperation between the Government, industry and community partners, we have made good progress.
We provided significant support to firms in the Built Environment sector through one of its darkest moments. We worked hard to get our BTO projects back on track and assisted many buyers affected by inevitable construction delays. For homeowners and public rental tenants who faced financial challenges, we helped them with their mortgage and rent payments. To assist businesses renting commercial or industrial properties, we put in place various cost-sharing arrangements and relief measures. I would like to thank all our partners, the industry and the community as well as many of our officers, both in the headquarters and the frontlines, for the heavy lifting all these months.
But we are not out of the woods yet and must remain vigilant. At the same time, we must keep our eye on the future, learn the lessons from this pandemic and come out stronger from this experience. Our work to build an ever more resilient, inclusive and sustainable Singapore must continue.
One major enterprise is the Singapore Green Plan. For these efforts to bear fruit, we need all Singaporeans to be actively involved. And that is why, over the past few months, MND agencies conversed with Singaporeans through nine Emerging Stronger Conversations about our city, our home and our environment. We have heard many thoughtful suggestions and thank everyone who participated for their enthusiasm and passion. And we will continue to reach out, in dialogue and partnership, to work with Singaporeans to realise their vision for our city and turn their ideas into action.
Today, I will explain how we intend to do so, in three areas. First, we want to strengthen our Built Environment sector and transform the way we design, build and maintain our city. Second, we seek to design a new HDB housing model, to ensure that prime areas of our city remain diverse and inclusive for Singaporeans from all walks of life. And finally, we want to pursue our goal of a City in Nature. My colleagues will thereafter cover other areas of MND's core work. Together, these are among MND's key priorities for this term of Government, as we set out in our Addendum to the President's Address, at the opening of Parliament last year.
Let me begin with our plans for the Built Environment sector, which Members like Ms Poh Li San and Mr Xie Yao Quan and others have asked about. The sector was hit very hard by COVID-19. During the circuit breaker period, most construction work was suspended and many companies struggled. Even when projects could resume, the challenges mounted – ensuring the health of our foreign workers, implementing safe management measures and so on. There was tremendous uncertainty and a lot of coordination and daily adjustments were needed on the ground, as the situation kept evolving. In fact, in the early days of this crisis, we had literally daily meetings with our partners and our trade associations every day to adjust, to understand what was going on and to work together.
Through it all, the Government had worked with firms to help them tide over these difficulties. We strived to ensure that no one segment of the value chain in the Built Environment sector bore a disproportionate share of the impact.
So, to do this, we provided significant financial support, through a $1.36 billion Construction Support Package, waivers and rebates of the Foreign Worker Levy and wage subsidies under the Jobs Support Scheme.
Through the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, we imposed a moratorium to protect the affected firms from contractual lawsuits and required developers to share in the costs of construction delays due to COVID-19. In response to industry feedback, we are working with the Singapore Contractors Association Ltd (or SCAL) and other trade associations and chambers (TACs) to facilitate claims for prolongation costs.
We also extended the Project Completion Period and the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty remission timelines, to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on developers. At the same time, we provided protection to purchasers from developers, in cases where the purchasers had difficulties making their contractual payments on time.
It has been an extremely challenging time. But with the perseverance of our companies and Government agencies and partners, we will ride through this together.
We now project that construction demand will recover to some extent in the next few years. This year, we expect $23 billion to $28 billion worth of projects to be awarded, up from $21 billion last year.
We will continue to monitor industry demand closely, given the uncertainties of the pandemic. If needed, we will bring forward some of our planned public sector projects to help support the industry, as Mr Yip Hon Weng had suggested during the Budget debate.
We also recognise that the industry still faces serious challenges even though works have resumed. Safe management measures on worksites have affected productivity, while restrictions on the inflow of foreign workers have resulted in a labour crunch and higher manpower costs.
We are aware of these issues and are working closely with our partners and our agencies to address them. For example, with MOM and MOH, we are reviewing whether the safe management measures on worksites can be adjusted, but we need to balance this against a possible increase in transmission risks onsite – especially since in the last few weeks, we have seen cases again popping up in the construction sector. We are also working with agencies to see how we can ease the tight manpower situation for companies.
But above all, this experience has strengthened our resolve to accelerate the pace of change as set out in our Industry Transformation Map and decisively transform the way we design, build and maintain our city, once and for all. We cannot go back to how we used to do construction in the past.
We have heard this conviction echoed more resolutely in many of our conversations with industry partners. We will, therefore, embark on three complementary strategies, to give a stronger push for the sector's transformation.
First, we will enhance Government support to uplift the entire Built Environment value chain. Second, we will strengthen our regulations to spur productivity growth and reduce reliance on foreign manpower. And third, we will step up our research and development (R&D) efforts to create and deploy innovative solutions in the Built Environment sector. Let me speak about each of these in turn.
First, on enhancing Government support for transformation. In the Built Environment sector, unlike many other sectors, there are heavy inter-dependencies among different stakeholders along the value chain. Developers work with builders and consultants on each project, who, in turn, rely on multiple tiers of contractors and sub-contractors for different aspects of the project.
Given these inter-linkages, it is difficult for any one firm in the value chain to transform on its own. And this pandemic has shown that we are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain.
We will, therefore, enhance Government support to further integrate and strengthen the entire value chain holistically, through a new Growth and Transformation Scheme, or GTS, which Deputy Prime Minister has announced in the Budget speech.
This value chain approach differs from existing schemes in two important respects.
First, unlike existing schemes that support individual firms, the GTS supports alliances of firms across the entire value chain, with the view of uplifting the entire Built Environment eco-system.
Second, existing schemes focus on individual projects, which can result in contractors operating at very thin margins to meet short-term targets, without the capacity to invest in long-term transformation. In contrast, the GTS supports firms in improving their capabilities, not just in completing specific projects.
The GTS will support the formation of strategic alliances among progressive developers, builders, consultants and sub-contractors across the entire value chain. Each alliance will develop a business plan of at least three years, showing how the alliance will increase productivity by using Design for Manufacturing and Assembly and the digital spine we call the Integrated Digital Delivery model. It should also seek to achieve sustainability targets, build better capabilities, develop our workforce and improve business growth and strategic collaboration. The alliance members will work together collectively for the outcomes committed to in their business plan. This is how the Built Environment sector works on projects and comes together to make transformations happen.
In this way, the value chain approach will help alliance members forge long-term collaboration, reap mutual benefits and build capabilities through knowledge sharing and transfer. This will help pave the way for the alliances to take on larger or more complex projects or develop niche strengths in the future.
We will roll out the GTS with a few alliances first, and learn and improve the scheme along the way. Over time, the GTS should catalyse transformations throughout the Built Environment eco-system, so that the sector can progress together, including our sub-contractors further down the value chain. With enhanced capabilities and a stronger track record, Singapore firms will also be better placed to compete in construction tenders both here and abroad. More details will be announced later this year.
Besides the Growth and Transformation Scheme, we will also enhance our other broad-based incentives to help firms accelerate their transformation, such as through the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF).
Next, in tandem, we will strengthen our regulations, to spur greater productivity improvements.
We will review our foreign manpower levers in the construction industry. As announced at MND’s COS in 2019, we intend to remove the Man-Year-Entitlement (MYE) framework in the near future and replace it with a system that incentivises more productive off-site work. We are also studying the reduction of the construction Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC), to support more manpower-lean construction.
We are aware that changes in these regulations will impact the construction industry and are especially mindful of the current economic climate. We will continue to consult our industry partners before making any major moves.
We will also be enhancing our Buildability Framework to raise productivity standards and make Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) the default method for large projects.
In the short term, these moves may cause some pain, as many industry players accept. But as we have learnt from COVID-19, these structural changes are necessary, so that we can build greater resilience in our industry.
Third, we will be investing more resources to support our local industry’s research and innovation efforts. By developing and deploying transformative technologies, we can spur industry growth and improve our firms’ competitiveness.
Beyond productivity and resilience, we also want our Built Environment sector to be even more green and sustainable, in line with the Green Plan, and we talked about it earlier during the segment on the Green Plan. My colleague Minister of State Tan Kiat How will elaborate on our plans to transform the Built Environment sector later in greater detail.
Sir, I have talked about the Built Environment transformation. Now let me move on to another key priority for us, which is public housing.
Mr Leong Mun Wai expressed concern about possible shortages in housing supply. Let me assure Members that we closely monitor housing demand and calibrate supply accordingly, to meet Singaporeans’ housing needs.
For public housing, HDB adopts a comprehensive approach in planning new flat supply, taking into account demographic and socio-economic trends, prevailing market conditions and the supply of resale flats on the open market.
But our approach to public housing goes beyond matching supply to demand and putting a physical roof over people’s heads. Public housing is also an integral part of the social fabric that keeps our nation together. It serves important social objectives that are fundamental to the idea of Singapore. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, here in Singapore, we provide public housing for the vast majority of our people. When we live next door to diverse neighbours along the same corridor or in the same estate, we share common experiences and we grow a sense of identity and community. So, we must do our best to keep public housing diverse and inclusive, to nurture and strengthen this community spirit.
Take the Ethnic Integration Policy, or EIP, for example. It is a unique policy and an intrusive one, almost impossible to replicate elsewhere. But as Mr Saktiandi Supaat had emphasised, the EIP remains important to promote social integration, by ensuring a balanced racial mix in our HDB blocks and neighbourhoods. So, it is an important strategy, but it works together with other community-building strategies to ensure that our multi-culturalism is never taken for granted.
At the same time, some flat owners may find it more challenging to sell their flats when the EIP limits are met. Members have referred cases to us from time to time. We must take care to ensure that they do not bear a disproportionate share of the EIP’s impact. Many of these owners are eventually able to sell their flats to buyers from eligible ethnic groups. But for those who continue to face difficulties, HDB can give them more time to sell their flat, or exercise flexibility on the EIP in truly extenuating circumstances. We will look at appeals closely on a case-by-case basis and continue to monitor the situation carefully.
I will now talk about how we will keep public housing inclusive, by keeping flats affordable and meeting the diverse needs of Singaporeans. I will then touch on our efforts to streamline processes for home seekers.
One important way we keep HDB estates inclusive is by keeping flats affordable, so that Singaporeans of different income levels can access home ownership and live in the same neighbourhoods. That is why we sell new HDB flats at subsidised prices and provide generous grants for first-timers buying both new and resale flats.
These subsidies keep flats affordable for most buyers. For example, for most of the first-timer buyers in the non-mature estates, their monthly mortgage payment does not exceed one-quarter of their income. So, they can pay their monthly instalments mostly through their CPF contributions, with very little or even no cash outlay.
Moving forward, as we have said, we will also build public housing in very prime locations, like the city centre and the Greater Southern Waterfront. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin had asked about these plans.
Left solely to the private market, these prime areas would likely be used for exclusive, high-end housing developments that only the rich can afford, given their attractive locations and attributes. We see this in many other cities, from New York to Hong Kong and many others, where housing is much more expensive in certain choice neighbourhoods compared to others, and average families either have to pay very high rents to live in these prime locations, or may need to move further out of the city or to less desirable parts of the inner city to buy an affordable home.
There are very powerful social and economic forces at work, that drive stratification and gentrification of cities, that can divide communities. But we are determined to do our best to resist them, so that our society does not become fragmented over time. We therefore need bold and decisive action to ensure that these prime areas of Singapore continue to reflect the openness and diversity of our society and allow Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds to live together and interact.
That is why, even in these prime locations, we will strive to include public rental housing, so that lower income households can live in these estates too and be served by the facilities and services that they require.
We will also design and introduce a whole new housing model to keep new HDB flats that we will build in these prime areas affordable for young families and Singaporeans of different backgrounds. This will not be easy, as there are many factors to consider.
For example, to keep flats in these prime areas affordable, our new housing model will have to provide additional subsidies, on top of the generous subsidies that we already provide for BTO flats today. So, not just the general subsidies that everyone else gets, but for people who are buying these flats in these very prime locations, to keep it affordable, we have to put additional subsidies.
These additional subsidies also cause difficulties, because they could lead to more capital gains for owners when they sell their flats on the open market, compared to other HDB flat owners. Hence, for fairness, we may need a way to recover some of the extra subsidies provided for flats in very prime locations.
We must also ensure that these future estates remain affordable and inclusive over time and not just at the point when HDB sells to the first buyer. Otherwise, they may transact at extremely high prices in the resale market and only the better-off can buy them over time. In short, as a social policy, we have to act against the instinct of the market.
Many ideas that have surfaced during our engagements, and there have been lots of commentaries in the media and in professional groups. For example, imposing a longer minimum occupation period, or restrictions on renting out these flats, or ringfencing the pool of subsequent buyers. We also received many other very good suggestions from experts, commentators, researchers, professionals, sociologists, members of the public and so on, and we welcome people to continue sending in these ideas.
But even the authors themselves recognise that these ideas may create complexities too – for instance, they may exacerbate the burden on homeowners who may run into unforeseen circumstances or financial difficulties. And some acknowledge there may be no certainty that some of the measures that are suggested would actually be able to maintain affordability over time.
So, it is a balancing act, and we are still carefully studying the possibilities. We will continue to engage Singaporeans to find the right balance, before announcing more details.
But what I want to stress is that at the heart of our approach is our deep conviction: that our public housing estates must remain inclusive and accessible to Singaporeans. Again, this is a unique approach, that very few other cities would be willing to attempt to do. But we are pursuing it, despite the challenges, because we firmly believe that it is right and necessary, to keep Singapore an open and egalitarian society.
Next, we also keep public housing inclusive by meeting the diverse housing needs of different groups of Singaporeans. In many cases, this goes beyond just providing a form of shelter. As I said, public housing serves important social objectives. It is also about connecting residents to a wider community – building bonds among them, promoting well-being, building identity.
For example, one group that we take special care of are seniors. Last month, together with our colleagues from MOH, we launched the first pilot for the Community Care Apartments in Bukit Batok. MND, HDB and MOH worked closely to design this new typology, to meet not just the housing needs or shelter needs, but also the social and care needs of seniors, and help them to foster social bonds as well. Public feedback on this pilot has been very encouraging, and my colleague, Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, will provide a fuller update later.
Another group that we look after is our lower income households in public rental flats. Again, this is not just about basic shelter. We want to help them overcome the various complex challenges they face and uplift their lives.
For instance, we have a dedicated Home ownership Support Team in HDB to support public rental households who aspire to home ownership. And through ComLink, government agencies and community partners work together to provide customised and coordinated support to public rental families with children, beyond just tackling their housing needs. Again, shelter, or housing, with social support. MSF will elaborate more about this during its COS.
In the same spirit, we are always looking for ways to better support our public rental households, including single tenants who find it difficult to find a flatmate or to live with one, and larger families with children. Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim will share more details about our initiatives for these groups.
One more group that we take care of is the young couples looking to start their families.
Mr Cheng Hsing Yao suggested a BTR, not BTO, Build to Rent model. While Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested letting millennials rent, not buy.
We are always open to studying different housing typologies, but for now our focus is to help Singaporeans achieve their aspirations of home ownership. Home ownership gives families a more stable long-term housing arrangement and also, a concrete stake in Singapore’s progress.
That is why, as I mentioned, we offer generous grants to help young families afford their first flats. We also provide other assistance, such as by giving them more ballot chances and setting aside more flats for them in HDB’s sales exercises.
After booking a new flat, most families waiting for their flat to be completed continue staying with their families, while some choose to rent on the open market. HDB also has the Provisional Parenthood Housing Scheme, or PPHS, as Mr Louis Chua pointed out, for those who may need an alternative.
HDB has been working to add more PPHS flats in recent years and we are studying how we can provide more options for such families.
We will continue to keep public housing inclusive for other groups as well, such as persons with disabilities or special needs, as Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Denise Phua frequently in this House have highlighted.
My colleague Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will share more about our efforts to foster an even stronger sense of community in our HDB estates, by involving Singaporeans in building a caring and vibrant neighbourhood.
Let me turn to how we are harnessing digital technology to make the home buying process more convenient for flat buyers. I think this last year we have achieved in one year a significant acceleration in the digitalisation of many aspects – of the economy, of work and of society, and so, too, we have to keep up.
We have made improvements over the last few years. For instance, we introduced the HDB Resale Portal in 2018, the open booking of flats in 2019 and the HDB Flat Portal in January this year.
Through our engagements with Singaporeans and with industry, we have planned some new initiatives this year.
First, we will combine HDB’s eligibility assessments for flats, for loans, and for grants into a single service touchpoint. Currently, buyers’ eligibility for these three components is assessed separately. We will streamline these eligibility checks into one online application, made through the HDB Flat Portal. Where possible and with the applicants’ permission, HDB will then link up with other Government agencies backend, to retrieve the details needed for its assessments. This reduces the need for applicants to manually enter their particulars or submit supporting documents repeatedly.
The outcomes will be sent to applicants in a single document: the HDB Flat Eligibility letter or HFE letter. This HFE letter will notify applicants of their eligibility to buy a new or resale flat, and how much of an HDB housing loan and CPF housing grants they can qualify for. This provides upfront clarity and holistic information on their housing and financing options, to facilitate their housing choices.
Second, we will introduce a new digital platform in the HDB Flat Portal, to guide new flat buyers throughout their flat buying journey, from flat application to key collection. The platform will consolidate all relevant information and present it to buyers at the appropriate milestones. Because sometimes buying a first flat can be quite daunting – lots of processes, information is here and there. We want to align it together, guide them in a family-centric, client-centric way through the process and enable them to book the necessary appointments seamlessly.
Third, we will extend the loan-listing service in the HDB Flat Portal and enable home seekers to apply for housing loans from participating financial institutions, directly through the portal, instead of having to do so separately.
HDB will provide more details on these initiatives later this year.
Finally, let me touch on yet another important priority for us: transforming Singapore into a City in Nature, as part of the Green Plan. Greening our city has always been a part of Singapore’s DNA, which we must continue to steward for generations to come. This will also help to mitigate the effects of climate change and urbanisation, and improve the living environment for all Singaporeans.
Since we announced our City in Nature vision and goal at COS last year, we have made progress on various initiatives. For example, as part of our OneMillionTrees movement, we have already planted around 160,000 trees so far. We also launched the new Sungei Buloh Nature Park Network in August last year. And we announced plans to rewild selected landscapes across our island, to support ecological connectivity.
At the Joint Segment on the Green Plan, I set out some of our targets.
These include adding another 1,000 hectares of green spaces over the next 10 to 15 years, and expanding our Park Connector Network or PCN so that by 2030, every household will be within a 10-minute walk from a park.
With your permission, Sir, may I display some slides on the LCD screen?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you. Today, we have a Coast-to-Coast trail that cuts across central Singapore.
We are also developing the Round Island Route, the Rail Corridor, and the Bukit Timah-Rochor Green Corridor. We will establish and curate more of these recreational routes, so that Singaporeans have more opportunities to enjoy nature and the outdoors. In fact, because of COVID-19, many Singaporeans are now exploring Singapore like never before and it is a wonderful thing.
We will create two more corridors running from North to South, just like the Rail Corridor. The 18-km Eastern Corridor will link East Coast to Pasir Ris via Bedok Reservoir and the 34-km Central Corridor will link Woodlands in the North to the city centre.
We will also create two new Coast-to-Coast trails running from East to West. In the North, we will have a 25-km Coast-to-Coast Northern Trail, running from Khatib Bongsu to Sungei Buloh. In the South, we will develop a 62-km Coast-to-Coast Southern Trail from Changi Beach to Tuas via Singapore Botanic Gardens. So, in time to come, as the boy band Westlife put it, you can go from \"Coast to Coast\" and find the trail you love the most!
At the same time, we will enhance our park connector infrastructure along Phase 1 of the Round Island Route, between Rower’s Bay and Gardens by the Bay, to make it more seamless and accessible.
Mr Dennis Tan asked how we can make our park connectors safer for users. NParks is focusing on enhancing the safety of park connectors with high usage and more frequent feedback on user conflicts. Enhancement works include segregating wider park connectors into footpaths and cycling paths, updating markings and signage for better clarity, and implementing more lighting, speed regulating strips and advisory signs.
Notwithstanding this, there will still be a need for users to share paths, for example where space does not allow for segregation. NParks conducts regular outreach efforts to raise awareness on park connector etiquette, such as keeping left on shared paths and giving way to others. At the same time, NParks and LTA also conduct joint enforcement against errant park connector users, such as Personal Mobility Device users who exceed the speed limits or ride recklessly. NParks will continue to work with LTA and the community to promote responsible use of our park connectors.
Overall, Singaporeans can look forward to 500 km of park connectors by 2030. These will allow for immersive experiences for all sorts of visitors – from families to hikers and cyclists. At the same time, they will add to our island’s ecological connectivity and resilience.
We have committed over $315 million to these City in Nature efforts over the next few years. This work will help make Singapore greener, more liveable and more sustainable, and we invite all Singaporeans to join us on this journey.
Building a more resilient Built Environment sector, keeping public housing inclusive and transforming Singapore into a City in Nature – together with the presentations that my colleagues will provide later, these are some of MND’s key priorities in the years ahead and beyond.
These are ambitious, meaningful projects, but the Government cannot push them through alone. We need all Singaporeans to take part – individuals, businesses and community organisations.
As we continue to build Singapore together, we will need to anticipate long-term social and economic trends and plan for them, while being flexible to adapt to near-term changes. Given our limited land and many pressing needs, including new ones that surface on the horizon, we will also need to make difficult trade-offs across different priorities. These are conversations that we need everyone to contribute to, with your different passions and expertise. My colleague Minister Indranee Rajah who will speak next will explain how we will involve Singaporeans in this very important but very exciting journey.
As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, we are far stronger when we work as one. I am confident that we can build a more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable Singapore, together. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Indranee.
The Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, let me speak today about re-imagining Singapore together.
We will start with when we were a backwater becoming a global city. Singapore is one of the most liveable cities in the world today, ranking first in Asia under Mercer’s annual Quality of Living Survey, and ahead of cities like London and New York.
Yet, our Pioneers would recall the squatter settlements by the polluted Singapore River and remember that we were once a jumble of urban development and older areas. We have come a long way since then.
Singapore’s remarkable transformation is not to be taken for granted. It is the fruit of careful and far-sighted urban planning and design.
We are now planning for our future city. Allow me to outline MND’s plans which we will be sharing with the public so that we can reimagine Singapore together.
To guide future development, MND and URA have embarked on a review of our long-term land use plans. This exercise is known as the Long-Term Planning Review or the LTPR. This is crucial given our small land area of just over 728 square kilometers, which is less than 0.1% of the world’s largest country, Russia.
Our land is limited yet we have many needs and hopes for the future. We want housing options, with amenities at our doorsteps and green spaces to enjoy. We want a thriving city centre. We also need to keep Singapore safe and sustainable.
Long-term planning is key to achieving these objectives and providing a high quality living environment for Singaporeans.
The LTPR is not a new exercise. The first such plan, formerly known as the “Concept Plan”, was developed 50 years ago in 1971, and laid the foundation for our city's structure. We review our long-term plans regularly. The last major review was conducted in 2011. With changing needs and emerging trends, it is timely to refresh these plans.
My colleagues at URA and MND face very different circumstances from our pioneer city planners today. For a start, as more of Singapore’s land is built up, we must plan not only for development, but also for re-development.
Mr Henry Kwek had suggested considering carbon emissions when deciding if we should develop on greenfield or brownfield sites. The spirit of this proposal is line with our national push towards sustainability.
Yet, there is a tension between this and other considerations that guide our land use plans, including demographic, socio-economic and technological trends. We also have to balance demands across a variety of needs, such as housing, green spaces, schools and so on.
As Minister Desmond Lee emphasised, we do our best to optimise our land use, and retain green spaces with high ecological value. Any decision to develop greenfield sites is taken only after considering trade-offs and alternatives. We proceed with care, to minimise the environmental impact.
Overall, taking a long-term approach towards land use planning is important for sustainable development in Singapore. This will also preserve options for our future generations.
The world that we live in is increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Hence, our approach to long-term planning will place a greater focus on optionality and flexibility.
As our circumstances change, we must plan accordingly. This includes planning for an ageing population and the evolving mindsets of Singaporeans on matters such as lifestyles, work, family, nature and heritage.
For instance, Mr Cheng Hsing Yao asked if we will review our land planning strategies to offer more diverse housing modalities, given our ageing population and decreasing household sizes. Indeed, MND, URA and HDB will continue to monitor societal trends, engage industry stakeholders and adjust land use policies to meet our housing needs.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong had also suggested to allow more market flexibility in our zoning policies. We will continue to review how our land-use policies can keep Singapore resilient and responsive to change and consult stakeholders and businesses in this process.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck and Mr Cheng Hsing Yao also asked if COVID-19 will change our land-use plans and designs.
Certainly, it will. We recognise that it has impacted the way we live, work and play. It has also accelerated trends. Today, many of us order food and attend meetings with a click of a button, much more so than before COVID-19 hit us last year. At the national level, COVID-19 has underlined the need for resilience of resources, including food, medical supplies and construction materials.
Last year, in the Emerging Stronger Conversations, a group of Singaporeans and I discussed how to rethink the design of HDB living in light of the pandemic. Many suggested more community work and study spaces, for those in need of a conducive environment for remote working.
Today, residents with telecommuting needs can use HDB's \"Community Living Rooms\" within void decks in new developments, or shared spaces in some of our Community Clubs.
Those in need of dedicated rooms for videoconferencing can tap on commercial co-working spaces in some of our heartland malls.
We will study ways to inject community co-working spaces in our neighbourhoods and explore how to make these accessible for vulnerable groups, as suggested by Miss Cheryl Chan. We will also engage private operators and examine how we can plan for and design our neighbourhoods to support remote working, should the trend persist.
COVID-19 also raised questions on how much office and retail space we need, considering the shift towards e-commerce and telecommuting.
The disconcerting quiet of the CBD during circuit breaker sharpened the importance of planning for more mixed-use in our city centre.
The CBD Incentive Scheme and Strategic Development Incentive, or SDI scheme, which Mr Louis Chua and Mr Henry Kwek asked about, are well-placed to facilitate this shift.
Since 2019, we have offered incentives to encourage the conversion of older office buildings in the CBD into mixed-used developments. These will have offerings, such as hotels, residences, gyms, grocery stores, eateries and so on.
The SDI similarly incentivises building owners to come together to comprehensively redevelop and transform precincts in strategic areas across Singapore.
Mr Louis Chua asked about these proposals. URA has received several proposals for both these schemes – nine outline applications under the CDB Incentive scheme of which six have been given in-principle approval. Three outline applications were given in-principle approval under the SDI scheme. Mr Chua also asked if the scheme can be expanded to more areas. The SDI already applies across Singapore.
URA is actively working with building owners to realise their plans. This will introduce a good mix of uses and amenities in our city, making it an attractive destination to live, work and play. We will continue to monitor the trends accelerated by COVID-19 and factor these insights into our plans.
Members have also asked if the public and industry will be consulted on our long-term plans. The answer is yes. We believe that everyone has a stake in building the Singapore that our children and grandchildren will live in. The LTPR will gather the public, private and people sectors, all of whom bring valuable perspectives and expertise to the table.
Throughout the rest of the year, URA will tap on various platforms to engage Singaporeans deeply and widely. We will use a range of modalities to do so, including polls, workshops and focus group discussions, both in-person and online.
The engagement will kick off in April, with polls to get a pulse of what Singaporeans want for our future city and why they want it. Subsequently, we will gather input on the long-term land-use strategies and plans that can help us achieve these outcomes.
Given our limited land, difficult conversations on weighing the potential trade-offs and coming to the right balance on land-use decisions will come up.
We will not shy away from these conversations. We welcome a diversity of views. We also look forward to ideas on how to shape our major long-term strategic redevelopment areas. These include the relocation of the Paya Lebar Airbase and the redevelopment of the Greater Southern Waterfront after the ports move to Tuas.
At URA's \"Runway for your Imagination\" competition last year, we received many creative proposals on how to repurpose the former Paya Lebar Airport. A winning entry envisioned housing an agricultural park at the former runway, supplying fresh produce for the community. Green corridors would run through the town, allowing residents to enjoy nature at their doorstep. This was a refreshing vision of a residential town that responded to the global challenges of food resiliency and ecological sustainability.
Such insights from academia, professional bodies and the public can help us formulate better long-term plans and strategies for Singapore.
As we gather feedback, debate through options and listen to one other in the coming months, I am confident that we will build consensus on the way forward. I invite all Singaporeans to spread the word and join us in this process.
As we reimagine Singapore, we also want to partner Singaporeans in action. I am heartened by the energy of the Alliances for Actions, or AfAs, launched by the Emerging Stronger Taskforce last year, which some colleagues have already spoken on. These collaborations allow industry and community to partner the Government to ideate and implement solutions together.
To accelerate digitalisation efforts in the Built Environment sector, we formed the Digitalising Built Environment AfA in June last year. The AfA drives the adoption of digital platforms based on industry-wide Common Data Environment Data Standards. Close to 300 firms have stepped forward. We hope that more will embrace the collaborative potential of digitalisation across the Built Environment value chain.
We will also expand our partnership platforms.
This includes the pilot Business Improvement District or BID programme, in which businesses and stakeholders work with URA to develop and implement business plans that will enhance the vibrancy of our neighbourhoods. In the thick of the pandemic last year, the Tanjong Pagar stakeholders rallied together to roll out a joint F&B delivery promotion to boost business amid restrictions.
We are also thankful for our Friends of the Parks communities, where Singaporeans from all walks of life have stepped forward to promote the active and responsible use of our green spaces. We have started to involve our communities in the conceptualisation, design and development of five of our upcoming parks, including Pasir Panjang Park which will open this year. We will continue to work with you to create better parks for everyone to enjoy.
Next, building a City of Tomorrow through innovation and technology. Our physical resources may be limited, but innovation and technology offer opportunities to overcome this.
Minister Desmond Lee had earlier spoken about MND's Cities of Tomorrow R&D programme. These research efforts will allow us to tap on innovations in science and technology to transform urban living in Singapore.
One of these is the creation of \"noise-cancelling windows\". We are all familiar with noise feedback from residents living near roads and expressways. One solution is to create thicker windows to block the noise, but keeping windows closed may lose us the benefit of natural ventilation. The NTU team working on this project will be using noise to cancel out noise. To do so, their windows will generate sounds of a similar amplitude but of opposite waves – a simple law of physics I am told!
There are many more of such prototypes in the works – a testament to the ingenuity of our fellow Singaporeans.
We will scale up prototypes that prove to be effective. For example, in Punggol Northshore, HDB's very first \"smart and sustainable district\", we will get a glimpse of the neighbourhoods of the future. Think sensor-controlled smart lighting in common areas, smart sockets and a smart distribution board in homes to help residents monitor energy consumption. Residents will also enjoy a seamless parking experience with barrier-free entry and exit.
These cutting-edge urban solutions will allow for a comfortable living environment even as we intensify our land use and establish Singapore as a highly liveable city.
Let me conclude by drawing us back to why we plan for the long term and why we are inviting everyone along on this journey.
At the heart of our plans are our people. The landscapes and buildings we create are to support the individual and collective dreams of Singaporeans, both present and future.
The exciting thing about infrastructure and land use planning is that our plans will come to fruition in very tangible ways.
The historic districts of Chinatown, Kampong Glam and the Singapore River are legacies of the 1822 Jackson Plan. The 1971 Concept Plan laid the blueprint for Changi Airport and our system of expressways and MRT lines which we enjoy today. The 1991 Concept Plan birthed the idea of connecting parks, green spaces and waterways through a network.
So, what imprint would this edition of the Long-Term Planning Review leave behind? As we look to the transformation of Singapore within a generation, may it give us confidence that we have the ability, the will and the imagination to plan and build our future city together.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Chairman, COVID-19 has changed the way we live. We now spend more time in our homes and are more keenly aware of the state of our living environment and neighbourhood.
All of us want to live in a well-maintained estate with convenient access to services and enjoy good, friendly relations with our neighbours. The Municipal Services Office, or MSO sees opportunities to help more Singaporeans achieve this vision.
In its first phase, MSO has worked closely with 10 agencies and now 17 Town Councils to improve our feedback response time and resolve complex issues more effectively. The one-stop OneService community app has also grown to over 340,000 users, up from less than 200,000 in 2019.
In its next phase, MSO will work with these partners to deliver high-quality, resident-centric services, pre-empt issues where possible and partner like-minded residents to build a better neighbourhood together.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of municipal services and what MSO would do to address these challenges. Indeed, at the height of circuit breaker, many municipal tasks had to be de-prioritised due to the lack of available manpower. As we emerge stronger from these disruptions, we need to move away from a heavy reliance on manpower.
One way to do that, as rightly pointed out by Ms Tin Pei Ling, is to leverage technology for predictive maintenance work. MSO and our partners are doubling down on such efforts, to spot issues – and resolve them – before they become a problem for residents.
For instance, HDB is working with Town Councils to progressively install the Smart Lighting System in all estates, which monitors common area lighting points in real time, and automatically adjusts them in response to human motion. This, like other predictive capabilities undertaken by NParks in the management of greenery and parks, enables us to better predict potential faults, and undertake pre-emptive rectifications. We look forward to the trial outcomes, and to supporting their scale-up.
We also need to address structural barriers that prevent us from providing better services. One such barrier is the delivery of municipal services along agency lines. That is why we are piloting a new model of municipal service delivery in Tampines town later this year. This model integrates municipal services that are already outsourced by Government agencies today around residents’ needs at the township level, rather than by agency and land boundaries. This has several benefits.
First, we can more swiftly resolve municipal issues within the same town, such as connectivity-related infrastructure. Second, we can provide services more efficiently, by streamlining operational processes and training workers to be multi-skilled, so that they can be flexibly deployed across job functions. For example, workers inspecting for municipal infrastructure defects could also be trained to spot pest issues. Over time, more higher-skilled municipal jobs will be created for locals. Finally, by integrating multiple services, there will be economies of scale for service providers, which incentivises them to invest in better operations-technology capabilities, to deliver improved services at lower cost. This integration of services, alongside our harnessing of tech and data insights, will lead to better maintained neighbourhoods for our residents.
Nonetheless, residents will still encounter some issues. Miss Cheryl Chan asked how MSO was using technology to make providing feedback easier and more inclusive, and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked on the progress of the OneService Chatbot. To that, let me share two updates.
First, we piloted the OneService Lite QR code reporting in Jurong-Clementi and Aljunied-Hougang Town Councils last year, so that residents can report issues without downloading an app. This year, we will expand it to more estates in Holland-Bukit Panjang and Sembawang Town Councils. In addition, in our trial in Yuhua last year, some seniors shared that QR codes were more convenient than phone calls, as they did not need to wait to speak to the phone operator. They asked if feedback reporting could be done in vernacular languages, which they are more familiar with. We have taken in the feedback and will be starting a trial for OneService Lite reporting in Chinese, and later in Malay and Tamil as well.
Second, we have made progress in developing the OneService chatbot. Residents can look forward to reporting cases on-the-go, via WhatsApp and Telegram in the second half of this year. The chatbot is supported by artificial intelligence, which currently predicts with 80% accuracy, the case type and agency-in-charge based on residents' submitted feedback. This is expected to improve as public trials continues. This conversational reporting format complements the OneService App’s more structured reporting format.
Miss Cheryl Chan commented on closing the loop on municipal feedback. Some complex cases require extensive investigation or repair works, and we agree that cases should not be marked as “closed” when agencies have undertaken to handle them but have not completed their actions. In the coming month, we will implement changes to the interface to provide residents a clearer understanding on the status of actions undertaken by agencies. Together, providing feedback will be even more convenient, inclusive, and integrated with our everyday lives.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Nadia Samdin and Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about MSO’s effort to encourage greater neighbourliness, so that residents can live harmoniously alongside each other. In October last year, MSO hosted an Emerging Stronger Conversation focusing on this exact topic. Many participants hoped for neighbourhoods where neighbours know and talk to each other, are considerate and tolerant, and are able to work issues out amongst themselves, rather than just complain to the authorities. In the spirit of SG Together, we want to support residents in translating these and other worthy goals into action.
First, we will enhance the OneService app so that residents can look out for one another, especially those in need.
In partnership with MSF and the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), we will introduce a new “Help Neighbour” feature in the second half of this year, which residents can use to alert agencies to persons in need of assistance. This is especially important during the pandemic, where residents may find themselves having fewer interactions with their usual social networks.
In addition, residents can soon alert their neighbours in the same block to upcoming renovations with the “Happenings” feature, so that affected neighbours can plan around such inconveniences and find alternative spots to rest and work.
We have also used the What Say You? residents survey tool to support Town Councils in polling residents on neighbourhood renewal programmes and block paintings. We look forward to collaborating with Mr Baey Yam Keng Tampines Town Council team in using this tool to facilitate community decision making for the residents.
Second, we will provide support and funds for residents to develop community solutions for issues within their neighbourhoods. We are doing this via the Love Our ‘Hood Initiative, with the support of MCCY and the Singapore Kindness Movement. Over 30 passionate participants in Mountbatten spent the last 2 months tapping on their ground knowledge to develop initiatives to tackle issues such as animal feeding and neighbour noise. Residents in Bukit Gombak and Pioneer can also look forward to participating in Love Our ‘Hood initiatives at their neighbourhoods later this year.
We will also sustain our support of the community through the now-formalised OneService Kakis Network, which comprises over 2,000 members of public and stakeholders we have worked with over the years, and bring these like-minded citizens together to spark off ideas with one another.
Finally, as Miss Cheryl Chan highlighted, one of our priorities is to keep our HDB estates both lively and liveable, and to involve residents in this process.
For our upcoming estates, HDB launched the new Designing for Life roadmap last year. This sets out how HDB will plan and design both new and existing areas to provide a high-quality living environment that can better support residents’ overall health and well-being.
As for our existing estates, we have many upgrading programmes to keep them in good condition, including the Home Improvement Programme at the block-level, the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme at the neighbourhood-level, and the Remaking Our Heartland Programme at the town-level.
Members raised queries on some of our block-level works. For example, Mr Lim Biow Chuan had concerns about spalling concrete in older blocks. As HDB flats age, there will be some natural wear and tear. When such cases occur, HDB can help to make rectifications, and share half of the repair costs through the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme.
We have also announced that all HDB blocks will receive a second round of subsidised upgrading under HIP II when they reach 60 to 70 years old. More details on HIP II will be shared closer to its commencement.
Mr Dennis Tan asked about the Lift Upgrading Programme, or LUP. Over the years, we have provided direct lift access for the vast majority of HDB blocks, including by exercising flexibility for some blocks above the cost cap of $30,000 per household. However, for blocks where the costs are still too high, it would not be prudent to offer the LUP. In some cases, the LUP cost might be almost the same as that of a new flat. Therefore, while we continue exploring new technical methods to bring down LUP costs, we have also introduced the Lift access Housing Grant (LHG), which helps residents with urgent mobility or medical needs to move to another flat with direct lift access.
Mr Faisal Manap suggested a national programme for façade repairs. The external walls of HDB blocks are common property under Town Councils’ management. There are currently no plans for a new programme for façade repairs, as such issues can be addressed through regular maintenance by the Town Councils. To ensure that building façades are regularly inspected and promptly repaired, BCA has also introduced the Periodic Façade Inspection regime. Where repairs are required for HDB building facades, the Government will assist Town Councils with 50% of the costs.
Beyond these block-level works, at the wider neighbourhood- and town-level, we will continue to involve residents in revitalising our common spaces, to keep them vibrant and to foster a stronger sense of community.
For instance, residents can help shape the rejuvenation of their towns through the Remaking Our Heartland programme, or ROH. For the latest batch of ROH towns in Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Merah, Choa Chu Kang, and Queenstown, HDB gathered feedback through an online survey, and engaged more than 300 residents and Grassroot Leaders through Zoom focus group discussions. HDB will now study residents’ suggestions, and work with relevant agencies on the preliminary proposals. We will then engage residents again to further develop the proposals. We will continue to review the design and implementation of our upgrading schemes to meet residents’ evolving needs.
Our rejuvenation efforts extend to our neighbourhood commercial spaces as well. Associate Professor Jamus Lim suggested converting the top floor of HDB’s multi-storey carparks to commercial use. These may not be very suitable for commercial facilities, as retailers usually prefer locations with good pedestrian flow and visibility. Instead, the top decks of such carparks are typically landscaped and provided with recreational facilities like playgrounds, exercise areas, and community gardens. Some can even be converted into urban farms. Such landscaping also helps to reduce the urban heat island effect. Nonetheless, HDB makes sure to include enough commercial spaces in its estates. Most HDB residents can access commercial facilities within 400 metres of their homes.
HDB has also been working closely with heartland shops in their revitalisation and digitalisation efforts, which have become even more important amid the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, HDB launched two new mobile apps, RetailerLink and ShopperLink to enable HDB retailers to connect with shoppers online. RetailerLink helps HDB retailers manage customer engagement and promotions, and analyse sales data; while ShopperLink allows shoppers to browse and purchase products from heartland shops, attend their events, and even chat with the shop staff.
Together with MTI and MCI, we are also improving the Revitalisation of Shops framework to facilitate upgrading for heartland shops. HDB will continue to partner our heartland shops in their transformation journey. Through these various platforms and initiatives, residents can look forward to more opportunities to contribute ideas and efforts, as we work together to build a more caring and vibrant neighbourhood. Chairman, before I conclude, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Municipal Services Office (MSO) will work with agencies, Town Councils and residents to build a better living environment together in the following ways.
First, we will leverage technology for predictive maintenance work to spot issues and resolve them before they become a problem for residents. We will also pilot a new model of municipal service delivery in Tampines town later this year, one that would integrate services around residents' needs at the township level, rather than by agency and land boundaries. This will enable us to resolve the municipal issues more swiftly and effectively.
Second, we will make feedback provision more convenient. Last year, we piloted the OneService Lite QR code reporting in Jurong-Clementi and Aljunied-Hougang Town Councils, so that residents can report issues simply by scanning a QR code.
This year, we will expand it to more estates in Holland-Bukit Panjang and Sembawang Town Councils. We will also be starting a trial for OneService Lite reporting in Chinese, which will bring convenience to residents who are more comfortable with Chinese.
We will also launch the OneService Chatbot in the second half of this year, which will guide residents to provide feedback via WhatsApp and Telegram.
Third, we will also introduce a new \"Help Neighbour\" feature in the second half of this year, which residents can use to alert agencies to persons in need of assistance.
We will also provide support and funds for residents to develop community solutions for issues within their neighbourhoods via the Love Our 'Hood Initiative.
In the past two months, over 30 passionate participants in Mountbatten have helped to develop initiatives to tackle issues such as animal feeding and neighbour noise.
Residents in Bukit Gombak and Pioneer can also look forward to participating in Love Our 'Hood Initiative later this year.
We will continue to work with HDB residents to rejuvenate our estates, through the Remaking Our Heartlands programme, and to revitalise our heartland shops through the Revitalisation of Shops framework. Let us build lively and vibrant neighbourhoods together.
(In English): Back to English, Chairman.
COVID-19 may have changed the way we live. But it has also given us the opportunity – and renewed impetus – to build well-maintained, connected and caring neighbourhoods together.
The Chairman: Minister of State Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.
The Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Chairman, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected many Singaporeans, with the lower income and vulnerable among us especially hard-hit, for instance, in terms of jobs and income loss.
At the same time, the crisis has brought out the best in us. We saw so many individuals and groups stepping forward to help others. For example, groups of volunteers went out at night to befriend rough sleepers, distribute essentials and offer them shelter and assistance.
The Government has also implemented extensive support to help lower income households bounce back stronger from these challenging times, including through the COVID-19 Budget measures. Households living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats received an average of $3,400 per member from the COVID-19 Budget measures.
We also rolled out additional support for households living in public rental flats. About 47,000 such households benefited from three months of rent rebates from October to December 2020. Late payment charges have also been suspended from April 2020 to March 2021.
To Ms Carrie Tan’s suggestion on further rent waivers, I would like to assure her that the Government will continue providing targeted support to lower income households to cope with the impact of COVID-19, for example, via the Household Support Package announced during the Budget speech, as well as the COVID-19 Recovery Grant and Jobs Support Scheme.
Government agencies and community partners have also stepped up outreach to public rental households to offer assistance. HDB has sent out letters and SMSes to inform these households to approach HDB or Social Service Offices (SSOs) if they cannot afford their rent or need other financial assistance. HDB has existing guidelines to lower the rent for households who cannot afford their rent. In 2020, about 4,000 public rental households were assisted with lower rents, including those who experienced a fall in income.
We also continue to look for more ways to partner the community. I attended one of HDB’s Emerging Stronger Conversations, or ESC, on enhancing housing support for vulnerable communities. The participants shared many thoughtful suggestions, including suggestions to help large families and singles staying in rental flats. We are studying these suggestions, and welcome more ideas.
Let me now share some updates on our on-going efforts to better meet the housing needs of low-income and vulnerable families as well as seniors.
First, our efforts to support those staying in public rental flats. Many rental families I met have shared with me their hope to own a home and provide a better environment for their children.
It is also our hope for them to realise this aspiration, and we have various measures to support them. They can tap on generous grants for their flat purchase, such as the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant for First-Timer families and the Step-Up CPF Housing Grant for Second-Timer families. In addition, the Fresh Start Housing Scheme helps Second-Timer families with young children in public rental to own a home again.
Since June 2019, tenants who have made a downpayment for a new flat will not have their rent increased for the rest of their stay in rental housing. They can put the savings towards their upcoming new homes or other needs. About 350 rental households have benefited so far, with median rent savings of about $150 per month.
They can also get one-to-one guidance on home ownership from HDB’s Home ownership Support Team, or we call it HST, which was established in December 2019. In the past year, HST has assisted 654 rental households. Among them, 50 have booked flats, and 177 should be ready to apply for a flat in the next one to two years.
HDB will also work closely with MSF and other partners under Community Link, or ComLink, to provide coordinated support to our rental families. One family who has moved from their rental flat to a new flat with HST’s support is Mr Irman, his wife and their three children. They were staying in a 1-room flat in Bedok since 2005. The Family Service Centre referred the family to HST in September 2019. HST guided Mr Irman and his wife closely, from understanding their housing budget and options, and applying for the flat, to key collection and settling into their new home. The family moved into their new 3-room flat in Bedok in June 2020.
I would like to encourage all rental families that owning a home is achievable, with their individual effort complemented by the support from the community and Government. Many rental families have already moved on to home ownership. In the past five years, about 4,600 rental households have moved into their own homes. Another 2,000 are waiting for the flats that they have booked to be completed.
Mr Louis Chua asked about the supply of public rental flats. We currently have enough supply for households who need them. We will continue building a small number of new rental flats to replace older blocks that are redeveloped, and gradually renew our stock of rental flats.
Designing our HDB blocks and neighbourhoods to be inclusive, where Singaporeans regardless of background live together and share common spaces, continues to be an important part of how we will build a stronger, more caring and more cohesive society.
Therefore, we will integrate new rental flats that HDB builds with sold flats in the same BTO projects, including in prime areas. Where feasible, we will build them in the same blocks too. The first such mixed block is located at Marsiling Greenview, which was completed in June 2018. Feedback from residents living in both rental and sold flats has been largely positive.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Chong Kee Hiong raised concerns about large families staying in public rental flats and asked if we can provide larger flats. This was also discussed at the ESC I attended. We understand these concerns.
Families with three or more persons living in a 1-room flat can approach HDB to transfer to a 2-room flat. Families that form two nuclei, such as families with children, parents and grandparents living together, can apply for another flat, and HDB will offer them a second rental flat in the same block where possible.
To better support large families staying in public rental flats, MND and HDB will also work with MSF under ComLink to offer 3-room rental flats to large families with children, on a case-by-case basis. At the moment, we have a very limited supply of such flats, so we will only be able to offer the flats to a small number of families, based on the families’ circumstances.
At the same time, all families with children living in public rental flats will receive holistic support under ComLink to enable them to achieve stability, self-reliance and social mobility. For example, SSOs and community partners will engage the families to understand their needs, and connect them to programmes and services, such as employment assistance and childcare services. As far as possible, we aim to uplift them so that they can eventually buy their own home. HDB’s HST is part of the ComLink network, to guide these families in budgeting and planning for home ownership.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Louis Ng shared concerns about the Joint Singles Scheme, or JSS, for public rental. For example, some individuals face challenges in finding a flatmate to apply with, or in getting along with their flatmate. During the ESC, a few participants shared similar concerns. We understand their concerns and have been looking at ways to improve the JSS.
To provide more privacy, HDB has been building new 1-room rental flats with partitions, including some that have internal doors to separate the sleeping areas. There are currently 705 such rental flats with pre-installed partitions. For older 1-room rental flats, HDB will install partitions at the tenants’ request. Interested tenants can contact HDB. HDB has installed partitions in about 530 existing rental flats so far.
Most single tenants are prepared to share a flat with a flatmate. Flat sharing enables companionship and mutual support, which is especially important for older tenants. It also allows us to help as many who need a public rental flat as possible, within our limited resources. For those who have extenuating circumstances, such as medical conditions that make it unfeasible for them to share a flat, we are prepared to look into their requests to rent a flat alone.
To provide an additional option to singles who apply under the JSS, HDB will pilot a new model which will allow them to apply individually, without having to find a flatmate first. In this new model, we will set aside a few floors in a few rental blocks and appoint social service agencies to manage the flats, including the flat-sharing arrangements. The social service agencies will have better expertise to match singles of similar profiles, and to mediate disagreements that may arise. If necessary, they can also arrange for individuals to move to another flat. The rents in this new model will be largely similar to the JSS rents, and tenants will be subject to the same eligibility conditions. HDB is working towards rolling out this pilot later this year and we will share more details when ready.
We will continue to support the housing needs of other vulnerable groups, such as single parents and divorcees, who Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Louis Chua spoke about. Members who are aware of families or individuals who need assistance can refer them to HDB, and we will do our best to assist them, based on their circumstances. HDB has also been working closely with MSF, social service agencies, and community partners in the PEERS Network to assist rough sleepers and help them to move to more stable housing.
We have also been expanding housing options for seniors. In December 2020, MND, HDB and MOH introduced the Community Care Apartments, or CCAs, a new assisted living typology that combines housing with care services and community living for seniors. I thank Members for their strong interest and strong support in this.
Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Henry Kwek Hian Chuan spoke about the CCAs and asked about our future plans. Let me briefly update on the first pilot project, Harmony Village at Bukit Batok, which was launched for sale in February 2021. We received a very positive response for these flats, with 706 applicants applying for 169 units. This encouraging response validates the consultative approach that agencies took on in developing the concept, from the design of the units and communal spaces, to the services to provide.
Seniors, care-givers and healthcare professionals provided valuable feedback during Focus Group Discussions we held in 2019. For example, we added design features, such as the sliding partition to the flat, based on feedback that seniors appreciated the open layout but might desire more privacy at times.
Given the positive feedback and strong interest, we are studying plans for a second pilot site. We will share more details when ready.
With the pilots, we will monitor how the flat design and care services promote the well-being of seniors, both physical and socio-emotional and support them to age in place. These pilots will help us to further improve the housing and care options for our seniors. We continue to welcome feedback from seniors, as well as their care-givers and family members.
Mr Chairman, let me now say a few words in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the lives of many Singaporeans, especially the lower income and the vulnerable among us. I was heartened to see the resilience shown by these families in coping with the impact on their jobs, health, and family life. At the same time, our community spirit also became stronger. Many individuals and groups have stepped forward to help others in need.
The Government has also offered extensive support to help the lower income households. For example, HDB provided rent rebates and rent reductions for households living in public rental flats. If you know someone who needs further assistance, please ask them to approach HDB or the nearest Social Service Office (SSO).
To better support large families living in public rental flats, MND and HDB will work with Community Link (or ComLink), which is an MSF initiative, to offer 3-room rental flats to large families on a case-by-case basis.
At the moment, we have a very limited supply of such three-room flats. Hence, we will only be able to offer these flats to a small number of families. The selection will be done jointly by HDB and MSF, based on the families’ circumstances and suitability.
At the same time, all public rental flat families with small children will receive holistic support under ComLink to enable them to achieve stability, self-reliance and social mobility.
As far as possible, we aim to uplift them so that they can be self-reliant and eventually own their own home.
Many young people have shared with me their aspiration to own a home. Some already have a few children of their own, and they want to provide a better home environment for their families and children. Indeed, owning a home is a milestone that brings pride and joy for them.
We will continue supporting them to realise this aspiration, by providing various housing grants for first-time flat buyers.
Additionally, for families staying in public rental, the HDB’s Home ownership Support Team provides one-to-one guidance on how they can plan and work towards buying a flat.
For those who make a down payment for a new flat, HDB will not increase their rent for the rest of their stay in rental housing.
I would like to assure all young Singaporeans who are planning to or starting a family, that the dream of owning their own homes can be achieved, through their own efforts, and complemented by support from the Government.
(In English): Working together with citizens, the community and various partners, we remain committed to strengthen our support for vulnerable citizens, uplift lower income families and meet the housing needs of all Singaporeans.
The Chairman: Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mr Chairman, I will now elaborate on the Ministry's plans on how we are transforming the construction industry to create more jobs and opportunities for our firms and our local workforce.
Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Xie Yao Quan spoke about the Construction Industry Transformation Map, or ITM. The ITM was launched in 2017 to rally the construction sector around the shared goal of developing future-ready capabilities that would transform our Built Environment. We have made steady progress. We have greened over 40% of our buildings. This has involved making use of sustainable technologies and designs, such as more energy-efficient systems to cool and ventilate our buildings. The overall energy use intensity of our buildings has improved by 10% over the past decade.
At the worksite, we have seen a 7% improvement in productivity since 2017. This is driven by the adoption of innovative building approaches like Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, or DfMA for short, and digital technologies like Integrated Digital Delivery, or IDD.
DfMA allows building components to be prefabricated off-site in automated facilities and subsequently assembled on-site. This raises productivity, improves workmanship and reduces disamenities to residents near construction sites. DfMA adoption has doubled over the last three years, from 19% in 2017 to 39% in 2020.
IDD connects the various parts of the building lifecycle together via a digital spine. This facilitates coordination among project stakeholders which improves accuracy of design and planning and reduces abortive work downstream. We have built up IDD competencies in more than 150 firms through 48 demonstration projects over the last three years.
A good example is Techniques Air-conditioning & Engineering Pte Ltd, an SME specialising in the installation of mechanical services. When I spoke to them earlier, they shared they have tapped on BCA's Productivity Innovation Project, or PIP scheme. They have switched over to a prefabricated mechanical, electrical and plumbing, or MEP system. Techniques shared with me that onsite works involving the installation of pipes and ducts took about two to three weeks in the past. Time was needed to erect the scaffolding, perform welding and insulation works and conduct regular tests on the installation.
Today, with the use of prefabricated vertical riser modules, such works are done well within a single day onsite. Techniques has also leveraged the Building Information Modelling (BIM) and automation through its use of computer numerical control, or CMC machines to raise productivity. Cutting instructions to the machines can be automatically generated from a 3D building model, allowing changes to be made quickly and accurately. What used to take one-and-a-half hours using manual templates can be done in just 15 minutes, and precision is much better than previously. Furthermore, Techniques shared with me that they have been able to remotely coordinate with other firms and reduce the number of workers required onsite, making it easier to adhere to safe management measures, especially during this period.
Techniques' experience is not unique. Without these earlier investments, many of our firms would have been more severely disrupted during the challenging COVID-19 period.
As many Members, like Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Xiao Yao Quan and Ms Poh Li San have pointed out, although we have made good progress, we need to pick up the pace of transformation. We are making a greater whole-of-nation push on environmental sustainability – with the Singapore Green Plan 2030.
The Built Environment sector plays an important role in achieving our vision of a greener and more sustainable Singapore. There is also greater urgency to strengthen the resilience of our sector, particularly in reducing reliance on foreign workers.
In the near term, we expect our foreign manpower situation to remain in flux, while COVID-19 travel restrictions are still in place. To alleviate the current labour shortage in the construction industry, we are working closely with MOM and MOH to progressively increase the number of incoming workers but in a safe way, to minimise the risks of COVID-19 transmission in our dormitories and into our community.
At the same time, we want to ensure that migrant workers who are already in Singapore can continue to work here if they choose to. We have invested significantly to keep them safe and they are familiar with our local work culture and environment.
In this respect, we are working closely with the Singapore Contractors Association Limited, or SCAL, to facilitate a change of employer for construction workers whose contracts have either expired or were terminated through the SCAL Manpower Exchange.
However, even as we work closely with our firms to overcome near-term challenges, we recognise that COVID-19 has hastened the shift towards a manpower-lean approach to construction, not just in Singapore, but across many other countries.
Recently, a local subsidiary of a large Chinese construction firm shared with me that the Chinese construction industry is facing a labour crunch. Imagine, even in one of the world's largest labour markets. The median age of the parent company's few million workers in China is 46.5 years old. The managing director lamented to me that it was increasingly difficult to attract young people into the sector, even with competitive wages. Even fewer of them wanted to come and work in Singapore. Like what we are doing in Singapore, the firm is ramping up its investments in DfMA automation and digitalisation in China so as to reduce its reliance on manpower and to build with sustainability in mind.
Mr Chairman, Sir, these are long-term structural shifts confronting our Built Environment sector, accelerated by COVID-19. In the spirit of emerging stronger, we have to seize this window of opportunity to transform. Let me elaborate on how we plan to do so.
First, we will raise standards of sustainability and productivity. Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Xie Yao Quan asked about the Green Building Masterplan and how we plan to curb building emissions.
Over the past year, BCA and the Singapore Green Building Council have engaged over 5,000 stakeholders, ranging from developers, consultants, builders, members of the public, especially our young people. There is strong support for our Green Building agenda, and a collective desire to ramp up our efforts to combat climate change in Singapore.
But green buildings make commercial sense too. Green buildings reap net savings over their life-cycle, despite the higher upfront cost. For example, a large office building of over 15 storeys can save around $300,000 in operating costs annually by achieving the Green Mark Platinum standard.
Last year, we announced that we would raise minimum energy performance requirements for new buildings and existing buildings that undergo major retrofitting. Under these revised requirements, all new buildings will be 50% more energy-efficient than the 2005 baseline. This is equivalent to our current Green Mark Platinum standard. These requirements will apply to new developments submitted for planning approval from the fourth quarter of this year.
Additionally, we will update the Green Mark scheme. The scheme recognises buildings that pursue sustainability standards beyond the minimum requirements. As Mr Henry Kwek has pointed out, our Green Mark scheme is amongst the world’s leading green building certifications, and a go-to standard for green buildings in the tropics. The Green Mark scheme already encourages reduction of not just operational carbon, but also embodied carbon, through the use of low-carbon materials and sustainable construction. Mr Henry Kwek will also be pleased to know that it already promotes the use of natural ventilation as a passive strategy to cool buildings and improve energy savings. The revised scheme will raise energy performance standards and place greater emphasis on other aspects of sustainability, such as health and well-being, and how the buildings are designed for long-term maintainability.
We intend to trial these new standards from the second quarter of this year, and will take into account industry feedback before we implement the revised scheme. BCA will provide more details in the coming months.
We will also continue our efforts to green our existing stock of buildings. An important step is to enhance data transparency on building energy performance. Currently, we collect and publish the energy performance data of our commercial and institutional buildings. Going forward, we will identify all buildings in the data that we publish, beginning with commercial buildings from the second half of this year. This will allow building owners to benchmark their buildings against others at no additional cost, and spur them to improve their energy efficiency.
We are also exploring other ways to encourage building owners to conduct energy audits and retrofit their buildings to improve energy performance. We will continue to engage the industry and public to ensure that our plans remain relevant over time as we transition to a more sustainable, low carbon Built Environment.
Next, let me touch on raising productivity in our sector.
We have seen good productivity outcomes from adopting DfMA and aim to make DfMA the default building method for larger projects. Under the Buildability framework, projects with Gross Floor Area or GFA of at least 5,000 sqm, are required to meet minimum Buildable Design Scores or B-scores through the adoption of labour-efficient designs and technologies. To drive DfMA adoption, we have raised the minimum B-score for large residential, non-landed developments with GFA of at least 25,000 sqm from December 2019. We will raise the minimum B-score for large commercial, institutional and industrial developments with GFA of at least 25,000 sqm next year, starting from April 2022. This means that, eventually, around 80% of the GFA of all projects submitted for approval will be subject to the higher minimum B-score.
BCA will consult the industry in the coming months before firming up the enhanced standards. This move will help us achieve our target of 70% DfMA adoption by 2025.
We are also working closely with the industry to step up our digitalisation and IDD efforts. As mentioned by Minister Indranee Rajah, the Digitalising Built Environment Alliance for Action or AfA has identified common data environment (CDE) data standards as a key enabler to drive digitalisation across the entire value chain. The common data standards specify what information is required for a project and how it can be structured. Wide adoption of these common standards will facilitate information flow across platforms and enable seamless collaboration amongst the various supply chain partners.
Ms Poh Li San asked about the support we are providing to local SMEs. SMEs make up 98% of our construction firms and play a very critical role in our sector. Our firms, especially SMEs, can tap on the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) for support to adopt productive technologies and develop their workforce. For example, the Productivity Innovation Project (PIP) scheme, helps to defray the costs of adopting DfMA and IDD technologies. Techniques Air-Conditioning & Engineering Pte Ltd, which I mentioned earlier, is a very good example.
Since its launch in 2010, we have supported over 10,000 firms and disbursed close to two-thirds of the approximately $850 million we have been allocated in funding.
To support our firms, especially our SMEs, we will extend the CPCF by another year till March 2022. We will also continue to enhance co-funding support of 80% under the PIP scheme. I encourage all firms to make full use of the CPCF to undertake productivity improvements.
Mr Henry Kwek talked about the difficulty in encouraging Singaporeans to join the construction industry. Mr Xie Yao Quan also asked what types of new jobs in the sector that Singaporeans can look forward to. It is common to associate jobs in the construction sector with the \"three Ds\": \"dirty, dangerous and demanding\".
However, as part of this transformation effort, the industry has made strides in redesigning existing jobs and creating new and higher-skilled jobs with better working environments. There are many exciting career pathways in areas such as Digital Delivery Management and Smart Facilities Management. Many of these job roles did not even exist a decade ago.
I recently met Mr Lee Kong Jian, a bright NTU graduate with a background in Civil Engineering. He is working at an Integrated Construction and Prefabrication Hub (ICPH), operated by local contractor Soilbuild Construction Group. Kong Jian is a DfMA engineer in ICPH. His day-to-day job, or day-to-day work, involves using various digital platforms to manage the prefabrication production and delivery of precast concrete components, optimising the process for efficiency while maintaining quality standards for his clients. His job will not be out of place in a high-tech manufacturing factory. So, think about it – creating good, exciting jobs for Singaporeans.
And we are stepping up our efforts to attract local PMETs and more tech-savvy young Singaporeans to join the Built Environment sector. As at end 2020, there were about 7,500 jobs and training opportunities in the construction industry under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package. Please take a look at it, there are many exciting job roles, for example, Digital Delivery Specialist, Logistics Supply Chain Planner and Environmental Specialist. Exciting job roles for Singaporeans. Good jobs, high skills in demand.
We are also investing in our local workforce to acquire the relevant skills in many areas, especially those that are in demand – green buildings, DfMA and IDD. In September last year, we rolled out the Skills Framework for the Built Environment. The framework promotes recognition of skills development to enhance career progression opportunities.
BCA is working with the various Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) to align accreditation schemes with the various progression pathways and skill requirements for the various job roles. We will continue to build a strong talent pipeline through our iBuildSG Scholarship and Sponsorship Programme. As of January 2021, we have awarded more than 3,600 scholarships and sponsorships to local students.
But we are not just only focusing on new entrants into the sector. We are taking pains and effort to upgrade our existing workforce as well. I had the privilege of speaking to Ms Kartini, a 45-year-old lady who has been working as a 2D drafter at infrastructure consulting firm, AECOM Singapore, for the last 18 years. She was bubbly, passionate. With the support from her firm and her supervisor whom I spoke to as well, Ms Kartini enrolled in the Professional Conversion Programme, or PCP, for BIM Professionals to upgrade her skillsets for 3D drafting. Today, Ms Kartini is redeployed as a BIM modeller at AECOM. When I spoke to her, there was a palpable sense of satisfaction and pride in having achieved the skills upgrade. She shared with me that her children are very proud of her, and she was very proud of herself. She learnt valuable skills from 2D drafting to 3D modelling, and she shared that 3D modelling enabled them to troubleshoot problems early in the construction process compared to previous ways of doing things. So, we are bringing new entrants into the Built Environment sector by making the effort to train our local workforce and the existing workforce in new skills and new job roles. I urge more firms to tap on these training programmes to upskill their mid-career staff to take on these roles.
Through these collective efforts, we aim to train 80,000 professionals in the key transformation areas under the ITM by 2025. And we are making good progress. The Government is committed to working hand in hand with our tripartite partners, industry associations, firms and unions to transform the Built Environment sector. We envisage a high-tech and integrated construction eco-system, led by progressive local firms with a strong local core, poised to capture even more opportunities abroad as we transform our sector. We hope, and I personally hope, that when we come to talk about jobs in the construction sector, we are no longer associating them with the \"three Ds\" of \"dirty, dangerous and demanding\", but a refreshed set of three Ds: desirable jobs, in-demand skills and dynamic careers, allowing us to tap on the imagination, passion and capabilities of our firms and Singaporeans to build a much greener, vibrant and sustainable Singapore for tomorrow.
The Chairman: Clarifications? Ms Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Thank you, Chairman. I have one clarification for Minister Desmond Lee. For companies that are in the Built Environment who are on existing support schemes, if they actually have the intent to improve and invest on capabilities for the longer term, can they actually move from the existing schemes to the integrated GTS support and how should they go about that?
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Sir, we have the Build.SG office in BCA. We set it up a few years ago to provide more integrated support for our firms and our workforce who would like to go on to this transformation journey. So, certainly, in relation to the GPC Chairman's question, if there are firms that are keen to participate in the GTS – and remember that the GTS is not a firm-based scheme but an Alliance-based scheme from developer to consultant to builder and subcontractors, the whole eco-system that they work with to make their projects come true – if they can transform together, then approach BCA, approach the BuildSG office and we will work with them.
The Chairman: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I do not believe any of the officeholders have addressed my proposals about the Temporary Development Levy (TDL). First, I have asked whether the TDL applicants will discuss the split of the TDL between the landlord and the tenant; second, to give businesses a choice of temporary permission of between three and five years to align with typical commercial tenancy agreements; and third, to give deserving businesses rebates or deferments of their TDL if they need it.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his suggestions which we will take on board and we will study the support that may still be needed for firms.
But just some background, the TDL framework, as had been our response to the Member's Parliamentary Question, I think, last month or the month before is something that we allow the landlord and the tenant to work out. And by and large, it is typically the business owner who will pay for the TDL. In terms of the duration, URA evaluates planning applications according to the planning intentions for the site, the area the site is situated in and the prevailing policies and guidelines for the proposals. And in considering the length of the temporary permission to be granted, URA looks at it from a risk-based approach based on the potential impact of the proposal on surrounding developments. So, for cases involving a TDL, URA typically gives businesses options to decide on the length of the TDL or the temporary permission that they require which typically varies from one to five years.
But on a holistic basis, when it comes to support for firms in relation to land costs and rental, MOF had rolled out a rental relief framework for SMEs under COTMA, which is the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act. There was a property tax rebate available to qualifying firms and, under the Re-align Framework by MinLaw, small and micro businesses may re-negotiate leases for non-residential properties with a term of five years or less. So, they can then realign contracts with existing business conditions through mutual agreement with counterparties. If they cannot reach agreement, then they can terminate it and unwind.
So, that is the existing framework but let us look at the Member's specific proposal.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. I believe my cut on cat ownership in HDB flats was not answered but I assume the answer is still a \"no\" and, if it is still a \"no\", could I at least ask whether we can extend the current pilot in Chong Pang, where HDB residents are allowed to keep cats, to other constituencies? I would volunteer my own constituency of Nee Soon East and, maybe, the Member of Parliament for Kembangan/Chai Chee will volunteer as well.
The Chairman: Again, I have to emphasise I remain neutral on this topic.
Mr Desmond Lee: I mean, my MND colleagues and I do not intend to play a cat-and-mouse game with the Member on this question. [Laughter.] As I have said previously, we are studying this issue. We want to enable pet ownership in a responsible way but we also have to balance a couple of other considerations, including municipal as well as neighbourhood issues. We certainly are studying this proactively.
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Chairman. I just have a quick follow-up question for Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
I appreciate her response that commercial facilities may require footfall and, hence, some commercial facilities may not be attractive on upper floors of MSCPs. But, surely, a cafe or a laundromat on the upper decks of an MSCP that is just downstairs of a flat would really be attractive to someone, compared to one located 400 m away.
I have many residents that shared that they miss the convenience of having a mama shop just downstairs of their place. So, in the spirit of pilot suggestions, I wonder if HDB would consider a pilot, perhaps in Sengkang, for this kind of possibility of commercial spaces in MSCPs.
Ms Sim Ann: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. As shared, where we place the commercial facilities in any town would have to take into account the shops that have already been planned for and also in terms of the space that is proposed, whether, for instance, it was built for that purpose and, if it is not built for that purpose, what kind of modifications would be required in order to achieve that purpose.
In the case of MSCPs, for instance, we may have to look at loading factor, provision of water and also, very importantly, because the space may not have been originally intended for commercial purposes, what would be the impact to residents in terms of people moving in and out and so forth? So, I think we would be prepared to look at specific proposals if the Member has something to share or a plan to share. But what I have shared would be the general factors for consideration.
The Chairman: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: I have two clarifications. One is for Senior Minister Sim Ann – Madam, please do not go away yet. Just wanted to ask about the spalling concrete. When the residents complained about spalling concrete, it is like going to drop onto their head and, frequently, they want a solution fast. But the reality is that when we complained to HDB about the spalling concrete, they take a while for someone to come, inspect the place, then arrange for a contractor to come. In the meanwhile, the resident says that \"Hey, look, you know, this thing is going to drop on my head. It is gonna to injure me and it is going to hurt me any time.\" So, is there any way that we can ask HDB to do a more comprehensive programme whereby we can try to put a stop to the issue of spalling concrete?
The second clarification that I require is from Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim. This is regarding the rental flats. I understand the proposal to have a partition in the 1-room flat. But may I ask the Minister of State what is the response of residents to this 1-room flat being partitioned? Because at the end of the day, the residents who share a 1-room flat have to share toilets, they have got to share the kitchen as well, and we are not going to be able to say that \"Look, you know, my soap is here and the shampoo is somewhere else.\" They have to share facilities. Frequently, the feedback that I get is that they are unhappy about having to share and that is why some of them then moved out from the flat and sleep in the void deck. So, is that really the solution that we want? So, perhaps Minister of State can clarify that for me.
Ms Sim Ann: Thank you, Mr Lim, for your follow-up question.
When it comes to spalling concrete, we help our residents beyond the goodwill repair assistance scheme, which I should also add households can benefit from more than once. We are also assisting by researching into better repair methods so as to be able to advise the contractors accordingly. I have also shared more comprehensive plans are being looked at but that would be further down the line because that would be for our HIP2 and more details will be shared closer to commencement. However, we do take the Member's feedback very seriously and I will come and visit the units that you have mentioned, together with HDB, to ensure that residents' concerns are being addressed.
The Chairman: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Chairman, I thank the Member for the question.
As I have shared in my speech, we have built new rental flats with partition. At the same time, we have received requests to do it at the older rental flats. We still do. So far, the feedback has been positive. One point to note is that a majority of those who live in rental flats, especially under the JSS, they are able to live together. However, there are times that individuals may not be able to live together. We constantly look at it, engage them and, at the same time, we explore areas where we can help to improve the condition or privacy provided. So, what we found is that what they need are places where they can rest with privacy and also, at the same time, are able to use the facilities available in the flat. So, using of the toilet, using of the kitchen, I think they are okay sharing it. But, essentially, what we found is that, which I shared earlier, when they want to rest, they want to sleep, I think what is important is they want to have their private space in there.
On our part, we will continue to look at avenues to improve it, not only within the rental flats but also outside the rental flats, which we have done for some, and we find that these are areas where the tenants feel and appreciate it, and we will not stop there.
The Chairman: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Mr Chairman, Sir, I have a supplementary question for Minister of State Tan Kiat How regarding R&D and its role within the context of the Industry Transformation Map.
Now, I am very heartened to hear that tremendous resources have been put into the adoption of DfMA, IDD and the Green Plan. But R&D is also a key part for us to achieve industry transformation beyond adoption. Both the research as well as the development, which is more like localisation of international technology within the Singapore context, within our Singapore realities. So, can the Minister of State share on how are we promoting R&D and technology pilots within the context of industry transformation?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for his question.
As Minister Desmond Lee has pointed earlier in his speech, investing in innovation to spur growth and transformation is an important part of building a resilient Built Environment sector and we will continue to invest in R&D and innovation to drive growth for our sector, particularly in transformative technologies. A key focus area is the development of technologies that will help us to build faster, safer and using less manpower.
I think Minister Indranee Rajah spoke about the Cities of Tomorrow R&D programme, and we support R&D efforts through that programme on advanced construction techniques, particularly for robotics, automation, 3D concrete printing and digitalisation. These are some of the areas, I think, Member Ms Poh Li San spoke about just now in her cut.
Minister Indranee Rajah spoke about the noise cancellation window just now. And let me give another example of some of the innovation and R&D work that our colleagues have been doing. This is called the anti-sway device – \"sway\" is S-W-A-Y; not \"suay\" for bad luck in Hokkien!
HDB and BCA are collaborating with researchers from NUS, A*STAR SIMTech and industry partners, such as Precast Concrete and Dragages to develop an anti-sway device to stabilise the movement of prefabricated pre-finished volumetric construction, or PPVC modules during hoisting operations. The anti-sway device which will be fitted on cranes and hooked onto the PPVC modules includes a self-balancing system that reduces the manpower required to manually stabilise the modules. It does not sound as exciting compared to the noise cancellation windows, but an important investment in R&D in the Built Environment sector. Just one example to share with the Member.
However, the Member also pointed out a very important point about not just R&D but translating it into use on the ground, working together with our private sector partners and our companies.
To achieve meaningful impact, we are stepping up efforts to support deployment of innovative urban solutions. In September last year, we launched the Built Environment Living Laboratory Framework or Living Lab Framework to facilitate the test bedding of innovative proposals in \"government living labs\", such as designated areas within Punggol town and the Jurong Lake District. The Living Lab Framework helps to strengthen partnerships between the public and private sector, and creates opportunities to harness and trial new, emerging technologies to jointly develop cities for tomorrow.
This is achieved by providing a convenient one-stop service for submission of test-bedding proposals and reducing regulatory burden on firms. The Living Lab Framework will be supported by the existing inter-agency Building Innovation Panel to facilitate multi-agency regulatory clearances for more complex solutions, and I encourage more firms to tap on this Living Lab Framework to come forward with good proposals.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Thank you, Chairman. I have one clarification for Minister Lee. I think the Minister talked about the aspirations of home ownership and meeting them. But at the same time, given the current socio-economic trends, I think rentals in a sharing economy, this is also something which is gaining traction amongst younger Singaporeans. So, again, to quote Westlife, a \"world of our own\" may mean not just owned flats but also rental flats. Is MND considering expanding the supply of rental flats to meet this demographic trend and also the demands of the public rental scheme?
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for highlighting the diversity of aspirations, which we all see amongst younger Singaporeans. When you talk about rental flats, a lot of us in this House relate to rental housing for lower income households. That is one. But the other means through which HDB rents out flats is the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). It is a scheme that allows young couples who desire some privacy and to be able to set up their family. While waiting for the BTO flat to be completed, they are able to access these flats and rent a flat for those few years at subsidised rates. There was initially slow, low interest at first, but it has become an option of interest to many young couples who are currently living with parents – they are now able to live together and set up their own home in with their own privacy for those few years.
PPHS flats, we source them opportunistically. From flats that have been SERS-ed, we hold back the redevelopment because it is not needed immediately, and we use those flats in order to provide the PPHS option. And because there is great interest in PPHS flats, particularly during this period when there is COVID-19 and there are delays in construction, HDB will look at ways to increase PPHS supply.
But I think the Member makes a broader point which is a diversity of housing options on the longer term basis, for people who may feel that home ownership is not for them or not for them at that point in time, and they would prefer to rent. There is a rental market out there for people to rent smaller units, both in the private market, as well as HDB flats. Those are available.
HDB continues to look at various housing options. To provide diversity, we have over the years, provided even more choice in terms of length of lease, in terms of the social accompaniments to housing, in relation to rental for young couples, in relation to rental housing for the lower income. And so, we continuously look at the aspirations of Singaporeans and see how we can provide the support for those aspirations.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make the cut so late in the day, but I would like to ask the Minister regarding my cut earlier, with regard to the EIP question, I suggested an EIP price harmonisation grant for the minority residents who are affected by the EIP, so that we can reduce any indirect negative market effects of the EIP, and also encourage them to sell their flats at a lower price to buyers of the same ethnic group.
The reason why I asked is because I have been approached by a number of my residents who either Malay, Eurasian or Indian who are elderly and middle-aged and they want to downgrade. And they are having difficulty selling their flats, waiting up to six to nine months even. I am aware that on a case-by-case basis, the Minister mentioned just now, time extensions, case-by-case basis, and look at them intensely on a case-by-case basis. But in principle, is MND looking for any sort of help or assistance to reduce, narrow some of these potential economic inequalities that may arise from the EIP?
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank his Member for his care and concern for seniors, in particular those who might be impacted by EIP which seeks to serve a bigger social objective. We are grateful that Singaporeans, all these decades, have been supportive of multi-culturalism and of the different institutions that we put in place in order to act as a bulwark to protect Singapore and to keep Singapore cohesive.
Having said that, we are very mindful that in certain instances, the EIP can legitimately impact some households. We look at the individual's circumstances. We look at the recent resales that have been similarly affected by EIP in the neighbourhood, and look at the price points. We look at a range of considerations and in extenuating circumstances, we provide support.
Having said that, we are always reviewing our policies, looking at how, for institutions, including one as important as EIP, we can continue to find new ways and ideas so that public support continues to be behind such important institutions.
Ms Poh Li San: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Minister of State on the clarification on how the Government can incentivise SMEs to improve productivity and drive innovation. I also thank Minister Desmond Lee's sharing of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan's targets to meet the 80-80-80 goals. However, I believe my question on how we can ensure that property prices for our public housing can remain affordable inclusive and livable, may not have been answered. How can we do that while incorporating all these very ideal, new building requirements?
Mr Desmond Lee: Certainly, accessible and affordable and inclusive housing in our HDB estates is a very important objective of the Housing and Development Board. The efforts to transform and upgrade our Built Environment sector should not impact upon the pricing approach for HDB flats. I explained quite recently in this House, how HDB prices its flats. It does not look at land costs or construction costs. It prices flats based on affordability – looking at, for example, the percentage of household income that our typical households have to fork out to pay for their flats, as well as the household income to price index, to see how many years of income it typically takes to pay for a flat. We look at the market value of the flat based on its attributes as well as recent resales around the estate, and then make adjustments for the attributes of the flat, and then apply the subsidies in order to bring it to the affordable level.
The Chairman: Miss Cheryl Chan, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Chairman, I want to thank all the Members who have spoken in the MND COS. As we can all appreciate the work that MND deals with is both broad and complex, as it touches every person's lives on a daily basis, and more importantly throughout their entire life stage. So, I think from housing to workplaces, the construction industry, trees, animals and land use. There is always a constant need for us to tightly balance this, between demand as well as availability. And at the same time, we have to reimagine the city of the future.
So, for that, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Minister Desmond Lee, Second Minister Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, Minister of State Faishal, Minister of State Tan, and especially, the hardworking team from the MND family. Sir, earlier today, we discuss much about celebrating the hawker culture, and since it is almost dinner time, I would like to end here, so that everyone can go for more hawker food. And with that Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw amendment.
The Chairman: It is actually past dinner time. [Laughter.]
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $$4,148,756,900 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $9,072,729,400 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.\" [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2021/2022, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 10.00 am tomorrow.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, much of what we enjoy today in Singapore is owed to the strong adherence to the Rule of Law. Judicial review by the Supreme Court represents an important tenet of the Rule of Law that all power must have legal limits.
In our Westminster-styled Government, Executive action is generally reviewable by the Judiciary, which is vested with judicial power under Article 93 of the Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution states that any law enacted by this House which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void.
Judicial review does not mean that the Court substitutes its decision for the Executive's decision. What it means is that the Court has a right to satisfy itself of the legality, rationality, and procedural propriety of the Executive's decision. If it is not satisfied, it can strike such action down as being of no effect.
In comparison, Parliament, to which the Executive is accountable to, does not have such a power, although it has other tools. Also, structurally, the Executive is drawn from the majority of elected Members of Parliament in Parliament; a feature that Walter Bagehot referred to as the \"efficient secret of the English Constitution\" upon which the Westminster-styled Government is based on.
In Singapore, most Government actions are subject to judicial review. For example, it is well established that the Minister's decision to detain a person under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act or CLTPA, in the interest of public safety, peace and good order is reviewable by the Court in certain respects. It is noteworthy that even where public safety and peace are at threat, is recognised that the Minister's decisions based on such matters may be judicially reviewed by the Court. This provides an important safeguard against abuse of power and strengthens the Rule of Law in Singapore.
There are, however, a handful of statutes containing provisions that expressly restrict or exclude judicial review. In my speech, I would refer to these clauses as ouster clauses. The big elephant in the room, of course, the Internal Security Act or the ISA. Given the impact of such provisions on the Rule of Law, I think it is desirable that this House regularly conduct a review of the ouster clauses against current circumstances to ensure that there continues to be a need for such exceptions to exist and strike an appropriate balance between efficiency and accountability.
In my respectful view, it is important for each generation of political leaders and people to find their own equilibrium of what our people would accept without question, under what circumstances and towards what ends.
Fellow Singaporeans' desires and expectations are by no means static. Our Prime Minister, in his speech as Secretary-General of the PAP at its 36th Ordinary Party Conference in November 2020, acknowledged this. He stated that Singaporeans today have expressed a desire to, amongst others, re-examine basic assumptions, look beyond, tried and tested ways of doing things and have greater checks and balances. He also said that the PAP Government must change and respond to these desires and expectations.
Law derives its power not merely from the fact that it is enforceable by the state apparatus, but, fundamentally, from our people's willingness to accept the law and the authority of our institutions as legitimate.
Today, our people trust all three pillars of our Government to enact, use and enforce laws to ensure that we remain a fair and just, safe and secure society. We must not take this trust for granted. As Members of this House, we are the people's representatives and part of the eco-system that ensures our people's acceptance of the legitimacy of laws and institutions.
Before looking at the statutes in question, I think it is worthwhile mentioning that, thus far, the Government has taken a careful approach to clauses ousting judicial review. Even in relation to the CLTPA, in respect of which, hon Members may recall, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment quashing the Minister's detention order in 2015. The hon Minister, when he moved the Bill in this House 2018 to extend the validity of CLTPA for another five years, he made it very clear that his decisions under the Act may continue to be judicially reviewed on the three established grounds.
I read this as a deliberate decision on the part of the Government to keep the exceptions to what it considers to be necessary in public interest. I commend this approach.
With that, let me move straight to the ISA. I wish to state upfront that I believe that there remains a cogent basis to maintain the status quo for ISA. The ISA is an extraordinary piece of legislation that is aimed at ensuring Singapore's stability and security. I closely read the debate introducing the ouster clause in the ISA in 1989, particularly the speech of the then Minister of Home Affairs, the hon Prof S Jayakumar.
In a bitingly frank response to points made by hon Members of Parliament, he recognised that there could be a prospect of the powers under ISA being misused. At the same time, he stated that ISA deals with issues where national security is involved and putting a Court to scrutinise exercise of powers will be tantamount to giving the Court, an unelected body, the final say on such matters. That, in the scheme of things, is not desirable.
In the result, Parliament not only passed the legislation introducing the ouster clause into the ISA but also introduced Article 149(3) of the Constitution that expressly provides that \"nothing in Article 93 shall invalidate\" anti-subversion legislation, of which ISA is one.
That is not to say that the Minister will be given a carte blanche. In lieu of Court scrutiny, both the ISA and the Constitution prescribed safeguards, such as the involvement of an Advisory Board and the elected President. There could also be judicial review on the ground of non-compliance with procedural requirements under the ISA. In short, the ISA does not operate in darkness. There are checks and balances that involve, amongst others, the office of the Elected President.
Just a few weeks ago, we saw the Minister for Home Affairs exercise his detention power against a self-radicalised young person professing to be Christian who planned to attack Muslims with a machete at two mosques. Fellow Singaporeans would have been greatly disturbed by this attempt to sow discord and hatred between religious groups here. This case demonstrates that the continued relevance of ISA against the context of the ever-growing threat of radicalisation, extremism and terrorism on our shores.
The hon Minister for Home Affairs reminded us poignantly that these extremists \"have to succeed only once, but ISD has to succeed every single time\". Having regard to all these circumstances, I do not advocate a rebalance in favour of more judicial scrutiny for Executive action under the ISA.
Outside the realm of national security, we have statutes that contain ouster clauses excluding judicial review. Most times, the Parliamentary intention in enacting these ouster clauses is to allow the Executive to move quickly and efficiently and make final and dispositive decisions in national interest.
Let me demonstrate this by referring to three statutes: the Charities Act, the Immigration Act and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
The general purpose of the Charities Act is to register charities and regulate the conduct of their fund-raising activities. Under the Charities Act, the Commissioner has the power to prohibit persons from conducting any fund-raising if he is satisfied that the fund raising should not be conducted, generally, in public interest. His decision and that of the Minister, in this regard, is not subject to judicial review save in relation to compliance with any procedural requirement.
Senior Minister Teo, in his capacity as Minister of State for Finance, explained in 1994 when moving the Bill as follows, and I quote, \"Clause 40 will ensure that the merits of the decision cannot be reviewed. This is to avoid a situation where interested parties can through the Courts frustrate Government's decision to reject an application for a fund-raising permit.\"
Under the Immigration Act, the Government has the power to deal with immigration into and departure from Singapore. Exercise of such power, however, is not subject to judicial review. In justifying this position, the then Minister for Home Affairs, Prof Jayakumar stated in 1993 as follows, and I quote, \"The intention of this amendment is that the merits of the immigration decision, that is, whether it is right or wrong, cannot be reviewed. This is to avoid a situation where the Courts can frustrate Government's decision to expel aliens under the Act or other immigration decisions concerning aliens.\"
Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, decisions of the Minister and the Controller of Work Passes in relation to the issuance, suspension and revocation of work passes are not subject to judicial review. Dr Ng Eng Heng, then the Minister for Manpower in 2007, explained its rationale as follows, and I quote, \"For consistency, certain provisions that are currently under the Immigration Act are also replicated under this Act, including the exemption of the decisions of the Minister and the Controller of Work Passes in relation to the issuance, suspension and revocation of work passes from judicial review.\"
My concern here does not arise just because judicial review is ousted. I recognise that there could be areas outside the realm of national security where it may well be desirable in national interest for the Executive to act quickly and efficiently. However, what is as important is that we need ensure that powers vested by Parliament on the Executive will not be abused. This will be consistent with Singaporeans' desire that there should be more checks and balances.
We also need to explain to Singaporeans why a different approach is mandated when dealing with such matters whereas when it comes to Executive action on important matters, such as public safety, peace and good order under the CLTPA, it may be judicially reviewed.
Additionally, from time to time, powers vested with the Executive under statutes that exclude judicial review may be used in an evolving variety of scenarios. For example, today, under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, the Controller of Work Permits and the Minister use the powers not only to determine whether a non-Singaporean should or should not stay in Singapore – which was the focus of the debate in Parliament, when the clause was first enacted – these powers are also used now vis-a-vis additional developments that have arisen in our local context to penalise employers who have failed to discharge their duties to ensure their employees comply with SHN requirements, breached the Fair Consideration Framework, or treated workers unfairly when terminating their services, for example, disguised retrenchment.
For these employers, MOM has withdrawn work pass privileges. In other words, the target of the powers are no longer aliens, but in certain situations, it may extend to Singapore-based businesses and companies.
I have absolutely no quarrel with the invocation of the powers against such errant employers. However, given the variety of circumstances in which these powers are currently used, it would be apposite for Parliament to consider whether the original rationale behind the ouster clause should be extended to cover these new circumstances.
Personally, I am not convinced with the utility argument that has been advanced in Parliament to justify ouster clauses, that persons subject to the Executive’s order may abuse the Court's process by commencing unmeritorious judicial review action just to frustrate legitimate Government action. I would point out that that can happen even now since there can be judicial review on the narrower ground of procedural propriety. More importantly, our Court is well-equipped to handle unmeritorious cases that amount to an abuse of process. This may, amongst others, sanctioning not just the party but the counsel representing the party.
There is another reason why I think it is a good time to conduct the review of ouster clauses. There is a recent decision of the Supreme Court we in this House should take note of.
In 2019, a five-judge bench of the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Nagaenthran. In that case, the appellant, who was convicted for the capital offence of drug trafficking, sought a judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's decision not to issue a certificate of cooperation to him. This has an impact on whether the appellant would be imposed a death sentence or have that substituted with life imprisonment. It was argued on behalf of the Public Prosecutor that the provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act allowing the Public Prosecutor the discretion to decide whether to issue the certificate ousts judicial review.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the provision which the Public Prosecutor relied on was not an ouster clause. Significantly, however, the Court observed, as obiter, that if the clause was meant to exclude the Court's jurisdiction even if the Public Prosecutor exceeded his limits of power, that provision \"would be constitutionally suspect for being in violation of Article 93 as well as the principle of separation of powers.\" The Court proceeded to review the Public Prosecutor's action and held that there was no basis to interfere with his decision. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
I accept that the Court in Nagaenthran did not decide on the validity of any ouster clause. However, given the reasoning of the Court, this may be an opportune time for the Government to review its position on ouster clauses in the name of good governance and the rule of law. In this regard, I quote the hon the Chief Justice who stated as follows extrajudicially: \"In the final analysis, the robustness of a nation's rule of law framework depends greatly on how the other branches view the Judiciary and whether it in turn is able and willing to act honestly, competently and independently.\"
In conclusion, let me say that I am fully aware of the advantage that comes with ensuring that our Executive move speedily, flexibly and effectively to decide matters in the national interest. Our experience as a nation shows that such ability on the part of the Executive is vital given our country's well-known vulnerabilities. I also appreciate that the rule of law should not be viewed a panacea but is a means to an end which is to help to build a fair and just society, a system that works and a vibrant economy that will enable Singaporeans to realise their dreams.
I am not advocating a Western style of rule of law that may not suit our circumstances. My basic concern is to address the desire of Singaporeans for greater checks and balances. For statutes containing ouster clauses that do not deal with issues of national security, I would suggest a review. It may well be that for these statutes, we may have to emulate the approach taken in the ISA or the CLTPA or make relevant amendments to the Constitution to clarify the role of the Judiciary in reviewing the ouster clauses passed by the Legislature and the Executive action in question.
Ultimately, I believe that ensuring the sunlight of scrutiny on Executive action, be it by the Court or another high office, will strengthen the legitimacy of our laws. Our people will be able to rely on the authoritative findings of these institutions to satisfy themselves of the bona fides or otherwise of Government action and that there are, indeed legal limits placed on the powers vested in the Government.
This is how the Government should be held accountable. This is what Rule of Law means. And this is how we ensure a bright future for our country.
Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Sir, Mr Pillai has spoken about ouster clauses and asked if these could be reviewed.
His speech raises questions about the relationship between Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive, and the respective spheres that they inhabit.
These are important issues. They require a fuller discussion, beyond the time limited today under the Standing Orders. So, we will set out our position more substantively, on a future occasion.
Sir, as a Government, we have always been clear on our priorities and our focus. First, to have strong and effective governance, to get things done. Second, uplifting people's lives. Third, maintaining the security of the state. And finally, ensuring the safety of our people.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout on Singapore’s social and economic indicators?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 4.]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. These indicators show that we have succeeded in achieving our priorities, and more.
How do these priorities find expression in the system of government and political structure, that we have?
Like many others, our system is based on the separation of powers: three branches of government, each with its own sphere of power and responsibility. Our constitutional framework defines the responsibilities of each branch of government.
Parliament, which passes laws to promote these objectives. Through its power to amend the Constitution, Parliament also decides on the overarching framework for our system. The Executive, which administers the laws and formulates policies to secure these objectives. And the Judiciary, which applies the law faithfully, when disputes are brought before the Courts.
In some other systems, the focus has been to tightly circumscribe and police the Executive. This leads to gridlock and inaction and we do not subscribe to this.
Such an approach loses sight also of another key principle. For the governance system to work, there must be mutual trust and respect, for each branch's institutional expertise and competence. Power and responsibility must be divided, to empower each branch, not divide.
What are the reasons for our approach, Sir?
Our system must ensure that we can act quickly, move decisively to navigate challenges, to seize opportunities and avoid crises. But when crises cannot be avoided, to deal then with them efficiently and effectively.
Parliament and the Executive handle this, and they must account for the success or failure of their policies through the democratic process. In other words, the Executive answers to Parliament, and Parliament answers to voters in elections.
Our system should empower them to take effective action rather than to impair their ability to act through gridlock.
Sir, as I mentioned earlier, many other countries have taken different approaches, and struck a different balance. Their courts have embroiled themselves in the realm of politics and policy-making – not always with happy results.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout which contains some examples from these jurisdictions.
Mr Speaker: Please do. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 5.]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, in India, some commentators have said judicial activism has become judicial overreach, into policy areas. We have set out one example in the handout.
Judges of the Supreme Court have themselves commented that the Judiciary has strayed into the executive domain. There is a lengthy list, as Members will see from the handout, including nursery admissions, the number of free beds in hospitals, the size of speed-breakers on roads, and many others. I think Members will agree with me that for Singapore, it is best if these matters are left for the Executive to determine.
In Australia, the Government there has long been beset by litigation over immigration matters. Judicial review has been used by non-citizens to prolong their stay, at the cost of public resources.
Australia’s former Minister for Immigration Philip Ruddock has observed that such politically controversial matters, which involve competing objectives and values, were for Parliament to determine as representatives of the people, and I agree.
In England, former Supreme Court Judge, Lord Sumption, has detected, and I quote, \"a noticeable change of judicial mood\" in recent decades. The \"special cases\", once thought to be beyond the courts’ purview, such as foreign policy, \"have one by one yielded to the power of the judges\", unquote.
It is therefore no surprise that civil servants in the UK are now given a detailed 104-page guide – aptly or, perhaps, sardonically – titled \"Judge Over Your Shoulder\", or \"JOYS\" to help them assess legal risks. They have also had two rounds of law reform review on judicial review twice in the course of the last eight years.
Lord Sumption himself notes that this state of affairs is a product of political reality in the UK – judges have attempted to fill the gap left by politics, as the latter has lost its prestige. He makes a similar observation of the United States, and what he refers to as \"distortions\" in their governance structure that have resulted from political gridlock.
Sir, these approaches elsewhere are informed by different social and historical contexts. In Singapore, we have not gone down this route. We have been, and must remain careful to operate our system to maintain trust, and to keep a constructive balance between the three branches of Government.
The approach taken by our Courts has been instrumental to the success of the Singapore approach. Singapore Courts have been careful to strike an appropriate balance, between preserving the Government’s ability to act decisively in the public interest, whilst imposing adequate safeguards to check against unlawful action. It is a delicate but very important balance, that not many other jurisdictions have managed to strike successfully.
This judicial philosophy is best encapsulated in our Chief Justice’s remarks in a 2018 lecture, and I quote, \"… in Singapore… we have found that executive power can best be checked when courts eschew politics and secure a relationship of trust and respect between the three branches by recognising and maintaining the legitimate space of each.
… First, it means that Courts should not see themselves as antagonists whose role is to obstruct governmental action, but rather as equal partners with the other branches in the common project to promote efficient administration and good and proper governance, which the Judiciary contributes to by upholding the rule of law. Second, it means that the Judiciary should not be diffident about performing its constitutional role when called upon to invalidate unlawful action…
The difference is between a paradigm of confrontation and containment informed by mutual distrust and self-preservation and one of partnership and cooperation within a framework of governance and legality.”
The principles of administrative law in Singapore give expression to this overarching approach and is based on two fundamental principles flowing from the constitutional separation of powers.
First, the Executive must act within the law, and it is the role of the courts to say what the law is. The Courts can, in general, review executive action on three grounds: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Each of these grounds leaves wide latitude to the Executive.
Second, and equally importantly, the Courts recognise that the exercise of executive authority is ultimately the responsibility of the Executive and not the Courts. It is the Executive which is vested with executive authority under the Constitution; has an elected mandate, which is accountable to Parliament and at the polls; and has the institutional competence and resources to make judgement calls between the competing considerations that often arise in policy decisions. For this reason, the Courts have repeatedly emphasised that they do not substitute their judgment for that of the Executive, and are concerned with the decision-making process, and not its merits.
I refer Members back to part 2 of Annex 5, which sets out these key principles, and we agree with the approach that the Courts have taken. It avoids the quagmires often seen overseas, when judiciaries step into the spheres of other branches of government. It leaves matters that are rightly determined by democratically elected bodies in the hands of these elected representatives. And to paraphrase Mr Ruddock, politically controversial matters, which involve competing objectives and values, should be determined by Parliament.
Mr Pillai has referred to clauses which exclude or restrict one or more of the grounds for judicial review. The Court has held that such ouster or privative clauses are not per se wrong.
We have also taken a principled and calibrated approach to the use of such clauses, and they are proposed only after careful consideration of the policy objective behind each of the proposed clauses; whether alternative legislative tools may be employed to achieve this; and whether the clause may be calibrated to restrict only some of the bases for judicial review. Thereafter, they are subject to rigorous debate in this House, in Parliament, and passed into law with Parliament’s assent. Through this approach, trust – not just within the branches but vis-à-vis each branch and the population at large – has been nurtured and sustained.
Mr Pillai has referred to both the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA), which both provide for powers of detention. Such powers, as Mr Pillai has acknowledged, are necessary, to allow for pre-emptive action, to safeguard national security, and because criminal prosecution may not be possible, for example, due to evidential difficulties of admissibility. In these circumstances, Parliament, in accordance with its legislative power, vested the discretion to exercise powers of detention with the Executive.
Mr Pillai has also cited various other non-security related legislation containing privative clauses, notwithstanding that these are outside the realm of national security, where speed and efficiency are also critical considerations.
For a globalised city-state, thriving on open borders and human resources, immigration and foreign manpower – two areas that Mr Murali cited – are key areas of concern. They require a careful balancing of sensitive and polycentric considerations, such as foreign relations; transborder crime; economic and manpower planning; and protection of businesses and families.
Immigration and foreign manpower have serious implications for our society. The experience of Australia, on immigration challenges in Court, as explained in the handout at part 1 of Annex 5, illustrates why we take the approach that we do.
We have already seen xenophobia, social schisms develop in other countries and we are not immune to these pressures. It would not be appropriate to litigate such matters because the Courts do not have institutional capability to know of, to consider and to balance the many considerations and concerns involved.
Resolution of policy judgements by the Courts also lacks the democratic legitimacy of Parliament. As the Chief Justice noted in the lecture I mentioned earlier, Courts are not especially well placed to answer such social, economic and political questions.
Mr Pillai has asked for a review of the ouster clauses on our statute books. I would like to assure him that we already do this regularly. We will continue to review the need for such clauses and, where necessary, carefully calibrate these clauses to the intended policy objectives behind such an ouster.
I would add that we have, in fact, on occasion repealed ouster clauses when they are no longer necessary. This was the case for the former section 14(5) of the Employment Act.
Sir, to conclude, I would reiterate that of all three branches of Government, the Executive is best placed to make decisions and act quickly on policy matters. It is accountable to Parliament and to the people of Singapore.
We must continue to foster a system of governance which maintains a clear eye on outcomes – to improve our citizens’ lives – I refer Members again to the handout on Singapore’s social and economic indicators. This is proof of what we have achieved for Singapore with our political and governance system. It demonstrates that our political and judicial system promotes good governance and the rule of law, with clear and tangibly positive outcomes for Singapore. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: We have a few minutes left, any clarifications, Mr Pillai?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 10.00 am tomorrow.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.56 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals for Reduction of Minimum Occupation Period for HDB Flats Due to Changes in Homeowners’ Income Situations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"8 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many appeals does HDB receive each year for reduction of the minimum occupation period due to changes in homeowners’ income situations and need to downsize before five years is up; (b) whether there is an upward trend in 2020 due to loss of jobs and income; and (c) whether there are any efforts by HDB to provide financial counselling to young couples when they apply for their first flat.
Mr Desmond Lee: In both 2019 and 2020, HDB gave approval to about 260 households per year to sell their flat within their MOP, due to financial or medical reasons. Hence, no upward spike was observed in 2020 specifically. HDB will assist flat owners who face financial difficulties and need to right-size to a smaller flat during their MOP, and it does not actively track the number of unique appeals.
Flat buyers who wish to take up an HDB housing loan are required to apply for an HDB Loan Eligibility letter. This process will help them to plan their finances for the flat purchase. For buyers who require further guidance on their housing options, HDB conducts financial counselling to advise and work out their budgets based on the estimated HDB housing loan amount available to them. HDB also works with tertiary institutions and other agencies to reach out to prospective buyers and provide them with information to guide their housing and financing decisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Computation of HDB Loan Eligibility Based on Higher Incomes Prior to COVID-19 Effect","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB housing loan eligibility can be computed based on applicants’ higher income prior to their being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and re-adjusted, if need be, prior to their key collection.
Mr Desmond Lee: New flat buyers who wish to take up an HDB housing loan must have a valid HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) letter before they book a flat. The HLE letter provides them with key information to plan their housing budget, such as the maximum loan amount they are eligible for, the interest rate, repayment period, as well as the monthly instalment payable.
The maximum loan amount is derived based on flat buyers’ current income to provide flat buyers with a realistic indication of their housing budget, and to prevent them from over-committing on their flat purchase. While we empathise with flat buyers who have experienced income losses, it would not be to their benefit for HDB to grant them a larger loan amount based on their higher income levels before COVID-19, but subsequently reducing the loan quantum if their incomes have not recovered by key collection. This may result in flat buyers being unable to complete their flat purchase.
For financial prudence, home seekers should confirm their financing plan based on their current income before committing to a flat purchase and choose a flat that meets their needs and housing budget. For applicants with extenuating circumstances who may need further assistance to complete their flat purchase, HDB can assess their situation on a case-by-case basis and see how best to help them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Executive Condominiums to Meet Demand of HDB Upgraders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"10 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to increase the number of executive condominiums to meet the demand of HDB upgraders.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Housing & Development Board (HDB) work closely together to plan the supply and development of land for housing in Singapore. These plans ensure a good mix of public and private housing, including executive condominiums (ECs), and a wide range of supporting amenities to serve the needs of the residents.
In planning for the supply of land for ECs, the Government takes into consideration many factors, such as existing unsold stock, take-up rate of new EC units, and prevailing economic and housing market conditions, which can fluctuate from year to year.
The Government will continue to monitor the EC market closely and adjust the supply of ECs in future Government Land Sales (GLS) Programmes as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current State of Flora and Fauna in Singapore and Native Plants that Have Become Extinct","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a study on the current state of native species of flora and fauna in Singapore; (b) if so, how many known species of native plants are currently endangered; and (c) how many native species of plants have become extinct since Singapore's independence.
Mr Desmond Lee: NParks conducts biodiversity surveys regularly to take stock of our native flora and fauna species. There are an estimated 35,000 to 45,000 species of flora and fauna native to Singapore. Based on the 2019 publication \"Flora of Singapore\", 258 known species of native plants are currently classified as \"endangered\", 722 species are classified as \"critically endangered\", and 565 species are \"presumed nationally extinct\", as they have not been recorded in the last 30 years.
NParks will continue to improve the long-term viability of our threatened plant species, through conservation efforts such as the Species Recovery Programme. This programme aims to increase the number of these plants through propagating and reintroducing them into their original habitats, as well as suitable new habitats across Singapore. NParks will also continue to engage the community through education and outreach programmes to improve awareness and encourage participation in biodiversity conservation efforts, as we transform into a City in Nature.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Collection on Number of Drug Users Whose Parents were Themselves Drug Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what progress has the Ministry made on collecting data on the number of drug users whose parents were themselves drug users; and (b) whether the Government will use this information in reviewing its policies to address drug abuse.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) do not collect data on the number of drug users whose parents were themselves drug users.
However, in 2017, SPS conducted a study on how parental drug abuse impacts the next generation. The study investigated the prevalence of offending amongst children (aged 12 years old and above) with drug-abusing parents, based on a 10-year cohort of drug admissions into prison between 2008 and 2017.
The study found that about one in five (21.6%) drug-abusing parents had at least one child who had committed offences (i.e. incarcerated in prison, sent to a juvenile home or placed under probation).
In the study, children with drug-abusing parents reported weakened attachment to their parents due to parent-child separation when one or both parents were incarcerated, and they often felt lonely and neglected. As a result of their parents' drug abuse, the children also reported being exposed to drug utensils and drugs at home. This increased their tolerance towards drug abuse and the likelihood of them abusing drugs subsequently.
The study also revealed several factors that increase the risk of child offending. Children who have offended were found to have engaged in and maintained their offending behaviour as a result of inadequate supervision and control by their parents or caregiver. Further, growing up in a household with drug abuse or having anti-social influences in their immediate circle of friends increased the risk of the children engaging in offending behaviour. The children may also follow in the footsteps of their drug-abusing parents due to a desire to connect with them.
The study identified possible protective factors that could mitigate the impact of parental drug abuse and incarceration on the child. These include having strong social support to ensure that the child remains well-taken care of emotionally, physically and mentally, and keeping the child engaged and occupied with pro-social activities.
The findings of the study affirmed much of SPS's ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of offending on an offender's family. SPS facilitates the prompt identification and referral of the needs of offenders' families, including their children, to resources in the community. For instance, under the Yellow Ribbon Community Project, grassroots volunteers visit families whose loved ones are incarcerated, to assess their needs and concerns, for subsequent intervention. The Family Resource Centres work with SPS to address problems faced by inmates and their family, such as financial, accommodation or familial problems. The Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders (CARE) Network, of which SPS, other government agencies and social services agencies are members, delivers programmes and services aimed at addressing the impact of parental incarceration, such as counselling, tuition assistance, parenting programmes, and family bonding programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Patients with Specific Conditions to Exceed MediSave Withdrawal Limits for In-vitro Fertilisation-related Procedures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health under what specific conditions do we allow patients to exceed the MediSave withdrawal limits for in-vitro fertilisation-related procedures.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: MediSave is primarily intended to help Singaporeans put aside savings for their basic healthcare needs in retirement, including hospitalisation expenses, costly outpatient treatments, and premiums for national health insurance schemes. The withdrawal limits for Assisted Conception Procedures (ACP) are designed to strike a balance between supporting couples with their immediate expenses, and preserving sufficient savings for old age.
These limits are generally sufficient to cover the cost of ACP at public Assisted Reproduction (AR) centres, after co-funding. After co-funding and MediSave usage for the first cycle, 8 in 10 eligible Singaporean couples would incur no out-of-pocket expense, while 9 in 10 eligible Singaporean couples could expect to pay no more than $500.
Nevertheless, some couples may encounter unexpectedly large bills for ACP. Each appeal is assessed holistically and on a case-by-case basis, taking the patient's unique circumstances into account, such as the family's financial and social situation. For instance, we have in the past approved appeals from couples who were unable to afford the cost of their treatment even after co-funding and MediSave use, due to unexpected medical complications during a cycle.
The Government will continue to support Singaporean couples in their pursuit for parenthood. We will continue to review our healthcare financing schemes for ACP to ensure that they remain relevant and adequate for Singaporeans' needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Couples Undergoing In-vitro Fertilisation Treatments in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health for each year in the past five years, what is the number of couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation treatments.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on available data, the numbers of assisted reproduction treatment cycles undergone by women annually from 2015 to 2019 are as follows (rounded off to the nearest hundred): 7,100 cycles in 2015, 7,200 cycles in 2016, 7,700 cycles in 2017, 8,500 cycles in 2018 and 8,700 cycles in 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancement to Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiatives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) when will the next enhancement to the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiatives be announced; and (b) whether the Government will consider moving the fleet of Government vehicles to electric models as part of the PSTLES initiatives and, if so, what is the expected timeline.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) has been renamed as GreenGov.SG, as part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030. This represents the public sector's continued leadership on sustainability and contribution towards national sustainability goals. Some of the key shifts under GreenGov.SG will be announced at MSE's Committee of Supply 2021 debates.
On vehicles, all new purchases for Government-owned fleets will be cleaner and greener where feasible, with effect from 2023. Some Government agencies are already taking active steps towards greater adoption of electric vehicles. For example, MINDEF will replace its current administrative vehicle fleet with an all-electric one by 2030. We are actively studying ways to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles within the public service as part of GreenGov.SG.
We will continue to develop the specific targets, strategies and initiatives for GreenGov.SG over time, as new opportunities avail themselves. We will release more details over the course of the year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase Availability of Parking Spaces for Start-ups Operating out of JTC Launchpad at Ayer Rajah Crescent","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether JTC can increase the availability of parking spaces for start-ups operating out of the JTC Launchpad at Ayer Rajah Crescent.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: LaunchPad @ one-north is part of the one-north Business Park which was designed as a car-lite estate. It is a three minutes' walk from one-north MRT station and is served by 10 bus lines. JTC encourages its tenants to take public transport in order to contribute to a green and sustainable Singapore.
Nevertheless, JTC has been working closely with tenants at LaunchPad @ one-north to address their on-site parking needs. For example, JTC introduced the quarterly season parking (QSP) scheme in 2017 to allow more tenants to apply for season parking. For the past year, applications have not exceeded the available lots, and the number of appeals from tenants for parking lots have fallen.
JTC will continue monitoring the parking situation to support tenants' parking needs. Tenants with critical parking needs may approach JTC at any time for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Individual Resale of Excess Power Produced from Private Sources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry has explored the possibility of establishing a system for the individual resale of excess power produced from private sources such as that generated from home solar panel systems.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Households and businesses with small solar panel systems can sell their excess power into the wholesale electricity market through SP Services as an intermediary, via schemes such as the Simplified Credit Treatment (SCT) scheme or Enhanced Central Intermediary Scheme (ECIS).
Businesses with larger solar panel systems can also sell their excess power directly into the wholesale electricity market, by registering as a market participant with the Energy Market Company.
More information can be found on the Energy Market Authority (EMA)'s website at https://www.ema.gov.sg/Guide_to_Solar_PV.aspx.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Simplify and Render More Transparent Fee Structure of Taxicabs in Light of Rise of Private-hire Cars","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will provide an update on efforts to simplify and render more transparent the fee structure of taxicabs especially in light of the rise of private-hire cars (PHCs); and (b) whether such increased transparency will also apply for the PHC industry.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Since 2015, the Public Transport Council (PTC) has mandated a standardised metered fare structure for taxis which requires operators to publish their booking charges, metered charges per unit distance and surcharges.
As for ride-hail trips, under the new point-to-point regulatory framework implemented in October 2020, operators are required to make the trip fare clear to commuters at the point of booking. Operators are also required to publish the quantum of any additional charges that may be levied on top of the trip fare.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Persons with Disabilities Who Have Found Placements via Open Door Programme since Its Launch","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower since the 2014 launch of the Open Door Programme (ODP) (a) what is the breakdown of the total number of persons with disabilities (PWDs) who have found placements via the ODP in terms of (i) full-time versus part-time placement and (ii) industry sector; (b) whether employers participating in the ODP have increased the percentage of PWDs in their workforce; and (c) what are the indicators of effectiveness used to assess the ODP.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Open Door Programme (ODP) is administered by SG Enable with support from Workforce Singapore (WSG).
SG Enable’s focus is primarily to help match persons with disabilities (PwDs) to suitable jobs. These jobs can be full-time or part-time depending on their individual circumstances. Both types of employment are meaningful. As the focus is on the PwDs rather than their employers, we track (i) how many PwDs have we helped placed into jobs, and (ii) whether these PwDs remain employed with the same employer after six months.
Between 2014 and 2020, more than 3,000 PwDs were placed into jobs through the job placement and job support partners under the ODP. The top sectors that have hired PwDs through the ODP are Food Services, Administrative and Support Services Activities, and Retail. More than 60% of PwDs placed into jobs through the ODP remained employed with the same employer after six months.
Support for PwD employment is not limited to the ODP. The Government also supports the employment and employability of PwDs through employment credits. The Enabling Employment Credit (EEC) and its predecessor, the Special Employment Credit (SEC), provide employers with wage offsets for each Singaporean PwD earning below $4,000 per month that they employ. The enhancements to the Jobs Growth Incentive provide greater support to employers who hire PwDs, which is added on top of the EEC. Through these efforts, the average employment rate for resident PwDs in the working ages of 15 to 64 has been sustained at around 29%. This was despite the downturn in the economy last year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":1801,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1802,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1803,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1843,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/annex-Annex 4.pdf","fileName":"Annex 4.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null},{"annexureID":1844,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 5","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/annex-Annex 5.pdf","fileName":"Annex 5.pdf","sectionType":"OS","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4363,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/vernacular-Minister Grace Fu - 4 Mar 2021 - MSE Malay.pdf","fileName":"Minister Grace Fu - 4 Mar 2021 - MSE Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4364,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/vernacular-Grace Fu MSE 4 Mar 2021 -Chinese (MSE edits).pdf","fileName":"Grace Fu MSE 4 Mar 2021 -Chinese (MSE edits).pdf"},{"vernacularID":4365,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Tan See Leng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/vernacular-Tan See Leng MSE 4 Mar 2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Tan See Leng MSE 4 Mar 2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4366,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/vernacular-Amy Khor MSE 4 Mar 2021 -Chinese (MSE edit).pdf","fileName":"Amy Khor MSE 4 Mar 2021 -Chinese (MSE edit).pdf"},{"vernacularID":4367,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Desmond Tan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/vernacular-Desmond Tan MSE 4Mar2021-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Desmond Tan MSE 4Mar2021-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4368,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Carrie Tan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/vernacular-Carrie Tan MND 4 Mar2021 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Carrie Tan MND 4 Mar2021 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4369,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sim Ann","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/vernacular-Sim Ann MND 4 Mar 2021 -Chinese (MSO edited).pdf","fileName":"Sim Ann MND 4 Mar 2021 -Chinese (MSO edited).pdf"},{"vernacularID":4370,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20210304/vernacular-MOS Faishal Ibrahim - 4 Mar 2021 - MND Malay.pdf","fileName":"MOS Faishal Ibrahim - 4 Mar 2021 - MND Malay.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}