The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to make a Statement before the resumption of the Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates for FY2018/2019?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker:\tLeader, please proceed.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That, notwithstanding Standing Order No 91, a Statement by the Leader of the House, and the response to the Statement, be taken before the resumption of the Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates for FY2018/2019.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That notwithstanding Standing Order No 91, a Statement by the Leader of the House, and the response to the Statement, be taken before the resumption of the Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates for FY2018/2019.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statement from Leader of the House","subTitle":"GST Announcement","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 1 March, Ms Sylvia Lim questioned in this House the Government's motives in announcing the increase in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) some three to seven years before the increase is implemented. She said, and I quote, \"We do note that in the run-up to the Budget discussion, there were some test balloons being floated out about the fact that the Government needs to raise revenue. And immediately the public seized on the fact that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman and, perhaps, other leaders had earlier said that the Government has enough money for the decade. So, the public pointed out, 'Hey, you know, is this a contradiction?' And I rather suspect, myself, that the Government is stuck with that announcement. Otherwise, if the announcement had not been made, perhaps, we would be debating a GST hike today.\"
Ms Sylvia Lim was suggesting that the Government would have raised the GST immediately if not for the adverse public reaction when it \"floated\" the suggestion late last year and if it had not been \"stuck\" with the previous statement that it had enough money for the decade.
Ms Lim was, in fact, accusing the Government of being untruthful when it said that it had planned ahead and that its proposal to raise the GST between 2021 and 2025 was the result of such planning.
Both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Law had responded to Ms Lim to explain that there was no basis for her allegations. The first mention of the need for the tax increase was in the Prime Minister's National Day Rally in 2013, more than four years ago. The Minister for Finance reiterated this in his 2017 Budget Statement and again at a constituency function a few months later. The Prime Minister spoke again of the likelihood of a tax increase last November and had expressly referred to the Finance Minister's earlier statements.
Indeed, in the previous term of Government, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman had said during the 2014 Budget Statement and in the 2015 Budget Statement that while the Government had taken steps to ensure that it had sufficient revenue to meet spending needs till the end of this decade, I quote, \"we will run into structural deficits if we did not raise revenues in the next decade.\"
As the Minister for Finance told Ms Lim in this House last Thursday, what Deputy Prime Minister Tharman said in 2014 and 2015 remains true today. The Government has enough money till the end of this decade but, beyond that, it would have to raise taxes to meet rising expenditure needs, especially in healthcare.
The Government never floated test balloons on this matter. It has been deliberate and consistent in all its statements since August 2013.
When presented with the facts, Ms Lim said that her allegations were based on \"suspicion\", not fact. She admitted that she was not certain of the facts herself but would check on them later. But she did not withdraw her allegations.
The next day, on 2 March, the Minister for Finance issued a statement setting out the facts again and asking Ms Lim, now that she had had an opportunity to check the records, if she would withdraw her allegation, as an hon Member of Parliament should, and apologise to the House. Ms Lim has not answered.
As the Minister for Finance said in this statement, Members of Parliament are entitled to raise suspicions in Parliament, if they honestly believe them – but honest belief requires factual basis. And when clear factual replies have been given, an hon Member of Parliament should either refute them with further facts or acknowledge them and withdraw their allegations, especially if the allegations had insinuated lack of candour or wrongdoing on the part of the Government.
With the clarifications that have been given to the Member by Ministers both in this House and elsewhere, Ms Lim cannot contend that her \"suspicion\" remains reasonable and honestly-held. Her allegations have been refuted. The facts she has cited have been shown to be inaccurate and she has not raised any further facts to substantiate her suspicion.
In her intervention in Parliament on 1 March, Ms Lim said \"there is such thing as Parliamentary privilege\". However, Parliamentary privilege does not entitle Members of Parliament to knowingly maintain allegations that have been shown to have no factual basis.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking to put these facts on the record. Now that Ms Lim has been apprised of the facts, I request that she withdraw her allegation that the Government had floated test balloons on the need to raise revenues within this term and had intended to raise the GST immediately, and apologise to this House, before the end of this Sitting of Parliament on Thursday, 8 March 2018.
Mr Speaker, I note that the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim is not in this House. I will extend a copy of my Statement to her. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 13 of 2018","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr 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 Q (Ministry of Communications and Information)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [5 March 2018], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head Q of the Estimates to be reduced by $100.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Order. In view of the Statement made in Parliament earlier on and the amount of time used, I will now revise the guillotine time for Head Q – Ministry of Communications and Information to 11.40 am. Hon Members will be notified of the revised conclusion times for the subsequent Heads of Expenditure. Head Q – Ministry of Communications and Information. Minister Yaacob.
The Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank Members for their kind comments yesterday.
Mr Chairman, with your permission, I would like to show a short video summarising the work of my Ministry over the past year, and some slides throughout our responses.
The Chairman: Alright. [A video and some slides were shown to hon Members.]
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, digitalisation has created many exciting opportunities and improved Singaporeans’ lives. There are many examples of fellow Singaporeans embracing digital and harnessing opportunities.
One was in the video we just watched. Ms Shakila Sham owns Eatz 19, a fusion restaurant. She decided to install a mobile ordering and payment solution, which allowed her customers to review the menu and order even before arriving at the restaurant, so they can avoid the queue. This way, the customer is happy, and she was able to improve her operations with the data generated. Most importantly, the added convenience made work more enjoyable for Shakila's wheelchair-bound employee, Suzy, who can now manage the ordering platform online, from home.
Another example is Mdm Santhiya Senthil Kumar, an avid self-learner. She attends coding classes with her son in the library. This way, she can bond with her family and pick up a new skill in the process. She was able to apply her new skill to guide her son in coding his own games.
There are many more Shakilas and Santhiyas out there. Helping them do well is what drives all of us at the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI). In this Committee of Supply (COS), we will share with Members MCI's efforts to do so. I will talk about our plans to develop our digital economy and enhance the digital readiness of Singaporeans. Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will elaborate on how workers, businesses and citizens can benefit from our digital economy and digital readiness efforts. Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat will explain MCI's efforts to transform and grow the media sector. I will round up by sharing the wonderful transformation of our libraries, which should inspire us all.
Sir, let me begin with the digital economy. Digital transformation is the most important issue facing businesses today. The Singapore Business Federation’s (SBF's) recent study showed that the majority of our businessmen fully appreciate the importance of digitalisation because the payoffs are enormous. Microsoft's recent study estimated that the digital economy would contribute another US$10 billion to our gross domestic product (GDP) by 2021. This is the context for our Smart Nation initiative – good jobs and opportunities for our people.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked what the Government is doing to ensure that Singapore businesses and workforce can thrive in the digital future. My answer is \"ABC\" – Accelerate the digitalisation of existing sectors, Build up our infocomm media or infocomm media (ICM) companies, and Create future digital technology sectors. Let me explain.
Firstly, \"A\" – Accelerate the digitalisation of existing sectors. Digitalisation affects every sector. But not all of the sectors have responded equally quickly. Some sectors, like banking and finance, and retail, have done relatively well. During my recent visit to the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) FairPrice’s new \"living lab\" supermarket at SingPost Centre, I saw how FairPrice had transformed its traditional supermarket using innovative retail technologies to revolutionise the shopping experience to meet changing consumer expectations and habits in the digital age, while boosting workers’ productivity. But there are other sectors that are finding it more difficult to keep up.
Members asked how the Government can help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) benefit from digitalisation. Allow me to first share the common challenge that SMEs face in going digital. One reason why some sectors are unable to transform digitally is knowledge. Even if companies are keen to embrace digitalisation, they do not know how to, or where to start. This is particularly true for SMEs which sometimes lack the resources and scale to deploy digital solutions. That is why we launched the SMEs Go Digital Programme last year, which, for a start, focuses on key sectors where digital technologies can improve productivity significantly. This includes providing step-by-step guidance under the Industry Digital Plans (IDPs) to make digitalisation simpler for SMEs. We have since launched the Retail and Logistics IDPs last November and we aim to do more this year.
Members asked about the outcomes of our initiatives to help SMEs digitalise. Even though the programme has been operational for only less than a year, we are seeing encouraging results. More than 650 SMEs have benefited from the programme, with many more waiting in line.
A beneficiary of the pre-approved digital solution under the programme is House of Seafood, a restaurant chain and food manufacturer. It exports its products to many countries. However, each country has its own import requirements, and it was difficult to track them all efficiently. So, the company installed a digital tagging solution to automate the compliance checks for its many products. House of Seafood is now able to export its products more easily, and has grown its sales by 20% and productivity by 25%.
Another example, Sir, is OKH Logistics. The complexity of the logistics business cannot be underestimated. So, the company adopted an intelligent vehicle monitoring system to operate its vehicles better. By analysing the data collected, it was able to significantly reduce the number of vehicle accidents by 50%. Fewer vehicle accidents mean better utilisation of assets. This led to about 10% increase in the number of deliveries handled a day.
Sir, we will continue to grow the SMEs Go Digital Programme and we aim to benefit many more SMEs. To do so, we fully agree with Mr Teo Ser Luck that we must ensure that our programmes remain relevant in a fast-changing environment. We will regularly review the IDPs and pre-approved solutions in the SMEs Go Digital Programme to ensure that they are in line with the latest industry trends and standards while meeting SMEs’ needs.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked what more can be done to help our SMEs seize the opportunities in digital. Ms Sun Xueling asked if we would engage influential partners to help drive digitalisation within sectors. One initiative we are pursuing is to focus not just on individual solutions for individual SMEs, but to take a cluster approach by working with influential partners to help a group of SMEs from similar sectors.
For example, in the logistics sector, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), is working with major logistics companies, such as Bollore Logistics, Dimerco and LCH Lockton, to lead their SME clients through the digitalisation process using a cloud-based e-Cargo Consolidation Platform. This aggregates freight demands, thereby lowering freight costs for SME freight forwarders. This initiative will be launched in April and, for a start, over 100 SMEs are expected to benefit from this project. We will do more of such projects in the coming year.
Ms Sun Xueling asked what sector-level initiatives do we have to drive digitalisation on a broader scale. Last year, IMDA launched various innovative initiatives to support the digital transformation of both the logistics and retail sectors. As part of our efforts in the retail sector, we are collaborating with the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore, the Singapore Malay Chambers of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI), and One Kampong Glam Association to develop Kampong Glam into Singapore’s first digitally enabled retail neighbourhood. What does this mean?
We will help interested merchants in the core area of Kampong Glam, comprising about 200 merchants, adopt digital solutions to improve their business operations. This would include adopting integrated point-of-sale systems which enable cashless payments, inventory tracking and financial accounting. By automating these backend administrative processes, the merchants will have more time for their products and customers. We are working with StarHub on these business solutions for the merchants.
We are also enhancing the visitor experience by developing digital products, such as immersive walking trails, and working with Temasek Polytechnic School of Business to increase the merchants' online presence. We are partnering Grab to offer an additional cashless option and increase accessibility to the area. After all, the shops will benefit from more customers enjoying themselves in Kampong Glam.
Sir, we will launch Phase 1 of the transformation in the second quarter of 2018. Learning from the Kampong Glam project, we will explore how we could develop other projects to digitalise the retail sector. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the leadership of One Kampong Glam Association and SMCCI for their support.
Another way we are accelerating the sector's digitalisation is to put in place common infrastructure that will raise business productivity. One such project is e-invoicing. Invoices are critical functions for businesses. Without an invoice, businesses do not get paid. But invoicing can be very tedious and manual, with many inherent errors. E-invoicing can change that. It can help businesses cut costs, ensure companies are paid faster and open up new financing options. We are currently studying this with companies and will announce more details later.
Sir, I shall move on to \"B\" – Build up our ICM companies. This is necessary, because without a strong ICM sector to support businesses with good products, we will not go very far in our digitalisation journey. In this respect, we want to have homegrown ICM companies, along with other companies supporting this sector.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about the plans to grow the ICM sector. IMDA has already launched the ICM Industry Transformation Map (ITM) last year. Under our ITM, we aim to create 13,000 new professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) jobs, and the industry’s value-added is expected to grow at around 6% annually. We will do this by building up our workforce and helping our companies internationalise. Most importantly, as digitalisation blurs traditional industry boundaries, we will help our companies reinvent themselves.
Several ICM companies have already done so. One example is Y3 Technologies, a software solutions provider specialising in supply chain management solutions. In recent years, Y3 has transformed itself by moving away from just supply chain management to an innovative analytics service provider. Thanks to its proprietary software, it now has 24/7 visibility of all customer orders, can handle a larger volume of orders and reduce the incidence of wrong delivery. It has also used its analytics software products to diversify into complementary areas, such as e-commerce. So, we will do more to help our companies transform themselves like Y3.
Today, IMDA runs the Accreditation@SG Digital, which helps to scale innovative Singapore-based ICM companies to build deep capabilities locally and grow internationally. Currently, Sir, we have 24 accredited companies. We will quadruple this in five years and avail more support to help them grow, including building their track record, assisting them to grow new growth capital and helping them to expand overseas. In the case of Sense Infosys, an accredited local data analytics startup, IMDA's support in securing funding and facilitating key partnerships had contributed to the company’s overseas expansion and impressive growth.
One way to build stronger ICM companies is to help them collaborate with end-users to build new and innovative solutions with potential to be scaled and exported. This might not be that easy with digitalisation blurring the lines among sectors, which creates the need to solve problems that cut across many sectors and disciplines. So, IMDA will pilot the Open Innovation Platform, which is a crowdsourcing platform to facilitate collaboration between problem owners and a community of solution providers, to co-develop digital solutions that address actual business problems.
IMDA will focus their efforts in selected sectors first, including retail and logistics, to build up a community of solution providers. IMDA will bring in expertise in technology areas, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT), to see how they can apply their technologies to business use cases.
Sir, the final thrust to build the digital economy is \"C\" – Create future digital technology sectors. Last year, I announced that we will invest in developing deeper capabilities in four frontier technology areas, namely, data analytics and AI, IoT, cybersecurity and immersive media. I also announced a series of AI and data analytics initiatives.
As part of our ICM ITM, IMDA launched the AI Business Partnership Programme last November to bring companies interested in AI and AI solution providers together. Although it is early days, IMDA has received promising problem statements from businesses across various sectors and is currently reviewing potential partnerships for co-funding. IMDA will share more details in the coming months. IMDA also launched the AI Apprenticeship Programme with AI Singapore to develop AI professionals through training courses. To date, the Programme has received overwhelming support and the first batch of 20 trainees will start training in May.
Mr Cedric Foo asked what Singapore is doing to prepare itself for the digital economy, including giving enterprises access to datasets for machine learning applications. Sir, the Data Innovation Programme Office (DIPO) under IMDA is trying to bring companies together to realise the value of sharing data and brokering partnerships for mutual gain. For instance, the Government has been actively improving data.gov.sg, its one-stop public portal for Government datasets, to include more useful datasets to enable businesses and citizens to co-create solutions using them. We are also reviewing the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) to keep pace with technological developments and regulatory trends to facilitate businesses’ use of personal data while safeguarding consumers' trust.
Sir, besides AI and IoT, we see great promise in cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is integral to the digital economy. As more services and transactions take place online, it becomes even more important that they are digitally secure and reliable. Cybersecurity is thus a cornerstone of trust in our Smart Nation initiative.
Ms Sun Xueling asked if there are plans to assist businesses, including SMEs, and educate the public on how to prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats. We are, indeed, doing so. For instance, the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) is partnering the Association for Information Security Professionals (AISP) to equip our SMEs with cybersecurity knowledge so that they can better respond to cybersecurity threats like the ransomware attacks last year. CSA also works with partners, such as the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), to raise awareness of the importance of cybersecurity and personal data protection among our students, and with IMDA and the National Library Board (NLB) to provide our seniors with infocomm training, which includes cybersecurity.
Sir, I agree with Mr Zaqy Mohamad that a vibrant cybersecurity ecosystem is an important factor contributing to robust national cybersecurity. Besides undergirding the digital economy, cybersecurity is also a growth engine. Cybersecurity in Singapore is a fast-growing sector, with the potential to generate $900 million in revenue by 2020. This will create many exciting opportunities and jobs for Singaporeans.
Citi Singapore is one such company contributing to the cybersecurity ecosystem in our country. Not many Members may know this, but the bank has established one of its two global security operations centre in Singapore, the other being in New York. I visited the Singapore centre about two weeks ago. And there I met Mr Fadli Sidek, whom I had mentioned in my COS speech two years back. Back then, he had overcome the disappointment of being rejected by a polytechnic and was working towards a cybersecurity degree. Fadli is now a cyber threat intelligence analyst in Citi and he is doing well.
I was happy to see Fadli doing well and want to help more Singaporeans interested in cybersecurity to pursue their passions. CSA will work with other partners to do so. First, CSA and IMDA are supporting the development of the Innovation Cybersecurity Ecosystem (ICE) at Block 71. This initiative will be done with the National University of Singapore (NUS) and SingTel Innov8 and will help promising cybersecurity startups scale and internationalise. Second, CSA will introduce a Co-Innovation and Development Proof of Concept Funding Scheme to support the development of cybersecurity solutions for national security, critical infrastructure and classified system users. This will catalyse the commercialisation and adoption of cybersecurity solutions to address emerging needs.
In addition to cybersecurity, we will also invest to build up immersive media (IM) capability in Singapore, as we also see this as another promising area. Sir, we aim to be the Centre of Excellence in the development and use of IM-based applications in key industries, including engineering, media, retail and education. We will focus on three areas.
First, we will advocate for IM adoption by facilitating business matching and information sharing to raise awareness on IM’s potential. Second, to build innovation capacity by encouraging experimentation and development of proof of concepts. And third, to develop talent for the IM industry. Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat will share some of our efforts to build IM capabilities in his speech. We will announce more details of our plans for IM in the upcoming months. For now, we have put together an IM exhibit for Members to experience how IM can transform the way we live and work in the digital future.
Sir, to achieve these ABCs, we need several enablers. The first and most important is a strong workforce with the relevant expertise and skills. Two years ago, I launched the TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA). Since then, we have had excellent progress. As Minister Heng Swee Keat mentioned in his Budget Statement, over 27,000 training places have been taken up or committed.
One such beneficiary is Mr Muhammad Ruzaini. Ruzaini was retrenched in 2015 after eight years in the industry. As he was interested in cybersecurity, he tried to join the industry after his retrenchment. However, he did not succeed as he lacked the formal training and qualifications. Fortunately, he persisted and joined the Cybersecurity Associates and Technologists (CSAT) programme under the National Computer Systems (NCS), where he picked up new cybersecurity skills. He is now a cybersecurity professional working for NCS.
Sir, the Government will invest another $145 million to scale up TeSA over the next three years. This will create another 20,000 training places by 2020, including in new sectors like manufacturing and professional services. This will allow us to further develop our workforce for the digital economy.
Besides people, we also need to review our regulations in a fast-changing world to ensure they remain pro-business and fit for purpose. Mr Ong Teng Koon asked how IMDA will address the regulatory challenges in the converged ICM environment.
IMDA has been studying very carefully how to harmonise the approaches for the telecommunications and broadcast sectors in areas, such as competition, consumer protection and resilience. We believe that a converged competition and consumer protection code will provide clarity to industry, minimise regulatory overheads, while continuing to protect the public interest.
One salient issue in the converged ICM space is how digital technologies and social media platforms have come together to worsen the risk of fake news. This was an area that MCI was studying in our review of the Broadcasting Act. However, as Parliament has just appointed the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods to examine the issue, it would be better to study the Select Committee’s recommendations first before making further moves. MCI will thus be deferring the review of the Broadcasting Act.
Dr Teo Ho Pin asked if there are plans to introduce regulations for AI applications. Currently, we have no such plans as the field is still nascent and we want to avoid stifling innovation. But we do acknowledge public anxiety about AI. IMDA is working with sector regulators to study issues and mitigate potential risks from deploying AI.
Besides talent and regulations, another enabler for a thriving digital economy is a conducive, rules-based international environment. That is why we have advocated open data flows and facilitated cyber norms discussions in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). As ASEAN Chairman this year, we will commit to improving digital literacy in ASEAN to help our people reap the benefits of digitalisation.
Beyond ASEAN, we are also participating fully in international mechanisms to provide digital flows. Last year, I announced our intention to join the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Cross Border Privacy Rules and Privacy Recognition for Processors systems, two multilateral certification mechanisms to promote cross-border data flows.
I am pleased to announce that our application was approved on 20 February 2018. When our certification scheme is in place, certified organisations in Singapore will be able to exchange personal data with certified organisations in participating APEC economies much more seamlessly, while consumers can be assured that the cross-border transfer of their personal data will be subject to high standards of data protection.
Sir, even as we grow the digital economy pie, we must ensure that everyone gets a slice of it, and that no one is left behind. And that is the main focus of our digital readiness efforts. Ultimately, Smart Nation is not just a series of technology projects. It is a whole-of-nation movement to improve the lives of all Singaporeans in the digital age. As Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had said earlier, our approach will, therefore, be inclusive by design.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the Digital Readiness Workgroup and its proposed strategies to improve digital readiness among Singaporeans. We have set out a digital readiness blueprint to give every Singaporean digital access, which is the means to transact digitally; digital literacy – the skills, attitudes and values of a digital citizen; and digital participation – the ability to make use of technology to improve daily life. Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary will elaborate later on this.
Sir, the possibilities of the digital future are endless. It is up to us to seize them. Everyone will have a role to play in our broader digital transformation, and we, at MCI, will work with everyone to ensure that we all gain from this shared journey.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Chairman, the emergence of new opportunities in the digital age is why Singapore is transforming itself into a Smart Nation. Smart Nation is about making all our lives easier. It is about building a strong society and economy with opportunities for all, and where businesses thrive. It is important that no one gets left behind as the world becomes increasingly digital.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about how the Government will work with businesses and the community to help citizens with this transition. This is not the first time that Singapore is experiencing a technology-driven transformation. Since the 1980s, we have introduced information technology (IT) in schools, made broadband available to all homes, and transformed many public services using technology and the Internet.
As the pace of technological change accelerates, we will need a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to ensure that all Singaporeans can participate in and benefit from the opportunities of a digital age. To do so, we need to help citizens be digitally ready. There are three important principles that guide our approach.
Firstly, we need to design with the user in mind. The user interface of our digital services and applications must be so easy to use that almost everybody can start using it with little or no instruction.
Secondly, we have redefined digital inclusion as more than just access but also equipping people with skills. Today, we have many programmes that focus on giving people access to affordable devices and the Internet. But being digitally ready is also about having the skills to use digital technology safely and confidently. These include basic information and media literacy skills, awareness of cybersecurity and personal data protection, and several other skills as well.
Thirdly, collaboration. Digital Readiness must be a whole-of-society effort. Government, businesses and the community must work together to have a deep and wide impact for Singaporeans. This is why we established the Digital Readiness Workgroup last year, bringing together representatives from the public, people and private sectors to propose strategies to address future opportunities and challenges. We have learnt a lot from hearing about these organisations’ approaches to building literacy and giving people a chance to participate in the digital world. We will publish a Digital Readiness Blueprint later this year.
Being digitally ready means ensuring that Singaporeans have, firstly, digital access, which is the means to transact digitally; secondly, digital literacy, which is the skills, attitudes and values of a digital citizen; all of which will, ultimately, lead to digital participation.
As an example of the sort of issues we are concerned about for digital access is smartphones. A smartphone becomes a key enabler for many of the digital services that we want to provide. How can we ensure that enough Singaporeans have adequate access? Today, the total ownership of smartphones in Singapore is high, at about 150% of the population, and yet, there are Singaporeans who have no access to a smartphone.
Once we ensure there is adequate access, we need to develop a base of digital literacy. To begin with, we will articulate a set of basic digital skills, that is, skills that every one of us should have as a first step towards being able to participate in a digital society.
The focus areas of these skills will be the ability to communicate, transact and search for information through a mobile device for day-to-day living. These skills will be articulated as a curriculum that will be made available to training providers and can also be used by family and friends or community partners who are interested in helping everyone enjoy the benefits of our Smart Nation. To ensure that everyone can benefit from this, we will provide training for these basic skills in all four languages by the end of the year.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the Government’s efforts in tackling cyberbullying. We agree with Assoc Prof Goh that it is important that we have avenues where the youths, their parents and their teachers can seek help and support from credible sources.
Help123 was initiated last year by the National Council of Social Service and various partners like Fei Yue Community Services and TOUCH Community Services. It provides services for youth cyber-wellness issues a dedicated webchat, email service and a hotline. It also provides resources of counsellors who are able to support people who need further direct intervention and help.
The Media Literacy Council also does work in this space. It makes available and will continue to produce resources to tackle cyberbullying. Examples include an anti-cyberbullying instructional video as part of the \"Better Internet\" campaign, informational packages with information specific for victims to counter cyberbullying, products, such as those providing guidance for parents and families to detect the symptoms of cyberbullying, and also to provide help to children. A series of workshops is being rolled out this year to help parents raise digitally resilient children.
Mr Vikram Nair asked how we can ensure that Singaporeans of all ages do not get left behind. Our approach has always been to be as inclusive as possible but recognising that some groups would find the transition difficult and providing them with targeted help. We will continue to help the elderly by expanding digital readiness initiatives for seniors.
By the end of this year, we would have organised more than 50 digital clinics for 2,000 seniors, to help them become confident in using digital mobile technology. This year, we will also work with industry and community groups to organise 48 experiential learning journeys to benefit 2,000 seniors to learn about digital technologies useful for their daily activities, such as e-payments.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked whether more can be done to prepare elderly residents for digital television (TV). Today, about three in 10 households are still using analogue TV signals. We have put in place the Digital TV Assistance Scheme to help households switch to Digital TV and will continue to provide targeted assistance to the elderly, including organising briefings and demonstration sessions using both English and the vernacular languages.
Just as we will help citizens become digitally ready, the Government will also help workers and businesses build strong capabilities to benefit from the opportunities in a digital economy.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the progress of TeSA and its upcoming evolution. TeSA is a key tripartite initiative to help build strong digital capabilities through training. You have heard from the Minister that outcomes have been encouraging and, since its launch in 2016, more than 27,000 training places have been taken up or committed, greatly increasing the opportunities for workers. Every individual who has gone through TeSA’s Company Led Training programmes, as well as more than 90% of job seeking trainees from the Tech Immersion and Placement Programme have been successfully placed.
We will scale up the TeSA initiatives with an additional $145 million of funding. This will provide more training places, more programmes and will address more user sectors. TeSA is a key initiative not just for the workers, but also for the businesses. One of the key issues about the development of the digital economy is going to be the provision of capabilities and skills in the workforce. So, by our focus on TeSA, we are helping workers find jobs and transition into new jobs, and we are helping businesses develop the skills and capabilities to help them grow. What are these initiatives?
First, TeSA will provide an additional 20,000 training places by 2020. This will require and build upon the strong multi-agency and tripartite approach that we have taken.
Secondly, TeSA will work closely with industry to develop more programmes in frontier technology areas, such as AI, data analytics, cybersecurity, IoT and IM. There will be more job opportunities that demand such frontier technology skills.
Up to now, a significant part of what TeSA has been doing is concentrating on the existing skills gaps, existing jobs gaps, known technologies, well-developed and mature business issues, and we need to push towards these frontier technologies to try and anticipate what would be the next steps required to grow our digital economy. I hope many more companies will work with TeSA to co-develop training programmes in these areas.
Thirdly, we will widen our approach towards more user sectors. Information and communication technology (ICT) professionals are in demand across many economic sectors, as the economy and industries rapidly digitalise. Currently, TeSA is quite focused on the ICT sector, as well as on the Finance and Healthcare sectors. Moving forward, TeSA will expand its training offering into Manufacturing and Professional Services.
In line with our commitment to develop our people, TeSA will also strengthen our support for those who might need it most, such as mid-career ICT PMETs in search of new job opportunities as the economy and the ICT job landscape evolve.
Mr Desmond Choo asked about how we can better support workers, especially mature ones, to reskill and upskill. TeSA programmes have been benefiting mid-career professionals. Since 2016, approximately 10,000 TeSA training places have been taken up by those above the age of 40. But TeSA will do more to support more mid-career ICT PMETs.
First, we will help to curate cross-sector ICT job openings. While there are ICT job openings in the public, non-profit and private sectors, as well as across different industry sectors, many mid-career ICT PMETs are unlikely to possess the networks, contacts or the sector-specific skills needed to make the transition into new sectors. They may already have skills which are relevant to either the private, public or the non-profit sector, or they may have ICT skills that are domain-specific to a given industry within the economy. What we need to help them do is make a transition across either the domain, the industry or the sector. And if we do not, this will be a missed opportunity, because there are many job opportunities that could potentially be meaningful as a next step for mid-career professionals.
IMDA is working with other Government bodies, such as the Ministry of Education (MOE) to identify jobs that ICT professionals can be placed into. We are also working with industry partners via the SMEs Go Digital programme to curate more suitable job roles.
Secondly, we will also strengthen employment facilitation for mid-career professionals. Leveraging on our integrated career services, a career support ecosystem by partners like the Singapore Computer Society (SCS), Workforce Singapore (WSG), Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and NTUC, individuals will get more career guidance, more mentoring and better support for better job matching. The career coaches and mentors within this ecosystem will also be provided with better and more timely insights on job openings and skill needs, going forward, so that they can better assist workers.
Through TeSA's scale-up and its targeted assistance, we will build strong digital capabilities in our workforce.
Sir, MCI and our partners will help workers, businesses and citizens benefit from the opportunities of a digital Singapore. In the next few months, we will share further details on our digital economy and digital readiness efforts.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat.
The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Chairman, as we embark on our digital transformation journey, we are clear that technology is an enabler, not the end in mind. Our objective is to improve the lives of our people and create good jobs for Singaporeans by harnessing technology and cultivating a spirit of imagination, enterprise and innovation. This is the approach we adopt when we develop Singapore's media sector. Our efforts for the media sector focus on four Cs: Content, Capabilities, Channels and Collaboration.
First, on content, which is the heart of the media sector. Compelling stories are what attract audiences. Our local media companies have done well in this regard, creating quality local content appreciated by viewers around the world. For example, Netflix commissioned its first Chinese-language series, Bardo, by teaming up with IFA Media, a local production company, and Taiwan-based director Sam Quah. I am glad that a Singapore-based media company is involved in bringing its stories to a global platform.
IMDA will continue to support our local media companies and talent to create quality content as part of its plans to develop Singapore's media sector. We will announce more details later in the year.
One important area is to strengthen our partnerships with leading international media companies. For example, the collaboration with Home Box Office (HBO) Asia will open opportunities for Singaporeans to take on key production roles in HBO's upcoming productions. One of these is Folklore, a horror anthology created by local filmmaker Eric Khoo. Another is Grisse, a period drama set in 19th century Java. Both series will premiere in the second half of 2018.
For Public Service Broadcasting (PSB), locally produced PSB programmes remain an important avenue to tell our Singaporean stories and present news and entertainment from a Singaporean perspective. Mediacorp will experiment with new content concepts and production techniques through the Content Development Fund (CDF). The call-for-proposal was launched last October. One of the selected proposals is Under Our Sky, an alien-invasion thriller set in Singapore, featuring extensive computer-generated imagery and 360-degree video. The pilot will be released on Toggle early next year.
Next, on capabilities, Mr Darryl David asked how we are helping the media sector build capabilities for continued growth. This includes harnessing IM technologies like augmented reality and virtual reality (VR). Under IMDA's partnership with Discovery Networks Asia Pacific, Discovery had commissioned a series of VR titles. The first two titles will be launched later this year. Another two titles are in the works: Living on the Edge, which tells the story of child Muay Thai fighters in Thailand, and Wild Treks, which shows the life of the Bajau Laut, or Sea Gypsies, in Sabah. These titles are produced by local media companies BeVRR and iMMERSiVELY. They will work closely with Discovery to bring their productions to a global audience through Discovery's VR app.
IMDA will be working with game technology company Unity to jointly launch Unity Incubator Services at PIXEL Studios. Our companies will benefit from the business and technical workshops designed for facilitating knowledge transfer and sharing best practices in the development of IM applications and games.
IMDA will introduce more accelerator and training programmes to support our companies. I assure Mr Darryl David that smaller companies will also benefit from these programmes. An example is goGame, a Singaporean mobile game publishing company and a subsidiary of SEGA. It has partnered IMDA to launch Singapore's first game accelerator. The accelerator will train early-stage game developers in business strategy, licensing and marketing.
Another key focus is to invest in our young. With the support of IMDA, Mediacorp has invested in efforts to build a pipeline of young creative talent through apprenticeship programmes and collaborations with schools. For example, the Chinese-language web drama series, A Lonely Fish, which was released a few days ago on Toggle, was born out of a scriptwriting workshop co-organised by Mediacorp, Ngee Ann Polytechnic and NUS. Three Ngee Ann Polytechnic students, Oh Wei Ting, Tan Lipei and Ong Wenyi, participated in the workshop and came up with the idea for the series. Under the guidance of Mediacorp's scriptwriters and producers, they went through a full production cycle, learning the ropes of scriptwriting, acting and production.
Mediacorp also partnered Temasek Polytechnic, Republic Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic on a Young Creators Project. Under this initiative, experienced mentors from Mediacorp will guide participating students in content production. Mediacorp has selected 11 student projects to commission, which will launch on Toggle later this year.
Our emphasis on nurturing our young underscores an important point. We cannot build effective capabilities without focusing on talent development. The human touch remains essential to the media sector, whose work centres on connecting with people.
This applies to our mainstream media, too. I agree with Mr Ganesh Rajaram that talent development is key to quality journalism. It is an important element in supporting the mainstream media's role to provide accurate and objective news reports as well as insightful opinion pieces and documentary programmes.
Beyond the newsroom, we are also focused on developing our local talent pool for the industry. IMDA's ongoing Talent Assistance Scheme has been a useful initiative, providing funding support for our media talent to upgrade their skills. From May this year, we will expand the scheme to support media professionals outside the media sector, such as those who are employed in the manufacturing and retail sectors. At last year's COS, we announced the Media Manpower Plan to develop a future-ready media workforce. IMDA has made good progress on the implementation of this plan.
I earlier announced that IMDA and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) are jointly developing the Skills Framework for Media. This is expected to be launched in November 2018 and will cover about 140 media job roles in areas, such as games, broadcast and film. To date, 40 local and overseas stakeholders, including Beach House Productions, Fox Networks Group and Ubisoft, have provided inputs to the framework.
Recognising that media freelancers play an important role across the economy, IMDA launched the Tripartite Standard on Procurement of Services from Media Freelancers in November last year. Since then, 52 organisations have adopted the Standard. Starting from 1 April 2018, organisations must adopt the Tripartite Standard in order to qualify for IMDA's media grants and funding for PSB content. I look forward to more organisations coming forward to adopt the Standard over time.
Let me now touch on the need to develop effective channels to reach our viewers. I agree with Mr Vikram Nair that we should extend the reach of PSB programming to engage more Singaporeans. Besides traditional free-to-air channels, IMDA has been actively building partnerships with media players in the digital and online space.
An example is IMDA's partnership with Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) to produce and distribute short-form videos through SPH's digital content network. The pilot run last year saw the release of 118 short-form videos. Building on its success, SPH will be producing a second slate of videos comprising more than 120 short-form videos.
IMDA also partnered Viddsee, a Singapore-based online video platform specialising in short films, to deliver more engaging PSB content for the younger audiences on its platforms. This is a good example of a company which is using data analytics to drive viewership and monetisation. Viddsee will produce five new original series in collaboration with local filmmakers. The first, the short film Run Chicken Run by Ellie Ngim, was launched last month. Its heart-warming story set during the Chinese New Year period was well-received.
IMDA will also continue working with Mediacorp to better engage viewers on its digital platform, Toggle. Since its relaunch in April 2015, Toggle has seen a steady increase in viewership to more than eight million monthly video views today. This is an effort that I think we should continue.
I am glad that Mediacorp's analytics tool, RIPPLE, won three BIGGIES Awards at the global Big Data for Media Conference last year. Using RIPPLE, Mediacorp will launch 34 new Toggle Originals this year, up from 13 released last year. I believe these new titles will offer more entertainment options for our viewers.
The fourth and final \"C\" is collaboration. The need for collaboration applies to our mainstream media companies SPH and Mediacorp, too, as Mr Ganesh Rajaram pointed out.
After a successful two-year collaboration, SPH and StarHub recently renewed their partnership for another two years. They will continue their tie-ups in areas, such as cross-media content creation and publishing, data analytics and marketing, where SPH-produced content has been broadcast and promoted across StarHub's pay TV service. Additionally, they will collaborate in their non-media business, to encompass new areas, such as healthcare, retail and education.
Mediacorp and SPH have also explored possible areas of collaboration. They launched a joint digital advertising marketplace, Singapore Media Exchange (SMX), consolidating their data resources to unlock new advertising opportunities and provide advertisers richer targeting capabilities. Both companies are also working with IMDA on joint efforts to market the opportunities in Singapore's media sector to better develop our talent pool.
These are some examples of how, through partnerships, our media companies can position themselves for a digital age and create more value.
Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Low Thia Khiang for giving us an opportunity to update on the National Translation Committee's work since its formation in 2014. Under the three broad thrusts of Talent, Technology and Teamwork, or 3Ts, we have rolled out several initiatives. Due to time constraints, I will just highlight a few examples.
First, on talent development. We have awarded six Information Service (Translation) Scholarships since 2015 to groom young Singaporeans who have a strong interest in translation. The National Translation Committee (NTC) also launched the Translation Talent Development Scheme (TTDS) earlier this year to provide funding support for translators and interpreters in the industry to attend seminars and courses to enhance their skills and expertise.
Next, on technology. In partnership with public sector agencies, we have enhanced the Government Terms Translated Database, hosted on gov.sg, to cover more than 6,200 Government-related terms translated into Chinese, Malay and Tamil. I agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang that it is important to organise our online resources to be accessible, convenient and user-friendly. We will discuss his suggestions with the NTC members.
MCI is working with the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) to develop a Customised Government Machine Translation Engine. The engine is \"trained\" using translations from MCI and other Government agencies, enabling it to correctly translate local terms.
Finally, on teamwork: NTC launched the Community-in-Translation (CiT) initiative in 2016 to raise awareness and interest in translation among our young. Under this initiative, NTC worked with several partners to conduct translation workshops for students in all three Mother Tongue languages and supported schools in organising translation competitions.
Mr Chairman, in our multiracial community, raising translation standards is an important focus for the Government. I am grateful for the contributions from our NTC and resource panel members from the various language communities and our industry partners.
As the Malay proverb goes, \"Bukit sama didaki, lurah sama dituruni\" – we overcome obstacles together and enjoy the fruits of our hard work together.
There is also a Tamil proverb, \"ஒன்றுபட்டால் உண்டு வாழ்வு \", which means \"unity is strength\". And as I said in my COS speech in 2016, we are committed to getting our translations correct: \"சரியான மொழிபெயர்ப்பே நமது கடப்பாடு \".
Mr Chairman, please allow me to conclude my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In a multicultural and multiracial society like Singapore, translation plays an important role. It helps the Government better explain our policies, thereby benefiting our people and promoting understanding amongst the races.
We are aware of the challenges we face as society and technology evolve. However, NTC, together with like-minded partners, will persevere in carrying on this meaningful and important mission, which is also of cultural significance.
The Chairman: Minister Yaacob Ibrahim.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, many Members have shared positive examples of Singaporeans and companies successfully transforming themselves through digitalisation. Let me share one more example – our libraries.
Sir, our libraries are national treasures. Our earliest libraries were modest facilities, to promote reading among Singaporeans. But they have always explored new ways to promote library usage, such as our mobile libraries. Today, they have reinvented themselves by using technology to champion lifelong learning, build stronger communities and improve Singaporeans' lives.
Three years ago, in this House, I introduced the latest iteration of the libraries’ transformation – our Libraries of the Future Masterplan. Our vision was for the libraries to harness digital technology and become social touchpoints for bonding, collaboration and co-creation.
The Masterplan has delivered encouraging results. Five libraries have been revamped and reopened under the Masterplan – Bedok Public Library, Bukit Panjang Public Library, Sengkang Public Library, Tampines Regional Library and Yishun Public Library. Visitorship has doubled on average, and loans rose by over 40% at the Bukit Panjang and Sengkang libraries, compared to before the revamp. More people visited our public libraries last year compared to the year before, especially our seniors and children.
One reason why our revamped libraries are so popular is because of their specialised spaces, especially those with digital capabilities. For example, the Bukit Panjang Public Library has an Immersive Storytelling Room which brings stories to life through IM. The new Yishun Public Library has a dedicated Digital Learning Zone where users can read e-books and e-magazines to their hearts’ content. These specialised spaces are a boon to visitors seeking something different, such as Ms Audrey Leong, who visits the Bukit Panjang Public Library four times a week with her three children. Her children have fun in immersive storytelling sessions while she attends parenting workshops at the library.
Dr Teo Ho Pin mentioned that library visitorship remained the same and asked about the new initiatives that promote reading through digital technology. While the physical libraries' visitorship has held steady, our libraries' digital reach has increased significantly. Today, there are myriad digital resources on NLB's website which provides for learning anytime, anywhere.
In fact, as of 2017, e-book loans have increased by 69%; NLB's digital reach has grown more than threefold, to 34%; and the NLB mobile app has been accessed three million times since its launch in October 2016. So, for those Members who have not yet downloaded the NLB app, I strongly encourage you to do so today!
Our libraries can do much more. Mr Darryl David and Dr Teo Ho Pin asked what more our libraries can do to prepare Singaporeans for the future economy where digital skills will be in higher demand. The answer is plenty.
Our libraries have forged several partnerships, including with SSG, to build our abilities in three areas: Skills and Employability; Business Acumen and Market Knowledge; and Innovation. To promote learning for skills and employability, NLB and SSG jointly set up the LLiBrary in the Lifelong Learning Institute, which lets users use digital resources for their professional development. To help develop business acumen and market knowledge, NLB recently opened the Eye on Asia Resource Centre to give users a better understanding of regional markets through online resources, workshops and mentorship programmes. To inspire innovation, we will build another Pixel Lab at Woodlands Regional Library, so that we can translate more ideas into reality.
This will help innovators like Mr Jeremy Tan, who wanted to create an inexpensive soft-serve ice-cream machine to replace the expensive ones on the market. Through the Pixel Lab at Jurong Regional Library, Jeremy could print a working sample of his design to show potential investors and convince NUS Enterprise to fund his creation.
NLB will also collaborate with tech companies to nurture the next generation of digitally-ready Singaporeans. This will be an exciting year. We can look forward to the first NLB-Microsoft AI Hackathon that will bring students together to co-create innovative solutions using Microsoft’s AI products and data from NLB. In partnership with Microsoft, NLB will also be co-organising a National Digital Storytelling Competition this year. Open to all secondary school students, this competition will let students tell their own stories using the IM technologies at the Bukit Panjang Public Library and Microsoft tools.
Our libraries will also play an expanded role in realising our vision of digital readiness, as explained by Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary. To start, NLB will bring in more than 1,000 digital-readiness programmes for all ages every year.
Dr Teo Ho Pin asked about the libraries' efforts in supporting and preparing Singaporeans for active ageing. I am pleased to share that NLB will partner IMDA to develop and deliver a suite of digital readiness services and extend the reach of digital readiness training to more than 300,000 Singaporeans over five years, 85% of whom are expected to be adults and seniors. This year, seniors can look forward to TechShare, a tech showcase platform for seniors to try current and upcoming technology in a \"tech playground\" setting, exploring gadgets, such as robots and smart home technologies.
Sir, the upshot of these investments has been an increase in customer satisfaction. A recent survey showed that many more Singaporeans are visiting the libraries, reading books and having a good time doing so.
Children and young Singaporeans have benefited from the libraries' transformation. NLB has long supported efforts to promote early reading, especially for less privileged children, because this improves one’s ability to learn throughout life. Hence, we have programmes like KidsREAD and Early READ.
These efforts have produced encouraging results. Based on our survey of KidsREAD, four out of five children enjoy reading more. They also developed a positive self-esteem and positive attitude towards reading through attending kidsREAD sessions. Through Early READ, 99% of educators and 92% of parents observed that their children have gained an interest in reading.
Our libraries show us that it is possible to embrace digitalisation and reinvent ourselves to thrive in the future. But technology is not the only determinant of success. We must also have a deep sense of identity to root us as we navigate an uncertain and fast-changing future. This is where our libraries have also done well, thanks to their excellent work in preserving our national patrimony.
Ms Sun Xueling asked about the efforts undertaken by the National Library and Archives to preserve our heritage, and if access to archive resources is available at all our libraries. I am pleased to share that they are forerunners in using digital technology to strengthen digitisation efforts that are critical to the preservation of our memories. The digitised content is accessible through the various digital portals, such as Archives Online and NewspaperSG. In fact, many of Mediacorp’s Broadcast Archives are also viewable at the public libraries free of charge via the multimedia stations.
I had the opportunity to explore NLB’s Spatial Discovery website on my visit to the National Library last week. This website allows users to find and interact with maps and maps-related information across NLB and the National Archives of Singapore (NAS) collections.
Each map is a rich archive of information, as Members can see from the 1982 map of the Changi area overlying Changi Airport’s present-day satellite image. Today, many of us rely on Google Maps to tell us how to get somewhere. These historical maps, however, tell a different story: they show us how far we have come, from a barren site of land to four airport terminals, and possibly where we will go. The good news, Sir, is anyone can access this trove of knowledge on their Internet-enabled devices at any time, and not just at the libraries.
We will continue to do more. Later this year, we will amend the NLB Act to require publishers to deposit electronic publications free of technological protection measures so that NLB can provide access to and preserve the documents.
In preserving our national patrimony, NLB works closely with the community to preserve the rich heritage and culture that are embodied in our people. We particularly would like to thank our Citizen Archivists for helping us transcribe, describe and make sense of some 27,000 images or pages in the past year. We will continue to provide Singaporeans and friends more avenues to contribute their own captures of Singapore’s landscape and significant moments in time.
Similarly, Sir, the Archives has convened the Community Oral History Committees (COHCs) to ensure a comprehensive, representative and multifaceted oral history collection.
The COHCs have collated wonderful stories from fellow Singaporeans from all walks of life, such as Mrs Eleanor who saved her friend from being beaten up by rioters in the 1950s, Mr Noor Mohamed Marican, a lawyer involved in the Muslim Syariah Courts, and Mr Rama Kannabiran, a celebrated Tamil-language writer.
NAS will continue to preserve and make accessible our nation's at-risk collections and treasures, including microfilms and audio visual (AV) records. This year marks the NAS' Golden Jubilee. We are, therefore, revamping the NAS building at Canning Rise to enhance its archival facilities and create more public spaces so that Singaporeans can enjoy our rich repository of treasures.
You can soon browse historical documents in the comfort of a new Archives Reading Room or watch restored movies at the upgraded Oldham Theatre. But beyond hardware, the NAS will launch programmes for the public to enjoy its vast collection later this year.
Sir, over the last few years, through numerous dialogues and outreach and engagement efforts, such as Singapore 21, Our Singapore Conversation (OSC), SG50 and, most recently, SGfuture, we have heard from Singaporeans from all walks of life on their hopes and visions, and how we can shape our collective future together. In the OSC survey of 4,000 respondents, it was found that Singaporeans are generally optimistic that the next five years would be better than today, and that today was better than five years ago, despite the challenges ahead.
It is with the same spirit of optimism and zeal that my Ministry has envisioned what it means to be a truly digital Singapore. We see Singaporeans finding their niche in the digital economy, be it someone learning a new skill like 3D printing, an SME using an app to bring convenience to its clients, or communities collaborating to develop future-forward digital solutions to better the lives of fellow Singaporeans.
Sir, we will provide opportunities for inventive entrepreneurs to translate their ideas into reality, for content creators to move from storyboards to bigger screens; for established and emerging companies to become the Googles of the world. We see a future where we can browse more digital resources from wherever we are, where communities come together to learn and grow together.
Today, Sir, the future beckons to us from the Reception Hall at Parliament House. I would like to invite the House to IMDA’s IM Exhibit hosted there, where you can visualise and digitally experience large 3D building models in the construction of new urban sites, amongst other AR and VR activities.
As we can see, my Ministry and its agencies are one step closer to realising our vision. We will continue working tirelessly with all our citizens and businesses, so that we can reap the benefits on our path to a truly digital Singapore and a Smart Nation, by growing our economy, supporting our SMEs in different sectors, and creating good jobs and a better quality of life for all Singaporeans. Like the people in the video I showed at the beginning of today's speech, our ultimate goal is to deploy technology that will continue to improve the lives of Singaporeans and empower them to do more good for their families, communities and our nation.
The Chairman: Mr Zaqy Mohd.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Chairman, I have questions on what Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat shared earlier. What are the expected success indicators of the funding and collaboration that were announced just now with other players like Mediacorp and SPH? In the Ministry's view, how are they performing, compared to authentic influencers for readers and viewers, such as Toggle versus YouTube, Netflix; mainstream news apps versus other alternatives; or TV content providers versus cable operators?
Is the Ministry also concerned that some companies like SPH last year had to scale back and retrench? Will that impact their role in public communications?
Lastly, how does it affect our vernacular media, especially the Tamil and Malay news providers, given that they have seen declining readership and viewership in Singapore, in particular, the younger generation?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Chairman, I thank Mr Zaqy Mohamad for his clarifications. First, we need to understand that viewership and readership of mainstream media – Mediacorp, SPH – have not been reduced. What happened is that in the case of SPH, instead of reading the hardcopy newspapers, more of their readers are now shifting online and getting their news through mobile devices, through their iPads.
This is the same for Mediacorp where we see that people are not necessarily watching television programmes in front of a TV set, but they are watching it online through Toggle. Yesterday, Mr Vikram Nair said that that is his viewing behaviour as well; he will view it on Toggle.
Toggle has an advantage in the sense that you can do catch-up. If you are not available during the time when the programme is showing, you can do a catch-up later at your own time and convenience.
The challenge that our mainstream media companies are faced with right now is that even though the overall readership, viewership numbers are there, we need to find a more effective way of monetising these online. The advertising revenues on traditional platforms through your newspapers, TV, when you compare to the advertising revenue currently online, there is still a difference. I think that is the main challenge that the mainstream media companies are facing.
Yesterday, Mr Ganesh Rajaram spoke about New York Times and he gave a very good example of how they managed to increase their online subscriptions and they do this not just by targeting local readers, it is a global readership base. Similarly, for us, we have to think how do we find effective ways of monetising our online reach. Both SPH and Mediacorp are looking at this using data analytics, using more targeted communications and marketing, and this is still a work-in-progress.
The other points that Mr Zaqy Mohamad mentioned are all part and parcel of the challenge that we face in the modern media environment. Consumers have more options, and content is going to be king. So, to compete, we need to make sure that we have good quality content, whether it is good quality news reports, opinion pieces, documentaries, good quality entertainment. So, good quality local content which is difficult for overseas players to replicate and where we can then have an emotional resonance and connection with Singaporeans.
The Chairman: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: The kidsREAD Club is an excellent programme. It has helped many kids in the neighbourhood, inculcating in them the reading habit and the love to read at the early age. So, the Minister only made a brief mention of kidsREAD. I just want to ask whether there are plans to refresh this programme, maybe scale up with some more resources and enlarge the outreach because it, indeed, helps especially the lower-income children and families. The resource support, if you can give more from NLB, how to curate the programme and so on, I think that would be very helpful.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I share Mr Liang Eng Hwa's sentiment that we would like to roll out kidsREAD to every constituency, every corner of Singapore. In fact, my kidsREAD team is now engaging all the constituencies to see whether we can open up in every Residents Committee (RC) so that it will benefit the low-income families. The resources are there. We also curate some of the best practices in other kidsREAD clubs and share it with the other kidsREAD clubs. There is always a gathering of the volunteers with the NLB team to share expertise and success stories. Our team is very small, our ambitions are very large. We are relying on whatever we have at the moment. Thus far, I am quite happy. But I certainly would like to see more kidsREAD clubs rolled out.
In terms of resources, we would explore more on what we can do. At the moment, all of the kids will get a small bag, a T-shirt. The more important thing for me is training more volunteers who can then engage the children. It is not just about reading; it is about the interaction between the volunteer and the child. So, we have been recruiting a lot of volunteers. My own experience in Kolam Ayer − we are blessed with lots of young volunteers coming forward. NLB runs a training programme for them and then, they do the outreach and do the reading programme. So, we will continue to step it up and if there are any constituencies which might be interested in opening up a kidsREAD club, we are happy to assist.
The Chairman: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Chairman, my question is directed at Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat. If I heard him correctly, 30% of households are still on the analogue TV signal. It sounds like a very big number. So, it translates to a few hundred thousand households which, come next year, will not receive the TV signal. I am quite happy to mobilise our grassroots volunteers to reach out. But I, myself, struggle to translate some of the terms because \"analogue TV signal\", I google translate it and the Chinese word that pops up, I do not even know how to read. So, I hope MCI can help us to push out something which is very easy for us to use to share with our grassroots to then reach out to the elderly residents.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Chairman, can I first clarify with the Member whether he is asking about translation or is he asking about the package to roll out to help our residents?
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Because 30% of households seems like a really big number and I am very worried that, next year, they cannot receive the signal. So, please help us to reach out and help us with translation of terms. Currently, terms like \"analogue TV\", \"digital set-top box\", these are very difficult words to translate and for us to explain to residents what this thing is about.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Chairman, I thank the Member for his clarifications. Yes, I think the short answer is MCI, IMDA will work closely with the broadcaster Mediacorp. We will also work closely with the grassroots organisations, the community organisations to make sure that we have clear, simple to understand communications that we can then roll out to help all our residents to understand how they can go through this conversion. So, do not worry, we will work closely with all our partners to make sure that this is done properly.
The Chairman: I think when the Member mentions those terms, he may wish to put on his headset and listen to the translation, and he would be able to find out what the translation is. Any other clarifications? If not, would the Member wish to withdraw the amendment?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Chairman, I would like to thank Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary and Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat as well as all Parliamentary colleagues for making this MCI COS a fruitful one, and one that will take Singapore forward in the infocomm, media and creative sectors. I also want to thank MCI and all the Statutory Boards for all their hard work behind the scenes. So, I wish the Ministry all the best in their efforts and the journey ahead and, as the Minister shared, you just need to learn the ABCs. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $998,162,500 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $49,158,500 for Head Q 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 – Head M (Ministry of Finance)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Mr Chairman, one of the key thrusts of this year's Budget is about ensuring fiscal prudence and sustainability: how do we manage rising expenditures and how do we find the revenue to fund this spending in the years ahead. It is a full plate for the Ministry of Finance (MOF).
The Finance Minister announced that growth of Ministries' block budgets will be reduced from 0.4 times of gross domestic product (GDP) to 0.3 times next year. Last year, he also announced a permanent 2% downward adjustment to Budget caps and that the agencies are on the lookout for ways to be efficient and effective. These across-the-board measures are necessary to instill prudence and discipline in spending. It would internalise cost consciousness among the Government agencies and would have an overall financial impact when aggregated across the scale of the Government.
The natural follow-up question to ask is whether, with these measures in place, would the agencies go overzealous in cost management and, as a result, impact service delivery or to look to increase fees? Would these downward adjustments to Budget caps have an impact on planned investments by Ministries and agencies which have wanted to enhance and upgrade their systems to improve efficiency and effectiveness but would now have to shelve their plans due to Budget caps?
While we should be extremely prudent in our spending, we know that there can be no goodness achieved by just mindlessly cutting costs. Rather, we should look to more work-smart initiatives, processes and workflow improvements and, importantly, cutting unnecessary red tape as among the areas of focus to manage costs and improve service delivery.
So, I like this mantra \"value-for-money\" often propagated by MOF. It needs no explanation and this is a better attitude to take when we review projects rather than to just say no to all spending increases.
As I said during the Budget Debate, between not spending on needed essential items or cutting spending, I rather the Government spend prudently but look for more revenue sources so that we continue to provide more to improve the quality of life of our people. Mr Chairman, beyond managing efficiency within the Government, we can and should also encourage and empower ground agencies to seek local innovative solutions to local problems where we can and it can also achieve the value-for-money principle.
Allow me to relate a real-life example of how an enlightened decision by a secondary school principal in my constituency can achieve a \"value-for-no money\" outcome for the Government and yet is a win-win situation for all.
In my constituency's Senja Estate, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) is now constructing a cluster of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats known as Senja Ridges. The site of the BTO is immediately adjacent to West Spring Secondary School and, as Members can imagine, the construction noises will cause tremendous noise nuisance to the students studying there. Hence, as part of the contractual arrangements, the contractor is required to build a high wall in the narrow spaces between the school and the BTO site to block off some of the noises and minimise the impact.
Of course, this may well be an intuitive solution to the problem which may partially reduce the construction noise, but it would also mean that the overall ambience of school will be affected. Imagine students looking out of their classroom windows, only to be greeted by the high walls, the boring walls, staring at them. Moreover, the wall will also not come cheap for the contractor as it needs to be strong enough to withstand the vibrations of the construction site.
So, the school and the contractor met up to discuss the project. Thanks to the good wisdom of the principal and the contractor, they agreed on not building the wall. Instead, the contractor will use the money saved to install air-conditioning for all the classrooms adjacent to the construction site and the school can get to keep the air-condition machines even after the completion of the projects.
As a result, students now can study in the comfort of an air-conditioned environment which is an even more effective way to block out the construction noises than compared to the wall. To top it off, all these improvements to the school environment comes at no additional cost to MOE or the Government.
From the contractor's standpoint, they do not need to build a high wall and would not need to have to demolish the wall when the BTO project is completed, which I presume, the total costs will be more than the installation of the air-conditioning. So, here we have an \"out-of-the-box\" solution which is a win-win for everyone.
We should encourage more of such creative and smart ideas to solve local problems and tap on the power of ground-up ingenuity to get the solution out to solve local problems. The last thing we want is to have a stifling environment within the whole-of-Government system such that good ideas and solutions do not get to see the light of day.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Chairman, Sir, my apology for the hoarseness in my voice. For Budget 2018, total spending by the Government is estimated to be $80 billion, representing an increase of 8.3% year-on-year, mainly on the back of increased spending in transport, trade and industry and home security. Even though Government spending at 19% of GDP is considered lean when compared to other developed countries, the expenditure growth has been on the rise and cost management discipline is more important now than ever. It is critical that we consider our expenditure growth very carefully and take every step to ensure we get the best value for the money we spend.
In the private sector, it is a common strategy to consider cost cutting in other areas to fund new investments and increases in expenditures. I call on the Government to take a bottom-up analysis of each Ministry's expenditure needs and scrutinise and prioritise cost items. The Finance Minister has introduced the discipline of moderating the pace of the Ministries' Budget growth in the last two Budgets. What more can the Government do to work smarter and more efficiently?
First, I would like to ask the Minister if the operations of Ministries and Statutory Boards are subject to productivity reviews to establish their operational efficiency and goals for improvement. Given the vast number of agencies in operation, Ministries can leverage off such reviews to establish best practices and improve their processes to become leaner.
Second, with significant infrastructure spending and Government programmes yet to come, I would like to ask the Minister what mechanisms are in place to evaluate and monitor spending to ensure value-for-money and accountability on outcomes and spending. How will public officers be rewarded for cost savings they manage to secure against the allocated Budget for projects? There should be incentives to recognise public officers' efforts and cost savings. We do hear of stories of public sector officers rushing to spend allocated funds toward the end of the financial year, about this time, often on programmes they could have done without. The understanding is that they fear being penalised in future Budgets if they under-utilise the current Budget.
Third, with increasingly complex challenges facing the Government, it is critical that the public sector agencies adopt a coordinated whole-of-Government response and work collaboratively to avoid duplication of efforts and costs. I am pleased that the recent Public Sector (Governance) Bill sends a strong signal on the importance of cross-agency coordination. With the new Bill in place, Chief Executives of Statutory Boards will be obliged by law to cooperate and collaborate with other public sector agencies to deliver value to the public. I believe that much cost synergies may be realised from cross-agency collaboration and interagency sharing of data.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Chairman, Sir, back in 2008, the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) was part of the pioneering effort to develop the Santiago Principles, a common global set of 24 voluntary guidelines that assign best practices for the operations of Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs). These principles address concerns about visibility, accountability and the governing structure of SWFs, and include ethics and professionalism in the ability to follow foreign rules.
Though Temasek does not direct business decisions or operations in its portfolio companies, it pitches itself as an active promoter of sound corporate governance in them. As a sole shareholder of Temasek, the Government should naturally be concerned that the entities in Temasek invest and adhere to the spirit of the Santiago Principles in order to safeguard Singapore's Reserves and international reputation.
To this end, it was reported yesterday that Temasek has now taken some steps in tackling corruption within its portfolio companies with Chairman Lim Boon Heng announcing a roundtable \"in the next few months\" focusing on questions of governance and ethics.
Turning to what other countries have done, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global has led the way. Through an ethics council established in 2004, companies that are unethical are excluded from its investment portfolio. It appointed a corporate governance advisory board in 2013 to be a more engaged and more responsible investor. The Oil Fund has tackled issues, such as high executive pay, by voting against pay proposals at Alphabet JP Morgan and Volkswagen in 2017.
While the Santiago Principles require that SWFs like Temasek be operationally independent from their owners, that is, MOF, how has MOF worked with Temasek on areas, such as its investment policies or otherwise, to maintain ethics? Will MOF add further accountability for Temasek on the ethics front? I am of the view that reputational challenges to Singapore’s integrity as a country should not be left to be steered by what is legally just a commercial entity.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, during the debate on bribery probe at Keppel Offshore and Marine, Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah said \"likewise, Temasek does not interfere in the business decisions or operations of its portfolio companies\".
Do Temasek and GIC not seek to share ideas and experience with their investee companies in ways that may enhance long-term shareholder value? Or are Temasek and GIC totally hands off, as it were? Are they not interfering in investment business decisions or operations at all? Not even offering insights, information or suggestions of any kind on any matter, be it commercial or corporate governance-related?
If Temasek and GIC are totally hands off in this sense, would this not be a lost opportunity since they have the opportunity to share learnings where permissible across their portfolio companies and from their past experience as investors, not to mention connecting investees to agencies like the Economic Development Board (EDB) which can generate win-win opportunities for investees and Singapore?
Playing such a role, if kept within the boundaries of permissible information and idea dissemination, could be consistent with the Santiago Principle No 16 on operational independence while advancing Principle No 19 on commercial orientation.
The Chairman: Mr Azmoon Ahmad, you can take the two cuts together
Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Chairman, Sir, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat's announcement on the $9.6 billion Budget surplus out of fiscal year 2017 is definitely a pleasant surprise. It is more than five times the initial surplus forecast of $1.9 billion. It is news every Singaporean welcomes.
While there is no hard and fast rule on how a surplus is to be distributed or what and where it should be allocated to, I would like to mention that the proportion is highly skewed towards savings for the future. If my calculations are correct, about 72% of the total surplus is being saved which means $5 billion plus $1.9 billion over the $9.6 billion.
Sir, I am not against saving. I do support saving but I thought this matter is worth mentioning. I think that the distribution is highly lopsided on the savings side. So, what would be the right distribution? What model should we adopt when there are surpluses? How can we arrive at a distribution model which serves the interests of the now, the near future and the future? Should we not derive a baseline where the distribution and allocation models are acceptable, just like our Net Investment Returns (NIR)?
Sir, I would like to share my views and suggestions. These suggestions or views should not be the only ones considered. They are also not necessarily the best. They can serve as an exercise to get a discussion going to arrive at a baseline for future use.
Taking a corporate approach, it is quite normal that companies distribute dividends to shareholders after having posted positive results. We can frame our surplus distribution model vis-à-vis the dividend payout policy of a company. It is quite normal that a company makes a dividend payout to its shareholders amounting to 15% to 20% of net income.
Similarly, I think we can adopt the same approach in allocating the SG Bonus to our fellow Singaporeans. Taking a conservative approach of 15% and still keeping a reasonable high savings of 65%, I suggest we adopt a 65:20:15 ratio for our savings, our subsidies and our SG Bonus allocation. I believe this will serve the future, near term and now with the amounts of $6 billion, $2 billion and $1.6 billion from the total surplus of $9.6 billion.
If this baseline model is reasonable, could this become a precedent to future surpluses as long as it is financially prudent to do so? If yes, this will be in line with the Government's long-time commitment for sharing the fruits of the nation's development with fellow Singaporeans. Sir, I would be happy to hear from the Finance Ministry on how they arrived at their model if it is available.
Sir, while we move up the ladder to become a gracious and caring society, we should not and must not be over dependent on the Government to fork out grants and subsidies. Instead, we need to build an ecosystem where the substantial part of giving is to be generated from the society itself. We need to find a way and establish a system which is sustainable, where giving has become a pleasure and giving is highly motivated. A system of recognition and reward should be explored in trying to encourage more giving.
In a report in January 2017 made by SPD, formally known as the Society for the Physically Disabled, on the World Giving Index 2016, 140 countries across the globe were surveyed in 2015. In most countries surveyed, 1,000 questionnaires were completed by a representative sample of individuals living across the country. Respondents were asked if they had done the following in the past month: first, helped a stranger or someone they did not know who needed help; second, donated money to charity; third, volunteered their time to their organisation. In terms of donating money, Singapore was the 19th most generous country in 2016. Although the ranking has dropped for the past two years, the percentage of Singaporeans who donated money has increased from 55% in 2013 to 58% in 2016.
It is heartening to hear from the Minister that 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations will be extended for another three more years until 2021. I am certain this gesture is very much welcome by charities and organisations alike that depend on donations to fund their operations. They rely on these tax deductions as a way to encourage donors to donate to their organisations. I believe it is a significant quantum to donors which could make a difference between giving more or remaining as it is.
The 250% tax deduction promotes the spirit of giving among Singaporeans and encourages them to play a part in contributing back to the society to help others in need. This can be seen by the increase in donations by $0.7 billion dollars between 2011 and 2015. While this increase is good and encouraging, is it enough?
My time with the non-profit organisations has shown me that a large injection of funds is sometimes needed, especially when initiatives and programmes need to be rolled out. The large cash outlay goes towards recruiting new staff, setting up new infrastructure, training existing staff and other expenses needed to kickstart a new programme.
This need for a large amount of funds often cannot be solely supported by donations received from the public. Rather, Government grants and large donations from foundations, philanthropies make the difference on whether a new programme can be launched and implemented effectively. As such, while a 250% tax deduction is appreciated by all, I am of the opinion that more can be done to make it more attractive, especially donors from the upper-income band.
To encourage more Singaporeans to donate, I would like to suggest a model for progressive tax deduction for donors which will take on a similar approach to the progressive tax imputation on our income received. This proposal will mean that instead of a flat rate of 250% for all donations, the tax deduction rate increases with a quantum of donation given. Much like how incomes are broken down to bands to compute income tax rates, the same can be done for donations. Tax deductions can begin at 200% and increase in quantum of 50% reaching a maximum rate of 500%.
The suggested model will make donating large amounts more attractive. As such, the objective is not only to encourage more donors to donate, it will encourage high net worth donors in our midst to donate even more which will benefit our charities and organisations. This, in turn, will mean that the organisations will have to develop new and better programmes to extend their reach to others who may be in need but have yet to be served.
All in all, such a progressive deduction tax model will have a far-reaching effect that will benefit Singaporeans as a whole. I truly hope that the Government can consider the suggested progressive tax deduction for donors and study on its feasibility for implementation.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, let me first declare my interest as the advisor for the National Private Hire Vehicles Association. Currently, taxi hirers can use rental of vehicles and fuel as tax deductibles. Can a similar approach be adopted for full-time private hire vehicle (PHV) hirers?
Unlike previously, these drivers are now required to obtain a Land Transport Authority (LTA) Private Hire Car Driver’s Vocational Licence (PDVL) to provide point-to-point ride services. PHV drivers can only serve commuters who book their trips through the apps. All trips completed are also recorded, making it possible to identify the time spent providing hire-for-reward services from other usage.
A full-time taxi hirer, in comparison, will have to achieve about 20 revenue trips per day to cover his costs and some take-home income for the day. A private hire driver may do fewer revenue trips as their consumer base is limited due to the fact that they only take trips based on what is assigned by the system.
Prior to LTA requiring all PHV drivers to obtain a licence, they were required to register a transport company, and this took care of the tax. With the licence, they now no longer have to register a company but are affected by the tax deductible. I urge the Ministry to allow full-time PHV hirers to submit their vehicle rental and fuel expenses for tax deduction purposes.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, I have received queries from residents who are full-time PHV drivers who are not allowed to claim tax deductions for the amount they spend on motor car expenses, in particular, car rental fee.
A search of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) website's frequently asked questions (FAQ) segment provides answer to this query: \"the expenses incurred on a private car by private hire car drivers are not tax deductible because of the national policy to restrict the car population\".
In my view, the answer provided does not seem to clarify the circumstance well. How does not allowing PHV drivers claim tax deduction correlate to restriction of car population? Is the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) scheme not already there to regulate the car population?
The service provided by private hire cars complements our public transport services and, anecdotally, I can say, to a certain extent, this service contributes to reducing the number of car ownership rather than increasing it.
I say so because I have friends who did not extend or buy new cars after their cars' COEs expired. Reasons are that it is more convenient and cheaper to travel by private hire car as compared to owning one.
I would like to urge MOF to work closely with the various stakeholders to come up with a framework that would ensure that the full-time PHV drivers are taxed in a fair and just manner.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, public communication on the way water is priced can be significantly improved. At last year's Budget Debate, the Minister in charge of the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) shared that the numbers in the books of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) do not lend themselves to a straightforward understanding of what they mean. The Minister observed that while PUB's books are in accruals, the Ministry's Budget is in cash. The Minister also said that he would ask the Minister of Finance to look at a whole-of-Government approach to funding Singapore's water infrastructure because things do not add up if one looks at the books separately. In light of these remarks, can I clarify what progress has been made on this?
Many Singaporeans note that PUB's books record significant surpluses after Government grants and that any increase in water prices should take into account the size of such surpluses. More fundamentally, there is a greater desire to understand the variables and assumptions that go into calculating Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC), which forms the basis of determining water prices. The Government should attempt to explain this in a simple manner so that the public can appreciate the basis of raising water prices by 15% in 2017, with another hike scheduled for 2018.
Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Chairman, I have two points to share. Firstly, the Government adopts cash accounting as opposed to accrual accounting in the private sector. Under such a cash accounting convention, capital and operating budgets are lumped together, even though there is a great difference between capital investments and recurrent operating expenses.
The recurrent operating expenses include items like administrative expenses, facility rentals and operations. This group of expenses tends to be sticky and, if not well-controlled, could be difficult to dial back. Capital investments, on the other hand, is forward-looking and, if invested wisely, can yield significant returns in the future. In fact, under investments, Capital Expenditure may also be bad, as opportunities to reap future benefits may be missed out. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister if he could share with us the split between capital and recurrent expenses, and how has this ratio shifted over the years.
Chairman, my second point is about balance. In crafting the Budget, which is a strategic fiscal tool as the Minister pointed out, really is not just simple arithmetic. I think the Minister has to carefully balance many, many dimensions, sometimes, conflicting objectives. I can think of several: growing an economy through an expansionary Budget so as to grow the base but be careful not to overheat the economy for cost inflation; meeting the demands for funding all meritorious causes that can be sustained; meeting the needs of this generation and future generations; helping those who are in need without eroding our work ethos; and creating a fairer income distribution system yet having a competitive tax rate so that talents and enterprises do not flee this country. These are very difficult and complex issues requiring a lot of judgement, adroitness and so forth.
May I ask the Minister to share with us how he had struck the right balance and what were his key considerations?
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Chairman, value is not just about what we spend today, especially when it comes to fixed assets like construction projects and infrastructure. Value is also about the cost of upkeep over the lifetime of the project. We also have to look at how to keep maintenance costs down and that means making maintenance easy to do.
When we construct new Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) tunnels, the tender analysis should look at the designs and ask if it is easy to organise track access for maintenance. Every minute counts when it comes to track access, as we have learnt over the years and recently.
Likewise, when we design and build a new HDB block, we should also ask whether it is easy to maintain the exterior facade. This includes little details, like whether horizontal struts are needed because such high-rise horizontal beams can be difficult to clean.
This also means understanding human nature when buildings are designed. For example, high-rise littering still happens in many housing estates. In Clementi where I serve, some of the newer HDB blocks were reported to have so-called \"award-winning designs\". These designs look very nice from afar, but some of these designs also very easily accumulate high-rise litter. The litter lands on horizontal beams, difficult to clear.
I asked the National Environment Agency (NEA) if there was something that could be done, NEA has been studying this for some time and they have found that the layout of the columns, the layout of the struts, make it very difficult if not impossible to put closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras to catch high-rise littering.
Chairman, when the building design makes it harder to maintain the exterior, when it becomes harder to keep the building clean, the costs do not go away. In the case of HDB blocks, the costs are passed on to the Town Council and, indirectly, passed on from there to the residents.
As part of prudent spending, we must look at the lifetime cost of maintenance and cleaning and upkeep of buildings and infrastructure. And as part of keeping lifetime maintenance costs down for infrastructure, ease of maintenance has to be part of the design criteria early on at the tender stage.
We can also require space in public buildings to be adaptable, so that as land needs change, a building can be repurposed without having to demolish or rebuild. We can call it \"building in prudence\", \"prudence by design\".
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Chairman, I understand our need to have more spending in the years ahead. However, before we ask for more tax dollars from our people, we have a responsibility to them to ensure that we have done our best to remain prudent and ensure value-for-money in Government expenses.
Can the Government share on what internal systems and controls will help us achieve this? Can the Government also share concrete examples of how savings have been achieved?
Having said that, it is important that in our drive for economy, we do not automatically go for the lowest bid in public tender, at the sacrifice of quality and long-term cost control, as per what fellow Member Dr Tan Wu Meng has just shared. It is also important that we do not pass the cost unnecessarily to the private sector and our people through unnecessary or over-complex regulations.
Can the Government also share how we can best manage this important balance between economy and quality?
Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Chairman, with Government expenditure set to rise due to infrastructure renewal and building up of healthcare facilities, I hope that apart from having gateways to review the costing and design of large projects, that the Ministry can look into the processes that guide day-to-day Government procurement or assets.
For instance, can we use centralised procurement to a larger extent to leverage economies of scale and get a better deal from suppliers? Can the Ministries actively push for product standardisation and demand aggregation to ensure that we do not get creamed off by suppliers? We could end up being charged different prices across different institutions for similar products if we are not careful. Also, how do we ensure that purchase contracts best take care of our interests?
Lastly, where assets have a long lifecycle, say 25 to 30 years, are the Ministries adopting a lifecycle cost-approach to take into account the cost of maintenance and replacements of spare parts? Are there specialised teams with technical knowledge of these assets to make a reasoned assessment of the costs?
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, our local construction companies are struggling. In the past, I have brought up the issue of high foreign worker levy for the sector. I also filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on compliance costs for construction companies to implement various workplace safety requirements.
Today, I would like to highlight a feedback that local construction companies have been facing increasing competition from foreign-owned construction companies and have found it increasingly difficult to win tenders for Government contracts. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also raised this issue during the Committee of Supply (COS) for the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) last Friday.
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a local construction company told me that the foreign-owned construction companies are winning tenders at a level which is near breakeven or maybe even at a slight loss based on their cost estimates. I asked him why would the foreign companies tender at a price that they do not make any profits? He gave several reasons. First, some of these firms have ambitions to be global construction players so they want to build up their track record, and winning a Government tender in Singapore will be seen as a feather in the cap. Another reason is that, at the working level, the management team of such foreign-owned companies, and possibly their family members as well, may be comfortable staying in Singapore, and if they do not win the tender for major projects, they may be sent home.
Sir, it has thus become a very tough business environment for our local construction companies. Without winning the contracts in Singapore, they also find it difficult to build up a track record to compete overseas. Chairman, for our national security reasons, I think it is important that we maintain a certain number of local construction companies. We may need them for the construction of high-security facilities for which a foreign-owned construction company may not be suitable.
Sir, I understand that under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, we cannot favour local companies over foreign companies in the award of Government contracts. But surely, there must be a way to require that foreign construction companies must tender for a project under a joint venture with a local player so that our local construction companies have the chance to build up their track record.
As such, I hope MOF can take the above feedback into consideration in the award of Government tenders.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Chairman, Sir, in Budget 2016, the National Trade Platform (NTP) was announced and subsequently implemented in 2017. NTP was designed as an open innovation platform which businesses and service providers can tap on to develop new applications to support evolving business needs. During that Budget, NTP was also presented as an example of an \"industry-level transformation\". It was then mentioned that the initiative will cost an estimated S$100 million, while it could bring about man-hour savings of about S$600 million to Singapore firms. Can the Minister provide an update on the implementation and whether it has benefited our economy and businesses with higher efficiency since its inception?
As digitalisation continues to be a driver in our economy, NTP can become a showcase of how we can enable productivity improvements through streamlining digital information exchange. With the many ideas provided by industry stakeholders during this development, what are some further collaborations that MOF is undertaking with the private sector to co-create solutions for our businesses?
Conceptually, NTP is an attractive one-stop trade portal for Business-to-Government and Business-to-Business services. On the back of a thriving e-commerce landscape and Singapore being a key trading hub, are there any plans to expand this platform for other trade opportunities beyond customs and logistics? How can the platform developers or sector players continue to provide inputs for future frameworks?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, Sir, we are moving very swiftly on the use of information technology (IT) in our service delivery. From across all sectors, be it transport, retail, healthcare and finance, time and again, we see new apps being introduced, new online services and so forth to make services more hassle-free and it means cutting down waiting time and so on. This is a massive effort that the Civil Service has embarked on and will impact across the whole spectrum of our society.
The landing page of a Ministry's website or Statutory Board, for example, becomes the first line of contact with the public more so than the officers who sit behind the frontline counter. All these are part of our move towards a Smart Nation and moving to technology, and in how we can enhance citizen experience with technology.
Can the Minister for Finance give an update on how the Ministry and the Statutory Boards under its wings, such as IRAS and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), for example, are improving their service delivery to citizens and businesses through digitalisation? How is the Government making better use of technology and improving processes to make timely payments to the individuals and businesses, which is an important part as it may help the cash flow to the recipients or businesses?
Can the Minister give an overview of MOF's digitalisation efforts as part of the Smart Nation drive? How is the Public Service becoming more future-ready and tapping on technology to better serve the needs of our people and businesses?
The Chairman: Second Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their comments and questions for MOF.
Members’ questions covered four areas: first, our fiscal position, and our financing and surplus-sharing approach; second, the Government’s efforts in ensuring value-for-money in our spending and procurement; third, our plans to create opportunities for businesses and enhance citizen experience with technology; and fourth, the role of shareholders and some tax-related matters.
So, I will address the cuts on the first two topics, and the Senior Minister of State Ms Indranee Rajah will take the other cuts.
On our fiscal position, Mr Cedric Foo asked about the proportion of capital investment compared to recurrent spending or operating expenditure. Let me start by elaborating on our overall funding approach. In fact, this is what the Minister for Finance had explained in his Budget Statement that we fund recurrent needs through taxation and we will consider borrowing for major infrastructure projects.
But even as we look at borrowing, we will only do so prudently and on a selective basis. We should borrow for the right projects ‒ those that are bankable and generate adequate future revenue streams to repay the borrowing. One example that we are looking at is Changi Airport Terminal 5. If we do not do this, if we are not careful and selective in borrowing, we may end up over-burdening ourselves with rising interest costs. And that is not what we intend to do. So, therefore, even as we borrow, there will still be capital projects that we continue to fund through development expenditure from the annual Budget.
For financial year (FY) 2018, the share of development expenditure of the total Budget is around 28%. It is slightly higher than what it used to be, but it is in the ballpark. Looking ahead, we expect development expenditures to rise as we continue to invest in more capital projects. But at the same time, operating expenditures are also going to increase, especially in areas that were highlighted in the Budget, like healthcare, security and other social spending. So, overall, both will go up, but we expect the share of development spending to continue to rise slightly in the coming years.
We will continue to monitor this share between operating and development spending. It is an important balance. Because if we spend too much on recurrent, then we are not investing enough for the future, not building capabilities for the future. If we spend too much on capital, then we may end up with a long tail of future spending for maintenance and replacement. So, it is critical to get the balance right, and that is what we are doing.
Many of the capital projects in the Government are undertaken by our Statutory Boards. Mr Pritam Singh asked about the harmonisation of accounts because our Statutory Boards use the accrual basis for their accounts and the Ministries use cash. This is the approach we have taken because we believe that cash accounting allows for better control of spending, and it is a more prudent way of fiscal management. That is not just us. Many governments also do cash accounting for their Ministries. But for statutory boards, they use accrual for their accounts because statutory boards are set up as separate legal entities with their own financial accounts. Some statutory boards even go to the markets to borrow. So, we want our Statutory Boards to be subject to the same discipline as the private sector, and that is why they use accrual accounts, like what private sector companies do.
The important thing is this. Regardless of whether the work is carried out by a Ministry or a Statutory Board, we take a whole-of-Government approach on how we finance our infrastructure. The water network is a case in point.
Briefly put, PUB collects revenue and pays for the investment and operations and maintenance of the water supply system. That includes our reservoirs, treatment plants and pipelines and also the water reclamation plants for the treatment of used water. If there are any surpluses in its accounts, PUB will plough them back into investments in infrastructural works, such as the upgrading of waterworks, water reclamation plant expansions and investment in water treatment processes, as well as in research and development (R&D).
For FY2012 to FY2016, PUB has transferred $1.3 billion of surpluses into its capital reserves. However, this is still not sufficient to fully cover the $4 billion that PUB will be investing in additional water infrastructure between FY2017 and FY2021. And because there is this gap in its financing cash flows, PUB borrows for its capital investments. So, this is what happens within the PUB accounts.
On top of this, the Government funds the drainage system that helps to manage flooding risks, the sewerage network system that helps to safeguard public health, and projects to help strengthen the resilience of our water supply. These assets are part of our total water loop, but they also provide benefits to all citizens. So, the Government pays for these assets and we do not recover the cost directly from consumers.
Indeed, from FY2012 to FY2016, Government investments in drainage and sewerage totalled $2.1 billion, far in excess of the Water Conservation Tax revenue. In the next decade, we are also building Phase 2 of the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, which costs more than $4 billion. These are costly but important investments that we need to make.
Sir, expenditure in our water system is thus recorded in both PUB’s accounts and in the Government’s Budget because of how we structure the payments between the consumer and the taxpayer. While they use different bases for accounting, as I have explained, each is appropriate for its use. What remains important is sound fiscal and financial management to ensure timely and adequate investments in our public infrastructure and assets. We do this for water; we do this for all other public infrastructure as well.
Several Members ‒ Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Foo Mee Har, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Sun Xueling ‒ spoke about the need to be prudent, efficient and effective in our spending. I fully agree with them. This is, indeed, an area of continuing emphasis for MOF.
I was a budget officer in MOF way back in 2000. So, I have seen first-hand how our budgeting system has evolved over the years. MOF officers scrutinise every project. Even back then, we had robust processes in place for budgeting. We checked against cost norms, we made the necessary cuts in the budget of Ministries and agencies. It is not work that endears ourselves to colleagues in other Ministries, I assure you. They see MOF as blocking or delaying their projects. But we take these in our stride and we do the work.
Now, almost 20 years later, I can say that our processes for budgeting and ensuring value-for-money have developed further and become even more rigorous. We have put in place various systems and controls to ensure that our monies are spent effectively.
First, the Block Budget Framework sets a spending limit for Ministries. Within the budget given to them, each agency optimises its spending and channels resources to worthwhile programmes. The 2% reduction to the budget cap announced at the last Budget, and the reduction to the annual growth of the block budgets announced recently by the Minister for Finance will further encourage fiscal discipline among Government agencies. We have the Budget Utilisation Framework which encourages Ministries to budget as closely as possible to their expenditure needs. This is to ensure that they do not set aside more than they require and, as a result, deprive other meritorious needs of funding. But I would assure Ms Foo Mee Har that Ministries do not spend for the sake of spending or meeting the budget, especially during the end of the year. If there is under-utilisation of the budget due to reasons which are beyond the Ministries' control, there will not be reductions to their future budgets.
We also have mechanisms to give Ministries budgeting flexibility so they can roll over part of the savings from the operating budget to the next financial year. On top of all these, we conduct regular reviews of Ministries' budgets to make sure that they continue to be right-sized and ensure that every Ministry uses its allocated resources effectively and efficiently.
Second, for large infrastructure projects, we have the Gateway Process. This is something that we have shared in this House. It is a rigorous multi-stage process that scrutinises the requirements, scope and design of the projects at key milestones before funding approval is given. This process includes reviews not just by senior public officers, but by academics and industry practitioners where necessary, especially practitioners with deep technical expertise.
Third, MOF works with agencies to conduct Value-for-Money reviews to assess if our programmes are achieving their intended outcomes in a cost-effective manner. These best practices, guidelines and case studies from the reviews are shared across the Public Service.
Fourth, the performance of key programmes are published by the Ministries for their respective areas. These performance indicators are also consolidated and reported in the Annual Revenue and Expenditure Estimates and in the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review, which is published once every two years.
Ms Foo Mee Har asked if agencies conduct productivity reviews to ensure their operating efficiency. Indeed, that is done. Ministries have processes in place to more effectively allocate resources within their budgets, and to extract productivity dividends from their departments and Statutory Boards. We also have a Manpower Management Framework to keep public sector manpower growth at a sustainable rate, in line with the resident labour force growth. This framework allows for manpower to be redeployed to implement new programmes or deliver enhanced services, while preventing the over-expansion of public sector manpower over time.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa and some Members were concerned that the economy drive will impact on public services. I would like to assure them that Ministries will be more resource-effective without compromising service delivery. Even with the announced measures to constrain expenditure growth, overall Ministry budgets in dollar terms are still expected to grow, albeit at a slower rate. Agencies are given time to adjust to the budget changes and will have the resources to fulfil their missions and maintain service levels.
Of course, achieving value-for-money goes beyond cutting costs. It is also about creating greater value while we carefully manage the costs. Government agencies have sought to achieve value-for-money while improving service delivery and outcomes in various ways.
For infrastructure, in particular, something that Ms Foo Mee Har, Dr Tan Wu Meng and several others spoke about, we have stepped up efforts to manage our infrastructure spending. Let me elaborate on some of these measures.
First, we adopt a systems approach when we plan and design projects. We do not look at each project in isolation, but we consider how they affect one another, and the potential synergies of multiple projects collectively. We look for opportunities for infrastructure integration, which allows us to achieve better outcomes or reap savings. The Ministers for Finance and Transport have shared one example, which is the LTA's innovative 4-in-1 depot that saved the Government $2 billion. Another example is the integration of PUB’s Tuas Water Reclamation Plant with NEA's Integrated Waste Management Facility which brings about a number of synergies while optimising land use. Within this integrated facility, the co-digestion of food waste from NEA's facility with the used water sludge from PUB’s facility generates more biogas and enhances energy production. This allows both facilities to be self-sufficient in energy. The two plants will also enjoy other synergies, like the sharing of common administrative facilities. So, adopting a systems approach is useful. It creates more value, maximises synergies and that is what we are doing.
It also allows us to take a lifecycle perspective when planning and designing our infrastructure, which several Members spoke about as well. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms Sun Xueling highlighted the need to ensure value-for-money over the lifecycle of our infrastructure. This is, indeed, an area we are placing greater emphasis on.
Dr Tan Wu Meng talked about design. We typically associate architects and designers with aesthetics and they do produce very beautiful buildings. But I think the architectural profession, too, is very conscious that they cannot just design for aesthetics. Structure alone is not enough. They also have to design for functionality and maintainability, and that shift is happening.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) issues guides to help architects and designers better understand how they can design public buildings to achieve safer, more labour-efficient and more cost-effective maintenance downstream. BCA is also helping the industry and the architectural profession to make this shift towards better designs for functionality and maintainability.
Public sector agencies, like HDB and JTC, have incorporated these guidelines into their checklist when they do procurement and projects. So, Members will see a lot more consciousness in lifecycle considerations and in good design when these projects are being done.
With a lifecycle approach, we do not just look at the upfront price of a project but we look at the overall lifecycle cost. One example is when we do a building project to achieve the Green Mark Platinum standard, we, in fact, incur a cost premium of 3% to 5%. But the additional upfront costs are more than offset by downstream savings from reduced energy and water consumption. So, it makes sense from a lifecycle cost perspective.
Apart from such efforts, we are building up core engineering capabilities within the Government, as highlighted by Ms Sun Xueling, to achieve value-for-money for public projects from a lifecycle perspective. The Centre of Excellence for Building and Infrastructure was set up in 2016 under JTC. This is a shared service centre to help build and sustain inhouse engineering capabilities across the Public Service, from planning, design, project management to facilities management.
One example is JTC's efforts to roll out smart facilities management solutions for its industrial properties. By monitoring and analysing real-time data from its buildings centrally, JTC is able to better optimise building performance and respond to faults quickly. After piloting this approach on three of its properties, JTC estimates it can achieve a 15% improvement in productivity and energy savings. JTC is sharing its experiences and lessons learnt with the rest of the public sector.
To maximise value from limited resources, Government agencies also look for new and innovative ways to \"do more with less\". We continue to challenge the status quo and make use of technology to enhance work effectiveness while achieving manpower savings. One example is the Parking.sg app. I am sure many Members would have heard about this or are already using it today. We have been trying to do away with parking coupons for some time. The original thinking was that this could be achieved through Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0, but this would have taken some time and it would have been a very complex system.
Last year, a team of the Government Technology Agency (GovTech), HDB and Urban Renewal Authority (URA) officers came together to develop the Parking.sg app. We now have a quick and convenient way to pay for short-term parking. Drivers are only charged on a per-minute basis and they can extend their parking sessions remotely, instead of having to return to their vehicles to add more coupons. Since the app was launched in October last year, about 250,000 vehicles have used it on more than two million parking sessions.
Delivering value for every dollar spent is the responsibility of each and every Public Service officer. But it should not be limited to Government agencies alone. Through greater partnership with businesses and the community, we have worked hand in hand to deliver better outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans.
One example is IRAS' hackathon to crowdsource solutions to make it an easier experience for companies and individuals to file their taxes. Filing taxes is never a pleasant experience. But we can make the process streamlined and convenient for everyone. A group of individuals, who called themselves TinkerTax was one of the winners in the hackathon. It is an online application that helps small and medium enterprises (SMEs) prepare for the submission of their corporate income tax returns. With TinkerTax, companies can convert accounting income to taxable income for their income tax returns in three easy steps. This innovative solution helps small companies as it allows them to complete their tax return filing more easily.
Our libraries are also a good example of partnering the community to encourage everyone to contribute towards a shared journey of lifelong learning. Volunteer-run spaces in libraries have increased by over 300% in the past three years. For example, an entire floor of the Tampines Regional Library is run by volunteers. There is also a dedicated library space for volunteers to gather and plan activities to promote reading to other library users.
Together with the re-engineering of its library spaces and services to introduce more automation and self-service, the National Library Board (NLB) has been able to increase its staff productivity. The library space managed per library staff has more than doubled from 88 square metres (sqm) per staff to 183 sqm today.
Next, let me talk about procurement. Ms Sun Xueling and Mr Henry Kwek raised important points about ensuring value-for-money in our procurement, and I will explain our approach to achieving this.
Firstly, the Public Service operates on a common procurement policy framework. Every agency procures through a central procurement portal, the Government Electronic Business (GeBIZ), and most suppliers submit invoices electronically through a platform called Vendors@Gov. This allows Government agencies and suppliers to reap efficiency gains.
Secondly, we consider both price and quality factors when we do procurement. There is a perception out there that Government purchases only on price alone. But that is not the case. About half of all Government procurements today are not awarded to the lowest-priced bidder because they are put out on a price and quality methodology. Quality factors would include reliability, innovativeness, expertise of the vendor, track record and much more.
For construction-related tenders, which make up more than half of our annual procurement value, BCA has enhanced the frameworks to place even greater emphasis on quality from this year onwards. For example, consultancy tenderers are now required to provide a breakdown of the manpower deployment and rates, so that agencies can better assess whether the proposed resources commensurate with the quoted fees.
For building projects, the weightage of quality has increased from a maximum of 40% to a maximum of 50%. BCA has also introduced consultants' and contractors' past performance as a mandatory criterion for tender evaluation. This provides a quality feedback loop to recognise firms that have performed well in previous projects.
Thirdly, the public sector seeks to centralise our procurement wherever appropriate. One way is by aggregating demand for common purchases across agencies. One agency calls a bulk tender on behalf of others. This minimises administration costs and enables quantity discounts.
Today, there are over 70 types of bulk contracts, accounting for about one-third of Government spend in goods and services. The commonly-purchased categories include office equipment, graphic design, travel-related services, and infocomm-related products and services ‒ all on bulk tender.
There is, however, a limit to how much centralisation or standardisation is optimal. Overdoing this can create other problems. For example, we risk vendor capture if many agencies buy from a single supplier and we are locked in to the same supplier for subsequent maintenance and replacements.
We also need to be mindful of providing sufficient opportunities for SMEs. Indeed, many Members often ask about giving more opportunities for small firms to bid for Government projects. If we have too large a contract, it is more likely to be taken up by the big suppliers only. Too much centralisation or standardising also limits flexibilities or variations to meet the unique needs of agencies or situations. So, we need to strike a judicious balance.
Finally, we continue to strengthen procurement capabilities to enable our officers to obtain value-for-money and innovative solutions from the market. We are stepping up procurement training for our officers. Members are aware of this. We have partnered the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) and the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) for this purpose.
Lead agencies with deep procurement capabilities are providing advice and solutions to the rest of the public sector. We are also building up capabilities to enable negotiations to be carried out in a fair way that achieves value-for-money and win-win outcomes for both buyers and suppliers.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing asked about the support for the local construction sector. Actually, this cut may be better filed under the Ministry of National Development (MND). I am not sure if I am taking this as MOF or MND. We can discuss further in the MND COS coming up later. Mr Yee asked if we can require foreign companies to form a joint venture with local firms to bid for our construction contracts. This is not permitted under WTO rules. He talked about price-diving by foreign firms. We are aware that this happens, but it is not limited to foreign firms. The fact is that the construction industry is in a downturn. Many companies are bidding for projects and there is price-diving. But, as I have highlighted earlier, price is not the only factor used in evaluating Government tenders. We are placing greater emphasis on the quality factors.
We have also introduced measures to deter \"price-diving\" because we want to avoid the situation where a company, local or foreign, tries too hard to secure a contract, dives the prices and then ends up not being able to deliver, or worse, compromise on quality just to get the project done within that price. So, for construction tenders, various agencies have adopted practices to identify abnormally low bids and scrutinise the contractors' ability to deliver the projects at such prices.
We also continue to ensure our construction contracts remain accessible to local companies that may be smaller in size. About four-fifths of all our construction contracts are below $650,000 in value, which smaller local firms without a track record can participate in. Where suitable, we have broken up some of our bigger projects into smaller contracts, to give local companies a better opportunity to participate.
Encouragingly, some local companies are also partnering foreign companies to undertake bigger projects, not by mandating it, but they are voluntarily doing so, like Woh Hup, which has been partnering Shanghai Tunnel Engineering to construct an MRT line and station. These are positive examples. There will be technology transfer in future so that our local firms can bid for these projects on their own.
Our approach is not to restrict competition but help our companies level up their capabilities so that they are competitive on their own merits. And we have a whole series of programmes and schemes in place to do this, including the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for the Built Environment sector, which we will discuss more in MND's COS.
Finally, let me address Mr Azmoon Ahmad's suggestion to share more of FY2017’s Budget surplus with Singaporeans. I should say we should not look at the SG Bonus in isolation. In fact, the entire surplus is given back to all Singaporeans in different ways, not just through the SG Bonus. The $5 billion we set aside for the Rail Infrastructure Fund to build future MRT lines, this will benefit all MRT commuters. Another $2 billion is for subsidies on ElderShield premiums and other related support when the ElderShield review is complete, and that will be happening soon. These premium subsidies for lower- and middle-income Singaporeans will ensure that the enhanced ElderShield scheme remains affordable, and the premium subsidies will directly benefit individuals and families.
So, you have to look at the surplus in totality. We do not save surpluses. We give them all back to Singaporeans, but we give back in different forms. Some will be for spending for future needs, some will be for spending for current needs like the ElderShield Premiums, and some will be through a direct transfer like the SG Bonus. And if we look at the direct transfers, we should also recognise that, besides the SG Bonus itself, there are other social transfers in the Budget, like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher, the Utilities (U)-Save rebates and the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) rebates. In fact, the support we provide to Singaporeans who need help goes beyond the SG Bonus and these direct transfer schemes. In various areas, like housing, healthcare, education and childcare, we have enhanced the support provided by our permanent schemes over the years with more assistance targeted at the lower-income.
Mr Chairman, against the backdrop of rising needs, the Government will continue to fund our expenditure wisely and manage our spending prudently. We will ensure that our policies and processes for budgeting, procurement and evaluation, help us to optimise resources and achieve value-for-money. We will partner the private sector and the community to create a better future for Singapore.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah.
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, let me address Members' questions on creating opportunities for businesses, enhancing citizen experience with technology and the Government's position on corporate governance and tax-related matters.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked how MOF is collaborating with the private sector to co-create solutions for businesses. In line with this Budget's thrust to build a vibrant and innovative economy, Government agencies, including MOF, continue to partner businesses, trade associations, unions and overseas government regulators to deepen international connectivity and strengthen enterprise capabilities. Let me share three such initiatives.
First, is NTP, which Miss Cheryl Chan asked about. This is a one-stop platform spearheaded by Singapore Customs, with support from MTI, GovTech and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), among others. It incorporates existing TradeNet and TradeXchange systems, synergising business-to-government (B2G) and business-to-business (B2B) processes, while introducing new services.
The NTP enables trade and logistics businesses to share and reuse data and documents faster and more securely between partners and the Government. This end-to-end digitisation of trade documents and processes will increase business productivity, improve process efficiency, and strengthen mutual trust across the trade value chain.
The B2B tier of NTP went live in December 2017. This first phase involves working with commercial providers to offer value-added services that go beyond customs and logistics. These include service solutions in supply chain financing and trade news. One such example is Nufin Data's New Efficiencies More Options (NEMO), a cloud-based supply chain financing solution which helps traders boost their cash flows by connecting buyers, suppliers and funders to turn trade receivables and payables faster into free cash flow.
More services will be rolled out in the coming months. We welcome collaboration and will continue to engage the various stakeholders to innovate and keep the services offered vibrant. Together with design thinking consultants and DesignSingapore, we have engaged companies to identify areas where new services could be created to support their trade digitisation journey. We also have a developer sandbox which will release specific Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and data to interested developers to tinker and come up with innovative service offerings.
Collaboration does not stop at our borders. We are also working with overseas partners to make cross-border trade cheaper, safer and more efficient. These tie-ups will give businesses access to their regional and global partners. An example is the Global Trade Connectivity Network that will use distributed ledger technology, which is the technology behind block chains, to build an information highway between NTP and the Hong Kong Trade Finance Platform.
Second, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME), with support from the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore, ACRA and IRAS, has developed the SME Cloud Exchange Network software. This partnership aims to increase SMEs’ productivity by offering them accounting and human resource (HR) solutions to help them file returns to ACRA, IRAS and Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board. By adopting such solutions, SMEs can now prepare their financial statements and tax submissions in one day, as compared to an average of four days previously. The association targets to benefit 300 SMEs by September 2018, and over 1,500 SMEs in the subsequent 12 months. The Government will continue to work closely with trade associations to accelerate the pace of digital adoption and raise productivity of our SMEs.
Third, IRAS’ API marketplace allows anyone to develop applications that interface seamlessly with IRAS' systems. This is a significant move taken by IRAS to open up its interfaces to facilitate business and productivity solutions. JustLogin and Sage Software Asia are two local enterprises that have incorporated IRAS’ Auto-Inclusion Scheme API into their payroll software. This allows employers to submit their employees' income data directly to IRAS via the vendors' payroll software. Sixty employers have benefited from this seamless tax filing in 2017. For 2018, IRAS has worked with 45 other payroll software vendors to benefit many more employers. This will raise efficiency and effectiveness across the industry.
Such collaboration allows innovative solutions to be developed by the private sector or the community. We encourage more of such efforts to co-create business solutions with the Government. The Government will continue to harness technology to help save citizens' time and effort, as well as provide faster responses and payments to them.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked for an update and an overview of how MOF is enhancing citizen experience with technology under the Smart Nation Drive. I would like to announce two initiatives that will be launched in the coming year to help companies meet their regulatory obligations.
To ensure greater convenience for companies, ACRA will be simplifying the filing of annual returns for exempt private companies and private dormant relevant companies in 2018. This will potentially benefit 150,000 companies. Under the simplified process, some of the information will be pre-filled and the companies will just need to go through six simple steps to file the annual return, down from the current 24 steps. ACRA will also be providing the simplified filing service on its \"ACRA On The Go\" mobile app, so that filing by these companies can now be done anytime and anywhere. To make it even more convenient when it is time to file, companies will be prompted by a short message service (SMS) with a link to the mobile app.
With over 30,000 companies incorporated each year, some new companies may not be familiar with their corporate tax obligations. To help them get it right from the start, IRAS is introducing a new company startup kit. This interactive kit provides tailored information, such as tax-filing timeline and follow-up actions, and automatically sends email notifications with reminders on filing due dates. IRAS will pilot this with around 3,700 startups that are due to file their first tax return this year.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked how the Government is making better use of technology and improving processes to make timely payments to businesses and individuals. Let me share three areas where MOF has leveraged technology to improve the experience of our citizens, public officers and vendors.
First, we have moved towards SMS notifications for the GST Voucher (GSTV). Since 2017, about 790,000 GSTV recipients with mobile numbers registered with SingPass have benefited from timely and accessible updates. We have cut down physical letters, saving $300,000 and 160 trees annually.
Second, the Accountant-General’s Department (AGD), together with the Public Service Division (PSD), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and MOE, introduced the PaC@Gov mobile app for public officers in 2017. This enables common staff transactions, such as leave and claims to be carried out anytime, anywhere. Since the launch, more than 50% of our officers using PaC@Gov have downloaded the mobile app and more than 400,000 transactions have been carried out through the app in the past year.
Third, we understand the importance of cash flow to businesses. The Government processes an average of two million payments to more than 23,000 companies annually. The late payment rate for the public sector, comprising both Ministries and Statutory Boards, has been reduced by more than half over the past three years and is currently at an average of 6.5%. We target to bring down the late payment rate below 5%, in other words, to achieve at least 95% of timely payment to businesses.
We are working to automate the procurement-to-payment process, which will enable faster payments to businesses. We encourage businesses to issue electronic invoices when providing goods and services to the Government. A paperless and more efficient processing will result in faster payments to vendors.
From 2018, all businesses that transact with the Government only need to submit their payment details once. Businesses do not have to submit their payment details every time they transact with a different Government agency. This helps to increase convenience to businesses. They can also use the Vendors@Gov mobile app to track their payment status anytime, anywhere.
I move now to the issue of Governance. Mr Leon Perera and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the roles played by Temasek and GIC in relation to their investee companies. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked what role Temasek can play in promoting ethical behaviour in the entities that Temasek invests in. Both made a reference to the Santiago Principles. I should mention that GIC was one of the founding participants of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds that came up with the Santiago Principles.
Before I address what GIC and Temasek do, I think it will be helpful if I just restate, once again, the legal position with respect to shareholders and companies, so that we all know the framework that we are talking about. Under company law, the shareholders of a company have certain powers, which is to appoint and remove boards, and to have a statutory right to the audited financial statements of the company. However, shareholders do not interfere in the business decisions or operations of its portfolio companies. These are the responsibilities of the respective companies’ boards and management. Temasek and GIC are shareholders of their investee companies. So, they hold the boards of their investee companies responsible for conducting their affairs properly and delivering sustainable returns over the long term.
Mr Leon Perera then asked – he understands, of course, that I said that Temasek and GIC do not interfere with the management of the companies – does that mean that they are truly hands-off? Well, it depends on what he means by \"hands-off\". If by \"hands-off\", he is asking do they interfere or get involved in/with the day-to-day management and operation decisions of the companies, then of course, no, because that goes against the general principle of how companies are set up. Shareholders should not really be jumping into the day-to-day management; that is left to the Boards.
But if Mr Perera's question is: do they engage with investee companies, share ideas, talk to them generally about broad topics and investment things, then the answer is yes. GICs' investment teams engage the management teams of their portfolio companies to encourage policies and business practices that support sustainable long-term financial performance. For Temasek as shareholder, it plays the role of an advocate for good corporate practices. Let me share three areas that Temasek is developing such practices.
First, Temasek fosters an ethos of integrity, good governance and sustainability. It does not condone improper conduct and malfeasance. Temasek expects companies in its portfolio to abide by sound corporate governance and robust codes of conduct and ethics and to comply with all laws and regulations of jurisdictions in which they have investments or operations.
So, just last week, Mr Lim Boon Heng, the Chairman of Temasek, reiterated his expectation of governance to the Chairs of major Temasek portfolio companies at the annual Temasek Chinese New Year lunch. Mr Lim said, and I quote: \"In markets where practices are questionable and compromising integrity is required to win business or contracts, we have to be very clear – there is a bright red line our companies should not cross…. We are also entrusted with the responsibility of being the owners and guardians of the company’s reputation, and we must always live up to that trust\".
Second, Temasek regularly monitors the strategy and performance of its portfolio companies and keeps abreast of industry developments that impact them. This informs how Temasek exchanges and shares views and perspectives with the boards and management of its portfolio companies, so as to better understand their strategies and operating environments.
Third, Temasek conducts regular roundtables or forums on topics of interest to the portfolio companies. Temasek organises or sponsors forums on topical issues. These include topics, such as cybersecurity, insider trading and corporate contributions to community. Some of these forums are also open to other companies in Singapore outside of Temasek's portfolio, as part of Temasek’s contributions to support good governance and sound stewardship.
Changes or new legislation against corruption, such the Bribery Act in the United Kingdom (UK) and the laws on corrupt practices in the United States (US) and Singapore are covered. Other topics include corporate and functional aspects, such as legal, finance, HR or IT. These would be roundtables or forums for the practitioners. For example, Temasek is organising a roundtable on governance and ethics with its portfolio companies in the coming months, on norms and practices on ethical business operations and expectations. Through these forums, Temasek actively encourages certain key practices, such as long-term incentives contingent on performance, or the institutionalisation of formal code of conduct or code of ethics.
I move on now to the topic of tax deductions. Several Members asked about tax deduction matters. Let me thank Mr Ang Hin Kee, Executive Advisor to the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap for their feedback on tax deductions for private hire car drivers. Two other Members of Parliament (MPs) have spoken on this issue in recent months. Mr Ang Hin Kee has also made representations to IRAS on behalf of the Association.
Currently, private hire ride-hailing car drivers are not allowed to claim tax deduction on any car-related expenses. This is in line with our long-standing national car-lite policy, as tax deduction of expenses incurred for a private car is not allowed. Private hire car drivers can, however, claim tax deduction on non-car related expenses, such as commission paid to third-party operators, administrative charges imposed by third-party operators, and the proportion of expenses for mobile phones used in the course of providing their services. That said, we note the feedback. We will continue to monitor changes in business models and consumer habits in this area and will review our policies to ensure they remain relevant and effective.
Mr Azmoon Ahmad spoke about tax deductions for donations. Extending the 250% tax deduction for donations is one of our efforts to encourage the spirit of giving in our people. Total donations by individuals and companies have increased by 52%, from $1.8 billion in 2009 to $2.7 billion in 2015. Internationally, our 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations is one of the most generous tax deduction schemes today. Tax deduction for both corporate and individual donations in Hong Kong, the US and Australia are at 100%. At 250% tax deduction rate, the Government co-funds 42.5 cents for every dollar donated by companies. In addition, the Government co-funds up to 55 cents for every $1 donated by individuals.
A flat tax deduction rate, rather than a tiered tax deduction system suggested by Mr Azmoon Ahmad, ensures that donors who have the ability to donate more are not accorded exceptional tax treatment. Many donors contribute out of passion and heart for the community, and not just for tax incentives.
Mr Chairman, allow me to conclude. The Government continues to ensure fiscal prudence, create opportunities for our businesses and enhance citizen experience with technology.
We have made good progress in these areas, and we will continue to improve. We are committed to work in partnership with our businesses, the community and citizens in this journey.
The Chairman: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: I would like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State on the tax deductible part. Surely, now that LTA recognises that vocation drivers for the private hire cars are fairly similar to taxi drivers, I think our tax deductible for car rental and fuel can be in keeping with the approach we do for taxi drivers for the Year of Assessment in this coming tax period.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I note Mr Ang's very passionate advocacy in this area. As I said, we will review our policies to ensure that they remain relevant and effective.
The Chairman: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: I just want to echo what Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Henry Kwek have said about designs, how important design is when we look at building design, to make sure that it does not cost more to maintain thereafter. We have many examples on that. So, perhaps, can I ask the Minister whether, in the whole process, we should also seek inputs from Town Councils and NEA who will be there to maintain the building thereafter, to give inputs whether these designs are, indeed, practical? They may look very nice from afar, but is it practical to maintain on an ongoing basis?
The second point is on the issue of leverage, like what I have said in my speech, to leverage the private sector to achieve better value-for-money. There are many examples. For example, in my constituency, we have an Integrated Transport Hub (ITH), and next to it is a commercial shopping centre. If we could have in the planning requirements that require the developer to also build better connectivity to the ITH, for example, that would have saved us some money to build subsequent features to enhance walkability and connectivity. So, maybe this question is best directed at the Second Minister for Finance who is also the Minister for National Development.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, I am happy to take both questions in both capacities, too. Seeking inputs for design is an ongoing process. We already do that and we want to continue to do that to improve design, not just for aesthetics, like I have said, but for functionality and maintainability. It is an ongoing process. There will always be areas for improvement, I am sure, and we will continue to get feedback from all stakeholders, different agencies, Town Councils, different building users, so that we can continually improve. And this improvement is not, as I have said earlier, specific only to Government projects. There are many other buildings that are being developed by the private sector. So, we really have to get the whole architectural profession to start paying greater attention to designing for these purposes.
On leveraging the private sector, we are in some ways already doing that. The Member would realise we have made some adjustments to some of the requirements. URA has required private developers now, for new buildings, to put in place more connectivity, linking up buildings to another, and then enabling some of the last-mile connectivity within the building development. That is already being done. It was not done previously, but we have stepped up our efforts to do this. Again, it is an area which we will continue to improve.
The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Chairman, I have got three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State on the role of Temasek and also MOF. Earlier on, in her reply, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that Temasek was very active in promoting good governance, for example, by conducting seminars, training and so on. I think that is more on a general level. But she did not touch on whether Temasek had been active in, for example, querying suspicious practices in the companies that they invest in. So, I would like to ask her whether she is aware whether Temasek has been playing that role, specifically to query what has been going on in some of its portfolio companies. That is the first clarification.
The second clarification is, in my speech as well as in her response, the Senior Minister of State did mention the Chinese New Year lunch sharing that the Chairman of Temasek had recently, where it was quite clear from his speech that corruption is an out of bound (OB) marker now specifically expressed as something that Temasek would not want to tolerate. Is she aware of any other unethical practices that are OBs for Temasek? For example, do they avoid investing in companies that promote unclean energy or promote tobacco, for example? Is she aware of any other OB markers for Temasek to invest in?
And, finally, the third clarification is: on the role of the Ministry itself, as the sole shareholder of Temasek, I think at least Mr Lim Boon Heng accepts that Temasek is flying Singapore's flag and, if anything were to happen that affects the reputation of its portfolio companies, our country's reputation would be affected as well. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether MOF actually has any specific parameters for Temasek as to certain things that should or would not be condoned as investments. I understand, by comparison, the Norwegian Government has got certain excluded investments. I would like to ask whether MOF also has something similar with its investment companies.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Chairman, if I may just take the last question first. Essentially, as the shareholder of Temasek, we do not get involved in their commercial decisions. But MOF's expectation of Temasek is that it must uphold the highest standards of integrity, highest standards of governance, do not get involved in anything illegal, and make sure that they adhere to the highest standards of corporate governance. That is our expectation of them. They are a professional team and we expect them to live up to that expectation. So, in terms of the specific question whether we get involved in what they should invest in, what they should not invest in, the Government does not step into that. But our expectation is that Temasek must act properly and have good compliance with governance and the highest standards of integrity. And they, in turn, I think expect that, too, of their investee companies, as Members would have seen from the discussion that the Chairman had with its investee companies.
Ms Sylvia Lim's second question was where she said that corruption is now an OB marker. Actually, corruption has always been an OB marker, not just now. It has been that case for a long time. But the Member asked whether I was aware of specific investment principles. I will come back to what I said earlier, which is that, obviously, Temasek will not condone anything that is illegal, anything that is in breach of international regulations, basically anything that constitutes bad conduct or improper governance. I think if one reads the speech given by Mr Lim Boon Heng to the investee companies, it really sets out or outlines what his expectation is. I would not go through the whole thing but let me just give some excerpts where he said:
\"During my lunch remarks just now, I emphasised how important it is for our companies to guard and uphold the principles of good governance and integrity in business dealings. This is especially so for our Singapore-based Temasek portfolio companies.
Singapore has a reputation as a clean place for both business and Government. We take this reputation very seriously. It is a hallmark of our nation and the fundamental value on which we have built our economy.\"
He also went on to say: \"We are stewards, responsible not just for short-term profits, but really the long-term future of our companies.\" And he called for their support to bring together all their board members, along with their CEOs and key executives, for their next Roundtable. I mean, in short, he is setting the guidance and direction for the portfolio companies.
And the third question was whether I was aware if Temasek is querying suspicious things. I think it really depends on what the scenario is. I do not have information on what Temasek's information on specific portfolio companies is. But I think I can say this much with confidence. As shareholders, when you have your shareholders' meetings, obviously the audited accounts are placed before the shareholders. I would certainly expect Temasek, as a shareholder, if it sees anything in the accounts that look suspicious, to query it. Do I know or have any personal knowledge what their representatives do at their shareholders' meetings? I do not, but does MOF expect Temasek, when it sees something suspicious in audited accounts, to raise it at shareholders' meetings? The answer is yes.
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Chairman, I just have one question for the Second Minister. This is with regard to the $4 billion that the Minister mentioned PUB was investing in for development purposes from the years 2017 to 2021 and that some of these requirements would actually be secured through borrowing which would, in the course of his explanation, explain the fact that Statutory Boards do actually borrow from the markets and they have a different approach vis-à-vis the Ministry. Can I just confirm how much will PUB be borrowing for this purpose, for this $4 billion that it needs to upgrade a number of transmission networks and so on?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, I would not have the specific figure of how much they would want to borrow. But all I would reiterate is that, as I have mentioned, they have transferred $1.3 billion into capital reserves. The capital reserves are set aside and used for future investments. And, indeed, when you look at future investment plans, PUB is committed to setting aside or investing $4 billion in additional water infrastructure. So, obviously, some of this, besides coming out from its capital reserves, will need to be financed through borrowing. Exactly how much and when, I think that is something that PUB will have the information and they will reveal it in due course when they need to go to the markets.
The Chairman: Would the mover wish to withdraw the amendment?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa: I thank the Minister for Finance Mr Heng Swee Keat, Second Minister Lawrence Wong, Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and the hardworking MOF team for, among other things, a very responsible Budget − a Budget that secured the means for our better well-being into the future. So, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Chairman: Is the hon Member given leave to withdraw the amendment? I think leave of the majority is given, amendment is withdrawn.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $796,415,600 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $181,365,800 for Head M 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 – Head L (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
Just weeks ago, in December and in January, we were all experiencing some very big swings in weather. Our temperature was hitting the low 20 degree Celsius and there were also a few flash floods from heavy downpours. I would expect during the hot months, it is going the other way and we will experience very hot weather. Global warming, rising sea levels will affect all of us. Yes, we have spoken a lot about climate change. We have recycling of waste. We have tree-planting to green our environment. But there are areas where we are not doing enough.
We can still see litter around us. We can still see callous throwing of rubbish at void decks and other public areas. We see litter from plastic bottles to just about anything being dumped into the drains, clogging the water flow, and causing the breeding of mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches and more. So, while one group is doing all the good things to save our environment, there is another group just senselessly undoing all the good work. I hope the latter is the minority.
In Singapore, we may be too far away to realise the ice at the poles is melting away at a worrying rate. This is causing warmer weather and rising water. Marine species affected by climate change include planktons, which form the basis of marine food chains – corals, fish, polar bears, walruses, seals, sea lions, penguins and seabirds. And we must not think we can escape. Most scientists believe that global warming will bring about a new era of extreme and unpredictable weather.
Tropical storms and heavier rainfall may increase. Look at the hurricanes in the west. The impacts of climate change from rising temperatures, changes in precipitation, intensity of some extreme weather events, will have an impact on our health, too. These will affect the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the weather we experience. If nothing else can wake those who do not believe in these phenomena, I hope even if we escaped the floods, at least the chilly weather and howling winds will remind us of the climate change issues and the need to take responsibility in our environment.
I am pleased that we are designating 2018 as the Year of Climate Action. I would like to take this chance to remind Singaporeans that as individuals and organisations, they can easily pledge their own climate action on the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) website. The website will give a list of suggested actions we can take to be greener. I have pledged myself and I hope you will join me. It is a good reminder of what we can do for the environment.
I hope more Singaporeans will take responsibility for their environment this year. Whether it is not littering or taking green actions, it all starts from a mindset change. Let us pledge our climate action and persuade people around us to do so, and we can preserve the environment for future generations.
The Carbon Tax is meant to increase our energy efficiency. Can the Minister share what are our goals for energy efficiency? We should break the goal down at different levels. What part of that should households contribute? How can the community encourage energy efficiency? And for an individual household, what are the goals to work towards? Can we have an estimate of how much household utilities bills will be affected by the Carbon Tax? Although there are rebates from 2019 to 2021, how will the Government help lower-income families cope beyond 2021? How can we reach these households and give them easy, affordable ways to save electricity?
Energy saving is something that we should promote to all households. Perhaps we can also look into how we can help lower-income families by providing them with energy saving bulbs. It would certainly be welcome by these families as it would cut down on their electricity bills. Will the Ministry consider giving help to these families? May I suggest changing all bulbs of 1- and 2-room flats to energy saving bulbs? Do not just give vouchers or the bulbs. Can the Ministry go one step further, that is, install the bulbs for them with the help of some corporations? This is good corporate social responsibility (CSR). By doing so, the Ministry would know if the bulbs are installed or not, whether the bulbs could fit into old light fittings or not. Otherwise, a good scheme may not get its maximum benefit because of implementation on the ground.
Next, I want to touch on water conservation. We have done much in this area although I believe not all Singaporeans consciously show concern about water supply because there has not been a crisis to hit the message home. It also did not help that we have a transient foreign workforce who may not appreciate the importance of water conservation for our city state.
Under the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, we have set a target to lower water demand for households to 140 litres per capita per day by 2030. I know we have the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme which helps consumers to make informed choices when they buy products, such as taps, flushing cisterns, washing machines and more. Retailers must put the new water efficiency labels on the products to help consumers make informed choices. May I ask what else are we doing, apart from the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme?
Saving water is not just for households. Our non-domestic sector also needs to look at how they can use water more efficiently. I believe they are expected to contribute to our water demand growth. Can the Minister share with us what are the initiatives that will be introduced to help businesses in managing their water demand and increasing their water efficiency?
Finally, I would like to touch on vehicular emissions. Singapore is one of the countries where we have taken commendable effort in controlling vehicular smoke emission. Hence, we are spared from the smog that we read about which occasionally engulfed the cities in several neighbouring countries. I am not sure if all motorists are aware that leaving their vehicle engines idling is an offence as I still receive feedback from residents very often.
Besides locally registered vehicles, we have an average of 20,000 foreign registered vehicles that enter Singapore daily. Are they adhering to our laws? Can I ask for an update on what other measures the Ministry is taking to further control vehicular emission?
In conclusion, we do not inherit Earth from the previous generation, we borrow it from the next. Unfortunately, it looks like we will leave a sick and coughing Earth to the next generation. We must urgently change our ways and reverse this trend as much as we can. So, let us grab the Year of Climate Action by the horns, though this year is the year of the dog.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. You can take your three cuts together.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, in the afternoon on 30 January this year, while I was having a meeting in Nee Soon, I heard unusual loud sounds of thunder. This was accompanied by a heavy downpour. Shortly after that, I started to receive Whatsapp messages and images from my grassroots leaders that quite a number of trees had fallen, a few fell onto vehicles while a few others were blocking road access.
I went out to take a look at the situation. I saw fallen trees and lamp posts, roads being blocked, slow traffic, panels of a covered linkway gave way. There were also many residents who had gone out to take a look at the situation. In the midst of the chaos, I saw a touching Nee Soon \"kampung spirit\", with residents coming out to help clear the trees and looking out if anyone got injured.
I went around to look at the situation and started to engage the agencies and residents. I saw worried faces among my residents. A few mentioned that they have never experienced such an incident before, in terms of the extent of the damages. One Town Council staff shared with me that he had never witnessed such damages in his more than 30 years' work in estate maintenance.
Others mentioned that Singapore's climate has changed, accompanied by worried expressions. I took the opportunity to share that all of them, including me, can play a part in mitigating the impact of climate change.
I am pleased to note that 2018 has been declared as the Year of Climate Action for Singapore. Can the Minister share with the House on the climate action goals that the Ministry is pursuing for 2018 and beyond?
Sir, climate action requires the collaborative efforts of the public, people and private sectors. What role can businesses and the general public play in Singapore’s climate action plan? What is Singapore doing on the regional and global fronts to contribute to climate action on a larger scale?
The Minister launched the Climate Action Pledge recently. I have taken my pledge. May I know how many people have taken the pledge thus far?
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, as a low-lying nation, Singapore is particularly susceptible to the effects of anthropogenic climate change, chief amongst which is sea level rise. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) commenced the Coastal Adaptation Study in 2013 and this was slated for completion in end-2017. But this has since been pushed to the second half of 2018.
It is important to consider the impact of rising sea levels, not only beaches and sea walls but also (a) intertidal coral reef zones, (b) sand and mud flats, and (c) mangroves. These zones are not only bio-diverse, but also provide ecosystem services, such as buffering from sea level rise.
Can the Government confirm whether the study is looking into protecting these parts of our coastal sea level rise which are, themselves, sensitive to sea level rise?
In view of the fact that Singapore is not merely an island nation but also a nation of islands, is the study looking into coastal protection measures on our offshore islands, such as Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and the Southern Islands? Are soft engineering approaches, such as planting coastal vegetation where they currently do not exist, being studied?
According to the second National Climate Change study, models reveal that by the year 2100, monthly rainfall total during the northeast monsoon may increase, at worse, by 42.9% under the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario, and by 67.5% under the RCP 8.5 scenario. Given that rainfall is a major hydrological input, is the Government taking these projections into account in its plans to mitigate floods in coastal areas?
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, please take your three cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, Minister Masagos declared 2018 as the Year of Climate Action. The public was invited to pledge now to fight climate change. Schools and organisations were invited to join in as well. Green groups were also invited to work alongside the Government to organise events and activities to raise awareness on climate change. This represented a strong effort by the Ministry to meet Singapore's Paris Commitment.
However, recently, due to public feedback, I raised a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) decision on the coal gasification plant on Jurong Island. The public felt that the Government does not seem coordinated on our climate change commitments. As such, I would like to ask to what extent the Year of Climate Action is a whole-of-Government initiative with alignment from the other Ministries? Has MEWR set certain targets to be fulfilled by each Ministry? Furthermore, how are the various actions and initiatives under the Year of Climate Action measured in term of impact?
Next, I am heartened by the Ministry's bold action to implement the Carbon Tax encouraging companies to consider environmental, and not just financial costs in their business decisions. The Carbon Tax is, undoubtedly, a milestone, an important pillar in our climate action.
Since its announcement, details on the carbon tax may not be fully understood by the public. As such, can the Ministry share how the carbon tax will be implemented? Our carbon tax price of $5 per tonne is significantly lower than that of other legislations. I understand our pro-business stance but this may not accurately reflect the price paid by the environment. Could the Ministry share how they settled on that figure?
Furthermore, how did the Ministry opt for a Fixed Price Credit Based system, instead of a simple tax, or an Emission Trading System?
Next, with the impending implementation of the carbon tax and our move towards a low-carbon economy, companies may be concerned about difficulties in making the transition and increased business costs.
The myth that a sustainable development is bad for a country’s economy should be dispelled. It is estimated that meeting our climate change targets would generate additional investments worth $40 trillion globally by 2050. Decoupling emissions from growth provides a golden opportunity to stimulate economic growth by boosting research and innovation and creating new jobs. In any case, all of us, including businesses, have a moral duty to safeguard the environment for the benefit of current and future generations.
To ensure the benefits of a low-carbon economy can be fully reaped at all levels, how is the Government intending to help companies in Singapore prepare for the carbon tax and transition towards sustainable development?
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Under the Paris Climate Agreement, Singapore is committed to reducing our emissions intensity by 36% in 2030 compared to 2005 levels and also to stabilise our emission level. In line with this commitment, it is announced in Budget 2018 that, next year, we will introduce a carbon tax of $5 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. So far, we know that it will affect the emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power stations. The tax will also be applied upstream on large direct emitters, defined as those that emit 25,000 or more tonnes of greenhouse gases each year.
By that count, it was reported that between 30 to 40 emitters in Singapore will be affected. Each emitter is different and various industries have their own sets of needs and challenges. It might not be as easy for some industries to transit to clean energy. Over the long run, we have to ponder if a carbon tax is the most effective way to incentivise industries to reduce their emissions. What will the carbon tax revenue be used for?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, the old mantra of water scarcity and the danger of the tap being turned off as a result of a breakdown in relations with Malaysia are in need of an upgrade. Circumstances have changed, and the desire of earlier generations of leaders to diversify our water sources has proved to be a boon many Singaporeans are thankful for. The development of NEWater and desalination has contributed to this.
However, the pricing of such purification methods are not totally transparent to members of the public, unlike raw water. While the costs of these new methods of purification can be significant, I believe there is scope to share more details of pricing both upstream and downstream in order to drive home a message of the preciousness of water. I acknowledge that sharing such information with the public requires accounting for the cost of upgrading and building transmission networks because the price of water is only one component while there are other costs, including research and development (R&D). But that does not mean that it cannot be done. Such an approach will give members of the public greater understanding about why water tariffs need to rise and, hopefully, even moderate in future.
Water consumption trends for households are on a downward trend. I believe there is scope to lower our per capita domestic water consumption even further than the 140 litres per person by 2030. The Public Utilities Board's (PUB’s) water closet replacement project for flats built between 1987 and 1992 for residents in small flats on community assistance provides a foretaste of the significant opportunities available for a whole-of-Government approach to water conservation. While the initiative is provided free of charge, can we not look at extending such initiatives when major Housing and Development Board (HDB) upgrading exercises, such as the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), are carried out in view of the scale of benefits that can be achieved, potentially resulting in lower water consumption? A significant number of flats, for example, where toilets are completely renovated, can potentially host a variety of new water-saving features.
Can the Ministry also consider if there is scope to improve, finetune or incentivise the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) with a view to nudge consumers to choose appliances with the highest number of ticks? Mr Chairman, if every drop is precious, can more be done to alter consumption patterns? The opportunity provided by HDB upgrading may be a very useful entry point.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, low water pressure is one of the issues I encountered in my estate visits. One resident shared that her family members have to take turns to shower despite having two bathrooms in the flat. She said that when one bathroom is occupied, the other is unusable due to low water pressure.
I filed a PQ in 2015 asking PUB to consider setting a minimum pressure for the supply of water to individual HDB flats. The Minister then replied that PUB is reviewing the issue. Last November, it was reported that PUB had finished with the review and concluded that it was not useful to stipulate a minimum pressure requirement across all residential units. It went on to say that setting a minimum pressure, I quote, \"may result in fixtures not being able to achieve its water conservation objectives.\"
Sir, the low water pressure problem only affects units on selected floors with gravity feed water supply. Is the authority saying that we are only depending on these residents who happen to live on those floors to help achieve its water conservation objectives? The rest of the floors are enjoying adequate water pressure. Furthermore, setting a minimum water pressure does not mean people will waste water. There is a water valve outside each flat unit which the owner can adjust to control the water pressure to suit the needs of the household.
Last Saturday, on Singapore World Water Day, one of the pledges to save water is to take shorter showers. When water pressure is low, you end up taking a longer shower. In an answer to my PQ in 2017, the national average water consumption for households for that year was 11% lower than a decade ago and about 60% of households consume less water than the national average. These numbers do say a lot that most Singaporeans do play their part to conserve water. I urge PUB to review its decision and set a minimum pressure for the supply of water to individual HDB flats, for it is not right to expect selected residential units to be the poster boy for water conservation only.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, Cape Town is the second largest city in South Africa after Johannesburg. I have been there a couple of times. It is a beautiful coastal city, and has a population of four million, is a world-class cosmopolitan city with a vibrant night life.
But this city is running out of water. Earlier this month, Cape Town implemented new water restrictions. Residents are asked to curb water usage to 50 litres per day. A month earlier, their daily allowance was at 87 litres. If water levels continue to fall, it is predicted that the city will run out of water by 16 April, which has been named \"Day Zero\".
The last water rationing in Singapore happened 53 years ago in 1963, during one of the worst droughts on record, when appeals to the public to conserve water fell on deaf ears. That exercise lasted 10 months. In the years since, we have become conditioned to the comforts of modern living.
Can the Minister tell us what impact the hike in water tariffs last July have on consumption? Will they influence how the next wave of hike will take place this July?
Evidence suggests that the demand for water is relatively inelastic. If the point of raising the water tariffs is to recover costs, then what we have done may be enough. But if the point is to raise our awareness of the strategic value of water, we need to do more.
Borrowing the words of Mr Leong Sai Mooi, who was interviewed when he was 65, as he recounted the water rationing days of the 1960s, I quote him, \"Back then, every morning, I worry that the tap would not work. It made me realise how important water was and never to take it for granted.\"
As I have suggested in earlier debates, will the Minister reconsider conducting an annual water rationing exercise island-wide to households and businesses, to build water, physical and mental resilience? Should we have our \"Day Zero\" campaign to drive home these points and change behaviour?
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, weather uncertainties caused by climate change could result in prolonged dry spells. All of us would recall how the water level in the Linggiu Reservoir in Johor fell drastically in late 2016 and early 2017. Imported water from Malaysia is one of our four National Taps. This reservoir supplies over 60% of our water and is being threatened by climate change. Would the Ministry share its strategy to boost the water supplies from our other three National Taps? What investments and other measures does the Ministry have to enhance our water security and ensure that our water supply remains resilient to meet future demands and against climate change?
Our second National Tap comprise our local reservoirs and storm water runoff. With the increasing number of extreme weather conditions, from prolonged dry weather to heavy downpours resulting in flooding here, storm water harvesting is an obvious solution. Can the Minister share an update on what infrastructure investments we will be making to collect water during the heavy rains while mitigating the flooding at the same time?
The other two National Taps are recycled water, NEWater and desalination. Used water is also important. What are some of PUB's plans to further optimise used water management in Singapore? NEWater and desalination plants will meet up to 85% of our water demand by 2060. Would the Minister share updates on the operations of our current plants and the progress of the building of new plants? Desalination is a very energy-intensive process. Does the Ministry have plans to work with researchers to optimise the energy demands of desalination plants?
I am happy to note that PUB is expediting our pipe repairs and replacements to minimise water leakage. While unaccounted-for-water losses is among the lowest in the world at 5%, I hope the Ministry will continue to explore ways to reduce our losses further.
Last but not least, we must continue with our water conservation campaign. Public education remains as important as ever. We must also empower our citizens and residents and businesses to conserve water. Are we on track to reach our target of reducing water per capita from 148 litres to 140 litres by 2030? Can the Minister elaborate on new water saving designs and installations in our buildings?
The non-domestic sector is expected to account for about 70% of the future water demand. Hence, it is critical that we work with this sector to optimise water conservation. What plans does the Ministry have to incentivise businesses to invest in water saving measures and technology? Not only do companies which use a lot of water be required to submit Water Efficiency Management Plans (WEMP), companies with significant usage could also do so. Are there industry yardsticks by which companies can be compared against and assessed on their water usage efficiency? If so, what are the plans the Ministry has for these companies which are not optimising their water usage?
Mr Chairman, Singapore is moving towards becoming a Smart Nation and, increasingly, we will be leveraging technology to conserve and optimise the management of water. Would the Minister elaborate in what ways technology is being used or would be used to optimise the way the Ministry and PUB operate? How can such use of technology benefit Singaporeans?
In our homes, the four biggest uses of water are for showers, washing in the kitchen, laundry and flushing toilets. How is the Ministry getting our households to leverage technology to conserve water for these household uses?
I am interested in the updates for a couple of PUB programmes which tap upon technology to help households conserve water. One is a trial by PUB to install smart water devices for 10,000 new homes. These devices provide real-time information on water consumption during showers. What has been the feedback on these devices and are the monitors effective in helping the families improve the management of their water consumption during showers? If so, can these devices be made available to all households in Singapore?
The second programme is a community project to replace the water closets in the homes of lower-income families with more efficient ones. The replacements are expected to help them save up to 10% in their monthly water bills. Has this project achieved its target of reducing the water bills of the selected families? If so, would the Ministry consider expanding the scope of this project? Is it possible for PUB to mandate the installation of only water-efficient water closets island-wide? I would like to ask if the Ministry would consider requiring the installation of such monitors for the kitchen sinks.
How is the Ministry incentivising businesses and organisations to optimise water use through technological adoption? Can the Ministry give us some examples of firms which have successfully leveraged technology to cut water consumption?
PUB had installed 320 sensors for real-time monitoring to detect leakages from our water supply network. What is the area coverage of these sensors and how reliable are they? What is the average response time to the detection of leakages and how many more sensors will be installed?
Last but not least, would the Minister share how we are leveraging technology to optimise the production and management of recycled water, NEWater and further boost potable water supply from seawater desalination?
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, with climate change, Singapore is experiencing more unpredictable and sometimes intense and torrential rainfall. My constituency of Queenstown, which traditionally has been relatively safe from flooding, has in the past two to three years also experienced flash flooding more frequently. What are PUB's plans to mitigate flash floods in the face of this challenge?
Would the Minister share an update on the progress of the works on the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal, which has been delayed by the difficult terrain, as well as the Stamford Diversion Canal and Stamford Detention Tank, which will protect our Orchard road shopping belt from flooding?
Last month, the Minister also mentioned that there were 73 locations undergoing drainage improvement works, with 22 more planned this year. In addition, he said that there were about 500 submissions for plans to do retention tanks for developments above 0.2 hectares, out of which only 158 have been completed.
What are the main challenges faced in these improvement works and the building of retention tanks? Is it expertise, is it manpower or component shortages? Would the Ministry consider increasing the intake of foreign specialists and workers to expedite the completion of these tanks?
The new generation of pervious or permeable concrete has improved properties. They are more porous and durable and facilitate drainage. Does the Ministry intend to work with the other Boards or organisations, like the Land Transport Authority (LTA) or the National Parks Board (NParks), to use more of these materials in our roads and pavements?
I also appreciate the Ministry's efforts to provide the public with timely alerts about flash floods through a wide range of communication channels, which include radio broadcasts, short message service (SMS) alerts and mobile apps, and LTA's Expressway Monitoring Advisory System (EMAS).
For the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) SMS alerts, I would like to request for subscribers to be allowed to select more than one chosen location for alerts on the water level in monitored drains and canals. This would be useful for people who need to monitor multiple locations due to their travel patterns.
Miss Cheng Li Hui: The National Recycling programme was started in 2001 with the commingled blue bins. It was a good start to encourage Singaporeans to start recycling.
However, as the recyclables are sorted out by the workers at the Material Recovery Facility and not by Singaporeans themselves when they recycle, is it time for us to up the game by progressively doing away with commingled blue bins and encourage Singaporeans to start sorting our own recyclables?
Key to the recycling effort also involves Singaporeans knowing what can and cannot be recycled and encouraging the knowledge and habit of sorting their own waste and unused items. In that sense, the recycling culture in Singapore lags behind some countries including Australia, Taiwan and Japan.
Waste management is typically perceived to be the responsibility of the Government. How can Singaporeans and businesses play a role in contributing to Singapore's vision of a zero-waste nation?
Dr Chia Shi-Lu: Sir, I have previously asked about our effort to address e-waste. The Ministry mentioned last year that it is looking into a national e-waste management system. Can the Ministry provide an update on the plans to recycle the 60,000 tonnes of e-waste that we produce annually?
Only 6% of our household e-waste, which accounts about half of the total, is sent for recycling. How about the recycling rate for non-household e-waste? We would need a comprehensive legislative framework and national collection infrastructure. It is important to get the manufacturers, producers and importers of electrical and electronic goods involved in this process, so that we can work together to meet recycling targets. Our market may be very small but we can still contribute to the movement for zero-waste manufacturing through a system of incentives and taxes.
My constituency of Queenstown still has quite a large population of the karung guni men, and this informal sector, the rag-and-bone men of karang guni men could also be consulted and tapped upon in this new framework. I read recently about the rise of the new generation of karang guni men. These workers have had decades of experience and involvement in community recycling, going from door to door collecting from residents all over Singapore. They provide, and continue to provide, an important service and could continue to play a part in our recycling drive, especially as our population ages.
The Ministry may wish to consider a combination of incentives and fines to increase the level of cooperation from households. I hope that under the new framework, the set-up of collection points could be expedited. The locations should be highly visible, accessible and convenient. Are there plans to facilitate the recycling of larger items? Some residents have told me that much as they would like to recycle, after their neighbourhood karung guni man retired, they sometimes do not quite know what to do.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, like Dr Chia Shi-Lu, I have previously raised the issue of safe recycling or disposal of our growing volume of e-waste. I understand that 60,000 tonnes of e-waste is generated in Singapore each year and this number will only rise in the coming years. This is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently as e-waste pose both health and environmental problems.
I am glad that companies have stepped forward to promote the recycling of e-waste. But this is clearly not going to solve the problem.
The Ministry mentioned last year that it is looking into a national e-waste management system. Can the Ministry provide an update on the plans to manage e-waste and whether it can urgently establish a programme to ensure that e-waste is recycled or disposed of safely?
Mr Leon Perera: Mr Chairman, Sir, in marine sediments and waters, microplastics have been detected in four beaches and in seven mangrove habitats in Singapore. They bear potential risks to marine life and human health by transferring persistent organic pollutants (POPs) up the food chains and into marine organisms which we may consume.
Some argue that microplastics themselves should be considered POPs. Is the Government studying microplastic prevalence in locally-sourced and imported fish, and the extent to which coastal activities like recreational sports and shipping contribute to microplastic prevalence in coastal areas?
Primary sources include microbeads used in the plastic industry and in care products like toothpaste and exfoliating facial washes. Will the Government consider imposing labelling requirements or a ban on industrially-produced microbeads as in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK)?
What are the Government's plans to reduce overall plastic consumption, given that the secondary source of microplastics is the disintegration of larger plastics?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, 2018 has been declared as the year of climate action in Singapore. In 2015, 824,600 tonnes of plastic waste was generated but just 7% were recycled, a proportion roughly unchanged since 2001.
Plastic waste is the common type of waste disposed of at our incineration plants. It is well-known that single-use plastic disposables pose a serious environmental problem. At present, more than 40 countries tax or limit the use of plastic bags. Evidence shows that even modest policy interventions can have significant impact. In Britain, usage of plastic carrier bags fell by 83%, after the introduction of a plastic carrier charge. It may understandably be difficult to do away with plastic bags completely as we still need plastic carrier bags for everyday use like bagging our rubbish.
Countries which introduce charges for plastic carrier bags frequently have designated plastic refuse bags which people still have to pay for. Taiwan has just announced a blanket ban in single-use plastics, including straws, cups and shopping bags, by 2030. Prior to that, there is a progressive plan to make people pay for plastic products like plastic bags, straws, disposable food containers and disposable utensils in the interim.
MEWR has recently carried out a study of the lifecycle assessment of single-use carrier bags and disposable food packaging. Would the Minister share with the House its findings? Does the Ministry have any intention to roll out a progressive plan to reduce the use of plastic disposables in Singapore involving either the restriction or the banning of single-use plastic carrier bags, straws, disposable cups, containers and utensils? Has the Ministry studied the recycling viability of biodegradable plastic carrier bags in Singapore? And if they are viable, will the Government consider encouraging or requiring the use of such biodegradable plastic carrier bags? If so, perhaps the Government may consider asking the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) FairPrice to take the lead in using biodegradable plastic carrier bags.
The Chairman: Miss Cheng Li Hui, you can take your two cuts together.
Miss Cheng Li Hui: It was reported that, in Singapore, more than 822,000 tonnes of plastic waste were generated in 2016 but only 7% of that was recycled. These figures are alarming and calls for the introduction of a levy on the use of plastic bags to act as a disincentive to shoppers. Will NEA be imposing a plastic bag levy? How do they intend to reduce the excessive use of plastic bags in packaging?
In Singapore, we are not doing too badly because we reuse plastic bags to bag household refuse and the waste is incinerated and not directly landfilled. As a result, the concern regarding non-biodegradability of plastic bag does not really affect us. In any case, the excessive usage of plastic bags is still undesirable and wastage should be kept as low as possible.
NEA did a study on lifecycle assessment, cost and environmental impact of bags used in Singapore. Are the results available for sharing?
Last year, I spoke on the food waste management and the eco digester centre in our Tampines hawker centre and Chong Cheng Primary School. NEA recently launched a two-year \"love your food at school\" project in some schools. This project is good on two counts.
First, in the long run, Singaporeans involved in the project will be more aware of the importance of food waste recycling. Second, being part of the campaign also means consciously asking for smaller food portions if they are unable to consume much.
There are also many places with canteens, such as army camps, prisons, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) training centres and Home Team National Service (NS). For example, in military camps, daily meals are catered for our servicemen, which include active personnel and those who are back for reservist training. Some military camps also have canteens where servicemen could purchase food, notwithstanding the fact that meals have been catered for them. As such, whichever food contractors in camps prepare food based on the weekly forecast of servicemen, it is inevitable that there will be food waste generated. Therefore, perhaps a proper waste management system would be good. Let us be more conscious of our food wastage.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, Sir, there have been news reports about a food delivery app war in Singapore with tech companies Deliveroo, UberEats and Foodpanda ramping up their food delivery services here. It was reported in The Straits Times in November 2017 that Deliveroo created jobs for 4,000 riders and planned to create 3,000 more. Deliveroo and Foodpanda are also investing in delivery-only kitchens to create and meet demand. This is good news for the food and beverage (F&B) sector and consumers, but there are environmental costs and possible public health risks we need to tackle.
First, on environmental costs. The rapid growth of food delivery services in China have led to a crisis of mounting waste of food boxes, wooden chopsticks and plastic cutlery. The NEA's study of disposable food packaging materials and their environmental impact was supposed to be conducted and concluded in late 2017. Can the Minister share the results and implications of the study? Further, is NEA monitoring the waste produced by the growing food delivery services?
Second, on public health. Currently, NEA regulates food caterers through licensing and publishes guidelines for consumers ordering catered food for events. Catered food must come with a time stamp and delivered in hot boxes and insulated bags to minimise food poisoning risks. Food delivery services are now reaching a similar scale that could adversely affect public food safety. Is the Ministry planning to regulate food delivery services in the same manner as food catering?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, since the Government's decision to resume building hawker centres in 2011, there have been concerted efforts by the Ministry, NEA and the hawker trade community to refresh and regenerate the hawker centre business. The Government announced its intention to build 20 new hawker centres by 2027 and appointed a Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee last year to look into improving the management of hawker centres and to sustain the trade.
Hawker centres are an integral part our everyday lives. It provides good and affordable food, common space for Singaporeans from all backgrounds to come together under one roof and it is very much a part of our national identity. I thank the Ministry and NEA for their determined efforts to overcome the many challenges and to re-energise this unique culture and heritage of ours.
The challenges are pretty daunting. Among others, how do we attract new entrants who are both passionate about the trade and see this as a viable profession? How do we game-change the operating model so that we can improve overall productivity and keep operating costs low? How do we inculcate gracious behaviour so that hawker centres will always be a pleasant place for all to dine and also, importantly, how do we ensure that the uniquely-Singapore culinary skills and tastes continue to be passed on?
I understand the Ministry and NEA have embarked on various efforts to rejuvenate the hawker centre scene. I would like to seek some updates from the Minister.
The Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee recommended to develop training opportunities and pathways for hawkers. Can I ask the Minister how has the response been? Due to the relatively high median age of 59 years old for existing hawkers, the hawker trade needed younger and new entrants into the trade to sustain. What have been done to improve the business operating environment for hawkers and to help the new entrants?
Improving productivity in hawker centres is a critical undertaking. The aim is to address manpower constraints and to keep costs competitive. However, many of the productivity initiatives would also require significant cash outlay upfront and may increase operating costs for the hawkers.
I read at the NEA website of the Hawkers' Productivity Grant. Can I ask how has the utilisation rate been like? And how could we encourage more hawkers to tap on the grant to improve productivity?
Hawker centres can be more than just a place for good food. It can also be useful social spaces where we build a sense of community and belonging. How can NEA help inject more vibrancy into the hawker centres and encourage more fringe activities to be held at the hawker centres?
Finally, we read in the news about the differing views on the tray return practices and how it has not worked as well. Have NEA done a review and what plans does NEA have to improve the tray return rates in the hawker centres?
Mr Chairman, I am thankful that the hawker centre at my constituency will start construction this year and due for completion in 2020. I welcome NEA to try out the various new initiatives at our soon-to-be-built hawker centre at Senja estate.
Miss Cheng Li Hui: Early last year, the Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee submitted its recommendations to the Government with the view to improve hawker centres and promote the trade.
We love our food and hawker centres. I definitely do. Keeping the hawker trade alive and vibrant is thus important although operating a hawker stall has its own challenges. In view of that, the proposal back then was to introduce a few ways to sustain the hawker trade and to support the injection of new blood. Can the Ministry share what is the receptiveness of the public towards this programme, such as the number of people who enrolled or even dropped out along the way?
As in any trade and sector, the need to be productive is important but costly. I would like to know what is the uptake of the Hawkers' Productivity Fund. Is it sufficiently utilised and how many have tapped on it?
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Chairman, for several years, I have organised anti-littering exercises in my estate during the Clean and Green month. The intent was to highlight to our residents the need to be responsible for our environment and to keep the estate clean.
But each year, the team of volunteers kept picking up more and more litter. We found cigarette butts, used tissue, plastic bags, empty bottles, food containers, bottle caps and so on. One great source of irritation to many volunteers is dog poo left behind by pet owners who did not bother to pick up the dog poo.
Around my constituency, whenever there are any renovation works being carried out, I would also see plastic bottles left on the road by the workers of the contractors, plastic bags of drinks hanging by the trees and so on. To say the least, it is frustrating that the clean and green Singapore which I knew some years ago is no more. Even the volunteers for the anti-littering exercises seem to have gone down in numbers as they felt frustrated at the lack of progress.
Last year, NEA reported an increase in the number of summonses and more than 31,000 summonses were issued. With respect to NEA, it is not the number of summonses which we need to look at. The question is whether NEA has been effective in reducing the litter which is thrown on the roads and other public areas. Is NEA effective in keeping Singapore a clean city instead of a city which is being cleaned by our thousands of cleaners? How do we stand as a clean city when we compare ourselves with the habits of the Taiwanese or the Japanese? I would urge NEA to reconsider their entire programme of keeping Singapore clean. If the existing efforts of NEA have not resulted in a cleaner Singapore, then perhaps we should review our efforts.
May I urge NEA to push for more education in the schools on the need to keep our environment clean? I suggest that every cohort of secondary school students undergo an annual exercise to pick up litter. This will help them understand the difficulties of the cleaner and also instill in them the discipline of keeping the environment clean.
Can NEA consider imposing a mandatory Corrective Work Order (CWO) for every litterbug caught instead of imposing a fine? Sometimes, when I get residents who received summonses, they complained that they have low income and, therefore, cannot afford the fine. So, consider sending them for a mandatory CWO instead. For every foreign worker caught for littering, can NEA consider it as an adverse record when deciding whether to renew their work pass?
We need to combine our educational efforts with adequate punitive actions. This is to be fair to the rest of Singaporeans who take effort to keep their environment and Singapore clean.
The Chairman: Minister Masagos.
The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Chairman, may I have your permission to distribute a handout to Members, and also to use slides to accompany my speech?
The Chairman: Yes, please. [A handout and some slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. Since our Independence, Singapore has pursued sustainable development on a long-term basis, never compromising our environment for development or growth.
Mr Erik Solheim, Executive Director of the United Nations (UN) Environment Programme, cited us as a model for other countries. Our Pioneers cleaned up the Singapore River. They built sewers to improve sanitation. They resettled street vendors to hawker centres to clean up our streets. They built rubbish chutes to handle our waste efficiently. They planned carefully so that industries did not pollute our environment. Our Pioneers had the foresight and gumption to plan long term even if critical measures were difficult and unpopular. Their steadfastness left us this liveable environment we enjoy today.
They laid the foundation for the next generation to build on. Our clean waterways allow us to harvest stormwater on a large scale. Our sewer networks join up through the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS) to maximise NEWater production. Because we have always processed our sewage for safe discharge, NEWater was possible on a national scale and cheaper to produce.
Our hawker centres have evolved into vibrant social spaces. Pneumatic systems will transform waste collection, where sanitation workers would not see our rubbish from end to end. We can continue to be proud of our living environment.
I hosted 150 international environmental scientists and UN officials last month. Many have never been to Singapore. They were amazed by how Singapore can be an urban, clean and green city, all at the same time, and always looking new!
What our Pioneers bequeathed us has put us in good stead to tackle a bigger upcoming challenge: climate change. This is an existential issue for our planet. Singapore is vulnerable, from rising sea levels to increasing rainfall intensities to longer dry spells. I agree with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that we need to take climate action now, for the sake of our next generation. If the previous generation left us a clean and green city, we must make our legacy a sustainable city, as we pass on this treasured and precious land to our children.
At home, 2017 was the warmest non El-Nino year. We swung to the other extreme in the new year with a \"January Singapore winter\" and intense rainfall. On 8 January, half the month’s average rainfall fell over four hours in Singapore but little rain fell over Linggiu Reservoir. In February, high tides caused temporary flooding even without rain! With rising sea levels, we could experience more of such phenomena.
I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that the Government is coordinated in tackling climate change. As climate change cuts across various disciplines, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and supported by the National Climate Change Secretariat ensures whole-of-Government coordination. All public sector agencies are committed to taking climate action in 2018 and beyond. Last year, we launched the Public Sector Sustainability Plan, setting out targets to save electricity and water and green our buildings. We will do more by expanding our targets to include waste reduction and solar energy adoption.
The Government, however, cannot deal with climate change alone. Everyone needs to join forces to reduce our carbon footprint. This is why Singapore designated 2018 as our Year of Climate Action. We want to embed in Singapore’s DNA the instinct to care for the environment, like our national consciousness of conserving water. Because both are existential issues. This will ensure that Singapore remains the best liveable city for our children and the best choice for companies to base their businesses because we have a successful climate action policy and an active citizenry.
We must ensure our policies enable Singapore to tackle climate change as we prepare for the future. As a 17 February Economist article aptly puts it, and I quote \"It is not droughts that cause cities to run out of water, it is bad policy\".
Climate action is taken on two fronts. First, adaptation, to cope with the impact of climate change. We have and will continue to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, such as raising our coastal roads, enhancing stormwater systems and diversifying our water supply. All these will take time and, hence, we have started early.
These are large and long-term investments that must be premised on science. Hence, in 2013, we set up the Centre for Climate Research Singapore to deepen research capabilities on the weather and climate of Singapore and Southeast Asia.
Mr Chairman, the Singapore Water Story is one where we strive for sustainability through long-term planning and investing ahead of our needs. This approach is more critical with climate change, where we need to grapple with both extremes of drought and flooding.
Last year, I spoke about the Netherlands and Singapore, two countries with different water stories: the Netherlands with too much water, and Singapore, too little. Nonetheless, we both take our situations seriously. This year, let me speak about Cape Town and Singapore, two cities with similar water stories which have taken very different paths.
As Mr Seah Kian Peng has said, since 2014, a three-year drought has pushed Cape Town's water system to the brink. Its reservoirs stand at 26%. They are scrambling to build desalination plants starting from now. But these take time to build. Residents are bracing themselves for Day Zero, when their taps will be turned off and they are forced to queue to get their water rations.
For Singapore, there were concerns regarding Linggiu Reservoir, which supplements the flow of the Johor River, an important water source for both Singapore and Malaysia. Linggiu was full in 2014. But low rainfall, coupled with having to meet the abstraction needs of Malaysia and Singapore, depleted Linggiu to a historic low of 20% in October 2016, barely two years. Saltwater intrusions and pollution required Linggiu to discharge frequently during such a critical period.
While the stock level has gradually improved to 63%, it took more than a year, mainly due to good rainfall and the completion of the Johor River Barrage. But the stock level can drop again quickly, and it has dropped in the last few weeks. Should Linggiu Reservoir fail, it will pose major problems for both Malaysia and Singapore. Water is both a sensitive and strategic issue for the two countries. This is why it is often discussed when our two Prime Ministers meet.
What Cape Town experienced is not a remote possibility for Singapore. We must not wait for a crisis to take action. Our forward planning ensured that in 2016, when Linggiu was at its lowest, we did not burden our people with water rationing when others had to. The faith of businesses in our water supply was not eroded. Fortunately, the weather turned. But the next dry weather event can come any time, and it could even be longer. We must be ready. We must never believe that our problems are over.
Over the years, we augmented our water supply with weather-resilient sources – NEWater and desalinated water. This year, our third desalination plant in Tuas will come online. By 2020, we will have two more, taking the total to five.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about our used water plans. NEWater has allowed us to reuse water in an endless cycle and to keep the water within the system safe to drink.
Even with these investments, it does not mean that our water scarcity issue is resolved. It only allows us to stave off temporary water shortages. These sources are also energy-intensive and we do not want to be too energy-reliant in our drive to be weather-resilient. This is why PUB has always been exploring technologies to reduce energy consumption in desalination. There is promise in the use of electrochemical energy, waste heat and biomimicry. But it will take time to realise these benefits.
The climate challenge is not all negative. For example, a carbon-constrained framework has prompted NEA and PUB to take a different approach when they were expanding their capacities. They are looking at leveraging the interconnectedness of water, energy and waste to yield the best outcomes for the smallest carbon footprint.
The upcoming Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS) Phase 2 is not just a superhighway to transport used water. It is a strategic infrastructure to boost our NEWater supply and water security.
We are taking it one step further. By combining the Tuas Water Reclamation Plant (TWRP) at the end of the DTSS and the Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF), the first in the world from ground up, we will employ the latest technology in combustion to synergise and maximise energy recovery. Effluent water from wastewater treatment will be used for cooling waste incineration equipment, reducing potable water demand. Through integration, we will save more than 200,000 tonnes of carbon emissions a year. This is equivalent to taking 42,500 cars off our roads. As an added benefit, when DTSS is completed, we will have land savings of 214 football fields which we can give to the next generation to use.
Water is entwined with our nation’s survival and our everyday lives. It is not enough that the Government pumps billions of dollars into infrastructure to ensure supply. Policies to manage demand are as important. The right pricing policy is needed to ensure good management of this precious resource.
We saw how subsidised water price led to high consumption in Cape Town, despite clear warnings of an impending water crisis. Pricing is, hence, critical to manage both production and consumption. It must allow for long-term investments and reflect the scarcity value of water. These principles shape our pricing policy, where we peg our water price to its Long-run Marginal Cost (LRMC). This has been our consistent policy. LRMC is not a theoretical price. We will actually have to pay it when we spend on infrastructure. Hence, we cannot subject the price of water to market distortions. There are commercial sensitivities to the specifics of our pricing. By not revealing them, we ensure market competitiveness and the best possible bids in tenders. Beyond market sensitivities, water is a matter of national security.
We must pay equal attention to water conservation. Prior to the drought, Cape Town was using 225 litres per person per day. Now, they are struggling to cut back to 50 litres. I am encouraged by the drop in Singapore’s household consumption from 148 litres in 2016 to 143 litres per person per day in 2017. I hope that this trend can continue.
I said last year that with the permanent additional Utilities (U)-Save rebates, 1- and 2-roomers will not see an increase in water bills even after the full price revision. At this lower consumption rate, many 3-roomers will also not see an increase when the rebates are applied. Water bills after the full price revision will still be within 1% of household incomes. The lower consumption, however, is not solely due to the water price. Our water conservation efforts like the mandatory water efficiency labelling scheme are bearing fruit.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about water conservation efforts. Our water conservation efforts are yielding results because Singaporeans have a national consciousness to conserve water. As part of PUB’s comprehensive outreach programme, many schools are inculcating this consciousness in our children through education and water rationing exercises. Similarly, Government agencies have committed to improve water efficiency by 5.1%, or 900,000 cubic metres a year, by 2020 under the Public Sector Sustainability Plan.
PUB started the water closet replacement project last year to help needy families save water with more efficient fittings. One thousand one hundred households have already benefited and saw a 10% reduction in water bills on average. This builds on HDB's HIP scheme, where participating households can replace their fittings with water-efficient ones. PUB will continue to engage other eligible households.
Mr Pritam Singh raised some suggestions on encouraging the take-up of water-efficient appliances, including offering rebates. According to PUB’s latest household water consumption study, more than half of the water fittings and appliances used by households are water-efficient models. This high penetration indicates preference for water-efficient products, especially as the price difference between products of varying water efficiency ratings is insignificant. PUB will continue to work with suppliers and retailers to introduce more water-efficient products.
As part of the Smart Nation push, we will also use technology to encourage behavioural change towards water conservation and enhance operational productivity. PUB will be embarking on the Smart Shower Programme. Up to 10,000 new homes will be equipped with smart shower devices under a demonstration project. These devices provide real-time feedback on actual water consumption during showers. A National University of Singapore (NUS) pilot involving 500 households showed water savings of five litres per person per day on average.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system. PUB has been conducting trials on AMR systems, to replace current meters that have to be read manually. AMR meters can be read remotely and provide higher-resolution water consumption data. Results have been encouraging.
Let me give Members one example. Ms Jacqueline Chan’s family participated in PUB’s trial in June 2017. Through a mobile app, the Chan family can track and take steps to reduce their daily water usage. They have also saved about 8,000 litres of water after being alerted by their app to a leak in their water closet. We will explore how this system can be implemented nationwide.
The non-domestic sector must also play their part. Companies can tap on the Water Efficiency Fund and the Industrial Water Solutions Demonstration Fund to support water-saving efforts.
PUB is collaborating with industry to use the data collected through the Water Efficiency Management Plans to develop sectorial water efficiency benchmarks and best practices. PUB has worked with the building sector, including offices, hotels and retail, to publish a best practices guide.
Growing and right-pricing our water supply go hand-in-hand with managing water demand. The sum of all that we do will prepare us for the future. For now, there is no need for national water rationing exercises. If we can get our policy right, we will avoid Day Zero.
Mr Chairman, with climate change, Singaporeans will experience more frequent, intense rain storms. Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked for an update on PUB’s plans to mitigate flash floods. I gave a comprehensive reply in this House on 5 February. PUB has set higher drainage standards since 2011, up to 45% capacity increase, but our drains cannot be built to accommodate every extreme rainfall event. This would entail massive land take and much higher costs. We have thus adopted a holistic source-pathway-receptor approach.
These complement continuous island-wide drainage improvement works. The works at Stamford Diversion Canal, Stamford Detention Tank and Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal will be completed in 2018. Work will commence at another 22 locations this year, adding to existing works at 73 locations.
As flash floods cannot be completely eliminated, we will help members of the public better cope by providing timely situation updates, including SMS alerts, about water levels. Those who wish to receive alerts from more than one water level sensor can write in to PUB.
Mr Leon Perera asked about coastal protection. Over 70% of our coastline is protected by hard walls or stone embankments. To protect against rising sea levels, we raised minimum reclamation levels by one metre in 2011, to at least four metres above mean sea level. We will build Changi Airport Terminal 5 at 5.5 metres above mean sea level. To address Singapore’s long-term protection needs, BCA is conducting a Coastal Adaptation Study to recommend a national framework.
Scientists also worry about pest and vector problems escalating with climate change. The concerted effort by all stakeholders in response to the 2016 Zika outbreak and our vector control actions contributed to the drop in the number of dengue cases in 2017, almost five times lower than in 2016.
However, we also observed a significant increase in mosquitoes caught in Gravitraps. We cannot become complacent. While we continue with premises inspections, everyone can play their part by practising the five-Step Mozzie Wipe-out.
Climate change may worsen the spread of mosquito-borne diseases, such as Zika and Chikungunya. We are studying how male Wolbachia-carrying Aedes mosquitoes can be used to suppress the mosquito population. We will conduct further studies this year to strengthen our planning for an eventual suppression trial.
Climate change can also affect other vectors, such as rodents and houseflies. I encourage all to do our part by practising good everyday habits, such as disposing our food waste properly at home and returning our trays in hawker centres, to prevent pests in our homes and communities.
Mr Chairman, besides climate adaptation, we also need to take mitigation action which is what we do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). One big focus is on energy efficiency for which we enhanced the Energy Conservation Act last year. We are using more solar energy. We have more green buildings with more stringent standards in energy efficiency.
Good transport policy will mitigate climate change. This is what the car-lite policy will do. By 2030, eight in 10 households will live within 10 minutes of a train station. We have frozen the growth of our car population starting last month. All these will reduce our fossil fuel use and carbon footprint.
Last year, I announced the new Vehicular Emissions Scheme to promote cleaner new vehicles. NEA enforces against smoky foreign vehicles at our checkpoints. We have tightened the turn-back limit since January this year. My Ministry is reviewing how to reduce vehicular pollution from older, more polluting vehicles. We will announce our recommendations in due course.
Our industries can do more to mitigate climate change. A KPMG study found that only 17% of local firms have carbon reduction targets.
The carbon tax is the latest component of our wide-ranging mitigation measures. Miss Cheng Li Hui asked whether the carbon tax is the most effective way to reduce emissions. Pricing will encourage companies to evaluate opportunities to switch to more energy-efficient technologies and more sustainable processes.
Recently, I spoke to Mr Jagadish, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SSMC, a semiconductor solutions company. I was told that they are committed to a 30% reduction in GHG emissions in their process design. As more companies, like SSMC, reduce their carbon footprint, whether through improved processes or when designing new investments, they also improve the Singapore brand premium and reputation for green practices. Across the world, young people passionate about our planet will demand this as consumers. An NEA poll showed that close to 70% of the public was supportive of a carbon tax.
Mr Louis Ng asked how we decided on the starting tax rate of $5 per tonne, which we intend to raise to $10 to $15 by 2030. We aim to strike a balance between providing sufficient incentive for companies and Singaporeans to reduce their carbon emissions and giving them enough time to adjust. Our carbon tax will be applied uniformly without exemptions. Other overseas jurisdictions may have significant exemptions for particular sectors. This would lower the effective tax rate. Hence, our starting tax rate cannot be directly compared with those of other jurisdictions.
The carbon tax would apply to larger direct emitters – companies emitting 25 kilotonnes or more of GHG emissions a year. Around 40 companies, which account for about 80% of Singapore’s GHG emissions, will be affected.
We will introduce a fixed-price credits-based (FPCB) system where companies will purchase and surrender credits to pay the carbon tax. The FPCB system is akin to a carbon tax, but it will allow us and companies to build capability to operate in a linked market with other carbon pricing jurisdictions if we decide to do so in future.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about the tax revenue, while Mr Louis Ng asked about the Government’s support measures. The Minister for Finance has said he is prepared to spend more than what we collect in carbon tax in the first five years to support worthwhile projects. We will share more details later.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the estimated impact of the carbon tax on households. We expect it to be small, at about 1% of total electricity and gas expenses on average. The additional U-Save rebates will help households adjust. My Ministry will also work with the community to help households reduce their energy consumption. Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor will elaborate.
Mr Chairman, organisations and companies have begun leading the charge. The World Bank will stop financing upstream oil and gas projects from 2019. I am happy that ExxonMobil, a major investor here and a leader in energy efficiency, and one of the companies affected by our carbon tax, has recently pledged to take climate action on MEWR’s webpage. I quote Mr Gan Seow Kee, Chairman and Managing Director for ExxonMobil Asia Pacific, that ExxonMobil \"is committed to reducing GHG emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, and supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs.\" Many firms, including many of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), have made their climate action pledges on MEWR's webpage. I am glad we are taking this journey together.
I will now touch on waste. Striving towards a Zero Waste Nation is another key focus of the Year of Climate Action. We must reduce, reuse and recycle more. A McKinsey study showed that to make one kilogramme (kg) of fabric, 23 kg of GHGs are produced!
We are running out of space to store our waste. If we continue business as usual, we will need a new landfill the size of three Gardens by the Bay every 35 years. Waste does not magically disappear when we throw it down our rubbish chutes!
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked how Singaporeans and businesses can play a role in Singapore becoming a Zero Waste Nation. Everyone must play a part. The Government will lead in developing infrastructure and frameworks, including legislation where required. But Singaporeans and businesses must participate. Beyond legislation, our people, companies and civic organisations can demonstrate leadership with ground-up efforts.
In Singapore, we have closed the water loop and achieved a circular economy in our water sector. We should apply the circular economy to the waste sector. The circular economy is also on the global agenda, where materials are reused and recycled for as long as possible. As a CEO of an African non-government organisation (NGO) said: \"There is no such thing as waste, until it is wasted.\"
We will introduce the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach as a key strategy in waste and resource management. Traditionally, producers are only concerned about the design, manufacture and use of their products. The EPR approach extends their responsibility to include the proper recycling and disposal of their products at the end-of-life. Manufacturers and importers will take charge of the waste they had produced, rather than the society bearing the costs. By doing so, businesses are also incentivised to design products that last longer and can be more easily recycled.
We will start with e-waste. Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor will share more details on setting up a national e-waste management system using the EPR approach.
As we strive to be a Zero Waste Nation, we will turn brown into gold as we engage in urban mining, as we recover treasure from trash, as we grow and transform a vibrant environmental services industry with good jobs for Singaporeans and, most important of all, as we build a sustainable and liveable home for our children. Mr Chairman, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The measures that are implemented to tackle climate change are taken on two fronts. First, adaptation to cope with the impact of climate change. We will continue to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, such as raising our coastal roads, building seawalls, enhancing storm-water systems and diversifying our water supply.
Besides climate adaptation, we also need to take mitigation action to reduce emissions of GHGs. We are already using more solar energy. There are more green buildings with more stringent standards in energy efficiency. We have enhanced the public transport network and frozen the growth of our car population.
Last year, we announced the new Vehicular Emissions Scheme to promote the usage of new vehicles that are more environmentally-friendly. My Ministry is reviewing how to reduce pollution from older vehicles that produce more pollutants. We will announce our recommendations in due course.
The carbon tax is the latest component of the wide-ranging measures that we are undertaking to mitigate GHG emissions. It puts a price on carbon emissions to encourage the usage of technologies that are more energy-efficient and produce less carbon. Environmentally-friendly practices should be a part of the Singapore brand premium.
The measures that are implemented to tackle climate change are taken on two fronts. First, adaptation to cope with the impact of climate change. We will continue to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, such as raising our coastal roads, building seawalls, enhancing storm-water systems and diversifying our water supply. Besides climate adaptation, we also need to take mitigation action to reduce emissions of GHGs. We are already using more solar energy. There are more green buildings with more stringent standards in energy efficiency. We have enhanced the public transport network and frozen the growth of our car population.
Last year, we announced the new Vehicular Emissions Scheme to promote the usage of new vehicles that are more environmentally-friendly. My Ministry is reviewing how to reduce pollution from older vehicles that produce more pollutants. We will announce our recommendations in due course. The carbon tax is the latest component of the wide-ranging measures that we are undertaking to mitigate GHG emissions. It puts a price on carbon emissions to encourage the usage of technologies that are more energy-efficient and produce less carbon. Environmentally-friendly practices should be a part of the Singapore brand premium.
(In English): Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim asked what Singapore is doing on the regional and global front for climate action. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has identified the fight against climate change as one of the top priorities for the UN and for the international community. Singapore supports this.
In July, I will lead a delegation to the UN, where Singapore will undertake our first Voluntary National Review of the Sustainable Development Goals.
We will use our ASEAN Chairmanship to galvanise support for climate action. Singapore will convene a Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Climate Action on 10 July 2018, and a back-to-back expanded meeting with ASEAN and Ministers from China, Japan, Korea and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of the Conference of the Parties (COP) President and President-designate Fiji and Poland.
These will take place in conjunction with the Singapore International Water Week (SIWW) – CleanEnviro Summit Singapore (CESG) – World Cities Summit joint event. We will share experiences and reaffirm the region’s commitment to climate action and the Paris Agreement.
We will continue to plug ourselves into the global movement on climate change and work with partners to shape the international agenda. As the saying goes, “If we are not at the table, we will be on the menu”. To get a seat at the table, we must be credible. This means that Singapore must fulfil our international obligations and show leadership on climate action. Already we have been noticed. Christiana Figueres, the former Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, said in an article published locally in Singapore in Business Times: \"Fortunately, Singapore is attuned to this urgent turning point. Its Year of Climate Action, backed by concrete steps in the domestic policy sphere, is the kind of leadership the region needs.\"
Let me conclude. To succeed in our climate action endeavour, the Government’s efforts alone will never be enough. All Singaporeans have a critical role to play. We do not want to mandate everything. Instead, Singaporeans must feel empowered to take climate action. This is akin to our Water Story, which was not just the effort of the Government, but that of generations of Singaporeans who partnered us for the greater good.
This is why we have designated 2018 as the Year of Climate Action. It is the start of our journey to raise the level of national consciousness to fight climate change. We will pass this consciousness from generation to generation. This will ensure our children do not end up facing a climate change crisis – higher sea levels, frequent swings between intense weather or pestilence. They should never have to face a water crisis like Cape Town.
I accompanied President Halimah for the launch of the Singapore World Water Day last Saturday. What struck me most was when two little girls, Alyssa and Abby, asked \"What if this was our last drop?\" Indeed, we must never let our children ask this, or “Why is our air so polluted?\" or \"Why is our sea level rising?” Our children are the reason why we need to take climate action – now.
Taking climate action now is how we shall pass to our children a Singapore that is a liveable city ever more, a city where thriving businesses have low carbon footprints, and a city with environmental solutions that are well sought after. We can do this together.
I now hand it over to the Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Chairman, in the Year of Climate Action, MEWR will rally everyone to take action against climate change, this year and beyond. We hope all Singaporeans will join forces to ensure Singapore remains our best liveable home and a vibrant, sustainable city for generations to come.
Since the Year of Climate Action was launched in January, the video on MEWR's Facebook page has received over 160,000 views, and I am glad that more than 21,000 individuals have made Climate Action pledges online.
Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked what role businesses and the public can play in climate action. My Ministry will intensify engagement to galvanise action amongst NGOs, businesses, communities, households and individuals. Let me elaborate.
NGOs have always been passionate about sustainability, and many took the initiative to work together even before this year began. We will reinforce and support their ground-up efforts. I had a dialogue with NGOs in January this year, where we agreed that climate action collaboration and coordination across all stakeholders could be stronger. Arising from this dialogue, Ms Jessica Cheam, Managing Editor of Eco-Business, brought together NGOs and business leaders to form the Climate Action SG Alliance to advocate climate action and raise public awareness on climate issues. It will be chaired by Ms Cheam in her personal capacity. MEWR will support this ground-up initiative and I have agreed to act as the Advisor. We will also be launching a Climate Action SG Grant. NGOs and grassroots organisations can apply for this grant to defray some of the costs of organising programmes in support of the Year of Climate Action. Upon application, each eligible organisation can be provided with up to $5,000 on a reimbursement basis.
Many companies have reached out to us in support of the Year of Climate Action, with over 110 firms, including the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), SembCorp, City Developments Ltd (CDL) and Ricoh, making Climate Action SG pledges. Many of our SMEs have also pledged. These companies recognise it is possible to do good and do well at the same time. We hope more companies will voluntarily pledge and take climate action.
MEWR will support community efforts to educate the public about climate change and encourage climate action. Grassroots organisations can apply for both the new Climate Action SG Grant and the existing 3P Partnership Fund from NEA for environmental programmes. We will be launching a bulb replacement programme for 1- and 2-room HDB households to encourage the use of energy-efficient light bulbs to reduce energy use. NEA will also be organising an Energy-Saving Challenge this year to raise awareness about energy efficiency and conservation.
Community engagement in climate action is a challenging long-term journey that goes beyond 2018, but we will stay the course to get every Singaporean on board.
Last year, I outlined Singapore's overall waste management strategy and the three waste streams we are most concerned about: e-waste, food waste and packaging waste. As the Minister mentioned, we will focus on e-waste this year. Singapore generates about 60,000 tonnes of e-waste annually. That is like every person in Singapore throwing away 73 mobile phones every year! E-waste contains heavy metals and hazardous substances that can seriously harm the environment and public health, if not properly handled. Some heavy metals can also be extracted from properly recovered e-waste and reused, which is more sustainable than mining for virgin materials.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about the e-waste recycling rate for businesses. As Dr Chia shared, based on the results of an e-waste study by NEA, currently around 6% of residents place their e-waste in e-recycling bins. We estimate the e-waste recycling rate by businesses to be higher, due to take-back arrangements that are usually in place between businesses, and manufacturers or importers. However, more needs to be done.
Mr Chairman, with your permission, I would like to show some slides, please.
The Chairman: Yes. [Some slides were shown to hon Members.]
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Louis Ng asked for an update on our national e-waste management system. MEWR will implement a mandatory e-waste management system by 2021 to ensure that electrical and electronic products are disposed of in an environmentally friendly way and allow for safe recovery of useful materials. For a start, this system will cover five main categories of products, namely, information and communications technology (ICT) equipment like mobile phones and computers, solar panels, batteries, lamps and certain large household appliances like refrigerators, air-conditioners, washing machines and dryers. Together, these products make up close to 90% of e-waste in Singapore and generally pose more harm to the environment if not properly treated.
Our e-waste management system will adopt the EPR approach, which is also implemented in other countries like Sweden and South Korea. NEA will set collection targets for manufacturers and importers to take back a proportion of the products they put on the market. They will be required to work with NEA-licensed Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), which will organise the collection, transport and proper treatment of e-waste, and help the manufacturers and importers achieve their targets.
For example, PROs will work with large electrical and electronic retailers to set up in-store e-waste collection points. All retailers must also provide free one-for-one take-back service for their products. Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about recycling larger e-waste items. Apart from the take-back service provided by retailers, Town Councils also provide bulky waste disposal service, which will ensure collected e-waste is properly recycled.
We will set collection targets in consultation with the industry and review them before implementing a penalty framework eventually. The European Union (EU) started with an overall collection target of four kg per capita in 2003. After 13 years, the target reached 45% of all electronic products sold on the market by weight. We will study the practices in other countries to design a cost-effective system. By aggregating e-waste and enabling more efficient collection and processing, there will be greater value captured from e-waste, which is one of the more valuable waste streams. This will help offset the cost of operating the e-waste system. We will consult relevant stakeholders to work out legislation and implementation details.
Some companies have already taken the initiative to implement voluntary e-waste management programmes. For instance, StarHub runs the REcycling Nation’s Electronic Waste (RENEW) programme in partnership with DHL Express and TES-AMM. I am pleased to see retailers like Courts, Gain City and Harvey Norman coming on board the RENEW programme. There will soon be e-waste collection bins in some of their outlets.
The mandatory e-waste system will help both the environment and the economy. EPR systems have generated new business opportunities and jobs in the e-waste management and recycling industries in other countries. In France, for instance, more than 3,000 e-waste recycling jobs were created since EPR was implemented in 2005. We will integrate and support smaller industry players so they can benefit from our national system, including the karung guni men who provide collection services.
Next, I will talk about food waste. I am glad that our food waste recycling rate has increased from 12% in 2012 to 16% in 2017, which is about 133,000 tonnes. We will continue to explore which food waste solution works best in Singapore. For example, around 90% of eligible stallholders participated in the food waste digester pilot at Ang Mo Kio, Block 628 hawker centre, which processed around one tonne of food waste a day for the past two years. Food waste digesters have also been installed in four of our new hawker centres. Digesters will be installed in two more hawker centres in Bedok this year, and in more hawker centres subsequently.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked how food waste in military camps and Home Team premises is managed. To minimise food waste and food wastage, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) use weekly forecasts of meals required to ensure that the right amount of food is prepared. NEA works with both Ministries on food waste management initiatives, such as with the Central Manpower Base, on NEA's Food Wastage Reduction Outreach Programme.
Several army camps are also participating in NEA and PUB's food waste pilots, where source-segregated food waste is collected and transported to a demonstration facility at Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant. There, food waste is co-digested with used water sludge to generate biogas.
Finally, I will touch on packaging waste. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about packaging waste produced by food delivery services. While NEA does not monitor this specifically, the total amount of packaging waste has remained fairly constant over the last few years and makes up around a third of the total domestic waste in Singapore. The voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement (SPA) has cumulatively reduced almost 39,000 tonnes of packaging waste since its inception in 2007. Building on this, we will put in place a mandatory reporting framework for packaging waste management by 2021.
Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Dennis Tan asked about our efforts to deal with plastic waste and, specifically, whether we will impose a charge or ban on single-use plastic bags. Unlike many of the countries that have imposed a ban or mandatory charge on plastic bags, we do not directly landfill our plastic disposables but incinerate them. Hence, we do not face the land and water pollution issues that plague those countries. Plastic bags are also necessary for responsible and hygienic bagging of waste in our moist, tropical climate. Unbagged household waste attract more pests like cockroaches and rats, creating serious environmental and health problems.
A recently concluded lifecycle assessment (LCA) study on carrier bags and food packaging, commissioned by NEA, found that every type of disposable bag, not just plastic bags, but also bio-degradable bags and paper bags, for example, impose different environmental impacts, whether it be carbon emissions, heavy water usage or significant land clearance. This is particularly so as we incinerate our waste and we do not directly landfill. Hence, imposing a charge or ban on disposable plastic bags and substituting them with other types of disposable bags is unlikely to improve environmental outcomes. The study concluded that consumers can generally reduce their environmental impact by using reusable bags and food containers instead of disposables.
In Singapore, a more sustainable approach is to tackle the excessive consumption of all types of disposables. We will step up engagement with stakeholders to cut down on the excessive use of plastic bags as well as disposables like single-use food containers. For example, Foodpanda is working on a trial where customers can opt out of disposable cutleries when ordering food. Zero Waste Singapore also launch an innovative Bring Your Own (BYO) Singapore campaign last year to incentivise consumers to bring their own reusable bags or containers to eateries and supermarkets to earn discounts or free gifts.
We will continue to support such efforts while holistically tackling the broader issue upstream by reducing all types of packaging waste at source. By 2021, we will mandate that businesses report on the type and amount of packaging they put on the market and their plans for reduction. We will start industry consultations this year.
Mr Leon Perera also spoke about microplastics, an issue receiving increasing international attention, which we are working on closely with our international partners. To ensure that Singapore does not contribute to marine litter and microplastics, we have stringent and comprehensive regulations to control pollution and manage waste. We enforce strict anti-littering laws and incinerate our waste and conduct cleanups of waterways and beaches to minimise marine litter.
Our island is also fully sewered and all used water is collected and treated to international standards before discharge. During used water treatment, microbeads, a form of microplastics, will be substantially removed as sludge and disposed of by incineration.
In addition, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) conducts regular food safety tests on locally-sourced as well as imported fish. During these tests, AVA monitors for chemical contaminants found in microplastics, which may affect the safety of the fish for consumption. AVA will continue to monitor this issue and introduce appropriate food safety measures, where necessary.
We agree with Mr Lim Biow Chuan that it is important to keep Singapore clean and we couple education with enforcement measures to tackle littering. In 2014, we doubled the maximum fine for littering offences under the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) to enhance deterrence. We have stepped up enforcement against littering over the years, issuing more than 32,000 tickets last year compared to around 26,000 in 2015.
I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for his suggestion to impose mandatory CWOs on all littering offenders. Generally, more callous littering offenders would be more culpable and liable for stiffer penalties. CWO, which is issued by the Court, is meant for more severe cases like recalcitrant litterbugs, and it would be excessive to impose on all littering offenders.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan may also wish to know that foreign workers convicted and fined more than $2,000 or jailed for littering-related offences may have their work passes revoked and banned from employment. The Public Hygiene Council (PHC) has been working alongside the Singapore Kindness Movement (SKM), to promote the values of picking up after ourselves and keeping our environment clean.
It is not sustainable to keep intensifying enforcement against littering. Instead, everyone should take ownership of the cleanliness of their homes and communities, and I hope that everyone can join us in our efforts to keep Singapore clean and litter-free.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked if we have plans to regulate new food delivery service providers like Foodpanda and UberEats in the same manner as food caterers.
Unlike food caterers, food delivery service providers are not involved in the preparation of food. Food catering involves the advance preparation of large quantities of food at the premises of consumers, while food delivery service providers generally transport smaller quantities of food from various eateries to customers for immediate consumption. These service providers, therefore, do not pose the same level of risk as caterers.
Food delivery service providers do have the responsibility to ensure that delivered food is not contaminated during delivery, and that the interiors of their delivery vehicles are clean and free of pests. Failure to do so is an offence under the Environmental Public Health Act. If there is food poisoning arising from malpractice during delivery, such as if the delivery person mishandles or deliberately tampers with the food, the delivery person can also be charged for possessing food which is unclean or unfit for consumption.
Given these, we have no immediate plans to introduce additional regulations over food delivery services. We will, however, continue monitoring the industry closely and, if necessary, tighten food hygiene requirements to maintain high food safety standards.
Finally, I will speak about hawker centres. Chairman, many Singaporeans have told me that hawker centres and the food they offer are what they identify with and miss most when they are overseas. The Government has invested significantly in developing and enhancing hawker centres over the years to ensure that we and future generations can continue to enjoy our unique hawker culture.
To achieve this, hawker centres undergo cyclical repair and redecoration works about once every seven years. In 2001, the Government also started a $420 million Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) and upgraded more than 100 hawker centres by the end of the programme in 2013. We announced in 2015 that we will build 20 new hawker centres by 2027, and since then, seven new hawker centres have opened, including three last year in Woodlands, Yishun and Jurong West and one in Pasir Ris this year. These naturally-ventilated centres have better layout with wider stall fronts, larger circulation spaces, family seating areas with lower tables for young children, and even spaces for performances and other community activities.
The remaining new hawker centres will be built in areas like Sembawang, Sengkang, Punggol, Bukit Panjang North and Bukit Batok in the coming years. We will continue improving the design of our hawker centres as we develop new ones and renovate existing ones to meet the changing needs of Singaporeans.
Besides hardware, we also continually seek new ideas to better manage our hawker centres. One way we are doing this is by implementing alternative management models for new hawker centres. We have appointed socially-conscious operators to manage our new hawker centres, tapping on their experience managing other F&B operations to enhance the dining experience for patrons. They introduce new concepts and ideas and improve operational efficiency while ensuring affordability of food.
These operators must also monitor food prices at their centres to prevent unreasonable price hikes, and ensure hawkers offer at least a few affordable entry-level meals. In almost all the new centres, more than 90% of the stalls offer such meal options at $3 or below.
We must also sustain the hawker trade by both attracting new entrants and supporting existing hawkers. The Government accepted the Hawker Centre 3.0 (HC 3.0) Committee's recommendations last year, which focused on addressing hawkers' manpower constraints, reducing their workload and improving productivity. Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the progress of these recommendations. I am pleased to say that we have made significant progress.
We have opened up training opportunities and pathways for aspiring hawkers. NEA collaborated with the People’s Association (PA) to successfully launch the first season of the Hawker Fare Series of culinary classes for close to 100 participants from May to August last year. The second season has already started this year. NEA and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) also jointly developed an “Introduction to Managing a Hawker Business” course, and more than 100 students participated in the inaugural class last year. Four more classes will be held this year.
Two weeks ago, we launched the Incubation Stall Programme to give aspiring hawkers a chance to try out as a hawker. We have offered 13 incubation stalls in hawker centres across the island. Three stalls have been taken up so far, with another three applications received.
The Government has set aside about $90 million to enhance productivity in hawker centres through stall- and centre-level initiatives. This includes stall-level initiatives, like the Hawkers’ Productivity Grant (HPG), launched last year to promote greater use of kitchen automation equipment and help hawkers overcome manpower constraints and reduce their workload through greater productivity. Hawkers can be reimbursed 80% of the qualifying cost of equipment, up to a sum of $5,000, within three years. Fifty-eight hawkers have been awarded this Grant as of last month, such as Mr Tay Chen Boon, a 74-year-old hawker who has been selling popiah at Block 93 Lorong 4 Toa Payoh for the past 45 years. His new continuous feed vegetable cutter saves him almost two hours of preparation time daily, as he does not have to cut the vegetables by hand.
At the centre-level, the Government has funded initiatives like automated tray return systems (ATRS) and centralised dishwashing (CDW) services in existing hawker centres undergoing renovation. So far, we have introduced these initiatives to two existing hawker centres, working with the Hawkers’ Associations. We intend to roll out these systems in phases to up to 25 existing hawker centres over the next few years. We thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for expressing his support for these new initiatives at his upcoming hawker centre in Senja. These centre-level initiatives allow hawkers to focus on preparing and cooking their food, saving them time spent collecting and washing crockery or employing someone to do so. They also do not have to invest in the crockery as these are provided by the centralised dishwashing vendor. Taken together, these savings should offset the fees they pay for centralised dishwashing services. The Government also co-funds up to 70% of the operating costs of the initiatives for two years, to lower the initial adoption cost.
There has been much public discussion about the rationale and merit of encouraging tray return. We started encouraging tray return in 2012, primarily to ease the work of cleaners so that they can concentrate on cleaning tables, allowing for faster turnover of the tables which will benefit patrons. This also benefits hawkers as faster turnover means they can serve more patrons. Removing leftover food from the table addresses the bird nuisance issue and creates a cleaner, more hygienic dining environment. Returning trays with used crockery after meals is a small gesture of consideration for the next diner.
Some people have said encouraging tray return deprives cleaners of their job. That is not the case. Cleaners are not going to lose their jobs just because we become more considerate and return our trays. Cleaning is not an easy job that attracts many, especially locals. Cleaning companies cannot hire enough cleaners and existing cleaners have difficulties coping with clearing crockery and cleaning the tables, particularly during peak hours. By returning our own trays, we allow cleaners to focus on cleaning tables, improving productivity as well as the quality of their jobs. We are trying various ways to improve our tray return rates.
At the same time, we have piloted a project at Zion Riverside Food Centre and Adam Food Centre using behavioural \"nudges\" and visual cues to improve tray return rates. Under this project, cleaners encourage patrons to clear their own trays after meals, and they wear aprons displaying a message reminding patrons to return their trays. There are also posters on the tables with similar messages. The results at both hawker centres have been encouraging. At Zion Riverside Food Centre, the tray return rate increased by about 20%. These initiatives benefited cleaners at these centres, like 65-year-old Mdm Chin, a cleaner at Adam Food Centre who said she could concentrate on cleaning tables, making her job easier. NEA will roll out these initiatives to more hawker centres.
We have also piloted an ATRS with a deposit system at two of our existing hawker centres to \"nudge\" patrons to return their trays. We hope that, over the longer term, there is no need to have such a system, after tray return becomes second nature. In the meantime, we also plan to introduce behavioural nudges and cues at these two hawker centres to further reinforce the message. Mr Chairman, may I have your permission to speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government has continually upgraded and improved hawker centres in terms of the design of the facilities, the way they are run and the approach to tendering stalls. This is done so that everyone can benefit as diners can enjoy affordable food, while stall holders have a clean working environment.
We also introduced productivity initiatives, such as CDW and ATRS, to help the stallholders address their manpower issues and reduce their workload. They do not take away work from the cleaners but actually make their work easier so that they can focus on cleaning tables, improving their productivity. Diners also benefit as they can access clean tables quickly, and enjoy a more pleasant, hygienic dining environment.
All these initiatives ultimately benefit all Singaporeans – diners, cleaners, as well as the stallholders.
(In English): Another recommendation of HC 3.0 relates to enhancing the vibrancy of our hawker centres as social spaces. NEA launched the \"Vibrant Hawker Centres\" programme last June to encourage individuals, teams, organisations or institutions to organise regular activities at hawker centres. The response has been enthusiastic, and some 19 events had taken place across 12 hawker centres in 2017.
Hawker centres will continue to prosper as a key part of our social fabric, if everyone plays their part – hawkers, private operators, and patrons like you and I. Together, we can continue enjoying tasty local food in our beloved hawker centres for years to come.
Chairman, to paraphrase the Minister for Finance’s words during the Budget Debate, when he was referring to Reserves: \"We are stewards of our environment, just like Reserves, preserving and enhancing it for ourselves and for future generations, just as our forefathers had done for us.\" Everyone can play a part and benefit from Climate Action. We hope that what we do collectively helps reverse the global tragedy of the commons and ensures Singapore’s development remains on a sustainable path. No action is too small or inconsequential.
And for a start, I hope that all Members of this House, besides Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal, can lead by example and take the Climate Action Pledge online, and encourage your friends, families and constituents to do so. I can send you the quick response (QR) code if you wish, so that you can take the pledge. Together, we can build a liveable and sustainable environment now and into the future!
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I have three clarifications.
Firstly, is there a role that the karang guni man can play in EPR and, if yes, how?
Secondly, I am very happy to hear about the replacement of energy saving bulbs for 1- and 2-room flats. I would like to ask how this is to be implemented so that the bulbs are in the light fitting instead of lying around. Is there a plan to get the corporation to come in to help? And for those cases where the bulb does not fit into the old light fitting, is there a plan to change the light fittings?
Lastly, it is about anti-littering. I have four covered basketball courts in Khatib where basketballers from all over Singapore come every day to enjoy. However, at the end of the day, it looks like a war zone. How will the Ministry help in fighting this littering issue? Can we use gadgets, modern technology, to nab the culprits?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her questions.
Firstly, for the karang guni man, as I have said, we think that the karang guni man will continue to have a role to play when we implement the EPR e-waste management system. They can provide convenient door-to-door collection of the used appliances and, where it cannot be reused, then they can actually send it to the recyclers through the PROs.
With regard to the light bulbs, we are working out the details, taking feedback from retailers, as well as with the community, NGOs and companies who may want to do CSR on how we can more effectively implement the replacement of the light bulbs for the 1- and 2-roomers.
Regarding littering issues in the basketball courts at Khatib, I am given to understand that the North West Regional Office staff from NEA are working closely with the Member's grassroots to address the littering problem at the courts. I think the issue is that there are multiple parties using the courts and it is very difficult to identify who the litterbugs are. But I know that closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras have already been installed. So, we will work closely with the grassroots to do this.
But at the end of the day, we need to ensure that people take ownership of the environment. If they use the courts, then they must take ownership and prevent littering. So, some kind of administrative process should be implemented so that we can identify who are the ones who are using the courts, too.
The Chairman: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mr Chairman, two clarifications for Minister Masagos. First, I am delighted that our per capita water usage has just gone down to 143 litres a day. I would like to ask if there is a target that we are aiming towards to make it more sustainable and, if so, by when.
My second clarification is: the Minister mentioned that if we get our policies right, there is no need for a Day Zero campaign. I certainly hope so. My question is: having a campaign, having a water rationing exercise island-wide, would this not nudge us, bring the entire population towards this goal and, in the process, also build our water, physical or mental resilience? So, I see a lot more benefits, I do not see any downside. So, I would urge the Minister to review this decision.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We thank the Member for the questions.
The first question is whether we will revise the target or do we have a target. Yes, we do have a target. We have a target of 140 litres per capita per day, as inferred by Mr Pritam Singh, by 2030. I am glad it is going down, and what we would like to see is that it will go down sustainably and not just episodically. So, over the next one or two years, we will watch this figure. We will put in water conservation efforts to help our residents, our citizens, to save water and then look at whether we need to revise it one or two years down the line. But certainly, there is a lot of scope for us to put in technologies, to put in measures that will, hopefully, get us better than 140 litres per day, as we targeted.
Secondly, on whether we should do a national water rationing campaign, right now, what we have started is a school-based water rationing campaign. We started with only about 10 schools. Now, a lot more schools have come on board. And even as we try to do this at both the primary and secondary schools, there are issues in ensuring that it is safe. Basic hygiene is still something we want to ensure, particularly the aged, and, in this case, they are very young. Let us go through that exercise and then, over time, not make a water ration exercise become a disaster for individuals. So, for the moment, let us just do this at the school level first and, over time, if there is ever a need for us to have that national consciousness tilt up again, probably we will need to do that. But not for now.
The Chairman: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat: Chairman, I have just got a question for the Minister. Water conservation affects all. The objective affects all. And the low pressure that is experienced by households affects only certain households on certain levels of an HDB block. So, for PUB to cite water conservation objective as a reason for not setting a minimum water pressure, to these affected households, it is a bit unfair because everyone else in the block is enjoying good water pressure. So, would the Minister be doing something about this or would be reviewing this?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The professional bodies, PUB as well as the industry, came together after the Member raised this issue in 2015 to actually see whether they need to revise the Code of Practice for Water Services (CP)48 to see whether we should actually put a minimum level. Water conservation issue is only one of them. There are many other issues ‒ how reticulation will be laid out, the kind of appliances that would be used, the sizes of the rooms, the number of people in the room ‒ fairly complicated. So, it is not just one factor. It is a number of factors. Therefore, the decision of this body of professionals, engineers, the industry, consultants, as well as PUB, finally decided that we should not put up a particular number. It is just not sound engineering-wise, and let the professional engineer (PE) set it out, design it at the start, and make sure it is right.
As a former Town Council Chairman, I have addressed some of these issues in the households who complained about the water pressure, and it can be done. You have to work with PUB, work with plumbers. Sometimes, it is a problem inside, sometimes it is a problem outside, sometimes it is the booster pump. There are many issues that we can try to address for the residents individually. It can be overcome.
The Chairman: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, just two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State whether she thinks that the state of cleanliness in Singapore, is it better today compared to five years ago? Second clarification: why does NEA feel that issuing a CWO is a more serious offence as compared to imposing a fine? When you impose a fine on a litterbug, he pays the fine, five minutes later, he forgets about it, but he walks away complaining that the Government is trying to make money out of him. But if you impose a CWO on a litterbug, you take one hour away from him, make him pick up litter, he will realise better the effect of the litter that other litterbugs have thrown on the ground, and the lesson will stay with him for a much longer period of time and, hopefully, that will deter him from littering again.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his questions. I am also pleased that he is extremely passionate about keeping Singapore clean. Asking me whether I think Singapore is cleaner now or not, I may not be the right person to ask. I might be biased. Actually, we have done some surveys. We had done a public cleanliness perception survey between late 2016 and early 2017 with 2,000 respondents. In the public cleanliness perception survey, it actually showed that 82% of the respondents said that they were satisfied with the overall cleanliness of Singapore ‒ hard as it may be for you. But it is a properly done survey, 2,000 respondents, 82%. But, of course, their satisfaction with different areas varies. So, they were most satisfied, for instance, with transport nodes, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations and so on. They ranked that as they were most satisfied in terms of cleanliness. Areas where they were not satisfied with, which I think we all have some idea of, would be like HDB void decks, F&B establishments, that is, the eating establishments, as well as places after public events. They scored about 59%. So, it varies. NEA does work on having more enforcement, for instance, at hot spot areas, and also getting volunteers to turn these hot spot areas into Bright Spots.
With regard to the efficacy, for instance, of enforcement, as I have said, we couple enforcement as a deterrence with education, and I agree with the Member that we need to start young, from schools. And that is what the Public Hygiene Council and Singapore Kindness Movement have done. If you look at enforcement, for the 30,000-odd littering offenders caught in 2017, for instance, about 5% are repeat offenders. So, there is a deterrent effect. Of those who have done CWOs before, repeat offenders are about 10%. So, there is some deterrence. As regards why not CWO on everyone, we also need to realise that there may be people who, for medical reasons, cannot do CWOs, for instance. CWO is actually harsher because, if it is a fine, they just pay. But CWO, they all have to take leave, they will have to go and do their CWO, and it may be in public places where they do not want to be seen.
The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Sir, firstly, I would like to thank Minister Masagos for his reference to the coastal adaptation study. I do not believe he touched on this particularly, but could he confirm if the study is also looking at parts of the coast, like intertidal coral reef zones, sands and mudflats and mangroves, as well as the islands like Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and the Southern Islands? Look at the climate change impact on those areas as well.
The second question is: are soft engineering approaches, such as planting coastal vegetation, if they do not exist right now, also being studied as part of MEWR's plans?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The answer is yes. When the coastal protection study is ready by 2018, we will see the details. So, the consideration will need to be made when we reinforce or increase the coastal protection that we will have to do over the years.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I have two questions, Sir. Can I ask if MEWR will be studying the issue of the usage of single-used plastic bags further, especially with regard to implementing the usage plan? It has been proven effective in other countries. It has resulted in the reduction of the use of plastic bags, which is exactly what MEWR's role is. So, I want to stress that we should look into that further and to stress also that this is not a ban on the use of plastic bags.
Secondly, does MEWR have data on the number of plastic bags used in Singapore? If not, does MEWR intend to collect such data so that we can measure the effectiveness of the current retailers' schemes?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have said, the lifecycle assessment study did show that for plastic bags, it has got the highest GHG emissions and energy used. But on the other hand, other disposable bags, for instance, biodegradable bags which are so-called more eco-friendly, also actually have some environmental impact in terms of production. Paper bags require lots of water to produce and, of course, there is this issue of land deforestation. We have to plant trees to produce paper pulp and so on. Another example with the oxo-biodegradable bag which actually is made of plastic additives that will help to accelerate the degradation of the bag and that is supposed to be more eco-friendly. But actually, because we incinerate our waste, including plastic, these oxo-biodegradable bags will still have the same environmental impact as plastic bags.
If we actually place a charge or ban, where we have a ban on bags, what will happen is that there will be substitutes for using other bags. So, what we are saying is that because we incinerate waste, we do not have the same issue as many of these other countries which actually land fill directly. But we agree that we should curb or tackle the issue of excessive use of such plastic bags and other disposables.
What we want to do is to tackle it at source. So, we will have mandatory reporting of packaging waste, as well as the waste reduction plans by businesses by 2021. In addition, we will work with the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and other organisations to raise awareness and encourage people to reduce their use of such disposables. In our new hawker centres, for instance, we have already disallowed use of disposable crockeries and so on for dining-in.
The Chairman: Last question. Dr Chia Shi-Lu.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu: Just a quick one for the Senior Minister of State. Could I just ask or clarify whether it is possible for someone who has been caught for littering, if he is unable to pay the fine, could he choose to take a CWO instead of paying a fine?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The CWO is actually issued by the Court. So, if they are repeat offenders, they go to Court and we do recommend CWOs. So, the Courts will decide on that. If they are first offenders and they cannot pay the fine, we will look at various ways to assist if we can.
The Chairman: Would the mover wish to withdraw the amendment?
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, Senior Minister of State and everyone in MEWR for taking great efforts to address all the issues raised. I would like to thank my Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Members for filing the cuts and speaking up passionately. And to all in this House, I would like to urge Members to take the climate action pledge if you have not done so. Let us take positive action to save the earth for our next generation. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,304,123,800 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $921,297,500 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the 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 propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.12 pm until 3.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mr 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 T (Ministry of National Development)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head X of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
A verdant oasis, and nestled within it, flats, public and private, with smart features – elderly-friendly, family-focused, well interconnected, with clean air with minimal vehicular traffic. A city-state comprising other self-contained mini-cities, each a distinctive regional hub with their own commercial, business, social and educational facilities.
A vision for a future Singapore, one that we can all be proud of. This is not a pipe dream; this is work-in-progress. We already see signs of it in Punggol and Sengkang, also in the future developments for the Jurong Lake district, Bidadari and Tengah.
As we journey towards that vision, it is perhaps helpful for us to look back, look inwards and also look forward.
In looking back, it is important to remind ourselves that home ownership has been and continues to be a key component of our national policy and a key pillar of our social compact with Singaporeans.
We have gone from Third World to First World, as one of the key movers of social mobility has been our provision of affordable, quality public housing for the vast majority of Singaporeans.
Our housing policy is one that is much lauded internationally, one that has allowed generations of Singaporeans to move up the social ladder. Compared to many other countries like the United Kingdom (UK), Taiwan, Hong Kong and even Australia, just to name a few, the young there find it hard to rent a place, not to say afford to buy their own homes.
All these remind us of the purpose of development in our country: to provide better lives for our people. This brings us to the opportunity to also look inwards, at a housing policy that seeks to be both practical and efficient, and also one that is compassionate.
We have much to be grateful for. Flats for different people, different life stages, different incomes. Buy a home with your parents or stay near your parents, you get a grant. First-time applicants get a grant when buying a brand new or resale flat. Rental flats have been made available to young married couples waiting for their new flats to be ready. Flats for the elderly, to allow seniors to monetise their flats. These are but some of the schemes that promulgate social equity in Singapore. It is something which we should rightly be proud of.
I am also glad that the Fresh Start Housing scheme which allows families living in rental flats to be able to buy their own flats has taken off well. At the same time, I feel for those who continue to live in rental flats. I refer to an opinion piece in The Straits Times dated 16 February this year, and it is titled, \"The Housing and Development Board (HDB) should apply its own occupancy rules to rental housing\". The writers of the article highlighted the fact that though the occupancy cap for the number of tenants allowed in larger flats have been brought down to six, the cap for 1-room and 2-room flats remains at four. They argue that this cap should also apply to those living in HDB's 1-room to 2-room rental flats. In their survey, they claimed that 15% of those living in rental flats had more than four household members. They also state that overcrowding affects the well-being of children, family relationships and health.
I have seen this first-hand and I am sure many of us in this House have residents like that, too. I fully accept the Ministry’s stand that rental HDB flats are but an interim measure for families and they should be encouraged to move on to their own purchased flats. It would do wonders for the families living in these flats, particularly for their self-esteem and family relationships, if more can be done for them. What more can the Ministry do, in tandem with perhaps other Ministries, to do more for such residents and to give them that boost-up in social mobility?
There are also our elders who are living in rental flats. Those without kin, those who are single. Their silver years can be difficult, too. Often, they end up sharing a small flat with a complete stranger, with no privacy whatsoever. Some even endure abuse from their flat mates, living uncomfortably in silence because they are afraid of having no other place to stay.
Yesterday morning, the Ministry of National Development (MND) Facebook page also posted a link to an article on co-living. It is perhaps telling that the quote extracted for the post was this: \"As it turns out, people do not really want to share bathrooms or bedrooms for that matter. But are fine perhaps with sharing kitchens, workspaces, gardens and the Internet\".
So, how does the Ministry, therefore, respond to the changing needs even within our rental populations, in this case, for our lower-income families and, especially for our elders?
Another group of singles that the Ministry has made progress on is our younger singles. The newly enhanced Proximity Housing Grant also includes a higher grant of $15,000 for singles staying with their parents and $10,000 for those staying near their parents. Since 2013, the Single Singaporean Citizen Scheme has also been enhanced to allow for direct purchase from HDB.
However, while we continue to advocate strongly for more marriages and also strengthen parenthood benefits, society is evolving quickly. I have come across many single Singaporeans who face challenges in securing their flats because we have fixed the age base as 35 years of age.
Younger Singaporeans are becoming financially independent earlier, and are marrying later, how then can the Ministry reiterate the reasons for setting the bar at 35 years of age, or will the Ministry consider reviewing this in the future?
A separate group of singles also deserve our attention and a compassionate hand in addressing their difficulties. These are divorced parents.
Today, our policies perhaps are seen as compounding the difficulties of those already undergoing divorce, especially those who have custody of their children. While our HDB frontline staff do their best, it is perhaps time for us to take a better and closer look at how we respond to complex cases.
To give an example. One of my residents saw me almost a year and a half ago. Hers was a complex custody case. She had full custody of her two children, but only for a limited time, and then joint custody after that. She and her children were without a place to stay, moving from friend to friend, or renting short term from the open market.
I empathised with her and we worked on multiple solutions, yet each time that we tried, we were faced with a brick wall. Replies were factual but offering no real solace for a mother desperate to provide a better environment for her two young children and a safe haven for herself.
In Chinese, we have a saying, jing guan nan ban jia wu shi (清官难办家务事), even the most upright of judges will find it hard to settle family disputes, but try we must, and I think we can do better. Can the Ministry consider better case management of complex cases like these, if only for the children?
I am happy to report, for this particular case, her mother and her two children now have a flat to call their own. As we strive for a compassionate system, it is also timely for us to look forward.
One of the topics that occupied the space last year was the issue of diminishing leases. Along with those reducing leases, means that many of our flats – buildings and estate as a whole – are getting older. Therefore, there is definitely a need for upgrading, renewal and rejuvenation.
Today, we have the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and the Housing Improvement Programme (HIP) for our residential estates and the Remaking Our Heartlands Programme for neighbourhood centres. As more flats come of age, what else is the Ministry looking at to rejuvenate and refresh our estates?
While the future excites us, we need the past to also remind us of where we have come from. So, amidst a future skyline, we need signs of our past to be preserved as our built heritage. I spoke about this over the last two years of the Budget and hope that we can continue to do more.
Singapore's first tallest residential condominium, Pearl Bank Apartments, will be meeting up with the wrecker's ball very soon. Sold recently for $728 million, the apartments will, unfortunately, not be conserved. However, it is good to note that the developers have heeded the calls of heritage lovers and agreed to consider blending heritage elements into the new development.
What we can control, we do, but there are also clouds on the future horizon. According to the Climate Action Plan of 2016, sea levels are expected to rise, and with 30% of Singapore just five metres above sea level, what does this mean for our built infrastructures? How are we preparing for it? Part of this has been answered by the earlier Committee of Supply (COS) on the environment.
To achieve our vision of a future city and home for all Singaporeans, we need the right professionals and know-how to achieve this. How else will the Ministry also grow the pool of local talents that we have in the fields of engineering, design, architecture and technology? Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong, you can take your three cuts together.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Chairman. I hope more purpose-built flats, which take into consideration the needs of older generations, can be constructed. When they move into such units, it can also free up the flats that they occupy to increase the supply in the resale market, hence, moderating the prices of the resale flats and increasing choices for those who do not have access to Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.
On top of the enhanced Proximity Housing Grant (PHG), would the Ministry also consider increasing the supply of multi-generation or dual-key flats? Such units facilitate intergeneration caregiving and bonding with grandparents helping to keep an eye on the grandchildren while the parents look after their elderly parents at the same time. Most new flats will be built in new estates and to further encourage the elderly to move near their children, one of the best ways is to allow them to live together under the same roof. Multi-generational and dual-key flats will provide the elderly with some degree of privacy and independence, while enjoying the benefits of proximity to their loved ones.
Helping low-income and vulnerable families secure a roof over their heads is one of the most important things we can do. HDB currently rents out about 58,000 flats to low-income households at subsidised rates.
I would like to ask the Minister: how long is the waiting period for these subsidised public rental flats? How many households are eligible but still on the waiting list? Will more flats be added to boost the stock of 58,000 units? Will the Ministry consider allocating more Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) sites, which have been cleared but not immediately redeveloped, for such families? This will shorten the waiting time.
Overcrowding can be a problem in many of HDB's public rental housing. The occupancy cap for 1- and 2-room flats in the open market is four persons. How many of the subsidised rental flats have more than four occupants living together? Can the Ministry provide bigger households, especially those with children, with bigger units?
Overcrowded conditions are particularly detrimental to children. There is feedback that the environment in subsidised rental blocks can be unconducive for children with security, cleanliness and noise pollution being the main issues. To minimise such impacts on families living in these rental flats, what plans does HDB have to deal with these challenges?
I would like to ask the Minister for updates on measures to ensure high standards in building construction and maintenance and the utilisation of good-quality materials for safety. How does the Ministry enforce regular maintenance and checks in this sector? Are there plans to grow the pool of local engineers, technical and maintenance staff?
My concern arises from a number of incidents in recent years. There had been a few cases of falling building parts, including cladding and other external features, although we have in place Periodic Structural Inspections once in a decade for residential buildings, and every five years for other buildings. These are limited to checking for structural defects. Non-structural parts should also be checked, including exterior components, which undergo lots of wear and tear. Such checks are particularly important as the number of ageing buildings increase. I understand that the regulatory framework for the inspection of building facades is being reviewed. When will the review be completed and the new regulations be implemented?
HDB residents also face problems like cracking or popping tiles, leaky pipes and other defects. There were 700 cases of popping tiles in the first half of January. They occurred in different areas from Sengkang to Jurong West, Woodlands to Toa Payoh. HDB had said that such popping tiles were \"consistent with the experience of previous years\" and due to cooler temperatures.
Since these incidents have consistently taken place in previous years, HDB should take steps to minimise such problems through changes in the method of tiling and the type of adhesion materials used. Compared to other regions, our temperature range is much narrower and thus, more predictable. Hence, these problems should be more manageable and preventable. HDB should also consider checking the quality of workmanship and penalise or even ban contractors whose work are not up to par.
Another problem which plagues a number of buildings, from HDB blocks to commercial buildings, is lift operations and maintenance. From a Choa Chu Kang HDB block to Golden Mile Tower, malfunctioning lifts and the long waits for repairs have become an increasing concern. How can we prevent the installation of poor-quality lifts in the first place? Are the long waits for repairs due more to manpower shortage or shortage of available replacement parts? How severe is the shortage of qualified technicians and engineers here and what is the percentage of foreign and local staff?
In addition, the deployment of new technologies and equipment, including drones, are ways to save on maintenance costs and improve safety. Would the Minister elaborate on innovative measures being used or considered for enhancing the safety and integrity of our built environment?
The Chairman: Mr Saktiandi Supaat, take your two cuts together.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): The construction industry is one which employs a large pool of foreign workers. Because it is labour-intensive, the cost of construction, coupled with the rising cost of materials, has kept margins low for the industry players. The need for the industry to adopt technology has also been a pressing need. This can help companies to be more productive as well as to reduce their dependency on foreign labour.
One area of significance is the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) which allows companies to build virtually before building for real. This technology will enable architects, engineers and contractors to work together seamlessly, and allow them to anticipate issues and fix problems before construction. Our overseas competitors from the United States (US), Britain and even China have been adopting this BIM technology. So, our contractors need to keep pace if we are to get a share of the business.
Can the Minister update us on what is being done to push for a high-tech built environment sector which can provide good jobs for Singaporeans and improve opportunities for local firms? In addition, how is the rejuvenating or remaking of our heartlands programme also linked to this?
Mr Chairman, our economy has been changing at a fast pace and, as a result, there would be citizens who are caught in the fast-moving situation. Some may lose their jobs and face financial challenges. A house is more than just a roof over one’s head. It reinforces stability and rootedness in the community. It is about identity and pride. Hence, for families who had to sell their homes due to financial setbacks, this can be especially difficult and emotional at times. Not to mention families thrust into financial difficulties due to loss of a sole breadwinner, divorce or even bankruptcy. I have seen some of my rental flat residents benefiting, for example, from the Fresh Start Housing Scheme. Most of the time, their young children benefit tremendously from a changed environment.
Hence, can I ask the Minister what is being done to help low-income and vulnerable families facing financial hardships? Can more be given through the Fresh Start Scheme, especially to help single divorced parents, get a slightly bigger flat than a two-room flexi-flat if they have more than three kids or more?
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, you can take your two cuts, please.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, I welcome the news that HDB has started a new scheme to build flats ahead, prior to the launch. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible for HDB to review and reduce the waiting time for the applicants, so that they can collect their keys within two years of booking.
In addition, will HDB build more larger flat types? Flats with more rooms will reduce overcrowding for bigger families and facilitate procreation for those who aspire to have more kids. May I also request for more multi-generation flats to enable more three- or four-generation families to stay together? Many elderly residents have also told me that they would like to stay together with their children and grandchildren, but there is simply not enough space in current flat types. Some seniors also fear losing their autonomy and privacy. Dual-key units will allow them to have their private space to manage themselves.
Can HDB waive the resale levy and give more help to senior citizens and retirees who apply to right-size to two-room flexi flats, as practised in the past for Special Account (SA) applicants? There are applicants who may not have sufficient funds in their Retirement Account (RA) nor cash to pay for the flat but, at the same time, they may not qualify for rental flats.
Next, I would like to ask if there will be revisions to the terms and conditions for two-room flexi flats to enable more residents in rental flats to become owners. Also, how many BTO flats have integrated two-room flexi rental flats for singles and other types of flats in the same block to promote community bonding and integration? Lastly, how many singles have bought resale and BTO flats in each of the last five years?
Next, our HDB rental flats provide a lifeline to low-income and vulnerable families which have fallen on hard times. May I ask if the Ministry has the breakdown of rental flats that have two, three, four and five or more occupants? How many requests have been received from the applicants for a bigger rental flat due to the large family size and what is the success rate? Will the Ministry consider allowing them to own a bigger flat with a shorter lease at an affordable price first and then allow them to top up later the lease once their economic condition improves?
For large families, this suggestion would assist to relieve overcrowding, which can aggravate tension among family members already in difficult circumstances. Overcrowding is also highly unconducive for families with children and members, particularly the elderly, who are in poor health.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Chairman, home is a basic necessity for any individual and family. Without a permanent shelter in which one can call their home, it is inevitable for individuals or families to feel much anxiety and stress. Indirectly, this has broader implications on the society and can result in weaker social cohesion. Over the years, MND had been introducing different options to cater for home ownership of Singaporeans at different stages in their lives. This effort is encouraging and must continue to ensure everyone has a place to call their own. I would like to highlight a few categories of individuals for whom more can be done to assist them.
First, single parents with full custody of the children. Divorce is unsettling for those who have to undergo the unfortunate situation. It is not for us to judge the basis that triggered it. But for many who have children to care for, it is pertinent that they can provide a roof over the head of their young ones, especially if they are still schooling. For this, I am asking if interim housing over a short period of months can be provided to those who do not benefit from the sale of their matrimonial home, or if one party has been forced to leave the matrimonial home on short notice. It is increasingly difficult with small family units to assume that the divorcee can rely on their parents, siblings or relatives to help provide accommodation for them and their children. And it is even more difficult for those who are placed at shelter homes where the distance to commute is unmanageable for the children of different schooling age.
Second, seniors living in 5-room or executive flats with mentally incapacitated spouse. While HDB encourages our seniors to downsize and monetise their assets, for some of them, this is not a choice. I have encountered residents in such a situation. One has a wife suffering from severe dementia for years and they have no children. Without a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) or living will, they cannot downsize nor go for regular housing options to better finance their remaining years. HDB has advised for them to rent their flat out. But for those with a mentally incapacitated spouse, indeed, it is difficult to have another stranger or another family living in the same flat, be it for safety or emotional reasons. So, how can seniors like them be better prepared for the situation, given the likely increase in dementia amongst our seniors? I suggest that HDB assist and inform all seniors, the joint flat owners aged above 55, to be automatically encouraged to sign up for LPA.
Third, seniors living in short, as in less than 20-year leasehold private properties. Some seniors living in such properties are not well off. They might have inherited the property while others bought it when they were much younger. With a declining lease of the property, it poses a challenge for some to dispose of the property in the market. While we cannot cater for every condition, we need to begin considering the support safety net for these seniors. For these seniors living in such properties, will the Government consider exempting the review of the annual property value in their means testing for future aid scheme?
Lastly, families where the spouse is a non-Permanent Resident (PR) and listed only as a flat occupier. In the earlier years, this is common for some family units to have only a single name listed as the sole owner of the HDB flat. Usually, the flat occupier happens to be the wife, who typically is the home maker. Having lived in Singapore and raised their children here, some, to date, still remain as a foreigner due to different reasons. As they aged, it becomes even more difficult for them to convert to a PR or Singapore Citizen. The luckier ones may have children who have moved out to start their own family and are still able to support them. Others may not have any children or dependants. In the cases when the owner's spouse passes on, the plight of the living spouse will be quite tough. Finding a place to live in will become a tall order for many, especially if the women have little or no savings, having not worked throughout their life. Can HDB review the rules on how best to assist these individuals?
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, MND's vision is \"an endearing home, a distinctive global city\". That is its true aim. And this makes a concrete difference to Singaporeans every day. However, there are times when its own rules get in the way of this mission. Let me raise a few examples.
I am glad of the new housing grants for singles to buy resale flats to live with or near their parents. But there are those singles who can only afford a 2-room BTO. These singles still face a long waiting time. We must not forget that for every average waiting time, there are those who apply many, many times and are still unsuccessful. Can we build more 2-room flexi flats?
Sometimes, it is not about the lack of flats, but rather HDB processes that prolong the process. One resident buying a balance flat told me that it took eight months from the time of application and yet the sale is still not transacted. After eight months, he is told to wait another six weeks for the grant process.
Perhaps, there should be a review of the whole HDB application process to see how it could be streamlined and speeded up. Is the delay due to a shortage of manpower? Or excessive paperwork, asking for information after information, or staff resigned and documents left in the tray unattended? There was a case last night. A resident told me that she applied for HDB Flat Eligibility (HLE) since February last year and still no news.
Another rule which I feel needs review is not granting HIP to flats built after 1986. The HIP scheme started in 2007. Then, the flats built in 1986 were 21 years old. Today, the flats built in 1987 are 31 years old, a full decade older. But they still do not qualify for HIP. About half of Nee Soon South was built in 1987. So, I can see that these flats need urgent repair. HIP will allow residents to do this at low cost and continue ageing in place.
May I also suggest we learn from previous batches of HIP and finetune the detailing? One such example is clothes-hanging racks. Many residents also asked why we did not replace rotting timber at the opening for the air-conditioners. It is very expensive for residents to do it individually. There is economy of scale when done during HIP.
Next, I would like to reiterate the difficulties faced in some repairing or construction work in landed properties. Not everyone is amenable to a neighbour's request to allow the workmen to carry out repair work, such as plastering on the neighbour's side. Will the Ministry consider a law where residents are required to allow access to carry out certain types of repairs or construction work?
Next, I would like to move on to feeding of animals in housing estates. There is a growing trend for people to feed strays, especially stray cats, in housing estates. But one has to exercise some responsibility when feeding these strays and clear up the food left behind. Otherwise this will result in breeding of pigeons, rats and pests.
I understood from the National Environment Agency (NEA) that the authorities do not consider it littering unless the food is left there for more than two hours. Why does NEA bother to spend valuable time and limited resources to monitor for two hours? By then, the feeders are nowhere to be found. Will the Ministry consider introducing stricter laws on animal feeding in public areas?
Lastly, I am glad to hear the setting up of the Infrastructure Office to tap on infrastructure opportunities in Asia. I would like to urge the Government to give local consultants and contractors more opportunities to participate in large Government-led projects in Singapore, so that they can build their track record. After all, without a track record, how can they venture overseas? I was told that some of the prequalifications called for Government projects are so onerous that none of the local contractors or consultants can qualify. In cases like that, has the Government thought of how to involve the local companies instead of just having them as smaller players down the value chain?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, home ownership has been a core tenet of the nation ever since before Independence. Despite the Government's scheme to assist the elderly in home ownership, such as the Deferred Down Payment Scheme and the Temporary Loan Scheme for right sizing while having shorter leases for elderly owners, some basic flaws remain within our system, particularly for the elderly poor looking for the opportunity to own a home in their retirement years.
The elderly poor enjoy the same level of subsidies as the poor and other age groups, but is likely to have little or less time to earn any further income. Those who work are likely to earn less than what they used to do in their younger years.
In line with the Prime Minister's recent message that we should look after the elderly, we should spare no effort in creating a society honouring our senior citizens, empowering every senior with the ability to own a roof over their heads and to live their lives in dignity should be the least we can do as a society to honour their contributions.
I propose establishing a senior support housing grant supporting any individual or family aged 55 and above wanting to get a short lease 2-room flexi flat for the first or second time. This assessment can be based on their marital status, age and income level to determine the level of the said grant offered of, say, up to $10,000.
For those who are elderly, poor and single, the additional single's premium is yet another absolute hit to their life's savings that they can otherwise spend in their retirement years. The fact that the single's premium remains at $15,000, even with a shorter lease being chosen, is another loophole that we can address for more affordable housing for our single seniors.
To reduce the heavy burden of the single's premium on our elderly poor singles, we should consider an additional scheme reducing the premium for any individual aged 55 and above purchasing a 2-room flexi flat for the first time on a shorter lease. The premium reduction of upwards to $5,000 based on their income level and length of lease upholds the rationale of the single's premium but reduces its impact for elderly poor singles who can then use their savings for their retirement.
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh, you can take the two cuts together.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Chairman, many residents look forward to HIP as it addresses long-time gripes, such as pipe leaks, ceiling leaks and spalling concrete, the last of which occurs due to corrosion of steel reinforcement bars over time. While this is a natural wear and tear process, many elderly residents, in particular, are unable to mitigate the problem with regular painting for financial reasons and a relative lack of mobility for some.
In the course of house visits to homes where HIP works have already been undertaken, it is not surprising for residents to identify a re-occurrence of spalling concrete or a new occurrence in another area of the flat within a few years after HIP works are concluded. Although residents can request for the Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme, the cost for such repairs can come up to a few hundred dollars in some cases.
Would the HDB bear a greater part of the repair cost in view of the fact that the spalling concrete is fundamentally caused by the deterioration of the concrete floor slab in question? This view can be correlated with the point that spalling concrete repair is deemed to be an essential improvement under HIP. Would the Ministry look to reduce the residents' component from spalling concrete repairs, particularly for flats that have already completed their HIP?
Finally, as the HDB winds down its HIP programme, what are its plans going forward for the next few years? Does it plan to call for a new HIP programme for flats built after 1986? In addition, can the Ministry share whether it is exploring how it can collaborate from a whole-of-Government perspective with agencies like the Smart Nation Office, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and even the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) initiatives under the Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (ITM) to incorporate future technologies with its future upgrading programmes? Is there a possibility of pneumatic waste disposal conveyance systems to be part of future upgrading programmes at older HDB estates?
Chairman, public rental housing remains an important feature of our public housing system. HDB recently announced that from May this year, the maximum number of tenants allowed in 4-room and larger HDB flats will be reduced to six, from the current nine. One of the reasons for this is to prevent overcrowding in HDB estates.
There are times when rental flat applicants share that crowded conditions at home make family living difficult, complicating already existing problems that are amplified in a low-income setting. Part of the public rental flat assessment process includes an HDB enquiry into whether an applicant has other means of family support. Very often, for rejected cases, HDB seeks the cooperation of the Family Service Centre to address disputes between family members. However, not all cases can be resolved, with some issues particularly intractable.
Would HDB, in line with a tacit acknowledgement that overcrowding can affect the living environment, consider the number of individuals residing in a current place of residence for rental flat applicants as a factor for consideration at the point of application?
Secondly, can HDB clarify if it intends to raise the income ceiling criteria of HDB rental flat applications in line with rises in real income as revealed by the Budget so that applicants who are in dire straits are not dissuaded from applying for such rental flats if their situation calls for it? Can the Ministry share how many rental flat applications it has approved for applicants whose gross income has exceeded $1,500?
Finally, can the Ministry update the total number of rental flats it intends to construct or if the current stock is envisaged to be sufficient for the foreseeable future?
The Chairman: Mr Png Eng Huat, you can take the three cuts together.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mr Chairman, Sir, many residents living in older estates welcome the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) for good reasons. The spalling concrete and water seepage problems I have seen in some of the older flats in Hougang are serious.
In the past, HIP would replace the main waste and soil discharge pipes in the toilets for all units as water seepage usually starts from the joint failure between floors. However, the last two HIPs I came across in Hougang would not touch these pipes unless they leaked. A number of residents I spoke to would like to change the pipes in the toilets and for good reason as their flats are more than 35 years old and the pipes, though not leaking, are due for a change. I hope HDB can allow residents an option to replace those pipes as part of the essential improvement work.
Next, many residents also wanted to do more for their ageing flats since HIP is going to disrupt their living environment for the next 10 days. The types of additional work some of these residents asked for are common home improvement works for things like changing the windows, changing the water piping for the entire flat or upgrading the earth leakage circuit breaker (ELCB), to name a few.
I am not asking the Government to subsidise this work but to provide an option to residents under the framework of HIP to change these common items in their flats at the same time. The cost of such improvement work can benefit from economies of scale sourcing if they are included in the HIP tender. While residents can make arrangements on the side with subcontractors, some subcontractors may not want to do such improvement works for the fear of breaking any contractual terms under HIP.
Finally, I have spoken about this before. I hope HDB would seriously look into redesigning the clothes drying rack offered by HIP. The current one impedes repair and repainting work using gondolas and is an eyesore to see so many metal structures sticking out of a single HDB block. Would HDB be open to tap on the polytechnics and universities to redesign the clothes drying rack for a change?
Sir, the HDB void deck despite, its namesake, is anything but void in the memories of many Singaporeans. Unfortunately, these open spaces we knew and grew up with are shrinking in many new estates. In its place are rooftop gardens and multi-purpose halls (MPH) about the size of two 5-room HDB flats. Some of the MPHs, unfortunately, were not designed with much thought and consideration for the very activities they were meant to cater for.
At a recent briefing conducted by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), I shared with the team some of the observations and actual feedback from the ground on the MPH in Hougang Meadow, a relatively new estate with studio apartments. Let me share a few anomalies about the design of the MPH.
First, the MPH in Hougang Meadow is built on top of a car park. To do an event at the MPH, the only way to load and unload equipment and stuff for the event is via a narrow passageway connecting the sheltered compound to the multi-storey car park beside it. Next, because of the proximity of the MPH to the nearby blocks, residents living on the lower floor can see the casket clearly from their windows whenever a funeral is held there. In one wake that I attended, the bereaved family shared that there is no place around the MPH for the contractor to place portable toilets. For a start there are no manhole discharge points. Even using chemical portable toilets is an issue as these toilets need to be cleaned every day, and there is no way for the service crew to do it in a hygienic manner on the roof top garden beside the exercise area and children's playground. The only place to locate the portable toilets would be under the block where the bereaved family lives. It is highly unusual for a wake at an HDB estate not to have sanitary convenience located onsite for bereaved family and friends who have to guard the wake throughout the night.
The design of the MPH also makes the sending off procession on the last day of the funeral very challenging. The passage on the MPH at Hougang Meadow to the waiting hearse can barely accommodate the pall bearers and mourners. They would also have to navigate the narrow passageway, pass the lift lobby at the entrance to the multi-storey car park and then make a U-turn down a deep ramp to a connecting car park and then to the waiting hearse at Level 1. The alternative route to take would be a longer walk along the same narrow walkway cutting through other void decks and surrounding blocks and to a busy stretch of Upper Serangoon Road. The same design issues are also present at Hougang Dew Court, another new estate with studio apartments. But the saving grace is that the MPH is located on the ground floor.
I have shared the above concern with URA in the hope that future MPH design for new estates would take into consideration the various requirements of the activities these sheltered pavilions are meant to cater for. As for the existing MPH, I hope HDB can look into correcting the design soonest as the void decks in these estates are too small and not suitable to hold any events like a funeral.
Sir, the issue concerning heavy vehicle parking was brought up a few times in Parliament. We have a strange situation in Singapore in that we have more lots than there are heavy vehicles. But yet drivers are still facing inadequate parking lots in or near their estates. The demand and supply of heavy vehicle parking lots on the ground generally follow the movement and turnover of drivers living in an estate and this is something hard to predict or control.
The then Senior Minister of State for National Development in 2016 had described ways to address the heavy vehicle parking issues. So, I will not repeat them here. The solution highlighted by the Minister then will take time to bear fruit. In the interim, what can the Ministry do to help alleviate the issues faced by heavy vehicle drivers on the ground?
In the development plan for Defu Industrial Estate, is there a plan to build a multi-storey heavy vehicle car park as some resident drivers I spoke to continue to face parking problems in the heavy vehicles parked along Tampines Road and Hougang Avenue 7? A driver told me he has to wait a long time for a vacant lot. Each time when he works late, the chances of finding a lot would diminish greatly. He said he had to resort to illegal parking at times although he did so without causing obstruction or danger to other road users.
Can the Ministry put up some temporary heavy vehicle parks in Defu Industrial Estate in the interim? There are spots of vacant land there and these temporary heavy vehicle parks require minimal construction works and enforcement as all heavy vehicles have valid parking permits.
I hope the Ministry will continue to take a light touch approach in its enforcement of parking rules and regulations when these drivers have to resort to desperate measures to park their heavy vehicles so that they can go home early to get enough rest to drive the next day.
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, take your two cuts together
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, noise pollution is a growing problem affecting Singaporeans who live in HDB flats today. Not only are the flats smaller than before, but the homes and buildings are also closer to one another now, thus it is not uncommon to meet residents troubled by stress from noise disturbances.
In 2010, the Straits Times published an article on ideas to cut traffic noise pollution, where it was reported that some of the measures used included building multi-storey carparks between residential buildings and roads to screen out the noise.
I would like to ask the Minister how effective building multi-storey carparks near HDB flats has been in reducing noise annoyances. Or has multi-storey carparks become themselves a source of noise pollution caused by the amplification of loud engines and screeching tyres? Has MND carried out studies to analyse the environmental and noise impact to nearby homes, or surveys of residents living in HDB blocks near multi-storey carparks?
The Government is taking big steps to shift towards prefabricated construction and generating lead demand via public sector projects. Some benefits include significant manpower savings and shorter construction times.
However, we have a strong renovation culture in Singapore, with homeowners aspiring to personalise their new homes. With more HDB flats moving towards prefabricated construction, how will this affect home owners’ renovation aspirations? Will HDB and the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) provide increased public awareness on the renovation and maintenance of prefabricated homes?
Secondly, buyers currently have the choice to buy non-prefabricated flats. I understand that HDB is aiming for 35% of new BTOs offered in 2019 to be using prefabricated construction. What ultimate percentage of new BTOs using prefabricated flats is HDB working towards? Will this create a price differential for resale flats in the future, given the strong renovation culture?
Lastly, as construction defects might take longer to show up in prefabricated construction, would HDB consider extending the Defects Liability Period beyond one year?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, the Government has made policy changes to level up the support for the children of unmarried single parents over the years, such as including them in the Baby Bonus Scheme, since 2017. But housing support for such households is still quite lacking. Currently, HDB exercises flexibility to help unmarried single parents with their housing needs on a case-by-case basis. But this flexibility is not good enough.
Sir, HDB has a scheme called Assist Scheme for Second Timers. This scheme, launched in May 2013, aims to provide assistance to divorced and widowed parents with children below 16 years old who may face challenges securing housing if they sell their matrimonial flat due to a divorce or death of a spouse. Under this Assist scheme, 5% of the 30% of 2-room and 3-room BTO flats in non-mature estates set aside for second timers are reserved for this group of parents.
Sir, the implementation of the Assist scheme is an indication that HDB recognises and is committed to assisting and lightening the struggles of single parents who face housing issues. As we are aware, unmarried single parents face similar challenges and struggles, if not more so, than the divorced and widowed parents. However, most unmarried single parents are of a young age and also a high percentage of them are mothers.
Some of these unmarried single parents are not getting support from their parents and other family members, due to their soured relationship and, as a result, some experience displacement.
I sincerely urge HDB to take further steps in their commitment to assist single parents by formulating a housing assistance scheme that caters to lighten the struggles of unmarried single parents.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, please take your three cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, going through a divorce is not emotionally easy for both parents and their children. And it makes matters worse when they have to worry about whether they have a home to live in after their divorce.
In response to the Public Petition I filed, MND has stated that \"a range of Government agencies work together to ensure that no child is without adequate housing, regardless of whether his or her parents are single or married\".
But the problem arises when parents do not have sole care and control of all the children and all the children are aged below 18 at the time of the divorce. They will need to get their ex-spouse’s consent to apply for subsidised public housing. This consent requirement is difficult since their relationship is clearly strained. I also note that sole care and control are now seldom awarded.
I do understand that in the last three years, HDB granted more than 200 requests to waive the consent requirement but I hope that the Minister can consider waiving this requirement altogether for all divorcees.
Sir, I have two rental blocks in Nee Soon East and they are, in a sense, isolated from most of the other HDB blocks, with a school on one side and industrial properties on the other side.
I feel the stigma from living in a rental flat is strong, especially when they seem to be isolated from the community, and I worry about how children brought up in this environment will feel and what the impact is on them. I understand that there are existing HDB blocks where rental units are integrated with sold units in the same block, thereby integrating the community.
Can the Minister share HDB's experience with integrating rental units in the community and whether it has been beneficial for the children living there? Can the Minister also share whether HDB intends to build more of such blocks and, if so, when?
Sir, I have raised animal protection issues for the past two COSes and, this year, I really want to record my deep appreciation for the good work that the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) has done and to thank them for the tremendous progress they have made in the animal protection movement in Singapore.
While there are still issues to be worked on, nothing and nobody is perfect, but we are definitely heading in the right direction and the collaborative approach has yielded much success for both our residents and the animals.
So, this really is not a cut per se. In fact, I propose we do not cut their budget but hope that the Minister can consider increasing their budget so that the team that has done amazing work with very limited resources can do even more this year and can achieve even more progress.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, I declare my interest as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an international research consultancy that does work in agri-food and other areas. Sir, nurturing the local farming sector is important for food security, which is a part of national defence, as well as for creating good jobs in what could be a high-tech, high value-added sector in future.
I would like to ask MND what proportion of the Agricultural Productivity Fund has been disbursed to date. When I moved an Adjournment Motion on indoor farming in Parliament in 2016, only a small fraction of the fund had been disbursed. I suspect good companies and projects do exist, as some have been highlighted in the media and in the Minister’s speeches.
Secondly, as I also touched on in my Motion, is MND looking into using underground space for indoor farming in the future, which London is doing, and which could bring certain food security benefits to Singapore?
Thirdly, recently, AVA has begun to offer 20-year leases rather than the 10-year leases previously for farmland, which is a welcome move. Can AVA confirm if this will be the trend for future farmland tenders? Also, what measures are being taken to ensure that the tendering process is fair to entrepreneurial startups vis-à-vis large international agri-business firms, since we may want to nurture innovative startups in this sector with the potential to become globally competitive?
Fourthly, around the world, a major trend is the increasing take-up of insurance and micro-insurance in the farming sector. However, our fish farmers have faced issues collecting insurance claims from natural disasters in the past. What has AVA done to help to educate farmers about insurance and the options they have?
And, lastly, Sir, and specifically in relation to fish farmers, can MND provide an update on the efforts to reduce the risk of disasters like plankton bloom and oil spills which can potentially devastate the livelihoods of fish farmers, among other harmful effects?
The Chairman: Mr Darryl David, you can take your three cuts together.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, public housing is not just something that is a part of our national landscape. It is a part of our national psyche. With more than 80% of Singaporeans living in public housing and the fact that almost every Singaporean would have been to a public housing estate at some point in time, many visitors to our country are always amazed when I point out some of the more modern HDB blocks to them, saying that they look like private apartments. Indeed, such is the quality of design today that there are times when I myself cannot tell the difference between public housing and private condominiums when the two are side by side until I come much closer.
As much as the Government has continued to build modern, stylish and affordable new generation flats, it has also rolled out a variety of schemes and measures to enhance and improve the older flats at mature estates as well. I would like to ask if MND could share what plans it has to continue to improve public housing, especially for older flats and in the mature estates in the future.
Singapore imports more than 90% of the food we eat. Although our limited farming lands and fishing grounds have made it impossible for us to be self-sufficient in food supply, we should, nonetheless, support our local farmers to adopt new farming technology to enhance our food supply resiliency.
Could AVA provide an update on the available schemes that our local farmers can tap on to develop their business? How will these schemes help us to meet our food needs and enhance our food safety and security?
I understand that AVA has, in recent months, tendered out several plots of land to vegetable farmers to experiment with new farm and farming technologies. Depending on the success of these projects, are there plans to help our farmers export their urban farming technology, or even other forms of Singaporean-developed agri-technology to the region and beyond?
Mr Chairman. From glow-in-the-dark trees, a solution that makes use of biomimicry technology and saves on street lighting, to the foot traffic electricity in London’s Heathrow airport, to parklets that have sprung up in urban areas to make city life more vibrant, much is being done all around the world for urban sustainability.
Parklets, for example, are very effective in increasing both green space and communal spaces in a city. Essentially, parklets convert curb-side parking spaces into small scale public parks where people can sit and relax. People get the chance to meet friends for a chat while enjoying the city, thereby increasing community engagement. Also, parklets replace parking spaces, reducing accessibility for cars and discouraging driving in the city, as part of a wider car-lite initiative.
There are also initiatives like New York’s GrowOnUs canal in Gowanus. Designed by Balmori Associates, a New York-based international landscape and urban design firm, the floating gardens act as sponges, filtering and cleaning water, as well as helping to provide wildlife with a safe habitat.
I would like to ask, Mr Chairman, what more can be done in terms of out-of-the box and creative ideas for the Government to partner with the people and the private sectors to make Singapore greener, more vibrant and exciting.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Chairman, Sir, home owners, from time to time, will redevelop the houses they own. Sometimes, the works on landed property will involve breakaway works, when, for example, a semi-detached house is redeveloped to become a bungalow, or an intermediate terrace house is redeveloped as a corner terrace. These works involve breakaways from another house.
I have observed a few cases in my ward where such breakaway works have caused significant difficulties and anguish to neighbours, that is, the houses that are exposed after the detachment. One problem would be water seepage, as a party wall that formerly separated two adjoining houses would now become an exposed blank wall. Another concern that has arisen is whether works done by one party have affected the structural integrity of the neighbour's remaining party wall.
URA and BCA have issued a very helpful advisory guide entitled \"Be Good Neighbours\" that provides useful guidance on how home owners should go about doing their rebuilding works. It is stated that due consideration should be given to neighbours, such as doing Pre-construction Surveys of properties nearby and asking a Professional Engineer (PE) to conduct an Impact Assessment. The guide understandably spends a few pages on Breakaway works, due to the potential difficulties with newly exposed walls and roof structures.
When problems arise, for example, seepage occurs in the neighbour's home, how will BCA approach the issue? How far does BCA rely on the Qualified Persons engaged by the project owners to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations, or will it actively investigate? While it would be ideal if all disputes between neighbours could be resolved through mediation, much depends on the nature of the problem and whether there are structural issues involved.
It is not my intention to criticise BCA, as I am aware of the good and efficient work it is doing in many areas. The fact is that residents look to BCA to uphold standards in construction works.
Ms Low Yen Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, the 24-kilometre Rail Corridor from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands is a development that has drawn wide interest from Singaporeans of all walks of life. It has inspired much imagination and plans and looks set to become an icon to shape new trends in land use, conservation, recreation and sustainability.
With its strong potential, the Rail Corridor will really become one of our brightest jewels in the western part of Singapore and in Bukit Gombak. Last year, we encouraged our residents to take part in the public consultation held by URA and the National Parks Board (NParks). Media reports have highlighted some of the feedback. We are looking forward to the many possibilities that the Rail Corridor will bring, especially for residents living in the vicinity. May we have an update of MND/URA’s plans arising from the public feedback?
As it develops the Rail Corridor, we hope that MND will take an integrated approach to land use, transportation and growing economic opportunities. For example, America’s Atlanta Beltline is one of its largest, wide-ranging urban redevelopment programmes. The 22-mile loop is based on the former railroad corridors encircling the city of Atlanta. It aims to ultimately connect 45 neighbourhoods and is now transforming the present landscape with multi-use trails and parks, modern streetcars or light rail transportation and affordable housing. The Beltline has also in its pipeline plans to conserve history, create jobs and contribute to public health.
Likewise, our Rail Corridor has considerable room for expansion. So, I would like to ask if MND is reviewing Government land sales in this area to capture or enhance the vitality of this development. I ask this because new residences or the introduction of commercial or community activities may release economic prospects that will energise the project’s offering. In addition, the historical significance and lush nature of the Rail Corridor make it an inviting spot for tourists to appreciate a lesser-known side of Singapore.
For all this to happen, and key to the Corridor’s success, is accessibility and also good transport infrastructure. Sir, I would like to ask how the needs of transportation to the Rail Corridor will be met. What are MND’s plans with the Land Transport Authority (LTA)? Can this high-profile development be better served by a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station nearer than the current ones?
In addition, will the residents living in the vicinity of the Corridor be able to easily access its trails or features? For instance, I just went to Summerhill Condominium last weekend. The backyard of the Summerhill Condominium lies next to the fringe of the Rail Corridor. So, the residents from 20 over condominiums lying along Hillview Avenue hope that MND will allow a route to be constructed so that they can have a direct access to Railway Corridor instead of having to do a big detour. They are looking forward to the upcoming Coast-to-Coast Trail and also the new Nature Park Network announced by MND and NParks recently. Other attractions that will be at the doorstep of the western part of Singapore and also Bukit Gombak residents are a heritage gallery at the old Bukit Timah Railway Station and food and beverage (F&B) outlets at the former station master’s quarters.
As MND plans the Rail Corridor’s access points, we urge MND and URA to give close attention to how it can be reached by more residents living around it. Like the recent public consultation exercise has highlighted, the Rail Corridor is an important community space that the residents can share with fellow Singaporeans staying in the eastern part or even northern part of Singapore.
So, really, with good connectivity to the Rail Corridor, it plays a key role in its success. We are mindful of the need to also strike a balance between built development and nature conservation. So, we hope that with an integrated approach and careful planning by MND and URA, this can be achieved, as shown by the success of other green spaces like New York City's High Line or the Coulee Verte in Paris.
With its unique qualities, the Rail Corridor in Singapore will not only enhance the quality of life but also create recreational opportunities for residents and many Singaporeans. It also has the promise of becoming a top icon emulated for its delightful combination of nature and biodiversity, for history and vibrant shared community spaces.
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, I would like to ask for greater clarity about how the Built Environment cluster of the ITM focuses on management corporations of strata title (MCST) developments.
The number of such management corporations in Singapore has been growing, in line with the number of strata units. The large number of MCSTs would involve a large amount of resources and significant supply chains. The administration of such a large volume of resources by the MCSTs can have an impact on the output and productivity of industries involved. Some attention should be paid to encouraging the MCSTs to streamline their operations, adopt digital technology where possible, and improve outcomes in general. Hence, I have the following specific questions.
Sir, I would like to ask whether the Real Estate ITM covers the MCSTs. I would also like to know if there are programmes available for helping MCSTs to improve in efficiency and service delivery. Has the Ministry identified what the focus should be on in addressing the performance challenges of the large and disparate number of MCSTs that are currently in existence?
Finally, is there a concern that MCSTs will be considered a lower priority in industry transformation efforts?
The Chairman: Mr Ong Teng Koon, you can take your two cuts together, please.
Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, the Municipal Services Office (MSO) has been set up for more than three years now. At the time of the launch, many Singaporeans were happy to see that the Government was taking concrete steps to ensure that all municipal issues would be dealt with holistically.
In our digital age, users are accustomed to near-instant acknowledgement of messages and timely follow-up of any issues raised. Consumers are no longer passive users. They expect to engage with providers and give them their feedback, positive or negative, in order to improve the overall product or service.
To keep pace with expectations, the launch of MSO was a timely and necessary step to improve coordination amongst Government agencies and ensure that issues are resolved expeditiously. Since the launch, MSO has not been in the public eye much and the general population may not know how it has performed.
Beyond its current scope, does MSO have any plans to expand or to streamline its services? Could the Minister also give us an update on how MSO has improved municipal service delivery and the management of complex municipal feedback submitted by its residents?
Chairman, the OneService app is the centrepiece of MSO's engagement with residents, serving as the one-stop shop for residents to report, track and receive information on any issues in their area.
It makes it simple for residents to report any issues in their neighbourhood with just a few clicks. Just take a picture, fill in a few details, submit, press and voila, there you go! This is an important step to create engagement with our residents, as we need everyone to take responsibility for the quality in their own environment.
However, when I speak to residents, not many of them seem to be familiar with the app, and a good proportion have not even heard of it. According to the Google Playstore, there have only been around 50,000 downloads in Singapore. Given the potential benefits, could MSO give us an update on the uptake of the OneService App and are there any plans to further drive downloads and usage by residents?
I would also like to ask the Minister, beyond merely reporting of incidents around the neighbourhood, are there any plans to better utilise the platform to reach out to our residents? Does MSO have any plans to leverage elements of Smart Nation and the Internet of Things (IoT), such as sensors on lifts or street lights, to identify issues even before residents encounter them?
Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Chairman, with the formation of NEA's Department of Public Cleanliness (DPC) in 2012, it subsumes the cleaning of public areas previously under the charge of various Government agencies.
This is a great step towards better efficiency of municipal services. However, the cleanliness of public housing estates still remains with Town Councils. I would like to ask the Municipal Services Office whether there is scope for better integration between the work of DPC and Town Councils.
Singapore already has more cleaners than a typical cohort of National Servicemen – 56,000 of them, really an army of cleaners. This is not sustainable, given the future outlook of an ageing population and the need to cut down reliance on foreign workers.
Last year, the Tampines Town Council reduced the corridor washing frequency from monthly to once every two months. Besides saving water, this frees up the cleaners to undertake more essential conservancy duties. In fact, as corridors are mostly just used by residents themselves, they are unlikely to be very dirty if residents play their part by keeping their own surroundings clean. So, I am appreciative of Tampines residents accepting this new arrangement and doing their part. Besides public cooperation, we need to think about how we can better organise the work that needs to be done.
So, speaking as Tampines Town Council Chairman, my experience tells me that most people cannot differentiate among the responsibilities of the different Government agencies. Unfortunately, the first finger that they point at will always be the Town Council. I am not saying that the other agencies are not doing their work. The fact is that various agencies are structured differently and we can do better by working together. The Town Council staff are very much on the ground and able to supervise the work of the contractors. In fact, we are also leveraging technology to help with monitoring.
So, if we look at the public areas the DPC focuses on, they include roads, pavements, backlanes, walkways, footpaths, footbridges, overhead bridges, drains, waterways, vacant state lands, community parks and park connectors. I do not expect the NEA officers to be able to check all these areas. Some of these areas are also very isolated or longish narrow strips of land that adjoin public housing estates which I feel there is potential for the Town Council to help with the cleaning and supervision duty.
While ownership and accountability run hand-in-hand, I wonder if we could just look at streamlining the deployment of cleaning resources in areas with a huge continuous expanse of public housing, for example, like Tampines. The daily removal of litter, which is done by DPC, could be outsourced to the Town Council, which already takes care of most parts of the HDB estate. Maintenance and repair of defects could still be handled by the respective agencies which own the land. Obviously, there will be operational details like contracting, budget and public liability that need to be looked into, but I believe these could be sorted out among the different agencies.
I hope MSO could explore how the actual execution and delivery of municipal services can be better coordinated at the whole-of-Government level, including Town Councils, so as to deliver services efficiently for our residents.
The Chairman: Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their comments and interest in MND matters.
MND's mission is to plan and build our city and home. It is a major undertaking and responsibility that span not just one or two years, but multiple years and even decades.
The Singapore we have today is the result of hard work by those who came before us. They master-planned our whole city, revamped our city centre, developed our housing estates.
Now, it is our turn to take Singapore forward. We must build a better Singapore for our children and future generations. We must plant the trees for them so that they can enjoy the shade. And we have a tremendous opportunity ahead of us to do this.
In his Budget Statement, Minister Heng Swee Keat shared the vision for Singapore to be a Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise, and there was broad support in this House for this vision. Mr Low Thia Khiang himself affirmed this in his speech during the Budget Debate. So, we have to work hard now to make this vision a reality.
There are many aspects to this work, but a major part of it is to build the infrastructure for our future Singapore. That is why we have a major pipeline of projects over the coming decade. Sir, with your permission, may I display some slides on the LED screens?
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Some slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Lawrence Wong: We have projects all over Singapore ‒ Changi Airport Terminal 5 (T5) in the East, Tuas Megaport in the West, we have the Jurong Lake District and the High Speed Rail, Woodlands, and the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link with Johor, and the Punggol Digital District.
All of these projects would be coming on stream over the coming decade and they will help to strengthen our air, sea and land links. They will also help to strengthen our digital connections so that Singapore can be a more connected hub for the region, so that our city can be more vibrant and more attractive to investments and talent. More importantly, they will make Singapore a better home for our children and our future generations.
To achieve these goals, our first priority is home ownership for Singaporeans because when you own a home, you have a stronger stake in the nation, and a greater sense of belonging. This is why home ownership remains a key pillar of our nation-building efforts, as Mr Alex Yam highlighted. The Government remains firmly committed to providing affordable and quality homes for Singaporeans.
Members will recall how we had ramped up HDB flat supply in 2011. We launched almost 25,000 BTO flats per year and cleared the backlog at that time and, since then, we have been tapering the supply of new HDB flats. But we have tapered in a gentle way to ensure that there is sufficient supply. So, we offered over 17,000 BTO flats last year and we will continue to maintain a steady supply this year.
At the same time, we are watching the numbers carefully to ensure a balance in demand and supply for the longer term to maintain a stable and sustainable property market. Besides ensuring adequate supply, we remain committed to keeping prices affordable by pricing new flats below the market rate and having a generous subsidy in them.
One couple who have benefited are Mr Muhammad Fadli Bin Nordin and his wife Mdm Siti Diyana. They applied for a 4-room BTO flat in Woodlands, received $15,000 in grants ‒ this is on top of the subsidised price ‒ and the monthly instalments for the loan are fully paid for using the Central Provident Fund (CPF). So, no out-of-pocket cash, zero. Everything paid for in CPF.
While waiting for their flat to be completed, they moved into a Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) flat. They benefited from the reduced PPHS rents last year, paying $900 instead of $1,100 per month. They gave birth to a baby girl in the PPHS flat, they moved into their home in July last year, their new flat, and we are very happy that they have just welcomed their second daughter last week!
We want to do more to help young couples like them with their first home. This is why we launched BTO flats with a shortened waiting time, not by compressing the construction, but by bringing it forward. So, we build ahead and, therefore, the waiting time for the couples is shorter.
HDB will launch the first batch of 1,100 such flats in Sembawang, Sengkang and Yishun this year. I am happy to announce that we will double the number of such flats in 2019 ‒ another 2,000 flats. The waiting time for these flats is around two to three years, as opposed to the normal waiting time of about three to four years.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested to further reduce the waiting time. We will do our best and study how to do this, but please understand that it is not possible for us to do this for all flats, as some sites are just not ready for us to bring forward the construction.
It is physically not possible for HDB to produce instant flats to meet all of the demand. So, one way for those with more urgent needs is to buy from the resale market. And that is why we have taken steps to enhance the grants for resale flats. We enhanced the CPF Housing Grant for resale flats last year. We introduced PHG in 2015 to help families live closer together and, this year, we enhanced the PHG.
Taken together with all the different grants, when you take all the different grants together, first-timer families can now receive up to $120,000 in grants when buying a resale flat, and that is a 50% increase, compared to three years ago. And so, not surprisingly, we are seeing more first-timer families purchasing from the resale market, and I expect this to continue.
There are also some young couples who decide to settle down early, sometimes when they are still completing their studies, perhaps when the males are still performing their National Service (NS).
Take the example of Mr Gerald Sim and Ms Stefanie Mok. Stefanie has just graduated; Gerald is still studying because he had to do his NS, so he is still studying. They are a young couple who have decided to settle down and would like to get married. In fact, they had been planning to buy a BTO flat since last year, but because Stefanie only started working in August last year, she did not have a sufficient period of employment to apply for grants.
Young couples like them may find themselves delaying their flat application for one or two years and then waiting another four years for the flat to be ready. I think that is a bit too long a wait.
Buying a flat is a serious commitment. But for young couples who have considered it carefully, I think we can exercise some flexibility to support them in their marriage and parenthood journey. So, we will now allow such couples to apply for the flat first and defer the assessment of income for housing loans and grants till just before key collection. For example, if a young couple wants to settle down early and are confident they can finance the purchase of the flat, they can apply for the flat first. They only need to pay half of the downpayment. This is already possible today. We allow them to pay half the downpayment. The remaining half is paid at key collection.
The flat will typically take up to four years to build. So, during that period, the couple can have time to build up their finances and, just before key collection, we will assess their income for purposes of determining the loan quantum and housing grants that they are eligible for.
This deferred assessment of income will apply to eligible couples from the May 2018 BTO/Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercise. We are also studying how we can further streamline processes to make buying an HDB flat much quicker and easier – I think the comments that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah made. In fact, we have already made several moves on this front. HDB has revamped the Resale Portal. All the eligibility checks are now done on one single platform. We cut down the appointment from two to one and, as a result, the application time is reduced from 16 weeks to eight weeks.
We have also made changes to our sales process and we started with the Re-Offer of Balance Flats (ROF) last year. Under ROF, all the unselected balance flats are pooled together in one common pool. They are not sorted out by flat types or by towns. So, applicants are put on a single queue and based on their queue number, they can choose any ROF unit that is available.
By doing so, we have been able to shorten the flat selection process. A typical SBF exercise, as Er Dr Lee mentioned, takes about eight months. It sounds very long, I can understand, but please understand that in a typical SBF exercise, there could be more than 100 different flat type and estate combinations. So, you have more than 100 different queues to manage. But with ROF, we have one single queue because all of the balance flats are pooled together.
So, because of that, we were able to shorten the flat selection process from eight months to six months. Our inaugural ROF exercise in August last year was a success, with more than 90% of the flats on offer being taken up. And just six months after the launch, about 400 families have already collected the keys to their new homes. So, we will continue to learn from this experience to see how we can improve.
Another area that we are looking at is the balloting process for BTO flats. This used to be much simpler and faster in the past. The applicants would attend a balloting ceremony. There were two bowls in front. The Member of Parliament would draw out two pieces of paper – one with the applicant's sales registration number, the other with a house number, and they match and this is it. After they get this, sometimes behind the scenes, they swap. Because if you did not like it, you can go and swap, but that happened without our knowledge. This was a simple process that used to happen in the past. This was Mr Phua Bah Lee doing the balloting in the past. And that was how we used to do it. It was simple, it was possible, because the number of flats and applicants were much smaller.
Today, HDB serves more than 50,000 flat applicants annually, it has to manage across different priority schemes with ethnic quotas to administer. As a result, it takes about six weeks to work through the entire balloting process. HDB has to check applicants' eligibility, sort out the requirements of the various schemes and quotas and, ultimately, ensure that the ballot is fair.
Still, I think, the time taken can be reduced. So, I have challenged the HDB team to see if they can halve the balloting time to three weeks. HDB has taken on this challenge and they are working through the processes and I hope they will be able to announce some good news before too long.
We are also very mindful that children and parents would like to live near each other to provide mutual care and support and that is something that we want to encourage. HDB offers various priority schemes, for example, the Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS), Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS) and Senior Priority Scheme (SPS). These all help give priority to families to live closer together. Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested building larger flats so that families with more children can stay together.
That is, indeed, why we introduced 3Gen flats in 2013, and they had been well-received by home buyers. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Chong Kee Hiong suggested increasing the supply of 3Gen flats. So far, there is sufficient supply to meet demand, but we are monitoring the application rates closely and, if need be, we are prepared to build more.
There is also PHG, which I mentioned earlier, to help families to stay together and live near one another. Besides enhancing the grant quantum this year, we have also simplified the proximity condition to a distance-based one, within four kilometres (km). This will apply to both the PHG for resale flats as well as the proximity-based schemes for new flats like MCPS and SPS, which I have mentioned earlier, from the May 2018 sales exercise. This will give home buyers more choices of flats in neighbouring towns.
I am very glad to see very strong support from Members for our efforts to encourage families to live closer together and, through all the schemes that we have, we look forward to seeing more families buy flats to live together or near one another for mutual support.
While we help couples and families to settle down, we are also mindful that there is a diverse range of home buyers. There are second-timers, elderly looking to right-size, singles, divorcees and single unmarried, unwed parents. These are groups that various Members have talked about.
For second-timers, some face difficulties paying the resale levy. For those with difficulties, we are prepared to look at them and consider incorporating the levy into the purchase price. Many of them who are second-timers are also looking to get the flat urgently. In fact, for them, the better option is really to consider the resale market. PHG can help in this respect because that grant is available to second-timers, too. So, even if you are a second-timer, you buy from the market, first of all, there is no resale levy to pay. Secondly, they may get to purchase the resale flat with PHG. For those in rental, we have put in place a new Fresh Start scheme to support them in their home ownership journey.
For the elderly, I touched on this in last year's COS, we have many schemes to help them. We have built 2-room flexi flats for them. Again, they are priced with a significant subsidy to make sure that they are affordable. For first-timers, they, too, are eligible for grants, which will make the 2-room flexi flat very affordable for them. For second-timers, there is a levy to be paid, but we have capped the levy amount and adjusted it for the shorter lease. So, the maximum levy that would be paid on a 2-room flexi on a 45-year lease is $18,000, much lower than what a normal resale levy would be.
We have also made other enhancements last year, including deferring the downpayment until key collection for the elderly, when they right-size, providing a temporary loan, one-to-one counselling and an elderly priority queue at the HDB Hub. All these measures have helped, and we will continue to see what more we can do to support our elderly.
For the singles, that is another group that many Members talked about – Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Alex Yam. So far, more than 12,000 singles have bought new 2-room flats. The application rates are still high, I recognise that and we are doing our best to build more 2-room flats to clear the backlog.
Singles can also consider resale flats. Over the last five years, 27,000 have bought resale flats, more than the ones who have bought new flats. Again, the enhancements to PHG will make this a more attractive option. Because with the changes to PHG, as Members here have recognised, we are giving a higher grant of $15,000 for singles who buy a resale flat to live with their parents and now they are eligible also for a $10,000 grant to buy a resale flat near their parents. I hope this will provide more options to singles in the resale market. Again, taken together with all the other housing grants, singles may now receive up to $60,000 in grants to buy a resale flat.
Mr Alex Yam asked about the minimum age of 35 for singles to buy HDB flats. He mentioned that Singaporeans are marrying later, but the marriage rates are still high among singles under the age of 35. So, I think the age of 35 is still valid today. In any case, as I have mentioned earlier, we still have a backlog to clear, and we should focus on that and make sure that for those who are in the queue, we will build enough 2-room flats to help them get their 2-room flats first.
Another group that many Members talked about are divorcees. Several Members asked whether we can help them make a smoother housing transition, especially for the benefit of their children.
Mr Chairman, we recognise that divorce can be a stressful and emotional period, and a complex process with many decisions to be made. HDB provides advice to families on their post-divorce housing options to make their housing transition smoother. We help them purchase a BTO flat through the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (ASSIST), where they get priority when applying for a 2- or 3-room BTO flat in the non-mature estates. In the interim, before their flat is ready, they can rent a subsidised flat from HDB under PPHS. HDB also offers rental housing to those in need, including those who need help to tide over a protracted or acrimonious divorce.
One issue that divorcees may face is the time bar for purchase of subsidised flats. I think Mr Louis Ng mentioned this just now. This is a rule put in place in 1997 whereby, during the time bar, a divorced couple can only own one subsidised flat between them. So, both sides have to agree on who should be allowed to buy the subsidised flat. This is what we call the \"mutual consent\" agreement or requirement. The time bar was set at five years initially, and we have reduced it to three years. Since 2012, we have waived the mutual consent requirement for the parent with sole care and control of young children to buy a subsidised flat, in order to prioritise their housing needs. This has helped the majority of divorced couples with children, but there are others still subject to the time bar.
We have reviewed the matter and we have decided to remove the time bar completely. We hope that this will help divorced persons provide a more conducive living environment for their children and go some way to help families through an already difficult period of transition.
We will continue to do our best to help these and other groups, including single unwed parents with children. We already exercise considerable flexibility for such appeals, as I have elaborated upon in previous sessions, and we will continue to do so. We look at each case carefully and consider what is in the best interest of the child and, if necessary, we will assist the parents, or the parent and child, in purchasing a flat.
Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will elaborate on how else MND is helping families in transition and various vulnerable groups.
Besides upholding home ownership, we must continuously look at ways to improve the way we build our future Singapore. Poorly designed cities can easily become a high-rise concrete jungle. We get all the problems associated with rapid urbanisation – crowding and social fragmentation. The city becomes a stressful and alienating place to live and work in.
But, at their best, modern cities with well-designed buildings and neighbourhoods can connect people and improve our well-being. So, we must innovate and explore new ways of building to achieve even better results.
One important shift is to push for higher quality and higher productivity in construction. It is especially crucial, given the major pipeline of projects that are coming up in the decade. We have embarked on many programmes and we have rolled out an ITM. Second Minister Desmond Lee will share about this in his speech later. For my part, I would like to touch on two important areas.
First, how can we build a more inclusive Singapore? Earlier in the Budget Debate, several Members talked about the importance of addressing inequality, bridging social divides and enhancing social integration. I think everyone here recognises that it is a complex issue that involves multiple strategies on the economic and social fronts.
Our urban and living environment also has a part to play to bring residents of diverse backgrounds together, promote social integration, and uplift the lower-income. So, how can our built environment help to foster a more inclusive Singapore?
I have a few suggestions and these are areas that we are working on. First, we must improve the way we design our buildings and public facilities. We are going for Universal Design, that means, designing for people of all ages and all abilities, both young and old, expectant mothers, as well as persons with special needs.
BCA publishes guidebooks and develops standards for Universal Design and disseminates them to the industry. In fact, our efforts have received recognition from outside parties, like the United Nations (UN), which praised Singapore for our \"user-friendly built environment\".
We will continue to do more. BCA is looking at raising the bar further as part of our review of the Accessibility Master Plan and Accessibility Code. We will be engaging stakeholders, including public users, in this process.
We will pay special attention to the elderly, given our rapidly ageing population. All HDB estates are now barrier-free and we will see how we can further improve. We have been upgrading lifts in HDB blocks to provide direct lift access to households and incorporating elderly-friendly designs in our flats and estates. We also have the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme to provide subsidised installation of fittings for our seniors, be it grab bars or anti-slip treatment to their bathroom tiles.
Mr Darryl David asked about the Government’s plans for the EASE programme. We are studying what more we can do under EASE. One particular item that we are looking at is to include assistance for those living in flats with multi-step entrances, and we will provide an update on this later this year.
Several Members also asked if we can enhance the designs of our flats to support our elderly. We have been looking at this and have introduced better designs for elderly-friendly estates and flats. One recent example is Kampung Admiralty. Within this area, HDB flats for seniors are integrated with a continuum of social and health services, so that the residents have easy access to all the services \"under one roof\". The feedback from the residents who have moved into Kampung Admiralty is very positive and we will study how this can be implemented in other areas as well.
Beyond better integration, we will go further by exploring assisted living. Assisted living is a model of living that integrates home and care. For example, within one block or even on the same floor, you can have individual apartment units together with shared communal facilities for dining, social activities and a range of eldercare services.
HDB will be working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to pilot assisted living in public housing. We envisage a collaborative model where HDB will design and build the flat, and we will have to tap on private expertise to provide the services. We will pilot this in HDB flats and we will also study ways in which this can be done in private developments.
That is our first point on making the future Singapore more inclusive, in the way we design our buildings.
The second area is to ensure that our housing estates continue to have common spaces, public parks and greenery for all to enjoy. Several Members also spoke about this. It is critical, especially in our compact high-rise living environment. Mr Lee Kuan Yew started this with the push to make Singapore a Garden City. When we spoke with him in 2012 and asked him what more should we do to take Singapore forward, this is what he said: \"Singapore must retain the sense of space. We're going to build taller buildings but we can’t build them closely together. There must be a sense of playing fields and recreational areas for children and old people – a sense that this is a full country with all the facilities which you expect of a large country but in a confined space.\"
This is the challenge that our planners have and they are very conscious of this. It is reflected in the way we design our HDB estates. The planners have a difficult job. They do not always have a large green field site to work with. Some sites come with constraints and they have to work around these constraints. They may not get everything perfectly right but we take in feedback, as many have shared, and we will continue to improve our designs for new estates.
For existing estates, we also have programmes to rejuvenate our estates, existing ones, to keep them vibrant and liveable. At the town level, our Remaking our Heartland (ROH) initiative has covered nine HDB towns and estates. We recently unveiled plans for Toa Payoh, Woodlands and Pasir Ris for public consultation, and we will finalise the plans later this year and start works thereafter.
At the precinct level, we have the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) for our older estates built up to 1995. We typically select about 14 NRP projects a year, and I am happy to announce that, this year, we will increase the number and launch 20 NRP projects across the island. It is part of our efforts to provide support for the construction industry. So, we are bringing forward projects, particularly to help the industry during this period.
At the flat level, we have HIP, which several Members highlighted. This is for flats built up to 1986. We will finish selection of the existing eligible flats by the end of this year and expect works to be progressively completed around 2022.
Several Members have asked about expanding the scope of HIP and extending it to flats built after the existing cohort. As I have shared in this House previously, any upgrading programme is a major commitment that spans many years and would cost billions of dollars. We had just had a major debate on the Budget about fiscal sustainability and how Government spending is rising sharply, and how we need to raise revenues to meet these future needs. Any future upgrading programme has to be studied very carefully in this context. So, we are studying this very carefully. Eventually, when the proposals are put forward, I hope Members will support more resources for MND to do upgrading in existing estates as well.
That is our second area where we want to make sure that our estates have common spaces, parks, greenery that all can access and enjoy.
Thirdly, we can also facilitate more social interactions within the block itself. We already have the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) to ensure a better racial mix. We also try to mix different unit types within the same block, something which several Members spoke about. For example, in the past, we would build standalone blocks of studio apartments. Now, all 2-room flexi flats launched are integrated with other flat types within the same block.
For rental flats, likewise, these are the same considerations when we build rental flats. We try not to cluster too many rental flats together, and try to build them together with sold flats in the same neighbourhood so that residents can share and access the same communal facilities and amenities.
More recently, we have also launched three BTO projects with rental and sold flats within the same block itself. This is in Woodlands, Bukit Batok and Sengkang. The flats are still under construction but we will learn from this experience, get feedback about the lived experience in these flats and, if it is positive, we will certainly want to do more.
Importantly, it is also about how you design the block to maximise opportunities for social interaction. Some of these things, I would acknowledge, happen more through serendipity than deliberate design. I give an example of how, in the past, we did not have lifts on every floor. So, the lift landing somehow became a place where neighbours get to meet one another. I say this from personal experience because my HDB apartment was on the 21st floor on a lift landing, just next to the lift. So, the neighbours come and we get to meet them all the time, and you can have a chance to talk to them.
Today, lift landings are on every floor, so you do not have as many opportunities for interaction. It is meant for barrier-free access. I think it is a good thing, but you do not have that many opportunities to meet. So, we have to use other design methods to encourage neighbourly interaction. That is why in some of the new BTO flats, for example, in Dawson, HDB has tried out more seating areas in the common spaces near lift lobbies. We are trying out more greenery and rooftop spaces for residents to get together. These are different designs that are being piloted, that we are trying out. Again, it is something that we have to learn by doing, and from the experiences and feedback that we get, we can improve for each new project that we embark on. So, one major thrust in how we want to build our future Singapore is to make sure that we are more inclusive.
Another major emphasis in the way we build for the future is to make sure we have a more Distinctive Singapore. We cannot just be another modern city, one amongst many in the world. We have to be a city that stands out – stand out not by having the biggest, tallest or fanciest building but through our distinctive character and culture, our heritage and identity. This means capitalising on our strengths – our city in a garden, our clean and safe environment and our multicultural diversity and heritage.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
Part of our shared memories is captured in our buildings. So, we are, indeed, paying more attention to heritage elements in our planning process, as highlighted by Mr Alex Yam. Buildings with historical significance will be preserved or conserved and repurposed for other uses, as we have done with some of the buildings like the former Supreme Court and City Hall. Some old buildings may have to go but, even in doing so, we can find ways to preserve the memories of the place.
This is the approach we took for Dakota Crescent. We have heard the many calls for the place to be kept. There was a ground-up initiative by several architects to do this. Mr Lim Biow Chuan spoke about this in Parliament. We have considered the feedback and, in December last year, we announced that the central cluster of six buildings around the courtyard will be kept and repurposed, and that includes the dove playground which I think many have fond memories of.
Such efforts demonstrate that it is possible for us to combine both old and new to bring out what is distinctively Singaporean, and this is what we will do also for the Rail Corridor. It is a unique space where we can celebrate our heritage, culture and biodiversity, and it will connect close to one million Singaporeans. So, we are reviewing our plans around the Corridor, as Ms Low Yen Ling has suggested, to see how we can best make use of this unique space.
I agree with Ms Low’s suggestion that it is important that the Rail Corridor is accessible to all Singaporeans. We have been working closely on this project with the community, anchored by the Friends of the Rail Corridor comprising residents, students and nature and heritage groups. For a start, we are working on the central four-km stretch of the Rail Corridor based on public feedback. We will transform the conserved Bukit Timah Railway Station into a vibrant community node with amenities, open spaces as well as a heritage gallery.
As enhancement works for this central four-km stretch commence later this year, we will also improve accessibility to the Rail Corridor from adjacent developments like homes, schools, workplaces and transport nodes, including having new access paths in the nearby Hillview neighbourhood.
In parallel, we will implement trail improvement works along other stretches of the Rail Corridor this year, so that virtually the entire stretch of the Rail Corridor will be connected seamlessly. You can walk, run and cycle along the entire 24-km stretch by 2021.
The Rail Corridor will also serve as a gateway to parks and trails island-wide. It will intersect with the upcoming Coast-to-Coast Trail, which will span across Singapore from Jurong Lake Gardens in the West to Coney Island in the Northeast. It will have convenient access to nature parks around the Bukit Timah and Central Catchment Nature Reserves. It will connect to the Round Island Route, which is a 150-km continuous green trail which loops around the entire island.
Mr Chairman, even as we embark on our next phase of development, we are committed to enhancing our City in a Garden and making Singapore an even greener and more beautiful home for all to enjoy.
I have shared our plans for our future city and home. To achieve these bold plans, we need to work together. The Government cannot do this alone. We are building up capabilities, not just within the Government but also, as Mr Alex Yam said, amongst our architects, engineers, consultants and builders. But I agree with Mr Darryl David that the Government needs to partner the community, interest groups, businesses and industries in building our future city.
We can start with our neighbourhoods. There are many opportunities to co-create the common spaces in our HDB towns. Recently, we launched a pilot in Sembawang called Build-a-Playground. We build new playgrounds all the time. All of us see this in our estates but this one was different. We spent time engaging the residents. They worked together on the project from conceptualisation to design, to even the final assembly of the playground onsite. It took longer than usual – about two years to build this playground. This is much longer than the normal time it would take to build a playground. But the end result was worth it. Residents shared that they love the project, they take pride in it. Because they take ownership of the playground, they were involved in it, they appreciate and enjoy it much more.
This is a meaningful way to shape our common spaces together and we hope to do more of this in other estates, too. We want to enable such ground-up initiatives to shape our neighbours. HDB already provides support for residents to activate their community spaces and we hope that more would take up the funding support from HDB.
One example is a project titled \"Welcome to our Backyard\" led by residents and volunteers in Aljunied Crescent. So, Members can see the before and after pictures. What was before was an empty grass patch and, because of the community involvement, they took ownership of it, they transformed it into a warm welcoming backyard with swings and mini gardens.
Besides our neighbourhoods, we have also supported many community-initiated projects in our public spaces all over Singapore. Last year, a group of stakeholders in Kampong Glam had an idea to spruce up a small park at Sultan Gate. With URA’s support, they installed park benches, picnic tables, lighting and even a giant swing. Now, there is a cosy spot for the public to gather and interact.
These are just two examples of the wonderful things that can happen when everybody takes ownership of the places we live and work in and we shape our urban landscape together. There is tremendous potential for all of us to do more together.
As a nation of home owners, all of us have a part to play in shaping our future city and home. In the last 50 years, we have transformed from mudflats to a metropolis. Let us now work together on our next lap of urban transformation to be a green, smart and liveable city, and to be a vibrant global city that is inclusive and that is distinctively Singaporean, a place we are all proud to call home. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Members Mr Ong Teng Koon and Mr Baey Yam Keng for their interest in MSO's work.
Every day, Government agencies and Town Councils receive some 3,000 feedback on municipal issues from residents. Most of them are straightforward and dealt with quickly. A good number require multiple agencies to work together to resolve them. These issues could range from the provision and maintenance of local infrastructure, such as footpaths and railings across different land boundaries, to complex problems, such as hoarding of items in HDB flats.
MSO was formed three years ago to improve coordination for these cross-cutting issues. To Mr Ong Teng Koon's query, I am pleased to report that good progress had been made by the Government agencies, Town Councils and MSO in improving municipal service delivery. It now takes 11 working days to resolve 90% of complex feedback involving multiple parties, a marked improvement from the 16 working days in end 2015. The various initiatives undertaken by MSO to improve coordination, such as appointing lead agencies to settle municipal issues regardless of land ownership, have borne fruit. These initiatives have resulted in the public’s needs being addressed more effectively and more promptly.
It has also engendered a culture change. Our agencies are working better together. They are adopting a more collaborative and resident-centric approach in handling interagency issues. There is a shift in mindsets in serving the public.
One such example was how NParks and HDB worked together on a request for a staircase connecting Clementi Avenue 6 and Ulu Pandan Park Connector. It seemed like a simple request, but there were complications. The area was earmarked for future public housing development and, hence, the staircase had to be planned with future developments in mind. NParks dealt with the presence of high-tension cables underground by using lightweight precast slabs to minimise deep excavation works. A ramp was also thoughtfully added at the side of the staircase for cyclists to access the Park Connector. There are many of such examples, which illustrate how our agencies are working well together and addressing residents’ needs holistically.
While we see more of such efforts, there remain municipal issues falling in grey areas where MSO can play a role to help. As Mr Ong Teng Koon had rightly pointed out, MSO focuses heavily on improving interagency processes which are not apparent to the public. Pigeon-related nuisance is one such example. Town Councils oversee the cleaning of common areas, AVA takes enforcement action against pigeon feeders, while NEA takes enforcement action in instances where high-rise littering is involved. Residents' Committees (RCs) of the People's Association (PA) are often roped in to counsel the feeders. These agencies work together in order for pigeon-related issues to be resolved holistically. To support their efforts, MSO has helped to formulate end-to-end workflows to clarify roles and responsibilities and tighten coordination in their handling of such pigeon-related nuisance.
Similar processes have also been developed by MSO for other complex issues, including animal hoarding, involving AVA, HDB, NEA, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and social welfare agencies; and the management of outdoor display areas, involving Town Councils and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). Moving forward, MSO will continue to engage our residents and stakeholders to identify more of such grey areas where we can improve coordination and support the agencies and Town Councils in their efforts to serve residents better.
As we improve processes, we also need to ensure that our platforms and solutions continue to meet residents’ evolving needs.
Mr Ong had asked about the take-up of the OneService (OS) platforms to date and plans to use the platform to better reach out to our residents. In 2017 alone, the number of registered users and cases submitted grew by 43% and 100% respectively, reaching 114,000 registered users and 153,000 cases submitted. This is the result of MSO constantly improving the OS platforms to better serve the needs of our residents.
We introduced the OS App in 2015. Back then, it had six reporting categories and allowed residents to report municipal issues to Government agencies. Today, this has expanded to eleven categories, covering not just municipal issues under the purview of Government agencies, but also those of Town Councils and even private entities. For example, the Facilities in HDB Estates and Shared Bicycles categories introduced last year allow members of the public to report municipal issues in HDB estates to the Town Councils, and indiscriminately parked Shared Bicycles to bike operators. This makes it more convenient for residents to report on issues they encounter and also enable Government agencies and Town Councils to collect data more systematically to guide future planning and operations through studying trends and analysing hotspots. Going forward, MSO will also incorporate data collected from relevant elements of our Smart Nation infrastructure, such as sensors, to further enhance our analysis of problem areas and move upstream to better anticipate the needs of our residents.
MSO has also introduced the OS Portal, which aggregates municipal information for residents. This includes information from diverse sources which are of interest to residents, such as block washing schedules, e-waste recycling points and HDB's Welcome Parties.
Our goal is to transform the OS channels into a one-stop community platform that can meet residents' diverse municipal needs. In the coming year, besides providing feedback and accessing information, residents will also be able to use the OS channels to perform transactions, participate in community events and give their feedback and comments on local improvement programmes to help co-create their living environment. In the long term, we hope to make the OS channels a one-stop platform to address their municipal needs comprehensively.
Through the use of digital technology, MSO aims to bring about greater convenience to our residents and also to make it easier for residents to engage with Government agencies and Town Councils and actively participate in shaping their living environment.
As MSO works with our partners to improve the effectiveness of our solutions and platforms, we also work with Government agencies to improve productivity and cost efficiency. This is especially important in the manpower-lean environment today. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked if there is scope for greater integration in the area of cleaning between the work of Government agencies and Town Councils in order to achieve greater efficiency.
That is a good suggestion, which MSO will study. However, MSO wants to move even more upstream, by improving processes at the planning and design stage. Good planning and design make our municipal infrastructure cheaper to upkeep in the long run. For a start, MSO and NEA are working with infrastructure agencies, in consultation with the Town Councils, to establish design specifications and guidelines that will facilitate cleaning operations, including automated cleaning operations. The guidelines on the design of new public infrastructure will make them easier to clean and support mechanisation efforts by cleaning contractors.
Beyond cleaning, MSO is also looking at how to improve processes to facilitate timely and efficient responses to local infrastructure requests. While there are well-established funding schemes, such as LTA’s Walk2Ride Scheme, and MND's Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP), funding gaps for small-scale infrastructure at the local level do exist from time to time. MSO has thus piloted a small funding scheme to plug this gap. Some 140 infrastructure requests were received for the pilot. These are small-scale but nevertheless important requests that make a positive difference to residents’ daily living, such as having handrails up a footbridge crossing Geylang River, and lightings along a footpath near Punggol Point Light Rail Transit (LRT) station.
With the success of the pilot, MSO will be launching the Local Infrastructure Projects (LIP) scheme for small-scale local infrastructure on state land in 2018. For a start, the LIP scheme will have an initial budget of $3.6 million for the next two years.
Besides LIP, MSO has also worked with our partner agencies to develop escalation mechanisms so that conflicting demands or constraints among the agencies do not result in undue delays in the planning, development and maintenance of connectivity-related infrastructure. This will help to bridge the gap and support our agencies in meeting local infrastructure needs of residents more responsively.
To conclude, municipal service delivery has made significant progress. Leveraging the combined efforts of Government agencies, Town Councils and residents, MSO has worked to reduce overlaps and duplications, plug gaps in the municipal landscape and deliver better living experiences for our residents. MSO will continue to facilitate collaboration, build capabilities and harness technology, so as to enable the delivery of cost-effective and quality municipal services for residents and a better living environment for all.
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Chairman, at the appropriate juncture, may I show some slides?
The Chairman: Yes. [Some slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Saktiandi asked how we will create a high-tech built environment sector that creates good jobs for Singaporeans and improves opportunities for local firms. Over the past year, the Government has been partnering our industry, unions and institutes of higher learning (IHLs) to formulate ITMs for key sectors in the Built Environment cluster. These are construction, real estate, security, environmental services and landscaping. These five sectors cover the span of the infrastructure lifecycle, from conception, design and construction to operations and maintenance.
We want to help firms level up their capabilities, seize new opportunities and create good jobs for Singaporeans. So, we are now shifting gears to implement these plans. For example, the Construction ITM focuses on two areas to improve productivity and competitiveness in our sector. These are Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) and Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD). DfMA involves the prefabrication of building components in a highly automated and mechanised manner, just like the manufacturing process, before onsite assembly. This saves time, reduces our reliance on low-skilled foreign labour, and results in more consistent quality.
As Minister Lawrence Wong had said, we need to make major shifts in the way we build to achieve better results. Driving DfMA adoption for greater productivity is one such decisive shift. And to help our firms do so, we will continue to create lead demand and, at the same time, build more Integrated Construction and Prefabrication Hubs (ICPHs) to ensure a sufficient supply of prefabricated building components. By 2020, we target to increase the DfMA adoption rate to 40% of new developments, up from about 20% today.
We are also pushing for greater adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD). As Mr Saktiandi has described, BIM helps firms visualise detailed building designs in virtual 3D form before they are actually built, thus minimising potential issues during construction. IDD builds on top of BIM to connect various project parties through digital information. It also provides useful information about the building, for future maintenance or retrofitting.
Since 2015, building plans for developments larger than 5,000 sq metres have to be submitted to BCA and other regulatory agencies using BIM. Eighty-six percent of our large consultants and 65% of our large contractors now make good use of BIM. We will also drive IDD adoption so that our built environment sector can reap further benefits from the entire construction and building lifecycle. To facilitate this, we will develop shared platforms and standards to increase IDD interoperability across the entire environment value chain. By 2020, we target to have between 40 and 60 projects adopting IDD, compared to five projects today.
Sir, adoption of these technologies is not just for big companies. Many smaller firms are also building up their capabilities in DfMA and IDD. One such example is a local firm called Tong Hai Yang, which is a homegrown construction and interior firm. The firm set up a subdivision to explore DfMA and this led it to develop its modular Prefabricated Bathroom Units (PBUs) as well as customised solutions to improve the fabrication and onsite deployment of its product.
Another example is Shin Construction, a local small and medium enterprise (SME) specialising in plumbing. As a plumbing subcontractor for residential developments, Shin’s adoption of BIM helped eliminate potential clashes between mechanical, electrical and plumbing pipes and air-conditioning ducts. This helped the project team avoid abortive works and delays during the construction phase.
As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah noted, local contractors also need to build up their capabilities and track record to succeed both locally and abroad. In this regard, Er Dr Lee said that stringent prequalifications in Government projects could prevent local firms qualifying and, hence, building up relevant experience.
We should clarify that prequalifications are not intended to limit opportunities, but to ensure that tenderers have the ability to tackle important and complex public works, such as MRT or deep tunnelling projects. While it is up to agencies to set their own requirements, they certainly have to be fair and not be unduly onerous. They should also ensure that their tenders obtain an adequate number of bids, to ensure fair competition.
Our approach to help firms is to give them the resources they need to build up their capabilities, so that they become more competitive. For example, contractors can tap on various schemes under BCA’s Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) to build up their capabilities and to upgrade their workforce. About $530 million in funds have already been committed under CPCF, benefiting over 9,000 firms, 90% of which are our SMEs. In tandem, we also reviewed our procurement framework to place more emphasis on quality and this will facilitate healthier and more sustainable competition. With improved capabilities, local contractors will better their chances of qualifying for more construction projects.
In addition, we will also try to help our local firms internationalise, if they wish to do so, by finding opportunities for them to team up for large overseas ventures. If our firms can offer together a unique \"Singaporean\" way of undertaking the entire development cycle, such as through BIM and IDD, this will certainly enhance their competitive edge. One example of an opportunity is in Amaravati, the new capital city of the state of Andhra Pradesh in India. A Singaporean consortium comprising Ascendas-Singbridge and Sembcorp has secured a startup area to kickstart the new city’s development. Singapore companies with the relevant expertise should consider whether they can export their services there as part of the consortium.
Sir, we also launched the Real Estate ITM last month, focusing on two areas: one, property transactions; and two, facilities management (FM). In the property transactions space, we aim to streamline the process to make it more convenient for buyers, sellers and agents. For FM, our goal is to transform the way we maintain our infrastructure so that we can be more efficient and effective. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan is quite right when he said that we need to make good use of technology and better streamline our building management operations. This is especially important as our buildings and infrastructure age and as we continue to face manpower constraints.
We will, therefore, encourage building owners and MCSTs to invest in better and more effective FM solutions, such as real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance. This will streamline their processes, enhance user experience and reap long-term cost savings. This, of course, will depend also on demand that the buyers of these services, such as condominiums, industrial properties and commercial buildings recognising the value and the savings that can be reaped through having smart FM capabilities.
We will also encourage consultants and developers to systematically consider maintainability outcomes in the design and construction phase. This will enhance the sustainability of our buildings by reducing lifecycle maintenance costs arising from inefficient design. To operationalise this, BCA will be bringing industry, unions and the Government together in a Tripartite FM Implementation Committee (FMIC) to formulate, oversee and review the implementation of the plans for this sector.
There are many synergies among the various ITMs under the built environment Cluster. Platforms developed under one ITM could also benefit companies in different stages of the building lifecycle. Firms in this ecosystem can do much more to work together across functions and sectors.
To drive our built environment implementation efforts, BCA will set up a transformation office for the whole built environment sector, as previously announced. We will call this office Build-Singapore (Build.SG) to reflect its purpose of galvanising industry transformation to build our future city. While its initial focus will be to implement the Construction ITM, its longer-term goal is to reap synergies from the various ITMs in the built environment cluster.
Build.SG will work closely with Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs), IHLs and unions to engage our industry and turn our ITM plans into action. In particular, it will focus on helping firms build capabilities and deploy key technologies and deploy key technologies and lending support to firms keen on exploring overseas opportunities.
Build.SG will also act as a one-stop career office to attract, retrain and upskill professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) in the built environment domain. Sir, the built environment transformation is more than just about effecting firm-level change. Those working in the sector must also upgrade themselves to continue to thrive in the industry. And employers need to provide their employees with opportunities to do so.
Sir, I met Mr Muhammad Shaban at the launch of JTC’s J-Ops Command Centre last month. After graduating from the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), Shaban joined JTC in 1995 as a lift technician carrying out lift maintenance work. With JTC’s encouragement, he expanded into more complex areas, such as Building Management Systems. Eventually, his expertise enabled him to start taking on greater responsibilities, including supervising less experienced technical staff. He is now a key member of JTC’s Building Management Division, overseeing day-to-day operations in the J-Ops Command Centre, which is a centralised command nerve centre that monitors building operations and performance across JTC’s buildings. There, he works with building managers and engineers in building diagnosis and fault detection. We have invited Shaban to contribute to the improvement of the FM sector at the national level through FMIC. And I am glad that he has agreed to take up this challenge.
It is people like Shaban, with real, deep skills and experience who thrive on new challenges, continuously upgrade their skills and who are passionate about their work that will enable us to transform our built environment sector and provide new opportunities for Singapore firms and Singaporean employees.
Sir, in our built environment transformation journey, we also want firms and the research community to partner us in creating new technologies and solutions. As part of this effort, MND and our partner agencies will be launching a series of calls for research ideas under the Cities of Tomorrow Research and Development (R&D) Programme over the next few months, committing up to $40 million of research funds. We hope that the industry and research community will collaborate with us in this journey to transform the built environment sector through innovation.
So far, we have spoken about our efforts to transform the built environment sector to grow our economy and create good jobs. However, as our city ages, and as our focus also begins to be on FM and maintenance of the city, we will also need to find ways to future-proof our infrastructure, so that it continues to be safe and functional.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong has asked how we ensure that buildings are designed and constructed to be structurally safe, enforce regular maintenance and checks, and grow a sustainable pool of local skilled technical staff to support this. There are already measures to ensure building safety. For example, developers must appoint a Qualified Person (QP), who is a registered PE, to carry out structural design. And for more complex works, the design must be checked by independent Accredited Checkers. A QP and site supervisors must supervise building works to ensure that they are done in accordance with the approved plans. Building materials must also comply with prescribed standards and be tested by accredited laboratories. BCA will conduct site audits to ensure compliance with requirements.
BCA also requires regular inspections to ensure buildings remain structurally safe. As Mr Chong Kee Hiong pointed out, it is also important to ensure that non-structural aspects like building facades are well-maintained, especially as the city grows older. We have studied this and will be introducing façade inspection requirements. The regime will focus on buildings taller than 13 metres and older than 20 years, as they may pose higher risks. Inspection must be carried out by trained personnel and be conducted once every seven years.
Now, this takes into consideration the expected lifespan of some common façade materials, allows for detection of façade deterioration to facilitate timely repairs and aligns this with the typical length of Repair and Redecoration (R&R) cycles for HDB estates and the majority of condominium developments, to save costs. We aim to finalise the relevant legislation by end of this year. Building owners will be given about one year’s lead time to prepare, before the requirement comes into effect. BCA will continue to engage stakeholders on implementation details to minimise the burden of cost.
We will also support the new façade inspection regime by introducing inspection guidelines and strengthening R&D efforts to look into more effective and productive ways to carry out façade inspections. This could include the use of camera-equipped drones to check building façade conditions which, I understand, has been used overseas, by companies like Industrial Skyworks in Canada and Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates in the US.
I also agree with Mr Chong Kee Hiong that proper lift maintenance is important and that is why we earlier tightened BCA's maintenance regime for lifts to ensure their safety and functionality. For HDB lifts, in particular, we have also put in place additional procurement and maintenance processes to improve lift safety and performance. We are continuing to improve these processes and are now studying how to better evaluate downstream maintenance costs in the procurement stage, so that HDB can better differentiate between lift suppliers. For example, we are studying the evaluation of tender pricing over a longer time period via longer lock-in maintenance period for lift suppliers, as well as placing higher weightage on quality score, as compared to price score, in tenders.
The other part of the equation is to build a sufficient pool of competent personnel to conduct the required checks and servicing. Last year, BCA and our Labour Movement formed the Lift and Escalator Sectoral Tripartite Committee (STC) to look into ways to professionalise the industry and to attract more locals to join the sector. I understand that STC will provide its full recommendations later this year. But one recommendation being seriously considered is a voluntary progressive wage model (PWM) for local lift technicians. The PWM will be competency-based. Each wage level will be defined by specific skillsets and responsibilities. This sets out clear progression pathways for lift technicians and ensures they are remunerated appropriately for their skills and effort. We hope that companies will come on board and work together to build up a sustainable pipeline of skilled local lift technicians.
It is also important for us to ensure that our public housing remains safe and well-maintained. In that regard, some Members have asked if we can do more to address maintenance issues faced by flat owners. Generally, while we strive to minimise downstream maintenance through high-quality construction, flat owners also play a part in maintaining the flats as they age.
Nonetheless, HDB has, on a goodwill basis, continued to assist flat owners should they raise maintenance issues, and advise them on possible follow-up actions. In addition, we offer heavily subsidised upgrading works under HIP to address common maintenance issues for older flats built up to 1986.
For issues, such as ceiling leaks and spalling concrete, which occur outside HIP, residents can apply for a 50% subsidy under HDB’s Goodwill Repair Assistance (GRA) scheme.
Finally, for tiles originally provided by HDB, HDB will replace dislodged ones within 15 years from the date of sale to the first owner. This is more generous than the private sector provision.
Taken together, these measures, including efforts at the local level, have helped keep the maintenance cost of our flats low for the majority of HDB residents.
Now, let me briefly address the remaining cuts. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah spoke about difficulties faced by some landed property owners in accessing their neighbours' property to undertake repairs. If home owners face such difficulties, they can seek help from their Neighbourhood Committees or other dispute resolution channels, such as the Community Mediation Centres, to try to resolve the issues amicably. Nevertheless, we will study to see if legislative changes are needed.
Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about owners of landed properties affected by breakaway works. There are already requirements on the homeowner to ensure that any breakaway works are done properly. This includes plastering and painting the exposed wall. The appointed QP has a professional duty to ensure that the works are structurally safe and done in accordance with all requirements. Should issues like water seepage arise later on, we encourage owners and neighbours to resolve them in an amicable manner, or via dispute resolution channels, which I mentioned earlier. If there are complaints about structural issues, BCA will investigate and take appropriate enforcement action for any breach of the Building Control Act. Having said that, similar to my response to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, we will study whether legislative changes are needed.
Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the allotment of Heavy Vehicle Parking (HVP) spaces. His concern is about the availability of HVP at the local level. I understand that in his discussions with URA, as part of the ongoing master plan discussions, he has raised these queries, and we will continue to address them at the local level. URA also allows mutual exchanges of season parking locations amongst drivers within its HVPs through an online platform. Through such measures, we hope to assist Heavy Vehicle drivers with their parking issues. Likewise, we continue to encourage employers to play their part in providing the necessary commute facilities for their staff.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked if designs could be improved to mitigate noise pollution from vehicles in multi-storey car parks. Sir, noise mitigation is a consideration when HDB designs and plans HDB estates. Specific to car parks, HDB considers the orientation and distance between them and residential blocks, and the placement of physical barriers, such as communal facilities as well as greenery, to screen the noise. We will continue to incorporate good planning considerations and make use of technology where appropriate, such as noise modelling, to mitigate noise impact.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong also asked about the impact of prefabricated construction methods on home owners' renovation options. Under both traditional and prefabricated construction, home owners are not allowed to hack or remove structural elements. However, flats built with prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) tend to have thicker structural columns. HDB is studying ways to give flat owners more flexibility for renovation even in such units.
HDB has also facilitated renovations. For example, we no longer provide kitchen walls, so that home owners need not hack them during renovations. Since 2015, HDB has also used drywalls for non-load-bearing internal partition walls and these are easier to remove, compared to traditional concrete walls.
Lastly, some Members have spoken about animal issues and human-animal interactions. Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang described his most recent experience working with AVA on animal protection issues. I would like to thank the Member for his encouraging words and I am sure our officers would be very encouraged by what he said.
AVA will continue to partner IHLs, Animal Welfare Groups (AWG) and the broader public to address human-animal issues and develop solutions, using a humane science-based approach that involves close partnerships with the community. This year, AVA will launch a Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage Programme for stray dogs and we look forward to working closely with AWGs and veterinarians to make this programme a success.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked for stricter laws against animal feeding, particularly for cats. Certainly, irresponsible feeding creates problems for everyone. In this regard, AVA has been working with AWGs and other agencies to educate the public about responsible feeding practices. That said, we recognise that there are a small number of irresponsible feeders despite this increased engagement. So, for hotspots with persistent cases, we will ask our agencies to step up enforcement and we welcome Members' feedback on specific areas that need to be focused on. We believe that this combination of measures in both education and enforcement will help to reduce irresponsible feeding over time.
Sir, we are entering an exciting phase in the transformation of our Built Environment sector, which will lead to added growth and good jobs for Singaporeans. In this process, we will continue to future-proof our existing infrastructure to ensure that they remain safe and functional for the long term. Collectively, we will continue to shape our urban environment into one that affords new and exciting opportunities for Singaporeans in a vibrant and exciting future city.
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Chairman, let me begin by thanking Mr Darryl David and Mr Leon Perera for their comments on our local agricultural sector. Both Members spoke about its importance and how we should continue to nurture the growth of our agricultural sector. I agree with them. That is why AVA launched the Farm Transformation Map (FTM) in collaboration with the Industry Consultation Panel last year.
FTM provides a platform that brings together Government agencies, industry players and IHLs to transform our farming sector to become more resilient and productive. FTM remains a \"live document\" that is constantly updated based on evolving needs.
I am glad to report that we have made progress. For instance, AVA launched the new farmland tenders on 20-year leases last year. This is the first time that AVA is tendering out land using the Fixed Price tender method. This allows tenderers to compete on concept as opposed to price. Proposals will be evaluated based on production capability, track record, relevant experience, innovation and sustainability. Any farmer who is committed to being productive and has a good track record will stand a good chance of winning the tender.
Eden PurelyFresh farm is one such example. It started out growing vegetables using traditional farming methods. But in 2012, the owner Mr Chan Yow Tiong, decided that the farm needed a new approach in order to stay competitive. So, he brought in Mr Desmond Khoo, a technologically savvy 25-year-old entrepreneur with strong marketing skills. Mr Khoo also owned a few vegetable stalls in wet markets, as well as a fresh food import business. Through this complementary partnership, the farm began exploring innovative ways and technologies to increase their productivity. I am happy to note that Eden PurelyFresh farm won a plot of land in the last tender exercise with a proposal to grow vegetables using greenhouses with innovative monitoring systems. This shows that with the right partners and mindset, farmers can, indeed, take their businesses to the next level. In fact, this ongoing series of tenders will provide existing farmers with a clean slate of sorts to bring in new technology and transform the way they operate, without the encumbrances of previously existing operations.
There are also opportunities for farming in unconventional spaces. Rooftops are interesting possibilities in our highly urbanised environment. In 2014, we piloted Singapore's first rooftop farm, Comcrop, at SCAPE mall in Orchard Road. We saw its potential to scale up and facilitated conversations between Comcrop and JTC for a 35,000 square feet rooftop space on one of JTC's food factories in Woodlands. With space the size of seven basketball courts, Comcrop has now finalised plans to develop eight high-tech greenhouses with environmental controls. We will continue to push for such innovative projects to optimise our land use and to grow our urban farming movement.
But farm transformation can only succeed if the industry takes the lead to embrace innovation as well. So, in this regard, I am glad that a few members of AVA's Industry Consultation Panel came together last October to form the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation (SAFEF). SAFEF aims to represent, advance and promote the agro-food sector in Singapore for economic development and for export. As a ground-up initiative, SAFEF's founding members collectively contribute more than 50% of our locally grown produce and represent some of our most productive food farms. Having these progressive farmers band together to walk this journey with us makes me confident that we can raise the sector's productivity and improve our food security. I look forward to more farmers joining SAFEF and working closely with us. Indeed, we want to do even more together. We have worked closely with the industry and taken on board their feedback to review existing schemes and develop new initiatives to better support our farmers.
Let me highlight three key initiatives. First, we will further enhance the Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF). Many farmers have told us that they are happy to adopt more productive technology. However, new farming systems require heavy capital investments. Advanced greenhouse systems with environmental controls and automation, which can double their production, can cost around S$4 million. We appreciate that this poses challenges for many of our farms. So, to help farmers take this leap, we are increasing the APF Productivity Enhancement component's co-funding cap from $700,000 to $2 million for our strategic food farms. This is a significant enhancement.
Beyond the capital cost of implementation, farmers have told us that they need assistance in testing these new systems prior to a larger-scale deployment, to ensure that the technology can be adapted to our local conditions and produce. Several rounds of trials are usually necessary before farmers can commit to a particular technology or a system at a commercial scale. Hence, we will now introduce a new test-bedding component to APF to co-fund up to $500,000 for food farms that want to testbed new solutions.
Secondly, we will develop a Singaporean workforce for our farms of the future, in partnership with our IHLs. It will provide a talent pipeline to ensure our farms have skilled manpower to undertake transformation and innovation. For a start, Temasek Polytechnic will launch its new \"Earn and Learn\" work-study programme to attract ITE graduates into the aquaculture industry. Under this programme, participating farms can enjoy up to $15,000 worth of incentives for each graduate to defray their training costs. I am glad that six of our food fish farms have already pledged support for this programme. The graduates will start their 12-month attachment programmes from April this year. I hope that our farmers will, indeed, take this opportunity to create a positive learning experience for the graduates. This will help encourage our young talent not just to enter the industry, but also to stay and contribute more to the industry.
Third, we will do more to help increase demand for local produce. As our farmers become more productive, they will naturally need more consumers to support them. In this context, we organised the first SG Farmers' Market last September at myVillage mall in Serangoon Gardens. The event generated plenty of interests. More recently, we co-organised the second Farmers' Market last month with SAFEF. More than 25 local farmers participated and I am happy to say that most of them sold out all their products to the crowds that visited the Market. This was a very good response.
Five busloads of my own Yio Chu Kang residents visited the Market and snapped up the produce. I have heard good feedback from my residents. I also know that many of our grassroots organisations organised groups to support the event. For that, I want to thank everyone for your support. We will keep up the momentum and bring Farmers' Markets to our heartlands by August this year.
AVA will also partner SAFEF in developing a broader marketing plan for our local produce to raise our consumers' awareness. I urge consumers, especially Singaporeans, to support our fresh and nutritious local produce.
These efforts will strengthen the ecosystem and operating environment for our farms. But as the industry matures, we also need to start looking at the wider food value chain. We will continue to work towards creating an enabling environment to keep our local agricultural sector commercially viable and sustainable for the long term.
Let me move on to supporting our families in need. Everyone wants a safe haven to call home, but some may have lost their homes or have been displaced. Several Members have highlighted that this can be a difficult time for these families, and asked for assistance for single parents, families in hardship and our seniors.
Minister Lawrence Wong earlier announced that we will lift the divorce time bar. HDB may also offer rental housing to those in need and displaced by divorce. Some may have no family to turn to. They also cannot buy an HDB flat until the divorce is finalised and their housing eligibility and budget are clear. HDB does help them. We will deal with them on a more flexible case-by-case basis.
Miss Cheryl Chan spoke about the housing needs of widowed Non-Residents. Now, following the demise of their Singaporean spouse, they may retain the flat with a Singaporean family member. Where there are young children involved, HDB can allow the flat to be retained in trust for the children or let those with no other housing options rent a flat.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap asked for our housing policy to better cater to unmarried parents. We encourage those who can live with their family to do so, for mutual support with childcare. But each family has different needs and circumstances and, therefore, we will exercise flexibility where needed, to ensure that every child has the opportunity to grow up in a stable and secure environment.
As Mr Saktiandi Supaat highlighted, families in financial hardship may end up without a place to stay. And they may worry about being rejected from public rental because of past property ownership.
In fact, HDB takes a needs-based approach in assessing applications for public rental. HDB considers their income, whether family members can accommodate them, and the applicant’s ability to afford a flat. This takes into account also the sales proceeds from their previous property, if any. We have updated the eligibility criteria for public rental to make these considerations much clearer.
Several Members asked about how we help Singaporeans who do not meet the public rental eligibility criteria and how we cater to larger families with children. Let me emphasise again that this is why HDB’s needs-based approach is important. While the public rental income ceiling is one consideration, the cost of home ownership is another. Over the years, home ownership has stayed affordable, with more grant options and also higher grant quanta.
We want to encourage home ownership whenever possible. Those who can afford to buy a flat, especially first-timers with grants, are not allowed to enter into public rental, even if their income is within the ceiling.
On the other hand, others above the income ceiling may be accorded flexibility. For example, larger families have higher expenses, which we account for when assessing their housing options. In the last three years, we let more than 470 families with income above the income ceiling enter public rental.
Today, a family of three can already rent a 2-room flat if they earn an income. More than 90% of rental households have four or fewer registered occupants. For the larger families, most live in the larger flats.
I would like to assure Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Pritam Singh that the waiting time from application to key collection now averages three months, down from a peak of 21 months in 2008. This is the result of HDB ramping up supply over the last decade to about 60,000 rental flats today. We will continue to monitor the need to build more rental flats. Some wait time, however, is inevitable as HDB assesses each application and considers the household's preferred location. For those in urgent need, HDB may offer them priority allocation or interim rental.
For both rental and home ownership blocks, HDB and the Town Councils work together to ensure the cleanliness and maintenance of common spaces.
Let me now address Members’ suggestions for seniors. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested measures to help low-income seniors buy a flat, which we will study further. Today, seniors already have the option of short-lease 2-room flexi flats, which are highly affordable. Mr Dennis Tan's suggestions to reduce the singles premium are already in place. All price components for short-lease flats are adjusted downwards based on the lease chosen.
Now, with grants, first-timer seniors can buy a short-lease 2-room flexi flat for as little as $3,000. For second-timer seniors, we cap their resale levy at $30,000 and adjust it downwards based on the shorter lease. They can buy a 2-room flexi flat, on a 40-year lease, for as little as $58,000, including resale levy. This is just over half of what they would pay for the same flat on a 99-year lease.
We also thank Miss Cheryl Chan for her suggestions. While the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) actively encourages Singaporeans to make an LPA and to do so early, this is ultimately a personal decision. We also note her points on means-testing for seniors living in short-lease private properties. We will study these issues further with the relevant agencies.
Home ownership is a cornerstone of our nation and Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we are helping rental tenants with this. Members will know of the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, for second-timer rental families with young children. I am pleased to update that more than 130 of such families applied, and 61 have been emplaced. Thirty-one of them have booked a flat, of whom two will be collecting their keys this year.
One of our Fresh Start families is the Chng family, who booked a flat in Yishun last year. With the Fresh Start grant of $20,000 and his CPF savings, Mr Chng bought the flat without a loan. After collecting their keys, the family of four can receive up to $15,000 in grants over the next five years, which will grow their CPF savings.
For rental families who are ready to buy a flat, we want to help them do so sooner. Therefore, we will reduce the minimum stay requirement for Fresh Start, from two years currently, to one year. This means that eligible families may even be emplaced in the Fresh Start programme before the first rental tenancy renewal. Fresh Start is still a very new scheme. We will continue to consider further enhancements with the Advisory Committee. We encourage all rental families, including those who wish to purchase a larger flat, to discuss their home ownership aspirations with HDB.
On average, about 800 households move from rental into home ownership each year. Most of them are first-timers, helped by affordable flat prices and our generous housing grants. Rental families also get priority allocation under the Tenants’ Priority Scheme (TPS). After we expanded TPS to include second-timer families in 2016, 150 more families have benefited.
One of them is the Ng family. After entering rental, Mr Ng found steady employment and grew his income. The family of five has recently moved into their own 3-room flat in Punggol. I am happy for them and wish them every success.
I hope these data and examples will assure Members that we take a needs-based approach in providing assistance. We will continue studying how to support families on their home ownership journey, and I look forward to sharing more of our progress next year.
The Chairman: Clarification time. Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam: Mr Chairman, I thank the Ministers for their replies to our cuts. Just two clarifications. A number of Members have raised this point but pardon me if I missed the response amidst all the answers.
The first is with regard to rental and this is directed to the Senior Minister of State. Many of our rental precincts tend to be a little bit sparse in terms of facilities and design. A number of Members spoke about the impact the living environment has on families as well as their children. Is there more that the Ministry can do to provide better facilities for some of these existing precincts because the newer ones are seeing better facilities?
The second has to do with our older, single Singaporeans living in rental flats. I think three Members raised this point that co-living together can sometimes bring about a lot of stress because of a lack of privacy. Is the Ministry studying ways to provide a greater measure of privacy, especially for some of the older flats?
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Chairman, in response to the first question, rental flats are actually integrated into the overall housing precincts with other flat types, so they are not isolated. As a design, they are actually integrated with the other types of HDB flats of various sizes. As part of our Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) that is at the precinct level, the area will be enhanced. This includes rental flats in the area as well.
For the second question about creating more privacy to help those in the Joint Singles Scheme, co-staying within a 1-room flat, since 2012, our new building plan already put in some facilities, like partitioning, in the rental flats. And in the newer ones, I think beyond 2013 to 2014, for example, the partitions also include separate doors and a separate window so that there is a lot more privacy for these tenants co-sharing a unit. Hopefully, it will reduce any chances of friction and to give them a lot more privacy.
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: This query is to do with the spalling concrete issues, particularly post-HIP and whether HDB can consider taking on a larger share of the GRA.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. We addressed this in answer to a recent Parliamentary Question (PQ) as well. If there are issues concerning the quality of the work done by the consultant or the contractor brought in under GRA, you can certainly raise it and HDB will check. If it is, indeed, poor-quality work by the GRA contractor, then we will ask them to rectify.
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I have four clarifications. The first two are addressed to Minister Lawrence Wong. I am happy to hear about the increased number of NRPs. I would like to know whether there is an increase in the number of EUP projects. Secondly, is there a delay to HIP completion because I remember during Minister Mah Bow Tan's time as well as my favourite Minister Khaw Boon Wan's time, it is mentioned that it will be completed by 2021. But now I heard it is 2022. Is there a delay and, if there is, why is there a delay?
The next two questions are addressed to Minister Desmond Lee. For infrastructure projects that I mentioned where, when it comes to prequalification, the local contractors do not qualify. It is because they specify that they must have completed projects of certain size, very big size, so none of the local contractors qualify. So, I would like to ask the Minister, in situations like that, can BCA consider breaking down the project to smaller parcels so that the local contractors can have a share in it and to build up the track record. Otherwise, they can never have a track record and go overseas.
The second question is about the feeding of stray cats. Why is it that NEA said they cannot take action until it is left there for two hours or more? Why do we waste time and resources to monitor those two hours? The moment they walk away, it should be littering. Can the Ministry work with NEA to sort this out?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, just to reply to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's question, we will continue to roll out EUP as we had previously announced. Whether we can do more, it is something we would have to study. Again, it would be based on various considerations, including availability of funding.
On HIP, our commitment was to complete selection by the end of the year. That is consistent across various Ministers' speeches, I am sure. We have kept to that commitment; we will finish the selection by then. I have given an estimate on when these projects will be fully implemented because the implementation varies. It depends on so many different factors. Sometimes, you need more time for consultation and so on. So, that is an estimate. It may be 2021, it may be 2022. But that is really an implementation process rather than selection. The selection, we have committed to doing it this year, and we will do it by the end of the year.
The Chairman: Mr Desmond Lee, would you like to respond?
Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, may I respond to Er Dr Lee's two questions. The first is with regard to infrastructural projects where there are prequalification requirements. We have to strike a balance between ensuring that projects are carried out by builders who have capability and experience in doing so and, on the other hand, ensuring that the local contractors are given the opportunity to build track records. So, these are tensions we have to deal with every time when we call a tender, including a prequalification tender.
Certainly, we make sure that the requirements and the prequalification stage do not unfairly prejudice local firms. Because if you have never done a project before, you will never have the track record to other projects of a similar kind. This is limited, therefore, to complex projects, involving a lot of technical expertise, such as, as I have said earlier, MRT and the deep tunneling works. Having said that, even for MRT works, if you look at how LTA has done it, they parceled the projects in order to give local contractors an opportunity to learn how to do this.
For certain complex projects, you will find that our local contractors also partner foreign firms which have that technical expertise and, in that respect, a certain degree of tech transfer and learning comes about. Certainly, we have impressed upon our agencies that in setting these requirements, they have to be mindful that these are, indeed, necessary for the project and do not unfairly prejudice our local firms.
Finally, on cat feeding, we will certainly discuss this further with the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) and NEA. I believe that the Member would have done well to raise it at MEWR's COS. Working with the community and animal welfare groups, we have been able, in certain areas, to have a mix between enforcement and educating the feeders to ensure that the area is properly upkept.
The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon. Just three questions for him. I may have missed this, but could he clarify how much the Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) has been disbursed to date?
Secondly, could he provide an update on MND's efforts to mitigate the risk of plankton blooms, oil spills and so on which may affect fish farmers? What are they doing on water quality issues?
Thirdly, on the land tendering system, the Senior Minister of State talked about the changes to the system. Would the Ministry give some consideration to whether the tendering system, whether it is a fixed price tender or a more traditional tender, does that disadvantage startups and SMEs versus a large agri-business or corporation? We may have an interest to ensure that at least some of the land goes to startups or entrepreneurs. Because whether it is on track record or financial resources, large agri-business corporations may have an advantage. So, I just wanted to know the Senior Minister of State's thoughts on that going forward.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Chairman, the first question on how much of APF has been disbursed, unfortunately, I do not have the numbers on hand right now. But many of the farmers whom we had spoken to, as I said in my speech earlier, were keen to tap on the fund for technology to enhance their operations. Some of them may have held back because of the ongoing land tender. They wanted to wait for the certainty of lease. That is why the 20-year lease that we put out for these new plots of land are extremely helpful for them to see how they can best amortise their investments over a longer timeframe. Hopefully, the enhancement to the APF that we announced earlier, from $700,000 to $2 million, will allow them to more seriously invest in useful technologies spread over a 20-year timeframe, and take on really productive technologies to move the sector forward.
On the Member's second question on the aquaculture, fishery sector and what AVA and the Government are doing to help them mitigate the risk of plankton blooms, we know that there were a couple of serious plankton blooms that happened in the recent past. What AVA has done is that they have stepped up water quality monitoring, checking on the plankton count and also on the oxygenation level. They are also looking at water temperature. And when any of these parameters exceed a certain comfort level, AVA will send out SMSes to all the farmers on their mobile phones so that the farm operators or the owners will be alerted to a potential plankton bloom and take necessary precautions and remedial actions.
AVA has also put up some R&D grants a few years back and encouraged fish farmers to use some of these grants to testbed solutions that will help them develop systems that protect their fish stocks from harm. About three to five local fish farms have used the funds quite well to adopt and create new technologies, like the closed containment systems, for which they can rapidly deploy and protect their fish stock when a plankton bloom does occur.
Having said that, they are still a very small portion of all the fish farms out there in the coastal areas. And I think no one would be able to prevent a plankton bloom because these are exogenous factors relating to weather, relating to water conditions. What it means is that more of our fish farms ought to tap on the grants to develop systems that mitigate some of these risks that are quite unpredictable. We want to encourage more of our fish farmers to use this and to do so, but they have to make the move. We can provide the grants, we can provide the conditions, the expertise as well, but they must do so.
The third thing is on the fixed price tender. This is the first time we are doing the fixed price tender method. What it does is that we are no longer looking at bidding as a main determinant of who gets the plot of land. What this means is that any farm or any industry player who wants to put up a good proposal with productivity enhancement, with good technology adoption and, more importantly, also with a good track record of having been successful locally, producing in good quantity of local produce that is accepted by our market, will stand a better chance of winning this tender. So, it is based on a fixed price, the price of the fair value of land rather than a bidding war. What it means is that it will not disadvantage smaller players compared to a big player which has got deeper pockets. This is the intent of why we go on to a fixed price model for this particular tender exercise.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, three questions. But first, let me say a big \"thank you\" to my now favourite Minister – Minister Lawrence Wong. Can I confirm that the removal of the mutual consent requirement is with immediate effect? Second, does it apply to people who were divorced before the announcement today? And third, can I check with Minister Desmond Lee whether we can increase AVA's budget?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Thank you, Mr Louis Ng. The implementation details will be put up by HDB. The timelines and who will be eligible will be all made clear. So, I do not want to dwell on that now in terms of the time bar. But we do want to do it soon and we want to make sure that as many people will benefit from this lifting of the time bar as possible.
The third question is on AVA's resources, whether more will be given to AVA. We manage with the allocated resources that MND has. AVA is given a budget like all of the agencies under MND. We spoke earlier in the Ministry of Finance's (MOF's) COS, that every Ministry is striving to do more with less. So is MND. Just because I am the Second Minister for Finance does not mean that I get special pass. We do the same across the board. All Ministries are trying to manage with more limited resources and the same applies to us and to our agencies within MND's purview. Within the resources that we have, we encourage all agencies to do more. If there is a need, a new function or new value that is created, new projects that they deem are worthy, then there is a central pool within our Ministry which we can re-allocate from, so that these meritorious projects are funded. And that is what we will continue to do.
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Chairman, two questions. One, what is the status of the uncompleted units left behind by LUP, that is, those that cannot be completed, that means, those that cannot be done in the past, there are still some?
The second question is: what help can be given to those who are having financial difficulty who are renting a flat outside while waiting for their BTO flat? They cannot afford to pay the market rate. Hopefully, they can get it slightly cheaper through the HDB's Interim Housing scheme. Can that be looked into?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Chairman, on LUP, we gave an update not so long ago in a PQ. I do not have the information with me now but we gave an update on those that have already been implemented. For the outstanding ones, we have tried out a few options, they have not been effective. So, we will continue to study these options, whether there are newer technologies that will help. There are not that many blocks left and these are more difficult designs which are very hard for us to put in the list in a cost-effective manner. We have already said if there is anyone living in these sorts of blocks who need help, particularly with medical needs or mobility needs, then we can look at this and see how best to assist them.
On the second question, for those who have applied for a BTO flat and need rental, there is PPHS to help them. That provides them with rental in the interim while they wait for their new flats to be ready. And as the Member would recall, we reduced PPHS rental rates last year, and that would make it even more affordable.
The Chairman: I think we have time for two more clarifications. Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat: Chairman, with regard to the MPH design that I mentioned, will HDB be coming in to change the existing MPH design, the one at Hougang View Court and Hougang Meadow, where it is quite impossible to hold a decent funeral wake, especially on the last day, due to the passageway and due to the configuration of the MPH?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, again, it is a very local specific issue in this new BTO estate. I am not familiar with it, but I will ask HDB to look at that particular issue and see whether there is any way to address Mr Png's concerns.
As I have mentioned earlier, in the HDB team, there is an inhouse architecture design team, but they also work with private architects. They are continuously seeing how we can improve our designs. They may not always get it perfect because each time they do something in a particular new estate, there are site constraints and they have to work within all these constraints to put in place the BTO units as well as the amenities and facilities, sometimes in a quite constrained manner, especially if the site is not big enough. So, for this particular area, let me ask HDB to check and see if there is anything that can be done to address Mr Png's concerns.
The Chairman: I will allow the last question from Mr Yee Chia Hsing. He has been putting up his hand for a very long time already.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: On this issue of helping local companies win Government contracts when they do not have the track record, can the Ministry also look at the experience at the individual level? So, if a local company itself has not undertaken such a project, it can hire a professional engineer or chief engineer who has worked on such projects before to boost the track record.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for the suggestion. Certainly, in evaluating the tenders that are put in, we look not only at the firm's experience but, quite frequently, also look at the curricula vitae that are put in, and who will be working on those projects.
The Chairman: Mr Alex Yam, would you like to withdraw the amendment?
Mr Alex Yam: Mr Chairman, it leaves me to thank my three favourite Ministers and Senior Minister of State, Permanent Secretary Foong Pheng as well as all the colleagues at MND and the seven Statutory Boards for answering our 32 cuts. With that, Mr Chairman, I beg move to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $2,665,913,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $9,438,305,000 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 – Head W (Ministry of Transport)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, Singapore's entire transportation industry is undergoing rapid evolution and major changes. Technological disruptions and our changing economic and social needs are the main drivers of this.
New Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines and stations are being built in many places. Private hire cars and their distinct blue decals ply our roads. There is a proliferation of e-bikes, personal mobility devices (PMDs) and shared bicycles on our roads and pathways. Our once bustling port in Keppel has gone silent as the move to Tuas continues. Changi Airport has transformed from its humble beginnings to an international air travel hub of four terminals with a fifth one in the works.
The Ministry of Transport's (MOT's) budget estimation for 2018 has grown significantly from 2017 and is now comparable to traditionally big-ticket Ministries, such as Defence, Health and Education. And it is absolutely vital that we do so! Our transport industry is a key pillar and enabler of our economy. It not only connects us domestically within Singapore but also to the rest of the world.
Sir, I think Singaporeans appreciate, understand and accept the reasons and need for this evolution, growth and change in our transportation landscape. However, rapid evolution and major changes in transport have brought about its own set of challenges and issues.
Sir, I spoke at length at last year's Committee of Supply (COS) on Technology in Transport and, in particular, the advent of Private Hire Cars in the point-to-point transportation industry.
Private hire car companies leverage technology through their mobile apps to plug a service gap by providing a platform to efficiently match private hire car drivers and passengers directly in real time and space. Their model significantly shrinks transaction costs, giving passengers greater choices and value. However, this caused a disruption in the point-to-point transportation industry, leading to many taxi drivers, who are facing the pressures of increased competition, to worry and fear for their livelihoods.
Technology has also brought about new options for first- and last-mile travel between our homes and the various transport nodes. These include e-bikes and PMDs and also bike sharing systems.
I expressed reservations about the proliferation of e-bikes and PMDs during the Active Mobility Debate. My reservations are primarily on safety concerns for other road and pathway users as well as whether an adequate accident compensation scheme, like those for motor vehicles, can apply to e-bikes and PMDs. I continue to hold these views.
Bike sharing systems, while intuitively an efficient and convenient option for Singaporeans to use for short distance travel, face teething issues, such as abusive use and abandonment of the shared bikes. I shall not delve too much into these details as they have been well-documented in the mass media and many of my hon colleagues on both sides of the House will raise the same during this COS. An important point to note, however, is that new technologies will continue to disrupt and bring new options into the transportation industry. This is unlikely to abate. Further technology-driven changes in transport are already at our doorstep.
BlueSG, Singapore's first electric car sharing service, has been launched. Driverless, autonomous vehicles are being tested and piloted. Difficulties and problems arising from these will not be dissimilar or unique. We should expect them.
This does not mean that we ignore the difficulties and problems. They are real and should never be trivialised. Policy solutions need to be urgently found to solve or mitigate the issues. The question we should ask ourselves, Sir, is this. Should the Government hesitate to promote technological changes in transport and maintain the status quo because of these difficulties and problems? I think that the clear answer is a clear no. Stifling new innovative technology can only end in a negative outcome for the overall Singapore economy and for Singaporeans in general. We did not get where we are as a country by being fearful of the difficulties and problems that change will bring.
The same applies to our MRT system. It is perhaps an understatement to say that it has been a difficult year for our MRT system and for Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) in particular. There have been several avoidable lapses. Some minor, others of a serious nature that need to be addressed immediately. This is irrefutable and I do not think anyone disagrees. We need to improve and we will.
However, we are also driving a massive expansion of our MRT capacity. New lines are being progressively completed. The signalling system on old lines is being upgraded to increase efficiency and to cope with increased demand. This is in line with our population growth and new towns and housing estates being developed.
Such problems and difficulties arising from the evolution and changes in the transport industry is not unprecedented. It has happened many times in the past. We built our city from scratch. Public housing, town planning, port facilities, Changi Airport, roads and our first MRT system each presented similar difficulties and problems at its time. Each of these was meticulously planned, executed with vision and foresight by our founding leaders. They were policies implemented not only to satisfy the current requirements of its time but also to cater for the potential needs in the future. Changi Airport is a great example. The choice of location and the anticipation of our future needs set the foundations for the possibility of the state-of-the-art multi-terminal international airport that we have today. The same vision is being applied today in the relocation of our port facilities to Tuas, the massive expansion of our MRT lines and the entire array of car-lite initiatives to alter our transportation landscape in the future.
I am sure that we will continue to encounter further difficulties and problems as we move forward, just like what we encountered in the generation before us. We overcame them then, and I have full faith that Minister Khaw Boon Wan and our Transport team, together with the cohesive support of Singaporeans, will overcome them now.
Naturally, due to the various issues and recent lapses, some Singaporeans might have lost some faith in our transportation system. I think we can all empathise. It is understandable. But, as I have said earlier, we will improve and we will do better.
Transport is an indelible part of the everyday life of Singaporeans. On any given day, Singaporeans potentially utilise and come into contact with private hire cars, taxis, buses, the MRT, PMDs, e-bikes, cyclists on bikes and shared bikes. Any combination of the problems and difficulties faced is likely to cause unpleasant experiences for many people on a daily basis.
It is, therefore, important that the Government co-opt and communicate effectively with Singaporeans on the vision of our transportation landscape for the future. It is imperative that the Government and Singaporeans work together to leverage new technologies to their fullest and work hand in hand together to overcome any difficulties and problems we face as we continue to build a first-class transportation network for Singapore.
In conclusion, I invite the Minister to share with us the Ministry's current and future plans to holistically address the issues of and arising out of new technologies and the rapid changes affecting the transportation industry.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Chairman, Sir, the move in October last year to remove the car and motorcycle growth rate factor from the supply formula that has been in place since 1990 is a signature transport policy development of this Government.
The previous Transport Minister, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, had indicated that some growth in car numbers was required to meet the aspirational needs of car-owning Singaporeans. This position has now changed. In line with the Government’s move towards a car-lite Singapore and the newly implemented zero-growth car and motorcycle policy, these changes have also provided new opportunities to review fundamental assumptions, beliefs and policies towards vehicle ownership in Singapore.
Decades ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew revealed that Singapore’s water security made every other policy bend at the knee. Today, raising the total fertility rate (TFR) is important, if not critical for Singapore. To this end, is there scope to significantly tweak the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system to support families with two or more Singaporean children with rebates, for example? Smaller families have added mobility needs that are particularly acute when children are young, from birth to around 12-16 years of age. No doubt, there are some families with young children who may not need a car. But each family's circumstances can be very different.
The Government has tried to raise TFR by offering a slew of incentives. However, the zero car-growth policy which kicked in last month also provides opportunities to review the current COE system and to assess how it can be updated to support other national objectives, such as population replacement. Would the Ministry look into this prospect to support families with young children in particular?
In parallel, COE growth for motorcycles has also been frozen. However, many Singaporeans who own motorcycles are our low-income citizens, some of whom also use motorcycles for business, for example, couriers and delivery personnel. In light of a zero-growth policy for motorcycles as well, would the Ministry explore a cap on the maximum bidding price of a motorcycle COE, particularly if it is to be used to own a Class 2B motorcycle?
The Chairman: Mr Melvin Yong. You have six minutes, you have two cuts.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Chairman. First, I declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU).
The introduction of the Bus Contracting Model (BCM) has transformed our public bus industry and professionalised the job of bus captains. BCM has benefited bus captains tremendously, as they now earn salaries that are almost equal to the national median wage, and enjoy better benefits and working conditions. New bus depots and interchanges are now designed with the welfare of our bus captains and station staff in mind, and these are very much appreciated by our bus workers.
Mr Chairman, BCM did not just benefit bus captains. It has benefited commuters, too. The Public Transport Council's (PTC's) latest survey on commuter satisfaction has shown that a record 96.7% of commuters are happy with our public bus services. Under BCM, public bus operators are incentivised for good service reliability and reduced bus bunching. Can MOT provide an update on the performance of the respective public bus operators? Have they met their key performance indicators (KPIs) under BCM? Are there any plans by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to further tighten these KPIs? How much incentives have been paid out to the operators since the introduction of BCM?
I ask because, ultimately, the ones who are tasked to fulfil these KPIs are our bus captains. With BCM, our bus captains have had to adapt to new performance indicators, and this has added new pressures to an already challenging job. Fatigue can occur in all industries but numerous studies have focused its effects on shift workers and drivers, and our bus captains are both shift workers and drivers. The union hopes to have the support of LTA and our public bus operators to conduct a joint fatigue study of our bus captains. This would allow us to identify stress points and work together on early interventions.
Another key reason behind the high commuter satisfaction in bus services can be attributed to the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), which saw the injection of 1,000 new buses over the past two years. However, the existing bus depots and interchanges, especially the older ones, were not designed to accommodate the increased number of buses. Can MOT provide an update on the plans for new depots and interchanges, and if there are any plans to upgrade existing ones? I do hope that LTA will continue to work with the union to factor in worker-centric designs when building new bus facilities or upgrading the old ones.
To drive these new buses, the operators hired hundreds of new bus captains who are trained at the Singapore Bus Academy. Can MOT share the number of locals who have joined the industry as bus captains after the introduction of BCM?
Since its inception, the Academy’s focus has been on foundational courses for new bus captains. With the conclusion of BSEP, it is unlikely that we would see a large influx of new bus captains in the coming years. With the recent launch of the Land Transport Industry Transformation Map (ITM) and the risk of displacement from autonomous vehicles, it is timely that we now cast an eye to the future of the industry. Are there any plans by the Academy to develop new training programmes focused on upskilling existing bus captains? NTWU stands ready to work with our tripartite partners to co-develop programmes to future-proof our bus workers.
Our MRT system sees about 3.1 million rides a day, and maintaining a high standard of rail reliability is crucial to keep Singapore and Singaporeans moving. In the latest survey by PTC, customer satisfaction in overall public transport dipped for the first time in four years, mainly due to major MRT incidents in 2017. It is imperative that we continue to improve rail reliability to regain the public's trust in our rail system.
LTA had identified five major upgrading projects to overhaul our ageing MRT lines. These are multi-year projects which would extend to 2024. Can MOT provide an update on the respective major rail improvement projects?
Engineers from the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) and LTA have recently been seconded to SMRT to bolster its rail reliability regime. With the major rail improvement projects ongoing and the construction of new rail lines, such as the Thomson–East Coast Line, does MOT have plans to increase the number of rail engineers and maintenance staff to ensure rail reliability, both in the short and long term? Are there any plans to work with our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to ensure that we have enough rail engineers for the future?
To facilitate the rail upgrading works and allow for longer maintenance hours, we have implemented shortened train operating hours on stipulated days. This has benefited our rail engineers and maintenance staff. Can MOT provide an update on the effectiveness of the Early Closure and Late Opening (ECLO) on rail maintenance work? Would ECLO become a permanent feature in our rail operations moving forward? To accommodate ECLO with minimal disruption to the public transport services, public bus drivers have been redeployed to operate shuttle services during ECLO periods. Are there any plans to hire more bus drivers for such shuttle services?
The Chairman: Miss Cheng, two minutes for both your cuts.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): With the recent announcement of North East Line, Sengkang and Punggol Light Rail Transit (LRTs) to move on to the New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF) on 1 April 2018, LTA has successfully completed the transition of all MRT and LRT lines to NRFF.
Under NRFF, LTA will be the owner of all rail operating assets which allows LTA to build up, replace and upgrade the assets in a timely manner. In return, the rail operators can then focus on providing reliable and well-maintained rail services for commuters.
This framework has distinctly segregated the roles and responsibilities of the Government and the rail operators into (a) asset renewal and (b) operation and maintenance. However, given that there were past incidents of rail operators’ negligence in carrying out maintenance works, this leads to a question on whether there are existing provisions to ensure that rail operators will always remain committed in maintaining and investing in the rail network.
Under today's fare review framework, the allowable public transport fare adjustment is based on a formula that is pegged to macroeconomic factors, such as core Consumer Price Index (CPI), Wage Index and Energy Index, which track inflationary price changes.
For the last few years, we have seen significant expansion in the capacity of our public transport network through the introduction of more new buses and trains, bus services and rail lines. However, the additional operating costs were clearly not captured in our current fare formula setup. As a result, operating costs have increased drastically while fares have lagged behind for the last few years. This needs to be urgently addressed for a more sustainable public transport system and to prevent an increasing burden on taxpayers.
Given that operating costs have increased drastically, it is surprising to see PTC has granted three consecutive fare decreases. With regard to this, I would like to understand why fare decreases were granted, despite significant operating cost increases for the last three years?
The Chairman: Ms Low Yen Ling, nine minutes. Not present. Mr Ang Hin Kee.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, in 2013, the Land Transport Masterplan visualised a people-centred land transport system by 2030 and to have 75% of all peak-hour journeys to be made on public transport. Are we on track to meet this target as of 2017? Will the Ministry be able to give a breakdown of the mode share distribution of our train, bus, taxi and private hire cars in 2017?
What is the likely breakdown by the different public transportation mode come 2030? The Transport Minister also recently unveiled the Land Transport ITM where we will leverage emerging technologies to deliver a transport system that is safe, efficient, reliable and comfortable for commuters. One such technology is autonomous vehicle (AV) which has great potential to change the way we commute.
We started AV trials back in 2015. Is the Ministry able to assess what is the estimated share by AV, come 2030? With the implementation of AV and with a possible larger presence by 2030, what is the number of workers who may be potentially displaced? What are the targeted and transition measures to help those at risk?
I would like to declare my interest as the Advisor to the National Taxi Association (NTA) and the National Private Hire Vehicle Association (NPHVA).
Currently, we have approximately about 70,000 active drivers. To help them cope with potential disruption by AV, I have two suggestions.
Firstly, for those who have yet to enter this industry but are contemplating to do so, can we provide them with information about the career option and potential risks involved? This serves to help them make an informed decision on what to expect before joining this sector and not hastily change jobs to become a chauffeur-ride service driver.
Secondly, can we help existing drivers, especially the older ones, equip them with digital skills and learn to be tech-savvy, to help them to be more resourceful, and to do their job more efficiently?
I hope that LTA will work quickly with the industry partners, stakeholders and the union to cater enough lead time to help taxi and private hire drivers, who are likely to be impacted, to acquire new vocational skills to transit into a new sector or a new role within the land transport industry.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye: Mr Chairman, the transport landscape of today is one characterised by innovation and disruption. The recent years have seen the introduction of private hire vehicles and bicycle-sharing, both of which have disrupted the sector considerably. In the not-too-distant future, AV technology is set to do the same. In the past two years, LTA has initiated several AV trials with various companies. I would like to ask the Ministry to provide an update on the status of these trials.
The Ministry had also earlier announced plans to introduce the pilot deployment of autonomous buses in 2022 at Punggol, Tengah and Jurong Innovation District. How ready are we to implement AVs by 2022? Do we have the required infrastructure and the trained workforce? Will we have the necessary legislative framework to deal with an accident involving an AV?
Singapore is not alone in the \"race\" to develop and deploy AVs. Has the Ministry done any studies on the development and use of AVs in other countries? What are the experiences and challenges faced by cities which have similarly embarked on AVs?
With AVs, individuals who depend on driving as a livelihood will be affected. Bus captains and taxi drivers, including private hire vehicle drivers, will be displaced by driverless technology. Many of them do not have much working experience outside of driving. How can we ensure a proper and smooth transition for these drivers?
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast): Mr Chairman, Mercer Consulting, which ranked Singapore as having the Highest Quality of Living 2017 has this to say about Singapore: \"Singapore’s highly efficient and super-fast public transport is world famous. Residents use the MRT system. The MRT has 106 stations and is the second-oldest metro system in Southeast Asia\".
Train to a city is like an elevator to a skyscraper. It connects people and ideas. It joins discrete spaces and makes them valuable. Good transport infrastructure drives economic competitiveness.
International recognition notwithstanding, we cannot rest on our laurels. Our plans for the future are firmly in place: Thomson-East Coast Line, Circle Line 6 and North East Line extension. In addition, we are starting to plan for two more new rail lines, the Cross Island Line (CRL) and the Jurong Region Line (JRL).
Besides rail infrastructure, we have also improved bus connectivity. Earlier on, the Government has invested S$1.1billion in 1,000 new buses under BSEP. The Government is also building a $3.2 billion rail-and-bus depot at Tanah Merah to support three converging MRT lines: East-West, Downtown and Thomson-East Coast lines.
At the national level, we have big plans for Changi Airport Terminal 5 (T5) and the Mega Port in Tuas, which will cost tens of billions of dollars to complete.
With MOT investing heavily into these transport infrastructure, would the Ministry consider using investments to catalyse the industry development in transport technologies? Does the Ministry foresee our private and public sector building new industry capabilities in engineering, design and system integration along the way?
How does the Ministry plan to co-develop the various technologies with the private sector in support of Smart Mobility 2030 vision? How would the Ministry encourage Singapore entities to capture the intellectual property created, so that we can monetise them and invest in our future?
Does MOT see the need to champion research and development (R&D) activities in intelligent transport technology? Would the Ministry consider organising more conferences to showcase future transport technologies and advanced prototypes in support of a smarter transport workforce and population?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, recently, Changi Airport announced that it is expected to charge travellers and airlines more to fund the Changi East Project, which includes the new Terminal 5 (T5).
On 28 February, MOT and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) announced that the travellers flying out of Changi Airport will have to pay $13.30 more from 1 July due to an increase in passenger fees, and a new levy to fund the Changi East Project. A bulk of this – $10.80 – comes from the Airport Development Levy.
While the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has expressed its disagreement with the move, other airports, including Hong Kong, Dubai and Qatar have also done the same for expansion projects.
However, the Incheon Airport expansion was done without having to raise charges. Therefore, this raises the question of whether it is possible to optimise our expenditure on the new airport, while still keeping to the required international standards and expectations of Changi.
If we do have to increase passenger fees, can we not do it in a differentiated way whereby long-haul passengers end up paying more than regional passengers? That way, we do not have to lose our competitiveness as a regional hub.
The impending demise of the A380 fleet that has previously heralded the long-haul hub-and-spoke model of air travel is under threat. So, perhaps Changi Airport should focus more on consolidating its position as a regional hub.
The Changi East Project is expected to also require funding out of the Government Budget for several years. According to MOT and CAAS, the Government will cover the bulk of the project cost and has already contributed about $9 billion to it. Though the agencies have ruled out borrowing to finance the entire cost of the project, the Changi Airport Group (CAG) and airport users are expected to help shoulder the financial burden of the project so as to help balance the future burden on taxpayers.
With these updates, it will be useful for the Ministry to update us on the projected costs of the new T5 and how much more of these costs will come from Government coffers.
In addition, can the Ministry also update us on what alternative means of funding it plans to undertake? Will the Ministry consider raising funds or bonds in the private market? Why is the Government funding a major part of the expenditure, rather than leave it to Temasek Holdings to fund it from the private market?
In conclusion, I would like to ask the Government to consider all options so that we do not lose our competitiveness and also do not overly burden our taxpayers with this expansion.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Drones are popular for recreation and work purposes. The former provides an exciting opportunity for amateurs to take pictures from a bird's eye view while the latter provides new business opportunities. However, CAAS has imposed many rules and restrictions to make it quite impossible for drones to take off, thereby limiting many exciting opportunities. To this end, I am glad that MOT has designated one-north as the first drone estate.
I have two suggestions for MOT to consider. Firstly, can the boundary of the \"drone estate\" be extended to include the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Science Parks 1 and 2? This would encourage the use of drones for R&D in these tertiary and research institutions. Secondly, I hope that MOT could allow amateur drone enthusiasts to practise, play and experiment with their drones in the drone estate. This would help to promote interest in drones in a safe and controlled environment and, maybe one day, we can produce the \"Bill Gates of drones\".
Worldwide, people are coming up with new ways in which drones can be used. In the United Kingdom (UK), drones inspect bridges for safety, saving thousands of pounds. United Parcel Service (UPS) has started using drones for residential deliveries. British Telecoms (BT) has been experimenting with using drones to provide temporary Internet coverage to battlefields, disaster zones and hard-to-reach areas. Even drone taxis, which can carry passengers, are in the works.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Chairman, the advent of third-party ride booking apps has transformed our chauffeured ride services and the way many of us travel.
When I previously sought for LTA to regulate the third-party ride booking apps operators, LTA had selected a light-touch approach. As the popularity of private hire car services grows, they are fast becoming a major part of our public transport landscape. Recent alliances forged between the two key players, Grab and Uber, together with the taxi operators, have further established their market dominance.
I feel that it is timely for LTA to assess if there is a need to strengthen the regulatory controls and safeguard the interests of consumers and the drivers. Once an operator establishes a dominant market position, commuters may potentially have to bear with higher costs when they are left with limited choices. Drivers, on the other hand, may be compelled to follow any terms and conditions set by the operators or risk losing their livelihood.
Information, such as the safety and condition of their vehicle fleet, should also be submitted to LTA to enhance road worthiness and also to provide protection for the personal data of commuters and drivers. Whilst commuters now have more choices, the ride service industry may not be able to sustain and will become an issue if costs suddenly rise and there are too many drivers chasing after a finite number of commuters.
It may be worth considering limiting the number of private hire and taxi vehicles on the roads, as well as the number of new full-time drivers and new entrants. We must avoid an over-supply situation and a \"churn\" mentality among the operators if the numbers are not managed.
Currently, the taxi fleet is subjected to an annual growth rate if they meet the Taxi Availability indicators. Perhaps we can adopt a similar approach for private hire vehicles. At the end of the day, we want to encourage fair competition, and I urge that LTA review our regulatory approach so that drivers and commuters' interests may be safeguarded.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a shipping lawyer.
The Straits of Singapore is one of the busiest waterways in the world. Eighty-four thousand vessels passed through the Straits in 2016. Between 2007 and 2017, there had been an average of nine collisions, nine sinkings, 30 groundings and 71 contact incidents reported within our port limits and the Straits of Singapore per year. This translates to about one reported maritime casualty every three days. This figure does not include major incidents involving the loss of lives, pollution or navigational safety.
I am concerned whether the regularity of such incidents will lead some industry players to regard Singapore as an unsafe port, thereby affecting our port's reputation. Is the Government taking any measures to enhance safety and reduce the number of maritime casualties? To improve navigational safety for all vessels, I would like to propose three changes for the current Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in operation in the Singapore Strait.
One, ban crossings over the TSS for ships leaving or intending to enter the Port of Singapore from or to the Straits. Vessels should be required to make U-turns at either ends of the TSS at (a) South of East Johor Straits and (b) South of Tuas to access the desired directional lane of the TSS or to enter our port waters or anchorages. Without ships cutting across the two directional lanes of the TSS, traffic flow and safety will be enhanced.
Two, review the locations of pilot stations around our port waters or consider reducing its numbers to minimise the risk of ships drifting while lying in or near the TSS awaiting pilot boarding.
Three, require all ships to install and switch on their Automatic Identification System (AIS) while transiting the Singapore Strait. Such vessels should include wooden ships as well as naval and other government vessels, some of which may not currently be doing so.
AIS helps to identify a ship's call-sign, speed and course of vessel which will assist navigators in all ships in the vicinity to avoid collisions. Naval vessels often do not switch on their AIS. But in the interest of the safety of the many vessels passing through this busy waterway every day, there is a case to reconsider this.
Had the destroyer USS John S McCain switched on her AIS in August 2017 when she was near Pedra Banca, it might well have assisted the oil tanker, Alnic MC, to be better able to spot the McCain and take better measures to avoid collision or minimise the damage suffered, which included injuries and the loss of 10 lives.
The TSS is like a busy highway. If military vehicles using a busy highway are expected to follow all road safety rules, why should naval vessels be any different? Congestion at the TSS or anchorages increases the risks of casualties. The consequences of any oil pollution resulting from a maritime casualty can be even more damaging. We should strive to enhance the safety of the Straits and minimise the risks of any casualties.
We may have to initiate discussions at the International Maritime Organization level for some of the measures I have suggested. But it will be worthwhile doing this in the interest of safety of lives at sea and the reputation of our port.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Singapore's position as the leading port in the world has been constantly challenged by the rise of China and rapid developments in China. For instance, Shanghai port is far busier than Singapore's port. China is also making aggressive moves to build ports in Southeast Asia under its Belt and Road Initiative to reshape trade across Asia.
China is planning to build an 873-kilometre (km) high-speed rail linking China directly to Thailand's port, and plans are in the pipeline to build a 135-km Kra canal across southern Thailand which would allow ships to bypass the Strait of Malacca and Singapore.
In Malaysia, China is funding the construction of the East Coast Rail Line (ECRL) under its Belt and Road initiative. In addition, the Port Klang Authority has announced to build a S$64 billion giant port in Pulau Carey. ECRL will connect ports on the east and west coasts of Peninsular Malaysia and that may alter the current regional trade routes, which ply between the busy Straits of Malacca, passing by Singapore before reaching the South China Sea.
How is the Government working with PSA to fight such fierce competition fuelled by the Belt and Road initiative so that the new Tuas Mega Port will be our competitive advantage, rather than a white elephant? How could the Government consolidate our position, renew our strategies and innovate, taking advantage of digital and other emerging technologies? Are the existing maritime workers and companies prepared for possible technological disruption? How will the Government help local maritime companies adapt and take advantage of the digital transformation?
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, shared bicycles serve a useful function in providing the last-mile connection for residents to the nearest transport hub. Thus, a resident who does not live near a bus stop or an MRT station can now pick a bicycle near his home and ride to the nearest bus stop or MRT station and thereafter continue with his journey via public transport.
Unfortunately, despite the convenience, the lack of infrastructure planning by the Bicycle Sharing Operators (BSOs) has resulted in much public unhappiness about the bicycle sharing scheme. During my dialogues with residents of the private estates, I received so many complaints about bicycles that are parked in a haphazard manner and which obstruct others. Residents complain about bicycles which are left just outside their homes; bicycles left outside the gate of the condo; bicycles strewn in the middle of the footpath, left at HDB void decks, by the grass verge and so on. When I drive, I can even see bicycles lying by the slip road next to expressways and I wonder where was the cyclist going to in the middle of the expressway.
The general unhappiness seems to be the lack of proper parking places for the bicycles and the indiscriminate and inconsiderate dumping of bicycles. So, I am glad that LTA has taken the feedback of many Members of Parliament (MPs) at the last Sitting and introduced the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill yesterday.
I understand that the Bill will require BSOs to provide proper parking places for their bicycles. This is akin to bicycle rental stations in other countries where there is a fixed spot to rent a bicycle. Pending the Second Reading of the Bill, may I ask the Minister how LTA intends to ensure that there are adequate parking places for the shared bicycles? The current advantage of the current bicycle sharing scheme is the ability to find a bicycle almost anywhere, as compared to the systems in Europe, Taiwan and other countries where cyclists must walk to a bicycle rental station to rent a bicycle.
So, if a rider wishes to pick a bicycle from outside his home and ride to the nearest bus stop or MRT station, how will the BSOs provide adequate parking places? Will it be that they will provide a parking place for the bicycles next to the condo, next to the bus stop or next to the MRT station? If there are insufficient parking places, does this mean that the riders may still dump their bicycles all over the footpath or by the roadside? Just look at the photographs in The Straits Times today showing the bicycles strewn all over the place.
Who shall be responsible for the costs of providing the parking places? In my view, the responsibility of providing the parking places or, say, drawing yellow boxes, should lie with the BSOs, as they profit from the letting of bicycles. There is no compelling reason why the Government should be put to expense for providing parking places or for drawing yellow boxes for the parking of rented bicycles.
In the event that the bicycles are not parked within the designated parking places or the yellow boxes, BSOs should continue charging the hirer of the bicycle until the bicycle is parked within the designated parking place. This will ensure that the hirer has an incentive to park the bicycle properly. Further, if the hirer of the bicycle dumps the bicycle in an indiscriminate manner, or obstructing others, I would urge LTA to work with the BSOs to identify the hirer and thereafter prosecute the hirer for illegal dumping of bicycles.
Judging by the unhappiness raised by members of the public, I urge LTA to implement the new regulations to curb the illegal and inconsiderate parking of bicycles quickly. This is a time to show that the Government is responsive to feedback on a matter which has adversely affected many residents.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, we are moving rapidly towards a car-lite Singapore. It appears that in our rush to accommodate bicycles and PMDs, we have somewhat sacrificed the safety of pedestrians. I often hear feedback about cyclists committing hit-and-run. I have said it before and I will say it again – without licensing and plating of bikes and PMDs, we cannot identify the culprits. Glad to hear that the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) has recommended registration for e-scooters. I hope LTA adopts this promptly and considers widening registration to all motorised PMDs, except wheelchairs. Enforcement also needs to be stepped up.
Besides the mindset of our bicycle and PMD users, infrastructure plays a role. When I went to Copenhagen, I saw dedicated cycling lanes parallel to the roads. They are often on both sides of the road, so cyclists only move in one direction following the flow of traffic. The Copenhagen way also enables cyclists to go quite fast, making cycling a more attractive option. There are proper stop signs and zebra crossings where the cycling lane intersects with footpaths. And they follow the rules.
In Singapore, we seem very resistant to provide such crossings. I have been asking for such a crossing at the exit of Naval Base Primary School where residents have often expressed the concern of their children the moment they step out of the school gate. So far, I have not been successful. I do not know why.
We have on-road cycling lanes on Tanah Merah Coast Road. Can the Minister share the results from such infrastructure and will more be built? If not, then in many places, pavements need to be widened and segmented. Is there a plan to do this fast?
Another area we should look into quickly and, I stress, quickly, is the eyesore caused by bike-sharing schemes. The bikes are indiscriminately strewn just about anywhere. I feel that a penalty should be imposed on the users and bike companies for such acts. I have been told that a blind resident fell because his white cane got entangled among the pile of bicycles! You can imagine how painful it is! In areas where these bikes cause congestion like near MRT stations, perhaps a mechanised parking system for bikes should be built and paid for by the bike companies.
A word of caution, some bike-sharing companies have already gone bust overseas, leaving their bikes all over the place. Given that most of these companies are headquartered overseas, perhaps LTA should impose a deposit on them, to manage such a scenario without using too much of public funds. These bike companies should be licensed and all these undesirable outcomes should be addressed before licences are issued.
I have even heard of people giving up their daily walks because they are scared of bikes and PMDs. For these pedestrians, the dream of a car-lite Singapore has become a nightmare. I hope we get our infrastructure, regulations and mindsets right, so that a car-lite Singapore will be realised, not as a nightmare, but as a beautiful dream.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Chairman, Sir, with better free access and more linkways built, we find more PMDs and bicycles being used on our pedestrian walkways. However, the width of these walkways has now been increased and pedestrians are annoyed at the inconsiderate use of bicycles or PMDs which speed past them or ring the bells at them when overtaking, as Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has just mentioned earlier. There have also been many instances where these have resulted in close brushes or accidental hits on pedestrians as they try to speed past the morning or evening crowd.
While LTA has promoted the use of PMDs and bicycles in our towns, the expansion of walkways and bicycle-ready pathways has not progressed as quickly. When we have them, we must make the bicycles and PMDs use them and restrict the use of normal pedestrian walkways when the alternative is available.
Some residents have also expressed concern that the speed limit on PMDs may be fine for an open walkway, but perhaps it is less safe for pedestrians on a narrow footpath with people trying to get to and from work. Furthermore, the emergence of bicycle-sharing apps has compounded the issue of indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles as many choose to leave bicycles along walkways, shelters and almost anywhere near residential estates and town centres.
Sir, I welcome the introduction of the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill introduced yesterday which I hope will help address indiscriminate parking issues under the new licensing regime which will also control fleet sizes of shared bicycle providers and implement a temporary ban on recalcitrant users who parked indiscriminately. I support LTA's car-lite strategy, but it needs to do more to pre-empt issues by these alternative modes of transportation.
In addition, I would also say that infrastructure needs to be a priority, especially for heavily utilised pedestrian routes in our estates. Can the Ministry share with us its strategy to better balance pedestrians, cyclists and PMD user experience? Would LTA rework the specifications of all major pedestrian walkways to enable special lanes for PMDs and bicycles? In addition, can LTA share the effectiveness of its education and enforcement efforts on inconsiderate users and accidents involving PMDs and bicycles with pedestrians? As we move towards a car-lite society, it is important that we also pay attention to the alternative modes of transport and how they can support this vision.
Mr Chairman, as I have some time left, I would like to ask, on behalf of my Group Representation Constituency (GRC) colleagues Ms Low Yen Ling and residents of Gombak, on whether the Ministry has any positive update on whether the opening of Hume MRT station will be a reality any time soon. It has been the long-standing wish of residents in Hume and, on behalf of the GRC, they also hope that the Ministry will consider opening the station.
The Chairman: Mr Png Eng Huat, you can take your three cuts.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, bike sharing is not a new concept, but the advent of mobile technologies has allowed bike sharing companies to go dockless. What is really new about dockless bike sharing is the proliferation of indiscriminate bike parking. These shared bicycles are usually parked haphazardly at void decks, footpaths, lift lobbies, stairways, and I saw two of them parked in the middle of Nicoll Highway yesterday.
The amount of fines collected from BSOs for not clearing their illegally parked bicycles and the number of bicycles impounded by LTA, as reported in the news last month, is probably just the tip of the iceberg, due to the lack of resources to monitor the indiscriminate parking and to enforce the fine.
Last October, LTA had initiated an agreement with the bike sharing companies to implement geofencing by the end of 2017 to rein in indiscriminate parking by errant riders. I am not sure if geofencing for bike sharing is in operation already but, from the looks of it, I doubt it is.
Geofencing will not solve the problem of indiscriminate bike parking. It just confines the problem to a designated area, and the boundary is not even accurate. Geofencing may just turn into geo-dumping over time as the designated area would be flooded with shared bikes, causing severe congestion and safety concerns, especially for elderly residents.
Adding a quick response (QR) code to complement geofencing is an improvement, but such codes can be easily copied with a camera and printer, and you will have a list of parking stations to scan on demand to end your trip even if you are not at the designated parking lot. If the authorities are going to such lengths to implement QR code geofencing to ensure bicycles are properly parked within a designated area, why not just implement a docking station? A quick search on the Internet for bike sharing services around the world shows that most existing operations in big cities like New York, Melbourne and Paris all come with docking stations.
While I do hope the proposed licensing framework would help to rein in indiscriminate bike parking, I am concerned that geo-dumping would be the next big headache for bike sharing services. Sir, it was reported that there are about 100,000 dockless shared bicycles out there. How many QR code geofencing stations will be required to effectively tackle the indiscriminate parking problem? I hope LTA can share more on this because dockless bike sharing has turned Singapore into one giant bicycle parking lot.
Sir, the proliferation of PMDs and Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs) in our estates and footpaths is phenomenal. PMDs allow users, usually with no mobility issues, to zip from one place to another faster. Some owners of PMDs even use them to piggyback their children from schools, bus stops or train stations. PMDs basically save time for the users.
PMAs, on the other hand, allow our elderly Singaporeans to get out of their homes to eat, shop or just watch the world go by. It allows them to continue to do the simple activities of community living, without which, they may be confined to their homes. In short, PMAs allow our elderly citizens with mobility issues a better quality of life.
I am seeing more PMAs in my estate now. I am happy to see these elderly residents living independent lives. However, moving about in a PMA can be challenging on existing footpaths. PMAs come in all shapes and sizes. All of them are larger than PMDs and they move a lot slower. The footpaths along the roads are certainly not PMA-friendly. I had seen some PMAs moving precariously close to the edge of some busy footpaths and I was worried they may tip over.
The footpaths from the nearest bus stops, train stations, hawker centres, suburban malls, neighbourhood centres and so on, to the nearest Housing and Development Board (HDB) block or private estate need to be widened soon to accommodate these mobility aids. I also urge LTA to do another round of initiatives to mop up those remaining spots with barriers so that PMA users can have a smoother connection on our footpaths.
Last, I also hope LTA could initiate a whole-of-Government approach to accommodate PMAs in our society which, in my view, have given our elderly a fresh breath of life in their sunset years.
Sir, I have spoken about making signalised junctions safer in the COS debate in 2013 and again in 2015. Traffic lights are supposed to give all road users a sense of order, safety and security. Our children are taught from young by their parents and in schools to wait for the green-man signal to come on before they can cross the road. When the lights are in your favour, it must surely mean it is safe to cross. But as it turns out, this is not a given, depending on the traffic junctions you are at.
This presumption of safety is lost when signalised junctions are programmed with shared green time. Such junctions allow vehicles to turn when there are no pedestrians crossing during the green-man phase. This, according to the Minister, is to ensure smoother traffic flow on our roads.
According to the Ministry, there were, on average, about three fatal accidents and 40 injury accidents per year at signalised junctions involving a pedestrian or cyclist and vehicles turning right during the green-man phase. Although the Ministry did not have the breakdown of whether these accidents happened at what type of junctions, 90% of our signalised junctions are programmed with shared green time. I am sure there are many unreported near misses as well.
Last October, LTA was reported to be taking steps to make such signalised junctions safer after some pedestrians were involved in vehicles knocking down the pedestrians who had the right of way came to light. There were two cases cited in the news, one of which was fatal. It was reported that the fatal accident happened at a signalised junction with shared green time.
Not only are pedestrians not protected at such junctions, they may also be assigned 15% blame, as a Court of Appeal ruling in 2016 had shown, even though the lights were in their favour.
Sir, if the green-man signal at such junctions cannot guarantee safety for pedestrians, then the anomaly must be resolved. The President of the Automobile Association of Singapore was quoted to have said, “Overseas researchers have shown that pedestrians are better protected with the implementation of split-phase lights. Statistics have also shown that there is a larger decline in pedestrian incidents as well as multi-vehicle crashes when green-man time is not shared”.
I truly believe that ensuring a smoother flow of traffic on our roads will not cultivate a road safety culture. Enforcing a little patience by doing away with shared green time at signalised junctions, on the other hand, will ensure road safety by default.
The Chairman: Miss Cheng, you can do your two cuts.
Miss Cheng Li Hui: It has been more than a year since bike-sharing firms started. Over the year, we have seen many cases of shared bikes indiscriminately parked. However, with the setting up of more designated bike parking zones near bus stops and drop-off points, this has improved. In anticipation of more bike-sharing companies setting up here and a larger bike fleet size from existing incumbents, it leads to a concern whether there will be sufficient designated bike parking places. Failure to provide a sufficient number of designated bike parking zones could worsen the situation. To address this concern of a large influx in bikes but inadequate parking zones, the authorities can consider imposing a cap on the number of bikes allowed under each bike-sharing firm.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last month, the AMAP appointed by the Government suggested that electronic scooters be registered with LTA, just like electronic bicycles.
Recently, there has been an increase in the number of accidents allegedly involving PMDs. Between January and September last year, there were 110 such accidents, with an average of three accidents occurring every week.
PMDs, especially e-scooters, make it convenient for users to commute. However, when PMDs travel at high speeds, they pose dangers to pedestrians. Some PMD users are also reckless and have little regard for the safety of other road users.
Nevertheless, I believe that most PMD users are responsible. They are, therefore, concerned that the registration process would be inconvenient and incur extra costs for them. I would like to ask the Minister to address the concerns of this group of PMD users.
The Chairman: Mr Ang Wei Neng, you can do both your cuts.
Mr Ang Wei Neng: Chairman, it is quite rare that both sides of the House are united on one issue. That is, speak up against the negative externalities of bike-sharing schemes and the use of PMDs. And I want to add another step on this issue as well. During my house visits, a sizeable number of residents have related horrific experiences with irresponsible PMD users. There were many near-misses and, in some cases, there were injuries and the injuries were quite serious. In one case, one of my residents' toes were fractured by a passing e-scooter in the Chinese Garden. The user of the e-scooter was in uniform and was wearing a big bag belonging to a food delivery company. There were closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in the area and this resident made a complaint to the company that provides food delivery, made a Police report and also requested the National Parks Board (NParks) for the CCTV images. But all his requests were ignored.
Sir, I do not think this is an isolated case. This could be the tip of the iceberg. As we promote the use of PMDs, we can expect more of such incidents and I would like to urge MOT to work with the Police and related agencies to devise a framework to better regulate the use of PMDs and consider setting up a dedicated unit to prosecute irresponsible PMD users. I think the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill which also seeks to regulate e-scooters is a step in the right direction.
Sheltered walkways linking neighbourhoods to MRT stations and other transport nodes are well-received by the residents. More are walking to the MRT station instead of taking shuttle service or feeder buses. However, many residents feel that certain shelters built by LTA are under-utilised. On the contrary, other paths leading to transport nodes are well-used by residents but do not have shelter despite repeated requests by the residents. LTA's reluctance to build the shelter is because it is slightly out of scope based on its internal guidelines.
Another example of inflexibility is with regard to the choice of passenger overhead bridges (POBs) where LTA chooses to build a passenger lift. In Jurong, LTA has decided to build a lift at the POB nearest to the Chinese Garden MRT station, although that bridge itself is under-utilised as compared to another POB that is slightly further away. The bridge that is further away is very well-utilised because it is connected to a town centre.
For this case, I hope LTA could consider installing a lift at the POB that is more popular with the residents. More importantly, I hope LTA can make an effort to consult more with the residents and the community before deciding which POB to build the lift. And when it adds more sheltered walkways, they should also consult the residents more.
The Chairman: Mr Yee Chia Hsing, take both your cuts together.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, many residents have complained to me that users of bike-sharing services were parking their bicycles in an indiscriminate manner after using them.
Sir, as fellow Members have voiced similar concerns and it is past 7.30 pm, I will not repeat what has already been said. I would like to ask MOT what is being done to address the disamenities caused by these users of bike-sharing services.
Chairman, I have received a lot of feedback both from residents and personal friends that they know of people who have been knocked down by e-scooter users on pedestrian footpaths. Usually such e-scooter users are young and do not stop to render any assistance and just speed off.
I would like to know if the Ministry is aware of this problem and how it intends to address it. In particular, may I suggest that the current speed limit of 25 km per hour (km/h) for e-scooters approved for import be further reduced to 20 km/h to reduce the potential of serious injury?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Mr Chairman, the introduction of the Active Mobility Bill last year brought new laws over the use of PMDs and electric bicycles. However, inconsiderate or reckless usage of e-scooters and its illegal use on roads have continued. Many elderly folks are terrified of sharing walkways with them.
Although electric bikes are now required to be registered and only pre-approved models are allowed to be used and riders are required to wear helmets, we still see illegal or unregistered e-bikes on the road and e-bike riders not using helmets.
Enforcement efforts by the authorities were stepped up last year. We read of publicity of e-scooters being impounded for illegal use on roads or illegal e-bikes being impounded. We see many banners hung on streetlamps highlighting the PMD ban on roads.
To be fair, the increase in enforcement against errant e-scooter users is a step in the right direction. If insufficient efforts are rendered at this stage, we will have a long-term problem of illegal, reckless and inconsiderate usage. A poor riding culture will perpetuate.
Our cycling culture is a case in point. In my speech during the Second Reading of the Active Mobility Bill, I highlighted the legacy of the lack of enforcement against errant cyclists. Today, we can still see cyclists riding against the traffic or not stopping at red lights on a daily basis. Inconsistent enforcement between errant cyclists and PMD users raises questions of selective enforcement.
Timely and consistent enforcement is important as it sets the boundaries for human behaviour. But law alone is insufficient. We need to create the right culture. In developed countries like the Netherlands and the UK, cyclists comply with cycling rules not because they fear a fine but they grew up learning how to put on the right behaviour.
We have a problem with our riding culture here, first with cycling, then with e-bikes and now with PMDs. The lack of political will for enforcement and to create a right cycling culture in our earlier years has made it much harder for us now. In the past year, the problem has been compounded by the popularity of bike sharing.
Enforcement alone without education is insufficient to change our riding culture. I support our current public education efforts. But we can do more, as much of the existing efforts are voluntary, not prescriptive, and their reach is limited even if targeted at certain classes of cyclists.
I shared with this House previously that as a university student in England, I cycled on a pavement once and got roundly told off by an old lady. As a pedestrian, the old lady was familiar with the rules even if she might not be a cyclist, and she spoke up.
I urge the Government to try and reset our riding culture by having a structured compulsory course in our schools for the legal, safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs. The next generation will grow up knowing what is right and acceptable. The course should cover all basic rules and etiquette governing the use of bicycles, electric bikes and PMDs. Basic road traffic rules applicable to cyclists, PMD users and pedestrians should also be taught.
This course can be split up over different age groups over time. For example, start with an introductory course for preschoolers and have subsequent courses in early and late primary school levels. If a young child can learn to keep left on a skate scooter while riding along the footpath in the park or slow down and give way to an elderly auntie passing by, over time, it will help to engender the right cycling culture in the long run.
Meantime, please step up on our existing public education efforts for all age groups with more banners, posters, exhibitions or even a campaign on social media and television. Do this for all types, not just PMDs. When everyone knows the rights and wrongs, more people will refrain from wrongful or inconsiderate usage.
AMAP has recommended the registration of e-scooters. It may help to identify users and facilitate enforcement and, hence, better accountability. However, it alone will not resolve existing problems with our riding culture.
In conclusion, may I implore the Government to work towards creating a culture of legal, safe and considerate use of bicycles and PMDs?
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, clear and strict rules govern driving and more can be done to improve driving behaviour. At the same time, we should reconsider the regulations guiding the use of bicycles and PMDs as well as the enforcement of those rules. In particular, Sir, we should examine if the interaction of cyclists and PMD users with other road users is a cause for concern.
I have witnessed groups of cyclists cycling on pavements as well as against the flow of traffic, sometimes alternating between the two. I have also seen PMD users on roads regularly. Drivers often give way to these two groups of users. However, pedestrians often have to avoid them. Often, cyclists and PMD users appear very suddenly and seem incapable or unwilling to brake in time.
Some of our pavements are clearly unsuitable for PMD and cyclist use. When such users navigate narrow pathways, they often switch between the road and pavement. When users of bicycles and PMDs do not appear to follow traffic rules for either vehicles or pedestrians and switch between the roads and pavements at high speed, other road users are at least inconvenienced, at worst endangered.
I would like to ask the following questions. What are the definitions of dangerous use of bicycles and PMDs that the Ministry bases enforcement on? Are there rules that determine whether a cyclist or PMD rider who switches from roads to pedestrian walk has right of way against pedestrians? What are the rules or guidelines for groups of riders on pedestrian walkways or pavements? What are the rules governing use of electronic devices by cyclists and PMD riders? Finally, I have begun to see adults ferrying young children on PMDs these days, and I am wondering whether the Ministry takes account of such developing trends rather than allow them to occur.
I urge the Ministry to explore forward-looking approaches to addressing what is the appropriate way to share use of our public spaces.
The move towards to a car-lite society cannot be used to justify indiscriminate use of alternatives. If there are clearer rules for responsible cycling and use of PMDs, it will encourage healthier lifestyles by everyone, including those who do not cycle and use PMDs but still prefer to have a safe stroll on our pedestrian walkways. We are all road users, pedestrians or cyclists. Why is the minority allowed to define the low standards of public behaviour we witness so regularly these days?
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Chairman, in 2016, AMAP had recommended rules and a code of conduct for cyclists and PMD users. Since then, usage of active mobility devices has taken off and we have seen an increasing incidence of accidents involving PMDs and pedestrians. Will AMAP be reviewing its earlier recommendations in order to tighten the approach towards active mobility device usage? If so, when will the review be completed? Apart from rules and code of conduct, will AMAP also be reviewing the insurance and compensation framework for active mobility device usage?
One possibility is to mandate the purchase of third-party liability insurance similar to that for all motor vehicles in order to compensate injured pedestrians in case of an accident. Another possibility is to set up a fund similar to that set up by the Motor Insurers Bureau for accident victims who are not protected by third-party insurance.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Chairman, Sir, I join many of my colleagues who spoke before me about the proliferation of bicycles and PMDs. I am actually standing here to speak even though I have lost my voice because I promised my residents that I will speak for them. Many important points have already been highlighted by my colleagues, including the nightmare that hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah shared. My residents, too, have nightmares with cyclists and PMDs. So, I would not repeat the long list of things that I intend to speak on. Instead, I would like to highlight to the Minister that the law and order for the co-habitation of PMD riders and cyclists with pedestrians and other road users have not kept up. I am very happy to see the announcement of the licensing regime for dockless shared bicycles under the Parking Places Act yesterday.
But what other measures can the Government take to facilitate a safer and more pleasant shared use of our public spaces between pedestrians and riders? And how can errant cyclists and PMD riders be dealt with promptly?
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Chairman, by 2030, the total number of elderly Singaporeans will increase to 900,000. The Silver Zone programme, started in 2014, is one good initiative. It involves introducing traffic calming measures and safety features to make the roads safer for senior citizens.
There will be 50 silver zones come 2023. To date, eight silver zones spread across the island have been completed. I would like to enquire if the programme has been effective in reducing the number of accidents involving senior citizens. Can we speed up the projects' implementation so that more mature estates with a large number of elderly residents, such as Ang Mo Kio Town, can have safer roads for senior users? I have two hawker centres and markets in Cheng San Seletar and many elderly residents will benefit from early adoption of the silver zone in this area.
","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 Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mr Chairman, I cannot wait to reply to all the cuts. I shall beg to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.
The Chairman: The question is, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.\" – [Mr Khaw Boon Wan.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Khaw Boon Wan:\tMr Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2018/2019 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Deputy 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.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.45 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1912,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chee Hong Tat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180306/vernacular-Chee Hong Tat(1).pdf","fileName":"Chee Hong Tat(1).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1913,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180306/vernacular-Masagos Zulkifli B M M(2).pdf","fileName":"Masagos Zulkifli B M M(2).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1914,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180306/vernacular-Amy Khor Lean Suan(3).pdf","fileName":"Amy Khor Lean Suan(3).pdf"},{"vernacularID":1915,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Miss Cheng Li Hui","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180306/vernacular-Cheng Li Hui(4).pdf","fileName":"Cheng Li Hui(4).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}