1 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Defence (a) so far, how many National Servicemen who were injured during NS have appealed to the Ministry to allow them to continue their insurance in addition to what has been granted under MediShield Life; and (b) what assistance and assurance have been given to them.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How) (for the Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, over the past five years, MINDEF has received two requests from NSmen for assistance to bridge the gap between their private medical insurance coverage and MINDEF's medical coverage for service-related injuries.
MINDEF provides full medical coverage for service-related injuries by paying for all necessary medical expenses incurred by the NSman at Government restructured hospitals, clinics and community hospitals, for as long as required. This includes the costs of medical supplies and equipment, as well as specialist care. Should the service-related injury be aggravated, or if there are new medical conditions arising from the injury, MINDEF will expand the scope of medical coverage to cover those conditions. MINDEF will also provide higher compensation amounts if there is an increase in the degree of permanent disability. In addition, financial assistance may be provided to injured NSmen through MINDEF's welfare schemes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Night-time Childcare Centres for Low-income Parents who Work Night Shifts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry has plans to provide or to encourage the provision of night-time childcare beyond the three night-care centers run by the Morning Star charity, for low-income parents who have to work night shifts.
\tThe Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, to cater to the needs of working parents, childcare centres are required to operate full-day services from 7.00 am to 7.00 pm on weekdays, and from 7.00 am to 2.00 pm on Saturdays. Childcare centres have the discretion to extend their services beyond standard operating hours, taking into consideration demand and resources. Currently, around 50 childcare centres operate beyond 7.00 pm on weekdays.
The current arrangement meets the needs of most parents. But for those working shifts or on weekends, many of them arrange for other care-givers such as grandparents and relatives to help out. However, some families may face difficulties in making alternate care-giving arrangements. We will assess the need and demand for night-time childcare and the possibility of offering such programmes, particularly in areas where low-income families reside.
The Member may also have heard us describe in the course of the announcing the roll-out of ComLink in the four areas where rental flats are, as a pilot. That will also look into programming that meets the needs of the residents in rental housing, who are mostly low-income households. These include certain kinds of care-giving that they may require. So, I think we look at requirements based on locality as well.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for the reply. So, is it a confirmation that we are looking into providing more night-time childcare services in certain areas? Because I see that on the ground, that some of the parents who have to work the night shift, they leave their children at home, in fear of their safety and then, they go and work, especially for a lot of the single parents. So, I am just wondering whether we can help provide the night-time childcare in cases like these.
\tMr Desmond Lee: There are Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) that are running programmes as pilots to provide night care-giving support. We will look at the experience and study this further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Foreign Construction Worker Directory System to Other Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider (i) expanding the Foreign Construction Worker Directory (FCWD) System to other sectors such as the cleaning sector and (ii) incorporating the FCWD portal on mobile applications targeted at foreign workers.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Speaker, the Foreign Construction Worker Directory System (FCWDS) was set up in 2015 by the Singapore Contractors Association Limited (SCAL) to facilitate job matching between employers and foreign workers in the Construction sector. The Construction industry finds it useful to develop the FCWDS to flexibly redeploy workers across companies given that the work is cyclical and mainly project-based.
We have not come across another industry which has expressed interest to set up a similar directory.
The FCWDS has been incorporated into a third-party mobile app owned by the private sector, called the FWapp, to improve its accessibility to foreign construction workers.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I was just wondering whether we can extend this to the cleaning sector. Because I think the cleaning sector, like the construction sector, is quite cyclical as well. A lot of the contracts are two years. So, a lot of these cleaners who come to Singapore to work and gain their experience, sometimes, go back within the two years. I think it will benefit both the cleaners and the companies to hire the skilled workers in Singapore.
The second question I would like to ask is whether we can then incentivise the hiring of the existing workers who are in Singapore. This directory will be more effective if we can incentivise, in a sense, maybe provide a reduced foreign worker levy if they hire workers already in Singapore.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his clarification. Firstly, when we look at this, it is really to strike a balance and giving employers certainty, especially in the Services sector compared to Construction which is very project-based. Services tend to be for longer periods, for example, as mentioned, it could be two years; it depends on the length of the contract. There is a difference there. The second difference is that when you look at the Construction, for example, SCAL as an industry association, championed it and therefore, the database was set up and agreed upon by employers. We have not received requests from other industry associations. Certainly, for the cleaning sector, if the industry association is prepared to do so, we can take a look.
Specific to cases, for example, in Town Councils, where contracts change and cleaning contractors have to move around, we have facilitated some of the changed between employers. We have facilitated some of these to ensure that cleaning service is not disrupted. That is something we are prepared to do, but not as a broad-based policy, nation-wide.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimate of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 19 of 2019","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [6th 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 T (Ministry of National Development)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [6 March 2019], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Estimates be reduced by $100\". – [Mr Alex Yam Ziming]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking all Members who have spoken in support of the vulnerable, the less advantaged and the lower income. They are our fellow citizens, and Singapore is a shared home where we all belong.
Several Members have asked how we can better help tenants to have homes of their own. I would first like to share that the number of public rental households who moved into home ownership flats has increased steadily. The number almost doubled over the past five years, from about 700 in 2014 to about 1,300 last year. We are committed to helping more tenants move into home ownership.
Members have asked whether we are reviewing Fresh Start. I am pleased to announce some enhancements. First, we will raise the age limit on the youngest child for Fresh Start applicants, from 16 to 18 years old. This will allow more families to benefit from the scheme. The new age limit will also apply for other schemes for parents with dependent children, namely the Parenthood Priority Scheme, and ASSIST, the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers who are divorced or widowed parents.
Second, we will intensify support for Fresh Start families through a new Fresh Start Support Programme. We have found through our experience that closer and more regular contact with families allows for early intervention to address issues that may emerge. The Support Programme will also take a holistic approach to strengthen them in various areas, such as financial management, family functioning and overall stability. The Support Programme will be overseen by MSF, and they will appoint a service provider with social work expertise, and this will commence later this year.
Third, there are also families who applied for Fresh Start but who did not meet some of the criteria. If they are serious about Fresh Start and have good potential to meet the criteria fully, they can get special consideration to join. Once they join, they may book a BTO 2-room Flexi flat within one year – like other Fresh Start families. They will also get more intensive support under the Support Programme, focusing on the criteria that they did not meet. They will need to meet all the criteria by one year before their key collection. We estimate that this will benefit about 80 families over three years.
We look forward to partnering our tenants closely towards home ownership. Chairman Sir, may I show some visuals.
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Ms Sun Xueling: This is Mdm Narziah and her mother. They have lived in a rental flat since 2006, with Mdm Narziah's daughter who is not pictured here. HDB met Mdm Narziah last year to share about Fresh Start, and she decided to apply. She welcomed the assistance under the scheme, and was appreciative that HDB officers met her in person to ask about her home ownership aspirations, and guided her through each step of buying a flat. She is now looking forward to her new flat in Tampines.
Mdm Narziah is not alone in her home ownership aspirations, and we want to help more families like hers.
In my earlier speech a few days ago, I shared that HDB will introduce a dedicated team to provide personalised guidance for families towards home ownership. The Home ownership Support Team will reach out to tenants who are more able to consider home ownership, for instance those who possess a stable income and family stability. Tenants who need advice on home ownership can also approach the team for help.
Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Seah Kian Peng asked how we ensure that rents do not discourage tenants from working towards higher incomes and homeownership. Our public rental rates are structured progressively, to keep the subsidy allocation fair. Nonetheless, to mitigate cliff effects, HDB waives the rent increase for up to two terms when tenants first cross the $800 income threshold, if their income remains less than $1,500. In the last three years, about 5,200 households have benefited from this waiver.
HDB also reduces the rent for households on a case-by-case basis if they cannot afford it.
I would also like to emphasise that HDB does not ask tenants to leave solely because their income has increased past the ceiling of $1,500. Instead, HDB will work with them on their homeownership options once they are ready.
To further encourage these households, we will not increase the rent for those who have made the downpayment for a new flat. They will continue to pay the rent they were charged at the time when they made the downpayment. This will take effect for tenancies which commence from 1 June 2019. We hope this will put households in good stead for their next milestone as homeowners.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan suggested allowing tenants to buy over their rental flats. We currently have no such plans, as there are many measures to help tenants buy a new flat from HDB. This also maintains our rental flat supply for others who have no other housing options.
Mr Lim also suggested improving the living environment in older rental blocks. HDB has consistently upgraded rental flats just as they do for sold flats. But we want to do more, especially for older rental blocks built in the 1960s and 1970s. As the Member highlighted, some blocks have long corridors with rental units on both sides. As a result, the natural ventilation and light is more limited than those of newer designs.
To address this, HDB will undertake works to create more openings along the corridors, by removing some flats on each floor of such blocks. This will provide a permanent improvement for the residents in terms of the airflow and brightness of the block.
HDB has piloted this and the feedback from residents has been positive. Chairman, Sir, may I show some visuals?
The Chairman: Yes. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Ms Sun Xueling: This shows a typical corridor of a block with units on both sides. And this is a corridor at Blk 217 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, where HDB piloted the upgrading works. The works made a marked difference to the inside of each block – more common space, more sunlight, more ventilation. I have visited the older blocks and an improved block myself, and I think Members will agree with me that our proposed works will be a marked improvement. We will extend these works to more rental blocks, and we will provide more details in due course.
As some tenants may need to move for the improvement works, HDB will help them to move within the same or nearby blocks. HDB will work closely with local organisations and the relevant agencies to ensure a smooth transition. Chairman, Sir, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Lim Biow Chuan also suggested improving the living environment in our older rental blocks. IHDB has consistently upgraded rental flats just as they do for sold flats. But we want to do more, especially for older rental flats built in the 1960s and 70s.
As Mr Lim highlighted, some blocks have long corridors with rental units on both sides. As a result, the natural ventilation and brightness is more limited than those of newer designs.
To address this, HDB will undertake works to create more openings along the corridors, by removing some flats on each floor of such blocks. This will provide a permanent improvement for the residents in terms of the airflow and brightness of the block.
HDB has piloted this and the feedback from residents has been positive. I have visited the older blocks and the improved block myself and experienced the changes brought about by these works. I think Members will agree with me that our proposed works will be a marked improvement to the living environment of the rental blocks.
We will extend these works to more rental blocks, and will provide details in due course.
As some tenants may need to move for the improvement works, HDB will help them to move within the same or nearby blocks.
HDB will work closely with local organisations and the relevant agencies to ensure a smooth transition.
(In English): Mr Louis Ng and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked whether we can better support divorcees in their housing transition, especially those with children. Mr Ng also asked whether we can help young single unwed parents to rent a flat from HDB more expeditiously.
Last year, we lifted the time bar on divorcees to facilitate their housing transition after divorce. However, some still face difficulties due to acrimony between both parties. Some cannot take action on their matrimonial flat because their ex-spouses are uncooperative and do not adhere to the Court Order. Parties whose ex-spouses are uncooperative may seek legal help to resolve the issue, for example by applying to the relevant Court to vary the Court Order to empower the Registrar to sign on behalf of the uncooperative party.
There are also those awaiting their Final Judgment of divorce. They may be worried about their next housing arrangement, and hoping to apply for a flat earlier. This is understandable. HDB will now allow divorcing parties to apply for a new flat from HDB if they have an Interim Judgment and have settled the ancillary matters on their matrimonial property, and the custody, care and control of their children. This means they no longer have to wait until the Final Judgment in order to apply for a flat. They will just need to obtain the Final Judgment before collecting their keys, and ensure that they are still eligible for the flat that they booked. We hope this will give divorcing parties some peace of mind as they go through an emotionally difficult period.
A final group, as Mr Ng mentioned, are those with shared care and control of their children, who require agreement from their ex-spouse to buy a subsidised flat with their children listed. In such cases, both parents have a shared and equal right to list their children in their flat. That is why we start by encouraging parents to agree on the listings in the best interests of their children. But we understand that there may be difficulties sometimes, and so if there are indeed difficulties, HDB will look at the case more closely, and will be prepared to exercise flexibility to help protect the interests of the children.
For single unwed parents in need of housing, I assure Mr Ng that no applicant will be turned away at HDB's counters. HDB will first seek to understand their circumstances to see how best to help them, because their needs differ, and often the input of social workers is also required. We want to provide help, and will do our best to accommodate their requests for housing, be it to purchase a flat or to rent one.
These are just some examples of how HDB does consider individual circumstances which our housing policies may not cater to fully. This includes households above the public rental income ceiling, which Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap spoke about.
In the last three years, 590 households were helped with public rental despite exceeding the income ceiling. HDB considers each application holistically. The income ceiling, while relevant, is not the only factor considered.
Let me now speak about our work on animal welfare and management.
Mr Louis Ng asked how AVA addresses cat abandonment. AVA takes animal abandonment very seriously, and will investigate all related feedback. To establish the owner of an abandoned pet, AVA gathers evidence by walking the ground, interviewing witnesses, and reviewing CCTV footage. Persons convicted of pet abandonment can be fined up to $10,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 12 months for a first-time offence.
Nonetheless, we recognise the importance of strengthening upstream controls to deter pet abandonment. The Cat Welfare Society currently manages Project Love Cats, a pilot community-owned responsible cat ownership programme in Chong Pang, with the support of Government agencies. Under this pilot, CWS has been working with the community on microchipping pet cats to strengthen owner accountability. We can consider further expansion when the Chong Pang pilot meets these outcomes, and when there is strong community support in other parts of Singapore. In addition, the AVA intends to undertake a holistic review of the regulatory approach for pet issues, including how to promote responsible pet ownership and deter abandonment.
Mr Ng also asked for an update on the Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage programme, or TNRM. Developed in consultation with Animal Welfare Groups (AWGs) and veterinarians, TNRM is a humane way to sustainably manage the stray dog population nationwide. TNRM is being implemented in phases. Since its launch in November 2018, AVA and participating AWGs have been managing the operations at various sites across Singapore. Participating AWGs have been able to tap on SPCA's sterilisation clinic since February. In the coming months, AVA and SPCA will also set up a central pool of professional trappers to support the programme. AVA has concurrently been engaging stakeholders such as the Town Councils, People's Association, and grassroots organisations to raise awareness of TNRM and to address any concerns that may arise. Public feedback has generally been positive.
AVA will continue to ensure that animal and wildlife management strategies are grounded in science, and balance the needs and interests of various stakeholders. This will be further strengthened with the upcoming reorganisation of AVA's functions from 1 April 2019, as AVA's veterinary science capabilities will be combined with NParks’ expertise in ecology and conservation.
The Chairman: Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Chairman, we are commemorating the bicentennial this year because the arrival of the British marked the major turning point in our history. The British also put in place our first town plans. They provided some basis to guide our urban development. But these plans were limited in scope and were unable to address our growing housing and employment needs. And that is why after Independence, we established our own long-term urban plans for the whole of Singapore. And we have been updating these plans over the years to guide our development. Each time, it gets more comprehensive in order to meet our growing needs and now, we have even started planning for underground spaces.
URA will launch the Draft Master Plan 2019 (DMP19) exhibition later this month and we look forward to public feedback and inputs on these plans. Our ability to do such detailed long-term planning is a major asset which few other countries or cities are able to do. And that is why every year, we host thousands of visitors at the Singapore City Gallery in the URA building, because they are keen to come and learn from us. Beyond planning, implementation is also important and that is why we are doing more to coordinate the implementation of new infrastructure; especially transport infrastructure which takes time to build. And that is something which Mr Png Eng Huat highlighted earlier.
So, we have good planning, long-term planning, and with effective implementation, we can continue to build a better city for Singaporeans, both now and in the future.
Let me start with what we are doing for our HDB estates, because this is where many Singaporeans live and we want to ensure a first-class living environment for everyone. Last year, we announced some significant long-term projects to rejuvenate our HDB flats and estates as they get older. They include initiatives like the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) 2 and Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS). These are major long-term undertakings and will need time to work out the details, taking feedback and suggestions and will provide an update when are ready.
Meanwhile, we are working hard to address several more immediate concerns. And today, I will focus on three key priorities. First, we will keep public housing affordable and accessible. Getting a home to settle down and start a family is a key milestone for many young couples. These aspirations are shared by couples all over the world.
But in many other cities, they face big obstacles. I watched the Hong Kong documentary recently. It is called, \"有楼万事足\". One couple in their late 20s wanted to purchase a home but could not find something suitable within their budget. Private apartments are too expensive, and public housing options are limited. For every subsidised flat that is put out, there are close to 60 applicants vying for it. And the cheapest 3-room unit is S$440,000. That is double the price of a 3-room flat in Singapore (which is also larger in size). Flats in Singapore are larger in size and much cheaper. Not to mention that our application rates are also far lower.
Housing is a major challenge in Hong Kong and it is so, in virtually all cities around the world. But in Singapore, young couple can realise their dreams of owning their own homes. Of course, from time to time, you would hear comments where people say \"Don't compare to other cities. How about the price of HDB flats today compared with that in the 70s and 80s? Why is it so much more expensive today, compared to in the past?\" But remember, incomes have also risen considerably over this period. And we really have to look at a broader range of affordability indicators, not just a headline price. MND monitors these indicators closely and we are committed to ensuring the affordability and accessibility of HDB flats.
With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I display some slides on the LED screens?
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Lawrence Wong: Today, all first-timers applying for a BTO flat in a non-mature estate are successful within two to three tries. Mr Png highlighted the example of someone who had applied six times but was still unable to get the flat. I am sure for such cases, because I have seen some of them myself, they would have applied for BTO flats in mature estates or balance flats. I cannot stop people from trying these flats – balance flats or flats in mature estates, but given the limited supply of these flats, and the limited space we have in this areas, we really cannot meet all of the demands. So, those who wish to try for a balance flat or a flat in the mature estate, will have to try their luck and hope for the best in the ballot. But if they go for a BTO flat in a non-mature estate, all of them are able to get it within two to three tries. In fact, the vast majority get it within two tries and 100% within three tries.
We continue to price these BTO flats at significant discounts to market, and we offer generous grants of up to $80,000 for first-timers.
The mortgage service ratio for first-timers in these non-mature estates is less than 25%. It is significantly below what it used to be in the past. I asked my parents who bought their HDB flat in the 1970s. They said that, indeed, at that time, when they bought their first HDB flat, it was about $25,000, which was about the price in the 1970s. But at that time, their combined income was less than a thousand dollars per month – just a few hundred dollars – and they had to fork out almost 50% of their income every month for mortgage servicing.
Today, the mortgage servicing ratio is less than 25%, below what it used to be in the past, and it is also well within international benchmarks of affordability. Internationally, when they look at housing affordability, they would typically look at the servicing ratio of around 30% to 35%. So, we are keeping well below that, not to mention that the vast majority of these first-timers are able to service their loans entirely with CPF – that means, with zero cash. And even for those who use cash, the amount is very little. So, these are indicators which we track and our commitment is to ensure that HDB flats remain accessible and affordable for all young Singaporeans.
As highlighted by Mr Alex Yam, we will continue to provide affordable housing options for different flat buyer profiles as well. We have flats of different sizes for first-timer and second-timer families; also 2-room Flexi flats for singles and the elderly. We monitor the application rates closely to ensure sufficient supply. The application rates for singles are still high, as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned, but I would assure her that we are trying our best, and they have come down. When we started, application rates were about 38 times. Now, the application rates for singles is slightly over four times. So, we are determined to continue to bring it down and we will build more 2-room units to meet the demand.
We are also very mindful of the needs of our vulnerable families including divorcees and single parents, and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has just shared how we will continue to help them.
In short, we will strive to meet the housing needs of Singaporeans in different life stages. We will ensure that no Singaporean is left without adequate housing.
For first-timer couples, applying for a BTO flat is a major decision. One consideration is the location of the flat. Very often, potential buyers want to know the planned locations of future BTO sales exercises, not just the present one, so that they can decide whether to put in an application now or hold back and wait for a subsequent sales exercise.
We have been careful about revealing too much information on future sales, not because we want to withhold the information but because there will always be unexpected changes to building plans, for example, due to changes in market conditions or demand. But I understand why buyers would like more information to plan ahead. So, we will now share upcoming BTO projects half a year in advance. This means that for the upcoming BTO exercise in May, we will share the list of BTO sites for both the August and November 2019 launches. I hope this change will help flat buyers make more informed choices on their application.
We have also been studying ways to improve our BTO application processes. I spoke about this last year and I challenged HDB to shorten the balloting time. So, I am very happy to share that HDB has done a fundamental review of its processes and it has succeeded in reducing the time taken from six weeks to three weeks. This will take effect from the May 2019 BTO exercise onwards.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked for more support for first-timers to live near their parents; and also for families with children. These are indeed groups that we look out for. So, HDB will continue to offer more 3Gen flats to facilitate inter-generational living. We also offer various priority schemes, like the Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS); Multi-Generation Priority Scheme (MGPS); Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS) for first-timer parents; and Third Child Priority Scheme (TCPS); a long list of priorities targeted at the groups that Mr Gan mentioned. Based on our experience so far, applicants on these priority schemes generally have a good success rate.
Last year, we launched the first batch of shorter-waiting time flats, where the waiting time is reduced to two to three years by bringing forward the construction timeline. Mr Gan also asked if we can do more. Indeed, we would like to do so and we are doubling the number of shorter waiting time flats to 2,000 this year.
As I have explained, there will be a limit to how many such flats we can offer due to factors like site availability. But we will continue to review how much more we can do and whether we can compress the timeline further.
Those who need flats more urgently can go for the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) or the Re-offer of Balance Flats (ROF) – SBF and now we have ROF where the flats that were not taken up under SBF goes into the ROF pool.
Last month, I shared that we will be allowing flat buyers to book flats from an open ROF pool at any time of the year. This will start from June this year, and we will share the details of how to go about the application process in due course. I think this will help buyers with urgent housing needs to secure a flat quickly because they do not have to wait for the next sales exercise, and the ROF pool will be there for them anytime of the year. But as Mr Alex Yam cautioned, we have to also make sure that the process is fair for everyone.
We are starting with a small number of ROF flats in this open pool. We will study the effectiveness and response to this new option, and continue, thereafter, to improve HDB’s sales processes.
Of course, besides buying new flats from HDB, there are also many options from the resale market. I thank Mr Yee Chia Hsing for his \"sales pitch\" to his residents to buy flats from the resale market. As he rightly noted, we cannot simply meet demand through new BTO flats entirely because there may be a risk of over-supply of such new flats. So, we always have to find the right balance between new flats and the resale market. That is why we have been enhancing the grants for resale flats significantly over the recent years. We have enhanced the CPF Housing Grant for first-timers; the Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) for those who live near or with their parents. Now, in total, grants of up to $120,000 are available for some families buying a resale flat. These grants could help subsidise almost half the price of their flat.
One couple who chose to purchase a resale flat and benefited from these grant enhancements is Mr Sean Morier and Ms Shannon Tan. They purchased a 5-room resale flat in Simei last year to live together with Shannon's father, Mr Tan Choong Ngiak. So, they benefited from both the CPF Housing Grant and the Proximity Housing Grant, totalling about $70,000; a significant help for their purchase.
As you can see, the couple has five children, including a recent addition to the family. So, it is a big family and I am glad they also have a bigger home now to raise their family and to have closer inter-generational family bonding.
With the enhanced grants, resale flats have become more attractive – there are 5% more transactions in 2018 than the year before. To give an illustration, five years ago, one in 10 first-timer families bought a resale flat. Today, about one in four first-timer families buy a resale flat because the grants have been enhanced and people can see that between BTO and resale, many still want BTO, but resale is quite an attractive option now with the enhanced grants.
So, we will continue to monitor the market closely, and review the quantum of grants to ensure this right balance between BTO supply and resale flats. Overall, our priority here is to ensure that HDB flats remain affordable and accessible for Singaporeans.
Our next priority is to support lower income and vulnerable families, particularly those who are in public rental housing today. Several Members have asked if MND can do more to help these families own their own homes. We have been and will continue to do so because we believe that home ownership remains central in providing stability and progress for families.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary has shared several initiatives that we are doing including the setting up of the Home ownership Support Team (HST) and the changes to the Fresh Start Housing Scheme.
Even with these changes, Fresh Start remains a targeted scheme for a select group of families with young children. There are others in rental flats who do not qualify for Fresh Start, but would still benefit from some help to purchase their own homes.
Today we have a Step-Up CPF Housing Grant (SUHG) of $15,000 – it is a specific scheme to help households who own 2-room flats in non-mature estates who wish to buy a larger 3-room flat.
We will expand the Step-Up Grant to cover second-timer families in rental flats because we want to do more to help these families move back to home ownership. So, we will extend the grant to those who can benefit from it and are ready to purchase their own homes.
We will also broaden the scope of the grant. Currently, it is limited to 3-room new flats in non-mature estates. But some households may prefer to purchase a resale flat, as we just discussed. So, we will allow the SUHG to be used when households upgrade to 2-room or 3-room flats in non-mature estates, be it new or resale. So, it is really an expansion of the grant in terms of the people who can apply for it as well as extending the scope of the grant to resale flats.
The expansion of the SUHG is part of our broader efforts to help our rental families progress. We have seen some positive outcomes. As you heard just now, the number of public rental households progressing to home ownership has almost doubled over the last five years from 700 to 1,300. With the above measures, we will try our best to help more public rental households achieve their aspirations of home ownership. Even as we do more on this front, we will also take care of those who continue to live in public rental flats, and ensure they have a good living environment.
As several Members highlighted yesterday, new rental blocks are better designed and also better integrated with the rest of the precinct. Now we even have sold and rental flats within the same block, and on the same floor.
But this is not the case for the older rental blocks. Some of these blocks were built 40 or 50 years ago to meet the housing needs of the post-war population, and there is a need for redevelopment of these rental blocks together with the rest of our housing stock.
With redevelopment, we can move some of the tenants in the older rental blocks to newer flats where they can enjoy a better living environment. Relocation is not easy, especially for the elderly and those with young children. We will support them in the transition. HDB will work closely with partners including local service providers to ensure a smooth handover of services provided for the tenants. We will provide details on the selected sites when we are ready.
All this will take time. Meanwhile, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now, we will continue to maintain and improve our existing rental flats. That is something which Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Cheryl Chan also highlighted.
Sometimes we have this misperception that rental flats are not eligible for upgrading unlike sold flats. Let me be very clear that is not true. All rental blocks older than 30 years have undergone upgrading programmes such as the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), Home Improvement Programme (HIP), and Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP).
In fact, we do more with rental flats with specific improvement works that go beyond the scope of HIP, such as the installation of new tiles and new windows. We also provide EASE and repairs of spalling concrete and ceiling leaks for free. As the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now, for some of the older blocks, we will do more to improve the ventilation and lighting along the corridors.
Beyond looking at the designs of the blocks, we will also improve the design of the flat itself to better meet the needs of tenants. Singles in public rental flats currently share a 1-room rental flat under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS). We recognise that some tenants prefer privacy. So, we have tried out partitions in some of these new rental flats to create separate sleeping areas for each tenant. The feedback from these tenants has been positive. So, HDB will make available these partitions for all JSS units, in both existing and new rental blocks.
Our third priority area is to better meet the needs of our elderly, especially with the rapidly ageing population in the coming years. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Alex Yam asked about the monetisation and housing options available for seniors. One scheme, of course, is the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS).
Earlier this year, we extended the LBS to 5-room and larger flats, and the response has been positive. In January and February alone, just within these two months, some 160 households from 5-room and larger flats have applied for LBS. And I agree with Mr Yam that we have to do more to raise awareness of this scheme. And that is why my MND colleagues and I, over the past few months, have been going around, constituency by constituency, reaching out to grassroots leaders and residents to explain to them what are the schemes available. I think more seniors are aware of the LBS and various monetisation options today, but we will continue to do more to raise public awareness.
One couple who have applied for the LBS is Mr Mohamed Salleh and Mdm Normah. They opted for LBS for their 4-room flat, as they wanted to retain their flat to host their four children and 11 grandchildren when they visit. They prefer to keep their flat rather than move to a 2-room Flexi. On top of that, they have been living in the estate for the past 32 years and are familiar with the surroundings. So, with LBS, after keeping 25 years of their lease and selling the remainder to HDB, they were able to top up their respective CPF Retirement Accounts, which means they get a payout of about $950 per month for life. On top of that, they received their LBS bonus and cash proceeds of $110,000. So, it is an effective way for those who wish to monetise, and unlock the value of their flats for retirement. LBS is available for all elderly HDB flat owners.
We understand that LBS may not be an option suitable for everyone. Some may wish to right-size and move to a 2-room Flexi flat and so the options are available. Mr Saktiandi asked if MND can facilitate the sale of flats if seniors face difficulties, be it due to market sentiments or the Ethnic Integration Policy. We have discussed this before in this House, we recognise the concerns and HDB will continue to do its best to assist them, including by deferring key collection and giving them more time to sell.
One issue with regard to the purchase of older HDB flats is CPF rules, specifically the restriction in CPF usage for flats with less than 60 years of lease remaining. Some banks also take reference from these CPF restrictions when assessing how much loan to extend. As a result, both the CPF and loan quantums may be reduced for the purchase of such flats. The CPF rule is intended to safeguard the retirement adequacy of buyers who purchase older flats, but its design has led to some unintended consequences. For example, if a buyer would like to buy a 39-year-old flat, they can use full CPF, but one year later, because you hit this \"less than 60\" years requirement, the amount of CPF will be restricted. There is no good reason why this should be so just because the flat became one year older.
MND and MOM have been studying the issue. In fact the focus should not be on the remaining lease of the flat. What we want to ensure is that buyers purchase flats with leases that are long enough to last them for life. If that is done, then we can relax CPF usage rules, even if the remaining lease is less than 60 years. I have explained the thinking behind how we intend to change the CPF restriction. The details are being worked out, and we will announce them soon, for implementation in May this year.
As seniors right-size, we will provide more housing options for them. There are 2-room Flexi flats with shorter leases which have proven to be very popular among seniors. As far as possible, we are building these flats with convenient access to amenities, for example in Kampung Admiralty.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Murali Pillai also noted that some seniors are looking for alternative residential options like assisted living. SMS Amy Khor shared about this yesterday. Assisted living means \"home and care\" combined. So that is why MND and MOH must come together to offer assisted living, it is not something that one Ministry can do. When you go for assisted living, you are not just buying a flat, but a package of care services tied to the assisted living flat. That is very important. It is not just the hardware, it is the flat plus the services combined as one package. Typically, in such assisted living apartments, there will be more communal and shared spaces for residents to interact with each other, there will be services that are part of the package and the individual living units will be a bit smaller. That is a typical typology of an assisted living apartment.
As the assisted living model is new, we will conduct Focus Group discussions to seek views on the proposed concept for assisted living in public housing. We will take in feedback and views from the discussions and ensure that seniors will welcome such an option, and that the model will be sustainable for the service providers. We will work towards the launch of our assisted living pilot site for public housing at Bukit Batok next year.
We have also been exploring such retirement housing models for private residential sites. We are studying potential sites to pilot these assisted living typologies which includes, as suggested by Mr Murali, the option of converting vacant school sites into retirement homes. The key here is that, when we put out these sites for private developers or private players to bid, we do not want it to be simply a property play. We do not want them to take the site, build something and sell the units because with assisted living, these have to be a package of services plus residential combined together. We will need to craft the appropriate rules and safeguards to ensure that this happens. We are working on them and will provide details when we are ready.
Besides the three priority areas I have just outlined, many Members highlighted the importance of ensuring that our homes and estates remain liveable and vibrant and I fully agree with them.
HDB takes its role as master developer and planner very seriously. For new towns, much effort goes behind the scenes in planning and developing our estates, and ensuring the town has a full range of amenities and facilities and HDB is always looking to improve, taking in feedbacks, suggestions and how the next project can be done better.
For example, I visited Punggol recently where we opened the new neighbourhood centre at Oasis Terraces. This is prime site, where the neighbourhood centre is located. It is waterfront site, next to an LRT station. We could have sold this to a private developer, but we decided that it is central to the neighbourhood, we want to make it a HDB neighbourhood centre. So HDB develops it as a neighbourhood centre with integrated facilities, rooftop gardens, greenery, play areas, and lots of common spaces for residents to interact with each other. If you get feedback and responses from the residents, I think it has certainly been very positive. So this is the first of our new generation neighbourhood centres and we will be doing more in the coming years.
I would like to assure Dr Tan Wu Meng that the HDB is continually looking at ways to improve the design of new flats so that within the flat itself, they will be more common spaces to facilitate interaction between residents.
For our older towns, we have various upgrading plans in place. At the flat and precinct level, we have the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). Mr Png highlighted some issues with the quality of HIP workmanship and some projects as well as the issue of clothes drying rack on the lower floors, so we will look at these specifically on these particular issues.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah offered several suggestions – using Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds for designated smoking points, smoke-free flats, and Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) charges for essential services – again, these are all suggestions we will look into.
Mr Png Eng Huat asked about lift access for blocks without the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). I think he and several Members have asked this question before. We are continuing to explore technical solutions for the remaining blocks where lift upgrading is not viable today. Meanwhile, we have explained in this House for those who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or disability, they may approach HDB for assistance.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about our plans for Home Improvement Programme (HIP), particularly the next phase of HIP. We have ramped up the pace of HIP to complete upgrading for flats built up to 1986. All such flats will be announced for HIP by end of this year. Not completed construction, because that will take a while, but we will have announcement by end of this year. So the big question is: What about HIP for the blocks built between 1987 and 1997?
I am happy to share that, we will start selecting the flats for this batch of HIP from next year onwards. The scope of works will be the same as the existing HIP. There will be an essential component, covering things like spalling concrete, waste pipe replacement, electrical load upgrading which will be fully paid for by the Government and there will be an optional component covering bathroom upgrading and door replacement, which will be highly subsidised.
There are a total of 230,000 flats in this batch, so we are starting the announcement next year. It does not mean that everything will be completed next year, it will have to be done in phases over a period of time, but we will commence the process from next year onwards.
As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah highlighted, we also upgrade private estates through the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP). We will select estates for next batch of EUP by the second half of this year and we will continue to review and see what more can be done for private estates.
Beyond upgrading, we are looking at Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) and longer-term plans to systematically redevelop and rejuvenate our older HDB towns. As Mr Chong Kee Hiong said, this ought to be done not just at the individual block but also at the precinct level. We are planning well in advance for this because we do not want public housing in Singapore to degenerate into urban slums like what has happened in other cities. Public housing must continue to integrate Singaporeans of all backgrounds – we must never become segregated by class, race or income.
This also relates to the point made by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira about the differences in the prices of HDB flats across the island and whether this would lead to more social stratification. I think he has raised valid concerns and it is something we are aware of and we are continuing to watch out for, including looking at different ways in which we can mitigate against this. In the longer term, the best way to tackle this is to ensure that every part of Singapore is well developed, and that every HDB precinct has good amenities and facilities; convenient access to transport network as well as job centres closer to home. That is what we have been doing, and the upcoming Masterplan will continue with more efforts in this direction.
It does not mean that we can automatically equalise property values; but at least we can temper some of the excesses in the market. I should also say, when you speak to Singaporeans, you find that they have an attachment to a particular place and it often goes beyond monetary value. I grew up in the East, and my friends and neighbours will always say the East is special, we will never move. Indeed, many of them still stay there, their children are still staying there. When I Joined politics in 2011 and served in Boon Lay, in the West. Many residents in the West have a close affinity for the area and have many special memories growing up there. Now, I am a Member of Parliament in Marsiling-Yew Tee, in the North. My residents are proud to be in the North, they call Woodlands the star destination and I have come to grow fond of the area too.
Are there price differences in flat values between the different parts of Singapore? Yes there are. But the residents in each area take great pride in where they stay. It is about the memories they have of the place, the sense of community, the connection and identity with where they grew up and you cannot attach a price tag to these. So, we have to continue working hard to make sure that every HDB town, every precinct is kept liveable and vibrant, both now and in the future.
Besides upgrading our housing estates, we will also remake our city. Every major city in the world is constantly inventing and reinventing itself. That is the only way for cities to survive and thrive. Indeed, throughout history, cities have risen and fallen. Detroit was once the envy of the world, one of the most prosperous city in the United States, they call it the Paris of the West, and then it went into decline and became bankrupt.
Today, we enjoy high international standing as a modern liveable city; a beautiful city in a garden. But what we have today can be easily replicated in other cities, and they can very likely do it better as they have more space and more natural endowments. So, we cannot afford to stand still. As we remake our city, we must also prepare ahead for new challenges and threats. One major challenge is climate change. The scientific evidence here is clear – the world is warming up and it is happening sooner and more rapidly than people had expected.
That is why we are redoubling our efforts to make Singapore one of the greenest cities in the world. Several Members have raised this, and I am glad they did because it is a critical part of our development plans. When we say we are not done building Singapore, we are not just referring to more buildings and physical infrastructure.
A major part of this effort is to actively green Singapore for future generations. That means conserving and enhancing existing greenery, as well as safeguarding spaces for greenery even as we continue to develop. A greener Singapore will, in turn, help to mitigate extreme temperatures and provide a natural respite from traffic, noise and congestion.
Today, we have more than 4,000 ha of gardens and parks, 3,300 ha of nature reserves, all linked together with park connectors. As Minister Desmond Lee highlighted yesterday, we are continuing to maintain and enhance our greenery. We are continuing to expand our green spaces and our network of park connectors, for example, with the Coast-to-Coast (C2C) trail and first segment of the Round Island Route (RIR) ready this year, and we are working to ensure seamless connection along a large stretch of the rail corridor up to Tanjong Pagar by 2021. The entire Rail Corridor is 24 km long. So, you can run up and down and do more than a marathon.
We are embracing green in the broader sense – not just biodiversity and greenery but also advanced clean-tech solutions, be it solar panels, electric buses, autonomous shuttles, zero-energy buildings or district cooling systems. We are testing out sustainable technologies at both the building and the district levels. These are all examples of what we are doing to be a leading sustainable city.
Technology is a major game changer here. That is why we are also investing in R&D in a whole range of urban solutions – from building materials to smart sensors to underground space. For example, we are trying out coatings or construction materials that absorb less heat and that can help lower the ambient temperature. And once proven to be technically feasible and cost effective, we will look into implementation of these and other technologies.
So, let us be very clear. Our next phase of development cannot just be a continuation of business as usual practices. We will set higher eco-friendly standards and new urban practices for sustainable living. That is also how we can stay relevant and useful to many other cities around the world, all of which are grappling with similar issues.
Even as we do all this, we recognise that tackling climate change requires a concerted global response, and there is no certainty how this will evolve in the years to come. According to projections by the UN panel, if global emissions continue on their current trajectory uncurbed, sea levels could rise by around one metre in 2100. Even if countries pursue all the measures committed under the Paris Agreement – and that is a big \"if\" – sea levels are still going to rise, albeit at a lower level of around 0.7 metres.
Of course, there are many uncertainties surrounding these projections. But I would say there are more downside risks than upside. For example, if the Antarctic ice sheet melts faster than expected, the sea level would rise dramatically and it may well happen earlier – causing significant global impact by 2050, and that is just 30 years from now. Imagine what this means for our little red dot which is low-lying and surrounded by water. So, climate change is not a remote issue; it is an existential threat.
That is why we have been carefully studying the risks and impact of sea level rise, and looking at detailed measures to protect our coastal areas. Major investments will be needed in the form of reclamation, sea walls or pumping stations. The Dutch are used to this. Many of them are living below sea level today in Rotterdam and we are learning from their experience with our polder project in Pulau Tekong. We are sizing up the full extent of the infrastructure that is needed. These are long-term investments, but we are preparing well ahead and putting in place the necessary protective measures within the next 20 to 30 years.
Remaking our city is not just about preparing for challenges. There are also many exciting opportunities ahead and we have plans to make Singapore stand out as a leading city for Asia and the world.
We are planning for three major gateways in the East, West and North. These key developments will help support our growth and create more jobs across the island. So, there will be more opportunities for Singaporeans to live and work closer to their homes.
Of course, we also have to focus on the centre. We have plans for the East, West and North, but the centre and the South cannot be neglected. So, we will rejuvenate our city centre. This has historically been at the heart of economic, civic and cultural activities, and we will ensure it remains attractive and vibrant. We have just revealed exciting plans for Orchard Road. We want it to be more than just a shopping destination. There are different precincts along the 2.4-km stretch of Orchard Road offering more diverse and vibrant lifestyle destinations so that, we can make Orchard Road one of great streets of the world. Nearby, we have the Civic District, Fort Canning Park, Bras Basah and Bugis. We can connect all of these together to create an expanded arts, cultural and heritage precinct.
Within the city, the core area is the CBD. Downtown CBD – Raffles Place, Tanjong Pagar/Maxwell, Robinson/Shenton – is largely dominated by older office developments, single-use offices, quite unlike the Marina Bay CBD extension which was planned as a mixed-use district.
Most of the buildings in the CBD are privately owned. We have an existing scheme to allow intensification of commercial buildings through bonus plot ratios. Most eligible buildings have already made use of this to maximise their development. So, it is timely for us to review. We will explore new incentives to better support rejuvenation in the CBD. Specifically, we want to encourage more mixed uses in the CBD, such as residential and hotel, so that there will be activities beyond office hours. This will also better optimise and intensify the use of prime CBD land. Then we can make our CBD not just a place to work, but also an attractive and vibrant place to live and play.
Our plans are not just confined to the main island we live in. Singapore is made up of more than 60 offshore islands. We have major development plans for Sentosa and Brani to offer new attractions for tourists and Singaporeans alike. We have started reclamation work in Pulau Tekong for military training. We will also carry out improvement works on Pedra Branca. These works will enhance maritime safety and security in the area, and provide more rapid response for search and rescue.
In the longer term, we have two major sites for future redevelopment. These are at Paya Lebar and the Greater Southern Waterfront. At Paya Lebar, the relocation of airbase will free up 800 ha of land and remove current height restrictions around the area. It is a new area, bigger than the size of Ang Mo Kio Town for both public and private housing. For the Greater Southern Waterfront, the movement of ports will free up 1,000 ha. In addition, there are non-port areas like the Pasir Panjang Power District, Keppel Club and Sentosa, which contribute another 1,000 ha. Altogether, the footprint of the Greater Southern Waterfront is 2,000 ha of prime waterfront land, six times the size of Marina Bay.
These are long-term developments. For the Paya Lebar site, work will only start after 2030. For the Greater Southern Waterfront, the project will take more than 20 years, but we will make some moves within the next five to 10 years. For example, in Pasir Panjang, we will push the existing substation there underground. SP is working on this and it will be the largest underground substation in Singapore. We will repurpose the former power station buildings and open up the area to the public. We will enhance green spaces in Mount Faber and develop the Pasir Panjang Linear Park. And in the area where Keppel Club is today, we will develop new housing and residential options after the land is returned to the Government.
Over time, we will redevelop and stitch together the entire waterfront from Pasir Panjang to Marina East. It will be an exciting new waterfront development with green and blue spaces for all to enjoy.
Mr Chairman, let me conclude. Over the last 50 years, Singapore has transformed way beyond what anyone could have imagined. Our homes, transformed from kampongs to beautiful high-rise buildings with sky gardens, surrounded by playgrounds and parks. Our city, transformed from overcrowded slums to a green and vibrant metropolis.
To our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, this transformation from mudflat to metropolis was a unique opportunity. As he put it in an interview with Centre for Liveable Cities, “I’m pleased that we redeveloped the city when there was a chance to do it… ...That was a chance of a lifetime”. That was a chance for his lifetime. But now we have the chance of our lifetime to re-imagine and to remake our city. This is much more than just having bigger and taller buildings. As Mr Lee once said, Singapore is more than just a place on the map. Our city must reflect who we are as a people – our spirit and our values. We want to make Singapore an outstanding place where all can strive for a better life even in an uncertain and volatile world. We want to create new versions of urban living, each more fulfilling and sustainable; more beautiful and fun than the previous one. This is where the human spirit will flourish and inspire.
So, we invite all Singaporeans to join us in this exciting journey. We are definitely not done building Singapore. Our best days are ahead of us. There is much more we can achieve together. Thank you, Mr Chairman. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Chairman. I have three clarifications for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The first is that in my speech last night, I asked for some details of the Home Ownership Support Team (HST). What are the criteria that they will be considering and what is their ambit and how many rental households could potentially move towards home ownership in the next five years?
The second clarification relates to what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared earlier on the Fresh Start Housing Scheme. In terms of the new Fresh Start Support Programme (FSSP) and the appointment of a new service provider, how would this differ from the existing work that our FSCs are doing on the ground because the numbers are relatively small? I note that there are some differences between those who are emplaced and those who successfully apply for a flat. What has been the main barrier to those who are emplaced but do not qualify thereafter?
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. With regard to the difference between FSSP and FSCs, the new FSSP will focus on supporting the families to stay on track for a fresh start towards home ownership. For example, they will look at how they can help them ensure that they have enough housing budget to be able to afford the flat. For FSCs, they look at how to ensure family stability for the family unit. But for the purposes of ensuring that the family successfully gets on to home ownership, FSSP will work together with FSC to achieve that purpose.
Mr Yam, you had a question about the numbers for FSSP?
Mr Alex Yam: Numbers in terms of what is the main barrier to those who are emplaced but do not quality.
Ms Sun Xueling: Okay. Many of the rental families have very unique situations that they sometimes have to overcome. It could be issues, such as income stability, they may be facing challenges in terms of medical or social conditions. These are the various areas that FSSP will work with the families to help them overcome.
Mr Alex Yam: In terms of the Home Ownership Support Team?
Ms Sun Xueling: Sorry, could I ask you to repeat the question? You have quite a few questions. I apologise.
Mr Alex Yam: Sorry, Chairman. If I may just repeat the question. Last night, I mentioned that I welcomed the announcement of the Home Ownership Support Team. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary update the House on the ambit of this Team and what are the conditions that the Team will be looking at to identify households that can potentially become home owners? Finally, what are the numbers that could potentially move towards home ownership in the next five years?
Ms Sun Xueling: I mentioned in my earlier speech a couple of days ago that we are looking to set up the Home Ownership Support Team (HST) later this year. We hope to outreach to about 1,000 families. As to the conditions that they will consider, it is quite similar to FSSP. They will look at whether the families are stable, whether they have income stability, that they do not have family conflict and, if they have some of these challenges, how they can work with them towards home ownership.
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir, I have many clarifications but I will ask two first.
First, I would like to thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling for sharing about the support for divorcees. But there are some who are stuck in their housing transition.
I met a resident whose divorce was finalised and the Court ordered for the flat to be sold. It has been a few years, but the flat is still unsold because her ex-husband refuses to open the door for viewings. And she cannot buy her next home because she is listed as an owner of the flat. She also needs the proceeds from the sale to buy her next flat. So, my question is: is there anything that HDB can do to move along the sale of the flat so that she and her children can move on with her life?
And my next question is for Minister Desmond Lee. Yesterday, he answered about this heavy vehicle park. It is indeed a big problem faced by many residents in Yishun New Town. I would like to urge the Minister to look into how to have better use of the Seletar Aerospace Park. There are three or four lane roads there, which are, at night, so empty; it is a ghost town. So, whether can we make use of some of those roads to have the season heavy vehicle parking.
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her question. Indeed, it is a difficult situation, the example that she cited. As both parties are legal owners of the flat, HDB cannot act on the sale without the signatures of both parties. For the example that she mentioned, it is possible for the resident to apply for a variation of the Court Order, like I mentioned in my speech, to include a provision for the Registrar of the Court to sign on behalf of the uncooperative party. And for the instance she mentioned about viewing times, timeline for the sale of the flat, the resident can also seek legal help and have that included in the Court Order as well. But I guess the starting point is that her resident would have to consult a lawyer and have the Court Order varied.
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. You want to clarify that?
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: For cases that have been concluded many years ago, how does one go about getting the Court Order? Is it still possible? In fact, this is not only one case because, recently, I have come across quite a number of similar cases where the ex-spouse and the parents still continue to live inside and refuse to let the potential buyers view the flats.
Ms Sun Xueling: Yes, it is possible to still bring a case against the uncooperative party. And I would like to add if the party refuses to cooperate, you can bring up a case for contempt of the Court and he can actually be penalised for it.
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Chairman, we are mindful of the local needs for heavy vehicle parking. At the national level, there are more than adequate heavy vehicle lots, but we are quite mindful that at local level, there may be certain needs. My colleagues from URA and LTA have been working with colleagues where there are specific pain points. I would like to assure the Member that we will send a team to Yishun South.
The Chairman: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Chairman, I have a clarification for the Minister of State Mr Zaqy Mohamad. I welcome MND's move to explore provision for rest areas under the new planning parameters. However, would MND review its current policy to consider rest areas included under the item not counted under GFA so that it will be excluded from a Development Charge (DC)? And I think this would incentivise existing building owners to carve out rest areas for the workers.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Chairman, I thank the Member for taking a keen interest on the welfare of our cleaners and the other low-wage workers. Let us look at what we have today. BCA's Design for Maintainability Checklist already encourages provision of designated rooms of sufficient size for cleaners to both rest and store their personal items. So, we do have something which encourages.
I think for the long haul, there are limitations on the use of DC exemptions to promote specific use. Because DC will only apply in cases where the proposal would result in an enhancement of the value of land. So, if there is no enhancement of value, then, it is not applicable. But rest assured, MND and MOM are both looking into this and we will see how we can do better to promote rest areas in buildings.
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chairman. I agree with the Minister that all HDB estates are and must continue to be good towns that are special to our hearts, regardless of price differences.
There are a number of older flats, rental and public, in the central region. These sites are getting on in years and they will have to be redeveloped at some point. May I ask the Minister does he believe that there will continue to be a role for public housing even in the heart of town, even in very prime areas? And if so, what can be done to ensure that such flats continue to reflect the broad majority of Singaporeans, the heart of Singapore, rather than just the elite?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, certainly, where you see HDB flats today in the central area, be it rental or sold flats, at some point in time, when we redevelop, we do intend to continue injecting public housing in these same areas. We have already been doing so in small pockets and we will plan to do so in a bigger way with long-term rejuvenation.
I think Assoc Prof Theseira highlighted a concern about pricing. And as he said in his cut earlier, it is very difficult to get this balance right because if you price it to market, then only the very well-off can afford. On the other hand, if you want to make it affordable, then the only way is through a big discount to the BTO price but that leads to a lottery effect and the lucky guy who gets the flat get a so-called \"windfall\", compared to others who buy flats elsewhere. And that is not a fair distribution of housing subsidies.
Assoc Prof Theseira did talk about various options to try and think about different ways of selling HDB flats in these central locations. I will take on-board these suggestions and we will continue to study what is the best way forward.
The Chairman: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Chairman, Sir, I am heartened to note from the hon Minister's speech that young couples applying for BTO flats in non-mature estates will be able to secure their flats within two to three bids.
I have a query in relation to young couples whose combined incomes breach the income ceiling. I understand that the policy objective behind the income ceiling is to husband the housing subsidies such that we direct it to those who need it the most. However, in relation to young couples whose incomes breach the income ceiling, they may not necessarily have an option to purchase a condominium because condominium prices have increased quite significantly as well. I welcome the hon Minister's comments on this, please.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, as Mr Murali highlighted, the intent behind the income ceiling is really to ensure that we manage our fiscal resources prudently and we ensure that there is public housing for at least 80% of the population. And the income ceiling continues to be updated over a period of time. We will continue to see how it can be updated as incomes grow so that more Singaporeans can benefit. In the meantime, for those who exceed the HDB income ceiling, there are options like the Executive Condominiums (ECs) which they apply for as well.
The Chairman: Mr Saktiandi.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I would like to seek two clarifications. This first one is to Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling. I am glad to know about Home ownership Support Team (HST). She mentioned it repeatedly, today and before this as well. But she mentioned about income stability just now, in terms of criteria.
Most of the applicants need to have 12 months of continuous employment. In most cases where I have seen residents come to me is when they have difficulty in meeting that 12-month continuous employment, particularly because they are working part-time, or they are in between jobs, or they are either gig workers or temporary workers.
So, in such situations, can HDB, on top of giving the usual answer where they will be flexible in such circumstances, whether they can review such cases for the HST cases in the future?
Second clarification is to Minister Lawrence. I think it is very apt that the Minister highlighted about the rising seawater levels as an important issue, going forward. Can Minister share with us whether there is a timeline when Government will actually share with the public or Parliament the impact of the seawater level rising on housing in general, in Singapore in general and also in terms of budget expenditure, maybe in the future. It would be useful because it is a particularly important concern for Singapore in in the long run.
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his question. On calculating the income, I just would like to share that income from odd jobs is counted when we look at income stability for the applicant. We do not just look at HST separately from FSSP. Basically, we want to work with the applicants if they demonstrate that they are very keen to get on to home ownership. So, where there are specific criteria that they face difficulty meeting, the HST or the FSSP, depending on which programme that he can get on, they will work actively with the applicant to try to help him meet the criterion which he finds challenging at that point in time.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, the short answer to the question is yes. This is certainly an important issue which we will share with Singaporeans when ready. As I mentioned, we are now doing very detailed studies around the coastal areas in Singapore, that is, which are the more vulnerable areas, how will rising sea levels impact these coastal areas and beyond within Singapore itself. And then, on top of that, what are the appropriate protective measures to take. And there are a range of different measures that are necessary and all of these will require major investments. We have time to do it but we are planning well ahead. And when we are ready, we will certainly share this information with Singaporeans.
The Chairman: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just some questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I am glad to hear of the improvements to the older rental flats. I just want to ask Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling. How many blocks will be expected to benefit from these improvements? And whether she can share the likely localities for improvements? And what is the indicative timeline for HDB to start work? And a last question is, would there be any grants to help those who are affected, shift?
Ms Sun Xueling: Nation-wide, HDB manages about 230 rental blocks. I had mentioned in my speech that the improvement works we are looking at are for blocks built in the 1960s and the 1970s. So, it will be a subset of the entire stock of rental blocks that we have. Like I mentioned, the improvement works are specifically to assist with lighting as well as for ventilation.
So, the rental blocks are dispersed across the whole of Singapore. There are some specific areas where rental blocks in the 1960s and 1970s are congregated. We will be identifying the blocks and we will release more details in due course. As for the preparation works for the improvement works, we are looking to start this in the later part of this year.
The Chairman: I would like to volunteer the blocks in my area for upgrading. Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Chairman. Minister Desmond mentioned last night that we are reviewing the EIA framework in Singapore. I think that was already mentioned in June 2017 if I am not wrong. I am just wondering whether is there a timeframe for this review and when do we expect to complete it.
For Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, I thank her for mentioning that we are going to review pet ownership in Singapore. But could I just ask, very specifically whether MND is reviewing the possibility of micro-chipping and licensing pet cats in Singapore so that we can deter pet cat abandonment.
Second, with regard to the single-unweds, I am very thankful that you have said that HDB will accept the application for HDB flats at the HDB counters. But I do understand this is still subject to a case-by-case review. So, I am hoping that moving forward, maybe we can just specify some criteria where applications will be accepted and where they will be rejected, so that there will be some certainty to the single-unweds rather than just saying that we will exercise flexibility.
Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, the EIA review has been on-going for some time. It requires us to look at the entire process to understand the experience of the last few EIAs and we endeavour to put something out, this year.
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank Member Mr Louis Ng for his questions. The review that the AVA will be embarking on, as I had mentioned, is to look at how we can promote more responsible pet ownership, as well as deter abandonment. So, we will look at a variety of measures. We will also be looking into the additional measures that you talked about. This will be part of our entire holistic review of what is the best regulatory approach to deter pet abandonment.
I would just like to add that I think it is very important that the education part of it goes upstream. And work with the community and pet owners, to encourage them to be responsible pet owners, I think that is going to be very important. Because when you look at regulations, we have to balance the needs of various stakeholders. So, I just want to add that.
On your question about single unwed parents, they can face unique family situations. When we consider their need for housing, we will look specifically into the background, whether or not they have family support and their income levels. They may face a variety of issues at home. That is why whenever we consider the situation for single unwed parents, we also seek inputs from social service workers. So, I would just like to assure the Member that we take a very holistic approach. It is very case-specific and very specific to the individual, but it is a very holistic approach. And our main aim is to be helpful and to ensure that single unwed parents with children will have a roof over their heads.
The Chairman: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): I would like to ask Mr Lawrence Wong whether couples buying a bigger BTO flat get a bigger housing subsidy compared to couples buying a smaller BTO flat. If that is the case, why is it that the CPF housing grant for first-timers buying resale flats is smaller for couples buying bigger BTO flats?
I would also like to highlight that before the increase in 2017, the amount of CPF housing grant is flat regardless of the size of the resale flat that these couples are buying.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, we have tiered the CPF housing grants simply to make it a more progressive measure. So, for those who are buying 3- or 4-room flats, they will get a larger grant, and if you are buying a bigger flat, we size it a bit smaller.
So, we have increased for both, but we have tiered it compared to the past. I think having that progressivity in the grants can be helpful given the considerations that we have in wanting to address some of the concerns about social inequality that we face in society. So, the tiering of the grant was a move in that direction. I do not think it will deter those who have the means to buy a bigger flat, and if anything, we want to also send a right signal that home-buyers ought to be prudent – do not overstretch themselves unnecessarily, but buy a flat that is suitable within their means.
The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): The Minister mentioned earlier that there will be more clarity in BTO prices so that applicants could better assess their affordability. At the time of application of flats, there is also home-loan assessment on how much the applicants could borrow.
However, when the time comes for key collection, the applicants may have a lower income because of change of job or because of the environment. Therefore, they may not be able to afford the same flat.
At the same time the grant given to applicants are assessed at the point of application. So, it is sort of a double-whammy: he cannot get a higher grant because he was assessed earlier; and because of his reduced income, his home-loan entitlement has dropped and so he could no longer afford the flat the he applied earlier. Could the Minister explain how HDB could help this group of applicants?
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, we do see some of these cases. There are not many of them, fortunately. But from time to time, we do have examples of home-buyers who, very unfortunately, during their waiting period, something happens to them before they could collect their keys.
HDB tries to be as helpful as possible. One way is to see how best to support them still with the loan quantum. Even if their incomes have somewhat come down, so long as they have the means to service the loan, then we will try to, perhaps, even with lower incomes, still consider maintaining the same quantum or not reducing it so much, so that they can still afford the flat that they had earlier purchased.
The qualification here is that we do not want, as I said earlier, to end up with them overstretching themselves and their finances. So, we will assess each individual case and see how best to support them, firstly, on the loan.
Secondly, if truly, the circumstances are so dire that even with the help on the loan side, they cannot continue with the transaction, then we will assist to see if, perhaps, changing to a smaller flat might be a better option for this person or couple.
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I have a clarification for Minister Desmond Lee. I thank him for his answers yesterday. Could I just clarify with him regarding the lane usage of the park connectors on the point that I raised, which is the safety of the park connectors? Specifically, are people allowed to walk on the two lanes with the different markings?
I say this because, if that is the case, then really, I would like the Ministry to consider reviewing the lane markings because it is really unsafe when you have people walking on both sides and the PMD users, the cyclists and other users who have to wade through the traffic, and people are not exactly keeping left. Keeping left in such a situation may not really be the correct thing to do as well.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his observations. Certainly, NParks will relook at the way in which we explain the usage of the lanes and the PCN to ensure that both pedestrians and users of bicycles and other mobility devices have a seamless understanding when they move on to PCNs from the shared lanes that are under LTA along our pedestrian walkways. Some, of course, are shared; some are separated.
The clarity needs to go out in terms of public education, also in the signage. Also, the markings need to be tweaked. So, we will continue to review this.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I have just one follow-up question for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Sun Xueling. Could I check how long does it usually take HDB to process the application for the single unweds, say, for rental housing?
Ms Sun Xueling: That would depend on the submission of the documents that are required, as well as whether the inputs from the social worker has come in. But in general, if it is an urgent case, and the assessment can be quickly done, the rental application can be processed quite quickly. In general, the rental application time is about two to three months.
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I have clarifications for Minister Lawrence Wong.
The Chairman: How many clarifications do you have?
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Three for Minister Lawrence Wong; and three for Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.
I am very heartened to hear from the Minister that the building of 2-room flats has been intensified, and the singles do not have to wait for too long to buy their 2-room flats. I would like to ask if MND will consider letting the singles buy 3-room flats as some of them would want to accommodate their parents.
The second question is: for HIP2 for flats built in 1987 to 1997 of which the announcement will be made next year, when will be the announcement for the last batch be made, based on the current plan? This is so that residents can know because there is an expectation.
The third question I asked in my speech was: whether the large-scale town-wide funding can also be extended to private estates? This is because I find that some of the private estates are really short on amenities, and the best way could be to make use of the large-scale town-wide funding as those areas may not qualify for EUP.
And I have three questions for Minister of State Mr Zaqy Mohamad. I am glad to hear about the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC). Will IACC also look into TOP and CSC processes? This is because for some of the projects, the TOP or the CSC have been stuck there for a long time due to certain compliance matters taking a long time and not moving forward. On the one hand, the developers are very worried about the quality control imposed and want to apply for TOP. On the other hand, there is the compliance issue.
The second question is about awarding contracts to local contractors. We are aware that there is a WTO requirement, but I hope that the Minister of State is also aware that some of our local contractors have grown and they are ready to take on big projects like those which are $400 million and above. I hope that there are certain ways to see how we can let our bigger contractors have a bigger share of the pie of bigger projects.
The third question is about services diversion which, very often, take a long time and hence they delay the projects. Is there any possibility to get whatever service diversions within the land parcel diverted before the land is put up for tender? Or can the diversion be concurrently done, because it takes a long time to carry out the diversion subsequently.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Chairman, on singles applying for 3-room flats, I would say the MND considers all these options continuously as we review our policies. But let us now start by clearing the demand for 2-room Flexi flats first. That is the priority for now, and I would not want to commit to another extension of the 3-room flats, and then have another backlog building up, and we will be running after so many different queues with insufficient supply to meet the demand. We have already brought it down to an application rate of just above four. We will focus on that before we think about any further changes.
On the HIP schedule for the flats built from 1987 to 1997, I said we would make the announcement in 2020 which actually means we will be inviting all the Town Councils to select and nominate the first batch of 1987 to 1997 flats by later this year, so that the announcement can be made next year. So, that is how the process will start, and in the year following that we will continue with this process.
How fast it can be done really depends on fiscal space and the availability of funds. So, I really cannot commit to a schedule today, but if you were to look at the previous round when we did the HIP for flats built before 1986, it took more than 10 years to complete.
Er Dr Lee has been following and tracking this very carefully – she tells me 13 years. So, I think residents must have some context. In that previous round it took about 13 years, and I would think, barring unforeseen circumstances, it will take more than 10 years to complete this batch of 1987 to 1997 flats as well.
On the large-scale town-wide projects, under the CIPC, they were designed specifically for public housing estates. For private estates, we have the EUP, and we are happy to see if more can be done and whether the scope of works in the EUP can be enhanced.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank Er Lee for her questions. I will start off with the contracting of local suppliers. I mentioned yesterday, that one of our goals is to help our local contractors grow, and securing Government projects is one way to grow. But I want to stress again that we are also a signatory to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. So, we cannot give projects away to locals and favour locals over foreign companies.
Today, we also have local companies who are winning large Government projects. For example, Lum Chang Building Contractors won the design and construction contract for a section of the north-south corridor tunnel. This was awarded in December 2018. The awarded value is about $800 million, much higher than the $400 million threshold that the Member cited. Woh Hup had also won in September 2017 the construction of Kim Chuan depot's extension to cater for circle line 6, which was about $1.21 billion. To a certain extent, I think there is opportunity for local firms to win large contracting projects.
Our Price Quality Method (PQM) has also shifted towards focusing more on quality as opposed to cost. Our local firms need to build up capability to address this portion in terms of quality, track record and experience. This is where I think they can develop. That is why if you look at the announcements yesterday, for example, we announced the Build SG Transformation Fund. We hope to upskill and build up capabilities for our local firms. This is something we will look closely at. I hope that the local firms can also do their part and build up capabilities to address these opportunities.
Specific to the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC), I am glad that the Member has also noted the changes that we have done to IACC. For instance, they now meet monthly. For issues such as service diversion, Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) and Certificate of Statutory Completion (CSC) that are delayed, please raise them to the IACC, which will see how best to assist. Certainly, what we want to try to do is to facilitate and help to bring closure to some of these projects as soon as possible.
The Chairman: Mr Alex Yam, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Chairman, please allow me to thank Minister Lawrence, Minister Grace, Minister Desmond, Minister of State Zaqy and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Xueling for listening intently to us and considering seriously our suggestions. We do wait eagerly for MND to implement promptly some of these measures. Therefore, Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $2,494,963,300 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $7,848,052,800 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":"The Chairman: Head W, Ministry of Transport. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
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.\"
Mr Chairman, before I kick off the Committee of Supply Debate for the Ministry of Transport, I believe I speak for all Members of this House when I wish Minister Khaw Boon Wan, a speedy recovery from his injury and we all look forward to the return of a formidable presence in this House very soon! [Applause.]
Incidentally, Mr Chairman, as I cast my eyes across the floor, it suddenly dawn on me that with Minister Vivian temporarily in-charge, the Ministry of Transport is now helmed by three doctors, all with a sub-specialty in children. But, of course, we all agree that transport is no child's play. Let me carry on.
I remember when I was appointed as GPC Chair for Transport in 2015, it was at a time when public satisfaction in our public transportation system, and in particular the MRT system, was at one of its lowest point.
Being involved in GPC work for Transport then was quite a baptism of fire for me.
On hindsight, it is understandable why public transportation, is an issue close to the hearts of Singaporeans. Transportation is a key pillar and enabler of our economy. It connects us domestically within Singapore and also to the rest of the world. It is the first thing we plan for when we leave home in the morning and the last thing we rely on to bring us safely home each night.
In recent years, MOT has had to deal with the rapid evolution and the changing landscape of transportation in Singapore.
Advances in Transport Technology forces us to re-think and evolve the way we travel. Our domestic demographic and scarcity of land require us to adapt and constantly review our transportation system. In order to do this, the Government continues to invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and also to push the transport industry to its technological forefront.
These include, the rapid expansion and renewal of the MRT System, the support of technological disruptions to the transportation industry, the proliferation of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), e-Bikes and bike Sharing. Other new technologies such as driverless, automated vehicles are not far off on the horizon.
The Budget numbers also reflect this. Ten years ago, in Financial Year 2009, MOT's expenditure was approximately $5.4 billion. This year, the estimate is $11.5 billion. It has been a consistently increasing trend over the years.
With rapid changes however, difficulties and challenges will inevitably arise.
Some of these include, the rail reliability of our MRT system, the disruption that private hire cars brought to the point to point transportation market, safety issues between pedestrians and e-bikes and PMD users and even the irresponsible use and placement of shared bikes. These and other issues, when put together, often colour the public's perception of the efficiency and reliability of our entire transportation network.
In fairness, it is understandable how a new project or initiative, like the proliferation of e-bikes and PMDs, when viewed in isolation, can appear disjointed, or its challenges overwhelming. However, the recently released Land Transport Master Plan 2040 sets out the vision, I believe all Singaporeans can aspire and look forward to.
It is an ambitious plan – to build a transportation system that is inclusive, promotes healthy and safe journeys that can be completed within the target of 20-minute towns and 45-Minute City for all. This will require a seamless integration of public, active and shared transport network, that includes enhanced infrastructure to support all modes of transportation.
Viewed in the lens of the vision provided by the Land Transport Master Plan 2040, the different projects and initiatives begin to complement each other better and the various pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together.
This bodes well for the future of transportation in Singapore and I am sure many of us are excited to see this vision be realised.
Sir, in terms of rail reliability, after three years of hard work, it appears that we may have turned a corner. The Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) for the entire MRT network increased from 181,000 train kilometres in 2017 to 690,000 train kilometres in 2018. The latest annual Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Survey showed an improvement in commuters’ satisfaction for MRT rising from 7.5, out of 10, in 2017 to 7.9 in 2018.
There is still much work to be done, with more expansion and renewal work to be done to our MRT system in the pipeline but for now, we can at least look forward to some stability in rail reliability as we continue to strive to improve.
This vision of building an inclusive, efficient and reliable domestic transport network, however, will come at a significant cost.
The ambitious targets outlined in the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 will not come cheap. Minister Khaw had previously shared with this House that the increased maintenance and renewal costs of our Train Systems at SMRT and SBST have resulted in significant losses for both companies in the past financial year.
What does this mean for commuters? How will this cost burden affect the affordability of public transportation?
I hope that MOT can share with this House, its plans on how it intends to manage these cost outlays efficiently and without an undue high cost burden on commuters.
Sir, our domestic transportation system is, however, not the only focus of MOT's attention.
Internationally, Singapore has traditionally been a trading port which used its strategic location in the region and excellent connectivity to the rest of the world to position itself as an aviation and maritime hub.
Over the years, Singapore has managed to create a world class infrastructure and regulatory environment at our port in Keppel and Changi Airport to spur growth in both the aviation and maritime industries. This not only contributed significantly to our budget but also created many jobs for Singaporeans.
These are key industries for Singapore.
Singapore cannot, therefore, afford to remain stagnant. As of now, we have moved our port from Keppel to Tuas and continue to improve and expand Changi Airport, with Terminal 5 as the next phase.
We have also added the Jewel to Changi Airport. I must confess that before I visited the Jewel in early February this year, I had my doubts about the need for yet another shopping area at Changi Airport, given the shopping opportunities already available at the existing Terminals.
Instead, what I found when I visited the Jewel was a beautifully designed garden concept recreational centre which complement the existing Airport and exemplifies our position as a garden city. It will also create many job opportunities for Singaporeans.
The Jewel will certainly be a delight for visitors and Singaporeans alike!
We can be rightfully proud to be considered as one of the leading aviation and maritime hubs in the world. But we cannot rest on our laurels.
As we move towards the future, we must ensure that our air and sea hubs continue to remain relevant and competitive.
I would, therefore, like to invite the Acting Minister for Transport to share with us, the Ministry's current and/or future plans on how we can continue to do so and also to address the other issues raised with regard to the future of Transportation in Singapore.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Between the High Speed Rail (HSR) and Rapid Transit System (RTS) between Singapore and Johor, RTS will be more important as it will bring immediate relief to 300,000 people that cross the Causeway and second link on a daily basis. RTS will be able to carry 10,000 passengers per hour and will add capacity of 60,000 users crossing the causeway during peak hours .
RTS will be a people mover and it can significantly reduce the congestion at the Causeway and Second link. Currently, thousands of commuters are stuck in the congestion daily. The waste of time is causing losses in productivity.
With RTS, we will have less need for a third link. Thus, I will like to ask Acting Minister for Transport, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, how can we better engage Malaysia to shift the priority to RTS? What is the status of the RTS discussions now? Meanwhile, I will like to wish Minister Khaw Boon Wan a speedy recovery.
With regard to Malaysia's dispute with Singapore over the port limits, it has been nearly five months since Malaysia decided to expand its port limits into Singapore's territories, which we disagree with. There seems to be no resolution yet. How would this affect the viability of our new Tuas port? What does it actually mean to us when waters within the port limits are not clearly defined? What impact would this have on Singapore’s maritime security in the short run and medium term?
With regard to Malaysia's dispute with Singapore over the usage of the Instrument Landing System (ILS), how would it affect the viability, safety or amount of air traffic which our new Seletar Airport can handle? What options do we have?
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Chairman, discussion about the Singapore Flight Information Region (FIR) has come under the spotlight again, and in recent times, particularly with Malaysia's intention to impose a military training area above Pasir Gudang, including its announcement to, I quote, \"take back\", unquote, parts of the Singapore FIR from our management. Some quarters in Indonesia have similarly lobbied to reclaim sovereignty of the Singapore FIR over the Riau Islands for several years now.
Sir, FIR management is fundamentally about providing smooth and efficient air traffic control services with aviation safety being the topmost consideration, not sovereignty. Singapore has been known internationally to manage its FIR efficiently and impartially. Realigning parts of the Singapore FIR to mirror territorial boundaries would risk creating a severely fragmented airspace around Singapore with serious aviation safety risks for all users. With six airports including international airports in Johor, Batam and Bintan within 50 nautical miles of Singapore, a fragmented FIR will raise the risk of mishaps and accidents.
How does the Ministry currently manage flights bound for international airports in close proximity to Singapore, both inbound and outbound, and have our neighbours raised any issues with our management of the Singapore FIR thus far?
I would also like to seek an update on the Ministry's initiatives to better manage our airspace. Some years ago, a Centre of Excellence Air Traffic Management Fund of $200 million was set up. What has been the draw-down rate of this fund and what other measures does the Government have lined up to ensure that the Singapore maintains its status as a premier FIR manager. What has been the Government's experience working together with the UN weather agency, the World Meteorological Organisation since its establishment in Singapore in 2017 in benefiting the weather-sensitive aviation sector towards aviation safety? Finally, can the Ministry provide an update on the use of space-based very high frequency (VHF) communications for air traffic management in the Singapore FIR?
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Chairman, MOT's operating expenditures have risen quickly. This year’s budget projects operating expenditure just above $2 billion, up from less than $1 Billion a few years ago. Public transport services have benefited. In 2017, the Public Transport Council (PTC) reported that 94.5% were satisfied with public transport, significantly up from earlier years.
However, I am concerned that efficiency has suffered even as quality has improved. Based on data from LTA, under the Government Contracting Model (GCM), the fares we pay for buses only cover half of the operating costs today. Before the GCM, bus operators generally had fare revenues within a few percentage points of operating costs.
A similar story applies for train operations. Rail fare revenue was sufficient to cover operating costs, until recent years where losses have mounted due to maintenance expenditures. For the future, the Minister for Transport has said that fares may cover less than half of the operating expenses of the Thomson-East Coast Line.
Chairman, there is a difference between public transport operations and fully private transport markets. In the private airline market, passengers buy the ticket that suits their needs. They choose based on price, value, convenience. Passengers do not buy business class if what they really want is economy.
But in public transport, we make these decisions for commuters, using public funds. The good thing is, we can give all Singaporeans high quality public transport even if the private market would not cater to them. But we have to be careful that we do not overpay for services that are not valued by the commuting public.
I urge the Ministry to outline a comprehensive strategy for ensuring we have both value for money and high quality in public transport operations. For buses, at the operational level, what can we do, using route design, schedule optimization, and new technology such as on-demand services, to improve efficiency? On the strategic level, how are we evaluating the GCM and the contracting environment to improve competitiveness in tendering? For rail, can we make further use of time of travel shifting measures – such as peak and off-peak fares – to reduce costly excess capacity?
Most importantly, how can we engage the fare-paying public to give them a role in determining what services they value and what they do not want to pay for?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Since my Adjournment Motion speech on 15 January 2019, train delays are still taking place. For example, a train fault at Marsiling MRT station during the morning rush hour on 22 January 2019, lasted an hour, causing delays for commuters travelling in both directions. Just yesterday, there was a train fault on Downtown Line during the morning rush hour. Mr Chairman, more can still be done to minimise train delays of any lengths. Please allow me to revisit some of the points I made in my earlier Adjournment Motion speech.
Mean Kilometers Between Failure (MKBF) has been much talked. However these MKBF statistics while an internationally recognised indicator for rail reliability does not include delays of not more than five minutes. The Ministry has been silent about keeping track of the many delays of not more than five minutes. Delays whether long or short, have potential ripple effects that can snowball, meaning that these train delays affect other activities and constitute an economic costs to all involved. Singapore must continue to drive reliability, even higher. And as I have argued previously, we need to go beyond the current MKBF metrics in our reliability measurement approach.
The Network Capacity Factor (NCF) continues to be of concern. With rail capacity expected to double by 2030, the NCF will no doubt, be only rising, and help contribute to future, rising fare prices. We should review this. We must also pay close attention to the impact of such fare hikes on vulnerable groups.
We need to enhance service quality including better punctuality for trains as well as more accurate and timely displays of trains delays. We also need to ensure better monitoring of service quality including through independently measured service quality experience by customers that could be affected in PTC's fare review formula, which is currently not the case.
The profitability of Public Transport Operator (PTO) should also be a factor in the PTC's fare review formula. The current productivity Extraction Factors should be redefined to account for PTO's profitability. Accounting for profitability will be more equitable for commuters. Retail operations from Operators will not be profitable without the infrastructure it operates in. Mandating the level of profits from retail operations to be added to the Railway Sinking Fund and the Rail Infrastructure Fund will move us towards a more equitable development of rail infrastructure in the long-term. Similar mechanisms can be done for bus infrastructure too.
Finally, as per my Budget debate speech, I am concern as to how the huge increase in diesel excise tax will have implications for our commuters and fares. Most taxis and public buses are still running on diesel; and conversion to hybrid or electric options will still take quite a few more years for the taxis and even longer time for the buses. The short-term rebates will likely not be enough to stop Operators passing the costs to consumers. Since the Government did not push for the conversion to start earlier, it should give more reasonable timelines for bus and taxi companies to convert to to hybrid or electric options fully before applying the tax increased.
If the Government truly believes in environmental conservation, it should attend more to the electric vehicle and charging stations availability side of the equation. To focus minds on this agenda, I echo my colleague, Leon Perera's call for the Government to set future dateline for a total fossil fuel vehicles banned, like what the United Kingdom and France has done. Perhaps that is the longer term approach that Singapore can take to mitigate environmental concerns.
Mr Arasu Duraisamy (Nominated Member): Chairman Sir, I would first like to declare my interest as the General Secretary of Singapore Port workers union and also a member of Public Transport Council (PTC). Tuas South is currently being developed for existing and new businesses. Businesses such as the Tuas Mega Port, Shipbuilding industry, Biomedical Park, Electronics firms, Logistic and cold chain companies, Petrochemical companies among others. These are mainly companies with decent pay, decent work environment and some even utilising the state of the art technologies. These are good jobs. Jobs we want Singaporeans will be gainfully employed in. The challenge is: how do we attract Singaporeans to go there to work.
I recalled in our early years of industrialisation, the Government faced the same but different challenge. Enticing Singaporeans to take up employment in the Jurong Industrial Estate was also no easy feat; despite high unemployment then. Besides building public housing in Jurong, one of the things done then was to develop a public transport system to facilitate Singaporeans from other parts of the country to commute to work daily. Hence the comprehensive shuttle and trunk services; in addition to company-provided transport.
What about Tuas South? As it is, the area is rather remote to most Singaporeans. In terms of accessibility, Malaysian workers have it better compared to the locals, due to the proximity of the Tuas Second link. The nearest MRT station is Tuas West station. The distance from Tuas West station to Tuas Port Terminal Phase 1 is approximately 12 km to 13 km, with a travelling time of about 20 minutes. Currently, there is one feeder bus service from Tuas Bus Terminal serving Tuas South Ave 14. Taking a train from Ang Mo Kio to Tuas West Station, the travelling time is about 65 minutes, not factoring the time taken to travel from home to station and station to the work area. The duration is no means short for the workers who have to commute daily.
Such long distance will deter Singaporeans staying in the northern, eastern and central areas from wanting to work in Tuas South. I understand employers had a hard time getting local Singaporeans to work in Tuas area. With the companies providing transport the situation was slightly better, and it improved with the opening of the Tuas West extension line. I encountered a similar situation when the port moved to Pasir Panjang, and the workers had some challenge when transferred to the new terminals, till the opening of the Circle Line. Readily available public transport, especially our MRT train services, is a critical factor to be considered to facilitate Singaporeans to work in Tuas South area, notably when the area is being developed to provide good employment opportunities.
While businesses might provide transport for their workers, not all might do so. Singaporeans will use other means to travel to work in order to save time, and this poses a risk, especially travelling, long distance after completing the graveyard shift. Sir, I have handled cases of Malaysian union members who were involved in fatal traffic accidents after commuting from their home or while heading back home after work. Fatigue was one of the reasons.
Having to commute daily to work for more than 90 minutes back and forth can take a toll and certainly not what we want to subject our fellow Singaporeans to. I would humbly request the Minister of Transport to do a feasibility study on building an MRT line to Tuas South. This line can run via Jurong island as there is also a need for transport for workers working over there. If LTA aims to ensure the maximum of 45 minutes of travelling time between one’s home and work at Shenton Way, I do not see why the Government cannot consider it for workers working in an area where the future of work is.
There is no denying, that the cost of building and operating an MRT line will be high and there is always an issue of ridership, at least till the place is fully developed and bustling with activities. Nevertheless, I humbly believe it is a chicken and egg problem. Without easy accessibility to an efficient public transport, Singaporeans will find it challenging take up employment in Tuas South. Businesses will find it difficult to expand or gear up their activities due to human resource constrains. Hence the ridership may not reach the so-called optimal number.
Surely when we first embarked on industrialisation in Jurong town, ridership was not the top priority or consideration when developing the transport system. It was about providing a public transport service to facilitate Singaporeans seeking employment in Jurong. For the same reason, I urge the Government to continue to do likewise and ensure every Singaporean who takes up employment in Tuas South area can do so with a safe, comfortable and efficient transport service. It is not only about the companies and businesses in Tuas South. It is about every worker and “Every Worker Matters”.
The Chairman: Ms Low Yen Ling, you can take your two cuts together.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education and Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling): Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, today we have about 228 km of rapid rail tracks, a growth of 14% from 2017. Ridership has risen by over 5% to 3.5 million rides taking place on the MRT and LRT each day. More than 7.5 Million commuters use the bus or train each day and that is a jump of almost 4% from 2017.
I would like to thank and commend the hard work and perseverance of MOT and LTA for all the improvements that they have made to our transport network and train connectivity. The Ministry constantly seeks to better understand commuters and plan our transport systems for future needs.
Recently, it released the Transport Master Plan 2040 which had sought more than 7,000 views from the public on what they valued in their travel. According to the surveys, commuters prized convenience most, followed by connectivity and fast travel time. Proximity to bus stops and MRT stations, as well as ease of transferring from one transport mode to another also featured prominently in the feedback.
As a result, LTA released its latest transport goals that envision healthy and safe 20-minute towns and a 45-Minute City for Singapore by year 2040. In line with this, the Advisory Panel for the Master Plan made these recommendations:
(a) To offer commuters more public, active and shared modes of transport;
(b) To develop a more inclusive transport system for families, elderly and persons with disabilities (PWDs); and
(c) To create journeys for healthier lifestyles and a more liveable Singapore.
We welcome all these goals and hope that the aims of the 2040 Master Plan will translate to a change in status for the currently under-served Hume area. Without an MRT station, the Master Plan can only be a dream for the residents staying in and around Hume. Just like the survey respondents, Hume residents too place top value on convenience, connectivity and shorter travelling times.
However, the residents staying in and around Hume are presently caught in a long 2.6 km un-served stretch of tracks between Hillview MRT Station and Beauty World MRT Station. This distance of 2.6 km is more than double the average 1.1 km found between most train stations. Each time a Hume resident wants to take the Downtown Line, it entails a detour backwards to Hillview or to Beauty World, or a squeeze onto the crowded buses at peak hours.
Travelling times are currently far from ideal. For example, to get to Hillview MRT station, Hume residents need to \"backtrack\" in their bus routes, and peak hour travel could mean longer waiting times. Residents heading to town via Beauty World MRT Station are often subject to an extended wait because most buses plying Upper Bukit Timah Road are full by the time they reach Bukit Gombak. Residents could spend 15 minutes or more before being able to squeeze up a bus, and this really means that the vision of a 45-minute city is really beyond their reach.
Hence, I would like to strongly urge MOT/LTA not to leave Hume out of the new Master Plan. Build the MRT station now at Hume, so that the residents there can have a chance to be part of the new transport goals.
With an MRT station at Hume, residents will be placed on track the new Master Plan. With seamless multi-modes of transport, their travel times will be reduced. Children and elderly residents, as well as residents with disabilities, would be able to enjoy safer travels with an inclusive train transport system, right from their estate.
Constructing the Hume MRT station will create journeys that promote healthier lifestyles – one objective of the new Master Plan – and a more liveable Singapore. This is a key objective of the Master Plan. A new MRT station in Hume will certainly bring the people closer to the planned Rail Corridor. The development has historical significance and plenty of recreational potential. It has eight distinctively-themed stretches along its 24 km-long Corridor and 10 community nodes offering differentiated experiences. So, I was very heartened to hear Minister Desmond Lee's update during MND COS yesterday to know that the former Bukit Timah Fire Station will be developed into a visitor centre and a recreational node. We have been broaching on the ground in Bukit Gombak with MND, URA on this possibility and I am very happy that Minister Desmond Lee shared that this will come to fruition in the former Bukit Timah Fire Station soon.
Now, by providing access to the historical site, Hume MRT Station will strengthen the residents' sense of local identity and enhance Singaporeans' appreciation of our past in that belt. So, we hope that the Ministry will see different possibilities that an MRT station in Hume can offer.
Today, rail stations have the potential to become destinations and lifestyle centres that blend commuting with exercise, community with recreation, and actually community with even understanding history. People are increasingly using stations not just as a transport node, but also as places for leisure and social activities.
For example, the iconic New York Grand Central Terminal and London’s St Pancras Station. They are crowd pleasers; they draw a lot of traffic to those stations with their history, architecture, shopping and also dining choices. With the Rail Corridor in its backyard, Hume MRT station can eventually evolve into an exciting node promoting healthy lifestyles and a highly liveable Bukit Gombak in South West district.
Chairman, as I have illustrated, we have a strong and also a compelling case for building Hume MRT station. I strongly urge MOT and LTA to consider making investments in transportation that has widespread benefits. When transport systems are efficient and under-served gaps are being closed, they can provide social and economic opportunities that lead to positive multiplier effects in that area. For example, higher footfall or even tourism, new businesses, and also healthier and better lifestyles. Conversely, when transport systems are lacking, they lead to reduced or missed opportunities, and can lead to lower quality of life.
In fact, in the last seven years – this is the eighth year I am making a case for Hume MRT station – and I remember last year, Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan – we all wish him a speedy and smooth recovery – had responded to me in Parliament last year with the kind assurance that the Ministry is committed to opening Hume MRT station in good time and in pace with potential growth in ridership and development of the Hume area. Now with plans for the development of the Rail Corridor, the former Bukit Timah Fire Station, LTA's vision of a 45-minute city, the time has come now to approve the construction of Hume MRT station and translate the hopes of the residents staying in and around Hume into reality.
Chairman, like many urban cities, we constantly face the challenges of growing transport needs and development, as well as physical space constraints on our island-state.
In Bukit Gombak, we have benefited from MOT and LTA's plan to create a people-centred transport system in Singapore. Since the Downtown line started a few years back, our residents' travelling time into the city has been reduced significantly. Commuting is now more pleasant than before. The provision of covered walkway around our constituency has enhanced our journeys and last mile connection. In fact, some of the residents said they leave their car at home and take the train during the weekday to work.
I wish to register my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to the MOT and LTA for their hard work and patience in listening to all our transport requests. The numerous site visits and discussions have indeed resulted in improving the commuting experience in Bukit Gombak. Through the years, we have improved our roads and walkways, as well as introduced new bus services.
The 1,066 metres of covered walkway on one side at Hillview Avenue, from Hillview Park all the way to Hillview Green and now extending to Lam Soon Building, has served our residents well. However, residents staying on the opposite side of Hillview Avenue, from Hillview Peak all the way to Hillview Crescent, they are feeling the heat, especially now, in their commute to the bus stop or as they walk up to Hillview MRT station. We hope LTA would consider extending the last mile connection to these residents with the construction of a sheltered walkway.
Secondly, residents from Keat Hong Colours, and this is a new BTO estate, are having to travel a greater distance to their nearest bus stop since Bus Service 308 was replaced by the route of Bus Service 991. As a result of this change in bus service, residents no longer have a direct link to Chua Chu Kang MRT station and bus interchange, as well as important amenities like the Choa Chu Kang Polyclinic, Teck Whye Shopping Centre and nearby markets.
This situation can be changed if the LTA could review Bus 991 bus route to meet these unmet needs. In addition, there is now a distance of about 280 metres between the \"old 308 bus top\", which is bus stop No 44879, and the \"new 991 bus stop\", which is bus stop No 44889 – 280 metres between these two bus stops. We would like to request LTA, please close the gap with a sheltered walkway to serve these Keat Hong Axis and Colors residents.
Thirdly, we hope that the Ministry will continue to look into transport enhancement for Bukit Gombak as our town grows in size and network. Come 2023, the new NS Hub will be built in Bukit Gombak, near Hillview and Gombak Drive. I would like to congratulate Defence Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen and his ministry on the decision to bring all services under one roof for the NS community.
Bukit Gombak is no stranger to MINDEF. It is home to many army personnel at the Gombak camp and we are glad that the upcoming NS Hub in our vicinity will serve our NSmen as well.
While we look forward to the arrival of NS Hub in four years' time, we are also mindful of the transport considerations as more traffic, people and movement are anticipated to come into Bukit Gombak.
As I had highlighted in my COS speech on transport in the last few years, a crucial transport link is needed to connect the Hillview area and the Bukit Gombak Neighbourhood Centre. Currently, residents from the Bukit Gombak Neighbourbood Centre who want to use the Downtown Line MRT Station, although it is just about one km away, they would have to take two buses to get to the Hillview MRT station.
It is the same situation if they wish to get to our newly completed Community Club (CC), or if they wish to shop at the fairly new HillV2 mall. Having to change buses adds precious minutes to their travelling and waiting time within the constituency. Likewise, residents staying at the Hillview area do not have a direct bus to the Bukit Gombak Neighbourhood Centre that has more than 10 coffeeshops and more than 108 HDB shops for them to do their marketing and also buying of groceries.
This lack of community coverage and connection within the constituency actually draws an invisible line across our estate that has several \"centres of gravity\" or hubs. Without direct bus coverage, the flow of movement, the flow of people between the two sides of Bukit Gombak is somewhat hampered.
A direct bus link would offer greater chances for our residents, especially from the largely private estate of Hillview to go to Bukit Gombak Neighbourhood Centre where the markets, HDB estate and shops are; and vice versa, for residents staying at the Bukit Gombak area to easily access HillV2 mall and also to enjoy the facilities at our Hillview Community Club. As the node for our constituency activities and events, the CC especially, should be made easily accessible to all our residents, especially residents who rely on public transport.
So, Chairman, we need a people-centred transport system for community bonding and integration in our estate. Let not the lack of public transport be a hindrance to bringing residents staying in the same constituency closer together.
We hope that LTA will re-examine the lack of bus connectivity between Bukit Gombak Neighbourhood Centre and the Hillview areas and provide buses to link up our estate. This need has become more urgent now, with the location of NS Hub in our backyard. by year 2023. NS men accessing the hub from Bukit Gombak side will benefit from the direct buses heading towards Hillview area.
In addition, connecting the Hillview and Gombak areas to the North South line and Downtown line respectively will certainly expand transport options and encourage more of Bukit Gombak residents to go car-lite and bring us closer to green and sustainable living.
The Chairman: Mr Ang Wei Neng. You may take your next three cuts together.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Chairman, as we expand the rail network to 360 km by 2030, we will have to build up sufficient local expertise to build tunnel, railway, MRT stations as well as maintaining the Train rolling stock and other components.
Last year, I urged MOT to consider nurturing local expertise to build and maintain MRT system. A good comparison is Hong Kong MTR. Hong Kong has acquired sufficient expertise in building, maintaining and operating their train system so much so that they are winning a lot of contracts overseas. How about us?
I understand LTA is trying hard, for instance, the contract to build the Sungei Bedok MRT station and its tunnels was awarded to local firm KTC Civil Engineering and Construction. But more can be done.
In many countries, large Government projects typically have offset obligation of certain percentage, some as high as 50%, to require the foreign contractor to partner and allocate works to local companies. Very often, such scheme also involves knowledge transfer.
I am not advocating imposing offset obligation immediately. However, could we not move in this direction? As part of the evaluation criteria for awarding large MRT contracts, I hope LTA can consider mandating the tenderers to showcase their plan to better engage local contractors and facilitate technology transfers.
The Panel for the Land Transport Masterplan 2040 envisioned that Singaporeans would be able to reach neighbourhood town within 20 minutes, and the city within 45 minutes, by 2040. And this appears very great but 2040 appears quite far away.
MOT has announced that by 2030, eight in 10 households will be within 10-minute walk of MRT station as our rail network increased to 360 km by then. Is this timeline still on track? I suppose rail network will be the cornerstone, the backbone and pillar of the Land Transport Masterplan 2040. Thus, why cannot we reach the vision of 45-Minute City by 2030? What will be the additional significant improvements to land transport that MOT is thinking about between 2030 and 2040?
What is the current reality? How many Singaporeans can now travel to city within 45 minutes? Is it 25%, 50% or 75%? How many households are now staying within 10-minute walk of train station?
For people who are staying within 10-minute walk of the train station near their home and their workplace is also within 10-minute walk to a train station, what is the current, average and median and 90th percentile of travelling time to city? Is it already less than 45 minutes? If not, what are the obstacles that are preventing them from doing so?
And with the reality check, there can be better understanding of the current constraints that both MOT and Singaporeans can work together to reach the 2040 vision. If there are obstacles, we need to remove the obstacles together. If we need to change a mindset to better embrace public transport and shared transportation, let us work out the strategy together.
I will first like to declare my interest as the chief executive officer of ComfortDelGro's taxi business. In the past few years, the Point to Point or P2P transport sector has been heavily disrupted by new players, new technology and new money.
The recent PTC survey showed that consumers had no clear preference between private-hire cars and taxis. This shows that both sectors are serving largely the same group of people. In the last few years, the authority has adopted a wait-and-see approach pertaining to the ride hailing sector. At the same time, the authority continues to regulate the taxi sector as tight as before and this has created some distortions and disruptions to the market. Let me explain.
Before the entry of private-hire cars, we have 28,000 taxis but this number is not enough to meet the peak hour demand, especially during rainy days. Today, we have 22,000 taxis estimated and 44,000 private-hire cars, and these 66,000 vehicles still cannot meet the peak hour demands. And that is why commuters are experiencing surge pricing, which can be a few times the taxi metered fare, during peak hours. During off-peak, then there are too many vehicles for hire.
In an era of no regulation for the ride hailing sector, the ride hailing company is buying market share by subsidising fare through generous promotion codes – burning money; burning investors' money. Commuters are happy. Drivers are also happy because they are getting generous incentives from the ride hailing company and these incentives can be more than the fares they collected. And, what is the result?
The result is that we have one company now dominating the vehicle booking market in Singapore and the fares start to rise as compared to days with high promotion codes. In recent days, you can also see that a player unilaterally imposing cancellation charges and location surcharge without the need of obtaining approval from the authority. So, this is the case of winner takes all.
In the short run, commuters cheer the promotion codes. Certain party also urges the taxi drivers to drive for ride hailing company to enjoy the incentives. In the long run, when one winner takes all, it will be bad for both the commuters and the drivers.
And this is why the authorities see the need to intervene the P2P transport sector.
And, the question is how? I will suggest three principles or rather three areas where we need to pay more attention.
Firstly, on price. During peak hours, it is widely reported that surge pricing can be a few times the taxi metered fare. Should there be a cap? On the contrary, very low peak hour fares will also drive the supply away. So, we need a balance.
Secondly, on availability. Today, ride hailing companies claim that their cater rate can be almost 100%. And this is because when you ask for private car, and it can come to you but it could be 20 minutes or more. For taxi companies, on the other hand, they have to ensure that their taxis arrive within 10 minutes most of the time based on current regulation.
So, what should be the acceptable definition of vehicle availability? This is where public and commuters need to be consulted.
And thirdly, on safety. To ensure public safety, taxis are subjected to six-monthly inspection and taxi drivers have to be more than 30 years old, a proxy of how experienced a driver could be. Private-hire cars are not subjected to the same regulations today. Safety is important and I hope that the authority can take that into consideration.
In short, I agree that a review on the P2P transport sector is timely.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, I would like to declare my interest as the union representative for the private-hire drivers as well as the taxi drivers.
The Government had taken a light touch regulatory approach towards ride-hailing apps. There are now, some say 60,000, some say 40,000 private hire vehicles and about 20,000 taxis on the road. Commuters have more choices and more workers have become vocational drivers.
I have previously called for a review of the regulations for private hire and taxi operators to first better safeguard interests of commuters, second, ensure fair competition, and third, offer better welfare for the drivers.
An example was the initial partnership of Uber and ComfortDelGro (CDG) and a subsequent merger of Uber and Grab in 2018. Many feared then that it will lead to excessive power owned by one big player. I am glad that the authority has announced earlier that exclusivity by operators will not be allowed. Drivers must be allowed to choose jobs from any platforms or arrangements.
We should therefore situations where operators cause unnecessary anxiety among drivers by telling them that they will not cover drivers' insurance if anything happens while they fetch passengers using another service platform. We should also avoid operators working together to co-share commission and end up competing less with one another.
Decisions by operators have a big impact on consumers' options and drivers' livelihood. In fact, operators can unilaterally decide to ban or suspend drivers according to their own rules. As drivers are self-employed, the Employment Act does not apply to them and there have limited recourse.
We propose that the Ministry form tripartite workgroups to agree on hiring terms among other issues to be addressed. This is in tandem with the Ministry of Manpower's proposed recommendations for Self-Employed Persons (SEP). In fact, we already have such tripartite workgroup for taxi drivers, taxi operators and the LTA.
Ride hailing operators also have light assets, making it easy for them to suddenly exit to the detriment of drivers, commuters and their own employees. The sudden exit of Uber was a case in point. Ride hailing operators also collect monies on behalf of drivers and any delay in payments will not be fair to the drivers. Hence, the new licensure should ensure that there are safeguards such as security deposits or minimum payment period by the operators.
Chairman, the P2P sector also includes the traditional limousine drivers and others who belong to informal networks. I have met many of them throughout the last few years. Many operate on varying degrees of matching and driving as a service. Drivers, so called \"page out\" jobs from their regular clients to other members when they are unable to fulfill them.
Drivers in this group have expressed serious concerns if the regulations are onerous.
Chairman, the groups are home-grown. The authority had taken a light touch regulatory approach for foreign new entrants like Uber and Grab for several years. Look how far these operators have come and how much they have benefited. We should therefore provide similar leeway to our local groups to operate alongside these bigwigs.
As it is, the growth in commuters is slowing. I estimate about 1.2 million daily hired trips now compared to about a million five years ago. But we have now about 130,000 taxi and private hire vocational license holders. It appears that too many drivers are fighting for a limited pie.
Should we consider capping the number of such vehicles? Should we not have more modes of leasing like hourly rental? Should the age of new taxi and private hire drivers not be raised to prevent an over-supply situation?
The members of the associations have met with Senior Minister of State Janil on the proposed recommendations and we will continue to have such dialogues with him to ensure that our commuters and drivers will be safeguarded.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Chairman, the market for urban mobility has changed significantly. Innovations such as private-hire ride hailing and bicycle sharing have made commuting easier and faster. At the same time, there have been growing pains, ranging from market dominance in ride-hailing, to indiscriminate parking of shared bicycles, and unrecoverable debts from failed start-ups.
The Government's light-touch approach has helped these markets grow. But at times, the locus of regulation has been unclear. For example, in ride-hailing, today LTA handles driver licensing, while the CCCS oversees market conduct due to the recent Grab-Uber merger. The Public Transport Council, meanwhile, has no statutory authority over ride-hailing and personal mobility device services.
What are the Ministry's plans to design more integrated and holistic regulation for urban mobility services? Such services are parts of the broader public transport eco-system. Many operators see the potential for vertical integration of services from public transport, to point-to-point, to personal mobility devices. To achieve the LTMP 2040 target of nine in 10 journeys using public, active, and shared modes of transport, regulation should take a broader view.
Further, could the PTC's statutory authority be widened to serve as a one-stop shop to safeguard the interests of commuters and stakeholders in the broader public transport eco-system?
The Chairman: Mr Melvin Yong, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Chairman, technological advances will allow us to reinvent and re-imagine our land transport system.One good example is the introduction of on-demand public buses.
The LTA recently launched a trial of On-Demand Public Bus (ODPB) services which allow commuters to request pick-ups and drop-offs at any bus-stop within defined areas, using a mobile application. The intention of such a trial is to evaluate the feasibility of operating public bus service with routes and schedules based on real-time commuter demand instead of following current fixed routes and pre-determined timetables. Last week, LTA announced that about 6,000 trips have been taken in the first two months of the trial with about 20,000 app downloads.
I recently visited Shenton Way Bus Terminal to learn how the trial at Marina Downtown area has been progressing and to also talk to our bus workers operating the service. From what I observed, there are clear benefits to this system. By being more responsive to the real-time changes in commuter demand, we can reduce empty mileage quite significantly.
Currently, the trial operates only during off-peak hours. I would like to ask can the Ministry extend the trial to peak hours to test if the benefits apply as well. I would also like to suggest for the system to incorporate the use of virtual bus-stops. With technology, we can increase convenience for commuters by allowing them to select their pick-up and drop-off points along certain designated zones instead of confining to current traditional bus-stops.
The On-Demand Public Bus concept will certainly be useful in areas where there is low financial viability to deploy fixed and scheduled buses due to a low population density, such as private landed estates of which I have plenty in my constituency. I hope that the Ministry can consider extending the On-Demand Public Bus trial to the Dunearn and Bukit Timah estates which are currently located within my constituency. There are many elderly residents living in these areas and having such a service would be useful for those who may find that the nearest bus-stop or MRT station is quite a distance to walk.
Finally, the On-Demand Public Bus concept is not entirely flawless. Some of the bus captains I spoke to shared that they were not able to adapt well to the rigours of being always on demand. They preferred to work on fixed and scheduled routes. I therefore urge the Ministry to also consider drivers' stress, drivers' fatigue and work with the union and the public transport operators to look after the needs of our bus drivers who are plying on such On-Demand Public Buses.
I sit on the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) Advisory Panel and we have recently announced our recommendations on the Land Transport Master Plan 2040. Harnessing technology will be key to realising some of the recommendations meet by the Panel. However, the flipside of harnessing that very same technology will have the potential disruptions to the livelihoods of many of our public transport workers. Here, I declare my interest as the executive secretary of the National Transport Workers Union and I would like to ask the Ministry to shed more light on the impact of Land Transport Master Plan 2040 recommendation on public transport workers.
Are there plans to ensure that our public transport workers are ready to embrace Artificial Intelligence and digitalisation? The union stands ready to work with the Ministry and the transport operators to help our workers keep up with technology changes and ensure that they are well-prepared to handle future challenges in this sector, but we need the Government's support for this.
One key technology that Singapore has been exploring in recent years is the use of autonomous vehicles. There are several ongoing trials for autonomous vehicles, including autonomous buses. With the most recent being NTU's collaboration with Volvo to test self-driving electric buses in actual traffic conditions. At a recent focus group discussion, where Senior Minister of State Janil and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng were also present, our public transport workers and union leaders expressed strong concerns over the uncertainty of their jobs due to the impending adoption of autonomous buses. In fact, I have also raised these concerns at every COS since 2017.
We need to take action sooner, rather than later, to help our public transport workers transition into a driverless world. There are more than 10,000 bus captains, of whom many have been driving as a livelihood for decades. I therefore urge the Ministry to set up a tripartite committee, to work with the union and the transport operators, to oversee the impact of the development of autonomous vehicles on transport workers in Singapore.
Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mr Chairman, as we move towards a car-lite society the Government needs to ensure that our public transport is reliable, efficient, extensively connected and cost effective. Sir, there has been an emphasis on last mile connectivity by foot, bus, PMDs, bicycles and so on. However, residents often complain of pathways being unsafe because of the different devices on it, and parents and grandparents still feel that they cannot hold the hands of the children as it is not safe. It is safe for the children to walk in front of them.
Can the Ministry share on their enforcement actions, as staff strength to make our pathways safer? Last year, an SBS Transit Bus collided with SMRT bus along Jalan Jurong Kechil, leaving 33 people injured. And LTA released a statement emphasising that safety is of paramount important. I would like to ask the Minister to give an update and provide statistics on past safety breaches for our public transport system.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, at last year's Committee of Supply (COS), many Members of Parliament spoke up about the dangers caused by speeding e-scooters and indiscriminate parking by users of bike-sharing services. Since then, the speed limit of 15 km/h for e-scooters on footpaths has been reduced to 10km/h and owners of e-scooters are required to register their e-scooters.
A year is a long time for bike sharing firms, oBike has gone under and Ofo bike has been suspended for failing to meet the new requirements to prevent indiscriminate parking. While bike-sharing companies had contributed to much disamenities, they have also played an important role in terms of last mile connectivity. With the demise of oBike and Ofo, possibly the two operators with the largest fleet of bikes, what is the Ministry doing to ensure that last mile connectivity is not compromised?
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Dr Lam Pin Min.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min): Mr Chairman, I agree with Mr Sitoh Yih Pin wholeheartedly that the works of the Transport Ministry is no child's play. It affects the lives of thousands and millions of Singaporeans on a daily basis. Speaking as a pediatric ophthalmologist and I believe my fellow pediatric colleagues will agree that besides treating or operating on a patient who is a child, what is most important is to win the confidence and trust of the parents who put the lives and well-being of their precious one in our hands. Similarly, as we aspire to make our public transport system world class, we need to gain the confidence and trust of Singaporeans.
For example, Singaporeans have made personal sacrifices such as during the early closure and late opening, while we step up maintenance and upgrading works for the rail system. I want to thank Singaporeans for their understanding. It is a delicate balance. We must not rest on our laurels, and we will continue to work hard at it.
Mr Chairman, may I have your permission for slides to be displayed during MOT's replies to Members?
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Chairman, Members have raised good questions about MOT's work across air, sea and land transport. Together, Acting Minister for Transport Vivian Balakrishnan, Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng and I will address the queries in three themes.
First, Connecting Singapore to the World. Changi Airport and our port play an important role in making Singapore a global city and a vibrant economic hub. For this theme, I will speak on how we are strengthening connectivity with ASEAN and working with international organisations, as well as investing in our air and sea hubs. In addition to discussing domestic public transport issues, Acting Minister for Transport Vivian Balakrishnan will also address Members' questions on bilateral issues with Malaysia.
Second, Cultivating Innovation and Creating Opportunities for All. Embracing technology and innovation will be key in strengthening our transport sectors, and creating opportunities for Singaporeans. I will share on some technologies we are harnessing in the aviation and maritime domains. Back home, we are embracing innovative commuting options such as private hire cars and active mobility devices. Senior Minister of State Janil will speak on our plans to regulate the point-to-point sector, and I will speak on active mobility.
Third, Co-Creating with Singaporeans, Bringing Singapore Together. Last year, we started work on the next Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) to set out the vision for our land transport system in 2040. We have consulted widely to co-create a vision with Singaporeans and build a land transport system which meets the diverse needs of Singaporeans. Senior Minister of State Janil will elaborate on the LTMP 2040 and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey will share how we are creating an inclusive land transport system for all.
Let me now turn to the first theme. Connecting Singapore to the World. This year, we mark the Singapore Bicentennial. But even before 1819, there were already records of Singapore being a thriving sea port. We were a location where East meets West, and for many centuries an important port for trading valuable spices like pepper and nutmeg.
After Independence, our pioneers turned our location into an advantage. They built the first container terminal in Southeast Asia at Tanjong Pagar in 1972, despite the uncertainty that containerisation would even take off. Not long after, against the consultants' recommendations, they shifted our international airport from Paya Lebar to Changi, to accommodate the future expansion of the airport. Today, our buzzing sea port and Changi Airport are all part and parcel of the Singapore identity.
But we cannot take what we have for granted. As Mr Sitoh Yih Pin rightly noted, there is much to be done for our air and sea hubs to remain relevant and competitive in the long term.
First, aviation and maritime are international businesses. The flow of goods and people is dependent on good connectivity between different regions. A dense network of Southeast Asia nodes will enable all of us to ride on Asia's growth together. For example, since the first ASEAN Air Services Agreement was signed in 2009 to liberalise air rights for ASEAN airlines for flights within ASEAN, passenger traffic within ASEAN has grown by more than 90%. This has coincided with a period of strong growth in ASEAN tourism.
The expansion of connectivity beyond ASEAN will further stimulate tourism growth. Since the signing of the ASEAN-China Air Transport Agreement in 2011, direct links have increased more than fivefold to over 500, providing more flexible and convenient travel options between China and Southeast Asia. In 2018, the number of Chinese tourists to Southeast Asia reached 25 million, up from 10 million before the Agreement. For Singapore, the number of Chinese tourists visiting Singapore grew from 1.6 million to 3.4 million. Singapore's extensive air links to China also connect Chinese passengers to the region – the Singapore/Malaysia/Thailand tour itinerary (新马泰游) is a popular one. The Singapore Tourism Board, Changi Airport Group and Royal Caribbean International also have a tripartite partnership to sail Chinese Fly-Cruise tourists from Singapore to Southeast Asia.
This is why Singapore participates actively in establishing stronger links between the region and the rest of the world.
There are on-going negotiations on air transport agreements between ASEAN and the European Union, and between ASEAN and Japan. These agreements would further boost economic ties, and enable the aviation industries of these countries to better tap on the Asia-Pacific market.
Similarly, maritime connectivity plays an important role in supporting the growing region. Over the past decade, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has recorded a steady rise in the Liner Shipping Connectivity Index scores of ASEAN countries. This means that the region is increasingly connected to the global shipping network. Singapore will continue to play our part. We have built a reliable and densely connected network, by anchoring key shipping lines and alliances that ply the main shipping route from Asia to Europe.
Together with our strong complementary feeder network to ASEAN ports, we ensure that goods manufactured in Southeast Asia can be delivered efficiently worldwide. We are also developing new and efficient maritime trade routes. The New International Land Sea Trade Corridor under the Chongqing Connectivity Initiative, also known as CCI-ILSTC, is one example. This new route helps businesses in Southeast Asia access Chinese markets more efficiently. For example, Indonesian paper pulp is traditionally shipped via bulk to Jiangsu and conveyed by barge into Chongqing. Now, they can be containerised and transported through the CCI-ILSTC, saving time and money for businesses.
Mr Chairman, we must also grow our connectivity in a sustainable way. In this regard, Singapore contributes actively to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO), to play our part in strengthening international aviation and maritime systems.
For example, Singapore is supportive of the IMO's efforts to address the environmental impact caused by ship emissions. We will be implementing the 0.5% sulphur emission cap, and preparing our port to supply liquefied natural gas as a clean marine fuel by 2020. On the aviation front, Singapore contributed extensively to ICAO's efforts in addressing international aviation carbon dioxide emissions through the implementation of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). This global initiative will help ICAO achieve its aspirational goal of carbon-neutral growth from 2020.
At the same time, we are working with ASEAN to push for our collective interest at international platforms. For example, Singapore is now collaborating with Malaysia and Indonesia to implement a \"Same Risk Area\" for ballast water management, following IMO's approval of the concept. The idea is to identify areas where species would be naturally transferred without using ballast water from ships as a medium, and thus regarded as having the \"same risk\". Ships operating in the \"Same Risk Area\" can then be exempted from IMO's requirement to install ballast water management systems. This makes it easier for ships operating short voyages in our region, while ensuring that we play our part in protecting the marine environment.
Back home, we must continue to invest in quality infrastructure to provide the needed capacity and strengthen Singapore's global connectivity. We are currently building Tuas Terminal and developing Changi East including the new Terminal 5 (T5). Mr Chairman, with your permission, I would like to display some photos on the LED screens.
Reclamation works for Tuas Terminal are progressing well, and we are on track to commence the first phase of operations in 2021. Not only will Tuas Terminal be able to handle high container volumes and bigger vessels, it will be a smarter port – with a higher degree of automation to improve efficiency, safety and service levels. Similarly, the development of Changi East is on track and T5 is expected to commence operations around 2030.
Before T5 comes on stream, we will enhance our current airport infrastructure. Terminal 1’s upgrading is nearing completion. Jewel will also open on 17 April, with aviation facilities that will improve the travel experience for passengers, such as early check-in facilities, integrated ticketing and baggage services for fly-cruise and fly-coach transfers, in addition to its array of attractions and retail and dining offerings. I am happy to hear from Mr Sitoh that he believes Jewel Changi Airport will be a delight for visitors and Singaporeans alike.
And I guess he must be referring to popular F&B brands like American Fast Food Chain, Shake Shack, London's famed Burger & Lobster chain, Merdeka's Generation's old favourite A&W and local delight like Violet Onn's restaurant. I had the privilege to go on a sneak preview of Jewel together with Mr Sitoh and my first impression was \"Wow!\". Indeed, it will live up to its name \"Jewel\" and be a world-class lifestyle destination set to inspire and entertain visitors, both local and overseas.
Upgrading works on Terminal 2 will also start soon. Terminal 2 will be expanded and refreshed, with automated check-in kiosks, biometric-enabled bag-drops and automated immigration gates, to offer passengers greater convenience from check-in to immigration to their flight.
Harnessing technology and innovation is one of our main strategies under the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) for both air and sea transport. Since the ITMs were rolled out early last year, we have been working closely with the industry and unions, to review systems and processes, and use technology to augment human capabilities.
At the airport, airside drivers drive tractors to tow baggage between terminals and aircraft. This process is strenuous. So, with support from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), SATS, the largest ground handler at Changi, is experimenting with Autonomous Container Trailers. If successful, it would mean less physically straining jobs, and more higher-skilled jobs such as Autonomous Vehicle Operators and Fleet Managers.
We are also automating our sea port to raise productivity. Jurong Port previously used traditional forklifts and flatbed trailers to unload steel, which constitutes more than half of their handled cargo. It now deploys customised sideloaders, which has helped to reduce its manpower requirement for steel unloading by 60%.
Such technologies make a real difference to our port workers. One of them is Mr Haja Maidin, who worked as a Container Equipment Specialist at PSA for the past 27 years. The automation of yard cranes at Pasir Panjang Terminal gave Mr Haja the opportunity to take on a supervisory role as a Ground Operations Controller. He also picked up new skills to use stowage planning systems.
Besides investing in technology, we want to help our companies embrace technology. To support SMEs, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), in collaboration with the Infocomm Media Development Authority and Enterprise Singapore, will roll out the Sea Transport Industry Digital Plan (IDP) under the SMEs Go Digital Programme. The idea is to make going digital simple for SMEs. The IDP provides a step-by-step guide on digital technologies that SMEs can adopt at different stages of growth. SMEs can also tap on available Government co-funding when they adopt the list of digital solutions relevant for the sea transport sector for their digital journey. As a start, we will be rolling out the Sea Transport IDP to ship agency and harbour craft companies. More details will be provided at the Sea Transport IDP launch.
We will also continue to experiment and push the boundaries of emerging technology. The payoffs will not be immediate. Mr Pritam Singh asked about the Centre of Excellence for Air Traffic Management. The Centre of Excellence for ATM Programme Fund of $200 million was established in 2012 and as of now $142 million has been committed for research and development projects in air traffic management. For example, the Centre of Excellence's initiated research activities to explore a smart digital tower concept for high intensity operations at Changi Airport. This project has progressed from the laboratory to the field where we have commenced the development of a smart digital tower prototype in January 2018.
Mr Pritam Singh also asked the status of our space-based VHF communications for air traffic management. Globally, space-based VHF communications technology is still nascent and still under development. CAAS is in the design phase together with our industry partners. But it is important that we help our companies build deep capabilities today, so that they gain competitive advantages for the future.
Several companies are already taking a lead in building that \"innovator’s DNA\" in their workforce. SIA and Lufthansa have opened their own innovation labs in Singapore to trial new technologies. Wärtsilä, a Finnish maritime company, has also set up their Digital Acceleration Centre as part of MPA’s Living Lab initiative.
We will continue to create a supportive environment and explore deeper collaborations with the industry. One area is unmanned aircraft systems, more commonly referred to as drones. To support innovative uses of drones, MPA and CAAS will launch the Maritime Drone Estate near Marina South Pier. Its close proximity to an anchorage provides a conducive environment to test-bed and develop drone technology for maritime applications. It will also serve as a regulatory sandbox for the development of regulatory and safety standards for maritime drone operations.
The industry has already been active in this arena. For example, Wilhelmsen and Airbus are trialling the use of drones to deliver goods from shore to ship, which will increase productivity and reduce manpower needed compared to deliveries by boats today.
As we facilitate more beneficial uses of drones, we are mindful of the potential safety and security threats arising from its errant and irresponsible use, as seen from the incidents at Gatwick and Newark airports. In January, I had informed the House that we have in place measures to deal with such threats, and coordinate very closely with the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Home Affairs on such efforts. To ensure that drones are operated safely, CAAS is also looking into strengthening the Unmanned Aircraft Regulatory Framework. This may include the mandatory registration of drones.
Mr Chairman, our aviation and maritime investments will create rewarding career opportunities for Singaporeans. For example, Jewel Changi Airport will open up over 2,000 new retail and hospitality jobs. Businesses are participating in Workforce Singapore’s career fairs to recruit locals into these jobs.
Our efforts to attract global players to grow their businesses in Singapore will also create more job and business opportunities. Last year, we welcomed new entrants into our maritime sector, such as Thenemaris and Cheng Lie Navigation. Key players already in Singapore such as Ocean Network Express (ONE), Wilhelmsen Ship Management and Wärtsilä have also expanded their operations here.
At the same time, under the ITMs, the Government, unions and companies are working together to develop a future-ready aviation and maritime workforce. Some workers may worry about how their current jobs will be affected by technological changes, and whether their skillsets will remain relevant for the future. I want to assure them that we will support them to grow and learn new skills.
CAAS and SkillsFuture Singapore, in consultation with tripartite partners, launched the Skills Framework for the Air Transport Sector last year. It informs employees of career pathways and the skills required for different jobs, and provides companies with guidelines for better employee training. More aviation companies are using the framework to invest in the training and development of their employees. For example, SATS has set up a SATS Academy which introduces interesting ways of staff training, such as using virtual reality to simulate scenarios for technical ramp training. We are also better integrating studies and work. We already have several programmes that allow students and employees to work and study at the same time.
One such programme is MPA’s Global Internship Award (GIA) which allows students to intern at international maritime companies, whilst still pursuing their undergraduate studies. Mr Damon Er interned at Braemar ACM Shipbroking under the GIA in 2016, when he was still studying at NTU. He received a job offer right after the internship, and is now working as a dry cargo Capesize trainee broker.
Aspiring port engineers can enroll in the Work-Learn Technical Diploma in Port Automation Technology, run by PSA and ITE. It helps our students and workers acquire skillsets necessary for a highly automated port, through a combination of structured classroom teaching and on-the-job training at PSA.
We have received good feedback on the Earn-and-Learn Programme (ELP) which allows fresh graduates to work and obtain an industry-recognised certification at the same time. Mr Elias Heng started his career under the ELP for Marine Engineering Officer and sailed as a Fourth Engineer with Apex Ship Management Pte Ltd. The structured on-the-job training helped him prepare for higher seafaring certifications. Upon completion of the ELP, he went on to further his training and has since been promoted to a Third Engineer with Apex.
Likewise, Ms Kylie Pang, a SATS customer services agent, pursued two skills-based Modular Certificates under the ELP which helped her develop both soft and technical skills. This gave her a head-start in her career. She is now working towards completing the three remaining Modular Certificates, to obtain a Diploma in Aviation Management from Temasek Polytechnic.
This year, MPA will introduce another ELP for shore-based jobs in the ship owning, ship operating and ship broking sectors. And CAAS will enhance the course fee support to cover three additional modular certifications for the Passenger Service Agents ELP. With these enhancements, more people will benefit from the ELP, just like Elias and Kylie.
Mr Chairman, as we reflect on our past and chart our plans for the future, we know that a Singapore that is well-connected to the world is key to our success.
The Chairman: Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Chairman, Minister Khaw has asked me to convey his apologies for missing COS. I can assure all of you that he is recovering well after surgery and, in fact, has been following the debate assiduously. He also asked me to reassure you that he will actively pursue all your suggestions and advice when he returns. He has also asked me to remind everyone that every year in Singapore, one-third of seniors sustain injuries from falls. Many of these incidents occur at home, usually at night or early morning. In fact, as a doctor, I can tell you the most vulnerable moments are those few seconds or minutes when you wake up from and get out of bed.
Let me now turn to domestic transport. We all want a public transport system that is safe, reliable, convenient and affordable. Four worthy objectives, but sometimes you have to make some tough choices and trade-offs. Bear these words in mind: safe, reliable, convenient, affordable. Our transport system is actually in a very strong position, that is thanks to many generations of visionary leaders, meticulous planners and, of course, the transport workers themselves who work long hours. They wake up way before everyone else has woken up and they also work into the wee hours of the night to maintain and operate our bus and rail network. All of them deserve our tribute.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin has emphasised that the Government's spending on transport has more than doubled over the last 10 years, from $5.4 billion in 2009 to now $11.5 billion in 2019. A doubling in 10 years. We are expanding our MRT network which after all, is the backbone of our public transport system. Over the last five years, we completed the Downtown Line and Tuas West Extension, and we added close to 50 km to our network. We will open the first phase of our sixth MRT line – the Thomson-East Coast Line (TEL) by the end of this year. TEL will add another 32 stations and 43 km more to our MRT network, and eventually serve up to one million commuters. By around 2030, we can look forward to the opening of the Circle Line Stage 6, the Jurong Region Line and the Cross Island Line. When all these new lines come onstream, we will achieve our target of having eight in 10 households within a 10-minute walk from a train station.
We added 200 trains over the last five years. We also introduced 1,000 buses under the Bus Service Enhancement Programme, and this was completed in 2017. We are conducting trials with on-demand buses and cleaner, greener vehicles. We have also added 500 km of road lanes over the last 10 years, and are building more.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin has noted the improved rail reliability. We achieved Mean Kilometres Between Failures (MKBF) of 690,000 train-km in 2018, which is more than triple the 181,000 train-km in 2017.
But this is, as Minister Khaw has emphasised in the past, a multi-year effort. He has also said that we are not out of the woods yet. We will continue to work on improving rail reliability. In fact, we have to continue to work on this. We are also renewing and enhancing the Bukit Panjang LRT (BPLRT), which now requires new trains, resignalling and power rail system enhancements. With these efforts, we hope the BPLRT will also become a lot more reliable in the future, and I must confess that I have a personal stake in this as one of the local Members of Parliament.
Our commuters have noticed the improvements. The independent Public Transport Council (PTC) tracks this through the annual Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Survey. I think Assoc Prof Walter Theseira referred to this in his speech. The mean satisfaction score went up to 7.9 in 2018, which is the highest level since we started measuring in 2008.
LTA embarked on its most extensive public engagement exercise thus far for the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP 2040). We are grateful to the more than 7,000 Singaporeans who have contributed ideas to this plan. The LTMP Advisory Panel, which is chaired by Senior Minister of State Janil, has worked very hard to take all these views into account and submitted its recommendations to the Government on 15 February 2019.
The Panel appreciated that a transport system does not just convey people to a place. It brings people together and, if you think about it, it forms a significant part of our daily shared lived experience. A bad commuting experience can disrupt your mood and and day, almost as much as a domestic dispute at home. So, this is why people feel so strongly about the quality, reliability and experience of travelling. The Panel has, therefore, recommended enhancing the travel experience through greater connectivity and better service for everyone. The Panel also understood that there is, ultimately, a limit to infrastructure building on our tiny island.
The Panel has proposed a bold new vision – a healthy and safe 20-minute town travel and a 45-Minute City travel for everyone by 2040. The Government accepts the Panel’s recommendations. Senior Minister of State Janil will elaborate on the LTMP 2040 later.
Let me now deal with the politically-sensitive topic of fiscal sustainability. Many Members have brought this up. I agree with Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira that we need to exercise fiscal discipline in order to reduce costs and maximise value for money. How is this being done? Let me cite four ways in which LTA is trying to achieve this.
First, always look out for novel design solutions. For example, LTA engineers saved about $2 billion in construction costs with the East Coast Integrated Depot. This depot is going to be a 4-in-1, with three MRT depots for the East-West Line, Downtown Line and the upcoming TEL, which are stacked one on top of another, and there is also a bus depot for 760 buses. This is the first such facility of its kind. LTA’s engineers have also saved more than $3 billion in potential construction costs by shifting the depot and the reception tracks for the Cross Island Line above ground.
The second way – always look at life cycle costs when procuring major assets that will operate for decades. When the first generation North-South and East-West Line trains were due for renewal, LTA challenged the train manufacturers to design systems using the latest technology that would be easier and cheaper to maintain throughout the 30-year life cycle of the trains.
Third, leverage competitive market forces wherever appropriate and whenever possible. For instance, the Bus Contracting Model ensures contestability through open tenders for bus packages. This has brought down the average bus contract bid prices by about 20% since the first bus package was awarded four years ago.
Fourth, incentivise – and you will notice I use the word \"incentivise\" – commuters to change their behavior where possible and where convenient in order to optimise the overall performance of the system. This is something which I think Assoc Prof Walter Theseira has been pursuing for quite some time. I have noticed his speeches in this Chamber and he has asked about differential fares. These were introduced by PTC in December 2017. If you strip away the jargo, this is actually is about saving money and improving the travel experience by encouraging more rail commuters to travel during off-peak hours. The number of commuters traveling during the morning pre-peak period has now increased by about 12%. We will continue to look for ways to smoothen out these peaks and troughs which, Assoc Prof Theseira, as an economist, will tell you have a very important impact on overall long-term system costs but, at the same time, improves the travelling experience for people, as it is less crowded. It does so in a positive way through differential fares.
But even as we do this, we need to be mindful that not all commuters have the flexibility to change their commuting patterns. Even with such measures in place, the brutal hard truth is that a high-quality public transport system still requires significant resources. The perennial question – and it is a political question as well – remains \"How do we strike the right balance between the costs borne by taxpayers, commuters and operators?\"
I emphasised taxpayers because every dollar that the Government puts into the public transport system ultimately comes from taxpayers. So, remember there is always a balancing act that is necessary.
Now, on the Government's side – and that means, on the taxpayers' side of the equation – we will continue to keep fares affordable by fully funding all infrastructure costs and providing significant operating subsidies. Over the next five years, the Government expects to provide $5 billion in subsidies for public bus services and around $4.5 billion to renew our rail operating assets. The Government will also spend another $26 billion to expand the bus and rail networks, also over the next five years. This is why, despite the improvements in capacity and reliability, public transport actually has become more affordable. In fact, over the last decade, monthly expenditure on public transport, as a proportion of household income for the lower income group, has come down from 4.1% to 2.7%.
But I also want to say this. It is inevitable that fares will have to keep pace with costs. In 2018, the PTC introduced a Network Capacity Factor into the fare formula. I think Mr Dennis Tan also referred to this in his intervention earlier. Basically, this factor allows the fares to be adjusted in tandem with capacity changes of our public transport network relative to commuter demand. What I am trying to say in simple terms is this, we would all like to increase capacity to make it more convenient and improve the travel experience. But all of you here also know that an increase in capacity comes with an increase in cost. I would like, however, to assure Mr Dennis Tan that we will certainly caibrate the expansion of rail capacity so that it expands in tandem with ridership growth. It is not feasible anyway to have unlimited expansion in capacity, and I am sure that the impact of NCF will be managed in due course.
Mr Dennis Tan also suggested factoring in service quality. This is another example where I agree with his intention. I think the divergence is in the method. Service standards, including on-time performance reliability, are already regulated through existing frameworks. But these frameworks are outside the fare formula. What do I mean by that? In other words, these standards are imposed by LTA on the operators as conditions for service. In addition, operators can be penalised for breach of regulatory standards or breach of licence conditions and the penalties paid are calibrated to ensure fairness and accountability. The penalties paid accrue to the Public Transport Fund which, as you all know, is then redistributed, especially to the lower income families. This is used, therefore, to provide financial assistance on the one hand, but also to serve as a disincentive against the operators taking shortcuts.
Mr Dennis Tan also suggested factoring operators' profitability into the fare formula. The profitability of public transport operators, in fact, is already taken into consideration in the fare review mechanism. For example, the productivity gains of public transport operators are shared with commuters through the Productivity Extraction Factor in the fare formula. A lot of words. If you look up the briefing, it is in there in the formula. I think PTC will happily have this conversation with you offline.
The point is this. The operators also contribute a portion of the fare increase into the Public Transport Fund. Typically, they contribute about 20%-50% of the expected increase in fare revenue for that year, with the more profitable public transport operators contributing more, I think this is fair.
This puts in place a formal mechanism for the public transport operators to share their gains with commuters. Let me assure you that that the PTC will continue to keep a close watch on fare affordability for all commuters, especially for specific groups like senior citizens, low-income individuals and persons with disabilities. The PTC has done well and I am confident it will continue to strike the right balance. The key word here is \"balance\" – balance between fare affordability and the long-term fiscal sustainability of our public transport system.
I spoke last week in my capacity as the Minister for Foreign Affairs on managing relations with Malaysia. Let me now specifically address Members' queries on transport-related issues with Malaysia.
As Members know, several transport-related issues have arose – the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail (HSR) project. Then, there was the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link (RTS Link) project, as well as the airspace and maritime boundary issues.
Our approach to engaging Malaysia remains unchanged. We have upheld international law and we respected the sanctity of international agreements. At the same time, we have been reasonable, we have been constructive in trying to resolve issues in a win-win manner.
First, the HSR project. In fact, this is a case in point. In August last year, Malaysia requested to defer the HSR project. In the spirit of bilateral cooperation, we agreed to Malaysia's request, and both sides agreed to a two-year suspension up to 31 May 2020. As part of the agreement, Malaysia agreed, and I can confirm, has remitted to Singapore about S$15 million on 31 January 2019 and and this is for the abortive costs that were incurred by Singapore due to the two-year suspension.
Malaysia has requested that during the suspension period, both sides discuss the way forward for the HSR Project, with the aim of reducing the overall costs. We have yet to receive any new proposals from Malaysia on this but we will certainly study any such proposals carefully when we receive them. We look forward to working with Malaysia when the project resumes.
On the RTS Link, this is another rail project that we have with Malaysia. And it was Mr Ang Wei Neng who quite rightly pointed out that the RTS Link should significantly ease congestion at our land checkpoints which, by the way, are the busiest land checkpoints in the world. This will make it much more convenient for people to travel between Singapore and Johor Bahru.
Minister Khaw updated the House in January that the RTS Link project has seen some delays. Unfortunately, the project is likely to face further delays. We are now at the stage where both Governments are obliged to jointly call an open tender to appoint the RTS Link Operating Company (OpCo). Singapore fully expects both countries to fully abide by this obligation and has made this clear to Malaysia. Whilst emphasising the obligation of both Governments to call a fair, open and transparent international tender to appoint the OpCo, but in the spirit of bilateral cooperation, Singapore has been willing to engage Malaysia on its proposals for Malaysia's Joint Venture (JV) partner for the RTS Link OpCo.
Unfortunately, Malaysia has repeatedly delayed confirming its JV partner for the RTS Link OpCo. Most recently, on 28 February 2019, Malaysia asked for another deadline extension to 31 March 2019. We hope that they will reach a decision soon. Given these delays, the RTS Link service, quite frankly, is no longer on track to commence by the original date of 31 December 2024.
Singapore continues to believe that the RTS Link is a mutually beneficial project, and I would like to assure Mr Ang Wei Neng that we remain fully committed to implementing the project as per the RTS Link Bilateral Agreement.
We have also been engaging Malaysia in order to find constructive solutions to both maritime and airspace issues.
On 25 October 2018, Malaysia decided to unilaterally extend the Johor Bahru Port Limits into Singapore's territorial waters off Tuas. This purported extension goes beyond even Malaysia's own territorial sea claims according to its own 1979 map, which Singapore has consistently rejected. The inescapable conclusion is that the new Johor Bahru Port Limits transgress into what are indisputably Singapore Territorial Waters.
Since then, both sides have been engaged in intensive discussions to de-escalate the situation. We have made reasonable progress so far, and I hope to make some joint announcements with my counterpart Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah within the next one or two weeks. So, akan datang.
Mr Ang Wei Neng asked if the ongoing maritime dispute will affect the viability of our future Tuas Terminal. The answer is \"no\". Development works are proceeding as planned, and there will be no impact to access for ships calling at the terminal in the future. I can assure Mr Ang that our security agencies will continue to be vigilant, and safeguard the sovereignty and security of our territorial waters.
Now, let me move on to airspace issues.
I think it was Mr Pritam Singh who asked about Singapore's air navigation arrangements with our neighbours. Let me start by emphasising that it is the safety and efficiency of civil aviation for tens of millions of passengers that are the paramount considerations underlying all airspace and air navigation arrangements. Those are the key words – safety and efficiency.
Air navigation arrangements, as Mr Singh knows, are complex, technical and operational matters which are under the jurisdiction of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO prioritises the safety and efficiency of civil aviation in all its policies, standards and recommended practices.
Singapore's provision of air traffic services (ATS) for the region actually started way back in 1946, when ICAO allocated to Singapore the responsibility, the task for the provision of ATS in the Singapore Flight Information Region (FIR). In 1973, ICAO approved the creation of the Kuala Lumpur and Kota Kinabalu FIRs which, in fact, were carved out from the then Singapore FIR and allocated to Malaysia. At the same time, ICAO also approved the arrangements under which Singapore would provide ATS over portions of southern Peninsular Malaysia, within the KL FIR. The 1973 ICAO decision was a regional consensus, and struck a balance between the needs of both Singapore and Malaysia, and the international aviation community. Singapore and Malaysia concluded an agreement in 1974 to implement this ICAO decision.
Through these decades, Singapore has been providing ATS to the highest standards of safety and efficiency, in accordance with our responsibilities under international law, and ICAO's stipulated standards and practices. In 2018, Singapore managed 740,000 flights in the Singapore FIR. Half of these 740,000 flights landed or departed from Changi Airport. The other half consisted of overflights, many of which were, in fact, to and from other airports in the region. The region's aviation sector has benefited greatly from all these arrangements. This has been a win-win arrangement for the region, for our neighbours and for us.
Members are aware that our closest neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, have expressed their desire to see some changes to these existing airspace arrangements in our region. We are certainly willing to address their concerns and let me also emphasise this. Singapore fully respects Malaysia's and Indonesia's sovereignty over their airspace. These are not boundary disputes.
At the same time, discussions on air navigation arrangements must fundamentally be based on technical and operational considerations, for the purpose of ensuring the safety and efficiency of civil aviation. And any changes to these arrangements, if warranted, must be done properly, in accordance with the rules, the requirements and the decisions set out by ICAO. Any such changes must further enhance safety and efficiency, and must benefit all airspace users. And do not forget, stakeholders, such as airlines, who use this space, must also be consulted.
I agree with Mr Singh on the need to invest in technology so that Singapore remains the safest, the most reliable provider of air traffic services. Singapore has always recognised the edge that technology can bring, particularly in a highly technical field, such as ATS provision. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has consistently invested in its air traffic management (ATM) capabilities over many decades, focusing on three critical aspects: machine, man and method.
Let us start with machine. Singapore's ATM systems are one of the most advanced in the world, and highly customised, incorporating cutting-edge technologies such as space-based Automatic Dependant Surveillance (Broadcast) (ADS-B). They love acronyms in this field. Space-based ADS-B systems overcome the limitations of ground-based systems, which cannot be deployed over the vast expanse of sea to track aircraft.
Man. CAAS' air traffic controllers have been trained to a very high standard and are internationally recognised to be highly proficient, and they contribute extensively to setting global standards in ICAO and to industry organisations.
Third, method. CAAS' ATM processes and operating procedures are highly advanced and innovative whilst still maintaining fidelity to the highest safety standards. CAAS is a first-mover in developing and using advanced concepts in ATM.
Let me give you an example. CAAS has pioneered the Distributed Multi-Nodal Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) network concept. ATFM basically helps to better manage traffic demand and capacity, particularly during times when there is an imbalance, and they do so by regulating flight arrival and departure times taking into account live operational conditions. This project has succeeded in achieving fuel savings for airlines, reducing the period of time that aircraft spend in airborne holding patterns. Now, even more Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and airports around the region are keen to increase their involvement in the project. Our neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia are also participants in the project. CAAS has set up a new ATFM operations centre in the Singapore Air Traffic Control Centre to fully implement this concept in order to enhance Singapore’s air traffic service provision and contribution to the region.
Singapore takes the ATM responsibilities that we have been entrusted with by ICAO very seriously. We will continue to invest in enhancing these capabilities and to discharge our responsibilities to the highest standards to achieve safety and efficiency and it will benefit the region and, indeed, the entire international aviation community.
Mr Ang Wei Neng has asked about our bilateral discussions regarding Seletar Airport. Following Minister Khaw's meeting with Malaysian Minister of Transport Mr Anthony Loke on 23 January, both sides agreed to extend the mutual suspension of the instrument landing system (ILS) for Seletar Airport, and the Restricted Area over Pasir Gudang until 31 March 2019.
We have explained to Malaysia that Seletar Airport has been serving charter, medevac and MRO flights without issues for decades and should continue to operate normally. I have also personally spoken to Minister Loke on 27 February and we are both closely monitoring the progress of these sensitive discussions between our senior officials.
Mr Chairman, I would now invite Senior Minister of State Janil to elaborate on the detailed plans for our land transport system.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Chairman, our land transport network connects millions of Singaporeans every day to homes, jobs and schools. It is a shared space, an economic enabler and a social leveller. As Minister Vivian has noted, it is a maturing network, thanks to the efforts of leaders, planners and transport workers who have made this happen before us.
However, this maturing system brings with it a different set of challenges. Through our work on the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 (LTMP 2040), it is clear that trade-offs between competing priorities are becoming more difficult to balance as we run up against tighter land, manpower and fiscal constraints. For example, we have heard that Singaporeans value convenience and faster journeys. However, how do we provide this without compromising on safety and accessibility, especially for those with more diverse needs, such as the disabled? Given our space constraints, how do we prioritise one mode of transport over another, knowing that this could result in slower speeds for some?
These are the realities we have to address for the next phase of development of our land transport system, and there are no easy answers. We must hold a long-term, clear-eyed view in managing these issues, and continue to enhance our land transport network to meet Singapore's and Singaporeans' growing needs, changing demographics and evolving aspirations. We embarked on an extensive public consultation process to reach out to Singaporeans from all walks of life. Fourteen members from the public, private and people sectors joined the LTMP Advisory Panel to study the feedback received and to recommend the visions, targets and strategies for LTMP 2040.
Through this public consultation process, the Panel considered 7,405 responses over six months from commuters, transport workers, academia, industry partners, unions, students and interest groups. Their ideas shaped the strategies and targets identified to improve our land transport system. We learned what Singaporeans value and want from our land transport system, and we have set ourselves bold targets for 2040.
The Panel made three key recommendations:
First, 20-Minute Towns and a 45-Minute City. By 2040, Singaporeans can look forward to \"20-Minute Towns\" where almost all journeys to the nearest neighbourhood centre on public, active and shared transport modes can be completed within 20 minutes. Singaporeans will also be able to enjoy a \"45-Minute City\" where nine in 10 peak hour journeys on public, active and shared transport can be completed within 45 minutes.
Public, active and shared transport is the only sustainable way forward with our land constraints. Let me explain. \"Public\" refers to, of course, our public transport system, our buses and trains. \"Active\" referring to Active Mobility – walking, cycling and personal mobility devices. \"Shared\" can refer to the other two as well. Public transport is also shared. Many active mobility services can also be shared but, specifically, we also want to include shared transport through taxis, private hire cars and shared vehicles.
Some have asked whether this means that they will not benefit if their journeys today already take less than 20 or 45 minutes. These efforts to achieve 20-Minute Towns and a 45-Minute City will benefit all Singaporeans. It will have an impact on traffic flow, an impact on congestion an impact on how we move around our city easily, regardless of how long journey times are today. These improvements in public, active and shared transport would save the average weekday commuter 15 minutes every day by 2040.
LTA is now studying the specific initiatives to achieve these targets and will announce them in a few months' time. Even as they do so, it remains clear that a convenient, resilient and efficient public transport network will be central to us achieving this \"20-Minute Towns and a 45-Minute City\" vision.
To achieve 20-Minute Towns, we will have to continue to improve connectivity within the towns. Apart from enhancing infrastructure to facilitate active mobility options for shorter, intra-town commutes, we are also conducting trials of on-demand public buses (ODPBs). Mr Melvin Yong asked for an update on the on-going ODPB trial. While the technology is still evolving, the initial results are encouraging. Operated mileage has been reduced in some areas by more than 25% – one quarter – while allowing most ODPB commuters to enjoy journey times comparable to regular bus services. So, 25% reduction in operated mileage, same journey times. Ridership has also been increasing. We will continue to explore ways to improve the service by adapting these trial parameters and refining the ODPB algorithm. We will also monitor commuter feedback to assess how and if the trial can be expanded to include peak hours and weekends. This will help us to identify the key success factors for the ODPB concept, including adjustments to the way we roster our bus captains to ensure that they have sufficient rest. In time to come, we can also explore virtual bus stops. But this will require us to strike a careful balance between safety and convenience. We also will study the extent to which ODPBs can improve first- and last-mile connectivity to allow even more Singaporeans to benefit, regardless of their proximity to an MRT station. Such dynamically routed bus services have the potential to reduce travelling and waiting times for intra-town journeys and allow commuters to enjoy more seamless commutes.
To achieve a 45-Minute City, I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that rail must continue to be the backbone of our public transport network. Even as we pursue our ambitions, I am happy to report that we are on track to achieve the targets set in our last LTMP. The announcement of the Jurong Region Line in 2018 and the first phase of the Cross Island Line (CRL) earlier this year puts us yet another step closer to having eight in 10 households within a 10-minute walk from a train station. This was the previous LTMP target to achieve in 2030, 10 years before the outcomes that we are hoping for in LTMP 2040. We will continue to review and expand our rail network where there is sufficient ridership.
Mayor Low Yen Ling and her residents would be delighted, I hope, to know that we have plans to fully fit out and open Hume station on Downtown Line 2 (DTL2). [Applause.] By 2025. [Laughter.] Hume station was originally designed as a shell station on DTL2 as the pace of developments and ridership growth in the area did not warrant it opening with the other DTL2 stations. Mayor Low Yen Ling has worked hard on behalf of her residents and she has worked with our public sector agencies. She has highlighted and advocated for the potential of the area and the needs of her residents. We have worked closely with her and her community leaders to see how we can improve the commuting experience for residents in the new estates.
Since then, these new development plans have been made, partly because of the advocacy and the engagement by Mayor Low and her community leaders – the redevelopment of the Rail Corridor and the transformation of the nearby Bukit Timah Fire Station into a Gateway Node for the surrounding nature and heritage attractions and other developments. With all these, there will be sufficient ridership to justify opening Hume station. Likewise, further addition of new bus services in Bukit Gombak will depend on the pace of development and ridership growth in the area. We are also studying other rail projects beyond 2030 that will bring us closer to the “45-Minute City”. These will be announced when the LTMP is launched in a few months.
As Sitoh Yih Pin has pointed out, it is important that we continue to exercise financial prudence as we develop our land transport network. In deciding which areas to extend our rail network to, we will have to balance between managing costs and benefiting the most number of Singaporeans possible, taking into account the characteristics of each area.
As an example, I would like to address the suggestion by Mr Arasu Duraisamy that we study the feasibility of a new MRT line to Tuas South and Jurong Island.
For Tuas South, the area is still in the initial stages of development and there is not enough ridership in the near to medium term to support an MRT line. Nevertheless, we have taken steps to improve bus connectivity to the Tuas South area. With the opening of the Tuas West Extension in June 2017, LTA launched two new public bus services in the Tuas South area – services 247 and 248. When the Jurong Region Line (JRL) and Cross Island Line are completed, workers in Tuas South will benefit.
As for Jurong Island, there are no plans to extend the MRT onto the island itself. However, workers will benefit from the future Jurong Pier Station, which is located only a short distance away from Jurong Island Checkpoint. Once the JRL is completed in 2028, they can travel on the JRL to the Checkpoint before transferring to a shuttle bus or company transport taking them through security and onwards to the various industries on the island. And, for example, if we were to put a station on Jurong Island itself, it is unlikely to create any added convenience or time savings because the workers would still have to go through the Checkpoint security and transfer to an onward last-mile shuttle to their final destination, given how spread out the developments are on the island. So, we will have to balance the effectiveness of such a solution and the costs.
Mr Chairman, we cannot achieve our vision of 20-Minute Towns and a 45-Minute City through infrastructure developments alone. Our public transport system is built to support peak tidal travel demand during the short two-hour window on weekday mornings and evenings, as many Singaporeans living all over the island commute to jobs in the city centre. We need to optimise the distribution of jobs and housing across the island. This will reduce travel times as more people live closer to their workplace. This is, in fact, another way of redistributing peak travel demand and make better use of transport infrastructure, as noted by Prof Walter Theseira.
Today, there are already regional centres in Tampines, Woodlands and Jurong East that are well connected to nearby amenities and jobs. We, in MOT and LTA, are collaborating with other agencies on upcoming key developments, including the Jurong Lake District, Jurong Innovation District, Woodlands North Coast and the Punggol Digital District. These will be well connected by Transit Priority Corridors – we do not have any of these yet but we are going to build some. These will have features, such as dedicated turns and lanes for public and private buses, as well as other types of connectivity, apart from the Transit Priority Corridors to link these developments, such as the new rail projects which we have already announced – the Thomson East-Coast Line and North-East Line extension. Taken altogether, the redistribution, these Transit Priority Corridors, the work that we are already doing on the MRT lines will shorten our daily commutes to work and play, and take us closer to our vision of 20-Minute Towns and a 45-Minute City.
The second key recommendation by the Advisory Panel is to build a more Inclusive Transport System. Through the LTMP public consultation process, Singaporeans have expressed the desire for a land transport system which is inclusive and welcoming to all Singaporeans. This means a culture where commuters look out for one another, especially those who are more in need. Singaporeans acknowledged that achieving this gracious commuting culture is a shared responsibility between Government, transport operators, transport workers and commuters. I am heartened that Singaporeans are willing to play their part, and my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng will later elaborate on strategies to make our land transport system a more inclusive and friendly space for all Singaporeans.
These planned infrastructural enhancements and the inclusion strategies will complement efforts towards the Panel's third key recommendation on Healthy Lives and Safer Journeys.
A comprehensive suite of public, active and shared transport options will reduce our reliance on privately-owned vehicles and contribute towards a healthier environment. This will complement ongoing initiatives by different Ministries to improve the health of Singapore and Singaporeans, including through the reduction of vehicle emissions. For example, we work with MEWR on the Vehicular Emissions Scheme and the Early Turnover Scheme to encourage owners to use cleaner vehicles. The electric car-sharing programme, jointly supported by LTA and the Economic Development Board (EDB), is another example. Under this, BlueSG will roll out a total of 500 charging stations equipped with 2,000 charging points nationwide. To date, BlueSG has installed 687 charging points.
The Government will also take the lead in building a cleaner transport system. By 2040, we will upgrade all our public buses to cleaner energy sources. I am pleased to announce that key industry players in the point-to-point sector are also following the Government's lead. All the taxi companies and some of the private hire car booking providers and car rental companies have committed to making their entire fleet run on cleaner energy by 2040. This is the first time that we have an industry-led target for the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP).
Apart from a healthier environment, we will continue to encourage active mobility as a way to meet Singaporeans' aspirations for a healthier life. Supporting this will require us to change the way we plan towns, to make active modes of transport more convenient. Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min will elaborate further on some of the initiatives planned to encourage more commuters to incorporate healthier modes of transport into their daily routines.
While we plan to improve speeds and convenience, I agree with Miss Cheng Li Hui that safety cannot be compromised. Our bus safety record has improved over the past year. Our public buses had an accident rate of 0.11 accidents per 100,000 bus service kilometres in 2018, a third lower than the 0.15 in 2017. But every life lost on our roads or paths is one too many.
We must work towards reducing land transport fatalities. To do this, we will introduce more pedestrian-friendly features, such as Silver Zones, to reduce vehicular speeds.
Secondly, we will introduce signalised right turns at all traffic junctions where it is feasible.
Third, we are exploring enhanced safety management systems, such as anti-fatigue, collision warning and blindspot warning systems, to aid our bus captains. These will provide audio cues or vibrations to keep the driver alert, and they are already a standard requirement for our public buses.
Mr Chairman, many of our LTMP 2040 strategies rely on technology. Technological innovations in recent years have increased mobility options for commuters. There are also better journey-planning applications, including LTA's MyTransport.SG mobile app, to help commuters plan multi-modal journeys. This, in turn, has improved the accessibility and utilisation of public transport.
We have also used technology to make our commutes easier, such as through Account-based Ticketing (ABT). Since March 2017, LTA has partnered MasterCard to test the use of contactless bankcards on public transport under the ABT initiative. The pilot was successful and LTA is now working with MasterCard and Visa on the full launch of ABT under the branding of \"SimplyGo\". Starting April 2019, all MasterCard users with compatible contactless cards or mobile phones can use these on our buses and trains. We plan for Visa to be used on public transport later this year. With \"SimplyGo\", commuters will have the option of carrying one less card for transport, or maybe no cards if they use their mobile phones, and not having to do card top-ups.
Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) is another area which can allow us to reinvent how land transport is provided, such as dynamically routed services. AVs will also help us to create new job opportunities in the transport sector. ST Engineering Land Systems is conducting a trial of autonomous buses and partnering with SBS Transit to deploy a few of its bus captains as safety operators. While the widespread deployment of AVs is still years away, such trials give us an early sense of the requirements for the new job roles that will be created.
I agree with Assoc Prof Walter Theseira that our regulatory frameworks must also be flexible enough to guide the flow of technology without constricting it. We must strike a balance between protecting the public interest, achieving our broader transport policy objectives, allowing innovations to thrive, meeting the needs of commuters and creating jobs for transport workers. We need to be clear about what, why and how we want to regulate. How we have evolved our planned regulatory framework for the point-to-point (P2P) sector is a good example.
The rapid growth of ride-hailing applications has disrupted the P2P sector in many cities, leading to strikes, driver unhappiness and commuter inconvenience around the world. Here in Singapore, we have been relatively fortunate. Commuter satisfaction with P2P services continues to remain high. More than 99% of commuters surveyed by the Public Transport Council (PTC) were satisfied with taxi and Private Hire Car (PHC) services in 2018. Such a positive outcome is only possible with responsible operators, sensible commuters, safe drivers and sound policy. In particular, the National Taxi Association (NTA) and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA) have played important roles in helping our drivers adjust to technological transformation in the P2P space.
PHCs are now an important part of our land transport system, accounting for about 45% of all P2P journeys. In 2018, there were more than 120 million trips completed on PHCs alone. We are in the process of reviewing our regulatory approach for the P2P sector, to ensure that commuters can continue to benefit from a robust and safe P2P space. Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ang Wei Neng spoke about the on-going P2P review. Let me take this opportunity to give Members the broad principles of the revised regulatory framework.
We intend to introduce a new licensing process for all P2P operators focusing on three key areas.
First, we will prohibit operators from tying down drivers through exclusivity arrangements, except for those operators that employ drivers. The majority of P2P drivers will then be free to choose which operators to drive for, thus ensuring that the P2P industry continues to be a viable and sustainable sector to make a living in.
Second, we will focus on commuter safety, where all P2P operators will have to play their part to keep commuters and drivers safe.
Third, we will minimise business and regulatory costs for operators and drivers. Part of this involves streamlining, where appropriate, the regulatory differences between streethail and ride-hail services, such as the taxi availability services that Mr Ang Wei Neng has raised. More details will be made available later this year.
These principles will lay the ground for a safe, open and contestable P2P sector. New players and different business models will be able to enter and start providing P2P solutions for our commuters.
Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Ang Hin Kee had made suggestions about market size and P2P fares, we will study their feedback. But our intention is not to regulate every single aspect of the P2P market, but to allow market forces to shape some of these more efficiently, and to let competition drive innovation. Ultimately, commuters and drivers will be able to benefit from better services. This will help us to achieve our 20-Minute Towns and 45-Minute City vision.
As Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Ang Wei Neng are aware, our review has been happening in consultation with the industry, as well as the Labour Movement, represented by NTA and NPHVA. As we enter the final stages of our review, we will continue to work closely with our tripartite stakeholders to manage disruptions, to consider the feedback received, to keep in mind the need to protect commuter interests and also taking into account suggestions, such as Mr Ang Hin Kee's, to protect driver interests. We will do so while streamlining regulations and managing business costs.
Mr Ang Hin Kee will be pleased to hear that LTA will be establishing a Private Hire Car Tripartite Committee, to complement the existing Taxi Tripartite Committee. Together, these will provide platforms for LTA, drivers and operators to discuss strategic issues concerning the P2P sector.
We recently completed our public consultation exercise on 21 February. Members of the public have expressed strong support for the policies that we intend to roll out as part of the new regulatory framework. We agree with and will respond to the call for a more inclusive P2P sector and will work closely with the industry on this. More details will be provided in the coming months.
Mr Chairman, our land transport sector will continue to create opportunities for Singaporean workers and businesses.
Mr Melvin Yong asked about efforts to support public transport workers and meeting future challenges in the land transport sector, including the development and deployment of AVs in future. We will continue to work with unions and industry partners to help workers respond to these emerging technologies.
In February 2018, we launched the Land Transport Industry Transformation Map (ITM). Under this ITM, the Government is working closely with the unions and operators to upskill our workers, to equip them with the capabilities to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. This is being done through our Institutes of Higher Learning, as well as through the Singapore Bus Academy and Singapore Rail Academy.
We have also established the ITM Tripartite Steering Committee co-chaired by National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU) and LTA to identify interventions to help workers respond to these emerging technologies. I would like to congratulate our local operators, SBST and SMRT on signing the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the NTWU to raise the competencies of their train and bus workers. This cooperation between company management and unions is critical to developing a future-ready workforce.
Our businesses will also benefit. I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that developing local capabilities is vital to ensuring industry resilience. However, offset conditions, such as the transfer of technology, which are prohibited under our international obligations, are not the only way to achieve this.
Many of our local companies are already partnering LTA on civil construction projects. Hock Lian Seng and Lum Chang Building Contractors are two such companies which initially partnered other international contractors and made use of these opportunities to grow their experience and capabilities. Today, they take on complex rail and road infrastructure projects on their own. Our procurement process must continue to be open and fair, so that more such opportunities are afforded to our local contractors.
Our local companies gain from contracts with LTA. This gives them the experience they need to go beyond our shores and secure overseas work. ST Electronics is one such example. They started growing their rail capabilities by performing works for the North-South and East-West Lines in the 1980s. And now they go on to secure contracts overseas, and are a major supplier of Passenger Information Systems for railways in several countries.
Looking ahead, there will be more such opportunities and we look forward to the continued involvement of local businesses.
Mr Chairman, we are committed to building a world-class land transport system for Singapore. LTMP 2040 is yet another step in this journey together with Singaporeans to build the kind of land transport system we want for ourselves and our future. It is not just about the shared space or being a social leveller that the public transport system is. It is not simply about building the roads or buying the buses or the trains, or building new types of land transport systems. It is about bringing Singapore together. Thank you, Sir.
The Chairman: Order. I propose to take a break now.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.35 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.13 pm until 3.35 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Head W (cont) –
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, last September, the Land Transport (Enforcement Measures) Bill was passed in Parliament. During the debate, several Members shared about the frustrations of pedestrians when they encounter irresponsible riders. Stories were told about pedestrians who were injured by reckless riders of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) or cyclists and about the elderly or young children who had close shaves with these riders.
MOT had also said that they would accept all the recommendations of the Active Mobility Advisory Panel for safer path riding and will implement these recommendations in early 2019.
Notwithstanding the various measures taken by LTA enforcement officers, I still receive many complaints about reckless and dangerous behaviour of cyclists and users of PMDs. Sadly, many cyclists still behave irresponsibly even though they are cycling in areas where there are many pedestrians, some of whom are elderly and some of whom are young children.
The most challenging area is where there are food delivery companies. In the areas surrounding the food delivery companies, the PMD riders and the cyclists ride in a reckless and unsafe manner as they rush to deliver their food to the customers.
May I ask Minister for an update as to how we can better educate the riders and cyclists to be considerate for other users of footpaths and the roads. The Ride Safe lessons conducted currently only reach out to those riders who are converted and who are convinced about the need for safety. For those who do not care about safety or the need to be considerate to other road users, they do not bother to attend such safety lessons.
Sir, how can we reach these people to educate them on the need to be safe and the need to be considerate? Will there be a step-up in enforcement against reckless and inconsiderate riders?
LTA says that the recommendations of the Active Mobility Advisory Panel will be implemented on 1 February 2019. How will this be done? For example, the speed limit for PMDs and bicycles on footpaths had been reduced to 10 km/h. Sir, this is slower than a jogger taking a leisurely jog. How can an enforcement officer determine the speed of the PMD or bicycle? How about the mandatory use of helmets by cyclists on roads? Will the cyclist riding along a small road from his home to the bus stop or to the market be summoned if he does not put on a helmet? Would these rules also apply to the foreign workers riding from their dormitory to their work place?
I urge the Minister to expedite the steps to ensure that all road users, including pedestrians, PMD users and cyclists can have a safer journey when using footpaths and the roads.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, in 2018, the Minister revealed that the accidents involving PMDs, bicycles and power-assisted bikes increased three-fold in 2017. Can the Minister share some updated statistics for 2018? How many such accidents were serious enough that someone was sent to hospital?
I understand the Active Mobility Advisory Panel’s preference to prioritise reduction of accidents. But accidents will happen, and some of them will be so serious that they require large hefty medical fees. Without insurance, the perpetrator or victim will have trouble paying off these fees. It is a double blow when the accident victim rides as part of his work and he can no longer do so because he is injured, or his vehicle is damaged.
For a start, perhaps let us make it mandatory for all employers who rely on their employees to use PMDs for work purposes. The Government can work with insurance companies to help companies get a more affordable deal.
Compulsory registration of e-scooters will make it easy to implement mandatory insurance. I know most e-scooters will not get into accidents. But the same can be said for car drivers, and motor insurance is still mandatory. And just like for cars, we need constant enforcement to make sure people stay within the rules. Residents have been giving feedback that, during morning peak hours, there are a lot of PMDs, e-scooters, bicycles zooming along covered linkways leading to the MRT station. This is very dangerous for pedestrians. Can the Minister share how much LTA has stepped up enforcement, and how LTA decides how much enforcement they should do?
Next, to prevent unnecessary accidents in housing estates, it would be prudent to ban bicycles and PMDs at areas which are crowded or known to be accident-prone. The best organisation to do so would be the Town Council, which receives a lot of feedback on such issues. Can LTA consider giving Town Councils the power to decide where cycling and PMD riding should be banned for the safety of residents, especially young children and the elderly.
Last, but not least, I wish my favourite Minister a speedy recovery.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I certainly agree with comments of the hon Mr Lim Biow Chuan which he just delivered. Mr Chairman, last November, I asked the Government to consider delaying the introduction of commercial shared PMD services until the riding culture for PMDs has improved and incidences of unsafe and inconsiderate usage have subsided. Sadly, my request was turned down.
However, even before my Parliamentary Question (PQ) was answered, prospective operator Beam announced in October that it planned to roll out its shared PMD services within the next few weeks. LTA had to issue a statement reminding all that it is an offence to operate a device-sharing service at public places without licence. In replying to my PQ, Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min also said that the licence application exercise would only take place in January this year.
In December 2018, I chanced upon a few PMDs with the familiar green logo of Grab displayed and parked outside a shophouse along Jalan Sultan. I was surprised to see this, given the answer to my PQ just a month before. I enquired with LTA and LTA confirmed that Grab was not allowed to operate on public land without a licence from LTA and they said they were investigating operators who were operating without a licence. I have also seen PMDs belonging to other operators being used on public lands. The fact that these operators have been operating their PMDs in public without a licence is disconcerting. If operators behave in this way without a proper licence, how can we have confidence in such companies toeing the line after they receive a licence? We should also remember Grab’s reaction to the Competition Commission’s findings on its acquisition of Uber.
In his reply to my PQ, Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min set out some of the conditions which would be imposed on the shared PMD operators upon issuance of their licence. I agree with those conditions but, notwithstanding these conditions, my reservations regarding the introduction of commercial shared PMD services have remained. It has been difficult enough to ensure that all PMD owners adhere to new rules for safe use of PMDs and to be considerate to other footpath users. We are not out of the woods yet. Would it not exacerbate the present situation if we have a new category of users, namely hirers? Hirers are likely to take less ownership of the need to ride responsibly and considerately as compared to owners since they are not the owners.
Even if conditions are imposed on the operators, there is a limit as to what operators can do to ensure that correct use of PMDs is adopted by all users. While it is good to require operators to have insurance for all users, which may be helpful when there is an accident leading to a personal injury or property damage claim, this does not stop inconsiderate or unlawful behavior and, certainly, near misses.
The biggest challenge is still of getting existing PMD owners and users to use the PMDs in accordance with the law and in a safe and considerate manner. What more can we expect from hitherto non-PMD users, namely, hirers? Already, I have seen quite a number of tourists or overseas visitors on the illegally operated PMDs, some of them even riding on the roads. What does LTA expect the operators to do to ensure that users will ride considerately and according to the regulations? Make them mug up all the rules before scooting off?
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Chairman, the Land Transport Masterplan 2040 vision of a car-lite Singapore is an ambitious and enticing one.
To achieve these ambitious targets not only require new infrastructure but also changes in lifestyle and commuting habits. To these ends, I would like to inquire how we are progressing in expanding pedestrian walkways to accommodate pedestrians and PMD users. And since the implementation of active mobility rules on 1 February 2019, how has enforcement kept up to ensure that PMD users are safety conscious and responsible users of public paths?
Education is also an important part of equation. How are we working with the community to disseminate good and safe etiquette on shared paths?
Next, there has been an increase in the number of fires involving PMDs. There was 74 such fires last year, a 51% increase from the 49 cases in 2017. What guidelines are in place for PMDs and how do we ensure that the current stock of PMDs in the market are safe for PMD users and the community around them?
Miss Cheng Li Hui: Mr Chairman, the licence application period for PMD sharing services has just ended earlier this month. Having learnt from the experience of oBike which left many users wondering if they could get their deposits back, I would like to ask Minister if PMD sharing operators will require users to put up deposits. And if so, how will the Ministry be requiring that these operators place a security deposit or performance bond?
In addition, the usage of PMDs in the hands of the young and inexperienced riders can be potentially hazardous to both the path users and themselves. Therefore, I would like to ask Minister if there will be a mandatory age requirement for users to operate PMDs as age can be a form of indication on users' abilities to comprehend rules and operate PMDs safely.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Chairman, it is important that we ensure that our land transport system is accessible to seniors, families with young children and the disabled.
In January this year, I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on whether \"reserved seats\" on MRT trains can be better regulated and enforced as many able-bodied passengers who take up these seats are not giving up the seats to others who may need the seats more. Some are \"sleeping\" and then miraculously know how to wake up when the train reaches their destination.
I also observed that there are two different designs for the reserved seats. One design just make it clear these are reserved seats with prominent \"Reserved Seating\" stickers being pasted on the seats themselves as well as above the seats. Another design is based on softer approach with a \"StandUpStacey Show You Care\" sticker above the seat but nothing is pasted on the seat itself.
I would like to ask if the Ministry has done a study as to which design is more effective in ensuring that able-bodied commuters do not take the reserved seats.
Can the Ministry also share what measures are being taken to ensure that our land transport system remains accessible to seniors, families with young children and the disabled, in particular, measures to promote a more caring commuter culture?
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Dr Lam Pin Min.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Chairman, Senior Minister of State Janil touched on the infrastructure improvements we have implemented to improve public transport and point-to-point connectivity. My speech will focus on making active mobility viable for shorter journeys and first-and-last-mile connections to transport nodes, while allowing Singaporeans to meet their aspirations for healthy living.
During the recent public engagements for LTMP 2040, some participants I spoke to mentioned that they use their daily commute to squeeze in a little bit of exercise by walking and cycling. They wanted to see more options for walking and cycling between destinations. Others expressed hopes for safer path-sharing and more harmonious interactions between path users.
We support these aspirations by Singaporeans, and will enhance our transport system to facilitate active and healthy lifestyles and to ensure safety for all.
To help more Singaporeans embrace active mobility, we will continue to enhance active mobility accessibility, while inculcating a safe and gracious path-sharing culture to address pedestrians' concerns with path-sharing.
First, we are expanding active mobility options through building more cycling infrastructure. By 2030, Singapore will have a comprehensive network of off-road cycling paths in every HDB town. In addition to the existing 120 km of cycling paths it has built, LTA is constructing cycling paths in Bukit Panjang and Bishan, and expanding the cycling network in Ang Mo Kio and Tampines over the next three years. LTA will also build the Geylang-City and Queenstown-City inter-town cycling routes. When completed in 2020, they will connect cyclists and Personal Mobility Device (PMD) users directly from their homes to the city.
With the increased popularity of active mobility, Singaporeans have expressed concerns about safety on paths shared by pedestrians and PMD users. These are valid concerns. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Sun Xueling have pointed out, active mobility accidents have increased due to the increased use of bicycles and PMDs. The number of reported off-road accidents involving active mobility users increased from 132 in 2017 to 251 in 2018.
To stem this worrying trend, the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) conducted a review of active mobility rules in 2018. The Government has since accepted their recommendations.
In January, we started the registration regime for e-scooters to deter reckless riding behaviour and facilitate enforcement efforts in tracking down errant riders. To date, over 40,000 e-scooters have been registered.
We also reduced the speed limit on footpaths from 15 km/h to 10 km/h in February this year. To address Mr Lim Biow Chuan's query, a slower speed gives active mobility users and pedestrians more time to react to unforeseen circumstances, and reduces the risk of severe injuries should accidents occur.
Last year, the AMAP recommended against mandating third-party liability insurance so as to accommodate the diversity of active mobility device users and keep active mobility affordable. Nonetheless, we echo Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's sentiments on the importance of third-party liability insurance, and strongly encourage users to insure themselves against third-party claims.
To this end, LTA and AMAP have engaged the insurance industry and employers of large groups of active mobility users, such as food delivery companies, to spur the provision of insurance coverage. Similarly, we will require PMD-sharing licensees to procure and maintain third-party liability insurance.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked that Town Councils be allowed to ban bicycles and PMDs for pedestrian safety. The Active Mobility Act allows pedestrians, cyclists and PMD users to use footpaths as they are crucial for connectivity. It is important that the same rules are applied consistently to all footpaths so that users will not be confused with different rules at different areas.
I thank Miss Cheng Li Hui for her suggestions to improve active mobility safety. We will continue to review our regulations to ensure safety of all path users, and will take the suggestions into account for the next review.
To safeguard pedestrian safety, we will consider infrastructural improvements where necessary, such as pedestrian priority zones which employ \"SLOW\" markings, speed regulating strips and signages to alert cyclists and riders to slow down and look out for pedestrians.
I fully agree with Miss Cheng Li Hui, Ms Sun Xueling, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Lim Biow Chuan on the need for stronger enforcement to deter reckless riding behaviour. Indeed, we have stepped up enforcement actions. LTA's team of Active Mobility Enforcement Officers has been carrying out regular checks at hotspots, using speed guns and weighing scales to enforce speed limit and device weight requirements.
Since May 2018, LTA has detected more than 3,100 active mobility offences, which include unsafe riding on paths and riding of non-compliant devices.
To complement its existing enforcement efforts, LTA will implement a trial later this year to place closed-circuit televisions at hotspots for better detection of active mobility offences.
However, enforcement alone is not enough. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan has rightly pointed out, we also need to educate users on responsible behaviour.
We have pressed on with the Safe Riding Programme (SRP), which educates active mobility device users on safe riding practices and proper use of active mobility infrastructure. In its first year, 39,000 participants from schools, companies and community completed the programme. We will continue to offer the programme at a fully subsidised rate until the end of 2019, so that more will be able to participate.
LTA has also worked with the Ministry of Manpower and Traffic Police to issue a joint circular to food delivery companies to encourage food delivery riders to ride safely, and provide avenues for members of the public to report unsafe riding.
I also agree with Ms Sun Xueling on the need to introduce guidelines to improve the safety of PMDs and reduce fire risks. As I have previously shared in this House, we will prohibit the sale of non-UL2272 certified PMDs from 1 July 2019 to reduce the risk of PMD fire incidents. We have strongly advised PMD users to purchase PMDs from reputable sources, observe fire safety standards and avoid overcharging PMD batteries or modifying their PMDs.
I would like to assure Ms Sun Xueling that today, footpaths in new public estates are about 1.8 metres wide and most footpaths in public estates are at least 1.5 metres wide. We will expand footpaths where feasible. However, there are some places where this is not possible. We will therefore need to strive for an ethos of gracious path-sharing where cyclists, PMD users and pedestrians look out for each other's safety.
Ground-up initiatives, such as the Active Mobility Patrol (AMP) scheme, will play a crucial role in harnessing the community to promote harmonious path-sharing behaviour. We now have more than 1,000 volunteers conducting patrols and organising outreach activities in their communities to educate cyclists and PMD users on how they should adjust their behaviour to accommodate the needs of fellow path-users.
In recent years, operators offering active mobility device-sharing services have emerged. This is a new, growing sector – while it offers Singaporeans better access to active mobility devices at cheap prices, it also comes with its own share of challenges.
Last year, we introduced a licensing regime for bicycle-sharing operators. The regime regulates the maximum fleet size for each licensee based on responsible operator behaviour, and aligns fleet growth with parking provisions and consumer needs. In January this year, we introduced measures to ensure that users park responsibly, such as the QR code parking system, and requiring operators to ban recalcitrant users from device-sharing services.
We have stepped up the provision of bicycle parking spaces by implementing yellow boxes, especially in areas of high demand for bicycle parking. We now have more than 220,000 bicycle parking lots islandwide, with all public housing located within a five-minute walk from a public bicycle parking facility. We target to provide a total of 267,000 lots by 2020.
With these efforts, we have made great strides in bringing the indiscriminate parking situation under control. The number of shared bicycle trips ending outside a designated parking location has been declining steadily, and we will continue to work with operators to reduce indiscriminate parking.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about what we learnt from the oBike incident. oBike's sudden exit preceded our licensing regime, and deeply inconvenienced many Singaporeans.
The licensing regime will help to address some of the disamenities caused by oBike's exit. For example, when oBike exited, it was difficult to locate the individual bicycles left behind which did not have location-tracking features. Under our licensing regime, licensees are required to install location tracking devices on their bicycles, and prepare plans to remove their bicycles in a timely manner should they exit the market.
I would like to assure Mr Yee Chia Hsing that under our licensing regime, responsible device-sharing operators will have the flexibility to grow their fleet sizes. This year, we opened a second round of licence applications for bicycle-sharing services on 4 January. This allows new operators to enter the market and gives responsible licensees that are able to manage their fleets effectively the opportunity to grow their fleets.
Miss Cheng Li Hui asked if PMD-sharing licensees will require users to put up deposits. Based on the licence applications we have received, no PMD-sharing licence applicant intends to require user deposits.
Mr Dennis Tan and Miss Cheng Li Hui expressed concern over the operations of PMD-sharing services, and the impact of allowing PMD-sharing services at this time. I would like to assure them that we will proceed cautiously. LTA is assessing the first batch of PMD-sharing licence applications and will only license operators who are capable of managing indiscriminate parking and complying with fire safety requirements, and have clear plans to educate users on proper parking, safe riding and fire safety. We will start conservatively, with new operators restricted to small fleet sizes of up to 500 PMDs under a one-year sandbox licence period. This gives LTA time to assess sandbox licensees’ ability to comply with regulatory requirements, before granting them a larger fleet size under a full licence. LTA may revoke the licence of non-compliant sandbox licensees during the licence period.
PMD-sharing licensees will be subjected to PMD-specific safety requirements. These include ensuring that shared PMDs are charged only by suitable personnel in proper environments, and requiring shared PMDs to be certified to the UL2272 standard. PMD-sharing licensees will also be required to procure and maintain third-party liability insurance, and to have identification stickers and tracking devices installed on devices to facilitate enforcement. I am confident that our licensing approach and regulatory requirements will allow us to start on the right footing for PMD-sharing services.
Mr Chairman, we will continue to support Singaporeans’ aspirations for healthier lifestyles and safer journeys. As active mobility becomes more popular, we will continue to promote a safe path-sharing culture and ensure that device-sharing operators provide their services in a safe and responsible manner.
The Chairman: Mr Baey Yam Keng.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mr Chairman, during the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 public engagement, many Singaporeans came forward to share their aspirations and concerns.
We hear you and we will plan for a future-ready land transport system.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing would be pleased to know that we are aspiring towards a more inclusive land transport system, which caters to the diverse mobility needs of all Singaporeans.
The LTMP Advisory Panel recommended three strategies to help us achieve this:
On the first strategy, to design an inclusive land transport infrastructure, all MRT stations and bus interchanges are already barrier-free. Last year, we completed a five-year programme to add 200 km of sheltered walkways to make walking to our public transport nodes more convenient and pleasant.
Ms Low Yen Ling requested for sheltered walkways. LTA will continue to provide the same extent of sheltered walkway connectivity between all public transport nodes and developments, whenever new MRT lines or developments are built. With more than 60 new MRT stations underway, we expect another 100 km of sheltered walkway to be added by 2029. We must be careful in considering other locations to ensure that limited resources are focused on areas which can benefit more people.
We will continue to do more for our seniors and take steps to enhance road safety for them.
In 2014, we introduced Silver Zones which featured narrower roads and speed humps to reduce traffic speed, and two-stage crossings to allow senior pedestrians to rest at the midpoint. We have completed 15 Silver Zones, and I am glad that accident rates in these areas have dropped by 75%. We are building another 20 Silver Zones by 2020 at areas, including Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10, Potong Pasir Avenue 1 and Tampines Street 81. We are on track to achieve our target of 50 Silver Zones by 2023.
As LTA continues to work with the community on design of these identified locations, we are also adopting innovative solutions. In December 2018, LTA tested three-dimensional traffic calming markings along Whampoa Drive to slow down traffic. LTA has also installed LED road studs at zebra crossings to alert motorists of pedestrians at night. I urge all motorists to slow down and be even more alert to look out for pedestrians when approaching these areas.
Besides infrastructure enhancements, we also need to have a robust vehicle homologation regime. This refers to LTA’s process to ensure that new vehicle models meet all technical and safety requirements before they can be used on our roads. During last week’s Budget debate, Mr Ang Wei Neng said that the process takes eight weeks. I checked and I am glad to find that this is not correct. The average processing time taken by LTA was two weeks in 2018. Even if we include the time to clarify an incomplete application, the average total time taken was five weeks in 2018. The regime is aligned with internationally recognised standards, such as the UN Economic Commission for Europe Regulations. LTA will continue to engage industry stakeholders to streamline the process to reduce business costs, while ensuring safety.
We will also make land transport more accessible for commuters with disabilities. We have committed to making all our public buses wheelchair accessible by 2020. Besides physical accessibility, we also want to make information such as service number and bus stop destination more accessible to commuters with special needs.
In January 2019, LTA started a trial on Mobility Assistance for the Visually Impaired and Special Users (MAVIS) mobile app. This provides audio announcements both on the bus and at the bus stop to help bus commuters with special needs. The trial started with three buses on Service 139, which serves the Enabling Village. These three buses will subsequently be redeployed in May 2019 to Service 141, which serves the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped. This will help us to study the feasibility of such assistive technologies on more public bus services.
Next, let us look at families. Last year, the Government received recommendations from the Family Friendly Transport Advisory Panel. I am happy to announce that the Government accepts the Panel’s recommendations and we are already implementing some of the measures. For example, LTA started a one-year trial for the stroller restraint system on Service 69 in June 2017. We received positive feedback and will progressively install the system on all buses by 2020.
LTA will be conducting a pilot on one rail line, to designate priority cabins for vulnerable commuters such as seniors, persons with disabilities and families with young children. These cabins will be located near the station lifts where possible.
Beyond mass public transport, we will also make point-to-point transport more accessible by designing all new taxi stands to be barrier-free.
Mr Chairman, our second strategy is to develop the capabilities of our public transport workers as they make important contributions. I agree with Mr Melvin Yong that a first class transport system needs a first-class transport workforce.
Land transport workers work hard daily to bring millions of Singaporeans safely to their destinations and they also offer assistance regularly for those in need to make their journeys easier. Bus captains start their day as early as 4 am and rail technicians work throughout the night to carry out maintenance works. They are working while we are sleeping. We should appreciate and support them.
The Public Transport Workers’ Appreciation Day was launched in 2017. Last year, the event was held at the Istana for the very first time. This emphasises the important contributions by our public transport workers. Beyond formal recognition, a simple \"hello\" or \"thank you\" or just a smile when we meet a transport worker, can brighten their days. We will continue to work with operators and unions to improve working conditions and training opportunities for our transport workers. New and upgraded bus depots and interchanges will have more comfortable staff canteens and lounges. The Singapore Bus Academy and the Singapore Rail Academy are also working with NTWU, industry partners and Voluntary Welfare Organisations to enhance training content to build capabilities of public transport workers to better serve commuters in need.
Mr Chairman, an inclusive land transport system requires everyone to play their part. The Government will continue to invest in inclusive infrastructure. The public transport workers also play an important role to support more vulnerable commuters. Lastly, commuters must contribute in creating a safe community space, fostering positive social norms and a caring commuting culture. This is the third strategy recommended by the LTMP Advisory Panel.
LTA began Graciousness Campaigns for public transport in 2009, to promote simple acts of thoughtful behaviour, such as giving up seats and queueing. LTA has been progressively replacing the reserved seat stickers on trains with new stickers featuring the Thoughtful Character, Stand-Up Stacey. I thank Mr Yee Chia Hsing for his interest in our campaigns and their effectiveness. LTA's perception study showed that the new stickers have helped to sustain interest in terms of commuters giving up their seats.
Indeed, Singaporeans are willing to go the extra mile to help fellow commuters. At the Heart Zones at Jurong East, Novena and Outram Park MRT stations, the community readily come forward to help patients who need assistance to get to the nearby hospitals. Later this year, the Public Transport Council (PTC) will implement Heart Zone at Yishun MRT station, in partnership with Yishun Health. PTC aims to have Heart Zones at all MRT stations near every restructured hospital, for example Seng Kang and Simei. We want to encourage a culture where small caring gestures can make a difference. Some of my Parliamentary colleagues told me they are interested to offer needy residents credits to top up their fare cards, very much like how NTUC FairPrice vouchers are used to help them purchase daily necessities. We will look into this suggestion.
Mr Chairman, please allow me a few more minutes to complete the last part of my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Building a safe and inclusive land transport system requires everyone − Government, transport workers and commuters – to play their part.
Infrastructure and campaigns alone are not enough to build a more gracious society. For a sustained change in behaviour, we need commuters to look out for one another. I encourage Singaporeans to be positive influences to others in their daily lives. We can do so by caring for fellow commuters, pedestrians and transport workers when we use public transport, footpaths or roads. Put others before yourself, lend a hand to those who need help. For example, even if you are not on a ‘reserved seat’, you can still give up your seat to those who need it more than you do. When on the road, drive safely and look out for pedestrians. Slow down at all areas, not just at Silver Zones.
Together, I believe we can create a safe and inclusive land transport system, where every journey can be more comfortable, heart-warming and pleasant.
Lastly, I hope to encourage all of us towards this vision with this short poem:
\"Commuting in Singapore
Moving together as one
Without caring for others around you
It will be a difficult journey
Show that you care
And we will all feel the warmth
Be it driving, riding or walking
We can all be safe and happy!\"
The Chairman: Clarifications. Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have clarifications for Senior Minister of State Janil and for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey. During my cut on the \"20-minute Town and 40-minute City\", I have asked how many households today are staying within a 10-minute walk to an MRT station and how many current trips today to city are taking less than 45 minutes, so that we can have a benchmark as compared to our Vision in 2040. I hope Senior Minister of State also can enlighten us whether MOT has given up hope to persuade Government agencies and companies to have staggered working hours so as to smoothen out the traffic during the peak hours.
For Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey, I am glad that LTA has made the clarification on homologations but this is only one example that I quoted for agencies to look at how to cut red tape. I hope LTA is not being defensive. In fact, the experience on the ground is actually quite different.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for the question. He asked how many households are within a 10-minute walk to an MRT station today and the proportion today stands at 64%; 64% of households are within a 10-minute walk. And then how many current trips to the city take less than 45 minutes. So, if someone stays within 800 metres of a train station, 10-minute walk, three-quarters of those peak period train-only journeys are completed within 45 minutes. But if you are looking at all peak hour public journeys today, only 55% are completed within 45 minutes.
The second point he asked about staggered working hours, yes, LTA and MOT, we will try our best to encourage people to adopt staggered working hours. It will be another strategy to help smoothen out the load and the demand of our public transport system.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: In response to his speech last week, perhaps he was just quoting the specific example, but LTA is committed to streamline homologation regulations and not just that, but also in all processes so that we can provide better services to the public.
The Chairman: Ms Low Yeng Ling.
Ms Low Yen Ling: Mr Chairman, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Senior Minister of State Janil, in particular, Minister Khaw Boon Wan and as well as to MOT, LTA for the good news of Hume MRT station. Throughout the years, Minister Khaw and his team have been very patient in listening to our transport requests and we are really very grateful for this good news. In Gombak, in Hillview, in Hume, we stand ready to work with LTA and MOT with regards to the building of the Hume MRT station.
Throughout the years, Minister Khaw and his team have been very patient in listening to our transport requests and we are very grateful for this good news. In Gombak, in Hillview and in Hume, we stand ready towards the LTA and MOT with regard to the building of the Hume MRT station.
I have one clarification for Senior Minister of State Dr Janil: is there a chance that the Hume MRT station can be completed before 2025, please?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Chairman, I thank Mayor Ms Low Yen Ling for the question. We are in this position today because Mayor Low and her grassroots leaders have worked hard with our agencies, as well as the MND and various agencies, to look into how development can be brought into that area and new facilities can be created, and new opportunities can begin, as a result of which we can now justify the ridership for Hume MRT station going forward.
So, we do need some time to pass for the developments, justifying the opening of Hume MRT station to occur. On top of that, it is not just that we have to open Hume station, but we have to build Hume station, and that would take some time. There is going to be architectural works, earthworks, ventilation shafts, and we have to do so together with the other developments around the area so that we do not obstruct some of the new things that are coming up. So, we will try our best, but I am pleased to repeat that we will be opening Hume station by 2025.
The Chairman: Dr Teo Ho Pin.
Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, I would like to make a clarification with Senior Minister of State Dr Lam Pin Min regarding the proposed cycling path in Bukit Panjang Town. When is the cycling path going to be completed? Is the cycling path going to be a separate stand-alone cycling path away from the existing footpaths.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Chairman, I just want to thank Dr Teo Ho Pin for that clarification. The cycling path for Bukit Panjang area is targeted to be completed sometime in 2021. This will be a stand-alone cycling path which is separate from the existing footpaths.
The Chairman: Mr Arasu Duraisamy.
Mr Arasu Duraisamy: I have a question for Senior Minister of State Dr Janil. I thank Senior Minister of State Dr Janil for his reply to my cut. In his reply he mentioned that since the Tuas South station would still be in its development phase and the anticipated ridership would be low, could he then explain to me what is the rationale when we are about to spend a quarter of a million dollars to build the Founders Memorial station and there are no projected numbers on that particular station – I mean foot traffic.
What is the development process that is going to go around that particular station? His reply was that Tuas South station would still be in the development phase, I anticipate that Founders Memorial station would also still be in the development phase – they are both in that particularly. But you have also earlier projected to build a station there. So, could you then explain to me the rationale why you cannot look at a line down to Tuas South.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: So, Mr Chairman, I think it is not that everything has to be developed before we bring in an MRT line or a transport service, but it is the confidence around the ridership. So there is no single development or facility that will say this is the right thing to do or this is the wrong thing to do – we have to look at the total expected demand. For Tuas South, yes, in the long term, there may be a very different demand picture from what we expect today. But on the basis of what we are currently projecting, it is not something that we can justify at this point in time in the medium term.
The Chairman: Mr Ang Hin Kee.
Mr Ang Hin Kee: Sir, I have two clarifications. One is for Senior Minister of State Dr Lam, on air transport. I notice that we are making a lot of effort to have air agreements in order for us to have more air traffic. I would like to find out whether or not the MOT's mitigation measures for residents around the Seletar Airport site with regard to how noise from increased air traffic can be mitigated; and are those mitigation measures effective?
The second clarification is for Senior Minister of State Dr Janil. Thank you very much for agreeing to set up the tripartite committee for private hire drivers and with the industry. I am just wondering whether LTA or MOT sides will assist the industry to form an association because, right now, the operators are all individuals. So, when they come for the meetings, they come as an individual, rather than a collective association. So sometimes, the voices can be very disparate and they do not quite have a common position on whether the industry operators want to bring to the table to negotiate.
And finally, I would like to know his views on whether or not setting a high age limit for private hire drivers moving forward is a measure in the right direction?
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Mr Ang for his clarification. In fact, we have received similar feedback from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, and I do empathise with the disamenities with regard to noise pollution for residents who are staying in the vicinity of Seletar Airport. CAAS is mindful of the noise generated by overflying aircraft and we have been reviewing and adopting best practices in noise abatement measures according to international standards. To the extent possible, CAAS will direct aircraft to land from and take off towards directions to minimise flying over residential areas. This will, hopefully, reduce the amount of noise disturbances.
However, for safety reasons, aircraft need to land and take off into the wind and depending on the prevailing wind conditions, it is sometimes unavoidable for aircraft to overfly residential areas, especially those in the Yishun and Yio Chu Kang areas.
At the same time, CAAS also disallows older jet aircraft that do not meet international standards on aircraft noise certification from flying into Singapore. Jet aircraft which operate to Seletar Airport are generally newer and quieter ones. Recently, based on some of the feedback from residents and from the grassroots organisations, we have since 1 January 2019 disallowed flights at Seletar Airport between 10.00 pm and 7.00 am every day, except for emergency and medical evacuation flights. This will hopefully reduce the amount of noise pollution in the evening and at night.
The Chairman: Dr Janil.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Chairman, I have to answer Mr Ang Hin Kee's question about the private hire vehicles drivers. In the first part, Mr Ang asked about the operators forming an association because the drivers are already part of the National Private Hire Vehicles Association.
Well, certainly, we can engage with the operators and the business to do this. Potentially, we have a number of businesses that can get involved with the P2P space. Some would be traditional taxi companies and transport operators; some would be the very new mobility operators that we have seen coming to Singapore. But potentially, even tech companies could get into it. So, it is not a very clear industry as to who would be a partner. We will engage with them all, and if there is a need to form an association, I think we may have to look for some assistance to chair the committee and bso forth, but we will definitely be engaging Mr Ang to help us engage in this process.
The age limit for the PDVL is something that has been raised in the feedback that we have had as part of the consultation process for the P2P regulatory framework. It is not something that we are clear about what the right thing to do is at this point in time. It is clear that there is a discrepancy in the age between the PDVL for PHC drivers and the TDVL for the taxi drivers. We will have to look and see what will be the reasonable thing to do. We will continue to engage with the industry, as well as the drivers, to see how to deal with this. It is something we are studying and we will come back to Mr Ang and the House when we are ready with more information.
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I have four questions. The first question is for Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. In the event of the withdrawal of air traffic services by Singapore over south Johor or the Riau Islands, may I ask the Minister what is his view on how it would affect Changi Airport as an air hub, as well as its future development?
My second question goes to Senior Minister of State Dr Janil who said that the bus and taxi operators are committed to using cleaner technology by 2040, if I hear him correctly. So, may I ask the Senior Minister of State: since the bus and taxi operators are already so committed, is there really still a need to use diesel tax to, in the words of Minister Mr Heng Swee Keat, \"nudge these operators towards cleaner and more sustainable alternatives\"?
My third and fourth questions go to Senior Minister of State Dr Lam Pin Min. I thank the Senior Minister of State Lam for the answers to the shared PMD. My clarification is: will the errant behaviour of the customer hirers of the shared PMD operators be taken into account when the LTA assess the relevant operators complying with the sandbox licence conditions, or in respect of the specific hirers' eligibility to continue hiring e-scooters with any of the commercial operators.
My fourth question is also for Senior Minister of State Dr Lam and it is on maritime matters. I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can clarify: what is the status of the adoption of the 2012 amendments to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention of Limitation of Liability? When can we expect this to be introduced in our statutes?
The Chairman: Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank Mr Dennis Tan for that question. As I explained just now, I want to clearly differentiate between sovereignty and airspace, and the responsibility for the provision of air traffic services.
So, let us be very clear that we are not arguing about sovereignty. As I also explained earlier, there is a long history as to why and how Singapore provides these air traffic services.
I have also emphasised that the main objective, regardless of who is performing, is the safety and efficiency of civil aviation. So, I think we are a long way from the hypothetical scenario which the Member has posited. But I would say this, Changi Airport is one of the world's busiest airport, and certainly in our immediately region, this is the focal point on which so many flights traversed. As I explained earlier on again, there are 740,000 flights which are receiving air traffic services from Singapore – half of those flights land or take off from Changi Airport.
So, our objectives in all our on-going discussions with our neighbours is to make sure that safety and efficiency is not compromised. The other salient factor is this: technology is also improving and it will help improve the throughput as well as maintain safety and efficiency.
Again, I refer to my earlier speech when I talked about Distributed Multi-Nodal Air Traffic Flow management. I apologise; it has only been one week since I have been doing this. The concept behind multi-nodal air traffic flow management is that by interconnecting the air traffic control systems of all the airports in the region, it enables all the airports first, to continue to act autonomously, but to optimise the total flow and the throughput flying in and leaving from those airports.
That is why I have explained that CAAS is pioneering this technique and is doing so in an inclusive and open way. So, both Indonesia and Malaysia are participating with CAAS. The speed of which this can be implemented will have to vary according to comfort level, as well as to how familiar and how constructive and positive the relationship is.
I would also draw reference to an earlier concept of a Seamless ASEAN sky. Again, the concept is that it is possible for win-win outcomes to be formulated using technology so long as we get the diplomacy and the foreign relations right. That is why we are focused on very intense, very delicate discussions and negotiations wit our counterparts. And I hope you also understand that not all of this can be made public. A lot of these discussions are best conducted quietly, behind closed doors.
Give CAAS and the authorities some more time.
The bottomline is this. Changi Airport, air services and, in fact, the logistics, the air logistics, is a very significant sector for us economically. We must do our best to protect it, to nurture it and to promote it. But the point I also want to make to our neighbours is that this is an area where we can engage in win-win collaboration and not zero-sum games.
The Chairman: Dr Janil.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Chairman, Mr Dennis Tan asked about the need for diesel tax as a nudge towards achieving LTMP 2040 goals given that we in Government have committed to a clean public bus fleet and the taxi operators have already committed. The short answer is yes. I hope he agrees firstly that achieving a cleaner vehicular fleet is important for our personal health and the health of our city. That is not going to happen without some nudges and some economic incentives. So, we need regulatory structure in order to get there.
It is quite telling that despite the fact that we in Government have committed to an entirely clean public bus fleet by 2040 as have the taxi operators, not all the private-hire car operators have agreed. It is not an easy decision to make. There are some costs and some difficulties associated with that.
Secondly, we need a solution today. We need to start moving in that direction today and not wait until 2040 to find out whether we are moving in the right direction or not, or whether we have gotten there.
Thirdly, diesel is not only used in taxis today. We have commercial vehicles, goods vehicles and private buses as well. And so, this is an important part of the vehicle population and we will have to persuade the owners, drivers and operators of these vehicles to move along with us on this journey towards a cleaner fleet by 2040. It is not going to happen just because we have asked it to happen. It has to make economic sense and some of that is going to have to include something like a change to the price of diesel which we recently introduced.
The Chairman: Dr Lam.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the two clarifications. The first is on the criteria for selecting the PMD operators. In fact, LTA will consider each application on its own merits based the following criteria.
We will look at the company's track record. We look at whether they will be able to be compliant with the law and regulatory requirements, whether there are plans to educate users on safe riding behaviours, and, at the same time, we also look at the overall demands for shared services and the availability of parking spaces. But having said that, I think we also need to take errant riders to task. An individual will actually be penalised under the existing active mobility regulations.
With regards to the Member's second question on the 1996 Limitation on Liability, I remember we had just passed the Merchants Shipping amendments only in January this year which was just two months ago. And MPA is currently looking at the implementation timeline with relevant agencies and we will update the Member as soon as we have the details.
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a quick clarification with Senior Minister of State Dr Lam. Sorry if I did not make myself clear. My question on PMD is really on, will the errant behaviour of hirers be taken into account when the LTA assesses whether or not the relevant operator has complied with the licence operating conditions. That means, after the licence has been awarded, will the errant behaviour of their hirers be taken against them, so to speak? Also, in respect of their hirers' eligibility to continue to hire with any of the commercial operator? So, will errant behaviour, let us say if this rider has been caught riding on the road when he is not supposed to, will that actually be taken against him? Because if that is a case, then it will deter errant behaviour, just like what we see with shared bike.
Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the further clarification. Yes, it depends on the circumstance whereby the errant rider has gone against the active mobility regulations and requirements. But, of course, we look at the operator's efforts in educating users on safe riding behaviour and this will be taken into consideration. It will not be exactly fair to just penalise the operator if the operator has done its best to educate users with regards to safe riding behaviour. All PMD users, including users of shared-PMDs, will be penalised for flouting the active mobility regulations. Separately, for parking indiscriminately, we will impose a ban on users according to how often he breaks the rules.
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to thank MOT for banning flights into Seletar Airport from 10.00 pm to 7.00 am. I am sure my residents are monitoring the emergency flights.
I have one question for Senior Minister State Dr Lam and my one question for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng. For the crowded town centre areas like Khatib Centre, where residents have been giving feedback that there are a lot of near-missed accidents caused by reckless cycling, is LTA going to take enforcement action at locations like these and whether LTA has sufficient manpower to do enforcement action? And my next question is: is LTA open to allowing Town Councils to take on this role of taking enforcement action at town centres where there are potential hazards.
And my question to Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Baey is that, talking about approval timeframe by LTA, I am sure LTA officers are all working very hard, trying their very best, but is Senior Parliamentary Secretary open for dialogue sessions with architects and engineers to hear their side of the problems that they are facing, because I constantly receive feedback that the approval process is very long-drawn, one written direction after another written direction? Perhaps, you would like to have a dialogue session with the professionals.
Dr Lam Pin Min: Mr Chairman, I just want to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on her supplementary questions. In fact, we have discussed this issue in previous parliamentary sittings. And we understand Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's concern with regard to the safety of pedestrians, especially her residents in her Town Council area. But I would also like to reiterate that the use of footpaths, including footpaths in Town Council areas are regulated under the Active Mobility Act. And the Active Mobility Act allows pedestrians, cyclists and PMD users to use such footpaths as they are crucial for connectivity. I think I have explained in my speech just now. It is also important for these same rules to be applied consistently to all footpaths so that users will not be confused with different rules at different areas. For example, you do allow a certain area in a certain Town Council to have no cycling zone, but allow cycling in other Town Councils, PMD users or cyclists may not be aware that it is not allowed and that will cause confusion.
LTA will continue to work with Town Council to assess the areas of concern and see whether we can have additional mitigating measures such as infrastructure works or better education and engagement efforts so that the safety concerns can be addressed. For example, if we know that there is a particular hotspot that may be prone to incidents, then we can have signages to warn PMD users, we can have signages to warn pedestrians. At the same time, we can also have CCTVs installed to enforce or to catch errant riders in those areas. LTA, together with MOT is committed to working with the Town Council of Er Dr Lee Wah and we can have joint education programmes as well as enforcement action to make sure that the hotspot that she is alluding to can be addressed in a timely manner.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: On Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's question, as a regulator, Government plays a role in meeting the needs of various stakeholders, including end consumers, users of public transport and the industry.
Public safety, the interests of public as well as business commercial interests will have to be balanced. Maybe I just like to ask Er Dr Lee Bee Wah when she talked about architects and engineers, is it any particular area under LTA's or any of our Statutory Boards' purview?
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: For any new project, architects and engineers will have to make plans submission, including LTA and BCA and many other Government agencies. So, when we talk about productivity, we hope that we can work together to see how best to expedite the approval rather than a lot of re-submissions that causes a lot of time delay.
Mr Baey Yam Keng: Okay. Sure. I believe Mr Chan Chun Sing, in his earlier speech, had talked about how the public service should adapt with changing times and technologies but at the same time, balancing the different needs of various stakeholders.
The Chairman: Assoc Prof Walter Therseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Sir, I seek a clarification from Senior Minister of State Dr Janil on the role of the PTC, please. Currently, I understand that it is limited by statue to just advising on a public rail, bus and taxi specifically. So, I seek his view on whether it is appropriate to include other P2P services for a start, but eventually, also active mobility services where balancing the interests of stakeholders and commuters is very important. And, if not, then what are the Ministry's plans for overseeing or advising on these emerging services in general?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Chairman, I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for his suggestions. The PTC works closely together with LTA. So, when we are looking across the industry, we are working together – LTA as a regulator; the PTC looking out for fare affordability and the services to the citizens.
I think in the Member's earlier speech, he made comments about integrating services, for example. There are a number of aspects to integrating services. There is a regulatory component which LTA does take on, in terms of how we might integrate different aspects of our regulatory framework. And PTC will continue to look out for the interests of commuters in terms of the fares and fare affordability.
So, I do not know that necessarily, I would agree that we need to reconsider the role of PTC at this point in time. There is a working relationship that appears to be working quite well. Perhaps, as new models of public transport or as new models of P2P, business operations or integrated services come along, we will continue to study and try to find the right response. But I take his point that we need an integrated series of solutions to link the different modalities of transport together.
The Chairman: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Mr Chairman, there was a report in the Straits Times yesterday about NTU and Volvo launching an autonomous electric bus that is 12 metres long. I noted that Senior Minister of State Dr Janil has mentioned that AVs are still a long way away from our roads. But can I ask, does MOT have a rough timeline as to when such AVs can be on our roads?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Indeed, Mr Chairman, we have a rough timeline. So, today, we have about 70 km of roads in One-North being used for on-road AV testings. So, it is in a \"live\" environment. Those vehicles, the operators that do that, have already pre-tested these in facilities like CETRAN at NTU, to establish the basic safety. The next phase, having established the on-road safety, is then to integrate these autonomous vehicles into \"live\" operations. We have committed to making that possible in three towns by 2023: Tengah, Jurong Innovation District and Punggol. What that would mean is we will have autonomous buses as a sort of 'live\" service, integrated with the other bus services that are available.
The issue of autonomous cars – so there are two different types of autonomous vehicles – autonomous cars for private vehicle ownership, we do not have a timeline at the moment but we are actively engaging with the industry, we have made calls for proposals and we are working with a number of partners to establish what are the regulatory changes that we need, what is the local capability that we need. And perhaps, in the future Land Transport Master Plan, we might be able to announce something. But at the moment, we do not have a timeline for that.
So, clear timeline for revenue service for autonomous buses; at the moment, no timeline for autonomous cars.
The Chairman: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, would you like to withdraw your amendment, please?
Mr Sitoh Yih Pin: Chairman, I would like to thank all speakers and the entire MOT team for their hard work. With that, Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Thank you.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $2,033,424,400 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $9,513,685,300 for Head W 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":"The Chairman: Head L, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
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\".
In recent years, the concept of zero waste has been growing in popularity all over the world. In land-scarce Singapore, zero waste is even more critical. Semakau Island is currently our only landfill. The man-made island was supposed to meet our needs until 2045, but recent estimates indicate that it could be reduced by a full decade. Building another landfill by the 2030s is not possible. The most practicable long-term solution, therefore, is to reduce waste.
The Government has taken the lead with education, as well as funding of technology and R&D to promote eco-friendly waste management. A survey by global public opinion and data company YouGov found that 95% of Singapore's consumers acknowledge the environmental, health and pollution issues caused by excessive use of disposable plastics. That is a big step forward, but this support has not been translated into action. Why are we not walking the talk?
As individuals, we can do our part by reducing consumption. When we generate waste, we should dispose it appropriately. There are recycling bins all over Singapore but some people treat them like trash bins, contaminating them with food waste, soiled garments, and so on. What can we do to get more Singaporeans to recycle properly? Can we include domestic helpers and foreign workers? They play a big role at home and at work. What is the Ministry doing to reach to these groups to help get on the same page? Can we do more to improve the heartland recycling network?
Moving on to businesses, I note several have taken the initiative to reduce plastic use. Some F&B businesses no longer provide straws, for example.
As of January this year, nine companies including large hotel chains and popular food establishments have teamed up to relook their plastic use under the Pact initiative by World Wide Fund for Nature. All these bode well but more can be done. Will the Government take a more proactive approach, including identifying companies that should have a waste reduction programme, working closely with them to help them turn it into something beneficial? Some companies do not know the range of solutions possible and assume that recycling would be troublesome and time-wasting and, hence, may be reluctant to take part. A little motivation with some hand-holding and incentives in the initial stage could help to get things moving.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
Some have even gone a step further to create a business out of a potential solution. In January this year, a new service was launched in Singapore, partnering with F&B outlets to switch disposable containers and cutlery for takeaways with reusables made of stainless steel or glass. Customers would pay a fee for these items and get their money back when they return them at a nearby location. This is a novel idea; it frees businesses from the labour cost of hiring dish washers and resolves the problem of facilitating take-outs without using disposables. Does the Government incentivise such businesses and work with them to refine their ideas for mass-uptake?
On the other hand, this possibly leads to a dilemma. These cutlery and containers would have to be washed, so water consumption goes up. Essentially, when we reuse something, we usually must maintain its cleanliness. How do we balance the effort to reduce plastic disposables with our need to save water?
While on this subject, I am aware that our PUB has always been putting in a lot of effort on technology and R&D to secure our water supply. What are new developments in the water sector that we can look forward to? In what ways can technology be used to optimise the way in which the Ministry and PUB operates?
In recent weeks, we have heard the price of water being mentioned again and again by one of our old suppliers. We have also launched a water conservation campaign at home. Research by the National University of Singapore has shown that when it comes to saving water, normative incentives work as well as economic ones. Hence, campaign messages can motivate households to save as much as 4.9 litres a day per person, or about 3% of demand. This is not an insignificant amount.
As a small, low-lying island state, we need to be aware of how climate change impacts us. We have experienced more frequent and more extreme weather events. We have had our share of flash floods and scorching hot sun. To effectively tackle climate change, it is necessary for us to work with other countries. How are we doing in terms of regional and international engagement? There are also several tropical island states that could face similar challenges. Are we working with them on a solution?
What about the myriad of tiny islets that belong to our nation? We are made up of 63 islands altogether. How are we protecting them from climate change?
We designated last year as the Year of Climate Action, how will the Ministry continue the efforts from the Year of the Climate Action? What are the key climate-related initiatives that we can look forward to this year and beyond?
In 2013, the Ministry established the Centre for Climate Research to develop climate projections for Singapore. Its findings will guide us towards prioritising our key challenges and building up our resilience.
What more will the Ministry do to continue to build up our climate science capabilities to ensure that we are well-prepared against climate changes? What are we doing to nurture an adequate local talent pool to implement the relevant technology and research programmes?
Sir, Singapore has always been vulnerable because of its size and lack of resources, but we have prosper and succeeded because of forward planning and collective action. Let us all do our part so that our nation will not be submerged in water in years to come.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, in preparation for this cut, I did some research and was troubled to learn of the extent of our food waste. According to information from NEA and other related websites, Singaporean generated about 810,000 tonnes of food waste in 2017. Every day, we are throwing away, on average, more than 2,000 tonnes of food.
Food waste constitutes about 10% of the total waste generated, but only 16% is recycled. The rest of the food waste are disposed of at incineration plants.
Over the past 10 years, NEA noted that food waste generated in Singapore has increased by about 40% and is projected to increase with our growing population and economic activity.
Food waste is a concern because food that we throw away, in essence, also amount to wasting the resources used in its production as well as the treatment and disposal. Besides wasting money, it also has negative environmental impact.
There have been on-going efforts to collect and dispose food waste. By and large, there are four major strategies adopted by NEA. Firstly, Prevent and Reduce Food Wastage at Source. Secondly, Redistribute Unsold/Excess Food. Thirdly, Recycle/Treat Food Waste. Fourthly, Recover Energy from Waste.
On the strategy of redistributing unsold and excess food, I feel that there are scope to do more. We could involve more of the community groups to redistribute unsold or excess food to help needy families. In my constituency, for example, our Zhenghua Indian Activity Executive Committee (IAEC) do that every month – collecting food from wholesale market and redistributing it to needy residents at our estates. By so doing, food unsold is not wasted and it can make a difference to low-income families.
Can I ask the Minister to update on the current state of food waste in Singapore? What policies and initiatives do the Ministry have in mind to increase the recycling rate of the 810,000 tonnes of food waste generated every year?
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, you have five cuts. Can you take all five together?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the Zero Waste Masterplan will be a huge step forward in the environmental protection movement in Singapore. It signals the Government’s strong commitment towards protecting our environment and ensuring that we have sustainable practices.
I hope that the main emphasis of the Masterplan is on reducing our consumption rather than on recycling what we have used.
We need to focus on the root of the problem and address our throw away culture. If we do not reduce our consumption and instead focus mainly on recycling, our efforts will be futile.
Equally important is public ownership of the Masterplan. People need to have a stake in it and we can achieve this by ensuring that people’s views and ideas – from green groups as well as the general public – are heard.
Can the Minister share if the Masterplan is already completed? If not, will there be plans to consult the public, and when will they take place?
Sir, I spoke about my love for gorillas during the Films (Amendment) Bill and little did I know that I have been unknowingly contributing to their demise. Quite simply, because I use a mobile phone and a laptop.
As recently as last month, a media report highlighted that \"The critically endangered Grauer’s gorilla has lost 77% of its population in the last 20 years, partly due to the mining of minerals used to make cellphones.\" The mineral extracted and used is coltan. The report also stressed that, \"Participating in cellphone recycling programmes helps reduce the demand for mining in gorilla habitat\".
I have spoken up about the recycling of e-waste for several years and I am glad that we are making progress and will be introducing the Extended Producer Responsibility approach to managing e-waste by 2021.
Can the Minister share more details about this, whether it can be brought forward and also whether this can include the recycling of mobile phones and, in particular, the mineral coltan?
A few months ago, I delivered an Adjournment Motion, calling for us to move Towards a Plastic-Lite Singapore. In that speech, I shared that a recent study found 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic, weighing a total of 80,000 tonnes, currently floating in a stretch of ocean between California and Hawaii. If we do not do anything about it, there will be more plastics than fish in our ocean by 2050. Part of the problem is packaging waste and this clearly needs to be addressed.
I am glad that we will mandate that businesses report on the type and amount of packaging, including plastics, they put on the market and their plans for reduction. It is even better news that this has been brought forward from 2021 to 2020, next year.
Can Minister share more details about this: whether there will be mandatory reduction targets set and whether there will be any measures to ensure that businesses have significant plans for reduction?
One of the places where a lot of disposables are used is at our hawker centres. A lot of people takeaway their food and disposables are used since it is still rare that people bring their own containers.
We need to tackle this issue but what we should tackle first is the use of disposables for dining in. For new hawker centres, we have already disallowed the use of disposables for dining in. This has clearly resulted in a significant drop in the amount of waste generated.
Since 2019 has been designated as the year towards Zero Waste in Singapore, will Minister consider extending the ban on the use of disposables for dining in to all hawker centres? If not, will MEWR consider providing incentives or subsidies for hawkers who choose not to use disposables for dining ins?
I do understand that disposables are used, as it is more convenient and maybe cheaper. As such, providing such incentives might encourage hawkers to make this change.
Sir, last month, Temasek CEO Mdm Ho Ching urged businesses to fulfil their obligation to ensure a liveable and sustainable planet for all. It is a call to action that I fully support. It is also a call to action that the public service, the biggest employer in Singapore, should support.
Public agencies currently follow the procurement principles of fairness, transparency and value-for-money. Can environmental sustainability also be included in these principles? Even with a healthy economy, there will be no future if we do not have a healthy environment.
In the words of Mdm Ho Ching, \"There is, as you know, no Plan B for us, because there is no Planet B.\"
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, it is great to hear that the Zero Waste Master Plan will be launched towards the end of this year, and will specifically target the problem area of food waste, e-waste and packaging waste. I believe the focus will be on upstream solutions. The Minister of Finance has exhorted Singaporeans as individuals to change our way of life and practise the 3Rs – to Reduce consumption, Recycle and Reuse.
But I would like to warn against neglecting what may be seen as downstream issues. The 3Rs are not simply linked to individual ways of life that could be easily changed. Ways of life are bound up with social norms, cultural beliefs and urban systems. Change must come about through collective action.
On recycling, our domestic recycling rate has been stuck at 21%. The blue bins at each block of flats have hit a green ceiling. Public education is still relevant. Single-use plastics remains a major problem. A survey by the Singapore Environment Council found that we use at least 1.76 billion plastic items a year, of which less than 20% is recycled. SEC also reported that seven in 10 people do not know what plastics to recycle. We need to double-down on green education. On reducing, we have to tackle head-on the rise of new patterns of retail and consumption. The rise of home delivery and online shopping means packaging waste will only get higher. On this front, MEWR will have to work closely with online retailers to minimise packaging and may well have to legislate or impose a packaging tax to compel reduction.
On reusing, many countries are now promoting the reusing of waste for building and construction. Is MEWR working with BCA on this front to promote the reusing of waste by our construction companies for their projects?
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir. I wish to call your attention to the management of medication wastage in Singapore. As you are aware, escalating healthcare costs is a great concern for the Singapore's Budget.
It is therefore imperative to use the resources given to us as efficiently as possible. As we continue to ramp up our healthcare system with more infrastructure, manpower, funding and subsidy schemes to cater to the needs of our aging population, active steps must also be taken to review the waste in our current healthcare system.
This year, I understand that Zero Waste Singapore will be looking into food waste, plastic disposable waste, recycling efforts and business waste. It does not, however, include medication waste in its initiative. At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore.
Singapore faces a rapidly ageing population and as a consequence, patients with more chronic diseases. It is then inevitable that polypharmacy, which is the concurrent use of multiple medications by a patient, overprescribing and oversupply have been identified to be significant sources of medication waste.
From past home visits by pharmacists to review the medications of patients, high medication waste was noted largely due to expired drugs, drugs prescribed without indication or duplication of drug therapy. One local hospital estimated the drug wastage cost detected during pharmacist home visit at $663 per patient.
Hypothetically speaking, if one pharmacist is given the resource to visit 10 patients a week over a one-year period to perform full reconciliation, the total potential drug savings can amount to at least $329,000, with $176,000 and $153,000 of savings in subsidies and out of pocket savings respectively.
A recent patient survey conducted by the National University of Singapore Pharmacy department and the National Cancer Centre Singapore, over a two-week period, also revealed resolution of patients' medical conditions, medication expired at home and patients no longer requiring their medications as top reasons for unused medications in their household. Such medication hoarding translates to significant potential healthcare cost savings if we are able to curb the current issues of over-prescribing, oversupply and polypharmacy.
Apart from incurring huge costs, over-prescribing, oversupplying and medication wastes also lead to issues of inappropriate medication disposal and environmental pollution. Medication waste comprises of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste, controlled drug and expired pharmaceuticals.
Currently, the most common way for individuals to dispose of medications is through the outlet of household waste. The patient survey mentioned above showed that 75.4% of patients surveyed throw their medication waste into a trash bin, with 5% throwing into the sink or flushing down the toilet. Eighty-five point seven percent of patients surveyed are not aware of the correct method for medication disposal.
Failure to ensure safe disposal of drugs can lead to environmental risks, as medicines which enter the environment can have a corrosive effect, especially on our local marine life. This in turn will adversely affect other species.
I understand that most waste water treatment facilities cannot filter out these drugs. I would like to request that NEA carry out checks to verify if our water treatment facilities have such capabilities, and if the disposal of drugs by flushing them down the toilet or sink poses a risk in Singapore.
A case in point would be the potentially careless disposal of cytotoxic drugs, a group of medications that contain chemicals that are toxic to cells; they are used as part of chemotherapy regimens for cancer treatment. These drugs are also widely used in the treatment of other chronic diseases. Cytotoxic drugs affect cell functions and have the ability to alter DNA and cause chromosome damage – thus they are teratogenic, carcinogenic and mutagenic in nature.
Antibiotics, if improperly discarded can enter our ecosystem and promote resistance to bacteria and fungus, leading to increased rates of infections that are difficult to treat. This is vicious cycle which we cannot afford to risk happening, and should be avoided at all cost.
Accidental drug overdose is also one of the most common sources of household injuries. Young children are especially vulnerable to unintentional exposure to prescription and over the counter medications. As such, drugs should be safeguarded closely and gotten rid of safely when no longer needed.
Inappropriate disposal of drugs can also potentially lead to diversion for illicit use. From my experience as a pharmacist volunteer at a local hospice, it is not uncommon to see controlled drugs in bags of medication waste. I propose that MOH considers funding to support pharmaceutical services such as medication reviews and reconciliation, as well as de-prescribing efforts. The potential savings from the earlier studies show considerable cost effectiveness of reimbursing a pharmacist for such services.
Regarding solutions to safe disposal, we can look to countries like Canada and the United States which have special government services offering to take back and dispose unused and expired drugs. This take-back programme should be studied and implemented in Singapore.
The Drug Enforcement Administration in the United States created the National Prescription Drug take-back days that occur bi-annually in April and October. These take-back days are part of a mission to create safe medication disposal sites, prevent drug diversion or transfer of the prescribed drugs for illicit use, as well as to provide education for the public. Our local survey mentioned above also show that our patients are supportive of such disposal sites.
MOH, HSA, MHA and NEA should make efforts to support such Drug Take back campaigns through collaboration with hospitals and community pharmacies. This will provide a channel for patients to return and safely dispose of unwanted drugs; particularly cytotoxic drugs, antibiotics and substances of abuse.
MOH and NEA may also consider collaboration with pharmacists to support patient education efforts in minimising medication waste. For example, when prescribed with new medications, collections should be limited to two to four weeks' worth of supply. This is to prevent wastage in case of adverse effects, or if the medication proves unsuitable or ineffective. For medications taken on a \"use when necessary\" basis, to obtain them in small quantities and purchase more only when necessary.
For long term medications, consider collection in instalments. For example, to collect three months' worth of supply each time to minimise wastage. MOH may like to consider funding charges for home deliveries or self-collection lockers to encourage instalments collections instead of collecting large supplies at one go. This may turn out to be more cost effective in the long-run.
It is my sincere hope that my suggestions to reduce medication waste and to improve cost effectiveness of our healthcare system be deliberated with all due consideration.
The Chairman: Miss Cheng Li Hui. You have three cuts. Can you take all three together, please?
Miss Cheng Li Hui: Sure. Sir, 2019 is designated to be Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste; a campaign to raise Singaporeans' awareness on waste issues. For Singapore to achieve our vision of becoming a zero waste nation, Singaporeans have to reduce our consumption and also adopt a zero‐waste attitude in their day‐to‐day life; such as stop using single‐use plastic. Getting our recycling habits right is another way – we have to increase our household recycling rate.
In my MOE cuts, I stressed the importance of inculcating our younger generation with green habits and lifestyle. After a discussion on Semakau Landfill, a young man went back to pick up the brochure he got when he visited Semakau as a student 10 years ago. To his shock, he saw that in this brochure, it shows that Semakau Landfill is expected to meet Singapore's needs for landfill space beyond the year 2045 but today's estimate is 2035 – 10 years ahead. The trip made him more environmentally cautious, but it did not manage to make him feel the urgency to recycle or reduce waste!
Everyone of us has to take zero waste and green lifestyle more seriously as a nation. Semakau is our only landfill. We need to work together to extend the lifespan of the landfill, we must cut down our waste. Can the Minister shares what happens after 2035 when the landfill is filled? This brochure also showed that the first space of Semakau Landfill cost $610,0000 and four years to complete. It is a very costly project. So, it is important that we have a Zero Waste Masterplan.
I would like to ask the Minister how can the public and other interested stakeholders share their suggestions and ideas on how we can move towards on a zero waste nation together.
E‐waste management is another important aspect as only 6% of our estimated 30,000 tonnes e‐waste goes into recycling. Two years from now, we will have a management framework based on the Extended Producer Responsibility where among other things, producers have to ensure that their products are properly recycled at the end of life.
Can the Minister share more details on how we intend to implement the framework?
Sir, as we know, solar energy is the most promising renewable energy in Singapore due to our location. However, we are physically small with limited amount of land to install solar panels. Singapore is surrounded by water and we also have reservoirs.
Last year, it was reported that the HDB is exploring having floating solar panels in the open sea and that it is studying if such panels are suitable for our coastal marine conditions. This year, we have a huge floating solar panel system coming up on our northern shores.
Can the Minister provide an update on our floating solar plans? Are there plans for PUB to deploy more solar panels at our reservoirs in the future?
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Sir, air pollution is a problem even for highly developed countries like Singapore. Deloitte and InnoEnergy estimate that poor air quality in the EU could cost €775 billion by 2020, based on premature deaths, healthcare costs and lower productivity.
While we are all affected by regional air pollution from the haze, we may not realise that vehicle emissions also significantly affect local air quality. Conversion of our vehicle fleet to electric will reduce emissions, even after accounting for the fact that our electricity is generated by fossil fuels.
Electrification of private cars will be challenging because there is little charging infrastructure. In any case, the best way to reduce emissions is to go car-lite. However, public service vehicles such as our nearly 6,000 public buses could be electrified. We just heard that MOT has a plan to convert the public bus fleet to clean energy by 2040.
Could the Ministry support this plan to electrify the Government public service fleet by examining: (a) the impacts of particulates and other emissions from the vehicle fleet on health, quality of life, and economic output; (b) the experiences of commercial providers of zero emissions transport such as HDT or Blue SG to understand barriers to widespread adoption; and (c) the related tax and subsidy policies needed to electrify major private vehicle fleets, such as private buses and taxis.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir it was announced last year that Singaporeans will have three new after-death facilities in the near future to meaningfully send off their loved ones. A new facility for the scattering of ashes at sea without having to travel by boat is being built at Tanah Merah. It was reported that there will be four pavilions accommodating seven people each and a shelter for 28 people.
I would like to ask when will this facility be ready and whether the facility is big enough to accommodate big family groups wanting to send off their loved ones?
I have similar questions for the in-land ash scattering facilities at Choa Chu Kang Cemetery Complex and the Mandai Crematorium and Columbarium Complex. It was reported that these would be ready in 2020 and 2021 respectively. Is the construction of the facilities on track for completion in the next two years?
We have been given some general information about the facilities being open to all faiths and set in a beautiful, tranquil and respectful environment. But there are very few details about the facilities. Will the Minister please share what the public can expect from the facilities?
Unlike the keeping of ashes in an urn in the Columbarium, the scattering of ashes is the last ceremony for family members to pay their last respects to the remains of their loved ones. As such, it is important that the design of the facilities should be properly thought out and the facilities planning takes into account the comfort and privacy of grieving family members as well as accommodating ritual requirement of different faith.
I hope the Ministry will share more information on the planned facilities and perhaps conduct a public consultation?
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Chairman. In November 2018, I filed an oral Parliamentary Question (PQ) for the Minister for Environment and Water Resources in respect of the supply of 8,600 quartz niches, instead of marble ones, when the niches were relocated from Mount Vernon Columbarium. Specifically, I had asked: (a) whether NEA had verified that all contractual requirements have been fulfilled by the contractors during delivery and installation; (b) what punitive action will be taken against the contractors; and (c) whether the contractors are required to provide refunds or compensation where affected families do not accept a marble replacement.
The Minister has told me in his PQ answer that the contractor will bear the costs required to make good on what should have been delivered, that NEA has withheld payments to the contractor, and NEA will also be claiming against the contractor for any difference in price between the quartz and marble plaques.
However, to date, we have not yet been told any explanation given by the contractor for their supply of the 8,600 quartz plaques out of 20,000 total number of plaques. So, it is more than one third of the contracted quantity. Can the Minister clarify what was the explanation given by the contractor? Was it a deliberate attempt o the part of the contractor? Or was it an attempt to deceive? There was no mention of police report or police investigation in the PQ answer.
I would like to know whether NEA had made any police report, and if no police report was made, why did NEA not do so.
If a police report was made, when was it made and whether any investigation was carried out or is being carried out by the police or CAD. What is the outcome of the investigation?
Finally, I would like to know whether any further action will be taken by NEA in this connection besides what was stated in the PQ reply and whether the supplier will be blacklisted from future contracts.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, our hawker centres – our ubiquitous community dining rooms – are the heart of Singapore life. Here are where we can get our three daily meals, or six, if you include brunch, tea and supper, from professionals offering cuisines from east to west at affordable prices. It is from our vibrant and unique hawker culture that the world’s first Michelin-starred street food stall emerged – \"Hong Kong Soya Chicken Rice and Noodle\" run by chef-owner Chan Hon Meng. I am sure that we will have more champions like Mr Chan in the future. This is because we have many hawker stalls which serve up delicious food reflecting our diverse cultural heritage and innovative fusions which can only be found here in Singapore. Our hawker centres are an important and intrinsic part of our history. Government, community and stakeholders must work together to ensure that this living legacy will continue to flourish. How is our nomination of Singapore’s Hawker Culture for UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity progressing? What more can Singaporeans do to lend support?
Selling food is a tough and competitive business, even more so for hawkers. The work is physically demanding and the hours are long. Many Singaporeans are concerned that selling hawker food might become a dying trade with fewer younger people taking it up as a career. Will the Ministry review and implement further measures to sustain our hawker trade and culture?
Part of the reason the younger generation is not so attracted to running hawker stalls is the availability of other food sale alternatives. Those passionate about making food can choose to work for food courts run by chains, restaurants, hotels and catering firms. They can earn decent salaries in better environments. They can even operate their own eateries or restaurants with financial backers. However, this also means that good, affordable food may not be so widely available in the future. To ensure that we have a steady stream of younger hawkers, more has to be done to ensure a decent livelihood for our hawkers while keeping hawker food affordable for Singaporeans. Will the Ministry share a progress report on its mentorship programme and Incubation Stall Programme which train interested cooks and teach them how to manage a hawker stall?
They are some hawkers who, despite having spent years in this trade, are less successful or who are even struggling. Are there counsellors at the Ministry which they can turn to for feedback and suggestions on how to turn their businesses around? What are the success factors of hawkers doing well and how could these information and insights be shared with this group?
Last but not least, our hawker centres need the cooperation of all customers to stay clean and pleasant for dining. Unfortunately, a minority of diners are not so neat when they eat and leave a mess of bones or unwanted food pieces on the tables. How can we educate our people to be more considerate and hygienic? How can we improve our dining etiquette as a nation? In view of the labour shortage for cleaning staff, Singaporeans have to get used to returning our own trays or even better, like the Japanese, wipe and clean up our tables before we leave. What further measures will the Ministry take to ensure the success of tray returns programme?
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the Ministry had announced various measures in November 2018 to address issues pertaining to the socially-conscious enterprise hawker centres (SEHC) model.
Firstly, the Ministry had committed to better support stallholders to manage costs. Currently, the Ministry have put in place measures to ensure that rentals are reasonable and not speculative. For existing centres, the reserve rent has been removed as well as subletting and assignment have been disallowed. For new centres, the tender evaluation favoured tenderers who offer lower total rental and operating costs, and prohibit any increases in rentals or operating costs for the duration of the tenancy. In this way, the interests of the hawkers are well protected.
In addition, I am glad that the Productive Hawker Centre (PHC) grants have been extended for two years with effect from January 2019. This shall help the SEHC stallholders manage their costs. This means that the stallholders at the hawker centres can enjoy 50% reduction in their centralised dishwashing costs for the first year and 30% for the second year.
The productivity solutions such as centralised dishwashing and automated tray return systems are steps in the right direction and a help to ease our tight manpower situation.
I can see that the Ministry had attempted to strike a balance between the soft touch regulatory approach towards SEHC operators and to exercise better oversight to protect hawkers' welfare. To that end, I welcome NEA's review of the key contractual terms between the SEHC operators and stallholders to provide more flexibility, while ensuring proper management.
For example, operators will be more flexible on the stallholders’ operating hours and days of work required. Operators will also now not require a notice period of two months to terminate their tenancies or require security deposits exceeding two months.
To attract more to enter the hawker trade, we not only need to lower the barrier to entry but the barrier to exist as well. Does the Ministry have updates on whether those measures have been effective?
The Chairman: Mr Desmond Choo, you have four cuts. Can you please take all the four together?
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Thank you. Sir, in food paradise Singapore where food of very conceivable cuisine and price are easily found, food security is hardly a heady Singaporean topic. Even the Economist Intelligence Unit Global Food Security Index seems to agree. We are rated as the most food secure in the world. We are even ahead of large agricultural nations such as the US and Canada. But are we really food secure?
According to the same Index, we are top chiefly because of affordability. Globally, we spend the lowest on food as a percentage of our household expenditure after United States. But there was a red flag. We import nearly 90% of what we eat. That makes us extremely susceptible to trade and supply chain disruptions from climate and political events. This vulnerability is beyond just food cost but also our survival.
Food crisis are not so distant in history. The last global food crisis was a decade ago. In 2014 where Malaysian eggs were found to have salmonella, egg prices rose quickly. Clearly, food resilience must be a core national focus.
Can the Minister share what are the key trait and supply risk that Singapore face? How have we been strengthening our food supplies in the face of geo-political and economic development?
By 2050, the world's population is expected to hit 10 billion from the current 7.3 billion. If we do not increase our agricultural yields massively over the next 30 years, the world will simply be in an economic growth-driven famine. Singapore's competition for food will only be more keen. How can we safeguard our future? It is mission critical to increase the local content of our food supplies. We have diversified our food sources to manage our risk and food cost. But only local production can protect us from short-term shocks and provide a measure of self-sufficiency. What is the Ministry's target of local production to imported food supplies over the next 10 to 30 years? We are way in meeting this target?
In the 1960s, agricultural accounted for 3% of our GDP. Today, it no longer has a category of its own and accounts for less than 0.02% of our GDP. Has the Ministry set a target GDP rate?
For us to succeed in this national mission, both businesses and consumers play critical roles. Locally produced food will generally cost more than imported ones. This is no different from a higher cost water produced by distillation. Yet if we do not see the value of food self-sufficiency as a national imperative, then there is no future for local production. For once, we have to literally drink and eat our way to security or disaster.
Over the years, Fairprice has made it a critical mission to build an eco-system to support local producers beyond moderating costs of food. First, it has committed to buying local. I understand that Fairprice carries close to 5,000 locally-produced items, accounting for about 20% of its total sales. In fact, 40% of eggs sold are from our local farms. Buying \"local\" also meant that Fairprice has a stronger control over quality and safety from farms to dining table. This is good for consumers.
They also started an SME development and support programme to help 400 small companies and start-ups with the cash flow and development. It has committed to monthly \"Made in Singapore\" campaigns at its own costs.
Fairprice cannot do it alone. It is the Government, other companies and consumers to join in enhancing ed of food security. How can the Ministry support the efforts of companies such as Fairprice to build on local production capacity? The quality of soil and climate used to determine agricultural yield. Now, a technologically-driven eco-system can level the playing field.
For example, the Netherlands is small and densely populated. It does not have most of the resources necessary for large scale agriculture. Yet, it is the globe's number two exporter of food measured by value, second only to the United States. For a sense of its achievements, the US is 270 times its land mass. What Silicon Valley has done for the US' IT industry, Food Valley has achieved the same for Dutch agriculture. Wageningen University and Research (WUR) is a crucible of innovative re-cultural developments, not unlike what MIT Alumni has done in the IT world.
While we might not be able to go to such a scale as the Dutch, we can be the crucible of change in development in our region. Its areas include R&D and logistics, urban farming, agricultural and eco-culture, finance and insurance. We have done this water challenge. Our ambitions must now match urgency and the novelty of Singapore's food security challenge. If we can grow the industry, this will mean tremendous opportunities for economy. While it is a total economic value you can generate if we reach our target local production, how many and what types of jobs can we expect to create?
We can only grow our agriculture industry if we have the right capital and political will. Viable businesses ultimately determine the sustainability of the industry. How can the Ministry ensure that there is sufficient capital and skilled manpower in the system to drive the growth of start-ups? Netherlands, WUR and its impact on agricultural innovation suggests that we need to invest in our local academia. We need to marry the science and the market. How does the Ministry plan to jump start and develop this field in the Institutes of Higher Learning?
Even as we go to local content of production, our legislation must be kept market-friendly without compromising our food safety. The supply chain is fraught with risks. From cultivation and harvesting, things can easily go wrong. How does the Ministry ensure that food safety is maintained throughout the supply chain and that effective co-chain is in place? How does it also ensure they monitor compliance cost keenly to minimise regulatory costs?
The Chairman: Dr Chia Shi-Lu, you have two cuts. Can you take both together?
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Chairman. The formation of the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) will bring together the food-related functions of the Agri-Food and AVA, NEA and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). Without a doubt, this consolidation of regulatory oversight for food safety and security under a single agency will be more efficient. The streamlining of processes and the sharing of facilities and technology will enable all the various teams to communicate more effectively, reduce red tape, and avoid duplication and work more productively.
But for all the work behind the scenes, what are the benefits for Singaporeans and companies from this consolidation? Would the Minister share some examples of how these changes translate to, for example, the ability to conduct more accurate tests and frequent checks, or shorten approval times for certain applications, among others?
As with any transition, there will be unexpected issues which will crop up. With less than a month to go before the start of SFA on 1 April, what are some of the challenges, if any, which the agencies involved encounter and how are these problems being solved?
Rising temperatures pose a particular threat to food safety in Singapore, for example, as our wet markets and hawker centres are not air-conditioned, exposing all food to higher risks of spoilage. What is the Ministry's view on this problem?
With climate change, we can expect more unpredictable and intense rainfall. What are some of PUB's plans to mitigate flood risks in the face of this challenge?
Would the Ministry share some updates, starting with the progress of the various drainage improvement works, canals, retention and any new detention tanks around our island? How many and where are these works being done and what are the expected dates of completion? I understand that last year alone, the Ministry received about 500 submissions for plans to build retention tanks. But as of February 2018, only 158 have been completed. What is the status now for these projects?
Besides these constructions, the maintenance of our drains is equally important. From the regular inspections, what common problems were detected and how can members of the public assist to keep obstructions out of the drains?
And lastly, as I also called for last year, would the Ministry be considering the use of innovative porous materials such as durable permeable concrete on our roads and walkways to facilitate drainage?
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Health and Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin): Water conservation is key to ensuring sustainability of our water supply.
A study by the Water Resources Institute in 2015 found that Singapore was a country most likely to be water-stressed in 2040, amid climate change and increasing water demand.
Even so, a recent focus group study by PUB and REACH observed that younger Singaporeans and permanent residents appear to be less concerned about the sustainability of Singapore's water supply. The study also found that even amongst those willing to conserve water, many said that they did not have the means to manage water consumption effectively.
Given that being able to meet our country's growing water demand is critical to Singapore's future developments, what initiatives will the Ministry and PUB introduce to help households achieve the target of lowering household water demand to 130 litres per capita per day by 2030?
The non-domestic sector is expected to contribute significantly to our water demand growth. So, what are the initiatives to assist businesses in managing their water demand and increasing water efficiency?
The Chairman: Minister Masagos.
The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Chairman, may I have your permission to use slides to accompany my speech, please?
The Chairman: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As a small island state, Singapore's survival and success is a miracle. We have too little land to cultivate food meaningfully, no natural resources to enrich ourselves and remain one of the most water-stressed countries in the world.
We must never forget that the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements ensured a supply of water from Johor to meet Singapore's needs, and were so sacrosanct that they were guaranteed by both Singapore and Malaysia in the Separation Agreement. Sacrosanct to this day. Yet, we were determined to build a successful, thriving and liveable home and by pursuing sustainable development from the word \"go\". We overcame our challenges through two key approaches.
First, long-term planning. Even as the Government tackled current problems, it scanned the horizon for threats and opportunities and planned decades ahead, decades, not years.
Second, the ability to implement policies and plans effectively. Faced with a challenge, we start small; learn from others; harness technology; invest in R&D. Keep on trying, until we get it right. Then, we take our solutions and scale up to benefit the whole nation.
In doing so, we also grow our enterprises and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
This is the essence of our Water Story. We now welcome the Singapore Food Agency into our MEWR family. It is with the same understanding that food security is an existential issue, just like water, that we are writing our Singapore Food Story.
But first, Mr Chairman, let me dwell on our Water Story. Since Independence, there has been the perception that water could be used as leverage against Singapore. Indeed, there have been threats to cut off our water supply.
It was against this backdrop of needing to ensure the security and resilience of Singapore's water supply that we set out to create drinking water from used water. We started pilot testing in the 1970s. It took us more than two decades before we were ready to scale up production of NEWater. We built a demonstration plant, started water quality measurement programmes, and rallied the entire nation's support.
It is a feat to be proud of that we have integrated our used water into the water system into a closed loop, safely and reliably. Drugs disposed of, in sinks or toilets will be substantially removed through the water reclamation process. Our NEWater technology is so reliable that the Reverse Osmosis process will effectively remove any remaining pharmaceutical compounds, when treated used water is channelled into the NEWater production.
PUB's constant monitoring showed that pharmaceutical compounds were not detected in our drinking water. I hope that will put to rest Ms Irene Quay's concerns about PUB's treatment capabilities in removing drugs from used water.
Every time I describe to an international audience how we, as a nation, drink and use water from this system with full confidence of its safety and hygiene, I cannot help but beam with pride. Today, NEWater is a national tap that is recognised internationally for its high quality and sustainability.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about new developments in the water sector. PUB is not done with R&D. We are pushing on. The Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC) allocated PUB $200 million for R&D, which includes pursuing breakthrough technologies. We will pose what we call \"Big Hairy Audacious Goals\" (BHAGs) to scientists, such as producing desalinated water with energy use of 1 kWh/m3 (kilo Watt hour per metre cube) at the system level. We already have the electro-deionisation technology that can potentially halve the energy required today in conventional reverse osmosis desalination. We are ready to scale up and deploy this technology at one of the process trains in PUB's Tuas Desalination Plant from 2020.
The gains from R&D go beyond solving our water problems. Over the years, we have developed a thriving water industry, with over 200 companies and more than 25 R&D centres. Our investments in the past decade have created some 14,400 good jobs and economic value-add of over $2.2 billion annually, far more than our 2006 target of 11,000 jobs and $1.5 billion value-add. Singapore is now one of the best and busiest hydrohubs, where companies come to prove their patents and scalability in a live water system.
Our R&D efforts also allow PUB to grow our local enterprises when it partners the industry to develop innovative solutions. One example is EnvironSens. PUB worked with them to develop an early warning system that detects illegal discharge of heavy metals into the sewerage system. EnvironSens has already attracted investments to manufacture and market their products in countries such as the US, China, and India.
We have come a long way in our Water Story, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Climate change is bringing new and wicked problems. It is no coincidence that we are building more desalination and NEWater plants – we need to produce water almost at will, regardless of whether the rains will come.
On the other hand, climate change also brings more frequent intense storms, which could mean more floods, as noted by Dr Chia Shi-Lu. As a low-lying island, Singapore is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise that can exacerbate flooding problems. You may have seen the Straits Times' interactive graphic that shows \"Singapore Underwater\". That is already a reality in the Pacific Ocean where at least eight islands have disappeared under the sea.
To enhance our flood resilience, we completed the Stamford Diversion Canal and Stamford Detention Tank last year. Upgrading works at two major waterways, the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal and Sungei Pandan Kechil, will be completed this year. We will commence drainage upgrading works at another 16 locations this year.
As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah noted, climate change must be tackled at regional and global platforms. In the meantime, we must press on to transform our economy towards a low carbon future and do our part for the planet. This year, the carbon tax takes effect. The Government is prepared to spend more than $1 billion to be collected over the next five years in tax revenues, to help companies become more energy-efficient.
We will step up solar adoption, as highlighted by Miss Cheng Li Hui. PUB is studying the deployment of floating solar Photo Voltaic (PV) systems at four reservoirs – Bedok, Lower Seletar, Upper Peirce and Tengeh. EDB is also exploring the possibility of a commercial floating solar system at Kranji Reservoir. Together, these systems potentially have a capacity to power 40,000 four-room HDB households each year – about half the size of Tampines.
It gets more exciting. We are also exploring such floating PV systems off Singapore's coast, as well as integrating solar PV into our building facades to maximise solar energy generation.
Promoting sustainable transport and managing vehicular emissions are also key. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked about our plans to manage transport emissions. We promote cleaner vehicles through emissions standards and encourage the early replacement of older and more pollutive vehicles, such as through the Early Turnover Scheme. More than 40,000 commercial diesel vehicles have switched to cleaner vehicles under this scheme.
We also work with MOT to encourage adoption of cleaner vehicles, and regularly engage the industry, such as commercial electric vehicle fleet owners like HDT and BlueSG, on their plans. As one of my colleagues, a Minister of Environment, quipped, \"There is a link between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. You aim for cleaner vehicles to solve pollution, you will also solve greenhouse gases that will help with climate change.\"
The preceding examples are what we all call climate mitigation. But that is not enough. The Government is also planning ahead to protect Singapore against climate change impacts. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about our initiatives to build climate resilience. My colleagues in MND spoke at length on this. To guide our policies though, in fortifying Singapore against climate change, we must build up our knowledge of climate science. Indeed, because there is limited literature on climate change effects in the tropics, we can lead.
This is why we set up the Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) in 2013. We are stepping up investment to build capability in CCRS and the local scientific community. This year, CCRS will embark on the National Sea Level Programme to better understand sea levels around Singapore so that we can develop robust projections and plans for the long term.
Mr Chairman, we will also press on to ensure water security. When Marina East and Jurong Island Desalination Plants are completed next year, we will have a total of five desalination plants. Work on the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System Phase 2 (DTSS2) is on track. We will continue to build up our desalination and NEWater capacities, to ensure that our water supply is secure and resilient in the long term. Water security is an existential issue for Singapore. We will continue to do what it takes to ensure it.
Members would be aware that, earlier this week, PUB issued a Default Notice to Tuaspring Pte Ltd (TPL), the Hyflux subsidiary that owns and operates the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Plant. As updated previously in this House, we have been closely monitoring developments and will not allow our water security to be compromised. We are concerned that TPL has been unable to fulfil various contractual obligations, in particular, by failing to keep the plant reliably operational as required.
In addition, TPL has not been able to produce financial evidence to demonstrate its ability to keep the plant running for the next six months. Hence, PUB has decided to exercise its rights under its contract with TPL and initiate the necessary proceedings to safeguard the continued operations of the plant. This action is to safeguard our water security.
Over the past five decades, we have worked hard to diversify our water resources and build up our four national taps. We saw how the Linggiu Reservoir stock level plummeted to 20% in 2016. It has yet to recover fully even after more than two years. While stock levels had gradually increased to 72% by end 2018, after just two months this year, it has dropped again to 64%. That is why our weather-resilient NEWater and desalination taps are integral to our water security.
Mr Chairman, even as we secure our water supply, we cannot ignore water conservation. Over-consumption is a challenge in many countries. In Qatar, where water is provided for free, daily consumption is around 500 litres per person. In Singapore, we have worked hard to embed water conservation in our national DNA. Our domestic water consumption decreased from 148 litres per capita per day in 2016, to 141 litres in 2018. But we agree with Mr Amrin Amin that we must do more, to reach our goal of 130 litres by 2030.
To this end, we will help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions, such as through the Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme. Similarly, for the non-domestic sector, PUB is working with the Singapore Environment Council to develop a Green Labelling Scheme for commercial equipment, such as commercial dishwashers. PUB also supports businesses through its Water Efficiency Fund. One beneficiary is Hoya Electronics Singapore, which reduced its NEWater consumption by 75%.
Last weekend, President Halimah officiated Singapore World Water Day, marking the start of a year-long conservation campaign. PUB is launching the inaugural #GoBlue4SG movement, to rally the community and celebrate our collective actions to conserve water. One of the highlights – City Turns Blue – will see more than 20 buildings light up Singapore's skyline on 22 March. I am heartened that over 150 schools will undertake water rationing exercises to drive home the value of water. I encourage all of us to \"Make Every Drop Count\".
The impact of climate change goes beyond water. Indeed, the destinies of two other agencies under my Ministry – environment and food – are also tied to the impacts of climate change, like water. Resource scarcity is set to become the new normal. And with it, cascading impacts, such as disruptions to supply chains that fuel our economies, and increased risk of global conflict. We must, therefore, apply a strategic lens to Singapore's resource resilience.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, to meet this new challenge of securing our food and other resources, we can apply the lessons from our Water Story. Singapore designated 2019 as the Year Towards Zero Waste. We want to break away from the linear economy, where we take, make, use and toss without a second thought, because this is not sustainable. Therefore, we must make a paradigm shift towards circular economy approaches.
Beyond protecting the planet, circular economy approaches can enable Singapore to overcome resource constraints and strengthen overall resilience. Many may not realise this, but NEWater embodies the circular economy. We use a resource, in this case water, for as long as possible, and ensure that what can be reused is put back into the system.
This shirt, which I received recently at the Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Marine Debris this week, is another good example of the circular economy. It says there this polo shirt is recycled from 12 bottles, pet bottles that all of us use. But I would encourage most of us to use reuseable bottles instead. It is made from these upcycled materials. In essence, what they have done is try to keep using what we have within our systems and not toss it away, in this case, into the sea.
This same thinking applies to every other resource. For example, lithium-ion batteries found in almost all our electronics – handphones, laptops and even electric vehicles. Global demand is soaring, but mineral sources for lithium, cobalt and coltan are finite and costly to mine. Continuously exploiting these minerals may harm the gorillas that Mr Louis Ng was talking about. But we can collect these used uncontaminated e-wastes in meaningful amounts, and apply R&D and new technologies to extract the precious minerals.
This will increase our resource resilience and avoid harming the environment. Businesses are alive to the opportunities of the circular economy. Among them is our own home-grown e-waste recycling company, TES. TES recovers treasures from trash, extracting gold, silver and palladium from e-waste. TES has plans to expand its lithium-ion battery treatment process facility. Recyclers like TES are important as they ensure that heavy metals from e-waste do not contaminate our environment, but are instead recovered as valuable resources to power our economy.
Let me focus on how we will recreate our Water Story in the environmental sector. Our vision is to close the waste loop through circular economy approaches and turn trash into treasure. This will also help to extend the lifespan of Semakau Landfill, as Miss Cheng Li Hui highlighted. To do so, we need to invest in R&D in close partnership with industry and research institutions, just like how we have grown our water industry and research eco-system to tackle our water challenge. This will allow us to overcome technological barriers in our drive towards a zero waste nation.
NEA set aside $45 million under the “Closing the Waste Loop” R&D Initiative to fund projects adopting circular economy approaches. Promising projects include Singapore Polytechnic’s development of green chemistry technology to recover precious metals in e-waste, and Nanyang Technological University’s method to rapidly convert food waste into high grade bio-fertilisers. The result of such R&D means more opportunities for our enterprises and, consequently, more jobs for Singaporeans.
Take Singapore Polytechnic, which after developing a recycling process for solar panels that can potentially recover up to 90% of useful materials, signed a memorandum of collaboration with SembCorp Industries to develop a pilot recycling plant for used PV panels.
Another company that has seized such opportunities is Westcom Solutions. Westcom got its researchers to help improve processes, to scale up and transition from being a company that distributes food waste digesters to one that manufactures them. I look forward to the day when our stores carry home food digesters that are compact, economical and easy to use, something we can put in our own homes, to convert our food waste into compost to grow plants and even food at home.
This also reduces the need to transport food waste across the island, and keep our waste system free from pests! As R&D powers our enterprises and creates new opportunities for them, it will also create new jobs for Singaporeans. We need engineers to develop standards for waste management and recycling operations; scientists to study micro-organisms for efficient food waste processing; and analysts to study the data created and create strategies for scaling up.
We will also partner with other agencies and the industry to turn trash into treasure through circular economy strategies. JTC, in consultation with NEA, is developing the Multi-Storey Recycling Facility (MSRF) which is expected to be ready in 2021. The facilities will house multiple recyclers, and be located close to other industries. This will present opportunities to reuse waste materials and other industrial by-products, thereby closing resource loops at the local level.
Today, we already have NEWater. We are working on creating NEWSand! We are studying how we can turn incineration ash into construction materials, instead of landfilling it. NEA is leading the effort and has developed draft standards for the use of treated ash, such as for building roads. NEA has appointed industry players to demonstrate their technologies, with plans to start field trials next year.
We will take careful steps though, as two-thirds of Singapore is water catchment that must remain free from pollution.
Building a circular economy also requires international cooperation, as value chains are inter-connected. Singapore will play a constructive role in this process.
We supported the Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Marine Debris two days ago, where ASEAN countries agreed to advance concrete actions on the circular economy, the same conference where Thailand gave delegates this T-shirt to demonstrate the potential of the circular economy. We will continue cooperating with our partners in the region to work towards zero waste.
Mr Chairman, let me now turn to food, another essential resource. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates widespread declines in crop yields of up to 25% by 2050 due to climate change. Singapore is also exposed to the volatilities of the global food market, because we import over 90% of our food. Just last year, Malaysia announced that it was considering limiting exports of eggs.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked how the SFA's formation will benefit Singaporeans and companies. SFA’s mission is to ensure and secure a supply of safe food for Singapore. As the lead agency to strengthen food safety and security, SFA will have regulatory oversight across the entire food chain, from farm-to-fork. It will also partner businesses to transform our agri-food industry and create, again, good jobs for Singaporeans.
Mr Desmond Choo asked about SFA’s plans to strengthen our food security. SFA will pursue three broad strategies called the three food baskets – \"Diversify Import Sources\"; \"Grow Local\" and \"Grow Overseas\" – which I talked about during the Second Reading of the SFA Bill.
Today, I would like to focus on our \"Grow Local\" strategy. Local production will reduce our reliance on imports, and buffer the impact of overseas supply disruptions. That is, to locally produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030 – \"30% by 30\" or \"30 by 30 vision\". This is an ambitious multi-fold increase to our current production. Remember, we import over 90% of our food?
To get to the \"30 by 30 vision\" will require our agri-food industry to adopt new solutions to raise productivity, apply R&D, strengthen climate resilience and overcome our resource constraints. We need new paradigms in the agri-food industry.
Supporting our existing farms to innovate and increase productivity is a key pillar of the \"Grow Local\" strategy. Many of these farms are household names which produce eggs, vegetables and fish. For example, vegetable farms Kok Fah and Ho Ka Clean have been feeding Singapore for over 20 years.
The Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) has supported them to integrate climate control and automation into their operations, thereby raising their capacity and productivity.
We will similarly work with our existing coastal fish farms. Singapore Aquaculture Technologies was one of the first coastal fish farms to adopt closed containment aquaculture systems. This protects fish production from sea-borne threats, such as algae blooms or oil spills. More than 90 farms have benefited from the APF, and I encourage all our farms to tap on it.
We will also expand production in state-of-the-art indoor farms. Farms, such as Sustenir and Panasonic, optimise plant growth and increase yield exponentially through high-tech solutions like LED lighting and climate control. By controlling growing variables, these farms are climate-resilient, and can maintain high quality. We expect to see more such farms as successful tenderers in the recent agricultural land tender exercises begin production and scale up. Farmers of the future will operate computerised control systems in a pleasant environment.
SFA will also support the growing interest in urban farming, such as on rooftops. This brings the community together, and attunes Singaporeans to food security, by involving them directly in food production. Such farms can also be used to test-bed innovative technologies for growing food.
We are working with SLA, MOH and ECDA to pilot this concept, re-purposing the former Henderson Secondary School into an integrated space comprising an urban farm, a childcare centre, a nursing home and a dialysis centre.
Our plans to \"Grow Local\" also extend to productive and sustainable fish farming. Our vision is to develop Singapore into a tropical aquaculture hub, much like how we have the hydrohub.
One area we are studying is deep sea fish farming, which can contribute significantly to local production. A local first mover is Barramundi Asia, which uses large sea cages to culture Asian seabass in the deep waters off Pulau Semakau, our landfill. I recently visited them and was impressed by their fish vaccination process. Using technology, Barramundi Asia can vaccinate 9,000 fish in one hour, compared to just 600 manually. SFA will work with agencies and industry to open up more sites for deep sea farming with deep technology.
Thus, R&D will be the key driver, again, to help us achieve our \"30 by 30\" vision, grow our enterprises and, consequently, create good jobs. We will grow an ecosystem of R&D players to support agri- and aquaculture industry developments.
SFA’s Marine Aquaculture Centre will contribute to this effort by sharing its expertise and providing facilities for R&D. The RIEC has also set aside $144 million for us to write the Singapore Food Story.
Mr Desmond Choo asked how we will prepare Singaporeans for the growing opportunities in the agri-food sector. The agri-food industry will require a workforce with good understanding of urban food production processes and business models, and multi-disciplinary expertise in science, engineering, info-communications and more.
To this end, we have worked with Republic Polytechnic and Temasek Polytechnic to launch SkillsFuture Earn-&-Learn Programmes (ELP) for fresh ITE graduates, leading to diplomas in Urban Agricultural Technology and Aquaculture.
The ELP will emplace ITE graduates in industry and equip them with the knowledge and skills to become agriculture and aquaculture technicians. We will also partner universities to groom agri- and aqua-technologists and culturists, urban farming specialists and researchers to meet future needs.
Like every sector in Singapore, the agri-food sector must embrace sustainability. Some of our farms are already employing circular economy principles. Indoor farm Sustenir is using carbon dioxide, a by-product from the petrochemical industry, to enhance vegetable yields. N&N, a layer egg farm, carries out bio-digestion using poultry waste to produce energy. This is then used to dry by-products from the food manufacturing industry to produce chicken feed.
These examples show that what we see as waste in one sector can be feedstock for another. We will do more to find synergies across different systems, such as food, water, energy and waste, and then scale them up for commercial viability. We will apply the circular economy approach across systems to achieve zero waste and to lower use of resources. This requires an ambitious R&D programme, integrated upfront planning and design and close collaboration with the industry. This is the future economy, and the Government will invest significant resources to enable Singaporeans to thrive in it.
In total, the Government will spend almost $400 million under RIE 2020 towards research and innovation in water, circular economy and climate change and food. These significant investments will help us to explore greater possibilities across the food-water-energy-waste nexus, achieve new results, and scale up.
One early success is NEA and PUB’s successful trial at Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant. It has proven that co-digesting food waste and used water sludge can triple biogas yield, compared to treating the used water sludge alone – triple. The biogas is used to generate energy for the facility. This co-digestion technology illustrates the potential in exploiting synergies in the food-water-energy-waste nexus. We are preparing to scale this technology up and adopt it for the new Tuas Nexus, which will be operational in 2025.
Mr Chairman, the plans we have for the water, food and environmental sectors will open up a variety of exciting opportunities for our enterprises and jobs in our industries. We hope to produce more of the likes of EnvironSens, ES, Sustenir and Barramundi Asia. We will also need many people with diverse interests and skills to help us tackle our challenges.
Let me introduce some of the young Singaporeans who have already stepped up in our water, food and environmental sectors. Mr Ahmad Zaki Bin Salleh and Ms Rajakumar Amritha are at the forefront of our efforts to enhance food resilience and ensure water security. Ahmad Zaki, a senior engineer with PUB, oversaw the planning and construction of the Stamford Detention Tank, while Amritha contributes to the smooth operations at Woodleigh Waterworks.
Ms Marie Tan and Mr Lee Yuan Hao are part of our growing agri-food sector to strengthen food security. Marie oversees fish health at Barramundi Asia’s nursery while Yuan Hao founded Ding He Agriculture, a vertical indoor agri-farming.
Ms Jade Loh and Mr Heng Kim Soon are contributing to our Zero Waste Cause. Jade and her team at Plaspulp Union Pte Ltd explore recycling solutions for complex waste materials, while Kim Soon conducts R&D on uses for incineration ash.
Together with their colleagues in the water, food and environmental sectors, these young people will see our plans through in the decades to come.
Mr Chairman, climate change will bring new existential threats, but also exciting opportunities. We must do as our forefathers did; stay alert and nimble, and continue to plan and prepare for the long term. It took us more than two decades to create NEWater. Likewise, the vision of a reservoir in the heart of the city was only realised many years after our Founding Prime Minister mooted the idea. We have ambitious plans for our water, waste and food sectors, but the road ahead is long and winding. We will persevere, for we are not done building a sustainable Singapore. I now hand over to the Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor. [Applause.]
The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Chairman, in 2018, which was designated the Year of Climate Action, we rallied individuals and organisations and received more than 340,000 climate action pledges. Collectively, our people, public and private (3P) partners initiated and organised more than 800 climate action events. That is more than two events a day! It shows the far-reaching impact of consultation and partnership.
To build on this momentum, we designated 2019 as the Year Towards Zero Waste. We will adopt a circular economy approach to conserve resources for a sustainable Singapore.
We will release the inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan later this year. The Masterplan will cover our three priority waste streams of e-waste, packaging waste, including plastics, and food waste. We hope that it will align the 3P sectors and the research and development community towards a common vision of a Zero Waste Nation.
The Masterplan brings together our collective efforts over several years. Last year alone, NEA consulted more than 250 companies on measures to address our priority waste streams. NEA has also approved two Environmental Services Regulatory Sandbox applications since it was launched in July 2018. These efforts help us to co-create our regulations with the industry, ensuring we minimise business costs and enhance sustainable economic growth.
To effect our plans, we will be introducing the Resource Sustainability Bill this year to cover management of the three priority waste streams. The Bill also aims to support economic opportunities in innovative circular business models and the rising demand for resource recovery in Singapore and the region.
I will speak on e-waste first. It is critical that we manage our e-waste properly. First, to avoid contaminating our landfill and water catchment with toxic substances. Second, to protect the health of workers who handle these discarded products. And third, to extract valuable materials that can be recycled into new products. We will do so through the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework, which makes producers financially and physically responsible for the end-of-life collection and treatment of their products.
Mr Louis Ng and Miss Cheng Li Hui asked for details of the framework, which will come into effect in 2021. We have no plans to bring the start date forward. Industry feedback has highlighted that both producers and recyclers need sufficient time to adjust.
The framework will apply to electrical and electronic equipment, or what we call \"triple E\" (EEE), which are categorised as Information and Communication Technology (ICT) equipment, batteries, lamps, solar panels and large appliances. Large appliances will now include electric mobility devices like e-scooters and power-assisted bicycles. Almost 90% of e-waste in Singapore will be covered.
Arising from industry feedback, NEA will appoint a single Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) to reap economies of scale. Producers of EEE for the consumer market, such as laptops and mobile phones, will be required to finance the PRO. We will exempt small producers from financing the PRO to avoid imposing disproportionately high costs on them.
The PRO will collect and send the e-waste for recycling. NEA will impose collection targets on the PRO. But as a transitional measure, penalties for missing collection targets will not be enforced in the first three years.
All producers of non-consumer EEE will be required to take back all end-of-life products for free upon request. This covers commercial and industrial equipment, such as solar panels and data servers. We will not require them to finance a PRO, as they have existing take-back processes.
Retailers must also offer free one-to-one takeback services during delivery; for example, to take away the old refrigerator when delivering a new one. Further, retailers with a EEE sales area of more than 300 sqm must provide in-store collection points. This provides consumers with convenient avenues for recycling e-waste.
Many retailers and partners already provide such collection points voluntarily. For example, NEA partnered StarHub, DHL and TES to bring the RENEW programme to Best Denki, Courts, Gain City and Harvey Norman. They have collected more than 3,200 kg of e-waste across 20 outlets since June last year. Altogether, there are currently about 500 e-waste recycling bins island-wide, which can be located via myENV app. I encourage everyone to take advantage of these convenient channels to recycle your e-waste, including rechargeable lithium-ion batteries from our mobile phones.
Mr Chairman, with your permission, I would like to show some slides.
The Chairman: Please go ahead. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The framework will include new recycling requirements to ensure that all collected e-waste is properly treated to facilitate the recovery of resources, such as gold, and the removal of harmful substances. We note Mr Ng's suggestion on the recovery of coltan. We are still consulting the industry on the recycling requirements.
To support this framework, NEA will actively develop the e-waste industry, such as the skills and capabilities of our local recyclers. This will create more good job opportunities for Singaporeans, including opportunities in the PRO, supply chain management and e-waste recycling.
Packaging waste, including plastics, is another priority for my Ministry. Packaging waste comprised one-third of domestic waste disposed of in 2018.
Mr Ng asked for more details on the mandatory packaging reporting framework for businesses, to be introduced in 2020. We will require producers of packaging and packaged products to report to NEA how much packaging they put-to-market annually. They must also submit their plans to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging waste. For a start, we will exempt micro and small enterprises with an annual turnover of $10 million or less.
NEA will monitor the companies’ packaging data and 3R plans over the next few years and explore with them ways to reduce packaging waste. NEA will also engage companies to simplify reporting procedures and minimise compliance costs.
Mandatory reporting is the first step in our plan to introduce an EPR framework for managing packaging waste, including plastics, by 2025. Similar to e-waste, we are studying how producers can assume responsibility in collecting and treating packaging waste. An EPR framework would incentivise upstream reductions in packaging, an outcome similar to what Mr Ng envisaged through setting mandatory reduction targets.
EPR is a more holistic way of addressing packaging waste, including single-use plastics. For example, by voluntarily changing the packaging design and optimising production practices, Nestlé Singapore has saved 2,000 tonnes of packaging used for its MILO® products. This is not only good for the environment; it also reduces business costs.
We will continue to engage the 3P sector as we develop this EPR framework. Even as we study EPR, we are working with the industry on new initiatives to collect back packaging waste, such as PET bottles and aluminium cans. For instance, we are collaborating with partners to tap on the Towards Zero Waste Grant to roll out 50 reverse vending machines in major malls and the community later this year.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh suggested a need to address packaging due to the rise in online shopping and home delivery. Supermarkets, which usually offer online retail services and home deliveries, will be covered under the mandatory packaging reporting requirements.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked what the current state of food waste and our measures to manage this. In 2018, we generated 763,000 tonnes of food waste. Of this, only 17% was recycled.
We conducted a food waste segregation pilot at Tampines Greenlace estate in August last year. The residents participated actively, with one in three households depositing food waste in dedicated bins at least once a week.
Over three months, more than 4,000 kg of food waste from Tampines Greenlace was recycled into fertiliser. The residents were delighted to receive packets of the fertiliser, a very tangible symbol of their efforts in closing the food waste loop.
The pilot, which was due to end in October last year, has been extended at the request of the residents. We are encouraged by their enthusiasm and are working with Zero Waste SG to explore how we can enhance involvement and ownership by the community.
I am also glad that with the support of NEA's 3R Fund, on-site food waste treatment systems have been installed in 23 premises.
We are now ready to expand food waste segregation, starting with larger food waste generators. NEA has started consulting the industry on requirements for food waste segregation for treatment.
From 2024, we will require commercial and industrial premises that generate large amounts of food waste to segregate it for treatment. Premises include hotels and malls, and industrial developments housing food manufacturers, caterers and food storage warehouses. Existing premises can choose the treatment solution that best suits their operations, including off-site treatment at the upcoming Tuas Nexus.
Unlike existing premises, new premises can plan for on-site food waste treatment in their building design. We will require developers of new developments where large amounts of food waste are expected to be generated to cater for on-site food waste treatment to be implemented. These must be included in the building plans submitted from 2021. We will continue to provide support for premises and invite interested parties to implement on-site food waste treatment before the mandatory requirements take effect. Premises can tap on funding support, such as the 3R Fund.
My Ministry will also work with owners of large public sector buildings with food and beverage (F&B) outlets to segregate food waste for treatment from 2021. We are exploring doing so under the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative.
PSTLES already builds environmental sustainability into our Government procurement, which Mr Ng asked about. Public sector agencies must purchase Energy Star-certified ICT equipment, eco-labelled printing paper and energy-efficient appliances.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked if we proactively identify companies with greater potential to reduce waste. Since 2014, owners and managers of large hotels and malls have been reporting their general waste data and waste reduction plans to NEA. This focuses attention on waste generation by premises and the potential for reduction and recycling. More than 90% of covered hotels and malls have now adopted recycling programmes.
From 2020, we will extend the mandatory waste reporting scheme to other large waste generators. These are factories, warehouses and convention and exhibition centres above a certain gross floor area.
Er Dr Lee also spoke about the dilemma of replacing disposables with reusables which require washing. NEA's life-cycle assessment on the environmental impact of carrier bags and food containers showed that reusables had a lower overall environmental impact than disposables. Hence, opting for reusables is better for the environment.
Mr Ng asked about the use of disposables for dining-in at hawker centres, which is already disallowed in new hawker centres. Since September last year, disposables are also no longer permitted for dine-in when new cooked food stallholders operate at existing NEA-managed centres, that means for new stallholders, for new tenancies. NEA will continue to work with existing stallholders to not use disposables for dine-in.
Assoc Prof Goh asked about promoting the reuse of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. Singapore recycles 99% of our C&D waste. For instance, waste concrete is mostly processed to produce recycled aggregates. This is a good example of the circular economy in action! The Building and Construction Authority has published a Sustainable Construction Guide with useful information on recycled construction materials and their applications.
Ms Irene Quay raised the issue of medication waste. I agree it is important to curb over-prescription of medicine. By not over-buying medication that will be wasted, patients also save money. Some hospitals limit prescriptions to no more than three months’ supply of normal medicine and no more than six months’ supply for chronic illnesses. Certain pharmacies put additional labelling on drug packaging to inform patients to return unused drugs. Pharmacists also counsel patients and review their medication supply to ensure that patients do not take more medication than needed.
Generally, household drugs can be safely disposed of together with household waste. All our household waste is collected and safely incinerated before the ash is landfilled in Semakau Landfill.
Some people may not know this, but my Ministry also oversees the planning of after-death facilities and services, which some may view as a morbid endeavour. Nonetheless, someone has to do it. And, indeed, it is – pardon the pun – a deadly serious matter that has to be handled sensitively.
Mr Low Thia Khiang asked for an update on the provision of the Inland Ash Scattering (IAS) facilities and the proposed post-death rites facility at Tanah Merah. IAS services are on track to be available at Choa Chu Kang Cemetery by 2020 and Mandai Crematorium and Columbarium Complex by 2021. NEA is working on the designs to incorporate suggestions from consultations with funeral service providers, religious leaders and members of the public. When completed, these secular facilities will be an additional option for bereaved families to lay their loved ones to rest in a dignified and respectful environment.
The Environmental Impact Study commissioned for the proposed post-death rites facility at Tanah Merah is in progress. We will consider the results of the study and public feedback before arriving at a final decision.
Mr Dennis Tan asked about actions taken against the contractor who had provided quartz instead of marble plaques when relocating niches from Mount Vernon Columbarium Complex. There was no evidence from NEA’s investigation to suggest that the contractor had deliberately provided a different material with the intention to cheat. NEA’s checks also showed that the marble and quartz plaque prices were comparable.
NEA has required the contractor to remedy the breach of contractual requirements. The contractor has undertaken remedial measures to replace the quartz plaques with new marble ones and will be bearing all additional costs incurred. As a further penalty, the contractor will also bear additional manpower costs incurred by NEA to oversee the niche replacement works. NEA will continue to monitor the replacement works closely. So far, there have been no anomalies detected during laboratory tests and visual inspections.
I will now move on to hawker centres. Our hawker centres serve important social objectives of providing affordable food in a hygienic environment for patrons, enabling hawkers to earn a decent livelihood and creating vibrant social spaces to bond our communities.
However, hawkers face many challenges today, from changing demographics and customer preferences, to new models of competition, such as central kitchens and food delivery services. It can be even more difficult for hawkers in new hawker centres. They face competition from other F&B options in the vicinity and need time to build up their clientele. This is why my Ministry piloted the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model to help hawkers compete better as a Centre.
As Mr Liang Eng Hwa said, last year, NEA addressed concerns on contractual terms, such as opening hours and termination notice periods. I visited all seven SEHCs to get feedback from the stallholders on the changes made and am pleased that the majority of stallholders have welcomed them. We will continue to improve the model based on feedback from hawkers and other stakeholders.
One area of concern is attracting and supporting new entrants to the hawker trade. Without new hawkers, future generations would not be able to enjoy hawker food. It is, therefore, critical that we imbue new hawkers with key skills to succeed. This is why NEA set up the Incubation Stall Programme (ISP) and worked with the People's Association (PA) and ITE to set up hawker training programmes that cover business management and operation, marketing and culinary skills.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked for an update on the ISP. I am pleased that six new stallholders will be joining NEA's ISP, bringing the total number of incubation stalls in operation to 10. We are also enhancing the ISP based on experience and feedback from our incubation stallholders. To provide greater support for them, NEA has extended the six-month tenure at 50% discount off rental rates to nine months. This is to address feedback that more time is needed to establish their business.
We are also piloting the extension of NEA's ISP to SEHCs who can provide guidance to hawkers under the ISP. This leverages their experience and success in supporting hawkers under their own incubation stall programmes, including the provision of mentors for the hawkers.
One new hawker joining NEA's ISP is Mr Jim Yeow, who will operate his incubation stall – Mr Louis Ng may be pleased to know – at Yishun Park Hawker Centre, an SEHC, and receive mentorship support from its operator, Timbre. I have tasted his wanton noodles, which are quite exceptional. So, please do try it when the stall opens.
Indeed, I have gone around to meet many young aspiring hawkers and am inspired by their entrepreneurship, passion and resilience. Many offer their own brand of tasty hawker food. So, I urge Members of this House and all Singaporeans to support them.
Today, I had specially arranged for Cheng Tng from XX Dessert and Min Jiang Kueh or pancakes with fillings like Thai Milk Tea and Belgian chocolate besides the classic peanut filling from Munchi Delights to be served at the Members Room. Both stalls are located at Yishun Park Hawker Centre. In particular, XX Dessert is run by Yishun Park Hawker Centre's youngest hawker, 23-year-old Mr Peh Zixuan. He started out under Timbre's incubation stall programme after completing his National Service. So, you could say he truly turned from \"Ah Boy to Man\". I hope you had a chance to enjoy these during the teabreak. I heard that the Min Jiang Kueh literally flew off the trays!
In November last year, I had a dialogue with some members of the Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee and other stakeholders, including hawkers. It was suggested that we set up ground-up workgroups to look at issues related to the hawker trade and culture. We are, therefore, facilitating the formation of two workgroups – one to explore ideas to attract and support new entrants to the hawker trade, and another to look at encouraging graciousness and tray return, issues that were also raised by Mr Gan. The two workgroups will comprise hawkers, food advocates and members from various fields.
As part of our productivity efforts, we want to encourage existing hawker centres to adopt measures, such as automated tray return stations integrated with centralised dish washing (CDW) services. At Block 163 Bukit Merah Central, hawkers and cleaners enjoy a reduced workload and a 40% reduction in water bills due to the productivity measures.
Currently, stallholders at existing hawker centres receive two years of subsidies under the Productive Hawker Centre Grant to ease the transition to such productivity measures. These will help hawkers realise manpower and cost savings in the longer term.
Stallholders have raised concerns about the increase to the full costs of CDW at the end of two years. To help them, as well as encourage more centres to take up the CDW, I am pleased to announce that we will provide an additional two years of subsidies at a stepped down rate of 50% and 30% in the third and fourth year respectively.
To ensure Singaporeans have continued access to affordable food at hawker centres, we are building 20 new hawker centres by 2027. So far, we have completed seven.
I am pleased to announce the site of the Bukit Batok Hawker Centre. It will be co-located with the MND-MOH assisted living residential flats pilot in Bukit Batok Town bounded by Bukit Batok West Avenues 6 and 9 and Bukit Batok Street 41. When completed, this new hawker centre will provide an affordable food option to residents in the area.
We welcome the newly-minted Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to the MEWR family come April, and look forward to working with the agri-food industry to help forge a great future for the industry from farm-to-fork.
Mr Desmond Choo asked what we will do to ensure market-friendly regulations without compromising on food safety. These two objectives are mutually-reinforcing as food safety is key to developing a thriving agri-food industry. The industry has been supportive of the formation of SFA and has given feedback on how SFA can partner them to support both objectives.
One suggestion was the harmonising of licensing standards and streamlining licensing conditions for food businesses along the food value chain. For example, we are looking at how premises carrying out both central kitchen and catering operations can obtain a single licence instead of two.
To further develop our agri-food industry, we need to transform it. We will be reaching out to stakeholders in a visioning exercise in the coming months to co-create the future of the agri-food industry together.
A better understanding of the emerging challenges facing it will allow us to identify opportunities for collaboration among stakeholders. There are also opportunities in areas, such as digitalisation of food tracing using block chain technologies, and innovations in the production of new foods.
Mr Chairman, there is an African proverb: \"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.\" Realising the ambitions of our Zero Waste Masterplan to build a sustainable Singapore will require strong partnerships to co-create and implement new solutions.
I will conclude with a call to action in two areas for the Year Towards Zero Waste.
First, I urge everyone to participate in the public consultations for the Zero Waste Masterplan which Mr Ng and Miss Cheng asked about. Waste and resource management are issues which will impact everyone, and your views matter. We have just launched our online consultations on the Masterplan. We will jointly organise focus group discussions in April with Zero Waste SG and LepakInSG. These will form the final phase of our ongoing consultations on the Masterplan.
Last month, I also met more than 20 green groups. Many are driven by young and passionate environmentalists, such as those from Ground-Up Initiative and Foodscape Collective, who have been championing for the environment and promoting sustainable living.
They see the urgency of changing mindsets and rallying everyone to do his or her part for the environment. Many of these are eco-champions and they are brimming with ideas and keen to work together to achieve our vision of a Zero Waste Nation.
Even what I am wearing today is a product of our eco-champions' passion and innovation. This dress is created by The Fashion Pulpit for the Fashion 3R initiative, which promotes sustainable fashion. It is upcycled from two different second-hand dresses to give them a brand new lease of life.
Second, in conjunction with the #RecycleRight Movement, I invite interested individuals and organisations to partner us to better educate Singaporeans and others, including domestic helpers, on recycling properly.
This is not merely about consulting or conducting focus group discussions. We want to co-create effective recycling solutions together.
So, let us start our journey of co-creation to reduce the contamination of our recycling bins, including possibly co-creating legislation. Today, 40% of what is placed in our blue bins cannot be recycled or are contaminated with food waste. Let us aim to reduce this to 30%, 20% or even 10%.
Mr Chairman, as Minister Masagos said earlier, \"We are not done building a sustainable Singapore\". We will need everyone to play their part, to conserve our resources, embrace the 3Rs and adopt a circular economy approach so that we can continue to build a sustainable Singapore for Singaporeans. [Applause.]
The Chairman: We have some time for clarifications but no more photographs of food because it is near dinner time. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I have one clarification for the Minister. Two days ago, PUB issued a default notice to Tuaspring Private Limited, a subsidiary of Hyflux, for being unable to fulfil contractual obligations, in particular, failing to keep the plant reliably operational. Can the Minister elaborate more on this, and will it affect our drinking water supply and water security?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank the Member for the question. Indeed, we are not privy to what is happening to the company because the company is, of course, exposed to many other factors that may affect its performance. As Mr Ong Ye Kung mentioned in his reply to a parliamentary question recently, the financial performance of a company depends on many factors, such as the global business conditions, competition, performance of specific projects and also its own business decisions.
So, we are not privy to this. But we are privy to how it is performing in the plant, which is that we are worried about its operational viability and we also know that it does not have the financial ability to finance six months of its operation. And, therefore, those are among the factors which, flagged out, are worries for us, that it will not be tenable for TPL to continue its obligation. Therefore, we have served the default notice in order to preserve our water security.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng. Please keep your clarifications short.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I have a clarification for Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. I think she mentioned that the public service does do some procurement which are very environmentally sustainable. But could I ask whether we can specifically include this into the procurement principles, not just based on fairness, transparency and value-for-money, but put it in writing that it should also be based on environmental sustainability.
The second clarification is on whether we can provide incentives or subsidies to the hawkers so that they will not use disposables for dine-ins. I know we are not using it in our new hawker centres and new stalls in old hawkers, but can we just move it to all hawker centres and maybe provide some incentives to nudge the behavioural change?
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have said under the Public Sector taking The Lead for Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES), they are already practising procurement taking into account environmental sustainability. So, that is why procuring energy-efficient appliances, equipment, sustainability sourced paper, are all part of PSTLES.
Government procurement is for everything. Government procurement principles will be general and the procurement principles are really about transparency, that you need to tender out and so on and so forth. So, these are general principles.
But for environmental sustainability, the public sector has already taken the lead by drafting these guidelines on procuring and taking the lead in terms of environmental sustainability, not just in procurement, but also in other areas.
With regard to the question about incentivising hawkers to use disposables, we do not have any intention to do that at this present moment, but what we have done is to look at encouraging the existing hawkers to not use disposables for dine-ins.
In the case of hawker centres that are already on our Productive Hawker Centres programme – which means they use centralised dishwashing and tray return – they already will not be allowed to use disposables for dine-in. What we are hoping to do now is to work with the Hawkers Association and with the ground to encourage the hawkers to try and get them onto the Productivity Hawker Centre programme. In fact, earlier I just announced that we will be extending the subsidies for adopting CDW in the existing hawker centres by another two years, 50% and 30%. That really is to encourage more to come on-board. Those that come on-board will then not use disposables for dine-in. So, we are looking at how we can encourage more to come on-board.
The Chairman: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: I have three clarifications for the Minister of State. First, is the Tanah Merah facility for sea burial confirmed to be built? Or does it depend on the outcome of the environmental impact studies?
The second clarification is on the two Inland Ash Scattering sites. Can I take it that they are confirmed to be built? Or are they again waiting for some studies?
Lastly, I understand that the Ministry has been in the design phase of the two sites. I asked the same question since last year. How long more will it take for the design and the consultation to be completed? And when can the public expect some information or more information on the sites?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: With regard to the Tanah Merah site for the post-death rites facilities, as I have noted, the environmental impact studies are still in progress. Once the study is completed, NEA will consider the findings, taking into account the public feedback and suggestions as well. We will also look at the concerns of parents, the water sportsmen, as well as some members of the public. So, we will take all these into account before coming to decision on the proposed post-death rites facilities. So, this is not confirmed yet. We are still looking into it.
For the two IAS sites – Choa Chu Kang as well as the Mandai Columbarium and Complex – they are confirmed. That is why I said that they are on track. The facilities will be completed by 2020 and 2021, but we are still in the design and planning stage because we have already undertaken the consultation and we are taking this on-board in the design of the facilities. So, once they are ready, we will share with the public.
The Chairman: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching: I have two clarifications for Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor. The first is: when she shared about the disposal drugs, that they can be safely disposed and trashed, can I confirm if she was referring to all drugs, including cytotoxics and antibiotics? I understand that NEA does have guidelines on the special handling of drugs such as cytotoxics and antibiotics.
My second concern, as mentioned in my speech, is not just about safe disposal, but it is also about the risk of accidental ingestion as well as diversion for illicit use. So, would NEA be keen to still explore take-back programmes?
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Regarding the drugs, if they are toxic, they will have to be disposed of by the specialised industrial waste collectors.
Regarding recycling, we will need to work with MOH on this, because obviously there are issues of safety and so on with regard to the drugs, for instance, once they are opened, are there issues and so on. So, I think this is something that NEA will have to work closely with MOH.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Two clarifications for the Minister. This is regarding the Tuaspring case. Reports have said that if the defaults are not managed properly and the restructuring is going to fail, Hyflux is going to basically close shop. If that happens, would it affect the other operations of Hyflux in Singspring Desalination Plant, Bedok NEWater and Jurong Membrane Bioreactor Plant? Would it affect the operations there and would that therefore affect the water supply?
The second clarification is: does this whole episode regarding Tuaspring say something about the viability of public-private partnership in areas that are existential to us? Would the Government reconsider its position to make sure that these things do not happen anymore?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I would like to thank Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for his questions. Firstly, on whether the default taking place will affect the other water supply systems, it will not. Just like TPL, PUB has been onsite, in all the plants, we have been monitoring, we always monitor. We look at the operational readiness of these plants and then we also see whether they can key up to the capacities that they are designed for and if they should default, the same step-in rights can be invoked.
But more importantly, this PPP model, the large part of our water system is under PUB. So, this is not a huge part of what we have. In adopting the PPP model, we get many advantages, we are able to not invest in capital, pay only for what we need. We also can build the local capabilities of our enterprises, who can also then bring these for export purposes. At the same time, we also know there are risks involved, and therefore we have put enough measures to be able to take over the plant or own it in the event that these PPP partners are not viable anymore. And this is exactly what we are doing now where TPL is concerned.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: A clarification for the Minister. Is there a timeline for zero emissions for the public vehicle fleet? We heard a bit about MOT's plans for the bus fleet, but there are other large public vehicle fleets – police vehicles, civil defence and so on. So, perhaps, would the Ministry have any plans they can elaborate on for this?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira. When we took steps to reduce the number of diesel vehicles, it is really to enhance and increase the quality of our air. And this is not just through the diesel tax that we increased recently. We have others. We have the VES under the COE scheme where we incentivise or disincentivise the use of pollutive or non-pollutive vehicles. We also have the Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) which encourages diesel owners or companies to turn over their old vehicles into new vehicles. And this is important because heavy goods vehicles under the Euro VI standard, are 20 times cleaner than the older ones or the oldest ones that are under the Euro I standards. At the same time, it is also more fuel efficient.
The outcome of this slew of measures for the last few years, I would like to report, for example, from 2013 to 2018, 40,000 diesel vehicles or about 26% of commercial goods and buses have actually switched to these cleaner vehicles. Taxis, for examples. Proportion of diesel taxis decreased from 86% in 2016 to 73% in 2018. In fact, zero new diesel taxis were registered in 2018. I think that is great news; it shows that all these three measures are taking effect.
More importantly, the sum of all these, including the decrease of the number of diesel vehicles on the road, from these classes of vehicles have actually contributed to the decreasing trend of PM2.5, which is very important. WHO's Advisory tells us that PM2.5 is carcinogenic, it can cause cancer. That is part of what diesel does. The tightened industrial emission, together with these, have seen contribution of PM2.5 reducing over the years. But the bad news is, we are still above the WHO standards, therefore we still have to do more.
Can we do away totally with diesel vehicles? Once a more viable vehicle type that can go towards zero emission or when totally zero emission for the heavy vehicles category is in the market and is accessible and affordable, we will go for it. But for the moment, let us do this slowly, and help the industry transform and at the same time make sure that all of us breathe clean air.
The Chairman: One last clarification, Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Thank you, Chairman. I will like to ask Minister to provide the response that I had suggested – whether the Ministry will be considering a Climate Change Bill?
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We have a Climate Action Plan, and I think this has been very comprehensive, looking at various sectors. The things that the Government must do, people must do, and legislation that contribute towards the the climate action, including energy efficiency, through the Energy Conservation Act as well as the Carbon Tax Act. It is really an omnibus of various legislation that if you put together, we could call it a Climate Change Bill. In the absence of which, it is sufficient now, for what we have. With the measures that we have put in place, we believe that we will be able, in the first instance, to meet our nationally determined contribution for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 36% by 2030, and then levelling after that. I think that is most important. Getting the industries on-board at the same time, transforming them to be more energy efficient and contribute towards the solution.
The Chairman: Er Dr Lee, would you like to withdraw the amendment?
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Chairman, we are all very proud of our water story. I am sure all of us are looking forward to another success story – that is our food story. I would like to thank Minister and Senior Minister of State, and everyone in the Ministry for their excellent work. And I will like to thank my GPC Members for speaking up so passionately. Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,589,796,200 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,170,516,600 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply Reporting Progress","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?
The Chairman: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2019/2020, 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 7.00 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"UL2272 Fire Safety Standards for All PMDs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether the electric bicycles and PMDs involved in the 74 fires in 2018 would have passed the UL2272 fire safety standards; and (b) what steps are taken by LTA to reduce the incidence of such fires before the implementation of UL2272 standards for all PMDs by 2021.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: To improve public safety and reduce the risk of fire incidents for power assisted bicycles (PABs) and personal mobility devices (PMDs), the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is progressively introducing new standards to improve the fire and electrical safety of these devices. In 2016, we introduced a requirement that only PABs that are compliant with the EN15194 standard can be approved for use and sold in Singapore. From 1 July 2019 onwards, only UL2272-certified motorised PMDs can be sold in Singapore for use on public paths. From 1 January 2021 onwards, all motorised PMDs used on public paths will be required to be certified to the UL2272 standard.
In 2018, there were 22 PAB-related fires and 52 PMD-related fires. Based on information available to the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and LTA, none of the PABs or PMDs involved in the fires are known to be certified to the EN15194 or UL2272 standards respectively.
Even before the implementation of the UL2272 standard by 2021, we strongly encourage PMD owners to switch to UL2272 certified devices in order to minimise the risk of fire incidents. When purchasing devices, consumers are advised to buy from reputable sources and look out for fire safety standards. Consumers should also avoid overcharging batteries, modifying their devices or tampering with the electrical components of their devices. We have included such advisory information in the Safe Riding Programme curriculum.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review on Getting More Companies to Offer Neo-natal Insurance for In-vitro Fertilisation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can provide an update on the review it is conducting on getting more companies to offer neo-natal insurance for in-vitro fertilisation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Assisted Reproduction Programme (ARP) insurance scheme provides protection against unexpected cost of neonatal care incurred by babies conceived via in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), in the event that specialised care is required. It provides a cash benefit of $150 or $300 per day, if the baby is admitted to a Special Care Nursery or a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) respectively. Since 1994, couples are required to purchase ARP insurance when they enroll for IVF, as MediShield did not previously cover neonatal conditions.
With the introduction of MediShield Life, it now provides universal coverage for all Singapore Citizens (SC) from birth. It provides coverage of up to $700 per day of normal ward hospitalisation and $1,200 per day of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) hospitalisation. The MediSave Grant for Newborns (MGN), introduced since 2012, can also be used to offset hospitalisation costs, up to the MediSave withdrawal limits of $450 per day. We will also be extending MediShield Life coverage to serious pregnancy or delivery complications, which will take effect from 1 April 2019.
MOH has therefore decided to remove the requirement for couples to purchase ARP insurance before undergoing IVF, effective 1 April 2019. Insurers may continue to offer ARP insurance or similar products, if they assess that there is sufficient demand. Couples who wish to have additional coverage beyond MediShield Life and MediSave, can still purchase ARP insurance or other maternity insurance plans in the private insurance market to meet their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Non-subsidised Private Daycare and Homecare Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are plans to tighten the regulation of private daycare and homecare services that do not receive Government subsidies as they currently do not have any mandatory minimum standards; and (b) whether daycare and formal homecare services should be licensed like childcare and nursing home services.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As the home and community care sector grows over time, we will need to continually improve the quality and standards of home and day care services.
Healthcare professionals working in the sector, such as doctors, nurses and therapists, are already subject to licensing by their respective professional bodies. They are held to strict professional standards in areas such as code of conduct, practice standards and competencies. In 2015, MOH, in consultation with the sector, also introduced developmental service guidelines for home and day care providers covering areas such as care delivery, staff training and staff qualifications.
MOH will review the need for more formal regulation of the home and day care sector. We have provided for the future regulation of home and day care services within the scope of the upcoming Healthcare Services Act (HCSA). The specific timing, phasing and regulatory approach will need to be studied carefully as the sector is still nascent and evolving.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire Hazards Posed by Use of Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Bicycles, PMDs and Electric Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the lithium-ion batteries used by electric bicycles, PMDs and other electric devices should be designated as controlled goods under the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations to reduce the increasing incidences of fire caused by their charging.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Electrical devices such as Power Assisted Bicycles (\"PABs\") and motorised Personal Mobility Devices (\"PMDs\") should be tested for their safety as a whole, rather than having components such as lithium-ion batteries tested in isolation. Unlike most consumer electrical devices, PMDs and PABs are exposed to harsher conditions such as wet weather and uneven ground. In this regard, the testing of the device as a whole, takes into consideration of how the overall design and materials used are able to withstand expected operating conditions of the device.
To safeguard fire safety risks, the Land Transport Authority (\"LTA\") announced earlier that it will require all motorised PMDs intended for use on public paths to be certified to the UL2272 standard from 1 January 2021. PABs that are approved after 1 February 2016 for use on public road and paths are also required to adhere to the EN15194 standard. Both the UL2272 and EN15194 standards can improve the fire and electrical safety of PMDs and PABs respectively.
Enterprise Singapore (\"ESG\") oversees the product safety of 33 categories of common household appliances, including power adaptors used to charge PABs and motorised PMDs through the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations (\"CPSR\"). These goods have to be registered with ESG, and affixed with the Safety Mark before they can be sold in Singapore. In addition, ESG administers the Consumer Protection (Consumer Goods Safety Requirements) Regulations (\"CGSR\"), which requires general consumer products not regulated under any other legislations to meet applicable international or regional safety standards. ESG conducts post-market testing, and suppliers found with non compliant products will be asked to rectify or stop sale.
Consumers should also be aware that the usage of every product will carry inherent risks. We strongly encourage consumers to exercise vigilance when purchasing and charging electrical devices. When purchasing PABs and PMDs, consumers should buy from reputable sources and be alert to prices which look too good to be true. Besides ensuring that the Safety Mark is on the adaptor, consumers should also avoid overcharging or tampering with the electrical components of their devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compensation for Repair of Damage Caused by Fire in Neighbour's HDB Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for National Development what recourse do HDB flat owners have to seek help and compensation for the repair of damage caused by a fire and the putting out of a fire in their neighbour's flat.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Flat owners should ensure that their flat and its contents are insured against damage caused by fire. If there is no insurance coverage, then any compensation claims for repairs to the flat is a matter for the neighbours to resolve amongst themselves privately.
HDB will assist to provide temporary accommodation to affected flat owners if they need this while their flat is being repaired. Needy flat owners who need assistance with the cost of essential repairs can also approach their Community Development Councils for help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2740,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190307/vernacular-Sun Xueling MND 7 Mar 2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling MND 7 Mar 2019 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2741,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Baey Yam Keng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190307/vernacular-Baey Yam Keng MOT 7 March 2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Baey Yam Keng MOT 7 March 2019-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}