1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the 80:20 fund-raising rule requiring at least 80% of funds raised for foreign charitable purposes be applied towards charitable purposes in Singapore; (b) whether a specific list can be provided for fund-raising activities where this rule can be waived; and (c) whether this rule can be waived for more fund-raising activities other than those for immediate disaster relief in other countries.
\tThe Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Speaker, the intent of the 80:20 fund-raising rule under the Charities Act is to ensure that donations from our Singapore public are used primarily to benefit locals and to address locals' needs. The intent of this 80:20 rule remains relevant.
Besides appeals in aid of providing immediate disaster or humanitarian relief to other countries, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) also waives this 80:20 rule for certain private fund-raising appeals. It would not be practical to provide a specific list of activities that would be eligible for waiver, as the COC considers a range of aspects in making its decisions, such as the nature of the appeal, target donor groups and beneficiaries, and the safeguards in place to mitigate risks.
But should an applicant wish to apply for a waiver of the rule based on its circumstances, the applicant may put forth its reasons for waiver of the rule in its application for fundraising for foreign charitable purposes permit to the COC. The COC will consider the application on a case-by-case basis.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I understand he cannot provide a specific list. Then, could I ask whether he could at least provide the list of fund-raising activities that have got exemptions in the past few years, not including those for humanitarian disasters? Second, I really hope that the Government can take a more light-touch approach. We can trust Singaporeans to decide who they want to donate to. The Government, I hope, can take a step back but still have the check and balance in place, do audits to make sure that the funds go to the appropriate beneficiaries.
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank the hon Member for his supplementary questions. I want to assure the hon Member that we do actually allow our charities and our organisations to raise funds for foreign charitable causes. In fact, in 2021, COC granted a total 78 permits for organisations to conduct fund-raising appeals for foreign charitable purposes. The COC, as I have mentioned earlier, can, on a case-by-case basis, waive this 80:20 rule, such as for appeals in aid of providing immediate disaster relief and for private donations raised for foreign charitable causes.
In fact, they have done so, including for private appeals and appeals for relief efforts going to causes, such as for COVID-19 in many different countries, for the Malaysian floods in December last year and January this year, and also for Typhoon Rai, which affected and afflicted the Philippines in December.
It is really encouraging to witness, during these challenging times, how Singaporeans have stepped up and also have been moved by foreign charitable causes overseas; and we are helping to facilitate that as well. It really speaks to who we are as a nation and our role in the global community. At the same time, as the Member had suggested, it is important that we provide the necessary safeguards as well as due process to help ensure that the funds go to verifiable and legitimate causes and to mitigate the attendant risks.
In this regard, the COC carries out reviews of the charity regulations on a regular basis. We will consider the Member's feedback and, in fact, welcome the Member's feedback in the next review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Plans to Regulate Foreign Worker Dormitories under Foreign Employee Dormitories Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether an update can be provided on the plans to regulate all foreign worker dormitories under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA); and (b) whether a timeline can be provided on when the FEDA will be amended.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, last year, we announced the review of the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA) to expand its coverage to include migrant worker dormitories with fewer than 1,000 beds. This will strengthen our regulatory levers to raise and enforce new standards quickly during pandemics and introduce a consistent regulatory framework for dormitories of different sizes and types.
There are, currently, more than 1,000 of such smaller dormitories, including factory converted dormitories (FCDs), construction temporary quarters (CTQs), temporary occupation licence quarters (TOLQs) and non-government organisation (NGO) shelters. The significant number of dormitory beds across this diverse range of dormitory housing types and the broad landscape of operators necessitate more time to engage these groups to better understand the infrastructure constraints and the impact of the licensing requirements, especially on our smaller dormitories.
We intend to implement the expansion of FEDA by the end of the year and will share more details on the expansion in the coming months.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I think many NGOs have been waiting quite some time for the implementation of the amendments. Could I ask whether we are still in consultation with the NGOs, with regard to extending FEDA to cover all dormitories? Two, what kind of support are we providing to the dormitories when it comes to implementation of these new rules?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I assure the Member that we are continuing to engage the different operators of the different types of dormitories, including our NGO partners as well. We will, definitely, make sure there is sufficient time for this implementation and to develop a transition plan for the different dormitories to meet the new requirements. We will share more details in the latter half of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Add Text Messaging Service in National Anti-Violence Helpline to Facilitate Quick Reporting","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider a text messaging service in addition to the 24-hour National Anti-Violence Helpline to allow for the quick reporting of family violence cases or urgent queries for assistance via non-verbal means.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Anti-Violence Helpline (NAVH) was officially launched in February 2021 for members of the public and social service professionals to report cases of child abuse, vulnerable adult abuse and family violence. NAVH is a consolidation of 10 helplines into a single helpline to make it easier to report abuse and violence, reduce call waiting time and provide quicker support to callers. Since it started operations on 18 January 2021 until end-December 2021, NAVH has received 8,400 calls.
In line with efforts to make it easier to report abuse and violence, MSF will enhance NAVH to allow multiple modes of reporting, such as via a web link or mobile application. These modes of reporting would enable persons to quickly provide necessary details, such as timing, location and other key observations of the violent incidents, for follow-up action through an easy-to-use form. These new modes of reporting will increase the accessibility of NAVH and make it easier for survivors and bystanders, including persons who are unable to call NAVH, to report violence discreetly.
The enhancements will be rolled out by end-2022. MSF will give some time for the changes to stabilise. MSF will also study the feasibility and need for text messaging service to complement NAVH and web/mobile application in subsequent enhancements, taking into account considerations, such as the security of clients’ data.
NAVH should not be used for emergencies when there is imminent danger to safety. If members of the public require emergency assistance but are unable to call 999, they should use the SMS 71999 service of the Singapore Police Force.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Minister of State for the announcement. It is very welcoming news of the new modes of reporting and assistance to complement NAVH. With discreet text messages or through web link or through the app, we do need to consider two considerations. One, is to minimise the risk of interception of the chat history, data on iCloud, the conversation thread; second, is preventing impersonation, perhaps by the use of code words or a phrase. In other jurisdictions, they will use code words like S-A-F-E to convey that there is some unsafe access to the conversations.
Could MSF look into this while looking into the rolling out of the other modes of reporting, to look at how to further enhance the protection and perhaps in concert with colleagues from MCI as well, together with the recently announced Code of Practices on Social Media Platforms? I would appreciate any clarifications in that regard.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his clarifications as well as suggestions. Indeed, the security of client data is very important to us. That is why we are not just purchasing off-the-shelf solutions. We now have this dedicated NAVH. I mentioned earlier that we are looking into rolling out an easy-to-use form via a web link or a mobile application.
That easy-to-use form would already include areas where the caller can include items, such as timing, location and other details, that will be helpful to allow first responders to reach the person who is asking for help. This person could either be the survivor/victim himself or herself, as well as a bystander.
We will study the suggestion you have made about what the other jurisdictions are doing. Indeed, we have been doing so. That is why we had the signal for help hand signal to help the vulnerable as well as children who are suffering, potentially, from abuse and neglect. This was something that the Member had suggested. MSF had taken it up and we rolled it out as part of our \"Break the Silence\" campaign.
We will continue to look into improving the different modes and channels in which survivors and potential victims can report. Indeed, the security of the data is of utmost importance. We will be rolling out those implementation plans in stages to make sure that the system is stable, and also that when callers dial in, they get help. Because the information is triaged out into the Family Violence Specialist Centres or the Family Service Centres, to ensure that callers not only have convenient and safe modes of reporting, but also, that they get the help that they need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency and Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Programme Interventions Provided in Prison, Drug Rehabilitation Centres and Halfway Houses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in 2021, what has been the average frequency of the different rehabilitation programme interventions provided in (i) prisons (ii) drug rehabilitation centres and (iii) halfway houses; (b) what are the minimum qualifications and training which prison counsellors must have; and (c) what criteria are used to assess the effectiveness of these programmes.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) adopts an evidence-based approach in the rehabilitation of inmates. Factors, such as the inmates’ risk of re-offending, rehabilitation needs, conduct in prison and remaining length of the sentence, are taken into consideration in the allocation of intervention programmes.
In prison and drug rehabilitation centres, inmates undergo psychology-based correctional programmes to change their negative thinking and behaviours and improve their pro-social skills to minimise their risk of re-offending. Inmates may also undergo other types of programmes, such as family programmes, to help them build stronger bonds, employability and skills training, work programmes, education, release preparation and religious programmes.
The frequency of these programmes varies. For example, the psychology-based correctional programmes consist of individual and group-based sessions and take place one to three times a week, with varying intensity from a few weeks to a few months, depending on the inmates’ needs and risks. Religious programmes happen on a weekly basis, while pre-release programmes take place towards the tail-end of an inmate’s sentence.
\t
SPS also partners halfway houses to provide community-based programmes to inmates. At these halfway houses, supervisees undergo a programme to reinforce the skills and concepts learnt in prison to cope with challenges in the community. This programme comprises 11 sessions, usually conducted within four months.
Depending on the programmes that they conduct, SPS staff and partners have a wide range of qualifications. They are selected and recruited on the basis that they have the relevant competency and skillsets to deliver the programmes.
SPS evaluates the effectiveness of its rehabilitation programmes. For example, SPS had conducted an evaluation of its high-intensity psychology-based correctional programmes, which included taking pre- and post-programme measures. The findings showed that inmates who had completed the programmes showed reduced negative thinking patterns and were more confident to stay away from drugs and crime. Inmate feedback on the usefulness of the programmes is also collected.
SPS provides different programmes in prison to help inmates in their rehabilitation and prepare them for reintegration into the society. Ultimately, there are other factors, such as having stable employment and positive pro-social networks, that will help in the successful reintegration of ex-offenders in the longer term. It would also depend very much on the individual’s personal motivation and desire to change.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
\tMr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): I thank the Minister of State for the clarifications. Just a full disclosure, I am on the Board of Yellow Ribbon Singapore. In September last year, I asked a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the rehabilitation challenges faced by elderly inmates and also, in the recent cuts in the Committee of Supply, I have asked on rehabilitation efforts.
The Minister of State mentioned about the various rehabilitation programmes, such as the release preparation, religious, work and family programmes. I was just wondering, how many, in terms of percentage, of inmates actually attended those programmes in the last year, in 2021. For those who did not attend, what are the reasons for them not attending? If so, what are the steps that SPS and the Ministry would be taking to enhance attendance in such programmes?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As I have shared earlier, SPS assesses inmates for programmes based on various factors, such as their risks of re-offending, rehabilitation needs and the remaining length of sentence and also looking at their responsivity with regard to the programmes that are available.
So, we assess that psychology-based correctional programmes and family programmes would be suitable for about half of the 2021 admissions into prisons. However, about 5% may, eventually, not attend the programmes due to motivation or mental health issues. For some, they also fall sick.
About 40% of the inmate population as at end-2021 attended skills training. About 30% of the inmate population as at end-2021 attended work programmes. For other programmes, such as educational, religious programmes, the participation ranges from about 5% to 60%, as it depends on the inmates' own needs and preferences.
All inmates, even those who decide not to attend the programmes, can access – using tablet computers – rehabilitation materials like e-versions of psychology-based correctional programmes, motivational talks and various guides on regulating emotions and communication skills.
At the halfway houses, all supervisees would have to go through a programme to reinforce the skills and concepts learned in prison, like what I shared in my answer earlier.
So, as I also said earlier, while SPS provides various programmes to help inmates, there are also other factors that will help in the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders, such as having stable employment and positive pro-social networks. It would also depend a great deal on the individual's personal motivation and desire to change. In fact, that is always the message whenever I visit the prisons to meet the inmates. I will always remind them \"while we will do our best to help you to rehabilitate as part of your rehabilitation and reintegration journey, at the end of the day, a large part of it depends on you\". Many of them agree. We will continue to support them, so that they are able to reintegrate into the society in a better and stronger way.
\tMr Leon Perera (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for that helpful reply. Just two supplementary questions. One is that, if an inmate, for whatever reason – be it lack of capacity or any other reason – would like to attend educational, rehabilitative or religious programmes, but they find that they do not have access to those programmes, can they make a request to attend such programmes and will that be taken into consideration in giving them access to such programmes, if for any reason they do not have that? That is my first supplementary question.
Second supplementary question: it is my understanding, based on published, publicly available information, that SPS adopts a classification system for inmates based on what is seen as their propensity to be rehabilitated. So, I am wondering whether those who are classified in that way as being less likely to be rehabilitated, can also demonstrate, through acts of good faith, through requests, that they are open to attending these rehabilitative programmes and get access to them, if they demonstrate that.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, as I have shared earlier, we use the risk, need and responsivity model approach, as well as the length of the stay in the prison or institution, to look at how that kind of programmes may be useful for the inmates.
We have received requests from inmates. And I would like to share with the House that every request that we see, we will assess it, consider it and we will also propose to the inmates what will be useful for them.
Rehabilitation is not only about giving them programmes. In fact, we adopt a throughcare approach where the process of rehabilitation begins when the inmates start their prison term, all the way, with the community, at the end of it. And even after the release into the community, SPS still continues to engage the ex-inmates and their families. So, we will look at all the different requests and we do our best to provide them the opportunities to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prison and Drug Rehabilitation Centre Inmates Exercising in Cells","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether prison and drug rehabilitation centre inmates are prohibited from exercising in their cells; (b) if so, what is the Singapore Prison Service's (SPS) rationale for the rule; and (c) whether SPS will consider allowing inmates to do prescribed workouts in their cells, given the significant psychological and health benefits of exercise.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Inmates in the prison or drug rehabilitation centre, generally, have at least an hour of recreational time per day on weekdays. They can use this recreational time for physical exercise and ball games in the recreational yard, or other activities, such as watching television and playing board games.
In the cells, inmates are allowed to do stretching exercises, but not vigorous exercise. And that is not allowed for the following reasons.
First, to prevent tension and conflict among cellmates. The majority of prison cells are designed to house up to four or eight inmates each, and there is insufficient space for inmates to carry out vigorous exercise without affecting the safety of cellmates, inconveniencing them, or intruding into their personal space. Doing so could lead to conflict among the cellmates. To ensure equal treatment, we do not allow vigorous in-cell exercise even if the cell is occupied by only one inmate.
Second, to maintain good order and discipline in prison. Some inmates may claim to be exercising in their cell when shadow-boxing or sparring, or giving tips and teaching others how to fight and attack opponents. This would pose challenges to maintaining good order and discipline in prison.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans and Timeline to Implement Busking Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the plans and timeline to implement the busking zones that were announced in the Ministry's Committee of Supply debates in March 2020.
\tThe Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his support for the arts and busking. In March 2020, MCCY announced that we would introduce new busking zones at the Singapore River and Ang Mo Kio. The intention was for each of these zones to comprise a cluster of busking locations which our buskers would have the flexibility to move around. This would offer a more varied busking experience for audiences and ensure equitable access to popular busking spots. Unfortunately, the onset of COVID-19 in 2020 leading to a suspension of busking had meant that there was no opportunity for the new busking zones to be implemented and used by our buskers.
Since then, NAC has continued to engage our buskers and venue managers on ways to expand access to even more locations for our buskers, in preparation for the eventual resumption of busking. NAC has also been working on an online system to enhance access to busking locations and time for all buskers, in an equitable manner. NAC will share further details about this online system in the coming months.
The timeline for the implementation of these plans will have to take into consideration the prevailing COVID-19 situation. We have had to adopt a cautious approach due to the higher risk of virus transmission from activities involving singing and performing of wind and brass instruments, and the challenges of crowd management in open spaces.
Nonetheless, MCCY and NAC have been identifying ways to resume busking activities safely. In December 2020, NAC partnered Clarke Quay and *SCAPE to conduct busking pilots over three weekends which were well-received. Unfortunately, we had to delay the resumption of busking pilots due to the public health situation. We are looking to expand these pilots at the appropriate time.
Meanwhile, NAC has rolled out various alternative platforms and initiatives for our buskers, encouraging them to pick up new skills and bring their performances into the digital space. For example, in December last year, NAC supported the Buskers’ Association through the Self-Employed Persons Grant (SEPG) to organise a series of workshops for the busking community, culminating in live performances at Our Tampines Hub in December 2021 and via livestream in January 2022.
NAC is committed to improving our busking infrastructure and processes and will take into consideration the feedback it has received from buskers and other stakeholders, such as venue managers. We appreciate and salute our busking community for their resilience and positive spirit during this challenging period, and we thank them for their patience and understanding.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix, unless Members had asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statement by Deputy Leader","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Point of Order.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, during yesterday’s proceedings, you made a statement in Parliament to respond to the Facebook comments put up by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Mr Leong Mun Wai yesterday, shortly after the conclusion of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate.
Mr Leong has, subsequently, put up a video and further post at about 6.55 pm yesterday, captioned: \"This is How The Speaker Prevents A Member From Speaking\".
This video is accompanied by a further post in which he claims that he was “deprived of the opportunity to respond to Tan See Leng’s (TSL) 'red herring' statement made last Friday”, that you did not allow him “to speak using the cut-off time as an excuse”, that “there is flexibility because the Parliament schedule is ahead of time this year”, that other Members of Parliament (MPs) were “allowed to speak before” him and that you should have known that he “had an outstanding issue from the previous Friday’s sitting”.
This video shows the exchange between Speaker and Mr Leong just before the conclusion of MOM’s COS debate yesterday.
Mr Speaker, given that Mr Leong’s post raised questions about the basis of Speaker’s decision not to call him to seek further clarifications, I would like to seek a ruling from Speaker as to the basis for proceeding with the conclusion of MOM’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate, despite Mr Leong rising to make further clarifications.
Mr Speaker: Hon Members, I do wish to confirm in this House that the Guillotine Time for the debate on the Ministry for Manpower was Monday, 7 March 2022 at 12.40 pm, as all of you are aware.
The Guillotine Times were made pursuant to Standing Order 92(7)(a) which states that: \"The Speaker shall fix the time on any allotted day at which the consideration of any head of expenditure shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. If the time so fixed is reached before the head concerned is disposed of, the Chairman shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of that head.\"
Members were all informed before the commencement of COS of the total time allocated to the debate for each Ministry, and the start and end times of the debates. Members were also informed that if the discussion of a head of expenditure is concluded before the Guillotine Time stated, the head next following will be entered into straightaway.
Members were informed of the Guillotine Times for MOM last week, on Thursday, 3 March 2022, through Notice Paper No B003 of 2022 and this information was published in the Daily Working Paper for Monday, 7 March 2022.
Thirty-and-a-half minutes were allocated for clarifications, but I allowed the clarifications to continue for 48 minutes till the Guillotine Time of 12.40 pm. There were no time savings for the debate on MOM based on the Guillotine Times.
Ten MPs made clarifications, including four Opposition Members, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Gerald Giam, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Pritam Singh and one Nominated MP, Mr Abdul Samad. So, in total, five Government MPs and five Non-Government MPs spoke and raised their clarifications.
Mr Leong Mun Wai was not the only MP who could not ask a clarification at the end of MOM’s debate. There were other MPs who had raised their hands or had indicated that they wished to speak, including Mr Edward Chia, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Janet Ang, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
I wish to emphasise that under Standing Order 92(7)(a), the Chair is under the duty to end the debate when the Guillotine Time for that Ministry is reached. As the Chair of the Committee of Supply, I will continue to ensure that the proceedings in the COS are undertaken in a fair and orderly manner.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank Mr Speaker for his ruling.
Mr Speaker, the COS for MOM took place yesterday, 7 March 2022. In the course of the COS, the Ministers from MOM addressed the cuts and queries filed by MPs. After the Ministers’ speeches, there was time to take some further questions but not all, given the number of hands raised by Members.
At the end of the time allotted for this head of expenditure, which had been made known to all Members beforehand in the Guillotine Time Notice Paper and the Daily Working Paper, Mr Leong Mun Wai, along with several other MPs, still wanted to ask further clarifications. However, as time was up, you, as Chairman of the Committee, invited Mr Desmond Choo to withdraw his amendment so that the COS for MOM could be brought to a close.
Mr Leong interrupted this repeatedly, saying that he would like to ask questions. And you informed Mr Leong that the time was up and asked Mr Choo to proceed. The MOM COS duly ended at 12.40 pm, the Guillotine Time.
Subsequently, Mr Leong Mun Wai made two comments on his Facebook profile as follows.
On 7 March, 12.52 pm: “Now I’m at the budget debate for the Ministry of Manpower. Following from Minister Tan See Leng’s (TSL) comments 'red herring' comments (sic) last Friday, I have a number of clarifications to make. But the Speaker didn’t even give me the chance. I will show you the video later when the volunteer has done it for me.”
On 7 March, 12.53 pm: “Completely ridiculous!” That was his comment.
Later in the day, at around 4.14 pm, as Chair of the Committee, you brought these two Facebook comments to the attention of Members and explained the following: (a) the parliamentary process for COS; (b) that COS proceedings are subject to timing deadlines known as the Guillotine Time under Standing Order 92(7)(a); (c) that when the Guillotine Time is reached for each Ministry, the question for the approval of the head of expenditure must be put and the COS concluded; (d) that there were other MPs who also wanted to ask further clarifications but could not do so as the time limit had been reached.
Notwithstanding this, at 6.55 pm yesterday, Mr Leong Mun Wai proceeded to post a video of the end of the COS with the caption “This is how Speaker prevents a member from speaking”. It was accompanied by a post which stated as follows: \"Today I was deprived of the opportunity to respond to Tan See Leng’s (TSL) 'red herring' statement made last Friday because Speaker did not allow me to speak using the cut-off time as an excuse. The cut-off time is decided by the Speaker before the session but there is flexibility because the Parliament schedule is ahead of time this year. Many MPs were also allowed to speak before me. He should know that I had an outstanding issue from the previous Friday’s sitting (please view the video clip below).\"
Mr Speaker, this was despite your clarification earlier in the afternoon and the fact that it was clear that the Guillotine Time had been reached and that, under the Standing Orders, you were required to bring the COS to an end.
Mr Leong’s posts and his video have impugned the Speaker and the processes of Parliament and have misrepresented how the COS proceedings for MOM were ended yesterday. And this is by suggesting that you could have called on Mr Leong but deliberately did not do so for improper reasons. This is dishonourable and a contempt of Parliament, and breaches the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
Mr Leong has had the benefit of your remarks yesterday and has now also heard your ruling. I therefore request that Mr Leong do the proper thing and:
One, take down the video and the accompanying caption and post.
Two, take down his two Facebook comments of 12.52 pm and 12.53 pm on 7 March 2022.
Three, apologise before this House, and also via a Facebook post, for his words and actions in the following terms:
\"I sincerely and unreservedly apologise to the Speaker and this House for my Facebook comments of 12.52 pm and 12.53 pm on 7 March 2022, and the video I posted at 6.55 pm on 7 March 2022, and the statements therein which impugn the Speaker and the processes of Parliament without any basis.
I have taken the posts down. I withdraw what I said in them, and undertake not to repeat such words and actions again.
I acknowledge that I had not set out all the facts in my posts and thus, gave a misleading impression. In fact, many MPs filed to speak both in the Budget debate and the Committee of Supply of the various Ministries. Every MP is given the same amount of time. The Guillotine Time for each Ministry is announced ahead of time and based on the MPs who have filed to speak. It is standard Parliamentary procedure that when the time that is allotted to the Ministry ends, Speaker will require that the votes on that Ministry be taken and the debate move to the next Ministry, even if some MPs’ questions have not been answered. Specifically, for the Ministry of Manpower debate, questions from several MPs could not be answered because the allotted time was up. I acknowledge that I have every opportunity to raise, during subsequent Parliamentary Question times, the questions which I had wanted to ask in the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Manpower.\"
Mr Speaker, I request that Mr Leong Mun Wai do these by the end of today’s Parliament’s Sitting on 8 March 2022. Thereafter, Parliament can decide whether and if so, what further steps may be necessary depending on how Mr Leong responds to my request.
I note that the Member is not in the Chamber. We will formally notify him of this Statement and my request to ensure that it is brought to his notice. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 12 of 2022","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Head L (cont) – (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [7 March 2022], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\" – [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Chairman, should I take two cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please. There is only one cut right?
Ms Foo Mee Har: There is another one at the end.
The Chairman: Alright, you can take that later. Take this one first.
Ms Foo Mee Har: Okay.
Chairman, the Singapore Green Plan 2030 is well-timed to galvanise a national movement, not only to achieve sustainable development but also to build exportable capabilities, such as sustainable urban solutions. Our green agenda holds much promise for our future. The issuance of Green Bonds will provide a substantial capital base for sustainable developments not only in Singapore, but also throughout the region. Singapore is well-positioned to serve as a living lab and test bed for emerging green technologies as well as a hub to foster collaboration and co-creation.
It is critical that in our drive for sustainability, we fully leverage this opportunity to groom a new generation of green local firms, support them to build their green capabilities and position them to capture emerging opportunities.
So, I would like to ask the Minister what can be done to ensure that the development of green local firms is an integral part of the $25 billion investment under RIE2025. We should consider a special programme, with R&D funding to be carved out, especially to support and promote development of green technologies and solutions by our very own local firms and startups.
Sir, with SME making up 99% of Singapore enterprises, the need to embrace climate change and sustainability is also a matter of business survival. With successive carbon tax increases in the pipeline, as well as increasing demands from partners, investors and customers for sustainable practices, SMEs need support to pivot and adapt, in order to thrive.
I would like to repeat my call to support SMEs in the transition on three fronts. First, we can promote sector-based sustainability roadmaps with industry-aligned principles, frameworks and uniform standards. Second, we need to support SMEs with pre-identified sector-based green solutions to fast track their adoption. Third, we can leverage the ecosystem to build scalable green capabilities and collaboration.
Sir, the introduction of the new Enterprise Financing Scheme Green (EFS-Green) to support local farms with a range of financing needs, from developmental capital to a venture debt, is a great initiative. With the Government providing 70% of reshare to catalyse lending by participating financial institutions, there have been calls by the industry for more favourable terms, such as preferential interest rate and loan terms, in order to spur adoption.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, nature-based climate solutions are powerful methods of carbon capture. They also have the added benefit of protecting ecosystems. As we move to set up our carbon trading hub and companies consider buying carbon credits from overseas entities to offset emission, there is a pressing need to ensure projects are socially sustainable. Lack of local buy-in, poor oversight and poor management can result in projects with less carbon capture than what companies pay for.
Indonesia's Katingan Mentaya project has reportedly been one such case. A Nikkei investigation found that more carbon credits were issued than it could likely make good on. Poor quality credits diminish accountability and reduce the emissions captured. Crucially, they could impact the Singapore brand. Renewable projects funded by Government-linked companies (GLCs) should also be accountable for Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) impacts. Reports mentioned that the Laos hydro projects could be negatively impacting food production, ecosystems and indigenous communities.
With Keppel recently signing its hydroelectricity import deal, I hope that our GLCs pay attention to such externalities. Impacts can be minimised with the adoption of free prior and informed consent policies. I would like to suggest that the Government step in to recommend consistent, baseline, transparency and traceability, and due diligence process guidelines for such renewable projects. This is important from the standpoint not only of promoting green outcomes, but for our national brand as well,
Lastly, my Parliamentary colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, previously expanded on the potential soft power benefits of having a foreign aid agency. Such an aid agency could support targeted cash transfers to indigenous and rural communities to manage and protect forests abroad. NGOs, like Cool Earth, already do this and one UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report studying Latin America found this to be a cost-effective way to preserve forests. In Indonesia, there are already community-managed forests.
Sir, we should come in to support such efforts as good neighbours on the same pale blue dot.
The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru. She is not here. Prof Koh Lian Pin.
Prof Koh Lian Pin (Nominated Member): Chairman, as Singapore positions itself to become a leading climate services hub, we need to develop a healthy pipeline of talents for our green economy. What are the Government's plans for building a Singapore core of industry-ready talents to support our emerging sustainability sector, especially in relation to our Industry Transformation Maps?
Has the Ministry assessed whether our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) provide adequate training and upskilling programmes on sustainability-related competencies at the undergraduate, graduate and continuing education levels, to address talent gaps in our emerging sustainability sector? Are there plans to consult the public, private and people sectors, including IHLs, businesses, green groups and our youth, on the demand, content and modes of delivery for these training and upskilling programmes?
To build a vibrant and impactful sustainability ecosystem in Singapore, we should welcome and, indeed, encourage the participation of international organisations, including research and educational institutes, service providers and non-profits, to contribute to Singapore's efforts in building a green talent pipeline towards our sustainability goals.
But, crucially, to ensure success for Singapore's sustainability goals, we need to work closely with international stakeholders to build a common and deep understanding of Singapore's existing capabilities and gaps, ongoing efforts and investments and long-term vision and mission for sustainability, so that they might truly engage, collaborate and uplift our local enterprises, IHLs, civil society groups and other Singapore stakeholders.
What steps is the Government taking to ensure that all stakeholder participation in our sustainability journey will be well-coordinated, complementary and synergistic to ensure that all stakeholders work towards the common goal of building a Singapore core of talents and expertise to achieve our sustainability ambitions?
The Chairman: Mr Saktiandi Supaat, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, Minister Tan See Leng mentioned that Singapore could harness its robust legislative commodity trading and financial services foundation to develop an international trusted carbon services and training ecosystem here. We are not the only ones interested. Other countries, like China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, are all taking steps to establish its own carbon markets or frameworks to trade carbon credits. We need to coordinate a holistic inter-agency effort to create a vibrant marketplace with many active participants with clear ESG and carbon credit standards in place.
At present, carbon markets are plagued by low liquidity, scarce financing, inadequate risk management services and limited data availability. We will need to further encourage our financial institutions (FIs) to get involved to meet the liquidity and financing difficulties. Market infrastructure should develop along with deliberate and calibrated regulation by MAS and MinLaw. For example, what would be the risk-weighted asset, or RWA, to be associated with carbon credits? For FIs holding carbon credits, will we need clearing houses to mitigate risks? At the moment, the weights are high and unclear.
While the Government's decision to allow businesses to use high-quality carbon credits to offset up to 5% of the taxable emissions will help stimulate local demand for such credits, as with many other things, we must also look to cater to external demand. MTI and MFA must engage our partners to ensure that our carbon credits will be accepted in other countries, too. We may need to provide it in our Free Trade Agreements so that other countries cannot take protection and discriminatory approach.
Further, given our lack of natural resources, including land, we are unlikely to have any huge wind farms or hydroelectric plants that can originate a large amount of carbon credits for sale. We, therefore, require our agencies like EDB to go out and attract project developers to bring and sell their carbon credits in Singapore with an \"ASEAN Registry\" of sorts set up. We will also need to train the necessary subject matter expertise in our workforce, whether through our tertiary institutions or our various work training programmes.
Can the Government provide an update on our efforts to build a carbon credit trading ecosystem? Will we expect to see a detailed roadmap outlining how and when we will get there?
One of the most far-reaching crises today is the global energy crunch. Increased fuel consumption from an economy recovering from COVID-19, production outages and geopolitical events have driven up prices.
Presently, almost 95% of Singapore's electricity is generated using imported natural gas. Hence, our push to transition into a low-carbon energy future cannot come at a more opportune time. However, given our limited size, what challenges does the Government expect with energy transition and what measures have been put in place to ensure a smooth transition?
For Singapore, solar energy appears more promising than other renewable energy sources like wind or hydro. Can the Government provide an update on our solar development and deployment plans and whether there are any efforts to accelerate solar deployment? Will we look to incentivise individual households to install their own solar panels to defray their own consumption?
Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Chairman, I would like to declare my interest as the founding director of Green SG, a registered charity that aims to catalyse and accelerate green action and develop future leaders for sustainability.
The price of natural gas spiked 25% in the UK to hit a record high last Friday. Italy uses natural gas to generate 40% of electricity demands and imports 90% of its natural gas, mostly from Russia. It is looking for alternatives from Algeria and Azerbaijan. In Germany, there were thoughts of cancelling plans to shut down nuclear plants and ramp up coal-powered generators.
Heavy industries are affected and are reducing production and shortening of working hours. Energy supplies cannot be replaced overnight. Power generation infrastructure cannot be built over a short period of time. We are well reminded of the 1973 oil crisis caused by the OPEC embargo; the 1990 oil shock caused by the Gulf war; 2001 California electricity crisis caused by market manipulation by Enron. And to remember that peak oil is on the horizon and oil production will go on a terminal decline.
We must, therefore, plan our energy transition well, well-diversified with price stability and affordability. How we plan our energy transition will affect future generations and the security of our economy.
As such, I would like to ask the Minister to share more on expected challenges ahead and how the Government will ensure a smooth energy transition. What is our latest progress and future plans for our solar deployment? How will our energy transition impact future electricity prices?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Mr Chairman, the Government has announced that, upon review, it will bring forward the timeline for us to achieve net-zero around 2050. Pre-pandemic, transport accounted for 16.2% of Singapore's carbon emissions. This is already a lower percentage than the US, UK and the global figure, but it is still a significant piece as we look out to cut our carbon emissions. What are the Ministry's plans to reduce transport emissions on land, air and sea?
A key pillar of our efforts to decarbonise our transport system is the adoption of electric vehicles, or EVs. Our Land Transport Master Plan 2040 aims to phase out internal combustion energy vehicles by 2040. To successfully do so, we must make EVs a financially sensible option for users, capitalise on rapid technological advancements and ensure that our infrastructure is integrated to support this switch to EVs.
Presently, a major obstacle to private adoption of EVs is the prohibitive costs involved. Vehicle prices in Singapore are already among the world’s highest, with our COE system to control the vehicle population in land-scarce Singapore. As most electric cars have a higher power output than the 97-kilowatt (kW) threshold under CAT A, they fall within CAT B where COE prices has recently soared past $93,000. This discourages the uptake of EVs and is likely preventing a wider choice of EVs from entering the Singapore market. We may need to relook how our EVs are classified for COE purposes.
Another question is whether the existing incentives and rebates for EVs are sufficient to affect consumer behaviour to the desired level. Given Singapore's car-lite strategy, we probably cannot afford to give EV owners a two-year road tax exemption like how Malaysia has done. However, we do need to study our incentive and rebate structure to see if any revisions are necessary. For example, I understand that road tax for EVs is currently based on the simple addition of the power output of its motors and this may lead to weird situations where an EV is taxed based on a total added output of 390 kW even though it can only deliver a maximum combined output of 240 kW.
Harnessing technological advancements can also promote the adoption of EVs by enhancing convenience and efficiency. Battery swapping technology has been tried and tested in markets like China and Norway and represents a more efficient proposition to users than electric charging at charging stations. This could complement our existing strategy of building more EV charging points closer to where people live.
Finally, the recent episodes of personal mobility device fires remind us of how the stability our vehicular batteries can become a safety issue. We must reassure the people that EVs are a safe option before they can decide to embrace it. Can the Ministry share more about its overarching strategy to further stimulate EV adoption among road users in Singapore? Would the Minister consider introducing an early adoption incentive for electric motorcycles?
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Chairman, the number of registered EVs in Singapore more than doubled, from 1,397 EVs in year 2000 to 3,713 EVs in 2021 or last year. Most of the individuals who bought EVs are likely to stay in landed properties due to the high cost of EVs and the ease of installing mid-range EV home chargers for about $2,500 at the comfort of their home. Can MOT shed some light on the demographics of the first wave of EV buyers in Singapore? Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as I work in the transport industry.
I have always maintained that whether EVs can take off in the mass market segment is dependent on whether we have sufficient public charging stations in Singapore. This is a chicken-and-an-egg situation. If we leave it to market forces, few will be willing to install charging stations in large numbers. Thus, it is very important for Singapore to decisively incentivise companies to build EV charging facilities ahead of demand, like what the European countries and China have been doing. In particular, I would like to suggest four areas for MOT to consider.
First, many commercial properties are not able to install fast-charging stations at their commercial buildings because these fast-charging stations are needed by the large fleet owners, because they have to pay a high fee to build substations or upgrade the grid. So, I would urge the Government to consider paying for the upgrading cost of the grid and the expansion of the electric substations.
Second, to encourage the growth of the EV mass market segment, the Government can consider providing significant incentives for companies to install up to five charging stations at all HDB car parks that have a sizeable number of parking lots.
Third, for condominiums, few MCSTs are successful in installing the charging stations because they need to go through a long and tedious process to obtain the residents’ support. Could LTA work with MND to consider mandating all condominiums with a sizeable number of parking lots to install charging stations? Would it be possible for the Government to provide incentives for doing so, especially for the early adopters?
Fourth, would the Government consider mandating all commercial properties, including shopping centres and malls with sizeable parking lots, to install charging stations?
After solving the supply side of installing charging stations, we need to provide incentives to increase the ownership of EVs, like what Norway and China have been doing. In Norway, almost 65% of all new passenger cars sold in 2021 were EVs. How did Norway do it? The Norway government taxed internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles very heavily, but does not tax EVs at all.
In Singapore, the various incentives for the early adoption of EVs can amount to $45,000, but only the more expensive EV models get to enjoy these maximum savings. To further encourage the adoption of mass market EVs, I would like to propose reducing the 20% excise duty of EVs with Open Market Value (OMV) of less than $30,000. The reduction in the excise duty should be inversely proportional to the EV’s OMV, so that there would be a bigger discount for a cheaper EV. This would prevent profiteering by EV distributors and make EVs more affordable to the masses.
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh. You can take your four cuts together.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Chairman. We can expect emission improvements from passenger cars as we require all newly-registered vehicles to be cleaner-energy models from 2030. What about lorries, buses, and coaches and other heavy-duty vehicles? What are the Ministry’s plans to reduce transport emissions? Will the Government increase the use of incentives for the use of EVs and other clean energy vehicles?
With the steady increase in EV adoption and EV charging, will the Government set up a dedicated certification centre to oversee the safety and reliability of EVs and their charging points and batteries? What is the progress to set up a framework for the industry's safety standards for EVs and EV batteries permitted in Singapore?
Would the Ministry give an update on EV adoption so far and whether the set-up of charging points and provisions for battery changes are on track? Would the Ministry encourage more private participation, including the utilities companies, as what other countries have done, to set up and offer EV fast-charging services as well as battery changing services?
Transiting to a greener transportation sector will require quicker adoption of EVs by users. Will the Ministry consider further incentives and tax rebates to encourage the purchase and use of EVs, including commercial vehicles, such as vans, buses and coaches? How will the Ministry facilitate and expedite the electrification of our public transport fleets?
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): In embracing EVs, perhaps the biggest hurdle in the smooth transition to popular adoption of EVs is the issue of infrastructural coordination. For instance, what is the schedule like for charger deployment and how would this be synced with the gradual adoption of EV models? Will there be priority given to livelihood vehicles like taxis and PHVs at charging docks? Would the Government regulate the cost of charging? Could the Ministry give a clearer account of the overall plan on how the charger deployment will be financed and accelerated?
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): In 2021, Singapore's population of electric cars more than doubled from 1,217 to 2,942 cars. This, however, only represents 0.5% of the 645,000 cars in Singapore today. So, this uptick is encouraging, considering that much of it was contributed by the increase of 924 units in the number of Tesla's here in Singapore, which costs about S$200,000 each.
The economics of EVs currently is still such that it is difficult for the average Singaporean to adopt EVs. EVs are much more expensive compared to the equivalent for internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and you see that the Hyundai Ioniq Electric, after considering various rebates, retails for $173,000, that is, $45,000 or 35% more, compared to the $128,000 for the Ionic Hybrid, and $65,000 or 59% more than the $108,000 for the ICE Hyundai Avante.
I believe more can be done to ensure that we phase out ICE vehicles ahead of 2040, especially in the context of Singapore's COE system. Norway, for example, saw 84% of new car sales in January being all electric.
Even as EV prices start to come down with advancements in manufacturing, the disparity in price between EVs, after factoring in Government incentives, are still significant. EV owners will also expect to fork out an additional tax of $700 a year from 2023, introduced to partially cover the loss in fuel excise duties from ICE cars, with the higher charges already starting to be phased in since 2021. This reduces the attractiveness of EVs to consumers at a time where we should be pushing forward for adoption.
I hope the Government will also consider longer-term policies, such as preferential access and toll rates, which have been shown to show a significant impact on boosting EV sales in Oslo and several Chinese cities. We also need to accelerate the rollout of EV-charging points across Singapore to further incentivise EV adoption and ensure it is both economical and practical for Singaporeans to adopt EVs.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): The increase in our green ambitions requires us to look at emerging trends in last-mile logistics. Online retail sales have averaged 13.5% in total retail sales in Singapore in 2021, compared to an average of 5.4% of retail sales between 2018 and 2019.
This has meant great convenience to Singaporeans who purchase from online platforms, but it also is likely to mean that there is more demand for last mile logistics. Today, all types of goods vehicles are of the diesel engine variety. The increase in demand for last-mile logistics will mean an increase in our carbon footprint.
A study by the World Economic Forum in 2020, prior to the pandemic, indicates that the expected growth in last mile delivery is likely to increase carbon emissions by 30% by 2030. The accelerating effects of COVID-19 would have increased the carbon emissions more rapidly. To be clear, the Government has taken some steps to mitigate the issue. During the COS last year, then Minister for Transport Ong Ye Kung made the announcement that no new diesel cars and taxis will be allowed to be registered from 2025.
The current Commercial Vehicle Emissions scheme, which started in April last year, was designed, in part, to persuade owners of light commercial vehicles, which make up 68.9% of all goods vehicles, over to vehicles that burn cleaner fuels. We have also seen electric light commercial vehicle models increasingly being rolled out by manufacturers, such as Renault, Opel and BYD.
The main constraint is electric charging infrastructure, which is still in its infancy. I, therefore, wish to seek updates from the Minister on the plans for a green transition for such goods vehicles, starting with an update on the Government's targets to convert goods vehicles to EVs and other green options and plans to achieve these targets.
Will the Ministry be getting more industrial estate operators to roll out more EV charging infrastructure around industrial areas and encourage a switch to electric light commercial vehicles and vans? Will there be subsidies for companies that adopt these EVs early?
Prof Koh Lian Pin: Chairman, the EV charging sector is growing rapidly with the acceleration of EV adoption. Has the Ministry considered the need to strengthen regulations on EV chargers and EV charging operators, to ensure a safe and reliable charging network?
The Government has announced targets for the greening of our public transport and point-to-point fleets by the year 2040. Will the Ministry be announcing further details of our EV roadmap, particularly in relation to any intermediate targets for the greening of our public transportation fleets, similar to what has been done for private vehicles?
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Chairman, at MND's COS 2021, I said that for urban infrastructures to be more climate-resilient, it is imperative to adopt the use of existing climate change information and resources for urban planning. Further, to have buildings designed with lower carbon emissions and for sustainable maintenance, we should incorporate innovative design solutions.
The Government announced then that it is driving R&D in urban sustainability, such as climate-resilient urban infrastructure with reduced carbon emissions. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress made and how the Government plans to encourage stakeholders to adopt these solutions further?
Often, when people think of sustainable projects, they will, naturally, associate it with higher costs. However, that is because they did not consider sustainable principles in the project planning for building lifecycle costs. By optimising resources during the planning stage to evaluating environmental and performance trade-offs, finding a good balance between capital and lifecycle costs, it can effectively improve the outcome of the system.
The push towards a low-carbon built environment also has to do with scale, speed of adoption and investment in technologies. When larger players in the value chain utilise good asset management programmes and invest in technologies at scale, the trickle-down effect will benefit the smaller players, too.
With emerging trends in sustainability towards dynamic master planning for city planning or utilities, I believe we can leverage algorithms and digital tools to predict and test extensive scenarios to better organise capital allocation, project prioritisation and develop strategies to improve the city’s resilience and liveability.
With all these giving momentum to the industry and deepening research for solutions, we will soon be able to put sustainability concepts into real-world practice. I would thus like to ask BCA: apart from the sustainability guidelines, as introduced for existing and new buildings, how is BCA supporting the industry to effectively transit to a low-carbon built environment?
Mr Cheng Hsing Yao (Nominated Member): Sir, Singapore should build up our capabilities in urban sustainability to help solve our own problems and to develop an exportable industry. To do so, we can look at R&D and talent development. The Government announced last year it is driving R&D in urban sustainability. Can MND update on the progress of the efforts in R&D?
As the R&D topics are so wide-ranging, does it make sense to focus on specific areas, such as coastal protection and issues unique to the region or the tropical belt? This can help us focus, as well as differentiate, our capabilities. Can the R&D be commercialised by Singapore companies and developed into exportable services?
The built environment (BE) sector will be the key sector that needs to be transformed to fulfil our future urban sustainability needs. However, the built sector has difficulty attracting more talent.
To build up a critical mass of talents, we should have a holistic approach. For example, curriculum in schools and tertiary institutions should be updated and jobs redefined to better reflect the new capabilities needed.
It may also be useful to reframe the built environment jobs to better reflect their contribution. Jobs in this sector are not just about building things. Rather, they help to enhance our liveability, support our economy with intelligent infrastructure while allowing us to be sustainable. We should also seek more ways for public-private sector collaboration. For example, I co-chair with BCA the Central Procurer Panel that works with various built sector trade associations and chambers (TACs) to administer accreditation of professions, such as construction manager, surveyor and facilities manager. The aims are two-fold: one, to help employees with continuous learning and upgrading of their professional skills; two, to help employers better recognise and reward higher skill levels.
Can MND comment on how to better build up a critical mass of talents in urban sustainability?
Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Singapore has taken the bold step of enhancing its climate change target and having its carbon emissions target set to net-zero by around 2050. This is especially reflected in its plans for urban development. The Government aims to green 80% of Singapore's buildings by 2030. We can do so by designing and constructing greener buildings. Currently, buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions. In addition to that, according to the Singapore Green Building Council, the shorter building lifespans due to urban renewal means that embodied carbon emissions could go up to 40%. How will BCA continue to support our transition to a low-carbon built environment?
The Government is also driving R&D in urban sustainability. This is to ensure that our urban infrastructure is made more climate-resilient while reducing carbon emissions. Can the Ministry give an update on the progress made and how it plans to encourage or incentivise stakeholders to adopt these solutions?
Prof Koh Lian Pin: It has been a year since MND announced the latest edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan. May we please have an update on the progress made so far? Buildings account for over 20% of our carbon emissions. How will the Building and Construction Authority support our transition to a low-carbon society?
The Government announced during the Committee of Supply 2021 that it was driving R&D in urban sustainability with the goal of enhancing the climate resilience of our urban infrastructure while reducing their carbon footprint. May we please have an update on the progress made so far? How does the Government plan to encourage stakeholders to adopt these solutions?
Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Chairman, we have seen that many of our existing HDB and commercial buildings have installed solar panels on their respective rooftops. Can we know how much energy efficiency and savings have been made since the installation? Some of my friends and cousins have been asking what does this bring to them as residents? Can the Ministry also share their plans for those remaining HDB blocks and do we actually target to do for all the residential properties? If so, what is the timeline that we aim for? In addition to that, is MND also planning to do this for the new HDB residential properties via the BTOs and the new buildings upcoming?
I would also like the Minister to share how can the residents know the value of the solar panels installed on top of their blocks. This knowledge will go a long way in educating not just adults but everyone in the household. Will HDB start to explore having solar window panels so that residents can also play their part in adopting solar consumption?
On the commercial building front, will there be plans to move our old existing substations, with their reasonably large land spaces and even those on prime land, underground? I understand there is, currently, an ongoing construction of an underground transmission substation, with commercial buildings above it. Will it just stop there or will it increase progressively over time?
The Chairman: Mr Xie Yao Quan, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions. Therefore, green buildings will be a key lever for our net‐zero ambitions. How will MND and BCA continue to support our transition to green buildings and a low carbon built environment?
Also, MND announced last year that it was driving R&D in urban sustainability such that our urban infrastructure is made much more climate‐resilient while reducing carbon emissions. Can we have an update on the progress made and how MND plans to encourage stakeholders to adopt these solutions? Have we achieved any innovation that has the potential to be commercialised and exported to the world?
Mr Chairman, HDB envisages the Green Towns Programme as a 10‐year plan that aims to reduce energy consumption, recycle rainwater and cool the built environment in all HDB towns. Can MND provide an update on the progress of the HDB Green Towns Programme? I know the target for solar panel installation has been revised upwards. How about the targets for other aspects of the programme? How much have we moved beyond pilots to deploy solutions at scale?
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, to support our goal of growing 30% of our local nutritional needs by 2030, the Ministry should encourage more local community efforts, such as growing small edible plants in households and available plots in housing estates. Urban rooftop farms on multi-storey carparks will not only contribute to this movement but also bring together neighbours in a meaningful endeavour and build social cohesion. How will the Ministry support such farming efforts?
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Will MND consider incorporating green features into our HDB flats by adopting sustainable materials and designs in future housing projects, concurrently upgrading our existing ones through the Home Improvement Programmes? Many of our existing HDB flats comprise full-glass windows that transfer considerable amounts of heat through the afternoon sun. Will HDB consider appropriate greener alternatives, like installing low-heat transfer windows, to cool down our flats, thereby enabling residents to be less reliant on fans and air-conditioning and, indirectly, contribute towards saving their utility costs?
The Chairman: Miss Rachel Ong, you can take your two cuts together.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Chairman, in my house visits and conversations with residents, I have observed increasing interest amongst private estate residents, specifically condominium residents, in being engaged in sustainability efforts. However, access to recycling bins for different materials is limited in condominium estates. In addition to keeping HDB estates sustainable, with the rising proportion of residents living in condominiums and other apartments over the last decade, it is vital that we also support these residents in Singapore's sustainability efforts. Can the Ministry share future plans to support and encourage recycling efforts in private estates, especially in the condominiums?
A 2018 study by Future Cities Laboratory found that the less-educated and less-wealthy people in Singapore are less actively engaged with urban nature, with potential negative impact for health and well-being. Understandably, expending finances on travel to nature reserves would not be a priority for the lower income. Many lower-income working adults also may have limited time to access nature. For some, the distance between their households and green spaces deters the frequency of their visits.
With this in mind, how will the Ministry continue to improve equity in green space access for the lower-income families, especially for our children?
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, Singapore has long been known as a Garden City. Two years ago, MND announced its plans to transform our green landscape even further, turning Singapore into a “City in Nature”. This includes dedicating another 200 hectares of nature parks by 2030 and having 300 kilometres of Nature Ways and 500 kilometres of park connectors by 2030. Could the Minister please give an update on the progress made so far in transforming Singapore into a City in Nature? Does NParks have further plans to enhance and expand Singapore’s green and blue spaces?
Ultimately, our green and blue spaces exist for our people and for future generations. As such, it is important for the community to have a voice in shaping the landscapes they live and play in. How can the Ministry better collaborate and consult with the community?
Furthermore, visitorship to our Southern Islands increased by 20% to 30% in 2020 and they are being promoted as a good escape from the city. What are the strategies to ensure that the amenities are kept up-to-date and the Ministry’s plans to balance competing priorities both on the islands and in the sea space surrounding it? Will the Ministry consider carrying out a capacity assessment to ensure our nature spaces are protected?
Prof Koh Lian Pin: Chairman, climate change and sustainability education requires the teaching of not only sustainability-related skillsets, values and principles but also the ability to think ecologically and holistically at a systems level. Future generations of Singaporeans need to be both digital citizens and ecological citizens.
Has the Government considered incorporating sustainability competencies and systems level thinking into our education curriculum at appropriate levels to ensure that our learners are well-equipped for a global green economy and will be ready to compete with global talent? Are efforts being undertaken to ensure teachers have access to sustainability resources and training in order to deliver such curriculum?
The Chairman: Ms Poh Li San, you can take your two cuts together.
Ms Poh Li San: Mr Chairman, how is the Government preparing our teachers from Primary schools to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) for the green economy? Do we have a roadmap for Universities, Polytechnics, ITEs, JCs and Secondary schools to support the green economy?
The Government will need to update the education curriculum and teaching materials for sustainability-related courses. Is this being done for our teachers? What are the programmes to train and equip our teaching staff with the latest skillsets and knowledge so that, in turn, they can teach their students the same required by businesses and industries?
In order to prepare our students for the green economy, changes will need to be made to our curriculum. Has the Government set up a general roadmap for all our education institutions so that the design of the courses and programmes fulfil the wide-ranging demands of the green economy?
The inaugural Skills Demand for the Future Economy report has identified more than 450 green job roles across 17 sectors, ranging from manufacturing and trade and connectivity, to financial services and the built environment. How does MOE ensure that relevant courses, diplomas and degrees are offered in the IHLs and schools in order to prepare a pipeline of local talents to fill the jobs required for the green economy?
Considering lifelong learning now to be an integral part of Singapore’s education, the system should incorporate sustainability modules which can be picked up at all ages. Is provision being made for such flexibility in the SkillsFuture courses and programmes? How will the Government facilitate collaboration between education and training institutions, research and industry stakeholders to create relevant academic, internship and apprenticeship in sustainability-related industries?
Miss Rachel Ong: Chairman, in my speech supporting the second Parliamentary Motion on Climate Change earlier this January, I highlighted the need for our IHLs to enhance their course offerings in PET to better integrate sustainability-focused and related modules.
This is because, with the greening of jobs over time, increasing fields of disciplines will need to embrace sustainability in their practice.
I also shared on the need to better complement PET curricula with CET Sustainability Modules to ensure that, by the time our students graduate, they are equipped with up-to-date skills and knowledge required for their fields.
Can the Ministry please share what efforts the IHLs are undertaking to further support the green economy and sustainable living?
Ms Foo Mee Har: Chairman, the lack of understanding of sustainability-related concepts has been a barrier to galvanising strong action.
Our students, workers and businesses can seize opportunities in the green economy if equipped with the proper understanding of climate change and sustainable development. We should prepare them to grasp the science of global warming and the current and impending impact of climate change in their respective fields of work. We should enable them to position themselves to be the change needed in the world.
First, the challenges of sustainability can only be overcomed through the involvement of future generations. Our schools can play a fundamental role in enhancing our children's eco-literacy and nurture them to be stewards of our environment. I would like to ask the Minister to provide an update on how our primary and secondary schools are involved in preparing a new generation of students, who will drive the future of sustainable practices.
Our universities are well-positioned to be the key enablers for the development of the green economy in Singapore. New courses at NUS include a Major in Sustainable Urban Development, which \"aims to train the next generation of urban problem-solvers\". Other Autonomous Universities are also launching new courses on sustainability. So, the question I have for the Minister is how the respective IHLs will develop their unique programmes as well as combine their strengths to develop world-beating sustainable technologies and solutions.
Sir, the Finance Minister has committed that the carbon tax will not accrue to the revenue but collected to support the decarbonisation and transition as well as investment in green technologies and solutions. In the years to come, a significant amount of carbon tax will be deployed as Singapore progressively raises the carbon tax rate to $50 to $80 per tonne of emissions. So, what governance and accountability framework will be put in place to determine and monitor the spending of green R&D as well as to assess outcomes? I would like to request the Minister to provide an update on how Singapore is developing capabilities in renewable energy, urban solutions, green infrastructure and clean transportation.
The Chairman: Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Chairman, Sir, climate change is a real and existential threat. The latest findings from Work Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s Sixth Assessment Report, which were released last week, assessed that the impacts of climate change are more apparent and will affect us more severely than previously thought. We are already seeing some of these effects – stronger and longer heat waves, unprecedented droughts and floods, rising sea-levels and storm surges affecting communities all over the world.
In the past year, international resolve to take urgent and decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has grown. In November 2021, as part of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) Glasgow Climate Pact, it was agreed that all Parties should aim to achieve global net-zero emissions by mid-century, in order to keep the 1.5-degree goal within reach.
Members of this House have also called for more decisive action on climate change. Indeed, since 2021, this House has debated two Motions on climate change. This House has acknowledged climate change as a global emergency and called on the Government to accelerate efforts against climate change. Members made several suggestions, including increasing the carbon tax substantially, green financing, creating green jobs and strengthening corporate accountability.
Mr Chairman, Singapore has taken important steps to contribute to the global effort to tackle climate change. Two years ago, Singapore submitted our enhanced Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for 2030, and our Long-Term Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) under the Paris Agreement – to halve emissions from our 2030 peak to 33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050, with a view to achieving net-zero emissions as soon as viable in the second half of the century.
Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Louis Ng and Prof Koh Lian Pin asked about Singapore's key considerations and the process for setting our climate targets and the timeframe. In our LEDS two years ago, we laid out three thrusts to achieve our aspiration: first, transforming our industry, economy and society; second, harnessing low-carbon technologies; and third, pursuing international collaboration, for example, in the form of carbon markets and electricity imports. We said that we would continue to review our climate goals with the aim of achieving net-zero emissions as soon as viable. If the potential emissions reductions from each of these thrusts are available sooner, we will be able to realise our goals earlier.
Mr Chairman, since then, there have been important developments at COP26 in Glasgow. This marks an important inflection point. More countries pledged to reach net-zero by mid-century. More companies have also made net-zero commitments. This will spur greater investment in low-carbon solutions, making them technologically and economically viable earlier. The Paris Agreement's Article 6 rulebook for international carbon markets was also finalised. With these important developments, we are now able to have greater clarity and to raise our ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by or around mid-century, in line with the Glasgow Climate Pact.
Mr Chairman, this is a significant improvement over our current LEDS. We are making a decisive move: one that is necessary, practical and implementable. We are making a commitment on behalf of generations of Singaporeans to come, spanning several decades into the future. I am glad that Members from both sides of this House support these moves.
Before we finalise our plans and declare a specific net-zero year, we will consult closely with industry and citizen stakeholder groups. This is because raising climate ambition will not only bring about many benefits but also entail some costs and trade-offs. These engagements will take place under the Green Plan and our broader SG Together movement. We will, at the same time, review our 2030 NDC. We will then declare and make a formal revision to both our NDC and LEDS later this year.
Let me elaborate on why we assess that we can now make this decisive move and why we should do so.
First, why we can. COP26 successfully finalised the rulebook for international carbon markets. Carbon markets allow Singapore to access global mitigation opportunities through international carbon credits and provide an additional option for us to decarbonise.
I thank Minister Grace Fu and our officers for playing a key role as co-facilitator of the COP26 multilateral discussions on Article 6 to finalise these rules. This was one of the most difficult negotiations in COP26. These rules lay the foundation for rigorous, robust and credible carbon markets and provide clarity on environmental integrity and accounting by buyer and seller countries when reporting their national emissions. They enhance the transparency of international carbon trading and provide the necessary quality assurance for Singapore to use high-quality international carbon credits to help meet our climate goals.
I agree with Mr Henry Kwek on the need to strike the right balance between pursuing domestic mitigation and using carbon credits. As we strive to reach net-zero earlier, we will need to do both. We will continue to prioritise domestic efforts to meet our climate goals. However, as a small, alternative energy-disadvantaged city state, we will need to look beyond purely domestic mitigation and consider other measures, such as importing low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, which are reliant on international cooperation. Carbon credits will help offset our residual emissions to reach net-zero and, at the same time, spur the development of high-quality carbon markets in Singapore.
Second, major countries and companies are making substantial investments in decarbonisation technologies, making them technologically and economically viable earlier. Global investment in energy transition hit a record high of over S$1 trillion in 2021, an increase of 27% over the previous year. Under our own Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2020, we had invested about S$370 million in decarbonisation solutions over the five-year period. And in the next five-year period, this will continue to be a priority in RIE2025, where we will invest about the same amount, with potential for further funding from the White Space provision as needed. These investments in low-carbon solutions will drive down costs and accelerate technical viability and commercial scalability, allowing us to lower our emissions earlier.
The third reason why we can: more global corporates are making commitments to reduce emissions. When the global Climate Ambition Alliance was launched at COP25 in 2019, fewer than 100 companies committed to net-zero by 2050. But, just two years later, in 2021, some 5,000 companies had committed to net-zero – a significant 50-fold increase, which, we expect, will increase further.
Private financing is also shifting towards sustainability and low-carbon projects. At COP26, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a coalition of 450 financial firms representing some 40% of global banking assets, pledged to make over S$170 trillion of private capital available for investment to reach global net-zero by 2050.
Sustainable private financing and corporate net-zero targets have a powerful mutually reinforcing effect. They draw capital towards sustainable projects and make it more difficult and expensive to finance projects which are not. This will not only accelerate global emissions reduction but also provide capital to create new economic opportunities in the global green economy.
With these positive international developments, we now have confidence that Singapore can more effectively find solutions to address our alternative energy constraints. We cannot wish these constraints away, but we now have more options to enable us to reach net-zero earlier.
Why we should? Mr Chairman, I have just explained why we now can move decisively to net-zero. I will explain why we should make a decisive shift. We want to take advantage of the positive global trends in sustainable financing and corporate net-zero targets to make Singapore an attractive place for green economic activities in industry, services and finance. This will reposition our economy and establish our competitive edge early in a low-carbon future. Let me describe some of the potential new growth opportunities.
First, in existing industries. Manufacturing makes up about 20% of our GDP and offers many good jobs for Singaporeans. The world is moving away from traditional carbon-intensive industries. For example, the energy and chemicals sector is itself re-orientating to pursue sustainable production and new areas of growth. Singapore is positioning itself as a first mover to capture these opportunities and jobs.
In November last year, our Economic Development Board (EDB) announced the Sustainable Jurong Island plan to transform Jurong Island into a Sustainable Energy and Chemicals Park that makes and exports sustainable products globally. We are also moving ahead with plans to be a hub for sustainable aviation fuels and, in the future, for hydrogen.
Several major companies which already have a strong presence here have committed to making major investments in their operations and products to align with our mutual goals for zero emissions by mid-century. We hope to attract new companies, too, which share our sustainable net-zero ambition.
Second, we are a global financial centre. We are building the capabilities to catalyse sustainable and green finance in the region. Global sales of green bonds grew from nearly nothing in 2012 to S$380 billion in 2020. The Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Institute of Banking and Finance Singapore have set out 12 technical skills and competencies in sustainable finance to help financial institutions and training providers promote careers in sustainability and climate change-related jobs.
Third, growing new green sectors. We are developing Singapore as an international carbon trading and services hub with Singapore-based global carbon exchanges, such as Climate Impact X and AirCarbon Exchange. We will continue to develop the larger ecosystem by anchoring key activities, such as project development, financing and certification, in Singapore.
We will signal to global markets and corporates that Singapore is ready to be a good partner and location for forward-looking companies which have clear low-carbon goals. This will create many good jobs for Singaporeans and enhance Singapore's value proposition in the future low-carbon global economy.
Mr Don Wee, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheryl Chan asked how the revised carbon tax levels will support our green transition. As we make a decisive shift towards a low-carbon future, we need to provide the right price signal to shape responsible behaviour. We have always priced key resources like water, energy and waste disposal properly so that consumers and businesses make appropriate decisions, taking the true costs into account. This policy has served us very well.
In the same way, the revised carbon tax levels will provide the appropriate carbon price signal for individuals and businesses to internalise the cost of carbon emissions in their consumption and business decisions.
In Parliament last February, Members proposed raising the carbon tax, with suggestions ranging from $30 to $133 per tonne of emissions. I am glad that during the discussions of these two Motions this past year and, during this Budget session, Members from both sides of this House have so strongly spoken in support of a significant carbon tax. With your permission, Mr Chairman, may I display a slide on the House's screens and request the Clerks to distribute a document to Members?
The Chairman: Yes, please. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Members may also access these materials through the SG Parl MP mobile app. Save some paper.
Our proposed carbon tax out to 2030 is set at a level that sends a significant price signal to influence consumer and business behaviour. Announcing our intentions and the expected trajectory early provides predictability for investment decisions. We also take reference from the carbon price levels of competitor jurisdictions.
China and South Korea, which submitted net-zero pledges within the last two years, have sizeable emissions-intensive sectors and export to our region as well. The International Energy Agency estimates that, to match their targets, China and South Korea would have carbon prices of S$45 and S$61 per tonne respectively in 2030. But we should bear in mind that they have a range of renewable alternatives, including nuclear, which is not available to us in this timeframe.
The 2030 projected carbon price for the European Union (EU) is about S$174 per tonne. The EU has legacy emissions-intensive sectors, some of which are still reliant on coal that will require considerable effort to decarbonise.
Another useful reference is the internal carbon prices that many corporates are already using to make their medium- to long-term business and investment decisions. For example, the multinational consumer goods company Unilever already currently uses an internal carbon price of S$77 per tonne and Temasek uses an internal carbon price of S$57 per tonne currently.
An appropriate carbon price will shape responsible behaviour. Individuals and households will have a greater incentive to adopt more sustainable lifestyles, such as conserving electricity and using more energy-efficient appliances. The savings from these changes will offset the increases in utility charges. The carbon tax will also provide the impetus for businesses to be more resource-efficient and invest in decarbonisation solutions.
Mr Don Wee, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheryl Chan asked how the Government will help minimise the impact of carbon tax on households and businesses and account for the use of the revenue collected from the carbon tax.
Mr Chairman, I would like to emphasise that the Government will not derive additional net revenue from the carbon tax. The Government will flow the additional tax collected back to help households and businesses transition to a low-carbon future.
Nine hundred and fifty thousand households have already benefited from U-Save rebates from 2019 to 2021, and we will provide additional support to help households manage the cost of utilities. But saving energy, and not just helping to pay the bills, is an even more important way to lower emissions and household utility bills.
As of January 2022, about 70,000 or 22% of eligible households have registered for the Climate-Friendly Household Package, which subsidises the upfront cost of switching to energy-efficient appliances for lower-income households and more than 19,000 vouchers have already been utilised. All in, Mr Chairman, almost a million households and more than 200 businesses have already benefited from these schemes that we have implemented over the years.
The carbon tax will fund additional schemes to support households and businesses to achieve greater carbon efficiency and decarbonisation, and these schemes will be subject to the usual stringent governance and accountability frameworks and key performance indicators (KPIs) for the use of public funds.
We recognise that it will not be easy for the emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors to fully decarbonise their emissions in the near to medium-term while remaining competitive with other manufacturing locations. Therefore, we will also use the carbon tax collected to provide transitory support for existing investments which have contributed to the current and earlier phases of Singapore's economic growth. This will give them time to make the transition to a low-carbon economy without blunting the price signal and being very clear about what our trajectory is.
Mr Louis Ng asked to expand the coverage of the carbon tax to include all reportable facilities.
At this point in time, we will retain the threshold of 25,000 tonnes of emissions. This covers about 80% of our emissions and is already one of the highest in the world. Coupled with our existing taxes on transport fuels, we are achieving around 90% coverage. Lowering the threshold would impose significant additional regulatory burden and costs on companies, without any meaningful increase in coverage.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked how we can catalyse the purchase of high-quality carbon credits.
Providing companies with the flexibility to surrender high-quality international carbon credits to offset up to 5% of their taxable emissions will help to create local demand for high-quality carbon credits and catalyse the development of a carbon services hub in Singapore. It will also cushion the impact for companies that are able to source for cost-effective and credible carbon credits.
We will have clear environmental integrity criteria to ensure that the carbon credits surrendered by businesses to offset their emissions are aligned with international carbon market rules finalised at COP26 and reflect an actual reduction in global emissions.
Mr Chairman, the carbon tax is but one part of our comprehensive package of measures to move our nation decisively towards a low-carbon future. Last year, we launched the Green Plan, a whole-of-nation movement to advance our national agenda on sustainable development. All the Green Plan Ministries have gathered again during the COS this year to explain how the various initiatives under the Green Plan will be enhanced and implemented.
Mr Chairman, all of us have a part to play. We can and we should make this decisive move to net-zero. We must advance on this sustainability journey together as a nation and we will require the participation and support of all Singaporeans to do so.
There will be costs to bear and trade-offs to be made. But this move will reposition Singapore and bring significant benefits for generations of Singaporeans to come. By moving decisively now, we are charting the path to a cleaner, greener Singapore for our future generations – with a sustainable environment and lifestyles, a forward-looking economy with new green jobs, and a brighter future at the forefront of a low-carbon world. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Grace Fu.
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): One year ago, we launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030 to catalyse a nationwide sustainability movement to move towards a greener future. Since then, the international momentum for climate action has increased.
Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean spoke about the greater urgency and resolve internationally to take decisive action and why Singapore will raise our climate ambitions to achieve net-zero emissions by or around mid-century. He explained how carbon pricing will be pivotal in spurring Singapore's green transition.
Singapore must catch and ride the green wave to thrive in a low-carbon future. This is key to our continued relevance as an international hub for transport, business and finance.
The sustainability movement in Singapore is growing and inspiring action across all segments of society. Ms Poh Li San and Ms Rachel Ong will be heartened to hear that we have made progress in many areas under the Green Plan, including the following. Two consortia have been awarded tenders to install more than 600 EV chargers in carparks across Singapore. This year, we will begin trialling the import of electricity from Malaysia and Laos and we are seeking proposals to import low-carbon energy from beyond our shores.
GreenGov.SG was launched to steer the public sector towards ambitious sustainability targets. Organisations, such as Sentosa Development Corporation, Nanyang Technological University and Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, have drawn up their own sustainability plans.
We have been engaging our partners from the people, private and public, or 3P sectors, to make the Green Plan a reality, as raised by Ms Janet Ang.
Green Plan Ministries have engaged more than 25,000 stakeholders over the past year, including corporates, youths, NGOs and the community. They have participated in initiatives, such as the OneMillionTrees movement, Green Plan Conversations and the Youth Action Challenge.
The private sector is adopting sustainability practices and committing resources to secure an early foothold in the green transition.
The Maritime and Aviation sectors are trialling the use of cleaner and lower-carbon fuels. SIA and Scoot will begin a pilot to use blended sustainable aviation fuel at Changi Airport.
To accelerate the decarbonisation of the Built Environment sector, more than 80 organisations have signed an embodied carbon pledge launched by the Singapore Green Building Council. Global firms, such as McKinsey, Bain and Company, and PwC, have established sustainability hubs and centres in Singapore, to serve the region and beyond.
Civil society, community organisations and youths are galvanising a social movement on sustainability, empowering action and advocacy from the ground.
At last year’s Climate Action Week, over 60 partners from the 3P sectors organised more than 130 wide-ranging activities, a record for the event.
To mark Youth Day at the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference, a group of Singaporeans and youth-led environmental and climate organisations, such as Ho Xiang Tian and FiTree, released a statement with wide-ranging recommendations on tackling climate change.
I am inspired by their passion to drive change and encourage our youths to continue to advocate and act for change.
As we step towards a greener and low-carbon future, we will need to build a new social compact to prepare for changes in the way we live, work and play. As citizens, we must reflect on the changes we are willing to make to our lifestyles. Across the economy, we must move boldly to transform and capture the opportunities from the green transition. As a nation, we must thoroughly debate the trade-offs and come to a consensus on the right balance to strike.
Today, my colleagues and I will give an update on how the Government is preparing for the transition to a low-carbon future, anchored around the Green Plan. Minister Gan Kim Yong will elaborate on our efforts to grow our green economy and decarbonise our energy sector. Minister S Iswaran will speak about measures to further reduce carbon emissions in the transport sector. Minister Desmond Lee will share about our progress in greening our built environment and in transforming Singapore into a City in Nature. Minister Chan Chun Sing will give an update on how we are nurturing the next generation to be stewards in environmental sustainability and how our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are driving skills training, research and innovation in sustainability.
Let me share about my Ministry’s efforts to empower, invest in and partner companies, people and communities to move towards a low-carbon future.
First, empowering businesses, workers and households. Improving energy efficiency is one of the primary ways that businesses can lower their carbon emission. We will provide targeted support to help every sector decarbonise. BCA will support the built environment sector; EMA the power generation sector; and EDB and NEA, the manufacturing sector.
Prof Koh Lian Pin asked about the Energy Efficiency Fund, which is part of an enhanced package of support launched in January 2019 to help industries become more energy efficient and lower their carbon tax. Since then, we have committed over $75 million to support businesses to implement energy efficiency improvement and carbon abatement projects.
SMEs deserve our attention. They are at the heart of our economy, supplying products and services to many sectors and employing a significant proportion of our workforce. While many of them are nimble, dynamic and creative, they often lack resources to invest in energy-efficient technologies or make changes to their business.
Earlier in the Budget debate, Mr Don Wee and Ms Denise Phua called for more support for SMEs. Over the years, we have built on our support for SMEs to achieve greater energy efficiency. ESG launched the $180 million Enterprise Sustainability Programme to support Singapore companies in their sustainability journeys. Last year, NEA and ESG supported the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition Singapore’s LowCarbonSG initiative to help companies build capabilities in measuring, monitoring and reducing their carbon emissions.
NEA and the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) set up an Energy Efficiency Technology Centre (EETC) in 2020. It provides SMEs with low-cost energy assessments to help them identify opportunities to improve energy efficiency. The Centre also develops the workforce by training students and practitioners in industrial energy efficiency. NEA is working with SIT to strengthen the Centre’s capabilities in the next phase. Enhancements will include setting up a training-and-simulation centre to enable learners to practise their craft in a realistic, yet safe environment. With the enhancements, the Centre will be able to assume a more prominent role in Singapore’s transition to a low-carbon economy. More details will be announced when ready.
NEA’s Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F) helps SMEs in the manufacturing sector to defray the cost of adopting energy-efficient technologies. Kawarin Enterprise Pte Ltd, a local steel manufacturing company, has benefited from the Fund. By upgrading their old air compressors to more energy-efficient ones, they enjoyed annual cost savings of more than $30,000 and abated about 48 tonnes of carbon annually.
To help the manufacturing sector mitigate the impact of higher carbon tax, I am happy to announce that from 1 April 2022, we will raise the Energy Efficiency Fund’s maximum grant support for investing in energy-efficient technologies, from 50% to 70% of qualifying costs. This will help companies invest in energy-efficient equipment, such as lighting, air-conditioning, boilers and air compressors. We will simplify the grant application and disbursement process. I urge companies to take advantage of the higher support level early.
The green transition will present new opportunities for our economy and workforce. We hope to anchor emerging green industries in Singapore to create good jobs. We are growing a new industry in agri-tech. Minister of State Desmond Tan has shared this in his speech.
Mature industries, such as the environmental services industry, are poised for transformation, catalysing higher demand for green skills. We will support our workers to develop these skills.
Mr Eu Leng Pheng, who began his career in the chemical and marine industry, took a leap of faith and entered the waste management industry in 2017, as a Facilities Manager in LHT Holdings to support wood waste recycling operations. To make the transition, he took part in a professional course offered by the Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore. His vast experience in troubleshooting electrical components and circuit boards from his previous work experience allowed him to quickly render professional support to other engineers. He has also provided in-house training to the mechanics in his company, furthering their knowledge.
We are also encouraging households to embrace sustainability. NEA and PUB launched the Climate-Friendly Households Programme in 2020 to help 1-room to 3-room HDB households reduce energy and water consumption. Eligible households can redeem $225 worth of e-vouchers to offset costs for energy-efficient refrigerators, LED lights and water-efficient shower fittings. The vouchers are valid till 31 December 2023. I urge eligible households to use these vouchers when your appliances are due for replacement. Making the switch can help households save on utility bills.
Second, we will continue to invest in science and technology to unlock possibilities for a low-carbon future. Our water story is a good example of the critical role R&D plays in Singapore’s development. In our decades of patient and persistent investments, over the years, we have created two of our national taps, NEWater and desalinated water, and raised Singapore’s profile as a leading global hydrohub. Our research objective now is to bring down the energy requirement through science and technology.
In 2023, a Desalination Integrated Validation Plant will be commissioned to trial promising technologies to reduce the energy consumption of desalination to less than two kilowatt hours per cubic metre (kWh/m3) of water. This will pave the way for the technologies to be implemented in full-scale desalination plants.
The plant is just one of the many projects that are supported under our national Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plan. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Poh Li San and Prof Koh Lian Pin have pointed out, science and technology are important enablers for the Green Plan. Under RIE2025, the Urban Solutions and Sustainability domain will strengthen our capabilities in addressing climate change, advancing energy transition, promoting liveability and transforming our built environment.
I am pleased to announce that the Government has allocated $220 million for R&D in resource circularity and water technologies. Eighty million dollars will be allocated to Closing the Resource Loop, to develop sustainable resource recovery solutions for key waste streams, such as e-waste, plastics and food. It will support the development of useful and safe applications for treated waste residue and low-carbon waste treatment options. This will build on the $45 million Closing the Waste Loop under RIE2020. Under this funding initiative, NEA has funded 15 R&D projects, with seven garnering commercial interest.
Another $87 million will be allocated to the Centre of Excellence Programme to support water and membrane research at the Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute (NEWRI) and the Separation Technologies Applied Research and Translation Centre.
The remaining budget was allocated to the Competitive Funding for Water Research programme last year.
Our investments will go towards developing high-impact solutions for our national water needs. But beyond that, research and innovation will also be an engine for green growth, spurring private sector R&D spending, job creation and technology spin-offs in the water industry and adjacent sectors.
For example, NEWRI has developed technologies with local and global applications in areas, such as biomimetic membranes for desalination and anchored investments from global companies in Singapore.
Science and technology will also inform our policies and interventions to keep Singapore liveable in the face of climate change. As Mr Leon Perera pointed out, rising urban temperatures is a major concern for our compact and dense city. The Government already incorporates urban planning measures to keep neighbourhoods cool. For example, weaving nature more intensively into our built environment, which Minister Desmond Lee will touch on later.
The Government is also piloting the use of cool paints in 130 HDB blocks in Tampines, under the Green Towns Programme.
We are also working with MOH, MOM and the Workplace Safety and Health Council, to ensure that guidelines on managing heat stress at workplaces are regularly updated.
Third, partner. We need to involve the whole-of-society in the sustainability movement and develop a shared ownership of our environment.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Ms Hany Soh asked for an update on the SG Eco Fund.
We have seen great interest since its launch in November 2020. As we wrap up our second grant call, I am happy to share that we will award $2.9 million to 68 projects. This includes 42 smaller projects under the new Sprout category, which has a simpler application process. In total, 105 individuals and organisations have been awarded $6.6 million in funding thus far.
Some of the recipients in the second grant call are: Earth School Singapore, which has launched a new experiential education programme for Primary school students; U Farm, a social enterprise farm, which will train and employ persons with disabilities and host environmental programmes for the public; Mr Neo Zhi Xuan and his team, who will develop a web application to educate the public on where and how to recycle different household items.
Our applicants have diverse interests and goals, reflecting the reach of the grant. We will work with our grant recipients to maximise the impact of their projects and co-create relevant environmental and community engagement targets. SG Eco Fund will also explore new partnerships to rally more people to contribute to the Green Plan.
Our local communities are also responding to the call to action. Mr Don Wee asked about the progress of Eco Towns. In Tampines, Semula, a social enterprise, will be conducting plastic collection drives at F&B outlets and shopping malls and involving the community to process the collected plastics into art pieces. In Nee Soon South, the grassroots organisation is setting up a Black Soldier Flies composting hub. In Chua Chu Kang and Hong Kah North, grassroots leaders have organised hackathons with residents to co-develop an Eco Town plan for the district.
We intend to provide more support, including capacity building workshops, to help more communities in Singapore plan and develop sustainability initiatives in their towns. This will complement HDB's Green Towns Programme to enhance the sustainability of estates.
We will continue to consult and engage the public on environment and climate issues, including our net-zero ambition, as Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean has explained.
Prof Koh Lian Pin suggested that sufficient time must be set aside for the public to learn about the issues and share their views. I agree fully.
Under the SG Together movement, we created many opportunities for Singaporeans to participate and contribute actively to sustainability. Depending on the issue at hand, different approaches and modalities are adopted to engage stakeholders and we endeavour to share the insights gathered from these consultations with the public. Across the Public Service, we are also growing capabilities to engage well and consistently, through shared frameworks, case studies and ongoing training.
For instance, the disposable carrier bag charge was developed after more than one year of extensive consultations and engagements with the industry and the public, including a Citizens' Workgroup. MSE and NEA released our response to the recommendations by the Citizens' Workgroup in 2021.
For the Lim Chu Kang Masterplan, we brought stakeholders together over six months to discuss how the Lim Chu Kang area could be redeveloped to become our agri-food production hub of the future. The full report covering the whole engagement series has just been finalised and will be published soon.
I thank the participants for their valuable contributions.
These consultations and engagements enable participants and stakeholders, including the Government, to hear and understand diverse views. Participants go away with a better appreciation of different perspectives and the rationale for policies, and the Government goes away with better-informed and considered decisions. There is a sense of unity and shared responsibility in shaping the collective future of our society.
And this is what the Green Plan is about – it is a movement, a collective movement towards a shared vision. It is a living plan that evolves as we engage and participate fully as a nation and as new technologies and solutions present us with new options.
It is my hope that the Green Plan will spark new possibilities that were once thought to be unattainable. That it will pave the way for a greener, brighter future. That when it is time to hand the torch over to the next generation, we will be remembered as faithful stewards of our island nation, who made the right and difficult choices. In good time.
This push towards a low-carbon future heralds a new phase in Singapore's sustainable development. Just as how we have transformed Singapore into a modern metropolis, our future will be even brighter as we work together to build Singapore into a city of green possibilities. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Gan Kim Yong.
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Chairman, I am encouraged by Members' commitment to sustainability. Many have spoken about it and asked how we can do more to further our sustainability and climate ambition. Members also recognise that while Singapore must take bold steps to address climate change, we must remain pragmatic, managing the trade-offs for supporting our enterprises and helping our workers in the green transition.
A few days ago, I outlined in this House our economic strategies for Singapore. Sustainability must underpin these economic strategies.
First, we need to press on with our efforts to help our industries and enterprises decarbonise. Second, we need to help our enterprises and workforce harness sustainability as a competitive advantage, invest in innovation and seize new growth opportunities in the green economy. And third, we need to expand Singapore's global connection to capture cross-border opportunities.
Singapore's transition to a low-carbon economy is critical not only to ensure that we are aligned with the global efforts on sustainable development, but also to leverage new opportunities in the emerging green economy.
Today, I will focus on Government's Green Economy Strategy and I will cover four key areas.
First, decarbonise our industries, including the energy sector, which is a major emitter. Second, drive new areas of growth in the green economy. Third, invest in the development of new low-carbon solutions. And fourth, deepen our workforce capabilities.
First, let me talk about decarbonising our industries and the energy sector.
Many companies have already embarked on the sustainability journey, for they know that not doing so would risk them losing relevance and market share. We will continue to support industries and enterprises in their transition efforts.
Last November, we released the Sustainable Jurong Island report which outlines our plan to transform Jurong Island into a Sustainable Energy and Chemicals Park. The Park will operate sustainably and produce sustainable products for exports. By 2030, we target for the energy and chemicals (E&C) sector to increase its output of sustainable products by 1.5 times from 2019 levels and achieve at least two million tonnes of carbon abatement per annum from low-carbon solutions.
For example, Shell Singapore has announced plans to halve its operational emissions by 2030 from 2016 levels.
Another example is specialty materials manufacturer, Arkema, which will be setting up a new bio-factory on Jurong Island to produce high-performance polymers made from castor beans. The new plant will enable Arkema to increase its polymer production capacity by 50% to meet the rising global demand for sustainable, high-performance materials.
Decarbonising Singapore's energy sector is key in greening Singapore's economy. The energy sector powers our industries and households and is a major emitter, contributing around 40% of Singapore's direct emissions. The demand for energy will grow as we digitalise our economy and electrify our transport and various processes.
However, the energy transition is especially challenging for Singapore. Many of the renewable energy options adopted by other countries are not available to us. We have little wind, hydro or tidal power. Solar is our most viable form of renewable energy, but we have heavy cloud cover and limited land available to expand our solar energy deployment. Despite these limitations and complexities, we must continue to forge ahead to transform the energy sector and reduce its carbon footprint.
First, we will enhance the energy efficiency of power generation plants. Last year, we launched the second Genco Energy Efficiency (Genco EE) Grant Call to support generation companies in improving the efficiency of their existing power plants. EMA is evaluating the proposals and will announce the successful applicants later this year.
We also amended the Electricity Act to empower EMA to require electricity generation licensees to meet greenhouse gas emissions standards. EMA will consult the industry on the specific standards later this year.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Shawn Huang asked for an update on our alternative energy deployment plans. They will be pleased to know that we are on track to achieving our solar deployment target of at least two gigawatt-peak (GWp) by 2030, which is equivalent to powering 350,000 households annually. Since 2015, our solar installed capacity has increased by over nine times to around 560 megawatt-peak (MWp) in the third quarter of 2021. We are finding ways to further accelerate solar deployment.
Our public sector agencies are taking the lead in solar deployment. HDB, for example, recently launched the seventh SolarNova tender, to aggregate demand across HDB blocks and Government sites. Since 2020, JTC has also put in place a mandatory solar deployment scheme for its lessees. And to-date, over 224 MWp of solar has been deployed across JTC's industrial estates or around 40% of our total solar deployment.
We are also exploring how we can overcome our land constraints. For example, PSA has installed vertical solar panels on its external walls of the PSA Tuas Port Maintenance Base Admin Building as a trial. The Government is also exploring the use of vertical solar panels on other surfaces.
To further expand the potential of solar deployment in Singapore, EMA is looking at ways to integrate energy storage systems into the grid, to overcome the intermittency of solar energy and manage the stability and resilience of our energy grid.
But these efforts alone are not sufficient. Increasing the energy efficiency of our natural gas power plants can, at best, reduce carbon emissions by about 10%. Even if we maximise all available space in Singapore for solar deployment and account for efficiency improvements, we would still be unable to generate enough power to keep the lights on with solar energy alone. Meaningful abatement can only be achieved through tapping on renewable energy beyond our shores and by developing the use of other low-carbon alternatives in the longer term.
In October last year, I announced that MTI and EMA plan to import up to four gigawatt (GW) of electricity by 2035. This will constitute around 30% or one-third of Singapore's electricity supply by then. In the interim, we will conduct small-scale 100 megawatt (MW) trials which will help us learn, build confidence and pave the way for our larger-scale sustainable electricity import projects.
The energy transition will require trade-offs and we will need to accept changes to the way we live and work. In particular, the transition to more carbon-efficient generation and low-carbon technologies, accelerating the deployment of renewable energy and importing electricity, may not mean cheaper electricity, as Mr Shawn Huang pointed out.
We will need to invest in infrastructure and technology which will be costly and are likely to lead to higher electricity costs. This is an inevitable but necessary trade-off to build a better and greener world. The Government is pacing and managing the transition to ensure that electricity remains affordable and will provide assistance to vulnerable groups when necessary.
We will continue to work closely with our industry partners and stakeholders to innovate and explore new solutions.
Even as we push on with decarbonisation, there are exciting new economic opportunities, too. They are different sides of the same coin on sustainability.
Green financing, for example, will grow as companies look to financing instruments to support their sustainable investments.
Another opportunity is in the carbon services and carbon credits market. Firms and even countries will want to trade in carbon credits to offset their emissions and meet their climate goals.
Mr Leon Perera suggested that we need to scrutinise and properly account for the carbon credits and, indeed, so. This also means that we will need monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) services. These growth areas will lead to good jobs in the professional services.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how the Government will enable the development of Singapore's carbon markets.
Today, there are more than 70 organisations in Singapore providing carbon services, which is the highest concentration of service providers in Southeast Asia. We will continue to work with the private sector, as well as with other countries, to develop carbon credit projects which have high environmental integrity and quality, as Mr Leon Perera talked about. These credits can be traded via trusted platforms in Singapore or can be used by corporates or the Government to meet climate targets.
For example, we have partnered local ecosystem players, such as Climate Impact X (CIX) and AirCarbon Exchange (ACX), to establish marketplaces for companies to access high-quality carbon credits. This entire value chain and ecosystem will require new skills. MOM, MOE, Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) are working together to equip our workers with these new skills and for these new job opportunities.
Another area that presents opportunities for Singapore is sustainable tourism.
Eventually, global tourism will recover and become vibrant again as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. Tourists are increasingly demanding sustainable travel options, such as eco-friendly hotels and attractions. This is why we have been taking steps to work with the tourism industry to move towards more sustainable operations, create sustainable products and experiences for our visitors to establish Singapore as a sustainable urban destination. This includes initiatives, such as the launch of the hotel sustainability roadmap later this month. This is a key milestone that will spur hotels to adopt sustainable operations.
Last year, Sentosa received the Top 100 Destination Sustainability Stories Award. The Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) also launched the Sentosa Carbon Neutral Network, Singapore's first business alliance committed to carbon neutrality by 2030. The network aims to help businesses develop sustainability solutions through the sharing of resources and expertise while also leveraging economies of scale and providing a common network to introduce larger-scale precinct level solutions.
I agree with Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Foo Mee Har that businesses which start early on the sustainability journey can gain a competitive advantage over those which are slow to do so.
This is why, last year, the Government launched the Enterprise Sustainability Programme (ESP) to enable local enterprises to uplift their capabilities and capture opportunities in sustainability.
The ESP provides support at three levels. First, to develop sustainability capabilities in enterprises through training and access to relevant tools and resources. Second, to strengthen sector-specific initiatives through partnerships with Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) and corporates. And third, to foster a vibrant and conducive sustainability ecosystem by working with service providers and enablers in training, certification and provision of green financing.
ESG has announced the roll out of the first series of ESP-Sustainability Courses for businesses which were developed in partnership with the Global Compact Network Singapore (GCNS), PwC Singapore and the Singapore Environment Council (SEC).
Businesses are also making good use of the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS) - Green, which provides enterprises better access to green financing.
For example, Durapower Group was extended a green trade loan of $6 million by HSBC Singapore. The loan will enable the Singapore tech company to accelerate the development and distribution of its high-tech energy storage solutions using lithium-ion batteries for the Tuas Port's automated guided vehicle fleet. I encourage more companies to tap on the ESP and EFS-Green.
Mr Chairman, as Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Jessica Tan pointed out, innovation and the development of low-carbon solutions are key to sharpening Singapore's competitive advantage in the green economy and facilitating the energy transition.
Some of these solutions, such as low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, or CCUS, have the potential to be a gamechanger, especially for the hard-to-abate sectors, such as energy and chemicals. However, the technology will take time to mature and become more commercially viable. The Government is studying how we can catalyse the development.
Let me elaborate on hydrogen, which has, in recent years, emerged as a promising energy carrier in the global search for low-carbon fuels.
Many of the technologies required to enable the production, transportation, storage and use of hydrogen at scale are still nascent and relatively costly today. Currently, there are also no commercially available utility-scale combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) that can use 100% hydrogen. Without significant retrofitting, only small amounts of hydrogen up to 5% by volume can be deployed.
Another challenge is in transporting hydrogen in larger volumes over long distances as the technology to transport liquified hydrogen is not yet available. Alternative carrier forms of hydrogen, such as ammonia and liquid organic hydride carriers, are more easily transported but come with their own challenges, such as the need to extract the hydrogen from the carriers at the destination.
We expect the costs of low-carbon hydrogen technologies to fall over time with technological advancements and greater economies of scale. Low-carbon hydrogen will also become increasingly more accessible with the development of global supply chains and as technological developments make its transportation and use easier.
The Government is, therefore, investing resources to understand and monitor the potential for hydrogen deployment in Singapore and exploring potential solutions.
Last year, we awarded $55 million for R&D projects under the Low-Carbon Energy Research Funding Initiative to pursue R&D in low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen.
One of the projects supported involves NTU working with a consortium of companies comprising local enterprises, such as PSA and Sembcorp Industries, and international partners like Chiyoda Corporation and Mitsubishi Corporation. The consortium will seek to develop new technologies for the extraction of hydrogen from liquid organic hydrogen carriers.
Another project involves NUS and NTU researchers collaborating with the industry to develop new catalysts to liberate hydrogen from ammonia in a more energy-efficient way. These have the potential to allow for more efficient and economical transport of hydrogen, which can, in turn, contribute to the expansion of global hydrogen supply chains and improve the viability of hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
Another promising low-carbon technology is CCUS, which could be deployed to capture greenhouse gas emissions and keep them out of the atmosphere. Efforts are underway to make CCUS pathways a reality and we will put in place a robust verification system to ensure proper accounting of the carbon captured, as Mr Leon Perera mentioned.
In November last year, A*STAR's Institute of Chemical Engineering and Sciences (ICES) worked with EDB and JTC to partner 13 energy and chemicals (E&C) stakeholders to study the development of a Carbon Capture and Utilisation Translational Testbed (CCUTT) to be housed on Jurong Island. CCUTT will facilitate the rapid evaluation and test-bedding of emerging carbon capture and utilisation technologies to accelerate industry adoption. This will complement our efforts to develop Jurong Island into a sustainable E&C park.
To enhance the synergy of our R&D efforts in low-carbon technologies and solutions, A*STAR will reorganise key R&D capabilities across its institutes into a new Institute of Sustainability for Chemicals, Energy and Environment, or ISCE2.
ISCE2 will advance research areas, such as carbon capture and utilisation, low-carbon hydrogen, carbon life-cycle accounting and synthetic biology, to pave the way for alternative green materials, products and processes to support Singapore's sustainability agenda. ISCE2 will continue to partner academia, public agencies and industry to contribute to Singapore's climate change goals.
We look forward to reaping the fruits of these industry and international partnerships in time to come.
Sir, as we transform our industries, we must also equip our people to seize upcoming opportunities in the transition to the green economy and low-carbon power sector, as Ms Mariam Jaafar and Prof Koh Lian Pin have highlighted.
I shared about the reskilling and upskilling programmes offered by agencies in January. These include the Career Conversion Programme (CCP) for Clean and Renewable Energy Professionals by WSG and MAS' setting up of centres of excellence for training and research in green financing. I am pleased to hear of employers and workers coming forward to make use of these skills programmes.
One such example is Mr Wang Yi Tian, a design engineer at SembCorp Marine (SCM). Mr Wang and seven of his colleagues enrolled in the CCP for Clean and Renewable Energy Professionals to undergo training in new offshore wind technologies. They will be future-skilled to take on job roles, such as supporting the construction and commissioning of overseas windfarms and windfarm substations. With these new skills, Mr Wang and his colleagues will be part of the team to expand SembCorp Marine's capabilities in renewable energy beyond our shores.
We will continue to roll out new programmes to keep pace with the evolving needs of the transition to a green economy. This will enable our workers to benefit from the emerging green economy and low-carbon power sector.
Mr Chairman, over the past five decades, Singapore's economy has built up significant strengths and competitive advantages. We have adapted to the various challenges and constantly reinvented ourselves to stay relevant in the regional and global economy. Our transformation to a low-carbon economy is yet another chapter in the Singapore story.
It will be a challenging journey but an exciting one. The Government will partner our industries, businesses and workers as we undertake this journey. Together, we can navigate the transition, explore new ideas and forge new frontiers as we create a greener future for Singapore and for the world. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister S Iswaran.
The Minister for Transport (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Chairman, the Singapore Green Plan articulates our national climate ambitions, as well as our commitment to climate action and achieving net-zero emissions.
Sir, climate change is a challenge of the global commons. The cost of solutions will be incurred by individuals, enterprises and economies, while the benefits will take time and accrue to the global community. But we must act now, individually and collectively, by making responsible choices and trade-offs to avert a tragedy of the commons and prevent grave harm to our environment.
Our land transport system is an important part of this endeavour. It is our third largest source of emissions, accounting for 15% of national emissions today. Over the decades, we have taken significant steps to build an efficient and sustainable transport system. We have, progressively, introduced policies on car ownership and usage, invested heavily in public transport and active mobility and promoted the transition to cleaner-energy vehicles.
As a result of these moves and other changes, I am happy to share with Members that our land transport carbon emissions peaked at 7.7 million tonnes in 2016. While this is a significant inflection, we must do more to work towards net-zero emissions, as stated by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.
Hence, aligned with our national effort, we aim to reduce land transport emissions by 80% by or around mid-century, from the peak in 2016. This is a reduction in absolute emissions. It is an ambitious goal that will require policy moves, new technologies and behavioural shifts across our land transport system. Along with the decarbonisation of the power grid, electrification of vehicles is a key initiative that will have a material impact and I would like to elaborate on our moves in that regard.
Globally, EV technology continues to advance and sales of electric cars have gained momentum. In Singapore, new electric car registrations increased 18-fold, from 100 in 2020 to 1,800 in 2021, accounting for almost 4% of all new car registrations. This is a promising indicator of the impact of our measures, such as the EV Early Adoption Incentive (EEAI) for cars, which has been highlighted by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Chua. We will monitor developments and assess the need for similar measures in other vehicle segments, like electric motorcycles.
To sustain the momentum of our EV transition, we will step up our efforts in three key areas.
First, charging infrastructure. Several Members have highlighted the need for charging infrastructure to keep pace with, if not be ahead of, EV adoption. Range anxiety is a commonly cited impediment. In practice, the average driver in Singapore may need to fully charge her electric car only once every five to seven days, given that most have a range of at least 300 kilometres. Nevertheless, this concern over nascent technology is understandable. To take anxiety out of range, chargers must be widely available.
Last year, MOT shared plans to deploy 60,000 charging points across public and private carparks by 2030. Since then, LTA has undertaken a major survey of the switchrooms and substations serving residential carparks across the island to assess the additional electrical capacity needed to support EV charging.
This evaluation has given us the confidence to accelerate the implementation of our plans. We will make every HDB town EV-ready by 2025. To achieve this, we will install charging points in nearly 2,000 HDB carparks over the next three to four years. They will mostly provide low-powered, overnight charging, which would meet the needs of car owners and minimise the load on the electrical grid. There will be at least three charging points per carpark and more where there is demand and adequate electrical capacity. LTA will launch the large-scale tender for charging points at HDB carparks in the first half of this year.
We have also made progress in the deployment of chargers at other premises. Mr Ang Wei Neng’s question was regarding the pattern of ownership. More than 80% of electric car users live in private residences today, many in condominiums and private apartments. So, to incentivise non-landed private residences to install chargers in their carparks, we introduced the EV Common Charger Grant last July. So far, 12 developments have used this grant and at least 20 others are in the pipeline. Their applications are being processed and I would like to encourage more Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) to benefit from this scheme.
Our second move is to upgrade the supporting electrical infrastructure. Consumer switch-rooms and substations will have to be expanded to support increasing use of the residential charging network. After industry consultation and feedback, we have decided that the Government will undertake this long-term infrastructure programme. The National EV Centre at LTA will take the lead, working with other Government agencies like EMA and HDB. Upgrades will commence over the next few years and continue well into the 2030s.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about financing. LTA will be issuing green bonds to fund these infrastructure upgrades. The bond repayment obligations will be met through a tariff on EV charging operators and users, which will be phased in at a later stage.
The third thrust of our EV masterplan is to implement policies and regulations that support adoption and ensure safety. I agree with Prof Koh Lian Pin that robust regulations and standards are necessary to ensure a reliable and safe EV charging ecosystem. To that end, LTA has worked closely with the industry on revisions to Technical Reference 25, or TR25, which is our national EV charging standard.
The revised TR25 will preserve public safety while easing compliance and maintenance obligations for owners of EV chargers. It will also allow for new technologies, such as battery-swapping, for electric motorcycles and very high-powered charging of up to 500 kilowatts.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have asked about our approach to such technologies. As they are still relatively nascent, we will focus on safety regulations, while monitoring industry and technology developments to assess their applicability to our overall charging network.
To lay the foundation for a new regulatory framework, we will introduce legislation to regulate EV charging. This will cover the approval and registration of EV chargers and the licensing of EV charging operators. It will also mandate the provision of charging infrastructure in new buildings and major redevelopments. There will be a public consultation on the proposed legislation later this year.
We have also reviewed our vehicle policies to ensure they are relevant for an EV future. With the changes over the last two years, the road tax for mass market electric cars is now comparable to that of equivalent internal combustion engine (ICE) cars.
Several Members, in this debate and before, have suggested using pricing and other incentives to increase the attractiveness of EVs vis-à-vis ICE cars. We earlier introduced the EEAI to reduce the gap in upfront costs. However, the cost differential remains for certain mass market EVs because they fall within Category B COEs, along with bigger ICE cars. One reason for this is the Maximum Power Output (MPO) criterion.
We introduced the criterion of 97 kilowatts in 2013, in addition to an engine capacity of 1,600 cc or less, for Category A cars. That was to address the market trend then, when many luxury petrol cars with smaller but turbo-charged engines could draw on Category A COEs. Introducing the 97-kilowatt MPO threshold shifted these turbo-charged luxury cars into Category B. However, mass-market electric cars in international markets tend to have a MPO of 110 kilowatts or lower. Locally, more mass-market EV models with an MPO above 97 kilowatts have been introduced in the last year.
So, Mr Saktiandi Supaat would be pleased that MOT has reviewed the MPO threshold between Category A and Category B COEs for electric cars. We will be increasing the Category A MPO threshold for electric cars from 97 kilowatts to 110 kilowatts. Based on the EV models approved by LTA for use so far, this move will double the number of models that fall within Category A from 10 to 20, including models like the Hyundai Ioniq that Mr Louis Chua mentioned in his speech. This change will apply to electric cars registered using COEs obtained from the next COE quarter in May 2022.
Mr Chairman, the EV transition also applies to other vehicle segments. Prof Koh Lian Pin and Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the plans for the public transport and point-to-point (P2P) fleets. The P2P sector is key to emissions reduction as taxis and private hire cars clock a much higher daily mileage, compared to the average private vehicles. Our taxi operators have already announced some plans. ComfortDelgro will roll out up to 400 electric taxis, or e-taxis, in 2022, while Strides has committed to a fully electric fleet by 2026.
To support these initiatives and higher ambitions, the Government will extend the statutory lifespan of e-taxis to 10 years, up from the current eight years. As EV batteries for e-taxis may need to be replaced around the five-year mark, this extension will enable taxi operators to optimise their investments and price e-taxi rentals competitively. In turn, our taxi operators have committed that at least half of our taxis will be electric by 2030. This is a significant move, given our total taxi fleet of around 15,000 today. Among private hire cars, 50% of GrabRentals fleet will also go electric by 2030. LTA will continue working closely with private hire car operators to increase EV adoption.
We will make a similar concerted push for our public bus fleet. We aim for half of our public buses to be electric by 2030. This means an almost 50-fold increase from the 60 electric buses today, to about 3,000 by 2030. To achieve this, bus buys from now till 2030 will primarily be electric. For a start, LTA will replace over 400 diesel buses with electric buses by 2025.
To further green our public transport infrastructure, LTA will call a tender later this month to deploy more solar panels at locations like rail and bus depots, the upcoming Integrated Train Testing Centre, covered linkways and pedestrian overhead bridges. This will reduce both emissions and energy costs.
Goods vehicles and private buses are also key to our effort as they contribute the bulk of our remaining emissions.
As Mr Dennis Tan noted, last year, MSE implemented the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Scheme and enhanced the Early Turnover Scheme to encourage the adoption of cleaner-energy light goods vehicles. However, for the heavier goods vehicles, there are fewer viable cleaner-energy solutions currently available. We will work closely with industry partners to track technology advancements in this space with a view towards early adoption of viable solutions for heavier goods vehicles.
Mr Chairman, in summary, we are taking decisive action to reduce land transport emissions by 80% by or around mid-century. We will make every HDB town EV-ready by 2025. We will support EV adoption with adjustments to our COE Category A MPO threshold, upgraded electrical infrastructure and a robust regulatory framework for EV charging and ensure half our public buses and taxi fleets are electric by 2030.
But beyond these efforts, the success of this green endeavour, ultimately, rests with each one of us and the commuting decisions we make every day.
Based on LTA’s estimates, compared to driving an ICE car, switching to an electric car halves our carbon footprint. Taking an electric bus reduces our carbon footprint by 70%. Taking the MRT reduces our carbon footprint by close to 90%. And if we walk or cycle, the carbon footprint is practically zero. So, we can make a difference with our choices.
At the MOT COS debate, we will share more about our plans to make all these options more accessible by expanding the rail network, repurposing our roads and building more cycling paths.
Our informed individual choices will have an indelible and enduring impact on our carbon footprint, environment and future. Together, we can make the vision of the Singapore Green Plan a reality. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Chairman, I will first give an update on our work to make our city more sustainable and how this will support our transition to a low-carbon economy and create opportunities for our firms and workers. Second, I will report on our progress to transform Singapore into a City in Nature. And third, set out how we will strengthen our R&D to find innovative ways to improve our urban sustainability.
Let us start with how we are making our built environment and our city more sustainable.
Our buildings contribute more than 20% of Singapore’s carbon emissions. So, the work to green our buildings is very important. As we do this, we also want to create growth opportunities for our companies and workers in our built environment sector.
Last year, we launched the latest edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan (SGBMP). We set three targets: “80-80-80 in 2030”, to push further in greening our buildings. We have moved decisively to meet these targets over the past year. So, let me share some updates on our progress and our plans to support the industry in this green transition, which Members like Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Prof Koh Lian Pin have asked about.
Our first target is to green 80% of buildings by Gross Floor Area (GFA) by 2030. To date, we have greened more than 49% of our buildings. So, we are well on our way to meeting our target. But we need to do more to sustain our momentum and push ahead.
Last December, we raised the minimum energy performance requirements that both new buildings, as well as existing buildings undergoing major retrofitting, must now meet. We have also worked with our industry to revise the Green Mark scheme. We have set higher energy efficiency standards and increased our emphasis on other sustainability outcomes, too, such as reducing carbon emissions across a building's lifecycle. This will help ensure that Singapore’s Green Mark remains one of the world's leading green building certifications and the go-to standard in the tropics. So, we have raised both our minimum environmental sustainability requirements, as well as our standards at the higher end, for Green Mark.
In particular, we want to encourage owners of older buildings to retrofit them to be more energy-efficient, because these tend to be less resource- and carbon-intensive than demolishing them and constructing new ones. I will share more at MND's COS.
Our second target is for 80% of new developments to be Super Low Energy (SLE) buildings from 2030. These are buildings that achieve energy savings of over 60%, as compared to 2005 levels, when we started our journey to green our buildings. Over the past year, we have certified close to 7% of new buildings by GFA as SLE buildings. This is a modest but promising start, as we bring SLE developments into the mainstream.
The Government is taking the lead to make more buildings SLE buildings. Under GreenGov.SG, we have raised our energy performance requirements for public sector buildings. All new public sector buildings and existing ones undergoing major retrofitting must now meet Green Mark Platinum SLE standards.
We are encouraging developers to pursue SLE standards, too. In November last year, we started an incentive scheme that will give developers of private projects bonus GFA, if they meet Green Mark Platinum SLE standards and other requirements. We will also require higher environmental standards from developers for the new Government Land Sales (GLS) sites that we launch from the second quarter of this year.
If we want to achieve these ambitious targets, we must ensure that our firms and workers have the capability to design, build and maintain SLE buildings. We have been building up a core of talent to support our sustainability efforts, as Mr Cheng Hsing Yao has mentioned.
As of September last year, we have worked with our partners to train more than 22,000 green professionals. We will work with training providers so that their courses cover the latest developments in sustainability. Through collaborative platforms like the Super Low Energy Building Smart Hub, we will also facilitate the sharing of new energy-efficient technologies. We hope that our firms and our professionals will make good use of these resources to upgrade their skills. We will share more on our plans to attract and upskill talent at MND's COS.
This brings me to our third target, which is to achieve 80% improvement in energy efficiency, compared to 2005 levels, for our best-in-class buildings by 2030.
Currently, we have achieved some 65% to 70% improvement. So, we have some way to go. To help us with this important effort, we have a programme under what we call the Green Buildings Innovation Cluster (GBIC). This supports the research, prototyping and demonstration of our green building technologies and encourages companies to adopt these solutions.
Let me give Members an example. The SMU Connexion building uses a Passive Displacement Cooling system, which makes use of convectional currents to circulate cool air throughout most of the building. This new technology can achieve energy savings of up to 40% over conventional air-conditioning systems. It is one of several technologies that enable the building to achieve Zero Energy standards, which means that its entire energy consumption is offset by renewable energy generated on-site.
To further push the boundaries of energy efficiency, we will enhance funding for GBIC by a further $45 million. Under GBIC 2.0, we want to target key demand drivers, such as building owners and developers, as well as their value chains, to jointly develop innovative solutions. These include energy-efficient cooling technologies, smart building systems and enhanced building ventilation. We will accelerate the commercialisation of these solutions through industry partnerships and help to grow the local ecosystem of firms with green building expertise. This way, our companies can compete better in serving the growing global demand for sustainable urban solutions and take the lead to drive sustainable development across the Asia Pacific, home to some of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
Beyond individual buildings, Members have asked how we will make our HDB towns more sustainable. We will do this by tapping on new technologies and smart infrastructure solutions under our HDB Green Towns Programme. This will complement the various initiatives that MSE is piloting in the Eco Towns.
For example, for new HDB flats, we are using green technologies, such as smart lighting for common areas, as well as rainwater harvesting systems, to reduce energy consumption and the use of potable water.
Ms Hany Soh asked whether we use green construction methods for our HDB Home Improvement Programme (HIP) upgrading works. We require all builders for our HIP projects to come under the Green and Gracious Builders Scheme, which sets standards to mitigate the environmental impact of construction work. HDB also adopts other green construction practices, such as reusing metal hoardings for future projects.
We have also been installing solar panels on top of our existing HDB blocks to power common services, such as lifts and lighting. Mr Abdul Samad asked how we are progressing with these plans. We have done this for more than 2,700 blocks already, more than a quarter of the over 10,000 HDB blocks we have in Singapore today. And we will strive to install solar panels on as many HDB blocks as possible. By 2030, we target to have a solar capacity of 540 MWp, equivalent to powering 135,000 4-room flats.
Beyond this, we are also exploring how to make good use of our limited space to enhance Singapore’s food security. Ms Poh Li San and Mr Don Wee asked how we can support more urban farms on the rooftops of multi-storey carparks (MSCPs). Since 2020, HDB and SFA have launched tenders for 16 sites on MSCPs for food production. Although the expected production volume is not very high or large, it will contribute to our “30 by 30” food production goal. We will be evaluating the outcomes of this programme first before we decide on future plans.
Next, we are piloting some new initiatives in our HDB estates to encourage residents to live more sustainably. For instance, we will introduce e-waste recycling bins in our HDB estates to make recycling more convenient. This will also support our Green Plan efforts to help Singaporeans recycle more and recycle right, as Minister Grace Fu had shared with us earlier.
We are also exploring the use of Light Emitting Surfaces (LES) for signages in our housing estates. LES is a new technology that can potentially reduce about 80% of energy consumption, compared to standard fluorescent block signages.
We hope that these initiatives will enable our residents to lead more sustainable lifestyles and leave a lower carbon footprint.
To finance the building of green and sustainable homes, HDB has also developed a Green Finance Framework. New HDB projects that seek to achieve BCA's Green Mark GoldPlus certification or above can now be financed or refinanced with green bonds or loans under this framework. This will support HDB as it seeks to reduce carbon emissions and energy consumption in our projects. HDB's Green Finance Framework will also contribute to our whole-of-Government effort to further develop the green bond market in Singapore.
Let me now update Members on our work to transform Singapore into a City in Nature.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked how we balance conservation and development. I will give a fuller update on our approach at MND's Committee of Supply later but let me briefly share some of the progress that we have made.
First, we have restored and enhanced several core habitats throughout the island. These comprise over 12 hectares of forest, marine and coastal habitats in Singapore which are key ecosystems and important homes for native biodiversity. Last year, we expanded the Species Recovery Programme from 94 to 120 species and, by 2030, we will increase these to 160 species. We have seen some early success. Our latest studies have shown that many of our native flora and fauna species have become less threatened over time, such as the Smooth-coated Otter and the Lesser Mousedeer.
Second, beyond our core habitats, we have greened other parts of our city more intensively. We have established more nature parks, especially at the fringe of our core biodiversity areas, as ecological buffers. Over the past two years, we have announced new nature parks, such as the Khatib Bongsu Nature Park, a rich mangrove and mudflat habitat, and the Rifle Range Nature Park, a key buffer for our Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Last year, we also added new parks at Bukit Gombak and Pasir Panjang and enhanced existing ones, such as the Coastal Playgrove at East Coast Park, with more lush vegetation and natural landscapes. We have even expanded the greenery on our rooftops and facades of buildings and in our sky gardens, to over 140 hectares. We are well underway to meeting our target of 200 hectares of skyrise greenery by 2030.
Third, we have continued to enhance connectivity between our green spaces to help our native flora disperse and our fauna to traverse our island. We have completed more than half of the 300 kilometres of Nature Ways that we aim to implement by 2030 and we are on track to meeting our target of 500 kilometres of park connectors by 2030, with around 370 kilometres of park connectors completed so far.
Miss Rachel Ong asked how we will make our green spaces accessible to all Singaporeans. The moves we have made as part of City in Nature not only help nature to thrive in our city state but also bring all Singaporeans closer to our green spaces for all its benefits. Over nine in 10 households are now within a 10-minute walk from a park and we aim to reach 100% by 2030.
Our City in Nature efforts can also help us build up our climate resilience through nature-based solutions. For example, we have already begun to weave natural designs and plantings into our parks and streetscapes. By planting different shrubs and trees to mimic the multi-tiered structure of a natural forest, we can better connect our green spaces for animals like birds and butterflies and also beautify our city, provide shade, cool our surroundings and improve our air quality. We can also use nature-based solutions to help protect our coastlines from rising sea levels.
Looking ahead, as Minister Grace Fu had shared earlier, research and innovation will enable us to achieve a low-carbon future. We will continue to invest in science and technology for our city and our natural spaces.
Let me share some of our plans, which Members like Dr Shahira Abdullah and Mr Cheng Hsing Yao have asked about.
To support our City in Nature ambitions, we have invested in R&D under our Cities of Tomorrow (CoT) and the Marine Climate Change Science (MCCS) programmes to explore solutions that tap on nature to help strengthen our ecological, climate and social resilience. In one project, researchers created \"green seawalls\" that enhance our marine ecosystems at the same time. These specially-designed tiles can host a range of native species, such as crabs and sea snails, more abundantly than conventional seawalls. They will be piloted at Pulau Tekong and have the potential to be applied to other parts of Singapore.
The Cities of Tomorrow R&D programme will also improve our urban sustainability, such as by designing greener buildings for our tropical climate. For instance, air-conditioning uses a lot of energy. BCA and NUS are exploring the use of weather sensors and smart watches that track how building occupants respond to indoor conditions to optimise cooling and ventilation systems. This technology aims to reduce energy use while still providing comfort for the occupants.
I am glad to share that we will invest an additional $64 million into R&D under the City in Nature and Greater Sustainability pillars of the Cities of Tomorrow programme. This will support us in developing innovative solutions for a more sustainable, liveable and resilient city.
Let me conclude. Whether it is making our built environment and city more sustainable or transforming Singapore into a City in Nature, we all need to work together – Government agencies, industry partners, academics and researchers, nature groups and the wider community.
While we have made good progress so far, there is much more to do and we must press on in close partnership. Along the way, we can help local firms and our workers build expertise in sustainability solutions and create good jobs and good opportunities for Singaporeans. And we can grow a greener and more sustainable home for all of us – one where we live in harmony with nature as good stewards of our environment for generations to come. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister Chan Chun Sing.
The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Chairman, to achieve sustainability as our competitive advantage for Singapore, foundational education in our schools will be a key enabler; but the capabilities of our institutions – Universities, Polytechnics and ITE – and the competencies of our graduates and the workforce, will be the real needle movers.
Let me first provide an update on our efforts in our schools.
MOE has been making good progress since the announcement of the Eco-Stewardship Programme, or ESP, last year. Through the \"4Cs\" approach of Curriculum, Campus, Culture and Community, we continue to holistically nurture our students from Primary to pre-University levels to be environmental stewards for our future. We will continue to support our teachers for the ESP through professional development opportunities and teaching resources on sustainability in the Student Learning Space.
MOE is also developing an Eco-Stewardship Toolkit, which will include a repository of resources to further support schools in strengthening their sustainability journey.
Beyond our schools. I agree with Ms Foo Mee Har that our institutions play a critical role in Singapore's green transition. As part of our Green Plan effort, our institutions have made sustainability a strategic priority in their agendas, with some of our Autonomous Universities developing comprehensive masterplans on their sustainability targets and initiatives.
Miss Rachel Ong has asked how our institutions are stepping up efforts to support sustainable living and the green economy. There are two needle-moving areas that our institutions can contribute to the national sustainability push. One, leveraging their research and innovation capabilities to develop new products and services which enable other sectors of our society to tackle sustainability challenges. Two, developing the skills and competencies of our graduates and the workforce to enable them to seize opportunities in the green economy. Let me elaborate.
The deep research and innovation capabilities of our institutions position them well to advance Singapore's sustainability goals. In tandem with their hands-on approach to sustainability education, our institutions partner companies, agencies and our community on research and innovation projects that advance national sustainability efforts. This is done in two ways.
First, our institutions can develop innovative solutions to support the industry's green transformation. Through projects that they work on with the industry, the Polytechnics enable local enterprises to reduce their carbon emissions and achieve sustainability goals. For example, in January this year, Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) launched a Sustainability Experience Centre in partnership with Schneider Electric, a company specialising in energy and automation digital solutions for efficiency and sustainability. Through the Centre, NYP staff and students will work with 100 small and medium enterprises by 2023, to co-create and implement energy-efficient initiatives.
In partnership with a local startup, Firmbase Private Limited, Ngee Ann Polytechnic's Environmental and Water Technology Centre of Innovation has recently developed a membrane for effective oil-water separation in the treatment of oily wastewater in the oil and gas industry.
Second, our Autonomous Universities are leveraging their deep research capabilities for sustainability R&D and using their own campuses as \"living laboratories\" to support national research and talent development efforts. For example, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has partnered France's Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, or CEA, to set up the Singapore-CEA Alliance for Research in the Circular Economy, focusing on research around recycling of electronic waste.
As part of its Sustainability Plan, Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) will be transforming its campus in Changi into a green experimental ground. This will allow SUTD faculty and students to partner the industry and the community to testbed new technologies and innovative projects for sustainable and smart living. Such studies may include waste management and reducing electricity usage.
Our institutions also play an important role in equipping our youth and workforce with the skills and competencies for the growing green economy.
The \"Skills Demand for the Future Economy\" report by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) noted that over 450 job roles across 17 sectors already require green skills in their job tasks. We can expect more new jobs to emerge and more exciting jobs to adopt green practices. We, therefore, need to invest in \"green upskilling\" for our workforce so that they can seize the new opportunities presented by green growth.
Our institutions are refreshing their specialised course offerings and are launching new programmes. These programmes provide young Singaporeans with forward-looking skills for emerging green jobs or existing jobs that are going to be \"greened\". For example, Republic Polytechnic recently launched the Diploma in Environmental and Marine Science, which prepares students to take up roles at the forefront of developing sustainable, environmental and aquaculture solutions.
Beyond equipping students to enter green jobs, we are also equipping the broader base of students with knowledge, competencies and skills related to sustainability. Almost all our institutions include sustainability as a theme for their common curricula for undergraduates. Singapore Management University, for instance, offers a common module on \"Climate Change, Global and Local Solutions\" as part of its core curriculum for undergraduates.
As part of the enhanced LifeSkills framework, students at our institutions will also explore and discuss sustainability-related issues and how these relate to their roles as global citizens.
Our institutions will continue to work closely with industry partners to curate more internship opportunities. These allow students to acquire and apply green skills in real-world settings and better prepare them for future careers in green jobs.
We will ramp up our Continuing Education and Training (CET) courses for those already working in industries that face a \"green transition\". Currently, our institutions offer more than 100 CET courses that provide training in areas, such as sustainable built environment, green engineering solutions, green finance and environmental sciences. One example is Temasek Polytechnic's Specialist Diploma in Energy Management and Sustainable Design which upskills workers in the building industry to take on job opportunities in energy efficiency design and technologies.
We will expand the offerings in our institutions to meet the market demand and our students' aspirations.
Mr Chairman, to conclude, MOE is fully committed to contribute to a sustainable Singapore under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. Our schools will be a key foundational enabler for this journey, as they nurture the next generation of our students to be stewards in environmental sustainability. Our institutions will play significant, needle-moving roles by building up their capabilities and capacities, in partnership with the industry. They will leverage their research and innovation capabilities to develop sustainable products and solutions and equip our graduates and workforce with in-demand and emerging green skills.
However, it takes a whole-of-nation effort to make sustainability our way of life. We, therefore, welcome experts, educators, companies, community partners and all Singaporeans to join in this endeavour to embrace sustainability consciousness and practices, build skills for the green economy and develop innovative solutions to create a greener and lasting future for generations to come. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Clarifications, please. Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin: Thank you, Chairman. I thank Minister Grace Fu for giving the update on the progress of the SG Eco Fund. I would like to ask and clarify what environmental and community outcomes are tracked as part of the Fund to ensure the effectiveness of the Fund and that these are mapped towards the Singapore Green Plan.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I thank the Member for that question. The Eco Fund is actually designed to allow very broad-based participation and it is made very inclusive for different types of groups. Individuals, businesses, community, grassroots organisations or charities can participate. Actually, it allows groups to participate in a wide area of interests. It stretches across all the five pillars of the Singapore Green Plan. The key indication that we are looking for in all these groups is whether they are able to mobilise the community around them. That is the key that we are looking for.
The Chairman: Mr Sakitandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Chairman, I would like to thank the Senior Minister and the Ministers for their very detailed answers to some of our cuts. I have two clarifications.
My first clarification is with regard to the risk-weighted assets question that I asked in my cut. With the efforts to incentivise carbon credits and the ecosystem, may I ask Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Gan Kim Yong whether the efforts to incentivise by introducing risk-weighted assets are a bit lower for FIs, for example, to hold on to carbon credits? As of now, I think carbon credits are regarded as a high risk and the weights in the risk-weighted asset are quite high. That is my first question.
For my second clarification, I would like to first thank Minister for Transport S Iswaran for sharing that the cut-off for EV cars for COE Cat A has been increased to 110 kilowatts, thus benefiting 10 cars. But my question is with regard to my cut about the taxes – road tax for EVs. Can the Minister share a bit more how we can enhance this incentivisation of the rebate structure for EV cars on the road tax front? And the other one is on motorcars – what monitoring developments and assessments will be needed to ensure that earlier adoption incentive for electric motorcycles can be done earlier than later?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for the question. In fact, banks do have exposure to carbon credits, for example, from trading in carbon credits arising from a market intermediary. Banks, therefore, can be exposed to the risk of losses arising from market movements in the price of carbon credits. Under the MAS' bank capital framework, banks' exposure to carbon credits are treated similarly as exposures to commodities. These attract a risk-weight of 187.5%. The risk-weight is agreed internationally in the capital standards promulgated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and has been calibrated very carefully based on demonstrated riskiness of the commodities and carbon credits.
So, we will have to be very careful in adjusting the risk-weighting for some of these assets because it may inadvertently expose the banks and financial institutions to unacceptable risks. We will continue to work with the financial institutions to see how we can better quantify the risks so that we can manage risk-weighting better.
Mr S Iswaran: Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for his questions. If I may take the second one on electric motorcycles first.
As I have said earlier in my speech, the technology is still evolving, different models, different types of solutions. So, we are tracking this very closely and we will make an assessment of the need to put in place any specific measures that might facilitate earlier or quicker adoption of such e-motorcycles.
The Member's first question was around incentives for electric cars and, in particular, the road tax angle. So, let me address this in three parts.
First, road tax. As the Member would be aware, last year, we made a series of changes to the road tax treatment of EVs. As a result of that, the road tax payable by mass- to mid-market EVs is, generally, in line with their ICE equivalents. I think that does not seem to be an impediment per se, but we will continue to monitor this and see if there is a need for further tweaks.
Second, we have also introduced the upfront ownership cost adjustments through the EV Early Adoption Incentive which, when combined with the Vehicle Emission Scheme (VES), can result in a reduction of up to $45,000 in the upfront cost, depending on the OMV of the car. So, I think that is quite substantial.
So, when we put these together with the recurrent costs – and the likely savings in recurrent costs of running an EV, because the maintenance tends to be less costly and so on – we think that, on balance, the economics works in favour of EV adoption or, at least, not against it. But we will continue to monitor this because this is an evolving space.
But if I may make a final point, Mr Chairman, I think it is important to bear in mind that EVs are, first and foremost, vehicles; hence, \"V\"s. And that means our policies on car ownership, usage and, indeed, the emphasis on a car-lite strategy and greater use of public transport – those must remain as important principles that guide our larger transport policies. So, we want to encourage the adoption of EVs in the context of our larger green transition, but we also want to ensure that, where we can and where it is also within the ken of our people, greater transition to the use of public transport and less carbon-emitting modes of transportation.
The Chairman: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Chairman, I would like to seek two clarifications from Minister Gan Kim Yong.
The first one is on the projects of the sustainable Jurong Island project because, currently, most of all the projects and the carbon emissions are based on disclosures by the industry or the companies. I would like to understand from the Minister how we would be tracking these so that we can validate the carbon emissions that they said have been reduced over time. That is the first question.
The second question is with regard to the new technologies that we are going to bring across, whether on Jurong Island or in Singapore, how will we be doing this sandbox of the new pilots? Could the Minister elaborate further on how this would be possible so that people with good proposals would put them up?
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Thank you. In fact, I mentioned this in my speech, that as we embark on projects on reducing our carbon emission as well as new projects like carbon capture and so on, it is very important for us to develop our capability in tracking and verification in auditing some of these carbon reductions that they claim. In time to come, we will work with the various industries to set standards and work out a system where we can verify the actual carbon emission and the carbon savings that they have achieved. So, it is something that we will continue to work with the industry on and to develop the standards for that.
Miss Cheryl Chan also asked about how we embark on sandbox projects. EDB, ESG and A*STAR are working very closely with industries and looking at the various new technologies, new solutions. We welcome industries, companies or researchers who are interested in the respective areas of green projects to discuss with us. For the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), it would be easier for them to approach ESG to talk about potential projects and the various schemes that will be available that they can tap on to embark on these projects. And for the larger projects, like CCUS and so on, they can talk to EDB as well as A*STAR, which has a centre which I mentioned that they have set up with regard to carbon utilisation and technology.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister for sharing that we will be doing some consultations when it comes to net-zero emissions. Could I ask that we consult with the NGOs and activists sooner rather than later because they have shared with me that they were consulted rather late when it came to the carbon tax increase?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Yes, of course.
The Chairman: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San: Mr Chairman, I have two questions. The first one is for the Senior Minister. The Senior Minister mentioned that about 5,000 companies now have given their commitment towards the decarbonisation solution. I would like to know how many out of these 5,000 are actually present in Singapore and what kind of contribution would they be able to help us in our decarbonisation efforts locally.
On the second question, the Senior Minister and Minister Gan Kim Yong also shared about some of these new and nascent technologies, such as carbon capture and hydrogen, that we are now studying to open up our own technologies for future renewable energies. So, I would like to understand more about do we have any plans to devote more of our resources, our Budget, to investments in such energy, new nascent energy and technologies. Some of these facilities will require also large amounts of land to build them. Do we have plans to adjust our land use plans to accommodate such facilities?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: On the first question, I do not have a count of how many of the 5,000 which have committed to net-zero in COP26 are actually in Singapore. But we do know that there are many companies in Singapore – international companies and major ones.
Minister Gan Kim Yong has given the example of Shell, which is a major E&C company, which has made a commitment to go to net-zero by 2050 – Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3. They have been long-time residents here in Singapore, contributing greatly to our economy and we will partner them. A number of other companies – ExxonMobil, for example, has committed to going net-zero in its operations by 2050. They are very interested in CCU as a technology.
Both companies are very interested in developing Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) and other forms. These provide very good partnerships for us. There are other important companies in Singapore like Neste, which is a major producer of biodiesel. In fact, it is the biggest producer. We have one of the biggest plants in the world, if not the biggest plant in the world. And they have expressed an interest in expanding their range of products here in Singapore. So, there are a number of useful opportunities. Minister Gan Kim Yong may want to add to that.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: I mentioned this in my remarks earlier on that we have devoted quite a lot of resources into the development of technology and R&D. For example, I mentioned that, last year, we awarded $55 million of R&D projects under the Low-carbon Energy Research Funding Initiative to pursue R&D in low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen. We are also consolidating the various institutions under A*STAR so that we can create greater synergy among these research efforts to focus on investment in the development of these technologies.
But I must add that many of these technologies are still very nascent and they are in the developmental stage. We will need to continue to remain nimble and monitor their development, keep pace with their development not only in Singapore but globally, and explore collaboration with international institutions, research institutions, so that we are able to keep tabs on the latest development in the technology and seek collaboration in developing some of these capabilities.
I also agree with the Member that it is important for us to also invest in building capability among our people, as well as I have also mentioned about training and upgrading. Minister Chan Chun Sing talked about education and how we equip our people to be able to invest their resources into R&D and also to capitalise on the employment opportunities that will be brought about by some of these emerging technologies.
The Chairman: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har: Thank you, Chairman. I have one clarification for Minister Gan Kim Yong. My question relates to the new Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS-Green) to support local firms with a range of financing needs. As I said, despite the generous Government risk-sharing at 70%, the industry's feedback, mainly coming from the SMEs, is that the interest rate and loan terms offered by the participating financial institutions are actually not much different from commercial loans. So, I would like to ask the Minister if ESG would look into the feedback from the industry for FIs to look into more favourable terms for the EFS-Green to spur adoption. This is especially if the Government is risk sharing at 70%.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The short answer is yes, we will take in the feedback from industries and to continue to refine our various schemes, including EFS-Green, so that they are relevant and are able to help the industries in embarking on this sustainability journey. But we also have to bear in mind that we have to also ensure that these schemes and these projects make sense and are viable, so that we have a sustainable outcome for the sustainable projects.
The Chairman: Any more clarifications? Happy to take clarifications. No? Okay. Mr Louis Ng, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, our words in this House matter, so do our deeds. Let me start by thanking Members for their passionate speeches for our planet, for sustainability and for the health and livelihood of our people, and for Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's favourite topic of hawker culture. I also thank the Government for its strong, concrete and very significant steps forward in tackling climate change, in ensuring that we live and breathe sustainability and that we have fresh air to breathe – my most favourite and Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's second favourite topic of second-hand smoke.
But as some of you might realise, many of us are wearing green in this House today. In fact, it is the first time I am not wearing my white shirt in this House. And I should thank Speaker, the Chairman, for also greening Parliament, for turning up the heat during our debates in this Chamber, and, by that, I mean turning up the temperature in the air-conditioning and also phasing out the use of single-use plastic bottles. I thank him for all these steps in greening Parliament. But we are not just wearing green today; I am glad and, hand on heart, we are truly going green.
For that, I thank Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, Minister Grace Fu, Minister Desmond Lee, Minister Chan Chun Sing, Minister S Iswaran and Minister Gan Kim Yong for their strong leadership and commitment on this issue and all the other political officeholders from the different Ministries and Statutory Boards for all their hard work and dedication. And, with that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Chairman: So, amidst a 24oC setting, is the hon Member given leave to withdraw the amendment?
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,988,890,700 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $1,012,526,600 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 – Head T (Ministry of National Development)","subTitle":"Creating an inclusive and sustainable home","sectionType":"OS","content":"Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Estimates be reduced by $100\".
Sir, the majority of Singaporeans are residing in public housing and the affordability of public housing is ever more an important topic for us to emphasise on. This will be my focus for this speech.
The property market has been vibrant over the past two years amidst the pandemic, largely due to the delays in BTO construction and, hence, resulting in higher resale market housing prices.
While MND had all hands-on deck to better manage the delays in BTO construction through providing concessionary work passes for construction workers from neighbouring countries, to extending the duration of steel price protection to shield the construction companies from rising cost pressures, we were still unable to prevent the delay that is involved.
As I mentioned in my Budget speech, Singapore, as a small nation, we are very susceptible to supply chain disruptions and shocks. With more unseasonable weather occurring globally and unstable political situations, the likelihood of these supply chain disruptions would only continue to persist. Would MND be able to share the plans in place to build resilience in our construction ecosystem as we continue to be dependent on them as we develop this nation and manage the potential future disruptions?
Since the onset of hybrid working, many have realised that their existing homes may not be adequate to facilitate both working from home and for their children to continue home-based learning on certain school days. Some may look to upgrade and having more space or the younger members of the family may choose to have their own spaces as they look out because they want to have a private working space. This trend is further accelerated by COVID-19. Also, the trend may further pick up, as seen in some Western societies, whereby the young would leave their “nests” when they turn of age. How can we prepare for this sociological change that we are seeing in our society today?
At this point, I must commend MND for the timely intervention in the fast-heating property market in 2021. As we all know, it is a tight balance to let market forces operate on its own to sustain a property market but, at the same time, introducing property cooling measures that do take some effect in the short term to prevent any possible housing bubbles. One of the schemes that was introduced is the Prime Local Public Housing (PLH) scheme, and that is not so much about the housing bubble but to manage the evolving housing needs and trends that we are seeing in our country. But very often, we forget that, with limited land available, the affordability of public housing does hinge upon forward planning of land usage and allocation of land in Singapore. We need to ensure that we have a delicate balance in the many needs from residential, commercial, leisure and environmental sectors.
In last year’s COS, MND announced the commencement of the public engagement exercise for the Long-Term Plan Review (LTPR). I personally attended some and am heartened to see the active participation of Singaporeans in envisioning, together with our land planners, on how they would like the future Singapore to be. I am encouraged at how our citizens have reflected the needs of incorporating natural and environmentally sustainable solutions in addressing housing needs moving forward. But at the same time, they also acknowledged that, sometimes, trade-offs are inevitable. May I ask the Minister on the current progress of this public engagement exercise and what are the next steps to involve more citizens in shaping our future land use together?
As the LTPR is more strategic in nature and with the plans materialising only in the decades ahead, can the Minister shed some light on whether there are plans to expand the PLH scheme to beyond the core central regions? During my walkabouts and house visits, residents have expressed reasons why some choose to purchase public housing outside of the core central regions and they do prefer to have this in actually the mature estates. I understand there could be some challenges because the mature estates are quite highly built by today. But their reasons do range from convenience of facilities in the mature housing estates to the ability to stay closer to their parents who can assist with caregiving for their young children and some also want to do the same for their elderly parents. Would there be a possibility for the PLH scheme to be extended to popular mature estates? With headlines last year heralding that our public housing in mature estates is being sold at record-breaking prices, it does not help that some young working adults do desire their own independence but yet still would like to live near their parents for mutual support.
Sir, public housing is a necessity for many individuals and with the young families that we are looking at. As we pride ourselves for having one of the highest home ownerships around the world, we must continually find ways to enable this to remain affordable for the generations to come.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): The use of the word \"lottery\" to refer to the allocation of HDB flats in the online domain dates to as far back as 2003. The term \"lottery effect\" started coming into widespread use in 2015, after flats at The Pinnacle@Duxton reached their Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). This lottery effect was explicitly commented on by Minister Lawrence Wong in 2016 when he was asked about it while he was the National Development Minister. He talked about possible measures to curb this effect and the PLH scheme was finally launched in 2021 with the project at Rochor. The second PLH project was launched on 17 February, that is, last month. The PLH scheme continues to raise many questions. The first question is: how was the subsidy clawback determined for Rochor and the Kallang-Whampoa developments? How did the Government arrive at the figure of 6%?
The second related question is what is the purpose of the clawback? Is it to avoid high prices for PLH flats, or is it to lower the lottery winnings of PLH flat owners? If it is to avoid high price rises, that may not be the result of the subsidy clawback. Six percent is likely to be included in a future sale price after the MOP, with a very long 89 years left on the lease. Buyers and sellers are likely to simply add the 6% into their overall calculations. The unintended effect could be that prices are driven up even higher than they otherwise would be. The higher the clawback, the higher the prices may be driven up.
The third question concerning the PLH scheme is: how does the HDB determine which development would be considered as being in a prime location? This is not merely being asked to satisfy curiosity. If the Minister makes known the criteria, then economists, urban planners and other experts may study the criteria and give feedback to the Government on their validity or otherwise.
And the fourth question is: would the PLH scheme further drive up the prices of developments and resale flats close to PLH estates? The scheme does not admit of gradual differences between PLH projects and non-PLH projects. The distinction is all or nothing. Has the Government done calculations or made an assessment of the likely effects on the prices of non-PLH flats in close proximity to PLH projects? If so, I ask the Minister to share the calculations with this House.
These questions need answers, because it is important that the perceived solutions to problems do not create new problems themselves. Ameliorating the lottery effect should not be a gamble.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Chairman, there are two main issues regarding the PLH model which I would like to address. The first is that windfall gains or the so-called \"lottery effect\" from the PLH scheme is inadequately addressed.
When a PLH flat is sold on the open market for the first time, owners will have to pay 6% of the higher of resale or valuation, as a subsidy clawback. However, my view is that the obvious outcome of this is that 6% will simply be factored into the asking price of the flats in the future – \"priced in\", in market lingo.
And if we are to use the example of The Pinnacle@Duxton, which frequently transacts for over a million dollars, this 6% will be less significant than the windfall gains the first-time seller of the PLH flat would stand to make. Furthermore, having a 10-year MOP may reduce the number of property speculators, but it does not go far enough in reducing the lottery effect and merely kicks the can down the road.
Chairman, rather than having these onerous mechanisms, which distort the market, a simpler and more equitable solution, especially from the perspective of those who may not have the good fortune to buy into the new BTO PLH flats, who far outnumber the lucky few who managed to, is to reduce the quantum of subsidy given at the onset and provide higher subsidies for resale flat buyers who perhaps need them more.
Reduced subsidies at the onset better tackles the issue of windfall profits and the perception of fairness to the broader Singapore population, while giving less room for market distortion. This is especially so when considering that there are already many HDB flats today located in various prime locations that are transacting at very steep market values and, hence, generating much windfall profits – a record 261 million-dollar transactions in 2021, based on The Straits Times article in January, for example.
Arguably, the widest subset of such HDB resale flats would have very high market values and would require significant additional subsidies to keep such flats affordable. Their need for additional subsidies is much more so than the still limited new launches of PLH flats. And for many Singaporeans, the resale market is the only available housing option if they remain unsuccessful in the BTO lottery.
The second issue is that singles are not being allowed to buy PLH flats even on the resale market. One of the most baffling aspects of the PLH model is its discrimination against singles, whereby singles are not allowed to buy PLH flats even on the resale market. As it stands, singles are not allowed to be sole owners of large BTO flats in mature estates and can only buy resale non-PLH flats if they are aged 35 and above.
Chairman, if there is no coherent reason why MND should impose additional restrictions on singles for PLH flats in the resale market, the message that this sends is that the needs, aspirations and sacrifices of singles are less valued, despite the Minister's claim that MND is not taking a step backward in this regard, as it would have the perception of doing so.
While the PLH model is new and will need to be reviewed over time, I had asked specifically in January this year if singles would, eventually, be allowed to be sole owners of new or resale PLH flats and, if this were to happen one day, what are the key considerations before these are lifted. Minister Desmond Lee stated in January that the PLH model is designed with the objective of being inclusive for Singaporeans, and I trust that singles should be considered Singaporeans as well.
The Chairman\t: Mr Louis Ng, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank HDB for the change in our policies that now allow single unwed parents to rent and purchase HDB flats more easily. This has provided a lifeline for many of them. But we can do more and help reduce the stress and uncertainty for single unweds who already feel that they are at the end of the road at times.
I understand that single unwed parents can only get their rental flat after the child is born. Assurance of having a roof over one’s head is as important as the roof. Single unweds need a clear timeline for their applications to be completed so they have the assurance and can plan for the future.
Most of us here would know the chaos of settling into a new home. Let us not forget that single unweds have to do so alone while caring for a newborn and with a median salary of only $600 a month.
Can MND provide a timeline for single unweds to obtain housing once they apply for it and also allow housing to be allocated to them by the third trimester of their pregnancy, so that they can welcome their newborn into their home from the day the baby is born?
A survey by Singapore’s Breastfeeding Mothers’ Support Group found that the top reason for stopping breastfeeding was the challenges of expressing milk at work. One thing working mothers say they need the most is a lactation room. Currently, buildings with a Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 10,000 square metres and above are required to only have at least one lactation room.
This is sorely inadequate. Expressing milk is not like using the toilet. It takes time. Unlike queuing up for a toilet which does not take that long, breastfeeding mothers are stuck when the only lactation room in the building is used.
Some have shared that, out of desperation, they sometimes express milk in the storeroom or in the toilet. One mother shared: \"HR arranged a janitor room which is so small and stuffy with no chair at all for me to express breast milk. It is so inconvenient as the janitor will need to go in and out all the time and I am always only able to express halfway through.\"
Why subject breastfeeding mothers to such an unhygienic and undignified situation? Will MND increase the minimum number of lactation rooms currently required and lower the GFA threshold?
Mr Pritam Singh: The HDB's web page lists seven separate priority schemes to book a flat under the Build-To-Order (BTO) or Sales of Balance Flat exercises. My purpose in speaking on them today is to ask whether HDB has explored whether the thresholds of these priority schemes remain fit for purpose, in light of current demand in relation to supply, and under what circumstances does HDB review and adjust them.
The Minister for National Development, in his written answer to several Parliamentary Questions in January this year, said that there were 5.5 applications for each BTO flat in 2021, after an even higher 5.8 applications per flat in 2020. While he explained that the numbers include repeat applications and that they increased partly due to the raising of the monthly income ceiling, he agreed that there is, currently, a strong demand for public housing.
Taking into consideration this mismatch, the Government should take a look at whether the allocation of HDB flats, including through the use of these schemes, is being done in the fairest and most optimum way possible. One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the priority schemes do not truly give priority. They do not ensure that applicants in the schemes get allocated flats over those not within the schemes. The schemes merely increase the probability of being allocated a flat and, thereby, give the appearance of being awarded priority.
For example, 30% of BTO flats are set aside for first-timer married couples with children. If more than 30% of applicants are first-timer married couples with children, then there will be a ballot. If a couple is unsuccessful, then they go into another balloting pool, but they could again be unsuccessful. It must have happened many times in the past that non-prioritised applicants, for example, second-time applicants got BTO flats while perhaps so-called prioritised applicants did not. Higher chances and multiple chances are just that – chances. It does not matter how many chances an applicant has over others. If they fail, it is still 0% success in getting a flat.
If they are really deserving groups, the Government should look into the possibility of giving such groups actual priority. The question, of course, is, who should get the priority and to what extent? Should it remain at 30% for married couples with children, or should this go up to a higher percentage and include even newly-married couples? I am minded to think so.
In order for Singaporeans to better prepare for their own BTO plans going forward, would the Government publish the number of applications under each priority scheme as a percentage for every HDB BTO exercise after the selection process is completed? This information would make it clearer to applicants and to market watchers what the current trends point to. This would also prompt proactive adjustment of the policy scheme thresholds to be more attuned to the market and population demands.
To conclude, the current system is reminiscent of a previous system in allocating Primary school places. Singaporeans were given priority in the sense that they got more ballot chances than Permanent Residents (PRs), but this meant that, many times, PRs would be successful while Singapore Citizens were not. This has now been changed, of course.
The principle is the same when it comes to BTOs. The Government should consider making priority an actuality, rather than, for some – a probability. From a national perspective, is there scope to increase priority for first-timer married couples with children and newly-married couples?
The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Chairman, can I take the two cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please do.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Thank you. Under the Joint Single Scheme (JSS), some applicants have cited difficulties in looking for a partner. Will HDB share an update about the JSS-Operator-Run (OR) pilot, where a flat mate will be assigned to the applicant?
HDB indicated that it will help to match the applicants based on their common factors, to increase the likelihood of successful matches and reduce potential friction. How successful has this endeavour been and what is the percentage of flats allocated for JSS-OR?
For those applying under the Family scheme, would HDB consider assigning larger rental flats to bigger families, such as those with more children, three-generation or extended family households? Bigger units will reduce the problem of overcrowding and are more conducive for work-from-home (WFH) arrangements and for the children to study at home.
I am also concerned that due to a lack of space, the children may choose to stay outside of the home more often. This may lead to higher chances of them becoming wayward and delinquent and being victims of crimes; similarly, for the youths and adults who might be sleeping rough outside. Their health and ability to study or work productively are also likely to be affected.
The average waiting time for a BTO project is four to five years, which is not a short period, especially for young couples with children on the way. Many applicants have to stay with parents or other family members in the meantime. This is a particularly challenging arrangement, with more people working from home these days.
Will HDB provide more flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) and consider including unsold sale of balance flats, surrendered flats and confiscated flats under BPHS? Also, if HDB does not have sufficient units for PPHS, would HDB consider giving more grants to first-time owners for the purchase of resale flats, especially young families or singles?
This is in view of the higher prices of resale flats in recent transactions. In particular, the bigger grants will be helpful to young couples desperate to find a resale flat to accommodate their growing families.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): There are many residents who have approached me to request assistance in appealing to HDB for subsidised rental housing. Some have had to sell their flats after a divorce, or they have to move out of their current homes due to family issues. Most cannot afford to buy flats and face being homeless.
The Minister said previously that the overall stock of rental flats is sufficient to meet demand. Unfortunately, problems remain. First, some residents exceed the Public Rental Scheme income threshold, but do not earn enough to afford to rent in the open market. Others may be single unwed parents who do not qualify for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS).
Second, applicants who qualify for public rental housing may still have to wait between three and eight months before they can collect their keys. Many need a place to stay urgently as they do not have family or friends who can take them in.
Could the Minister share, since 2020, the number of applications HDB receives for rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme, the Interim Rental Housing Link (IRH) scheme and the PPHS? How many approvals were granted under each scheme and what were the main reasons for approvals or rejections under these schemes?
I urge HDB to increase the number of flats under the IRH scheme. HDB could offer tiered rental rates that are higher than the Public Rental Scheme rates, but lower than the open market prices. This will help many families and individuals that fail the strict means test of the current rental schemes, but are not earning enough to rent in the open market and need housing urgently, to avoid being left homeless.
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, can I take the two cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: May I ask the Minister how many interim rental flats are there available to help first-timers, pending the completion of their BTO flats? Will there be more of such flats reserved to support first-timers and help them to settle down early? Would the Ministry consider giving priority to those with children or with children on the way?
How many households formerly living in rental flats have been helped successfully to own their flats in the last three years? Will the Ministry be reviewing its existing scheme further to help encourage tenants to own their flats?
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: As we think about our new way forward, I find it timely to bring up the Adjournment Motion that I moved last November on supporting diverse aspirations through rental housing. If anything, I am glad that my views on how this policy will strengthen communities, as opposed to weakening them, have sparked conversations within and beyond this House from online discussions to forums and news articles.
Meanwhile, however, many of my residents continue to struggle with seeking their temporary home under the existing rental schemes, be it the family which applied for PPHS, only to be unsuccessful for five consecutive times, or the family which meets the stringent eligibility criteria and was even successful in applying for a public rental flat, only to be told that there are many applicants on the waiting list and of the long wait times.
Hence, I would like to humbly request once again that the Government significantly increase the stock of rental flats across flat sizes, thereby creating a viable and expanded public rental scheme with an emphasis on ensuring that our lower- to middle-income households' needs are well looked after.
Perhaps, we could also explore expanding our notion of what it means to have homeownership via a rent-to-buy model.
This scheme aims to ease the transition from renting to buying a home by providing subsidised rent. This is not a new idea and, in fact, has been adopted in several parts of the world, such as the Rent to Own scheme in Wales or the Rent to Buy scheme in the UK.
If home ownership is a cornerstone of this Government's housing policy, enabling residents the option to buy the same house after renting it for a certain number of years does seem like a viable solution. A solution might be for HDB to build more flats and allocate a portion of them as rent-to-buy units, instead of just limiting all rental flats to 1- or 2-room flats.
This has the potential of concurrently addressing two systemic socioeconomic concerns of eliminating the stigma of residents living in rental flats and reducing the burden on the next generation of Singaporeans who could use their freed-up finances on housing to explore more daring career choices and/or entrepreneurial pursuits.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, for the past few years, I have been asking HDB to review the policy of not allowing singles to rent flats on their own. This is especially so for elderly singles, some of whom are divorcees or estranged from their spouse or children. For this group of people, due to their age and behaviour, they just cannot get along with another person in the same rental flat.
I have come across cases where HDB pairs two total strangers to rent a 1-room flat. However, they are not able to get along with each other due to different habits, different hygiene practices or medical conditions. As a result, sometimes, they quarrel with each other. Sometimes, one of them will move out and sleep at the void deck to avoid further quarrels.
Last December, HDB launched the JSS-OR pilot whereby an operator, which is a social service agency, will try to pair up single applicants for rental flats. It has been four months since. May I ask MND for an update on this Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run Pilot?
How many tenants have been successfully paired? What is the feedback on the scheme so far? Were they able to stay with each other without quarrels? What if a quarrel or dispute should break out between the two of them? What if one of the applicants had an unacceptable behavioural issue, like hoarding? Would the operator try to mediate a settlement of the dispute or would the operator try to pair them with another single applicant?
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, the prices of resale HDB flats have gone up quite a bit recently. What measures are available to assist Singaporeans who are ineligible for BTO flats and executive condominiums (ECs) due to their higher household incomes but who still find resale flats and private properties not so affordable? Would HDB consider allowing Singaporeans whose earnings exceed the household income ceiling to purchase BTOs and ECs at a non-subsidised or tiered subsidised rates?
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Chairman, long waiting times for BTO flats have been a persistent concern among Singaporeans with current average waiting times of around four to five years and, in some cases, six to seven years, where projects have been delayed by COVID-19. Such long waiting times are not just an inconvenience but seriously affect Singaporeans' life plans, such as causing young couples to delay starting a family.
The BTO demand and supply situation is made even more challenging by rising demands for BTO flats. As the Minister recognised in January this year, a strong demand for flats has been driven by factors, including rising marriage and family formation rates, smaller household sizes and higher income ceiling, allowing more households to qualify.
In view of these realities, it is an apt time for the Government to review and improve its approach towards the supply of HDB flats in order to keep waiting times in check.
We recognise that large housing development projects simply take at least three to four years to complete. Therefore, in order to achieve shorter average waiting times of, say, two to three years, Singaporeans must be allowed to apply for new flats at a point in time much closer to project completion and delivery.
This basic idea is not new and, indeed, MND confirmed that, where possible, HDB has, since 2011, already been commencing some BTO projects ahead of demand or actual bookings. In 2017, the Government specifically introduced a plan to offer BTO flats with shorter waiting periods of two to three years, such as approximately 3,000 flats launched in 2018 with a waiting time of 2.5 years. More recently, HDB also announced BTO flats with waiting times of two to three years, such as in Tenggah and Yishun.
Unfortunately, despite these apparent relaxations of the BTO system, average BTO wait times are still stubbornly long, suggesting that HDB's efforts, though welcomed, do not go far enough.
A potential approach would be to expand on HDB's existing initiatives and create two distinct application tracks for BTO flats: first, the current system with a four- to five-year wait; and second, some kind of BTO express lane for projects already one to two years into construction, resulting in a much shorter waiting time of two to three years.
In order to maintain parity between the two tracks and to mitigate the risk of vacant flats, the express lane option should perhaps offer applicants less specificity in their preferences. For example, an applicant may only specify a unit type in the ranking of different floors of the zones.
For this to work, there may need to be a larger percentage of HDB stock being contracted every year ahead of demand. For instance, there could be a certain baseline of HDB supply, say 15% to 30% of the annual new stock, that is continually constructed every year, regardless of prevailing BTO demand.
To be clear, this is not a proposal to revert to the pre-BTO era with the registration for flats system. We saw an oversupply of flats in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis. However, the proposal does involve an acceptance of some risk of excess supply if there were to be a severe demand shock.
That being said, I strongly believe that such a risk is low and, in any event, worth taking, given the stubborn problem of long BTO wait times plaguing us today. It is worth pointing out that, since 2010, BTO flats have consistently been multiple times oversubscribed, with only one exercise where the ratio specific to that of 2-room Flexi Flats was close to one time.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Chairman, there were HDB flats built in advance in the past and allocated successfully. Will the Ministry consider building more such flats in the new towns ahead of their launches to support couples to get married and start their families without delay? I hope that more BTOs could be built in the Sengkang and Punggol new towns.
Mr Pritam Singh: A single Singaporean has to be above 35 years of age to purchase a resale public housing flat or to apply for a Build-to-Order 2-room Flexi Flat. The Workers' Party's position is that the eligibility age for singles to buy a flat should be lowered to the age of 28.
According to the latest Government census, the proportion of singles has risen across age groups. The increase was most significant for those between 25 and 34 years of age. Between 2010 and 2020, the proportion of singles among residents aged 25 to 29 rose from 74.6% to 81.6% for males and from 54% to 69% for females. Similarly, the proportion of singles among those aged 30 to 34 rose to 41.9% for males and 32.8% for females.
In 2018, then Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong stated in Parliament that as marriage rates among singles under 35 was still high, the age of 35 remained a valid number. Does the Government intend to move from 35 as the magic number?
There is a prevailing orthodoxy that Singaporeans should be married by 35 and that offering flats to those of a younger age could somehow discourage marriage. Alternately, there may be an assumption that offering flats to those younger than 35 would jeopardise the value of filial piety.
The National Youth Council's 2021 publication on the state of youths in Singapore is helpful in this regard. The publication reports the results of the National Youth Survey 2019 covering those between 15 and 34 years of age. Those surveyed were asked: how important are the following aspirations or life goals in your life? They were given 19 possible choices to rank from not important at all to very important.
The top choice selected by our youths was to maintain strong family relationships while the second choice was \"to have a place of my own\". Both choices were ranked somewhat important or very important by at least 95% of the respondents.
To our youths, filial piety and having one's own home are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are both almost equally important values.
To be clear, strong family relationships did not automatically mean marriage or having children to those surveyed because those were the 10th and 11th choices respectively.
One assumption we should question is that offering flats to 28-year-olds would discourage genuine interest in long-term marriage. Is it not possible that some people who want to be married may be discouraged from tying the knot early because they prefer to have financial security before getting hitched and having children? If a single person is allowed to purchase HDB property, whether BTO or resale, earlier, this may well open new prospects to, concomitantly, move on to marriage and parenthood.
In addition, the prospect of purchasing a flat at 28 years of age, down from 35, would leave more scope for the growth of one's CPF balances for peace of mind and for retirement adequacy.
We must ask whether it is reasonable to continue disallowing singles from purchasing a BTO or resale flat once they are financially able to do so before 35. The Government should look into rolling out more housing choices for singles to purchase public housing at the younger age of 28 rather than 35 currently.
The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Chairman, can I take the two cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong: According to HDB, most new flat buyers use less than 25% of their monthly household income to service their monthly instalments for a 25-year loan. This is viable, provided that the buyers are able to keep their jobs and maintain uninterrupted employment.
I spoke about this during the debate on the President's Address in September 2020. The employment situation today is less favourable for holding long mortgage tenures, compared to the past when people used to hold jobs for life. Going forward, people will change jobs more frequently and quite a number are making a living from the gig economy. This new job trend and the higher macroeconomic risk backdrop should be captured in the analysis of the affordability of HDB flats.
With lower employment security and reduced market predictability, affordability of HDB flat prices should be measured based on a tenure that is less than 25 years. HDB flat prices should, therefore, be priced lower to adequately reflect this new normal. This would also provide flexibility to structure lower instalment payments by stretching the loan tenure should financial circumstances of the buyer change over time.
Alternatively, HDB should find ways to increase affordability, such as giving more grants, to help first-time owners with their BTO flats, especially those from the lower-income group. HDB should continue to tap on technology and improve building techniques to keep the cost of construction of BTO flats low, as it confronts rising labour and material costs.
Would the Ministry share what measures HDB is implementing to improve affordability of its BTO flats?
Some owners have difficulty selling their flats due to the Ethnic Integration Policy. They are mostly from the minority ethnic groups. A few owners had complained that they could not even get a single offer to negotiate upon. This situation causes hardship for families who need to move for personal reasons, such as those that need to be nearer other family members who can be caregivers, or who need money for retirement or family emergencies and, hence, are downgrading.
Will HDB consider helping them out and facilitate such sales by providing a grant or subsidy to a buyer from the eligible minority group? This will help to plug the difference between the sellers' asking price and what the eligible buyer can afford. This grant can be piloted in areas where there are more mismatches and where the gaps are more significant. Alternatively, HDB can act as a buyer of last resort for such flats and purchase the flats from the sellers.
These flats can then be leased to singles or families in the eligible minority ethnic groups under the parenthood provisional housing scheme or public rental scheme. Similarly, BTO and sale of balance flats, which have been reserved for certain ethnic groups under the EIP and which have remained unsold for an extended period of time can be included under PPHS and the public rental scheme.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, like Mr Chong Kee Hiong who spoke before me, for the past two years, I have received several appeals from residents of the minority race living in an HDB estate in my constituency asking for waiver of the EIP quota. Some of them wanted to sell and right-size their flat because their children have moved out. Some wanted to sell their flat because they needed a larger flat due to increased family members. However, due to EIP, they are unable to sell their flat to a Chinese family.
A few of them wrote to me to say that they have advertised for several months without receiving a single offer from someone of the minority race. Some of the potential buyers for their flat know of the policy and they may depress the prices because they know that there is limited demand for these flats due to the restriction.
Sir, I understand fully the need for EIP and the need to ensure that we do not have racial enclaves in our heartlands. However, it seems unfair that existing minority sellers of the flat have to carry the burden of having to accept a lower price for their flat due to a national policy.
Like Mr Chong Kee Hiong before me, I am asking HDB if it could review the possibility of allowing some form of compensation to the minority sellers of the flats based on HDB's independent valuation of the flat. This is especially so if he has not been able to sell the flat for several months due to EIP.
Mr Pritam Singh: In September last year, I asked the Minister for National Development a written Parliamentary Question for data on each of the respective five-yearly intervals from December 1990 to December 2020 to detail, amongst other things, the names of the EIP-affected neighbourhoods where at least one EIP limit was reached and the total number of HDB units in each of these aforesaid neighbourhoods. The Ministry only provided data for 1990 and 2020, even though it was able to provide information at five-yearly intervals for the EIP-related question earlier. Why was it unable to provide the information as requested?
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, the fact that Singaporeans of various races live and interact with one another in harmony differentiates us from many other countries. Similar to three other Members who have shared on the EIP, the unintended economic consequences of EIP have been repeated frequently, including in this House. Minorities sometimes face or perceive difficulties in selling their HDB flats at their desired price, especially where they are prevented from selling to Chinese buyers who make up a large proportion of the market. I have also heard the same from my Malay and Indian residents.
Is there room for us to refine EIP so that we do not economically disadvantage our minority residents while ensuring that we do not form significant ethnic enclaves? As we move to unite larger neighbourhoods with community hubs like Our Tampines Hub and Kampung Admiralty, is it possible to loosen the block-by-block quota and enforce a second-level \"cluster\" or \"district\" quota, while still maintaining the broad principles in EIP?
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Chairman, peace and quiet are two of the most important characteristics of a better living environment. All residents, whether they are staying in HDB or private properties, should have the right to peace and quiet in order to catch up on their rest and sleep.
Unfortunately, for some beleaguered residents of HDB blocks with sky or roof gardens, they have not been able to enjoy this basic right for years. We all recognise that such public housing projects are considered to be representative of the new-generation of public housing in Singapore, with a focus on community bonding, greenery and lifestyle. However, the sky gardens located at HDB blocks, while still public spaces, are unique, because of the very close proximity to residents' homes, which means that any noise or disturbances at the gardens will directly affect these residents, especially if they occur at night. The well-being of our residents is important, especially when the noise disturbances and disamenities have been going on for so many years.
Therefore, I would like to ask if there could be additional enforcement powers to allow the authorities to put a stop to the noise and disturbances taking place at the sky gardens so that affected residents can have peace of mind and a good night's sleep. We require more regular patrols by the authorities and agencies.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Safe Distance Enforcement Officers, the Police, MOM, NEA, HDB, the Town Councils, RC volunteers and residents for all their efforts in patrolling the sky gardens, tackling safe distance breaches, noise disturbances and disamenities over the years. Many residents have sent me emails to thank our volunteers and agencies. However, the current arrangement is not sustainable.
For the safety, security and well-being of my residents, I sincerely hope that MND would consider installing a gate which allows access only during the day and early evenings. This will greatly cut down on the requirements on manpower. As these sky gardens will increasingly be a common feature in future public housing developments, I appeal to the Ministry to reconsider installing a gate to such sky gardens as the longer-term solution.
The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim; not here. Ms Carrie Tan; not here. Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, construction costs have skyrocketed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The price of materials has shot up, wages have increased and the cost of bringing in foreign workers is also elevated. The construction industry's confidence has been shaken up late, resulting in shorter payment terms and demands for higher upfront payments.
Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that recent bid prices for town improvement projects, like the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, are up to 50% higher than pre-tender estimates. Yet, HDB's grants to Town Councils have not kept up with these price increases.
Some may suggest that Town Council's existing funds can be used to cover the cost increases. However, doing so would be unfair to the majority of residents as each project mainly benefits residents living in a particular precinct. It is also unfair for residents of those precincts if the new projects are pared down to meet the original budget.
I have three suggestions. First, can HDB temporarily increase its NRP grants to Town Councils to cover these short-term cost increases? Second, can HDB provide contractors and subcontractors for town improvement projects some price protection for raw materials, like steel and concrete – similar to that of HDB's BTO projects? This will better ensure residents receive comparable amenities, regardless of market conditions at the time of tendering. And third, can the Ministry explore more measures to restore confidence among construction firms, so as to ameliorate the need for onerous upfront payment terms? This could also help temper price increases across the industry.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Chairman, a fairer, greener, and more inclusive Singapore requires fairer, greener and more inclusive housing.
Fairer: while the EIP continues to be relevant, it remains a concern that it causes negative externalities to minority home owners who face difficulties in selling their flats as well as renters and home buyers who cannot get a flat close to their parents. How can the Minister address the rough edges of the policy?
Greener: buildings account for a large share of emissions. Can the Minister share how HDB is playing its part to move to greener buildings, both new builds and retrofits?
More inclusive: can the Minister update on the outcomes of the policy to integrate rental units with purchased units instead of dedicated rental blocks? What more can be done to facilitate the forming of support networks within the community for rental flat residents in these integrated blocks? Can the Minister also update on measures to enhance the HDB experience for the elderly and persons with disability?
The Chairman: Miss Rachel Ong, please take your two cuts together.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Thank you, Chairman. A citizen's contribution to the nation-building effort is not limited by their marital status. Singles and married citizens can both participate in the workforce and serve the community. It may be argued that singles could even expend more time at work and the community than those with family commitments. At the same time, while singles may not have to care for children, many provide essential care for ageing family members, be it physically, through financial support, or both.
My residents, who are single, have shared that in the bid to prioritise housing for families, they feel that the housing and home ownership policies are less equitable for singles. Singles can only purchase 2-room Government-subsidised BTO flats which cannot be in mature estates nor prime location public housing. This means that their flats are less easily sold in the market, with relatively lower-value appreciation over time than the bigger flats.
Such a housing policy impacts not only space allocation, but cumulative asset value over time for singles. With that said, how can HDB housing subsidies be made more equitable across both single and married Singapore Citizens who contribute to Singapore's nation-building efforts in their different ways?
Despite the cooling measures applied, resale flat prices have continued to climb with first-time home buyers competing with those who are looking for bigger spaces after selling their private condominium units. We have also seen an unprecedented number of million-dollar flats being sold this season. I believe that the mandate to keep our housing affordable to Singapore Citizens extends to all Government-built flats, not only BTOs.
Apart from the new flats under the Prime Land Housing model, are there plans for MND to regulate the prices of the HDB resale market to make housing more accessible to Singapore Citizens who do not qualify for the BTO market? An example is the non-citizen spouse scheme.
The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru; not here. Mr Xie Yao Quan; you may take your three cuts together.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Chairman, heartland shops are a precious part of our HDB estates. They provide convenience to residents by bringing various goods and services close to homes. They provide jobs and livelihoods in the community. Heartland shop proprietors are quite often also residents within the same estate and they hire assistants, roles quite often filled by residents who are caregivers or seniors, who need or value work flexibility and proximity to home.
And heartland shops provide a place for residents to meet one another, for ties to form, a focal point for each community. In short, heartland shops make our HDB estates not only places to live, but also work, play and bond. They make our HDB estates \"Home\".
Yet, many forces are disrupting the retail sector at large. And heartland shops, too, would need to keep abreast with changes, transform where they must, and indeed, look beyond the estate to capture new opportunities. To this end, how does MND plan to support heartland shops to thrive and remain a vibrant part of our HDB estates?
Chairman, in November 2021, MND announced a pilot heritage study for the Old Police Academy site, with a view to informing both future studies on other sites and the larger assessment and planning process, how we can continue to strengthen this, including the possibility of formalising a framework by which such heritage studies may be required. Could MND update on its plans to formalise such a framework to require heritage studies for certain sites?
Chairman, since MND and MOH launched their assisted living pilot, the Community Care Apartments last year, there has been a lot of interest by seniors – seniors who wish to right-size, live independently, with the right care support when needed, and in the company of fellow seniors. I have asked before in this House, and I would like to ask again, if MND plans to launch more of such Community Care Apartments? And would MND be minded to work with the private sector, to promote the development of private assisted living options?
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Chairman, many Singaporean seniors prefer to age-in-place. Our high housing density, in both the HDB and private estates, affords Singapore the chance to create excellent age-in-place conditions.
We can create a strong eco-system of well-integrated, affordable and high-quality private assisted-living and home-based healthcare services. This is an issue that many of my colleagues and I from PAP care deeply about. We do so because we believe that doing so will help our seniors and their caregivers. Doing so will minimise the cost associated with ageing.
To create this ecosystem, we must create a strong vision, build common physical infrastructure, provide a digitalised services platform and create a suitable financing framework, as well as to put in place effective regulations and standards.
Does MND have plans to guide or promote the development of private assisted living options for residents staying in both the HDB and private estates?
The Chairman: Ms Nadia Samdin. Please take your four cuts together.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Chairman. People aged 65 and older are projected to hit 47% of our population by 2050. Many seniors wish to right-size while retaining their independence. Single or widowed seniors, especially those with no children, often do not have anyone to turn to for housing advice and one bad decision could spiral into another. What efforts and safeguards are in place to ensure that seniors understand their various options and financial ability in considering housing options, prior to making a firm decision?
Recognising our nation’s changing demographics, last February, MND partnered HDB and MOH to launch the first Community Care Apartments in Bukit Batok. Last year, all 169 Community Care Apartment units were oversubscribed within one day. Given the high demand, how can these Community Care Apartments be complemented by programming on the ground? Given rising housing prices and competing uses for land, does MND have a framework in place to keep the price of these homes at an affordable level for our seniors?
Singapore’s Public Rental Scheme (PRS) is a key social safety net for households with no other housing options or family support. As of 2020, about 50,000 households lived in rental flats under the PRS. I note the recent announcement which shared that 4,500 households living in public rental flats moved on to buy their own homes over the past five years with the help of various HDB schemes and grants.
Many of these families aspire to move on to home ownership, especially those young families with working-age adults. However, this can be an uphill battle. For instance, some families have previously owned an HDB flat but fallen on hard times, such that HDB subsidies are less readily available. Others receive variable incomes in the gig economy, making it more difficult for them to access loans. How can we support them, too?
I would like to ask what criteria does MND use to preliminarily assess individuals to be ready to buy a flat, such that they can be supported by the home ownership support team. And for those who are unable to, what are the typical barriers which prevent them from doing so? During COVID-19, we saw an increasing number of PRS applicants who may not fall within the original policy intent but do have pressing needs. Given limited resources, does MND have plans to expand or evolve the options, criteria and objectives of the PRS to cater to a more diverse group of Singaporeans?
As Singapore continues to develop, we have seen how our heritage districts have evolved over the years. They are an important part of keeping our history and traditions alive and relevant today. But our local businesses in these districts have faced many challenges in the last few years. What plans does the Government have to reinvigorate the vibrancy of Kampong Glam and our other heritage districts after the pandemic shock to increase footfall?
Would the Government consider looking into best practices on tenant mix to ensure a seamless integration of our older tenants and newer stallholders in the area? What plans does the Government have to balance heritage and conservation against the risk of gentrification and how does the Government intend to involve all the local stakeholders?
Finally, last February, NParks launched an Ecological Profiling Exercise (EPE) in consultation with the nature community and academics. The EPE studies the ecological profile of green spaces in Singapore and understands how these spaces can boost ecological connectivity. One year on from its launch, what are EPE’s findings so far? How have findings from EPE shaped NParks’ internal nature conservation strategies and approaches to safeguarding our green spaces? May I also ask how have consultations with academics and the nature community supported these profiling efforts, and are there plans to further involve the community?
Prof Koh Lian Pin (Nominated Member): Chairman, it has been two years since MND announced its City in Nature vision. May we please have an update on the progress made on transforming Singapore into a City in Nature and how NParks will continue ramping up efforts on this front? What more can be done to inform and interest our people, especially the young, in conserving our biodiversity and nature?
The Chairman: Mr Henry Kwek. Please take both cuts together.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Chairman, COVID-19 has posed significant challenges to the construction industry over the last two years. The industry appreciates the tremendous support that MND has provided since the start of the pandemic.
With the Omicron variant, the construction industry continues to face challenges. Can MND provide an update on the help provided to the construction industry thus far, especially on the progress of replenishing the sector's foreign manpower, the availability of bank financing, especially for subcontractors, as well as MND's current assessment of where the sector is heading?
Can MND also share on how the Government can, together with the various built sector trade associations and chambers, continue to help our industry overcome the challenges from COVID-19?
COVID-19 has highlighted the pressing need to reduce our reliance on low-skilled foreign manpower. At the same time, digitisation and automation can significantly help us transform our industry.
For example, digitisation allows players to better coordinate and, therefore, increasing efficiency. The automation of construction techniques also promotes the use of technology on site, as well as the pre-fabrication and modularisation of construction methodologies. More importantly, digitisation and automation may create jobs that appeal to Singaporeans. Can MND share on the measures that the Government will take to build a more resilient and manpower-lean built sector, as well as to encourage further localisation of jobs in the sector?
Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Chairman, prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) is attractive as it has been assessed to improve building productivity by up to 40%, resulting in substantial onsite manpower and time savings. It is green and sustainable since it reduces construction material wastage and can incorporate green features, such as green concrete.
It is popular because it reduces all the disamenities of a construction environment, such as noise and dust. Since most of the installation works and related manpower are offsite, this also results in improved safety on the construction site. It costs about 10% more than conventional building methods, but is expected to come down in price as more projects use this method, which has been experienced in overseas markets.
I would like to ask the Minister, with higher labour costs and lower number of foreign workers, have the overall cost gaps been breached? Would MND provide an update on the status of PPVC adoption in all categories of construction, including for HDB projects?
The use of PPVC has been required for some residential, non-landed Government land sales sites since 2014. Why is it required only for these selected sites? Would MND consider requiring more builders to use PPVC and speed up its adoption? What are the constraints which are preventing wider adoption?
Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Chairman, buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions. This is significant. With technology and advancement, new buildings today can use green material and smarter designs to reduce emissions. But in a highly built‐up environment like Singapore, we have many mature estates with a high concentration of buildings that are decades old.
Many of these buildings are homes to our people. Therefore, how will the Government and BCA continue to support our transition into a low‐carbon built environment? What are our progress and quick wins so far? How can emissions in existing buildings be reduced without affecting homes, where precious memories are forged?
The quantum advancement in green technology and digitalisation of energy can allow us to move from reactive to predictive maintenance. These can reduce waste, save energy and enhance user experience. Over the long term, these can lead to cost savings for the public, too. Could the Government give an update on its plans to leverage smart technology and data to enhance the quality of living while preserving the tangible and intangible values of housing estates?
The Chairman: Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman; not here. Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Chairman, I return to the issue of lift upgrading for the six blocks of HDB flats in Hougang SMC where there are still certain units which do not have the same floor access to lifts and this is a very real issue affecting a number of my residents. We were told that there are about 150 such HDB blocks left in Singapore. At COS last year, the Minister replied to my cut and said that, for blocks where the costs are still too high, it will not be prudent to offer the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). He also said that while the Government continues to explore new technical methods to bring down LUP costs, the Government had also introduced the Lift Access Housing Grant of up to $30,000 in 2020, which is supposed to assist residents with urgent mobility or medical needs to move to another flat with direct lift access.
While this may provide an option, shifting can be a more complicated decision for many, more than one would imagine, especially if the residents have been living in the same flat for a considerable time. Some prefer to stay on, even if it meant carrying their elderly relative on their back, or together with the relative's wheelchair, down two flights of stairs. But a year on, residents in affected blocks have continued to speak to me of their frustration with no same floor lift access. Unsurprisingly, the Lift Access Housing Grant is no panacea to many of the residents who spoke to me. Many residents feel frustrated by HDB's explanation of the issue of costs, something which could have been avoided if HDB had tendered out lift upgrading projects consisting of these blocks with design issues together with the bulk of the HDB blocks with no design issue for LUP access to all residents in the blocks, as former Hougang Member of Parliament Png Eng Huat had raised in the House way back in 2014.
I would like to seek an update from the Minister on HDB's quests for new technical methods to bring down LUP costs for these affected blocks in Singapore. I also hope that HDB will work on this issue expeditiously to bring lift upgrading to all.
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 propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY – HEAD T (MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT)
(Creating an inclusive and sustainable home)
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Head T (cont) − (proc text)]
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Mdm Chairman, Singapore's facilities management sector has been challenged by manpower shortages, ageing facilities, the need to make existing and new buildings more sustainable and varying service standards. I understand that in the Facilities Management (FM) sector's transformation, the key areas identified are design for maintainability, procurement, smart FM and manpower development.
However, some businesses have cited the delay in adopting technologies due to the higher implementation cost and the immediate impact of workers' cost with the Progressive Wage Model.
Today, we are at the intersection of urbanisation, digitalisation and innovation. By not enabling smart facilities through technology, they will face even more challenges ahead by not knowing where to harness efficiencies using conventional FM methods. Take, for example, rainwater harvesting. There is enough technology in this space to allow for some upgrades through incorporating IOT solutions to better harness and understand the environment and know which part of the facilities to manage and be more effective in the waterflow.
Could the Minister share the steps taken to accelerate the transformation of the FM industry and encourage the adoption of new technologies?
Below are a few areas for consideration in the transformation.
First, use of data analytics to improve maintenance outcomes. Second, share best practices in design or retrofits that enable optimal building performance and sustainability. Third, focus on outcome-based contracts to achieve cost efficiency and improve the service delivery. Lastly, partner industry players to map technology solutions and invest in R&D for complex infrastructure environment analysis.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Madam, as I have done in the past decade and as I did at the last COS and the one before and the one before and I think the one before, I am speaking up again and asking that we allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats.
Minister Desmond Lee replied to me previously that MND does not intend to play a cat-and-mouse game on this issue. Indeed, let us stop chasing each other and let us focus on the facts.
Let me share the President of the Law Society, Mr Adrian Tan's thoughts on this. He calls this rule \"irrational and unfair\". He gave a breakdown on the four reasons HDB bans cats.
\"Reason 1: 'Cats are generally difficult to contain within the flat'. So are dogs, birds, mice and even humans. I rate this a bad reason.
Reason 2: 'Cats tend to shed fur'. So do dogs. Another bad reason.
Reason 3: 'Cats tend to defecate or urinate in public areas'. So do dogs. Bad reason.
Reason 4: 'Cats make caterwauling sounds'. Very rarely. And dogs bark, especially at strangers walking past a flat. Birds, especially parrots, make a lot of noise, too. Bad reason.
Verdict? All four reasons are terrible.\"
I encourage everyone to read Mr Tan's full post on this issue.
It is time that we progress on this issue and change our policy to accept what we already accept in reality – that HDB residents are allowed to keep cats, who can be removed if they are found to cause disamenities within the community.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: My residents in Bedok Reservoir and Hougang have given me feedback on the nuisance caused by pigeons, crows, mynahs and even quails around the housing estates.
The proliferation of the bird population is often a public hygiene concern and, in the case of crows, a safety issue, which worries residents. The Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) has been doing its part to combat this problem. The AHTC puts up banners to caution residents against bird feeding and works with residents to identify and report feeders. It advises food stall operators on proper food waste disposal methods and our conservancy workers regularly remove unattended food sources. The Town Council also conducts regular tree pruning and, as a last resort, pigeon culling.
Despite these efforts, the bird nuisance problem has persisted. NParks, occasionally, sets up crow traps but these are rather ineffective as crows are intelligent creatures and tend not to fall for these traps.
I believe this problem is not unique to AHTC. A national level effort by MND and its agencies may be needed to combat it. These may include more public education to discourage bird feeding, setting up CCTV monitoring and stepping up enforcement action against bird feeders.
It would be helpful if NParks could regularly share with Town Councils its research and recommendations on best practices for controlling the population of various bird species. It could step up efforts to trap and relocate birds in areas where they are causing a nuisance to the public. Together with the efforts of Town Councils, MND's stepped up involvement could help residents and our ardent friends to co-exist more peacefully in our urban environment.
The Chairman: Miss Cheryl Chan, take your two cuts together.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: The OneService App began as a one-stop platform for Singaporeans to provide feedback on municipal issues without having to go through hoops to figure out the appropriate agency to undertake the issue raised. Since 2015, it has, indeed, brought much operational efficiencies to both the Government agencies and Singaporeans alike. Anecdotal sharing suggests that many have found this app very helpful with ease of use and some having their feedback addressed in a timely manner. However, I have also received feedback that some cases have been closed or deemed resolved by the agency, but the action done did not exactly resolve the issue raised or it was not satisfactorily managed. One suggestion is for a summary report of the actions taken by all agencies to be provided to the complainant so that they can be actively involved in the matter's closure.
With the OneService App now evolving to include more features, such as the \"Help Neighbour\" and parking facilities, can the Municipal Services Office (MSO) share the impact of these new features on the user base? What has the adoption rate been like for these new features?
Can the Minister also share if there are any additional features that are still under consideration and yet to be implemented? How does MSO envisage the future of the OneService App?
Since the start of the pandemic, many people have experienced working from home. Even as the borders are gradually opened up and corporations transition to hybrid work, this trend of hybrid working is likely to stay post-pandemic.
While some relish the prospect of spending more time with their loved ones, there are also more media reports and ground feedback on neighbourly disputes as a result of spending more time at home.
In cases where neighbours are unable to resolve their differences, HDB refers cases to the Community Mediation Centre (CMC). And since 2014, over 70% of cases are resolved through CMC. But there is also difficulty underlying mediation, as when the relationship is acrimonious, this option may be futile. For the longstanding and intractable cases, what else can be done if the cases taken through the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRTs) still remained inconclusive? I have had such case feedback, some of which occur in private condominiums where the MCST and the by-laws are unable to assist.
Will MSO consider having other pilot schemes, like Project Restore, that is run by social service agency, the Lutheran Community Care Services (LCCS). LCCS actually gets parties to come together and talk and they create what they call a \"peace-making circle\". The parties can discuss issues objectively and without feeling being judged. So, besides mediation, what further assistance can MSO provide to address such disamenities?
And since the launch of the \"Help Neighbour\" function in June 2021, can MSO update the number of cases that was received thus far and the nature of the cases? What is the success rate like?
And since the function is targeted at the vulnerable groups, will MSO consider a more extensive outreach effort to educate the mentioned group on the use of the app and how to maximise its usage?
The Chairman: Mr Yip Hon Weng, please take your two cuts together.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Madam, I wish to raise two issues for improvement for the OneService App.
Firstly, tracking and coordination of municipal issues across agencies until resolution. A resident can submit feedback but there is no information about the status of operational processes. Sometimes, the case is closed before the problem is officially resolved, something that Member Cheryl Chan has earlier raised as well.
How does MSO track and coordinate issues for all cases until resolution, especially complex ones that may require collaboration with other agencies? How does smart technology assist us in this area?
Another area is the resolution of neighbourly disputes, such as community noise and corridor obstruction. Such issues have been aggravated by work from home arrangements during the pandemic period.
I think it was useful for OneService to disclose the units in the resident's block which are undergoing renovation works so that, in the event of noise issues, the resident can contact the owners of the unit. Can we go further to integrate this, for example, by allowing residents to raise concerns about noise issues in the app in a dedicated category?
Furthermore, if the flat owner has downloaded the app, they would be able to see the concerns and respond, with a mediator on-hand to assist.
Some residents do not wish to attend in-person mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or bring the matter to CDRT. Technology has made online mediation more accessible and popular. It is certainly something we should explore.
As our population ages, we should aspire towards having our housing typology cater to our life needs. This is especially so when there is a growing preference among our seniors to age in place.
Good housing designs should adopt universal design elements that are not only elderly-friendly but also cater to impaired mobility due to unexpected illness, injury or disability. The Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) is a good initiative. But sometimes, residents wait until something has happened, like after a fall, before they make the application. We should take a more proactive approach towards home safety for the elderly because a fall can really impair them.
Indeed, we must do more, beyond the basic infrastructure, something that the PAP Seniors Group is pushing for.
Can we look into integrating senior-friendly features that come with the new Community Care Apartments into our existing HDB estates? Some of the services in the optional service packages, like housekeeping, meal services and medical escorts, can also be designated to service providers and even senior activity centres in the community and extended to all mature estates with a high population of seniors.
What other upcoming senior-friendly initiatives will be introduced to our housing estates? How is MND working with MSF and MOH to ensure that our built environment supports ageing in place?
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: COVID-19 has exacerbated the challenges in municipal service delivery, with manpower constraints even more binding, especially over the past two years.
Because more Singaporeans are working from home, we see a significant increase in the use of common area within our estates as well as increased disputes among neighbours. We also see heightened expectations from our residents with regard to cleanliness standards.
With our Government's digitalisation effort, Singaporeans also expect timely and comprehensive responses from MSO's app.
All these conditions create considerable challenges for MSO despite all the hard work and resources that MSO has already committed to keeping our estates clean. As we enter the endemic phase of living with the virus, what are MSO's plans to ensure that municipal services are efficient and resident-centric?
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Madam, in the course of my work as a Member of Parliament, I receive many complaints from residents complaining about noise from their neighbours. Many times, it is about heavy steps from the higher floors, noise from shifting of tables, chairs or furniture in the middle of the night. Sometimes, it is about noisy music or children screaming. Sometimes, it is about noisy renovation works.
Due to unhappiness about the noise, neighbours do start quarrelling with one another and allegations are made. Sometimes, abusive language is also used against one another and the living environment in the area becomes hostile.
It seems that we are helpless to help these neighbours resolve such disputes. The resident has to simply live with the noise.
Last year, I spoke about the disputes between neighbours during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate for MinLaw. I asked how CDRT could help to resolve these disputes. However, surely, a better option is to try to nip the problem in the bud before it even gets to CDRT.
Is there room for Government agencies to do more to address such neighbourly disputes? Can we do more to promote neighbourliness among residents so that they can build on the relationship with one another and become friends who can discuss issues without having to resort to loud voices against each other or to quarrel? Can such disputes be resolved by encouraging neighbours to be more considerate towards one another?
Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Mdm Chair, I need to confess that I have been an inconsiderate neighbour before.
I was staying at my first matrimonial flat, a 3-room resale flat in Toa Payoh. It was a slab block design where the units are side by side and have windows that open into the common corridor. We had some friends over for a gathering and it lasted into the wee hours. Naturally, there were chatting and laughter. On hindsight, we must have sounded especially loud in the quiet of the night. Our next-door neighbour, an elderly uncle, approached us at around 2.00 am, complaining about the noise and reminding us to keep our volume low.
The next morning, we heard that the neighbour had to see a doctor because his blood pressure went up after a disturbed night's rest. We felt so bad, we bought some chicken essence to express our apology and wished him well. After that episode, we became more careful and managed to maintain a friendly relationship with the uncle for the rest of our stay there.
Mdm Chair, I shared this because, sometimes, these things happened when we were not thoughtful enough, not because we have any ill intention. I am sure Members have had their fair share of complaints from residents of issues and disputes with their neighbours. This has become more prevalent these two years with work from home and home-based learning practices.
Personally, I feel that such matters are best settled between neighbours. I thank the uncle for letting us know personally and allowing us the opportunity to make amends. If he had reported to the authorities immediately, I could conclude that he preferred a more officious approach towards our relations.
On the other hand, if he had suffered in silence, I would not have known that it was an issue and might have organised even more house parties. His frustrations and unhappiness would have built up without me knowing.
The worst scenario would be a retaliation. The uncle could have vented his displeasure by banging on our common wall and that would have embarrassed me in front of my guests. Perhaps, a tit-for-tat war would erupt.
Therefore, I always advise my residents with such issues to first talk nicely to their neighbours. Actually, we should go further upstream and make friends with our neighbours when there are no issues. We should not let the first encounter to be an unpleasant one.
Typically, a neighbourly dispute is more complicated, with different versions of the situation. The misunderstanding and mistrust between neighbours are likely to have developed over years.
Having said that, there will be cases when there is ill will or neighbours who are just being difficult and unreasonable.
I do hesitate to ask the MSO what the Government could do more to address such disamenities and neighbourly disputes. But with the spectrum of neighbourly disputes that MND has come across, I would appreciate if the Minister could share some insights and suggestions on how such matters could be addressed.
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Chair, even as we continue fighting COVID-19 today, we are focused on our mission of building an even better Singapore tomorrow.
I will explain how we at MND are doing this in these key priority areas: (a) keeping public housing affordable and accessible and meeting the housing aspirations of Singaporeans; (b) transforming the way we design, build and maintain our city; (c) growing our City in Nature; and (d) safeguarding our built heritage.
My MND colleagues will give more details on the various areas of our work.
Helping Singaporeans own their homes is a key national priority and a promise that the Government has been committed to for decades. A home that we can call our own provides the basic foundation to raise our families and bring up our children.
If you look at other cities, they have different ways of housing their people. Some leave housing largely to the private market while others provide rental flats to certain demographic groups at subsidised rates. But the experience of these cities shows that the private market will often not provide adequately for the low-income or even middle-income families.
That is why our focus is to sell flats to Singaporeans, including low-income households, at highly subsidised prices rather than offer them rental units at subsidised rents. We are committed to ensuring that public housing remains affordable and accessible to help meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans.
We plan the supply of new flats by taking into account long-term factors, such as demographic changes and trends, including family formation rates and household sizes. We also monitor the market and make adjustments to meet cyclical shifts in demand.
In addition, we provide generous grants for first-timers, for both new and resale flat purchases, with more help for lower-income buyers.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked if we should review our affordability benchmarks.
Most first-timers buying HDB flats in the non-mature estates only need to set aside a quarter of their income or less to pay for their monthly loan instalments. This is already significantly lower than the international benchmark of between 30% and 35% for affordable housing. And it allows buyers to pay their mortgage with their CPF savings, with little or no cash outlay.
To ensure prudent use of public funds, we impose a monthly income ceiling to allocate housing subsidies to those who may need it more.
To Ms Poh Li San's question, the current income ceiling of $14,000 for BTO flats already covers more than eight in 10 Singaporean households. The income ceiling for executive condominiums (ECs) is even higher, at $16,000. Households earning an income above $14,000 have a variety of housing options, such as resale flats, ECs and private developments.
The income ceilings were just raised in 2019, but we will continue to review them.
In the immediate term, the pandemic has had a serious impact on the construction sector, causing housing delays, concerns about the tight housing supply and worries about rising resale home prices. At the same time, marriage and family formation, a growing trend of smaller households and the current low interest rate environment have led to strong housing demand in both the BTO and resale markets.
Since last year, we have been working closely with the industry on two important tasks: first, we are working hard to minimise delays in the ongoing construction of flats; and second, we are ramping up our building programme to meet the strong demand for public housing. We will launch 23,000 flats per year in 2022 and 2023 and are prepared to launch up to 100,000 flats from 2021 to 2025, if needed. Miss Cheryl Chan asked about these efforts.
This is difficult work, especially in the midst of an ongoing pandemic. Our HDB colleagues have been on the ground, working closely with contractors to overcome the many challenges that COVID-19 has thrown at them: (a) bringing in workers safely to make up for manpower shortages due to border restrictions; (b) coping with the impact of public health measures on productivity at worksites; (c) sharing cost increases when prices of construction materials rose sharply; (d) localising more precast production and stockpiling more materials in case of further disruptions in supply chains and so on.
We have seen some progress. In 2021, we delivered about 14,500 new flats, more than the 9,400 flats in 2020 and the 13,500 flats in 2019, pre-pandemic.
We are also increasing the supply of private housing through the Government Land Sales Programme and, last year, we introduced measures to cool the property markets to pre-emptively address the risk of home prices running ahead of market fundamentals and, in doing so, keep housing affordable for genuine home buyers.
So, that is how we are addressing the housing situation today – by increasing both private and public supply to meet the strong demand while moderating market movements and minimising delays.
We are not out of the woods yet, because the pandemic situation remains uncertain and the geopolitical situation increasingly volatile. But the delays have impacted many Singaporeans’ life plans. We seek your understanding and support, as we press on to try to minimise delays and deliver your homes to you as soon as we can.
In the meantime, for first-timer families who face challenges renting on the open market, we assist them with interim rental housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Gerald Giam asked about the PPHS supply.
We are on track to add 800 more units by mid-2023. We have tripled the number of PPHS flats offered at each application exercise. But supply remains tight. So, we are prioritising families with the greatest needs. As a result of these efforts, application rates have fallen significantly, from about 20 times to about nine times in the most recent exercises – though that is still high. That said, around half of the applicants who are invited to select a flat decide not to do so, suggesting that many may have other options.
HDB also offers Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis to those who do not have other interim housing options. To Mr Gerald Giam’s suggestion, the supply of IRH flats varies to meet the demand, as these flats are also used for PPHS or public rental.
Members have made other suggestions to address concerns about housing delays and supply. Mr Louis Chua and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested building more flats with shorter waiting times. Significant land and infrastructure preparation is needed before we can build BTO flats. Where possible, we have brought forward our plans for land preparation. This allows us to launch flats with shorter waiting times. In November last year and February this year, we launched more than 4,000 flats with waiting times of around three years or less. We will launch more such flats in future where we can. Sale of Balance Flats, Open Booking of Flats are also flats with shorter waiting times. But all these depend on whether sites are available. For brownfield redevelopment, we may be delayed if, for example, existing users of land require more time to relocate or if existing services need to be diverted. For greenfield sites, we need to carry out detailed environmental studies.
In fact, we have accelerated many of our plans in order to increase the BTO supply over the next two years. That is our priority, to meet the current strong demand.
The Leader of the Opposition asked if we would also review the various HDB priority schemes and give absolute priority to certain groups. Priority schemes allocate housing supply to meet the needs of a wide range of Singaporeans – to support marriage and parenthood aspirations of young couples, the desire to live with or close to parents or married children for mutual care and support, or the housing needs of our singles and seniors. These objectives all remain relevant and important.
Let me explain how our priority schemes work. For each scheme, we set aside a certain proportion of flats. Those who qualify for the scheme and are balloted within that quota are guaranteed the chance to select the flat. Those who are balloted outside of the quota will be considered with the other applicants who do not qualify for the scheme. In that sense, each priority scheme guarantees a certain number of flats for qualifying applicants and so, addresses different categories of households and families in Singapore who have needs. But we cannot guarantee a flat for all the applicants in any one of these priority schemes for a particular launch because there may well be more applicants than there are flats set aside for each scheme. It would mean that the other groups who do not qualify for that scheme would not get a chance to book a flat at all. This could include singles, couples who do not have children and others. We would also need to build a lot more flats and use a lot more land to meet this demand if done this way. Instead, our approach is to strike a calibrated balance between the housing needs of different groups.
So, contrary to the Leader of the Opposition's characterisation of the way in which we set aside our priority schemes, it is not one in which priority refers only to more chances but, rather, in trying to balance the needs of different groups, we provide absolute priority within certain quotas to ensure that one group does not then eat up the quotas and spaces for other groups.
As for putting up information on the application numbers under different priority schemes, HDB already provides the number of applications received for each project across the various household types for every town and flat type. These figures are updated through the application period for each BTO and SBF exercise. Applicants can refer to this information in deciding which project to apply to.
Besides managing current demand and supply, we also continue to enhance our housing policies. Ms Mariam Jaafar asked what we were doing to make public housing fairer and more inclusive.
One major policy we rolled out last year was the new prime location public housing model (PLH), after many years of study and engagement. This allows us to build flats in prime locations and keep them affordable, so that these areas remain diverse and inclusive and do not become places where only the well-to-do can live.
We have just launched two PLH projects. They attracted a lot of interest, with more than three applicants for each 3-room flat and more than 10 for each 4-room flat. We also plan to build public rental flats in future PLH projects where possible. To Ms Mariam Jaafar's question, our approach has been to integrate sold and rental flats in the same BTO projects, including in prime areas where feasible, to enable Singaporeans across different backgrounds to build neighbourly ties, form community bonds, build a stronger and more cohesive community and society. We have completed two new blocks that integrate both rental and owned HDB flats in the same block, and more are in the pipeline.
Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua raised some concerns about the PLH model. These are not new. They have been raised by others, considered and addressed during our extensive public engagements. But let me go through them again quickly.
Mr Pritam Singh asked how we determine the subsidy recovery rate. As we have explained, because PLH flats are in prime locations, we need to provide additional subsidies, on top of the usual BTO subsidies, to bring the price of the flat down to an affordable level for more Singaporeans. Mr Louis Chua suggested lowering the subsidy quantum at the point of sale. If we were to do that, it would just mean that only those with higher incomes or wealth can afford these flats. This would go against the intention of the PLH model. We size the subsidy recovery rate to recover these additional subsidies, as a percentage of the resale price, when the flat is sold on the open market. This is to be fair to the other BTO flat buyers who do not get these additional subsidies. Taken together with the other measures, such as the 10-year MOP, disallowing of rental of whole flats and ring-fencing the pool of eligible buyers to those meeting the BTO eligibility conditions at the point of resale, among others, would help to mitigate excessive windfall gains.
Mr Pritam Singh also asked how we determine which projects come under the PLH model and, if PLH might push up resale prices of neighbouring flats. We look carefully at the attributes of each project, including expected selling prices, to decide if we should apply the PLH model. As to whether neighbouring resale flats will see higher prices, this is unlikely as they are much older flats. In any case, it will be another 15 years or so before PLH flats reach the resale market. So, we will keep studying and monitoring this.
Mr Louis Chua asked why singles are not allowed to buy PLH flats. To moderate resale prices, we require resale PLH buyers to meet BTO eligibility conditions, which are a set of criteria that most people are familiar with. These criteria include singles who are part of larger households with caregiving responsibilities, say, they are buying a home with parents or with their siblings, if their parents are not around. And these would apply mostly to older singles. The PLH model is very new and we have only launched two projects. We will continue to monitor the response to PLH projects and review the parameters as part of our regular policy reviews.
Besides socioeconomic inclusiveness, we also want our public housing estates to reflect our society’s ethnic diversity. The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) seeks to support that. It enables people from different ethnic backgrounds to interact in their daily lives – around their homes, at the markets or hawker centres, in schools, in neighbourhood shops, in playgrounds and so on. That provides some of the conditions to foster tolerance and understanding and counteract the powerful social forces that tend to divide societies.
Even today, nearly one in three HDB blocks, and 16% of HDB neighbourhoods, have reached one or more of the EIP limits. Without EIP, racial concentrations could be much higher in various parts of Singapore. So, EIP remains relevant and important in promoting racial harmony and I am glad that we had established bipartisan consensus on this after our debate in this House last July.
We are mindful that some flat owners may face difficulties selling their flats when the EIP limits are reached. For example, some may have to lower their asking price or may take longer to sell their flats. We have been helping these families in different ways, such as by giving them more time to sell their flats and even waiving the EIP limits in exceptional circumstances. But it is not sustainable to keep waiving the EIP limits, because this would erode the very objectives that EIP seeks to achieve.
Over the years, we have continued to receive feedback about the rough edges of EIP and suggestions on how to smoothen them from the public and Members of Parliament, including Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Lim Biow Chuan, during this debate.
We have said before that we would continue to study these options. Having done so carefully, we have decided that, for EIP-constrained households who face genuine difficulties in selling their HDB flats, HDB will buy back their flat on a case-by-case basis. This complements existing forms of assistance that I have just articulated.
To ensure that we focus on households with the greatest needs, we will offer this buyback assistance to those who have owned their homes for at least 10 years. But those who are EIP-constrained and need to move out earlier due to extenuating circumstances can still apply to HDB for special consideration.
In assessing households for buyback assistance, we will consider the household’s specific circumstances, including how long the household has been EIP-constrained and whether they have marketed their flats consistently at reasonable prices. If HDB assesses that the conditions have been met, it will appoint a professional licensed valuer to perform a valuation and HDB will make a fair offer, so that the household is not unduly disadvantaged due to EIP.
In deciding how best to assist EIP-constrained flat owners, we had considered other suggestions. Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested applying the EIP limits over a larger geographical area. Mr Pritam Singh had also previously suggested this. But this could likely lead to over-concentration of particular ethnic groups at the local level, in specific blocks or neighbourhoods, rendering EIP less effective. And when the limits are reached in larger geographical areas, significantly more flat owners will be constrained. At that point, HDB may have to waive the EIP limits in even more cases. So, this is not a viable long-term solution.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Lim Biow Chuan suggested giving a grant to households which may have to sell their flats at a significantly lower price due to EIP. We have studied this in detail, but found that it would be difficult to implement in practice.
First, it would be difficult to size the grant fairly. A fixed grant may undercompensate some sellers but overcompensate others. Yet, a variable grant, say, a certain percentage of the transacted price, would give sellers with higher flat values more support in absolute terms, which might not seem fair to others.
Second, some buyers and sellers might well artificially lower their transaction price to take advantage of the grant and it would be hard to guard against this. This would be unfair to taxpayers.
So, on balance, we have decided that the most feasible option would be to buy back flats from EIP-constrained households in genuine need. This is not a decision that we make lightly, because it requires significant Government resources. But we believe it is the right thing to do, because EIP benefits all of us and helps to foster a more cohesive society.
Finally, a quick response to Mr Pritam Singh’s question about EIP data. During our exchange in Parliament on EIP last year, he wanted data to understand what was unique about EIP-constrained neighbourhoods. I had said that we would look into what we could practically provide, given the large volume of data requested.
In our response to his two Parliamentary Questions, we had provided comprehensive figures, such as the number and proportion of blocks and neighbourhoods that have been constrained by the different EIP limits over the last 30 years as well as the areas corresponding to some of the neighbourhoods that were EIP-constrained in both 1990 and 2020.
However, there are practical limitations to providing all the data sets requested. For instance, he had requested the names of all EIP-constrained neighbourhoods from 1990 to 2020 – a 30-year period. But there are no public maps or demarcated areas that we can make reference to. So, we did the next best thing and provided corresponding areas, but it would have been difficult to do so for all neighbourhoods without significantly compromising accuracy. So, where practical, we have and will continue to provide the information requested to further everyone’s understanding of the issue. I think it is important to clarify this.
Next, we want to contribute to a more inclusive society by meeting the housing aspirations of low-income families that need more support.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked how we will help families in rental housing to own their own homes. Our public rental housing system is not just about providing homes for lower-income citizens. We also want to provide integrated social support – in education, healthcare, training, employment and many other areas – to help them achieve stability and improve their situation.
And that is what Community Link, or ComLink, is all about – to enable lower-income families with children to achieve stability, self-reliance and, ultimately, social mobility. More will be said during MSF’s COS.
For those who are ready for home ownership, HDB’s Home ownership Support Team (HST) will guide them through their journey. We also provide financial support to make home ownership more affordable for these families.
First-timer families can benefit from the usual first-timer grants like the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG), whereas for second-timer families with children, we introduced the Fresh Start Housing Scheme in 2016. Under the Scheme, families can receive a $35,000 housing grant. They can buy 2-room flats with a shorter lease, which are otherwise only available to seniors. Families will also receive close support from a social service agency to ensure that they can sustain home ownership.
We want to give more support to these families who aspire to own a home again for their children to grow and develop. So, as the Finance Minister had announced in his Budget speech, we will enhance the Fresh Start Housing Scheme in two ways.
First, we will increase the grant to $50,000, to help more tenants afford a home.
Second, we will allow families to buy 3-room flats with a shorter lease to meet a wider range of housing needs, rather than just short-lease 2-room flats.
This is the first time that we will offer new 3-room flats on shorter leases. We are doing so to provide these families with more housing options. It is a substantial change that we are making in our housing policies, to support lower-income families and their children, as they seek to improve their lives.
My colleague, Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim, will share more details on our other efforts to uplift households living in rental flats.
As our population ages, we are also paying close attention to the needs of our seniors. In particular, we are doing more to help seniors age-in-place while getting appropriate care. We launched our very first Community Care Apartment, an assisted living pilot, in Bukit Batok last year. Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim will share more details on our plans to launch a second Community Care Apartment pilot and to work with the private sector to provide more assisted living options.
Members have suggested that we do more to support the housing needs of other groups, such as singles or those who prefer rental to home ownership. My colleague, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, will address some of these suggestions. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will also share more about how we are making our HDB estates more vibrant and liveable.
Let me now turn to how we are transforming the Built Environment (BE) sector. The sector was badly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and Members, such as Mr Henry Kwek, have asked about its progress.
Throughout this period, we have worked closely with the industry – not just on BTO projects, but also more widely across the sector to deal with the challenges that have come our way – from manpower shortages to cost increases and supply disruptions.
We still hold regular meetings and site visits to understand the situation on the ground and to find a way forward. We are thankful for the close partnership with trade associations, companies and workers, as the sector recovers.
We are seeing encouraging signs. Construction output has reached close to pre-COVID-19 levels and work is progressing steadily.
The manpower situation is also improving. Between November 2021 and February 2022, around 16,000 S-Pass and Work Permit holders from the Construction, Marine and Process sectors entered Singapore each month. This is more than five times the monthly average of 3,000 between May and October 2021, when travel restrictions were in place.
While the Omicron variant has had an impact on firms, we are much better prepared this time around, after the difficult lessons we have learnt when the pandemic first struck. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully, because the sector is still under some stress.
Above all, the pandemic has reminded us how important it is for the sector to be resilient to shocks. The sector remains heavily dependent on migrant workers to take up manpower-intensive jobs at construction sites. So, we need to step up our transformation of the sector, which we started when we launched the Construction Industry Transformation Map in 2017.
Together with our industry partners, we are determined to make a decisive change in how we do things in the sector. We will push on to improve the quality of our construction workforce and shift more towards productive work processes.
To drive this transition, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Manpower had earlier outlined the changes that we are making to our foreign workforce policies.
First, we will remove the current Man-Year Entitlement (MYE) framework in 2024 and introduce a new levy framework that encourages off-site prefabrication work. This will make it easier for firms to hire workers for more productive and skilled work.
Second, we will reduce the Construction Dependency Ratio Ceiling, from 1:7 to 1:5. This means that firms will be able to hire fewer migrant workers per local worker.
Some might ask why we are making these changes when the industry is still recovering. But it is precisely our painful experience from the pandemic that has shown us why these changes are necessary. And as the sector recovers, we should seize this opportunity to fundamentally change how we design, build and maintain our city.
These foreign manpower moves should be looked at together with other efforts to raise productivity. For example, we have enhanced our buildability framework over the years to raise the standards for manpower-efficient designs and technologies. And from April this year, all larger buildings must be designed in ways that require less manpower to construct. This means that the industry should need fewer workers when the foreign workforce policies take effect from 2024.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Henry Kwek have asked how we will support firms to digitalise and adopt productive technologies, such as Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC).
Indeed, this continues to be a key priority. This year, to support firms and workers to be more productive, we will extend various schemes under the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF). My colleague, Minister of State Tan Kiat How, will elaborate on this later.
We will also push ahead with built environment sustainability to address climate change. During the Green Plan Joint Segment, I had spoken about the importance of greening our buildings. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked if we will do more to reduce emissions in existing buildings.
Today, more than half of our buildings that are more than 20 years old have not been retrofitted and they lag behind newer buildings in terms of energy performance. Retrofitting older buildings costs a lot more upfront and it may take several years to recoup this investment.
This is why we will provide $63 million in grants to help building owners undertake retrofits and achieve higher standards of energy efficiency and sustainability.
We will do this by significantly enhancing our Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings. The previous scheme supported retrofitting costs for more than 80 buildings and achieved more than 180 gigawatt hours in annual energy savings. This is equivalent to the annual energy consumption of close to 40,000 4-room flats.
Under the enhanced scheme, we will raise the minimum qualifying standard from Green Mark Gold to Green Mark Platinum and expand the scheme to include residential as well as light industrial buildings.
Building owners can choose the strategies and technologies that are most appropriate for their building. For example, they can upgrade the cooling system, install solar panels or redesign spaces for natural ventilation.
The grant amount will be based on the additional carbon abatement and Green Mark certification achieved, instead of the cost of works, as was used by the previous scheme. For example, a project that achieves zero-energy certification can receive up to $1.2 million under the enhanced scheme. You can apply for this scheme from the second quarter of this year.
We are also exploring whether to require building owners to conduct energy audits to improve the energy performance of their buildings. We will consult our industry partners on this before deciding. Together, these efforts will help to enhance the productivity, sustainability and resilience of our built environment sector.
Transformation is never easy, but it also creates many exciting growth opportunities and we look forward to working with the industry on this.
Let us turn to another important priority: transforming Singapore into a City in Nature. During the Joint Segment on the Green Plan, I spoke about the progress that we have made. Why are we striving to become a City in Nature?
We face intense land-use pressures, as a city state. We need to find space for all the things that a country needs, within the limits of our city-state – not just homes, community amenities, industries and offices, but also reservoirs, airports, seaports, military bases and all the other things that larger countries can site far outside their cities. And amid these intense pressures, we also want to conserve our natural heritage. It is a tough balancing act.
To do this, we take a science-based approach – to understand the ecological value of our green spaces and identify the most important ones to conserve. In some cases, this means retaining green spaces that were intended to be developed for other purposes. For example, we have retained the Rifle Range Nature Park and the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat, which were originally intended for housing and industry respectively, because they are important buffer zones for our core biodiversity habitats. These nature parks will be completed by mid-2026, along with Khatib Bongsu Nature Park.
Last year, we also launched the Ecological Profiling Exercise (EPE), in partnership with experts and members from the nature community. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked for an update on this. Based on the EPE’s findings, we are creating more ecological corridors between our core nature areas. For example, we have found that the forests at the western half of Ulu Pandan are richer in biodiversity than its eastern half. So, we will safeguard a sizeable nature park there.
We also found that the green networks around Toh Tuck, Maju and Clementi are important stepping stones between Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and the Southern Ridges. So, over the next few years, we will establish a Clementi Nature Corridor that runs through these green spaces, including the eventual nature park in western Ulu Pandan.
Beyond strengthening ecological connectivity, we also continue to expand our islandwide park connectivity networks, to give Singaporeans greater access to green spaces near their homes. Today, we have around 370 kilometres of park connectors – more than seven times the length of Singapore from east to west – and we keep adding more.
In January, we launched the eastern half of Phase 1 of the Round Island Route. Covering a total distance of 75 kilometres, this green connection makes the journey from Rower’s Bay to Berlayer Creek more seamless and accessible.
Prof Koh Lian Pin asked what more we can do to involve Singaporeans in nature conservation.
This is an important point. Being a City in Nature is not just about our living environment. It is about who we are as a people – how we respect nature, take care of it, steward it responsibly.
We are encouraged by the strong support of our community partners.
Over 320,000 trees have been planted under the OneMillionTrees movement, involving over 30,000 members of the community. Many volunteers have also helped restore and enhance our green spaces, through the Friends of the Park initiative. And last December, through our City in Nature Conversations, we heard many thoughtful suggestions on how to advance our greening journey.
We invite Singaporeans to join us in realising our vision of a City in Nature and grow a greener, more liveable and sustainable home.
Besides stewarding our natural resources, we also want to safeguard our history and heritage. As we look to the future, we must also remember our past.
Our built heritage is important because it gives present and future generations a sense of place, identity and rootedness. Our built heritage has significant intangible value that we should safeguard.
Today, heritage conservation is an important consideration in our planning process. When evaluating development proposals, URA works closely with the National Heritage Board (NHB) to determine the conservation merit of our buildings, consult relevant stakeholders and calibrate how to balance conservation with development.
Despite our short nation-building history, our conservation efforts have achieved good success, with close to 7,200 heritage buildings gazetted for conservation.
Over the years, we have continued to refine our approach to safeguard our built heritage and expand our engagement efforts with the heritage community and key stakeholders.
For example, we formalised constructive working relationships with the heritage community by setting up public-private-people partnerships like the Heritage and Identity Partnership (HIP) and NHB's Heritage Advisory Panel (HAP). These partnerships allow us to tap on their expertise upstream at the planning and design stages of developments to optimise how we conserve and celebrate our built heritage.
We have been developing a structured framework to evaluate when and how additional heritage impact studies should be conducted as part of the planning process.
In 2018, URA, HDB and NHB commissioned NUS' Department of Architecture to pilot a large-scale detailed heritage study of the Old Police Academy.
The Old Police Academy played an important role in the professional development of Police officers from the 1920s until 2005. And since 2016, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), URA and HDB have been engaging the larger Police fraternity on how we could celebrate and sustain the heritage of the Old Police Academy. The heritage study report was also published for public feedback last year.
Members of the public who wrote in include a former trainee who shared his memories of the place. He suggested retaining certain roads and certain road names.
Taking into consideration the study findings and the feedback received, we plan to conserve six buildings, including four within the new housing estate. They will be meaningfully adapted for contemporary use. Part of the parade square will also be retained as an open space.
For buildings and spaces which cannot be retained in their entirety, we will explore how to sustain their heritage significance in the design of the new housing estate. HDB and SPF have also formed a dedicated workgroup chaired by Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim with Police and heritage stakeholders and have started to discuss how to celebrate the rich heritage of the Old Police Academy.
In response to Mr Xie Yao Quan, we are glad to announce that we will formally implement the structured heritage impact assessment, or HIA, framework.
Under this new framework, developing agencies for public projects that are likely to cause major impact to significant heritage sites will need to consult URA and NHB, to determine if a heritage study is required.
For sites that require an HIA, which is the most extensive of heritage studies that may be imposed, agencies will engage consultants to provide an additional and more detailed assessment on the significance of each heritage element and the recommended interventions. The HIA will complement URA and NHB's existing processes.
Findings will be shared, unless there are security or other concerns, and members of the public will be invited to give feedback. Heritage communities and other stakeholders will continue to be engaged throughout the process.
We expect such detailed and in-depth HIAs to only be necessary for larger-scale public development projects in areas of rich and complex heritage significance. For other projects, URA and NHB's existing processes remain adequate.
The implementation of the HIA framework marks an important milestone in the maturation of our heritage evaluation process and we will continue to refine this process along the way.
Keeping public housing affordable and accessible, transforming the built environment sector and growing Singapore into a City in Nature and safeguarding our built heritage – these are some of the key priorities that we are working on.
We have to do all these, while meeting the evolving needs and aspirations of Singaporeans, all within the confines of our small city state. This is a big challenge. There will be difficult trade-offs. But it is also due to tight constraints like these that the most creative and resourceful ideas are born.
As part of our Long-Term Plan Review, we are reaching out to Singaporeans from all walks of life, to hear their goals and dreams and aspirations for our future city. My colleague Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will give an update on this. We hope all Singaporeans will walk with us on this journey, as we build a better city, together. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mdm Chairman, I thank Mr Henry Kwek for highlighting the challenges facing MSO, our partner agencies and Town Councils.
Feedback on municipal issues has indeed significantly increased with the onset of COVID-19 as Singaporeans spend more time at home. This has spurred us to find new ways to work and to forge stronger partnerships with the public on issues which the Government alone cannot fully resolve.
MSO will work with our partners to make progress in three areas: increasing productivity of municipal services; improving processes for better user experience; and forging stronger community partnerships to holistically address complex neighbourhood issues.
Our key goal is to deliver resident-centric services in an efficient and seamless manner. The OneService app has been a useful platform to achieve this. It is, today, a one-stop neighbourhood platform with many functions, beyond reporting feedback.
Since its launch in 2015, our user base has increased 10-fold to more than 430,000 users. This is the result of MSO constantly enhancing the OneService app to meet residents' evolving needs.
For instance, to help residents plan around potential disamenities and inconveniences, residents can now refer to the \"Happenings\" feature for information on HDB-approved renovation works at their blocks and will soon be able to check the crowd levels at public libraries should they wish to find alternative locations to study or to work.
Residents can also access the \"Book Facilities\" feature to perform end-to-end contactless booking and payment for the use of common areas and facilities, such as multipurpose halls and void decks in their estates.
We are also finding ways to deliver better services with the pilot of integrated municipal operations in Tampines town and have commenced ground operations last month.
Next, I will speak about improving user experience, as mentioned by Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Every day, agencies and Town Councils receive over 4,000 cases of feedback on municipal issues. Most are straightforward cases that can be resolved within a week, but some complex cases can be long-drawn, especially where investigations or neighbours' cooperation are required.
Case owner agencies, currently, have the flexibility to decide how to close cases, be they straightforward or complex. MSO is working with our partners to improve the handling of municipal feedback, in terms of how they should close the feedback loop for the different types of cases.
For straightforward cases that involve only one agency and where concrete actions can be taken to fully resolve the case, agencies should close the feedback loop only upon complete resolution of the case.
For complex cases, agencies should close the feedback loop only after explaining to the feedback provider the actions taken or the intended action plan, as well as provide an estimated timeline.
We have implemented two corresponding changes in the OneService app.
First, photo evidence is provided upon resolution of straightforward cases. This initiative has been implemented since 2020 for feedback concerning public cleanliness and has since expanded to include other straightforward issues, such as the maintenance of common property in HDB estates, HDB car parks and commercial properties, and lights along covered walkways and footpaths.
Second, we have differentiated the status of cases since May 2021. Where, previously, all cases were labelled as \"Closed\" once the agency had responded to the feedback, now they are labelled as either \"Resolved\" or \"Replied\". With differentiated case status, residents have a more accurate understanding of the status of their case and can be assured that unresolved cases continue to be worked on.
We will also continue to make our OneService e-services more accessible by introducing them on more digital platforms. In the second half of the year, residents will be able to submit feedback using the LifeSG app, in addition to the OneService app. In time, more of our digital offerings will be available on LifeSG so that residents who are currently not users of the OneService app can also enjoy our e-services.
Together, we hope that tighter collaboration in the delivery of municipal services will bring greater convenience and satisfaction to residents.
Mr Dennis Tan asked for an update on new technical methods to lower the costs of the Lift Upgrading Programme, or LUP, for HDB flats without direct lift access.
Over the years, HDB has adopted innovative technical solutions, such as machine-room-less elevators and bubble lifts to provide direct lift access for such flats. More than 5,000 HDB blocks have thus benefited from LUP. There remains about 150 blocks where it is not possible to implement LUP due to prohibitive costs or existing technical and site constraints. We will continue to explore how to bring down LUP costs, as well as alternatives to LUP, such as powered stair climbers for wheelchair users. The Lift access Housing Grant is also available to help residents with urgent mobility or medical needs to move to another flat with direct lift access.
Several Members – Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about MSO's efforts to address neighbourhood disamenities that arise due to differences in social norms or behavioural issues, such as the cluttering of common spaces, high-rise littering, bird feeding and noise from neighbours, given that work-from-home will remain an option for many people in the longer term.
First, we are collaborating with the business community and the public to harness innovative ideas and bring practical solutions to residents.
Switch is one such company. We facilitated the \"Switch for Community\" initiative by the People's Association (PA), HDB and Switch, which offers affordably priced and conveniently located Switch work booths for residents whose attempts to study or work-from-home are affected temporarily by renovation works or other forms of noise.
I am happy that residents have found this initiative useful. Since its launch last December, over 100 individuals have used the work booths located at the Bukit Timah Community Club and Trivelis Residents' Network in Clementi. Due to demand, the operating hours of the work booths at Trivelis Residents' Network centre have also been extended to late evenings and the weekends. We will continue to monitor the outcomes of the pilot after a year and consider scaling it up if there is good demand.
In the spirit of Singapore Together, PA and HDB will also be co-leading an Alliance for Action (AfA) to study practical solutions to better facilitate group-buy activities in HDB estates. Group-buy activities support small businesses and promote interaction among residents. But when large quantities of goods are delivered to an estate and redistributed to individual buyers, there could be inconveniences, such as cluttering of goods at the common corridor and blocking of passageways.
We would like to identify win-win solutions so that residents can continue to engage in group buying and support small businesses while minimising inconvenience to others. Members of the AfA will consist of stakeholders, such as group-buy hosts, grassroots leaders and potential solution providers from the private sector, to explore better ways of facilitating the delivery, storage and distribution of group-buy items, such as making use of HDB void decks.
Second, we will continue to focus on shaping positive social norms to mitigate neighbourhood disamenities due to human behaviour. This is an upstream measure and one of many that needs to be put in place to holistically address the management of community disputes, as explained by Minister Edwin Tong during MinLaw’s COS.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Lim Biow Chuan rightly highlighted that neighbourhood noise is a complex issue to resolve and can cause significant tension and unhappiness between neighbours. MSO and MCCY are exploring various ways to tackle this issue. As part of a holistic response, we intend to set up a Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise to look at defining what is deemed as unacceptable noise disturbances, as well as what constitutes good civic norms that residents should observe, to reduce noise disturbances to their neighbours.
The Community Advisory Panel (CAP) will consist of representatives from the community who have the relevant experience and expertise in managing municipal issues. The \"community norms\" developed by the CAP will help neighbours to better communicate with one another, as well as serve as a useful \"benchmark\" and reference for our public advisories, and to facilitate mediation and decision-making at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal. We hope to establish CAP soon and for the panel to submit its recommendations by the end of the year.
MSO is also working with MCCY on how agencies would enforce against neighbourhood noise using these \"community norms\" as a reference and Minister Edwin Tong will share on this aspect during MCCY’s COS.
Miss Cheryl Chan also asked for an update on the \"Help Neighbour\" feature in the OneService app since its launch in last September. Thus far, \"Help Neighbour\" has referred 272 cases of seniors in need, rough sleepers, cardboard collectors and tissue sellers to the social agencies for targeted assistance – of which, about 50% were new cases unknown to the agencies. With this feature, concerned residents can directly connect persons-in-need to social agencies, without risking over-exposing them on social media. I thus encourage everyone to use \"Help Neighbour\".
I would now like to address Mr Xie Yao Quan’s query about HDB’s plans to keep our heartland shops vibrant and sustainable, amid the rise in online shopping and changing consumer habits. Our heartland shops must do well if our neighbourhoods are to remain vibrant and endearing. Beyond serving the day-to-day needs of residents, heartland shops reflect the distinctive character and identity of our neighbourhoods, provide spaces for residents to meet and interact and serve as a social glue for the community. Our heartlands can also be incubators for budding entrepreneurs and exciting new business ideas.
Since 2007, HDB co-funds physical upgrading works and promotional activities through the Revitalisation of Shops scheme to improve the shopping experience for our residents. HDB also partners Enterprise Singapore to encourage our heartland retailers to modernise their operations and embrace digitalisation.
To ensure our heartland shops stay relevant and vibrant, HDB and Enterprise Singapore are further engaging the public through the Heartland Shops Study to understand what Singaporeans value most in the heartlands. Since October last year, we have engaged over 2,400 residents, business owners and shop employees through surveys, interviews and focus group discussions.
I joined one of these public engagements earlier in February and was excited to hear ideas on how we can shape the heartland retail scene, while preserving its cultural and social value. Together with HDB, we will thus explore ways to better curate the trades at our neighbourhood centres, taking into consideration the attributes that residents and businesses have told us they value and also better support the digitalisation and business sustainability of these shops.
I encourage all Singaporeans to participate in the online survey for the Heartland Shops Study which is available on the REACH website until the end of this month. The findings from the study will help to shape and refine national programmes and plans to support our heartland merchants. We will follow up on participants’ feedback and partner Enterprise Singapore to rejuvenate our heartland spaces with new experiences as part of \"Our Heartlands 2025\", a new initiative announced by Minister of State Low Yen Ling during MTI’s COS.
Finally, I would like to provide an update on our public engagement exercise for the Long-Term Plan Review (LTPR), as enquired by Miss Cheryl Chan. We embarked on the review last year to refresh our long-term land use plans for the next 50 years and beyond. This is not a new exercise. We have conducted regular reviews of our long-term plans since the first Concept Plan in 1971. Key infrastructure outcomes of the 1971 Concept Plan include Changi Airport and our current MRT lines.
From July to September last year, URA engaged more than 5,800 Singaporeans through polls and workshops, to better understand Singaporeans’ values, hopes and concerns for the future. We found that Singaporeans aspire towards four key broad outcomes for Singapore.
First, a sustainable Singapore – a city where we can grow in an environmentally responsible way, especially in light of climate change. Minister Desmond Lee covered our sustainability efforts extensively earlier.
Second, an inclusive Singapore – a city where we can meet the diverse needs of our people and foster social cohesion and harmony. Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim will share more on how we are supporting our vulnerable citizens and forging community partnerships later.
Third, an adaptable and resilient Singapore – a city where we can adapt nimbly to disruptions and seize emerging opportunities. MSE colleagues yesterday provided an update of our efforts to build a more resilient Singapore, such as our coastal protection plans to combat rising sea levels, our development of weather-resilient water sources through desalination and the transformation of our used water network with the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System.
Fourth, a distinctive and endearing Singapore – a city that we are proud to call our home. Minister Desmond Lee shared earlier about how we will strengthen the character and identity of our city by safeguarding our built heritage.
Since October last year, we have followed up and facilitated in-depth discussions with more than 1,000 participants. We also tapped on discussion forums and webinars involving more than 7,000 participants. We discussed how we could achieve the four desired outcomes and how we should balance the trade-offs required. A wide range of ideas were raised. Some of them were quite imaginative, like using our canals and waterways as transport networks, or building floating or underground housing apartments to overcome our land constraints.
The public engagement is still ongoing and will culminate in an exhibition in the middle of this year. We encourage Singaporeans to continue contributing their ideas and views. While not all of them are feasible today, they are harbingers of the future possibilities we need to keep in mind. Given the greater uncertainties we face in the future, key focus areas of the LTPR would be strengthening the resilience, flexibility and inclusiveness of our long-term plans and strategies.
On public housing specifically, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Mr Louis Chua asked about expanding public rental housing to cater to more groups of Singaporeans. The Leader of the Opposition and Miss Rachel Ong also asked about housing access for singles and families with non-citizens.
Madam, a vibrant housing market exists. For the rental housing that HDB offers, our emphasis is on providing highly-subsidised rental flats to those who have no other housing options, such as those with financial difficulties, as well as first-timer families who have challenges renting from the market while waiting for their booked flats to be completed.
To Mr Louis Chua's suggestion of a Rent-To-Buy model, our Government already provides generous grants and subsidies to help most Singaporeans own either a BTO or resale flat directly. Rent-To-Buy arrangements may serve a purpose in societies where there are significant gaps between home ownership aspirations and affordability.
In Singapore, we design our public housing financing policy to minimise this gap. Flat buyers in Singapore, generally, require little or no cash outlay in servicing the payments for their flats as their mortgage loans can be paid using their CPF contributions, which leaves flexibility for them to pursue other aspirations and goals with their disposable income. Therefore, it is not clear how Rent-To-Buy is better for the aspiring Singapore home owner.
We have also been expanding housing options and grants over the years for households of singles and families with non-citizens. For instance, single buyers have access to housing grants and can buy smaller BTO units in non-mature estates. While our overall housing policy continues to support families, we, nevertheless, recognise the home ownership aspirations of singles and, particularly, the circumstances of singles who are also caregivers and seniors. We are very mindful of their concerns and will continue to study ways to assist them.
With limited land, we will have to consider the trade-offs and resources needed whenever we make policy changes. For instance, whenever we raise the income ceiling or liberalise eligibility criteria for public housing – for example, by lowering the age limit, demand will go up and we will need to make sure we have the land and the resources to meet such demand.
While our current priority is to catch up on the delays caused by the pandemic which Minister Desmond Lee has spoken about, we recognise that the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans are changing, including those who are single or have non-citizen spouses and will continue to study how best to extend more support to them as the situation stabilises.
As we carefully balance trade-offs and hedge against future uncertainties, innovation and human ingenuity offers opportunities for us to overcome our constraints. Minister Desmond Lee earlier spoke about enhancements to our Cities of Tomorrow (CoT) R&D programme to fulfil our vision of a more sustainable, liveable and resilient Singapore. The research efforts under the CoT programme also allow us to tap on advancements in big-data analytics and social science research to aid our urban planning and design.
In July last year, HDB completed a research project, in collaboration with Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), using data analytics and behavioural studies to look at how to foster the \"kampung spirit\" in our heartlands. One of the findings was the importance of visual connectivity and the development of a social hub to promote neighbourly interactions. This led HDB to develop a new model of \"raised\" multi-storey carparks, where the carpark levels are lifted to introduce a porous space on the ground floor where residents from surrounding blocks can interact and gather for social activities. Mdm Chairman, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singaporeans are spending more time at home since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, feedback on municipal issues has significantly increased in the last two years. Among these, neighbourhood issues, such as noise from neighbours, cluttering of common spaces, high-rise littering and bird feeding, are more difficult to resolve.
MSO will work with Government agencies, residents and communities to collectively address these neighbourhood issues and maintain a pleasant living environment, in two ways.
First, we are collaborating with the business community and the public to harness innovative ideas and bring practical solutions to residents.
For example, we piloted the “Switch for Community” initiative in Bukit Timah which offers affordably priced and conveniently located Switch work booths for residents whose attempts to study or work from home are affected by noise concerns. The pilot will last for a year, after which we will consider scaling it up to other areas.
PA and HDB will also be co-leading an Alliance for Action (AfA) to study practical solutions to better facilitate group-buy activities in HDB estates. Group-buy activities are getting more popular these days, supporting small businesses and promoting interaction among residents. However, it can also cause inconveniences to some residents, such as cluttering of goods at the common corridor and blocking of passageways. The AfA will invite stakeholders, such as group-buy hosts, grassroots leaders and private companies, to identify better solutions together.
Second, as an upstream measure, we will continue to focus on shaping positive social norms to mitigate neighbourhood disamenities due to human behaviour.
In this regard, MSO and MCCY will set up a Community Advisory Panel (CAP) on Neighbourhood Noise.
The CAP will consist of representatives from the community who have the relevant experience and expertise in managing municipal issues. We hope to establish CAP soon and invite the public to jointly discuss and develop a set of “community norms” regarding neighbourhood noise. For example, defining what is deemed as unacceptable or uncivil behaviour, as well as what residents should do to reduce noise disturbances to their neighbours.
The “community norms” developed by CAP will facilitate mediation and decision-making at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal, as well as serve as a useful reference for our public advisories.
Let us work together to create a better living environment for all.
(In English): We will continue to work closely with our partners to maintain high service standards. To emerge stronger as a society, we need residents and communities to work together towards our shared goal of a better living environment for all.
The Chairman: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.
The Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mdm Chair, the fight against COVID-19 has been long and hard. But the past two years have also shown us that Singaporeans share common aspirations for a caring and inclusive society and want to contribute to making Singapore a better home for all.
Today, I will share more about our efforts to support different groups of citizens, especially those who may require more assistance, and create vibrant places in partnership with the community.
First, on those staying in public rental flats. Some Singaporeans face more challenges than others in life. For those who are lower-income or more vulnerable, providing highly subsidised rental housing is an important first step. With shelter, they have a safe space to come home to, a stable foundation upon which they can regroup and stabilise.
Mr Louis Ng spoke about giving more assurance to single unwed parents. We understand the anxiety that families may face when their housing arrangements are uncertain.
Generally, single unwed parents can receive the outcome of their rental flat applications within three weeks of submitting all required information, although more time may be required for complex cases. All rental flat applicants may contact HDB at any point for updates on their applications. HDB will also prioritise flat allocations for those with urgent housing needs as far as possible.
Beyond housing, those in public rental may also be grappling with other challenges: health issues, family conflict, employment troubles and more. So, public rental housing is not just a shelter; it is a home that comes with social support, to help our rental tenants bounce back stronger.
For example, under Community Link, or ComLink, HDB and many other agencies work together to support families with children living in public rental housing.
ComLink is a flagship project led by MSF and it is being scaled up nationwide to cover some 14,000 families over the next few years.
ComLink proactively reaches out to families to understand their unique challenges and aspirations, provides close case support through befriending and action planning, and works with community partners and volunteers to offer customised programmes and services that meet families' needs.
Through ComLink, we hope to empower families to regain stability, become self-reliant and, eventually, achieve social mobility.
On Mr Chong Kee Hiong's concerns regarding larger families in public rental flats, families may request for a 2-room flat if there are three or more persons. Multi-generation families that can form two family units may also apply for two flats and HDB will try to ensure that both flats are located near each other.
We also work closely with MSF and Family Service Centres at selected ComLink sites to offer 3-room rental flats, coupled with social support, to larger families with children. With a limited supply of 3-room flats, however, we are only able to offer them to a small number of families on a case-by-case basis.
Like Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, we hope to help rental tenants achieve their aspirations to own their homes.
HDB has a dedicated team of officers, the Home ownership Support Team, who will guide rental tenants on their journey towards home ownership. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked how families will be identified. The Home ownership Support Team estimates the housing budget of households, based on their income and CPF information that they last shared with HDB. These officers then provide one-to-one guidance. They help families make sense of available housing schemes and grants, provide practical tips and advice, and walk families through the processes of buying a flat.
Over the past two years, the team has successfully helped about 110 households own their own homes and another 230 should be ready to apply for a flat in the next one to two years.
Families can also benefit from generous housing grants when they purchase a flat. For example, first-timers can tap on the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant and receive up to $80,000, on top of already subsidised flat prices, if they purchase a new flat. Second-timers can tap on the $15,000 Step-Up CPF Housing Grant.
We are also enhancing the Fresh Start Housing Scheme this year, as Minister Desmond Lee shared earlier, to help second-timer families with young children in public rental to own a home again.
These grants ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible, especially to lower-income families.
Owning a home is an achievable goal. Between 2019 and 2021, over 2,200 rental households have moved into flats of their own. Another 2,200 or so households have also booked a flat and are waiting for their new homes to be ready.
I encourage all rental families to aspire and work towards home ownership. The Government and community will support and complement your efforts, as you work towards better lives for yourselves and your loved ones.
For low-income singles under the Joint Singles Scheme, or JSS, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Chong Kee Hiong spoke about the unique challenges they face when it comes to finding or getting along with their flatmates. We understand these concerns and are continually exploring ways to address them.
Last year, I shared that HDB will pilot the JSS Operator-Run model. Under this model, singles can apply for public rental without finding a flatmate first and an appointed social service agency will manage the flats and flat-sharing arrangements.
I am happy to update that the pilot has started and is progressing well. We currently have two sites, in Bedok North and Buangkok Crescent, which are managed by Good News Community Services.
HDB started accepting applications last December. So far, about 90 tenants have confirmed their tenancy and some have already moved in with the flatmates whom they were matched with.
I visited the site at Bedok North recently and was encouraged to see that tenants were, generally, able to get along.
I also spoke with the operator, who plays a critical role in this model. They help tenants adjust to living together, address other challenges that tenants might face and foster a living environment that is comfortable and supportive.
Plans are underway for a third site in Bukit Batok and we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this model, to see how it can be improved to better meet the needs of singles.
Next, on supporting our rapidly ageing population. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about our efforts to help seniors age in place, including our plans to provide assisted living options.
As Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Yip Hon Weng mentioned, this is something that the PAP Seniors Group also cares about. I thank Members for their strong interest and support on this.
We understand that many seniors prefer to age in environments they are familiar with, surrounded by family and neighbours they can depend on. So, we have made extra efforts to provide senior-friendly homes and estates.
Within homes, seniors can tap on HDB's Enhancement for Active Seniors programme, or EASE, to install senior-friendly features for mobility and comfort. These features include grab bars, mobility ramps for wheelchair users and slip-resistant treatment to toilet floor tiles. There has been strong demand and over 250,000 households have benefited from EASE so far. Together with other agencies, we will continue to refine the enhancements offered under EASE, to help seniors age independently in their own homes.
At the town level, our physical infrastructure also offers an inclusive and user-friendly living environment for all ages. We have features like gentle-sloping ramps for barrier-free accessibility, and pictograms on directional signages to aid wayfinding.
Earlier this year, we also formed a pilot community partnership in Boon Lay, called \"Our Accessible City @ Boon Lay Neighbourhood\". Together with the local community, including seniors and persons with disabilities, we will study how to address accessibility gaps in the HDB heartlands. We also intend to form a similar partnership in Nee Soon Central later on.
Beyond infrastructural features, we work with agencies to provide amenities and services in HDB towns so that seniors can meet their needs easily. For example, at the integrated developments at Kampung Admiralty and Yew Tee, senior-friendly housing is co-located conveniently with healthcare, commercial and community facilities under one roof.
In each HDB estate, HDB also sets aside spaces for social service agencies to offer services to residents onsite. Depending on residents' demographic profile and needs, these services could include home and day care services or befriending services, which provide support for seniors to age in place.
We want to offer a spectrum of housing options to meet the aspirations of seniors to age autonomously and gracefully in place. In particular, we want to meet the aspirations of our senior population for assisted living housing typologies that integrate housing and care services together. Hence, MND, HDB and MOH worked together to develop the Community Care Apartments (CCA).
CCA is a new public housing typology. Affordably priced, it combines senior-friendly housing with care services that can be customised according to seniors’ needs. It also offers communal spaces and social programming for seniors to interact and stay engaged with the community. The first pilot we launched last year in Bukit Batok was very well-received, with an application rate of 4.2 applicants per unit. So far, over 90% of the units offered have been booked.
To meet the demand for assisted living, we will launch a second CCA pilot this year in Queenstown. About 200 CCA units will be offered and the project will also include other flat types. There will also be common facilities, such as roof gardens, fitness stations and community living rooms, to promote social interactions among all residents.
This second site is situated within the Health District at Queenstown, where HDB, NUS, healthcare partners like NUHS and local grassroots organisations are piloting new strategies to create a built environment that promotes a healthy lifestyle and active and healthy ageing. Queenstown also has the Alexandra Hospital, which will allow medical and healthcare services to be seamlessly incorporated into the care model for residents. HDB will share more specific site details later this year.
We will also launch a site at Parry Avenue for sale by public tender later this year, for a private assisted living facility, to give seniors even more assisted living options. The facility may accommodate about 300 to 400 seniors. I invite prospective tenderers to propose innovative assisted living models to help our seniors age gracefully within the community. We look forward to partnering the private sector to co-create new assisted living housing products that will further enhance the quality of life for our ageing population.
Beyond seniors, other segments of our population also have diverse needs and aspirations. For example, Mr Louis Ng asked about catering more lactation rooms in buildings to better support working mothers. The Code on Accessibility which buildings have to meet, by default, includes a requirement to provide lactation rooms. Only certain types of buildings, like offices, are currently not required to provide lactation rooms if they are below a certain size, in consideration of practical space limitations. Nonetheless, the Government encourages building owners and occupants to go beyond the requirements of the Code to cater to the needs of building users. Building owners can tap on co-funding under BCA's Accessibility Fund to undertake voluntary upgrading to provide accessibility and inclusive features like lactation rooms.
Finally, on working with community stakeholders to rejuvenate heritage precincts in Singapore, which Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about.
Our heritage precincts were impacted by COVID-19. For instance, businesses suffered when footfall fell, due to border closures and other safe management measures. To rejuvenate these heritage precincts, the Government takes a participatory approach on the ground – to actively engage and respond to local communities and find a more resilient and sustainable way forward. This includes working with stakeholders to mitigate gentrification risks and allow older tenants and newer stallholders to exist alongside each other in a seamless and complementary way.
In Kampong Gelam specifically, local businesses, institutions, landlords and residents had come together to form the Kampong Gelam Alliance, or KGA, to collectively look into various long-term issues concerning the area. To encourage greater interest in the rich heritage that Kampong Gelam offers, the alliance recently worked with URA, LTA and students from LASALLE College of the Arts to put up posters detailing Kampong Gelam’s storied history around Bugis MRT Station.
I have taken on the role as advisor to this alliance and will work closely with existing and new community stakeholders to support their efforts for the area. Together, we hope to preserve the heritage that makes Kampong Gelam distinctive and, at the same time, refresh it so that it remains relevant for future generations. I also invite Singaporeans to share your visions for Kampong Gelam when KGA engages the community and public later this year. Your ideas will guide our efforts to keep Kampong Gelam alive as a centre of community, culture, heritage and enterprise.
Through partnership platforms like the pilot Business Improvement District programme, URA also works closely with local stakeholders to transform other neighbourhoods into vibrant and attractive destinations. They are making good progress and we will continue to collaborate with private sector and community partners to enliven neighbourhoods across Singapore. Mdm Chairperson, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last week, Mr Faisal Manap spoke about Malay families living in public rental flats.
We understand that families in public rental have the same aspirations as other families. They want a home where they hope to build a bright future for their families. But many of them are also dealing with multiple challenges, such as health issues, family conflict and employment.
So, in public rental housing, the Government gives them both a physical home as well as social support.
We take a holistic and coordinated approach to uplift families in rental flats.
Through initiatives like ComLink and Project DIAN, HDB works closely with other social agencies and community partners to identify families’ needs and provide the support they need to achieve self-reliance.
When families are ready to own a home of their own, they will also receive the help they need.
We are ramping up our public housing supply to provide more affordable housing options for Singaporeans, including those from the Malay community.
Today, families can receive personalised guidance from HDB’s Home ownership Support Team, that is, HST, who will advise them on their housing options and guide them through the flat purchase process.
Families can also benefit from significant housing subsidies and grants, such as the CPF Housing Grant and Step-Up CPF Housing Grant.
Between 2017 and 2021, over 1,800 Malay rental households progressed to home ownership. This is more than double the number in the previous five years.
This year, we will do more. As Minister Desmond Lee mentioned earlier, we will enhance the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, which is for second-timer families with children in public rental. We will increase the grant amount from $35,000 to $50,000. We will also expand the scheme to include the purchase of 3-room flats with shorter leases. We hope these enhancements will make it easier for rental families to have a better living environment for their loved ones.
If you would like to find out more about how you can work towards home ownership, HDB will be happy to assist.
Let me also share a bit about our plans for Kampong Gelam. Kampong Gelam is an important area to the Malay/Muslim and wider Singapore community. So, we want to work hand in hand with the local stakeholders and other citizens, to keep it vibrant and preserve its culture and heritage.
I recently took on the role as advisor to the Kampong Gelam Alliance, that is, KGA, which unites local stakeholders, such as businesses, residents and institutions. Together, we will work closely to address local issues and ensure that Kampong Gelam continues to be a place that we hold dear.
I also invite Singaporeans to share your ideas with us at an engagement session organised by KGA later this year.
(In English): Mdm Chairperson, to conclude, let me reassure everyone that we are committed to supporting vulnerable citizens, meeting the diverse needs of all Singaporeans, and creating vibrant and endearing spaces. And we will do so in close partnership with citizens and the community, to make sure that Singapore continues to be a place that all of us can truly call home.
The Chairman: Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mdm Chairman, I will speak on how we will accelerate our transformation plans for the built environment (BE) sector.
Over the past two years, COVID-19 has posed significant challenges for the BE sector, as shared by Mr Henry Kwek and others before him. The Government has provided substantial support to help the sector tide over this pandemic. This includes the $1.36 billion Construction Support Package, the Jobs Support Scheme, Foreign Worker Levy waivers and rebates, and legislative relief under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA).
The support has been made available to all our construction firms, including sub-contractors. The Government has also recently announced the extension of the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme (TBLP) and the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Project Loan to support firms’ cash flow needs.
Notwithstanding the support available to contractors, we understand that some Town Councils are facing higher tender prices, as raised by Mr Gerald Giam. This issue was also raised by Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Ng Ling Ling last year.
Mr Giam suggested that HDB temporarily increase its Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) grants. Upgrading projects, such as the NRP, remain important to rejuvenate older HDB estates to benefit our residents. As I shared with Ms Tin then, our overall fiscal situation remains tight and I encourage Town Councils to start by reviewing the scope of your projects and reduce upgrading items if possible. Nonetheless, we are in regular discussions with all Town Councils and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Mr Giam also suggested that HDB provides materials price protection for contractors of town improvement projects. HDB does provide such price protection for its BTO contractors. This includes offering contractors the option of guaranteed protection against steel price fluctuations, where HDB will pay their contractors, if the price of steel exceeds the price that is protected by HDB.
Another example is stipulating a fixed quantity of concreting material that HDB will supply at the point of tender closure. However, the contracts for town improvement projects are between Town Councils and their own contractors, and it is up to each Town Council to decide whether to adopt this approach. HDB understands that Town Councils, generally, do not do so as their projects are not as complex or as extensive as BTO projects.
Mr Giam also suggested that MND explores measures to strengthen confidence within the construction sector and for parties to better manage risk. We have been doing so and the public sector is taking the lead.
Last November, we amended the Public Sector Standard Conditions Of Contract, or PSSCOC, to reduce the need for our contractors to buffer in additional cost in their tender bids.
First, we made clear the grounds for the Extension of Time caused by pandemics. Second, we included provisions for parties to co-share equally the relevant cost increases incurred due to pandemics – such as labour, plant and equipment, materials or goods and site overhead costs. Third, BCA has also worked with Government Procuring Entities (GPEs) to provide a provisional sum for anticipated cost items during the pandemic, such as swab tests, in their new tenders. With this, contractors need not price these costs into their tender bids. These practices minimise the need for contractors to buffer significant additional cost in their bids to cater for uncertainty.
Mr Henry Kwek asked about the inflow of foreign manpower for the sector. He also asked how the Government can continue to work with our trade associations to support the sector.
The Government has worked closely with the industry to facilitate the inflow of migrant workers. Our industry partners, including trade associations like the Singapore Contractors Association Limited or SCAL, spearheaded efforts to implement a tightened end-to-end process to bring in migrant workers in a safe manner. Workers can also enter Singapore via MOM's Work Pass Holder General Lane.
While this arrangement has served the industry well, there is scope to streamline the entry requirements as the COVID-19 situation improves.
That is why we have recently announced that the entry requirements for vaccinated new Work Permit holders in the Construction, Marine shipyard and Process, or CMP, sectors will be streamlined with effect from 13 March 2022. The streamlined process will help the CMP sectors accelerate the entry of necessary workers for ongoing projects, alleviate the labour shortage while building greater resilience in the workforce.
At the same time, we must accelerate our push for transformation.
We started this journey back in 2017 and have worked with stakeholders to put together the Construction Industry Transformation Map or ITM. There are three key outcomes: achieving automation through Design for Manufacturing and Assembly or DfMA; enhancing digitalisation through Integrated Digital Delivery or IDD; and promoting sustainability through green buildings.
Through DfMA, we are moving construction work off-site into a controlled factory environment, where building modules are prefabricated before assembly onsite, achieving higher labour productivity and safer worksites. We have been pushing for DfMA adoption in the industry over the years. In 2021, around 44% of building projects by gross floor area (GFA) adopted DfMA and we remain on track to meet our target of 70% by 2025.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong spoke about raising the adoption of Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC), which is a form of DfMA. It is well suited for residential and hotel developments.
Our PPVC adoption rate is, currently, about 20% by GFA. The cost premium for PPVC, compared to the traditional construction methods, has decreased from 10% to 15% in 2015 to 7% to 8% in 2019. It has remained at around this level during the pandemic. This is because while labour costs have risen, the cost of imported PPVC materials has also risen.
We will continue to encourage PPVC adoption through the Government Land Sales (GLS) programme. For instance, we require PPVC adoption for suitable residential and hotel GLS sites, including HDB executive condominium developments.
We are also putting in place greater modularisation and standardisation requirements under the Buildability Framework to lower costs.
However, PPVC may not be suitable for all developments, especially developments with site constraints or smaller developments without economies of scale. But let me reassure the Member that we will continue to push for the wider adoption of DfMA, including PPVC, wherever possible.
Another focus area is IDD. Through IDD, stakeholders across the building lifecycle from upstream design to downstream facilities management can collaborate more seamlessly through digital platforms. This digitalisation improves the accuracy of design and planning and reduces abortive work in construction and maintenance.
We have raised IDD adoption by GFA from 20% to 34% in the past year alone and continue to make good progress towards our target of 70% by 2025. And we have greened more than 49% of our buildings by GFA under the Singapore Green Building Masterplan.
Mdm Chairman, we have made steady progress over the years. But we will need to accelerate our transformation efforts in light of the lessons learnt from COVID-19. At the same time, the operating environment for the built environment sector is rapidly changing.
Against this backdrop, we have begun refreshing our transformation plans under the Future Economy Council (FEC) Urban Systems (US) Cluster Sub-Committee. Co-chaired by Mr Liam Wee Sin from UOL Group Limited and myself, we have been engaging stakeholders across the sector – developers, builders, consultants, contractors and facilities managers. We will share more details later this year.
However, to kickstart the next bound of transformation, we encourage our built environment firms to tap on various incentive schemes in making the transition.
First, we will extend the Productivity Innovation Project (PIP) scheme until March 2024. PIP has helped many firms, including SMEs, adopt DfMA and IDD technologies that have made construction work more productive. Under PIP, firms can benefit from support of up to 70% of the cost of adopting solutions like DfMA and IDD technologies.
Second, we will extend the iBuildSG Scholarship and Sponsorship scheme until March 2023. This scheme has been very helpful in enabling our built environment firms to attract young talents. Since 2010, the scheme has supported more than 3,700 Singaporeans with the costs of their studies and to pursue careers in the sector.
Firms can also continue to apply for the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG), which co-funds up to 70% of the cost of adopting off-the-shelf digital solutions.
Taken together, these Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) schemes will support firms to transform and build the pipeline of local talent and be better prepared for the foreign manpower tightening moves that would be implemented in 2024.
In addition to transforming the way we build, we need to change the way we maintain our buildings through facilities management (FM).
By 2025, more than 50% of our buildings will be above 30 years old. Given the twin pressures of ageing buildings and rising manpower costs, we will need to press on with our efforts to transform the FM industry.
Miss Cheryl Chan asked what steps we will take to accelerate the FM transformation. We agree with Miss Cheryl Chan that there is a need to do more to encourage the adoption of new technologies. In particular, FM firms can harness efficiencies from managing different FM services on an integrated platform and aggregating FM services across many different buildings.
I recently visited CBRE, a firm that provides FM services to office buildings, industrial spaces and laboratories. Through its integrated Vantage Analytics platform, CBRE is able to virtually manage its entire portfolio of buildings for its full suite of FM services, including security, cleaning and energy management.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
CBRE's services have helped its clients, including public sector agencies, attain significant cost savings. For instance, CBRE has worked with JTC to achieve up to 15% operational cost savings in the maintenance of its buildings, including Space@Tuas and JTC Chemicals Hub.
This is what we call integrated and aggregated FM.
Both service buyers and providers play key roles in the adoption of advanced technologies, as a part of integrated and aggregated FM. This includes smart FM technologies that enable predictive maintenance and investing in the infrastructure for data and analytics, as both Ms Tin Pei Ling and Miss Cheryl Chan had pointed out.
And we also agree with Miss Cheryl Chan that service buyers, including our Town Councils, should look at adopting outcome-based contracts that can facilitate advanced technologies. At the same time, service providers will need to level up their capabilities.
That said, the adoption of integrated and aggregated FM remains nascent, especially for existing buildings, given the high retrofitting costs.
To encourage building owners and the FM industry to adopt these good practices, we will introduce a new $30 million grant, which will co-fund up to 70% of the initial capital investment and retrofitting costs for integrated and aggregated FM. We plan to fund around 10 to 15 projects across different building typologies. This will establish the business case for wider adoption.
To qualify for funding support, building owners will need to work with FM firms to install smart infrastructure, such as sensors and intelligent building management systems and rework their procurement practices and processes, to integrate at least three FM services for at least three buildings in their portfolio.
The grant will be available for a period of three years from the second half of this year. I seek the strong support of our building owners and FM firms to explore integrated and aggregated FM for your operations.
In addition, we will continue to leverage R&D to push the boundaries for automation, digitalisation and sustainability through innovation.
Since the launch of the Cities of Tomorrow (CoT) programme in 2017, we have supported a wide range of R&D efforts for the built environment sector. We will further invest $46 million to support innovations for advanced construction and FM.
These innovations include customisable robotic systems for on-site assembly and off-site construction, and building designs that facilitate the use of robotic solutions. We are also investing in next-generation construction techniques and technologies, such as 3D concrete printing (3D CP), to complement the adoption of robotics in raising productivity.
Chairman, I have detailed how we will transform the built environment sector to be more manpower-lean and resilient. But we will need to complement these efforts with a resolute focus on jobs.
Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Cheng Hsing Yao had asked how we would attract more Singaporeans to join this sector. Our ongoing transformation efforts have helped us to create good jobs for locals in the areas of DfMA engineering and digital delivery.
I recently met Mr Teh Ming Xuan, a planning engineer working for Kimly Construction whose studies were supported by a joint iBuildSG scholarship between BCA and Kimly. Through an internship with Kimly, Ming Xuan became interested in how construction can be radically transformed via DfMA and IDD. He now provides technical support in these areas, working on the implementation of digital platforms and prefabrication to raise construction productivity. He also contributes to Kimly's R&D efforts in advanced robotics and automation and actively explores how new innovations can be deployed for Kimly's projects.
In addition to the iBuildSG Scholarship and Sponsorship scheme, we have put in place a multi-pronged approach to attract and upskill talent.
First, we will continue to work closely with our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to engage our students on built environment careers through the iBuildSG Club. We are also working with IHLs to incorporate emerging skillsets in DfMA, IDD and green buildings into their curriculum.
And we will undertake further initiatives to better retain our Polytechnic and ITE graduates. We will partner our IHLs to put in place more work-study programmes and provide meaningful internships for our students.
Second, we will support our mid-career entrants through putting together more Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs), which provide on-the-job training to help our mid-career entrants pick up new skills more quickly.
For instance, we have managed to train 94 individuals as Building Information Modelling (BIM) modellers in the past three years.
Third, we will continue to work closely with trade associations on accreditation schemes to raise standards within the BE sector and encourage more firms to adopt the Built Environment Skills Framework. For example, I recently met Boustead Projects, a firm that has actively invested in training its employees to keep pace with industry transformation.
Over the years, Boustead has leveraged BIM to deliver quality construction projects, through digital visualisation of building designs, documentation and cost estimation. This has allowed Boustead to develop its own in-house training programmes to train its employees in these skillsets. In fact, Boustead has curated training programmes, in partnership with NTUC Learning Hub, BCA Academy and IHLs as a SkillsFuture Queen Bee, for employees of SMEs across the BE sector.
As we embark on the next bound of industry transformation, we will also need to update our existing initiatives. This is why we are embarking on a Jobs Transformation Map (JTM) study for the BE sector. Many of our existing schemes adopt a broad-based approach to workforce development. But there is a need to be more targeted in our approach and tailor our initiatives to grow in-demand jobs for the next bound of industry transformation.
In this regard, the JTM will examine the combined effects of COVID-19 and industry transformation and chart out targeted interventions for specific roles. We aim to conclude the JTM in the second half of this year and will work with our IHLs, trade associations and firms to implement the recommendations. Mdm Chairman, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past two years, COVID-19 has posed significant challenges for the BE sector, such as the increase in construction costs, supply chain disruptions and manpower shortages. The Government has provided comprehensive support to help the sector tide over the pandemic. With the support provided, and the resilience and actions of our industry partners, we continue to see signs of recovery from COVID-19 for the BE sector. Construction output has recovered to close to pre-COVID-19 levels. That said, the Government continues to monitor the situation carefully and could introduce further support measures if necessary.
Above all, the pandemic has reminded us how important it is for the sector to be resilient to shocks. We will need to accelerate our push for transformation. In particular, we will need to become more productive and reduce our heavy dependence on migrant workers. In this regard, the Government will continue to support our firms on this journey. We will extend various schemes under the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund. To address climate change, we will make available $63 million in grants to retrofit existing buildings to achieve higher sustainability standards. We will launch a new $30 million grant to transform the Facilities Management industry and accelerate the adoption of advanced technologies.
I encourage firms to make full use of our schemes. If we work together, we can create a resilient, sustainable and liveable built environment.
(In English): Across our collective efforts to transform the BE sector, the Government will take the lead through our public sector projects. We also remain committed to working hand in hand with our industry partners on charting the path ahead in the new normal. Together, we can create a future-ready built environment and emerge stronger from COVID-19.
Let me now address some other cuts.
Mr Gerald Giam had asked about our efforts to manage bird pest issues in housing estates.
NParks will continue to work with Town Councils, including Aljunied-Hougang Town Councils, to manage the population of pest birds in residential areas through measures such as habitat modification and food source reduction. NParks is also carrying out research to understand the ecology of birds, including how their reproductive biology and factors, such as food availability, can affect their population. And NParks has been sharing best practices with our Town Councils. In fact, on 24 February 2021 and 17 August 2021, NParks briefed all Town Councils on some of the best practices and findings and held a dedicated session for Aljunied-Hougang Town Council on 18 May 2021.
That said, trapping birds and moving them to another location, as suggested by Mr Gerald Giam, is not a feasible approach. We will be transferring the problem to another group of residents. A more sustainable approach will be keeping our public and common areas clean and free of food waste. In this regard, we will need the assistance of all our Town Councils and the public.
Mr Louis Ng had also raised the issue of cat ownership in HDB flats. As part of our broader efforts to improve standards in the pet sector, we have been engaging stakeholders on a range of issues, such as improving dog rehoming and adoption processes, raising standards of pet boarders and breeders. And we are reviewing and will continue to review pet ownership policies to ensure that they balance the needs of different segments of the community, including pet lovers and those who might have concerns about disamenities that may arise.
We are considering this issue from various angles, including enhancing our strategies for the management of both pet cats and stray cats, to effectively manage the overall population of cats in Singapore. I would like to assure the Member Mr Louis Ng that we will continue to work with stakeholders to study this issue carefully.
The Chairman: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira: Thank you, Chairman. I have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State. The issue I highlighted for MND's consideration is not really one between neighbours. Rather, the issue is disamenities caused mostly by non-residents and we know they are non-residents because we patrol the sky gardens or roof gardens nightly. I note that a committee looking into disputes will be formed and I hope that the gating proposal that I made can be seriously considered, studied and, hopefully, implemented.
Ms Sim Ann: I thank Ms Joan Pereira for her clarification. HDB has been working together with Ms Joan Pereira and her team on the management of the sky gardens that she has talked about. And one of the considerations is the importance of keeping our HDB estates open in terms of their nature. I am also glad to update that we have been working, not just with HDB, but also with other agencies like MOM and NEA, in doing joint operations to manage against safe distancing or safe management measure violations at these sky gardens. My understanding is that the situation has come under control. We understand where Ms Joan Pereira is coming from and will continue to work with her to look for sustainable solutions.
The Chairman: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Chairman. I thank the Minister for responding to some of my cuts. Just a few clarifications.
First on the priority schemes. I note that the current information provided by HDB does not detail whether the respective priority schemes have been fully allocated for a typical BTO exercise. And to that extent, for example, it is difficult to assess whether the current 30% threshold of priority for married couples with children is at the appropriate level, particularly given the recent demand in public housing.
Can the Minister share, for example, for marriage or priority scheme, whether HDB believes that threshold can be raised? But more importantly, does it suggest from HDB's data that, for the more recent BTO exercises, this rise is actually warranted? We recently heard feedback from residents, as I am sure Minister would also have received from newly married couples and couples with children that they are repeatedly unsuccessful in their BTO applications. So, I think that clarity would be quite helpful.
The second clarification pertains to EIP. I welcome the announcement of the buyback option for EIP-constrained households, so as to make things fairer for Singaporeans. But I note that this position that was announced today was actually the original last resort solution that was put out by then MND Minister, Mr S Dhanabalan, when he introduced the policy in the late 1980s. Can I confirm if HDB had applied this last resort earlier and, if not, why had it not applied it earlier, because the Minister in the late 1980s already said that this was a last resort option to buy the property from the affected EIP household?
Actually, I had asked a written question in July about how many times HDB had purchased an EIP-constrained flat and the reply actually was specific to voluntarily surrendered flats. That was the reply that the Ministry gave. So, I am not sure whether it was an answer to the same thing, whether the flat was actually purchased by HDB in the first instance, as HDB would have committed to do if there were EIP-related constraints, or whether it had not purchased any EIP-affected flat previously. So, has this actually been done before, because the policy was already announced earlier?
My third point relates to EIP data. I acknowledge the Minister's point about the difficulty in coming up with a map which is consistent over time. I asked the question because of the previous EIP-related question I filed. The Ministry actually provided the five-yearly interval data. So, naturally, I asked whether that data could be further clarified in those five-yearly intervals, but I note the Minister's point.
Finally, I believe my cut on singles and whether HDB would consider reducing the eligibility age for singles to buy a 2-room BTO Flexi Flat or a resale flat could be reconsidered.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for sharing his immediate reaction to the change to EIP where we will introduce the buyback to support EIP-constrained families on a case-by-case basis. But let me first talk about the priority schemes.
I said in the speech that we provide data for individual BTO launches. So, let us, say, we launch in a particular area, like Tengah. Each BTO launch, we put out a couple of locations and we say what kinds of housing typologies are available in each location and we specify the application rates for each project, at each launch on a daily basis. That will, in our view, give potential home buyers the most practical and meaningful data that they will then be able to use in determining whether to make an application for that flat in that location or not.
So, we provide that data, not only for the location, but for each housing typology. We think that the data we put out needs to be practical and meaningful for flat buyers. And the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that he, anecdotally, hears of cases of people who cannot get flats. We have said that virtually all who apply as first-timers for non-mature estate BTO flats, virtually all, on the third try, should be able to get their flat.
Of course, those who apply for balance flats or flats in mature estates, particularly where the attributes are very attractive, demand will, naturally, be high across all the possible priority schemes. So, for each launch, for each site, we have allocated quotas for each group, for example, for married children and their parents; for multi-generation families, where relevant; for the Tenant Priority Scheme. For ASSIST, you should be a widowed or divorced second-timer with children.
The application rates will vary for a variety of reasons. One, of course, because of the current pandemic situation where people are concerned about housing delays and more people put in applications earlier or based on location and attributes. Some are extremely attractive and lots of people will apply for them. So, in terms of the data we put out, we want it to be practical and useful for home buyers.
And whether the Married Child Priority Scheme can be raised, in a way when you talk about \"X\" number of dwelling units or units in any particular launch in any particular location, it is almost like a zero-sum game because, you have, say, 1,000 units and you have a certain percentage for married children, a certain percentage for other groups, for seniors, based on typology, if you increase one group in terms of quota, then you must eat into other groups and, ultimately, the second-timers will be squeezed out.
So, we want to make sure that we provide a balance. HDB looks at all the data, not just for individual sites, but overall launches across the years, and also looks at long-term demographic trends and data, to decide whether we need to make any adjustments to the quotas and priority schemes. Therefore, we keep a very close eye on this.
For the prime location public housing, if the Leader of the Opposition recalls, we had made some adjustments to the MCPS, by reducing the quota available to them, if I recall, five percentage points [Please refer to \"Committee of Supply – Head T (Ministry of National Development)\" for a clarification on the number, Official Report, 8 March 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 56, Budget section.], because we considered it and we said that, yes, we want to ensure that children who want to live near their parents in the area can get access to some of these flats. But we reduced it because we had a bigger objective, or equally important objective, of allowing inclusion in these estates and allowing people who used to live in other parts of Singapore to also have a fair opportunity to buy a flat in some of these very prime locations. So, that is first.
On EIP, when EIP was introduced in 1989, the resale market was really nascent. The number of resale transactions back then pales in comparison with the resale market that we see today. In fact, all the way to the year 2000, if my memory serves me right, people could surrender their flats to HDB for any reason and not just because of EIP. And it took a period of time for the resale market to become mature in Singapore. When the resale market became mature, HDB stopped the buyback option as a last resort. And then, we put in the various measures that we put in place that I have articulated before – waiving EIP on exceptional basis; giving home buyers more time to sell if they feel the constraint and so on.
So, that is my response to the Leader of the Opposition's question, if I got him right, in terms of when the buyback option was last used.
Then, the Leader of the Opposition had asked the question about the written Parliamentary Question for data and I had explained that we received a request for significant data-sets by the Leader of the Opposition. We had endeavoured to give the data that we were able to provide. And for the second Parliamentary Question that there were constraints with regard to neighbourhoods, neighbourhood names, boundaries and so on, it is all in the reply. And if the Leader of the Opposition looks at the Hansard and he is not satisfied about the response in any way and needs more clarification, we welcome him to put forward a further request and we will clarify.
On singles, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann had explained that we want to be responsive to the evolving aspirations of all Singaporeans. A number of years ago, singles could not buy HDB BTO flats. But keeping an eye on how society is evolving and that more Singaporeans are either choosing to remain single as a matter of choice or becoming single because of circumstance – they have caregiving obligations and so on – that group is growing and we wanted to provide for them. Hence, we made the decision to provide BTO eligibility for singles quite a number of years ago, but, certainly, less than 10 years ago.
And along the way, we have adjusted the grants and made more flexibilities to accommodate singles and to provide for them. But every group that has eligibility for HDB BTOs, there will always be constraints. So, even for married families, there are income ceilings, there are different criteria – citizenship, household type.
And then, for singles, when they apply, they have caregiving obligations and they put their parents as essential occupiers, they can get housing – BTO, not just resale. Or if they are much older and their parents are no longer around and they want to have mutual care and support for single siblings living with each other, we also provide eligibility for them.
The Leader of the Opposition earlier said that he wanted the priorities to be real priorities, not a gamble – you have high priority but, actually, it is really just a ballot and a gamble and more chances.
As I have said before, each group has a specific quota so that we make space for every group that has needs for housing. But if we provide absolute priority for certain groups, like the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, households, then, even if you make adjustments for singles, as proposed, it will not come to fruition because all their spaces will be taken up. So, the reality that the Leader of the Opposition now recognises also is that we will have to make adjustments along the way, but also balance the needs of different groups for it.
The Chairman: Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: I would like to thank the Minister for sharing that.
With respect to my last point about eligibility for singles, I take the Minister's point that there are zero-sum realities to think about here. But I also wish to come back to the point that the Minister made earlier about the number of flats that HDB is prepared to construct from 2021 to 2025. I think the number was up to 100,000.
In view of what I shared in my cut about the latest population census and the number of singles that has gone up from the age groups 25 to 29 and 30 to 34, has that information prompted a change in HDB's thinking about its options for singles – which I acknowledge there were not any previously, and these have now been introduced – but in view of new information that is coming online, through the census as I explained, is there some scope to include the building of more flats for singles, for example, within that timeline the Minister has shared?
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that. The census makes clear the social demographic trends in Singapore, including that of singles or even of delayed marriage and parenthood. But this is not something that is news to us. We have been looking at social demographic trends all the while and, therefore, the moves on singles through the years, both in allowing them to apply for BTO flats and also adjusting the grants' eligibility along the way.
So, we will continue to look at our HDB eligibility criteria and make adjustments where we can. As both the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann and myself have said, our priorities are to make sure that we deliver the flats that people are waiting for and also address the significant demand from newly-formed households as well as nuclearising households. In fact, in a paper that the Workers' Party itself put out in 2019, they cited data from, I believe it is the Department of Statistics, showing the family size or the median family size per household, coming down very sharply. And that, of course, comes through in the form of greater demand, both for married households, households with seniors, singles and so on.
But as Senior Minister of State Sim Ann said, both sides of the House, we all want to provide for Singaporeans and meet as many needs as we can and to help as many people achieve their home ownership aspirations as possible. We both want to do that. But we live in a situation where both land and resources pose real constraints. And, in fact, if neither land nor resources were constrained, we want to meet everyone's needs all the time. But we will have to make priorities for different groups, based on income, nationality, number of chances they got owning a home based on their family obligations and then make some adjustments, helping those who may need more help and giving them more support.
So, that is where we are and we continue to look at the needs of Singaporeans and the housing options that they have.
The Chairman: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Thank you, Chairman, for seeing my hand at that little corner where I was.
Can I ask Senior Minister of State Sim Ann about this Community Advisory Panel? Who is expected to be on this panel? Would it be community leaders? Would it be mediators? Would members of the public be involved in this panel? Also, what about other issues, like second-hand smoke and hoarding? Would Senior Minister of State Sim Ann be able to clarify that?
Ms Sim Ann: I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for the clarifications.
For the Community Advisory Panel on Noise, we intend to invite onto this panel community leaders who have experience in handling or mediating issues to do with noise in the neighbourhood. And we also plan to have engagements and discussions where members of the public can also take part because the idea is to formulate a set of norms or benchmarks that can be useful in mediating conflicts arising from noise and also to guide our agencies in terms of their public education advisories.
We are starting with noise because, amongst the different kinds of neighbour disputes that I have raised, which have their roots in human behaviour, neighbour noise is the most numerous and we would like to gain more experience from using this Community Advisory Panel to form these norms and then work in concert with enhanced community dispute resolution mechanisms and gain some experience from that before we apply it to other forms of neighbour disputes.
The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Thank you, Chairman. I just have two clarifications.
The first is regarding the BTO cut that I had filed. It is really whether or not we could set aside a minimum target percentage of the flats. We have the shorter wait times. So, instead of the Build-to-Order (BTO) process, we have one which is build-ahead-of-order, considering that we do have a very significant demand and supply imbalance in the market today, with very high over-subscription rates for the BTO flats.
The second is in relation to resale subsidies and ensuring affordability. As it is, there are already a lot of public housing flats today in areas where only the better-off can afford them. I spoke about the 261 million-dollar flats. But if we look at the median resale prices of, say, a 5-room flat in places, such as Bukit Merah, Queenstown, Toa Payoh, these range from $800,000 to $900,000. So, what is it that the Ministry would be looking into to ensure that it is not only the better-off who can afford a flat in these places?
Mr Desmond Lee: The Member asked if more shorter waiting time flats can be built. The answer is that we are doing everything we can to do so. The reason why flats have shorter waiting times and, in the case of the most recent launch – two in Yishun, if I am not wrong – it is two years plus to get the flat. That is because the land was available, we were able to carry out the very significant land preparation and infrastructure development to enable those two projects to be launched ahead of time, ahead of our BTO launch, so that when people actually select the flat, the time to them collecting the keys is much less.
But that requires us to not just do land preparation and that work is very significant – you have to clear encumbrances, do land preparation, you may need to clear the land, provide the services, the roads. That work takes time. Singapore is land-scarce. So, where does this land come from to meet all these needs, or growing needs? To which, the Workers' Party would like to add more demand, which we will look at.
But we will have to take land from greenfield sites. And the Workers' Party has said, \"Please keep as much greenery as possible\". But some of these sites, we will have to use. So, please support when the studies are out.
Some are greenfield sites. Some of them are brownfield sites, which means they have been cleared of their previous use and the land is ready to be developed. But often, brownfield sites are still being used – whether they are used for businesses and industry or for nurseries, farming or retail or whatever, and we have to give the user of the land the time to be able to clear out and then we take over. And if there is a delay in that, that will affect our land preparation, that will affect our launch, that may cause delay to our housing plan.
So, to plan for a BTO programme requires many years of planning ahead of time. And, wherever possible, we will advance it in order to allow shorter waiting time flats to be launched.
In addition to that, as I have said in my speech earlier, we have both Sale of Balance Flats options as well as the Open Selection of Flats, where we put the balance units from all over the island and allow people to select. In fact, one is coming up, starting this month. I look forward to residents who need immediate housing to apply for those.
As for affordability of resale flats, there are certain areas which are very popular, the flats' resale prices are higher. But part of it is in the last year or so, because of COVID-19, because of concerns about construction delays, coupled with the ongoing socio-demographic trend of household formation and smaller households, had resulted in greater demand for resale flats; particularly in some areas which are very popular.
In fact, for the last six out of seven years, resale prices have been trending downwards.
We provide generous subsidies for those buying resale flats, up to $180,000 [Please refer to \"Committee of Supply – Head T (Ministry of National Development) for a clarification of the number, Official Report, 8 March 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 56, \"Budget\" section.], depending on income level, to help with the affordability of resale flats. But we also have put in place the Prime Location Public Housing flats to ensure that, in some very prime locations, eventually, when they become resold on the market and became resale flats themselves, we have enough mechanisms and levers to try to ensure that they remain affordable, not just at first launch, but, over time.
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Thank you, Chairman.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what are some of HDB's considerations in considering the profile of shops that it would prioritise in an area.
Ms Sim Ann: Mr Chairman, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh for his question. With regard to the features of heartland shops, we are now conducting a public consultation exercise. According to the feedback we have received from the public consultation so far, they have a few unique features. Some participants have shared that heartland shops should provide essential goods and services for residents and blend in with the spirit and ambience of the estate. They also hope to see more specialty shops and heritage shops in the heartlands and that the heartland shops will continue to operate and retain their local identity and connection. At the same time, there are others who wish to see more innovative shops that can offer residents a fresh shopping experience.
In general, most of the participants from the public consultation were of the view that there should be active curation and management of goods and services offered by the heartland shops. We will continue with the consultations based on the feedback received. After collating and analysing all feedback, we will craft a plan to enhance the shopping experience in the heartlands.
The Chairman: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: Thank you, Chairman, two questions for the Minister. One is on EIP – wonderful news. On the flip side of my question, the group that, due to EIP, cannot rent or buy flats nearer to their parents, is there something that the Ministry is also thinking to do for them?
Secondly, on green buildings. Great to hear about the grants for retrofits being extended to residential buildings, too. But, of course, HDB is the primary volume driver here. Can the Minister also give an update on the roadmap for HDB to retrofit its large base of buildings, as well as new buildings, to become greener? I say this knowing that it has a lot of socioeconomic impacts; I do not take it lightly, but it would be great if the Minister could share something on the roadmap.
Mr Desmond Lee: I will take the second question first. In the joint segment on the Green Plan, I had shared briefly about efforts that we will be undertaking under HDB Green Towns. For existing flats, we have committed to emplace solar panels on the roofs of 8,400 blocks and have done so for about 2,700, which is roughly around 30%. We aim to put solar panels on as many HDB rooftops as possible, subject to studies like loading, technical considerations, whether it gets adequate exposure to the sun and so on.
And for new BTOs, to make every HDB rooftop solar panel-ready, so that when the SolarNova contracts come their way, they are ready to be fitted out with solar panels.
The pneumatic waste management system under the HDB Green print in both Ang Mo Kio and Yuhua has shown that they are best done for new BTOs. Likewise, for the rainwater harvesting pilot in Yuhua. But for existing BTO flats, we are piloting cool paints on the surfaces of existing HDB blocks to reflect more heat away and to make the ambient environment in the homes more liveable and, in that regard, help families manage the cost of keeping their homes cool at the hottest times of the day or year.
And, of course, making every effort to green our HDB towns as much as possible and, hence, the OneMillionTrees, getting people heavily involved in HDB towns to plant as many trees in the town as possible. So, these are just some of the many things we are doing to retrofit, or to help our existing estates to be greener and more sustainable.
On EIP, our announcement focuses on those who are EIP-constrained and, despite marketing their flats for up to six months at reasonable prices, they are not able to sell and can show to HDB their efforts. So, HDB has now one more tool in the toolkit to help some of these families address their personal pain points, in order for society as a whole in Singapore to understand and support the policy of EIP, to keep our estates ethnically diverse.
The Member's point is about the reverse, people who want to buy a resale flat in an area that is near their parents' homes, but are facing a constraint because the seller cannot sell to them. In those cases again, I would say, put an appeal through. Let HDB take a look because it works both ways. They cannot buy, seller also wants to sell. And then, we will have a look globally at both the buyer and seller's situation.
The Chairman: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I got one clarification in regard to EIP and it is addressed to the Minister.
First of all, I thank the Minister for the explicit move on the EIP. It has been a long time coming to help families or individuals who cannot sell. My first clarification is about the fair offer. In what way can the Minister reassure sellers involved in this EIP appeal, on a case-by-case basis, and residents have suggested this as well, as in a buyback from HDB? But how can the Minister reassure that the price will not be too low when the valuation comes in and what is the valuation level that will be coming up?
The second question is, sometimes, the seller could be seniors who stay in some of these old mature flats and they stay alone. How can HDB help them to compile these documents for submission? I know property agents may be involved, but, in some ways, how can we inform some of these senior sellers with regard to documentation? Because it looks quite onerous in terms of collecting listings for six months and all that.
Mr Desmond Lee: As I have said, HDB, when considering this buyback option for the seller, will appoint a professional valuer. We will look at the inputs and then make a fair offer, taking into account the specific circumstances that the family is in. Certainly, we cannot match the highest possible resale prices in the area. But we will make sure the offer is fair, the seller will be told and given time to consider. He can, of course, write to HDB if he feels that he disagrees with the quantum, but that is an offer that HDB makes after taking in inputs.
On seniors living alone and if they face these difficulties, please ask them to approach the HDB branch office and we will do what we can to support them if they face difficulties carrying out the process in order to avail themselves of some of these support mechanisms.
The Chairman: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Chairman. I have two clarifications for Minister of State Tan Kiat How. Today, NTUC has formed Company Training Committees (CTCs) with some Facilities Management (FM) companies. Through these CTCs, we are working very closely with the companies to transform their business operations and upscale their workers, achieving win-win outcomes.
So, my first clarification is whether MND and BCA will work with NTUC and Building and Allied Trades' Union (BATU), that is, our building, construction and timber industries employees' union, to reach out to more FM companies to establish CTCs with them?
My second clarification is whether the FM sector, both employers as well as workers, could benefit from adopting Progressive Wage Model (PWM) with its wage and skills ladders, so that we can better attract, retain and develop local professionals in this growing sector?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Chairman, Mr Melvin Yong had two clarifications. I will answer the first one about working with NTUC and, specifically, BATU, in terms of upskilling and raising the level of professionalism, as well as wage and career progression for our FM workers. The answer is, certainly, yes, we are happy to work together with NTUC, as well as our partners in BATU to do so.
In fact, this is something we are working very closely on with all partners: industry partners, companies, employers as well as our union leaders. Specifically, on the modality of CTCs, it is one modality that we work closely with the union leaders and companies on.
Broadly speaking, I would say that we encourage the FM and the MA workers to go for training and accreditation to raise their professionalism and improve their competencies. Because that is the sustainable way for wage progression and career pathways in both sectors. And we are very heartened that many companies and workers have come on board many of the training programmes conducted either by BCA Academy or our trade associations, including the Singapore International Facility Management Association (SIFMA), the Association of Property and Facility Managers (APFM) and the Association of Strata Managers (ASM). So, we are working together and we welcome a tripartite approach.
To the Member's second question about the PWM within the FM sector, I understand that the NTUC friends are working very closely with MOM. The Member has raised a proposal to look at the PWM for workers in the strata management sector and we are working very closely with MOM to look at the scope, as well as the merits of the issue. We look forward to continue working with our NTUC colleagues on this.
The Chairman: Mr Yip Hon Weng. Keep it short, please.
Mr Yip Hon Weng: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Two clarifications: can services in the Community Care Apartments (CCAs) be extended to seniors living in existing HDB estates? And two: why is a first-timer family not eligible for the Fresh Start Housing Scheme?
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for the questions. CCA is a new concept and we need to evaluate the pilot to see how it helps in the physical and socioemotional well-being of the seniors. We will also take the Member's suggestion.
That said, today if you look at MOH, they also have services that look after the frail, for example, home and day care. At the same time, for those who need social support, we have the befrienders. As we move forward, there will be a levelling up of the elder care centres to see how these can better serve as a point of contact for seniors in every community, providing active ageing, befriending and many more services where they can be a point of contact.
But we are encouraged by the support and also the responses from the public about CCA. We will closely study its impact and we really want to make it work, so that we can give opportunities for our seniors to age-in-place.
The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you, Chairman. I just want to make two factual clarifications. I misspoke earlier in response to Mr Louis Chua. I said that the resale grant is up to $180,000. It should be $160,000.
And in relation to the Leader of the Opposition, when I mentioned the MCPS adjustments for the first PLH and second PLH, it was 30% to 20%. So, it is a cut of 10 percentage points, rather than five percentage points.
The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.
Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Thank you, Chairman. I thank Minister Desmond Lee for buying back flats from EIP-constrained owners under certain conditions. I have the following clarifications: would these flats be added to the PPHS or Public Rental Scheme to meet rental demand from singles or families in the eligible minority ethnic groups?
My second clarification is for Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim. Could the Minister of State provide an update on the current situation of EIP-constrained owners? Has the number of appeals increased?
Mr Desmond Lee: All flats that are bought back, we are likely to prioritise them for home ownership, put subsidies and put them out as balance flats to meet housing demand. But depending on circumstances and on location, we may also consider them for PPHS or other uses, subject, of course, to EIP.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: For the number of appeals, we have seen the number of appeals going down over the years, from 2019 to today. So, with these changes, we hope we can support the home owners better.
The Chairman: Miss Cheryl Chan. Keep it very, very short.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Chairman, because I am also aware of the Guillotine Time, so, I shall file my clarifications in subsequent Parliamentary Questions (PQs) instead. Would you like me to withdraw my amendment?
The Chairman: Yes, would you like to withdraw your amendment?
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Thank you, Chairman. I want to begin by thanking Minister Desmond Lee, Second Minister Indranee, whom we miss but I am sure she has been preparing for this COS as well, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim, Minister of State Tan Kiat How and the entire MND team who have been working very hard to address all the varying topics that we have raised. Housing policies and land planning topics are complex for the fact that they have a lot of stakeholders that they interact with and also because they address genuine needs on a day-to-day basis.
So, it is not an easy balance. By recognising this, the Ministry has been trying its very best to help many people on the ground, based on all the feedback that we have received. I hope that we can continue refining the policies over time, in order to make sure that we can strengthen the schemes that are available, so that it really helps people.
Last but not least, it is important that we continue engaging citizens and partners to be able to shape the future Singapore, so that we can truly have a sustainable, resilient and liveable city and, together, we can build a home for all. Chairman, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $3,426,272,700 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $7,806,220,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Head W (Ministry of Transport)","subTitle":"Creating an inclusive and sustainable home","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Head W, Ministry of Transport. Mr Saktiandi Supaat. If you could just take your first cut.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\"
As we hopefully look to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic year, it is timely for us to take stock of the lessons we have learnt from the supply chain disruptions amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and how businesses are responding to the same. This will prepare us to bolster our hub status as a reliable and resilient transport node to the world.
First, there is a general consensus that digitalisation is required to mitigate the risk of supply chain disruptions. To utilise our limited resources productively, we have already been focusing on digitalisation before the pandemic. But other larger and resource-rich countries will also see the same need now – whether it is using AI and machine learning to decrease dependency on human labour in critical parts of the supply chain or digitising the cumbersome paperwork that accompanies the cargo flowing through the chain.
So, while I welcome the launch of our Supply Chain 4.0 Initiative to help small businesses scale up on digital and automated solutions to make supply chains more resilient and secure, we need to think about how we can continue to stay ahead as the transport node of choice.
Second, the unpredictability of supply chain disruptions has led businesses to move from \"just in time\" to a \"just in case\" inventory strategy. As businesses start to keep a fair level of buffer beyond their expected inventory needs, they are also looking for integrated short-term storage solutions in addition to the efficient processing and clearance of goods at our ports.
This creates a conundrum for land-scarce Singapore, where storage space at our ports or elsewhere is only available at a premium. Perhaps the Government can consider how we can use idle state land to support this – as part of our more general plan to move our sea port westwards in the coming years.
Third, we must remember that supply chain disruptions are a global problem and no one country is going to solve it themselves. So, collaboration is key. Even as we compete, we must recognise that sharing knowledge and solutions will improve the interoperability across a network of ports and enhance our resilience and reliability as a regional transport solution.
Through this pandemic, I am glad that we have succeeded in developing and sharing safe crew change protocols with fellow International Maritime Organisation member states and enhanced our digital OCEANSTM initiative to shape and harmonise global data standards. We must continue these efforts to export knowledge. How does the Ministry intend to further enhance Singapore as a reliable and resilient transport node?
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Mr Chairman, today, many countries in the world are talking about smart transportation or intelligent transportation systems. We are no different. Under our Smart Mobility 2030 masterplan launched in 2014, we aim to optimise transport systems and enhance commuter travel experience across Singapore with the latest developments in transport technologies. Time-wise, we are almost at the 50% mark. Could the Ministry share an update on our progress? What are the Ministry's plan and strategy to embrace, testbed and utilise new and advanced technologies to benefit commuters in Singapore or even globally?
Putting aside autonomous and green vehicles, one of the centrepieces in the Smart Mobility vision is to leverage data and analytics to optimise the use of transport systems. Besides collecting information and analysing them at the backend, it is equally important to push such information to individual commuters, so that we are able to influence our user behaviour in real time. This is not new – we have long been informing motorists of road conditions through radio broadcasts and the Expressway Monitoring and Advisory System’s (EMAS) electronic signboards.
However, rapid improvements in technology mean there are now faster and more efficient ways to push information to commuters. We can now look to apps and websites on our mobile phone for bus arrival timings from the SBS Transit app, ERP rates from the MyTransport app and road conditions from OneMotoring. But these are only as useful as we can get commuters to use them.
What is the utilisation of feedback on these informative apps? Is there an opportunity to centralise information on a single user-friendly platform, now that a global chip shortage has delayed the rollout of the Next-Gen-ERP to the latter half of 2023?
For example, at the usage of Park Connector Network (PCN) level, we can roll out a PCN cycling and pedestrian density real-time \"crowd level\" map akin to NParks' Safe Distance website where it helps users avoid or navigate with the understanding it is a busy PCN peak period.
We are seeing these exciting transport evolutions as we see the transport industry facing a sea change globally. International climate change objectives have intensified the race to decarbonise transport, which accounts for around one-fifth of global carbon emissions. Technological advancements are driving the evolution of smart and intelligent transport systems.
We are seeing these exciting transport evolutions in Singapore as well, including the Hyundai electric vehicle (EV) plant that is coming up, the commercial air taxi services that are coming up as well. Smart technology can complement our transport system by providing last-mile connectivity where required, such as to our islands.
At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic has also shaken up the transport industry over the past two years as transport routes and norms are disrupted. While our seaport continued to post stellar results despite the pandemic, the same cannot be said about our air transport and supporting services industry, which has bled thousands of jobs since the pandemic broke.
What is the projected job creation outlook in the transport sector, be it air, land or maritime? What are the emerging areas and what future jobs will be there and how can we encourage and develop local talent to join these sectors early on?
The Chairman: Mr Melvin Yong, take both your cuts together.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Chairman, the COVID-19 pandemic has a profound impact on our transport workforce across the air, sea and land sectors.
First, it is no secret that our aviation sector has been hard hit by the pandemic. But as more vaccinated travel lane arrangements are made and air travel starts to recover, what is the Government's outlook for the aviation sector? Is the worst behind us or are we looking at a long bottom of a U-shape recovery curve?
It takes years to train our aviation staff, especially highly-skilled jobs, such as pilots and aircraft technicians. According to MOM's data, our air transport workforce has dropped by about 30%, compared to pre-COVID-19 staffing levels. A well-trained and well-staffed workforce is vital for Singapore to recover our status as a travel hub. How does the Government intend to support the aviation sector and revive Changi Airport's manpower capacity? Are there any plans to increase recruitment to prepare for the return of air travel demand?
Our maritime sector, however, has done well amidst the pandemic. Singapore's ports handled a record number of container throughput in 2021. As the sector grows and transforms, what are the Ministry's plans to attract more local workers to join the maritime sector? Has the enhanced Career Conversion Programme for Sea Transport Professionals and Associates been successful in attracting Singaporeans into this growth sector?
Lastly, our land transport sector saw more locals joining as bus captains, bus technicians and rail engineers in the past two years, many of whom are mid-career switchers. But as our economy recovers and companies in the hospitality and tourism industries ask ex-staff to return, do we foresee an increase in attrition among our public transport workforce? How does the Ministry intend to tackle this attrition and keep our essential services attractive to Singaporeans?
Sir, COVID-19 also highlighted the vulnerability of our public bus workforce. We should build a reserve public bus captain pool, one that can be activated upon short notice to fill urgent manpower gaps. I propose to train taxi drivers to act as reserve bus captains. This reserve force could drive buses once a month to keep their driving skills and route familiarity current so that they can be activated upon an emergency. Two of our public bus operators, SBS Transit and SMRT, have taxi companies within their corporate groups today. I hope LTA can work with the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) to initiate a pilot with these two companies.
COVID-19 has fundamentally changed the way we live, work and play. My concern is whether we need to review our pre-pandemic key planning parameters for our major transport infrastructure projects.
According to data from LTA, public transport ridership in 2021 has continued to remain low. There was an average of 5.25 million bus and train trips a day, the second lowest since 2010 and much lower than the record 7.69 million daily trips in 2019.
How will the permanent shifts in the way we live and work affect our long-term plans to grow the MRT network? Can the Ministry provide an update on our rail expansion plans, specifically, the Cross Island and Jurong Regional Lines, and whether we need to review the earlier ridership projections for these lines?
Our aviation sector, too, has seen a continued slump and the Ministry had announced a two-year pause in Changi Airport Terminal 5's construction. Can the Ministry provide an update on when construction will resume, if at all, and whether there will be changes to the scope of the project?
Lastly, the maritime sector, however, has performed well amidst the pandemic. According to MPA, Singapore was the world's busiest container transhipment port, handling a record high of 37.5 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) of container throughput in 2021.
We are currently building the Tuas Mega Port which, when fully completed in 2040, will be the world's largest fully-automated terminal with the ability to handle up to 65 million TEUs annually. This is twice our current record high. I would like to ask whether we have oversized the capacity of the Tuas Mega Port and whether the pandemic has delayed its construction timeline.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Chairman, the pandemic has completely changed our lives in the past two years. There may not be an exact endpoint where we can say life is going back to normal. While we are slowly restoring parts of our lives, some parts have changed forever.
I would like to touch on one aspect which is close to my heart – how the pandemic has altered our transport patterns. Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as I am working in the land transport industry.
It is amazing how all of us have been forced to work from home in one way or another in the past two years. Will working from home be a permanent feature in the future?
From my conversations with many business leaders, the consensus is that most staff, barring the frontline staff, will likely be working from home between 10% and 30% of the time even after the pandemic. More employers are also willing to have their workers put on staggered working hours.
Indeed, data from a study in San Francisco showed that the pandemic had reduced traffic throughout the morning peak hour and spread it all over throughout the day. Ultimately, this can also contribute to healthier communities as there is less air pollution and is aligned with our green plan. Therefore, we need to capitalise on the work-from-home trend to permanently reduce the level of travel demand during the peak hours between 7.30 am and 9.30 am.
Before the pandemic, the resources devoted to the morning peak hours often defined the maximum capacity required to meet the travel demand.
Going forward, firstly, I would like to suggest that the Public Service, which employs about 130,000 public officers, consider encouraging their staff to continue to work from home one to two days a week or to allow the staff to come to work after morning peak hours. If there is a need to have an early meeting at 8.00 am, perhaps we can allow some of them to join the meeting virtually. The unions can also chip in to encourage similar practices in the private sector.
Secondly, at the next review of public transport fares, perhaps the Public Transport Council, or PTC, can take the opportunity to encourage less travelling during peak hours.
In London, some national rail services do not stop at the busiest interchanges at peak times in a deliberate attempt to discourage travelling during peak hours. But I do not suggest that Singapore do the same. It might be better for PTC to amend the fare structure to give a significant discount during the off-peak travel period.
However, providing monetary incentives alone will not shift the travel pattern significantly.
In 2013 to 2014, many of you would remember that commuters were offered free pre-peak travel if they exited certain MRT stations before 7.45 am. What was the result? There was only a sustained decrease of about 7% of commuters exiting the 16 participating MRT stations during the peak period between 8.00 am and 9.00 am. This means that there needs to be a combination of people working from home, staggered working hours and financial incentives for off-peak travelling to result in a significant and sustained impact.
After going through the pandemic, I hope MOT can work with the various stakeholders to cement the change. This will also mean a more pleasant ride on our trains and buses.
If we manage to flatten the curve of peak-hour travelling, should we allow or should we slow down the construction of MRT lines? I hope MOT will reply with a firm \"no\".
After the construction of the North-East Line, when the ridership was much lower than what LTA had anticipated, the construction of the Circle Line and Downtown Line was delayed. That resulted in overcrowding in the oldest North-South and East-West lines. We should not create the same kind of situation again. We should still build train lines ahead of demand.
I trust that MOT will continue with its plan for the Jurong Regional Line and Cross Island Line. However, we can consider reducing the number of trains deployed to save on the operating, maintenance and fixed asset costs, like rolling stock, if we are successful in flattening the peak-hour travel demand.
Next, I would like to move on to the topic of cycling. The pandemic has made cycling more popular for leisure and for commuting. As what Minister S Iswaran had said, commuting by bicycle does not emit any carbon dioxide. So, it is good that Singapore is expanding its current 440-kilometre network of cycling paths to 800 kilometres by 2023 and to 1,320 kilometres by 2030.
However, these paths and the park connector network, or PCN, are getting crowded as more Singaporeans are using them. I, myself, have been cycling. I have come across instances where the entire shared path was blocked by families holding hands and walking in a row side-by-side. On other occasions, I had also seen three bicycles cycling in parallel, blocking the entire PCN. To keep everyone safe, I suggest that there should be dedicated cycling and pedestrian paths as far as possible.
East Coast Park is one of those parks which have dedicated cycling and pedestrian paths and we need to extend this to more places, such as the PCNs in Marina Bay, Alexandra or the Sengkang/Punggol PCN and more.
In order to create separate paths, the entire path needs to be widened to include the space on either side. Hence, the agencies need to be bold to take back the land or to repurpose the land which may now comprise part of a road or a grass verge to expand the PCN.
COVID-19 might have slowed down our pursuit of new technologies in transport, such as autonomous vehicle or AVs. The use of AVs is an important technological milestone that we cannot miss. In 2020, Singapore was named as the world's top country for autonomous driving due to the expansion of our testing areas and training of bus drivers to operate AVs. In fact, there was an earlier announcement that three new towns would be served by driverless buses by 2022. Can MOT update on the progress of AV trials at Jurong Innovation District, Tengah and Punggol?
Meanwhile, two air taxi pioneers had recently announced their ambition to launch commercial air taxi services in Singapore by 2024. Could MOT provide us an update on the regulatory framework and safety standard for air taxis in Singapore?
Alongside pandemic-induced changes in the way we travel, new transport technologies like AVs and air taxis would be an important part of our transport strategy for the future to reduce traffic congestion and free up land for other uses.
The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Chairman. The aviation sector has been badly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. As the travel sector gradually recovers, how fast can Changi Airport open up to more Vaccinated Travel Lanes (VTLs)? How will the Government support our airport to recover its role as an aviation hub safely? In the longer term, how will the airport continue to remain competitive and provide good jobs for Singaporeans?
As almost all Singaporeans and residents complete their vaccinations and boosters or acquire immunity, it will become safer for our travel sector to resume. Can the Minister provide an update on the upcoming plans to reopen our borders and attract more flights to Changi Airport? Would the Ministry share its outlook for the aviation sector for 2022?
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, Singapore's tourism sector has been hit hard by the disruption of travel into Singapore. On the home side, Singaporeans have become a little stir-crazy from restricted travel overseas for leisure, and business persons are also looking for easier travel procedures to places they need to be at.
In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister about MOT's plans to recover air passenger travel and revive the aviation sector. On a related note, I would also like to ask if there are plans to ultimately drop the VTL system and to introduce quarantine-free travel for vaccinated travellers from all destinations, perhaps starting with vaccinated Singaporeans.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, may I take my two cuts together?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Ms Poh Li San: Thank you. Mr Chairman, I would like to first declare my interest as an Executive in the Changi Airport Group.
The aviation sector has been one of the hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the spread of the Omicron variant has been a drag on the recovery of the sector, there was still cautious optimism at the beginning of this year that global air travel demand will pick up over the course of 2022.
Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has now cast a shadow over the much-anticipated recovery of this sector. As Russia accounts for about 10% of the world's supply of crude oil, there will be serious disruptions due to the sanctions against Russia by the international community. Not only will oil prices jump, there will also be an impact on the supplies of jet fuel and, in turn, an upward pressure on the price of plane tickets. Flights over Europe may also need to be rerouted due to the war.
Would the Ministry share its views on these events and their impact and its outlook for the aviation sector? What is our strategy going forward to minimise the impact of the pandemic and the war on our aviation sector?
Despite these challenges, we should try to proceed to open our borders safely. Will the Ministry provide an update on the upcoming plans to reopen our borders? With different countries issuing different travel regulations in their attempts to control the pandemic, air travel has become challenging and fraught with confusion. There should be better coordination amongst countries. A uniform set of travel regulations would be more helpful to rejuvenate air travel. What is the Ministry's view on this and what can Singapore do to contribute to improve cooperation with our partner countries, especially those with the most traffic with Singapore?
Mr Chairman, the aviation sector is a manpower-intensive one, with more than 50,000 workers working in Changi Airport pre-COVID-19. After more than two years of the pandemic, how many workers were still employed at the end of 2021? With the gradual resumption of travel, how can the Government ensure that there are sufficient workers to cope with the border reopening? What are the measures to increase the automation of labour-intensive jobs? In the longer term, how can we ensure that the aviation sector remains attractive and provides good jobs? How will the Government continue to support the sector to scale up its capacity and capabilities?
Last month, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore convened the inaugural meeting of the International Advisory Panel on Sustainable Air Hub to develop a blueprint for Singapore to become a sustainable aviation hub. Would the Ministry share more about its plans under the blueprint?
Companies in the aviation sector are trying to keep afloat amidst a very difficult environment caused by the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic and, now, the war in Ukraine, which will lead to higher oil prices. What will the Government do to help the aviation sector cope with increased carbon taxes in addition to the other cost pressures?
What grants and funds are available for the aviation industry to invest in new technology and equipment that will reduce carbon emissions and boost energy efficiency?
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan, you can take your two cuts together.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Chairman. In the last few months, there appears to be some lamentation over the slow recovery of the Asia Pacific aviation industry from the pandemic amidst government restrictions.
According to figures released by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) for October last year, travel in the Asia Pacific was down 92.8% in October 2021, compared to October 2019. According to IATA, the region is the only part of the world to see practically no improvement in air travel during the past year. A few months on, as countries battled their way out of the Omicron threat, I wonder whether there is any sign of recovery for the aviation industry in the Asia Pacific and, indeed, for Singapore this year.
At last year's Committee of Supply (COS), Minister Ong Ye Kung told the House not to expect a V-shaped recovery. That was before the start of the VTLs for Singapore and many other countries. Many countries have relaxed travel restrictions in the last few months. Nearer home, Singapore continues to increase its VTL locations. Australia recently opened its borders to visitors again.
As more countries start to open up and increase flights to other countries and with some relaxing COVID-19 test requirements, will the Minister update the House on his expectations for growth of air travel in the coming year and its implications for Singapore as a major air hub and for our aviation industry?
I would also like to ask the Minister whether we will see the start of recovery for the aerospace sector. This sector is significant to Singapore and includes maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO), avionics and aircraft component production and repair. As we head towards a post-pandemic world, may I also take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he can update the House on MOT's review of its plans for Terminal 5?
Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a maritime lawyer.
In August 2021, the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) was set up by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and six partner maritime organisations and companies to, I quote, \"Support decarbonisation of the maritime industry to meet or exceed the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)'s goals for 2030 and 2050.\"
Its stated goals were, among other things, and I quote again, \"Lower the adoption barriers for low zero carbon fuels and technologies by closing the gaps in infrastructure, safety operations and financing, and to accelerate the deployment of scalable low-carbon technologies.\"
The opening of the Centre and the Centre's aims are, indeed, befitting of our port as a leading bunkering port in the world as well as one of the busiest ports in the world and one of the major world maritime hubs. Singapore should aim to take the lead to hasten the development and adoption of low- or zero-carbon fuels for commercial shipping at this critical time.
The International Advisory Panel on Maritime Decarbonisation had earlier proposed the establishment of this Global Maritime/Decarbonisation Centre in Singapore to coordinate, drive and catalyse maritime decarbonisation solutions. MPA has recently reported that in 2021, Singapore has kept its position as the top bunkering port, registering total bunker sales volume of 50.04 million tonnes in 2021. Of this, the bulk of the sales volume, 49.99 million tonnes to be exact, were conventional bunker sales, while only 0.5 million tonnes were in LNG bunker sales.
It was reported that Singapore commenced regular ship-to-ship LNG bunkering operations from March last year and that Singapore will continue to diversify our fuel offerings in line with our push for maritime decarbonisation. Indeed, LNG itself may not even be a long-term solution. The industry may have to push on to better low, if not zero, carbon fuels. There is not much time for all stakeholders in the maritime industry in the world to achieve the goals set by IMO to halve greenhouse emissions from 2008 levels by 2050. There is much to do in our search for affordable zero-carbon fuels. I hope GCMD will enable Singapore to spearhead the push among leading maritime nations.
Will the Minister share with this House his hopes for GCMD and also his expectation of what Singapore hopes to achieve for its bunker sales in terms of lower carbon offerings in the coming five, 10 and perhaps 20 years?
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, in a recent public transport survey, it was reported that overall satisfaction with public transport in Singapore in 2021 dipped to its lowest level since 2015.
Public transport remains the main mode of commute for the majority of Singaporeans and LTA needs to ensure that our public transport remains, safe, reliable, accessible and comfortable. And, yet, at the same time, I urge the Ministry to ensure that public transport remains affordable, as it is a public service available to all Singaporeans.
So, may I ask the Minister whether there is any assessment or evaluation as to the reasons for the drop in commuter satisfaction? What are the steps taken by public transport operators to improve on their performance? Would a report be issued by the public transport operators on their remedial action? May I also ask the Minister whether he can provide the House with an update on the plans to expand the MRT network and how to make public transport more accessible to Singaporeans?
May I also ask the Minister for an update to the public transport fare review formula, which is due by next year?
Thirdly, may I ask the Minister whether the construction of the Thomson-East Coast Line is on track to be fully operational by 2024? Here, I declare my interest in this Thomson-East Line as there will be four MRT stations located in my constituency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"Business motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 91(3)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's Committee Sitting for a period of up to 30 minutes. Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
","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":"Creating an inclusive and sustainable home","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Head W (cont) – (proc text)]
Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Chairman, what has been the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our plan to grow the MRT network from 230 kilometres to 360 kilometres in the early 2030s? Would the Ministry share what is the progress of the feasibility study of the new lines, including the possibility to have a line to serve the residents in Buangkok, Yio Chu Kang, Fernvale and Punggol?
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): The Public Transport Council (PTC)'s latest customer satisfaction survey found that satisfaction with public transport services has fallen to its lowest level in six years. The survey showed that discontent with public bus services was a factor with many commuters, notably expressing dissatisfaction with bus waiting times. These sentiments are similarly expressed by many of my residents living along Bedok Reservoir Road where four bus services were recently cut or re-routed last December. This has resulted in my residents having to put up with longer waiting times, crowded buses and losing direct routes to their destinations.
Before removing or re-routing bus services, LTA should conduct public consultations with affected residents. If bus services are being rationalised due to low ridership, I would like to suggest that LTA first consider switching to smaller buses or extending their headways. If bus services must be removed, the frequency of the remaining feeder services to bus interchanges or MRT stations should be increased to make up for them. Commuters should not have to wait more than five minutes during peak hours or 10 minutes during off-peak hours for feeder buses. LTA should strive to retain trunk bus services. These serve many elderly and disabled residents who have trouble walking between bus stops or transferring from bus to MRT. Many of them do not mind longer bus routes or bus rides if that allows them to walk less.
While LTA and public transport operators strive towards efficiency, they must pay closer attention to the comfort and convenience of commuters. LTA should proactively monitor public feedback and be open to bringing back bus services if there is strong commuter demand.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Chairman, I wish to share with this House a proposal that seniors and those with disabilities be furnished with a concession card that will allow them to ride public transportation free of charge.
On its face, this sounds like a preposterous and profligate idea. Preposterous, because, surely, removing charges would invite overuse and abuse. Profligate, because even when they are made free of charge, these services are, certainly, not free of cost and must be funded by some source – in this case, the Government.
But before we jump to instinctive judgement, it is worth noting that free ridership already exists in some form or another. In Singapore, there are free transport shuttles for patrons of Turf City, for tourists seeking a city tour during a stopover and for students connecting to campus from nearby MRT stations. Other countries have gone even further. Some municipalities from smaller ones, such as Hoeselt in Belgium and Obare in France, to larger cities, such as Prague in the Czech Republic and Washington DC in the United States, run selected free bus and tram services. Tallinn, the capital city of Estonia, recently converted its entire public transportation network to a zero-fare system. Around two years ago, Luxembourg became the first nation in the world to make all public transportation modes free within the country.
As our society ages, but many elderly remain mobile and healthy, some may wish to continue to pursue employment opportunities. Such positions, typically on a part-time basis, do not pay very much and public transportation would very quickly gobble up a sufficiently large share of the pay cheque, so as to make the entire enterprise no longer worthwhile. Free transport for seniors will allow those who wish to remain productive and engage in employment to do so. Our labour force participation has already trended down since 2015 and while this is natural and normal in an ageing society, the scheme will help mitigate the rate of decline and allow our economy time to adjust.
Even in the absence of work, free transport will encourage the elderly to be out and about, engaging in social interactions that can promote their physical and mental well-being. This can help manage the rising incidence of dementia, which already one in every 10 seniors faces.
This initiative also dovetails nicely with our nation's effort to promote environmental sustainability. An important cornerstone of the Singapore Green Plan 2030 is to encourage green commutes, with a target of 75% mass public transportation usage. Providing incentives for our elderly and disabled to rely more heavily on public transport, since trips will be free, will contribute toward this goal, especially since riders are least likely to be using green forms of transportation, such as bicycles, in any case.
An initiative, such as this, will entail trade-offs, of course. Our existing pricing structure is, to be fair, relatively affordable by global standards. Moreover, seniors and the disabled already pay concessionary rates on existing tariffs. The Government has also invested heavily in the transportation infrastructure on which the public transportation system relies on, thereby providing an indirect subsidy.
But to the extent that fares are used to offset operational costs, with profits subject to corporate taxation and dividends returned to majority shareholders, such as Temasek, the Government is able to recoup much of its initial outlay. Seniors and the disabled are only a comparatively small fraction of public transportation ridership. The financial impact would, therefore, correspondingly be much more limited. Our estimates, which are, admittedly, conservative, suggest added expenditures of between $0.3 billion and $0.4 billion a year, or an increase of 3% to 4% of the Ministry's current budget.
Even if we are uncomfortable with completely unrestricted free usage, one reasonable accommodation would be to allow such free transport during off-peak hours, where there is, typically, some spare capacity in our bus and train systems in any case. If so, the opportunity cost of not implementing such a free transportation scheme may well exceed the cost of doing so.
Mr Chairman, LTA has declared that it seeks, and I quote: \"inclusive public transportation system\", one that ensures barrier-free access for wheelchairs and strollers, providing priority boarding lines and reserved seats for elderly and disabled commuters and creating bus-stop seats that are more elderly-friendly.
While these multidimensional aspects of inclusivity exist, we have neglected inclusion of the most fundamental form – ensuring free access to public transport for those who can least afford it. Some have gone as far as to argue that urban transit is a human right, akin to why we do not pay to ride elevators. Even if we do not wish to push the argument that far, I believe we can all agree that the least an inclusive and caring society can do for our seniors and disabled is to afford them the dignity to move around our beautiful city, free of charge. Let them ride free.
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 propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 7.55 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 7.36 pm until 7.55 pm.
Sitting resumed at 7.55 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY – HEAD W (MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT)
(Creating an inclusive and sustainable home)
[(proc text) Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Head W (cont) – (proc text)]
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye: Mr Chairman, I have raised on multiple occasions in this House about the importance of ensuring that our workers travel to and from work safely every day.
The Government had said that it was reviewing how to enhance the safety of workers ferried in the rear decks of lorries after a spate of traffic accidents last year.
I would like to ask whether the Government is considering a ban on the transportation of workers in the rear decks of lorries. Can the Ministry provide an update on this as well as to my earlier suggestions to install speed limiters and seat belts, as interim measures, on lorries used to ferry workers to enhance safety? Sir, we should do all we can to improve the safety of our workers' transport.
The Chairman: Deputy Leader. Would you like to adjourn the debate?
","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 Chairman: Deputy Leader.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): 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.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2022/2023, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, I understand that Mr Leong Mun Wai wishes to make a Personal Explanation to the House, in response to my request for the withdrawal and apology in respect of his Facebook post.
I, therefore, beg to move, \"that the proceedings on the Personal Explanation by Mr Leong Mun Wai be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\"
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the Personal Explanation by Mr Leong Mun Wai be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rearrangement of Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That notwithstanding Standing Order 10, a Personal Explanation by Mr Leong Mun Wai be taken now\".
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That notwithstanding Standing Order 10, a Personal Explanation by Mr Leong Mun Wai be taken now\". (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Explanation by Member","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Personal Explanation. Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to make this Personal Explanation.
At yesterday's MOM COS, I was hoping to ask the Manpower Minister a very important point about the displacement of Singaporean PMEs. It was not my intent to impugn the Speaker or the Parliamentary processes. But in my social media post, I was trying to highlight that some amount of discretion and flexibility with the Standing Orders will go a long way in enhancing our discussion in this House.
But, today, I would like to sincerely and unreservedly apologise to the Speaker and this House for my Facebook comments of 12.52 pm and 12.53 pm on 7 March 2022, and the video I posted at 6.55 pm on 7 March 2022, and the statements therein which impugned the Speaker and the processes of Parliament.
I have taken the post down at 5.30 pm today. I withdraw what I said in them and undertake not to repeat such words again. I acknowledge that I had not set out all the facts in my post and thus, gave a misleading impression.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, may I also confirm if the Member will be putting up an apology on Facebook as I had requested?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, in reply to the Senior Minister of State's question, I confirm that I will put what I said just now on my Facebook.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Speaker, Parliament is the place for us to debate important issues that affect Singapore and Singaporeans. We have, in this House, developed a set of procedures and practices to guide us on how we are to do this in an effective and efficient manner.
In other jurisdictions, there are examples where we see such procedural rules and how they are used to prevent or frustrate the government of the day from carrying out its proper functions. It would be completely contrary to our interests for this to occur in this House. The rules have been designed and finetuned over the years and have worked in ensuring that important issues to us are brought up before the House and robustly debated, while allowing business to be completed without undue delay.
Mr Leong Mun Wai himself should acknowledge this. We had a long debate on the Motions on the topic of Singaporeans' jobs and our foreign talent policy just six months ago, which we spent hours debating here.
In this year's COS, more than 600 cuts were filed and we are looking at more than 50 hours of debate. So, I do not think anyone can reasonably say the Budget was not extensively debated. There are also avenues for issues to be raised in subsequent Sittings.
So, I would, therefore, hope that Members would bear this in mind and remember that we are all representatives of this House and we should resist any attempt to lower the standing or dignity of this House.
We all play a part in ensuring that robust debate can take place here and that Parliament remains a trusted and respected institution, where issues can be raised fairly and can be scrutinised by the public. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I accept the apology.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 10.30 am, tomorrow.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.07 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demerit Point System for Recalcitrant Neighbours Who Repeatedly Cause Noise Nuisance and Other Disamenities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"7 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider setting up a demerit point system for residents who are recalcitrant neighbours who repeatedly create noise nuisance and other community disamenities.
Mr Desmond Lee: In responding to neighbourly disputes that arise from disturbances created by residents, Government agencies will first seek to fact-find and facilitate dialogue and discussion among neighbours, in order to enhance mutual understanding and achieve a consensus among the neighbours involved. This addresses the root cause of the problem while strengthening the relationship among neighbours. Most cases of neighbour disputes are resolved through such efforts at dialogue and mediation.
We do recognise that, for some cases, the persons involved could persist in creating disturbances for the neighbourhood. The Member would be aware of an ongoing interagency review of the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF), which has been studying different ways to more effectively address egregious and persistent cases of neighbour disputes, involving disturbances, such as noise. MND is taking part in this review. We are considering ways to strengthen the management of neighbour disputes, so that residents are held to greater responsibility for their actions. While there are, currently, no plans to adopt a demerit point system, we do intend to consult the public on ideas and suggestions that can help establish clearer norms for daily life in the community. We are also studying ways to empower agencies to take more decisive actions in addressing protracted and egregious dispute cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Seniors Requiring Mental Health Intervention Given Social Isolation in Last Two Years Due to COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"8 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health in light of the impact that social isolation has had on the mental health of seniors in the past two years (a) how many seniors have required mental health intervention; (b) of which, how many of these cases are detected through community efforts and social service agencies (SSA); and (c) what are the efforts by the Ministry and the SSAs to conduct mental health screening for seniors.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Currently, MOH does not track the breakdown of those seeking mental health intervention by age bands for adults. However, surveys, such as the National Population Health Survey, have shown that the proportion of seniors aged 60-74 with poor mental health was 11.4% in 2017 and 9.4% in 2020. The second Well-being of Singapore Elderly study is under way and we will continue to track and better meet the mental health needs of our seniors.
As there is inconclusive evidence on the benefits of mass mental health screening, efforts are focused instead on increasing mental health literacy and awareness, as well as identifying and providing support to persons at risk or suspected to have mental health conditions in the community. In the past two years, the community outreach teams have reached out and provided information and/or assistance to more than 128,000 people.
To complement the above, our Eldercare Centres (ECs) work with the Silver Generation Office (SGO) to proactively reach out to vulnerable seniors who have no or limited social support. Seniors identified to require care and support are referred to the appropriate care services, such as befriending and mental health services.
MOH will continue to work closely with our partners to develop community resources and build their capabilities to better support the mental health and well-being of the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ban on Trans Fat in Foods Sold in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has studied the impact of a potential ban on all types of trans fat in foods sold in Singapore, including in supermarkets and eateries; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the implementation of the ban on partially hydrogenated oils as an ingredient in all foods sold here that has been effective from June 2021.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Trans fat can come from both natural and artificial sources. Natural trans fat occurs in dairy products and red meats, such as beef and lamb, hence, it is not possible to reformulate or remove them from products.
Before the partially hydrogenated oils (PHO) ban, the majority of the trans fat in our diet came from artificial trans fat. The main source of artificial trans fat is PHOs that can be found in products, such as snacks and fat spreads. Singapore tackled trans fat in the food supply in two phases. In 2013, Singapore implemented trans fat limits in fats and oils, across supermarkets and eateries. In 2021, we introduced a ban on PHO, to eliminate artificial trans fat in Singaporeans’ diets.
Since the announcement of the PHO ban in June 2019, high-risk products, such as fat spreads and frozen cakes, have already been reformulated to be PHO-free. After the ban came into effect in June 2021, we have not detected any non-compliance from our surveillance. The Health Promotion Board will continue to conduct regular surveillance and monitor the average daily trans fat intake among Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reduce Unnecessary Packaging in ART Kits Given Their Extensive Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"10 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health given the rapid increase in the use of antigen rapid test (ART) for self-testing, whether the Government will consider working with the ART kits manufacturers to reduce and streamline the amount of unnecessary packaging used in these kits.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To minimise the risk of contamination and leakage, manufacturers pack the various components of ART kits individually. Nevertheless, MOH will work closely with MSE to encourage manufacturers to reduce ART packaging and to move towards more environmentally-sustainable packaging, where feasible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Wage Earned by Prison Inmates Per Hour of Work in Prison Jobs in Past Three Years and Plans for Wage Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past three years, what has been the average wage earned by prison inmates per hour of work in prison jobs; and (b) whether the Ministry prescribes a wage framework for such jobs or is developing one.
Mr K Shanmugam: The objective of work programmes is to ensure that inmates stay purposefully engaged, develop positive work ethics and gain useful skills while they are in prison, so as to prepare them to join the workforce upon release.
Inmates can choose whether they want to participate in work programmes. For those who choose to participate, they will receive an allowance. The allowance is not meant to be a wage but serves to motivate inmates to perform well and develop themselves while on work programmes. Currently, this ranges from about $0.30 to $2.60 per hour for prison workshops and depends on the requirements of the work programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Median Household Income of Primary School Students Taking Foundation Subjects in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the median household income of Primary school students who (i) take one foundation subject, (ii) take two or more foundation subjects and (iii) do not take any foundation subjects, respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to collect such data if it currently does not do so.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: MOE does not have data on household income of students, except for Singapore Citizens who apply for the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS), where the income criterion is set at about the bottom quintile of the national household income. Over the past five years, on average, two in five students who took at least one subject at Foundation level in the PSLE were on MOE FAS.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Number of Eligible and Successful Applications under Financial Assistance Scheme in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past three years, what is the annual number of (i) eligible students, (ii) successful applications and (iii) unsuccessful applications under the Financial Assistance Scheme; (b) how many Secondary students on the scheme are from Government versus Government-aided schools; (c) how many Secondary school students on the Independent School Bursary scheme are on 100% financial assistance; and (d) when does the Ministry plan to next review the income eligibility criteria in view of inflation.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The number of Singaporean students on the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) and the number of Singaporean secondary school students benefiting from 100% fee subsidies under the Independent School Bursary (ISB) from 2019 to 2021 are shown in the table below. MOE does not distinguish between students in Government schools and Government-aided schools for the purpose of financial assistance.
The eligibility criteria for MOE FAS and full fee subsidy under ISB are the same. Students need to be Singapore Citizens with a gross household income of up to $2,750 or per capita income of up to $690. All eligible students will have their applications approved. Those who do not meet the criteria can apply for school-based assistance, or, in the case of Independent Schools, they could also qualify for partial fee subsidies under the ISB scheme.
MOE reviews our financial assistance schemes regularly, taking into account changing household incomes and education-related expenses. The schemes were last reviewed and enhanced in 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Numbers of Work Permit Holders Living in Dormitories and Non-dormitories Who Attempted and Committed Suicide in Each of Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past 10 years (a) what are the respective numbers of work permit holders who have attempted and committed suicide who were living in dormitories; and (b) what percentage of them were not living in dormitories.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM responded to a similar Parliamentary Question1 based on a five-year trend. Between 2016 and 2020, the suicide rates for Work Permit Holders (WPHs2) were lower than the general population. Looking at a 10-year period between 2012 and 2021, the average suicide rate among WPHs at 4.2 per 100,000 persons was lower than that of the general population at 8.7 per 100,000 persons. The suicide rates among WPHs have also been lower than that of the general population for each of the 10 years3.
The suicides rates among Migrant Workers (WPHs excluding migrant domestic workers) were somewhat higher in 2020 and 2021 but were still lower than that of the general population (please refer to footnote 3). The rate for the general population had also increased in 2020.
We share the concerns expressed by many on the challenges brought forth by the COVID-19 pandemic. The last two years have been a difficult time for our migrant workers and also for the general population. Since November 2020, the seven-point strategy under the Project DAWN task force has been focused on raising awareness on mental health literacy, ensuring at-risk persons are identified early and enabling appropriate access to care services, including counselling and post-intervention support. One key area is in the training of peer support leaders among migrant workers in psychological first aid skills so that they can give timely support to their co-workers and friends. MOM will continue to place close attention on the mental health of all workers and offer our support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Please refer to “Data on Number of Suicides and Unnatural Deaths by Work Permit Holders in Last Five Years and Rate of Such Incidences in Last Six Months Compared to Pre-COVID-19 Times”, Official Report, 4 October 2021, Vol 95, Issue No 39, Written Answers to Questions section","2 : Includes migrant workers and migrant domestic workers.","3 : Data up to 2020 based on Annual Reports on the Registration of Births and Deaths."],"footNoteQuestions":["4"],"questionNo":"4"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":4823,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sim Ann","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220308/vernacular-Sim Ann MND 8Mar2022-Chinese (mnd).pdf","fileName":"Sim Ann MND 8Mar2022-Chinese (mnd).pdf"},{"vernacularID":4824,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220308/vernacular-8 Mar 2022 - MOS Faishal Ibrahim - Reply to MND Cuts_AR.pdf","fileName":"8 Mar 2022 - MOS Faishal Ibrahim - Reply to MND Cuts_AR.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4825,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Tan Kiat How","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220308/vernacular-Tan Kiat How MND 8Mar2022-Chinese_mnd.pdf","fileName":"Tan Kiat How MND 8Mar2022-Chinese_mnd.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4826,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220308/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh MND 8Mar2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh MND 8Mar2022-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":4827,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sim Ann","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20220308/vernacular-Sim Ann MND reply to GTP 8Mar2022-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sim Ann MND reply to GTP 8Mar2022-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}