Amy Khor Lean Suan
Singapore
“Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both.”
“We will also provide the first 500 private heavy vehicle chargers co-funding of up to 50% of the charger installation cost, capped at $30,000 per charger. These measures will narrow the lifecycle cost gap between an electric and internal combustion engine heavy vehicle and spur adoption of electric heavy vehicles.”
“With regard to the extension of the lower speed limit to school zones for full day, we will work with the relevant agencies on the enhanced enforcements.”
“They will provide a certain amount of protection to the pedestrians because, as I have said, the bollards will absorb the impact of the collision from the vehicles. So, there is a protection. But ultimately, of course, road safety really depends on a multitude of factors, including road user behaviour.”
“The bollards installed at pedestrian crossings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are not of the K4, K8 or K12 standards stated by the Member. Bollards of these standards are typically security bollards. They are installed to protect critical infrastructure or at high security areas, such as Changi Airport, to be unyielding.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,285 lines we hold for Amy Khor Lean Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 46.
“Others, such as 800 Super Holdings Limited, have also been giving out additional bonuses to motivate and appreciate their workers. Indeed, I hope more businesses will do the same. I also support Mr Zainal Sapari's heartfelt call for service buyers to safeguard the welfare of their cleaners. Several Members asked how the PWM Bonus will be enforced, and how errant businesses would be flagged out. NEA and MOM routinely inspect the records of cleaning businesses to ensure compliance with the PWM requirements. This includes making sure payslips are issued and training records of cleaners are kept. Mr Murali Pillai was concerned how existing cleaning contracts will be affected and what considerations the Director-General of Public Health will take into account before invoking the powers to postpone the effective date of the PWM wage requirements. Mr Zainal Sapari also suggested giving a grace period for businesses which do not pay the PWM Bonus when the requirement takes effect. The TCC had consulted service buyers and providers extensively and deliberately recommended that the PWM Bonus be implemented only in 2020. This was to give cleaning businesses ample time of more than three years to adjust their service agreements accordingly. As such, all cleaning businesses will be required to pay their resident cleaners PWM Bonus from January 2020. For cases of non-compliance, NEA will review their circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Mr Louis Ng raised concerns about cleaners' wages being reset when a contract ends and there is a change in service provider. The TCC shares such concerns and had, therefore, proposed the yearly PWM wage increments, which would steadily lift wages at all skills levels for cleaners entering into contracts after 1 July 2018.”
“Let me also assure everyone, including residents of existing developments, that we will not take such actions implementing DPWCS in an area lightly. It will be carefully and judiciously considered. We will work with the planning agencies to identify suitable areas and take into account not just the site and technical feasibility but also cost considerations. We will only implement DPWCS if it makes sense, if it benefits the residents. So, I want to assure everyone that we are not going to impose DPWCS in all developments. It will be judiciously done and costs will be a key consideration. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now address Members' questions about the PWM Bonus. Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng asked about the profile of the cleaning workforce. There are currently more than 40,000 resident cleaners and 17,000 foreign cleaners. Their average age is 60 years old and 37 years old respectively. The composition has remained stable over the past three years. The Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) has been rallying all stakeholders to support measures to uplift the skills and wages of cleaners, including the PWM Bonus. To raise awareness among workers, a need highlighted by Mr Desmond Choo, the unions have been conducting roadshows and briefings and have reached out to more than 6,500 workers. More sessions are being planned, and cleaning businesses have also been reminded to inform their workers. Let me express our appreciation to Mr Zainal Sapari for championing the interests of our cleaners as Chairman of the TCC. Thanks to the TCC's efforts, some cleaning businesses have already factored in the PWM Bonus in their contracts that extend beyond 2019.”
“Indeed, they are already seeing this but in the initial phases, because the PWCS is only applied to a particular part of the constituency, the savings in collection costs cannot be passed through directly and, therefore, the temporary grant is given. Whereas in a private development, the costs can be directly offset in the maintenance fees payable. We welcome Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion to extend the scope of DPWCS, by combining public and private estates to allow for greater economies of scale. This is something we can explore in future after we gain more experience in implementing DPWCS. Ms Sylvia Lim asked how we intend to roll out the DPWCS areas under section 31G. Our plan is to implement the DPWCS at Kampong Bugis, a greenfield development site that will enable the DPWCS to be planned and integrated from inception. We currently have no plans for a nation-wide rollout of the DPWCS to existing developments or brownfield sites. Our priority is to implement the Kampong Bugis DPWCS well and ensure that it operates smoothly. With the experience gained, we will continue to enhance the development and management of PWCS in Singapore by working with the relevant agencies on suitable areas, taking into account site, technical and financial considerations. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about extending to landed estates. One of our considerations in implementing DPWCS is the financial viability and sustainability of the system. Currently, we do not think that there are sufficient economies of scale to implement DPWCS in landed estates for the system to be financially viable. We will focus our efforts on non-landed developments, such as Kampong Bugis.”
“It is our priority that our residents have reliable waste collection services and NEA will ensure this through licensing conditions on the DPWCS licensee. In the event of a prolonged disruption in the main DPWCS network, the licensee must ensure continued service, such as through manual waste collection. These contingency plans are similar to those in other countries, such as South Korea. PWCSs are also equipped with sensors and monitors to alert operators of any system faults so that they can carry out prompt remediation. Even as we prepare for contingencies, it is pertinent to note that most chokages are cleared within two to three hours in existing developments that use PWCS in Singapore. Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the Town Councils' role in managing PWCS. Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim also asked why the Bill excludes Town Council-managed premises. This is because HDB has already been playing an active role in implementing PWCS in public housing estates. Hence, the current Bill focuses on enabling DPWCS to be implemented on sites comprising private developments. NEA and HDB are also collaborating closely on implementing PWCS and will be adopting the Singapore Standard for PWCS in the new projects. Mr Louis Ng spoke about potential increases in maintenance costs to Town Councils due to PWCS. While this Bill covers private developments only, we understand that HDB works closely with Town Councils to address this. For example, as mentioned by Mr Murali Pillai, MND is providing a temporary grant to Town Councils to help offset costs until the PWCS industry attains economies of scale. In addition, Town Councils will enjoy savings from PWCS due to the reduced manpower requirements for refuse collection and cleaning.”
“Other effective design features include placing refuse hoppers outside of flats and sizing refuse hoppers to limit the size of items that can be thrown into the chute, thereby preventing chokage. New developments, such as those in Kampong Bugis, will incorporate such planning and design features that will facilitate the smooth operation of the PWCS. Another cause of disamenities is improper maintenance of the PWCS. To address this, NEA is jointly developing a Singapore Standard for PWCS with HDB, Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and other stakeholders. The Standard covers proper maintenance of PWCS, such as recommendations to replace air filters every six months, so that they remain effective in removing unpleasant odours. PWCS vendors must also provide operation and maintenance manuals to managing agents and MCSTs and provide basic training to the staff of the managing agents. As Ms Irene Quay, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Chia Shi Lu highlighted, users of DPWCS have a role to play in preventing chokage and its associated issues. They must use the DPWCS correctly and avoid throwing bulky or long items, such as pillows or brooms into the chutes. NEA will support such efforts to educate residents on the correct way to use the PWCS, as we are already doing at private developments which have adopted PWCS. For instance, signage could be placed at throw-points to educate residents on proper usage. NEA has also amended the Code of Practice on Environmental Health to introduce a refuse chute hopper design that limits the size of items that can be thrown into the chute. Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Irene Quay highlighted the need for prompt detection of faults in the PWCS and the importance of contingency plans in the event of breakdowns.”
“To date, some 140 condominiums and commercial developments in Singapore have also used PWCS with only minor operational issues. Where disamenities occur, we will study and address them. For example, chokages have been addressed by improving the design of refuse chute hoppers, and odour, by ensuring the regular replacement of odour filters. Let me share with Members the experience of a district in Gwacheon City, which is in Seoul. Residents were initially concerned when they saw the shared bin centre in the middle of the district. They were concerned that the bin centre would affect the aesthetics of the area, and whether there would be odour problems. These concerns were cleverly addressed by integrating the bin centre into a landscape garden, which residents welcomed. This illustrates the importance of resident-centric designs. The PWCS retrofitting project at Yuhua faced design limitations as it was in an existing estate with limited space. As a result, the bin centre had to be located in the middle of the estate, surrounded by blocks of flats. HDB has introduced acoustic mitigating measures and odour treatment solutions to address the noise and smell issues at the bin centre. Public education efforts were also intensified to remind residents of items that cannot be disposed of in the PWCS. This would prevent chokages that give rise to odours. More importantly, the learning points from Yuhua have been incorporated into the Government's upcoming projects. These include the PWCS at the new HDB estate at Tampines North, where the bin centre will be located at the edge of the district, away from residents.”
“This is seen in other cities, including several in South Korea, where DPWCS are implemented on greenfield sites. For these reasons, we expect the cost borne by each dwelling unit (DU) for the DPWCS at Kampong Bugis to be lower than that at Yuhua, which is a brownfield site that required extensive and more costly retrofitting works, as mentioned by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. Over the longer term, as PWCS is used more extensively in Singapore and with technological advancements, we can expect the cost of DPWCS to decrease. As mentioned in my opening speech, NEA estimates that a 1,000 DU-unit condominium would save GFA equivalent to a 5-room HDB flat by eliminating its bin centre. In Kampong Bugis, this translates to the Master Developer saving 20% of the GFA used for bin centres, which could then be diverted to saleable units or facilities for residents. Residents will also benefit from a cleaner and quieter environment due to reduced truck traffic. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the Government would consider subsidising existing private developments to implement PWCS within their estates. Currently, the costs of conveying waste from individual chutes to bin centres in private developments are borne by residents through their monthly maintenance fees. So, the Government does not subsidise this and we have no plans to do so. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Zainal Sapari spoke about operational concerns related to DPWCS in Singapore and other cities, such as suction noise and smell from choked pipes. I would like to assure Members that we take these concerns seriously. PWCS itself is a tried and tested technology and has been used in countries, such as South Korea and Sweden, for many years.”
“7 million tonnes in 2017, a 40% increase over the last decade. This trend is likely to continue as Singapore’s population and economy grow. If we do not adopt technology but continue to manage waste the way we do today, we will need a proportionate increase in manpower which we cannot meet without turning to more foreign labour, given our manpower constraints. We know that Singapore’s workforce is shrinking and ageing. Manpower costs across all sectors will continue to rise. The challenge is even more acute in the ES industry, which many Singaporeans, as I had noted earlier, perceive as dirty and unappealing, and shun away from. We might not be able to find workers, even if we were willing to pay for them. Members would agree with me that increasing our reliance on foreign workers to collect waste is not a sustainable solution. So, we need to start putting in place systems now, such as the PWCS to automate waste collection, which will allow our workers in the ES industry to take on higher value-added jobs. From our recent consultations with industry players, the operating costs for PWCS comprise only a very small proportion of the total maintenance expenses for a condominium. Hence, the PWCS will not significantly affect the residents’ maintenance fees. Condominiums with PWCS will also benefit from reduced pests and odour, and manpower savings from not needing to manually transport waste within the premises. At the district level, premises will also enjoy more cost savings due to economies of scale through shared bin centres, air and ventilation equipment, and pipe networks. In greenfield sites, these benefits would be even greater, as the planning and construction of the network will be done from the start without retrofitting.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, let me thank Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They have also raised many thoughtful comments, which I will now address. Mr Murali Pillai asked how connection charges and tariffs will be determined and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked if residents would have to foot these costs. Let me give an overview of the costs and how they will be recovered. First, the connection charge will cover the capital costs. In Kampong Bugis, NEA will collect this from the Master Developer. The connection charge will be small compared to other costs like land costs and construction costs. In fact, it will be a very small proportion. It will be made known to bidders when the site is launched for sale so that this would be factored in their bids. Second, a monthly tariff will be collected from owners of premises within the district, such as the MCSTs. This will cover operational and maintenance expenses for DPWCS. The MCSTs will then collect payments towards this tariff from subsidiary proprietors under the MCST as part of their monthly maintenance fees. To keep overall costs competitive, NEA will appoint the DPWCS licensee for Kampong Bugis through an open tender. The tariffs will take into account factors, such as gross floor area (GFA) and amount of refuse generated for the different types of premises. So, for example, the tariffs for residential premises will be different from that for commercial premises. Ms Irene Quay, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about potential cost increases arising from DPWCS. We will make every effort to ensure that the costs of waste collection remain affordable. But we also have to balance short-term costs with long-term sustainability. Waste generation in Singapore grew from 5.6 million tonnes in 2007 to 7.”
“We will continue to support our stakeholders to transform the ES industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Taken together, these changes will minimise abortive enforcement work and enable NEA to optimise limited resources. Sir, Part VII of the Act currently provides for the licensing of swimming pools, while Part VIII provides for the licensing of funeral parlours, cemetery and crematoria, and for the management of human corpses. Serious public health implications may arise from the unlicensed operation of such facilities. To guard against these risks, sections 65 and 77 of the Act will be repealed so that stiffer penalties under section 103 of the Act, which provides for general penalties, will apply to offences under Parts VII and VIII respectively. This will effectively raise the maximum fine for non-compliance for both Parts from $2,000 for a first conviction to $5,000, in line with other offences under the Act where penalties are not expressly provided for. The remaining clauses 4 and 8 in the Bill are made for legal clarity. Mr Deputy Speaker, we must continually transform the ES sector to meet the challenges of the future economy. This Bill marks another milestone in our efforts to develop a productive ES sector that is innovative and forward-looking and provide good jobs with good pay for our workforce. I have explained how we will leverage technology to manage our waste efficiently through DPWCS. I have also shared how we will help our cleaners upskill, upgrade and earn higher wages through our tripartite efforts, even as we automate many of the tasks. We have made progress over the years, but more must be done. Businesses must proactively develop the skillsets of their workers in order to realise the benefits of a productive and committed workforce. Workers should also be nimble, adaptable and open to learning new skills.”
“Coupled with the scheduled annual wage increments, cleaners receiving PWM basic wages today could see their salaries increase by up to 7% each year from now till 2020, when the PWM Bonus is mandated. More details will be released in due course. Sir, these amendments signal our continual commitment to improve the wages of our cleaners, even as the push for productivity continues. But our efforts alone will not be enough; employers and service buyers must also act responsibly and reward staff fairly. Only by working together can we realise our vision of a skilled and productive cleaning workforce. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill also seeks to enhance NEA’s operational efficiency and tighten penalties against certain public health offences. Section 98 will be amended for greater efficiency in serving documents required or authorised under the Act. Currently, regulatory documents, such as summonses, must be served by hand to only the secretary of an errant company. The amendments would enable these documents to be served onto any other like officer of that company, and at any location, in addition to the registered address of that company. Additionally, if the document is not intended for proceedings in Court, it can now be served by fax. Many other Acts, like the Environmental Protection and Management Act, similarly provide for such methods of service. Amendments will also be made to section 86 of the Act to increase the penalties against uncooperative offenders who withhold their identification, from a maximum fine of $300 to $1,000 upon conviction. This will deter belligerent offenders from hampering NEA's enforcement efforts. A similar provision can be found in the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act.”
“This was done to boost the income levels of cleaners sustainably and improve productivity and standards in the cleaning industry. Within two years of the PWM being mandated, the real median gross salary of a full-time resident cleaner had risen from $1,100 per month to $1,200 per month. Many businesses were paying cleaners above the minimum PWM wage level to attract capable staff. Sectoral productivity also improved as companies adopted technology to save manhours and improve work conditions. In 2016, the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) proposed a suite of recommendations to build on this momentum. These included yearly wage adjustments between 2017 to 2022 to sustain wage growth, and an annual PWM Bonus to be paid from 2020, to encourage cleaners to stay on their jobs and raise their incomes. The Government had given its full support to the TCC's recommendations. This Bill reaffirms that support by introducing the PWM Bonus as a licensing requirement for cleaning businesses. Through amendments to sections 80G and 80H of the Act, it will become mandatory for every licensed cleaning business to provide for the payment of a PWM Bonus to its eligible resident cleaners, regardless of the worker's performance. Cleaning businesses which do not comply will face financial penalties or risk losing their licence, similar to how other PWM-related offences are dealt with. The Commissioner for Labour (CoL) will, based on the TCC’s recommendations, specify in an order the minimum amount, frequency of payment, and eligible class of cleaners for the PWM Bonus. Currently, the minimum quantum recommended by TCC is two weeks of the basic monthly wage. With the PWM Bonus, some 40,000 resident cleaners may receive up to 4% more in wages each year.”
“We will also make related amendments to sections 16(2) and 39(1) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), so that connection charges and tariffs can be paid from the maintenance fund. It will also allow contributions from subsidiary proprietors to be raised for these payments. Sections 31P to 31R will make it an offence to conduct works that break or would otherwise affect the ground without first ascertaining the location of refuse pipes in the DPWCS area. It will also be an offence to damage the DPWCS or affect its operations. Similar provisions are found in the District Cooling Act, Gas Act and Public Utilities Act. This is to minimise inconvenience and potential public health risks to residents in the district. Section 31T will protect the DPWCS assets from distress or being liable to be taken in execution under Court processes, in cases where the DPWCS owner faces bankruptcy or insolvency. Under certain circumstances, the new section 31V will allow NEA to take over management of the DPWCS under a special administration order to ensure that the DPWCS will continue to function. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, waste collection is an essential service to protect public health, but the industry is facing manpower shortages. Through implementing PWCS, we will upgrade the waste collection industry and improve the environment for everyone. Even as we harness technology to enhance our ES, we must not forget the people behind them. A skilled workforce will be crucial for sustaining productivity growth as our labour situation tightens. In 2014, we introduced the mandatory Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the cleaning sector, to upgrade the skills and wages of our resident cleaners.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be referring to this handout as I explain the next section which talks about three key components in the DPWCS. Under section 31L, the Director-General will have powers to require owners or occupiers of premises within the declared area to connect to the refuse pipeline network. This "refuse pipeline network", indicated in brown on the handout, refers to the main DPWCS network which will be shared across the district. It will be owned and maintained by NEA or the DPWCS licensee. Individual premises would own their internal PWCS pipes. This is marked in blue on the handout and termed "related internal assets". It will be the responsibility of the premises owners to maintain and operate the internal PWCS pipes. The connection to the refuse pipeline network will be demarcated by a “connection point” – the triangle in the handout. This will be considered part of the refuse pipeline network. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to ensure the financial sustainability of the DPWCS, the new sections 31M to 31O will give NEA the powers to require owners and occupiers of premises to pay connection charges and/or tariffs, where necessary. The connection charge will cover the capital costs of the DPWCS. The tariffs will cover the operating, maintenance and replacement costs. Taking Kampong Bugis as an example, NEA will collect the connection charge from the Master Developer that is appointed to plan and develop the site. When a particular development, for example, a condominium, has been built at Kampong Bugis, the tariffs will be collected by the DPWCS licensee from either the developer or the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) when it is formed.”
“We will leave it to whoever the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources is at that point in time to decide on NDP 2030. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." (proc text)] Adjourned accordingly at 8.04 pm.”
“And we will not hesitate to implement and take regulatory measures to manage waste and to protect the environment where we think it is practicable, effective and useful to do so. So, we will be implementing carbon tax, as well as EPR on e-waste, as well as mandatory reporting for packaging waste and the reduction plans. As far as carrier bags are concerned, we think that it is more practicable, more sustainable, to take the long-term approach. It may take a longer time, but it is really to change habits, educate and encourage the public to reduce the use of disposables and all types of packaging.”
“I thank the Member for his further clarifications. Firstly, in terms of getting the public sector to reduce its use of disposables, as I have said, we have a Best Practice Guide, and actually in the Best Practice Guide, we mentioned "plastics" many times. So, we have encouraged them to reduce the use of plastic bottles, plastic bags, as much as possible, as well as reduce packaging of their collaterals. And what we can say is that we will encourage them to do this as much as possible because, for some events, including NDP and major events, it may not be possible to entirely do away with bottled water, and just use water dispensers, because of the large number of people. So, as far as practicable and applicable, we will encourage them to do so. With regard to NDP 2019, we will encourage the NDP organisers to do this also as much as it is practicable. With regard to the study, actually we have already done an extensive study on single-use carrier bags and disposables, and we have shared in this House and with the Member, too, the results of the study where it showed it is not necessarily true that using other types of disposables versus plastics will give you a better environmental outcome or impact. As I also noted earlier in this speech, even the British study has shown that for a reusable tote bag to benefit in terms of greenhouse gas emission reduction, you have to use it 173 times. So, what you really want to do is to go upstream. And I suppose I will be disappointing the Member by reiterating and repeating what I have said in this House before and what I will be saying again on the same issues that the Member has also raised in this House that, really, what we want to do is move upstream.”
“Let us give the policies that we have and will be putting in place time to take effect and for people to change habits. I would like to thank as well as urge the many passionate individuals like Mr Louis Ng, and the passionate groups, including the many who are here today, to continue to partner us to shape our nation's values. Only then will our efforts be sustainable. 7.59 pm”
“Last year, NEA supported Zero Waste SG’s Bring-Your-Own Campaign that brought 430 retailers and food and beverage (F&B) companies together to incentivise consumers to bring their own reusable containers and bags. Not only did it raise awareness, it also averted the use of two million pieces of plastic disposables. This shows how we can multiply our impact if we all work in partnership. On the proposed carrier bag charge, we will continue to monitor developments in this area. Mr Louis Ng referred to the Hong Kong system of giving free bags for hygiene purposes. This addresses the issue of providing some bags to households for bagging their waste. But as he also noted, this complicates the system, making enforcement even more difficult. I understand from reports, as Mr Louis Ng also pointed out, that the non-compliance rate in Hong Kong is about a third to half. The Singapore Environment Council's latest survey showed that two-thirds of respondents use their plastic bags for bagging waste. An equal proportion of respondents ranked a plastic bag charge as their most and their least preferred option. There is still more we can do to persuade consumers not to take more than they need, and to bring their own reusable bags. As the same Economist article puts it, even though plastics is not at the top of environmental ills, it is highly visible, and I would say, emotional. This gives us the opening to encourage Singaporeans to form the right habits. I believe this is one area where we can work with our 3P partners to engage and educate Singaporeans and change their habits. Sir, to sum up, the key shift my Ministry is working on is to develop in Singapore a national consciousness to care for the environment.”
“That notwithstanding, we will continue to address the issue of marine plastics pollution through our stringent anti-littering measures, educating the public against littering and excessive consumption of plastics and introducing regulatory measures to minimise plastic and packaging waste upstream. The public sector is also doing its part to promote green practices among its agencies. We have published a Best Practice Guide to guide agencies to organise environmentally friendly events. For example, we avoid the use of plastic bottled water and disposables by providing water dispensers and reusable crockery and cutlery where possible. We will also continue to improve our Public Sector Sustainability Plan, where waste reduction is a key thrust, and I will try to make sure that "plastics" is mentioned more than once. Under the plan, we require large buildings to report the amount of waste disposed and will set waste reduction targets for the public sector. I am happy to share that my Ministry is definitely taking the lead. We do not serve bottled water for meetings. Our staff bring their own plates and cutlery for events to avoid the use of disposables. We are encouraging other public sector agencies to do the same for their meetings and events, such as the NDP as well as community activities, to minimise the use of plastics. Beyond what the public sector is doing, I am encouraged that many passionate groups and individuals like Plastic-Lite SG, UnPackt and Tabao Girl are moving the ground in their own ways. Companies, such as KFC and IKEA, have similarly done so. I welcome more to join them. NEA will support them if required, such as through the 3P Partnership Fund.”
“We also contribute to international capacity-building efforts. For example, under the Singapore-Norway Third Country Training Programme, the National Environment Agency (NEA) partnered experts from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and our Norwegian counterparts to share our expertise on waste management and pollution control, as well as the management of plastic waste and microplastics. We are heartened by the efforts of various countries to tackle marine plastic pollution, as highlighted by Mr Louis Ng. Singapore is also doing our part. We have strict anti-littering measures and dispose of most general waste at our waste-to-energy plants to prevent marine pollution from land-based sources. Any litter that enters our waterways is removed using litter traps and flotsam removal craft before it reaches the sea. Let us be clear. Marine pollution is caused by the improper disposal of plastic waste, and not the use of plastics per se. A 3 March Economist article entitled "The known unknowns of plastic pollution" reached the same conclusion. Hence, our measures deal with the root cause of marine pollution and are not merely addressing symptoms, as Mr Louis Ng posited. The result is that Singapore is acknowledged as one of the smallest contributors to marine plastic pollution in the world, according to studies, including a 2015 University of Georgia study on "Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean" and the UN Environment’s 2016 report on marine plastic debris and microplastics.”
“Hence, our approach is to reduce excessive consumption of all types of packaging, including plastics used by businesses and individuals. We started the Singapore Packaging Agreement in 2007. This voluntary initiative is well-supported by companies and has collectively reduced some 46,000 tonnes of packaging. We are now moving to a regulatory system to tackle packaging waste systematically on a large scale. Hence, we brought forward the requirement for businesses to report the type and amount of packaging they are putting on the market and their plans for reduction, by one year, to 2020. This will focus management’s attention on the amount of packaging used and raise awareness of the potential to reduce packaging. We are also studying the feasibility of adopting the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach for packaging waste. This will impose collection targets on businesses who use or produce packaging. It incentivises businesses to reduce their packaging upstream and ensures the proper recycling of packaging downstream. We will publish the details of these initiatives to address packaging waste, and other measures for e-waste, food waste and so forth in the inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan to be launched next year. We will not hesitate to legislate where necessary. But we will do so by taking a pragmatic and considered approach that suits our local context. While we will always seek to learn from others, it is never our practice in policymaking to simply follow what other countries have done. Our efforts to address plastic waste go beyond our borders. We take the issue of marine plastic pollution seriously. Singapore participates actively in regional and international discussions to address marine litter and microplastics.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, managing plastic and packaging waste is one of the key priorities of my Ministry. I thank Mr Louis Ng for speaking in support of my Ministry’s work and encouraging everyone to strive for a plastic-lite Singapore. My Ministry believes the long-term approach is to engage Singaporeans on the importance of sustainability. Quick fixes address the symptoms but not the root of the problem. Hence, our aim is to build a national consciousness to care for the environment so that Singaporeans and businesses will take action, even beyond what the regulations require. This process may take longer, but that is the right way; the positive effects will go beyond plastic bags, beyond packaging, beyond waste management to areas, including climate action. We can succeed. We see growing numbers of businesses and Singaporeans who go the extra mile to care for the environment. Mr Louis Ng himself is one such example. He has also cited many other examples and I notice that many of them are in the House today. Let me share with Members the holistic approach my Ministry is undertaking to reduce plastic use and manage plastic waste. This goes beyond plastic bags to include packaging, such as bottles and containers. One third of domestic waste comes from packaging. Even as we seek to reduce plastic usage, we recognise that plastics have their uses; substituting them with other materials may not be more environmentally friendly, as some may perceive. For example, the British Government estimated that a cotton tote bag must be used 173 times before its greenhouse gas emission impact improves beyond the plastic bags we use to line our bins. Our lifecycle assessment of common carrier bags had the same conclusion.”
“I think the earlier question was not about whether the social enterprise was doing well, but the particular individual stallholders, from Member of Parliament Louis Ng. With regard to the social enterprise, as I have said, when they bid for the hawker centres, they know that we will consider favourably those where they offer lower rentals, lower operating costs and so on. They have to bear risks of rental arrears as well as vacancies and so on. So, again the terms of the tenure are clear, transparent. As far as we are concerned, Ci Yuan, for instance, had actually renewed their tenancy agreement with us, because they have actually met our key performance indicators: they have been able to provide a good variety of affordable food to residents, ensure that the hawker centre is able to provide meals at all times of the day, they were able to enhance the vibrancy of the hawker centres and also implement productivity initiatives. So, we have actually renewed their tenancy.”
“I think that when there are specific cases, it can be made known to us. But as I have said, we keep a close watch on the viability of the businesses in these new hawker centres. And as of now, even for the hawker centres which had some bad press coverage and apparently low footfall, they have actually improved their business significantly. The operators have been able to enhance the vibrancy of these hawker centres, for instance, providing free shuttle bus service to the nearby industries and factories as well as office workers to dine in the hawker centres, complimentary car parking, as well as discounts, lucky draws and so on to bring them in. For instance, in Jurong West hawker centre, they have managed to bring in some popular stallholders which have also significantly increased the footfall. So, based on our understanding and survey of what is happening, we do not see that there is a need to do this. But as I have said, if there are individual stalls that face problems, we can always take a look at it.”
“As I have noted, for the new hawker centres, the rentals for the stalls as well as the operating costs for essential services – general cleaning, dishwashing and so on – are made known to the stallholders so you would assume that when they signed on the tenancy agreement, they would have taken into account all these costs in their computations. In fact, even in our existing hawker centres which are tendered out, they would also have tendered based on what they understand to be the market rate, in most instances. At this point in time, we have no plans to offer any subsidies because they actually came in knowing what the costs are. But having said that, we do understand and appreciate the concerns of the stallholders and we are keeping a close watch on the situation. As a matter of fact, for the new hawker centres, as I have said, it takes time for them to establish their business. And I think it is not unexpected that some stalls may not do as well as others at the beginning. In fact, the turnover or the vacancy rate for these new centres are actually quite comparable to our existing centres. The footfall for some of these hawker centres have increased over time significantly. So, we are keeping a close watch.”
“I think the operator had explained, had come out to clarify, and we have also made clarifications that the costs are optional costs. If the Member is referring to, for instance, the Hougang Ci Yuan hawker centre managed by Fei Siong, that $600 was an optional cost and not a mandatory charge. As I have noted, all mandatory charges have to be declared upfront to the stallholders before they sign on the tenancy agreement. And if there are optional charges or any new initiatives that would impact costs, they are required to inform us and to get our approval. So, of the 40-odd stallholders in Ci Yuan hawker centre, for instance, only nine of the non-EP stallholders have taken up this optional charge. Actually, even though we have appointed operators to manage our new hawker centres, we also have place managers that visit the hawker centres regularly, on a weekly basis, to carry out checks on defects, on cleanliness as well as to engage the stallholders. So, the stallholders can, at any time approach our place managers if there are pertinent issues.”
“Regarding the first question on education, we will continue to work with HPB and MOE on ways to enhance our education outreach to the young, as well as to the population in general. Regarding the CVs, we currently have about 400 CVs who are trained. We have no target for CVs, but we need to ensure that we have suitable people who join us as CVs. So, they will be trained. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Okay. Our smoking rate has come down. Earlier in my opening speech, I said that last year, it was 12%. It has come down from 23% long time ago to about 14% and then 12%. So, in total, the smoking rate has gone down. And by inference, that would likely mean that there ought not to be more people smoking at home. Having said that, in every case of smoke wafting into a neighbour's house, it is distressful to the person. People may also be a lot more sensitive about second-hand smoke. But actually, according to our records, the numbers have not increased. In fact, we have actually seen some decrease in the number of feedback we have received about smoke wafting into a neighbour's house.”
“With regard to enforcement, as I have said, for the Orchard Road NSZ, we will monitor the situation when the NSZ comes into force and then, we will calibrate our enforcement capacity. But actually, over the years, we have increased the number of enforcement officers, because of the expansion in the smoking prohibited places. Having said that, realistically, there is a limit as to the number of enforcement officers or manpower we can expand, especially faced with our manpower constraints due to an ageing population. The Member is right to say that we would also have to depend on technology. Earlier, I did mention that we are now looking – in fact, we had called for a tender – to use thermal cameras with regard to smoking offences or smoking violations, say, at lift lobbies, staircase landings and so on, to help us with our enforcement. At the end of the day, as I have said many times in my speech, we need the community to come together to help us with this. So, this amendment to this Act will also explicitly require the managers to be accountable, to be responsible for their premises, to ask the smoking offender to stop smoking or to leave their premises. We cannot be expected to be at every of the 32,000 smoking prohibited places, or to respond to every feedback immediately. And we need the community to help us, including getting the smokers to smoke more considerately and stop smoking if they can. What is the second question?”
“Regarding protection of young children of smokers, we need to strike a balance between forcing our values and norms on the parents, and the parents do have a duty and responsibility to protect their own young. What we all can do, as I have said, is through education, raising awareness, appealing to the smokers, to their families, their friends, their loved ones and the community to inculcate positive social norms, and to ask them to spare a thought for their loved ones – their children and others around them when they smoke, and to smoke in a considerate manner. Regarding thermal cameras, we are not acquiring the thermal cameras ourselves. We have called a tender to get a third-party contractor to provide the service. So, we are actually buying service. But these thermal cameras have video analytic capabilities and what they will do is that they will detect any strong heat emitted from the object and then they will be able to capture images of the smoking offence. That will enable NEA to use these images to further investigate the alleged offence. And we will contract the services such that we can deploy the cameras, the services where it is needed. Not yet. So, we have called for a tender and we are evaluating the tender. What was the Member's last question? In fact, this is precisely why we have amended the Act. Section 4 actually explicitly allows NEA officers to enter, inspect, investigate in common areas which are smoking prohibited areas of private residential estates when they reasonably believe that there is an offence being committed or had been committed there, or that there is evidence that a smoking offence has been committed. So, for instance, if a member of the public calls up to say that there is a smoking violation, NEA officers can actually enter.”
“For setting up of more DSPs, to the Member's comment about what if we have an NSZ and they do not comply, then it will not be effective, it is precisely because of this that we are only implementing the NSZ first in Orchard Road because we want to monitor the outcomes. For instance, we want to ensure that there is high compliance and that the DSAs are appropriately used. The locations of the DSAs will also be important – how they are designed and so on. So, that is the reason why we are saying that we will implement at the Orchard Road area first. We will look at it before we decide if we will replicate this. Regarding setting up more DSPs, as I have noted earlier, if you are talking about housing estates, one of the issues to us is really that because of the density of housing estates, for instance, and the fact that housing estates are where the schools are, where the homes are, there is a challenge, in fact, with implementing DSAs in this area because you need to look at locations. It cannot be too conspicuous. You do not want to normalise smoking amongst children because DSAs are the areas where people congregate and so on. And that is why our approach, as of now, is to increase the number of smoking prohibited areas even within our residential estates – sheltered walkways, playgrounds, common corridors, lift landings and lobbies. In fact, there are very few areas like Ms Rahayu Mahzam said, where they can smoke. One of them would be in their homes. But we take the Member's point. As I said, we will monitor the outcome of the Orchard Road NSZ before we decide if we will be expanding.”
“My second question is on smoking in the presence of young children at home. Sometimes, I see parents smoking in front of children who are very young and crawling on the floor. Is there anything that we can do to help these young children because they are taking in second-hand smoke every day? The third question is on thermal cameras. I would like to ask how many the Ministry has and when can they be deployed. I am very keen on that. The last question I would like to ask is: how to enforce non-smoking at common areas in condominiums because your officers will not be able to go in?”
“So, no by-law is required to prohibit smoking in these areas. Regarding Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's proposal to restrict the sales volume of cigarettes and increase the tax on tobacco, I will convey her suggestions to my Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance colleagues administering the tobacco excise regime for them to consider. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill marks an important step towards our smoke-free vision. The Orchard Road NSZ will ensure a clean and healthy environment for shoppers and visitors. We have come a long way, and many segments of society support our push for a healthier living environment. Smoking habits, however, are hard to break, and we must persevere in helping those who are trying their best to quit smoking. The Government will persist in our efforts to control access to tobacco products and discourage smoking through a combination of fiscal, regulatory and educational measures. However, these efforts alone are insufficient without the help of the community. Families and friends should give smokers emotional and psychological support to kick the habit. The Orchard Road NSZ represents our commitment to safeguarding the health of the community. I hope smokers will also support our efforts to maintain a conducive environment for all. Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. 6.05 pm Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I have four supplementary questions. I would like to inform the Senior Minister of State that you can expand non-smoking areas but because of a lack enforcement, you will not see the end result that you wanted. Perhaps, we can consider putting up designated smoking points (DSPs), like what we have done in Nee Soon South, because I see that there are more and more smokers who go and use the DSPs.”
“The powers can only be exercised for the purposes of the Act, namely, to enforce the smoking prohibition. Authorised officers would only be allowed to take possession of materials related to the suspected offence. In practice, we will ensure that only officers directly investigating the case may access the evidence. These amendments will also underscore our firm stance against abuse and threats made against our officers. Those found guilty of such acts will face fines of up to $2,000 for a first offence, and $5,000 for a second or subsequent offence, or a maximum of three months' imprisonment, or both. Similar obstruction provisions and penalties are also found in other laws, such as the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) administered by NEA. Under EPHA, any person who obstructs or hinders an authorised officer in the performance of his duties under the Act will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000, and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both. We will regularly review the penalty for breaches to the Act, as suggested by Ms Thanaletchimi. Last year, NEA issued 22,000 tickets for smoking, and there are calls from Members for NEA to be even more active and responsive in undertaking its enforcement duties. Taken together, these provisions will serve to enhance NEA's operational effectiveness and efficiency in discharging its responsibilities. Miss Cheryl Chan asked whether MCSTs have to pass a by-law to disallow smoking within the compound of private condominiums. The answer is no. Smoking is already prohibited in the common areas of private estates, including the lift lobby, void decks and common function rooms.”
“In fact, businesses and premises owners have worked with NEA to identify suitable locations for DSAs since 2017, ahead of the establishment of the Orchard Road NSZ. In the case of smoking facilities located within food establishments, such as coffee shops, I would like to update Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira that since June 2017, smoking corners have been disallowed in new food establishments across the island. When the Orchard Road NSZ comes into effect, outdoor smoking areas at food establishments within the NSZ will also have to close. Existing food establishments that change hands and are issued a new licence would similarly have to remove their smoking corners. We have taken these steps to increasingly create a smoke-free dining experience for everyone. Mr Louis Ng asked about the rationale for the provisions on enforcement powers. The new section 4A gives NEA the powers to enter and inspect smoking-prohibited premises, as not all of these premises are freely accessible to the public. As I mentioned earlier, NEA has, at times, encountered challenges in investigating complaints about smoking in certain smoking-prohibited premises, such as at pubs and bars, where uncooperative managers have denied entry by NEA's officers. Managers who refuse NEA entry would now be liable for an offence under the new section 4B. These provisions will deter managers from obstructing or hindering NEA's officers discharging their duties to safeguard public health and reduce abortive enforcement work. Nonetheless, the powers of entry will be exercised judiciously by trained and authorised officers. I have earlier set out the restrictions on the exercise of the powers of entry. The new section 4A also does not allow authorised officers to make forcible entry under any circumstances.”
“Beyond encouraging smokers to be considerate, we also want to help them quit smoking. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) will expand its outreach and support network through its "I Quit" campaign. The campaign will raise awareness about the harms of smoking and encourage smokers to kick the habit for the sake of their families. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Joan Pereira suggested providing smoking rooms in premises, such as office buildings, public facilities and coffee shops. While smoking rooms may reduce exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, they cannot eliminate it completely. The smoke can still seep into other parts of the building where people do not smoke. Hence, we have restricted where and how smoking rooms can be set up. Smoking rooms are only allowed in certain premises, such as office buildings and public entertainment outlets. However, the smoking room has to meet requirements, such as having separate ventilation and must not be used by any employee for work. Mr Louis Ng and Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the guidelines for smoking facilities. Within the Orchard Road NSZ, a DSA must be demarcated clearly and be provided with at least one cigarette waste bin. The DSA must not be located where smoking is currently prohibited and must not obstruct public walkways or cause disamenities. An example of a DSA that complies with these requirements is the one located at Far East Shopping Centre currently. There, the DSA is inconspicuously located at a distance from the pedestrian thoroughfare and in the open, so second-hand smoke does not accumulate. Ms K Thanaletchimi asked that time be given to managers who are required to set up smoking facilities. NEA will give sufficient notice to the manager of a place to set up any DSA.”
“Members of the public can notify NEA about smoking violations through the myENV and OneService mobile applications. NEA is also exploring the use of thermal cameras to deter indiscriminate smoking, such as the one that Miss Cheryl Chan raised earlier, especially at corridors, lift lobbies and staircase landings, which other Members had also raised. These cameras are equipped with heat-detection capabilities that can detect smoking activity and can be operated remotely. When deployed, these cameras will be able to capture images of the smoking infringement and facilitate NEA’s investigations. In response to Ms Rahayu Mahzam’s question whether the Community Volunteer (CV) programme has enhanced enforcement of the smoking prohibition, let me clarify that CVs are not deployed to supplement NEA’s enforcement officers. The CVs’ primary role is to educate environmental offenders and promote environmental consciousness in the community. CVs can only ask for the particulars of uncooperative offenders and can give the information to NEA for investigation. CVs have been deployed in Orchard Road to raise awareness of the upcoming NSZ and help ease smokers into the regime when it comes into operation. These efforts should also go some way in minimising smoking violations within the newly prohibited places, a concern raised by Ms Thanaletchimi. We should adopt a whole-of-society approach towards encouraging gracious behaviour. This way, we can all enjoy clean air in the shared spaces around us, while building a stronger community. I agree with Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Thanaletchimi that public education is a critical plank in our efforts to create a smoke-free environment, and we will explore ways to further enhance that.”
“In response to Ms Rahayu Mahzam’s comment that there is a lack of understanding about the rules relating to smoking in sheltered walkways or drop-off points, especially during rain, we would like to clarify that the smoking prohibition applies regardless of the weather. Ultimately, living in the community is about give and take. I urge all smokers to be considerate and to refrain from smoking in a way that would negatively affect others. Families and friends of the smokers as well as the public, in general, could help to reinforce the right social norms, through nudges and reminders, in order to help address this issue. In the spirit of good neighbourliness, we should try to understand one another’s concerns, communicate and resolve disputes amicably. If professional assistance is required, residents can approach the Community Mediation Centre. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Rahayu Mahzam highlighted the frustrations of non-smokers faced with inconsiderate smokers around their neighbourhood. They have asked about enforcement capacity, and how we plan to make enforcement more effective and efficient in light of the growing number of smoke-free places. NEA has been engaging business owners about the Orchard Road NSZ and will calibrate its enforcement capacity according to the situation on the ground. Enforcement is necessary, but not the silver bullet. Instead, our deeper aim is to foster social norms that promote health and well-being. We need the community to help us remind smokers where they should not be smoking. Smokers must also play their part and be mindful of those around them before lighting up. Ms Thanaletchimi also asked how technology can be further leveraged to facilitate reporting of unlawful smoking and errant managers.”
“We need to be mindful that not everyone would support the view that the Government should intrude into one’s private space on the issue of smoking. Indeed, the Member Ms Rahayu Mahzam had alluded to that earlier. We have witnessed disputes in some private estates over the management committee’s right to prohibit smoking in one’s balcony – a private space. As Mr Louis Ng rightly pointed out, regulation must be balanced against privacy concerns. Moreover, if we were to prohibit smoking in one’s own home, it would inevitably entail bringing to bear the necessary investigation and enforcement powers in our homes. We must not take this lightly. Such an intrusive regulatory approach to tackling neighbourly issues could ultimately be even more detrimental to community harmony and ownership. Mr Louis Ng cited a recent US ban on smoking within public housing estates as an example of how a comparable regime could be implemented in Singapore. The US smoking ban does not apply to all homes, but only to public housing estate for low-income residents, through the imposition of conditions in the tenancy agreements. Tenants who do not wish to comply with the smoking ban may have to look for alternative housing. The context of the US smoking ban is very different, and we do need to consider our local circumstances before adopting practices from abroad. We have been proactively addressing second-hand smoke in our housing estates. Over the years, we have disallowed smoking at common areas, including at the lift lobbies, corridors and staircase landings.”
“Outside of the NSZ, smoking is already disallowed in many public places. This includes sheltered pedestrian walkways, overhead bridges and the corridors of public estates. Our priority is to implement the NSZ well, monitor the outcomes and make any necessary improvements. We will then assess the impact of the Orchard Road NSZ and its DSAs, before considering whether to replicate it elsewhere. The NSZ will be brought into force in the coming months and details will be provided in due course. Mr Louis Ng and Miss Cheryl Chan asked if we plan to provide DSAs in places beyond Orchard Road, such as in our housing estates. Unlike Orchard Road, our heartlands are where our homes and schools are, and where our young children and youths spend their time daily. DSAs typically serve as congregation points for smokers. The daily sight of people gathering to smoke at DSAs at residential areas may give our young the impression that it is normal to smoke. As much as possible, we want to avoid this. Furthermore, given the design of our housing estates where HDB blocks are well-connected and dense, it may be challenging to find suitable locations that ensure that DSAs are not too conspicuous. Hence, our approach has instead been to extend the smoking prohibition to as many areas as possible within housing estates where members of the public frequent, including sheltered walkways, exercise areas and playgrounds. We will continue to monitor and enforce against smoking violations in these areas. Members have also called for restrictions on smoking in homes, including imposing penalties when smoke wafts out of a residential unit. Indeed, indiscriminate smoking can be distressing, and I empathise with all those who are affected. Nevertheless, homes are private spaces.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for speaking in support of the Bill. Let me now address their queries in turn. Members have voiced concerns about the harm posed by passive cigarette smoke to vulnerable groups, such as the young and the elderly, and asked what more can be done. Some, including Miss Cheryl Chan, have also asked whether more NSZs are being planned. The NSZ in Orchard Road is a new initiative. We decided on the shopping belt because the area experiences significant and dense pedestrian traffic and is a site for alfresco activities. Support from stakeholders was another consideration. We had strong backing for our plans from businesses and building owners, led by the Orchard Road Business Association. We also considered the availability of suitable locations for Designated Smoking Areas (DSAs), given that the NSZ would cover a relatively large area with numerous commercial premises. Since 2015, NEA has been working with building owners in Orchard Road to allocate sufficient space for DSAs. Today, about 40 DSAs can be found across the prospective NSZ. As far as possible, these DSAs are located away from the main thoroughfare along Orchard Road, to ensure smoking is contained and not done in clear view of passers-by, especially impressionable youths. This will help protect public health and avoid normalising smoking. Like Ms K Thanaletchimi, I hope that DSAs would become unnecessary one day. But we must be practical in our approach, given the large number of visitors and tourists along Orchard Road. Mr Louis Ng suggested a pilot to prohibit smoking while on the move. Once the Orchard Road NSZ is in force, every public place within the zone would be smoking-prohibited, and smokers would not be able to light up while walking along the shopping belt.”
“The categories of jobs or occupations that are covered under the Skills Framework, we will be launching a number of them in the first instance and these will generally be for the nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech therapists, pharmacy technicians, support care staff, patient service associates.”
“To this end, we note that HSEU and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Learning Hub launched the HSEU Healthcare Academy as a collaborative effort to provide some of this training. We are happy to work with the Labour Movement further to strengthen and deepen our links on workforce training and development. These efforts at tripartite dialogue with union and employers can take place at all levels without a formal training council, and we look forward to continuing our journey with HSEU in this area.”
“The Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) are a tripartite effort to set out our industry transformation plan through the three pillars of Enhancing Jobs and Skills, Raising Productivity and Catalysing Innovation. The Ministry of Health (MOH) would like to thank the Healthcare Services Employees’ Union (HSEU) for working closely with us on the Healthcare ITMs. MOH takes a holistic approach towards manpower development for the various healthcare professions where training is considered together with regulatory policies, professional practices and job redesign. For major professions, such as Nursing, we have set up dedicated committees to look into these issues, for example, the MOH National Nursing Taskforce and the Future Nursing Career Review Committee which the union is represented in. We have also set up committees on specific areas which require more focused attention, such as the Skills Framework Steering Committee, which has engaged the union on the development of the Skills Framework for Healthcare. The Skills Framework will document emerging healthcare roles and skills according to the strategic directions outlined in the healthcare ITM. It will also map training programmes to the associated competencies. The Skills Framework for Healthcare will be completed this year, and it represents an opportunity to strengthen the tripartite relationship among MOH, the healthcare clusters and the union to prepare our workforce for the future. MOH will continue to engage HSEU and our clusters at appropriate fora to identify training needs, particularly of workers preparing to take on emerging roles, and organise training programmes to address them.”
“While the process may be challenging, MCSTs can, nonetheless, turn to this option if all other means, like reaching out to the errant residents, fail, including even community mediation, for instance. Amending our legislation to extend our anti-littering laws to private estates would likely illicit negative reactions, such as it being intrusive. So, we currently have no plans to amend our current legislation.”
“I thank the Member for his three questions. I would take them together. With regard to the difference in treatment, let me say that the prohibition against littering under our current law, the Environmental Public Health Act applies to publicly accessible places only. That is as defined in the Act. Private estates, such as ECs and private strata-titled condominiums, are not regarded as such a place in law, as access to such places by the public is restricted, which I have mentioned earlier. So, our anti-littering law, therefore, does not apply to littering within these private estates, such as condominiums. And NEA is, in turn, unable to carry out enforcement against littering incidents within these private estates. However, when a Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) approaches NEA for assistance to tackle cases of high-rise littering, NEA will explore ways to collaborate with them, to educate and advise the residents against such anti-social acts, for instance, working with them to send out advisory notices against such anti-social acts. But having said that, many condominiums already have by-laws that prohibit littering within their estates. The management committee of these private estates can actually work with the residents to encourage and influence the right behaviour accordingly. For private estates where access is largely restricted, in fact, to residents of family members and their friends, it will be best for residents to work together to foster collective responsibility and cultivate the right positive social norms and behaviour. But if all else fails, the management corporation can apply to the Courts to enforce these by-laws against errant residents.”
“These efforts reflect the whole-of-society approach needed to keep our public spaces clean. Our national schools have also set aside time for students to clean the common areas of their school each day, and these activities have helped to inculcate values, such as a sense of responsibility and consideration for others, as well as for the environment. By starting young, these positive habits are passed down through the generations, just like in Japan today. To the Member's question regarding littering in high-rise estates, our approach is no different. We will continue to work with grassroots organisations and Town Councils to raise awareness about this issue amongst residents. Unlike public estates, private estates are collectively owned by their residents and public access to such estates are restricted. Home owners in private estates, therefore, have the autonomy to govern and manage the shared private spaces in a responsible manner. For this to happen, residents should come together to encourage and influence acceptable social behaviour in their communities. Many condominiums have already put in place by-laws prohibiting littering within their estates. The management committees of these private estates can work with their residents to cultivate the right behaviour accordingly. While the Government will persist in our efforts to develop greater environmental stewardship, we cannot do this alone. I, therefore, urge everyone to play their part in keeping Singapore a clean and green city.”
“Thank you. Singaporeans take pride in a clean and green Singapore, and most do their part to keep the environment clean. However, there is an irresponsible minority that continues to litter and disregard prevailing societal norms. To tackle such anti-social conduct, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has taken a tough stance on litterbugs. Last year, it took 32,000 enforcement actions against littering offenders. While enforcement may serve as a deterrent, it is not the panacea. Our primary line of defence against such behaviour should be to foster collective responsibility for our environment and cultivate positive social norms and civic mindedness among our people. To this end, NEA and various partner organisations have been conducting campaigns and programmes to promote environmental awareness and encourage greater stewardship of our common spaces. The annual Clean and Green Singapore (CGS) co-organised by NEA, the Public Utilities Board, the National Parks Board and the Community Development Councils encourages the community to play an active role in keeping Singapore clean and litter-free. There are also other initiatives, such as the Public Hygiene Council's annual Keep Clean, Singapore! campaign, which advocate the value of maintaining cleanliness beyond our own homes and fostering the habit of picking up after oneself. The month-long event held in May this year saw more than 370 organisations, including grassroots organisations, public agencies and corporations, taking part in more than 500 clean-up activities across the island. NEA has also been targeting its publicity efforts at mass events, such as the National Day Parade celebrations, to remind people to pick up after themselves.”