Desmond Lee
Singapore
“The Leadership, Enrichment, Achievement, Participation and Service (LEAPS) 2.0 is a framework for recognising student participation and achievement in secondary school co-curricular programmes.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) is mindful of the impact that rising temperatures may have on our students, teachers and officials taking part in the National School Games. Matches are scheduled only after students have had the time to train and become progressively more heat acclimatised.”
“As shared in Parliament in March 2026, the proportion of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream schools has remained stable, at around 7% of the overall student population. This stability is observed across both primary and secondary schools.”
“The Ministry recruits and assesses applicants based on merit and suitability for the teaching profession, regardless of gender. We look for individuals with a passion for teaching, a belief in the potential of every child, and who possess the values and character to make a positive difference in students' lives.”
“Over the past five years, an average of 750 teachers resigned from the Education Service annually, representing a resignation rate of around 2%.”
“MOE has also progressively strengthened open access within the Primary 1 Registration Framework through Phase 2C, which is open to students regardless of whether they have prior connections to the school. MOE had increased the number of reserved Phase 2C places from zero to 20 in 2014; and from 20 to 40 in 2022.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,698 lines we hold for Desmond Lee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 42 of 74.
“The construction industry is one of the sectors hardest-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit breaker last year, coupled with the stringent safe management measures imposed at worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have led to delays for many private and public sector projects, including HDB’s BTO projects. We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers. HDB is working with its contractors and consultants to expedite construction work as much as possible, while ensuring that project quality and safety standards are not compromised. Meanwhile, flat buyers are encouraged to find alternative housing arrangements with family members, relatives or on the open market. Where they are unable to do so, first-timer applicants who are waiting for their BTO flats can apply for temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Given the limited supply of PPHS flats, we are considering how to finetune allocation to give priority to families in greater need of temporary housing. We are also studying ways to increase the supply of temporary housing to better support affected flat buyers in need of housing. We will provide more details on these measures when ready. For low-income households with no family support and no other housing option, HDB will consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis. Today, flat buyers who cancel their flat booking will either have to forfeit their option fee, or 5% of the flat purchase price, and wait out a one-year period before they can apply for subsidised housing again. This includes both new flats from HDB or resale flats with grants.”
“Eligible first-timer families can receive up to $160,000 in grants when they purchase a resale flat.”
“The construction industry is one of the sectors hardest-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit breaker last year, coupled with the stringent safe management measures imposed at worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have led to delays for many private and public sector projects, including HDB’s BTO projects. We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers. HDB is working with its contractors and consultants to expedite construction work as much as possible, while ensuring that project quality and safety standards are not compromised. Today, flat buyers who cancel their flat booking will either have to forfeit their option fee, or 5% of the flat purchase price, and wait out a one-year period before they can apply for subsidised housing again, whether a new flat from HDB or a resale flat with grants. These measures are in place to ensure that buyers are serious when they buy a flat, and do not deprive others with urgent housing needs of the opportunity to do so. However, we recognise the challenges faced by flat buyers given the COVID-19 situation and HDB will consider waiving these forfeitures based on an assessment of the flat buyers’ specific circumstances. This includes flat buyers who have been affected by BTO delays and who cancel their BTO flats to buy a resale flat due to urgent housing needs. The waiver of the one-year wait out period will allow first-timer families with urgent housing needs to receive housing grants if they decide to buy a resale flat. Resale flats are generally available for immediate occupation, and buyers can choose from a wide range of flats, according to their preferences and budget.”
“These measures are in place to ensure that buyers are serious when they buy a flat, and do not deprive others with urgent housing needs of the opportunity to do so. However, we recognise the challenges faced by flat buyers given the COVID-19 situation and HDB will consider waiving forfeiture based on an assessment of the flat buyers’ specific circumstances. This includes flat buyers who have been affected by BTO delays and who cancel their BTO flats to buy a resale flat due to urgent housing needs. The waiver of the one-year wait out period will allow first-timer families with urgent housing needs to receive housing grants if they decide to buy a resale flat. Resale flats are generally available for immediate occupation, and buyers can choose from a wide range of flats, according to their preferences and budget. Eligible first-timer families can receive up to $160,000 in grants when they purchase a resale flat. As the existing housing grants are already substantial, we currently have no plans to provide a one-off housing grant. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor the market situation and explore how we can better support home buyers with urgent interim housing needs.”
“The construction industry is one of the sectors hardest-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The circuit breaker last year, coupled with the stringent safe management measures imposed at worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have led to delays for many private and public sector projects, including HDB’s BTO projects. We recognise that the delays to the completion of BTO flats have caused inconvenience to flat buyers. HDB is working with its contractors and consultants to expedite construction work as much as possible, while ensuring that project quality and safety standards are not compromised. Meanwhile, flat buyers are encouraged to find alternative housing arrangements with family members, relatives or on the open market. Where they are unable to do so, first-timer applicants who are waiting for their BTO flats can apply for temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Given the limited supply of PPHS flats, we are considering how to finetune allocation to give priority to families in greater need of temporary housing. We are also studying ways to increase the supply of temporary housing to better support affected flat buyers in need of housing. We will provide more details on these measures when ready. For low-income households with no family support and no other housing option, HDB will consider offering Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis. Today, flat buyers who cancel their flat booking will either have to forfeit their option fee, or 5% of the flat purchase price, and wait out a one-year period before they can apply for subsidised housing again, whether a new flat from HDB or a resale flat with grants.”
“HDB adopts a comprehensive approach in planning the BTO flat supply, taking into account factors such as the prevailing economic and housing market conditions, and long-term demographic and population trends. Notwithstanding the current challenges that the construction industry is facing, HDB is on track to launch about 17,000 BTO flats in 2021 as planned, to meet the needs of home buyers. This is higher than the 14,600 and 16,800 flats launched in 2019 and 2020 respectively. The BTO flat supply is supplemented by balance flats which are offered via the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises and open booking. Going forward, we will continue to maintain a healthy and steady supply of BTO flat annually. There are no plans to reduce the number of flats to be launched for 2022, which we will announce when ready. Disruptions from the circuit breaker last year, coupled with strict safe management measures imposed on worksites and the tightening of border controls for workers from South Asia have affected private and public sector projects, including HDB’s BTO projects. Many will take longer to complete. HDB is working with its contractors and consultants to expedite construction work as much as possible, without compromising the project quality and safety standards. Nevertheless, home buyers with urgent housing needs may consider buying a resale flat on the open market instead, where eligible first-timer buyers can receive up to $160,000 in housing grants. Resale flats are generally good for immediate occupation and buyers can choose from a wide range of flats, according to their preferences and budget.”
“I thank the Member for that very clear position. In 2006 and all the way till last year, the Workers' Party position was that we have already reached a level of multiculturalism and, therefore, unequivocally, called for since 2006, election after election, for the immediate abolition of EIP. But the Workers' Party's position today, in 2021, is that we still need the EIP, we work towards a race-blind society and we endeavour to reach there and, at some point, hopefully, we may not need EIP. So, that is a clear change in political position and I thank the Member for that.”
“Is he saying today that the EIP should be abolished? Is the answer to that, yes or no? That is all I want to know. Or is he saying that it need not be abolished, we can just look to see how we improve it? That is all I wanted to understand.”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition. Those are details, important details but I think, fundamentally, it is important to understand, given the Government's position as articulated, that we continue to look at how we can smoothen the rough edges and given how over the last few years, we have started to see more appeals succeeding, do we recognise that that is on a case-by-case basis, providing a balm to a household but also not quite pushing the limits further. Does WP still want to abolish? And if it abolishes, the important questions about your belief about what society will be like, I think that is most fundamental. The other issues we can address, but we need to understand your position on multi-racialism. Number two, the importance of these bulwarks to ensure multi-racialism. Number three, your position on Chinese, Malays, Indians, Others (CMIO). You have talked about a race-blind society, a race-neutral, race-blind multicultural society. But yet over the years, we have been tracking; WP has been filing lots and lots of questions specific to individual minorities or races. And in fact, I understand Member Mr Faisal Manap had asked a PQ before, asking for assurances that we will ensure that the ethnic mix in Singapore will remain and wants to keep a very close eye on ethnic issues. The Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to ask a clarification of the Leader of the Opposition because I was listening to his response. I think he had started out by saying that the EIP should be revisited. Then, he said, reviewed. He then mentioned that in the manifesto, they took a philosophical position. But I am sorry because I still do not know what WP's position is. So, could the Leader of the Opposition clarify?”
“As for the last point about the data, we will look at what data we can provide, the granularity, it changes from month to month. But we will see what we can provide.”
“And as we said, we continue to look at how we can smoothen the rough edges of EIP and ensure that a new generation of Singaporeans who have not lived through the tumultuous early days of Singapore history continue to support measures, may not be popular measures, but necessary bulwarks to ensure that our multi-racial character is in substance and not in form. The Member, I am not sure whether he has addressed my question, but because of the impact on minorities, which we have said we address through appeals as well as through continuous smoothening of the rough edges, does he still take the position that we want to abolish the EIP for that reason? And if abolished, does WP believe that our estates will remain multicultural and representative? Or is it the case that you accept that given even current trends, there will be a lot of concentration, but that it is perfectly okay, there is no impact to our multi-racial character because we have multi-racialism in National Service, in our national schools and our workplaces? I have also said earlier that there will be these knock-on effects, if whole estates become concentrated, to all these places, platforms and spaces that the Member talked about. From being common, they will be ethnic focused. Does he then say, we move the EIP away from housing and put ethnic quotas in schools, in workplaces, in pre-schools, in markets, in hawker centres, in neighbourhood shops? Or you think it is fine that the schools and pre-schools, they are all ethnically focused because its proximity and it is fine. We are sufficiently multicultural – a point you have made since 2006, that Singapore has reached such a high level of multiculturalism that we no longer need to concern ourselves with mixing people.”
“Or after a few months, the EIP may adjust because people buy and sell and the EIP may no longer apply to your block. So, we look at it individually, bearing in mind that we have to be very judicious. Otherwise, the lessons that we have learned will all unravel. The Member talked about the case that the Chairman of WP sought to help and the example was raised twice as an anecdotal, but real, example of a person who lost $100,000 through resale. I would like to clarify and we have checked all the cases that the learned Member had filed and without naming the individual family, it was not a case of them losing $100,000. Ms Sylvia Lim's appeal to us was that the resident told her that she got offers for her flat that appeared to be $100,000 less than what other people nearby were offered. That was anecdotal, it was said to her. I am not sure if the Member verified. We were not in a position to verify what the offers were for that flat. But in that case, HDB assessed the case holistically and agreed in August 2019 to waive the EIP for a period of time to allow the family to sell. Waived off EIP, looking at the circumstances of the family. But the family decided not to take this offer up for other reasons and requested HDB to acquire the flat. So, that was what happened. I think better put these cases which are raised as anecdotal examples to rest. Having said that, there is impact, no doubt. There is impact. And we address that through appeals, we look at these and scrutinise very carefully to help the affected seller.”
“By its very operation, it seeks to ensure that in every estate, from BTO all the way to resale flat, there is freedom to choose where you would like to live, subject to balloting or price. But when it hits certain limits, and when the function of individual choices results in blocks exceeding significantly the demographic proportion of each ethnic group, then we have to kick in this bulwark and say, "Well, we will have to cap it". Of course, it causes pain to minorities but also Chinese as well. The proportion, of course, will be different because there are a lot more Chinese than there are the other ethnic minorities, and that is the reality of it. For Build-To-Order (BTO) applications in certain popular locations, say Bishan, Ang Mo Kio, you do have cases of Chinese coming up to say, "Look, I have been balloted. I have been asked to select, but the next day I am told sorry, EIP limit hit, and then the minority takes over my place". There is also unhappiness. But we explain the rationale and seek their understanding, and by and large, all Singaporeans of all races have kept faith with the broader intent of this policy. But I accept the Member's point and I accept the point that was made by many Members of this House, both present and past, and looking at very thoughtful questions in speeches by both PAP Members and Members from across the aisle over the years, concerned about the impact on their constituents of all races, including minorities. And that is why we have been looking at it case-by-case, understanding the situation for each seller, looking at how long they have taken to market the flat, looking at the price if asked for, given the market conditions, and well, if today is EIP, tomorrow or next month, perhaps there might be a change of circumstances.”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the very clear elucidation of the party's position that it objects to the EIP and would want it abolished. A couple of responses. First, he says it is a pre-emptive policy in 1989. If you look back in history and over the last few weeks and months as we continue to review our policies and preparing for today's session has been a humbling experience in learning from the wisdom of the generations. It is not a pre-emptive policy in 1989. It was a policy that was put in place because of the lessons learnt from the 1960s, paid for with blood, sweat and tears. A real pain in families grieving for lost loved ones and a country newly formed wrecked by racial riots and disharmony, distrust. The efforts of HDB are not just to build homes for people who lived in slums and villages that flooded or were easily burned, but also ensuring that we learn those lessons, and in allocating new flats, make sure that in every block, there was a racial mix. Taking people from what were ethnic enclaves, which were a legacy of the Jackson Plan and persisted through villages and enclaves of different races, pulling them up and saying, "You move into these high-rise homes in the sky, but we will mix you. Learn to live with each other." If you talk to the earlier generation, it was not easy. And I think today, there are still frictions along the way, but things have improved. So, it is not a pre-emptive policy. It is not something that we decided to put in because we were looking at other countries. We paid for it with the blood of our brethren and sisters. Second, the Member says that he or WP would like to abolish the EIP because of its disproportionate impact on minorities. As I said earlier, the EIP has its rough edges.”
“It would help to advance our common understanding.”
“And the recent incidents over the years continue to remind us of the need to keep working at it and never rest on our laurels, that we can afford to take away mechanisms that are in place through the wisdom of the generations to keep our society where it is today. So, I would like to seek some clarity. Firstly, given what I have said about the current EIP limits being strained in different locations and the experience in different cities and countries, not just in the past but in the present, what would be WP's position? Is it your position that there will not be racial concentrations if we abolish EIP? Or are you saying that we have reached a level of multi-racial integration so that it does not matter if we have entire blocks and neighbourhoods of predominantly one race; society will not change if we have ethnic concentrations? What would your position be if you know that people go to the pre-schools, they go to the schools near their homes. And if we have neighbourhoods predominantly of one ethnic group, that will of course cascade into pre-schools, into our national school system. The services in the heartlands, the shops, the markets, the hawker centre food choices, they will adjust to reflect the proportions of the clientele in the neighbourhood. How about local jobs? The availability of local jobs and the kinds of ethnic Singaporeans who fill those jobs? If you are concerned about diversity in the workplace, in National Service, in national schools and even social mixing – I recall there was an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) discussion about different socio-economic classes and the concern about whether they mix – then, why not at home and in our neighbourhoods where we spend a vast amount of time? I would like to seek the Member's clarification.”
“Singaporeans should therefore be given the freedom to choose where their homes will be without taking into account race." It is the same in 2015. You did not cite the impact on minority resellers but you say that society has now attained a level of multi-racial integration and therefore there is no longer a need for EIP. In 2011, that is the same position except that in addition to saying that in 2011, Singapore had reached a high level of multi-racial integration and therefore there is no longer a need for people to be mandated to live with each other across different ethnicities in our neighbourhoods, WP goes on to say that the ethnic quota system also contradicts the policy of encouraging young families to live closer to their parents and prevent young Malay and Indian families from buying homes close to their parents. I would dare say that also applies to Chinese families who are constrained by EIP even if they wish to live in the same block as their parents. That is also the same in 2006. Between 1989 and 2006, we have no record of any position that WP has taken since the EIP was launched. I looked at speeches made by the hon Leader of the Opposition as well as the Chairman of WP and other Members. I just want to understand the rationale and, indeed, what the position is. Because in the House, there has been no clear and unequivocal position taken by WP that you want the EIP abolished because you object to it and that Singapore has reached such a high level of multi-racialism that it is no longer necessary. We, of course, take a very different view to that.”
“Whether we will consider that across all housing types, as I said earlier, we are mindful of the intent of EIP as a bulwark against very strong socio-economic forces borne out of choices of individuals. The EIP, we need to adjust along the way in terms of looking at proportions, but it is a very important bulwark. And I hope the Member agrees with me. Therefore, we look at individual cases in order to determine whether we should waive the limit as opposed to an inexorable increase in EIP limits for all races across the board, which for some cases would bring it close to 100% because for Chinese, the EIP limit is already 87%. So, the question is how much more do you want to raise the cap? In doing so, even when we allow appeals on a case-by-case basis, we are already pushing at the boundaries of what the policy seeks to achieve. Let me also take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the Opposition to give us a better understanding of the Workers' Party's (WP's) position on EIP. He has asked very useful questions. I looked at your manifestos and WP has said unequivocally from 2006 to last year, that WP wants the EIP to be abolished; and people should be able to stay wherever they want in our estates. Let me quote page 28 of the 2020 manifesto, "the ethnic quotas governing citizens' home ownership of HDB flats should be abolished. This would address the disadvantage faced by ethnic minority HDB flat resellers. Abolishing the quota will not cause racial disharmony amongst Singaporeans. After more than 50 years of nation-building, our society has evolved and achieved multi-racial integration that has gone beyond the need for mandating proportionately mixed neighbourhoods.”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his three questions. First, on the number of appeals from households from Indian or other ethnic origins, whether the review is ongoing, it continues to be so. We look at the proportions of various ethnic groups over the years and we make adjustments, where necessary. In 1989 versus 2020, the second question. Here is the data. In 1989, when we introduced the EIP, 28% of neighbourhoods had reached one or more EIP limits. So, 125 neighbourhoods then; 35 neighbourhoods reached one or more limits. In June this year, out of 173 neighbourhoods – because we have been building our towns and increasing the number of neighbourhoods – 14% have breached one or more ethnic limits. That is 24 neighbourhoods. In 1989, 35 neighbourhoods out of 125 and in June 2021, 24 out of 173. So, more neighbourhoods as a whole in Singapore but the number of neighbourhoods hitting one or more EIP limits has come down, not just in proportionate terms but in absolute numbers. That is perhaps a result of a range of factors: the EIP operating, including operating in new neighbourhoods that are launched over the years since. But also, a whole variety of factors: providing a whole range of flat types, providing for different budgets, programmes that promote a sense of belonging, programmes that help to integrate society together across races. So, a whole range of factors may have led to that. As for rental flats, I recall reading in 2013, the Member asked, following a 2012 question he had asked to Minister Khaw Boon Wan, then Minister for National Development, and Minister Khaw said that for rental flats to accommodate the Malay households that are applying for rental housing, there would be an administrative 10-percentage point increment to accommodate.”
“That is how we continuously press on towards our ideal of a cohesive and multi-racial Singapore.”
“But this brings little comfort to affected sellers, particularly those who had bought the flat from HDB, or on the resale market before the EIP limits were reached, and yet are now caught by the EIP limits. This is the group who can be financially disadvantaged, and I understand why they feel aggrieved. They may feel it is unfair that they are personally shouldering the costs for a policy that benefits all of us in society. Over the years, Members of Parliament on both sides of this House have raised these concerns. This is why HDB has been exercising flexibility for EIP-constrained owners, on a case-by-case basis. For instance, HDB will give the household more time to sell their flat and even waive the EIP limits if there are exceptional circumstances. In fact, the percentage of successful EIP-related appeals has risen from 14% in 2018 to 21% in 2020. However, whenever HDB waives EIP limits to address its impact on certain households, it is mindful that this may lead to even higher imbalances in the concentrations of certain ethnic groups in some areas. So, we are studying the situation carefully and are looking at what more can be done to help affected sellers. The EIP is by no means the perfect tool, nor the only tool to promote and ensure racial harmony. We are very conscious of the trade-offs and will keep working to smoothen its sharper edges. But it has an essential place among the range of tools, programmes, policies and safeguards we deploy to protect and promote our racial harmony. So, let us keep in mind the larger social objective behind the EIP even as we seek to smoothen its sharper edges. We must always ensure that the places we live and grow up reflect the fabric of our society.”
“Based on a recent REACH survey, more than 60% of Singaporeans agreed that implementing racial quotas in public housing was an important way of promoting racial integration. Similar levels of support were seen across all races. About 30% were indifferent to this and less than 10% disagreed. Having said that, we recognise that the EIP is an intrusive social policy, because it acts against very powerful and complex socio-economic forces that are at play in Singapore and all over the world. And in its application on the ground, the EIP does have its rough edges and may cause difficulties for some owners looking to sell their flats. In 2020, HDB received about 500 appeals for a waiver of the EIP, which is about 2% of the 23,100 resale applications filed last year. When the EIP limits are reached for an ethnic group, sellers from other ethnic groups are unable to sell to buyers of the constrained group. With a smaller pool of eligible buyers, sellers may have to lower their asking price or they may take longer to market and sell their flat. This happens across all races, including Chinese sellers who are affected by the non-Chinese EIP limits. But we do see more appeals from sellers from the minority races. This is because Chinese buyers form a larger proportion of the market simply from the demographic mix of society and the impact on individual non-Chinese sellers is therefore larger when the Chinese EIP limits are reached. And this data we presented in some Parliamentary Questions (PQs) earlier. In such cases, the seller’s loss may be the buyer’s gain. A buyer from an eligible race will benefit from a lower resale price and would thus be less affected if and when they sell the flat in the future.”
“That conversation with this mayor has stuck in my mind all these years. In fact, in September 2016, Lord Mayor Sadiq Khan of London, said this: "The less integrated our societies are, the greater the economic and social costs we face now and in the future. Failure to integrate feeds extremism, whether in the Muslim community or the far right. It causes anxiety and fear of crime and causes mistrust between people. A laissez-faire approach to achieving social integration just does not work. There is so much that city leaders can do to ensure people of different ethnicities, faiths, culture, age groups and incomes do not just tolerate each other, but live truly interconnected lives. We need to ensure that our housing and planning laws mean we design and build integrated communities and institutions where neighbours have real reasons to come together." And, actually, I have got many other studies that we have been following over the years – studies in Europe, the US and other cities – which affirm that integration and social diversity strengthen social cohesion and understanding. So, the EIP continues to serve a very important function for Singapore. We cannot leave social mixing to chance and hope that it will happen by an invisible hand. It is better to intervene upstream to pre-empt the problem and to foster mutual understanding and encourage integration from the start. If we wait until after racial tensions have started to bubble to the surface and develop and become entrenched, it will become so much harder to heal those fractures and rebuild trust among different communities. From our engagements and the feedback we have received, most Singaporeans understand and support the EIP and recognise its purpose.”
“They receive fewer opportunities and these differences get entrenched across generations. I recently read an article on the website FiveThirtyEight analysing racial segregation in the US. It featured a tool developed by the University of Virginia which is called "The Racial Dot Map" – and you might want to check it up after this. The map plots one dot for each person on the maps of US cities, with different colours representing different ethnicities. The visualisation is quite stark. The map is colourful, but you can see distinct and clear patches of colour sharply separated from one another, with very little inter-mixing, a reflection of how multicultural but segregated the country is. The author also cites a study showing that three quarters of white Americans do not have any non-white friends. He writes, I quote, "The places we live affect not only our access to resources, but also who we meet, interact with and become friends with. The nature of segregation in the US means that we only end up seeing and learning about what our own groups experience, making it hard to understand the lives of people outside of our own group." Similarly, after I spoke about the EIP at an overseas conference some years back, a mayor of a big city that suffered from serious racial segregation and conflict came up to me. He said he wished that his city had implemented a version of the EIP much earlier on, to foster harmony and avert the unrest that they now regularly face. But now that societal divisions have hardened along racial and ethnic lines, the EIP is not a feasible nor politically attainable option. Even talking about the idea of ensuring that different races live near one another would cause an uproar and inflame tensions even further. That is how bad the situation had become.”
“In fact, all these incidents of friction between neighbours of different cultures have caught our attention and is part of the reason why are having this debate today. But equally, often, we do not celebrate the large number of situations when neighbours learn to live with each other, celebrate each other's festivals, mourn with each other, grieve with each other and go and learn how to live together, because they live in the same community. Others also argue that there are other ways to mix and achieve social integration – in schools, at work or during National Service. But the EIP remains critical because so much of our lives and our children's lives revolve around our homes and our neighbourhoods. With diversity in our estates, we get to interact with our neighbours of different races almost every day – along the corridors, the void decks, playgrounds, markets, neighbourhood centres, shops, hawker centres. And if we do not live with one another, it makes it much harder to empathise with other communities and understand the challenges that they face. And so much easier to stereotype or assume the worst of the other, the people we do not see or do not see so often. And this is a recipe for mutual mistrust and intolerance that we have seen in our early history but also repeated in cities and townships all around the world. Indeed, we only need to look at other countries in the present day to see how this might happen. In major cities across Europe and the United States (US), for example, racial segregation is common and well-advanced. Different ethnic groups live in different enclaves. The wealthier ethnicities congregate in expensive, gentrified precincts. While ethnicities which are less well-off are excluded and stigmatised.”
“This happens across all ethnic groups – Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others – as well as in both mature estates with older Singaporeans and newer estates with younger residents, where most residents fulfilled the Minimum Occupation Period in recent years. In some areas, like Bukit Merah, Pasir Ris and Woodlands, the limits have been reached persistently across time. So, just imagine how much more the different ethnic groups would concentrate in different neighbourhoods, if we did away with the EIP, and how much harder it would be then to promote mixing and understanding across ethnic groups in the home environment. Our children could grow up in neighbourhoods where they hardly see any children or any people of other races, not even in their classrooms, since most children go to pre-schools and national schools near their homes. How much harder then would it be for them to even get acquainted with different cultures from a young age – to see festivities, celebrations and mourning in the neighbourhood – not to mention to truly understand and appreciate these cultures from a very young age? And how much harder would it be for our children to correct their conscious and unconscious racial biases and learn how to live in a multicultural society? So, to Miss Cheryl Chan’s questions, yes, the EIP remains relevant and necessary today. Fostering real racial harmony is challenging and the EIP is one very important part of the solution because it helps to ensure inclusive and diverse neighbourhoods. Of course, some might argue that just because we live next door to someone from a different ethnic group, culture or religion, it does not necessarily mean that we will get along with our neighbour, or learn to tolerate or understand our differences.”
“This choice is then fixed until they sell the flat, to be fair to other flat owners. Today, we have made progress in strengthening good relations among Singaporeans of all races. This is the result of the hard work put in by many generations of Singaporeans, as well as our deliberate policies and programmes that seek to actively support multiracialism, including the EIP. But as recent incidents show, there is still more that we can and must do to combat racism. Building racial harmony is a constant work in progress. The EIP remains an important part of this effort because, left entirely to social and market forces, ethnic concentrations will start forming in different areas again. There are many reasons for this, even beyond instinctive preferences that people may have, to live near others from the same ethnic community. For example, family members may wish to live near each other for mutual support, that is, live near family. Or residents of certain ethnic groups may prefer neighbourhoods with a higher concentration of specific amenities and services or larger flat types. Or they may find different locations more suitable for their household’s financial situation. Individually, these are completely understandable and reasonable preferences and very personal ones. But collectively, if we are not careful, these tendencies could, inadvertently, lead to segregation among our races. Is the EIP still relevant today? Let us look at the facts. Today, nearly one out of every three HDB blocks, and 14% of HDB neighbourhoods, have reached one or more of the EIP limits, which means they have hit that particular ethnic limit more than the national proportion.”
“This was so that people of different races could interact and form bonds with one another. While we controlled the allocation of new flats quite carefully, we did not initially place similar restrictions on resale transactions, which were first allowed in 1971. Over time, as more resale transactions took place, people sold and bought and moved, ethnic concentrations started to re-emerge in particular areas. For example, by the late 1980s, we started to observe an increasing concentration of Chinese buyers in Ang Mo Kio and Malay buyers in Bedok and Tampines. We could see that, without intervention, there would, over time, once again, be ethnic enclaves which would separate us. That is why we introduced the EIP in 1989, for both new as well as resale flats, to ensure that public housing estates remained inclusive and diverse, even beyond initial flat allocation. The EIP applies to all races. It caps the proportion of flats in each HDB block and neighbourhood that can be owned by households of each ethnic group. The limits are set based on the ethnic proportions in the general population, with an allowance for some local variations in each block and neighbourhood. And if you look at the EIP limits, they are actually set higher than the national demographic proportion of each ethnic group. Mr Chong Kee Hiong pointed out the changing profile of our households. He is right. We, therefore, review the EIP limits regularly, to ensure that they are in line with national demographics so that our HDB blocks and neighbourhoods continue to reflect the multiracial character of our society. As for inter-ethnic households, which are becoming increasingly common in our social landscape, they can choose which ethnic quota to be considered when buying a flat.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Members for their questions on the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). I thought it would be useful for me to first share the history and context in which it was first introduced. When Singapore was still under British rule, the Raffles Town Plan, also known as the Jackson Plan, designated separate geographical zones for each ethnic group. Malays, Chinese, Indians and Europeans lived in different areas and apart from one another. But this segregation was not conducive to promoting interaction and integration between the races. That was our colonial history. Given the experience as well as the circumstances that led to Singapore’s Independence in 1965, our founding fathers were determined to learn these lessons in order to build a cohesive, multiracial society. Our very existence as a nation was based on this ideal: that we would be one united people, regardless of race, language or religion. To achieve this aspiration, the Government did not blindly paper over the differences between the ethnic groups. We also did not take a "melting-pot" approach by forcing the different races to blend or conform artificially to one uniform national culture. Instead, we respected and celebrated our differences, worked hard to uplift every community while actively enlarging our common space, and fostering trust and understanding between the various ethnic communities. We encouraged this through a range of policies, including public housing policy. For instance, when the Housing and Development Board (HDB) built new towns and estates to provide public housing for Singaporeans, we consciously allocated flats in such a way that every HDB block and precinct all over Singapore reflected the ethnic mix of the general population. These were for our new flats then.”
“Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 13 and 14 together?”
“For tenanted flats, HDB conducts periodic inspections on a yearly basis to proactively identify flats which require repairs or maintenance. Tenants may also provide feedback to HDB on areas requiring repairs or maintenance. For rental flats that have been returned to HDB, HDB will carry out sprucing works, such as cleaning and painting the flat, installing new locks and repairing or replacing any defective fittings. The flats are inspected after the works have been completed, before they are let out again. For flats which remain vacant for some time after sprucing, HDB checks them every six months to ensure that they remain in a suitable condition for letting out to new tenants. There was a recent incident where a rental flat tenant posted on social media about the condition of the rental flat allocated to her. The incident was due to an error where an HDB staff mistakenly thought that all the sprucing works had been completed for the affected unit. Upon discovery of the mistake, HDB immediately allocated a replacement rental flat to the affected tenant and assisted her to move the next day. HDB has since tightened our processes to prevent another similar incident from happening.”
“NParks will progressively plant more trees along the Tampines Expressway (TPE) between Seletar Link and Piccadilly. This year, trees will be added to the forested buffer near Piccadilly Circus. Following the completion of on-going road widening works in 2022, NParks will add more trees along the TPE to provide a green barrier between the expressway and Fernvale constituency. Agencies will continue to monitor the situation and implement further measures, if necessary, to minimise the sand dust that may be blown into Fernvale constituency from the surrounding area.”
“HDB received 706 applications for the 169 Community Care Apartments in Bukit Batok offered in the February 2021 Build-To-Order Exercise. Seniors must be at least 65 years old to buy a Community Care Apartment. To avoid seniors being burdened with debt in their retirement years, the flat price has to be paid for upfront in cash and/or CPF savings, and not financed via a loan. As at end April 2021, HDB has not received any appeals from applicants who wish to pay for their Community Care Apartments via a loan.”
“HDB does not actively track the number of unique appeals from flat owners who wish to sell their flat before fulfilling their minimum occupation period (MOP) as the data may include duplicate and repeated requests. In the last three years, HDB has given approval to about 4,500 households to sell their flat on the open market before meeting their MOP. The reasons for such exceptions include financial hardship, divorce or the demise of the flat owner. For comparison, over the same period, there were about 71,600 resale transactions. The MOP remains important to ensure that flat owners purchase HDB flats with the intent of living in the flats themselves, instead of quickly reselling the flats for profit. This safeguards HDB flats for households with genuine housing needs. It also deters the speculative purchase of HDB flats and thus helps to keep HDB flats affordable. HDB assesses all appeals for a waiver of the MOP on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the flat owners and their families.”
“First-timer families who have not been invited to book a flat after submitting two or more BTO applications in the non-mature estates will get an additional ballot chance for each subsequent BTO application in the non-mature estates. Flat buyers who wish to live in a particular neighbourhood or secure a flat sooner may wish to consider purchasing a resale flat. With the enhancements implemented in 2019, first-timer buyers can now qualify for generous housing grants of up to $160,000 for resale flat purchases.”
“Under the Married Child Priority Scheme, or MCPS, up to 30% of the flat supply is set aside for first-timer families, while up to 15% of the flat supply is set aside for second-timer families. Under the Multi-Generation Priority Scheme, or MGPS, a married couple and their parents can make a joint application for two new flats in the same BTO project and enjoy priority allocation. The parents can book a 2-room Flexi or 3-room flat, and up to 15% of these flats are set aside for MGPS parent applicants. A corresponding number of 2-room flexi or larger flats is set aside for the married couple applicants. For the completed BTO flat selection exercises in 2018, 2019 and in February and August 2020, HDB received about 8,900, 11,800, and 12,700 applications respectively under the MCPS. Of these applicants, 5,300, 5,400 and 4,800 were invited to book a flat. For the same period, HDB received about 400, 700 and 900 applications under the MGPS. Of these applicants, 400, 600 and 600 were invited to book a flat. First-timer couples with a child aged 18 years old or younger can qualify for priority under the Parenthood Priority Scheme, while families with three or more children can qualify for priority under the Third Child Priority Scheme. Given these existing priority schemes to cater to families with children, HDB does not intend to introduce a priority scheme for parents whose children study in schools near a BTO project. To improve their chances of securing a flat, applicants may wish to apply for a flat in a project with a lower application rate, or in a non-mature estate.”
“MND and HDB will continue to monitor the situation closely and see how best to render assistance to those affected by the delays.”
“The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) provides an additional temporary housing option for households awaiting the completion of their new flats. In 2020, HDB offered 160 PPHS flats and received 2,350 applications, compared to the 1,370 applications received in 2019. While the number of applications has increased, not all applicants may be in urgent need of temporary housing, or some may have other options, as about 40% of successful PPHS applicants did not turn up for flat selection. The supply of PPHS flats is limited and depends on the availability of vacant flats, such as those in vacated blocks that are not immediately needed for redevelopment. HDB is working towards a more stable supply and more options for families who need temporary housing. Meanwhile, on a case-by-case basis, HDB may offer interim rental housing to those with no other housing options. Besides buying new flats from HDB, first-timer buyers with urgent housing needs may consider buying a flat on the resale market and can receive up to $160,000 in housing grants. They can choose from a wide range of resale flats, which are generally ready for immediate occupation, according to their preferences and budgets. The recent tightened border measures for short-term visitors and long-term pass holders (including Work Permit and S-Pass holders) with recent travel from India, have severely constricted the supply of workers needed for the construction industry and will inevitably result in a further delay for on-going BTO projects. Barring unforeseen circumstances, projects could be delayed by a further three months, on top of the six to nine months previously communicated. HDB will update affected flat buyers progressively.”
“Residents today can already submit feedback on smoking and neighbourly noise through the “Others” category in the OneService app, without needing to know which agency to go to. MSO’s backend system will route the feedback to NEA, HDB or the Town Councils, based on issue and location of the incident.”
“MND and HDB have considered the Member’s suggestion to introduce a register for BTO flat applicants. However, there is no assurance that doing so will improve the planning of BTO launches to meet demand since an indication of interest may not accurately reflect actual demand, as there is no commitment to buy. Furthermore, given our limited land supply, it may not always be possible to plan for more housing supply in areas which are in popular demand. For each BTO exercise, MND and HDB review the launch sites to ensure a good mix across both non-mature and mature estates, to provide applicants with a range of flat options that they can consider. HDB will continue to monitor the market situation closely and calibrate the supply of public housing accordingly, to ensure that the flat supply remains relevant and responsive to the housing needs of the population.”
“As of January 2021, there are about 41,200 Heavy Vehicle Parking (HVP) lots island-wide and about 32,800 heavy vehicles registered under LTA’s Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC) scheme. So, there are more than enough lots for all heavy vehicles. The VPC scheme was implemented in 1994 to curb overnight parking of heavy vehicles along public streets, especially in residential estates. Under the scheme, all heavy vehicles have a registered overnight parking space, where they are required to park between midnight and 6.00 am. Heavy vehicle owners who require their drivers to park overnight outside of their registered parking space are committing an offence under the Road Traffic Act and could face a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to three months. We would like to reiterate that it is the responsibility of business owners to ensure that they have appropriate parking solutions for the heavy vehicles they own and that their drivers park responsibly. Business owners should also work out transport arrangements for their drivers to commute to and from work.”
“The supply of flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) is limited and depends on the availability of vacant flats, such as those in vacated blocks that are not immediately needed for redevelopment. The intent of the PPHS is to support marriage and parenthood and, in line with this, married couples are given priority under the scheme. Single unwed parents who need interim housing while awaiting the completion of their new flat can approach HDB. HDB will assess their circumstances holistically and do its best to assist them.”
“To sell their flat, flat owners first need to register an Intent to Sell via the HDB Resale Portal. In the Intent to Sell, they are required to state their next housing arrangement, such as buying another HDB flat or private property, renting a property or room on the open market, or staying with family members or friends. This prompts those who have not planned for their next accommodation to do so before embarking on their flat selling journey. After submitting their Intent to Sell, flat owners must wait out a seven-day "cooling off" period, before they may grant an Option to Purchase (OTP) for their flat to an eligible buyer. The seven-day “cooling off” period allows flat sellers to review their plans again before committing to sell their flat and helps to ensure that they have made a considered decision when granting an OTP.”
“The average waiting time for a rental flat has increased from about two months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, to about five months currently. Due to the severe labour crunch that the construction industry is facing, a longer time is required to spruce up rental flats that have been returned to HDB before they are let out to new applicants. This has led to longer waiting times for available rental flats. In addition, HDB had activated over 2,000 rental flats as emergency housing in support of the fight against COVID-19. While these units have since been returned to the public rental pool, they also require sprucing works before they can be let out. To reduce the waiting time for rental flats, HDB is working on measures to speed up the sprucing works and facilitate key collections as quickly as possible. For applicants with urgent housing needs, such as medical grounds or other extenuating circumstances, HDB will expedite their key collection. In 2020, about a third of our successful rental applicants were granted priority allocation. Notwithstanding the temporary shortage of ready rental flats that can be allocated to new applicants, the overall stock of rental flats is sufficient to meet demand.”
“HDB works closely with family members, MSF and community partners, such as social workers from Social Service Agencies and AIC, to provide counselling and support during and after decluttering. If family members wish to raise the topic with a hoarder, IMH suggests that the family members should be gentle in their approach and try to understand the intent and meaning behind the hoarding behaviour. The hoarder will be more receptive to a soft approach built upon one’s relationship with him or her. However, if the hoarding behaviour worsens or causes public health and safety concerns, family members and residents may report such cases through the OneService App. The process to fully resolve a hoarding issue can be long-drawn and is highly dependent on the hoarder’s willingness and ability to change his or her behaviour. Therefore, we will need strong support from the hoarder’s family and community. In many of the successful interventions, family members and neighbours have worked closely with agencies and grassroots leaders to encourage and assist the hoarders such that their behaviour does not recur.”
“Hoarding is a behaviour characterised by excessive acquisition and persistent difficulty in discarding possessions. People hoard for a variety of reasons, which include social and mental health issues. Some may start off hoarding with the good intention of reusing and recycling, while others do it because of loneliness and the need to feel engaged by something they consider meaningful. Hoarders often lack insight into the consequences of their hoarding and may not seek help on their own. As the underlying motivation for hoarding and context vary from case to case, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, the Municipal Services Office has worked with relevant agencies to develop the Hoarding Management Framework, which guides officers across agencies in providing coordinated support to address the hoarding issue. Much time and effort are spent on each hoarding case to diagnose the root cause, intervene, monitor and try to ensure progress. If the hoarder is assessed to have mental health issues based on a set of established criteria, the hoarder will be referred to the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for professional assessment and treatment. At the first instance, to ensure residents’ safety and well-being, HDB will advise the hoarder to remove excess items and keep his or her flat tidy. For severe cases which pose a risk or dis-amenities to neighbours, HDB will also work with regulatory agencies, such as SCDF for fire hazards and NEA for public health, to declutter the flat and corridor for the safety of residents. Community volunteers may also be involved in the decluttering. Hoarders often experience distress when asked to declutter and hoarding behaviour may also recur.”
“BCA and EDB are also working with industry partners to explore other measures to help alleviate the tight labour situation for the CMP sectors. In addition, we will continue to help firms cope with the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have already announced a few support measures for the construction sector. First, we have granted an additional 49-day Extension of Time (EOT) for eligible public sector construction projects on top of the 122 days of EOT provided under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA). This allows contractors more time to complete their projects. Second, contractors for eligible public sector projects with an awarded contract sum of up to $100 million will receive 0.1% of the awarded contract sum for every month of delay as payment for non-manpower related qualifying costs under COTMA, without the need to provide detailed substantiation for their claims. Third, we have also topped up the existing foreign worker levy rebates for CMP WPHs from $90 to $250 per worker per month, for the period between May to December 2021. Fourth, we have tabled urgent legislation to put in place a framework to allow parties to apply to adjust the contract sum for their projects, in view of foreign manpower cost increases. BCA and EDB will continue to engage firms and assess if additional measures are needed to help the CMP sectors through this crisis. That said, we must press on with our efforts to transform the CMP sectors to make them more productive and manpower-lean and reduce our overall reliance on migrant workers.”
“The recent tightening of our border measures with India and other countries will have a significant impact on the supply of Work Permit holders for the Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) sectors. This would lead to delays in our infrastructure projects. For example, about 85% of on-going BTO projects have already been delayed by about six to nine months beyond the Estimated Completion Dates originally indicated to flat buyers during project launches. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, we are expecting a further delay of three months, on top of the six to nine months previously communicated, arising from the recent border measures. Projects in the Marine Shipyard sector could also face delays, which would erode Singapore’s global competitiveness and our ability to secure future projects in these sectors. This would potentially also result in the loss of local jobs. For the Process sector, projects facing delays could face cashflow issues, potentially also resulting in layoffs. In summary, while the recent border measures are necessary to safeguard our public health, there will be significant implications for various stakeholders and our economy. While the current border measures remain in force, CMP firms can continue to source for WPHs from other countries, such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC). BCA has recently announced that it will temporarily allow new PRC construction WPHs to enter Singapore to work first and take their skills certification test locally instead of in the PRC. This will allow firms to continue bringing in workers even though some PRC Overseas Testing Centres had not resumed operations due to COVID-19.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Given the worker shortage, I think both Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and we in the Government feel that it is important for employers to work with their existing foreign workers, look at their remuneration, look at their work conditions and, of course, find ways to encourage them to continue to stay in the sector. But I have some questions about this. The Member talked about, well, SCMX is one, which is actually SCAL's effort to help to provide a marketplace for workers within Singapore so that they move employers, rather than be sent back. But his proposal – or what he says is Mr Gerald Giam's upcoming proposal – is to, in effect, make it easier for workers to move from one employer to another. If you speak with contractors, including the small subcontractors that the Leader of the Opposition has spoken to, what they are most concerned about and unhappy about over the last few months, is precisely worker poaching. You have a worker working with you, suddenly he is gone and it is because of moves and flexibilities which now the Member would like to enhance that will probably exacerbate this worker poaching. MOM and SCAL's approach is different, recognising that the rule that the Member talks about was for a different time and a different era. I think Dr Tan See Leng can come in later if the Member would like to ask MOM more about this. But now, with worker scarcity, with projects at stake, it is precisely the opposite that needs to be done, within appropriate limits, ensuring that this poaching gets put to a stop. [(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. – [Mr Desmond Lee].”