Grace Fu Hai Yien
Singapore
“The Government takes a multi-pronged approach to address the disamenities from second-hand tobacco smoke. The National Environment Agency (NEA) works with Government agencies, Town Councils and community leaders to promote considerate behaviour and strengthen social norms.”
“The Government recently announced land-use changes in Lim Chu Kang to optimise our scarce land to meet our growing and evolving needs. We are at the initial planning stage and agencies are still working out the detailed development proposals.”
“Public Waste Collectors and Town Councils have trialled the collection and treatment of segregated food waste from households. However, participation rates are poor despite regular engagement and reminders.”
“The quality of incense offerings and the practice of burning incense are not regulated by law. Instead, the National Environment Agency (NEA) works with stakeholders, such as Town Councils, agencies and religious organisations, to encourage responsible burning of joss paper and incense.”
“The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors public cleaning contractors through regular physical audits and remote monitoring, complemented by video analytics. NEA also regularly assesses the cleaning quality and outcomes of public cleaning contractors.”
“This question has been addressed in the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment’s combined answer to Question Nos 15 to 18 on the Order Paper for 7 July 2026. [Please refer to "National Recycling Rates, Plans and Targets", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
The complete record
Every one of 2,293 lines we hold for Grace Fu Hai Yien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 44 of 46.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think a resale flat has a lot of advantages over a new flat. For example, there is a huge stock available out there and it is suited for applicants who have very locational specific requirements, and if they want to live near their parents for support, that is a very good reason to want to stay in a specific location. So resale flat actually has a lot of advantages. But, of course, cash-over-valuation (COV) is a consideration for many of the First-Timers, and that is really a reflection of the market condition. COV is an issue now, but it has not always been an issue. If you look at the COV in the past, particularly in the years from 2004 to 2006, COV was close to zero. So actually it is a reflection of the market condition, and I would urge First-Timers to basically watch the market carefully. It is a very serious investment to buy a house and therefore choose the right place and pay the right price for it.”
“Mr Gautam Banerjee asked the Minister for Finance (a) what systems are in place to ensure that all statutory boards present their annual reports and/or statements to Parliament within the six-month time frame recommended by Public Accounts Committee; and (b) what were the circumstances behind a statutory board not presenting its audited financial statements to Parliament for the previous two financial years as noted in the Auditor-General’s Report for FY 2007/08.”
“MOE evaluates the success of our integration programmes regularly and we are happy and satisfied with the results, but we are not resting on our laurels. We will continue to improve on the various programmes that we have mentioned. In fact, it is through this regular review process that we have improved on the number of initiatives, for example, English enrichment and orientation programmes that help the new international students to fit into our school system, are results of such review. Singaporeans generally are accepting international students well and, in fact, in some schools, you see them celebrate their festivities together. International Friendship Day, for example, is really a time when Singaporeans and their counterparts from another country will come together and celebrate their commonality as well as their differences. SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL REPORTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY STATUTORY BOARDS 11. Mr Gautam Banerjee asked the Minister for Finance (a) what remedial action does the Government take when statutory boards do not present their annual reports and/or audited financial statements to Parliament within the six-month time frame recommended by the Public Accounts Committee; and (b) given that good governance requires timely preparation and submission of annual reports and financial statements to stakeholders, whether this is a key performance indicator in the performance evaluation of senior individuals in charge of Ministries and statutory boards. 12.”
“For those earning more, especially those with household income exceeding $1,500 per month, we will encourage them to consider home ownership instead of rental since they should be able to afford to buy a small flat with their CPF contribution together with the monthly rents they are currently paying. Rental households who face genuine financial difficulty despite the low rents, may approach the Community Development Councils for help under the ComCare schemes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome Members to file a PQ on that question. HDB RENTAL PAYMENTS (Defaults) 7. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will provide an update on the number of Singaporeans who have defaulted on their HDB rental payments in the last 12 months, in light of the increasing costs of living; and (b) will he consider increasing the current number of rental payment categories to better reflect the different levels of affordability amongst low-income and needy Singaporeans. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, from April 2007 to March 2008, there were on average 4,700 rental households in rental arrears of three months or more. This constitutes about 11% of the total rental households. This is comparable to the same period in 2006/2007. Our public rental flats are highly subsidised. The rental rates fall into three tiers. First, eligible households with a monthly income of $800 and below pay a fixed rental rate of $30 per month for a one-room flat. Those with a monthly income of $801–$1,500 pay 30% of market rent at about $110 per month for a one-room flat. For those earning more than $1,500 and are still staying in a rental flat, they pay 50% of the market rent at about $180 per month for a one-room rental flat. Our rental structure is calibrated to provide subsidy where it is most needed. For the really needy with less than $800 monthly income, the rental rates have been kept very low and have not been revised since 1979.”
“Sir, I thank Mr Baey for the question. It is correct that the reason why we have limited at this point in time to households that have received only one subsidy is because households which have received a second subsidy meant that they would have upgraded. So, when they have upgraded from a two- or three-room to a four- to five-room or above, it is likely that they would have more options. For example, they could conceivably rent out a room to allow them to monetise as well. For that purpose, when this scheme is starting up, we are starting with a more targeted group, because this is how we can apply our subsidy to the group that really needs it. So, for the moment, this scheme would come with a $10,000 subsidy. We could consider finetuning the scheme as we go along and after having worked with the scheme for a while.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mdm Cynthia Phua asked about the monthly annuity payment out of the CPF Life Scheme. For the amount that I have quoted, we would expect the figure to be around $550 per month. On the second question as to whether there are other options from now to the time when the scheme is implemented, we think this is really a good solution to cater to a group of elderly who probably do not have as many options as those who are staying in bigger room flats because they are living in a two- to three-room flat. But they do have a sizeable asset which they can monetise. So, we would prefer this group of elderly to wait for another six to nine months or so for this scheme to be implemented. This will be a better option than to monetise and then probably wait for a public rental flat, which is really not meant for this group who have sizeable assets. Of course, studio apartments are another option and we are building more studio apartments. More studio apartments will be in the pipeline. On the question whether we are building regular two-room flats, the answer is yes. We are building two-room flats. In many of the new estates that we are building, two-room flats are available. In fact, they are not as well subscribed as the bigger room flats. So, once the flats are ready, they are actually available straightaway.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not wish to continue the debate on school bus safety from MOT to MOE. Safe to say – sorry for the pun – that we do follow the safety requirements as set by LTA on school buses. We allow the selection of school bus operators to the schools for the principal reason that there are different requirements set by the schools. Some of the parents have specific requirements that are best met by each of the individual schools to tailor the service level that they require by the operators. 3.00 pm”
“The second question: what is her view of a row of seats for two students but squeezing in three students? Is there any compromise on the safety?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, safety and well-being of pupils have always been the top priority when schools select school bus operators. Schools are guided by the following criteria in the selection of school bus operators: Firstly, schools will select operators who comply with all safety measures as stipulated by LTA for the safe transportation of pupils. These safety measures require the operators to ensure that there is no overcrowding and no standing passengers on the bus. These operators are to provide bus drivers who would adhere to the speed limit of 60 km/h. They will also have to ensure that their buses that are less than 10 years old pass the compulsory annual inspections while those that are more than 10 years old pass the half-yearly inspections. Schools also require a bus attendant be provided for each bus with more than 30 seating capacity. The bus attendant would oversee orderly behaviour by pupils and that safety measures are adhered to by pupils. They also assist pupils in embarking and alighting from the bus. Schools also select bus operators on the basis that they are able to provide the necessary services to the school in terms of number of buses, area of coverage, proposed route plan, pick-up and drop-off time and other operation services as required by the schools. Selection is also based on the charges offered at competitive prices that can best serve the pupils and schools. Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. Are the seat belts requirements spelt out by the schools when they call for tender? We notice that those school buses that fetch international school students have seat belts, but most of the buses fetching the local students do not have. There is a double standard.”
“If that is the case, that is not called a successful ballot. GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS (Impact on health) 16. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the long-term impact of genetically modified (GM) foods on our health; (b) which developed countries are issuing GM warnings on food packagings; and (c) whether his Ministry is prepared to implement similar warnings.”
“A successful applicant is one who has been given a chance to book but may choose not to. So I think that is a very fair definition. If you are given a chance to book and you choose not to, by definition, you have been successful. But if you do not choose for whatever reason, we should be calling you as successful. You have the choice to make that booking and you should really make use of that opportunity. I think the reason why this issue comes across is because there are many applicants who have claimed that they were unsuccessful in ballot. But when we looked up the case, we found that they were actually in the line for booking but they chose not to, and it is really depriving other people who were further down the queue from making the booking. We do review definitions such as this from time to time. But I think the basic essence is this. If you have been successfully called up and given a chance to make a booking, we suggest that you take that opportunity seriously.”
“I would like to answer the second question first. The second question really is that if you are not successful in the first project, you would have to put in a second application. But I think part of the reason with this is that HDB is going down the list of all applicants. In fact, for the interest of the Member, in this particular project, Jade Spring @ Yishun, 384 units were on offer. We received 1,900 applications. If you just look at this number itself, it is actually a one-in-five chance. So for every five applications, one would be successful. But, in reality, HDB is still going down the list because there are many people who were given a chance, even though they are right in front in the ballot, they are not selecting the flats. In fact, we are now down to calling the 1,700th applicant, which means that if you have put in an application, you really stand a very good chance in being successful. So we are always balancing the need to give every applicant a chance to book a flat versus the number of BTOs that are coming on-stream. We understand that the demand is high and want to push through as many BTO projects as we can. So these two factors are being managed at the same time.”
“Sir, I like to clarify that I did not say that the upgrading programme is not an asset enhancement scheme. I am trying to clarify that it is not a scheme where every Singaporean is given a fixed sum of benefits. The upgrading project would have to depend on the flat type and, again, it is basically prioritisation. Sir, I did not say what Mr Low has suggested that I did. Sir, about the cost of upgrading, I think the cost per unit is something that is available on the HDB website. I believe that it is somewhere around the region of $30,000 per unit. Again, back to my point, it is not a case of an entitlement. It does not mean that every Singapore household can come and claim for this sum of money. It is something that we will prioritise, it is something that we will do depending on the age, and the quality of the flats that we are looking at. On outsourcing of HIP, I think we have outsourced LUP in that sense. We have allowed Town Councils to undertake LUP with the view, precisely as what Mr Low has said, to expedite because, as I mentioned earlier on, this will be our focus. We have committed to the deadline which is a very, very big commitment from the Government's perspective because, as you can see, even in a situation where there is a resource shortage, we are still committed to that deadline. And, therefore, I would suggest that Mr Low would basically take up the offer of outsourcing and undertake TC-LUP in Hougang. That would expedite the Lift Upgrading Programme in his constituency. 7.45 pm”
“I will answer the second question about the Youth Olympic Village first. If I am correct, the commitment that we have made really is related to the youth hostel that is going to be built in Kent Ridge. I think that is one of the projects that we have not deferred and, therefore, it is our commitment to make sure that the project will be on stream to host the Youth Olympic Games. On the NParks, it will be over several years and, for Ms Lee's precinct, she can look forward to some upgrading over the next few years. Again, we will look at what are the conditions, we have to compare and look at the other parts within Singapore that require upgrading as well.”
“That is the answer I have given on this issue about HIP for Hougang. Secondly, I would like to, in a way, correct the perception that because upgrading programme is an asset enhancement and, therefore, every Singaporean household must get the same amount of funds from the Government. I think that is not the right principle to treat upgrading programmes. The upgrading programme is basically customised by flat type based on their age. For example, for someone who has just gotten a new flat, why would she want a MUP? It is just not relevant to the person. So for someone who has just bought a new flat in Sengkang, would she then turn around and say, "I am entitled for MUP because I am one of the Singapore families."? So this is not the way that we look at upgrading programme. It is our way to revitalise estates, as I have mentioned in my speech. We want to basically upgrade the older estates so that it is revitalised and it does not progress into a dilapidated state where only old people who cannot afford to move out remain. We want to attract young people to come in as well. So that is the purpose of the upgrading project. Er Lee Bee Wah: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to thank the MOS for the clarifications. Just now, she mentioned that 150 parks will undergo upgrading - that is over how many years? She mentioned "several years". I think she did not answer my question. As we are competing for construction resources, are we confident that important projects such as the Youth Olympic Village can be completed on time?”
“I am sure if Mr Low really wants this from me I will say it. HIP, as I said, we will wait because this is a time when we are first starting out, we are piloting in a few areas, so we will look at the progress and depending on the funds we have, and so on. The Chairman: Yes, he has heard the answer.”
“Sir, I would like to beg for Ms Lee's patience. I do not have the data on the first question she has asked about how many flats were repaired without charge. If she likes, she can file a question subsequently and we will answer it. As far as leakages are concerned, her suggestion about us studying best practices and basically, in a way, upgrading the level of contractors, I think that is a good suggestion, and we will definitely take that up. As far as NParks is concerned, we would have about 150 parks that are being upgraded progressively - this is a programme that is lined up over the next few years. As for EUP, the pace would be about five to six estates per year and that I would just like to emphasise at this point in time that while we have EUP, many of our Government agencies are doing their ongoing maintenance and upgrading at the same time, it does not preclude them. So I think for residents of private estates, they are not looking forward just to EUP, they are basically having their facilities upgraded and maintained on an ongoing basis as well.”
“But in the case of HIP, we have brought the eligibility to 1986. So this is not a case of Hougang residents being denied an MUP. This MUP actually has been replaced for all divisions and locations in Singapore, whether you are PAP or non-PAP divisions. So this is the reason for replacing MUP with HIP and NRP. There is a need to restructure the scheme and also taking in the feedback that residents have given us. It is still the Government's intention to have asset enhancement. In fact, I think for HIP, the residents co-pay a smaller percentage than under the MUP project. In that case, we hope that, being a more specific project, we are able to deal with a larger pool of eligible flats. But the basic fundamental remains the same, that this is not an entitlement. The fact that you are eligible, it does not entitle you to an upgrading. It depends on the kind of resources that we have. It will have to depend on the kind of budget that is given to us and, therefore, the pace has to be prioritised.”
“First of all, let me explain why MUP has been restructured into HIP and NRP. If you look at MUP, basically, there are three components in the programme. There is the improvement to be done to the unit itself, the improvement to be done to the block, including the lifts, and the third component, which is to the precincts. So if you like, MUP was the omnibus kind of upgrading programme. Now that we have committed to do LUP for all eligible flats by 2014, you will find that the MUP is no longer suitable for some of the blocks that have undergone the middle portion, which is the block level upgrading. And, therefore, what is left in the MUP for some of these flats, which have undergone LUP, remains the problem to rectify defects within the flats, including some of the upgrading of the pipes and so on, and the precinct. Thus, the programme is restructured, and if you like, into three parts - HIP which looks inside the flat; LUP which brings lift access to every floor; and NRP, which deals with precinct upgrading. So this restructuring is relevant because of what we are doing with LUP. The fact that we are bringing LUP, the lift part, upfront, by 2014, to all the eligible flats, requires us to restructure MUP. And also, it is to take in the feedback, such as what Ms Lee has pointed out, that there are defects in some of the middle aged flats that many of the residents have voiced concerns. They want Government to do something and do it fast. So how do we have a programme that basically addresses the specific needs, and because it is very targeted and very focused, we think that we can do it faster than the traditional MUP? And of course, the improvement that we have done to MUP is the fact that MUP was previously limited to flats that were built before 1980.”
“The scheme will be rolled out in FY2008, and more details on this will be made available later. Beyond EUP and CIPC, the public infrastructural needs of private estates are also met by the regular upgrading and maintenance work undertaken by various Government agencies on an ongoing basis. Ms Lee has asked specifically about the upgrading of playgrounds in private estates. The upgrading or development of new parks and playgrounds in private estates can be undertaken when an estate undergoes EUP. In addition, NParks also looks into the upgrading of neighbourhood parks under its park redevelopment programme. The main criterion for NParks’ upgrading of parks is the condition of the park. Within the allocated resources, priority will be given to those parks where the facilities have undergone more serious wear and tear, and where conditions are poorer. When upgrading park facilities in private estates, NParks would seek feedback from the Neighbourhood Committees to ensure that the facilities meet the needs of the residents.”
“BCA will continue to spearhead concerted efforts to adopt sustainable construction in Singapore. It has issued guidelines on the use of steel and high-strength concrete, and will be implementing engineering guidelines for use of steel manufactured to standards other than the existing British standards. Together with the Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore and other agencies, BCA is developing a framework for accrediting construction waste recycling processing facilities within the next few months. This will ensure that recycled aggregates will have a consistent quality to be used as alternative construction materials effectively. To give sustainable construction a further boost, BCA is exploring the introduction of a $15 million Sustainable Construction Fund to incentivise developers to use sustainable materials in their projects. More details will be released later. On the issue of upgrading private estates, I would like to thank Ms Lee and Mr Ang for their interest. We have an on- going upgrading programme for our private estates, called the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP). Introduced in 2000, it is intended for upgrading of the public infrastructure of private housing estates. So far, 30 of our older private estates have been selected for EUP, benefiting some 23,000 dwelling units. 6.45pm To allow for smaller scale upgrading works to complement the EUP, Mr Ang Mong Seng may be happy to know that the Government will be introducing the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) scheme for private estates. The scheme is similar in concept to the CIPC scheme for public housing estates, but will be adapted to suit the needs of private estates. It will allow minor improvement works to be carried out on a timely basis.”
“Dr Lily Neo has asked about plans to develop a sustainable built environment. In 2005, BCA rolled out its Green Mark Scheme for buildings. In recent months, through active promotion and industry education, we have seen an exponential rise in the number of buildings applying for Green Mark certification. Today, over 200 projects are awaiting assessment. By the end of FY07, there will be close to 100 buildings that will be Green Mark certified. Of these, 10 buildings obtained the highest Green Mark Platinum level, achieving at least 30% energy efficiency. There is now a growing awareness of the business case for Green Mark buildings. To demonstrate our resolve to embrace sustainable development, Singapore will become one of the first few cities in the world to require new buildings and those undergoing major retrofitting to meet minimum green building standards come April 2008. To spur industry players to vie for higher than the basic Green Mark standard, BCA has put in place a $20 million Green Mark Incentive Scheme since December 2006. Nevertheless, the biggest challenge facing many cities, including Singapore, is getting existing buildings up to Green Building standards. To expedite, BCA is working with the National Environment Agency (NEA) to promote energy efficiency in existing buildings. The Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme (EASe) from NEA co-funds the cost of carrying out energy audit for existing buildings. BCA is also developing a new grant to encourage existing buildings to upgrade their building envelopes. The grant, set at about $9 million for a start, will help offset the cost of upgrading façade features to improve the overall energy efficiency of the building.”
“We have also worked with MOM to further review manpower policies like exempting experienced foreign workers from man-year entitlement requirements, as well as raising the dependency ratio and S-pass quota. Second, BCA is also working with the industry to expand the contracting resources. This includes proactively sourcing and securing competent foreign contractors, together with their management teams and specialist contractors, to undertake projects here. Third, the Government is moderating its demand for construction resources by deferring about $3 billion worth of projects to after 2009. This will reduce demand for construction manpower by about 17,000 workers and 2,000 professional and technical staff over the next two years. Urgent projects that are essential for meeting Singapore's economic and societal needs, such as key infrastructure development like transportation, and public housing/upgrading projects, will not be affected. Mr Liang has also expressed some concern over the quality of work, given the tight capacity situation. I would like to stress that ensuring the quality of our built environment remains a key priority for BCA. Our professional engineers are subjected to stringent registration criteria and continuing professional development requirements. To enhance building safety, the Building Control (Amendment) Bill was passed last year to strengthen our regulatory framework. Major enhancements include regulating of underground building works, licensing of builders and provision of adequate site supervision teams. Sir, while we tackle the current concerns of resource crunch, we must also remain focused on our long-term vision to make Singapore's built environment a safe, high-quality, sustainable and accessible one.”
“Sir, I would like to thank Members for their questions on rising construction costs, private estates as well as the upgrading of parks. The construction industry is indeed enjoying its strongest growth since the mid-90s. Last year, Mr Liang has rightly put that total contracts awarded hit an all-time high of $24.5 billion. We expect construction demand to remain robust at between $23 billion and $27 billion in 2008. Unlike the previous peak in 1997, the current boom coincided with strong global and regional construction demand. We therefore have to contend with international competition for construction resources. Some of the observations that Mr Liang has made, for example, in contracting resources, supply of cranes are really due to a global shortage of resources. The current high domestic demand will continue to put pressure on our construction capacity. The Government has anticipated the recovery of the sector and begun easing some manpower policies since early last year. But as we have heard from the Minister for Finance, the ability to forecast is really more of an art, and we will also try to forecast as much as we can, given the information that we have. Given the pace of growth, the Government has undertaken several measures to mitigate the situation. First, we have increased the labour capacity. Working with Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has taken steps to facilitate the inflow of foreign construction workers and supervisors. These include expanding the capacity of its Overseas Testing Centres and reviewing the list of acceptable qualifications for site supervisors.”
“This is usually due to inappropriate repair methods or because the leakages are so bad that it cannot be repaired. I hope HDB can investigate thoroughly on how the contractors do their repair works and give instructions and share good practices based on their experience. HDB should also speed up the HIP programme in order to investigate leakage problems in old blocks, such as in Nee Soon South. The leakages have to be identified and repaired quickly because the absorption problem can spread quickly, and repair costs will increase and cause inconvenience to the occupant. *Cols. 1355-1356. Neighbourliness in HDB Estates”
“In reply to Mr Low Thia Khiang's question, he is correct that we have introduced two new upgrading programmes, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). They will replace the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP) and Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP Plus). The MUP and IUP Plus have served us well. To-date, over 130,000 flats have been selected for MUP and over 220,000 flats selected for the IUP Plus. The HIP and NRP were introduced in response to feedback to the Forum on HDB Heartware that several MPs and myself led last year. We held many public dialogues to solicit ideas on ways to build more cohesive communities in HDB towns. Residents said they would like more flexibility and consultation in upgrading. They also wanted upgrading to remain affordable. And, therefore, HIP is designed to focus on improvements for the flat. It is composed of essential improvements as well as optional improvements, while NRP focuses on block-level and precinct-level improvements. The HIP and NRP will benefit blocks built before 1986 and 1989 respectively. It is estimated that about 300,000 and 200,000 flats will benefit from the HIP and NRP respectively. Surveys have shown that there's strong support for the HIP and NRP. Altogether, about 590 blocks across 58 sites will be offered the various upgrading programmes in FY2007. We will continue to review and monitor feedback on these new programmes to cater to residents’ needs. Repairs within HDB Flats Er Lee Bee Wah (In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Sir, the leakage in HDB homes is a hot topic when I visit my constituents’ homes. Usually these leakages will occur after repair works.”
“Sir, several Members of the House have asked about HDB's upgrading programmes. I would first like to put the upgrading programmes in perspective. Upgrading programmes complement our home ownership programme by sustaining the value of flats many years after they have been built. They breathe new life into HDB estates by improving the living environment of residents so that they are comparable to newer estates. To meet these objectives, we have different upgrading programmes. In preparation for an ageing society, lift upgrading has been identified as a major priority. The Government has committed to providing lifts that stop on every floor for all eligible blocks by 2014. I can understand Members' requests to speed up the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). However, the pace of lift upgrading depends on the available budget and the capacity of the construction industry. It is a massive programme. The cost of bringing lift upgrading to all the remaining eligible blocks is about $3 billion. The construction industry is experiencing a significant upswing now and we should not exacerbate the situation. Indeed, in our review of public projects to be deferred, we have decided not to postpone the LUP, as we have made a commitment to complete by 2014. I would like to clarify that the Government has already accelerated the LUP from the previous target of 2019 to 2014. There remains about 1,500 blocks to be selected under the LUP. This is a large number and we have to prioritise, but we are on track. HDB will continue to explore new methods and technologies to keep LUP both affordable and available to more blocks.”
“Sir, the Government has basically given a commitment to provide lift upgrading for all eligible blocks before 2014, including Opposition wards. 3.00 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as Mr Chiam is aware, the Government has made a commitment to complete the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) for all eligible blocks by 2014. The LUP is a massive, nation-wide programme. There are still about 1,500 HDB blocks eligible for LUP that remain to be selected, including those in Potong Pasir. Given the limited upgrading resources and capacity constraint of the construction industry, it is not possible to offer LUP to all of these blocks at the same time. HDB needs to prioritise amongst the many eligible precincts and spread out the works over a few years. Residents of the eligible blocks will be informed when their blocks are selected for LUP. The Town Councils Act was amended in 2005 to allow Town Councils to carry out the Town Council Lift Upgrading Programme (TC-LUP). Many TCs have carried out or intend to carry out TC-LUP using their sinking funds. Potong Pasir Town Council has not yet nominated any blocks for TC-LUP. The Town Council should do its part to carry out TC-LUP for its eligible blocks, to speed up lift upgrading for the benefit of its residents.”
“So we will continue to keep our doors open for the foreign sporting talents who have the sporting skills and the commitment to become a Singaporean and to be a part of Team Singapore. The Singapore Sports Council (SSC) administers the FST scheme and will only support applications from the National Sports Associations that have comprehensive training, competition and integration plans for the foreign athletes. To date, we have 97 athletes who have been recruited under the FST scheme. Of these, 54 athletes have obtained Singapore Citizenship, and 37 of these 54 Singaporean athletes are still active in training and in representing Singapore in major competitions.”
“Mr Speaker, as I have explained, HDB had actually sent many letters as well as personal visits to Mdm Lee and, in fact, had met up with her three months before the letter of demand was sent out. So, there was a meeting and there was an agreement to repay, but HDB did not hear from her ever since. After the letter of demand had been sent, we sat down with her again and had basically reached an amicable solution with her on an instalment plan. Column No : 333 FOREIGN SPORTS TALENTS SCHEME 8. Mrs Jessie Phua asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the number of foreign athletes recruited to date under the Foreign Sports Talents (FST) Scheme; (b) what is the number of FST recruits who have obtained Singapore citizenship; and (c) how many of these athletes are currently still in active training and representing Singapore. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Foreign Sports Talent (FST) scheme was started in 1993 as a means to raise the standard of our sporting performance at major competitions, and also to encourage more Singaporeans to support and participate in sports. Some of Singapore's recent sporting successes were achieved with the contributions of foreign-born athletes who committed their sporting careers to represent Singapore. This includes our record-breaking performances at Major Games, such as the 2005 South East Asian Games, the 2006 Commonwealth Games and the 2006 Asian Games, and our consecutive victory at the ASEAN Football Championships in January this year, last year and, more recently, a world record in billiards.”
“HDB has accepted her proposed instalment plan. She is also considering to take up a stall being offered to her. In the past five years, out of more than 1,000 cases of ex-gratia payments handled, there have been three cases of wrong payments, including Mdm Lee's case. HDB is in discussion with the other stallholders on the repayment of the ex-gratia payment. The management functions of HDB-owned markets and hawkers have been transferred to NEA since 2004. To avoid a re-occurrence of such incidents, NEA has tightened the checking procedures of ex-gratia payments. The manager-in-charge of the market/hawker centre will check on the stallholders' eligibility for ex-gratia payment and another senior officer will verify the eligibility before payment is made.”
“Mdm Lee Ah Muey was previously a temporary permit holder selling clothes in the vicinity of Lim Tua Tow Market, near Upper Serangoon Road. She was relocated to the market at Block 105, Hougang Avenue 1, in 1993 and assigned a stall to operate her business. However, given her former status as a temporary permit holder, she was informed that she would not be entitled to ex-gratia payments if the market were to be affected by redevelopment. Mdm Lee signed a letter of undertaking to acknowledge this. The market at Hougang Avenue 1 underwent the Hawker Centres' Upgrading Programme (HUP) in 2003. The staff handling Mdm Lee's case offered her the option to resume business at the upgraded centre or to receive an ex-gratia payment upon giving up her stall. The latter option was wrongly offered as the staff had missed her written undertaking. Following the staff's mistake, Mdm Lee decided to quit hawking and was given the ex-gratia payment of $18,000. The error was detected in April 2004. Subsequently, many attempts were made to contact Mdm Lee in writing and through personal home visits over a three-year period. When Mdm Lee was finally contacted in September 2007, she agreed to return the amount, and requested that a stall at Block 105, Hougang Avenue 1, be allocated to her so that she could resume her business. As there were no vacant stalls at Block 105, Hougang Avenue 1, Mdm Lee was offered a stall in other locations, but she rejected them. Despite her agreement to make repayment, HDB heard nothing from Mdm Lee over the next three months. HDB then decided to make an official claim, serving a letter requesting Mdm Lee to return the money. HDB also extended the time for her to return the ex-gratia amount. The matter has now been amicably resolved.”
“Those from new or problematic sources are systematically sampled to test for foodborne pathogens, residues and contaminants. Based on AVA's statistics from 2005 to 2007, the average rejection rate of each of the key food items imported from China, such as meat, seafood, vegetables, fruits and processed food, over the last three years was low. For some items such as seafood, the rejection rate of imports from China in 2007 was several times higher than that of other countries, although it was still within acceptable levels. In the case of vegetables, fruits and processed foods, the rejection rates had declined over the years. There was, however, an increase in the rejection of meat, seafood and egg products from China in 2007. In particular, there was a sharp spike in the rejection of egg products. This was due to the detection of unapproved Sudan colours in salted and preserved eggs. Consequently, AVA introduced in July 2007, new certification and pre-export testing requirements for the import of salted and preserved eggs. This has effectively brought the problem under control. Over the years, AVA has been engaging and working closely with counterpart agencies in China to improve the safety of China food imports. This has yielded positive results. For example, AVA's regular feedback to the Chinese authorities has led to improvements in the safety of vegetables imported from China. Mr Speaker, Sir, as Singapore imports almost all of the food it consumes, ensuring the safety of imported food is of paramount importance. AVA will continue to remain vigilant and will intensify checks and controls where necessary.”
“Let me explain that HDB and the Ministry have actually adjusted our building plans according to what we see as demand. I will just give an example. In 2006, our sales programme has actually sold 5,700 flats for the entire year. For 2007, the sales programme offered 13,000 flats, more than two times of what we have offered in 2006. And in 2008, for this first half, we expect to offer about 6,000 flats on sale, pegging it at about the same level as 2007. So if we have used 2006 as the planning norm, which was the average that we have seen in the last few years, we would not have adjusted the numbers. So the actual numbers have shown that our building plans have flexibility and where we see there is high subscription rate in certain areas, we would increase the supply of HDB flats. FOOD PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM CHINA (Safety) 7. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent international concerns over China's food safety standards and AVA's recent rejection of some food products imported from China, whether (i) the food products that we import from China are safe; and (ii) there is a rising trend of rejection rate of food imports from China over the last three years. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, AVA has put in place a comprehensive and integrated food safety system to ensure that food imported into Singapore, regardless of its source, is safe for consumption. Food items that carry a higher risk of contamination are inspected more frequently. For example, all consignments of meat and meat products are subjected to physical inspection.”
“For that particular project, where 400 flats are offered for sale, 7,800 applicants applied for it. Very roughly, that is one in 20 chances. If you look at over-subscription rate, that is a huge number - 2,000%. For First-Timers, in that project, we received 5,000 applications. And of that 5,000 applications, 1,000 applications come under the MCPS, in other words, they have parents living in that vicinity. So even if we were to have a project that is totally exclusively allocated to First-Timers with parents in the neighbourhood, we will still have a balloting system because there is just not enough supply for such a unique project in a central location to meet the demand. Does that mean that this is the situation in other projects? The answer is no. If you look at other projects offered at the same time in October, in Punggol Lodge, a BTO project, for 516 flats, we received 1,600 applications. The chances are one in three. For First-Timers, they almost have a one in two chance of getting a project like this. Similarly, in September, in Sengkang, also a BTO, for 698 flats, 1,300 applications were put in. Again, the chance is one in two. So the chances vary with location. And because we have published such information on the website, I think, for First-Timers who are buying their flat, making their decision, we suggest that they look carefully - looking at the chances, considering their budget, considering the time that they are prepared to spend waiting and make a decision that is appropriate for them. Having said that, coming back to the point about showing planned numbers. It is really not possible for us to predict demand accurately three years down the road.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify what Mdm Cynthia Phua has brought up. On the first point about planning parameters, HDB would look at the long-term demand for HDB flats when it comes to planning, building and supply of HDB flats. But I think Members of the House would know that it is difficult to predict with precision what is the actual demand in a three-year timeframe. Mdm Cynthia Phua has rightly pointed out that three years ago, we had excess flats. And now, in some cases, there is over-subscription of our projects. It is not because there are more couples getting married. I think our rate of marriage has not increased dramatically. But I think that there are certain market forces that affect supply and demand of public housing vis-a-vis private housing, for example, that it is not possible to predict with accuracy. It is for this reason that we have also moved into a scheme like a Build-To-Order Scheme where we will construct the flats only after a good proportion of the flats have been confirmed for booking. And that, in a way, avoid situations where we end up with excess flats. With regard to under-supplying, as Mdm Cynthia Phua has suggested by way of referring to the subscription rate, I would just like to clarify that what Mdm Cynthia Phua could have referred to is really a very macro number, 5.6 times. Any one going to the HDB website can actually look at the subscription rate by project. I would like to highlight some of them for the information of the House. For example, one particular project that is often highlighted by applicants on the slim chances that they get is Telok Blangah Towers, a very popular area in a good location, probably a stone's throw away from Sentosa Cove.”
“At the moment, I think there is no intention for the Government to extend the upgrading programme into the private estates. Lastly, to address Mr Chiam See Tong's point, I would be very glad to hear that Mr Chiam See Tong is supportive of the HIP and upgrading programme. I just like to clarify that Potong Pasir flats will be eligible. Mr Chiam may not be able to find it on the list because when we put up the list, it is according to the estate and not divisional boundaries. So, for example, in my division in Yuhua, you probably cannot find Yuhua on the list, but you are able to find Jurong East. I am glad to report that Potong Pasir would be included under Toa Payoh estate. So Potong Pasir will be eligible but, as we have mentioned many times in this House, it is a case of prioritising. We do have limited financial resources that we can apply and, therefore, prioritising is required and it will be according to the support for the Government policies in the prioritisation. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“If they like to put in certain features that are not included in HIP and they want to do it at the same time so that they are not inconvenienced twice, that is something that we can arrange for the lessees to discuss with the contractor and to come up with an understanding on the work to be done. On the issue of sinking fund of the town council, at the moment, HIP, as it is designed at this point in time, does not require co-funding from the town council. But, as I said, if we are revising the scheme in future to include the many more items that Mdm Cynthia Phua and Mr Liang Eng Hwa have suggested, there may be a case where we would require some co-payments from the town council in future. But we will definitely take Mdm Cynthia Phua's point about adequacy of sinking fund into consideration as we design the revision to the scheme. On the issue about private estate that Mr Liang Eng Hwa has raised, I would just like to clarify that the upgrading programme is really a means for the Government to share budget surpluses with Singaporeans who are eligible for HDB flats. Private estates have no restrictions over ownership. Many of the owners may be PRs and some of them are even foreigners. So for us to subsidise private estates in that sense, I think, would be hard to justify. And, also, I do not think private estate dwellers should compare themselves with HDB flat dwellers because there are many restrictions placed on the ownership of HDB dwellers as well as some other eligibility issues that HDB lessees would have to face. But in the case of private estates, they are free to rent out their flats. They have other options of upgrading, for example, some of them have chosen to go en bloc as well. So the comparison is really not appropriate.”
“It is to increase ownership of the project and also an opportunity for the residents to come together to interact when they are talking about their own upgrading in that area. Mr Speaker, I would like to address some specific issues that have been brought up by Members. First of all, on clothes drying. Mdm Cynthia Phua may like to know that, besides replacing the bamboo pole holders, we do have other options, such as the drying rack that we can still install outside the flat without a space-adding item. But this has to be basically considered in totality within the budget that has been allocated. So this is something that we have catered to and we are prepared to extend other methods of clothes drying. On co-payment of 1-room, 2-room lessees, first of all, most of the 1-room and 2-room flats are rental flats, and the Government is already upgrading these flats with no payments from the lessees for 1-roomers and 2-roomers. There are a very small number of 1-room and 2-room flats that have been purchased and owned. But even that, as I mentioned, the co-payment is 5%, heavily subsidised and, on top of that, we have supported it with financing schemes to basically help lessees meet their payment demands. On elderly-friendly items, we would consider such features to be in the optional improvements. What I would say is that this is the first time that we are coming in with the HIP. Like all upgrading programmes, we are prepared to review the items to be included over time. We would definitely allow such features to be included in future if they prove to be popular. In any case, we would allow lessees to make specific requests for the contractor to install such features on top of the HIP, and that is something that they could discuss with the contractor separately as well.”
“We have optional improvements for the very reason that if some of the residents feel that they do not have the financial means to have the good-to-have, then they should really opt out of it. There are options for them. As far as co-payments are concerned, we have various financial schemes to help the lessees with the payments, including instalment payments and the use of CPF funds. I must clarify to Mdm Cynthia Phua that we have not taken anyone to court over non-payment of upgrading co-payments. That is not something that HDB has experienced and we believe that we have put in place sufficient financial assistance for the lessees, to basically look at the very favourable instalments over a prolonged period of time. Also, I would like to clarify that MUP has not been halted, like what Mr Chiam See Tong has said. In fact, we have been carrying out the MUP programme, and there are still several MUP projects that have just been recently polled and are now being implemented. So, on the whole, we believe that HIP is really a scheme that has taken into consideration feedback from the residents and our experiences with the various upgrading programmes that we have implemented in the past. And we think that it is very pointed to address the problems faced by the residents - the requirements of the residents of flat type built in the 1980s. I do agree with Mr Liang Eng Hwa fully that our upgrading programme should really be used as an opportunity to increase the social capital in the housing estate. And it is for that precise reason that we have allowed consultation. In fact, we have allowed NRP to stretch over a couple of precincts and we have allowed pre-consultation process as well as voting by the residents. That is precisely the intention.”
“HIP and other upgrading programmes are really not a substitute for the routine maintenance and cyclical repairs that the home owners and town councils will have to undertake. It is not a substitute. While we can look forward to the upgrading programmes to be carried out in the precinct, home owners have to be responsible for the maintenance of its fittings and fixtures within the flat and, similarly, town councils have to be responsible for the routine maintenance and cyclical maintenance of the common areas as well. Mdm Cynthia Phua has listed a series of problems that home owners have faced. What I would say is that there must be some responsibilities to make sure that there is regular repair of the flat as well. In designing the upgrading programme, I think a main criterion is whether the limited resources that we have can effectively address the common needs that are voiced out by the residents. Since MUP in 1990, as Mr Chiam See Tong has rightly put it, we have been improving the various upgrading schemes. In the HIP, we have made more targeted improvements, for example, spalling concrete, ceiling leakage, which have been highlighted by many residents as the key problem that they face, and therefore we have made that an essential item. We have expanded the eligibility for HIP to more than 300,000 flats. We have actually made co-payment terms more favourable, and Mdm Cynthia Phua has pointed out that these co-payment terms were in fact started many years ago with the MUP programme. That is not true. In fact, if you compare the HIP co-payment term, it is better than the MUP co-payment term. For Members' information, the MUP co-payment term stretches from 10% to 25%, whereas in HIP, it is 5% to 12.5%, and we also allow more flexibility.”
“I started off by saying that this indeed has been a unique point of Singapore's public housing policy because not only does the Government provide flat ownership for the majority of the people, but this is also a Government that, not only having sold the flats, would come back into the flat to upgrade and repair certain defects in the flat, and in the common facilities, to upgrade the lifts, lift landing areas, and so on. So it is indeed a unique feature of the public housing policy of Singapore. How is it that we can do that? It is because of the economic policies of the PAP Government that allows us to generate the budget surplus that we can share with Singaporeans. We have decided to share this with Singaporeans who are eligible for HDB flats and, therefore, we have confined this to HDB dwellers. So the more we take these limited financial resources to spread it - whether it is to a wider group of flats, to private estate dwellers to include more items, and so on - it just means that we are spreading the benefits across a bigger base and, therefore, the benefits that individual HDB lessees tend to benefit will similarly be reduced. So it is important for us to basically strike this balance. MUP, yes, there were more items in there, like space-adding features. But at that time, we were only looking at flats that were built before 1980. Therefore, flats eligible for MUP, for example, are only about 100,000. Right now, we are extending the eligibility to 1986 and therefore, as a result, 300,000 flats are eligible. The reason why we could do that is because we have made the HIP programme more targeted, focusing on the urgent and essential needs of the flat dwellers.”
“Sir, let me thank Mdm Cynthia Phua, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Liang Eng Hwa for speaking in support of the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill. Indeed, I think the HIP programme is a very much welcomed programme for the residents and for all Singaporeans who own HDB flats. Mr Chiam See Tong has very kindly given us a history of how the upgrading programme had evolved over the years, starting from MUP in the 1990s and moving on to LUP, IUP-Plus, and so on. Those are very helpful. It is important for us to remember that the upgrading programme has been evolving because HDB has been taking into consideration the feedback as well as the needs of the residents, together with the specific demands of the flat type, in designing the upgrading programme. Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mdm Cynthia Phua have spoken extensively about the scope of HIP. Mr Liang Eng Hwa, for example, has asked for a certain flat type built before 1989 to be included in this programme. So, in other words, instead of the cut-off that we have proposed, he has asked for flats that do not fall into this timeframe to be included as well. He has also asked for more optional improvement items to be included, similarly with Mdm Cynthia Phua, as well as some optional improvement items to be considered essential improvements so that the lessees of the flats do not have to pay. Mr Liang Eng Hwa also brought up the issue about whether HIP or other upgrading programmes can be extended to private estates as well. I think it is important at this point in time for us to revisit the important issue here, and the starting point is always what is the objective of HIP. The objective of HIP is really to enhance the value of HDB flats for Singaporeans.”
“Firstly, the definition of the upgrading works under the HIP will be introduced in the Act, and consequential amendments made to various other definitions. This is the purpose of clause 2 of the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill. Secondly, the Act will be amended to allow polling for the HIP to be carried out on a block basis, rather than on a precinct basis, which is the case for the MUP. Clause 3 of the Bill will allow HDB to conduct the HIP poll and proceed with the works if 75% or more of the residents in a block vote in favour of the programme. Lastly, to complement the introduction of these upgrading works, clause 4 of the Bill will allow HDB to carry out the flat upgrading works and recover the co-payments that are not funded by Government. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, the HIP will be an integral part of our upgrading programmes to rejuvenate our heartlands. Together with the NRP, the HIP will enable us to tailor the works for HDB estates according to their specific needs. To allow the HIP to proceed, the legislative amendments I outlined above will need to be enacted. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.09 pm”
“The Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill 2007 will amend the Housing and Development Act to allow the HIP to take place. Home Improvement Programme Allow me to recap the HIP for the Members of this House. The HIP addresses common maintenance problems in ageing flats, such as spalling concrete and ceiling leaks. It also offers other useful improvement items within the flat. The improvement items under the HIP can be classified into two categories - Essential Improvements and Optional Improvements. Essential Improvements are items required to comply with the current statutory or technical requirements, mainly for safety and environmental health reasons. These include the repair of spalling concrete, replacement of waste pipes and replacement of pipe sockets (or "bamboo pole holders" as we commonly know it). They will be fully funded by the Government and if the residents collectively vote in favour of the upgrading programme; they cannot opt out of Essential Improvements. Optional Improvements are items that are good to have but may not be essential to all residents. They include the replacement of entrance door and grille gate, and toilet upgrading. We have taken the public's suggestions and designed the HIP to allow residents to opt out of individual Optional Improvements items with a corresponding reduction in their co-payments. Optional Improvements will be highly subsidised, with lessees paying 5% to 12.5% of the cost, depending on their flat type. The HIP will proceed for a block if at least 75% of the eligible lessees in the block vote in favour of it. Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill 2007 To facilitate the implementation of the HIP, three key amendments are to be made to the Housing and Development Act.”
“New upgrading programmes and Heartware Forum At the National Day Rally last year, the Prime Minister announced two new upgrading programmes - the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). The HIP focuses on improvements within the flat while the NRP focuses on improvements outside of the flat, at the block and precinct levels. The HIP and NRP are the result of residents' feedback on our existing upgrading programmes. Last year, the Forum on HDB Heartware, which I chaired, conducted many public dialogues and discussions to solicit ideas on ways to build more cohesive communities in HDB towns. During these sessions, residents told us that they wanted greater flexibility in flat upgrading and to opt out of certain items if they have recently carried out renovation works. Others have asked for greater consultation and less duplication for block- and precinct-level facilities. The HIP and NRP are the outcome of these feedback. So while improving our estates and upholding their value, our new upgrading programmes also allow greater flexibility in the provision of improvement items, and involve the residents more proactively. The aim is to create homes and neighbourhoods that they can call "their own". The HIP and NRP will benefit more flats. Around 300,000 flats will be eligible for the HIP, compared to around 100,000 flats previously eligible for the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP). For NRP, around 200,000 flats will be eligible, compared with the roughly 80,000 previously eligible for the Interim Upgrading Programme Plus (IUP Plus). Need for legislative amendments The NRP can be implemented within our existing legislative framework, but the HIP requires legislative changes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Context and objectives of upgrading Our public housing programme, which houses over 80% of our people, has won us the envy and admiration of many foreign visitors. Beyond just providing a roof over our heads, HDB flats are attractive and affordable. HDB estates are well-planned and constructed to offer our residents a conducive environment to live, work and play in. They help build bonds and community ties. They are where our children grow up, where different races mingle, and where shared memories are formed. One characteristic of our public housing programme is that, even as we build new HDB estates, we do not neglect the older ones. We bring the benefits of newer designs and improvements to these estates through our upgrading programmes so that they can continue to attract new families and maintain their vibrancy. Upgrading also plays an important role in sustaining the value of the HDB flat. The HDB flat has become an integral part of the life story of many Singaporean families. First, we help young families buy their first flat by selling new flats at subsidised prices. If they wish to buy a resale flat, we help them with a housing grant. We provide financing at subsidised interest rate to help them buy their first flat. The lower-income group is given an additional lift through the Additional Housing Grant scheme. When the family is better off and wishes to upgrade to a bigger and better flat, we offer them another subsidy and financing to assist them. At the later stage, when it is time for the resident to retire, we offer options to monetise the flat and unlock its value for old age. Throughout this cycle, we enhance the value of the HDB flat through our upgrading programmes.”
“Consumers should not use plastic containers in a microwave oven if they are in doubt.”