Lawrence Wong
Singapore
“Sir, we will provide more information. I see the value of getting Ministries to put out more information, to share more about how their resources are being used and what outcomes they have achieved.”
“Sir, I agree fully with Mr Azhar that human capacity, human capital is critical. In fact, I would say the long-term potential of Singapore, how far we go really depends on us being able to maximise our human potential. That is key and that is why we have long invested in education. And it is not just about the investments.”
“Sir, we have been maintaining that commitment of 1% for some time now. I do not think it is about saying that we just have to do more and spend more. As many have highlighted, we want to ensure good outcomes from our R&D spending as well. So, we will continue if the outcomes are good.”
“This has never been the case. Temasek, when it started, was always very clear about its mandate from the very beginning – commercial, not doing national service, focused on commercial outcomes.”
“Sir, the MOF economists when they look at fiscal projections use Government's forecast of the economy, which is also published. We would typically use the mid-point of the range and then, of course, because these are in nominal terms, you have to factor for that. And the projections are done on those basis.”
“Sir, I was relieved that Mr Loh said he only has one question, but he asked the most difficult question. To answer the question, we will continue to monitor cost of living across all segments of society.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,205 lines we hold for Lawrence Wong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 50 of 65.
“HDB has also issued stern warnings to Sigma and is closely monitoring the performance of its lifts. Both Sigma and its parent company have channelled more resources towards addressing the issues. In particular, Sigma has undertaken the rectification works progressively, and the performance of the lifts has improved. HDB will continue to hold Sigma accountable for ensuring its lifts meet the required performance standards.”
“The Ministry of National Development (MND) takes a serious view on the safety of lifts in Singapore. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has in place a comprehensive set of measures spanning lift procurement, installation and maintenance to ensure that lifts in HDB blocks are safe and fit for operation. In particular, lifts are procured through open tenders, and the evaluation process factors in quality and reliability of lift contractors. Audits, stress-tests and inspections in the presence of an independent Authorised Examiner are also conducted as part of a well-established lift commissioning process. Sigma has been installing lifts in HDB estates for the past 10 years and has generally met the prescribed performance standards. However, for a recent batch contract awarded to Sigma in 2013, Sigma was unable to meet the timeline for lift installation. Hence, in late-2015, HDB restricted Sigma from tendering for new HDB lift contracts, to ensure that Sigma dedicated its resources to fulfil its contractual obligations. HDB also observed a higher-than-usual breakdown and fault rate in lifts from this batch contract in their first year of operations. The tender restriction has, therefore, not been lifted, and will continue until performance standards improve. HDB's investigations revealed that while the design and installation of the affected lifts complied with prevailing codes and standards, the doors and sensors were more susceptible to misalignment from knocks. This, coupled with frequent heavy and rough lift usage during the first year period due to renovation and moving activities, resulted in the higher lift faults. HDB has instructed Sigma to rectify these issues and to carry out improvement works to ensure that the lift doors and sensors operate smoothly.”
“The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) does not track the population of stray cats. But AVA works with the Cat Welfare Society (CWS) and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) on stray cat sterilisation. Efforts are also made to try to rehome stray cats, although this is not feasible in all cases. Under the Stray Cat Sterilisation Programme (SCSP), AVA subsidises the cost of sterilising and micro-chipping stray cats in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, industrial and commercial areas, as well as in private housing estates. Through these efforts, the annual number of feedback cases on stray cats has dropped from more than 4,000 in 2014 to fewer than 3,000 in 2016. AVA also works with CWS and SPCA to educate community feeders to feed stray cats responsibly. This includes placing food in receptacles and clearing up after the feeding. If these conditions are not adhered to, irresponsible feeders can be fined up to $2,000, $4,000 and $10,000 for their first, second and subsequent convictions for littering.”
“In high-rise, high-density Singapore, and especially in our housing estates, it is important for Singaporeans to be both responsible pet owners and considerate neighbours. Pet owners are wholly responsible for ensuring that their pets are well-cared for, and that they do not adversely affect the wider living environment. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) has focused its efforts on raising public awareness about responsible pet ownership. For the younger generation, AVA holds two to three school talks and learning journeys every month. AVA is also developing a preschool kit for kindergarten teachers to educate their students on animal care and welfare. For the broader community, AVA conducts responsible pet ownership roadshows every year. These roadshows include interactive displays, children’s activities, competitions, talks and workshops. The most recent roadshow at Waterway Point in December 2016 attracted 12,000 attendees. In the event that pets are causing a nuisance, Housing and Development Board (HDB) officers would advise the flat owners to take measures to stop the nuisance. Where necessary, parties concerned are also advised to attend mediation to resolve the issue amicably. In most cases, this improves the situation. For recalcitrant owners whose pets persistently cause disamenity, they may be required to re-home their pets with assistance from animal welfare groups. As a last resort, recalcitrant owners may be brought to Court, where, upon conviction, they can be fined up to $4,000.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in fact, we have been doing this for some time already. The consultation was done in 2015. Since then, we have obtained further feedback from different parties. We have been examining different models from the various cities, as I have described earlier. We do have some sense of what we would like to see happen. I have described very broad outlines of some of the approaches that we are thinking about. I would expect URA to be able to come up with something quite soon. It will seek further engagement and consultation from different stakeholders before finalising and implementing these plans. [(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 Lawrence Wong]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, we know that this is a difficult issue. We have to balance the need for intervention and action against property owners' rights to their own living spaces and to their own homes. But we are not just leaving this alone. The Planning Act amendments, as I have said, that are in the Bill, do not cover the full extent of what the Member would like to see. We will continue with the mediation route which we have already been doing and will continue to do more of that, but we will continue to study and see if other things can be done to address these difficult issues between neighbours and between two property owners where there are conflicting issues, like the one that the Member has raised.”
“What I have described just now, these proposed measures are separate from the amendments that are being tabled today. What I have described just now with this option of creating a new use class for private residences to engage in short-term rentals, can be done without changes to the Act. So, these are separate from the amendments. URA is studying them, and they will provide more details soon for further engagement and consultation with the stakeholders. I shared what we are thinking about because there is obviously strong interest from Members, and I thought I should clarify our approach and current thinking on this matter, and also explain that we do see a role for home-sharing platforms to continue operating in Singapore so long as they are properly regulated and so long as there is a level playing field between them and similar entities that provide short-term rentals like hotels and service apartments. I agree that the sharing economy is here to stay; this is a point that several Members had said. We will allow a space in our city for such platforms to exist. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed the points raised by Members, and I thank them for their contributions and support of the Bill. The amendments in this Bill will strengthen URA's ability to safeguard and enhance the vibrancy and liveability of our urban space. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.”
“But whatever adjustments we may make to this minimum period, it is clear that it will not accommodate residential homes that are being put up for daily rental, which is meaning to say, even if we were to reduce from six months to three months, for example, this would not accommodate residential homes that are converted to daily rental of rooms which are operating very much more like hotels. In fact, such premises which are rented out on a daily basis really ought to be regulated more like hotels rather than residential homes, and they should be subjected to relevant licensing and conditions to ensure proper standards. That was also the feedback that URA had received from various stakeholders, and we also note that many cities in Asia and around the world are likewise regulating short-term home-sharing platforms in a similar way to hotels and serviced apartments. So, in response to the point made by Mr Louis Ng, we had, indeed, studied the models used by other cities. Indeed, for many of them, where it comes to short-term stays that are operating very much more like daily rentals the way a hotel or a service apartment would, the city municipal governments are taking actions and regulating them like hotels or serviced apartments. In this regard, I am happy to share that URA is studying the option of creating a new use class for private residences that wish to engage in short-term rentals. Such properties would then be approved for that specific purpose, like serviced apartments or hotels today. New residential sites can be sold with such an approved use, allowing flexibility for short-term rentals. For existing residential buildings, they would then require planning permission for change of use, and this would be subject to a set of guidelines which URA is looking into.”
“On the basis of the listing on the site, it is not possible to take action. But as a first step, what URA will do is to work with the MCST of the development which have units with online listings and they will put up notifications to the residents in that development, so that the residents are aware of the rules on short-term accommodation. Then, if the short-term rentals persist and cause disamenities for other home owners, URA will step in to enforce. I agree with Ms Joan Pereira that MCSTs can also do their part. Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), MCSTs have oversight of common property. For example, they can pass their own by-laws to manage the use and enjoyment of their common property through screening and record-keeping. They can also pass by-laws to register the details of all visitors. These are meaningful and practical things that MSCTs can do, and we will encourage them to do so and assist URA in its enforcement action. I should also clarify that the minimum period of six months for short-term rental in private residences is set out in the Schedule of the Act, and the Government can adjust this parameter in future by gazette. Indeed, in its earlier consultation, URA had received feedback from a number of respondents, including home owners, that there was scope to reduce the minimum period of rental in a private residence. So, URA is studying this carefully, and will consider a possible reduction in the minimum rental timeframe. This is the six-month time frame. URA will consider whether there can be scope to reduce this timeframe.”
“So, we are not changing policy. We are taking the same approach. In fact, URA had undertaken public consultation on this matter of short-term accommodation in 2015, and in its focus group discussions with stakeholders, such as Neighbourhood Committees and managing agents of private residential developments, there was also strong endorsement of the need to preserve the privacy and sanctity valued by the vast majority of home owners. Likewise, several Members just now − Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereria, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Alex Yam, among others − shared their constituents' experiences and expressed strong support for these rules, and also, in fact, strong support for enforcement. I know Mr Louis Ng felt that this perhaps was done in haste, but I also heard Er Dr Lee Bee Wah who asked why we took so long to put this in place. On balance, we will have to enforce the current rules, which we have been doing and will continue to do. Indeed, over the past year, URA has already seen a 60% rise in complaints from home owners about breaches of this short-term rule in their residential properties, and the complaints are related to public nuisance or even safety concerns for their families. These are issues that we take seriously and we should enforce the current rules, as we are already doing, and make sure that the issue does not worsen further. The amendments to the Act will enable URA to do so. In terms of enforcement, URA will continue with its current enforcement approach on errant home owners, which means that when you look at advertising on home-sharing or rental websites, that, in itself, is not an offence and it is not regulated under the Planning Act, because these listings typically do not indicate the tenure of lease.”
“It would be hard to formulate a rule that could capture all the variations along the scale of private residential housing, from shoebox flats to bungalows. We have considered this, but we think that a complicated tiered cap may be confusing for the public and may result in uncertainty for those who want to rent or sublet legitimately. In fact, the cap of six persons was the original cap that used to be in place before. But this cap was raised to eight in 2008, and it was due specifically to ease a crunch in the housing supply for workers. Since then, we have built up a good supply of alternative accommodation catering to groups other than families, such as hostels for students and dormitories for company employees and workers. So, we believe it is timely to revert to the cap of six, which was what it used to be before 2008. As for reviewing the HDB limits, I think that is a separate matter. It is not within the remit of the Planning Act because the HDB controls are regulated separately, but we would be happy to do the review of the occupancy cap for HDB flats on a separate basis. Finally, on the most interesting issue of this debate and the one which got most contributions from Members – short-term accommodation. Let me address the queries and the points that have been raised by Members with regard to this particular issue. I must first clarify that the amendments in this Bill do not amount to a change of policy. There is already an existing URA guideline against any short-term accommodation of less than six months in private residences. A breach of these guidelines can be considered a material change of use, which will then be deemed an offence under the Planning Act. This remains the case under the amendments to the Act and the same penalties apply.”
“The professions have their regulatory regimes in place to ensure that those listed are competent to discharge their duties lawfully. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board will not hesitate to take disciplinary action against registered professionals who fall foul of regulations. Depending on the severity, the QP may be fined, suspended or deregistered. This Bill also gives URA more powers to charge QPs in Court, if necessary, for instance, if they had provided false declarations. Mr Louis Ng suggested that a time factor be added to QPs' obligation to notify URA of contravention or non-compliance of requirements under the Act. Other than notifying the authorities, the Bill already requires the QP to "take all reasonable steps to immediately stop or cease the contravention". This is ultimately what matters, as conditions at a construction site are constantly changing. So, I believe that the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to meet the Member's concern in this regard. Next, let me talk about occupancy cap. It was, again, one of the topics here that has attracted quite a number of views. Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggest that the occupancy cap be calibrated according to the size of the residential unit. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that the flat cap of six tenants be now imposed on HDB flats, so that it is consistent between private and public housing. I think Mr Gan also suggested that. In HDB flats, there are predictable typologies of design and layout, and a simple set of rules can be based on the number of rooms. That is what we have today. Unlike HDB flats, private housing comes in wide-ranging varieties and configurations.”
“Officers will not force the occupants to allow them to enter, unless repeated requests to enter have been denied or they assess that critical evidence will be lost if they cannot gain access in a timely manner. Several Members, including Mr Alex Yam and Mr Chong Kee Hiong, asked about the precautions that building owners or property owners would have to take and what is deemed to be appropriate due diligence. I think it is very difficult and not so practical to draw out all the different scenarios and due diligence steps that have to be taken in legislation itself, but I would just like to assure Members that URA would carefully assess the culpability of persons involved, given all the facts available on each particular case at hand, and ensure that owners who have no part in directing the violation are not unduly penalised. URA will not make egregious demands on owners, and whether or not due diligence has been exercised will be assessed reasonably. Another section of the provisions in the amendment Bill for which there were some comments was on the role of QPs. Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the professionalism of QPs. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board oversee the professional development of architects and engineers, respectively. For instance, in order to renew their practising certificates annually, both architects and engineers have to meet "continuing professional development" requirements to update their competencies. All registered architects and engineers are listed on their relevant board's website. So, if there is any question or doubt about whether or not this is a QP, you can look at the website of the relevant board.”
“And again, it is about striking the right balance. Where any property has been misused or unauthorised works done, URA will ensure that culpable parties are all taken to task, whether for committing or abetting the offence. For home owners who do not reside in or are not in Singapore, URA will obtain the owner's home address from ICA and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), and they still have to answer the charges if there is a violation of the rules. I think this is in response to Ms Joan Pereira's question. If there is evidence to show that a property agent is complicit in an infringement, they will be referred to the Council of Estate Agents (CEA), who will sanction them accordingly. I think that is something that Miss Cheryl Chan had asked about. When it comes to enforcement, URA will, if necessary, beef up its enforcement capability and resources but it will also work with other agencies, for example, ICA, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the National Environment Agency (NEA), as Mr Gan Thiam Poh had suggested, to share information on any suspected cases of unauthorised use of private property and take the necessary enforcement actions. Miss Cheryl Chan shared the concerns of elderly home owners who may be taken to task for not assisting enforcement checks. I would like to assure her that URA officers will take a reasonable approach in enforcement. They will, first, identify themselves when there is a need to inspect premises and also explain the intentions of their visit.”
“Generally, the cost of providing these features is a small component of the overall development costs. In addition, URA will not require every development to provide public space or connectivity. It will do so judiciously and where it is meaningful to do so. These requirements will only be applied, for example, to strategically located sites in key areas or where there is provision or if it is meaningful to provide for connectivity. In addition, the public spaces that are required may be excluded from the overall floor area, so there would be no impact on the development potential of the sites. So, there is a way to balance the different requirements, and we will be mindful that even as we impose these provisions, they do not lead to a significant escalation of costs. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked a separate matter about access to neighbouring property to execute works, such as the plastering of walls. I understand this is a concern very often found in private residential areas. It is really not so much a planning issue but a matter of resolving disputes between two property owners. URA cannot override the property owner's rights, but it will help to facilitate mediation between neighbours to resolve issues, if necessary. That is my first reply on the broad area of planning levers. Next, let me touch on the points that Members have raised on the responsibilities of home owners, and potentially even extending that to other stakeholders like property agents. And here, there was also a mix of views. Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheryl Chan wanted to be sure that we can take suitable action against home owners and property agents responsible for offences, but I believe Mr Chong Kee Hiong sought assurance that home owners would not be burdened unnecessarily by the amendments.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members of the House who have risen in support of the Bill and for sharing their views. Let me now address the points that were raised in the course of the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe all the Members in this House would agree that a liveable and vibrant city must have attractive public spaces, good connectivity and also a built heritage that strengthens our sense of memories and shared experiences. And this is what the amendment in the Bill strives to achieve, by strengthening the planning levers under URA. So, in response to some of the queries raised by Members, I can confirm that URA will, indeed, make use of these provisions to require developers, where it comes to new developments, to put in place connectivity and better building standards, including more covered linkways between buildings or even to nearby bus stops. That is the very intention of this Bill and URA will, where meaningful to provide for such connectivity, require developers to do so for new developments. For existing developments, the provisions in the Bill do not envisage an imposition on the existing buildings. But should the property owners of these existing buildings choose to redevelop their properties or choose to make additions and alterations in their properties, and they have to seek URA's planning permission to do so, then that would be an opportune time for URA to impose these new conditions. I think many Members would be supportive of these additions and these provisions to impose conditions on developers to enhance connectivity and building standards. But there were some Members, in particular, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Alex Yam, who were concerned about the cost impact and how this will impact on the building and perhaps even on residents.”
“It will allow URA to be more effective in regulating planning violations and ensuring that our physical living environment continues to be of a high quality. URA has consulted with stakeholders and professional institutes, including the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS) and the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA), on the amendments to the Act. They have provided useful feedback, which have been taken into consideration in the drafting of this Bill. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“In other words, without planning permission, it will be illegal to have more than six tenants. This cap does not apply to families, as the amendment expressly excludes persons who are related, along with their domestic helpers and caregivers. For units currently housing seven or eight persons, URA will allow the tenancy agreements to run their natural course and will not clamp down on them before they expire. This set of regulations will apply only to private developments and will not apply to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, which come under a separate set of controls managed by HDB. I have covered the second broad component of provisions which relate to strengthening the regulatory regime. Thirdly, there are a series of things we are doing in this Bill to streamline the administration of the Act. First, it allows URA to give preliminary advice to developers and property owners or their QPs on their proposals prior to submission of their development applications. This would be an added service for developers or their QP to seek a preliminary indication from URA, at an earlier stage, as to whether their proposal satisfies the relevant regulations or guidelines. The Bill provides for this additional service that URA will provide. Second, the Act currently allows URA to defer the payment of the development charge for charity organisations; and the Bill amends the Act to allow the deferral of this charge to be carried on to the next property owner, where the Minister approves of the deferral, for example, where the next owner is also a charitable organisation. Madam, the amendments to the Planning Act will ensure that our planning controls and regulations are up-to-date and relevant in guiding the physical development of Singapore.”
“With that in mind, the Bill will put in place stricter penalties. The maximum penalty for unauthorised development, works or subdivision for repeat offenders or for an offence involving the unauthorised use of any land or building for dormitory accommodation will be enhanced to include a custodial sentence. The maximum penalty for the partial or full demolition of a conserved building is a fine of $500,000 or a custodial sentence, or both. The Bill also ensures that culpable parties are held to account by making it clear that permitting unauthorised development or works is an offence. An owner is presumed to have permitted unauthorised works carried out by his tenants or contractors, unless the owner can show that reasonable precaution was taken to prevent this. So, owners will have to exercise due diligence on their tenants and contractors. The Bill will make explicit the lawful boundaries pertaining to residential rental and subletting. Private residential properties should not be used for other purposes without planning approval, as there is a need to safeguard the living environment of residents in the neighbourhood. Where private residential properties are rented or sublet, URA has existing guidelines in place to ensure that these properties are not used to accommodate excessive numbers of occupants, and to make it clear that such properties are intended for long-term or permanent residence of at least six months. This Bill inserts a new Schedule into the Act, which lists the uses of residential property that are illegal without permission. The uses listed are short-term accommodation and dormitory accommodation. "Dormitory accommodation", which requires planning permission, is defined by the Bill to mean accommodation by seven or more persons.”
“With QPs engaged throughout the key stages of the development process and held accountable for the discharge of their professional work, the new provisions in the Bill will ensure that planning controls and regulatory standards are observed in the course of development. This serves to safeguard the quality of the environment and, at the same time, maintains good practices and overall standards in the industry. Minor works and simple applications may reasonably be exempted from these requirements. Another aspect of strengthening the regulatory regime is to have enhanced powers of investigation which this Bill will provide for. In particular, where URA officers believe that persons might have knowledge of a violation, the officers will be empowered to require these persons to attend interviews and question them. Apart from verbally examining witnesses and recording statements, URA will also be able to require the production of information or documents relevant to the violation, and to take video evidence on site. Where necessary, officers will be able to effect forced entry to carry out their investigation. This broad set of provisions is aligned with the enforcement powers of other agencies. There are also stricter penalties for unauthorised development or works because where violations are uncovered, the Bill puts in place a series of penalties for the offences under the Act. The current level of fines is too low to serve as a strong deterrent against unlawful activity or conduct. For example, URA has increasingly encountered unauthorised dormitories, including some repeat offenders. The penalties for demolishing a conserved building must also be enhanced as any unauthorised demolition will result in an irrevocable loss of our built heritage.”
“This is to ensure that the public can continue to enjoy the pleasant environment and connectivity that were planned for at the outset, even if developments undergo a change of owners. That is the first limb, which is to enhance the planning levers. Next, let me touch on the provisions in the Bill to strengthen the regulatory regime and there are several amendments in this regard. Let me begin with the role of Qualified Persons (QPs). The Bill introduces provisions relating to the responsibility of QPs, who are professionals, such as architects, engineers and surveyors. Currently, developers applying for planning or conservation permission are not required by the Act to appoint a QP to prepare the plans and make submissions to URA, although in practice, most of them do so. The Bill amends the Act to require that owners or developers appoint a QP to prepare these submissions to URA, in accordance with the Act's or URA's requirements. The developer will similarly have to appoint a QP to supervise the development or works. And this QP will have to notify URA if the works deviate from the approved plans or planning conditions, take reasonable steps to prevent deviations, and submit reports or declarations as required by URA. This will minimise the need for subsequent rectification works, which can be costly for the developer or property owner. URA will be empowered to require the developer to submit as-built plans prepared by a land surveyor to facilitate cross-checking against plans which are initially approved.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Planning Act, administered by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) establishes the legal basis for the regulation of development, conservation, and land use planning in Singapore. As our built environment becomes denser and land development becomes more complex, URA has to apply a keener eye to guide development plans so as to safeguard the vibrancy and liveability of our urban space. The amendments proposed in this Bill have three broad aims. First, to enhance the planning levers for URA to ensure a more liveable city; second, to strengthen the regulatory regime for development plans, including penalties to deal with violations of planning controls; and third, to calibrate and simplify the administrative processes involved in the execution of the Act. I will go through these three in more detail. Firstly, let me touch on the first point of enhancing planning levers. Currently, URA may grant planning permission, subject to certain conditions and technical requirements that developers have to fulfil. This allows URA to establish and advance good practices and design specifications that serve the public good. The Bill amends the Act to supplement the conditions that URA can place on developers seeking planning permission. These additional conditions aim chiefly to create a more liveable and walkable cityscape, for example, through the provision of public spaces and pedestrian connections, and guiding the external appearance of buildings, like the night lighting of building facades. The Bill also clarifies the persons who are required to comply with a planning condition. Failure to comply with these conditions will amount to a breach of planning control, which is an offence.”
“Madam, I appreciate what the Member has said, that the EIP policy is important and it is something that has worked well in our context. I would say it is still relevant today, perhaps even more relevant, given what we see around the world, even in mature countries where ethnic tensions can come up quite easily. Having said that, as I mentioned earlier, we have already exercised flexibility on EIP appeals. Over the years, from 2014 to 2016, we received about 1,500 appeal cases and about four-fifths of them were rejected, which means that one-fifth were successful. This was, in fact, a question raised by one of the Members of the House which we had addressed and clarified. I cannot get into the specifics of which and why some cases are successful and others are not. Each case is unique and we look at it case by case. But for many of the cases that we have turned down, we have found that, in fact, if you look at the resale transactions, there were transactions from buyers of that particular ethnic group. So, it is not fair to say that there are no buyers from that particular ethnic group and, therefore, I cannot sell, because the resale market transactions do indicate that buyers from that ethnic group are, indeed, making resale transactions. We will continue this approach. I think that EIP remains, but we exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis.”
“Madam, when buyers bought the flat, the EIP policy was already made clear and the flat was valued with that policy in mind, to begin with. If they were to sell the flat today, it is with the same policy. Nothing has changed. I think it is easy to point at the EIP as the cause for a lower sale price but there may be many other reasons. Even in today's current market situation, there are people who are not subject to EIP limits but are selling their flats at somewhat lower prices because of the general property market conditions. It is probably premature or not fair to point the finger at the EIP per se but recognise that the property market conditions are the way they are. And buyers, therefore, need to plan ahead and think very carefully about these decisions.”
“Madam, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) was introduced in 1989 to ensure a balanced mix of ethnic groups living in our Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, so as to promote racial harmony and strengthen social cohesion. These objectives are still relevant today. Most flat sellers, from our experience, are still able to secure buyers from eligible ethnic groups, given the large volume of resale transactions annually. In the current property market, flat sellers may need to plan ahead and give themselves more time to secure a buyer. Nevertheless, HDB has and will continue to exercise flexibility for households of mixed parentage or marriages, or where there are exceptional circumstances.”
“Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will take Question Nos 3 and 4 together?”
“Internationalisation will be one of the focus areas for the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for the construction sector that the Ministry of National Development and the Building and Construction Authority are currently developing with our industry.”
“We understand the concerns about the slowdown in construction demand in 2016. At $26 billion, the quantum of building and civil engineering contracts in 2016 was $1 billion less than 2015. The contraction came from reduced private sector demand. But this was partially offset by strong public sector demand. Total construction demand this year is projected to be between $28 billion and $35 billion. This is more than in 2016. However, private sector demand is expected to remain subdued. The Government will help offset this shortfall by pushing out a pipeline of public sector projects. In doing so, public sector demand may increase to almost 70% of total construction demand this year. Significant public sector projects that we will roll out include Phase 2 of the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, the North-South Corridor, Changi Airport Terminal 5, and new mass rapid transit lines. In tandem, we will continue to assist firms through various funding support schemes to help them adopt productive technologies and upgrade their workforce capabilities. Almost $800 million has been made available to firms through the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF). As of November 2016, more than $420 million has been committed to fund projects by more than 8,600 firms in the built environment sector. Around 90% of these companies are small and medium-sized firms. We will also do more to help our firms venture overseas. In the past three years, Singapore contractors managed to clinch an average of $1.7 billion per year in overseas projects. This is very encouraging but there is potential for even more growth, given the increasing regional demand for quality housing and infrastructure.”
“The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) was introduced in 2007 with about 3,000 eligible blocks. Blocks built up to 1986 and have not undergone the Main Upgrading Programme are eligible for HIP. To date, HIP has been announced for more than 2,000 blocks. The next nomination exercise to select blocks to undergo HIP is scheduled to take place in early financial year 2017. Like the last exercise for 2015 and 2016, we are planning to select the HIP projects for 2017 and 2018 at one go, so that residents who may have plans to renovate their flats can make a better-informed decision.”
“The income ceilings set for various Government subsidies serve different purposes and differ based on the nature of help provided and the target population. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) reviews the income ceiling and other eligibility criteria for HDB rental flats from time to time. This enables us to prioritise the rental flat supply to benefit low-income families who are without family support and other housing options. In practice, HDB has exercised flexibility to enable some families with higher income get a public rental flat, if their circumstances are deserving of such assistance.”
“There are 115 Government-owned buildings with at least 3,000 square metres net floor area of commercial space. This is a reasonable threshold for which rest areas for outsourced workers could be provided as part of the building infrastructure. Out of these 115 buildings, the vast majority, or 96 buildings, have dedicated rest areas for outsourced workers. These buildings are also inspected to ensure that the rest areas are not allocated for other purposes. While there are no dedicated rest areas in the other buildings, the workers there are allowed to use shared spaces, for example, visitors' rest areas and pantries, to rest.”
“The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) was introduced in 2007 with about 300,000 eligible flats. To date, HIP has been announced for about 220,000 flats. For Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency, there remain about 8,000 HIP-eligible flats. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) expects to complete the selection of the remaining HIP-eligible flats by financial year (FY) 2018. The next nomination exercise to select blocks to undergo HIP is scheduled to take place in early FY2017. With regard to the air-conditioner ducts, these are timber panels provided in older HDB blocks to facilitate installation of air-conditioners. There are currently no plans to include the repair of these panels under the HIP's scope of works. As these fall under common property, residents can approach the respective Town Councils for help in replacing decayed panels or make their own arrangements to seal up these panels.”
“Solar energy is a promising renewable energy option for Singapore. We plan to increase our solar generation capacity from 114 Mega-Watt-peak (MWp) today to 350 MWp by 2020. This will represent about 5% of our projected peak electricity demand in 2020. The Government is encouraging the adoption of solar energy technology in several ways. First, we are aggregating demand across Government agencies through the SolarNova programme. Aggregating demand leads to greater economies of scale and reduced costs. So far, around 55 MWp of solar panels have been installed on about 1,000 Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks. The intention is to eventually deploy solar panels on 5,500 HDB blocks and 100 Government buildings by 2020. Second, the Building and Construction Authority's Green Mark Scheme encourages the adoption of renewable energy, including solar power. Green Mark accreditation points are awarded to buildings for incorporating sustainable design features like the installation of solar panels. To date, over 100 Green Mark developments have committed to installing solar panels. Together, they will contribute about 20 MWp to our solar generation capacity. For private landed home owners, they are free to install solar panels on their own properties. The Energy Market Authority and Singapore Power have provided information to guide home owners on how they can go about doing this. In addition, they can offset their electricity bills by selling any excess solar-generated power back to the power grid. The Government will continue to study ways to encourage more solar power adoption, including continued investment in research and development, policy enhancements and increased engagement with potential users.”
“The Government did not ask the President for permission to draw on Past Reserves for the High Speed Rail (HSR) project. The project will be funded following normal budgetary processes in due course. Under the terms of the HSR Agreement with Malaysia, the Government will guarantee payments by Singapore's HSR Infrastructure Company (InfraCo) to meet specific obligations, such as the Availability Payments by the InfraCo to the Assets Company (AssetsCo) to cover the latter's capital expenditure and costs of operation, maintenance and renewal of rail assets. In accordance with Article 144 of the Constitution and section 15 of the Financial Procedure Act, the Government sought and obtained the President’s concurrence to give this guarantee to the InfraCo. Malaysia has also provided a similar guarantee for its InfraCo's obligations. This reaffirms the commitment of both Governments to the HSR project and gives added confidence to interested investors.”
“Helping young couples own their first home is one of our key priorities. The ramp-up of Built-To-Order (BTO) flat supply between 2011 and 2014 has helped to clear the first-timer demand backlog. Most first-timers are now able to select a flat within their first or second application, and definitely on their third try. We will monitor the market closely and calibrate our flat supply to be responsive to the housing needs of Singaporeans. To shorten waiting time for flat buyers further, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has since 2011 been calling tender for many projects as soon as designs are ready, instead of the previous practice of doing so only after 70% of flats have been booked. Hence, waiting time today is mainly down to construction time. In this regard, HDB has also adopted various productivity measures in the design and construction phases, such as the use of precast technology, to expedite construction. In terms of challenges in ramping up new flat supply, immediate site availability is one, as time is often needed to ensure that existing encumbrances and uses on the sites are cleared. There is also a need to ensure that there will be sufficient infrastructure capacity, such as transport, sewerage and drainage, to support the new housing developments. Nonetheless, we recognise that some young couples want a new home as quickly as possible. HDB is studying how we can advance the construction work of some BTO projects and build them ahead of their sales launches. While it is not feasible to do so for the entire flat supply due to land constraints and risk of over-supply, we can potentially do this for some projects every year. This will provide some flats with a shorter waiting time to cater to couples who need a new BTO flat more urgently.”
“Singapore strongly supports these initiatives to crowd-in private sector funding as a sustainable way of supporting global development. These innovations also mean that member contributions requested by IDA can actually be lower than that committed under the last replenishment exercise. For this coming 18th round of replenishment, we will be maintaining our burden share at 0.15%. This was the same percentage as we had in the last round and translates into an amount of US$46 million from MOF's budget. Every country that donates to IDA has a subscription share with IDA. Singapore's subscription amount today is US$911,709. With the new round of replenishment, we anticipate that our IDA subscription will cross the US$1 million mark. Under section 4(2) of the IDA Act, Parliament's approval is required for total IDA subscription exceeding US$1 million. We are, therefore, requesting that Parliament approve that the total subscription of Singapore to IDA be increased to a sum not exceeding US$1.1 million. Madam, I beg to move.”
“Overall, these are positive developments for Singapore because an improvement in the economic climate of our neighbouring countries will have positive spill-over effects on our own economy. Singapore will do its part as a responsible international citizen to support IDA. We have been contributing to IDA replenishments since 2002. In 2010, we increased our share of contributions from 0.08% to 0.15% for the 16th round of replenishment. And this is part of our commitment to a wider international effort to support global developmental objectives. We maintained this share of 0.15% for the 17th replenishment exercise in 2013. Now, we have an upcoming 18th round of replenishment for IDA, and the majority of IDA donors have supported a total replenishment size of US$75 billion over the period of FY18 to FY20. This will enable IDA to double its core resources to countries in fragile and conflict-affected situations, as well as channel resources for crisis response and pandemic preparedness. To fund this 18th replenishment, IDA will, for the first time, also tap on capital markets to blend grant member contributions with market borrowings. And based on IDA's track record and capital adequacy, Standard and Poor's has assigned it a rating of "AAA" on long-term; and "A-1+" on short-term credit. This allows IDA to raise funds in a cost-efficient way from the capital markets. IDA will also strengthen client support by working with two other World Bank Group institutions – the International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency – to Page: 87 promote private sector development in recipient countries, especially those in fragile and conflict-affected situations.”
“Madam, I beg to move, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4(2) of the International Development Association Act, resolves that the total subscription of Singapore to the International Development Association be increased to a sum not exceeding One Million, One Hundred Thousand United States dollars (US$ 1,100,000)." Madam, the World Bank offers concessional loans and grants through the International Development Association or IDA. These concessional loans and grants are offered to its least developed member countries to promote economic and social development and reduce poverty. IDA was started in 1960 and has been replenished every three years or so. Members might know that IDA has been playing a leading role in responding to complex global challenges like healthcare, education, gender inequality, climate change and institutional reform by focusing on some of the world's poorest countries. It has helped country recipients build long-term, sustainable capacities and put them on a path of self-reliance. To date, 30 countries have "graduated" from IDA's support. Some, like China and South Korea, have gone on to help finance IDA's programmes. Some of our ASEAN neighbours have also benefited from IDA. In the last replenishment round, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam received a total of US$3.8 billion in allocations. Vietnam's education sector, in particular, has received support from IDA to deliver joint training programmes with reputable universities worldwide at their higher education institutions. Vietnam is also one of three countries slated to graduate from the IDA programme and will receive transitional IDA support to ensure a smooth graduation.”
“In older Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks, the water tanks are housed in the roof top water tank rooms, which are not exposed to direct sunlight. Hence, water tanks might not be the cause of the feedback on hot water flowing out of the taps of some flats during hot weather. The likely cause is exposure of the main water distribution pipes to the sun's heat, especially for pipes running over a long distance due to the block’s configuration of a long span. It is thus doubtful that the suggestion to build concrete slabs as shelter for the tanks and pipes will address the problem. In addition, the building structure and rooftop of HDB blocks may not be designed to take such additional load. There are other feasible ways to mitigate the extent of water pipes being heated up. Town Councils could install rigid PVC pipes as a cover over the water pipes to provide some insulation. For shorter water pipes, reflective paints could also be used to reflect solar radiation.”
“There are legislative provisions to safeguard animal welfare under the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore's (AVA's) Animals and Birds Act (ABA). Under the Act, all owners owe a duty of care to the animals under their charge. For pet farms, AVA imposes additional licensing conditions to safeguard the welfare of animals that are bred and sold. Licensees have to fulfil stringent requirements on healthcare and the living environment of their animals. In August 2016, AVA issued a Code of Animal Welfare for the pet industry. It applies to all pet farms and shops, as well as pet businesses not licensed by AVA like pet groomers. This Code stipulates minimum requirements for kennel spaces, housekeeping, diet and feeding and so on. Non-compliance can lead to enforcement action by AVA. AVA has enough trained officers to conduct regular spot checks on pet farms. However, as animal welfare is a shared responsibility, we also encourage the public to be vigilant and to report errant pet farms to AVA. Enforcement aside, AVA will also continue to work with the pet industry to raise animal welfare standards through partnership and education.”
“Madam, as I have said earlier, we do not just look at major upgrading per se. As part of these major upgrading programmes, we have various other smaller refinement, fine-tuning, upgrading schemes that are also in place. We will always take into consideration feedback, like the ones that have been expressed about the hanging of clothes, and we will see what we can do in future rounds of upgrading to see how these can be taken into consideration. Page: 14”
“Madam, we note the Member's feedback and we will certainly take that into consideration.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for her feedback. We will, indeed, take into consideration, should there be a new scheme, all the feedback from residents and see how future upgrading can be improved. That is continuously being done. On the budget, this is something that we are studying. As I have mentioned, it is not a small expense because an upgrading project is not just a one-time expenditure; it is a multi-year expenditure. The last upgrading HIP was announced in 2007, and we are only going to be able to complete it in FY2018. More than 10 years, billions of dollars being invested. When we want to think about another round of upgrading, I think it is fair and prudent for the Government to think about sustainability, to consider whether or not we are able to afford such a major programme that will run through many years, potentially even past this term and future terms of Government. That is something that we would have to think very carefully about and consider. Certainly, from a Ministry of National Development point of view, I will be very happy to support this and I will want all our older towns to be upgraded as soon as possible. From a Ministry of Finance (MOF) perspective – and perhaps here I wear my other hat now – I have to say we will have to consider this very carefully and study it to make sure that budget availability is sustainable.”
“Madam, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) was introduced in 2007 with about 300,000 eligible flats. Flats built up to 1986 and which have not undergone the Main Upgrading Programme are eligible for HIP. To date, HIP has been announced for over 200,000 flats. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is working to first complete the selection of the remaining flats eligible for HIP by financial years (FY) 2018 before we assess whether to extend HIP beyond the current cohort of flats. But as with all publicly-funded programmes, this will be contingent on the Government's fiscal position and budget availability.”
“Since 2014, the Code on Accessibility already requires the provision of diaper changing facilities in both male and female restrooms. This requirement applies to buildings that are frequented by families with young children, including shopping centres, transport nodes, community centres and sports complexes. Building owners also have the alternative of providing diaper changing facilities in individual unisex family restrooms, in lieu of having to provide them in both male and female restrooms.”
“The proposed Housing and Development Board (HDB) Build-To-Order development in Kaki Bukit located along Bedok North Avenue 1 will be provided with 66 car park lots and 34 motorcycle lots. As for car parks B45 and B48 at Bedok North Street 3, there are currently sufficient parking lots for residents' season parking needs. However, as these car parks also serve local amenities, such as the hawker centre and market, short-term parking demand may be high. Due to site constraints, HDB is unable to construct more parking lots at these two car parks. Nevertheless, to help ease the short-term congestion, HDB will reconfigure B45 to provide additional loading and unloading bays in the car park. This will help to address the short-term congestion caused by goods vehicles carrying out loading and unloading activities at B45.”
“There are currently no plans to set up a dedicated commission to handle issues related to animal welfare. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) already works closely with multi-stakeholder committees to enhance animal welfare. This approach has led to positive results. For example, AVA had close working relations with the Animal Welfare Legislative Review Committee (AWLRC), a group made up of Members of Parliament, grassroots leaders, animal welfare groups, the pet industry and the veterinary profession. AVA worked with AWLRC in a review of Singapore’s animal welfare legislation in 2012. AVA also supported the AWLRC’s recommendations to enhance stakeholders’ collaboration in animal welfare. In addition, AVA has close working relations with the Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Committee (MSCC), which comprises representatives from animal welfare groups, the pet industry, the veterinary profession and the community at large. AVA worked with them on the recently issued Code of Animal Welfare for the pet industry. AVA continues to engage with MSCC on issues relating to training for the pet industry, as well as on outreach initiatives to promote awareness about animal welfare. AVA will continue to engage with the relevant stakeholders to further the cause of animal welfare in Singapore.”
“Adequate mobile coverage should be provided to new buildings in a timely manner. Currently, Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) install mobile base stations on the rooftops of selected new Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks to ensure that the area will have good mobile coverage when the residents move in. However, there could be operational delays, such as construction delays to blocks selected for base station installation. HDB has been working with all stakeholders, including Town Councils, the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) and MNOs, to study how to expedite the installation of such base stations. For example, HDB and IDA are looking into the possibility of expediting approval procedures between MNOs and Town Councils. HDB and IDA are also exploring the possibility of incorporating MNOs’ infrastructure and engineering requirements during the pre-tender planning phase of new HDB developments, so that the subsequent physical base station installation works could be accelerated. Finally, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and IDA are considering amendments to the Telecommunications Act to facilitate the use of rooftop space of one building to provide mobile coverage in another building. If implemented, it will be easier for MNOs to deploy their equipment on the rooftops of adjacent buildings to improve mobile coverage of a particular area. Given these ongoing efforts, there may not be a need to mandate mobile coverage as a Temporary Occupation Permit condition for each new building. Ultimately, it is more important to ensure close and effective cooperation among all the relevant stakeholders, which go beyond the developer of the building project.”
“The site is intended to house a residential development, which will be integrated with a bus interchange and Buangkok Mass Rapid Transit station. There are also plans to include community facilities and commercial amenities. The Urban Redevelopment Authority is working closely together with other agencies on this effort, to ensure that the various uses are properly planned and integrated in the future development, bearing in mind that each of these uses has its own space and layout requirements. More details on the future development will be provided once the plans are finalised.”
“Currently, our Building Control Regulations require buildings of five storeys or more to be provided with passenger lifts. Lift provision is not mandatory for buildings under five storeys. Hence, about 370 existing low-rise commercial and institutional buildings do not have lifts installed. To nudge private building owners to voluntarily upgrade their buildings, the Building and Construction Authority provides incentives via the $40-million Accessibility Fund. The Fund co-pays up to 80% of the construction costs for lift provision, capped at $300,000 per development. To date, the Fund has supported lift installations in 79 developments. We have recently extended the availability of the Fund until March 2022.”