Mah Bow Tan
Singapore
“The previous generation of Singaporeans overcame huge odds together to create this improbable nation which we call home. Let this generation work as one to define our country for the next lap of our journey. Sir, on this note, I fully support the amended Motion. Page: 143”
“Like all upgrading programmes, there is a certain budget, and a certain pace at which we will build. We have completed the LUP and now we are going on towards the HIP. The Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) is ongoing.”
“For those who cannot afford home ownership, we will provide rental flats. For the rest where there is hardship involved, that is where the safety net comes in. I do not think we should make the safety net so wide as to bring in everybody.”
“Building a studio apartment is no different from building any other HDB flat. If a person applies now and the building works start now, he can get it in two-and-a-half years to three years. We have stepped up the building of studio apartments over the last couple of years.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and how many have revoked them since; and (b) whether there is a need to review the current rules on AMDs which do not require a person who has revoked the AMD to inform the Registrar, thus causing uncertainty for hospitals t…”
“Parents who wish to exert more control over the maximum mobile service charges incurred by their children may consider service options such as mobile pre-paid cards. IDA is aware of the public's concerns on mobile subscriptions, and will continually review policies and look into measures to further protect the interest of consumers.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,030 lines we hold for Mah Bow Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 61.
“Where windows, grilles and shutters are concerned, the owners of units have to be responsible for the proper installation of these items, as they would normally have charge over their use, maintenance and control. This includes the owners of commercial buildings, lessees of HDB flats, and subsidiary proprietors in condominium developments. Authorised person/firm to carry out works Sir, prescribing the standards for an exterior feature alone is not sufficient to ensure safety. We also need to ensure that the "person responsible" engages someone who is qualified to undertake the retrofitting or installation. The Bill, therefore, makes provision to allow the Minister to stipulate the required qualifications of the person/firm authorised to carry out such works. Penalty for non-compliance with retrofitting orders Failure to comply with any retrofitting order will be an offence, liable to a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both. To deter continuing non-compliance, a fine of $500 may be imposed on the "person responsible" for the exterior feature for each day that the offence continues after conviction. Window legislation Sir, upon this Bill being passed in Parliament, the Minister will prescribe the minimum standards for the design and installation of windows. All newly installed windows will have to meet the requirements in the Singapore Standard SS212 for Aluminum Alloy Windows. This is the current standard adopted by the industry. Next, existing casement windows in residential buildings, fitted with aluminum rivets, will be required to be retrofitted with stainless steel rivets. Starting from 1st October this year, a 12-month grace period will be granted for the retrofitting exercise.”
“Order to retrofit Part III of the current Act, containing detailed provisions for the installation and retrofitting works for air-conditioning units, will be repealed. It will be replaced by a provision to enable the Minister to make orders, where necessary, for the "person responsible" to retrofit specific exterior features of buildings to the minimum standards within a grace period. This new provision will not apply to: a) The exterior features installed in landed properties within private compounds, as they are not accessible to the public; and b) The exterior features installed on the lowest level of a building, in other words, the ground floor in most cases, as they do not pose danger to public safety. The detailed legislation for the installation and retrofitting of air-conditioning units will be moved to the Building Control Regulations. "Person responsible" Sir, the Bill specifies the "person responsible" for the prescribed exterior features as someone who has charge of their maintenance or daily control. This means the owners of all buildings/premises, except in the following situations:- a) Where the exterior features are part of the common property of a HDB flat, the Minister will designate HDB or the relevant Town Council to be responsible for the installation/retrofitting of each regulated exterior feature. In general, if the exterior feature is installed by the Town Council, it would be the responsibility of the Town Council to retrofit the feature, should the need arise. For example, estate block number signages and additional decorative roof features. b) Where the exterior features are part of the common property of a strata development, the Management Corporations (MCs) involved would be responsible as they have charge over their maintenance.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Building Control (Amendment) Bill Sir, on several occasions in Parliament this year I raised concern over the danger posed by falling windows. The incidence of falling windows has increased dramatically in the last four years - from 19 cases in 2000 to 106 cases in 2003. Despite the increased publicity and effort to raise public awareness, I am afraid the situation has not improved. Another 65 incidents of fallen windows were reported in the first six months of this year. We have been lucky so far that no one had been seriously injured or even killed by any such falling window. We have to take further steps to curb the danger to lives that are posed by dislodged windows and, for that matter, by air-conditioners, tiles or any other external parts of buildings which fall from a height, especially in our predominantly high-rise environment. My Ministry, therefore, proposes to amend the Building Control Act to address upstream the design and installation of exterior features of buildings, including windows, and I would now elaborate on the proposed amendments in greater detail. A general legislative framework This Bill proposes to amend the Building Control Act to provide a general legislative framework for theMinister to prescribe minimum performance standards of installation and to order the retrofitting of specific exterior features of buildings to meet these standards. "Exterior features" are those that are either permanently installed on, or form part of, or project outwards from the roof or exterior of a building. These include windows, air-conditioner units, claddings and curtain walls.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, 68.8% of the residents in Pandan Gardens and this year, 71.4% of the residents in Paya Lebar Way voted in favour of the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP). As this falls short of the minimum 75% support required, HDB could not proceed with MUP for both precincts. As for the reasons why some residents voted "No", feedback fromHDBsuggests that some residents in Pandan Gardens were worried about the uncertain economic environment and job securitylast year. In the case of Paya Lebar Way, the feedback was that some households had already renovated their flats, while others thought that they would have to pay for the additional space-adding item even if they vote for the MUP Standard Package. Since MUP was introduced in 1990, 110 precincts have successfully polled for the programme. More than 110,000 households have benefited, or will be benefiting, from the programme. Two precincts out of the 110 did not vote for it. Thisdoes not suggest that the programme needs a fundamental overhaul. HDB regularly reviews the scope of its upgrading programmes to ensure that they remain relevant. For instance, in 2002, the MUP was revised to focus on functional items that give tangible benefits.The MUP is heavily subsidised, and the Government pays up to 90% of the cost.Certain MUP improvement works such as the multi-storey carparks (MSCPs) are fully funded by Government. There are about 230,000 flats that are still eligible for the various upgrading programmes. We will continue to review the programmes to ensure that they remain relevant to the needs of HDB residents. 3.00 pm”
“Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the reasons for the Main Upgrading Programmes at Pandan Gardens and Paya Lebar Way precincts failing to attain 75% support from their residents; (b) whether there areplans to review the Programmes; and (c) how many flats are presently eligible for upgrading programmes.”
“Because, as all Members of the House would attest, it is a very popular programme and it is definitely something which will become more and more necessary as our population ages. So that is something that we will be looking at actively. But whatever it is, it is still a very expensive programme to do. And it is therefore very important for us to, first of all, be able to have some indication from residents whether they really want it or not. If we were to offer it as a programme which is free of charge, I think there is going to be a lot of pressure for us to do it all over the place, and I do not think the budget will be able to take it. Secondly, through a process of co-payment, we will be able to actually speed up the programme faster because residents will be paying a certain part of the cost, although that cost will be kept to the minimum. The level of co-payment today, from the point of view of the residents, is, I would say, very reasonable. It ranges from 5-15%of the cost. So the total cost, say, for a 3-room flat issomething like $2,000. So it is very reasonable. He asked what happens to those who are not able to pay, the elderly residents, for example. Here, I would like to assure him that there are many schemes that are available for such residents, whether it is stretching of the payment to as long as 25 years, the use of CPF, and even the deferred payment scheme, if necessary, if the resident is really unable to pay.All these schemes are available to make sure that affordability for those who are genuinely in financial difficulty is not an issue. If they are able to get the 75% 'Yes' vote, then that should not be an issue. MAIN UPGRADING PROGRAMMES AT PANDAN GARDENS AND PAYA LEBAR WAY PRECINCTS 17.”
“As I have said earlier, it does not follow that there is economy of scale when you are dealing with those blocks which have just failed. There are many other blocks which are just as deserving on that score. The third question is concerning the issue of co-payment - why do we require co-payment for the lift upgrading? Over the years, before 1990 when HDB was building many flats, it built many different types of flats. There was the traditional slab block (with common corridor) and then, subsequently, it went into the segmented blocks where there was no common corridor but there was more privacy. People felt that they needed more privacy. But the problem with the segmented blocks is that the lifts do not actually stop on every floor. To provide lifts for all thesedifferent types of blocks is a veryexpensive exercise. As I indicated earlier, there is a limitedbudget for upgrading and within this upgrading budget, we have to try and achieve as much as possible. He asked how long it will take for us to complete. If you take the rate at which we are currently doing LUP, we have done about 600 blocks over the last three years, say, 200 per year. We have about 3,000 blocks left. So, a rough back of the envelope calculation, we will need another 15 years to complete, if we are able to do it at the same rate. We are now looking to see whether we canspeed up this rate of bringing the LUP to residents. Over the last few years, we have tried to skew the budget more in favour of lift upgrading as opposed to MUP. We have implemented a programme known as IUP-Plus where we have added the lift upgrading to the IUP programme; hence the "plus".Through all these measures, we hope that we will be able to speed up the lift upgrading.”
“With regard to the first question, I think I have answered Dr Lily Neo just now. It is a question of prioritisation. It is not necessarily true that blocks which have failed to achieve the 75% 'Yes' vote are more economical to do than other blocks. In fact, there are over 3,000 blocks in Singapore which arewaiting in the queue for lift upgrading. So, really, I should put this question to the Member. Within his own constituency, he has to decide which precinct has got greater priority in terms of lift upgrading - the one that has just been offered and failed to get the 75% 'Yes' vote, or some other precincts which are just as deserving, if not more so. I think this issomething which the Member ought to think about. It is not just a matter of economies of scale. As I explained, it does not necessarily follow that those blocks which have failed are more economical to upgrade. As far as his second question is concerned which deals with ---”
“To answer the second question, as far as economies of scale are concerned, I do not think the Member need to fear that as we go along, the LUP project will become more expensive. There is no reason for her to have this concern. As I said, we still have a large number of blocks which are eligible for LUP. Therefore, I expectthe economies of scale will be with us for quite some time. As far as priority is concerned, first of all, I think, as the Member is aware, it really depends on the nomination of the particular block or precinct coming from the adviser. So, if the adviser feels that certain blocks should be nominated, ie, should take priority over other blocks for whatever reasons -whether it is because there are more elderly in that precinct, whether it is because there is a particular need, or whether those lifts are especially old and therefore need upgrading -then obviously the Ministry will have to take that into consideration. But I would like to remind the House that, ultimately, there is only a limited budget available for upgrading. First of all, there is a limited budget available to my Ministry. Within that budget, I have to allocate a certain budget for housing. Within the housing budget, I have to allocate a certain amount for upgrading programmes. Within that, I have to allocate some money for lift upgrading versus other upgrading programmes. So, given the fact that resources are not unlimited, there has got to be prioritisation. We would have to be guided, to a large extent, by the Members' nomination. But, overall, having received all the nominations, we would then have to make another decision as far as priorities are concerned.”
“May I also ask the Minister whether such LUP projects will be costlier because, as they lose that priority, they will lose the economies of scale of larger projects as many of them will become stand-alone projects?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was introduced in 2001 to improve the accessibility and mobility of our elderly and disabled residents. HDB blocks are retrofitted with lift landings on every floor. All high-rise HDB blocks built before 1990 and without direct access to a lift are eligible for the LUP. As the LUP is heavily subsidised and funds are limited, the blocks will have to be upgraded progressively. To-date, the LUP has been offered to more than 600 high-rise blocks. More than 3,000 high-rise blocks are currently eligible. The LUP is the most popular of all HDB's upgrading programmes. We will therefore focus on lift upgrading and do what we can to bring LUP to as many households as quickly as possible, within the resources available. Blocks which have been offered but failed to meet the 75% €˜Yes' vote requirement are technically still eligible for the LUP. However, as there are many requests for lift upgrading, we need to consider giving a higher priority to those blocks which have not yetbeen selected for the LUP before. Similarly, the Government will continue to give priority to high-rise blocks, where more residents can benefit from the programme. Nevertheless, as more high-rise blocks get upgraded, we will consider extending the LUP to low-rise blocks at some stage. Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): May I ask the Minister whether there is an eligibility period for re-voting of LUP and whether he will give priority to cases where there are more disabled or elderly residents in a block and there is a high percentage of the residents of that block requesting for re-voting of LUP?”
“It relies primarily on NTUC to implement many of the programmes to help workers in Singapore. This is an efficient system that avoids duplication and enables SLF to remain trim. APPENDICES”
“SLF was set up to support the labour movement in Singapore. The funds of SLF have been derived from the union movement, mainly from subscriptions by union members as well as contributions from its co-operatives and investment income. Trade unions are exempt from income tax. So SLF was granted IPC status, and was exempted from tax. According to the Charities Act, 80% of the revenues must go towards charitable activities. However, most of the labour movement activities are not considered charitable activities under the Act. Therefore, during the review of SLF in December 2003, the decision was made to forgo its charity status to enable SLF to better focus on its original mission of supporting the labour movement as enacted under the SLF Act in 1977 and it will continue to do so. SLF provides extensive support to the labour movement, for its activities ranging from financial assistance, to training sponsorship and recreational facilities. SLF will also be embarking on sponsoring training awards for union leaders who are selected for part-time or full-time studies in local diploma or degree courses. Lastly, SLF is working closely with NTUC to roll out new programmes to benefit workers in Singapore. Mdm Ho asked how SLF will be classified. SLF will continue to be classified as a statutory board. Like any other statutory board, SLF will be required to contribute a percentage of its annual accounting surplus to the Government's Consolidated Fund. However, workers' contribution to SLF will be exempt from the requirement to contribute to the Consolidated Fund. MOF is currently working with SLF on an appropriate basis for its contribution. SLF is a small statutory board with nine full-time staff.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, it has been a long day but a very productive one, as we have debated and passed not less than nine Bills. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM SINGAPORE LABOUR FOUNDATION 15. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Acting Minister for Manpower following the announcement in May 2004 that the Singapore Labour Foundation (SLF) is giving up its charity status to focus on funding new programmes that will benefit workers, (a) what are these new programmes; (b) how will these programmes benefit workers in general; and (c) how will SLF be classified henceforth.”
“Sir, the SLF was set up to support the labour movement in Singapore. The funds of SLF have been derived from the union movement, mainly from subscriptions by union members as well as contributions from its co-operatives and investment income. Trade unions are exempt from income tax. So, SLF was granted Institution of Public Character (IPC) status, and was exempted from tax. According to the Charities Act, 80% of the revenues must go towards charitable activities. However, most of the labour movement activities are not considered charitable activities under the Act. Therefore, during the review of SLF in December 2003, the decision was made to forgo its charity status to enable SLF to better focus on its original mission of supporting the labour movement as enacted under the SLF Act in 1977. SLF provides extensive support to the labour movement, for its activities, ranging from financial assistance, to training sponsorship to recreational activities. SLF will also be embarking on sponsoring training awards for union leaders. Lastly, SLF will work closely with NTUC to roll out new programmes to benefit workers in Singapore. For example, SLF will be supporting the Individual Learning Account that NTUC is going to provide for the staff of its co-operatives. 3.00 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer this Question as the Chairman of the Singapore Labour Foundation?”
“It is not true that they are not subsidised. There is a grant that is given for singles to buy these resale flats if they so wish. SUBSIDISED PATIENTS AT PUBLIC HOSPITALS (Assigning of doctors) 14. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Acting Minister for Health if he will explain the policy regarding the assigning of doctors to subsidised patients at public hospitals and the subsequent follow-up of these patients, especially for cases of serious illnesses.”
“I am not sure where Mr Chia gets his statistics from that this is the major cause of divorces. I would like to hear from the Minister for Community Development and Sports whether this is so. But the Member asked whether we should be divorcing HDB's role as a service provider from it being a social service agency. The simple answer is that we are providing subsidised HDB flats, the subsidy is for a reason, and there are many social reasons why we formulate HDB policies. The singles policy is just one of them. The ethnic integration policy is another. The mixing of 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats so that people from different socio-economic backgrounds live together so that there is greater social harmony and bonding is yet another. So, HDB policies have all along been designed to promote family values and achieve social objectives. It is not something that is new or it is not something that is only for the singles. So, wherever it is desirable, the Government will do so, and it will justify the subsidy, ie, the money that it is giving out from the taxpayers.”
“Sir, our public housing policy is designed to be pro-family in orientation. Single citizens are considered as part of a family unit. They are encouraged to live with their parents for mutual care and support. At the same time, the Government recognises that there are some older Singaporeans who remain single and may prefer to live on their own. To meet the housing needs of this group, HDB has implemented two housing schemes, ie, the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme and the Joint Singles Scheme, for citizen singles who are 35 years old or above to buy resale HDB flats. The minimum age requirement of 35 for singles to buy flats is to support our policy on promoting marriages. It remains relevant as statistics show that Singaporeans are marrying later and that marriage rates remain relatively high among those in the 30-34 age group. There is currently no intention to lower the minimum age. Younger singles below 35 can buy a HDB flat together with their parents. Those who wish to stay on their own have other housing options, such as renting a flat or room from the open market.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, MND and HDB have explored reverse mortgages as a possible way to provide elderly HDB lessees with an additional source of income for their retirement needs. However, the current reverse mortgage terms that are offered in the market are not attractive for HDB lessees. The monthly payments are relatively small because of the high financing cost. More importantly, as the reverse mortgages are fixed in tenure, elderly lessees run the risk of losing their homes should they outlive the term of the mortgage and are unable to redeem the loan with interest accrued. Nevertheless, if there are banks or insurers who can offer reverse mortgages on favourable terms to HDB lessees, we will be happy to look into whether and how such schemes can be made available to HDB lessees.”
“I think there is a limit that we must impose on the amount of subsidy that we give to each Singaporean. It cannot be limitless because it is not a bottomless pit as far as Government finance is concerned. In this respect, we have to educate our senior citizens as to how they can encash, how they can monetise, and how they can make better use of their flats after retirement. Allowing them to rent a subsidised flat is not one of the options under the current regime for the reasons that I have stated, which is that we are actually giving yet another subsidy and there is a limit to the amount of subsidy. We have crafted the subsidy policy in such a way that they are only entitled to so much subsidies, please do not come back for more subsidies after that. That is the position at the moment. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Reverse mortgages) 12. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of his Ministry's policy on reverse mortgages of Housing and Development Board flats; and (b) will his Ministry promote and make it easier for banks to provide reverse-mortgages to retirees, especially to those with insufficient funds to meet their retirement needs.”
“I think the Member has pointed out a very genuine need for post-retirement planning and to use the flat as a major feature in the post-retirement planning of the senior citizens. For this reason, the Ministry and HDB last year relaxed the criteria for allowing the whole flat to be sublet, and in this way, to allow the senior citizens a regular stream of income. What this means is that they can rent out their whole flat. They can then either move in with their children, move in with friends, or they can rent out a room, which is already currently allowed. So these are options which are available to them. The other thing that the senior citizens can do with a, say, 3 or 4-room flat is to sell the flat and to move into a studio apartment. Sufficient studio apartments are being made available for senior citizens. With the money that is left over, they can either buy an annuity or make other financial arrangements for their old age. So there are such post-retirement arrangements which are already in place. There are options available for them. The suggestion that the Member has made, which is to allow them to rent a subsidised flat, I think, is a different solution from what I have just enumerated. It is different in the sense that, in this case, what the Member is asking is for the Government to continue to subsidise the senior citizen another time, ie, through the rental flat. Here, I must explain that the overall subsidy policy of the Government is to make sure that each eligible Singaporean family is able to enjoy a certain amount of subsidy through the purchase of the first subsidised flat, through the purchase of the second subsidised flat after he pays the levy, and through subsidised loans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB rental flats cater to low-income families who cannot afford home ownership flats. They are heavily subsidised and limited in number. Lessees who own HDB flats are discouraged from competing for such heavily subsidised rental housing with other low-income families who have more urgent housing needs. That is why they are debarred from renting HDB flats for 30 months after they sell their flats. Nevertheless, again, for those in genuine hardship, HDB will consider waiving the 30-month debarment period on a case-by-case basis.”
“Sir, we are always very flexible. As many Members would attest, I think one of the areas where we are flexible is in the so-called hardship cases and where a genuine hardship case surfaces to the Ministry or HDB, there is complete flexibility in the sense that the time bar is waived. I think that is being flexible. RENTAL FLATS (Waiver of debarment period for the elderly) 11. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development whether the 2½-year debarment period to obtain rental flats can be waived for those elderly who have sold their Housing and Development Board flats and who are in financial and medical needs.”
“I believe there is a question by Dr Lily Neo on this. So perhaps I could take a rain check on the answer.”
“As I said, we constantly look at our policies and, from time to time, we do change them. One day, we may change them.”
“Sir, as I have indicated several times, there is a stock of unsold HDB flats and currently the stock stands at something like 10,000. However, this is a temporary situation. I think it arose as a result of a sharp drop in the demand and, since then, we have reduced the supply and we have cut back on the building of new HDB flats. So I expect that, over the next few years, this stock will be taken up. How fast they will be taken up really depends on economic conditions and how many people will opt for new HDB flats. But it is not something that I expect to be a permanent feature of the HDB market. At the same time, the other point that I would like to make is that you cannot change policy as a result of temporary changes in the market situation. Yes, there is an over-supply of houses at the moment. But that does not mean that we necessarily change the policy. What it does mean is that we will look at the situation, and if the situation warrants it, for example, the individual case can demonstrate severe financial hardship, retrenchment, bankruptcy, whatever, and the sale of the private property is not sufficient to cover that cost, then such cases can be looked at and consideration can be given. But I am reluctant to change the whole policy on the basis of what, I believe, is a temporary phenomenon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government provides subsidised public housing to meet the housing needs of Singaporean families who cannot afford to own private housing. Therefore, rules are necessary to ensure that our subsidies are given only to those who need them most. Such rules include the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) before resale of a flat in the open market, as well as the 30-month time bar for ex-private property owners before they buy a subsidised HDB flat. The 30-month time bar for private property owners is imposed so that they do not compete with other families, such as first-timer couples, who need such affordable housing. With the sales proceeds from their private property, they can buy a resale HDB flat, without being subject to the 30-month time bar. I wish to clarify that the 30-month time bar does not apply to HDB flat owners. They can apply for a subsidised HDB flat, if they meet the eligibility conditions, even while they are occupying their existing flat. I appreciate that, because of the economic slowdown, some private property owners may need to dispose of their properties due to financial hardship. Most can still afford to purchase a resale HDB flat. There is a wide range of resale flats, in terms of flat types, locations and prices and they can choose one that is within their financial means. However, HDB will consider waiving the 30-month time bar on a case-by-case basis, for those who are in severe financial hardship.”
“715 construction projects worth $4.1 billion were tendered in the Financial Year (FY) 2003 (ie, April 2003 to March 2004). There were 795 projects worth $8.0 billion in FY02 and 873 projects worth $7.0 billion in FY01. These did not include the M&E contracts. 63% of the projects in FY03 were awarded to the lowest bidders. It was 75% in both FY02 and FY01. In cases where the tenders were not awarded to the lowest bidders, the main reasons were: (a) There were doubts on their abilities to successfully complete the projects, based on their financial strength or their unrealistically low bids; or (b) Their proposals did not meet the tender specifications, eg, their methods of construction were unacceptable or their designs were inappropriate. DIALYSIS PATIENTS 2. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Acting Minister for Health (a) how many dialysis patients are there in Singapore over the past five years; (b) how many of these patients are undergoing dialysis treatment at each of the service providers like SingHealth, National Healthcare Group, National Kidney Foundation, Kidney Dialysis Foundation, private sector hospitals and others for the past five years; (c) what is the total treatment cost per patient for each of the mentioned provider; (d) what is the breakdown of treatment cost provided by each provider for the past five years and the direct Government subsidy to these providers; (e) what is the treatment cost for peritoneal dialysis (water dialysis) and haemodialysis (blood dialysis); and (f) what is the maximum income level to qualify for subsidised treatment at each of these service providers.”
“Construction safety is the responsibility of all of us - Government, developers, professionals, contractors, management, and workers. We will work together with all parties to enhance worker safety and reduce the loss of lives. I have asked staff in MOM in this review to aim to reduce the number of fatal accidents by one-third over the next five years. This will place us among the leading countries in safety standards. It is an achievable goal and worth the extra effort.”
“MOM's basic three-pronged approach to ensuring occupational safety is sound. But to improve our safety performance, our legislation may need to be enhanced. I agree with Members. Industry needs to be willing to spend money, resources and effort to put in place safety checks. Industry must upgrade their management capabilities and skill of workers. Poor worksite management and unskilled workers are potent combinations begging for accidents to happen. Dr Teo, as well as other Members, including Dr Amy Khor, has asked for an integrated approach to this review. The Minister for National Development has agreed, together with MOM, to conduct such a review that will cover the entire value chain of construction. He has already mentioned the areas. I would also like to add that we will review whether, as some have said, to increase the accountability of people along the chain as well as whether we need to enhance the penalties or increase the enforcement of the penalties already provided. We will incorporate the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry related to the Nicoll Highway, when completed. MOM will also, as co-chair of this review committee, review the legislation and study the best practices of developed countries, including those of the UK and Japan, as Dr Teo Ho Pin has mentioned. MOM had intended to expand the coverage of the occupational safety requirements to more workplaces - a point brought up by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang who has been pushing this for a number of years - through a new legislation. This will be called the Workplace Safety and Health Act. We will use this opportunity to incorporate recommendations from the review of the construction industry. Let me reiterate what my colleague, the Minister for National Development, said.”
“Last year, 13 construction worksites and three factories were ordered to stop work. Repeat offenders are subject to twice the quantum of fines provided for under the law. For the construction industry in particular, there is a debarment scheme. This is the point alluded to by Dr Teo when he talked about performance based aspects. This debarment scheme has been in force since April 2000. Under this scheme, contractors who flout safety requirements are given demerit points, on top of the usual fine and stop work order. In other words, it is meant to be economically punitive. A contractor who accumulates more than 30 demerit points within a 12-month period would be issued with a warning. Further accumulation of more than 24 demerit points within a 12-month period following the warning will result in the contractor being debarred from employing foreign workers for 12 months. A total of 24 contractors have been warned to date, of which three have been debarred since the scheme was implemented. In other words, it effectively removes his workers from him. My Ministry has recently revised the scheme to lower the demerit points, as suggested by Dr Amy Khor, from 30 to 24 points when a warning will be issued. This will take effect from 1st July 2004. MOM carries out strict enforcement to check on compliance of the provisions of the Factories Act by occupiers of factories and main contractors of worksites. Last year, MOM's factory inspectors carried out a total of 17,000 inspections and about 6,000 inspections were on construction worksites. That works out to about 20 worksites a day. But since there are 4,000 worksites in Singapore, Members will appreciate, and this is the point which Ms Irene Ng brought up, why self-regulation is the key to better safety standards.”
“These courses are conducted in six languages which include Bangladesh and Thai languages. The Ministry, in collaboration with the Singapore Contractors Association Limited (SCAL) and professional bodies, also organises regular safety seminars and other OSH promotional activities. I take Members' point that the framework is in place, including the framework of self-regulation. But unless we have in place stiff penalties and strict enforcement to promote compliance, it will come to naught. A number of Members have asked, including Mr Iswaran, Dr Teo, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, whether our penalties are adequate. At present, the Factories Act provides for a maximum penalty of $200,000 and/or one year imprisonment for any contravention that resulted in the death of two or more persons. And this includes the occupier and the employers. So those higher up in the chain are liable. I asked the same question after these accidents whether we should enhance it. We did a comparative study of the penalties for OSH contraventions, and that study indicates that our prescribed maximum penalties are already amongst the highest in the region. Nonetheless, I agree with Members and we will review what else needs to be done, whether it is necessary to stiffen penalties or to enforce more strictly to bring us closer to the safety standards of the United Kingdom and Sweden, and this will be in the terms of reference for the joint committee that my colleague, the Minister for Natrional Development has announced. Dr Amy Khor asked what can we do and how else can we facilitate. The Chief Inspector of Factories can issue stop work orders and fine errant factory occupiers and contractors who carry out work without due consideration for workers' safety. Have we enforced it? Yes.”
“And these safety officers need to have tertiary education in a technical discipline and successfully completed the Safety Officers' Training Course. They also have to be registered with the Chief Inspector of Factories. Since 1994, construction projects with contract sum of $10 million or more are required to implement an audit on their safety management systems. Safety officers are required, as are site safety supervisors for the main contractors. Ms Irene Ng asked whether these measures are applicable to sub-contractors. The answer is yes. For example, sub-contractors employing more than 20 persons are required to appoint a safety supervisor to promote the safe conduct of work within the worksites. Where the contract sum of the work is $30 million or more, they are required to appoint an independent external auditor to audit its safety management system once every six months. This was the point that was brought up correctly by Dr Amy Khor. Since 1997, safety provisions have also been included in the contractual agreement between developers and contractors. This is to ensure that contractors understand their responsibility for ensuring worksite safety. And contractors are required to produce such documents when they apply for factory registration of their worksites. What about training and awareness - a point that was highlighted by Ms Irene Ng? Since 2001, it has been mandatory for project managers of worksites, formwork supervisors and lifting supervisors to attend occupational safety and health (OSH) courses. All construction workers are required to attend safety orientation courses to equip them with knowledge on common hazards at the worksites and the preventive measures. Yes, we do speak to them in their vernacular.”
“But we all recognise that to save lives requires more than wishes and committees. Dr Teo Ho Pin says that a safety culture must be pervasive and permeate every level from the developer down to the least skilled worker in the workplace. That is what we must achieve in order to improve our safety standards. Yes, we have been working with our tripartite partners, as Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has mentioned, and we can do more. How then can we institute such a culture and improve safety performance for workers where everyone feels that it is his responsibility and it is something that he can do? Dr Amy Khor said that we should be proactive rather than be reactive. I agree. Our present approach to ensuring workplace safety rests on three strategic prongs - first, tough laws and harsh penalties; second, effective enforcement; and, third, facilitated self-regulation by management. These three platforms are still sound and have served us well and we will continue to use them. But I agree with Members that while strict penalties through legislation and tough enforcement measures send the right signal, they are often measures which are applied after the accident has occurred, like now. When accidents occur, we say let us enforce them. To prevent accidents and deaths, we must facilitate and even coerce industries to self-regulate and implement effective safety and health programmes to ensure a safe place for work. Hence, the Factories Act prescribes a framework of self-regulation by industries. For example, factories employing 50 or more workers are required to form safety committees. Larger factories in the more hazardous industries are required to employ safety officers.”
“The short answer, in terms of whether our safety standards are slipping, is no for both overall numbers as well as those arising within the construction industry. The Clerk of Parliament has circulated these figures. The overall number has been coming down from 1997 when there were 4,422 cases to about 3,200 cases last year. For the construction industry, Members will note that the number of accidents has been more or less constant, but the number of fatal accidents has fallen by more than half when comparing 1993 to 2003. There were 72 deaths in 1997 and 31 in 2003, or 0.3 fatal accidents per 1,000 employees in 1997 compared to 0.2 in 2003. We know the data. How do we compare internationally? Dr Teo mentioned certain countries that we should emulate - Japan, UK. Based on our data published and compared with those published by the International Labour Organisation, Singapore's safety record as measured by the number of fatal accidents is comparable to that of the USA, France and Canada, but we lag behind the United Kingdom and Sweden. I think this assessment is important because it helps us conclude that our safety standards have improved over the years and are comparable with those of other developed countries. Nevertheless, I agree with Members that each life lost which could have been prevented if appropriate measures had been followed is one too many. This was the sentiment expressed by all Members. As we have seen from these two recent accidents, each life lost deprives one family of a husband, a breadwinner, a son, a brother, a friend. The social and economic costs are indeed high. And as Members say, they are wake-up calls. Mr Iswaran said that we should sharpen our focus and we should put safety first.”
“Sir, in conclusion, let me say that these two recent accidents are wake-up calls for all of us in the industry. We cannot take safety for granted. This is a joint responsibility of all the parties involved - the regulators, developers, contractors and the workers. Let us heed this call and work together to further strengthen safety in construction worksites, because lives are at stake. The Acting Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Members have spoken on the need to protect the safety of workers. I would like to assure the House and Members that MOM shares the same concern. My colleague, the Minister for National Development, has touched on a number of aspects. Sir, allow me to address certain issues as important questions have arisen from these two construction-related accidents at Nicoll Highway and Fusionpolis. The first question is: are our safety standards slipping? Members have the figures distributed by MOM. Let me clarify these figures and give Members the objective assessment. I think it is important for us to objectively assess where our safety standards are, so that we will know how to improve, how we have been doing and also not make sudden corrective measures for a system that may have served us well. The internationally accepted norm that different countries use in comparing safety standards is the number of accidents or fatalities over those at risk, and those at risk are the number of workers working. Dr Amy Khor says, let us relate it to the construction projects. But in a place with a very productive construction industry, they may just use less workers. So those at risk are the number of workers and that is expressed in man million hours.”
“BCA will be introducing additional safety criteria that would require some of the higher qualified - A1 and A2 - contractors to be certified through the Occupational Health and Safety Audit System (OHSAS) 18001, and this will be with effect from July this year. What this means is that our top tier construction companies will have in place a more systematic framework to implement workers' safety and to enhance safety and health measures at construction sites. Finally, of course, in addition to the CRS criteria, each individual agency specifies additional pre-qualifying criteria for their own projects, especially for complex projects like airports, MRTs, hospitals, defence projects and so on. All these different checks and safety criteria help to ensure that only technically and financially competent contractors can undertake them. There are concerns also that it may not be the main contractor that may be the culprit. What about all the sub-contractors? Ms Irene Ng made this point about the dangers of sub-standard work being undertaken by sub-contractors. I would like to inform her that under the public sector conditions of contract, the supervisor in question has to approve the main contractor's choice of sub-contractors. Again, this is another level of check to make sure that only capable and reliable sub-contractors can undertake the jobs. Having said all that, I come back to the point that I made earlier - that we can have these systems in place, we can have the checks, but at the end of the day, there are many other parties in the chain that also need to play their part. And this comes back to Dr Teo's point about how we must imbibe and inculcate this safety culture in the whole construction industry, all the way from the top to the bottom.”
“One reason could be that there are doubts on the ability of these lowest bids to successfully complete the project based on their financial strength, or based on the fact that the bids that they have put in are unrealistically low. Another reason is that their proposals do not meet the tender specifications, whether in their method of construction or in their design. Their design could be inappropriate or unsafe or their method of construction could be deemed unsafe. So for all these reasons, the public sector agenices have deemed it not possible to award one-third of the contracts to the lowest bidder. This reflects an awareness among the public sector procurement agencies that they just cannot simply go for price alone and that there are many other factors involved. Having said that, as I have explained earlier, we will still require the joint committee to include this in their terms of reference and go through the tender process again and reiterate, if necessary, the importance of making sure that safety is not compromised. Indeed, many Members have voiced concern, both in this House and at other times, that contractors may be selected without due regard to their safety record. Let me inform the House there is a system of pre-qualification in order to make sure that contractors that do not meet safety records are not allowed to even bid for public sector projects. Under the Contractors Registry System (CRS) that BCA operates, contractors have to be registered and they have to be pre-qualified. The CRS has stringent criteria on safety performance and technical competence as well as management and financial capability. Contractors without good safety records are barred from tendering for public sector projects. They do not even get past the first stage.”
“One common comment, which was highlighted by Ms Irene Ng and Dr Amy Khor, is that the public sector projects, because they are always awarded to the lowest bidder, carry this risk that contractors are forced to compromise on safety measures in order to save costs and to remain viable. Sir, as I have said several times, it is not correct and premature for us to comment or to link any causes at this stage to the two incidents because a Committee of Inquiry has been set up. But it is important for me to set the record straight on the public sector procurement system which, as Dr Amy Khor mentioned, is a popular "whipping boy". In fact, it is a popular "whipping boy" for many ills in the industry, ranging from accidents to contractors going belly up to everything else that we can name. But I want to say once again in this House that the Government does not require agencies to award tenders to the lowest bidders. The tender process requires the agencies to review all the tenders submitted to make sure that the contract is awarded to the contractor who meets all the criteria, which gives the best value for money in terms of quality and performance and who is able to complete the works. Over the last 12 months, during the last financial year from April 2003 to March 2004, 37% of all public sector construction contracts were not awarded to the lowest bidder, in other words, more than one-third. Yes, this means that two-thirds were awarded to the lowest bidder. But what does that prove? Would it require all awards to be not given to the lowest bidder before we say that the procurement system is fair? Surely it cannot be. One-third of the contracts were not awarded to the lowest bidder. Why?”
“After the start of the project, LTA's BCU, in response to feedback received from the occupants, had checked and rectified affected buildings near the Circle Line construction sites. In the immediate aftermath of the Nicoll Highway incident, BCA and LTA undertook another round of safety checks of buildings within a 100-metre radius of the Circle Line construction. Why 100 metres? BCA took into account factors such as the type of construction works, the type of buildings in the vicinity, whether or not they were built on piles and also on the ground condition. Engineers from BCA, LTA and the contractors carried out the inspection. Cracks and defects, if any, were assessed on whether they were structural in nature and could affect the stability of the buildings. Further remedial measures, if needed, were then carried out. For buildings that are found to be stable, LTA will issue a letter and the PE certification to the owner. So regarding Mr Iswaran's concern that owners would need to be reassured, this step would help in reassuring the owners. For buildings that require structural repairs, BCA will issue an order to close them and the occupants will have to vacate their premises. So far, 588 buildings in the vicinity of the Circle Line sites had been inspected and found to be structurally stable. Two vacant buildings at the Paya Lebar/Upper Paya Lebar areas were assessed to require structural repairs. They were declared unsafe and closed by BCA. Sir, I come now to the question of the tender system. There has been a lot of speculation about the causes of the Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah accidents.”
“In this audit, BCA will direct the professional engineers involved to review their design of temporary works at all the sites. LTA's BCU has also been asked to go through all submissions by project parties to ensure that they are in order. Concurrently, BCA engineers are checking through the documentation and monitoring records of all the Circle Line projects for compliance. BCA is also appraising the various safety aspects of the excavation works. This involves presentations by LTA's project teams on the design of temporary works, on the construction methods, as well as on the safety measures. BCA engineers are conducting site visits to verify that temporary support and monitoring measures are in place. BCA will only allow work to resume when it is satisfied that this is so. So far, BCA has audited and approved four Circle Line worksites to resume. Another 12 sites are still being reviewed and will be progressively allowed to resume work as and when BCA is satisfied with the safety aspects of the sites. After the resumption of work, LTA and the project parties are required to continue monitoring and supervising the works to ensure safety. I come now to the issue of safety checks on buildings. Mr Steve Chia, in his Question for Oral Answer, wanted to know why safety checks on the buildings along the Circle Line were not done earlier, but had to wait until the Nicoll Highway collapsed. I wish to inform the Member that he is wrong to assume that this was the case. Before construction works commenced, LTA had required the contractor to carry out a pre-construction survey of surrounding buildings. As I informed the House, this is part and parcel of the process required before permit to commence work is issued.”
“We will strengthen the existing regulatory framework wherever it is found wanting. But let me emphasise that a strong regulatory framework alone is not enough. I agree with Dr Teo that construction safety is the responsibility of all the stakeholders involved - the Government, developers, professionals, contractors, sub-contractors, supervisors and workers. For instance, after the Hotel New World collapse, we implemented an Accredited Checker (AC) system. But despite the AC system, in 1999, a roof under construction at Compassvale Primary School collapsed. The cause was subsequently found to be negligence on the part of both the AC and the QP. Both were convicted under the Building Control Act and they have paid a price for their negligence. So there must be a sense of professionalism and an appreciation and awareness of safety, what Dr Teo called a safety culture. This safety culture must be in each and every individual at every step of the construction process. The public has placed significant trust and confidence on building professionals to ensure safe construction practices. Good ethical practices and high moral standards should prevail over commercial interest. Architects, engineers and contractors must perform their professional and contractual duties with due care and diligence and prime regard to safety. If they do not, they must face the full force of the law. Let me now touch on other related issues of concern to Members, starting with BCA's role in the Nicoll Highway incident. Following the Nicoll Highway incident, LTA stopped work at all the Circle Line worksites on the advice of BCA. BCA is currently conducting an audit of the design and construction relating to excavation at these sites.”
“These safety provisions cover the construction of various temporary works, such as scaffoldings, formwork shoring, tunnelling and excavation works. My colleague, the Acting Minister for Manpower, will elaborate on these measures later on. Sir, several MPs - Dr Teo, Ms Irene Ng, Dr Amy Khor - have asked if the Government is going to review the safety standards at construction worksites. The answer is yes. My Ministry and the Ministry of Manpower will set up a joint committee to review the current regulatory framework on construction safety. This committee will be tasked to identify any contributory factors that may hinder safe practices in the industry and the possible weaknesses and gaps in our systems and processes, no matter how well they may have served us. The review will cover the regulatory responsibilities of BCA and MOM and the safety provisions under the current legislative framework, including those pertaining to temporary works. The committee will also consider Dr Teo's proposal of having BCA as a one-stop service to coordinate deep excavation and tunnelling works. The roles of all the contracting parties in the industry, including the professionals, as well as the procurement and administrative systems, will also be examined, with a view to enhancing construction safety. Finally, the committee will look at the delegation of building control functions by BCA to the BCUs and see how this relationship can be improved. In carrying out the review, the joint committee will take into account the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry on the Nicoll Highway incident. Let me assure this House that we will do whatever is necessary to enhance construction and safety to prevent mishaps and loss of lives.”
“I wish to inform him that currently there are 17 public sector projects that entail deep underground works exceeding 15 metres in depth. These comprise LTA's 11 Circle Line projects as well as four Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway projects, JTC's Fusionpolis project, and PUB's Deep Tunnel Sewerage System project. During construction, BCA conducts regular random checks on construction sites, and it can revoke the permits, if construction works pose a danger to people or cause damage to the adjacent buildings. Last year, BCA revoked 20 such permits. And work will not be allowed to resume until the deficiencies are rectified and adequate safety measures are put in place. Since 1995, BCA has authorised the Building Control Units (BCUs) of three statutory boards, ie, LTA, JTC and HDB, to carry out building control functions for projects under their respective purview. This includes issuing of the permit to commence work which I explained earlier. This delegation of function is to enable the respective statutory boards to have better control over the implementation of the extensive development and building programmes. The BCUs, over the years, have built up a pool of competent professionals and they have established internal quality control mechanisms to effectively regulate the projects under their purview. However, BCA continues to exercise supervisory control on how these BCUs discharge their authorised functions. So while BCA delegates the authority, it does not delegate the final responsibility. What about MOM's role? As part of the overall regulatory framework, the Ministry of Manpower also has parallel provisions under the Factories Act to ensure workers' safety at construction sites.”
“BCA is the regulatory authority on building and construction. It has the responsibility to ensure that our physical infrastructure and buildings are designed and constructed safely. In line with this, BCA administers and enforces the regulatory framework for construction safety, as well as our laws on building control. At the design stage, a qualified person, or what we call the QP, who is either the registered engineering or architectural professional, designs and certifies the project plans. These plans are then checked and endorsed by an accredited checker (AC), before submission to BCA for approval. The AC is independent of the project team and he is usually a senior member of the engineering profession and he is accredited by BCA to fulfill this role. Next comes the construction stage. The contractor can only commence construction works after the structural design plans have been approved and a permit to commence work has been issued by BCA. For deep excavation works - and these are works which involve excavations of at least four metres in depth - BCA imposes additional safety conditions in the permit to commence work. First, BCA requires that the temporary works must be designed and certified by a professional engineer. Second, before excavation commences, the contractor has to carry out a pre-construction survey of the adjacent buildings to determine their condition. Third, the qualified professional or QP for the project is required to state the allowable limits of ground movements to prevent damage to the surrounding buildings, and thereafter to submit the monitoring plan for such movements. Dr Teo, in his Question for Oral Answer, asked how many such works there are.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many Members of this House have spoken on the motion. Dr Teo Ho Pin, Ms Irene Ng, Dr Amy Khor and others have all raised very important issues related to current safety standards and practices in the construction workplace. They are concerned about workers' safety and the stability of buildings in the vicinity of projects with deep excavation works like the Circle Line MRT project. Let me say that I share their concerns. I was very much saddened by the tragic and unnecessary loss of six lives in the recent construction site accidents at Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah. We need to know why these accidents happened and we need to know what we can do to prevent them from happening again. Sir, our regulatory framework for construction safety encompasses a whole series of checks and balances covering the whole construction process. There are two key pieces of legislation governing the framework. One is the Building Control Act and the other is the Factories Act. BCA, under the purview of the Ministry of National Development, administers the Building Control Act, while the Ministry of Manpower administers the Factories Act. The Circle Line, which includes the Nicoll Highway site, is developed by LTA, which is under the Ministry of Transport, and the LTA's Building Control Unit has been authorised to carry out building control functions on these projects on behalf of BCA. So, I will explain this arrangement in more detail later on. This regulatory framework, which involves several parties, requires each agency to exercise its responsibilities with due diligence, drawing upon its own area of expertise and at different stages of the construction process. At the plan submission stage, BCA plays a role.”
“The current policy for hotels and boarding houses is to allow them in locations zoned Hotel or Commercial. Within sites with mixed use zoning, such as Commercial/Residential and Residential with 1st-storey Commercial, hotels and boarding houses are allowed on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the compatibility of boarding houses with the existing uses in the location. The development of backpacker hostels and budget hotels is to meet the needs of the changing profile of our visitors. With the advent of budget travel and growth in value-conscious markets such as China and India, Singapore Tourism Board (STB) anticipates an increase in demand for such accommodation. The primary objective of Government's policy regarding budget hotel is to cater to the needs of budget travelers, while ensuring that boarding houses would not create adverse impact on the amenity of the area. To minimise the possibility of these boarding houses breeding undesirable activities, URA works closely with the Police (Anti-Vice Branch). Police would also monitor areas where vice activities are prevalent and, if necessary, conduct surprise checks on these hotels and boarding houses to flush out these undesirable activities within them. The Hotel Licensing Board and STB also inspect the budget hotels to ensure minimum standards are met. This is taken into consideration during the yearly licence renewal exercise. APPENDICES”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. CHARITY PRACTICES 6.08 pm”
“However, BCA will work towards introducing legislative changes to ensure safety standards upstream concerning the design, installation and retrofitting of windows, and this will involve separate amendments to another Act, namely, the Building Control Act and Regulations. Sir, once again, I thank Members for their very detailed inputs and I look forward to discussing this further at the Select Committee. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and the following Members: Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed Dr Teo Ho Pin Mr Low Thia Khiang Ms Indranee Rajah Mdm Cynthia Phua Mrs Fang Ai Lian and Mr Mah Bow Tan." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.15 pm”