Sim Ann
Singapore
“Sir, given the increasingly transnational nature of crime and the rapid advancement of digital finance, international cooperation is indeed key. Singapore will continue to issue MLAs where it is appropriate, but also pursue international cooperation in informal manner. This applies not just to AML/CFT and PF, but also to scams.”
“Sir, I believe that the first and the third supplementary questions from the Member are related. I would say that if the facts of the case are such that it warrants taking action under the Penal Code for offences relating to the circulation of intimate images, the Police will do so.”
“Sir, we have a national movement to prepare Singaporeans against terrorism – SGSecure. This is one way through which we disseminate important information so that Singaporeans are aware of security risks.”
“Sir, we want to see everyone get home safe everyday. If safety is compromised, then livelihoods and many other good things in life are going to be at risk. We believe that the public will see our proposed for changes in this light, particularly our vocational drivers, because safer roads also mean a safer working environment for them.”
“To Ms Cassandra Lee's question, the alcohol limits that are currently enforced have been in place since 1985, and that is more than forty years ago. Now, Singapore is one of the jurisdictions with the highest alcohol limits, while the other jurisdictions have adopted stricter regimes with lower limits.”
“MFA is working with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to strengthen our safeguards against foreign interference, which will be elaborated on by MHA during its Committee of Supply. Mr Chairman, foreign policy begins at home.”
The complete record
Every one of 775 lines we hold for Sim Ann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 16.
“A key thrust of BCA's Green Mark Scheme is to encourage the adoption of passive design strategies that reduce heat gain into buildings and improve natural ventilation. GMIS-EB 2.0 also provides co-funding support to existing building owners who wish to redesign existing air-conditioned spaces to naturally ventilated spaces. I am heartened to see more project teams adopting such passive design strategies in their buildings. We are seeing this not only in new buildings, but also in existing buildings that have undergone renovations. An example is DBS Newton Green, one of Singapore's few net-zero commercial buildings. One of the key design strategies employed was to convert 10% of the floor area that was previously air-conditioned into naturally ventilated spaces. The building facade is also designed with bamboo slats, which provide shade while allowing for the cool natural breeze to flow through the building. Like Ms Carrie Tan, I encourage developers and building owners to embrace such design solutions to reduce energy consumption. Sir, to conclude, I thank Members for sharing their views and for their support towards the amendments to the Building Control Act. These amendments will enhance our decarbonisation efforts in the buildings sector and strengthen our building control regulatory framework. With this, Mr Speaker, I beg to move. 7.50 pm”
“In fact, it is in our interest to ensure that this is the case so that more will benefit from our schemes and our policies can be implemented more smoothly and effectively, too. Finally, Sir, I would like to address the clarifications and comments relating to innovations in the green building space. Mr Louis Ng asked if we have worked with entrepreneurs to trial green building products and services through the GERI. As Mr Louis Ng mentioned, the regulatory sandboxes under GERI cover areas, such as carbon services, EVs, energy and sustainable aviation and maritime. Although the buildings sector is not one of the areas under GERI, there are existing programmes by BCA that drive innovation and support the test-bedding of new green building solutions. One such programme is the Green Buildings Innovation Cluster 2.0 (GBIC 2.0), a programme which supports the research, development and demonstration of building energy efficiency technologies and innovations. Some examples of innovative solutions that are being developed and test-bedded under GBIC 2.0 include alternative cooling technologies as well as AI or machine learning solutions that help to optimise building systems. Just last week, at the International Built Environment Week, we announced an exciting demonstration project by South Beach Tower Office under GBIC 2.0. They will be receiving up to $1.6 million of funding support to implement novel solutions to enhance the energy efficiency of the tower's air-conditioning systems, with the goal of achieving 75% energy efficiency improvement from 2005 levels. On this topic of green building solutions, Ms Carrie Tan also raised the suggestion of incentivising the development of more naturally ventilated buildings.”
“Non-enterprise owners intending to retrofit their buildings, such as MCSTs can tap on the GMIS-EB 2.0 to do so. Mr Lee had also asked for an update on the expansion of the Energy Efficiency Grant, or EEG. With the expansion, the EEG will be eligible to local companies in sectors such as retail, food services and data centres, as well as their users. Such companies and users, who may be tenants of energy-intensive buildings, will be able to tap on the EEG to co-fund energy efficiency equipment. This will contribute to their buildings' efforts to reduce energy consumption. Additionally, the EEG will be expanded to the construction industry and will provide co-funding support to construction firms to adopt energy-efficient construction equipment. While the GMIS-EB 2.0 and the EEG for the construction industry both seek to drive greater sustainability within the built environment sector, unlike the GMIS-EB 2.0 which is aimed at reducing emissions at the building operations phase, the EEG targets emissions at the construction phase. Since the announcement, our agencies have been consulting industry stakeholders and experts to identify key construction equipment that would be most impactful to greening the construction process. Some examples include eligible Battery Energy Storage Systems, electric excavators, wheel loaders and crawler cranes that are more energy-efficient than their diesel equivalents. Interested construction firms may apply for EEG on the Business Grants Portal from the end of this year. We also share Mr Lee's sentiments on the importance of ensuring that our grant application and regulatory processes are duly streamlined.”
“0 to undertake energy efficiency retrofits to improve their energy performance and avoid being identified for the MEI regime since we first announced it at Committee of Supply 2023. Mr Ng and Ms Nadia asked about the utilisation of the GMIS-EB 2.0 and if there are plans to refresh the scheme. Since its launch in 2022, we have approved 11 applications and committed about $1.3 million in funding support to building owners. We expect the utilisation to increase with the implementation of the MEI regime. We are also undertaking a mid-term review of the scheme to consider ways to enhance support to building owners. Mr Mark Lee had suggested for us to consider expanding the GMIS-EB 2.0 to support building owners of smaller buildings, given that the scheme is currently only applicable to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above. We had scoped the support scheme to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above to align with the coverage of our minimum sustainability requirements, which only apply to buildings of this kind. This is to reduce regulatory burden and compliance costs for smaller buildings. Given that our intent is to further encourage these existing buildings that are required to meet minimum sustainability standards to go above and beyond to achieve even higher standards, we have pegged the GMIS-EB 2.0 eligibility criteria to buildings that are 5,000 sqm and above. Mr Mark Lee had also asked to consider expanding Enterprise Singapore's (ESG's) Enterprise Financing Scheme-Green, or EFS-Green, to non-enterprise owners so that building owners, such as MCSTs can benefit. The EFS-Green is meant to support our local businesses to develop capabilities, build track record and tap on growth opportunities in the green economy by enabling access to financing.”
“Such applications to meet a lower EUI reduction percentage will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis. Building owners must, however, demonstrate that they have made good attempt to meet the 10% EUI reduction but encounter genuine difficulties in doing so. To address Mr Ng's question if financial constraints would constitute a basis for the EUI building to be deemed as impracticable to meet the 10% EUI reduction, the short answer is no. Building owners who are unable to afford the cost of energy efficiency improvement measures on their own can explore various financing options or business models. For example, there are existing green financing options from financial institutions that provide upfront financing for energy efficiency projects. Building owners may also consider engaging in energy performance contracting models with energy services companies. Some of such energy performance contracting models include an agreement where the energy services companies or third-party financing firm finances the retrofits, which is subsequently repaid through the resulting energy savings. On this note, let me address the clarifications and suggestions that Members have raised regarding support to affected building owners to comply with the MEI regime. While funding will not be directly provided to building owners to meet the requirements under the MEI regime, as mentioned earlier, building owners who choose to undertake more significant retrofitting works can tap on the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0, or GMIS-EB 2.0. In fact, building owners would have been able to tap on the GMIS-EB 2.”
“The CBC may also cancel the MEI audit notice if an energy-intensive building has already applied to carry out major retrofitting works or major energy use change. In such cases, these buildings will be subject to minimum environmental sustainability standards and there is no need to impose an additional regulatory regime on them to improve their energy performance. The merits of each request for cancellation will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis. Mr Mark Lee raised a valid point about existing buildings that may be structurally difficult to retrofit and suggested flexibility clauses to cater to such buildings. To reiterate, the MEI regime is outcome-based. It does not prescribe that building owners must undertake retrofits in order to meet the 10% EUI reduction. Building owners have the autonomy and flexibility to implement measures that are most appropriate for their buildings, as long as the 10% EUI reduction is met. Nonetheless, we agree with Mr Lee on the importance of providing sufficient flexibility in our regulations to cater for exceptional cases. As such, we have built in various flexibility clauses into the Act. One such flexibility clause is on the 10% EUI reduction requirement. Mr Ng and Ms See asked about examples where it may be considered impracticable for the building owner to meet the 10% EUI reduction and the grounds on which BCA may accede to lowering the EUI reduction percentage. One example is if the efficiencies of existing energy consuming systems are already high and optimised, such that there is limited scope for further improvement. In such scenarios, BCA may assess that it is reasonable to impose a lower EUI reduction percentage.”
“Specific to Ms See's query about ensuring that building owners set aside adequate resources to comply with the regime, as mentioned, we have conducted engagements with building owners who are likely to be affected by the regime. The early engagements give them time to plan for resources needed before the regime comes into effect in the third quarter next year. Building owners are also given three years from the submission of the audit report to implement the energy efficiency improvement measures. This should provide sufficient time for building owners to stage the resourcing needed to implement their plans. Ms Nadia also asked if there may be plans to prescribe an absolute EUI reduction figure instead of the 10% reduction in the future. We have gone with a percentage reduction as the EUI of buildings can differ quite significantly, even if they are of the same building typology and in the 75th percentile. Given that a percentage reduction is fairer than an absolute figure reduction, we do not foresee that we might prescribe an absolute EUI reduction figure in the future. Moving on, let me address the clarifications around the topic of waivers and exemptions. Ms Nadia asked about the grounds on which an MEI audit notice that has been issued may be cancelled under the new section 22FK. The CBC may cancel the MEI audit notice if he or she assesses that it would not be reasonable to require the building owner to comply with the regime. Examples include if the building is scheduled for redevelopment or will be vacated in the immediate future. Building owners will need to provide the necessary evidence of such plans to the CBC.”
“That said, BCA has also engaged owners whose buildings may be subject to the MEI regime. They have shared about the possible types of measures that building owners can implement, as well as their estimated costs and typical payback periods. On contractors, BCA is not able to provide such a list as the types of works that can be implemented are wide-ranging. Building owners may work with their PEs or energy auditors to engage suitable contractors to carry out the works. Ms Jean See asked about the length of the prescribed maintenance period and if there are any further expectations of building owner when this period expires. As mentioned earlier, building owners are to maintain the improved EUI reduction for a year after the completion of the energy efficiency improvement measures. This one-year period will be applied consistently to all buildings under the MEI regime. Upon expiry of this maintenance period, building owners are considered to have fulfilled requirements under the MEI audit notice. That said, it is in the interest of building owners to continue monitoring the energy performance of their buildings and ensure that the improvements made continue to be effective in reducing their building's energy consumption. To Ms Nadia and Ms See's query about efforts that BCA will take to ensure that building owners remain on track to fulfil the requirements of the MEI regime, building owners will be required to submit their building's energy performance data annually. This will allow BCA to track their progress. The CBC may also issue a written direction to building owners to submit progress reports.”
“Mr Mark Lee had also raised concerns about industry capacity to cope with the demands of the MEI regime and potential increases in service prices. Today, there are about 500 Mechanical PEs, BCA-registered energy auditors and NEA-accredited Energy Services Companies, or ESCOs that can provide energy audit services. We have assessed this to be sufficient. Given that the number of buildings that would be subject to the MEI regime is expected to be fewer than 100, we do not expect a surge in demand that would cause service prices to increase. Next, let me address clarifications on the measures that building owners could implement to achieve the 10% EUI reduction and the maintenance period. Ms Nadia has rightfully pointed out that a building's energy consumption will include the share of energy used by individual tenants, beyond centralised systems. It would be the building owner's responsibility to work with their tenants to achieve the building's overall energy reduction goals. Building owners play an important role in influencing the energy consumption practices of tenants. They may consider implementing energy-saving policies or sustainability programmes to foster greater collaboration and cooperation from tenants. To Ms Nadia's query about the uptake of green leases in the past year, BCA does not collect such data. Ms Nadia also asked if BCA plans to share a list of approved works that buildings owners can implement and their estimated costs, as well as a list of contractors for such works. To clarify, the MEI regime is outcome-based. There is no prescribed list of approved works that building owners can or must undertake. The PEs or energy auditors are to recommend the suite of measures to achieve the 10% EUI reduction.”
“Mr Louis Ng had asked if Professional Engineers (PEs) registered in the field of Mechanical Engineering, or Mechanical PEs are equipped with the skills to perform energy audits and if we verify that they attend sufficient courses to ensure that their skills relating to green buildings are up to date. Sir, mechanical PEs have the necessary skillsets and expertise to conduct energy audits by virtue of the educational qualification, training and experience that they have attained in order to be registered. The Professional Engineers Board also prescribes the number of Professional Development Units that PEs must obtain every year, through partaking in continuing professional development initiatives. The selection of specific continuing professional development activities is left to individual PEs on account that the scope of practice for each PE is different and unique. As such, the PE is in the best position to decide on the specific training that would best advance their professional development. Mechanical PEs can continually sharpen their skillsets in areas relating to green buildings and energy audits by selecting relevant continuing professional development activities, such as through specialised training under the Singapore Certified Energy Manager programme, Green Mark certification courses, practical experience and self-directed learning. The energy audit requirements under the MEI regime are also similar to the requirements of the existing Periodic Energy Audit regime for cooling systems, which has been around since 2014. The skillsets required of Mechanical PEs and energy auditors under the MEI regime are therefore neither niche nor new and we do not expect that there will be any competency issues.”
“The MEI regime will, however, apply to buildings of the four broad building typologies, parts of which may house high energy consuming uses, such as data centre operations and laboratories. The EUI threshold for such buildings will be pro-rated based on the space distribution of such uses. And this approach of pro-rating the EUI threshold is to ensure a like-for-like comparison as far as possible. So, I hope that addresses Mr Mark Lee's concern. I thank him too for his suggestion to exclude the energy consumption from EV chargers when assessing a building's EUI. Given that EV chargers are a relatively recent addition to many buildings, we will need to collect more data to better understand the contribution of EV charging to our buildings' energy consumption. As EV adoption becomes more widespread in years to come, our data will become more robust and we would be better able to derive appropriate EUI thresholds that take into account the energy consumed for charging EVs. We will take this into consideration as we implement and refine the MEI regime in the coming years. Ms Nadia asked about our projected timeline to introduce the MEI regime and the plans after it is first introduced. In my opening speech, I shared that we intend to issue the first batch of MEI audit notices in the third quarter of 2025. We expect that there will be fewer than 100 energy-intensive buildings in this first batch. MEI audit notices will subsequently be issued on a yearly basis. Next, Members had also raised some clarifications and concerns regarding the professionals who may conduct the energy audits under the MEI regime.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Carrie Tan, Ms Jean See, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Nadia Samdin for their comments and support for the Bill. Let me address the issues they have raised. First, on buildings that are subject to the MEI regime. Mr Louis Ng asked about the criteria used to define energy-intensive buildings and if there are plans to review and progressively strengthen these criteria. As mentioned in the opening speech, energy-intensive buildings are those that have consistently exceeded the EUI threshold in the last three years. The EUI threshold is pegged at the 75th percentile of the EUI range for each building sub-typology and will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. The EUI threshold will be fixed for a period of five years from 2025. This is to give certainty to building owners. As the MEI regime is aimed at reducing the EUI of such energy-intensive buildings, we can expect the 75th percentile EUI for each building sub-typology to come down over time. BCA will monitor the outcomes of the MEI regime and review the threshold in five years’ time. Mr Mark Lee asked if the assessment of a building’s EUI and its EUI threshold will include high energy uses, such as manufacturing, data centres and EV chargers. To clarify, the MEI regime applies only to four broad building typologies, namely, commercial buildings, healthcare facilities, institutional buildings and sports and recreation buildings. It will not apply to buildings for industrial use, such as manufacturing, which are largely regulated under the Energy Conservation Act by the National Environment Agency (NEA). It will also not apply to standalone data centres which are managed by the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Economic Development Board.”
“To address this, clause 14 of the Bill amends section 49(2) of the Building Control Act to enable the Minister to make regulations pertaining to FIs. The regulations will set out the statutory duties for FIs to: (a) exercise due diligence in carrying facade inspections in accordance with the CP's instructions and directions; (b) personally supervise in full-time any other person or inspection company engaged by the CP to conduct the inspection; and (c) notify the CP immediately of any unsafe facade. BCA has consulted CPs and FIs involved in the PFI regime and they are supportive of the move to prescribe statutory duties for FIs. Mr Speaker, Sir, to conclude, this Bill is necessary to further our efforts in tackling climate change and enhancing the safety of our built environment. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Under this incentive scheme, building owners can receive up to 50% co-funding support to implement energy efficiency retrofits at various caps, depending on the level of Green Mark certification standard achieved. Third, building owners are given up to three years to implement the energy efficiency improvement measures from the submission of the audit report. This would give building owners sufficient time to plan and implement the measures to manage their costs. Ahead of today's Second and Third Readings, we have also taken extensive efforts to engage building owners who will likely be subject to the MEI regime when it is first implemented next year. BCA will continue to help these building owners prepare for and comply with the requirements of the new regime. In addition to the MEI regime, the Bill will also make a further amendment to the Building Control Act pertaining to the Periodic Facade Inspection (PFI) regime. The PFI regime was introduced in 2022 to enhance the safety of building facades by facilitating early detection of facade deterioration and ensuring that defects are rectified in a timely manner. Under the PFI regime, the building owner is to appoint a Competent Person (CP) to conduct the facade inspection. The CP may in turn appoint a facade inspector (FI) to assist in carrying out the facade inspections under his or her direction and supervision. Presently, while there are prerequisites that an individual must satisfy to become an FI, there are no statutory duties imposed on the FI in respect of the inspections conducted. This means that only CPs are held legally liable if inspections do not comply with regulatory requirements even though an FI's work could have a significant impact on the CP's final assessment of the condition of the facade.”
“This House would also be aware that Singapore's carbon tax will be further raised from $25 per tonne of emissions today to $45 in 2026, with a view to reaching between $50 and $80 by 2030. The carbon tax today is imposed on power generation companies and this is in turn reflected in higher electricity prices. Ahead of the subsequent increases in the coming years, it would be wise for owners of energy-intensive buildings to re-evaluate their electricity consumption and implement measures to reduce it and the MEI regime encourages them do just this. Let me also share about we have designed our policies to help building owners cope with the upfront cost of such measures. First, we have designed the MEI regime to be outcome-based. In other words, we do not stipulate the types of improvement measures that building owners need to undertake. Building owners have the autonomy to decide the measures to implement that are most appropriate for their buildings, as long as the required reduction is achieved. If assessed to be adequate, building owners can implement simple measures as mentioned earlier or other behavioural changes such as increasing their set temperature of their air conditioning by 1°C, which could result in about a 0.5% reduction in energy consumption. The upfront cost to implement these simple measures and behavioural changes is expected to be lower than the cost to implement more significant retrofitting works, which also means a shorter payback period. Next, owners who wish to undertake more significant retrofitting works to meet even higher sustainability standards can also tap on the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0, or GMIS-EB 2.0.”
“This is achieved through the energy cost savings, as well as downstream maintenance and manpower savings. Let me share the example of Thong Chai Building, a 10-storey office building at Chin Swee Road. The Thong Chai Building was completed in 1976 and is 48 years old. In 2022, the building owner completed energy efficiency retrofitting works to improve the building's energy performance. This was one of the projects supported under BCA's previous Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings and Premises. The retrofitting works included the upgrading of the existing chiller plant to a more efficient one, the redesign of the air-distribution system to better cater to the building's cooling demand, as well as the implementation of an energy management system with intelligent controls to more effectively monitor the performance of building systems. These measures have resulted in a significant reduction of the building's energy consumption by around 40%, which translates to a reduction in its annual electricity bills by the same extent. I am pleased to learn that with these energy efficiency improvement measures, the Thong Chai Building has outperformed the average energy consumption for office buildings and has been awarded BCA's Green Mark Platinum certification. Beyond this case example, extensive retrofitting works, such as those implemented by the Thong Chai Building, generally have an average payback period of around six years. This means that building owners should be able to offset the upfront cost of the retrofit through downstream cost savings within an average of six years. After this six-year period, owners will still continue to reap further savings over the rest of the building's lifetime.”
“Thereafter, the building owner is to ensure that the required improvement in EUI achieved by the measures in the EEIP is maintained for the period of one year. Sir, the MEI regime is an important and necessary addition to our suite of strategies to accelerate the decarbonisation of our built environment. It signals our commitment to bring all buildings, including the most energy-intensive ones, onto this journey of sustainable development. It also recognises that no effort is too small to make a difference. BCA has engaged extensively on the MEI regime over the last two years, conducting around 10 engagement sessions with over 500 stakeholders across the built environment value chain. I am pleased to share that building owners, energy auditors, consultants and key industry champions, such as the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore, the Institution of Engineers Singapore, the Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore and the Singapore International Facilities Management Association, are supportive of the regime. That said, we recognise that upfront cost may be a concern to building owners whose buildings are subject to the MEI regime. This is a legitimate concern, so let me share how the design of our policies will help mitigate some of these concerns. First, beyond the environmental case for implementing energy efficiency improvement measures, we need to recognise that there is also a strong business case for doing so, as building owners can stand to reap significant cost savings over the building's lifecycle. As such, building owners should think of these energy efficiency improvement measures as long-term investments that will pay for themselves in the years to come.”
“The new sections 22FJ and 22FK also provide for the CBC not to issue or cancel the MEI audit notice under certain conditions, for example, if a building is scheduled for redevelopment in the near future, or if the building is currently undergoing major retrofitting works or energy use change. These will be assessed by the CBC on a case-by-case basis. Third, the new sections 22FL to 22FU prescribe the duties of the owner whose building is subject to an MEI audit notice, as well as the specified individual appointed to carry out the energy audit. Upon being issued an MEI audit notice, the building owner is to appoint a specified individual within 90 days to carry out an energy audit of the building's major energy consuming systems, such as the building’s chiller and hot water systems. This specified individual can either be a Professional Engineer registered in the discipline of mechanical engineering, or an energy auditor registered with BCA. With the findings of the energy audit, the specified individual is to develop an Energy Efficiency Improvement Plan, or EEIP with proposed measures to reduce the building's EUI by 10% from pre-audit levels. Depending on the building’s existing condition and energy performance, these measures can range from simple, low-cost measures, such as the replacement of faulty parts and sensors, or the insulation of hot water systems, to more extensive retrofitting works, such as the replacement of the building's chiller systems. The building owner is then required to submit the audit report, which includes the EEIP, to BCA within one year from the issuance of the MEI audit notice and implement the measures in the EEIP within three years from the submission of the audit report.”
“For a start, the MEI regime will apply to commercial buildings, healthcare institutions, institutional buildings, as well as sports and recreation buildings that have a GFA of 5,000 square metres (sqm) and above. Today, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) already collects building energy consumption data from these buildings annually by way of a written notice. This data is used by BCA to establish national building energy benchmarks, which are published in BCA’s annual Building Energy Benchmarking Report, or BEBR. The publication of such data allows building owners to compare their electricity consumption patterns against the national average for their specific building typology, which in turn nudges them to proactively improve their buildings' energy performance. Therefore, in practice, the addition of the new section 22FF will not impose new reporting requirements on these building owners. Second, the new section 22FJ on the issuance of the MEI audit notice requires the CBC to issue a notice to owners of energy-intensive buildings. Energy-intensive buildings are defined as buildings that have exceeded the prescribed Energy Use Intensity, or EUI threshold for three consecutive years. EUI is a measure of the building's energy consumption normalised by its GFA. The EUI thresholds will be set out in subsidiary legislation for each building sub-typology. This considers the fact that different sub-typologies will have different energy use profiles. For a start, the EUI threshold will be pegged at roughly the 75th percentile of the EUI range for each of the sub-typologies. In other words, the buildings that will be subject to the MEI regime are those that are consistently in the top 25% of their building sub-typology in terms of energy consumption.”
“This translates to unnecessary emissions and avoidable costs that building owners incur over the lifetime of their buildings. It is in this context that we are proposing amendments to the Building Control Act to further enhance energy efficiency measures for existing buildings. Alongside other existing efforts, this enhancement will contribute towards meeting the first target of greening 80% of our buildings by GFA by 2030. As of July this year, we have greened close to 60% of our buildings by GFA. To tackle the emissions arising from this group of existing energy-intensive buildings, this Bill will introduce the Mandatory Energy Improvement, or MEI regime planned for the third quarter of 2025. In gist, the MEI regime requires owners of energy-intensive buildings to engage a professional to carry out an energy audit of the building's energy consuming systems. Thereafter, building owners are required to implement improvement measures to reduce the building's energy consumption and to maintain the improved building energy performance over a period of time. Sir, allow me to now go through the key amendments to the Building Control Act to enact the MEI regime. These amendments are consolidated under clause 5 of the Bill, which expands Part 3B of the Building Control Act on Environmental Sustainability Measures for Existing Buildings. First, under the new section 22FF on periodic reporting, we will introduce the requirement for owners of buildings that may be subject to the MEI regime to submit information on their building's energy use. This information is necessary for the Commissioner of Building Control (CBC) to assess if a building is energy-intensive and should be subject to the MEI regime.”
“They include raising minimum sustainability standards to ensure that new buildings are designed to be sustainable from the onset and existing buildings are upgraded to meet prevailing standards when they undergo extensive works. We have also set higher Green Mark standards for new building projects in key strategic areas, such as Marina South and Jurong Lake District, as well as for public sector buildings. To encourage and support developers and building owners to meet higher sustainability standards, we introduced two incentive schemes in 2021 and 2022 – the Built Environment Transformation Gross Floor Area incentive scheme and the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 for new and existing buildings respectively. We have also enhanced our investment in the Green Building Innovation Cluster 2.0 programme to advance research, development and demonstration of cutting-edge green building technologies. Our strategies thus far have been aimed at uplifting sustainability standards for new buildings and buildings undergoing major upgrades, as well as supporting developers and building owners who want to pursue much higher standards. Notwithstanding the significant progress that we have made, there is still room to do more. In particular, there are still existing buildings that are highly energy-intensive but are not required to improve their energy efficiency. This is because they do not undergo major retrofitting works or energy use change. These buildings may not have been designed with sustainability in mind or may not be operated or maintained efficiently. As a result, there is significant energy wastage, sometimes amounting to more than a quarter of the buildings' overall energy use.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Buildings account for around 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions and more than a third of our electricity consumption. Hence, there is much that the built environment sector can do to contribute to our drive towards sustainability. Our journey to green our built environment began about two decades ago in 2005, with the introduction of the Green Mark scheme. It was the first green building certification scheme that catered specifically for buildings in the tropical climate. The scheme formed the backbone of the first Singapore Green Building Masterplan, or SGBMP, which was launched in 2006. Since then, we have continually refreshed the SGBMP to expand the reach and impact of our green building efforts. The fourth and most recent edition of the SGBMP was launched in 2021. As reflected in its title "Building our Green Future Together", this edition of the SGBMP was co-developed with over 5,000 individuals across the built environment value chain as well as the wider community. It sets out three ambitious targets, or "80-80-80 in 2030". The first target is to green 80% of our buildings by gross floor area, or GFA, by 2030. Buildings are considered green when they meet minimum environmental sustainability standards which are set out in our regulations. The second target is for 80% of new developments to be certified as Super Low Energy, or SLE buildings, a much higher sustainability standard, from 2030. The third target is for our best-in-class buildings to achieve 80% improvement in energy efficiency from 2005 levels by 2030. We have employed a wide range of strategies over the years to achieve our targets.”
“So, I think outside of these cases where either, there is already a framework and the members of the public know it but they want to appeal nonetheless; or cases where because of changing circumstances, we do need the appeals process in order to ensure that the outcome is fair for the member of the public; we will, nonetheless, continue to review and streamline our schemes wherever possible.”
“I thank the Member for his concern about the workload in HDB and, indeed, we are constantly looking for ways to streamline our officers' workload, so that their time can be spent more productively in serving Singaporeans. I believe the Member's interests will be in housing-related appeals, so I should add that in the numbers that I have shared with him just now, it includes appeals for parking related offences, which constitute approximately about 40% of the appeal load. Housing-related appeals would be the bulk of the remainder. And we will be reviewing our schemes quite regularly, to make sure that they meet the evolving needs of Singaporeans. That said, sometimes we do receive appeals where actually there is already a very clear framework. I will give an example of residents or members of the public appealing to ask for priority allocation of a Build-To-Order (BTO) flat. I think this is quite familiar to Members of this House. We have a very clear framework for the application of BTO; there is a ballot. Nonetheless, there will be members of the public who feel that they should get priority allocation of a flat or even direct allocation of a flat. And much as we already have a framework in place, if such an appeal comes, we will duly look at it and also reply. So, that constitutes some of the volume. There are also cases where, there are changing circumstances of the individual appellant, for instance, their financial circumstances. In fact, I believe, the question just now posed by Mr Dennis Tan relates to this. For deserving cases, we will look at these appeals and provide an answer accordingly.”
“Sir, from 2019 to 2023, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received an annual average of around 854,000 pieces of correspondence, which include appeals, feedback and enquiries from members of the public. Appeals comprise a subset of these, averaging around 177,000 appeals per year. These appeals spanned a wide range of issues, such as eligibility for purchase of HDB flats, HDB housing loans and housing grants, housing maintenance issues, public rental housing and parking offences. HDB takes into consideration the unique circumstances of each case when assessing appeals, and the outcome of each appeal will depend on their individual merits. The Ministry of National Development (MND) and HDB regularly review our housing policies and schemes to ensure that we cater to the evolving needs and aspirations of Singaporean households, and to meet national objectives.”
“The Ministry of National Development is currently reviewing the Town Councils Financial Rules to ensure that they remain relevant to the Town Councils' evolving operating context. The threshold of procurement value which triggers the need for a tender to be called by Town Councils is one of the items under review. The details will be shared with all Town Councils when ready.”
“There may be some HDB-owned coffee shops that do not do well, perhaps due to low footfall. In such cases, where the stalls are concerned, generally, we leave it to the operators to decide how to attract new tenants. But if the entire coffee shop is not doing well, then, at the point of rent renewal, HDB is prepared to reduce rent if it is warranted. And if the operator returns the coffee shop to HDB, then, we will re-tender on the basis of PQM. Because we do not have a guide rent, therefore, if all the bids that we receive are lower than the rents we have gotten in the past, then, it is possible for the rents to go even lower.”
“Under the Town Council's Act, section 47(5), Town Councils are already allowed to use LRF for any capital expenditure related to the replacement of lifts in residential or commercial property, including items that are replaced at less than 10 years' intervals and lift upgrading works under HDB's LUP in residential property or commercial property. Examples of uses would include the replacement of lift position display panels, replacement of lift inverters, replacement of hoisting ropes and the sheaves of lifts and so forth. And the LRF can also be used for capital items, such as automatic rescue device and the main controller PCB, which Mr Gerald Giam has mentioned, which are not listed in the cyclical maintenance work schedule. And if the Town Councils would like to clarify or if they are in doubt, they can always check with us.”
“So, this has also been helpful because the visitors have given us very useful feedback and they thought that this hands-on method is very good for internalising pro-social norms. In fact, we had very good feedback from young people and children. Another way in which we support public education and community education is through working with AfAs. We have had a very positive experience on the AfAction on joss paper burning norms. We have included a wide variety of stakeholders. This includes cultural experts, includes representatives from religious organisations, from the media, from community volunteers, as well as even supermarkets that sell joss paper and related offerings. I think this method of leveraging cultural awareness and knowledge, and getting the information to the people who are making decisions that could have downstream implications on their neighbours, I think that has also given us insights which we can apply to other areas and other municipal issues.”
“In response to Miss Cheryl Chan's clarification, indeed the MSO has been adopting a variety of methods to undertake community education. The Love Our 'Hood initiative has one example that Members might recall, and it is us working with the volunteers and grassroots leaders from Mountbatten. They call themselves The Mountbatten Parking Heroes and what our funding did was to assist this group of volunteers in designing and installing creative signages to deter illegal parking in specific spots in Mountbatten. This has gotten quite good results, because from 2021 to 2022, the feedback volume on illegal parking at specific intervention sites fell by some 26%. And when the initiative was reported in the media, it also got some attention from other communities that were inspired and wanted to do similar activities. What the MSO has done is to share this playbook with other neighbourhoods that have similar illegal parking issues such as Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon South, and those that are interested can then take a leaf from this experience. We also do community education in other ways. One was through the noise experiential lab that we set up last year and ran for a few months. Close to 900 persons visited it. It was set up in an HDB setting which allows visitors to explore how noise that is created through everyday activities can travel inter-floor and also to role-play the different interventions that residents could do, for instance by interacting with neighbours, asking them to keep their noise down, testing out the effects of, for instance, using mats or furniture, socks, and seeing the reduction in the noise experience by someone in another neighbouring unit.”
“As long as the issues reported by users are straightforward, Government agencies cannot simply instruct contractors to address the issues and then respond to users. They must confirm that the work has been successfully completed before closing the case and providing a response; and if possible, include photos to demonstrate that the issue has been properly resolved. (In English): Chairman, back to English. I have shared on our efforts to ensure our neighbourhoods and flats continue to meet residents' evolving needs and remain vibrant, even as they age. Concurrently, we will also deepen partnerships with the community to co-create and co-deliver solutions, as well as adopt new operating models for municipal services delivery. Together, we strive to achieve improvements in Singaporeans' living environment.”
“The public expressed broad support for stronger Government intervention in these severe cases during consultations in 2023. To Mr Derrick Goh's question, the initial pilot team is working closely with grassroots volunteers, HDB and other agencies to familiarise itself with case handling. It will be able to do more when we have legislated the requisite powers, alongside enhancements to the mediation framework and the CDRT process. We hope to complete this by the end of 2024 and I look forward to support from Members of this House when we do so. Chairman, in Mandarin please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Starting from last year, the Government has gradually introduced a budget meal plan in the coffee shops owned by HDB. As for the 402 sold public housing estate coffee shops, we have invited operators to join the budget meal plan and are studying other proposals, including the requirement for private coffee shops applying to renew their Outdoor Refreshment Area applications to provide budget meals. HDB has begun to require new buyers of private coffee shops to provide budget meals upon taking over the coffee shop. We will explore ways to encourage more operators to sell budget meals. MSO launched the "OneService" App in 2015. Many residents who have used the app find it convenient and easy to use. However, some users occasionally observe that although the relevant authorities have responded saying they will address their feedback, the issues have not been thoroughly resolved. MSO has gradually worked with the relevant Government agencies to raise the requirements, for them to treat residents' feedback more rigorously.”
“Second, we have reorganised the delivery of 10 common municipal services in Tampines. These common municipal services are now delivered by a single operator instead of individual agency contractors. It no longer matters "which agency's issue" it is, as service delivery will be seamless to residents. This is complemented by worker cross-training, empowering a combined team with operations technology and rewarding efforts to address municipal issues thoroughly, address root causes of recurrent issues and undertake preventive maintenance and repair. The initial pilot has been encouraging. The speed of feedback resolution has doubled, while resident satisfaction has improved by 20 percentage-points, all while using less manpower. In our next phase of experimentation, we have expanded this to Pasir Ris-Punggol to see if we can achieve similar efficiencies over a larger area. If it continues to produce good results, we will scale this to more estates. Finally, let me provide an update on our efforts on tackling neighbour noise disputes. Last year, MCCY, MinLaw and MSO shared our multi-pronged, community-led approach to tackling neighbour noise disputes. Complementing this, MSO has set up an initial team of dedicated personnel, on a pilot basis, who will leverage stronger laws and technology to investigate and enforce against the small number of severe neighbour noise disputes. As Members may have heard in Second Minister Edwin Tong's MinLaw Committee of Supply speech, we will also be enhancing the mediation framework and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) process. For example, the mediation framework will be adjusted to resolve more neighbourhood disputes at an earlier stage, including through mandatory mediation.”
“Later this year, residents can look forward to giving feedback by providing only photos and location of the issue to Kaki, making it even more convenient to provide feedback on-the-go. Second, we want to empower residents by lowering barriers for residents to initiate community action. MSO will continue to avail resources, advice and small-scale funding for residents to start their own projects that encourage pro-social norms. For example, through our Love Our 'Hood co-creation projects, residents can develop and refine their ideas in workshops and subsequently implement them in their neighbourhoods. Residents can also seek funding by tapping onto MSO's Love Our 'Hood Fund. To date, 13 projects have received such support and we encourage residents with good ideas to apply. Alongside such community engagements, MSO will continue to pioneer new operating models that improve the Government's response to municipal issues. First, we have taken decisive steps to address a persistent pain point for feedback providers. Today, agencies occasionally close straightforward feedback cases ahead of the works being completed as their KPIs are weighted towards the speed of reply. As part of our Resolution 360 (R360) initiative, we are addressing this disconnect. We now require more categories of straightforward cases to be closed not when agencies have instructed their contractors to take action, but only when the work has actually been completed with photo evidence where practicable. Such cases include requests for cleaning, local infrastructure maintenance and vector control. We applied this requirement to a small subset of agency-owned OneService cases in 2020 and by the end of the year, this will be required of all straightforward agency-owned OneService cases.”
“HDB has started requiring new buyers of privately-owned coffee shops to offer budget meals when they take over the premises. We will study whether to extend these conditions further. Next, l will share how we intend to work with the community to co-create solutions to deal with municipal issues in our estates. More than 200,000 Singaporeans participated in the Forward Singapore exercise. When I sat in for some of these conversations, I was encouraged that many Singaporeans care about forging pro-social norms in the community and have concrete ideas on how to go about it. At the same time, as Miss Cheryl Chan has pointed out, the Municipal Services Office (MSO) is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. MSO has come a long way from our early days, focused on improving coordination of service delivery among the now 10 Government agencies and 17 Town Councils. Going forward, we will do more to deepen engagement with residents and community partners. We strongly encourage community partners to share their ideas and work with us to create norms which help us keep our living environment harmonious and well-maintained. Through our various pilots, we are also developing new operating models that we can adopt to improve our response to municipal issues. I will share more on this later. We will deepen engagement in two ways. First, we will continue to leverage technology for convenient municipal feedback reporting by observant residents. Feedback providers can now use a range of digital channels, including the OneService app and LifeSG; or interact with Kaki, the OneService Chatbot, on familiar platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram and Instagram.”
“More will come onboard as their tenancies are progressively renewed. By 2026, all 374 coffee shops rented from HDB will offer budget meals. 1.45 pm To the point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has made, I wish to clarify that for HDB coffee shops let out via PQM tender, we require at least six stalls to provide one budget meal each alongside two budget drinks. And for renewals of HDB-owned coffee shops that are rented out, we require four budget meals and two budget drinks. This ensures a range of food and drink options at affordable prices. I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his support of the PQM tender framework as well as the suggestions that he has made and we will refine the framework further if necessary. In a related move, we launched BudgetMealGoWhere last year, an online platform that helps the public find coffee shops offering budget meals and drinks. With the help of GovTech, we also launched the Great Budget Meal Hunt in January this year, where the public can share their recommendations of affordable meals. The response has been enthusiastic. Since its soft launch in October last year, we have added over 290 user-submitted budget meals and drinks to the platform. We have received more than 1,900 recommendations and 2,800 verifications of budget meals from the public, which will be progressively added to the BudgetMealGoWhere portal. As for the 402 HDB coffee shops that were sold and hence now privately-owned, we have been engaging them to join the Budget Meal initiative and are studying other measures, including Mr Murali’s suggestion to make budget meal provisions compulsory for privately-owned coffee shops who want to renew their Outdoor Refreshment Area (ORA) applications.”
“We also have Neighbourhood Centres and precinct shops distributed across the town. HDB also imposes trade mix controls to ensure that residents' basic needs are met. For town and neighbourhood centres, HDB allows for greater market flexibility as the larger number of shops provides sufficient opportunity for market forces to determine a good trade mix. HDB adopts the Price-Quality Method (PQM) tender mechanism to attract quality retailers whereby HDB considers factors other than tender bid prices, such as affordability, business concepts and community-centric initiatives. To further enhance the vibrancy of our commercial precincts, we will be trialling the refreshment of commercial clusters through placemaking and trade curation at three pilot sites – Ang Mo Kio Town Centre, Bukit Gombak and Tampines West Neighbourhood Centres. As shared by my co-chair in the Heartland Digitalisation and Revitalisation Committee, Minister of State Low Yen Ling, this will be done in collaboration with MTI and Enterprise Singapore (ESG). Our HDB and Town Council colleagues, alongside local stakeholders, will also be supporting MTI and ESG's Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant for heartland enterprises keen to champion ground-up placemaking events. HDB is also working on developing trade mix plans for these pilot sites together with residents, merchants and other stakeholders. Finally, Singaporeans want more affordable cooked food options in their estates. Last year, I shared about our budget meals initiative in HDB-owned coffee shops. We have made good progress and I thank Mr Murali Pillai for tracking this initiative and giving his views on how we can improve it. More than 130 coffee shops rented from HDB are already offering budget meals and drinks.”
“In the case of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, it was involved in the LUP Working Committee formed for block 833, Hougang Central which I believe is in the Mr Dennis Tan's ward. In addition, HDB does take into account ground concerns from residents who might not be part of the benefiting units but feel affected by lift upgrading solutions or from the MPs whom they might approach. Usually, these concerns can be resolved, for example, by the addition of privacy fins. Let me turn to Mr Gerald Giam’s suggestions relating to the Lift Replacement Fund, or LRF. The current minimum contribution rates for Town Councils' LRF and Sinking Funds help Town Councils set aside sufficient funds for various cyclical replacement works. The restricted use of these funds serves as a form of fiscal discipline. In particular, the LRF was introduced in 2017 because Town Councils had been significantly under-saving for lift replacements. Lift replacements are very infrequent but involve heavy draw-down of funds when they are due, as lifts built in the same period will need to be replaced around the same time. Hence, the LRF allows Town Councils to pay for any capital expenditure relating to lift replacements in HDB estates, including those raised by Mr Gerald Giam. We will continue to review the framework periodically to ensure that they keep pace with changes to the operating context. Let me now turn to ensuring vibrancy of our neighbourhoods. I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Chong Kee Hiong for the suggestions they have raised. HDB towns are designed to give all residents convenient access to amenities and shops, often within 400 metres of their homes. At the heart of every HDB town is a Town Centre, a key commercial hub providing a wide range of goods and services.”
“LUP has brought direct lift access to around 5,000 blocks and today, around 99% of all HDB blocks were either built with direct lift access or have benefitted from LUP. Members will recall that many of these blocks were built when our population was a lot younger and when physical mobility was not an issue. Because same floor lift access was not required as a condition of design, there were some blocks that were designed in such a way that the retrospective adding of lift shafts and lifts is technically very difficult or even unfeasible. What HDB has been doing is to trial new technology and to apply new methods wherever possible. So, this has included, in the past, using machine-room-less lifts as well as the use of smaller home lifts to bring lift upgrading to blocks that previously were very difficult for us to add lifts to. However, although we have worked hard to shrink the pool of blocks that cannot undergo LUP over the years, there remain some blocks where LUP is currently not feasible due to cost or technical constraints. In some of these cases, the cost can be more than $200,000 per benefiting household. Therefore, we have measures for households that urgently need direct lift access or those who live in blocks that cannot undergo LUP. We offer a Lift Access Housing Grant of up to $30,000 to help these homeowners buy a flat with direct lift access. Mr Dennis Tan has made points on consulting ground feedback for LUP. I wish to clarify that HDB values the inputs of Town Councils when it comes to LUP works because HDB recognises that it is the Town Councils that will have to maintain the lifts when built.”
“When undergoing HIP, flats will undergo repairs for spalling concrete and structural cracks, which HDB fully subsidises. HIP II will be offered when the first batch of flats reach their 60- to 70-year mark. HDB is currently working out the prioritisation and implementation details. To Mr Pritam Singh's question on the challenges and delays in implementing upgrading works, various factors may contribute to delays, including unforeseen site conditions, manpower availability, cashflow issues and disruptions in supply of materials. For projects managed by HDB, HDB will work with the relevant contractor to understand the causes for the delays and render the appropriate assistance to get the project back on track. If the contractor can no longer fulfil its obligations, it may novate the contract to another firm, subject to HDB's approval. As a last resort, HDB can also exercise its right to terminate the contract and appoint another firm to complete the project. Another challenge that we face is rising costs. To Mr Ang Wei Neng’s question, we have been reviewing and adjusting programme budgets, taking into consideration prevailing macroeconomic conditions and changes in tender price indices. For example, in 2022, we increased the NRP budget by $850 per flat for then-ongoing NRP projects, in response to the impact of COVID-19. With the continued increase in costs, we are prepared to further increase the NRP budget. We will inform Town Councils of details when ready. We have also been flexible, acceding to ad-hoc appeals for additional budget due to increases in material and manpower costs. Next, Members have also raised lift-related concerns. First, on Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Ang Wei Neng's questions on the Lift Upgrading Programme, or the LUP.”
“We announced last November that HDB will roll out similar senior-friendly enhancements to more than 20 of such precincts in the towns of Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Merah, Queenstown and Toa Payoh over the next five years. The roll-out of these silver upgrading works will be progressive, starting with a pilot in Ang Mo Kio. To Mr Henry Kwek's question, HDB will engage Town Councils, the grassroots and residents on the implementation of these works. HDB will share more with Town Councils when ready. Newer estates will also have senior-friendly amenities. In fact, they are designed from the start to be age-inclusive to encourage inter-generational bonding, a topic brought up by Ms Nadia Samdin. For example, HDB has introduced 3-Generation or 3G recreation spaces, with fitness corners and playgrounds placed side by side. Such playgrounds enable residents of different age groups to interact with one another. We also co-locate childcare and elderly facilities where possible. To Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question, I would like to assure Members that there are inspection regimes in place today to detect and rectify building deterioration in a timely manner. The Building Control Act requires regular building inspections by professionals. These include checks for spalling concrete and structural cracks, for both common areas and within the flat. As for spalling concrete within the flat, if reported by residents, HDB will let the flat owner know about the Goodwill Repair Assistance Scheme, under which HDB will subsidise 50% of the repair costs. In the longer term, every flat will be upgraded twice, the first when they are about 30 years old, through the Home Improvement Programme, or HIP; and the second, through HIP II, when they are about 60 to 70 years old.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts. Building a quality living environment continues to be a priority for MND. We proactively upgrade and revitalise our neighbourhoods, housing estates and flats, in line with the evolving needs, lifestyles and aspirations of Singaporeans, We will do more, together with our public and private sector partners, in three areas. First, physically upgrading our towns and flats. Second, ensuring that neighbourhoods have a range of affordable and accessible amenities and shops. Third, improving municipal service delivery and outcomes. First, let me share how we are upgrading our towns and flats. To better support ageing-in place, MND, MOH and Ministry of Transport announced a set of initiatives under Age Well SG last November. These include physical upgrading to enhance our neighbourhoods and flats to be more senior-friendly. A key component involves extending the upcoming fifth phase of the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, or NRP, to HDB blocks built up to 1999. This will benefit more than 100,000 additional flats, as previously, only blocks built up to 1995 were eligible. Under this new phase, we will build more senior-friendly amenities, such as therapeutic gardens with wheelchair-friendly planter boxes, fitness trails connecting senior-centric amenities and wayfinding features. These amenities enhance the safety and connectivity of our neighbourhoods while helping seniors stay active and navigate confidently around their neighbourhoods. The first batch of precincts to be upgraded under the fifth phase of NRP will be selected by the end of this year. Some older precincts have already undergone upgrading and do not qualify for NRP.”
“Sir, I have with me a list of areas that are excluded from the framework where IMDA sets out a baseline requirement of 85% coverage. The areas excluded are those where human traffic is transient. These include bomb shelters, store rooms, toilets within individual premises, lifts, plant rooms, mechanical and engineering (M&E) rooms, lift motor rooms, lift houses, water tank areas, warehouses, ventilation facilities, vaults, in-building car parks located at second levels of basements and below, all in-home basements of private landed residential properties, mechanical and plant facilities, rooms and emergency stairways.”
“I thank Dr Tan. As I have explained, at the moment, there are no planning requirements for mobile coverage within HDB lifts. And my understanding is that it is not included in IMDA's requirement for coverage because human traffic there is transient, along with other places within a building. Also, from the perspective of what happens when there is a breakdown and the possibility of rescue being required, I have also outlined the existing safety features that HDB lifts are equipped with. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there may be times where residents or volunteers notice that the mobile coverage in HDB lifts might be weak and would like it to be made stronger, in which case HDB will work with the telecommunications operators to discuss with them and also to see if coverage can be boosted. In the case of Clementi Peaks, we will follow up.”
“Lifts in Housing and Development Board (HDB) developments are designed and installed in compliance with the prevailing Codes and Regulations, and requirements set by relevant Authorities. As part of the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA’s) quality-of-service standards, mobile operators are required to provide more than 85% service coverage in each building. There is no requirement to provide mobile coverage inside lifts. It is challenging to ensure good mobile coverage inside lifts, due to the enclosed metallic structure of lifts. Lifts in HDB developments are equipped with and monitored by the Tele-Monitoring System (TMS), which can automatically detect a lift breakdown and alert the lift maintenance contractors. When the alarm button is pressed during a lift breakdown, an alert will be sent via the TMS to the Essential Maintenance Services Unit (EMSU), which will then dispatch a rescue team to assist anyone who may be trapped. Additionally, residents outside the lifts will be able to hear the alarm and can call the EMSU hotline displayed at the lift lobby for assistance. Lifts in HDB developments generally also have vision panels installed in the lift doors, which allow residents at the lift lobby to tell if a lift has broken down and whether there are affected users inside. The alarm button inside the lifts is usually one of the lowest buttons for easy reach and is checked regularly by the lift maintenance contractors.”
“Thank you for giving me the opportunity to also address Mr Xie Yao Quan's cut and I hope also some of the points raised by Ms Usha Chandradas. In terms of our support of other countries' capacity building efforts, this is something that we are committed to. We want to be constructive partners in supporting the development of other countries, because we recall how Singapore has benefited from the assistance of others during the early years of our Independence. So, we do this by sharing our development experiences through the Singapore Cooperation Programme, or SCP for short. In the last 30 years, over 150,000 officials from more than 180 countries, territories and inter-governmental organisations have participated in SCP in a wide range of capacity‑building courses, among which we are giving greater focus to sustainability. We have a Sustainability Action Package, or SAP, which supports efforts by developing countries to build resilience in water and food security, to manage and finance green projects and to develop sustainable infrastructure and carbon markets. For example, we are working more with the Pacific Islands, who are fellow small island developing states. Minister Vivian attended the 52nd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders' Meeting in November 2023. During the meeting, we announced the launch of the Singapore Pacific Resilience and Knowledge Sharing Technical Assistance Package. This is a customised three-year programme that aims to help the Pacific community build capacity to address some of the most pressing challenges that they have identified.”
“I thank Mr Joshua Raj for his questions. On the ratification of the ESPCA – that is what we call it, EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement – as well as Investment Protection Agreement, we are constantly working with the EU member states to have these agreements ratified because we negotiated them together and we believe that these are very important agreements that will complement the EU-Singapore FTA in bringing about greater certainty for our companies on both sides and also at the same time enhance the cooperation that we have at all levels with the EU. So, progress is ongoing. I am not able to give a timeframe, but this is something that we regularly bring up with our EU member state counterparts whenever we meet them. As for Germany, we in fact are pursuing cooperation in emerging areas such as the green and digital economies with many partners, Germany is one of them. But I am happy to share with the Member that we have a very strong foundation with Germany because we have already welcomed more than 2,200 German companies to Singapore which have created more than 4,500 jobs here. We also share close defence ties and this existing foundation enables us, I believe, to collaborate more effectively on new and emerging areas such as sustainability and innovation. This is something we look forward to.”
“We have developed a consular case management system that connects our overseas missions and headquarters digitally, which allows us to better track consular cases and better coordinate the provision of assistance to Singaporeans. We will also use this data to analyse trends and thereby sharpen our ability to deliver timely assistance.”
“Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address Mr Murali and I believe also Mr Xie Yao Quan's cut, on how MFA has leveraged technology to improve our consular services. One of the most important roles for MFA is to provide consular assistance to Singaporeans who are abroad. The volume is growing as more Singaporeans live, work and travel abroad. In 2023, MFA handled 4,419 consular cases and facilitated the issuance of 1,535 Documents of Identity. A Document of Identity is a temporary travel document for Singaporeans who have lost their passports and which enables them to return home. With diplomatic representation in just 56 countries, a constant challenge we face is how to provide assistance where we do not have a ground presence. To mitigate this, we continue to build a pool of professional first responders in MFA headquarters, who can render 24/7 consular support and assistance to Singaporeans overseas via phone and email. We also partner with other countries. For example, we worked with the Republic of Korea to help evacuate five Singaporeans from Tel Aviv to Seoul in October. We also partnered the Thai, Vietnamese and Chinese governments to evacuate Singaporeans from northern Myanmar last year. Mr Murali has asked how MFA assesses Singaporeans' satisfaction with consular services rendered to them. We place great importance on such feedback that we receive from members of the public. We are encouraged by positive feedback that we have regularly received from citizens, but we continue to actively evaluate comments and suggestions on areas that we can improve on. We are also embracing technology to help improve the quality of our services.”
“If we can achieve this, then we can continuously exercise our agency and find ways to keep Singapore safe and thriving. This is for the sake of all Singaporeans.”