Vivian Balakrishnan
Singapore
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not issue advisories on wait times at overseas airports. Travellers may wish to monitor airline and airport websites, as well as news reports for real-time information on wait times and potential disruptions at specific airports.”
“When the conflict in the Middle East deteriorated and commercial flights were halted in March 2026, the Singapore Government mounted four repatriation flights from Muscat, Riyadh and Jeddah to bring stranded Singaporeans home.”
“The Government has stepped up public engagement to explain our foreign policy fundamentals and responses to key international developments to Singaporeans and to hear their views. We do this through dialogue sessions across segments of society, including students, youths, businesses and community leaders.”
“And the larger point during the Committee of Supply was that precisely, because the world is in such a difficult, prickly, volatile and dangerous state, actually, if we keep our wits about ourselves, we maintain unity and we continue to have this clear eye-realistic, but principled, approach, there are many opportunities for Singapore.”
“Well, in short, I completely agree with you. And that is why we have indeed been hosting these events and in your own capacity as a national athlete and also as an official now, you have seen how it works in practice.”
“Since 2022, about half of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) employees are women. The proportion of women in senior appointments has remained stable at about a quarter. We recognise that overseas postings are disruptive for officers with families, especially female officers who bear greater caregiving responsibilities.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,437 lines we hold for Vivian Balakrishnan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 49.
“It is also worth bearing in mind that we have spent over S$300 million to build the Linggiu Dam and Reservoir in the upstream portion of the Johor River in order to increase the yield of the Johor River, and ensure that there remains sufficient water in Johor River even during a dry period, like what we are experiencing now. These investments on the Linggiu Dam and reservoir have enabled Singapore to continue to draw the 250 million gallons of raw water per day, and indeed, for the Malaysian plants upstream of us to continue drawing water for their own local production. In other words, all these additional investments have been a premium that we have paid for greater security and diversity of our water supply. Whilst we aim to attain self-sufficiency in our water supply before the expiry of the 1962 Water Agreement, which expires in 2061, in the mean time, we expect all parties to uphold the current agreement for as long as it is in force. Having said that, it is also worth emphasising that there is still a need for everyone in Singapore to play a part in water conservation. Non-household users – the Town Councils, MCSTs which manage the condominiums and private areas, commercial and industrial buildings – can reduce their water use through measures like only watering heritage trees or essential landscaping, reducing or stopping the operation of water features and carrying out washing activities only when absolutely necessary. This is related to the other point – that if we litter less, and we contaminate the environment less, washing and use of water will also be reduced. I will also be announcing other measures to encourage longer term water conservation efforts in the non-domestic sector next week during my Ministry's Committee of Supply session.”
“Mdm Speaker, we have been experiencing a dry spell since January 2014. In response, PUB has stepped up desalination to its full capacity of 100 million gallons per day. PUB has also increased NEWater production to more than 100 million gallons per day. The NEWater produced is a very pure source of water, and is mainly used by industries. Nevertheless, we have been able to produce additional NEWater which we have used to top up our reservoirs by as much as 35 million gallons a day. That is why we have been able to keep our reservoir stocks at a healthy level despite the lack of rain. It is sobering to bear in mind that all this additional capacity has only come about in the last decade. In fact, the most recent desalination plant which added 70 million gallons a day only came on line six months ago, in September last year. PUB has been making major investments to build up and diversify our water supply sources in order to strengthen our water security. This led to the introduction of NEWater and desalinated water into our water supply in the last decade. This supplements our local catchment – the 17 local reservoirs – as well as the water that we import from Johor. All these investments have borne fruit. Today, desalination and NEWater are sources which are resilient against drought or dry spells. Ms Ellen Lee asked a question yesterday, which I promised to answer today, on whether we still need to buy raw water from Malaysia, given the capabilities that we have developed in NEWater and desalination. Page: 8 Mdm Speaker, we have invested considerably in developing all our water sources – the Four National Taps. I want to state that imported water remains an essential part of our overall water supply.”
“Mdm Speaker, I am actually answering a question on this tomorrow. So, maybe the Member can wait a while and we will provide a more comprehensive answer. 11.37 am”
“Besides enforcement of regulations, we are also working with MND and MOT to encourage the Page: 129 construction industry to adopt better technology and improved construction practices to reduce noise.”
“Construction companies are legally obligated to keep noise levels below limits stipulated by NEA. The construction companies have to install and maintain noise meters to measure noise levels generated from their work sites. These noise meters are typically installed at the nearest affected building. For major projects of contract value more than $3 million and for projects which involve demolition or piling, contractors are required to install real-time noise monitoring systems. This system allows both NEA and contractors to monitor the noise levels online in real-time. For projects with contract value below $3 million, as well as projects that do not involve demolition or piling, the contractors are required to install standalone noise meters, and to submit their noise monitoring charts to NEA weekly. NEA officers conduct site inspections to ensure that the meters are installed properly. Court prosecutions will be taken against any contractors found to have tampered with the noise meters or their readings. From 2010 to 2012, alongside increasing construction activity, the number of cases where the noise levels exceeded the stipulated limits rose from 248 to 568 in 2011, and to 572 in 2012. With effect from 1 September 2011, construction work on new projects has not been allowed on Sundays and the eve of Public Holidays, that is, work ceases from 10.00 pm on Saturdays or eve of Public Holidays to 7.00 am on Mondays or the days after the Public Holidays. The number of cases where the noise levels exceeded the limits has come down to 483 in 2013. I would like to reassure Mr Baey that my Ministry and NEA recognise the impact noise has on residents' quality of living.”
“Hawker centres have evolved into an integral aspect of life in Singapore. They serve as focal points for the local community to have good affordable fresh food in an informal relaxed setting. That is why we changed policy after a hiatus of 26 years – to build new centres and sought fresh perspectives into improving the layout, design, workflow and management of our current centres. One key consideration has been to maintain stability of rentals – and, hence, I announced in 2011 that all hawker centres would be run on a not-for-profit basis. Hawker centres are social infrastructure – and not an opportunity for property speculation or rent seeking by commercial entities. Page: 131 A Hawker Centres Public Consultation Panel was convened in 2012. One of their recommendations was to explore the potential for social enterprises to act as managing agents for some hawker centres. They may be able to bring fresh ideas, improve branding, optimise tenant mix, achieve economies of scale and explore bulk purchasing. Consequently, NEA conducted a Request for Information (RFI) exercise in January 2014 to invite not-for-profit entities to share ideas on the management of four hawker centres whose leases under the Stall Ownership Scheme will expire on 31 May 2014. The four centres are Block 207 New Upper Changi Road, Block 117 Aljunied Avenue 2, Block 20 Ghim Moh Road and Block 503 West Coast Drive. Twelve organisations have responded to the RFI and NEA is studying their suggestions. We have not yet made any decisions on the appropriate management model. NEA will continue to manage these four hawker centres directly if there are no better management models.”
“The onus will be on the employer to make sure that they have sent their workers. Remember the whole objective here is to make things better and easier and more secure for the workers. We are not going to burden the workers and say, "Well, you have not gone, you are not going to receive that wage." Not at all. The burden would be on the employer. But I hope Members of this House will appreciate that we have tried very carefully to achieve the right balance. We do not want to squeeze the employer so hard that the whole business collapses. On the other hand, we got to make sure that everything we do makes life better for the worker. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“There are going to be far more job vacancies than cleaners available. The question will be whether the cleaner will want to work. And I think the answer to that question is – will he receive a fair wage? Will he receive good terms of employment? Will he be working for an enlightened employer? Beyond that – as I have said earlier – do not view this progressive wage as a magic bullet or the final solution. As I have said just now, there will still be Page: 97 low-wage workers, even at $1,600, they will still qualify for Workfare. And the entire suite of Government support for low-income families will apply. So, the point is that the amount of support which we will continue to give will be extensive, will be comprehensive and will be integrated.”
“Thank you and just quick answers. As far as this Bill is concerned and the imposition of licensing, we just want to focus on the workers first. As long as the worker has gone for that one module, he will qualify as a trained worker. If a company finds that there is greater value from sending more workers for additional training modules, for instance, the company may have some very sophisticated equipment or very sophisticated purchasers who want special services, we should not stand in their way. The point I want you to understand is that we are putting in just a minimum requirement and we will be guided. And I accept the Member's point that we should not train for training's sake and we should not unnecessarily inflate expenditure. I accept that point. The second point is that he was asking for the TCC to publish its deliberations. Again, in the spirit of not being overly intrusive, I will take this as a suggestion from the Member. We will convey that to the TCC but I do not want to prescribe that; I certainly do not want to make that mandatory within a legislative framework. As I have said before, this is a unique feature which we have in Singapore. This is tripartism that works. It has worked so far and without us having to be overly intrusive, without asking them to be overly officious, and everybody just takes official positions, digs trenches and becomes defensive about it. This has worked. Let tripartism work. The third issue is plans to help workers who are out of jobs. First of all, I really do not believe cleaners will suddenly find that there are no job openings. In fact, because of the shortage of labour and especially the reduction of foreign labour, I think the opposite is going to be true.”
“An example of a reasonable excuse will be if you, the owner, were to say you were overseas, the flat is unoccupied and the flat was burgled at that time, so clearly the owner did not know who was in the flat and who could have contributed to the high-rise litter. That is an example which the AGC has informed me. We will have a reasonable approach to this issue. Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying that, at the end of the day, our approach to this has to be based on values. The first value is fairness. That is why we want to give cleaners who work so hard a fair wage. Second value is that of responsibility. We are responsible not only for ourselves, our families and our own homes but also for our neighbourhoods. If there are irresponsible members in our community, we must be prepared to act against them, to deter them and to, hopefully, put them on the right track. Finally, let me thank all Members and, especially the trade union movement, because this Bill and this very major move to institutionalise progressive wages through licensing would not have been possible without the support and active formulation of the unions. 5.58 pm”
“So, we need to target where the problem is most difficult. On this point, I would also add that the Town Councils have to cooperate with the NEA, because if the Town Councils make it difficult for NEA to install these high-rise surveillance cameras, we cannot do our job, we cannot help you identify culprits and we cannot deter people in your precincts. There was an interesting suggestion about CWOs. Yes, I agree with the Member. I think CWOs should be publicised and I think we should make them do work in their own neighbourhoods. Hopefully, the fear of peer pressure from your own neighbours who know that you have littered your own area will make them think twice. In fact, to be honest, although I do not have the exact figure here, the recidivism rate, that means the rate of re-offence of the CWOs, is significantly lower. So, I will take the point that we, perhaps, should ask for more of such sentences in the future. I just want to address two other technical points. There was a question on whether the self-employed are covered by this Bill. The answer is no. If we read this Bill, it is really going after outsourcing companies which employ people or engage people in order to provide cleaning services to other entities. So, for a person who is directly self-employed and looking for casual work, this Bill will not impact their ability to find work or their ability to continue making a living. Reasonable excuse: that was a question from a lawyer, so I had to consult the AGC. This was basically with respect to asking an owner to furnish details Page: 95 of the people who are occupying the flat and, therefore, may have contributed to high-rise littering.”
“Otherwise, if you consider what we are doing now on the supply of foreign labour and if you are to suddenly make a quantum leap in wages for foreign workers, I think you will well and truly kill our local companies. So, no, I am not focusing on foreign labour sources for cleaners. I am focusing on ensuring that Singaporean cleaners get a fair and decent wage. The next list of issues was with regard to littering. All Members who spoke agreed that there was a need to enhance the penalties – regrettable but Page: 94 necessary. In fact, there is a deeper issue behind that. I think Ms Irene Ng alluded to that. If the probability of getting caught is low, then once in a blue moon, someone gets caught for littering, that person gets very angry, very surprised and very shocked, and says, "How come I am the one who gets booked and not someone else?" I have told NEA that, henceforth, we are going to adopt an approach of increased surveillance and we have to increase the probability of getting caught. The idea is not to catch more people or to collect more fines. In fact, by simply making it clear to everyone that if you are irresponsible and you litter, the probability of you being identified and prosecuted is high, I am hoping that increased deterrence will, in fact, mean fewer people get prosecuted, fewer people pay fines. After all, my ultimate objective is to reduce the amount of litter and to reduce irresponsible behaviour within our estates. There were other questions: "Do we need higher tech?" I think many Members, including Mr Png Eng Huat, supported the use of high-rise surveillance cameras. This cannot be the complete solution. It is one measure. But we cannot put high-rise surveillance cameras on all blocks of flats all the time.”
“I would rather that it be determined by people who are in that sector and, hence, the primacy of Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners. I would urge this House to have faith, let us see how this works. I am sure we will need to make adjustments over time and we will make the necessary adjustments. The next question was the implications on jobs and contracts. You are absolutely right. We must be extremely sensitive to whether or not we end up destroying jobs. That is the key worry when people start talking about minimum wages or wage floors. I have said just now we do not want to be ideological about this matter. I do not want to get into the theoretical discussions about the pros and cons of a minimum wage. But I just said we are primarily concerned about making sure that our cleaners continue to be able to get jobs that they want and they get paid a fair wage which, in any case, all the employers seem to believe they are entitled to and can achieve if there is a level playing field, if there is adequate training and there is adequate access to the technology. The next question, I think, was Ms Irene Ng's, "Why only locals?" Again, I do not want to get into an extended debate but the first point I would make is that my primary responsibility is to Singaporeans. Second point I would make is that when foreign workers come to Singapore, they come on agreed terms and there is no reason for us to insist that those terms be exactly identical to the terms of employment and to the wages of locals. They are coming from foreign lands with completely different cost structures. They come here with their eyes wide open, they come here voluntarily and we should allow that market to continue.”
“Next question and this was an important question: "Why did you choose this route of a Tripartite Cluster?" Mr Giam unfairly said, "This is a bunch of civil servants sitting down, micromanaging, deciding salaries." Absolutely not the case. The Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners consists of the unions, the employers and the people in the industry. I took pains just now in my opening speech to say this is not a minimum wage by political decree. I do not want that. I hope wages in the future will not be set by Members in this House. It should certainly not be set by the civil servants either. It should be set through a tripartite process of consultation and consensus involving employers, employee groups and the unions. Why do we want to do that? Because after almost 50 years of running Singapore, we have found that our model of tripartism is a key competitive advantage. Yes, I know it is not easy and, from time to time, there will be long arguments. But this system has worked well and our clear guidance to the Page: 93 Tripartite Cluster is that, "Whatever you do, do not kill this sector; do not destroy jobs, do not deny job prospects for the people in it." So, I would urge Mr Giam and others to give the Tripartite Cluster an opportunity. Let them prove that their recommendations are realistic and practical, both in terms of wages as well as terms of employment. And, again, I will give Members the assurance that we are not trying to burden our companies. You can ask me details and I will tell you I do not know the details because I do not want to wade into the details of exactly what is printed in the payslip, what is printed in the terms of employment.”
“I want to go after the bulk of contracts out there which operate on cheap-sourcing." I have explained all this at length so that Members understand why we took this step of licensing. It was not a step which this Government embarks on lightly. As many Members in this House said, we want to be careful not to Page: 92 micromanage; we want to be careful not to increase costs. We do not want to add administrative burdens to our companies, especially our SMEs, at a time like this when they are facing so much stress because of the curtailed access to foreign labour. Nevertheless, we decided to go for licensing in order to achieve a level playing field. That is the answer to the first cluster of questions. Then the next question: is there a link to productivity? Can you really improve productivity in cleaning? The answer is: it is very difficult but there is a role and a place for training. For instance, to operate a machine does require some minimum instructions, it requires familiarity and the fact that the cleaner may be older or less educated, in fact, makes it even more important that we train them on how to use this. I think Mr Giam tried to say, "Well, we are having excessive burdens – number of hours of training." As far as this legislation is concerned, the minimum requirement is one module – eight hours. The module costs slightly over $200, of which the Government will fund 90%. So, in fact, you are talking about $23. Members of this House will agree that providing a modicum of training, heavily subsidised, so that our workers really can take advantage of new tools and new technologies is viable, is worthwhile and is not an unnecessary imposition of a burden or an unjustified burden on our companies.”
“I believe the PAP Town Councils coordinated by Dr Teo Ho Pin also voluntarily came onto this. The Government even provided more. MOF said, "Well, for all Government contracts, if the employers make adjustments to their workers' pay, we will also find ways to help such enlightened employers financially." Members will recall that, in fact, in the last Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Wage Credit Scheme in which the Government pays 40% for wage rises which employers make last year as well as this year, and I think for another year forward. The point is that it was a good idea. There was no shortage of support, even financial support, but it was not enough. It did not take off. My question was: why? When we went around and we asked employers, "Do you think cleaners should be paid more?", everyone said "Yes". Employers said "Yes". But the key problem they identified for us was the lack of a level playing field which means, "Yes, fine, I believe my cleaners should be paid more; I want to pay my cleaners more; I want to give them good terms; I want to have proper terms of employment, payslips and all that. But my competitor is not bound by such and because my competitor is not bound by this, he has an unfair advantage, he undercuts me and I won't win future contracts." And even though the Government and the PAP Town Councils have taken the lead, they said, "Well, thank you very much but you constitute a small fraction of the overall market. In fact, if you want me to voluntarily bind myself to such enlightened employment practices, it's not worth my while." Some companies will actually say, "In that case, I don't want to touch Government contracts. I don't want to touch PAP Town Council contracts.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and I note that both sides of the House have expressed support for this Bill. If I may take the liberty of summarising the issues and questions being raised, I think it is in the following order. First, why are we having licensing? Secondly, is there a link to productivity? Third, why have training? Fourth, what are the implications on jobs and contracts? Fifth, why are we focused on locals only or primarily? And then there was a cluster of other issues related to littering, basically questioning our tone, our attitude towards increased penalties, increased surveillance, as well as a few technical questions which Mr Lim Biow Chuan has raised. I want to commend, especially Mr Patrick Tay, for his speech. It is the most comprehensive exposition of what the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is, and, perhaps, it is no surprise because he is speaking from the union. So, let me address the first issue: why licensing? The concept of progressive wages was not invented in this House. It was not invented by my Ministry or by NEA. It originated from the NTUC. And NTUC felt that we should have a ladder and this ladder should be predicated on productivity, training and Page: 91 capability, and, underlining that, is this value of a fair wage for our cleaners. They first proposed this idea about two years ago and the rest of us in Cabinet felt, "Yes, this is a good idea". The fact that it targets especially a segment of our workers who are older, less educated and have been vulnerable to cheap-sourcing, made it more attractive. So, we said, "We support it and, in fact, Government will lead by example." So, we said, "Government will only contract with companies that have voluntarily come onto the Clean Mark scheme".”
“Clause 20 introduces a new section which will make the officers liable for an offence committed by bodies corporate if the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of the officer or was attributable to any neglect on his or her part. Clause 21 amends the computation of composition fines to be aligned with the Criminal Procedure Code. Madam, we should not take our clean environment for granted. Keeping Singapore clean and green requires the cooperation of everyone in Singapore. Page: 65 My Ministry will continue to seek the support of all Singaporeans. At the same time, we have to adopt a stricter enforcement posture against irresponsible recalcitrants and deter them with enhanced penalties. We will also uplift the wages, skills and job prospects of our Singaporean cleaners, and this Bill will empower us to resolve emerging public health problems more effectively, and help us achieve our vision of a truly "clean" Singapore – a reflection of our values and our sense of collective responsibility. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Clause 15 thereby specifies that the penalties under Part IX to be a fine of up to $20,000 and in the case of continuing offences, a fine not exceeding $1,000 for every day the offence continues after conviction. Mdm Speaker, poor housekeeping at construction sites also poses a risk to public health, through, for instance, the breeding of mosquitoes and rodent infestation. The current legislation requires the occupier of any construction site with construction projects worth more than $10 million to engage a qualified Environmental Control Officer to help plan and monitor the control measures on site. However, we have noticed that in order to circumvent this requirement, developers would sometimes award work on site to different contractors under different contracts, so that the project comes in below the value specified by the EPHA. Even for those construction sites with more than one occupier where the total contract sum exceeds the specified value, the responsibility as to which occupier should employ an Environmental Control Officer becomes unclear. Clause 14, therefore, empowers NEA to require the developers of these construction sites with more than one occupier where the total contract sum exceeds the specified value to employ an Environmental Control Officer and ensure that the Officer is employed until the completion of the works on that site. There will also be several other amendments to allow NEA to be more effective and responsible in carrying out its role. Clause 16 allows the Director-General of Public Health to recover expenses incurred for carrying out emergency works. Clause 17 introduces an offence for knowingly providing false or misleading information to the Police or authorised officers.”
“Clause 11 also imposes certain restrictions on the winding up of a public waste collector licensee. In particular, no public waste collector licensee can voluntarily wind up without the consent of NEA. Similar provisions are found in other pieces of legislation, such as the Electricity Act and the Gas Act. These moves would serve to minimise disruption to an essential service and ensure continuity of that service. I will now move on to enhancing penalties for food establishment, market and hawker and water supply-related offences. Another important aspect of public health is having hygienic food and safe drinking water. The penalties under Part IV of the Act, which deals with the licensing of food establishments, markets and hawkers, have not been revised since 1987. Clause 12 enhances the penalties under this Act to be commensurate with the severity of the offences and the appropriate level of deterrence required. For instance, first-time offenders of illegal hawking offences will face a fine of up to $5,000 whilst those operating food establishments without licences or selling food unfit for human consumption will face a maximum fine of $10,000 for the first conviction. Page: 64 Apart from food, the safety of our drinking water is equally important. The current penalties for offences concerning purity of water supplies are drawn from the general penalties of the Act, which stipulates a fine of up to $5,000 for the first conviction and up to $10,000 fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both. This is significantly lower than the piped drinking water regulations in the US and UK which stipulate fines of up to US$25,000 and £20,000 respectively.”
“The key, therefore, is to reduce, reuse and recycle our waste to the maximum extent possible. Our overall recycling rate was 60% in 2012. However, for many large commercial premises, such as hotels and shopping malls, the recycling rate is still too low. Waste disposal costs typically account for only around 3% of their utilities bills even though they sometimes dispose of two or more tons of waste per day. Given that commercial waste disposed is less homogeneous, we believe that upstream waste segregation requires sustained management Page: 63 attention. To improve our recycling rate, we announced in March 2012 that we would amend the Act to make it mandatory for large commercial premises, starting with large hotels and shopping malls in 2014, to report waste management data and improvement plans. This will better draw and sustain greater management attention on the waste generated by their activities. Clause 10, therefore, empowers the Director-General to require any owner, occupier or lessee of a workplace to provide information on waste produced, maintain records and submit waste reduction plans. Any person who fails to comply can be fined up to $5,000 for the first conviction. For the second and subsequent convictions, the penalties are a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both. In addition, to ensure the continuity of waste collection, clause 11 allows NEA, under special circumstances, to manage the waste collection operation of the public waste collector licensees. Such special circumstances include, for instance, when a public waste collector licensee is likely to be unable to pay its debts, or when it is in the interest of security and reliability of waste collection services for the public for NEA to step in.”
“Eligible low-income cleaners will continue to receive wage supplements in the form of the Workfare Income Supplement, which can constitute up to 30% of their wages, as well as enjoy generous training subsidies through the Workfare Training Support scheme. While the Government restructures the cleaning industry to raise productivity and income for the cleaners, such broad-based measures will help low-income cleaners to stay in their jobs and receive improving pay. The Progressive Wage Model will, therefore, be given effect under the proposed new section 80H where the Commissioner for Labour will make an order to specify the progressive wage levels payable to Singaporeans and Singapore PR cleaners based on the TCC's Progressive Wage Model. The cleaning businesses must, as part of the licence conditions, ensure that the basic wages of these cleaners are not less than the specified wage levels for the respective classes of cleaners as recommended by the TCC. Cleaning businesses which provide employment contracts which are compliant with these requirements but which thereafter fail to pay their cleaners the wages stated in the employment contracts may be prosecuted under the Employment Act. The provisions in the EPHA seek to ensure that cleaners are provided with wages according to the Progressive Wage Model and also have prospects for improvement over time. Let me move on to the next section which focuses on ensuring sustainable waste management. Maintaining a high level of public cleanliness is only one side of the coin to ensure a clean environment. Having sustainable waste management is the other. Given our lack of land resources, we must minimise our waste volume and prolong the usage of our only remaining landfill, Pulau Semakau, for as long as possible.”
“The Progressive Wage Model enforced by the Government is not going to be necessary or even be considered across-the-board in all the different sectors. We have chosen the Progressive Wage Model for the cleaning industry because we believe there are certain peculiar characteristics of this industry. This has been one that for too many years has been characterised by cheap sourcing and where the majority of Singaporean and Singaporean PR workers have been older workers with low education, limited job choices, are non-unionised and have low bargaining power. The case for a targeted Government intervention is, therefore, stronger in such circumstances. The second attribute: the Progressive Wage Model is determined through tripartite negotiations. It is not set by political decree. The unions and the employers must discuss and they must agree on the appropriate benchmarks used in the Progressive Wage Model wage-skill ladder. The licensing regime merely sets up the framework for these agreed benchmarks to be operationalised in a fair and transparent fashion in a level playing field. This tripartite approach is important – in fact, I think it is crucial – and it is a unique success ingredient for the Singapore model. It reduces the risk that workers, Page: 62 especially our older and more vulnerable workers, will lose their jobs as wages rise to unsustainable levels. The third attribute is that the Progressive Wage Model is part of a wider and more comprehensive Government effort to raise wages of lower-income citizens and their families.”
“Once the cleaning businesses are licensed, they must ensure that their cleaners undergo training as required by the Director-General and are issued with written employment contracts and payslips. Licensees who fail to comply with any of these licence conditions may receive a financial penalty of up to Page: 61 $5,000 and face the risk of their cleaning business licence being suspended or revoked. One key feature of the licensing scheme is the adoption of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as recommended by the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC). To deliver a good and reliable cleaning service, the cleaning industry needs a stable and experienced core of resident workers. It is, therefore, imperative to ensure that our Singaporean and Singapore Permanent Resident cleaners are motivated to work and to remain in the sector in order to help sustain the higher cleaning standards and the higher productivity levels which are expected to come with licensing. The Progressive Wage Model will provide them with better wages, in tandem with skills and productivity. Mdm Speaker, it is worth my while to reiterate that our Progressive Wage Model is quite different from a national minimum wage. We are not ideological about these matters. We are focused on outcomes. Our key concern has always been to ensure that, first, workers with limited skills do not lose their jobs – these are our most vulnerable workers. Second, whatever scheme we come up with must create opportunities so that these same workers can receive better wages as they upskill and become more productive. Consequently, our uniquely Singaporean model of the Progressive Wage Model has three attributes which I hope the House would contemplate. First, it is a targeted approach.”
“And I think Members of the House will be familiar with incidents from time to time even in our own hawker centres where the cleaning contractor just ups and leaves the place in a lurch. We intend to, therefore, have enlightened, fair employers who would train and have productive cleaners who take pride in their work and can look forward to receiving wages that are commensurate with their training, skills and productivity. Clause 15, therefore, inserts a new Part into the EPHA to provide for the licensing regime for the general cleaning industry. Under the proposed licensing regime, all cleaning businesses involved in general cleaning must possess a valid licence. Existing cleaning businesses will have to obtain their licences from the NEA within five months after the statutory provisions of this Act come into force. Cleaning businesses found operating without a valid licence, as well as service buyers who engage unlicensed cleaning businesses, shall be guilty of an offence. Cleaning businesses must fulfil several pre-requisites in order to be eligible for a licence. For example, they must have trained cleaners; they must have a track record of cleaning contracts and submit a progressive wage plan that meets certain criteria. New start-ups must have at least one officer or employee who either has practical experience in supervising cleaning work or has attended the required training. Any person who, in relation to any application for a cleaning business licence, provides false or misleading information or documents shall be guilty of an offence. NEA will also maintain a register of licensed cleaning businesses so that service buyers can check whether their potential service providers are appropriately licensed.”
“This proposed revision seeks to ensure that the penalties will continue to have deterrent effect. Let me now draw the attention of the House to the plight of our cleaners. For many years, the cleaning industry has been subjected to cheap sourcing, which has resulted in low productivity and low cleaning standards in the sector, as well as depressed wages for our cleaners, who also tend to be less educated, less skilled and non-unionised. This has led to a vicious cycle of high attrition, poor training and poor employment conditions for this sector. We have, therefore, decided to press the "reset" button for this particular sector and to impose a mandatory licensing regime to regulate all cleaning businesses. All businesses which provide general cleaning services, even if these services are only a part of the overall business or just one of a suite of services that they provide, will be required to obtain a cleaning licence. We have to insist on a level playing field. Otherwise, the better and more enlightened employers will risk being undercut by less progressive businesses. Through this licensing regime, we seek to ensure that cleaning businesses will offer better training and Page: 60 employment conditions for their cleaners. And this, we believe, will lead to a more motivated and more competent cleaning workforce that can deliver better service and higher standards. Furthermore, as part of the licensing regime, the NEA will maintain a register of licensed cleaning businesses, thereby providing greater transparency to the industry and protecting service buyers against fly-by-night cleaning contractors. These enhancements will help reduce the disruption of cleaning services due to unreliable contractors.”
“Nineteen is a very small number, if you compare that to the fact that we received 1,300 complaints on Page: 59 high-rise littering last year alone. Therefore, we propose to strengthen the EPHA to facilitate investigations, as well as increase our penalties. Clause 5 allows police officers and authorised officers to require the owners and occupiers of the residential flats to provide information that may lead to the identification of the alleged high-rise litterer. Similarly, where the driver or a passenger of a motor vehicle is alleged or suspected to be guilty of littering from a motor vehicle, clause 5 will allow police officers and authorised officers to require the owner of the vehicle to provide information about the driver and passengers at the time of the alleged offence. Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the specified time period shall be guilty of an offence. This provision is based on the existing section 19(3)(b) and (4) of the EPHA. In a sense, this replicates the system that we have for our traffic offenders. If you detect that a car has committed or is suspected to have committed an offence, the Traffic Police will write to the owner and ask for details of the driver and, then, we will allow investigations to proceed from that point. Clause 8 doubles the maximum penalties for littering-related offences from $1,000 to $2,000 for the first conviction; and from $2,000 to $4,000 for the second conviction; and from $5,000 to $10,000 for the third and subsequent convictions. The existing maximum fines of $1,000 and $2,000 for the first and second convictions respectively have not been revised since 1987.”
“But I fear that, today, we are a "cleaned" city, in the passive sense of the word, rather than a "clean" city, as in the active adjective. In fact, if you take a walk in any neighbourhood before our long-suffering cleaners have done their work, I think Members of this House will understand what I mean. In recent years, there are clear signs of increased littering. From 2010 to 2013, the number of complaints that we have received for littering has increased by almost 50%. Despite our constant urging and the cooperation of the vast majority of civic-minded Singaporeans who take pride in our clean environment, there is still a significant minority of litterbugs who persist in irresponsible behaviour. They litter and they dirty our public places. They indiscriminately discard their waste from their vehicles or their flats, and they cause damage to the environment and, more importantly, pose a danger to their neighbours. We must not tolerate such irresponsible acts and we must not allow the inconsiderate minority to threaten the well-being of the majority. We must, therefore, take strong enforcement actions and ensure that our penalties will deter those who continue to act irresponsibly. Pursuing enforcement actions against littering from cars and from high-rise residential flats is a particularly difficult undertaking as the litterbugs are rarely caught in the act. Gathering evidence that can withstand scrutiny of the Court is a big challenge. NEA has had to painstakingly deploy officers on the ground and install high-tech surveillance cameras to aid investigations into high-rise littering. After all their efforts and considerable expenditure, last year, NEA only managed to prosecute 19 high-rise littering offenders.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Environmental Public Health Act was first enacted in 1969 to address the urgent need to improve our public health standards. And it is sobering to recall in this day and age that, in the 1960s, most of us lived in homes without proper sanitation or even regular waste removal. The streets were sometimes filled with rubbish – I think we can see some old photos of that – and clean drinking water and food were sometimes hard to come by. This Act has served us well and, to be honest with this House, because of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the founding leaders' insistence on extremely high environmental standards, sheer force of personality, the willingness to enforce strictly, extensive public education, cooperation of the public and the relentless rollout of infrastructure – we have today solved our most fundamental public health and environmental problems. Today, Singaporeans enjoy a high standard of public health. Our air and water are much cleaner than before; Page: 58 refuse is collected daily; food and water are safe; our streets are swept daily. However, we must not become complacent and we need to do more. We have, therefore, before us, a Bill to amend our Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA), which was last amended in 2008, to enable us to better address the emerging concerns we face today. Mdm Speaker, I shall now highlight the main amendments and provisions in the Bill. One area of serious concern is the state of public cleanliness. Although Singapore has transformed itself and we have a reputation for being a clean and green city, this is not something which we can afford to take for granted. It has been a source of competitive advantage and pride for Singaporeans.”
“NEA has received feedback from the residents of Sennett Estate about rodent activity in the estate. Since August 2013, NEA has been taking active steps to address this issue. It had carried out intensive checks on the refuse management and housekeeping practices of the food shops and construction sites in the vicinity, and placed rodent traps around the area. Defects, such as crevices in drains and Page: 131 on the ground, are undergoing repair so that rodents cannot harbour there. NEA will also be putting in place an integrated rodent management plan for Sennett Estate, involving the residents and other stakeholders. This plan will cover surveillance to identify the source and location of the rodent infestation, intensive control measures, such as trapping and intensified checks and enforcement on poor refuse management in construction sites and eating establishments. Together, these measures should resolve the current rodent problem in the estate.”
“Footpaths and walkways are built above road levels to minimise risk of flooding. However, there may be topographically lower sections of walkways where water may accumulate during heavy rain. PUB would usually require open gratings to be fitted so that rainwater can flow Page: 127 directly into the drains below. Where this is not possible, the walkway should have adequate camber and/or scupper drains. In flood-prone areas, PUB will also be installing more open gratings for the covered drains, as well as additional drop inlet chambers (DICs), so as to facilitate the flow of water into the drains instead of overflowing onto the footpaths and walkways. Localised depressions may also occur in some walkways due to ground subsidence and growth of tree roots. PUB will advise the relevant agencies and Town Councils to rectify these depressions.”
“Since May 2013, NEA has increased enforcement hours by about 50%, from 24,000 man-hours to 35,000 man-hours per month. NEA has started a pilot scheme for Community Volunteers to apply peer pressure on persons who litter. They are authorised to ascertain the identity of these persons for further investigation by NEA. One hundred and four community volunteers have been trained and given authority under this programme and we welcome more Singaporeans to be part of this effort. Since September 2012, NEA has deployed surveillance cameras in nearly 500 locations in response to resident feedback. So far, NEA has successfully prosecuted 56 high-rise litter-bugs with the help of these surveillance cameras, and the Courts have imposed fines on them ranging from $400 to $2,100. Page: 189 With effect from August 2013, NEA no longer informs the residents when the surveillance cameras will be installed at their blocks, or when they will be removed. This means recalcitrant litter-bugs will no longer receive advance warning, and this should bring about a greater deterrence effect. Even as we step up our efforts to address the litter situation, we must continue to cultivate social graciousness, good habits, and a sense of collective responsibility for the cleanliness and safety of our neighbourhoods.”
“The new hawker centre in Yishun is scheduled to be completed in the third quarter of 2016. In addition, there are currently five HDB coffee shops that are being constructed in Yishun. Furthermore, there may be new private food outlets within the two upcoming commercial/residential developments at Yishun Town Centre and Junction Nine. NEA will review the need for new hawker centres in existing towns, taking into account residents' needs and the availability of suitable sites. New HDB towns, such as those at Bidadari and Tengah, will have a range of amenities to serve its residents, including food outlets, such as hawker centres. NEA currently allocates vacant stalls in hawker centres on the basis of open tenders regardless of where hawkers stay. This is a fair system that gives more opportunities to all persons who wish to operate a hawker stall, and does not limit them to the hawker centres in the area where they live. NEA is also working with other agencies and partners to encourage and facilitate new entrants into the hawker trade, and the preservation of traditional hawkerfare. For example, NEA is collaborating with WDA to develop the Hawker Master Trainer Pilot Programme. The programme is supported by Knight Frank Pte Ltd and The Business Times and the training will be administered by Project Dignity. Under the programme, aspiring hawkers will hone their culinary skills through a Singapore Workforce Qualifications Skills (WSQ) training and on-the- Page: 188 job training with veteran hawkers or "Hawker Masters".”
“The improper disposal of non-biodegradable plastic bags is a threat to global ecosystems. For example, they clog up drainage systems; pollute beaches; damage marine and bird life; and accumulate in ever larger quantities in the oceans. Fortunately, this is not a problem in Singapore because of our waste-to-energy incineration plants which ensure that all properly disposed plastic bags do not despoil our environment. Our approach to plastic bags is therefore based on the concept of avoiding overconsumption and reducing waste. We therefore welcome the efforts of retailers and environmental groups to encourage consumers to either bring their own bags or reduce the use of plastic bags. Residents can also deposit plastic bags into recycling bins which have been provided island-wide in convenient locations. Furthermore, we encourage the re-use of plastic bags. For example, all households should reuse plastic bags for their refuse, as this helps ensure good Page: 156 public hygiene. Given our unique circumstances, there is no need for legislation on this specific issue apart from our existing laws against littering.”
“Page: 91 This leads to Assoc Prof Eugene Tan's question on the issue of imposing environmental, social and governance reporting requirements and chain of custody certification requirements on companies as part of their licence to operate in Singapore. We believe that the entire value chain has to adopt sustainable practices as a feasible and a viable way of doing business. Ideally, companies should see responsible cultivation as a competitive advantage, as a growing number of consumers will demand sustainably-produced goods over time. There are already some positive signs that industry is self-organising towards this goal. For example, I commend the Singapore Compact for Corporate Social Responsibility for its work to promote sustainability reporting by all major companies. It has recently organised a stakeholder consultation on sustainable agriculture business principles. The Singapore Business Federation (SBF) is also exploring initiatives on sustainable agriculture, with the overall objective to reduce the occurrence of haze – not just for Singaporeans' sake, but also for the health of residents who live around the land clearing areas. I understand that SBF is planning to organise an Asia Pacific Sustainability Leadership forum for key industry players interested in sustainable development, and that a plenary session concerning haze has been planned. Such initiatives should be encouraged and supported. We, as consumers, must also do our part to encourage this by purchasing sustainable products.”
“Assoc Prof Eugene Tan has correctly identified that the root cause of the transboundary haze problem is a commercial one. Errant companies have been clearing land on their concessions through illegal burning because it is the cheapest way to do so. There has been inadequate enforcement to stop them, even though it is clearly against the laws of Indonesia. As Members would recall, MFA had formally sought clarification from Indonesia, through a diplomatic note, on whether Singapore-linked companies are involved in illegal land clearing practices in Indonesia. MFA also requested that Indonesia provide any evidence of wrong-doing that Indonesia has. We are still awaiting Indonesia's response. If there is credible and usable evidence that Singapore-owned companies or companies operating in Singapore are involved, we intend to take further steps against these errant companies. Of course, the primary responsibility for taking action against these companies still lies with Indonesia, where they are allegedly conducting such illegal activities. On our part, as my Cabinet colleagues and I have mentioned before, Singapore is also considering legislation to enhance the penalties for companies that embark on irresponsible actions that damage the environment, affect public health adversely and cause transboundary effects. Such legislation will not be easy to draft but we hope to send a clear and unequivocal signal to all companies that this type of behaviour is not acceptable and governments are going to hold them accountable for such misconduct. My Ministry is engaging companies and discussing with them ways to further strengthen environmentally sustainable practices.”
“Since August 2013, NEA has stepped up its enforcement efforts at two park connectors lining the banks of Marina Reservoir, namely Geylang Park Connector and Tanjong Rhu Promenade. This is to address the behaviour of irresponsible park users and joggers who litter near the benches, leaving behind food waste, empty cans and bottles despite adequate bins in the area. NEA has observed that much of the littering occurs between late at night and early morning on weekends and will focus its enforcement efforts there. Our parks are meant for everyone's enjoyment and it is important that we all do our part to help keep our parks clean. Besides not littering themselves, park users should also actively discourage others from littering. We must create a norm where litterbugs are made to feel unwelcome for their anti-social behaviour. This way, we will be better able to arrest the problem of litterbugs.”
“Haze is caused by the burning of forests because this is the cheapest way to clear land. The Ministers of the Sub-Regional Ministerial Steering Committee (MSC) on Transboundary Haze Pollution agreed to explore sharing concession maps and the use of satellite and mapping technologies to monitor hotspots and identify errant companies. Singapore was at the forefront of this effort by developing the technology platform to enable this – the ASEAN Sub-Regional Haze Monitoring System (HMS). The overlay of Indonesia’s concession maps on the hotspot data will help to pinpoint which plantation companies are responsible for illegal slash-and-burn practices. Unfortunately, the agreement that was reached among the Ministers at the 15th MSC meeting held on 17 July 2013 fell short of Singapore's Page: 121 recommendation a fully functioning system populated with comprehensive accurate concession maps overlaid with hotspot locations accessible to the general public. Unfortunately, Indonesia claimed there were legal impediments to greater transparency. Consequently, we could only get a consensus to adopt the joint haze monitoring system with data shared at the government-to-government level, subject to the ASEAN Leaders' approval at the ASEAN Leaders' Summit in October 2013. Nevertheless, even if the maps can only be shared on a government-to-government basis, the HMS should enable governments to identify errant companies and take appropriate enforcement action against them. We, therefore, hope that ASEAN will launch the HMS with the relevant country concession maps promptly in October 2013. We also hope Indonesia will ratify the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution as soon as possible.”
“High-rise littering is an anti-social and dangerous act. Since the rollout of surveillance cameras in September 2012, NEA has received about 700 to 800 complaints every month.3 In July 2013, NEA successfully prosecuted three high-rise litterbugs who were caught on its surveillance cameras; each litterbug was fined $600 by the court. Surveillance cameras are usually installed at HDB blocks where persistent high-rise littering incidents have been reported. To achieve a greater deterrence effect, NEA will no longer inform the residents of when surveillance cameras will be installed at their block, and when it will be removed. This means that there will no longer be advance warning for recalcitrant litterbugs. Page: 112 I thank Ms Tin for her suggestion to allow NEA to take action against owners of flats where the littering originates, even if we cannot identify the exact culprit on camera. MEWR and NEA will study the feasibility of this seriously. Even though NEA has surveillance camera capability, cameras should only be used as a last resort. As I have mentioned before, our primary line of defence must still be the cultivation of social graciousness and a sense of collective responsibility for the safety of our neighbourhoods.”
“This supplements the Ultra-Low Volume (ULV) misting and enhances the effectiveness of the anti-mosquito efforts. To help residents protect themselves from mosquito bites and thereby break the chain of transmission, NEA has started distributing insect repellents to all households and schools in the dengue clusters. To control dengue, everyone has to play his or her part to prevent mosquito breeding. NEA steps up its public outreach efforts prior to the onset of the dengue season, using both mainstream and social media platforms to heighten awareness and urge everyone to take immediate action on potential breeding habitats. NEA also mobilises its network of over 2,000 dengue prevention volunteers to remind local residents to remove stagnant water in their homes and so on. We hope that the provision of timely accurate local data would encourage residents to take the necessary precautions to protect their own families and neighbourhood. Enforcement remains a necessary component of our overall approach. Since the launch of NEA's "Do The Mozzie Wipe-out" campaign on 28 April 2013, Page: 107 the number of summonses issued to households in cluster areas has decreased slightly from 181 in April to 175 in June. The number of repeat offenders has also decreased from 10 in April to four in June. We are pleased that NEA has observed a substantial decrease in breeding habitats in homes from about 1,200 in April to about 700 in June.1 These results are preliminary but are encouraging. Better community awareness and preparation should drive down the number of breeding habitats further. The peak dengue season is not over yet and everyone should do whatever he can to protect himself and his loved ones against dengue.”
“Dengue is a recurrent and ongoing threat to public health in Singapore. An effective vaccine is not yet available. Consequently, our strategy is to minimise the epidemic potential of dengue through preventive surveillance, elimination of mosquito breeding areas, exterminating adult mosquitoes, public education, community involvement and Page: 106 local enforcement. This is supplemented by local research on biological and medical aspects of the disease and evaluation of new modalities for disease control. For example, an Intensive Source Reduction Exercise (ISRE) targeting potentially large breeding habitats, such as construction sites, water tanks and drains, is carried out annually. Home owners and premise managers are reminded to step up surveillance of their respective premises and areas of activity before the start of the dengue peak season, usually from June to October. In addition, NEA officers begin to step up indoor inspections within high-risk areas in the lead-up to the usual peak dengue season. In areas of ongoing dengue transmission, indoor spraying of insecticide is carried out to eliminate adult mosquitoes. If a high Aedes population is detected outdoors, thermal fogging may be conducted. Besides anti-dengue operations, NEA also conducts practical research on disease control. The gravitraps that were designed by NEA have been utilised in dengue clusters since 2012, to monitor the adult mosquito population and assess the effectiveness of vector control efforts. Earlier this year, NEA also co-designed with an insecticide company an aerosol spray called the "Mozzie Zap". NEA officers are equipped with the "Mozzie Zap" for application to the dark or shady corners of homes where mosquitoes are likely to rest.”
“That is basically why I said we can discuss all the minutiae that Ms Sylvia Lim wants to, but the simple crux of this matter is what did Mr Tai say and what did he fail to do? To me, that is very clear. And because that is very clear and backed up by evidence, I find the denials – the public denials by Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh – very, very troubling. You know, let me make this further point. Politics is a contest for power. But you know the key principle when you have power is – do not take advantage of people under your charge. And always be honest and upfront with your people. All of us will make mistakes. But when a mistake is made, just come clean and say so. But do not cover up. That is why I have not let this go. Because it is not about cleanliness of the ceiling, it is about clean politics. And I appeal to you – because I know you to be an honourable man – I appeal to you; go back and do a thorough investigation of what has gone on and what has gone wrong in your Town Council and put it right. Set it right. I have confidence that you will do so, Mr Low.”
“Mr Low, that is precisely the point. There are four cleanings a year. One of those four will be a full comprehensive cleaning, including the high areas. This is not something new. This has been going on for 10 years. Even in Block 511, your Town Council did it last year. Of course, I think it was a different contractor, but you did it last year. So, you cannot say that your staff are confused or did not know, or that Ms Sylvia did not supervise, Page: 31 and all these were a misunderstanding. I am afraid it is not, you see. The evidence is incontrovertible that Mr Tai said, "Not my problem, anything above 2.5 metres." It is clear. And he also said – and not once, you see, on three separate occasions, with witnesses – "You want it clean? Pay me extra". That is the crux of the whole matter, you see. Unless you say Mr Tai is not your officer, not your authorised one. But by my understanding, and when I checked, I understand that he is an employee of FMSS, your Managing Agent; he is the Property Manager of Aljunied Town Council. So, what he says, those words have to be taken seriously. What he says is the position of the Town Council and you have asked for money, you have denied responsibility. I have tried to show you in my answer. We are not inventing new rules here. It has been around for 10 years. Everyone, including you, when you were personally supervising Hougang Town Council, had no problem. We had no problem working with you. But now – I do not know whether it is lack of supervision or people somewhere in your organisation, someone is trying to cover up – we have this unnecessary distraction.”
“That is my question to you. That is the central issue here. Because we believe, based on consistent testimony of all the hawkers, filenotes and emails, that this is what really happened. You have denied it. Because you have denied it and your denials are not consistent with the facts, I put to you that you have been untruthful and that your statements are false. The debate, if you want to continue, should fall on this point.”
“Read the context of those meetings. The hawker centres were closed – Block 538 hawker centre was closed for five days. Five days. Why? Do hawker centres close for five days, four times a year? The answer is "no". Look at what you yourself did in Block 511 after, fortunately, Mr Page: 29 Low intervened. Right? Let us not beat around the bush. I just want to come back with a simple yes-no question. Did Mr Tai deny responsibility for cleaning areas above 2.5 metres and did he demand extra money for that work to be done? I want to emphasise that at all these meetings, NEA began a meeting by sharing with everyone, with the agreement of the hawkers, that this is about cleanliness and hygiene within the hawker centres. For spring cleaning exercises, there are four – they are quarterly, right? On three of those occasions when the high areas are not involved, it is only a one-day affair. On a major cleaning, which involves the roof, you close for five days. Why were the hawkers in Block 538 so angry? I will tell you why they were angry with you. They closed for five days. They lost income for five days. And when they came back, they discovered they had paid $140 each to cover the individual stalls – and they came back, and the covers were pristine. Clean. Why? The ceiling was not cleaned. And then, when they enquired, they found out that your workers spent maybe half a day or a day, not five days. So they closed five days for a completely unnecessary reason. They lost income. This is why they were so upset. Let us not get side tracked. My point to you – which you have still not yet clarified – did Mr Tai Vie Shun tell the hawkers that the Town Council is not responsible for areas above 2.5 metres and that if they wanted that to be cleaned, the hawkers would have to pay extra?”
“You know, this is very painful, and Ms Lim, you are a lawyer. Let us not beat around the bush, arguing about annual and quarterly spring cleaning.”
“This is the meeting with the hawkers of Block 511 on 26 April, third paragraph: "The HA (Hawker Association) reps commented that the ceilings and beams were dirty, and were covered with bird droppings. However, the TC (Town Council) commented that they will not be bearing any costs for the erecting of staging/machinery for cleaning of areas beyond the height of 2.5 m. Mr Tai mentioned that the cost of erecting the staging/machinery for cleaning of areas beyond 2.5 m shall be borne by the HA Page: 28 instead of the Town Council." I do not think we need to go on and on. The point is: on three occasions, Mr Tai made these claims. There were meetings, there were witnesses present. They will attest to the veracity of this. So, I ask you again: did Mr Tai deny responsibility for cleaning the high areas? And did he ask the hawkers to pay extra? A simple "yes" or "no".”
“Next, Ms Lim asked for the statements of Mr Tai. Turn to page 9 and page 11. These are contemporaneous file notes of meetings that occurred on 8 March 2013 when the hawkers discovered that Block 538 had not been properly cleaned and on 26 April 2013, when the hawkers of Block 511, having seen what happened to their brothers in Block 538, got very worried. Now, both Ms Lim and Mr Pritam Singh are lawyers. You will know that a contemporaneous filenote has significance. Now, let me highlight the portions highlighted in yellow. Page 9, under "Actions taken", the paragraph reads, "An urgent meeting was called by Chin Peiyun". Now, move down to the next sentence. I will read it out for avoidance of doubt, "The scope of spring cleaning was highlighted by Property Manager, Mr Tai, during the site meeting. AHTC is to provide conservancy workers during the spring cleaning which includes manhole flushing, wall fans, toilets, tables, chairs, lighting, exhaust, oil trap and dusting of exhaust ducting in the centre". The next paragraph is the important one: "Those unreachable area (sic) which is more than 2.5 metres which needed scaffolding does not come under AHTC's responsibilities. Those considered skilled workers were (sic) not provided by AHTC. Property Manager Mr Tai mentioned under the workplace safety regulations under MOM, area where scaffolding (sic) are provided, safety supervisors and safety officers must be around to supervise the high level cleaning works. This (sic) additional costs should be bear (sic)" – I am repeating all these grammatical mistakes – "by either NEA or the Hawker Association (HA) of Block 538 Bedok North Street 3 Food Centre." Now, turn with me to page 12.”
“Let me take Members through the dossier. The first thing to notice in the dossier on page 7 is a quotation from ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd. ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd is not just another independent maintenance company. It is the contractor of Aljunied Town Council, and according to Ms Sylvia Lim, has within its contract an obligation to clean all areas, including the high areas. The first irregular event is ATL's quotation delivered by hand on 19 February 2013. Now, there are three critical irregularities to this quotation. First, the hawkers never asked for a quotation. Mr Low has met the hawkers. They have told him the same thing. They never asked for the quotation because they never expected to be stuck with this bill. Secondly, ATL Maintenance Ltd is your own contractor. When your own contractor issues a quotation for $7,200 to the hawkers, asking for payment for work which you say is already covered by your contract, that amounts to a demand for double payment for the same quantity of work. The third point that is irregular with this quotation is that – do not be taken in by this claim that the Town Council was confused. If the Town Council was confused, read this quotation carefully, it says: "Scope of work: provision of manpower, equipment, materials, chemicals, insurance and supervision for the cleaning of entire premises, consisting of 40 market stalls." If the Town Council was merely confused, this quotation would have said "erection of scaffolding Page: 27 for access to the ceiling". It would not be for the entire scope of work. So, this mysterious quotation shows that something was not quite right in the Town Council and the way it was handling its contractor and the relations, the engagement between the contractor and the poor hawkers.”
“I will wait for Mr Low to get a copy of the handouts. Mr Low, you have been in politics for 22 years; you have run a Town Council since then. I have known you as an honourable man for 12 years. I would humbly suggest that you conduct a careful internal investigation, including perusing the email trail which I may not have sight of between officers and staff of the Town Council before the Town Council makes a pronouncement which is wrong in fact.”