Protecting Resident Well-being amidst Commercial Activity

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the topic of protecting resident well-being amidst commercial activity. It is a matter close to residents and I believe some of my fellow Parliamentarians in this House.

This Adjournment Motion is not not in opposition to commerce, enterprise or progress. Nor is it an attempt to pit residents against businesses. Rather, it seeks to highlight: one, the situations faced by residents arising from commercial activities in their neighbourhoods; and two, how these disamenities may be addressed in a way that preserves both liveability for residents and also sustainability for businesses, especially for responsible business operators who play by the rules.

I would like to first commend the agencies on the ground: the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the Singapore Police Force (SPF) – especially the Neighbourhood Police Posts and the Licensing Unit, Director Jarrod Pereira and their teams – the National Environment Agency, the Land Transport Authority, the Singapore Land Authority, Town Councils as well as partners such as the People’s Association staff and grassroots volunteers, who work tirelessly to manage disamenities on the ground. Their efforts often involve difficult trade-offs, difficult situations; and I thank them for navigating these with professionalism and care.

I also wish to pay tribute to the late Dr Liu Thai Ker, who passed away on 18 January 2026 this year. Often described as the father of urban planning in Singapore, Dr Liu wisely reminded us that cities exist first and foremost to serve the people who live in them, not merely for aesthetics or for economic efficiency. Dr Liu emphasised quality of life, dignity and community well-being as the ultimate goals of urban planning. At the same time, he also recognised that a good city must support livelihoods and enterprise, not suppress them. Singapore’s residential neighbourhoods are meant to be safe and family-friendly environments, homes for our people, while at the same time remaining economically active and inclusive.

Hope and reality. Many residents of ours embrace the vision of mixed-use neighbourhoods with shops, cafés and services such as preschools, Active Ageing Centers at their doorsteps. They hope for convenience, vibrancy and a more connected community. Indeed, when done well, such commercial activity adds value, creates jobs and strengthens neighbourhood life.

However, when intensity, scale or behaviour crosses certain thresholds, tensions can arise, not because this mixed-use model is flawed, but because the safeguards have not kept pace with lived realities.

Residents, of course, are not homogeneous. Some are more sensitive to disturbance than others and can make unreasonable demands. But many other residents recognise that well-run businesses add vibrancy and convenience to residential estates. However, when these commercial activities intensify without adequate planning or safeguards, even these residents experience persistent day-to-day challenges. Challenges such as noise and smell, continuous noise from exhaust fans, amplified music, late-night operations as well as cooking odours from kitchen vents, can travel into common residential areas and upper-floor homes, affecting residents’ rest and living comfort.

Challenges such as safety. Residents have also raised concerns about how certain ground-floor businesses operate in close proximity to homes. During my house visits, for example in the Crawford estate, families and seniors shared that visible solicitation activities outside some massage establishments made walking home very uncomfortable. Not just the wives, but also the husbands felt uncomfortable. While some of these premises have since vacated, my residents at Crawford remain anxious about what types of businesses may subsequently replace or occupy these spaces.

Many Members will also be familiar with the reported situation at Tanjong Pagar Complex under the hon Member Mr Foo Cexiang. This is a neighbourhood which is frequented by families for enrichment classes and daily necessities. It was reported that recent enforcement actions resulted in the closure of 10 massage and spa establishments offering illicit services, but only after an extended period of uncertainty and disruption for our residents and nearby businesses alike.

Member Ms Cassandra Lee also had appealed recently for assistance to counter vice activities in licensed massage establishments.

Challenges such as congestion and conflict. Finally, increased commercial footfall can lead to congestion and conflicts in shared spaces. Queues, waste disposal issues and competition for parking between residents and patrons can strain hygiene standards and create friction in otherwise peaceful neighbourhoods.

When existing safeguards prove insufficient. I want to stress that these challenges that I have mentioned would have been far worse without the dedication of frontline agencies and responsible businesses who make genuine efforts to comply and be good neighbours. Many of these business operators also provide essential services and are even part of our Community Development Council Voucher Scheme. However, despite existing frameworks and good intentions on all sides, some disamenities persist.

From conversations with residents, businesses and enforcement agencies, I see four underlying reasons why current safeguards fall short.

Reason 1: legislative and regulatory gaps. Take massage establishments as one example. Under the Massage Establishments Exemption Order 2018, premises that provide massage services in full public view are exempted from licensing and any regulatory oversight. They are only required to notify the licensing officer of their name and address before commencing operations.

Today, the number of such exempted establishments can run up to 2,000. Unlike fully licensed operators, they are not subject to the same operational conditions or compliance requirements. In practice, this regulatory light-touch has allowed a proliferation of outlets that contribute to neighbourhood disamenities, without adequate safeguards for residents or meaningful accountability.

Reason 2: siloed and fragmented enforcement. Enforcement responsibilities currently are often divided across agencies: licensing authorities for food, entertainment or massage; building management and estate maintenance; environmental health for noise or odour; and urban planning bodies.

The result is that no single agency has sight of the full neighbourhood impact. Issues are addressed sometimes in isolation rather than holistically. This fragmentation not only leads to gaps in enforcement outcomes but also risks inefficient use of public resources as agencies respond piecemeal to symptoms rather than root causes. Crucially, the cumulative neighbourhood impact is often insufficiently assessed.

Reason 3: insufficient zoning granularity. While zoning controls exist, they tend to operate at a broad, area-based level. They may not adequately account for hyper-local conditions such as the over-concentration of certain commercial activities within a single block or single precinct. It is unclear whether licensing or landlord agencies consistently factor in business clustering effects when such approvals are granted. What may be acceptable in isolation can, when concentrated, significantly erode residential amenities and community well-being.

Reason 4: consequences that do not deter poor behaviour. Finally, for some lucrative errant operators, fines or summons are simply treated as a cost of doing business. When penalties do not meaningfully affect business viability or impose operational consequences, there is little incentive for genuine behavioural or structural change. Without credible deterrence, enforcement risks becoming reactive and repetitive, penalising the same offenders without delivering lasting relief to our residents.

I want to speak next about a balanced framework of prevention, governance and enforcement.

Sir, unless more strategic and intentional measures are put in place, enforcement will continue to be reactive. It is a cat-and-mouse exercise that frustrates residents, burdens agencies and creates uncertainty for businesses. I therefore urge the Government to consider a more integrated framework of prevention, governance, enforcement – one intended to be practical and predictable, not punitive. It gives clarity to businesses upfront, supports early resolution between residents and business operators on the ground, and reserves enforcement for persistent non-compliance.

Let me now outline a proposed suite of measures under prevention, governance and enforcement.

First, prevention, getting things right early.

Proposal 1: clearer use classes. For better zoning granularity, planning categories can be refined to better distinguish between low-impact neighbourhood businesses and higher-impact uses such as late-night food and beverage, massage establishments, bars and karaoke outlets. Factors such as operating hours, alcohol service, music amplification, likelihood of late-night congregation and proximity to homes or schools should be taken into account. This gives businesses clear signals upfront and allows planning decisions to better reflect lived reality at the block or precinct level, rather than broad zoning assumptions.

Proposal 2: early, structured consultation. For higher-impact uses in residential areas, a simple, structured consultation at the pre-approval stage can help surface risks early. Many of us Members of Parliament have had to assist innocent business operators who unknowingly either signed tenancy agreements assuming licences were transferable or automatic; or they have committed substantial investments before being informed that their proposed use was already under heightened scrutiny or under policy review.

A clearly scoped consultation process, similar in nature, in principle to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's Long-Term Visit Pass consultation framework or checklist helps to clarify regulatory expectations upfront, reduce costly missteps for businesses, minimise future disputes with residents and lower the likelihood of enforcement, appeals, or litigation downstream.

Early engagement is pro-business and pro-resident. It improves investment certainty and protects livelihoods for businesses, while also reducing distress for our residents and enforcement burdens for agencies.

Proposal 3: closing legislative or regulatory gaps. Existing legislation should be reviewed to ensure that all commercial activities that affect residential amenity are subject to basic, enforceable standards. This is not about over-regulation, but about ensuring that regulatory light-touch does not become a blind spot. I just read in the papers, I am so glad that the Ministry of Home Affairs is currently looking into these gaps.

Second, on governance, managing day-to-day realities on the ground.

Proposal 4: good neighbour agreements. For higher-impact uses, operators could enter into a simple good neighbour agreement setting out expectations on noise, waste management, crowd control, solicitation behaviour and responsiveness to complaints. This provides a practical way to resolve issues early, without immediately resorting to enforcement.

Good behaviour should also be recognised. At the community level, some of us already give out Good Neighbour Awards to residents. We should consider extending similar recognition to commercial neighbours who consistently demonstrate responsible behaviour and explore benefits such as greater flexibility in outdoor dining or longer renewal extensions for those with strong compliance records. This reinforces the message that good behaviour is rewarded, not just bad behaviour punished.

Proposal 5: better coordination across agencies. Oversight today can be fragmented and siloed. A shared single case view across planning, licensing, environmental health, estate management and public order agencies would allow patterns to be seen earlier, rather than each issue being handled in reaction, in isolation. This improves fairness, reduces duplication and helps agencies act with consistency and institutional memory.

My last proposal is related to enforcement – firm, but proportionate enforcement. Proposal 6: a transparent, graduated response. Enforcement should focus on repeated and substantiated non-compliance, not isolated lapses by responsible operators. A transparent, graduated framework would allow consequences to escalate only when problems persist – from tighter conditions or shorter renewal periods, to restrictions on hours or business activities and as a last resort, licence suspension or revocation.

This approach provides certainty for businesses, protects well-run operators from unfair competition and allows agencies to focus on the small minority that repeatedly undermine neighbourhood liveability.

In conclusion, Speaker, at its heart, this Adjournment Motion is not about opposing commerce, nor resisting vibrancy. Shops, cafés, services bring convenience, they bring jobs, they bring life to our estates. Many business operators invest their savings, employ local workers and genuinely want to be good neighbours. We should support, not penalise, these responsible businesses. And we should also not condone residents who are unreasonable.

The residents that I and many of my colleagues here speak up for today are not calling for blanket bans or heavy-handed crackdowns. They are asking for something far more modest: clear rules, fair processes, early intervention and proportionate enforcement, so that liveability is not eroded. Done well, the six proposals I suggested in this Adjournment Motion can benefit responsible operators by creating predictability, levelling the playing field and ensuring that those who cut corners do not impose hidden costs on our residents or on their better-run business counterparts nearby.

Speaker, a good city is not measured only by how lively it is at night, but by how liveable it remains at home. As Singapore continues to intensify and mix uses more closely, our governance tools must evolve accordingly. I look forward to the Government’s favourable consideration of the proposals that I have put up to protect our residents’ well-being while sustaining vibrant, responsible commercial activity in the neighbourhood. [Applause.]