Measures to Address Recent Spate of Lift Breakdowns at HDB Blocks

Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider specifying a ceiling rate for lift breakdowns or a maximum period in which the breakdown rate consistently exceeds 0.1 such that the lift company that fails to meet the standard will be barred from operations; and (b) whether the Ministry will statutorily require lift companies to professionally train and certify their lift installation and maintenance workers before deployment.

Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the progress on the independent audit checks of passenger lifts by BCA; (b) what are some of the key findings so far; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider a new lift upgrading programme to help Town Councils replace older lifts that experience frequent breakdowns.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development whether the recent spate of HDB lift malfunctions could have been prevented and whether there is an urgent need to step up the maintenance regime and audit checks to ensure high serviceability and safety standards of all lifts.

Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider (i) tightening the criteria of lift procurements; (ii) embarking on an open system specification, requiring potential lift suppliers bidding for HDB projects to facilitate use of common parts for their lifts; and (iii) setting up a lift expert team in BCA or to better regulate lift maintenance companies and working with the industry to build up sufficient lift maintenance staff to service the lifts in Singapore.

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the expected additional cost to Town Councils as a result of BCA's new standards on lift maintenance; (b) whether HDB will provide specific lift-maintenance grants to Town Councils as a result of BCA's modified regime; and (c) whether HDB will consider a subsidy or co-payment scheme for HDB lift parts that turn obsolete prematurely.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked the Minister for National Development whether the tightening of regulations for lift maintenance announced by BCA on 16 June 2016 takes into account the potential increase in demand for manpower in the relevant fields.

I understand and share the concerns raised by Members over the safety of our lift operations. Lifts are an integral part of our urbanised, high-rise living environment. Currently, we have around 59,000 passenger lifts, with 24,000 of these in public housing estates, all of which are used with high-frequency on a daily basis. Lifts in Singapore are checked regularly and safe to operate. But like any other machinery, they can malfunction from time to time. Data from the Tele-Monitoring System (TMS), which provides real-time monitoring of HDB lifts, indicate that there were around 20 breakdowns per 1,000 lifts every month in 2015, and the first half of this year. This is lower than the average breakdown rate of 30 per 1,000 lifts each month registered in the previous two years, in 2013 and 2014. This is just to reiterate. There are perceptions that there had been a sudden surge in lift breakdowns.

This is actual data from the Tele-Monitoring System (TMS), which all the Town Councils have. This is real-time monitoring data of HDB lifts operating in their respective estates. We have compiled the data and the breakdown rates were: 30 per 1,000 lifts in 2013 and 2014, on average. And it has come down to 20 per 1,000 lifts per month in 2015 and the first half of this year.

Nevertheless, despite the rates coming down, any serious lift incident is one too many. Furthermore, as our lifts get older and are subject to more wear and tear, they will face higher risks of faults.

This is why BCA, as the regulatory authority for lifts in Singapore, has been focusing on this issue for some time and it has been engaging the industry, consulting lift experts and studying international best practices and standards with the aim of enhancing the regulatory and safety regime for lifts. So, let me share some of the key thrusts in our strategy and, in the process, also respond to the queries raised by Members.

Our first priority is to raise our standards of lift maintenance. Currently, all lift owners, including Town Councils, have to engage a registered lift contractor to service the lifts at least once a month. The lift contractors must also carry out an annual inspection and testing of the lifts, in the presence of an independent Authorised Examiner, who has to certify that such inspection and testing were done in accordance with regulatory standards and that the lifts are fit for operations. This is the regime today.

While these monthly and annual checks are being carried out today, BCA's audits reveal that the quality of work can be improved. This is why BCA has recently announced measures to tighten maintenance standards for lifts. BCA will also step up its audit checks to ensure that lift contractors achieve the required standards and to take enforcement action against non-compliance. The measures will be implemented this month.

Second, besides tighter regulatory requirements, it is also important for lift companies to build up their capabilities and have competent technicians and engineers doing the work. BCA is, therefore, working with the industry to set clearer requirements on the scope and level of training for all lift personnel. It is also developing a sectoral plan which will take into account the manpower demand in relevant fields of expertise, as well as the need for better defined career development pathways to attract and retain more skilled professionals in this sector.

Third, we should continue to effectively harness competitive forces in the industry to bring about benefits to residents. There are around eight main lift contractors that maintain about 70% of the lifts in Singapore, as well as many other smaller firms operating in the sector. So, there are many firms but eight larger ones that maintain about 70% of the lifts in Singapore.

All of these lift companies, big or small, are free to bid for the installation of lifts in our public housing estates. HDB adopts a stringent procurement process which takes into account not just cost, but also the quality and reliability of lifts. For new lifts installed in BTO projects and under the Lift Upgrading Programme, HDB imposes the requirement of not more than one lift breakdown per month per 10 lifts installed during the one-year Defects Liability Period (DLP). Lift companies that fail to meet this performance standard will be penalised, for example, through the imposition of liquidated damages or debarments for future HDB tenders.

Beyond this one-year DLP, Town Councils can decide whether to continue with the Original Equipment Manufacturer or switch to a third-party lift contractor. In this regard, Mr Ang Wei Neng suggested that we facilitate the use of common parts for lifts so that Town Councils will have more contractor options to choose from. I agree with him and I would like to share that the Competition Commission is looking into this very matter, to ensure that third-party lift maintenance contractors have access to essential lift spare parts. So, this will promote more effective competition and enable the Town Councils to choose the best contractor to do the job.

Fourth, besides regulatory action by BCA, it is also important for Town Councils, as lift owners, to take responsibility and carry out proactive maintenance and cyclical replacement of lifts. For example, Town Councils can analyse the lift fault data from the TMS and the records of residents' feedback to identify lifts in their estates which may require more attention. Town Councils should also have qualified personnel within their management teams who can supervise the contractors and work with them to put in place an effective maintenance regime.

A more comprehensive lift maintenance and replacement programme will cost more. For example, with more rigorous checks over time, Town Councils are likely to draw more on their Sinking Funds to replace worn out lift parts or to carry out a complete replacement of older lifts. Town Councils must project and plan ahead and ensure sufficient savings for long-term financial sustainability. That is why MND intends to require all Town Councils to set aside a higher proportion of their S&CC collections into their Sinking Funds and to ring-fence a part of the Sinking Fund specifically for lift replacement.

Finally, Mr Pritam Singh asked about Government assistance and Mr Alex Yam also requested for an upgrading programme to replace older lifts. As I had explained in this House earlier, HDB is already implementing the Selective Lift Replacement Programme (SLRP) to replace selected old lifts with new ones that come with better safety and security features on a cost-sharing basis with the Town Councils. The SLRP is a one-off programme and we do not have plans to extend it further. The replacement of old lifts is the responsibility of the Town Councils and ought to be undertaken by them as part of their cyclical maintenance programme.

However, for the existing lifts that are not due for replacement soon, we will look at the possibility of helping the Town Councils retrofit them with key safety enhancements and features. So, I am not talking about lifts that are due for replacement because these are old lifts that should be replaced by the Town Councils; but about the ones that are not due for replacement soon, MND will look at the possibility of helping Town Councils retrofit them with key safety enhancements and features. This support for safety enhancements for existing lifts will require significant Government expenditure, so we are studying the matter carefully and will announce the details when ready.

To sum up, all of us, be it the Government, regulator, lift owners, contractors, or even lift users, have a part to play to ensure that our lifts are reliable and safe. Over the years, we have put in place an effective operating and regulatory regime for lifts in Singapore. Let us work together to make it even better and safer for everyone.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I understand that current liquidated damages imposed on lift contractors for delays in service recovery and non-compliance with maintenance standards only amount to $50 per day. I think that is hardly a deterrence. Would the Ministry consider rethinking how penalties are structured, as a nominal fee is hardly penalising and could also find its way back as higher maintenance charges that we have to pay lift contractors on a monthly basis?

Madam, like I said earlier, HDB already imposes stringent requirements in its procurement criteria and we would be happy to see how we can tighten some of these requirements, as suggested by the Member, including looking at even higher liquidated damages. We will always review and make sure that our standards and our requirements are tight.

I would also highlight that Town Councils themselves have maintenance contracts with lift contractors, and Town Councils themselves can impose these tighter requirements on their own lift contractors which they engage to do maintenance work.

The Minister mentioned the breakdown rate of 20 per 1,000 per month. If you look at the HDB lifts that we have, it still represents about a few hundred a month. It still appears high from a percentage standpoint. I want to ask whether BCA sets a more stringent standard in terms of the breakdowns for all the HDB lifts.

The second question is: with the breakdowns that we have seen in the last few months, is there a need to review the procurement policies? For example, whether the current contractual tenures for these lift maintenance contractors are too short for them, to the extent that they may not want to invest in lift maintenance capabilities because they are not sure whether they will still be in business after two years. So, would we want to look into the tenure, as well as how they source the parts? There are still talks that maybe the parts that we sourced from a vendor that offers cheaper rates may compromise the quality. So, does that not require a review as well?

Madam, on the first point about the breakdowns, I fully agree with the Member that we should strive to bring it down to as low a rate as possible. My purpose of mentioning it was to show that over the period of time from 2013 till today, the breakdown rates have fallen from 30 to 20 per 1,000 lifts. Twenty per 1,000 is still, I think, a figure that we should try to bring down even further. That can only be done if we all work together, as I said. There will not be a magic solution, but that can only be done if we tighten up across the board – procurement, maintenance and timely replacement.

I agree with the Member on his subsequent point that we should look at procurement standards as well, and we are. As I mentioned, we will look at making sure that our standards are tight, that we procure not just looking at cost, but also looking at quality, which includes looking at the source, the origins of where the various lift parts are made, as the Member had suggested.

On his suggestion about making sure there is a longer Defects Liability Period (DLP), meaning to say, after procuring and installing the lifts, would we want the contractor to have a requirement to maintain the lift for a longer period beyond the one-year DLP which is in place today? We will look at it and we potentially can consider a longer DLP. It may mean a bit of a higher cost, but it also means that the Town Council is locked into the OEM for a longer period of time and you would not have the flexibility to allow competition to come in and to switch between different contractors. So, we have to find a balance, but we are prepared to consider a longer DLP.

I thank the Minister for his earlier reply. Just three supplementary questions.

Firstly, with regard to my original question, the Minister has shared that part of the finding is that maintenance can be improved. But beyond that, were there any other findings from BCA's independent audit since March?

Secondly, in November 2005, the Commissioner of Buildings did away with the requirement for the display of the Certificate of Lift Maintenance and Testing by the authorised examiners. But last Friday, the Commissioner issued new instructions to say that a new permit to operate the system will be undertaken by BCA and this certification will be required to be displayed and renewed annually. Could I understand a little bit more about what was the reason for BCA reviewing this requirement for display and what role BCA will be taking, beyond just providing the issuance of the certificate?

Lastly – I think this is also an issue that many fellow Members have raised in their questions – with the more stringent inspection regime and possibly a lot more servicing required, is BCA aware of the manpower situation in the lift maintenance and lift manufacturing industry and whether we will be facing issues with lack of manpower in the short term?

Madam, let me address the three questions in turn. First of all, on the findings of BCA's audits, I would say that across the various audits and also the investigation of incidents that have happened so far, BCA has not found any systemic trend, or identifiable trends across the various incidents. Each one is quite unique, it varies across different lift models and different ages. Generally, if you look at data, like from the TMS and if you look at the overall state of lifts today, we can say that older lifts tend to have a higher breakdown rate, in particular, older lifts beyond 20 years. If you were to take a more preventive or risk-based approach, I would say, step up the maintenance and have preventive checks for the older lifts, particularly the ones which are above 20 years old. That is commonsense because these are lifts which have been subject to more wear and tear and, therefore, they need better maintenance.

On the Certificate of Lifts, the Member mentioned that it was taken away previously. But even though there was not a requirement to display, the certificates continued to be lodged with BCA. So, there was still that process. The decision now to require it to be displayed is really part of the broader review to see how we can tighten standards and ensure accountability. We want to make sure that it is not just about the certificate and the display of it, but to make sure that proper checks are done before the lifts are allowed to operate. Once that permit to operate is issued, it will be displayed, together with the Authorised Examiner's name, so that there is accountability – the person who did the checks, the name is there, is displayed. Potentially, even the lift contractor's name will be put up, together with the certificate. This is the second point.

Third, on manpower requirements, we are mindful that this may require more people in the industry, in the immediate term. In the longer term, we will, as I have said, look at sectoral plans to develop and ensure a healthy pipeline of technicians and engineers in this sector. In the immediate term, we are still in discussion with all the lift contractors. BCA is engaging them to identify specifically whether there are immediate manpower needs and how best to help them address these manpower needs. So, we are engaging the industry closely.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would just like to ask the Minister specifically with regard to lifts which are above 20 years of age ‒ which, the Minister has acknowledged ‒ tend to have more maintenance-related issues. I think the point of balance for Town Councils would be to enhance contracts and, by doing so, require more regular lift maintenance. That would mean increasing routine expenditure for the Town Council. This would have to be balanced against making a decision to replace the lifts or upgrade the lifts earlier. That would, of course, entail the use of sinking funds. So, that is the real issue for many Town Councils, I believe.

In that light, with regard to the safety enhancements that the Minister has spoken about that HDB is looking at, and because it may cost a large sum of money, does the Minister have any estimate of when HDB will come to that decision? Town Councils will have to start determining how to project their finances going forward.

Madam, I think that is a fair question and I recognise the point that Town Councils need the information early to plan ahead. So, we are doing a study right now and we will be informing Town Councils in due course what we intend to do for the safety enhancements and what vintage of lifts. Obviously, it would not make sense for us to spend a lot of money on safety enhancements on a lift that is already going to be due for replacement next year. Because the better thing to do, as Mr Pritam Singh has suggested, is for the Town Councils to replace these very old lifts. So, these safety enhancements would be done, as I had mentioned in my answer earlier, for lifts that are not due for replacement soon. Exactly what age, we will have to study and this will take time to implement as well because we are talking about a huge stock of existing lifts which we will have to do progressively over a few years. But I know that Town Councils need the data and the information to plan and we will strive to provide this information as soon as possible.

Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his responses so far. The Minister mentioned earlier that the breakdown rate actually improved by one-third. This is quite significant. He also mentioned that the total number of lifts in operation right now is 59,000. Does that actually imply that the number of lifts that have been brought into operation in recent years has outpaced the available supply of manpower that can handle the maintenance for such lifts?

Madam, I know the concerns about the availability of manpower and whether we have sufficient people in this sector. I would say, if you take another measure and look at the number of technicians per lift we have and compare that against other jurisdictions. So, we have done some comparisons against Japan, for example. We actually have more technicians per lift, compared to Japan. It is important to ensure that we have enough people, but it is also important to ensure that we have the people with the requisite skills and competencies and who are doing their jobs well.

So, as I have mentioned earlier, we are in the process of engaging the industry to understand better their manpower needs for the immediate term. But in the long term, we do want to make sure that we have a good and healthy pipeline of people with the right skills and the right competencies coming into the sector and who are also continually upgrading their skills and keeping pace with new advances in lift technologies and safety.

Madam, I have four supplementary questions for the Minister.

Firstly, I understand that quality checks cannot be 100% and I am also glad that the Ministry is looking into enhancing the competency. May I ask whether the Ministry will consider requiring the lift maintenance workers and installation workers to be certified, so that there is at least a basic quality assurance?

Secondly, I know of some new lifts that consistently fail to meet the minimum breakdown rate threshold and, maybe over consecutive months. So, may I ask, currently, during the DLP, how much are the liquidated damages for poor lift maintenance for these newly-installed lifts?

Thirdly, under what circumstances would the lift company be barred from the next tender, given what I have just shared?

Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister again whether the Ministry will consider shortening the replacement period from 28 years to, perhaps, a period that is closer to the private sector's benchmark of 15 years.

Madam, I thank the Member for clarifying this point. As far as I am aware from BCA's checks with the industry, there is no such 15-year guideline in place across the board, certainly, for private sector lifts in Singapore or anywhere in the world, for that matter. So, that is from what we have gathered so far. In fact, if you look around the world, too, at lift replacement, it is a wide range. There are lifts in other countries that have been operating for more than 30, 40, 50 years and still continuing to operate.

So, the point about the replacement period, it is simply a guideline. It cannot be prescriptive because these are machines and the replacement guide will depend on your usage frequency and standard of maintenance over the years. Obviously, if it is well maintained, it may even go beyond 28 years. But if it is a lift that has not been well maintained in the past, then you may want to replace it even earlier. Or, for that matter, you may want to replace most of the parts before 28 years are up.

Replacement, really, has to be done on a case-by-case basis. I do not think we can generalise. Town Councils will, therefore, have to work with their lift contractors, looking at each particular lift, the model, the age, the history of maintenance, and then make a decision consciously whether to do early replacement or maybe to change some of the major parts or to allow the lift to continue with a good maintenance regime.

On the earlier point that the Member has suggested on certification, we are going to tighten. As I have said, we are looking at clearer guidelines and training requirements for all lift personnel, including the technicians. We are doing that. On the second point about new lifts and the liquidated damages, I would say, we are aware that, for new lifts, there is generally also a higher breakdown rate or reported fault rate in the first year. And this is across the board, particularly because of teething issues or maybe, sometimes, it is related to residents moving in – renovation contractors and all sorts of things ̶ user habits. So, this tends to be the case. Then, it will stabilise. The lift fault rate tends to stabilise after the first year. And, then, as I have said, with wear and tear, you start to see older lifts having higher fault rates as well. But, first year, it is really a teething issue.

So long as it is within the DLP, HDB will work with the lift contractor to make sure that any of these teething issues with your new lifts in your new BTO flats are resolved expediently and as soon as possible. If, indeed, the contractor is the one who is responsible, then this will be taken into account the next time the contractor submits a bid for a future HDB lift contract and HDB will look at its past records and consider it very carefully before awarding it any future tenders. So, on that score, you do not have to worry that you will have a recalcitrant contractor bidding for another future contract. I would say that most contractors that we have dealt with for these new lifts have been very responsive and they have come forward to make sure that whatever the complaints are for the new lifts, their issues are resolved as soon as possible.

Thank you, Madam. I would like to clarify with the Minister about the open system specification. Two clarifications. Would the Minister consider asking the HDB to specify in the procurement specifications to ask the lift suppliers to supply a list of OEMs that can supply the major parts? Second clarification: has the Competition Commission started to intervene and compel the lift companies to provide alternative sources of their lift parts?

Madam, the Competition Commission has already started its investigation into this matter and I do not want to speak on their behalf. I am sure they would be putting up their findings soon. As I have said, the purpose of their investigation is to require OEMs to make available lift spare parts to all third-party contractors. That is the objective. So, they will put up their findings on the lift sector and how they intend to put these in place.

On the first point on open standards and procurement so that you have suppliers that would indicate which are the third-party contractors or how their parts can be supplied, I think the main thing is, if there is a contractor who comes in, installs a lift, what we would like to see is that the supplier of that new lift would make available the parts related to the lift to other third-party contractors, or other OEMs for that matter, so that whichever lift contractor the Town Council chooses for maintenance subsequently, the Town Council will not necessarily be held hostage to one contractor only. That is our intent and what we will strive to do in our procurement.

I thank the Minister for his detailed answers so far. May I ask whether BCA conducts data analytics to identify sentinel events or warning signs that can help predict an impending lift breakdown? If BCA is able to identify such sentinel events, will it make the reporting and recording of such events mandatory?

Madam, I would like to suggest to Members that Town Councils should do the data analytics first and foremost because the TMS data reside with the Town Councils. All Town Councils today – if Members do not already realise this – have access to real-time fault data of every lift in your housing estate. It is a rich database that allows Town Councils to already do data analytics to understand better which are the lifts with higher fault rates and, for those with higher fault rates, to go in, understand the reasons why this is happening and, if need be, take corrective actions, take remedial actions. There can be various reasons. We have found out, for example, in some instances, it is due to the newspaper vendor coming in every morning and jamming the lift doors when they deliver newspapers.

So, it may not be because of a mechanical problem. It may be a user issue. But with that kind of data analytics, as the Member has suggested, I think lift owners should take the responsibility to make use of these data and improve the maintenance regime. That applies across the board to all lift owners.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I welcome the recent tightening of the maintenance regime for lifts. I would like to ask the Minister this: tightening maintenance is one aspect; the other issue is during the construction and fabrication. Will HDB be more stringent in checking the lifts that are being installed in our new BTO projects? For your information, this morning, I went and tried one new BTO lift which was just handed over recently but it was so noisy, no air, so hot inside and the HDB took over and gave it to the residents to use. I would like to ask: will there be more stringent HDB requirements for inspection, including certification of the parts in the factory to make sure that we do not have the problematic parts in the lift? Otherwise, later on, whatever maintenance we do, the fault will be very difficult to rectify.

Madam, I fully agree with the Member's suggestions and I have asked HDB to do exactly that. They will be tightening on their processes of not just procurement but testing and commissioning of lifts, before taking over the lifts from the contractor.

I would like to ask the Minister if there is a technical committee that exists today where the Town Council or even the lift contractors could refer to in terms of their technical specifications. And whether they have best practice sharing. Because part of the problem is that a lot of downtime is due to trouble-shooting, which is inevitable when the lifts break down. But when it has a lot of trial and error, I think that can be avoided.

Madam, I agree. That is why BCA has already been beefing up its experts team within BCA. BCA, as the lift authority in Singapore, has already, over the years, been building up a strong technical team and will continue to do so. I have also asked BCA to get advice from an independent panel of experts, who could be local and foreign. So, they will also be setting up an experts panel to provide advisory and technical expertise, in particular. We will be strengthening this area within BCA and, if Town Councils or any lift owners, for that matter, would like to get technical advice, they can approach BCA for it.