Committee of Supply – Head T (Ministry of National Development)

Madam, our home ownership policy is a key pillar of Singapore's social system and the reason why most Singaporeans today own their homes. A home is more than just a physical space, more than a roof over the head. It provides a feeling of security and a sense of place which one owns, roots oneself and where one belongs. For that reason, a 90% home ownership rate, by any standard, is most unusual. This did not happen by chance but is the result of a conscious political choice and deliberate Government intervention. For the past 50 years, we have enabled two generations of Singaporeans to own their own homes.

For those who cannot own a home immediately and have no family support, we provide heavily subsidised quality public rental flats. This is not an alternative or substitute to home ownership, but a resting stop, a stepping stone and a safety net for those who have tripped and need help to bounce back. Going forward, we will better bridge this path from public rental to home ownership and help more public rental tenants become home owners. We will work out a more inclusive and compassionate approach, with greater incentive for self-reliance and stronger community support. Let me elaborate.

Page: 10

In recent years, we have stepped up efforts to help lower-income and vulnerable families own their homes. In 2006, Housing and Development Board (HDB) re-introduced 2-room flats and has launched 11,500 units since. Many families have benefited, including 1,900 earning $1,000 or below. We help them buy their first home through generous housing grants of up to $60,000. Thus far, 1,700 families earning $1,000 or less have benefited from this. In 2013, we further introduced the Step-Up Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant to help families upgrade from a 2-room to a 3-room flat when their circumstances improved.

We empathise with the challenges faced by vulnerable families, including divorcees with children, and continue to extend help to them. Housing stability is paramount as they go through this transition. This is why, in 2013, we introduced priority for such families applying for a 2- or 3-room Build-To-Order (BTO) flat in a non-mature estate and provided them subsidised temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) while they wait for their new flat. We also shortened the debarment period from five to three years, enabling 290 divorcees to buy a subsidised flat earlier. Over the last three years, 8,800 divorcees with children applied to buy HDB flats and 3,800 successfully booked one – 130 did so with the help of the priority. Ninety-five rented a PPHS flat.

Despite generous Government assistance, some families are unable to own a home immediately. For these families, we provide highly subsidised public rental flats to meet their housing needs. In the last three years, HDB helped more than 1,800 divorced parents with public rental flats. Mr Pritam Singh asked that HDB also allow single unwed mothers to apply for public rental flats. In fact, HDB already allows them to do so, on a case by case basis, if they do not have family support or other housing options.

We increased HDB's stock of rental flats from 42,000 in 2007 to 51,000 today and are further ramping up to 60,000 by 2017. Mr Pritam Singh asked what had been the impact on allocation and waiting time. In 2014, we successfully placed 2,300 households in public rental flats. The average waiting time has come down from 21 months in 2008 to 5.5 months now. With more flats coming on stream, we will be able to help low-income families in a more timely fashion.

Mr Zainudin Nordin asked that we relook our rental housing policy to ensure that we continue to help low-income families have a roof over their heads. The public rental scheme was launched in 1960, the same year that HDB itself was formed. But it has not remained static. We review the eligibility criteria from time to time to ensure that they meet today's needs. We are ramping up supply. Today's public rental blocks provide a totally different living environment from those of yesteryears. I know for a fact as I used to live in one of these rental flats and I am sure many Members of this House did, too.

Page: 11

We have and will continue to transform our public rental landscape to keep up with the times. In fact, the only feature that has remained unchanged through the years is the public rental rates; the lowest rental rate of $26 a month was set in 1979 and it is still $26 a month today, after 35 years.

That is why, even as we ramp up supply, we must continue to be judicious in allocating these highly subsidised rental flats, so that we target help where it is most needed, and stretch each dollar to help as many as possible.

Hence, as a policy, singles, including elderly and divorced singles, are required to co-rent a flat and are not allowed to rent alone, as Mr Lim Biow Chuan has suggested. However, if co-sharing is not feasible, due to medical conditions, for example, HDB makes exceptions. We are driven by need, not by rules. Even when we exercise flexibility, we will continue to work with our partners in the social service sector to help these families improve their socio-economic circumstances that would enable them to own their own homes subsequently.

However, as we improve access to public rental flats, we observe a worrisome trend: more families coming into public rental today used to be home owners but had sold their flats for various reasons. Just five years ago, they comprised only 52% of public rental applicants. Today, the proportion is 59%. Some of them have benefited from one housing subsidy before and, while they still qualify for another subsidised BTO flat, they have to pay a resale levy and are no longer eligible for generous first-timer housing grants. Some have enjoyed two housing subsidies and cashed out, quite substantially, and more than once. They no longer qualify for subsidised flats and face an even steeper climb. As they are likely to be older, they also have problems getting sufficient housing loan. Also, many of them have children who are financially dependent on them.

Mdm A's family is one such example. Mdm A and her husband upgraded from a 3-room resale flat and bought their first subsidised 4-room flat in 2003 at $190,000. Despite HDB's assistance, they were unable to keep up with the mortgage payments and decided to sell the flat in 2010. They received a CPF refund of $32,600 and cash proceeds of $198,000, more than what they paid for the flat. But with this, Mdm A bought a weekend car and rented a private apartment. She set up a food stall but business was poor and closed shop soon after. She then invested a large sum in a business venture which turned out to be a scam. At the same time, her husband developed a serious medical condition and part of the proceeds was used to pay his substantial medical bills. They also sold the car.

In less than two years after selling their 4-room flat, the money ran out. Mdm A earned just $800 and her husband was unemployed because of his medical condition. They could not afford to buy another flat or rent on the open market. Their relatives were also unable to accommodate their large family of six. Mdm A's three youngest children lived separately

Page: 12

with different relatives while she, her husband and their elder son spent their nights at the void deck or beach. When they appealed for a public rental flat, HDB accepted their application on compassionate grounds even though they had enjoyed substantial sales proceeds and were not eligible to rent. They moved into a 2-room rental flat in 2013 and have been there ever since. Mdm A aspires to own a home again to provide a better living environment for her children. We will try to help her as far as we can.

Mdm A's case is not an isolated one. Many Members in the House would have met families with such a background. Indeed, we must recognise that the HDB flat is a home for loved ones, as well as a valuable nest egg for retirement, especially for the lower- income. In a rising property market, or when one is financially strapped, the temptation to sell is a very real one. But my advice is: resist the temptation and do not cash out too early. Keep your home; protect your nest egg; life may be harder in the short -run; but it will work out.

We have seen many cases like Mdm A. With better outreach and community engagement, we hope home owners will make informed choices and not be easily taken in by the promise of short-term gains without realising the serious longer-term implications.

Mr Zainudin Nordin asked what more can MND do to help low-income families get decent housing at affordable prices. Mr Pritam Singh suggested loosening restrictions on the Tenants Priority Scheme. Mr Zainal Sapari offered various suggestions, including providing them a third bite of the cherry, but impose safeguards and conditions.

Like them, we instinctively want to help these public rental tenants achieve home ownership again. Our hearts go out, especially to their children, because if we can, we would like the children to be able to grow up in a more stable and conducive home ownership environment. But as Minister Khaw earlier said, this is something we need to think through very carefully. There are at least two issues that we need to take time to ponder.

The first question is one of equity. Will our society support giving them more housing grants than what other families, including lower-income families, receive, if the reason why they need more help is because they have used the proceeds from the sale of their previous HDB flats unwisely or even irresponsibly? The second question is one of sustainability. Would such a well-intended policy change result in moral hazard? What are the right enabling conditions needed for these families to become home owners and remain as such? As Members are well aware, money can help buy another flat, but more than that is needed to create a stable home. As a society, we have to find a way forward.

Page: 13

In 2012, I started a small pilot to work out a way to help low-income families living in two interim rental housing blocks to rebuild their lives and own their homes. The project is called P4650. P4650 is not a housing initiative, but a community project. Through P4650, we bring together social intervention and community support as we realise housing problems are only the tip of the iceberg for many low-income families. They face challenging and complex social issues. The hand-holding of each and every household is highly resource-intensive, and the support customised, whether it is budgeting, job matching, skills upgrading or supporting children in school or after-school care and even mental health- related support. We have had some good results with this pilot, not just in terms of helping many of these families be home owners again, but, more importantly, in terms of changed behaviour and transformed lives that are essential to making home ownership sustainable.

Even so, we are far from 100% success. Why? Government assistance and community support are extended to all. But what we find differentiates success and failure is personal motivation. Those who succeed are those who, from the bottom of their hearts, want to carve out a better life for themselves and their children. It is this personal drive, coupled with Government help and community support, that makes the difference.

Let me cite an example. Mdm S is a divorcee with two young children, who used to stay in an interim rental housing block in my constituency in Siglap division. She was placed in our P4650 programme. She was waiting for her 2-room BTO flat to be completed. She was working as a relief infant care teacher and earning a monthly income of just $1,000. With that income and two young children, she struggled with rental and utilities payments. She was overwhelmed with the challenges she was facing. P4650 helped Mdm S stabilise her situation with rental vouchers and School Pocket Money Fund for her children. MENDAKI and Homework Cafe, run by volunteers at the Siglap Community Centre, helped her son with free tuition and homework supervision. This helped improve his school results. And Mdm S herself never gave up, wanting to build a better life for her young ones. On her social worker's advice and support from Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and South East Community Development Council (CDC), she took up a basic Early Childhood Education course. After she completed the course, she was promoted and her wages rose. I am happy for Mdm S. She is now a proud owner of her own flat. More importantly, she has rebuilt her life and the life of her two young children after her divorce, and there is hope of a better future for the family.

On this note, Mr Zainudin Nordin asked if there are Singaporeans still living in interim rental housing. Today, there are 1,140 households in interim rental housing. The majority, about 70%, are waiting to be allocated a public rental flat or have booked for a new flat and will move out when their flats are ready. For the remaining 30% who are still working out their long-term housing option, HDB works closely with the social agencies to help them stabilise their family circumstances and find employment or get better-paying jobs, so that

Page: 14

they can secure a longer-term housing option. Since interim rental housing started, 4,250 of the 5,390 households who took it up successfully have moved out to rental or purchased flats or found alternative accommodation.

Based on my experience with P4650, I believe that collective responsibility, built on personal motivation and self-reliance, will have to underpin the more inclusive and compassionate home ownership policy we seek to develop. If families, particularly those in rental flats, take up the opportunity to work towards home ownership, they will not have to go at it alone. We know it is not easy for them. We empathise with their plight. That is why, together with our community partners, we stand ready to help them get back on their feet again so that they can then build a better life for themselves and their family. We will target assistance where it is needed and create the right enabling conditions for as many Singaporeans as possible, including those in the lower-income group living in rental flats, to be home owners, with a stake in this country and its future.

Let me now touch on municipal parking issues.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap suggested standardising the season parking rates for Class 3 passenger vans. Today, HDB charges different rates, depending on the size of the unladen weight of the vehicle. This is to preserve the character and ambience of the HDB residential estates.

HDB upgrades its car parks from time to time. Mr Pritam Singh suggested that there is scope to better coordinate the Repair and Re-decoration (R&R) works under HDB with the routine maintenance under Town Councils. We agree. Today, HDB already alerts Town Councils on its schedule for multi-storey car park (MSCP) R&R works in advance.

Mr Pritam Singh said that HDB has yet to reply to his request for more information on the schedule for car park upgrading. HDB told Mr Singh that most of the HDB surface car parks in Kaki Bukit, Eunos and Bedok Reservoir wards have already been upgraded, and the remaining car parks have also been scheduled to be upgraded progressively from 2017 to 2021. HDB needs a bit more time to confirm the exact schedule of the works over the next six years, so that it can minimise subsequent adjustment and disruption to the Town Council's plan. On behalf of HDB, I ask Mr Singh for some understanding. HDB has been working on his request since he asked at the end of January 2015. It will be finishing its study and should be able to reply to him soon.

Mr Png Eng Huat expressed concern about the fruits from some trees in car parks in Hougang causing dents to vehicles and discomfort to pedestrians. I would like to assure Mr Png that HDB and the National Parks Board (NParks) recognise the importance of selecting

Page: 15

the right species of trees in residential estates, including car parks. The particular species of trees that Mr Png referred to is commonly known as the "Sea Apple" and has also been planted by NParks in other parts of Singapore. It is a common species found in many car parks across Singapore. The trees in the Hougang car parks have, in fact, been there for the past 15 to 20 years. If these mature trees remain healthy, they should be retained. HDB will continue to ensure that the trees are regularly pruned.

From time to time, there may be some imbalance between parking demand and available supply, as was the case in the car park at Blk 538 along Bedok North Street 3, cited by Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap. Through HDB's measures, such as the introduction of EPS to encourage higher vehicular turnover, HDB has managed the situation and all residents who have applied for season parking tickets for this car park have managed to obtain one.

Let me address the issues raised on Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). Mr Pritam Singh asked about CIPC. To set the issue in context, we must recognise that there is a difference between CIPC under the charge of Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs), and programmes like Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) which are nominated by Town Councils. So, there is a difference.

As Mr Singh would be aware, from FY2012 to FY2014, over just a three-year period, MND has given Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) six HIP and three NRP projects. This is comparable to the number of projects received by other Town Councils.

MND gave AHPETC full flexibility to nominate and prioritise the eligible HIP and NRP projects assigned to it. AHPETC has used this flexibility to give a big share of the projects to Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC), although Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) has more eligible projects. Nonetheless, that is, of course, a call the Members of Parliament (MPs) are entitled to make.

Mr Pritam Singh would also be fully aware that after various NRP projects were handed over to the AHPETC to be implemented, AHPETC had unilaterally cut the works at Serangoon North Avenues 1 and 2. The works were cut because the Town Council's cost overran and exceeded the approved budget. As a result, residents will no longer get shelters over the basketball court at the Family Park and the Community Plaza, which were committed earlier. The local grassroots informed HDB that residents had the impression that the items were cut by HDB because AHPETC was run by the Opposition. That is not true. Again, this is a mischievous distortion. These items were cut because the Town Council's costs are higher and exceeded the approved budget.

Page: 16

MND has been fair to AHPETC and has treated AHPETC no differently from other Town Councils. Indeed, when it comes to exerting its autonomy even against prevailing HDB policies, it is the AHPETC that has been especially aggressive and often with total disregard for such national policies.

In the case of the CIPC, Mr Singh would be aware that CIPC funds are disbursed through the CCCs, not the Town Councils. We have said this in this House many times before. It is, therefore, incorrect for Mr Singh to say that MND had previously given CIPC funding to the former Aljunied Town Council, but withdrew it from AHPETC. This is untrue. The funds were never disbursed through any Town Council. They were disbursed through the CCCs.

Just as we give Town Councils flexibility over proposals under HIP and NRP, we give the CCCs flexibility to assess proposals under CIPC and to prioritise them for implementation. The CCCs are close to the ground and will be better able to decide on the projects which will be most useful for the local residents. CIPC is community-oriented. Its key objective is to bond residents, working together with their community leaders, to improve the living environment. CCCs also have to raise the 10% co-payment for CIPC and will have to be prudent in what they decide to do as they have the responsibility to raise the funds, thus the need to consult the residents and know what the residents want and whether the residents are prepared to support the CCCs in their fund-raising efforts.

In the case of AHPE CCCs, I understand that it had earlier consulted residents on the proposed CIPC projects in their HDB estates and received 90 project proposals. The number of projects residents proposed had busted the CIPC budget for the year and the CCCs needed, therefore, to prioritise these projects. Notwithstanding this, the CCCs reached out to AHPETC for its nominations; AHPETC proposed 52 projects.

This meant that there was a long list of proposals, 90 that the CCCs received from the residents, plus 52 with some overlaps between them. The CCCs, which comprised community volunteers, needed time to go through all these proposals. Eventually, the CCCs identified 17 projects which could be funded within the allocated budget: six were proposed by both the Town Councils and CCCs; that is the overlap; six were proposed by the Town Council and the remaining five were proposed by the CCCs. So, AHPETC's proposals actually accounted for 12 out of the 17 projects selected. And the CCCs have to raise funds for these AHPETC's proposed projects. The CCCs would need a bit more time to implement the projects.

I do not know why Mr Singh would now turn around, blame the CCCs for tardiness, and unfairly paint them in such a negative light in the eyes of the public when the CCCs took the time and trouble to seek, go through and, as it is clear, gave significant consideration to the Town Council's proposals and were prepared to support many of them. I think the grassroots

Page: 17

and the local community leaders are fully prepared to work with the Town Council to serve residents better. But it takes two hands to clap.

Mdm Chair, let me now respond to Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim's query on the recent plankton bloom that affected our fish farms in the East and West Johor Straits.

The fish losses have come up to 600 tonnes so far, most of which are from farms near the East Johor Straits. The farms near Lim Chu Kang on the West Johor Straits are less affected, with losses of about 10 tonnes. Most of the dead fish reported in that area at Lim Chu Kang jetty and Sungei Buloh coastline were wild fish from the sea. The plankton situation has since improved, with reduced fish mortality. During my visit to the fish farms in East Johor Straits last week, I personally saw a farm that lost its entire fish stock. I fully empathise with the fish farmers on their losses. I know it must be a very painful experience for those whose farms were badly affected.

According to experts, the plankton blooms that caused the fish mortalities could be due to a confluence of unfavourable environmental factors, such as neap tide, dry weather, increased nutrients in the water possibly due to untreated sewage, oil palm discharge and other pollution. We are investigating and will see what can be done to reduce such pollution at source.

Agri-Food and Veterinary (AVA) has collected samples from the affected farms for laboratory analysis. No marine biotoxins that are harmful to humans were detected from any of these samples. AVA will continue to test fish samples from the affected farms to ensure food safety.

AVA has been monitoring the situation at the fish farming areas daily over the past weeks as there were concerns about the potential impact of the recent hot and dry weather spell on our fish farms, and they do it every year. On 30 January, AVA alerted the fish farmers to the adverse weather conditions and advised them to monitor the situation. As soon as AVA detected the elevated plankton levels at the East Johor Straits, they alerted the fish farmers on 16 and 17 February so that they could take immediate action. AVA advised them to deploy canvas bags to isolate the fish from their external environment, harvest their fish early to cut losses and transfer their fish stock to unaffected areas. The farmers, who heeded AVA's advice before the fish deaths peaked on 27 February, averted the worst. Similar warnings were given to fish farmers in the West Johor Straits on 25 February, prior to the fish deaths on 6 March.

Page: 18

One of the farmers whom I met, Mr Gary Chang of San Lay Marine Culture Co, took early action after AVA's warning on 30 January. Mr Chang lined his net-cages with canvas and installed a simple filtration system to maintain the water quality. His losses this year were only one-tenth that of last year's fish kill that he experienced.

Unfortunately, there are many farmers who did not react in time and suffered much worse losses. To assist farmers in the disposal of dead fish, AVA officers worked hard and deployed waste disposal vessels, even working and visiting the farmers daily during the Chinese New Year period.

We cannot prevent plankton blooms from recurring, but we can take steps to minimise their impact when they recur.

First, AVA will work with the fish farmers to recover and build up resilience against similar future incidents. AVA will help farmers to develop operationally-ready contingency plans to reduce their losses in future occurrences. I strongly urge the fish farmers to work with AVA on this. We also plan to help farmers learn from their counterparts who have installed resilient systems. Farmers can tap on AVA's Agriculture Productivity Fund to purchase relevant equipment to enhance their resilience.

MND and AVA are exploring further assistance, beyond these measures, for affected farms to restart their operations. Similar to last year, AVA will not impose the minimum production requirement on affected farms nor take action against them for not meeting the minimum production requirement. We are very reasonable people. We are not heartless. We understand the difficulties the farmers face during these times and will allow them sufficient time to get back onto their feet and we will continue to help them do so.

Second, we need to better understand the science behind this phenomenon. AVA is collaborating with agencies, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), the National Parks Board (NParks) and the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and experts from research institutes, such as the Tropical Marine Science Institute (TMSI), to study the relationship between plankton blooms and fish kill.

Third, through the Co-Innovation Partnership Programme (CI Partnership), AVA has commissioned projects to develop closed containment systems which can reduce the vulnerability of the fish stock to water conditions. The existing mode of farming in net cages in the sea exposes the fish to unnecessary risks. Fish farmers must consider modernising their farming methods so that they are better protected in the longer term.

Page: 19

A good case in point is Singapore Aquaculture Technologies. The company puts their fish stock in a closed containment system and has an appropriate water treatment system to protect the fishes from the harmful effects of the algae. They managed to save two-thirds of their fish stock with their system. I am glad that there are already several farmers who realised this and have invested in technology, such as the closed containment systems.

Mdm Chair, first, let me declare my interest as a board member of NParks. Singapore is a City in a Garden, and, to that end, we have, indeed, one of the most comprehensive landscaping and greening efforts in Asia, maybe even the world. In reducing pollution and dust, and improving air quality and the quality of life, we see that there is immeasurable value in this.

There are two issues that I want to raise: first, I would like to point out that despite our highly regarded tagline of being a City in a Garden, over 120 square kilometres of land have been added to Singapore's land area; and more than 95% of Singapore's original forest cover, which is about 578 square kilometres, has been cleared. This means that we could, effectively, become more a city than a garden.

Given the increasing urbanisation and demands for various development works, what safeguards are being adopted to ensure that our green cover is being maintained and that we retain the "Garden in a City" and "City in a Garden" uniqueness for Singaporeans and visitors to our country to continue to enjoy and experience?

Second, I know that we have taken some measures in "greening" Singapore. For example, between 1986 and 2007, the green cover in Singapore grew from 35.7% to 46.5%. But I ask that we be clear-eyed about it – a 100-year-old tree is surely different from a six-month-old shrub and manicured road dividers in terms of ecological value. Like avocados and kang kong, not all greens are the same.

I understand that there have been efforts to encourage skyrise greenery, such as the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) programme, started in 2009. Although 62% of residential projects approved by URA and 34% of commercial, hotel or mixed-use projects have taken up LUSH incentives over the last two years, could and should there be more? What could be done to encourage a greater take-up of the LUSH incentives?

Last, can URA's Master Plan do more in ensuring that Singapore's green cover remains adequate and sustainable, not just in terms of providing a green cover, but in protecting old

Page: 20

trees?

Madam, the call to make Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs) an integral part of any major development project in Singapore is not a new one. Many Singaporeans have, in the past, made such appeals, including inside this House.

The Government has acknowledged the importance of EIAs in general terms and also stated that we should not have EIAs for every single development, that EIAs do take up time and resources and, as such, we should apply them selectively to projects that may most adversely affect our environment.

Could the Government provide more specific guidelines relating to when EIAs will be required for development projects, perhaps for projects of a certain type, above a certain size, in certain zones, and how the assessments and public consultations would be carried out? Could these be specified and formalised in a published framework or in legislation?

If we take reference from the EIA legislation of some other countries, we can find that the scope of projects that require EIAs is often defined in the law. If we have an EIA law, it does not mean that all projects must have EIAs, but that when EIAs are required would be defined and known to the public, along with guidance on how they would be conducted and so on.

To be balanced against the time and resources of conducting EIAs, of course, would be the cost – both present and future, and tangible and intangible – of potentially damaging or losing vital components of our natural and other heritage.

If an EIA finds a development project to be potentially harmful to our environment, it does not mean that the project has to be stopped altogether. It does mean that if the project was to proceed, we would have to take concrete measures to mitigate or avoid the negative impact to the environment. While EIAs have the potential to slow down plans for development, Madam, they would be an important safeguard for our environment.

Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Madam, pigeon-related nuisance is a common problem faced by the MPs as well as Town Councils. Pigeons often rest on air-con ledges of residential units, dirtying the place and the surroundings. Some residents also encounter pigeons flying into their kitchen to pick on food. It gets so bad that some cannot even hang out their laundry.

Page: 21

Pigeon-related nuisance include inconvenience to residents, hygiene issues, damage to building facades, they attract pests and, most importantly, may spread disease.

I understand that AVA works with Town Councils and NEA to manage pigeon pollution. Town Councils will carry out pigeon control works to reduce the pigeon population in the estate while NEA will enforce against high-rise litterers. Unfortunately, we are aware of the challenges faced in trying to catch high-rise litterers. Controlling the population of pigeons will only work if the breeding stops, that is to say, the availability of food must stop.

I have written an email to AVA asking for assistance to deal with this problem. The solutions given by AVA were:

One, residents can consider bird-proofing their air-con ledge areas. This would mean that residents will have to incur unnecessary costs because of a few inconsiderate people.

Two, the Town Council can consider installing nets at the external facade covering the air-con ledges to deter pigeons from resting along the air-con ledge. This will cost the Town Council a large sum of money from operating expenses. Moreover, I have also received feedback from units with netting that such netting causes inconveniences as well. Just yesterday, in the Straits Times, an article entitled "Pigeon problem ruffles feathers" reported an increase in complaints on pigeon-related nuisance. There were 1,420 cases in 2012; 2,080 in 2013; 2,419 in 2014.

In view of the increase in such complaints, what else can AVA or MND do to assist?

Lastly, as mentioned by a Forum writer – and I agree – preventive measure is a better way to deal with this, through better design of buildings to prevent roosting and entry of birds.

Madam, for every responsible cat feeder out there, there are probably more feeders that are ignorant of the safety and hygiene issues cat feeding activities can cause to the environment. A few years back, an elderly resident in Hougang had a nasty fall caused by some cat food left at the void deck. Rotting food, cat urine and droppings are some of the issues residents have to put up with constantly due to the large congregation of cats brought on by feeding activities.

I have met some cat feeders who are very responsible. They do pick up after the cats. However, if these cat feeders do not show up one day for some reason, the cats will go up

Page: 22

to the flats and park themselves at the doors and window ledges of homes, waiting for humans to feed them, as they are conditioned into thinking. Some cats even venture into the flats uninvited. It is a common sight in some parts of Hougang to see wire mesh nettings lining the main gates, solely to prevent cats from wandering into their flats.

Perhaps it is time for the Ministry to review the ban on cat ownership for HDB flats. By doing so, I hope cat lovers can adopt the community cats legally and take them home to feed and care for them as pets. I have friends who are cat lovers and they do take good care of their pets.

We do not allow the feeding of pigeons, dogs, monkeys and so on, because we know the harm it causes to the animals' behaviour and the community at large over time. Hopefully, by allowing people to keep cats in HDB flats, we can inculcate responsible ownership and discourage indiscriminate cat feeding at our void decks and common properties.

In 1971, the Government, with the support of the United Nations Development Programme, drew up the first Concept Plan for Singapore, charting out our development plans over the longer term.

Many key ideas in the 1971 Concept Plan have been realised.

One, there would be a ring of HDB towns around our Central Water Catchment area, which serves as a "green lung" for Singapore. These towns include Yishun, Ang Mo Kio,

Page: 23

Bishan and Toa Payoh.

Two, to improve the quality of the living environment for our people, we moved heavy industries to the West in Jurong, and our airport to the East in Changi.

Three, to provide connectivity, land was safeguarded for a North-South and East-West Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line, and expressways to link up HDB towns and areas where people worked.

Even in those early days, our Pioneers already appreciated the need to preserve elements of our past. In 1967, Mr Alan Choe, who led the then-Urban Renewal Department, had received a note from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the then-Prime Minister, asking if he had thought about conservation. This was 1967. Mr Choe sent Mr Lee the plans that he had prepared to preserve the historical places in Singapore. This initiated thinking about urban conservation and the protection of well-loved places such as Kampong Glam, Chinatown and Little India, which are an integral part of Singapore's history and heritage.

Today, we benefit from a good home and good environment because we are building on the good work of our Pioneers. But the obligation to strengthen and enhance Singapore and to make it better for future generations now falls on all of us.

Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister launched the updated Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, or SSB 2015. This blueprint, first published five years ago in 2009, was drawn up collectively by many Government agencies after extensive consultation and reviewing inputs from around 6,000 people. SSB 2015 charts out our plans and targets for a sustainable and liveable Singapore. The Government has committed $1.5 billion to implement these plans over the next five years.

A major part of our commitment to create a sustainable, liveable environment is our effort to make Singapore a City in a Garden. In 2013, we celebrated 50 years of greening Singapore. Mr Seah Kian Peng spoke about retaining our green cover, even as we face development pressures. Singapore has been carefully balancing development with greenery and conservation. Under the URA Master Plan, we have dedicated close to 10% of our land for parks and nature reserves. By this year, we would also have developed 300 kilometres of Park Connectors. By 2030, we target to complete around 400 kilometres of Park Connectors, including a Round Island Route.

Our greening efforts have also gone skywards, as Mr Seah had mentioned. Last year, URA expanded the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High Rises (LUSH) scheme, to cover more types of developments and geographical areas. The LUSH scheme, together with HDB's

Page: 24

rooftop greening efforts and NParks' Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme, has increased the total area of skyrise greenery to more than 65 hectares. Where possible, we will incorporate more greenery within our public housing estates and infrastructure, such as MRT stations and covered linkways, to create a rich, pervasive green environment around us.

Mr Seah also spoke passionately about protecting old, mature trees, those above 100 years old. His call resonates deeply with all of us. To help achieve this, we introduced the Tree Conservation Areas in 1991 to ensure that trees would not be cut down indiscriminately. There is also the Heritage Trees Scheme that protects our mature trees. Two hundred and twenty-two trees have been designated as Heritage Trees, some of which are more than 150 years old. These trees are our natural heritage and distinguish Singapore as a City in a Garden. They represent important green landmarks of our Garden City and lend a sense of continuity and identity to our home.

Unfortunately, mature trees sometimes need to make way for necessary developments, such as flood alleviation work or road works. This is done only after very careful consideration. Where possible, we will find new homes for these mature trees. We have transplanted some 2,100 such trees just last year alone. This is a very major undertaking.

Also, the task of tree planting continues unabated. In 2014, NParks planted more than 38,000 trees, or 1.5 times more than the average in recent years. NParks also accelerates replacement of greenery by setting up tree banks to raise semi-mature trees for planting.

Madam, the Rail Corridor is another good example of how a number of key strategies in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint will be realised. The Rail Corridor is the former KTM railway track that stretches 24 kilometres from Woodlands in the north to Tanjong Pagar in the south and is closely linked to our history and heritage. It provides tremendous opportunities, in the coming years, for us to realise a continuous green corridor and active public space for recreation, active mobility and community activities.

This vision of the Rail Corridor is shared by many Singaporeans from all walks of life. Over the past few years, MND, together with URA, have been actively seeking views and ideas on what people would like to see in this space. We invited suggestions on the name of the corridor, conducted workshops with students, design professionals and residents, and organised a competition and exhibition on possible ideas and designs. We also formed a group called the Rail Corridor Partnership, to foster dialogue with interest groups, academics, design professionals and Government agencies.

Even as we seek public views on the Rail Corridor, many people have already stepped forward to activate the space along it. For example, the Green Corridor Run has been held

Page: 25

annually for the past few years – the most recent being a couple of days ago, on the weekend. The former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station has also hosted a wide range of community activities, including most recently, a flea market. At Buona Vista, graffiti artists have a dedicated space to legitimately showcase their talent.

Many people are excited about the possibilities presented by a continuous green corridor. Avid cyclists, such as Mr Han Jok Kwang, have suggested that we encourage commuter cycling as a sustainable means of personal transport. Indeed, there is potential for the Rail Corridor, linked to our park connector network, to become an attractive commuter cycling route into the Central Business District. With a typical width of 12 metres to- 18 metres, it is wide enough for us to develop a trail for cycling and walking, and even for enhanced biodiversity in certain areas, through environmentally sensitive strategies and design.

Singaporeans have also told us that the Rail Corridor can provide respite and greenery in our dense urban environment. Those living and working nearby can use and enjoy the Rail Corridor. Residential, industrial and commercial developments can also benefit from their proximity to it. Some people have suggested that spaces along the Rail Corridor be made available for community uses, such as gardens and urban farms, and that these spaces can evolve according to the community's needs. We should support this, to encourage community ownership of the Rail Corridor.

Over the past year, URA has been working painstakingly to study and incorporate Singaporeans' inputs into the planning and design goals for our Rail Corridor. We are now ready to launch a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the concept master plan and design concepts for the Rail Corridor. A public exhibition will be held later this year to showcase the various proposals that are brought forward.

The RFP will enable us to firm up the overall plan and design for the Rail Corridor, which will then guide how it will be realised in the coming years. However, given that the length of the Rail Corridor is 24 kilometres, there is no rush to work on the whole stretch, all at once. Instead, the enhancement of the Rail Corridor will be carefully and sensitively staged, and we will work closely with local communities to realise its full potential.

Madam, apart from consultation and outreach, our commitment to a sustainable, liveable environment is increasingly being supported by science and technology. This includes the use of environmental modelling for new housing areas, computational software for building design and enhancing walkability, the choice of streetscape trees and advanced technology to plant trees in built up areas. We will continue to invest in meaningful research,

Page: 26

such as this, through the $135 million Land and Liveability National Innovation Challenge.

A scientific approach is also taken to better understand and mitigate the impact of future developments on our environment. In land-scarce Singapore, some developments may inevitably come close to environmentally sensitive areas, a concern raised by Mr Chen Show Mao. Currently, major development projects are required to undergo an EIA, especially when they are near to sensitive areas such as nature reserves, nature areas, as well as marine and coastal areas.

As EIAs do take significant time and resources, we apply them to projects that may most adversely impact our protected natural spaces and coastal and marine environments. These EIAs are gazetted and made public and stakeholders' views sought. The Government takes EIA recommendations seriously and uses the studies to finalise plans and mitigate any development impact by modifying the scale or scope of such works.

Let me illustrate with an example. The Maritime Port Authority (MPA) is consolidating Singapore's port activities in Tuas over the next few decades to free up prime land occupied by these terminals today. An EIA study in 2012, initiated by MPA, highlighted the possible impact of the Tuas port developments on nearby corals at Sultan Shoal. To save these corals, MPA worked with NParks on a coral relocation programme and successfully relocated some 1,600 coral colonies to the Southern Islands in 2014 with the help of blue group volunteers.

In protecting corals, we went one step further – using predictive models. NParks found that the Sisters' Island is a potentially strong source of coral larvae for other reefs in our southern waters. This is, therefore, an ideal site for the development of Singapore's first Marine Park, which is underway. Today, you can join NParks' guided tours of Sisters' Islands for a first-hand experience of our oft-hidden marine biodiversity.

Madam, even as we build a modern, green and cosmopolitan city, we want to retain unique features of Singapore's identity and history amid our changing skyline.

Our conservation journey started many years ago, and was a thrilling and sometimes even life-threatening experience for some of the officers who kickstarted this. As URA Senior Planning Executive Doris Lee recalls – she is now shown on the screen –while taking measurements in old shophouses in Tanjong Pagar and Cuppage Terrace during the 1970s with a colleague, her colleague had fallen and his leg got stuck through some of the rotting floorboards!

Today, the spirit of conservation is very much alive and more active than it has been before. URA's Architectural Heritage Awards recognises sensitive restoration of conserved

Page: 27

buildings for today's use. A recent award winner is the Yueh Hai Ching Temple, shown on the screen, along Philip Street. It also won the prestigious UNESCO Asia-Pacific Award for Cultural Heritage Conservation last year. For the history and stories behind conserved areas and buildings in Singapore, you can access URA's Conservation Portal and share your memories there as a record for posterity.

But restoring our built heritage only retains a physical reminder of the past. What are harder to retain are the personal stories and memories of the way of life from before. While we are working with the National Heritage Board to realise these efforts, the community is indispensable in conserving the richness of our heritage.

For instance, volunteer groups, such as the Tiong Bahru Heritage Volunteers and Friends of the Museum, make the history of our old neighbourhoods come alive with the stories and anecdotes that they tell.

Enterprises also can play a role, too. The Hong How Group, for instance, has volunteered several heritage buildings for conservation and had won the URA's Architectural Heritage Award.

Similarly, many Singaporeans see greenery as part of our unique identity and heritage. Indeed, our efforts in building our Garden City would not have been successful without the longstanding efforts of our Pioneer officers.

Mdm Veeranathan Kogila joined the then-Parks and Recreation Department at the age of 16. With an amazing 44 years of experience, she uses her expertise to bring out the vibrancy of many of our Singapore Garden Festivals and has helped nurture the future generation of nature lovers.

The community also plays an increasingly active role in the greening of our city. Over the years, we have given the community more autonomy to grow and own green spaces through programmes, such as NParks' Community in Bloom.

Fifty-eight-year-old Mdm Kamisah Binte Atan is a passionate champion of our Community in Bloom programme. Travelling 40 minutes daily from her home to the gardens, she has transformed the community gardens into meaningful places for the elderly in the neighbourhood, forging bonds through growing, cooking, sharing and eating the fruits and vegetables together.

Page: 28

Madam, we are continuing to work in step with the community to shape the places we know and love. Other than the Rail Corridor, we have been stepping up engagement with the community through The Ubin Project for people to build on existing efforts and shape a common vision for Pulau Ubin. The Jurong Lake Gardens, under the stewardship of a committee led by Minister Lawrence Wong, is another such initiative. The Jurong Lake Gardens is intended to showcase our strong community spirit, where everyone plays a part in preserving the beauty of our natural spaces. Besides the ongoing public consultations, NParks will be reaching out to more Singaporeans through a roving exhibition and focus groups ahead of the design competition for the Gardens later this year.

Let me now address the remaining cuts. Ms Lee Li Lian spoke about pigeon nuisance in her area. AVA is the first responder for animal-related issues, which means people contact them, including Town Councils, for animal-related issues. But addressing this is a multi-stakeholder effort which requires coordination amongst Town Councils, members of the public and Government agencies, such as AVA and NParks. For example, AVA coordinates with Town Councils and NParks to prune trees to deter the roosting of pigeons, as well as with NEA on proper food-waste management in food centres, so as to reduce the food supply for pigeons. This is what Ms Lee spoke about earlier, the need to work upstream to control the food source for breeding of pigeons. In particular, it is important that residents do not feed pigeons and thereby not encourage their population to grow.

Mr Png Eng Huat also spoke about keeping of cats in HDB flats. There is an ongoing pilot project in Chong Pang, Project "Love Cats", where community groups, such as the Cat Welfare Society, together with the Town Council, the local community, grassroots groups and residents, have been piloting a trial for the keeping of cats in HDB estates. We will take a look at the results of the pilot when it is over in our ongoing review of our animal-related policies.

Madam, Ms Sylvia Lim, in a cut yesterday, had suggested setting up a tribunal to resolve issues among residents, Town Councils and HDB. Our experience dealing with residents suggests that our residents are, generally, cooperative if agencies engage them patiently and professionally. Agencies, including Town Councils, must be prepared to take the time to engage, educate and persuade.

Ms Lim is, of course, right to observe that there are a minority of residents who are uncooperative or unreasonable. These residents engage in various forms of anti-social behaviour like noise nuisance, obstruction of common corridors, illegal subletting, or refusal to address ground leaks that affect the ceilings of their neighbours below. Like HDB, I am sure the Town Council has its fair share of such residents. For these recalcitrant cases, after persuasion and mediation have failed, agencies, including Town Councils, must be prepared

Page: 29

to take enforcement action for the good of the larger community.

To this end, we are amending the Housing and Development Act to empower HDB officers to enter a flat to carry out investigation and repair where works are urgent, for example, urgent ceiling leaks, or where there is imminent danger affecting public health and public safety, for instance, where there is hacking of structural members affecting the structural integrity of the building. I hope Ms Lim will support the Bill when it is debated in this House next month.

From time to time, I recognise that there may also be differences of views between HDB and Town Councils over such issues. MND is the Ministry that oversees the administration of the Town Councils Act, and the Minister is the final authority under the Act.

In MND, we have a full team of officers overseeing Town Council matters who can help look into this. Indeed, this has long been the recourse for Town Councils to engage when they have issues with HDB or other public agencies. Otherwise, Members can also write to MND office-holders and we will be happy to see how we can help resolve the situation.

Finally, in our system, any aggrieved party can, of course, seek redress through the Courts.

That said, Town Councils must also be prepared to accept the decision and abide by the rules and procedures that govern all Town Councils. A Town Council cannot only accept decisions or rules that suit the Town Council and disregard what is inconvenient to the Town Council. All parties must play their part and work within the framework of the laws and national policies.

For instance, all Town Councils are required to maintain letterboxes as these are part of the common property. All Town Councils have abided by this statutory duty for many years. But HDB has told us that AHPETC has refused to carry out its duty to repair a resident's defective letterbox, even after HDB has clarified this several times with the Town Council. I wonder if this is one of the cases which Ms Lim sees as one that would go to the Housing Tribunal that she had suggested.

But, in fact, AHPETC's General Manager insists that HDB requires all residents in its constituency to sign a letter of undertaking to maintain and repair their own letterboxes. If residents refuse to sign this undertaking, AHPETC wants HDB to hand over the residents' letterbox keys to the Town Council. HDB cannot agree to this because it is clearly the Town Council's responsibility to maintain the letterboxes, and it is collecting S&CC; the Town Council should not be passing the cost of repairs and maintenance to its residents. HDB also

Page: 30

cannot agree to passing over the residents' keys as it compromises the privacy of residents. I must say, I think we all agree with HDB.

These are different dimensions – there are disputes between residents as well as HDB and Town Councils. But also, equally, there may be some disagreements between Town Councils and HDB. HDB has also told us that AHPETC has been letting out public spaces at Hougang Central Hub and Kovan City to outside businessmen and retailers for profit. This contravenes HDB's guidelines, which allow but control the frequency of such promotional activities, to mitigate the impact on the businesses of shopkeepers who also pay the Town Council S&CC.

A number of the shopkeepers are unhappy about this. HDB has, therefore, written several times to remind the Town Council of the guidelines to no avail. The Town Council had simply ignored HDB.

Madam, MND is prepared to help Town Councils, all of them, but Town Councils must also comply with the rules. Otherwise, a Housing Tribunal of any form will not help.

Madam, we are building on the efforts of our Pioneers over the last 50 years to create a Singapore that is green, sustainable and highly liveable. The community is an indispensable partner whom we will work with closely as we continue to shape the city we know and love, as a home for all Singaporeans.

Thank you, Madam. I have three clarifications. First, on Studio Apartments. Yesterday, I spoke about elderly residents who would like to right-size and want to buy Studio Apartments. I would like to ask the Minister: will there be building of more Studio Apartments, in general, and in Yishun Town, in particular?

My second clarification is on the Construction Productivity Roadmap. I am glad to note that it will focus on building as many parts as possible in offsite factories and also on building up a skilled workforce. On focusing on building as many parts as possible in offsite factories, this is a new concept and purpose-built factories and huge investments in machinery will be required.

I would like to ask how many such pieces of land have been set aside for building such factories and, for those that have been tendered out, what is the progress, that is, the stage of progress now. Would there be a large enough volume for all these contractors or investors

Page: 31

who have put in huge investments in building up these factories?

My third clarification is on building up a skilled workforce, not just at the workers' level. I am glad to hear that building up the workforce will be upfront, that means, including those at the design office. I would like to ask: what plans does BCA have in order to change or train the designers? I know that, nowadays, because of the shortage in the workforce, everybody is so busy. I doubt that, without proper guidance or certain programmes, companies will be able to release their staff for training.

Madam, there are three queries and Senior Minister of State Lee Yi Shyan will answer two of them. Let me take the one on Studio Apartments, whether there will be more Studio Apartments coming up in Yishun. We definitely will want to continue to build more Studio Apartments and 2-room flats. Yesterday, I spoke a little bit about the possibility of how to rationalise the two schemes because, indeed, the two now exist. Basically, they are the same, but the terms are very different. One is 30 years, one is 99 years, and that has, sometimes, caused some confusion on the ground.

We are actively looking at how to rationalise, with the view to unify the two schemes into one, so that it can suit different needs of the population. But whatever it is, we will definitely be building more 2-room flats. Whether specifically in Yishun in the next few years, the details I do not know. But Yishun is a growing town, I am quite sure there will be a possibility.

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yi Shyan): Mdm Chair, I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for speaking passionately on the industry's productivity. Specifically, on the roadmap, as she has mentioned and I have also mentioned in my speech, we are promoting the design for manufacturing methodology with the industry. What has to happen is that the industry must really change the way they design and approach a particular development project. To do so, they also have a tie-up with the fabricator, in other words, those people who create the prefabricated parts in the various factories. We have identified about 10 to 12 such plots to be tendered out. In fact, I did the ground-breaking for the first one, and I am aware that the second and third ones are at different stages of being built.

As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has mentioned, they are very capital-intensive and they need a certain volume to sustain their demand. On the demand side, as I explained earlier, the Government procurement agencies are taking the lead in specifying some of these methods of construction, so that in our tender requirements, we want to see a greater use of prefabricated parts to be made. That, hopefully, will provide a certain baseload of demand

Page: 32

for this kind of new factories to be set up.

On the Member's second question about the skilled workforce not just applying to the workers' level but also the designer, professional and PMET level, in fact, that is true. We have adopted a multi-pronged approach.

First of all, BCA has worked with the industries to create scholarships and bursaries, both at the university and diploma level. For a few years now, we have been awarding a few hundreds of them per year, to encourage students at the tertiary level to take on specific studies and courses related to this industry. Because of the focused effort working with the industry, they have a very strong industry orientation when they are studying.

For the rest of the engineers, architects, designers and project managers in the workforce, we are also providing on- the- job and part-time courses to help them upgrade. Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an example. We are encouraging the companies to send their existing workforce to go for such training, so that they can master the new skills.

Madam, I have one clarification for the Minister. I would ask the Minister to consider using a longer-term price index, maybe using an average of three years' prices, for schemes like Lease Buyback. This is to take the volatility out of the property market, so that seniors do not have to try and time the market. In this way, whether the price goes up or down, it works both ways for them. The key point is that they do not know how to time the market and they should not try to do that. So, if it is a more moderated price point for them than valuations at a point in time, that should hopefully help them to monetise the flat.

Madam, I thank the Member for her clarification. For computing of lease for the Lease Buyback Scheme, we rely on the professional valuers. As far as the profession is concerned, they typically look at the value of the plot based on what is the prevailing price.

But for us to intervene to tell them that they should try to moderate by either averaging the last three or five years so as to squeeze out the volatility, I am not sure whether the profession will find it acceptable. We will take the idea back to them.

Page: 33

The bottom line is that the Lease Buyback Scheme is one of several options that are open to them. The key is that, in Singapore, at least our seniors have options to consider, like having an asset, quite unlike many other cities. It is an idea which I think they should think through very carefully and consult widely. If they have a good MP, like the Member Ms Foo, who knows a lot about the market, do consult her as well.

Madam, I refer to the comments made by the Minister of State. According to the expenditure control document, about $40 million is allocated to MND for CIPC projects. These are national funds and every Town Council should be allocated these funds fairly.

Madam, I reject the Minister of State's call that my cut is a mischievous distortion of the facts. The allocation extended from MND to the CCC for CIPC resources are publicly available through the Government Gazette. The facts are that for the previous Aljunied Town Council, about $12 million was allocated to the CCC through MND between FY2009 and FY2011. That is about $4 million a year. Nothing has been allocated to AHPETC since 2012.

The CCC can work much faster as shown under the previous Town Council management. The Minister of State has said that it takes two hands to clap, and he is right. He should be reminded that it was the Town Council that initiated contact with the CCC to seek CIPC funding to benefit residents. I have personally asked for information on the budget and timings of various nominations and when these should be put up to the CCC.

Having said that, it is quite clear that the system, the CIPC nominations system, can be improved in Opposition wards, and should be improved. Can I confirm that the Minister of State would be keen to pursue this, or at least to create a forum where CIPC nominations can be discussed more reasonably, and without any concern about some political interference or delay from one party or another because it does not benefit the residents?

The second issue is on the cut with regard to car park upgrading information. The Minister of State's information is wrong. My email to HDB was not dated January 2015 as he suggested, although I do not think this is an intentional error. The email is actually dated 13 October 2014, and I think this fact can be confirmed by HDB.

The final point about nominations for HIP and NRP, and that the Town Council is preferring Hougang to Aljunied. The latest nominations for HIP and NRP are quite instructive. For NRP, one precinct in Hougang has been nominated by the Town Council; four for Aljunied.

Page: 34

Two precincts for HIP have been nominated by the Town Council; 16 for Aljunied.

There is a reason why, in the earlier years, more Hougang precincts were nominated for HIP and NRP, and that is because Hougang was not given any Main Upgrading or Interim Upgrading projects prior to 2011. And that is the reason.

Mdm Chairman, let me first start off with the issue of CIPC. Yes, it is Government funds, but the Government decides on the nature of the programme, based on different objectives. CIPC, as I mentioned in my reply earlier, is a community-oriented programme. It is community-oriented because we want to build community cohesion through an upgrading programme. Not all upgrading programmes are just purely upgrading.

CIPC is unique. We started CIPC with the intended objective of getting residents together, getting residents to come up and work with their community leaders – who amongst themselves are fellow residents – and bring about the cohesion in the community.

That is one of the reasons why we decided to allocate the funds through the CCC, and not through the Town Council. There is nothing wrong with the programme, and there is nothing wrong with that objective, because it goes back to the residents. The beneficiaries are the residents. It is a different objective from the other upgrading programmes, like HIP, NRP and LUP. So, the original intent of CIPC must be seen in that context.

That is one of the reasons why community engagement is critical and we continue to uphold this objective because we have seen it work. We have seen how community leaders engage residents and how residents respond, and they also have to work towards their 10% co-payment component that has to be borne by the CCC.

The objective of the programme must be understood. It is not just about allocating funds to a Town Council, because CIPC funds have never been allocated to the Town Councils. It has always been allocated to the CCCs. The CCCs decide on the managing agent, and subsequently work or discuss with the Town Councils for maintenance of the project that has been completed.

I just want to clarify the objectives behind the CIPC programme. It has worked and we will continue to uphold and continue to use this platform, because it is very important for us in building up our HDB estates. Community cohesion is important. Community bonding is important. Residents must want to own the projects that they require. And when we say "own the projects", it means that they want to work with the community leaders to raise the

Page: 35

funds that are required. There is some ownership; there are some issues of responsibility.

On the Member's explanation, I take the Member's explanation as to where and when they want to nominate the different projects of the HIP and NRP. As I have mentioned, those projects are given to AHPETC, and AHPETC and its members have the prerogative to decide where and when they want to allocate the funds to.

Thank you, Madam. I have three clarifications, please. The first two are for Senior Minister of State Mr Lee Yi Shyan. One, are there plans to build a temporary, or better still, heavy vehicle car park in the Sengkang/ Punggol area, given the fact the temporary one in Anchorvale is giving way soon?

The next one is on the second point in my speech. Will the Ministry look into having some open air car parks in new estates, instead of just multi-storey car parks? This is especially useful for vehicles that cannot enter multi-storey car parks because of their height.

My third clarification is for Minister of State Mr Desmond Lee. Will Mr Lee agree with me that tree pruning does not solve the root of the problem, because trees grow again? I am of the view that food source is the main contributing factor to this problem. When and how does AVA conduct their inspections and take enforcement actions?

Mdm Chair, to better optimise land use and to enhance the living environment of HDB precincts, HDB has been trying to build more multi-storey car parks and sometimes basement car parks, instead of open air or surface car parks, simply because multi-storey and basement car parks are better ways of using our limited land.

These carparks are not designed or intended for heavy or commercial vehicle use because of safety and also, sometimes environmental concerns, and we want to also preserve the character and ambience of the residential estate. Vehicles that exceed the height and weight limits have to park at heavy vehicle parking lots or centralised storey parks, or in industrial estates at the fringe of housing estates.

For Ms Lee's specific question on Sengkang, our general approach is that if the area does not have heavy industry or industrial estates, then we will not build heavy vehicle parks in those areas. But if she has a very specific location in mind, she can file a Parliamentary Question subsequently, and we can answer it fully.

Page: 36

Madam, in response to Ms Lee's query about the management of the pigeon problem in localised areas, tree pruning is but one of many strategies that needs to be undertaken by AVA and partner agencies, such as Town Councils, NParks and NEA, to tackle this upstream. Tree pruning prevents roosting and is one of the strategies. Of course, going upstream to manage the population and prevent breeding through good food waste management is critical. That is NEA's role, and it needs to work with Town Councils to manage the waste in the estate where the localised problem arises. In short, this is a partnership of agencies to tackle problems that plague residents in localised areas.

Yes. Under the current Green Mark Scheme, the legislation only provides for the construction of new buildings and retrofitting of existing buildings. There is no requirement to encourage a conscious effort in conserving the existing building structures as the first design strategy for redevelopment.

I would like the Minister to consider putting in place a requirement to incentivise and recognise conscious efforts by owners as well as the consulting team that work the new development programme within the framework of existing structural systems instead of only just the need to recycle old building materials as components.

On the second question, over the last two to three decades, the move to adopt technology had launched a suite of CORENet initiatives and, recently, to also embrace BIM, a technology to improve productivity and level of integration across various disciplines in the entire construction value chain.

I would like to ask, as we move towards being a Smart Nation, seeking to upscale the use of available technologies, and with this introduction of BIM technology, can the Minister provide an update on the creation of a geo-spatial model of the entire Singapore island for

Page: 37

which this can better assist in making a more realistic use of computational simulations and analyses required to assess the energy performance of buildings, both collectively and individually?

Madam, I thank Ms Rita Soh for her questions. The first question is on whether there are incentives to encourage existing building owners to conserve the building, even as they retrofit it to make it green and sustainable. BCA does give recognition to conscious conservation of existing building structures under the Green Mark Scheme, where credits are awarded for the conservation of existing building structures or building envelopes by area.

One example is Capitol Development, a Green Mark Gold Plus rated building, where points were awarded for the conservation of the existing building structure. Together with the Capitol Building and Stamford House, the new Capitol development has been developed to high performance standards with the building structure and its facade of these iconic buildings conserved.

The Member also asked about waste management after demolition. BCA, indeed, has a demolition protocol, which is a set of procedures to help demolition contractors better plan their demolition procedures to maximise the recovery of waste materials for beneficial reuse and recycling. This protocol has also been incorporated into the new standard SS 557 for the code of practice for demolition, and I am sure Ms Soh is familiar with that.

The other question is on the use of geo-spatial models to make computational analyses for building performance more realistic. Under the Green Mark scheme for Districts, geo-spatial modelling can be recognised as one of the simulation methodologies to demonstrate the environment performance of a district across time, for example, potential for flooding, use of heat maps, biodiversity growth and so on.

In addition, BCA is encouraging the use of 3D BIM in support of the Government's move towards a Smart Nation. Today, the industry has achieved high BIM adoption rates at the individual firm level. More than 60% of larger contractors and around 80% of larger consultants have already adopted BIM. To realise the full potential of BIM, BCA has formulated a second BIM roadmap in 2014 to focus on encouraging the use of BIM technology to increase collaboration among various stakeholders across the value chain. I hope that addresses the Member's queries.

Page: 38

Mdm Chairman, I wish to ask the Minister whether there will be a price review for Studio Apartments. Currently, the tenure for Studio Apartments for senior citizens is only 30 years, whereas the lease for 2-room flats is 99 years. I compared the price of a Studio Apartment to that of a 2-room flat. For a 2-room flat, after subsidy, the price of the flat can be as low as $10,000 to $20,000, whereas that for a Studio Apartment which is on a 30-year lease in the new towns is about $50,000 to $60,000 each. My question is whether there will be a review of the price and I hope that the price of Studio Apartments can be lowered to help the senior citizens.

Madam, the couple of prices quoted by the Member are really apples and oranges. For a 2-room flat, where he quoted a very low price, these are for first timers. Because for the first timer, you are getting a subsidy; and there is substantial housing grant according to your income level. But in the case of a Studio Apartment, it was meant for largely second timers, or even private property owners. So, firstly, they are not entitled to the grant; and secondly, most of them, although being second timers, they would not have to pay a resale levy, which they are liable if buying a 2-room flat.

Madam, just to clarify. The point I made was, first, the fairness of MND in giving out budgets to Town Councils for projects like HIP and NRP and that AHPETC has also been given its fair share of HIP and NRP projects.

The second point was about the Serangoon North NRP projects, where some of the projects had to be cut; and it was unilaterally cut because of cost overruns. And the point I was making was that it was unilaterally cut because the working committee, as I understand it, was not consulted.

I think in the nature of the NRP, there was a working committee that was formed and we hope that the process is one in which the decision to cut whichever projects because of cost issues would have been better managed and handled in consultation with the working

Page: 40

committee.

Thank you, Madam. I am referring to Senior Minister of State Lee Yi Shyan's reply just now to the building up of a skilled workforce. He cited two examples: giving scholarships and providing courses on BIMs. I am afraid that these two will not be able to bring about a marked improvement in productivity for the construction industry. We need to have a mindset change, make adjustments to the work process and the thinking of the existing workforce. That is why I am asking if, is there any other new initiative that BCA is putting in place because, to construct prefabricated parts in the factory, that is quite a lot of change, compared to what is currently being done.

Secondly, to improve productivity, it also involves the approving Government agencies. We have been receiving a lot of feedback that they are being kicked around from one agency to another, or there are contradicting requirements. Perhaps this is an area that needs to be looked into as well.

I thank Er Dr Lee for her further comments. She is right that our initial efforts had been focused on the leading companies, the companies that have the scale and also enough manpower depth to effect this change. Some of these companies have been working closely with BCA to build up their team, including BIM capability. As I mentioned in my speech yesterday, some 60% to 80% of the leading companies are already BIM-enabled. Our challenge is how to go out to the 6,500 that are there. Of course, this has to be done in phases and, if we can create role models and live cases of how things have changed for some of these companies, I am quite sure the rest of the industry can look up to them and quicken the pace of learning.

For the Member's second comment on approving agencies, we will work closely with the industry. We have a productivity committee that I chair and apart from looking at building industrial capabilities in various aspects, such as workforce, technology, use of different methods, we also have a group looking at internal requirements of different Government agencies. We are going through the process and, where we think it is onerous, and if companies find it onerous, they have to give the feedback to us so that we can simplify our requirements or cut through the red tape, so to speak.

I thank the Member for her suggestion. With regard to the first point about whether there need to be incentives for existing buildings, let us take it back and take a look.

Thank you, Madam. Clarification for Minister of State Desmond Lee as well as Minister of State Maliki. Earlier, Mr Desmond Lee responded to me and said that there was this issue of HDB circulars being sent to us. I mean, that is precisely the point. Of course, our Town Council – I am sure every Town Council – would like to abide by the circulars issued by Government departments. But when we find that some of the circulars perhaps are inconsistent, for example, or we find them inconsistent with certain laws, there should be some avenue for us to resolve it. The Minister of State will agree that the circular does not have the force of law anyway, so these things will need to be clarified and, hopefully, by a Tribunal that is neutral.

Secondly, with regard to Minister of State Maliki's statement, do I understand him that, actually, his main concern is that the variation to the works was not worked out together with the working committee?

Madam, the point is that the NRP is a project conducted via a process of consultation. So, there was a working committee that was formed and they consulted the residents. Residents gave input and there was a decision made.

In this case, two projects were shelved because of budgetary reasons. The committee was not consulted on the decision. It was unilaterally made by the Town Council and the local community leaders and residents informed HDB that the residents had the impression that the items were cut by HDB because the Town Council was run by Opposition.

We are concerned about this kind of impressions being made. More importantly, if it is because of budget, then consult the working committee, inform them so that the residents are aware why the decision was made that way. Or even, could there be others that could have been prioritised because of budget constraints, if their reason for the need to cut projects was due to budget.