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

Mdm Chairman, each year, the Budget introduces and enhances compassionate policies, a clear indication that the Government has its ears to the ground and doing their best to help those in need. I would like to begin by drawing attention to housing matters, a significant and contentious issue that remains close to the hearts of Singaporeans.

I believe strongly in housing for everyone. Home ownership is the cornerstone of our public housing programme. The increase in construction of BTO flats, release of more land for housing development, the property cooling measures and a slew of other policies have helped to calm down prices. This has made home prices more attainable than they were a few years back. But there are some home buyers who still require further assistance.

First, divorcees with children and widowed parents. I have spoken up for divorcees who have to care for their children in previous Budget debates and I will do so again.

I would like to ask the Minister how many divorcees have been helped under the ASSIST Scheme. How many are still not successful in their applications for HDB flats? What is the longest waiting time? Can the Minister consider allocating a higher quota to this group of purchasers? Not just allow them to buy, but many of them also require HDB loans. Just last week, I saw one of my residents, Mdm Ong. She was asking for a third loan and she is a divorcee with three children aged 12, 15 and 16. She is working very hard, taking on two jobs, earning $3,400 a month and she would love to own a flat so that they have a house of their own. But my appeal to HDB has not been successful and I hope the Minister will look into this case.

Page: 116

Second group – married couples who hit salary ceiling. I would like to propose that the cap for HDB flats be increased. More couples are marrying later in life and their combined salaries would exceed the cap, depriving them of the opportunity to own and live in an HDB flat. If they are thinking of having a child, their choice of housing would be perfectly understandable. It is more affordable to maintain a HDB flat than private housing. I am most sympathetic towards the plight of this sandwiched middle-income group.

The Government has always encouraged women to stay in the workforce. They should not feel that they are being penalised for having a career or be subject to the dilemma of quitting their jobs just to qualify for an HDB flat, which some couples are doing.

There have been various initiatives to encourage married couples to stay near their parents. It is a positive sign that the take-up rate is good as it shows that many children would still like to be in a position that makes it easier for them to care for and spend time with their parents.

However, many senior citizens live in mature estates which are more expensive. I hope the Government will consider such cases and create more grants to help families who want to live close to each other.

Next, it is those who have spare cash to invest. I understand that the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) started out as a fairly effective initiative to discourage unnecessary ownership of multiple properties, especially in the case of HDB flat owners. But now the outcome is people are turning to investment opportunities in foreign properties abroad. More Singaporeans are looking beyond our shores – from Malaysia, Cambodia, to as far as the US and the UK – regardless of the risks. Some just buy off the beautiful plans.

There are still many Singaporeans who have spare cash and do not know what to invest in. With the influence of their friends and fellow investors, coupled with the low initial down payments and fewer restrictions in foreign properties, Singaporeans are enticed to look abroad. This not only does little benefit to our economy, but we are putting our people at risk. I feel we should keep the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) to encourage prudence in financial spending, but remove the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty for Singaporeans, so that they can invest in properties in Singapore.

Last but not least, retirees who want to monetise their flats. Very often, I have residents who tell me that their flats now are empty because their children have shifted out, have married and they have their own flats. They would like to right-size, buy a Studio Apartment. But many of them tell me that there are no Studio Apartments in Yishun for sale.

Page: 117

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to build more Studio Apartments so that our residents can right-size. Normally, they would like to stay in the same estate. So, if they are Nee Soon South residents, they would like to stay put in Nee Soon South. I hope that our compassionate Minister – I know the Minister is very religious and very compassionate – will look into the above cases that I have mentioned.

Madam, Budget 2015 includes key measures to improve retirement adequacy. The Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) is one of the key means by which seniors can unlock the value inherent in their homes, particularly if they wish to age in place. However, take-up remains low in spite of recent enhancements. One of the barriers holding back seniors from taking up this Scheme is concern on their part that their children would not be able to inherit the flat from them and, hence, would not enjoy the financial benefit to help them cope with potentially higher property prices in the future.

There are references in the academic literature to this bequest motive as being one reason for the low take-up of LBS. The Minister for National Development has also cited this as one reason why the take-up is low. Madam, we have all met seniors who have expressed such a concern.

I would like to suggest a way in which LBS can be tweaked to reduce this impediment. My suggestion is that the LBS could be modified to give the children of the deceased the option to buy back the portion of the lease that has been sold to HDB, provided, of course, that they qualify to own an HDB flat. They could be allowed to buy these back at the price of the unit valued at the time the LBS was executed by their parents. This privilege could be extended only to children of the deceased. Its purpose would be to counter the fear of some seniors that property would be unaffordable for their children in the future and against which the extended HDB lease, not the shortened one, offers better protection. Allaying this fear may lead to greater take-up of the LBS by those who need it.

Some may argue that this is conferring an unfair advantage on the children as they can acquire property at below market rates in the future. But this is really no different from parents passing on their property to children – an accepted principle. All that changes here is that those seniors who are in need now will get another option to monetise their flats while at the same time offering better protection to their children from future property price inflation – a concern which may now be holding them back.

Page: 118

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, Budget 2015 includes key measures to improve retirement adequacy. The Lease Buy-Back Scheme (LBS) is one of the key means by which seniors can unlock the value inherent in their homes, particularly if they wish to age in place. However, take-up remains low, in spite of recent enhancements.

One of the barriers holding back seniors from taking up this scheme is concern on their part that their children would not be able to inherit the flat from them and, hence, would not enjoy the financial benefit to help them cope with potentially higher property prices in the future.

There are references in the academic literature to this bequest motive as being one reason for the low take-up of LBS. The Minister for National Development has also cited this as one reason why the take-up of LBS is low. Madam, we have all met seniors who have expressed such a concern.

I would like to suggest a way in which LBS can be tweaked to reduce this impediment.

My suggestion is that the LBS could be modified to give the children of the deceased the option to buy back the portion of the lease that has been sold to HDB, provided, of course, that they qualify to own an HDB flat. And they could be allowed to buy this back at the price of the unit valued at the time the LBS was executed by their parents.

Parents will always worry for their children. Even when the latter have already grown up and have their own families, parents will still worry for them. Even if the children do not have the financial means to support their elderly parents, parents will still worry for them. Some seniors are afraid that property will be unaffordable to their children in future and against which the extended HDB lease, not the shortened one, offers better protection. Allaying this fear may lead to greater take-up of LBS by those who need it.

Some may argue that this is conferring an unfair advantage on the children as they can acquire property at below-market rates in future. But this is no different from parents passing on their property to their children, an accepted principle. All that changes here is that those seniors who are in need will get another option to monetise their flats while at the same time offering better protection to their children from future property price inflation. It is totally understandable that parents have this concern for their children.

Mdm Chair, late last year in Parliament, I had asked that the Ministry consider offering HDB flats not on the usual 99-year leases but on

Page: 119

shorter leases, say, 70-year tenure. Minister Khaw Boon Wan had then responded that the demand for these flats would not be strong and that the price point advantage may not be so attractive.

In China, the lease for residential property is 70 years. While Singapore is certainly not China, I believe that offering HDB flats on a shorter lease has its advantages for Singaporeans. For instance, shorter leases could be for smaller flats – the prices for such flats, while it may not be proportionately lower based on its shorter lease term, would, nonetheless, provide another much needed opportunity for Singaporeans, under different circumstances and stage of their life, to own their own flat at a much lower price point. For some Singaporeans, they might not need nor desire to own a property for as long as 99-years and they might not want to pass their flat to the next generation – they just need a more affordable flat and for a shorter lease period.

Although this group of Singaporeans could possibly look to the resale market, the prices in the resale market are subject to greater fluctuations and are usually at a higher premium than if they were to buy from HDB. Also, these people might desire new flats, which the resale market would not be able to offer even though they might have shorter leases.

As such, I hope Minister and the Ministry could consider – besides having HDB flats with 99-year leases – offering some HDB flats, especially smaller flats on shorter tenures, such as on 70-year leases.

Madam, during the debate on the President's Address last year, I called for the Ministry to consider expanding the number of 3-room PPHS flats. I noted that the take-up rates of 4- and 5-room PPHS flats were much lower due to high rental costs.

I acknowledge the Government's efforts since then to reduce rental costs by allowing for co-renting, and to increase the number of 3-room PPHS flats to be made available in the first and second quarters of 2015.

Based on the HDB website, I note that more than 60% of the 3-room PPHS flats to be made available will come from only one location in Jurong West. While I understand the constraints of finding eligible vacated SERS flats for adoption into the PPHS, I hope that the Ministry can make more efforts to spread out the number of such flats throughout the island.

Next, I would like to propose to the Government to study the feasibility of pegging rental charges to the median income of those applying for the same class of flats, rather than to the market rate. The recommended affordability rate is for a debt service ratio of 25%, which means if the median monthly income is $2,000, the mortgage payment or rent should be $500. This will lower the rental charges substantially and make PPHS more affordable, attractive and, thus, further improve the take-up rate.

Madam, the resale levy policy was revised in 2006 primarily to address the uncertainty for HDB upgraders created by the previous policy. The revised resale levy is a fixed amount based on the flat type, while the previous resale levy is a moving target based on a percentage of the resale price.

Under the old policy, flat owners who sold their first HDB flat without paying the resale levy at the point of sale could end up with a huge compounded levy if they wish to buy another subsidised flat a few years down the road.

Take Mr A, for example. He deferred his resale levy of about $80,000 when he sold his first flat in 1999. He said he will have to fork out more than $180,000 in cash for the compounded resale levy by the time his new BTO flat is completed in 2017.

For all the policy intent, Mr A did not enjoy an actual subsidy of $180,000. There is also no opportunity cost to HDB as Mr A would have avoided paying the levy altogether by buying a resale flat instead. In short, HDB is prepared to write off the original resale levy if Mr A

Page: 122

takes the resale option.

I have no doubt that the resale levy is meant to reduce the subsidy enjoyed by second-timer flat owners and to ensure fair distribution of the limited subsidies. But I doubt the policy intent of the interest charged for the deferred resale levy. I hope HDB can take steps, just like in 2006, to bring some certainty to second-timers caught by the interest issue so that they can finally buy a flat from HDB.

Mdm Chairman, there is a Chinese saying, "天有不测之风云, 人算不如天算" that essentially means, "Although chance favours the prepared, many things remain unpredictable". In spite of the cooling measures, property prices in Singapore had risen by more than 60% by 2013 from 2006. Back then, many were lamenting the fact that prices of many properties were costing more than a million dollars and prices of several HDB flats were approaching towards that also. Many were worried that their children may never be able to afford a property of their own.

Many people may have forgotten that some 12 years ago, we were facing a chronic glut of about 12,000 units of unsold HDB homes! It was not until 2006 that people began buying these unsold flats despite accompanying rising prices. The onward march of demand and rising prices caused untold worries. In attempting to control the runaway property prices, a slew of cooling measures was introduced.

I wish to bring to the Minister's attention that there are people who are much affected by these cooling measures and appeal to his compassion to extend a helping hand where possible.

Our Government makes policies aimed at addressing problems that crop up every now and then. In the case of policies aimed at arresting possible runaway property prices as well as to ensure that Singaporeans do not over-stretch their finances, a slew of cooling measures had been introduced. Some people are lamenting that we should have started this earlier whilst many others are making a loud hue and cry that these cooling measures have already achieved their intended aims now that prices have come down somewhat. But there are many others who are caught out, wittingly or unwittingly, as a result of the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR).

HDB ruling requires a buyer of another public or private property to sell off their HDB flat within six months. Given the "short-circuit effect" of the TDSR, the "knock-on effect" is that such buyers face difficulty in selling their HDB flat within the six-month grace period

Page: 123

because the pool of buyers has dwindled.

Another group of people caught out are new buyers of HDB flats who are truly unable to go through their purchases because of insufficient loans in view of the TDSR restricting them to lesser HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) amounts. To go through with their purchases, they could either fork out the difference in cash or borrow the difference from banks.

However, given their ineligibility to qualify for higher HLE, they are most unlikely to qualify for commercial borrowings or to have the extra cash. They are forced to forgo their purchases and, as a result, lose their deposits amounting to tens of thousands of dollars, which they can ill-afford, to HDB. Madam, I appeal for compassion to not confiscate their deposits when they are proven unable to go through with their purchases.

When they get married, it is unusual for our young people to have contingency plans for if and when marriages fail. Divorce is the last thing on their minds. However, when a divorce happens, many people get hurt and more so the children who are innocent parties. Again, I appeal for compassion to help these victims of fractured relations when the division of matrimonial assets include the HDB flat.

Many a time, in a divorce, the one with the custody of the children is caught out, at best, being unable to pay for the matrimonial home, but worse, being left with no roof over their head. Under existing rules, there is a restriction of three years before eligibility for a new application. I urge HDB to review this policy to help such a divorcee and the children.

Mdm Chair, I congratulate the Minister for his tremendous efforts in the last four years in trying to re-balance the demand and supply of homes for Singaporeans. Prices are adjusting downwards whilst supply of properties favours buyers. The current number of homes stands at about 1.28 million – 960,000 HDB and 320,000 private. The projection for the year 2018 is 1.43 million. Given the reduction in foreign workers allowed in, the restrictions in policies for permanent residents and the additional stamp duties, I wonder if we have gone too far. I agree that it is a difficult balancing job and I wish the Minister well.

However, I urge for caution and for sensitivity to murmurs and ramblings on the ground. Also, would it be feasible to de-link the rules for public from private sectors so that all Singaporeans can always afford a heavily-subsidised HDB home and not have to follow the trends in the private sector?

Page: 124

Mdm Chair, home ownership is a key pillar to Singapore's social security. It is integral to retirement adequacy. In fact, we would all recall our Prime Minister explaining during the last National Day Rally how Singaporeans can monetise their HDB flats to enhance their retirement adequacy using various options like rental and right-sizing.

Whilst I applaud the Government for imposing a series of cooling measures to rein in the escalating property prices, we must be careful that these well-intentioned corrections are not overdone. I have already met a number of retirees struggling to sell their flats to right-size to fund their retirement.

As a large part of Singaporean household finances is tied to property, a loss in confidence in property could trigger a downward spiral in values with dire consequences for many families and their retirement plans. So far, the cooling measures have helped to ease private home prices by 4% and public home prices by 6%. We have seen price corrections over successive quarters. Given that the huge supply of new housing units has yet to hit the market and the impending rise of interest rates, we must be cautious that this downward price trend does not inadvertently get a momentum and reach an unintended pace.

Many are relieved that the Minister intends for further price corrections to stay within the single digit and not double-digit range. However, some industry players have told me that this is easier said than done. Their concern is that once a downward momentum begins, the downward pressure on prices may not be so easy to control, as we have seen in previous property cycles.

I would like to ask the Minister, at which point should cooling measures be eased in order to cushion any excessive price corrections. For example, with the TDSR framework in place, coupled with the tightening of loan-to-value ratios to encourage financial prudence, could we not consider waiving the ABSD for Singaporeans only at the appropriate time?

Madam, property market cycles can never be completely flattened out and we can only hope to moderate the volatility. With this in mind, I would like to ask the Minister if the Government would consider using a long-term index to determine property prices in housing schemes targeted at seniors, such as the Lease Buyback Scheme, instead of using actual valuations at one point in time. Could the Minister consider using, say, average three years' price points so that retirees need not worry so much about timing the sale of their homes, something that many are ill-equipped to do?

Page: 125

Thank you, Mdm Chair. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At the opening of the Twelfth Parliament, I suggested that the Government could consider providing cheaper HDB flats with a shorter lease than 99 years to needy Singaporeans.

The Government is already providing Studio Apartments with a 30-year lease to the elderly. Can the Government consider supplying flats with leases of 60, 70 or even 45 years and sell them at a lower price to needy Singaporeans?

For a start, the Government could consider 3-room or smaller HDB flats and sell them to people who have applied twice directly with HDB, enjoyed the grants twice but, for whatever reason, encountered financial difficulties and cannot afford to buy on the open market. At the same time, we can stipulate that people who have bought these cheaper flats can only sell them back to HDB to prevent them from profiteering.

(In English): Mdm Chair, most couples today prefer to have their own flats before having children. And the wait of 2.5 years to four years to collect the key to a BTO flat may be somewhat too long, especially in view of the increasing ages of the brides and grooms, as people tend to get married later nowadays.

Hence, I would like to ask if the Ministry would be prepared to build more flats for buffer stock going forward. This will result in a shorter waiting time for our newly-wed couples, encouraging them to get married early and have more children.

Presently, a couple's average gross monthly income must not exceed $10,000 for them to be eligible for a new HDB flat. Some couples who marry late and thus are earning higher incomes or who want to be financially prudent have appealed to my parliamentary colleagues or me to ask the Ministry to waive the income ceiling for all first-time joint applicants. They feel that they should not be penalised for their circumstances.

Page: 126

Would the Ministry consider providing all first-timer joint applicants an equal chance for the first bite of the cherry for BTO flats? I am sure that by doing so, it will lighten their financial load and aid in procreation.

Presently, under the Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS), 30% of the BTO flat supply and 50% of the Sale of Balance flat units are set aside for first-timer married couples with at least one child. For families with at least three children, they can take advantage of the third-child priority scheme under which up to 5% of the available flat supply is set aside for them. And if they are not successful under the TCP, they get to ballot again under the PPS. I would like to ask whether the Ministry would consider giving applicants and upgraders with at least two children even higher priority and an additional grant for each child in the family.

At my Meet-the-People Sessions, I have always found it heartening to receive requests for help from young couples wanting to stay near their parents. This shows that our family ties are still strong. Unfortunately, there are many new families competing for such units in mature estates and the Government cannot always build more blocks of flats due to lack of space in these mature estates. On the other hand, parents may be reluctant to relocate and stay near their children in a new estate, even if the amenities or infrastructure are better in these new estates.

Hence, will MND consider adding rooms to existing blocks if it is structurally possible? Just one or two more rooms may be all that is needed for three generations to stay together in their mature estate.

Mdm Chair, recently, on 23 January, the UK newspaper The Independent had an article with this headline, "Londoners queue overnight in sub-zero temperatures to buy one-bedroom flat for £400,000". Four hundred thousand pounds is equivalent to about S$840,000. On the same day in Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post reported 130,000 applications for 2,160 subsidised flats in Hong Kong. The article's headline reads, "Only 1-in-60 chance to win in Hongkongers' rush for subsidised flats". The flats, which are roughly the size of our 2-room flats, are priced between HK$1.9 million and HK$3.3 million. This is more than four times our Build-to-Order (BTO) prices.

Page: 127

These are sobering news about the acute housing situations in some cities. I think they put into better perspective our much more benign situation in Singapore. We did have a hot housing market in 2011, but it has cooled considerably since. After several years of increase, last year marked the first full year in which home prices fell. In 2014, the Resale Price Index for HDB flats fell by 6%, while the Property Price Index for private housing fell by 4%. All analysts expect the market to continue to fall this year.

We want a soft landing for our housing market because a market crash benefits no one. Ms Foo Mee Har said that we should not go into overdrive and unwittingly undermine the retirement plan of our seniors who look to their housing assets for monetisation. I agree and that is why we have substantially reduced the supply of new flats.

Ms Foo Mee Har and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that we adjust the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty, especially for Singaporean buyers, when we are ready to unwind the cooling measures. I have also heard Dr Lily Neo's very thoughtful words of caution. Indeed, we should not overkill. The property market is in transition and it is a time that calls for vigilance and nimbleness. We will be careful. Let me share some data.

The current property cycle picked up from its trough in 2009, which was six years ago. Between 2009 and 2014, HDB resale prices went up and reached the peak in 2013, but have since eased to 37% above the 2009 level. Over the same period, our median household income has caught up, rising by 38%; so, 38% versus 37%.

If we look further back, the previous resale HDB market trough was in 2005, 10 years ago. This was two years after SARS. Comparing against this baseline, resale flat prices have gone up by 87% between 2005 and 2014. Over the same period, household income went up by 72%; so, 72% versus 87%. We are not yet at the 2005 affordability level; there is still a gap. Whether we use 2009 or 2005 as the base year, the situation today is very much better than in 2011. Our efforts in taming the housing market have seen results.

BTO flat buyers who buy directly from HDB have benefited even more, as we subsidise new flats substantially. Between 2009 and 2014, BTO prices in non-mature estates grew by a smaller extent: 15% without grants, or a mere 6%, if you take into account the housing grants. Measured against the household income increase of 38% during that period, we can see that public housing affordability has substantially improved since 2011: 38% versus 6%.

Unfortunately, not everyone knows how affordable our BTO flats are. Recently, we did a survey, in which we asked people, "How much do you think a four-room HDB BTO flat in a

Page: 128

non-mature estate costs?" One third, a good 34%, admitted that they did not know. Five percent even said: more than half a million dollars!

So, what is the correct answer? The average 4-room BTO price in non-mature estates last year was $295,000, and this was before housing grants. With housing grants, a young couple, earning $4,000 per month could get one for $260,000 on average, or about a quarter million dollars. The same survey also asked those intending to buy a flat, how much were they willing to pay. Their answers were: up to $300,000 for a 3-room flat; between $300,000 and $500,000 for a 4- or 5-room flat.

And what is the actual situation? Last year, about 20,000 BTO flats were booked by Singaporeans. We sold 20,000 BTO flats. For 3-room flats, 90% – almost all – were sold below a quarter million dollars; 81% of 4-room flats were sold below $350,000, and 89% of 5-room flats were sold below $450,000. These are actual transactions. They paint a comforting picture of young Singaporeans being able to get their first BTO flat well within their expected budget. If we include housing grants, the picture looks even better. As far as housing is concerned, young Singaporeans are many times better off than their counterparts in London or Hong Kong. This is the reality.

I would like BTO prices to be within four years of an applicant's annual salary. But this assumes that BTO applicants will be prudent in their choice of housing. An alternative to assess affordability is to see if a 25-year mortgage loan can be serviced mostly by monthly CPF contributions without much out-of-pocket cash payments. The Prime Minister in his 2013 National Day Rally speech used this approach and illustrated that families earning $1,000 were able to afford a 2-room flat; $2,000 for a 3-room flat and $4,000 for a 4-room flat. Of course, as income grows, then the income thresholds have to be adjusted accordingly.

In Singapore, home ownership is not a privilege of the rich only. The benefits of our home ownership policy have reached all income groups, including the lower income group. In January, in reply to a question, I told this House that 744 families in the $1,000 to $1,200 income bracket had booked 2-room or larger BTO flats launched between March 2012 and July 2014. This is 744 families – not a small number.

The Member did not ask about those earning below $1,000 but let me provide the information. During the same period, another 1,491 families, almost 1,500 families with household incomes below $1,000 had also booked a flat – 2-room or larger. So, when we said that families with $1,000 household income could afford 2-room flats, we were not imagining things.

Page: 129

This happy state is the result of a conscious effort to help make Singaporeans home owners. We strongly believe that home-owning families provide the stability for our society and offer the best environment to bring up children. As Mencius put it: strong family values and relationships are foundations of a stable society. “天下之本在国 ，国之本在家”, that is, the foundation of the world is the nation, and the foundation of the nation is a strong family.

We set out as a national priority to give every Singaporean a home to start a family and a stake to prosper with the country's growth. Because of our Pioneers' foresight, we have achieved one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.

There was a recent survey of what matters to Singaporeans, and HDB was high up the chart. And this is rightly so. HDB has transformed our lives in many wonderful ways. We have come across many heart-warming stories. Let me share, through the lens of several families, what we have achieved over 50 years of home ownership and what more we can do for them. This is a tale of five families.

First, a home for life. HDB is both a home and an asset. But through Our Singapore Conversations (OSC), we found that many preferred "home first, then asset", because there are some things in life that money cannot buy.

Mr and Mrs Sarmani's family epitomises this. They are my GRC colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Hawazi's residents. They bought their first 4-room flat in Marsiling directly from HDB in 1984 after they got married. They have stayed there ever since for the past 31 years. They are one of the half a million Singapore families who still live in their first HDB flat. They make up 60% of HDB households. Their first HDB flat is where they started their family, raised their children and built precious memories.

When they moved out of their kampong into HDB flats, they thought they would lose the kampong spirit they used to enjoy. However, over the years, Mr and Mrs Sarmani have made many good friends in Marsiling. They know almost everybody. The old kampong spirit lives on and flourishes. Their daughters are planning to stay close and buy a flat nearby after marriage. Our Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS) and the Higher-Tier CPF Housing Grant will help them do so.

When Mr and Mrs Sarmani bought their flat in 1984, they paid $45,000. The flat has appreciated in value to more than $300,000 today. Some of their neighbours have moved out to realise the capital gains. However, for Mr and Mrs Sarmani, they are in no hurry to do so. They have chosen to stay put, because this is home and they have family and friends nearby. I visited them last week and we had a good chat. We are happy for Mr and Mrs

Page: 130

Sarmani and we will do more for Singaporeans like them.

First, from next month, that is, 1 April 2015, the new Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS) will take effect. Four-room flat owners will now be able to participate in LBS, too. Ms Foo Mee Har suggested that we use a more long-term property index, such as the past three-year average value of the flat, to determine the property price for LBS. Such an approach will benefit flat owners if prices are declining, but not if prices are rising.

We are caught. How do you set a policy that benefits both sides? The only practical way is for HDB to adopt the current market value, as determined by professional valuers, to ensure that flat owners benefit at fair value based on prevailing market conditions.

I thank Mr Chen Show Mao for his suggestions on how we can further adjust LBS. He has raised it in this House previously and I thought I had answered him already.

Basically, if the children have plans to take over the property after their parents have passed on, then LBS is not the best option for the parents. What is the best option? Look after their parents when they are still alive. Then, there is no need for their parents to have to look to HDB for cash payments and then when they pass on, the flat is yours. But if you do not look after the parents, then you are forcing the parents to think of other monetisation options. Anyway, let us get the new LBS properly implemented first. We can make further adjustments in the light of experience.

Second, now that we have enhanced LBS, we will also review the Studio Apartment (SA) scheme. The SA scheme was introduced in 1998. At that time, HDB had stopped building small flats. The SA scheme, therefore, provided a smaller flat option for seniors who wanted to right-size. Today, we also offer new 2-room flats.

Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh proposed that we introduce shorter lease tenures in some of our BTO projects. Mr Seah suggested this a few months ago and I have been mulling over this idea. We may be able to use this suggestion of shorter leases to rationalise the two schemes – the Studio Apartment and the 2-room flat schemes. For example, if we have a new 2-room flat scheme, offering varying lease tenures and lease terms, it may allow us to cater to different groups with varying needs and, in the process, unify both schemes. MND and HDB are working on this and we will also gather some inputs from the public.

Page: 131

Singapore's home ownership policy has benefited two whole generations of Singaporeans, like Mr and Mrs Sarmani and, soon, their children. Our commitment is to their grandchildren, too, so that they can, in due course, own their own homes and raise a family.

In 2011, many Singaporeans were swayed by the social media commentaries and worried that the Singapore Dream would not be available to future generations. We have proved through action that the worry was unnecessary. After four years of hard work, we have cleared the backlog and placed our home ownership policy on even firmer foundation. Every generation will be able to afford their own HDB homes. This is our promise.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked that we build ahead of demand in a significant way so that flats are available on demand. No developers adopt such a model because the holding cost of keeping a large number of flats empty will be prohibitive. By building ahead of order today, HDB is actually building ahead of demand, but in a more measured way.

As not all BTO projects are fully booked at the time of initial launch, we have a natural inventory of unsold flats. We refer to them as balance flats and they come with a shorter delivery period. For example, currently, we have over 10,000 balance flats and they will come in handy for those with urgent housing needs. Every now and then, I receive appeals from Members because, for various reasons, some of their residents have desperate needs for a roof and they cannot wait for a BTO although they can ballot for a BTO. But they cannot wait. So, this buffer stock of surplus flats will come in handy. If Members come across genuine needy cases, do let me know so that I can show compassion.

Separately, we have introduced the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) for those who are willing to rent while waiting for their keys to their BTO flats. PPHS has been very well received. It has benefited close to 1,200 families and happily produced more than 120 "PPHS babies" because they need to have babies or be pregnant to qualify for this scheme.

To answer Ms Lee Li Lian's query, we are adding 800 more PPHS flats this year and we will spread them out – namely 3-room flats in various locations other than Jurong West, including Bukit Merah and Queenstown. The rentals will remain affordable because we impose a very substantial discount from the market rates.

Mr Ang Hin Kee suggested that we help young couples with low or irregular income get a HDB loan by pegging their loan to their cohort's median income level. Dr Lily Neo asked HDB not to forfeit buyers' deposits when they are unable to get a sufficient loan to go through with their transaction.

Page: 132

We do exercise flexibility in credit assessment as well as appeals for refund of deposits as HDB looks into the specific circumstances of each case. We now have a new procedure requiring BTO flat buyers who intend to take an HDB housing loan to get an HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) loan entitlement letter before booking to help them better plan their finances. HDB needs to ensure that the buyer is able to finance the home and keep it for the long term. It is not in the buyers' interest to overstretch, only to run into problems later.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked for higher priority or grants for couples with more children as a pro-family incentive. We do give priority for those with children or who are expecting a child, especially those with three or more children. Likewise, we have increased the Special CPF Housing Grant just recently to help couples buy their first home, but we have no plan to peg the housing grants to the number of children one has. I think it is better for the Government to support parenthood in other ways.

Mr Hri Kumar felt that we should return to the basic aim of home ownership and de-emphasise the asset enhancement role of the HDB flat. Specifically, he asked that we further lengthen the minimum occupation period (MOP) for HDB flats. We have done some recalibration and it is a balance that we have to continue to strike. However, I would be against an "all home, no asset" approach. In other words, it should be just purely for home occupation and we should not allow this flat to have commercial value such that we forget about the asset enhancement role. If we do that, then home ownership would mutate into a permanent rental scheme. Many Singaporeans, including Mr and Mrs Sarmani, would not have had a nest egg had we chosen such an approach.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we could raise or even remove the HDB income ceiling. We increased it in 2011. I do not think we want to lift the ceiling completely because HDB flats are heavily subsidised and we should continue to target help at those who need help more. However, as the income level rises, we must be prepared to adjust the income ceiling. Anyway, I have noted the Members' call and I will mull over it.

Second, one family, two flats. While Mr and Mrs Sarmani were happy with their first flat, there are many others who took two steps, two prudent steps, as they pursued their housing dream – a smaller flat and then a bigger flat. When Mr and Mrs Lim Bok Eng started out, they bought a 3-room flat; they were young and did not need such a large flat. But when the first kid came along in 1996 and then the second kid two years later, their priorities changed. They needed more space and they bought a 4-room flat in Ang Mo Kio from HDB. Capital gains from the sale of their first flat partly paid for the second one. Today, the family of four live happily in their 4-room flat. Mr Lim's mother is also happy. She stays with another son, also in Ang Mo Kio. It is like having one big family spread over two flats, secured by strong family bonds. I agree totally with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that we should help more families

Page: 133

like Mr and Mrs Lim live close together with their parents.

First, we have recently converted the Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS) into a quota-based scheme to benefit even more families. This applied to the BTO projects launched last year in Tampines North and will also apply to Bidadari this year when we launch the first BTO project there. This will benefit families with children, who are looking for new flats, living in Toa Payoh and Potong Pasir. We are also building more 3Gen flats, including in mature estates, but I am not sure if it is feasible to add rooms to existing flats as suggested by Mr Gan Thiam Poh. We will need to add toilets, too, and that would be challenging, I think.

Second, we give the Higher-Tier CPF Housing Grant for first-timers who buy a resale flat near or with their married children or elderly parents. Nonetheless, there are couples who had earlier moved away from their parents, but would now like to move back closer after they had their kids or when their parents needed more care. While they can apply for a BTO flat, there are limited new flats that HDB can launch in the mature estates. In addition, they would also have to pay the resale levy.

Mr Png Eng Huat commented on the resale levy and mentioned his resident's case of having to fork out a resale levy computed at $180,000. We know the rationale for resale levy. The resale levy helps ensure a fairer distribution between first-timers who have never enjoyed a subsidy before and second-timers who have already enjoyed one. But on a needs basis, HDB has helped, for example, by including it as part of the flat price and allowing it to be paid via instalments. I am keen to help this particular case with the resale levy of something like $180,000. Please send the case to me and I will take a look.

Meanwhile, we will study whether we can further help those who wish to buy a resale flat near their parents. Like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, I am keen to foster strong families and allow family members to live near one another.

Third, single and secure. While marriage and parenthood will remain at the core of our housing policy, I recognise that we are more diverse today as a society with many Singaporeans remaining single. Although most live comfortably with their extended families, many will desire the privacy and stability of homeownership. Many singles are proud owners of resale flats, some with the help of substantial housing grants.

Nevertheless, we recognise there is a limited supply of smaller flats in the resale market and not all can afford bigger resale flats. That is why in July 2013, we broke new ground when we allowed singles to buy 2-room BTO flats in the non-mature estates, if they have never bought subsidised HDB flats before. We also extended additional housing grants to support their flat purchase. And, of course, the response has been overwhelming; over 18,000 have

Page: 134

applied and half have had the chance to book a flat.

Mr Lim Sio Poh is one such happy beneficiary. Like many others, he received the Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG) and the enhanced Special CPF Housing Grant (SHG). Mr Lim has just collected his keys and is moving to his new home soon. However, with high pent-up demand, Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim noted that the queue is several thousand applicants long. To address this, we ramped up the supply last year and, this year, we will launch another 4,000 2-room flats. We will also raise the 2-room BTO flat quota for singles to 50%, starting from the next BTO exercise, which is coming up in May. This will help to provide greater assurance to singles and will reduce the backlog.

Fourth, a new beginning. From time to time, we come across families who hit a rough patch, circumstances beyond their control. One example was Mdm Hui. After divorce, Mdm Hui had the daunting task of raising two school-going daughters, even as she tried to rebuild her life. Her very first task was to secure a safe home and a stable environment for her kids. She took advantage of the ASSIST scheme – a new scheme introduced a couple of years ago, it is a scheme for divorcees with young children – and she successfully booked a 3-room flat, not on the first attempt, but on her second BTO attempt.

Today, the courageous Mdm Hui is back on her feet as the breadwinner and as a mother and her kids are doing well in school. She will move into her new home in 2017, but most likely late next year. In reply to Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's query, about 400 flats were set aside under ASSIST last year. This was more than the number of applicants. So, we have enough ASSIST flats to assist.

HDB does not track the waiting time because that would depend on the individual projects and the applicants' preferences, but the important message is that, with determination, anyone can start afresh and we will help you. I have heard Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's appeal for her resident, Mdm Ong, and I will look out for her Meet-the-People Session (MPS) letter.

Finally, from tenant to owner. So far, these stories are about families who have achieved homeownership. For some Singaporeans living in rental flats, homeownership may seem like beyond their reach. But we are keen to see them become home owners, too. Mr and Mrs Hew Kim Mee are examples of rental tenants who made the successful transition.

In 1982, they were allocated a rental flat. They have a son who grew up in the rental flat. The younger Mr Hew recently wrote in to thank the Government for looking after his

Page: 135

parents all this time. It was a very touching, moving email that he sent to me. He also shared the good news that his parents have just moved in to their brand new 2-room flat but, this time, a flat of their own. They are new residents in Mr Liang Eng Hwa's ward. I visited them last week and I am glad that they are doing well. Their son was there, the daughter-in-law was also there. In fact, they told me they are recent proud owners of an EC in Punggol. I encouraged them to shoot for a Jubilee baby. He said, "Already March, you know." And I said, "You can do it. There is still time." Mr and Mrs Hew are HDB first-timers and they could benefit from the significant housing grants to make the transition from rental to homeownership.

However, there are other rental tenants who have exhausted their housing privileges and no longer qualify for grants. Many wish they can turn back the clock, undo some of their bad decisions and be able to provide a better home for their kids. Mr Zainal Sapari offered some suggestions. The question is how can we help such families without creating a moral hazard? Can we formulate a scheme which requires the family to make serious commitment towards their children, for example, and, in return, we provide a small flat with a shorter lease? Minister of State Dr Maliki has been hand-holding such families in his ward and has helped some graduate into homeowners. It requires intensive counselling and nudging. The test is how to ensure that they do not end up losing the third flat and returning to apply for another public rental flat again? This requires careful thinking through.

Mdm Chair, as we help Singaporeans move on to homeownership, let us remember the intrinsic value in life that comes with our home. We have formed our most cherished memories and our deepest bonds both within and beyond the walls of our HDB flats. Our HDB heartland defines the pulse of mainstream Singapore and reflects the shared daily life experiences of Singaporeans in all our diversity. We build flats, but it is never just about the hardware. It has always been about building the Singapore community, the larger Singapore family that the Prime Minister spoke about in his New Year Message. Let us rededicate ourselves to our values and social objectives, such as supporting family ties, building an inclusive community, fostering the "kampong spirit" and making Singapore home for all.

We have achieved a lot, but we must not take our current success for granted. The future may not be plain sailing because the demographic challenges confronting us are severe. Last month, on 21 February, the Wall Street Journal carried a troubling article – "The global flight from the family" – running away from family, global flight from the family. It observed the continuing decline in marriage and drop in birth rates, not only in the West, but also in the East. It is a global flight from the family.

The article warned of the dire consequences of this global trend. It named many countries where marriage is being postponed or, increasingly, forgone; where networks of extended kin are withering due to extreme sub-replacement fertility; and where

Page: 136

childlessness is on the rise. Singapore is, unfortunately, not spared from the troubling list of countries listed by the author.

He noted that the global flight from family will have "unforgiving implications for the vulnerable old". It went on to note the irony and to say that just when more care and support for seniors will be required, "family structures and family members will be less capable, and perhaps also less willing, to provide that care and support than ever before". The author expected the people to look to their government to fill the gap, but he warned "as the past century of social policy has demonstrated, government is a highly imperfect substitute for family – and a very expensive one". Highly imperfect, highly expensive.

While the message is solemn, we should not despair. Instead, we should resolve to re-dedicate ourselves to the basic values of family ties and community spirit. As we adapt our policies to the new challenges, Singaporeans can find security and comfort in the constancy of my Ministry's commitment to not only provide good homes, but to enable homeownership for our citizens. We will continue to work with all Singaporeans to build their dream homes for their families and to weave strongly-knitted communities in our neighbourhoods and towns.

Madam, the Prime Minister mentioned during the National Day Rally last year that a Municipal Services Office (MSO) will be set up to get different Government agencies to work even more closely together in the area of municipal service delivery. Could the Minister tell us what role does MSO intend to play and what does MSO hope to achieve?

Madam, in public areas in my constituency, when dried leaves from trees fall on the grass, it is the responsibility of NParks to remove the fallen leaves. However, if the wind blows the leaves onto the road, then the responsibility is transferred to LTA. If the LTA sweeper decides to sweep the leaves into the drain, the responsibility is transferred to PUB.

Would MSO be able to co-ordinate between the different agencies and handle demarcation issues in order to improve productivity and efficiency? What are some of the improvements planned in other areas?

Madam, I understand that MSO will be working with several agencies. However, does it include agencies, such as URA, SLA and the Town Councils? URA is the agency that usually approves development plans. However, the consequences resulting from these developments eventually have to be addressed by other agencies. For example, LTA has to handle traffic congestion and parking problems and NEA has to address noise pollution

Page: 137

resulting from these developments. Town Councils also manage many municipal issues in the HDB estates and MSO may want to consider including Town Councils in its plans to improve overall municipal service delivery in Singapore.

Finally, members of the public who want to provide feedback on municipal issues may not be fully aware of which agency has jurisdiction over which issue. Could the Minister tell us how does MSO intend to manage feedback from the public on municipal issues?

The office for MSO can add even more value than its current role at both the national and local levels. I would like to ask what is the vision of the MSO in terms of its role, beyond the channelling of estate management feedback to the respective agencies and coordinating them where required?

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Two, how does the MSO measure and communicate its accountability to those who provide the feedback and the partnering agencies? Does the MSO have any service standards of its own, keep track of its partnering agencies receiving the channelled feedback; and does it monitor the satisfying closure of all feedback received?

Can the MSO go beyond being a receptacle for citizen feedback and proactively reach out to the ground, seek out the top touch-points of frustration and pain in each town and facilitate the resolution of common inter-agency ground pains? If yes, how does it intend to do so?

Sir, the MSO initiative was very well-received when it was announced by Prime Minister Lee at the National Day Rally, highlighting the underlying frustrations of many in dealing with problems that cut across very arbitrary administrative boundaries, as you pointed out, Sir, involving different agencies.

How effective has it been at its mission and intent to coordinate across these agencies? Are there further areas where cross-agency and cross-Town Council coordination would be beneficial both at the municipal and national level?

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the Ministry about the progress of the MSO launched on 1 October last year. It has been tasked to coordinate the work of eight Government agencies. I would like to know how the MSO achieves this objective. How does

Page: 138

it avoid duplicating the existing feedback mechanism or becoming a message forwarding box?

These eight agencies are AVA, PUB, LTA, NEA, NParks, Singapore Police Force (SPF), People's Association (PA) and HDB.

I would like to ask why is MSO partnering these particular agencies and will MSO consider partnering other agencies as well? If so, what are these agencies and how will this effort benefit the residents?

Sir, MSO has recently launched a mobile app called OneService in January 2015 to make it easier and more convenient for residents to submit their feedback on municipal issues.

I have met a few people who have downloaded the app. Can the Minister share with the House what are the benefits of using this app? What does it mean to the public? How has the public response been so far? How does it help the MSO in delivering its services? How has service to the public improved? Will MSO be looking to further enhance the app to make it better and more useful for residents?

Sir, it is not uncommon in some public places to see the grass turfs from adjacent plots of land having different maintenance and grass-cutting schedules, resulting in non-uniformity and unsightly scenes of overgrown grass of different heights.

This was often because different plots of land are being owned by different Government agencies, such as SLA, PUB, HDB, LTA and NParks. The ownership of different land plots is transparent to the public. Instead, what the public sees is the unpleasant sight where grass turfs are properly trimmed and maintained on one plot but untidy and overgrown on the immediate next plot.

It is often difficult to ascertain who the land owner is and the public usually gets referred from one agency to another when they offer feedback. This is the case not only for grass cutting but also tree pruning as well.

Hence, I read with interest Minister Fu's recent Facebook post that the MSO will look into the option of centralising public greenery maintenance as the grass-cutting schedules

Page: 139

across different agencies may be different. I would like to know the progress of this development and how centralising public greenery will benefit residents at large.

Also, would this centralised greenery maintenance include areas currently managed by Town Councils? How about those land plots owned privately but immediately next to public land? Should there be some greenery maintenance coordination with the land owners?

Mr Chairman, Minister Khaw told us a moving tale of five families to illustrate our Government's commitment to home ownership. Indeed, quoting a Chinese saying, “治国应以安民”: governing a nation is about housing its people. It is about providing a home, a place where you feel safe and where you belong. But there is a second part to the phrase and, that is,“得民作为根本”. It is not just about the hardware but it is also about winning the hearts of our people. The software in managing our living environment forms the basis of the Municipal Services Office (MSO).

Mr Seng Han Thong, Dr Lily Neo and Mr Baey Yam Keng, during the Budget debate, have called for better delivery of public services. We agree. Our people deserve more efficient, responsive and empathetic service.“以民为本” – putting people at the heart of our work, is what MSO aims to achieve.

We experience municipal issues daily. Take a typical day. You leave for work in the morning. It had rained earlier and water is overflowing from the drains onto the footpath. You notice that some drain gratings have been damaged, which required you to step over to avoid tripping and, while holding on to the railing, you found that it has loosened. You wonder, should I report these defects and, if so, who should I call?

These are day-to-day issues that affect the quality of our living environment. And these are the municipal services that MSO is focusing on.

Naturally, in a bureaucracy that is as extensive and complex as the Public Service today, responsibilities do overlap or reside with different agencies. As a result, members of the public may find themselves having to deal with multiple agencies over a single issue. It can be frustrating.

By working closely with our partner agencies, MSO aims to ensure that your municipal feedback is properly acted on. Our focus is to make systemic improvements, so that the

Page: 140

Government, as a whole, can serve you better.

MSO selected eight partner agencies as a start, but why these eight, asked Mr Gan Thiam Poh. Based on the public feedback received, we looked across the Government, analysed the nature of the issues and identified the eight agencies with the most public touch points, handling the more common municipal services. Collectively, they handle around 42,000 municipal cases every month, or more than 1,400 cases a day.

It has been five months since MSO "opened shop". To address the questions raised by Mr Charles Chong, Dr Janil Puthucheary and Ms Denise Phua, our priority has been to improve customer service – to provide greater convenience, to improve response time and to offer better solutions to the public. Let me share these aspects with you in turn.

First, convenience for the customer. To make it easier for you to report the problem – and we do want you to report the problem because this is your neighbourhood – we launched a mobile app known as OneService earlier in January. Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim had asked for an update. So far, more than 14,000 profiles have been registered and about 2,800 feedback submitted.

To be customer-centric, the app organises the categories by issues, such as trees and greenery, roads and footpaths. There is no need for you to know which agency is responsible for the problem. Say in the case of a flooded footpath, you need only to take a photo of the site, select the "roads and footpaths" category, and "submit". That is it.

Better still, you can use the geo-tagging function to let us know the exact location on a map. This way, agencies can attend to the issues quickly, which is an improvement over cases, say, received over the phone or email when imprecise information on location is sometimes conveyed.

Using the OneService app, Mr George Lim submitted a feedback about a loosened railing near a bus stop at Hillview Avenue. Upon receiving the precise location, the system routed the case to LTA for follow-up. The railing was repaired in less than five working days. Mr Lim wrote back to thank us and I quote his comment, "The centralised office has made things easier and less stressful to know which department handles the matter".

His comment validated our shift from an agency-based approach to an issues-based one. It is not an easy move. It means breaking down silos amongst agencies, working closely with one another and arriving at a consensus on how to deal with feedback.

Page: 141

But the effort is worth it. We hope more customers will find the OneService app convenient. Many have given useful suggestions, such as introducing more categories. We will consider all suggestions seriously as we work towards making the app more relevant and customer-friendly. To address Ms Phua's query, the OneService mobile app is one of our pioneering efforts in proactively reaching out to the ground and is a "signature" initiative that uses technology to improve customer experience.

That said, even as we engage the mobile-savvy generation, we are mindful of customers who prefer other channels, more conventional channels of communication. The OneService app is meant to facilitate your interaction with us, but it does not mean we are replacing existing channels. Our agencies' emails and phone lines are still up and running, so you can contact the agencies that you are familiar with, if you so prefer.

Next, I will talk about delivering better response time and more holistic solutions. This is in relation to Ms Phua's query about MSO's service standards and our efforts in ensuring accountability, as well as Mr Charles Chong's query about MSO's role in resolving inter-agency issues.

MSO has introduced an integrated municipal feedback management system. This is a backend system that sits away from front-facing operations. So, it is not apparent to the public but this is a system that we have implemented that links across all partner agencies. A standard protocol was implemented to refer cases between agencies and in replying and closing cases. It allows us to track the timeliness of our responses, regardless of where the feedback was first received. Over 2,000 customer service officers across our partner agencies have been trained to use this system and operate the protocol since August last year.

Also built into the system is a protocol of case escalation. This allows MSO to act on complex cases that involve multiple decision-makers across different agencies, as well as difficult cases where responsibility may be ambiguous.

To ensure accountability, we track such complex cases and actively facilitate their resolution. Take, for instance, a recent request from a resident to install lightings along a footpath at Toa Payoh Lorong 8. The resident was worried for pedestrians' safety when it gets dark.

This footpath runs along a canal and is a maintenance access used by PUB for drainage maintenance work. Although PUB did not build it for public use, it has agreed to support the installation of lightings in view of public safety. To implement the solution quicker, MSO got PUB to tag along NParks' lighting upgrading works at an adjacent park connector to install the required lightings so that they do not need to call a separate tender or get another

Page: 142

contractor. This is a good example of how MSO has played a facilitator role.

Another example is the damaged drain gratings that I mentioned earlier. In this case, unfortunately, the resident who reported the incident did not specify the exact location of the gratings, except that they were "somewhere along Commonwealth Avenue West" and that can be quite a long stretch. He also did not leave behind his contact details and it was difficult to act on an imprecise report, as drain gratings could be maintained by LTA or PUB.

Nevertheless, to resolve this quickly, PUB and LTA jointly inspected the site to fix all damaged drain gratings. So, kudos to the agencies.

Recognising that such cases are not uncommon, MSO reviewed the work arrangements to see how best to resolve such feedback efficiently, going forward. PUB agreed that if it receives such cases, it would adopt a "just do first" approach to conduct site inspections. PUB will then proceed with the repair works, or notify the relevant agency to follow up if it does not fall under its purview.

Both examples illustrate how MSO facilitated decision-making and process improvements among Government agencies.

We believe that improving efficiency in the Public Service is beneficial to the public. We want to harness technology to enhance the relevance and effectiveness for service delivery. We have done this with the OneService mobile app.

Another area for efficiency is the centralisation of public greenery maintenance. As Mr Charles Chong and Mr Liang Eng Hwa have both pointed out, greenery-related issues are currently managed by different agencies, depending on who owns the land. These could include NParks, HDB, PUB and SLA. Naturally, the different agencies end up engaging different contractors to maintain the greenery, sometimes in the same vicinity. This is not ideal and we can do better.

From June onwards, NParks will take over the role as the central agency for public greenery maintenance within Singapore, starting with grass-cutting works under SLA, PUB and HDB. This way, maintenance works can be made more efficient and maintenance protocols can be better aligned. So, next time, if you encounter issues of such nature, you need only to contact NParks and they will take care of the greenery matters for you.

Mr Chairman, you brought up the issue about cleaning dried leaves, whether it falls into the drain or road or verge. You may like to know that the Department of Public Cleanliness (DPC) has been progressively taking over the public cleanliness function from all agencies, so

Page: 143

NEA is the only agency that you need to call.

Mr Liang also asked about coordinating with Town Councils and private land owners. Town Councils, which are autonomous bodies, and private developers or owners will remain responsible for the areas under their purview. NParks cannot be expected to maintain their greenery for them, which is what one resident requested NParks to do. In addition to asking NParks to trim the grass by hand so as not to damage his shrubs, he also demanded that NParks remove his tree in his own premises. It is unreasonable to expect NParks to accede to such requests and I hope members of the public will understand why the Government cannot be your personal gardener. NParks is, nevertheless, prepared to consider suggestions to improve coordination of services between public land and adjacent land owners.

So, what is next? Earlier, I mentioned the importance of having a strong network of agencies. This is also what Mr Charles Chong has enquired.

MSO will partner three more agencies on 1 April – BCA, SLA and URA. These agencies also handle municipal issues, as pointed out by Mr Chong, such as issues associated with construction activities and illegal parking. This addition will expand MSO's scope of work and will allow us to look for greater improvements.

But not only Government agencies handle municipal services. Dr Janil Puthucheary, Mr Charles Chong and Dr Lily Neo raised an important point about coordinating with Town Councils, which manage the maintenance and cleanliness of HDB estates' common areas.

Indeed, a sizeable number of customers' feedback on municipal issues are referred between Government agencies and Town Councils.

Take, for instance, a recent feedback from a resident of Clementi West. He reported a car that could have been illegally modified and was generating excessive noise and he also mentioned that motorbikes were parking illegally in his neighbourhood. As vehicles were involved in both issues, one might think that the feedback could be easily settled by one entity, such as LTA. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The motorbikes were parked at void decks, which came under the purview of the Town Council. In the end, the Town Council agreed to take action to minimise illegal parking and LTA agreed to check on the said car.

From this example, we can see that there are merits in improving the working relationships with Town Councils to enhance overall municipal service delivery. MSO is thus working with Jurong and Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Councils on a pilot trial to fine-tune

Page: 144

feedback management protocols, with the view to extend the protocols to other Town Councils.

These include getting the agencies and Town Councils to: (a) acknowledge ownership of the cases referred to them; (b) provide progress update on cases; and, (c) follow the MSO guidelines in resolving cases that involve multiple entities. All of which will ensure a better handshake and proper follow-through of cases.

The trial started this month. If successful, we will invite all Town Councils to participate in the working arrangements with MSO without weakening Town Councils' autonomy and authority in service delivery and in setting their service standards.

Improving customer service on municipal issues goes beyond apps, systems and processes. It is important for us to build "Heartware" in addition to the "Hardware" and "Software". This involves building relationships between agencies and people and amongst people, between neighbours. Building an engaged community is our ultimate aim, even as we seek improvements in customer service. We want the public to feel a sense of responsibility to their neighbours and to take an interest in their living environment.

Managing feedback and complaints is the first step in building "Heartware", but it is a vital building block and an important start to a relationship – a first of many experiences. It can be a personal and, at times, emotional experience to both parties – the party who gives the feedback and the party who receives it. That is why I am particularly thankful to the frontline and operations staff from all our partner agencies for their dedication and hard work. They have displayed great teamwork and service excellence in supporting our common goals.

MSO's raison d'detre is in improving delivery of public municipal services. We will not have major schemes, major grants nor major investments. Instead, we are committed to putting customers – members of the public, Singaporeans – at the heart of our work. Little by little, step by step, we aim to deliver better, customer-centric municipal services by making it more convenient for you to tell us what can be better, to respond to your feedback promptly and to implement more holistic solutions by working closely with you and the community. We have just taken the first step, Mr Chairman, and we would like you and the rest of Singapore to join us in our journey as we make Singapore an even more liveable and endearing home.

Mr Chairman, many residents welcome the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) but there have been negative experiences from some. There are three that I would like to share.

Firstly, one common issue is the occurrence of ceiling leakages. Most often, it happens when the unit above has some waterproofing problems and it will be compulsory for the owner to do repair works if the tests for water leaks proved to be coming from his unit. But there have been instances whereby owners do not see the need to or do not want to spend the money to do this repair work. Such behaviour delays the repair unnecessarily and the residents staying below will suffer the inconvenience and having to deal with the leaking ceilings.

In December last year, Minister Khaw shared in a blog post that cases of ceiling leakages in HDB flats can remain unresolved for months due to the uncooperative nature of some neighbours and that the Government is looking at amending laws to allow HDB officers to enter such flats to investigate and carry out repair works. Several of my residents also suffer a similar plight and I support this amendment. This particular amendment is more pertinent

Page: 147

for those involved in the Home Improvement Programme (HIP).

When a block of HDB flats has been identified for HIP, eligible households will be notified to do a polling to opt in or out for the upgrading works. Some flat owners may have rented out their flats and could be staying elsewhere or overseas. Such incidents delay the upgrading works or leave water leakage concerns unattended to and owners have, at times, proved hard to be located or were uncooperative.

Secondly, some residents also shared with me that there were times that they spent time waiting for the contractors to come to their house. They took time off from work to wait for the contractors to do the HIP works and realised that they only spent maybe an hour while they waited the whole day for them to come.

In this case, we hope HDB can look into more effective ways for these officers to do their work or the contractors to be more expeditious so that the entire process can be less time-consuming and less disruptive.

Finally, can HDB also look at expediting home improvement works for households with the elderly and those who are physically disabled.

Mr Chairperson, in last year's COS debate, I raised the formation of an appeals forum under the CIPC framework where differences of opinion about an Opposition Town Council and the CCC's nomination for CIPC projects can be worked out. In the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council's case, correspondence with the CCC on CIPC funding started in May 2012, initiated by the Town Council.

A reply from the CCC came only six months later. After finally agreeing to meet the Town Council, the CCC invited the Town Council to submit its proposal in August 2013. The CCC replied two months later with a much shortened list of projects it supported. Some 16 months thereafter, there has been no substantive update from the CCC.

Contrast this with the $12 million of approved CIPC funding extended by MND to the previous Aljunied Town Council through the CCC in just 36 months, from FY 2009 to 2011, $4.1 million of which was withdrawn from the incoming Town Council after GE 2011.

I reiterate my call for the development of a platform under MND's auspices to address CIPC matters for the benefit of all residents in Opposition wards.

Mr Chairman, shops at neighbourhood centres provide much convenience to the residents and add vibrancy to the neighbourhood. However, many clusters of shops in HDB heartlands, especially in Jurong West, are ageing and need upgrading to bring more life to the neighbourhood. Fortunately, HDB provides co-funding for upgrading of common areas under the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) scheme. In addition, many of the shop owners and shoppers have also benefited from the subsidies for the promotional events under the ROS.

The upgrading programme under the ROS scheme, nonetheless, needs the consent of all the shop owners before they could take advantage of the subsidies. This is very difficult. Although some shop owners know the scheme is beneficial to them and the community, there are always some who do not cooperate. Thus, I understand that only a handful of the neighbourhood centres are able to take advantage of the upgrading scheme since its

Page: 149

inception. In addition, the current level of $10,000 subsidy per shop is also losing its appeal given the inflation over the years, especially the escalation of construction costs. Hence, I have a couple of suggestions to tweak the ROS scheme to make it more attractive.

Firstly, MND could consider aligning ROS with the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) to allow only Singaporean shop owners to vote. Similarly, it would also require to garner at least 75% of the votes to embark on the ROS. And the rest of the shop owners would then have to go along with the decision and pay the upgrading costs accordingly. I reckon that HDB might have to amend the appropriate law and regulations to facilitate such a change.

Secondly, I hope MND could consider increasing the subsidy per shop to, say, $20,000 for Singaporean shop owners and a lesser amount for others and to encourage better participation as well as keeping pace with the significant increase in construction cost since the commencement of the ROS scheme.

I hope that MND would agree that the two suggestions could possibly make the ROS scheme more attractive.

Sir, parking has been a major headache for many drivers of heavy vehicles in Singapore. There is a total of 41,600 heavy vehicle parking lots, out of which

Page: 150

10,400 public lots are operated by URA and HDB and 31,200 are private lots. While there are supposedly only 34,600 heavy vehicles on the register for all the lots, there is a long waiting list of 3,900 heavy vehicles for public lots as of August 2014.

This is not too surprising since HDB charges $85 a month, URA charges $130 a month whereas the average monthly season fee for each private lot is $275 a month, more than double the fee for public lots. The monthly season fee for private lots is too expensive for most drivers of heavy vehicles who are mostly paid on a per-trip basis. The lack of monthly fixed salaries also leads to long and odd working hours for many drivers, who end up having to drive their heavy vehicles back to park near their homes.

To earn more income, many drivers prefer to drive bigger vehicles but are unable to afford the parking charges for private lots and are stuck on the wait list for public lots. They often have to resort to parking at open air carparks or along the roadside at night. They know they may get a parking summons as a result. They have no choice but to take the risk. One such summons would cost the family approximately $100. I have residents in Punggol East who are at risk of getting summonses on a daily basis.

One possible solution for this is for HDB and URA to take over private heavy vehicle parks and expand the number of public lots, especially those private heavy vehicle parks situated close to estates where the population has increased sharply in recent years – in the central, north and north-east regions. This will help residents who work in jobs requiring them to drive the heavy vehicles to be able to park their vehicles with peace of mind at the end of a long working day and return home quickly to enjoy time with their families. This will also reduce the number of heavy vehicles plying into residential areas, which is a potential danger to road users.

For another group of vehicle owners, they face a different parking problem. Certain medium sized vehicles are too tall to enter the multi-storey carparks (MSCP) in our HDB estates, but there are no open-air carparks for such vehicles in many new HDB estates. In many instances, the residents feedback to me that they have no choice but to park along the side of a road. Would it be possible to look into more open-air carparks or to reserve a number of lots in open-air carparks for vehicles that are above the height limits for MSCP?

Giving due consideration to connectivity and eco-features, we have designed the three housing areas with distinctive community spaces and greenery, seamless pedestrian links and ample amenities.

Tampines North, for instance, will enjoy a 7.5-hectare "Boulevard Park" as a "green shoot" that runs through the estate. It will have a 10-hectare "Quarry Park", providing green spaces and community facilities for residents. Precincts further away from the "green shoot" will enjoy their own dedicated local parks. We launched the first 1,500 units of BTO flats, Tampines GreenRidges, last year. We will launch another 1,200 units for sale this year.

Bidadari residents will be able to enjoy its rolling landscape and rich heritage in the form of the new Alkaff Lake and Heritage Walk. Bidadari will also feature an integrated development at its centre, with a bus interchange, food centre and social communal facilities. We will launch the first 2,000 units of BTO flats in Bidadari later this year.

Miss Penny Low will be pleased to note that the latest housing district in Punggol, Punggol Northshore, will house Punggol's first seafront public housing. It builds upon the plans for Punggol to be a smart and sustainable town, and features smart car park monitoring systems, smart lighting and a pneumatic waste conveyance system, amongst others. Flat buyers can look forward to 4,100 units to be launched this year.

Punggol residents can also look forward to the completion of Waterway Point and Coney Island Park later this year. SAFRA Clubhouse will open next year. Coney Island Park, with its strong nature focus, will preserve the rustic charm of Punggol. Some of the planned

Page: 153

amenities are outside the town centre, and we will work closely with other agencies to ensure that the supporting infrastructure keeps pace.

As Miss Low reminded this House, these new developments are opportunities not only for innovating infrastructural hardware, but also for developing better community software to build heart-ware. HDB welcomes the local community's suggestions. May I seek your permission to continue in Mandarin?

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Even as we build new towns, we have not forgotten older towns. Older towns remain very popular with existing and new residents because of their accessibility and mature amenities.

We are rejuvenating the older towns systematically through the Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) programme. ROH is a significant, extensive, long-term programme. Since 2007, we committed to transform six estates in two batches: the first batch includes Dawson, Yishun and Punggol; and the second batch includes East Coast, Hougang and Jurong Lake.

Projects in these six estates are at various stages of implementation. Let me share some examples.

At Dawson, the first three of five blocks at SkyTerrace@Dawson have been completed. This new BTO development has enabled many young Singaporeans, after marriage, to buy a flat near their elderly parents in Queenstown. Better still, this is the first development that allows couples and their parents to buy a pair of flats under the Multi-Generation Living Scheme. Mr Chan Lup Hoe, for example, bought a 5-room flat, while his elderly parents bought a Studio Apartment in the same development. We are glad that SkyTerrace@Dawson will help foster closer families and stronger ties.

Yishun has also undergone significant transformation over the past eight years. The rejuvenation of the town centre is still underway, but we have already seen many improvements. In 2008, the upgraded Northpoint Shopping Centre, with a new public library, was completed. In 2010, we opened Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. This is next to the rejuvenated Yishun Pond with a new three-storey lookout tower that we completed in 2011.

Yishun residents are happy with the new amenities. This is Samuel Gift Stephen and his cousin, Lawrence Augustine. Samuel told us that the new Yishun Pond is much more beautiful and he was appreciative that HDB had consulted him and other residents before embarking on ROH and upgrading.

Page: 154

Indeed, the new amenities at Yishun offer something for every age group and bring fun to their lives. Amenities, such as the library, community club, Yishun Park, Northpoint Shopping Centre and the Family Bay, provide common spaces for interactions and community-building and we hope that Yishun residents will use these spaces to build strong relationships and a close-knit, kampung community.

Today, I am happy to announce that we will transform another three towns under ROH.

First, Toa Payoh. We plan to rejuvenate Toa Payoh Town Centre and improve the pedestrian mall and public spaces. We will redevelop the town park and improve pedestrian linkages to the Town Centre. Toa Payoh will also benefit from the new Caldecott MRT station along the new Thomson-East Coast Line and we have plans to develop more public housing and parks around Caldecott Station to provide more housing choices for those who wish to live in Toa Payoh.

Second, Woodlands. We want to leverage the Woodlands' waterfront along the Straits to create more recreational spaces and allow the entire waterfront area to be opened for public enjoyment. We will also be developing attractive housing within Woodlands North that would be set amidst a lush green environment.

Third, Pasir Ris. We want to transform the Town Centre into a vibrant hub by injecting new developments. We also plan to enhance various neighbourhood centres and parks and introduce more family-oriented recreational activities.

These are preliminary plans, which we will refine and improve, with inputs from residents and local community stakeholders, in the coming months. I hope that residents of these estates will come forward to actively contribute ideas. Work with us and, together, we can build a better living environment.

(In English): Mr Chairman, beyond the ROH programme, we are also investing in sustainable solutions for older towns. In 2012, HDB piloted the $23 million Greenprint programme in Yuhua. Under the programme, residents enjoy eco-solutions and community initiatives. Here are some Yuhua residents enjoying the community parklet, one of the Greenprint Initiatives. The pilot project is well-received. We will select and announce another precinct for HDB Greenprint to further test some of the initiatives in the coming months.

Page: 155

Mr Chairman, Members are well aware that HDB has carried out the $5 billion Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to benefit 500,000 households in the past 15 years. Last year, we further introduced the $94 million Selective Lift Replacement Programme (SLRP) to help Town Councils replace old lifts. The new lifts will be more energy-efficient, allow better wheelchair access and incorporate various safety and security features, such as vision panels and infra-red door safety sensors.

For about 200 or so blocks that could not benefit from LUP because of technical constraints and prohibitively high cost, HDB is testing various lift solutions. Meanwhile, residents without lift access and who have medical needs can contact HDB for assistance.

Next, let me talk about the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) which HDB introduced in 2007. This is a highly subsidised programme – the Government spends up to $25,600 per household, depending on the flat type and improvements selected. We have selected 140,000 households so far since its introduction in 2007 and it has proven so popular that we have increased the pace several times – to 28,000 households in 2012, to 35,000 households last year and to 50,000 households this year and the next.

In 2012, we also introduced the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme at a cost of $260 million, to support our ageing population. Over 46,000 households have opted for EASE so far.

I thank Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Png Eng Huat for their feedback and we will work with our contractors to see how else we can improve the process for HIP. We are evolving the programme in response to elderly feedback, so that we can better serve their needs. Last year, just two years after introduction, we expanded EASE to offer slip-resistant treatment and grab bars for the second toilet. We also lowered the age criterion for seniors to apply for EASE.

We have also enhanced the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) last year. It will cover more blocks and provide additional works with an increased budget – we will now spend up to $4,700 per flat, up from the initial budget of $3,400 per flat. Another 45,000 households will benefit from NRP over these two years, bringing the total to 189,000 households by the end of 2016.

Mr Chairman, let me now talk about HDB commercial shops. Since 2007, HDB has spent $8.4 million under the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) programme to help participating shops spruce up their common areas, add new awnings and shop directories and organise promotional activities. One in two HDB shops islandwide has benefited so far.

Page: 156

To prepare for the next phase of ROS, I will set up a new committee to take in views and suggestions from merchant associations, retailers and grassroots organisations. I would be delighted if Mr Ang Wei Neng could also join me on the Committee.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if HDB can help these shops in other ways, such as reducing rentals or providing rebates. HDB has in place measures to stagger rental increases in a rising market. I should clarify that, currently, most shops rented directly from HDB are paying lower rentals compared to private commercial rates and we do not think that additional rebates are needed for now. HDB does not control the rental of shops that are freely transacted in the market.

As we reflect on our housing achievements in the last five decades, in the midst of celebrating SG50, I think it is also important for us to think how we can better preserve the "kampung spirit" in our HDB neighbourhoods.

This is why, besides building physical spaces, we always encourage community coming together to connect and discuss issues close to their hearts. HDB's Cool Ideas for Better HDB Living and the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) are two good examples. They allow residents to take initiatives and ownership of their environment.

Mr Pritam Singh asked if a platform could be established for opposition Town Councils and CCCs to discuss CIPC matters. Well, on CIPC projects, the mechanism for coordination already exists. We have observed that, all along, CCCs and Town Councils have worked very well together. CCCs and Town Councils have come together to propose projects for the CIP Committee's approval. So, I encourage the AHPETC to work closely with the CCCs to effect more CIPC projects on the ground.

On the suggestion by Ms Lim for a tribunal, I think the rule is very clear. Whatever is inside the HDB flat is the lessee's responsibility. Sometimes, there may be disputes. But after the HDB's explanation, HDB lessees usually understand their responsibilities in terms of maintaining the interior of their flats. In cases where there are financial difficulties, HDB has a goodwill repair programme for spalling concrete. That is where HDB can step in to get the affected units to repair the ceiling or the floors, as the case may be, for mutual good.

Mr Chairman, let me turn to the subject of heavy vehicle parking. Members would know that by LTA regulation, all new heavy vehicle registrations are permitted only if the owners show proof of having valid heavy vehicle parking lots. So, that is a pre-condition. While there are more than sufficient heavy vehicle parking lots islandwide, the reality is that drivers of heavy vehicles would like to drive their trucks home and park close to their homes.

Page: 157

While we understand their preferences, we also need to consider the concerns of other residents who worry about heavy vehicular traffic and the resulting safety problems in residential areas. Besides, there are also practical difficulties of creating such spaces in highly built-up estates. But in certain areas near industry zones, where we can identify temporary vacant plots of land for interim use, we will consider working with the local community on the feasibility of building them up as short-term heavy vehicle parking.

Members will be pleased to note that we are also exploring new ways to alleviate the high demand. For instance, URA and JTC have begun to require some industrial developments to provide integrated heavy vehicle parks. Finally, I must also emphasise that business owners themselves must find parking solutions for their commercial fleets and they have to make transport arrangements for the drivers between the designated parking lots and the drivers' homes. I hope this addresses Ms Lee Li Lian's concerns.

Mr Chairman, let me continue on the subject of productivity for the construction industry. I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for her passionate comments about improving the productivity for the industry.

At $36 billion, the construction industry accounts for 5% of our GDP. It comprises about 12,500 firms and employs 320,000 workers. However, 5% of the large firms contribute half of the total Value-Add (VA) of the industry. The remaining are many small and medium firms. So, there is a great disparity in productivity between the large and small firms.

The construction industry is characterised by the practice of "multi-layer sub-contracting". Externally, building contractors also have to interface with developers, prefabricators, architectural and engineering firms. The many interfaces often add to the complexity of project design and implementation. To raise the industry's productivity, we need to address these inefficiencies.

We conceived the first Construction Productivity Roadmap in 2010. The roadmap adopts a "3M framework" – Manpower, Machines and Methods to raise productivity.

The first "M" is on Manpower. Construction is a manpower-intensive industry but it need not remain so. International best practices elsewhere show that when workers are skilled or multi-skilled, construction projects typically require fewer workers and the resulting quality is also higher.

To create a conducive environment for skill upgrading, MOM has progressively tightened MYE or man-year entitlement allocated to projects. MOM has also raised foreign worker levies. As a result, we see more firms willing to invest in technology and workforce

Page: 158

development.

To enhance the skill levels of our workforce, BCA is helping to expand the industry's training capacity. Between 2010 and 2014, BCA has set aside funding to help the industry to upgrade more than 74,000 in-service personnel from 6,000 firms.

The second "M" is about Machine or mechanisation. Between 2010 and 2014, about 880 firms received funding from the Mechanisation Credit scheme. The use of the right tools in mechanisation, automation and Information Technology has helped firms to raise workers' productivity. In addition, some 135 of these firms also received the Investment Allowance, a tax credit, for purchasing productive machineries.

The third "M" is about Method of construction. In this area, we are helping the industry to acquire the latest knowhow for adoption in our own environment.

As the public sector is a large procurer of construction services, it is well-positioned to encourage the industry to acquire new and advanced construction capabilities, by specifying productivity requirements in their tenders.

Consider, for instance, MOH is piloting the use of Prefabricated, Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC) for a nursing home in Woodlands Crescent; NTU is considering the use of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) for its indoor sports hall; while MOE has specified the use of pre-fabricated modules and a Design-and-Build approach for industry to propose the most suitable technology for a small office block.

Also consider, for example, the use of an innovative hybrid structural system to build Yishun Community Hospital. The use of steel structures and top-down construction method in this project has shortened the project duration by three months. The entire process is also cleaner and quieter.

To support companies through their productivity journeys, we launched the $250 million Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) in 2010. In 2014, we topped up the fund to $335 million to quicken the pace of restructuring.

The industry's response has been positive. As at January 2015, almost 6,000 firms have tapped on the CPCF; 85% of the 6,000 are small and medium-size firms. In addition, more than 5,000 firms have tapped on the Productivity Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme. We are encouraged by the fact that smaller firms are taking steps to embrace technology and invest

Page: 159

in workforce upgrading.

In the Committee of Supply debate, a number of Members have spoken of the need for industry-specific productivity indicators. Indeed, site productivity has been improving at 1.4% per annum since 2010. This is encouraging but we can certainly do more.

In our second roadmap, beyond the 3M framework I spoke about earlier, we have added two important thrusts.

The first thrust is the adoption of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA). Simply put, DFMA requires the industry to manufacture as many building parts as possible in a factory. Prefabricated parts are then assembled on site. To embrace DFMA well, our firms need new capabilities in design, engineering and manufacturing.

To reduce the inefficiency associated with multi-layer subcontracting, we will look for ways to integrate and improve communications amongst all parties in the value chain. BCA introduced Building Information Modelling (BIM) in 2012. Since then, more than 80% of the larger consultancy firms and 60% of the larger contractors have adopted BIM. The adoption of BIM has standardised the digital communications amongst all parties in the value chain. BCA will push BIM usage to all players ultimately.

To encourage concurrent engineering, the public sector will push on with Early Contractor Involvement or ECI. This approach enables the project owner and his consultants and contractor to undertake the project as an integrated team, resolving many construction details at the early stage which can save months from the overall project schedule.

The second thrust is to develop deep capabilities in the industry that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah talked about. It is important that our progressive firms benchmark themselves against the international best practices. We will find ways to help them move up the value chain by acquiring R&D, engineering and design capabilities.

Our progressive firms must develop new expertise in in-house cross-functional teams comprising architects, engineers and project management professionals. They should have a larger proportion of skilled workers, professionals and a stable workforce.

To support these initiatives that I have just mapped out, we will set aside another $450 million for the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund under the second roadmap for the next three years.

Page: 160

Sir, car park B45, the car park which serves both Block 537 and Block 539 and the neighbourhood centre at Block 538 Bedok North Street 3, is presently insufficient in meeting the traffic demands of the residents and patrons in the high-density location, especially during the peak hours in the mornings and the early afternoons.

I have been receiving regular feedback from the residents, stall-holders at the nearby market and food centre and business owners on the traffic issues at the afore-mentioned location. The shortage of parking space has directly affected local businesses and many patrons to the neighbourhood centre have received fines for illegally parking their vehicles. I have been informed that this issue has been a long-standing one and was highlighted several times on different occasions to the previous Members of Parliament of the Kaki Bukit division. The problem continues to persist today with no improvement works in sight.

Page: 161

I have written to the HDB Bedok Branch office on three occasions – twice in the middle of 2013 and the third time towards the end of 2014 – suggesting the construction of a multi-storey car park to replace the existing heavy vehicle car park, car park B46. The multi-storey car park can come in the form of heavy vehicle parking facilities at the ground floor, and normal parking lots above the ground floor, akin to the multi-storey car park located at Block 848A, Yishun Street 81.

This, I hope, would be a win-win situation for the HDB in the administration of the site as well as for the residents, stall-holders and patrons of the market and food centre. Additional car park lots will also alleviate the parking space issue of residents staying in Block 544 to 547 Bedok North Street 3 cluster.

My second cut, Sir. In a response to my Parliamentary Question in January 2015, MND mentioned that a passenger van above 1,800 kg in unladen weight would not be allowed to park at the residential car park administered by HDB. The Minister also added that HDB exercises flexibility and has allowed some drivers to use the residential car park, if the said van above 1,800 kg in unladen weight can fit within a standard car lot and does not cause obstruction or endanger other users of the car park. In doing so, there may be a lack of consistency in administering season parking policies for passenger vans.

I understand that there are other types of Class 3 vehicles, apart from passenger vans, that exceed the unladen weight of 1,800 kg but continue to utilise residential car parks without any form of restriction or prohibition. I am of the view that as long as the passenger van could fit within the standard car lot regardless of its unladen weight, it should be allowed to park at residential car parks. This is the first issue.

The second related issue is this: passenger vans with unladen weight above 1,800 kg that have been granted permission to park at HDB residential car parks are required to pay a fee equivalent to that imposed on a vehicle parked at a heavy-vehicle car park. I would like to suggest that HDB work towards adopting standardised measures in dealing with the afore-mentioned issues.

Firstly, to allow all Class 3 passenger vans to park at any HDB residential car park as long as it could fit within the standard car lot. Secondly, to apply the parking rates in accordance with the car park ascribed to the vehicle. These two changes, if made, will go a long way in streamlining administrative procedures and lightening the cost for self-employed Singaporeans with vans at their disposal for the purpose of their livelihood.

Page: 162

Sir, the first cut is on carpark upgrading information. The basis of the cut is to request for greater synergy and co-planning with HDB about its plans to upgrade existing car parks under the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. While I appreciate the assistance provided by HDB Branch staff and Town Council officers, more information can be shared to allow the Town Council to better plan the extent of repair works to better determine the timing of works and to coincide the works with other R&R works so as to minimise disruption to the residents.

For example, in the reply to a query about the cyclical repair schedule for HDB car parks at Kaki Bukit, Eunos and Bedok Reservoir wards, HDB replied that most have been upgraded, with the remaining car parks scheduled to be upgraded progressively from 2017 to 2021. However, the Town Council would benefit from information, such as which car parks would be upgraded, rather than a blanket answer which does not assist the Town Council in its planning purposes and planning for future expenditure.

Sir, in view of the previously announced plans to increase the stock of rental flats, I would like to ask the Ministry what has been the result of the ramping up of rental housing options. Has there been a reduction in waiting time? If not, what is the source of the bottleneck and does the Ministry intend to build more rental housing?

Secondly, in order to encourage more rental tenants to move to purchase their own apartments, would the Ministry consider loosening restrictions of the Tenant Priority Scheme to make it easier for rental households to purchase their own flats, particularly by extending the scheme to second-timers and by increasing the quota allocation from 10% currently which is shared with other applicants who apply under the resettlement, relocation and the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme?

Finally, would the Ministry consider allowing single mothers to apply for rental housing as a means of reducing their burden and difficulties, especially for single mothers with little or no family support?

Chairman, home ownership has always been a goal that we hope to achieve for all Singaporeans. A home is an anchor point that encourages a sense of belonging and community involvement. It is an insurance policy and assurance in old age.

As a Government that encourages homeownership, we cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibility of acceding to the deep desire among Singaporeans to own a property. In the current climate, the most common feedback is the high cost of public housing. Clearly, those who aspire to buy their flats, even new flats and after the subsidies that HDB offers, are concerned that they will be saddled with a large mortgage. A large chunk of their income would go towards paying for their flats and this is not an unreasonable concern.

I would like to argue that the Government should continue to find ways to make HDB flats even more affordable. We must seriously consider pricing HDB flats differently and seek to make it transparent so that more and more Singaporeans would understand how these costs are derived.

Another issue is, I would like to know whether there are still Singaporeans who are living in the interim housing schemes. If there are, I would encourage MND to quickly find homes for these Singaporeans.

Page: 164

And in conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister what are the further plans for us to assist low-income families to own affordable flats? Based on the feedback that I got at the Meet-the-People Sessions, I think we need to relook again at our rental flats policy to ensure that we continue to assist low-income families to have a roof over their heads.

Page: 165