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

Mdm Chairman, the Minister for Finance has indicated that the foreign workers' levy will be increased in all sectors from July 2014. With the most significant increases being in sectors where productivity growth is seen to be weak, and where growth of the foreign

Page: 9

workforce is significant. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and other Members have raised their concerns of how this will affect the construction industry, and I would like to add to these.

The construction sector easily falls within the twin categories of low productivity growth and significant growth of foreign workforce. The first issue – low productivity growth – results not from want of trying. The Government has for many years already been trying to raise the productivity of the construction sector, and also our TFR – let us be honest about it – with rather limited success. While we must continue to persevere in this, I think the Government should also be realistic in its expectations.

The Minister for Finance has spoken about mandating the use of more manpower-efficient designs, and increasing minimum buildability scores, with the lead being taken by the Government in respect of public sector projects. Now this is certainly a worthy aim. But is there any real incentive for doing this now, when the cost of foreign construction labour is still relatively low in Singapore, and there are urgent catch-up infrastructure projects to be accomplished?

The second issue, the growth of the foreign workforce in the construction industry can also be attributed to the fact that Singaporeans just do not find the construction industry an attractive one, as mentioned by Dr Teo Ho Pin. Although we know it is essential to our collective well-being, we know it is very difficult to find enough Singaporeans willing to take on the manual labour which is often associated with the construction industry.

There is another element in this issue. One, which gives rise to a very real dilemma as we all are aware, there is a housing and infrastructure crunch in Singapore, which needs to be addressed along with the anticipated growth in our population.

Simply put, we need the construction sector to be thriving. We need the construction companies to continue to be around to build public housing and infrastructure projects. We cannot afford at this stage to dis-incentivise the construction industry from contributing in a very real way to the growth of the nation through participation in public sector projects. The further moderation of foreign workforce growth in the construction sector will place further pressures on an already stressed industry. Can we afford to do this? We really need all these projects to be completed urgently. Do we have any contingency

Page: 10

plans if our targeted productivity figures are not achieved?

Perhaps, one solution might be to consider a different dependency ratio ceiling for public sector projects, as opposed to private sector projects. This could be in recognition of the public sector nature of the project, that is, the fact that it is for the betterment of Singaporeans generally. That is to say that, where projects are taken for private gain, the current DRCs and levies will continue to apply. But if the project is one of public nature, even if it is undertaken by private organisations, perhaps more leeway could be given. In such a case, any foreign construction worker hired for a public project would need to be tied to that project, and cannot be deployed to work on private projects. This proposal achieves two goals. First, it might mean that public sector projects, particularly public sector housing projects, would be completed in a shorter timeframe, and perhaps at lower cost. Second, it might attract more private developers to public sector construction work, if they think that it makes business sense to do so.

I would like to urge the Minister to reconsider. Given the competing concerns of rising foreign construction levies and moderating the growth of the foreign construction workforce, are these really in the best interests of the country, given our public sector infrastructure needs today?

I completely understand and agree with the drive to increase productivity across all sectors. But, perhaps, there are occasions when we have to be pragmatic and less dogmatic in which the productivity drive may need to take a temporary backseat to other pressing and urgent needs.

Mdm Chair, let me thank the three Members who have spoken. Let me address the comments made by Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Charles Chong on raising construction productivity.

It is now more than two years since we launched the Construction Productivity Roadmap. We set ourselves the target of raising construction productivity by up to 3% every year to 2020.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance earlier announced that the Government would proceed to cut the Man-Year Entitlement (MYE) quota for new projects by another 15% in July this year, bringing the cumulative reduction since 2010 to 45%, as announced last year. This effectively means that while, previously, a project may be allocated 100 workers, a new project of the same scale, starting from July, would only be granted 55 workers.

The 45% reduction in MYE is necessary because in the past five years, the built environment sector has, on average, accounted for more than half the annual foreign worker growth for the entire economy. The sector's share of foreign workers has been disproportionately large. We must try to rein in this growth. We must do things differently.

Fortunately, for the next few years, we foresee a healthy demand for the built environment sector such that our restructuring efforts can take place in a

Page: 12

relatively favourable environment.

But we must be careful not to allow the tight labour market affect the timely delivery and the quality of our key public projects, including the on-going and new BTO flats construction, and accelerated MRT line construction works.

The next three years are, therefore, a crucial transition period for the built environment sector. Our firms will have to adapt to the tightened labour supply, while seizing all opportunities to mechanise, automate and streamline workflow for higher productivity. This is my key message.

This is why we have further differentiated the two tiers of construction levy. The first tier remains unchanged at $300 for higher skilled workers employed within the MYE quota. This is so that skilled and experienced workers can continue to be retained and upskilled. The second tier has been raised to $1,050 for basic skilled workers hired beyond the MYE quota. This is meant to serve as a "safety valve", if you like, so that firms could still have access to workers beyond their MYE, but at a cost that will encourage them to switch to more efficient construction technologies and processes.

How can we, in the next three years, make a paradigm shift to a more efficient industry structure, one that is more professional, better integrated and lean on manpower?

Already, we have a number of our most progressive main contractors, such as Woh Hup and Tiong Seng Contractors, which plan, organise and carry out most of the work themselves. They do not rely on multi-layers of subcontractors to deliver projects. Their hands-on approach gives them clear visibility of project management, work coordination and workforce productivity. The question is how we can encourage more local firms to emulate these progressive contractors so that, as an industry, we can progress to the next level.

Talking to the industry, I know many of our firms felt overwhelmed by the simultaneous reduction in MYE and levy increases. But we must also be acutely aware that the labour-driven growth model in the industry has to change. With these challenges, my Ministry, together with BCA and other agencies, will intensify our dialogue with our industry partners to transit to a more efficient and sustainable industry model.

Page: 13

One way for us to transit successfully is to beef up our resources to help firms adopt productive methods and technologies. For a start, we are enhancing the $250 million Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) in three ways.

First, we will increase our co-funding level from the current 50% to 70% under the Mechanisation Credit (Mech C) scheme for equipment that can achieve at least 30% productivity improvement. This will help firms lower the cost of acquiring or leasing equipment.

For example, to smoothen a concrete floor, a contractor has two choices. He can use a mechanised concrete power trowel operated by one worker, or the traditional manual method which requires at least two workers to complete the same amount of work. The mechanised trowel typically costs $3,000. Under the enhanced Mech C scheme, plus more funding under the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC), the final cost to the contractor is less than $300, for a 50% improvement in productivity! In fact, the contractor would also save on wage, levy and accommodation costs by deploying fewer workers on-site.

Second, we are raising the support level for the Productivity Improvement Project (PIP) scheme from 50% to 70%, to encourage the re-engineering of work processes to achieve at least 30% higher productivity.

In addition, the cap for firm-level projects will be raised from $100,000 to $300,000. At the industry-level, projects gaining 40% productivity improvement and are game-changing can enjoy PIP funding of up to $5 million.

Third, we will launch a new Mech C Referral scheme to incentivise main contractors to refer their sub-contractors to CPCF programmes. This, we hope, will accelerate the proliferation of technology use amongst smaller firms.

To-date, we have committed $85 million of the $250 million CPCF, benefiting some 2,300 individual firms, of which more than 80% are small firms. More, however, can be done. We are thus working with the industry associations through regular Productivity Clinics to reach out to more firms.

Let me now talk about another impetus for significant productivity improvement – Buildability and Constructability of our building projects.

To encourage the various stakeholders to come together early, for upstream coordination and integration, we will raise the minimum Buildability

Page: 14

and Constructability scores progressively for new projects submitted for planning approval from July 2013 and July 2014.

By raising the Buildability score, architects and engineers will need to deliver easy-to-construct design and technologies. An example is the use of prefabricated bathroom units, or PBUs, as it is called. Constructing the conventional bathroom onsite involves 13 different tasks, from plumbing to plastering to tiling. For PBUs, all these tasks can be done more efficiently offsite. Completed PBUs are then transported to the work site and hoisted up for installation. With such a method, contractors can cut down the number of onsite workers from 20 to five, and install the PBUs twice as fast.

At the construction stage, contractors will have to make use of more manpower-saving construction methods to meet the higher minimum Constructability scores. For instance, climbing scaffolds which can mechanically be lifted to the next floor, only require four workers to install, compared to the traditional scaffold system which requires six workers.

To support the adoption of higher Buildability and Constructability scores, the public sector will take the lead. Our Government Procurement Entities (GPEs) with new projects will adopt standards higher than the minimum standard, starting later this year, to lead the way of change.

In addition, from July this year, consultants and contractors with high Buildability and Constructability score records respectively can score higher in the Quality component of their tender bids, giving them an edge over other bids. Under our tender evaluation framework, it does not necessarily mean that bids with the lowest price will always win the tender.

For private developers, who are a key part of the construction value chain, we are exploring, for new Government land sales for private and industrial developments, to specify a new requirement of higher Buildability and Constructability scores. We are also considering making productivity requirements a pre-requisite for existing bonus GFA schemes. BCA and URA will share more with the industry in the coming months.

I agree with Dr Teo Ho Pin that we must continuously raise the skills of our construction workforce. Today, all foreign construction workers typically undergo three to four months of full-time training, and have to pass a one-hour theory test and a four- to five-hour practical test in specific construction trades conducted by BCA officers in the source countries. They will then qualify as

Page: 15

"Basic Skilled" construction workers. There are no unskilled construction foreign workers as such.

Given the large numbers involved, it is more practical to train and test these workers overseas before they enter Singapore. But I agree with Dr Teo that we should find ways to raise the skill standards of construction workers before and after they have joined us.

To retain skilled foreign construction workers, we use a tiered-levy framework that accords "higher skilled" workers with lower levy and a longer period of employment. Starting this year, these workers are required to undergo continual education and training (CET) every two years.

My Ministry has also received feedback on how the impending cuts to the S Pass sub-dependency ratio quota in the services sector would adversely affect the engineering, architectural, project management and quantity surveying consultancy firms, which are all part of the built environment sector in the process of restructuring. We heard you.

As we reduce demand for foreign workers, we will work with the industry to stabilise unproductive churns of skilled workers while attracting more Singaporeans to join the sector. BCA will continue to enhance its comprehensive suite of manpower development programmes, including scholarships, sponsorships and apprenticeships at the University, Polytechnic and ITE levels to build the local talent pipeline.

For mid-career and mature job seekers, BCA offers workforce training and upgrading programmes to train them for the industry. MND and BCA will work with MOM to explore measures to mitigate the impact of the tightening in S Pass policies.

In the long term, we want a strong core of highly skilled Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs), and Technicians and Associate Professionals (TAPs) to form the backbone of our built environment sector.

Mdm Chair, let me now address Mr Zainal Sapari's suggestion of a Tripartite Cluster for the landscape industry to raise productivity and workers' wages. In fact, NParks currently chairs the Singapore Landscape Industry Council (SLIC), which serves a very similar purpose as a Tripartite Cluster proposed.

Page: 16

The Council has helped raise professionalism of the landscape workers by developing, validating and endorsing training and curriculum content for the landscape industry, including those for WSQ certification, with industry-wide participation.

Mdm Chair, we understand that our built environment sector is under severe pressures of manpower crunch and rising costs. But we also know that unconstrained growth of foreign workers cannot be sustainable, too. We must, therefore, give up the old ways of doing things and we must innovate.

In helping the industry evolve to a new industry structure, BCA will help look for other new resources needed. For instance, BCA will set aside more land for the production and storage of precast, prefabricated components, heavy equipment and machinery. BCA has successfully launched the first Integrated Construction and Precast Hub at Kaki Bukit. We aim to build more of such hubs in future to support the industry's restructuring.

Mdm Chair, let me call on all stakeholders again to work together to help the industry restructure. We need to quicken the pace of change. We need a successful transition.

Madam, Kampong Glam is an area of rich historical and heritage significance for all Singaporeans, particularly for Singaporean Muslims, especially with the presence of the Sultan Mosque as a focal point, dating way back more than a century as the place where people do business, live and play.

In recent years, Kampong Glam has become an exciting place, especially for the younger generation. The presence of many F&B outlets, offering cuisines beyond the traditional local ones, has contributed to the buzz. Unfortunately, this has created some tension with some Muslim business owners there, as well as from the Muslim community at large, unhappy at the opening of karaoke joints and, particularly, the consumption of alcohol in some F&B outlets, especially along Bussorah Mall, directly behind the Sultan Mosque. I acknowledge and I agree that Kampong Glam should be open to free market forces. I am also mindful and I agree that we need to bear in mind the bigger context of Singapore as a whole in which heritage spaces exist.

However, bearing in mind the strong Islamic history and tradition of Kampong Glam dating way back more than a hundred years, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, to what extent would MND regulate the types of businesses that unit owners rent their premises to; and second, in particular, would the Ministry regulate the consumption of alcohol so that it is at least restricted to inside the premises of the F&B unit; or if alcohol consumption is allowed outside the premises, at least to where the premises are not within direct sight of Sultan Mosque.

Page: 18

Madam, my question relates to the major changes to the physical and marine landscape of our island envisaged in the Population White Paper and the land use plan.

On land, it is the proposal to extend the MRT services with a 50-kilometre cross-island line. The fact that this line will cut through the central catchment nature reserve is of great concern to me. This is because it is the last remaining least affected forest area left in Singapore, with some species of flora and fauna that are found not only nowhere else in Singapore but nowhere else in the

Page: 19

world.

Along our shores, the land use plan proposes massive reclamation works in areas, such as Pulau Tekong and Tuas, possible changes to Pulau Ubin, the coastlines of Kranji, Mandai, Pasir Ris, Changi, Tenah Merah, as well as the southern islands of Pulau Hantu and Pulau Semakau. Reclamation on such a massive scale will lead to serious environmental consequences to these areas and to the marine species. Just to take one example, the valuable areas of rich native bio-diversity like Chek Jawa on Pulau Ubin, which many Singaporeans have grown to know and love, will potentially be lost.

So, my questions to the Minister are: First, has MND conducted any sort of preliminary impact assessment before the decision to include these plans and, if so, which were the agencies involved, what were their terms of reference and what were the results? Just to highlight a few concerns, how will these affect our drinking systems, our rivers, our seas, and the potential flooding problems that might ensue?

Second, are there plans to conduce more rigorous and comprehensive environment impact assessments on these areas in the near future? And if the results show the consequences will be more severe than thought, would the original plans be duly altered?

Third, may the public have access to these studies, for transparency and accountability? And, lastly, would MND consider my call made in my speech on the White Paper debate, for the legislation of compulsory EIAs for all major projects, such as these, to be made open to the public for accountability and transparency as well?

Mdm Chairman, we will be developing for our future generations and we will ensure that the needs of Singaporeans are met. This is central to all our developments. But as we ramp up our infrastructure, it is clear that Singaporeans are naturally concerned that some of these developments will have an impact on our natural environment, and, over and above that, our collective socio-cultural heritage and, with it, our personal memories and sense of identity. In our Singapore Conversation, many Singaporeans have talked about it. Our heritage, our environment, arts, culture are all important aspects that we need to pay attention to even as we develop. I understand and fully share these concerns. This is why it is important for us to be careful and deliberate in the process. At the end of it are: what is the correct balance and

Page: 20

what is the approach that we need to take?

This is where the difficulties start because many of us do have different perspectives. The balance between conservation and development is highly subjective and very much contextual. For example, one may strongly believe that this patch of greenery is very important, or this old school is really precious, and we should maintain it. But somebody else might think, "It does not really matter; why are we spending so much time, so much resources, dragging our feet on the issue?" These are the issues which I think we have to contend with.

It is not about who is right or wrong. There are many different views in society. We need to strive to achieve a win-win situation, and while we may not be able to achieve win-win in specific cases, as a system, as a society, that is something that we should endeavour to achieve and it is something that we can work towards.

As a Government, we need to be able to balance these views, to engage stakeholders – Singaporeans who care about the environment, history and heritage – and then to ascertain what exactly we need to do. Our focus is to ensure that every Singaporean, today and tomorrow, will have good homes, good jobs and a good quality of life. Our definition of each of them might vary in some ways, but, at the end of it, it has to be about Singaporeans.

Our heritage and environment clearly form important parts of this equation. It is important to also understand that they also do not exist for their own sake. Within this 714 square kilometres of land that we call Singapore, we have to decide where we are going to live, work, play, which patches of greenery and which area of heritage significance we should maintain and preserve. There are also defence and security needs and the need to be self-sufficient in water. All these different factors are important because they impact our lives. They are Singaporean interests. Within this space, how do we make those choices? Therein lies the challenge that Singapore faces. We have managed it in our own ways, defied the odds in many ways, to find a balance. This balance will continue to evolve. In all planning, we must put our people and our needs first.

We have approached nature and heritage conservation in the following three ways: first, let us identify the land and set aside these areas through land zoning for nature and heritage; secondly, let us assess proposed developments – and I will talk more about this later – how these developments may affect our environment, and consider options and measures to mitigate, adjust, change; thirdly, we make the most of what we have – whether developed, conserved or

Page: 21

preserved – to make Singapore the best home for all Singaporeans and for all times.

These principles are fundamental. But how judgements and trade-offs are made will be determined by the priority of the needs of our people and their families, and these will evolve with time. As a Government, we will have to make decisions that reflect the collective interests of Singaporeans. There will always be interest groups and it is important to have interest groups. It is a very good development to see that interest groups grow. But sometimes, interest groups are also very focused on particular areas of concern. Not that this is not valid, but it is important to also weigh that against the collective needs and the collective interests of all our people. The positive story is that we are beginning to work closely with the increasing number of interest groups and to tap on their expertise and knowledge, and that is something that we should continue to do.

Let me first talk about our being green for our people. I am not sure whether we are aware of the significance, but this year, we commemorate 50 years of our city's greening efforts since the first tree planting exercise by Mr Lee Kuan Yew back in 1963. Despite our focus – as you can well imagine at that stage, it was about survival, economic, physical security, and so on – our founding fathers had the foresight that Singapore needed to be green, even before it was a fashionable thing to do. In fact, I could imagine Singaporeans wondering why we were wasting time and efforts in this area rather than in other areas which were pressing – housing our people, providing and meeting their basic needs. But it was something we paid attention to. We paid attention to the emissions, the standards of cleanliness for industries, and so on. We have since planted 1.4 million trees to enhance our streets and gardens, and this will continue.

We are committed to retaining about a tenth of our land for nature reserves and parks. This is very significant for a highly urbanised city-state like Singapore, and this is our commitment in terms of land planning. Many experts in other countries have also observed that NParks is placed not in any other Ministry but under the Ministry of National Development, because we see that as integral to the development of our country.

We have protected four nature reserves, representing the key native ecosystems that are found in Singapore, and their biodiversity are among the richest in the region. We have also planned for green recreational areas where Singaporeans live; at least 85% of our homes will be within 400 metres' walking distance to a park. That is our commitment – to provide the green spaces for

Page: 22

our people.

This year, Singaporeans can look forward to the completion of new parks like Holland Village Park, Woodlands Town Park East and Choa Chu Kang Park extension, adding to 350 parks that we have today. Some of our older parks like Sembawang and Changi Beach Park have been given fresh new looks. These parks will be complemented by more park connectors that will continue to grow across the island, vertical greenery, rooftop gardens and the transformation of our waterways into recreational areas. This represents an awareness of the impact that greenery has on the environment, as Mr Yee Jenn Jong shared earlier, and our commitment to make sure that Singapore remains green.

There will be those who argue that parks and waterways are not natural, and they are absolutely right. In the first place, a city, to begin with, is an artificial construct. In this city, nature and biodiversity can be managed to prosper, and we are putting in resources to do so. Things that we can preserve, the natural tracks that we have, we preserve it. But in other areas, how do we cultivate, how do we adapt, how do we adjust to promote that growth, so that it is growing and thriving?

Fortunately for us, we also have a very active community of volunteers who also understand this. They not only advocate the conservation of nature, they roll up their sleeves to work together with our authorities like NParks, MEWR and PUB to work on maintaining the greenery and to enrich the biodiversity that we find in Singapore. This has allowed us to do more and to do better.

For example, the Eco-Link@BKE is a 50-metre-wide natural platform that will stretch across the BKE. When completed, it will reconnect, after many years of separation, the Central Catchment Reserve to the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. This is significant. The Kheam Hock Nature Way, which was developed with the community, was also recently launched. These efforts are important because they encourage the movement of birds, butterflies and wildlife between our nature reserves and parks. By 2015, we aim to create 60 kilometres of such Nature Ways, including at Tampines, Yishun-Mandai, and the Admiralty area. Our park connectors and recreational waterways will also play a very significant and complementary role as they criss-cross this island and intersect with these nature reserves.

Our green efforts have been noticed by experts. Peter Newman, who is a Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University, said that he was looking for an innovative edge in Biophilic Cities and he thinks he has found it in Singapore.

Page: 23

Now, what are Biophilic cities? They are cities that contain an abundance of nature in close proximity to large numbers of urban dwellers, where its people feel a deep affinity with the unique flora and fauna found in these cities.

Do take a look at his videos which are posted on Youtube. You will be amazed. It reminds us about how much we have done in the last 50 years. While many cities have lost their biodiversity and greenery to urbanisation – and remember many of these cities have a hinterland to talk about – we do not, but, yet, we are able to maintain this and build up these efforts, not to just be a Garden City, but to really be a city in a garden.

Can we be greener? We can be, but there will inevitably be the trade-offs that I have talked about earlier. We need to be green, we need to look after our heritage, our environment, and to cater space for water sustainability to live, work and play. We truly appreciate the emotive value of these places, but we also have the wider needs of our population to contend with. So, how do we strike that balance? Our commitment is to make sure that greenery is part and parcel of our landscape.

Ms Faizah Jamal and Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked about the Government's process to assess the environmental impact of development projects.

Currently, agencies within the Government collectively evaluate the possible impacts of all development proposals, including traffic, drainage, biodiversity and air and water quality. In particular, agencies will require major development projects to undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment, especially when they are near to sensitive areas, such as nature reserves, nature areas and maritime and coastal areas. Based on these studies, the Government will examine whether the project can proceed and the potential impacts mitigated by modifying the scale or scope of the development works. These EIAs will be gazetted and will be available for public viewing, and we will involve the various stakeholders to tap on their expertise and concerns.

MND's recent Land Use Plan has indicated areas where reclamation may take place in future. These areas are part of our longer term plans to provide additional physical capacity in our country. In fact, a lot of Singapore is reclaimed. But firm decisions on reclamation are only taken after the EIAs are conducted.

Page: 24

Now, there is the question of whether we should have EIAs for every single development. The truth of the matter is that in every patch of green, you will find life. But does it mean that we should do an EIA on everything before development can take place? We do not believe so. The planning process is in place for development proposals to be assessed.

NParks routinely carries out surveys of all the areas of greenery in Singapore. And in their assessment, the biodiversity of land zoned for housing and other developments generally do not come near to the richness of our nature reserves and nature areas which we have set aside. EIAs do take up time and resources. As such, we should apply them selectively to projects that may most adversely impact our protected natural spaces as well as coastal and maritime environments.

Just as a quick point, Mr Yee Jenn Jong mentioned about the report on flood mitigation. I would highlight that in the report itself, the expert panel did not say that large-scale rapid urbanisation is a key contributor to the recent increase of flooding in Singapore. Urbanisation has led to increased storm water runoff – this is what the report says in its Executive Summary – and we need to introduce measures to mitigate the effects of such urbanisation. However, the effects are often complex and require further modelling and analyses supported by higher resolution data. The additional analyses should also include an assessment of whether the runoff coefficients traditionally used in Singapore are appropriate given the high intensity of rainfall, compared with the areas where the runoff coefficients were derived. The final report elaborates a bit further.

What is important is we do pay attention to these things and some of the other concerns about ambient temperature and so on, which is why the commitment to make sure that Singapore remains green.

Let me talk about our built heritage. Like our greening efforts, we put in effort to conserve what built heritage that we have and we will continue to develop and emphasise this. Since the 1980s, the URA has conserved over 7,000 buildings in more than 100 areas, including historic districts like Chinatown, Kampong Glam and Little India. We will continue to conserve more significant older buildings when there is an opportunity to do so, but at the same time, you also have to weigh that against the other needs that will arise over time.

Our built heritage is valuable not just for the architectural significance of the buildings. It is also the memories that we attach to the activities that used

Page: 25

to take place there. Many of us have personal memories of these spaces as well. On the hardware side, conserving is not that difficult. It is actually the software side. What do we do with these spaces? How do we try to maintain, as highlighted by some Members, the memories and activities? How do you preserve that sense of the place?

These issues are important and they are also very subjective in many ways. That is why public participation and discourse are important to help us in the Government and the authorities to evolve our approach in managing them.

Where possible, we will maintain the original use of the old buildings. But where we are not able to do so, planners in URA try to find workable win-win solutions to provide flexibility to owners, whether in usage or intensification, as long as they retain the key exterior elements of the building. For example, two of our historic buildings, the City Hall and the former Supreme Court, will be converted into a state-of-the-art National Art Gallery. This is in prime district but we decided that it is best to preserve it in this way, and not only that but to promote arts and culture at the same time. We all look forward to its opening in 2015.

The concept of adaptive reuse can apply to heritage areas as well. Many historical sites and areas have been conserved in terms of their buildings but I think it is important to also look at the use, as highlighted by Ms Faizah Jamal earlier.

What are the policies in place? URA plays an active role to manage the use. We zone these heritage areas for commercial and mixed use – shops, residences, institutions, restaurants and so on. Activities that are not so compatible with these areas, such as nightclubs, drinking joints, massage parlours and the like, will be discouraged in some of these places. We will pay attention to that. But more importantly, this is where the community and the ground-up effort need to take place. We believe that it is best that the community discuss and collectively shape the character of these areas. Ground-up ideas are most welcome and we will support this process because we believe that the local community and those who are passionate about the concerns are best placed to determine what might work best, rather than have the Government impose its views from the top. We will facilitate that conversation and evolve that common space.

In this context, I am pleased to note that some stakeholders at Kampong Glam and Chinatown have taken the initiative to refresh and enliven these

Page: 26

historical areas. What we hope to see, in terms of pilot projects, are that Haji Lane and Ann Siang Hill/Club Street will also be car-free on weekend evenings to allow pedestrians to freely stroll along the street and enjoy the various activities and programmes in those areas. We hope these pilot projects will be successful and we can continue this in other forms perhaps elsewhere.

We will support these ground-up initiatives to make our city more vibrant. This is more art than science, and we can experiment and still retain the distinctive character of these areas.

As pointed out by Mr Png Eng Huat, our focus on heritage and history has to go beyond just historical districts. It has to go into the heartlands, where we live. Our heritage and identity really start with the place we grew up in and the place that we are living in. This is where we need to strengthen it through good planning, design and actively collaborate with residents.

In recent years, HDB has launched the Remaking Our Heartland programme to rejuvenate our housing estates without losing their historical character and social memories. For Dawson estate in Queenstown, HDB launched a "Call for Heritage Items" exercise in 2008 to encourage residents to share stories and donate personal items. I do not know whether you remember Tah Chung (大众) Emporium in that area. I remember it well – I used to go there when I was young. Apparently, there was a Tah Chung (大众) Emporium discount card.

Story boards have been put up along the Alexandra Canal Linear Park to recount the transformation of this estate. Now, it is not the same obviously as preserving the entire old estate, but it goes a long way to capture a slice of history which many of us relate to, and to provide that continuity with our past.

In Yishun, a Heritage Garden was installed to recall the history of Yishun, and heritage panels were also installed along MyWaterway@Punggol. Similar initiatives to commemorate heartland heritage will be rolled out in the next phase of the programme at Hougang, East Coast and Jurong Lake.

This is where I will make a personal plea to all Members in this House. Can you imagine if all of us were to do this in our respective estates? My RC Chairman in Ping Yi Gardens actively discussed it, found an old resident who lived in that area and she took out old pictures. He interviewed her about what it was like in Ping Yi Secondary School previously and what was in that area.

Page: 27

Can you imagine what it would be like if all of us began to create our own little histories of the places we live in, mobilising our residents and engaging history buffs, experts to guide us in the process? That is about building history at the local level. I think there is a tremendous potential to help us relate to the place that we live. That is part of nation-building as well.

In the planning of new towns, HDB will also incorporate the area's heritage. For example, in Punggol, we will retain Old Punggol Road as a pedestrian trail to connect Punggol's Town Park to the seafront at Punggol Point. For Bidadari, the HDB is studying the feasibility of retaining some of the beautiful mature trees in the area and incorporating the existing memorial garden into the new Bidadari plans. It is about retaining the spirit of the place.

One project that all of us are familiar with and is close to my heart is the former KTM railway land. The Rail Corridor reminds us of our close ties with our friend and neighbour, Malaysia. It joins up seven HDB towns from Bukit Merah to Woodlands – almost a million residents live in those areas. Even before development plans are firm, the Rail Corridor has already begun to take on a life of its own to connect people, to connect communities.

Earlier this year, I participated in the Green Corridor Run, a scenic 10.5-km run, and it ran from Tanjong Pagar Railway Station to the old Bukit Timah Railway Station. It was a privately-organised event – over 6,000 people took part. People were just happy and joyous to take part in the run or walk. As I said before, it is about connecting people, connecting communities. How do we maintain that spirit even as we develop? Many people have come forward with ideas.

URA's plans for the Rail Corridor have been enriched by many ideas by many Singaporeans, many residents, students, professionals, interest groups and people who have surfaced ideas about how this could be further developed so that we retain that element of community space. That will be the next step, as we master plan the Rail Corridor, to see how do we incorporate the public feedback, and how do we, importantly, in response to the desires of many people, retain a continuous green corridor as a key planning parameter in the planning, design and development of the Rail Corridor. This is a unique space, not just only in Singapore, but in the world.

Celebrating our heritage requires many agencies. Certainly, it involves MND and MCCY. There is a lot of scope for us to work with the National Heritage Board (NHB) and other agencies to curate and tell the story of our places and

Page: 28

buildings. NHB is active, for example, in studying how heritage elements in Bukit Brown will be commemorated. NHB has also worked with agencies and members of the community to develop many interesting heritage trails that feature national monuments and heritage sites, not just in historic precincts in the city centre, but also in the heartlands. This is where, again, as Members of Parliament, we can also think about developing local trails for our people, and for people to begin to see the significance of the place that they live in.

Heritage has to be fully participated. People need to be fully involved and it must be driven by the people as well. Let me share an example. For the Singapore Memory Project, people from all walks of life have shared over 700,000 memories about Singapore. Thanks to the work of Dr Imran Tajudeen from NUS, old wooden carvings from the former Malay Village will be reused at the new civic centre in Geylang Serai. For the Comprehensive Marine Biodiversity Survey, which I visited and was tremendously inspired, there was a lot of work done by the local and international community. Many volunteers, academics, NGOs and the private sector have provided significant time and resources to document the fantastic array of flora and fauna found in our waters. There are many more of such inspiring examples. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many Singaporeans and many volunteers who have stepped forward to work on these issues and in these areas. And through Our Singapore Conversation, we will continue to welcome feedback and views on how we can build our common sense of identity and belonging through heritage and nature conservation.

At this juncture of our history, as we come of age and as we find it as an inflexion point in many ways, we need to figure out how to balance all the different conflicting needs that we have and skillfully weave them together. We need to develop our infrastructure but we also need to preserve and to guide our development in a sustainable manner.

There will be times that the Government will make difficult decisions. There will be times when the Government perhaps should be stepping back so that the community can step forward. Very often, both Government and people need to step forward together to find the solutions. The truth is that we will not always reach a consensus, not just between the Government and people, but also between different groups who have different interests. But what is important, and something that I personally found, is there will be common spaces, and it is about how we focus our energies to create something special together. Ultimately, what we create, what we keep is only meaningful when there is community appreciation, when there is ownership by our people and there is participation by our people. Let us find those spaces, and they are there,

Page: 29

so that we can work together to build more memories and build more gardens and, importantly, to build something that we can all be proud of in this place that we call home.

Madam, Singapore obtains about 90% of its food needs from other countries. So, I am glad to note AVA's statement in the Forum Page of The Straits Times recently that Singapore aims to be self sufficient in fish, eggs and leafy vegetables. I also note that HDB intends to build more than a hundred multi-storey car parks with rooftop gardens where the new facilities will allow residents to plant their own vegetables. However, with the proposed increase in population, as envisaged by the White Paper, my questions to the Minister are as follows:

First, what are the measures which will be taken to enhance the initiatives mentioned above?

Second, is the Ministry looking at other countries besides the ones we have already been sourcing from for our future needs and, if so, what are these countries and for what sort of food supplies?

The second part of my question relates to genetically-modified food. On 10 February this year, The Straits Times reported that genetically-modified salmon created by a Singaporean scientist, Prof Hew Choy Leong, would be made available for consumption as soon as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of USA approves the application. My question for the Minister is three-fold:

First, bearing in mind that there is genuine scientific concern about the hazards that genetically-modified (GM) food poses on human health and the environment, would Singapore still take the lead from the FDA and similarly approve the sale of GM salmon in Singapore?

Second, would the Minister consider compulsory labelling for this item so that consumers who may not be in favour have a choice when making their purchase?

Last, has there been any updates since my Parliamentary Question last May on the review by the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee on GM

Page: 30

food, and when can the public expect all GM food to be labelled in Singapore?

Madam, Minister S Iswaran told Parliament on 5 March 2013 that there were 11,736 foreign spouses of Singapore citizens who were on LTVP and LTVP Plus. Eleven thousand seven hundred and thirty six may not appear to be a huge number compared to our total population. However, we should not look at it as just 11,000 individuals but 11,000 families or families-to-be. Singapore citizens whose spouses hold LTVPs are disqualified from applying for rental flats under the HDB's public rental scheme.

On 25 February 2013, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Dr Maliki Osman, said in Parliament that the HDB rental scheme treats a citizen married to another citizen differently from a citizen married to a foreigner. He also said that HDB will consider the merits of each case and exercise flexibility to help those truly in need.

Madam, I have seen such cases every week at the Meet-the-People sessions in Punggol East. These families who seek rental housing are typically those already in need and not financially well off. While the Government would like to exercise flexibility, it must also understand that such flexibility creates uncertainty and instability for such families.

Minister Khaw Boon Wan said on 2 March 2012 that he was mulling over how to help groups faced with special circumstances and he specifically mentioned foreign spouses. He said that he had not forgotten these groups. I hope that the Minister has started to think deeply about this issue and can share with us from the appeals that HDB receives. Under what conditions or criteria have the HDB granted a rental flat to a Singapore citizen with a foreign spouse? If not, what other alternatives are there for them?

Madam, although the Government will continue to encourage all Singaporeans to own their homes, there will always be a group of Singaporeans who are unable to do so for various reasons. For these Singaporeans, the only option left is either to rent from the open market or HDB. For families with household income of $2,000 and below, renting a flat from the open market is not a financially prudent thing to do. The latest median rent for a 3-room flat ranges from $1,750-$2,400, depending on location. For some of

Page: 32

these families with young children and belongings, renting just a room is also not a conducive arrangement.

Another group of Singaporeans who needs assistance in housing are single parents with children born out of wedlock. For low-wage earners in this group, renting a room is already a strain on their pockets, as the children grow and the need for bigger space arises. Renting a small flat from the open market is virtually out of reach.

A third group of Singaporeans are the elderly with no or very little income. Some have no children while others cannot depend on their children. In the above examples, some of the families are waiting for their BTO flats while some are technically homeless. Some are finding it hard to make ends meet renting room from the open market while others are living on the goodwill of their relatives and friends to house them temporarily. Some families are barred from renting because one of the partners may have sold a flat or two due to previous broken marriages. Some are barred because the children are born out of wedlock and they do not constitute a family nucleus. Some basically do not qualify because of the household income ceiling.

Budget 2013 has promised to do more for Singaporeans and to build a more inclusive society. I welcome the move by the Government to provide temporary housing for first-timer married couples with or without children. I would like to ask HDB what other measures are there to help Singaporeans, some of whom are caught in between policies to find a place to call home, whether on a temporary or long-term basis. Can HDB look into relaxing the income ceiling criteria for families with children for a start? Can HDB relax its family nucleus criteria for single parents with young children born out of wedlock as well?

Madam, in my previous cut on the housing resale levy value, I have depicted the circumstances in which lower income families have been requested to sell off their property. This sets in place a 30-month long debarment period for flat owners who intend to rent a flat directly from the HDB.

Page: 33

I recall one of my residents who came to seek my help at my Meet-the-People session. He is a low-income earner with five young children under his care. He was left stranded and homeless and his family had to resort to sleeping in a tent by the beach after he had exhausted all of his sales proceeds on renting a flat from the open market.

Officers from the Ministry of Social and Family Development subsequently picked him up and his family was placed in a community shelter. During the 30-month long period in which he was unable to rent a flat from the HDB, he built up another series of arrears as a result of his tight financial situation where the bulk of his proceeds went to servicing his rental commitments. Today, even though he has been allocated a HDB rental flat, he is still struggling to pay off the arrears he accumulated during the 30-month long period. The family remains trapped in the debt cycle.

The case I have illustrated is not unique. In fact, many Members of this House would have come across similar cases during the course of their work. We can and should do more for the lower income Singaporeans. I would like to call upon the Minister to consider exempting the lower income families from the debarment policy, or at least reduce the debarment period for renting a HDB flat from the current 30 months to a period not exceeding 12 months, preferably between 10 and 12 months. Such a move would be most welcomed by many lower income families.

Madam, many Members in this House have written countless letters to the HDB on behalf of their respective constituents on many related issues, such as rental housing, waiver of housing levy or the lowering of rental fees.

During the course of my work as a Member of Parliament, I familiarised myself with the generic responses offered by HDB to my residents. Allow me to cite two examples. In situations where an appeal by elderly Singaporeans for a rental flat is not successful, HDB will cite the support of his children whilst advising him to stay with his children as the basis for the rejection. In the event of soured relations in the family, HDB would advise the family to seek counselling to resolve their outstanding issues. Under circumstances where an owner has just sold his flat due to his outstanding arrears or a broken marriage, the 30-month long debarment period would be cited as a basis for not granting a HDB rental flat. HDB would also remind the residents of the proceeds from

Page: 34

the sale of his previous flat.

Such responses in themselves are not wrong, but I urge the Ministry to exercise more care, greater due diligence and demonstrate a greater level of compassion for each individual appeal.

Each appeal letter represents a hope and a bond of trust that residents have in place in the judgement and abilities of the Ministries and its officials to alleviate their most immediate problems. More care should be given and more time should be spent in assessing cases and the nature of the appeal. Each family is different and the situation of members in each family is unique, and, hence, more time and flexibility need to be exercised when assessing the eligibility and merits of each appeal.

Under such a circumstance, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs) on the ground, equipped with the relevant resources and human expertise can work with the Ministries to better assess the needs of each resident. This can add a human face and a compassionate touch to the lives of our people when they deal with agencies and bureaucracies.

I call upon the Ministries to enhance their collaboration and engagement with the HDB, VWOs and FSCs and seek their advice and professional assessment during the process of determining the validity of a particular appeal.

Madam, many Members spoke on the challenges faced by low-income and vulnerable families. I understand their concerns intimately as I spend a lot of time working with and helping these vulnerable families improve on their quality of life.

Recently, one Mdm J approached HDB for a public rental flat. She was a childcare teacher and her monthly income was $1,800, exceeding our $1,500 income ceiling. However, she was a divorcee and had to raise four school-going children without support from family. I discussed her case with HDB. We waived the income ceiling and gave her a 2-room public rental flat. Whilst she waited, HDB gave her interim rental housing. HDB also referred her to the Community Development Council (CDC) for skills upgrading. This way, she could raise her income and, one day, realise home ownership for herself and her four kids. Helping Mdm J and her children was not just about giving a roof over their heads. It was about stabilising the family. It was about ensuring the children's needs are met and they are not further disadvantaged by the family's circumstances.

Mdm J's case is not unique. We have seen many such cases. Each day, I go through many housing appeals. I do this because I know circumstances vary. To help, we have to understand the individual's circumstance, so we can better assess the needs.

This Government has always been committed to helping the weak and vulnerable victims of circumstances. For them, we give support to ease their situation, and, over time, this has increased, along with our resources to do so, as a country. If they have children, we want to ensure that their children are not denied education and opportunities. They will lift their families from poverty and avert an inter-generational problem. This is why we do not just give some hand-out or benefit without making the effort to properly understand their circumstance, and take a hands-on approach to provide practical help and meet their long-term needs. Let me elaborate on this Government's approach in helping low-income and vulnerable families.

First, we support low-income families to achieve home ownership. We believe that home ownership will increase their self-worth and provide a better stable environment for their children to be raised in. A low-income first-timer household earning $1,500 or less can own a brand new 2-room flat in a non-

Page: 36

mature estate for around $50,000. How? Well, we give a substantial market discount and price our 2-room flats affordably. On top of this, we provide them an additional CPF housing grant of $40,000 and a Special CPF housing grant of $20,000. They can fully pay for their flat using CPF. They do not need to fork out additional cash. And if they have two or fewer children and would like to focus their resources on raising their children well, they can join the HOPE scheme and receive, among other benefits, a $50,000 CPF housing grant.

Second, for the minority who cannot afford to own a flat, we provide public rental flats. These flats provide basic and good housing. Last year, we increased the supply of these flats to 50,000. We are ramping this up to 60,000, a significant 20% increase.

Third, in administering the public rental scheme, we have in place rules to focus help on the vulnerable while ensuring that we do not encourage imprudent behaviour or erode the work ethic. However, in the application of these rules, we will consider the merit of each case and exercise flexibility and compassion to help those in dire need.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and some other Members have raised concern over the rental "cliff" that tenants face when their income increases to above $800. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh first alerted us to this two years ago. Since then, we have fixed it. For these tenants, HDB waives their rent increase, so that they continue to pay the lower rent, for one tenancy term of two years. They will not suffer a net loss in income. At the end of two years, if their income increase is still insufficient relative to the rent increase, HDB will continue to suspend the rent increase. As a general rule, no one in HDB's 1-room and 2-room rental units will see their wage increases taken away by HDB through rental adjustments. We have already fixed this problem and should you come across any such case, let me know immediately and we will solve it.

Market rents have increased significantly, but we have not adjusted the public rental structure since 2006, and we have no plans to do so. However, we need to maintain a fine balance between keeping rental rates low, so as to provide support and not discourage improvements in income through work and, on the other hand, adjusting rental rates where appropriate to reflect its relation to real costs, and encourage tenants, who are able, to progress on to own a flat when they are ready.

Ms Lee Li Lian, Mr Png Eng Huat and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap suggested that we relax our rules to allow more to qualify for public rental flats.

Page: 37

We have and will continue to review our rules from time to time. More importantly, let me assure the Members, that in our administration of the rules, we will be sympathetic and responsive to those in need.

We set an income criterion of $1,500 per month, so that we can focus our help on the bottom 20th-income percentile. However, we do not apply the criterion rigidly. We go through each case and are prepared to offer rental flats to help those in financial difficulties, even if their income exceeds $1,500, like in the case of Mdm J earlier.

We have debarment for certain cases, to deter Singaporeans from cashing out on their HDB flat, depleting their cash proceeds and seeking further Government subsidies through public rental flats, thereby competing with those who are truly needy. Nevertheless, again, we have applied this rule sensibly and it does not prevent us from lifting the debarment to help victims of misfortune, or allocating them interim rental housing while they wait for their public rental flats.

As public rental flats are heavily subsidised, only Singapore citizen households qualify. We recognise the needs of low-income citizens with foreign spouses, and do consider them on a case-by-case basis, but the priority goes to Singaporeans. We do hope that Singapore citizens planning to marry foreign spouses will also be responsible in planning and providing for their spouses, including their housing needs.

Often, it is so much easier to say "yes" than to say "no". Saying "no" can make us appear heartless and unsympathetic. We do administer our rules with a heart. However, while we try our best to help, we must be clear about the relative priority of different needs.

There will be instances where we have to be firm and say "no". For instance, a middle-aged couple approached HDB for a public rental flat. They were not in financial hardship and had, in fact, just sold their flat and secured cash proceeds of almost $200,000. They could have bought a 2-room flat or studio apartment but chose not to. HDB was not able to accede to their appeal for a rental flat because there were obvious cases that were more deserving and truly needy compared to them.

Likewise, we have had cases of elderly couples seeking public rental flats because they do not want to live with any of their many married children. The solution to their situation should start with exploring family support, and HDB

Page: 38

facilitates by referring them to the Family Service Centre (FSC) for family counselling, should they face relationship issues.

Fourthly, we make sure that we help vulnerable families holistically and fundamentally, to prevent entrenchment and help them get out of their problem situation. Rental assistance can only provide immediate relief to housing needs, but does not resolve underlying social problems. We have to complement it with upstream social intervention, to support vulnerable families in employment, training, financial management and their children's education. This is to give them a leg up, and help them progress on to owning a flat when they are ready.

MND and HDB work closely with other Ministries, the local advisers and social agencies like the FSCs and CDCs on this. Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap suggested that HDB collaborate with Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) to assess housing appeals holistically and thoroughly. We agree, and HDB is already doing this. For individual cases which have multiple social problems, HDB also participates in case conferences with other social agencies to jointly work out sustainable solutions.

Community initiatives can play a vital part, too. Coordinated by the South East CDC, I piloted a scheme in my constituency mobilising local resources, such as the grassroots and FSCs in the locality, self-help groups, resident-volunteers and HDB, to help vulnerable families with dependent children stabilise their situation and build capacity to cope. These families are residing in interim rental housing and, as the House knows, this is housing for those with little family support and no housing options.

For each case, social workers work very closely with HDB officers to help the families chart out their respective housing pathways aimed at attaining permanent housing. Adults are assisted with relevant training and employment assistance to improve their income earning potential. Childcare needs are met to enable mothers to work. Grassroots leaders befriend the families, ensuring that they attend monthly parenting workshops on budgeting and family development. Residents in the neighbourhood volunteer to supervise the children in their homework on a nightly basis, while self-help groups provide heavily subsidised weekly tuition classes.

From crisis and vulnerability, we provide stability and hope to these families through support from the community and Government. This scheme has been running for a year and we have reached out to 200 families in need,

Page: 39

with two in five successfully moving out into longer term housing solutions. We are heartened by the progress and will continue to help more.

However, getting these families back onto the path of resilience cannot be achieved solely through the social support infrastructure that the Government and its community partners have put in place. It requires families to also take the initiative and responsibility in sustaining their own efforts.

Let me conclude that public rental flats provide a safety net and we hope these families see it as a temporary safety net. The Government and social agencies together hold this net, to catch those who fall, and then, with a stretch, help them bounce back. We will not allow anyone to fall through the cracks. But too much slack, and the net will only enmesh and entrap.

Thus, even as we exercise flexibility and compassion, we need to guard against entrenchment, and keep the hope of home ownership and progress alive for rental tenants. Our job is not just to house, but also to enable and empower those who are in need, so that they can provide for a stable home and better future for their children. If they are able to secure jobs with CPF contribution, grow their incomes and build up their savings in a sustainable manner, home ownership is or can once again be within their reach.

I will now address Mr Gan Thiam Poh's concern on rent burden in light of the rising cost of living. Mr Gan suggested that we should also play a more active role in controlling the rents of shops and factories in our HDB towns and industrial estates to prevent higher rental costs from being passed on to consumers. HDB's commercial and industrial properties are let out on three-year term tenancies via open bidding. This is a fair and transparent system. Since 2009, HDB has assisted tenants who face more than a 10% rent increase during renewal, by staggering the rent increase over a three-year tenancy term. As a result, rent increases for HDB's commercial and industrial properties are at a substantially lower pace compared to the industry. HDB will continue to monitor the market situation closely and roll out additional measures where necessary.

Ms Faizah Jamal and Mrs Lina Chiam asked about the food security plans in place for Singaporeans. Let me give an update. MND chairs an Inter-Ministry Committee on Food Security to coordinate and look into holistic measures to mitigate our food security risks and vulnerabilities.

Page: 40

Our approach to food security is multi-pronged. As a small country importing most of its food, diversification of our sources of food is our key strategy. This is supplemented by some local production of key food items, such as eggs, fish and leafy vegetables, and stockpiling, to ensure a resilient food supply.

We work closely with the local food industry and conduct overseas trade missions to explore potential sources of food in the region, such as Vietnam and Myanmar, and further away, such as South America. We also provide funding, via AVA's Food Fund, for companies interested in exploring contract farming overseas – for example, fish and rice farming in Vietnam and Cambodia respectively.

To raise local production, our farms can tap on AVA's Food Fund to upgrade their capabilities, carry out R&D, and adopt new technologies. For example, Sky Greens Pte Ltd successfully applied for the Fund for the construction and installation of the vertical farming system which was co-developed with AVA. We need to look for more of such innovations to help boost productivity as our land is scarce for farming.

Key to our food security is also Singaporeans' food intake habits. While we may culturally be accustomed to eating fresh or chilled meats and live seafood, we need to be open and accepting of food alternatives or substitutes like frozen meats which are in no way nutritionally inferior to fresh meats. AVA's efforts at encouraging greater consumption of frozen foods have seen some progress, and the consumption of frozen chicken, for instance, has increased from 51% to 60% over the last 10 years.

Even as we open up our new food sources, we must ensure that imports do not carry food safety risks or diseases. AVA has a rigorous food safety system that takes care of food safety from "farm to fork". It consists of overseas source accreditation, certification, inspection and testing of imports upon arrival in Singapore, a traceability system and consumer education efforts on food safety. AVA also ensures the safety of Genetically Modified (GM) foods through risk assessments before they are allowed into Singapore.

Ultimately, the Government, industry and general public must play our parts so that we can continue to enjoy peace of mind when we tuck in to our

Page: 41

favourite foods.

Madam, I would like to seek a clarification on the housing scheme for singles to purchase a new BTO flat. There were a lot of enquiries when I was at the coffeeshop yesterday. My resident was asking, would there be any built in Yishun area? The second question is that, there are some of them who say that their salary is going to be beyond $5,000 after this increment. They are asking when will this review be done because they are eagerly looking forward to purchasing their own flat. The third question is that many also mentioned that they would prefer to buy 3-room flats because they have parents that they want to look after. I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on these matters.

Madam, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, I had a lot of queries, too, when I had my Sembawang event yesterday. They were largely positive and appreciative. I appreciate their patience because they have been waiting for decades and now that there is an opening, they were positive in their feedback to me. Some of their questions were very similar other than the question on whether there will be BTOs in Yishun.

We are planning the whole BTO programmes for the rest of this year and also going forward. As always, I would like to spread them out, whether it is Studio Apartments for the seniors or Studio Apartments for the singles. And also other flat types. I am quite sure that at some stage, there will be some BTO offerings which singles can apply to for those who want to stay in Yishun.

The second point about salary, I gave an interview to the journalist which was quite well reported today. My explanation is a simple one – in policy making, we cannot hope to launch a perfect solution from day one when you offer it because no matter how carefully you planned it, you can never capture all situations. And the worse thing is to try to design a perfect solution that satisfies all. It may take you years, and then it will be very slow in implementing.

My approach is to be clear where you hope the end point can be. We do not know how long or how far we can reach that point. But let us start off cautiously and progressively open up towards the end point. That I think is a much better approach than to open up in a very liberal manner, only to

Page: 42

disappoint many at first stage and then you are forced to tighten up which, I think, will upset many.

This first step of opening up to those earning below $5,000, I personally find it a reasonable step because what does $5,000 mean? I received a couple of emails which were negative. They said "Only a few can enjoy this scheme". That is not true, Mdm Chair.

Among working singles above 35, excluding retirees, $5,000 is between the 80th percentile and 85th percentile. Put it in simple English, more than 80% of singles above 35 years old earn below $5,000. That is not "only a few singles who will be eligible". It is fair that we open this up to these 80th percentile singles and then we see. If the demand is manageable, I will certainly want to raise the income ceiling.

That is my approach and I hope to get the singles' understanding and patience. When you open up and set too high a salary ceiling, what it means is when you have to ration and hold ballots, then it is luck-of-the-draw and you may end up offering many units to those who are earning $10,000 or whatever, while depriving those who are earning, say, $4,000 or $3,000 who may need it more badly and have less options.

As for the 3-room flats in order to live with parents, I understand their wish. Some, in fact, emailed to me and say, "Can we have 5-room flats?" One step at a time. Let us do the 2-room flats because let us assess the demand. Then we slowly liberalise from there. Immediately, for those who want to stay with their parents, they can already do so, apply as a family unit to the 3-room, 4-room, 5-room flat BTO launches that they are interested in.

Madam, I refer to the story of Mdm J where she progressed from the interim rental flat to a more permanent home. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the proportion of Singaporeans who live in interim rental flats who have progressed to a more permanent home, as well as the average time period they take to progress from the interim to the permanent home.

Madam, I thank Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal for the question. As we know, interim rental housing is really for families who have no other housing option; as some had illustrated, they have had to stay on the beaches. We introduced rental housing in 2009 to

Page: 43

make sure that no Singaporean is without a roof over his head.

Many Singaporeans find their own alternatives first and, by the time they have exhausted the goodwill of friends and family members, they then come to us and we offer them interim rental housing (IRH).

Since the introduction of the IRH scheme in January 2009, HDB has referred more than 7,200 families in need to temporary housing or interim rental housing. As at December 2012, about 3,750 families, less than half, had stayed in IRH. This means that not everyone of those families took up the offer, which means that they still had other options. So, when we offered them, they would explore other options, too. Our offer of the IRH is one of the potential options for them to get housing and we offer them with support from other social agencies.

Of these 3,750 families, about 2,200 have since moved out – that is, more than 50% have moved out. Of these 50% of them, about 1,100 have moved to rental flats. About 20% of them, 440 families, have moved on to home ownership flats. They are capable of having home ownership flats. Some 30% have found other alternative accommodation.

How long does it take for them to stay in the IRH? It really depends on each case because, sometimes, it takes a while for us to work through. The illustration given earlier in my main speech, we worked with the social service agencies and engaged social workers to help these families understand each case's circumstances.

For those who are capable of owning a home because they do have substantial CPF savings and maybe they do not have good income at the moment, we take some time to get them to go into employment which will allow them some time to increase their savings so that they can then afford a BTO flat subsequently.

For those who have got issues with debarment, it takes some time for us to work through those issues. As far as the average period is concerned, it really depends. But we allow for the IRH tenancy on a six-monthly basis so that the families do not also get entrenched in the IRH system. The IRH rental rate is still lower than the market rate and we allow lower rental rates simply because we understand these are families in need.

Page: 44

Madam, I have a few clarifications. The first one is concerning the Parenthood Priority Scheme. First, I want to thank the Minister for introducing this and also for taking up my proposal to extend it to married couples who are expecting. There are many good initiatives in this year's COS announced by MND and HDB. It is very important that we now invest more resources in communicating these new initiatives to all Singaporeans and to every Singaporean family. And specifically for the Parenthood Priority Scheme, I have one suggestion. If we could have some leaflets at the Registry of Marriages, for example, to tell them that this scheme exists. There is one part about housing options, the other part is about boosting TFR. Anything that we can do to help so that as many Singaporeans can benefit, we should.

My second clarification is to the Senior Minister of State Mr Lee Yi Shyan about the Enhancement for Active Seniors Programme. Again, another excellent piece of news. We are all delighted that this is all coming across to all HDB houses nationwide. My suggestion is whether we can consider modifying some of these in future to include vulnerable and elderly families in private estates. I understand there will be differing views but I think if we can just look at, say, elderly and vulnerable families in private estates. We can look at it on a case-by-case basis. We can look at tweaking some of the subsidy levels, maybe not immediately, but something which I hope the Ministry could consider in future.

I would take the first query and then Senior Minister of State Lee can take the second one. As always, Mr Seah Kian Peng puts forward very thoughtful and useful suggestions, suggestions which any sensible chap should say, "yes" to, and therefore, I say, "yes".

Madam, I refer to Mr Seah's suggestion. As we were rolling out the EASE programme in the early phase, the response shows that it has good reception among the elderly families. In the HDB situation, we try to bundle it with the HIP when possible so that it would minimise the kind of intrusive work that you got to do within the household.

In order to benefit more seniors, we are now rolling out EASE nationwide. So, interested families and qualified families can call, and the HDB will respond. At the same time, we are also working with hospitals and family service centres to surface the kind of vulnerable families, as the Member has said, to give them priority and to put up some fixtures for them. Whether we can go to the next stage of taking care of some elderly in the private estates, I think we will

Page: 45

consider, but it will also be a matter of our capacity, as well as funding, and whether we want to park EASE as it is, in the current form, or we can work with the other Ministries to roll this programme out.

Madam, with news of record resale prices that we heard about last week, the public still feel very uneasy about the high prices. My question to the Minister is what can HDB do to cool down the resale market? Despite the fact that we have introduced so many rounds of cooling measures, the public still finds that the resale market prices seem to be out of control. Will HDB consider re-introducing poster-price system used in the past as part of the measures to regulate the HDB resale market? The next question is, will HDB also consider regulating the rentals of HDB flats?

Mdm Chair, Mr Gan Thiam Poh's suggestions are a little difficult to implement because the Member is talking about the resale market – both sale and rental. How do I interfere because that is between the homeowners or home sellers and the home buyers or potential tenants? For us to interfere means that we set prices, we determine those prices on behalf of the homeowners and buyers. So, I do have a practical difficulty there. What we can do is to try to cool down the market through various means. That is why there have been so many cooling measures and covering different aspects, including ramping up supply and trying to manage the liquidity flows.

I explained to the media yesterday why is it that there are so many cooling measures. Why not have a big whack and aim to bring about a significant sharp price drop? But is that what you want? Is that what is good for Singapore? Our judgement is that such a move will hurt many. In fact, that will hurt the vast majority and it is far better to try to engineer a soft landing. A soft landing means we need a longer runway; which, therefore, means that we need more time and, therefore, it has to be gentle and it will take several rounds.

That is the approach I am taking. That is our judgement and I think that will benefit Singaporeans much more, without causing unnecessary significant collateral damage to many innocent parties.

Thank you, Mdm Chair. Minister said last week that he will continue to explore new technologies to make LUP technically more feasible and also at lower cost. I would like to clarify if the deadline of 2014 for LUP will still apply. Despite that, there will always be blocks which have special physical constraints or there are just too few units to co-share the cost of lift upgrading. For those who are not able to benefit from LUP, will Minister consider other help for these house owners, and whether the Minister can consider pegging the value of such help to the maximum grant extended to each LUP benefiting unit of, I believe, $30,000 each?

Mdm Chair, I will be very brief. The 2014 LUP referred to is based on current technology, current costing, and that is a commitment we made and we will deliver on that. I do not want to shut out hope for those few blocks where LUP, based on today's technology, is just not viable. Therefore, HDB continues to explore innovative solutions. I have confidence in technology and that the industry will always come up with better solutions.

Just as not too long ago, we thought many more blocks could not be LUP-ed and it turned out to be not true. So, we are not losing hope but meanwhile I know there are some individuals who particularly, because of medical conditions, are in need, we would try special means, highly focused, just targeted on that family, to see how we can help them, including, if necessary, we would find alternative places for them to stay. Those have to be highly targeted at individual cases, case-by-case; and Members have to alert us to those individual cases and we will be as compassionate as we can.

Yes, Madam. I would like to ask a clarification from the Senior Minister of State, Mr Lee Yi Shyan. I spoke on Friday about community spaces. Would HDB or MND consider instituting a cap on the floor area of the void decks of any block of flats that can be leased out to centres? Do they put a cap in HDB on the floor area? Also, can I just make one more comment, Madam? That is a comment on Senior Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin. This is a good comment. I commend the Government's initiative for doing the Garden City because I got comments from tourist friends who said that they can even smell the flowers when they walk along Orchard Road.

Mdm Chair, in response to Mrs Lina Chiam's question on common spaces. I think she also commented on the void deck space usage.

Page: 47

In deciding to allocate to a specific purpose, HDB does consider the common spaces in a precinct, in a few blocks together. We would not advise, even if the needs are very pressing and justified, to co-locate too many services in a very congested manner to take up the entire block, for instance.

This is an interactive process. There are many needs in our society. We need childcare, we need elderly care, we need active corners for youths, we sometimes need dialysis centres and so on. Obviously in the newly planned towns, we can accommodate all these designs. We will try to create common spaces for them. But in the existing ones, we just have to do our part to persuade people, where necessary, to accommodate these needs in their precinct because we live together as a large community.