Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.53 pm

The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Enacted in 1987, the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) has been key to maintaining Singapore as the clean and green city that we enjoy. The principles and provisions of the Act underpin the National Environment Agency’s (NEA’s) work on public cleanliness and waste management.

We cannot take for granted our clean and green environment. The environmental services industry, which includes cleaning and waste management companies, face real challenges. The industry is struggling to meet the growing demand for their services, even with a 78,000-strong workforce across 1,700 companies. Many of the jobs are shunned by Singaporeans, who perceive them as dirty, demanding or dangerous. The industry is heavily dependent on foreign workers – for instance, a large proportion of jobs in the waste collection industry are filled by foreign workers. The local workforce is also ageing. On average, our local cleaners are 60 years old and our local waste collectors are 50 years old.

This is why we launched the Environmental Services Industry Transformation Map (ES ITM) last year. The ES ITM will drive innovation and wider technology adoption, upskill workers to take on better jobs, improve productivity and capture value overseas. These will improve working conditions and equip workers with relevant skills to thrive in the future economy.

The ES ITM will not take away the jobs of Singaporeans. As it is, there are simply not enough Singaporeans who want to join the sector. We need to grow a vibrant ES sector which can compete with the best in the world, and provide more higher value-added jobs which can attract Singaporeans. This is the only way for us to reduce our reliance on foreign labour in the long run.

Sir, it is in this spirit that we move this Bill to update the Act. The measures which I will speak about will help address the challenges the ES industry faces, and ensure that Singapore continues to be a clean, green and liveable city for generations to come.

The Government has made a concerted push to expand the use of pneumatic waste conveyance systems (PWCS) in Singapore. The PWCS is a tried and tested technology that uses air pressure to convey waste through sealed pipes from throw-points to a bin centre.

Earlier this year, I visited Hammarby Sjöstad, a sustainable community in Stockholm. Over there, they first implemented a PWCS more than three decades ago, in 1982, to collect waste from 3,000 apartments. Over the years, they have added another two PWCS in the area to serve 5,000 more apartments.

This shift to PWCS is akin to Singapore’s transition from night soil buckets to sewerage pipes in our early years. It replaces the need for cleaners to manually collect waste from individual apartment blocks and bring it to a bin centre – a common sight in many condominiums and HDB estates today. This will transform waste collection and allow us to improve the standards of cleanliness and public health, even with a shrinking workforce.

The PWCS will bring many benefits. Disamenities to residents, such as pests and odour, are reduced as the entire system is enclosed. Developments and their cleaning contractors will save on manpower needed to transfer waste and clean spillages. These jobs will be replaced by higher value-added jobs such as maintenance technicians and project engineers. These are jobs which we envision creating for Singaporeans under the ES ITM.

We have been taking steady steps towards this vision. Earlier this year, we made it mandatory for new development applications for non-landed private residential developments with 500 Dwelling Units (DUs) or more to implement PWCS. This will add to the more than 140 private residential and commercial developments which have already done so on their own accord.

We will introduce a new Part IIIA to the Act to enable PWCS to be deployed at the district level, beyond individual developments. We call this a District Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System, or DPWCS for short. We will implement the first DPWCS under these amendments at Kampong Bugis. As Minister for National Development Mr Lawrence Wong announced at last year’s Committee of Supply, this is part of plans to transform Kampong Bugis into a people-centric and car-lite precinct.

Legislation is necessary as private developers are unlikely to, on their own, come together to embark on a district-level system, thus missing out on the benefits from scale. Moreover, as DPWCS is best implemented on a greenfield site where the sale or redevelopment of individual plots are likely to take place at different times, it would otherwise be very difficult to coordinate its implementation.

By implementing PWCS at the district level, we can reap more economies of scale. For example, instead of having bin centres in each development, the district can share a central bin centre. NEA estimates that a condominium with 1,000 dwelling units that would no longer need a bin centre will save on space equivalent to one 5-room flat. Refuse truck traffic within the district will also be reduced, as refuse will only be collected from one bin centre, which can be located away from residents.

HDB and JTC are already implementing the PWCS at the district level. In 2015, HDB retrofitted 38 blocks in Yuhua estate under its Greenprint programme. Feedback from residents indicated that many were satisfied with the PWCS. For example, there was a reduction in odour and pests and an improvement in estate cleanliness. The lessons from Yuhua will be incorporated into the district-level PWCS in new estates, including Tampines North and Punggol. JTC is also exploring PWCS at the district level in their new business parks, such as the Punggol Digital District.

Section 31F will limit the new Part IIIA to premises which are not controlled or managed by a Town Council constituted under the Town Councils Act. There will thus be no change to the current arrangement where Town Councils manage PWCS in HDB estates.

Section 31G will allow the Minister to declare DPWCS areas, where owners and occupiers of premises within the DPWCS area must use the DPWCS.

Where needed, section 31H will allow the Minister to modify or revoke declarations of the DPWCS area. Before these powers are exercised, MEWR and NEA will provide advance notice to affected stakeholders in the Gazette under section 31I. An avenue for written representation to the Minister is also provided.

Section 31J will provide powers to NEA to license the vendor that builds, operates or maintains the DPWCS. This minimises disruptions to residents served by the DPWCS by ensuring that the company taking on the project will be properly regulated. For example, one of the licensing conditions that we will require the licensee to comply with is the Singapore Standard for PWCS. The Standard will cover basic requirements for the construction and installation of the network and guidelines on maintenance.

Section 31K sets out the powers of the DPWCS licensee to carry out necessary works for the purposes of the DPWCS. For example, the licensee can conduct excavation works, provided the necessary approvals from authorities are obtained. These rights are similar to those provided to gas transporter licensees under the Gas Act.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [ A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex A.]

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be referring to this handout as I explain the next section, which talks about three key components in the DPWCS.

Under section 31L, the Director-General will have powers to require owners or occupiers of premises within the declared area to connect to the refuse pipeline network. This “refuse pipeline network”, indicated in brown on the handout, refers to the main DPWCS network which will be shared across the district. It will be owned and maintained by NEA or the DPWCS licensee. Individual premises would own their internal PWCS pipes. This is marked in blue on the handout and termed “related internal assets”.

It will be the responsibility of the premise owners to maintain and operate the internal PWCS pipes. The connection to the refuse pipeline network will be demarcated by a “connection point” – the triangle in the handout. This will be considered part of the refuse pipeline network.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to ensure the financial sustainability of the DPWCS, the new sections 31M to 31O will give NEA the powers to require owners and occupiers of premises to pay connection charges and/or tariffs, where necessary. The connection charge will cover the capital costs of the DPWCS. The tariffs will cover the operating, maintenance and replacement costs.

Taking Kampong Bugis as an example, NEA will collect the connection charge from the Master Developer that is appointed to plan and develop the site. When a particular development, for example, a condominium, has been built at Kampong Bugis, the tariffs will be collected by the DPWCS licensee from either the developer or the MCST when it is formed.

We will also make related amendments to sections 16(2) and 39(1) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), so that connection charges and tariffs can be paid from the maintenance fund. It will also allow contributions from subsidiary proprietors to be raised for these payments.

Sections 31P to 31R will make it an offence to conduct works that breaks or would otherwise affect the ground without first ascertaining the location of refuse pipes in the DPWCS area. It will also be an offence to damage the DPWCS or affect its operations. Similar provisions are found in the District Cooling Act, Gas Act and Public Utilities Act. This is to minimise inconvenience and potential public health risks to residents in the district.

Section 31T will protect the DPWCS assets from distress or being liable to be taken in execution under court processes, in cases where the DPWCS owner faces bankruptcy or insolvency. Under certain circumstances, the new section 31V will allow NEA to take over management of the DPWCS under a special administration order to ensure that the DPWCS will continue to function.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, waste collection is an essential service to protect public health, but the industry is facing manpower shortages. Through implementing the PWCS, we will upgrade the waste collection industry and improve the environment for everyone. Even as we harness technology to enhance our environmental services, we must not forget the people behind them. A skilled workforce will be crucial for sustaining productivity growth as our labour situation tightens.

In 2014, we introduced the mandatory Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the cleaning sector, to upgrade the skills and wages of our resident cleaners. This was done to boost the income levels of cleaners sustainably and improve productivity and standards in the cleaning industry. Within two years of the PWM being mandated, the real median gross salary of a full-time resident cleaner had risen from $1,100 per month to $1,200 per month. Many businesses were paying cleaners above the minimum PWM wage level to attract capable staff. Sectoral productivity also improved as companies adopted technology to save man hours and improve work conditions.

In 2016, the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) proposed a suite of recommendations to build on this momentum. These included yearly wage adjustments between 2017 to 2022 to sustain wage growth, and an annual PWM Bonus to be paid from 2020, to encourage cleaners to stay on their jobs and raise their incomes. The Government had given its full support to the TCC’s recommendations.

This Bill reaffirms that support by introducing the PWM Bonus as a licensing requirement for cleaning businesses. Through amendments to sections 80G and 80H of the Act, it will become mandatory for every licensed cleaning business to provide for the payment of a PWM Bonus to its eligible resident cleaners, regardless of the worker’s performance. Cleaning businesses who do not comply will face financial penalties or risk losing their licence, similar to how other PWM-related offences are dealt with. The Commissioner for Labour (CoL) will, based on the TCC’s recommendations, specify in an order the minimum amount, frequency of payment, and eligible class of cleaners for the PWM Bonus.

Currently, the minimum quantum recommended by the TCC is two weeks of the basic monthly wage. With the PWM Bonus, some 40,000 resident cleaners may receive up to 4% more in wages each year. Coupled with the scheduled annual wage increments, cleaners receiving PWM basic wages today could see their salaries increase by up to 7% each year from now till 2020, when the PWM Bonus is mandated. More details will be released in due course.

Sir, these amendments signal our continual commitment to improve the wages of our cleaners, even as the push for productivity continues. But our efforts alone will not be enough; employers and service buyers must also act responsibly and reward staff fairly. Only by working together can we realise our vision of a skilled and productive cleaning workforce.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill also seeks to enhance NEA’s operational efficiency and tighten penalties against certain public health offences. Section 98 will be amended for greater efficiency in serving documents required or authorised under the Act. Currently, regulatory documents such as summonses must be served by hand to only the secretary of an errant company. The amendments would enable these documents to be served onto any other like officer of that company, and at any location, in addition to the registered address of that company. Additionally, if the document is not intended for proceedings in court, it can now be served by fax. Many other Acts, like the Environmental Protection and Management Act, similarly provide for such methods of service.

Amendments will also be made to section 86 of the Act to increase the penalties against uncooperative offenders who withhold their identification, from a maximum fine of $300 to $1,000 upon conviction. This will deter belligerent offenders from hampering NEA’s enforcement efforts. A similar provision can be found in the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act. Taken together, these changes will minimise abortive enforcement work and enable NEA to optimise limited resources.

Sir, Part VII of the Act currently provides for the licensing of swimming pools, while Part VIII provides for the licensing of funeral parlours, cemetery and crematoria, and for the management of human corpses. Serious public health implications may arise from the unlicensed operation of such facilities. To guard against these risks, sections 65 and 77 of the Act will be repealed so that stiffer penalties under section 103 of the Act, which provides for general penalties, will apply to offences under Parts VII and VIII respectively. This will effectively raise the maximum fine for non-compliance for both Parts from $2,000 for a first conviction to $5,000, in line with other offences under the Act where penalties are not expressly provided for.

The remaining clauses 4 and 8 in the Bill are made for legal clarity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we must continually transform the environmental services sector to meet the challenges of the future economy. This Bill marks another milestone in our efforts to develop a productive environmental services sector that is innovative and forward looking and provide good jobs with good pay for our workforce.

I have explained how we will leverage technology to manage our waste efficiently through the District Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System. I have also shared how we will help our cleaners upskill, upgrade, and earn higher wages through our tripartite efforts, even as we automate many of the tasks.

We have made progress over the years, but more must be done. Businesses must proactively develop the skillsets of their workers, in order to realise the benefits of a productive and committed workforce. Workers should also be nimble, adaptable and open to learning new skills. We will continue to support our stakeholders to transform the environment services industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.16 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest in this Bill as Chairman of the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners, or TCC.

The graciousness of a society can be measured by how it treats the less fortunate in its midst. It would be a hollow victory for us to achieve success as a nation if we, as a society, do nothing to help the less fortunate when we have the means to do so.

A vulnerable group that needs our help is the 46,000 resident cleaners who work tirelessly to ensure that we live in an environment which is clean, safe and conducive for all of us and our families to live, work and play.

For the longest time, the basic salaries earned by our resident cleaners stagnated and remained low. Coupled with the lack of bonus payouts, our local cleaners had little left for savings after spending on local necessities. Other than statutory employment benefits, most employers also do not provide them with added welfare benefits or incentives. Overall, our cleaners had little job security and would have difficulty to save for a rainy day.

The plight of our resident cleaners has not gone unnoticed. Through the efforts of the TCC, things have been improving for them, with concrete steps being taken to improve their lot.

In 2014, members of the house passed the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill which boosted resident cleaners’ salaries through the introduction of the mandatory Progressive Wage Model or PWM in short.

In 2016, the problem of wage stagnation and wage reset were partially addressed when TCC recommended a sustainable wage increase that would see the income of our general local cleaners grow at an average of 4.6% per annum over six years. Coupled with the Workfare Income Supplement scheme, many resident cleaners today are seeing an increase in their take-home pay and CPF savings.

In 2017, the cleaning industry, as part of the Environmental Services sector had also developed an Industry Transformation Map that would provide a blueprint to transform the industry, with workers playing an integral role.

A key strategy identified in the ITM was the need to sustain a strong and productive cleaning workforce by putting in place structures and processes to ensure workers in environmental services are Ready for new jobs, Relevant with new skills and Resilient to new ways of working.

Efforts to help the vulnerable workers in the cleaning industry are still a work-in-progress. Today, we are again presented with an opportunity to make a difference to the lives of this vulnerable group of workers. The passing of the amendments in this Bill will be another historic and landmark change for our resident cleaners. It will put an end to the common work grievance of many resident cleaners of not being paid bonuses.

One of the amendments of the Environmental Public Health Act is to mandate the payment of an annual bonus to Singaporean and Permanent Resident cleaners. This amendment recognises that part of the industry’s transformation will be underpinned by productive and well-skilled workers, and this compulsory PWM bonus will be a great boost to sustain a strong and highly motivated cleaning workforce.

I am in full support of the Bill which will make the PWM Bonus a requirement and condition of NEA’s licensing condition regime. I am heartened that the PWM Bonus is not contingent on the workers’ performance and must be paid so long as the resident cleaner meets the criteria set out by the TCC. This will ensure our resident cleaners will have a day or two, every year, for them to look forward to a bonus pay-out.

It is our hope that the PWM Bonus will serve as a motivational tool to encourage workers to stay longer with the same employer, as well as incentivise employers to invest in training their cleaners. As cleaners scale the PWM wage ladder, the rising wages will be accompanied by higher productivity and growth for the industry.

Even though the cleaning industry has been given ample notice on the implementation of the PWM bonus which will take effect in January 2020, I would like to propose to NEA to give the employers a grace period of one year where the employers would be given a warning should they fail to comply with the mandatory PWM bonus. However, full restitution must still be made to the affected cleaners if the employers fail to pay them the bonus. To provide greater clarity on the technicalities of the PWM Bonus payment, the TCC secretariat will issue an addendum report and FAQ later this year.

Efforts to improve the lives of our cleaners cannot be the sole responsibility of the industry stakeholders represented by the TCC. While we may have heard of the common saying, "It takes a village to raise a child", I would say it takes the whole society to play our part to help our cleaners have better lives, for them and their families.

Improving the wages and skill-set of our cleaners are just the tip of the ice-berg of what we can do to help them. While the PWM and payment of PWM bonus would be made mandatory, unfortunately, TCC cannot mandate service buyers to shoulder the same responsibility in their procurement of cleaning services.

To all service buyers, my message is simple. You can buy services, but you cannot outsource your responsibilities! In my engagement with many cleaning companies, one common feedback is that the practice of cheap sourcing is still rampant amongst service buyers, both in public and private sector. The 1,300 cleaning companies will then response by lowering their tender prices, with possibly putting in suicide bids to win contracts, much to the detriment to the whole cleaning industry in the long run.

With rising overheads and business cost, the only way to remain afloat is to pay the workers at the minimum PWM wages and not to give any other welfare benefits. This can lead to a vicious cycle where the level of service is compromised when service providers cut corners to remain in business and the workers would have low morale. With very low margins, there is little incentive for cleaning companies to invest in technology or training.

I would also like to urge all service buyers, whether they are commercial, industrial building owners, private condominiums, or Government agencies, to work with their potential service providers to ensure the tender prices commensurate with the level of service expected, the investment in technology and training needed and at the same time without compromising welfare of the cleaners. This requires service buyers to truly best source beyond paying lip service.

Service buyers can discourage cheap sourcing by not awarding to the lowest bidder. This will send a clear signal to industry that it is quality and not price that matters. In addition, in line with this year’s National Wages Council’s recommendations, service buyers can do their part to help these cleaners by inserting a clause in their tender that the cleaners’ wages and benefits must be no worse off if they intend to change their service provider.

Cleaning companies must also do the right thing to ensure the long-term sustainability of the industry. Avoid suicide bids. Discourage cheap sourcing. Walk away if winning the contract entails you cutting corners for you to survive.

For the rest of us, we can also do our part to make the work of our vulnerable, elderly cleaners easier by not littering, returning our trays, exercising our civic consciousness in using public amenities, and many others. We live and breathe in the same space and it is our collective responsibility to create a pleasant environment for ourselves and our loved ones.

The manpower challenges faced by the environmental services industry is real as we face an ageing population. As such, we need to take concrete steps to transform the industry into a technologically-driven and skilled sector ready to meet the demands of the future.

Hence, I am also supportive of another key proposal of the Bill, which is to introduce a framework to implement the District Pneumatic Waste Conveyance Systems (DPWCS). This system will rely on air pressure to convey waste via pipes to a bin centre, eliminating the need to manually haul refuse. This leads to greater productivity. It will also eliminate dis-amenities such as pests and odours that may arise from open refuse collection and improve the livability of residents in the direct vicinity.

I understand that the DPWCS has been implemented in new towns such as Bidadari and Tampines North. The proposed amendments will facilitate its implementation in areas with private developments, such as the future Kampung Bugis area.

Nevertheless, I would like to ask what the plans are to mitigate the problems faced by other countries that had used the DPWCS. What has been the experience of other cities using DPWCS in terms of the cost effectiveness and lifecycle of the system? What contingencies would be put in place should the DPWCS fail to operate for whatever technical reasons?

Such problems, if faced in private developments, can be costly to rectify and may place a huge financial burden on the MCST. What support could the Government provide to ensure the DPWCS in private developments can be sustainably managed in the long run?

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many resident cleaners usually do not get to enjoy annual salary bonuses because in the Employment Act, the payment of the Annual Wage Supplement, also known as the 13th month bonus, is not mandatory.

At the end of each year, NTUC's U Care Centre receives many enquiries from resident cleaners who asked why they do not receive any bonuses. This group is very hopeful that they can receive a bonus so that it can help defray the costs of living for their families.

Therefore, I support the amendments to this Act because it will make it mandatory for cleaning companies to provide a Progressive Wage Model bonus to every resident cleaner. Although the amount is equal to just 2 weeks' salary, this is an important first step because it ensures that this group of low wage workers can receive a year-end bonus. Such guarantees are not present in other jobs for this group of workers.

(In English): In conclusion, notwithstanding my concerns on the DPWCS, these amendments are steps in the right direction. And we must continue our tripartite efforts to engage the Government, businesses and workers to create an industry that is ready to tackle the challenges of the future.

5.29 pm

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Sir, this Bill before us provides among other things, for an enhancement to the Progressive Wage Model as applied to workers in the cleaning sector. A licensed cleaning business will now be required to pay an annual bonus, on top of wages, to its cleaners. This will be mandatory for cleaners who are Singaporeans and PRs, and is encouraged in the case of cleaners who are foreigners.

As you know, the Progressive Wage Model developed by the tripartite committees, took effect beginning 2015 with the aim of uplifting low-wage workers in the cleaning, security and landscape sectors. In these sectors, wages had stagnated due to widespread cheap sourcing and due to the more limited scope for collective bargaining, as prices are locked in once service contracts are signed, which are typically for the long term.

The Progressive Wage Model aims to secure for the workers a minimum starting wage, and also increases in future wages in line with training and improvements in productivity and standards.

In this light, I welcome the provisions in this Bill instituting an annual bonus for cleaners, which will carry a minimum amount to be specified by the Commissioner of Labour. Cleaners, like many other low-wage workers, often live from pay check to pay check and find it difficult to save for the future.

Today's Bill takes a step in the direction towards minimum wage protection for low-wage workers in the cleaning sector, consistent with helping businesses better attract and retain their workers. The fact that we are passing today enhancements to the Progressive Wage Model in the cleaning sector offers some cause for optimism that the wage model is taking root in the sector, it is adapting and growing and making progress.

Indeed, the Progressive Wage Model has very recently been extended to workers in a fourth sector: lift technicians. And there, it has grown its own variant of a two-track-roadmap for the provision of more senior workers, as a supervisor or as a specialist technician. Short of a national minimum wage plan pegged to household expenditures on basic needs, I urge the Government to take the lead in further adapting and extending its Progressive Wage Model to cover more sectors of our economy, the better to support more low-wage workers, so that they have, along with a ladder ahead of them, a floor beneath.

5.32 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I declare my interest as Chairman of the Nee Soon Town Council and I stand in full support of this Bill.

The proposed amendments will help to make a significant difference in the lives of our cleaners. Our cleaners play a vital role in our community and yet some receive very little appreciation for the work they do for us and for some, they receive very little income as well. This Bill is a positive step forward and helps to ensure that our cleaners' work becomes a little bit easier and they also feel more appreciated.

I worked with our cleaners in Nee Soon East and will share some of their stories in this speech. I will also make some suggestions on how we can help our cleaners further and seek some clarifications.

Sir, this Bill proposes to utilise air pressure to move waste through pipes to a bin centre, which replaces the older and more labour-intensive way of clearing waste. It is an encouraging step to move towards using cleaner and more efficient processes. It will benefit our cleaners and we can benefit from a reduction in odour issues, improve overall hygiene and our living environment.

I am glad that the Government is footing the bill for the installation of the pneumatic waste conveyance system. However, it will be the Town Council who will maintain it and our maintenance costs might go up. Can I ask if the Government will be providing any grants to the Town Councils to help offset the possible increased maintenance costs at least for the first few years?

Next, since the introduction of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) in 2012, companies across industries have gradually rolled out the changes to positively benefit low-wage workers. In the Occupational Wage Survey conducted by MOM, it indicated that the median basic and gross wages of full-time resident cleaners grew by 9% and 12% per annum respectively from 2012 to 2015.

I support the proposed move of this Bill to take the PWM a step further, by mandating the payment of an Annual Bonus. In my interactions with Nee Soon East residents who are cleaners, they have expressed appreciation of this change.

Sir, it is important for all of society to move forward together. Where market forces place a downward pressure on wages of certain sectors, like cleaning, it is important for the Government to intervene. The PWM and now the Annual Bonus is a step in the right direction and helps to lift income levels of lower wage workers.

I do have some questions and clarifications about the enforcement of the PWM. How are employers who game the system in order to skirt wage increments flagged out? What are the penalties or other enforcement mechanisms in place to put pressures on companies to implement recommendations and adhere to the PWM? Can Senior Minister of State also clarify whether the wages and benefits under the PWM are reset for those who perform the same job functions and roles when the cleaning service providers are changed?

Sir, the PWM is a very positive step forward for cleaners but the issue now is that it does not apply to all cleaners. For example, I understand that PWM is not mandatory for a cleaner who is hired directly by an F&B establishment. If the same cleaner is employed by a licensed cleaning company and is sent to the same F&B establishment and does the same exact work as a cleaner, PWM then becomes mandatory.

I appreciate that it might not be easy for us to legislate that PWM is mandatory for all local cleaners regardless of who hires them but can Senior Minister of State clarify what MEWR is doing to plug this gap. This is important for cleaners like Ah Eng whom I had the privilege of working with when I gained some experience as a coffee shop cleaner. She has been a cleaner for the past two decades and as I shared on Facebook, "She was so hardworking, so caring and so dedicated. She taught me a lot and a lot more than cleaning a coffee shop."

Ah Eng's husband passed away when her two children were still young and she single-handedly brought them up through working as a cleaner. Hers is a story of resilience, of sacrifice and of hard work. I understand that she is currently hired directly by the coffeshop and as such PWM is not mandatory for her and she may not receive the Annual Bonus proposed in this Bill. I honestly think this is not fair and I sincerely hope that Senior Minister of State can look into this and ensure that local cleaners like Ah Eng can benefit from the PWM as well.

Our foreign cleaners also do not benefit from the PWM but I am grateful that MEWR has encouraged employers to incorporate the principles of progressive wages into the wage structure of their foreign cleaners. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what percentage of our cleaners are foreigners and how many cleaning companies actually apply the PWM to foreign cleaners? If such data is not currently collected, would the Ministry consider collecting this information?

The PWM is also about increasing productivity and standards. MOM states that, "higher productivity increases business profits for employers. Service buyers also enjoy better service standards and quality."

But if we leave out our foreign cleaners from the PWM and bearing in mind that they likely form a bulk of the cleaning sector and workforce, how then will we achieve higher productivity, improve profits and enjoy better service standards and quality?

Can I ask if MEWR is looking into this and how to further encourage companies to adopt progressive wage principles for foreign cleaners? Can I also suggest that MEWR studies what is being done in the construction sector and see if we can implement similar policies for the cleaning sector.

In the construction sector, the R1 scheme encourages employers to help their workers upskill. This increases the quality and productivity of the workforce, and provides wage progression pathways for higher skilled Work Permit holders.

Employers can upgrade their Basic-skilled R2 workers to Higher-skilled R1 workers by meeting minimum experience, minimum wage, or certificate requirements. As incentives, employers pay a lower levy and enjoy an extended employment period for the Higher-skilled worker. Will MEWR consider this for the cleaning industry?

Further, at least 10% of construction workers must be higher skilled R1 workers. Would the Senior Minister of State consider similarly making it a condition of cleaning business licence that 10% of their foreign cleaners must be higher skilled workers who again meet minimum working experience, minimum wage, or certification requirements? This could address my earlier point and might help us achieve higher productivity, improve profits and enjoy better service standards and quality in the cleaning sector.

Sir, I have also worked with our cleaners at the Nee Soon Town Council and experienced firsthand how difficult their work is and how back-breaking the work is. I worked with Hanif who is from Bangladesh and who has been a cleaner for the last 12 years. I learnt a lot from him, how difficult his life has been and yet how he is so full of smiles and so dedicated about making sure he does his job well for us. His enthusiasm for life was infectious and residents love him and treat him not as their cleaner but as their good friend and for some, their family member.

I had dinner with Hanif's family when I was in Bangladesh earlier this year and I saw firsthand how proud they were of him and most of all, how much they miss him. Like all of us, Hanif works hard and sacrifices for his family. Hanif got married recently and his wife is now expecting their first child.

Sir, I got to experience Hanif’s work as a cleaner but I doubt we can ever fully appreciate how difficult it must be for him to be so far from home and for so long. How difficult it must be to not be with his wife who is now pregnant and how difficult it must be to not be there for his or her childhood.

Sir, our cleaners like Ah Eng and Hanif do a lot for us for very little. They help to ensure we have a clean environment to live in, to work in and a clean environment to enjoy our food and drinks in. They are sometimes a forgotten group of people and we need to make sure they are fairly treated.

I am thankful that this Bill highlights the important work they do for all of us, it recognises their efforts and shows how much we appreciate all that they do for us. Sir, "being told you are appreciated is one of the simplest and most uplifting things you can hear". Let me end by saying a big and heartfelt thank you to all cleaners in Singapore. Sir, I stand in full support of this Bill.

5.40 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 5 of this Bill proposes to add a new Part IIIA to the Environmental Public Health Act, to make it mandatory for designated areas to install and use a Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System (PWCS). The PWCS has the potential of improving the efficiency and standard of waste disposal. For instance, if successful, this would reduce the need for manpower in waste management and provide a cleaner living environment for all.

The new Part IIIA will enable the the Government to designate areas for the implementation of District PWCS. The proposed section 31G provides that when these areas are designated, owners and occupiers of every premises within the DPWCS area must use the PWCS for that area on pain of punishment.

I have three queries to raise about this.

First, the status of DPWCS vis-à-vis HDB blocks. Currently, Town Councils manage the common areas in HDB estates, which would include bin chutes and parts of the waste disposal system serving HDB blocks. According to a parliamentary answer given in September 2016, HDB has implemented the PWCS in selected new HDB developments where feasible, including Tampines North, Punggol, Bidadari and Sengkang. MND also said that HDB was studying the feasibility of implementing PWCS in other new housing estates. It was further stated that for existing estates, HDB would have to assess the outcome of a pilot run in HDB blocks in Yuhua, before deciding whether to roll out the PWCS in other existing estates.

Yet in this Bill, section 31F provides that the DPWCS will not apply to premises controlled or managed by the Town Council. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to please elaborate further on the implications of this exclusion under 31F.

On a related note, is it the case that PWCS will not be made mandatory for HDB estates? Is there a difference in the treatment of new blocks? And is it the case that old blocks will not be required to be retrofitted for PWCS?

My second query is how DPWCS areas will be designated. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify how section 31G will operate. Earlier, she mentioned Kampung Bugis as the first district that has been chosen for the implementation of the DPWCS. I would like her to clarify whether the selection of the district is on an ad-hoc basis? Is there any criteria used to select the areas for DPWCS and is there a systematic plan to cover all areas in Singapore eventually?

Lastly, I am concerned about the cost implication of DPWCS for home owners. It is quite clear that owners of premises will have to incur significant costs to make their properties PWCS-ready. The proposed section 31L will empower the Director-General of Public Health to impose requirements on homeowners to retrofit existing building infrastructure, maintain and operate certain internal assets, to connect these up to refuse pipeline networks etcetera. The proposed sections 31M and 31N refer to new connection charges and tariff charges.

Can the Government give any indication as to the expected cost of the mandatory DPCWS to existing homes? How much of a burden will this impose on smaller condominiums which do not enjoy economies of scale? In the case of condominiums, there may be particular difficulties if strata-titled owners do not agree to contribute more monies to fund the retrofitting and other costs required, for example, if there is an impending en-bloc sale. How will the Government handle such a situation?

Finally, I would like to refer to the diagram helpfully distributed by the Senior Minister of State earlier, and I would like her to confirm that landed properties will not be required to be retrofitted for PWCS.

5.45 pm

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand to support the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill. I would like to take the opportunity to thank MEWR for their efforts in introducing the pneumatic waste conveyance system in Singapore. I think the benefits are tremendous, as mentioned by quite a number of Members. On top of it, we can also that it helps to reduce infestation of pests, reduce carbon emission, and even, in future, help with separation of wastes for recycling.

I have four points for clarification.

Would the Senior Minister of State clarify with regard to the implementation of this system, taking into consideration the high capital cost balanced with the manpower and truck cost savings? What will be the eventual bill payable by residents compared to the current manual handling process? What is the average payback period for implementing such a system at district level? What will be the downtime plan in the event of prolonged pipe blockage or other system failures? And lastly, what types of wastes cannot be handled by this system, for example, hazardous chemicals, or residents throwing spongy items that may block the pipes, and how is the Ministry intending to education public on this?

Notwithstanding my request for clarification, I am in support of this Bill.

5.47 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. One of determining factors of decent living standards is a healthy and hygienic environment. This is especially so in a densely populated city state like Singapore. Many young Singaporeans take our clean and green environment for granted for they have not been through the days when viruses could spread by indiscriminate spitting, when the river stank of manure, when you could not walk a foot without encountering rubbish or dog poop. A lot of hard work goes into achieving our current state of affairs.

It is heartening to note, through the amendments to the Public Health Act that the Government has been reviewing and exploring new ways to manage our waste. While many housing estates already enjoy a functional and fairly effective waste management system, the area around the bin centre is still a place we do not consider to be pleasant due to the stench and the pests lurking around the area.

With the new District Pneumatic Waste Conveyance Systems (DPWCS), this problem will, I hope, be eliminated. And, with this system, we also reduce our dependence on foreign manpower to move the refuse and drive the refuse trucks, amongst others. Nevertheless, this system does not come cheap. A news report in 2015 stated that the pneumatic waste conveyance system costs over $11 million, and this was for Yuhua alone. May I ask if there have been any changes to the cost of the technology since then? More importantly, I am concerned about whether the cost for implementing the system will be passed on to residents in any form?

I look forward to more efficient waste management. However, we should not rest on our laurels when it comes to cultivating good habits of not littering. At this point of time, technology is not sufficiently extensive to replace work done by humans. The cleaners in my Nee Soon South estates conduct their cleaning three times a day, yet residents are still complaining about the cleanliness. In fact, the cleaning of many public areas is done before 6am, and many residents do not realise that because they would not have left home at that time of the day. And, throughout the day, residents and visitors continue to litter or leave their bags of rubbish in public places, which leads to the misconception that the Town Councils are not adequately managing the cleanliness of the estate.

We can hire many cleaners and we can deploy more technology for quick solutions. But, ultimately, there are many more residents than cleaners, so if residents do not do their part to keep the place clean, the estate will never be as spick and span as they wish it to be. Even a small group of inconsiderate residents is enough to make the estate perpetually dirty. If one day, the technology breaks down or foreign workers are not available, I shudder at the thought that we will become one big rubbish dump for that day.

It is crucial to drive home the possibility of this unpleasant scenario to Singaporeans. In Nee Soon South, I do litter-picking with residents once a month. We take turns to do litter-picking at different zones. We will stop cleaning for 24 hours before litter-picking. We are also the Constituency that started the No Cleaners Day in 2013. This is to enable residents to experience how much rubbish there is when there are no cleaners available and how difficult it is for cleaners to keep the place the place clean. Through such exercises, I hope to create awareness and motivate residents to inculcate good habits of not littering.

Naturally, this applies not just in residential blocks, but also in places where people congregate. Often, in open spaces and parks on weekends especially, we see lots of plastic bags and leftover food. I am aware that in some places, extra bins, and sometimes manpower, are deployed to handle the increased amount of rubbish. However, are there more cost-effective and long-term solutions? Perhaps the Ministry can deploy more officers to high-traffic areas on weekends to conduct outreach, and implement fines if offenders refuse to listen.

I note that the Bill will also mandate a Progressive Wage Model Bonus for resident cleaners. I applaud the Government for leading by example to reward cleaners for their laborious work.

But can we do more? Paying our cleaners higher salary and bonus, of course, is welcome move. However, I think what is more important is to respect them. We need to respect our cleaners. Some residents think that just because they have paid the Town Council service and conservancy charges, the cleaners will have to clean up their mess after they had enjoyed a round of drinks with their friends at the void deck. They just leave the place and then leave behind beer bottles, peanut skins, et cetera, and expect the cleaners to clean up the mess. This is very disrespectful to our cleaners.

We can also lighten the workload of our cleaners, for example, in our office, after a meeting, we can help to clean the used cups or the litter on the table. Certainly, we can do more and we ought to do more.

Sir, Chinese please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Pneumatic Waste Conveyance Systems (PWCS) can manage wastes disposal more effectively, sparing residents from the stench and cockroaches. Residents will welcome it.

However, it will cost $11 million to install this system in Yuhua alone. If it is introduced island-wide, how much will it cost? Will the cost be passed on to the residents? It is good that the cleaning companies must now pay bonus to resident cleaners. However, can we do more? Of course, paying our cleaners higher salary and bonus is a welcome move, because their work is not easy. But what’s more important is to respect them. It is not right that just because you have paid service and conservancy charges, you can do whatever you want, such as leaving beer bottles and peanut shells behind for cleaners to clean-up, after eating and drinking with friends at the void deck. This is very disrespectful to our cleaners and should be frowned upon. We can also help lighten the workload of the cleaners, for example, after a meeting, we can pick up used cups or the litter on the table ourselves.

No matter how good the technology is, and how many cleaners we have, if people continue to litter, our environment will still be dirty. Hence, we must treat the public space like our own home, and maintain the virtue of environmental cleanliness. This will help lighten the workload of our cleaners.

(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.

5.56 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the amendment to implement the Progressive Wage Model Bonus (PWM Bonus) under NEA's licensing regime for cleaning businesses. The annual bonus for Singaporean and Permanent Resident cleaners is greatly welcomed.

We can certainly see the changes brought about by technological advances and automation in the cleaning sector, as in many other sectors. These new machineries and systems will make our cleaners' work less demanding physically. Our cleaners will have to learn new skills to operate these systems and such specific skillsets are expected to lead to higher productivity and wages.

My concern is for our resident cleaners who are elderly. While they would certainly like to be more productive and earn higher wages, due to their age, they are understandably worried about their abilities to absorb new information and training. Many candidly shared with me that they feel intimidated and fearful, especially those who had little formal education. They lack the confidence to undergo upgrading of their skills.

If we examine the statistics, we can see that more and more of our elderly are staying in the workforce. Between 2013 and 2017, the number of employed residents aged 62 and above rose by 38%, from 166,800 to 230,500. In the same period, those aged 67 and above jumped by 64%, from 61,700 to 100,900. Of the employed residents aged 67 and over in 2017, 80% held secondary and lower qualifications, and 52% were employed as production and transport operators, cleaners and labourers.

Hence, specifically, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, in 2017, how many resident cleaners we have in Singapore; how many of the resident cleaners are aged 62 and above, and 67 and above; how many foreign cleaners we have; and what the average age of a foreign cleaner is.

Now, the reason for these queries is to obtain a clearer picture of the manpower profile in the cleaning industry. How would an employer or contracting company determine productivity when assessing a resident and foreign cleaner doing the same job? Would the training be the same for an elderly and a much younger cleaner? How would a trainer deal with language issues in the process of communicating, considering that many elderly cleaners are more proficient in their mother tongue and dialects? Would the ability to read and understand instructions and labels, usually in English, have an impact on the future work of our cleaners?

Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Next, I urge the Government to take a more proactive role to engage our elderly cleaners and understand their concerns. From the dialogues with them, please use the feedback to improve training programmes, customising them if necessary. Such interactions also provide opportunities for our government agencies to encourage them to embrace skills upgrading, so that psychological barriers will be lowered and they will be more receptive to training and new ways of doing their jobs.

(In English) Finally, I also appeal to the Ministry to ensure that our cleaners do not continue to be disadvantaged by the sub-contracting culture in the cleaning sector. Such common practices may depress the wages of our cleaners and fail to recognise their experience and higher skillsets as clients go through a merry-go-round of cleaning contracting companies.

Sir, I support the Bill.

6.00 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the primary aims of the Bill, which is to establish the establishment, operation, licensing and regulation of the DPWCS, and to introduce Progressive Wage Model bonus for cleaners.

On DPWCS, the benefits of it are plain to appreciate, and the hon Senior Minister of State has enumerated them in her speech. I do not propose to repeat them but I would also add that this system would go a long way in helping our Government achieve its stated intent of reaching 70% recycling rate by 2030. As the hon Member Ms Quay just mentioned, this is because the DPWCS supports separation of waste. This also follows the example in a number of other countries, as mentioned by the learned Senior Minister of State, such as Sweden, South Korea and UK.

I have four queries on the DPWCS.

First, as mentioned by the learned Senior Minister of State, there was a HDB pilot run in several locations in Singapore. The feedback is generally very positive but there were two concerns raised. One is in relation to the sound of the system, the suction noise, and the other one is smell that may arise from time to time from choked pipes.

Will there be standards ascribed for the licensees to follow via subsidiary legislation? And also gleaning from the experience of other countries, a point that hon Member Mr Zainal Sapari made, will there also be quality of service standards in terms of effecting recovery?

Next, on the issue of cost that was highlighted by the hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Sylvia Lim, what would be the expected life cycle cost of DPWCS? Would it be lower compared to the current system?

I gather from the HDB pilot, there was an MND grant provided to the Town Council to deal with extra costs associated with the implementation of the pilot. Will there be similar situation under the DPWCS?

I further note that under sections 31M and N that there will be connection and tariff charges. What would be the expected costs for the residents? Will there be regulation or guidance given to licensees on how the tariffs should be implemented for residents?

Next, on the issue of scale. I note that the proposed section 31F excludes premises controlled or managed by a Town Council, a point highlighted by hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. May I please ask what is the rationale for excluding HDB estates? Should NEA not be the agency to regulate all DPWCS in housing estates, public or private, just like the regulation of water pipes.

Does NEA also contemplate having a DPWCS that serves both public and private estates, such that residents can enjoy a higher level of scale and potentially higher cost savings as well?

Finally, what incentives can be provided to existing estates to convert to PWCS, recognising the environmental and hygience benefits of the system. Can NEA consider something similar to HDB pilots like, for example, MND grants?

I move on to the introduction of the Progressive Wage Model bonus. I fully support the amendments which adopts the recommendation of the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners chaired by the hon Member Mr Zainal Sapari. This amendment directly helps these cleaners better cope with cost of living issues.

I am concerned, however, about the impact vis-a-vis existing cleaning contracts with margins already locked in, a point that Mr Chen highlighted just now. I note that under the proposed section 80H(6) of the Act, the Director-General will have the power to postpone the effective date of specified amount by the Commissioner for Labour.

What would be the considerations the Director-General have in mind before exercising this power? How would he strike the balance between ensuring that the cleaners benefit from these wage increases, on one hand, and also deal with the predicament of cleaning contractors who are already locked in on the price of cleaning contracts, which still have a significant performance period to perform?

6.05 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. The implementation of DPWCS is a great step towards greater efficiency and a higher standard of hygiene in the treatment of our refuse collection. It will boost productivity of our cleaning system substantially. This is especially important in view of the difficulties we face in attracting and retaining workers to this sector and our ageing population. The pneumatic system will reduce smell and exposure to pests such as rats and cockroaches, which are common in open refuse collection systems. I am glad to note that the amendments will provide for the implementation of PWCS on a larger scale and bring more residences under the system.

What I would like to raise for the attention of the Ministry is the maintenance and repair issues for this more complex system of refuse collection. What measures are in place to enable vendors to detect faulty mechanics in the system, which can ultimately lead to malfunction? I had encountered an isolated mechanical fault which caused the breakdown of the compactor, leading to the failure of discharge of waste at one of the rubbish chutes in my constituency early this year. The compactor broke down without the awareness of the collector. Are the workers adequately trained to recognise signs of trouble especially it is hidden within the system, so that they can alert the maintenance and repair team as soon as possible? Once the system or mechanics break down, what are the contingency plans to ensure refuse continues to be collected and removed to prevent hygiene problems?

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the new regulations to build PWCS in more areas in our country. PWCS use pneumatics to transport refuse to a central collection centre through pipes, greatly reducing the reliance on manpower, and also reduce foul odours and cockroaches and rats. I am worried that there are some bad apples among residents who throw oversized items into the refuse chutes, causing blockages, leading to system failure. I hope the Ministry would put more effort into public education to teach residents how to use this new system in the correct way to ensure its smooth operation.

I would like to ask Senior Minister of State, up to now, how many residents in the trial district have asked for assistance to retrieve valuables which they have accidentally thrown into the rubbish chute? Is there a way for the system to retrieve valuables accidentally thrown away within a short time? I would like to thank the Minister. I support this Bill.

6.09 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the two main proposals introduced in this Bill are both timely and necessary for the transformation of our cleaning industry. With the implementation of the District Pneumatic Waste Conveyance Systems (DPWCS) and, more importantly, compulsory annual bonuses to our Singaporean and Permanent Resident cleaners, we can look forward to a more productive and supportive work environment for our cleaners.

The cleaning sector is an important and indispensable part of our economy, not only in its contribution to our environmental hygiene and disease prevention, but also in maintaining our infrastructure and facilities. Environmental services enable other sectors and industries to function smoothly and efficiently. It is a particularly labour-intensive sector, which is worrying for us as we face manpower shortages amidst an ageing population. In addition, as more and more of our younger generation receive higher education and the variety of jobs open to them increases, there might be fewer who are willing to take on traditional cleaning sector jobs.

Fortunately, technology will play an increasingly bigger role in environmental services. Automation will help to boost productivity and take over an increasing number of the less pleasant chores. The PWCS is a case in point. It does away with manual refuse haulage altogether – an essential but laborious, repetitive and unpleasant task – and substantially reduce the disamenities, such as foul odours and pests. The PWCS is thus a game changer for refuse collection, in much the same way the on-site sewerage system that we all take for granted was for waste collection just over 30 years ago.

However, just as we need to continue to educate and remind our residents that nothing except human waste and toilet paper should be flushed down the toilet, we have to teach residents what should and should not be thrown into refuse hoppers.

Last year, for instance, we read about how a monster "fatberg", which was 250 metres long and weighing 130 tonnes, blocked a sewer in London, and required about three weeks to dismantle, using pneumatic equipment. For those who may not be aware, "fatbergs" are formed by things which should not be thrown into toilets like plasters, sanitary towels, nappies, condoms, all of these things that we have always been told not to do; it can lead to things like this.

This public education exercise has to be held in conjunction with recycling initiatives and also the provision of conveniently located disposal areas for bulky items. And here we need all residents’ civic cooperation to prevent blockages and keep the pneumatic waste system functioning smoothly.

I am also happy to support the payments of mandatory Progressive Wage Model Bonuses to all our cleaners, whether they are hired directly by organisations or work at contracting companies. I hope that the adoption of progressive wage practices in the cleaning industry will lead to more stability in employment, and also continuous skills upgrading and greater productivity.

In tandem with technological advances and innovation in the cleaning industry, cleaning will evolve as a profession. Specific skills will be needed to operate more complex machinery and systems and the remuneration will adjust up accordingly. For example, in future, autonomous vehicles will be used to clean buildings and streets. Our cleaners’ jobs will then be running these fleets of cleaning bots, which require very different skillsets. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I appeal to the Government to implement and enforce more stringent measures to protect our workers in the cleaning sector. They face many risky situations and hazardous materials in the course of their work, including chemicals they have to work with, physical hazards, and micro-organisms such as viruses, bacteria and moulds. Employers and contractors must be held accountable for measures to protect our cleaners' health and safety. We should also monitor their workloads and schedules to prevent exploitation. By improving the treatment and work conditions of our cleaners, companies will benefit from retaining and attracting experienced and better qualified staff, who will contribute to higher productivity and quality services for clients. I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

6.15 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our cleaners have had better wages since we introduced the Progressive Wage Model for the Cleaning Industry. Through vigorous tripartite efforts and especially by the hon Member of Parliament Mr Lim Swee Say and relentless, passionate advocacy of my fellow unionist Mr Zainal Sapari, we had reversed the downward spiral of decreasing wages. There is now a ladder that the 46,000 cleaners can work towards higher wages.

We can add on and strengthen this ladder today. The proposed PWM Bonus will mandate that cleaning companies must pay out an annual bonus to our Singaporean and Permanent Resident cleaners. This is good news for our cleaners whose work is often undervalued and wages tend to be sticky because of competitive market forces and workers lack of bargaining power.

This bonus ensures that economic gains are shared more equitably with them. Would this result in near term increase in the cost of cleaning? The answer is probably yes. But it would also spur our companies to look into suitable technologies to help our cleaners do their work better and it also promotes greater retention for workers to scale the ladder over time.

We must be under no delusion that this ladder is neither a panacea or a fool-proof way of raising our cleaners' wages. In fact, our work is not anywhere near done. This ladder and PWM Bonus can be defeated or circumvented. For example, when service buyers ask for prices without the accompanying technological improvements, then it must necessarily mean that workers must now perform more duties. Coupled with the competitive cleaning landscape, workers might end up doing a lot more than expected. How can the Ministry ensure that our workers are not disadvantaged inadvertently as a result of this Bonus?

Now, many of the cleaners are also older and less educated. How can the Ministry ensure that the cleaners are aware of this mandatory bonus? And since this bonus is mandatory, I suggest that the Ministry to work with CPF to flag out companies that do not pay the PWM Bonuses. This can help to weed out unscrupulous employers. At the same time, we can better protect the interests of the workers. While the implementation details are being developed, I hope that the Ministry can prevent companies from putting in onerous work demands for cleaners to qualify for the PWM Bonus. For example, some companies might attach attendance and MC records as pre-qualifiers for the PWM Bonus.

Many writers and observers and residents have often lamented that the cleaners' work is difficult but the wages are low. And this is indeed the case. Even with this PWM Bonus, we would still like for their wages to improve. Much of this is pure economics. The consumers and hence, the market does not place a high value on cleaning services. There is a consequent commoditisation of cleaning services. For example, when service buyers consume such cleaning services, they often look for the cheapest contract. And in fact, they hope that they can be cheaper with every contract renewal.

While there is indeed room for productivity gains, much of the cleaners' work has a productivity limit. For example, there is limited foreseeable technology to help a cleaner clear the table faster. Therefore, our lamentations must be consistent with our consumption patterns. As Member of Parliament Zainal Sapari elegantly stated, "You can outsource your services, but you cannot outsource your responsibilities."

Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, since we introduced the Progressive Wage Model, we have successfully reversed the downward spiral of our cleaners' wages. Through the efforts of the tripartite partners, former Minister Lim Swee Say and my fellow NTUC colleague Mr Sapari, a solid foundation has been laid for our cleaners. Upon this very strong foundation, we can continue to seek more benefits for our workers. The mandatory "PWM Bonus" can further increase the wage of our workers, and promote fairer sharing of profits between employers and their workers. Although there might be sporadic cost increases, it will spur employers to adopt technology to improve productivity. We, as consumers, also have the responsibility to ensure that outsourced cleaning contract must stay relevant. Not only do we want value for money, but also treat our cleaners fairly.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the way ahead is one where we must continue to build on the efforts of the Tripartite Committee on Cleaning. We must strengthen the PWM and not undermine it with our consumption habits. The PWM Bonus is a step in the right direction in helping our workers. With this, I support the Bill.

6.20 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on this amendment Bill. While I generally support the amendments proposed, there are two areas within the Bill that I would like to speak on.

The first pertains to clause 4 to amend section 17 of the Act. Littering in public places remains a concern, despite us having sufficient rubbish bins in and around Singapore. There are those who choose to throw their refuse near or just next to a rubbish bin instead of into it, something that many of us, as grassroots advisers or Town councillors, have observed or received residents’ feedback on. I understand that it remains prohibited to “throw litter in a receptacle not provided for the deposit of refuse and rubbish”.

Hence, I support the amendments to section 17 to further specify the prohibition against throwing refuse in any public place. However, there are make-shift rubbish bins which good Samaritans and individuals create to collect rubbish during community events or private functions, such as a makeshift rubbish bin made using cardboard boxes or pails lined with plastic bags. I would like to confirm these are allowed and do not contravene the current legislation.

In addition, I would also like to urge the Ministry to do more to clamp down on errant litterbugs particularly high-rise litterbugs who have no qualms about throwing both big and small items out of their flat windows, as well as motorists who throw their cigarette butts wilfully out of their vehicle windows or from their motorcycles onto the road or central road dividers.

I have raised the latter in an earlier Parliamentary Question in March this year and I recognise the difficulty in enforcing littering fines on such errant litterbugs as the action is fleeting and the litterbug is usually on the move while on the roads, hence difficult to capture on video camera, for instance. However, I hope the Ministry can work with MOT for LTA and MHA for Traffic Police to implement strict enforcement actions that can effectively deter such errant motorist litterbugs from littering our roads, and causing inconvenience by starting bush or shrub fires on central road dividers or road sides, when they throw their cigarette butts. Such roadside and road divider fires number about 350 a year. This is not a small number and inconsiderate acts leading to such fires should be clamped on decisively. May I propose that smoking while driving or riding be prohibited so as to minimise the probability of littering the road sides and road dividers with lighted cigarette butts. In addition, for driving or riding safety, these motorists should not be holding a lighted cigarette anyway. They should always have both their hands on the steering wheel or handlebar at all times.

As for high-rise litterbugs, while the National Environment Agency is trying its best to be able to catch these litterbugs in the act, through the deployment of video cameras or closed-circuit TVs (CCTVs), I understand that there are insufficient video cameras or CCTVs available to be deployed for such purposes. This is to the extent that the duration in which a particular video camera or CCTV can be deployed is limited to just five to seven days at any one particular location. This is too short a time to catch the litterbug in action.

Will the Ministry be investing in and deploying more of such video cameras or CCTVs for the purpose of catching highrise litterbugs in the act? Residents consistently share of such high-rise littering happening in our housing estates. Just last week, while looking out my window of my third floor flat, I saw a medium-sized plastic bag falling right in front of my eyes. It seems that high-rise litterbugs are undeterred despite NEA’s enforcement and our public education efforts.

The second area I would like to speak on is the introduction of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for Cleaners, as highlighted in clauses 2, 6 and 7 of the amendment Bill.

While I support the introduction of the PWM for Cleaners, I would like to ask the Ministry how do we define work performance? For example, Town Council Cleaners sweep the floor of our housing estates every day but there are inconsiderate individuals, residents or otherwise, who litter, be it late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. How do we expect the Cleaners to keep up with cleaning the housing estate at all hours of the day 24/7? It cannot be the case where just because we find some litter in the estate it means that the Cleaners have not done their work properly.

The onus is on each and every one of us to keep our housing estates clean by not littering and by throwing our rubbish in appropriate places such as waste bins and rubbish chutes, as well as cleaning up after ourselves. I am concerned if the inconsiderate acts of others will inadvertently have a significantly negative effect on the income of our Cleaners, especially in terms of income related to their work performance.

Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the suggestions and concerns I have raised, I support the amendment Bill.

6.25 pm

Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan): Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, let me thank Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They have also raised many thoughtful comments, which I will now address.

Mr Murali Pillai asked how connection charges and tariffs will be determined and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked if residents would have to foot these costs. Let me give an overview of the costs and how they will be recovered.

First, the connection charge will cover the capital costs. In Kampong Bugis, NEA will collect this from the Master Developer. The connection charge will be small compared to other costs like land costs and construction costs. In fact, it will be a very small proportion. It will be made known to bidders when the site is launched for sale, so that this would be factored in their bids.

Second, a monthly tariff will be collected from owners of premises within the district, such as the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST). This will cover operational and maintenance expenses for the DPWCS. The MCST will then collect payments towards this tariff from subsidiary proprietors under the MCST as part of their monthly maintenance fees.

To keep overall costs competitive, NEA will appoint the DPWCS licensee for Kampong Bugis through an open tender. The tariffs will take into account factors such as gross floor area (GFA) and amount of refuse generated for the different types of premises. So, for example, the tariffs for residential premises will be different from that for commercial premises.

Ms Irene Quay, Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about potential cost increases arising from the DPWCS. We will make every effort to ensure that the costs of waste collection remain affordable. But we also have to balance short-term costs with long term sustainability. Waste generation in Singapore grew from 5.6 million tonnes in 2007 to 7.7 million tonnes in 2017, a 40% increase over the last decade. This trend is likely to continue as Singapore’s population and economy grow. If we do not adopt technology but continue to manage waste the way we do today, we will need a proportionate increase in manpower which we cannot meet without turning to more foreign labour, given our manpower constraints.

We know that Singapore’s workforce is shrinking and ageing. Manpower costs across all sectors will continue to rise. The challenge is even more acute in the environmental services industry, which many Singaporeans, as I had noted earlier, perceive as dirty and unappealing, and shun away from. We might not be able to find workers, even if we were willing to pay for them.

Members would agree with me that increasing our reliance on foreign workers to collect waste is not a sustainable solution. So, we need to start putting in place systems now, such as the PWCS to automate waste collection, which will allow our workers in the environmental services industry to take on higher value-added jobs.

From our recent consultations with industry players, the operating costs for PWCS comprise only a very small proportion of the total maintenance expenses for a condominium. Hence, the PWCS will not significantly affect the residents’ maintenance fees. Condominiums with PWCS will also benefit from reduced pests and odour, and manpower savings from not needing to manually transport waste within the premises.

At the district level, premises will also enjoy more cost savings due to economies of scale through shared bin centres, air and ventilation equipment, and pipe networks. In greenfield sites, these benefits would be even greater, as the planning and construction of the network will be done from the start without retrofitting. This is seen in other cities, including several in South Korea, where DPWCS are implemented on greenfield sites.

For these reasons, we expect the cost borne by each dwelling unit (DU) for the DPWCS at Kampong Bugis to be lower than that at Yuhua, which is a brownfield site that required extensive and more costly retrofitting works, as mentioned by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. Over the longer term, as PWCS is used more extensively in Singapore and with technological advancements, we can expect the cost of DPWCS to decrease.

As mentioned in my opening speech, NEA estimates that a 1,000 dwelling unit condominium would save GFA equivalent to a 5-room HDB flat by eliminating its bin centre. In Kampong Bugis, this translates to the Master Developer saving 20% of the GFA used for bin centres, which could then be diverted to saleable units or facilities for residents. Residents will also benefit from a cleaner and quieter environment due to reduced truck traffic.

Mr Murali asked whether the Government would consider subsidising existing private developments to implement PWCS within their estates. Currently, the costs of conveying waste from individual chutes to bin centres in private developments are borne by residents through their monthly maintenance fees. So, the Government does not subsidise this and we have no plans to do so.

Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Zainal Sapari spoke about operational concerns related to DPWCS in Singapore and other cities, such as suction noise and smell from choked pipes. I would like to assure Members that we take these concerns seriously. PWCS itself is a tried and tested technology and has been used in countries such as South Korea and Sweden for many years. To date, some 140 condominiums and commercial developments in Singapore have also used PWCS with only minor operational issues. Where disamenities occur, we will study and address them. For example, chokages have been addressed by improving the design of refuse chute hoppers, and odour, by ensuring the regular replacement of odour filters.

Let me share with Members the experience of a district in Gwacheon City, which is in Seoul. Residents were initially concerned when they saw the shared bin centre in the middle of the district. They were concerned that the bin centre would affect the aesthetics of the area, and whether there would be odour problems. These concerns were cleverly addressed by integrating the bin centre into a landscape garden, which residents welcomed.

This illustrates the importance of resident-centric designs. The PWCS retrofitting project at Yuhua faced design limitations as it was in an existing estate with limited space. As a result, the bin centre had to be located in the middle of the estate, surrounded by blocks of flats. HDB has introduced acoustic mitigating measures and odour treatment solutions to address the noise and smell issues at the bin centre. Public education efforts were also intensified to remind residents of items that cannot be disposed of in the PWCS. This would prevent chokages that give rise to odours.

More importantly, the learning points from Yuhua have been incorporated in the Government's upcoming projects. These include the PWCS at the new HDB estate at Tampines North, where the bin centre will be located at the edge of the district, away from residents. Other effective design features include placing refuse hoppers outside of flats and sizing refuse hoppers to limit the size of items that can be thrown into the chute, thereby preventing chokage.

New developments, such as those in Kampong Bugis, will incorporate such planning and design features that will facilitate the smooth operation of the PWCS.

Another cause of disamenities is improper maintenance of the PWCS. To address this, NEA is jointly developing a Singapore Standard for PWCS with HDB, Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and other stakeholders. The Standard covers proper maintenance of PWCS, such as recommendations to replace air filters every six months, so that they remain effective in removing unpleasant odours. PWCS vendors must also provide operation and maintenance manuals to managing agents and MCSTs and provide basic training to the staff of the managing agents.

As Ms Irene Quay, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Chia Shi Lu highlighted, users of DPWCS have a role to play in preventing chokage and its associated issues. They must use the DPWCS correctly, and avoid throwing bulky or long items such as pillows or brooms into the chutes. NEA will support such efforts to educate residents on the correct way to use the PWCS, as we are already doing at private developments which have adopted PWCS.

For instance, signage could be placed at throw-points to educate residents on proper usage. NEA has also amended the Code of Practice on Environmental Health to introduce a refuse chute hopper design that limits the size of items that can be thrown into the chute.

Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Irene Quay highlighted the need for prompt detection of faults in the PWCS and the importance of contingency plans in the event of breakdowns. It is our priority that our residents have reliable waste collection services and NEA will ensure this through licensing conditions on the DPWCS licensee. In the event of a prolonged disruption in the main DPWCS network, the licensee must ensure continued service, such as through manual waste collection. These contingency plans are similar to those in other countries such as South Korea. PWCS are also equipped with sensors and monitors to alert operators of any system faults so that they can carry out prompt remediation.

Even as we prepare for contingencies, it is pertinent to note that most chokages are cleared within two to three hours, in existing developments that use PWCS in Singapore.

Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Louis Ng spoke about the Town Councils' role in managing PWCS. Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim also asked why the Bill excludes Town Council-managed premises. This is because HDB has already been playing an active role in implementing PWCS in public housing estates. Hence the current Bill focuses on enabling DPWCS to be implemented on sites comprising private developments.

NEA and HDB are also collaborating closely on implementing PWCS, and will be adopting the Singapore Standard for PWCS in the new projects.

Mr Louis Ng spoke about potential increases in maintenance costs to Town Councils due to PWCS. While this Bill covers private developments only, we understand that HDB works closely with Town Councils to address this. For example, as mentioned by Mr Murali Pillai, the Ministry of National Development is providing a temporary grant to Town Councils to help offset costs until the PWCS industry attains economies of scale. In addition, Town Councils will enjoy savings from PWCS due to the reduced manpower requirements for refuse collection and cleaning. And indeed, they are already seeing this but in the initial phases, because the PWCS is only applied to a particular part of the constituency, the savings in collection costs cannot be passed through directly and, therefore, the temporary grant is given. Whereas in a private development, the costs can be directly offset in the maintenance fees payable.

We welcome Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion to extend the scope of DPWCS, by combining public and private estates to allow for greater economies of scale. This is something we can explore in future after we gain more experience in implementing DPWCS.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked how we intend to roll out the DPWCS areas under section 31G. Our plan is to implement the DPWCS at Kampong Bugis, a greenfield development site that will enable the DPWCS to be planned and integrated from inception. We currently have no plans for a nation-wide rollout of the DPWCS to existing developments or brownfield sites. Our priority is to implement the Kampong Bugis DPWCS well and ensure that it operates smoothly. With the experience gained, we will continue to enhance the development and management of PWCS in Singapore by working with the relevant agencies on suitable areas, taking into account site, technical and financial considerations.

Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about extending to landed estates. One of our considerations in implementing DPWCS is the financial viability and sustainability of the system. Currently, we do not think that there are sufficient economies of scale to implement DPWCS in landed estates for the system to be financially viable. We will focus our efforts on non-landed developments such as Kampong Bugis. Let me also assure everyone, including residents of existing developments, that we will not take such actions implementing DPWCS in an area lightly. It will be carefully and judiciously considered. We will work with the planning agencies to identify suitable areas and take into not just the site and technical feasibility but also cost considerations. We will only implement DPWCS if it makes sense – if it benefits the residents. So, I want to assure everyone that we are not going to impose DPWCS in all developments. It will be judiciously done and costs will be a key consideration.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now address Members' questions about the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) Bonus.

Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Louis Ng asked about the profile of the cleaning workforce. There are currently more than 40,000 resident cleaners and 17,000 foreign cleaners; their average age is 60 years old and 37 years old respectively. The composition has remained stable over the past three years.

The Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) has been rallying all stakeholders to support measures to uplift the skills and wages of cleaners, including the PWM Bonus. To raise awareness among workers, a need highlighted by Mr Desmond Choo, the unions have been conducting roadshows and briefings and have reached out to more than 6,500 workers. More sessions are being planned, and cleaning businesses have also been reminded to inform their workers.

Let me express our appreciation to Mr Zainal Sapari for championing the interests of our cleaners as Chairman of the TCC. Thanks to the TCC's efforts, some cleaning businesses have already factored in the PWM Bonus in their contracts that extend beyond 2019. Others such as 800 Super Holdings Limited have also been giving out additional bonuses to motivate and appreciate their workers. Indeed, I hope more businesses will do the same. I also support Mr Zainal's heartfelt call for service buyers to safeguard the welfare of their cleaners.

Several Members asked how the PWM Bonus will be enforced, and how errant businesses would be flagged out. NEA and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) routinely inspect the records of cleaning businesses to ensure compliance with the PWM requirements. This includes making sure payslips are issued, and training records of cleaners are kept.

Mr Murali Pillai was concerned how existing cleaning contracts will be affected and what considerations the Director-General of Public Health will take into account before invoking the powers to postpone the effective date of the PWM wage requirements. Mr Zainal Sapari also suggested giving a grace period for businesses who do not pay the PWM bonus when the requirement takes effect.

The TCC had consulted service buyers and providers extensively, and deliberately recommended that PWM bonus be implemented only in 2020. This was to give cleaning businesses ample time of more than three years to adjust their service agreements accordingly. As such, all cleaning businesses will be required to pay their resident cleaners PWM bonus from January 2020. For cases of non-compliance, NEA will review their circumstances on a case by case basis.

Mr Louis Ng raised concerns about cleaners' wages being reset when a contract ends and there is a change in service provider.

The TCC shares such concerns, and had therefore proposed the yearly PWM wage increments, which would steadily lift wages at all skill levels for cleaners entering into contracts after 1 July 2018. We urge cleaning businesses and service buyers to recognise the skills and experience of workers, and pay them fairly.

By investing in productivity enhancements and technology, businesses can afford to sustain higher wages for their workers. The Government will continue to support cleaning businesses in pursuing productivity projects through various schemes such as the Environmental Services Productivity Solutions Grant or ES PSG. Under the ES PSG, cleaning businesses can receive support for up to half the cost of eligible productivity enhancement solutions, up to a maximum of $250,000. Service buyers should also reject cheap-sourcing in favour of performance-based contracting. This will encourage cleaning companies to invest in productivity measures without compromising the interest of cleaners, a concern highlighted by Mr Desmond Choo.

6.15 pm

Besides ensuring fair wages, we need to help our cleaners upskill and keep up with industry demands. Ms Joan Pereira asked whether training is tailored to the needs of all cleaners. All cleaners attend a basic cleaning course before starting out. The courses are offered in various languages, including English, Mandarin and Malay. To facilitate learning, courses are designed to emphasise hands-on learning, which I think is best suited for the profile of the workers.

Cleaners continue to receive support after they start work. For example, Horsburgh Integrated Services groups new and experienced cleaners together to facilitate on-the-job training. Another example is Lifeline Cleaning Pte Ltd, where older workers comprise 80% of the staff. The company tapped the WorkPro Job Redesign Grant and successfully trained its cleaners to use machines to clean floors more efficiently. In fact, I recently met 67-year-old Mr Lee Thian Kok from Lifeline, who has learnt to operate automated cleaning devices that make his job easier and more productive.

Mr Lee exemplifies the spirit of lifelong learning, and is proof that older cleaners are not disadvantaged. We will support workers of all ages to upskill and reskill, and encourage more businesses to adopt these best practices.

Cleaning work must not only become more efficient; it must also become more safe. Dr Chia Shi-Lu highlighted the need for tighter safety measures to protect cleaners at work. NEA and Workforce Singapore have jointly developed a list of enhanced tools, chemicals and machines that businesses can adopt to make cleaning more effective and safe for cleaners. Cleaning supervisors can also receive training under the Environmental Cleaning Workplace Skills Qualification (WSQ) framework to implement risk controls, and educate workers on workplace safety.

Mr Louis Ng suggested extending the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) beyond the current pool of cleaners, to cleaners who are directly employed as well as foreign workers. The PWM was designed to help cleaners employed by cleaning businesses earn higher incomes through upskilling. Previously, these workers saw their wages depressed as cheap-sourcing was prevalent across the industry. The PWM sought to level the playing field, amidst a more comprehensive effort to raise wages of lower-income citizens across the board.

While the PWM does not apply to cleaners who are directly employed, we urge employers who are doing well to share their gains and reward their workers fairly, adopting the key principles of the progressive wage model. Foreign workers are hired on different terms, and employers already bear other related expenses such as additional levies and accommodation arrangements for engaging them. While the PWM does not apply to the foreign workers, again, we encourage employers to adopt the key principles of progressive wages when paying their foreign cleaners.

Regarding Mr Louis Ng’s suggestions to adopt the R1 scheme for foreign workers in the cleaning sector, there is already such a scheme for the services sector which covers cleaning businesses. Under this scheme, employers enjoy lower levies and longer employment periods when they train and retain their foreign cleaners. Mr Ng also proposed mandating a minimum proportion of R1 foreign cleaners; we will study this suggestion with MOM.

As for Dr Intan Mokhtar's suggestion of extending the PWM to the Food and Beverage industry, I will convey it to my MOM colleagues to consider.

With regard to Mr Chen Show Mao's comments, I would like to clarify that the PWM is not a national minimum wage, but a framework to raise wages in tandem with productivity improvements. It is applied to selected sectors prone to cheap sourcing, wage stagnation, and market failure, such as the cleaning sector, the lift sector that Mr Chen talked about, and the security and landscaping sectors where wages are lower.

Dr Intan Mokhtar also asked for stronger enforcement action against motorists who litter and cause roadside fires. The Penal Code Review Committee has proposed to introduce a new clause linking those who litter materials containing embers to a fire that subsequently occurs at that place. The Committee also recommends that higher penalties be imposed for causing fires by littering of materials that contain embers, such as cigarette butts. The Government will review the Committee's recommendations.

Regarding Dr Intan’s suggestion to deploy more surveillance cameras to tackle high-rise littering, NEA has deployed such cameras through our service providers, more than 5,500 times over the past five years resulting in more than 5,000 enforcement actions. We will continue to be vigilant in tackling this issue, while also working with the community to foster collective responsibility and ownership of our shared spaces.

Dr Intan Mokhtar asked whether make-shift rubbish bins placed by good Samaritans to collect rubbish during community events or private functions would contravene section 17 of the Act. The answer is no – section 17 is not intended to discourage such activities.

Finally, let me come back again to the reason for introducing provisions on the PWM Bonus. We want to recognise our cleaners who have played such a big part in keeping Singapore clean and green. As Mr Zainal Sapari said, there are many ways each of us can show our appreciation to the cleaners around us. By being considerate in the way we use public spaces; by picking up after ourselves; and by saying "thank you" to them. More importantly, as Dr Intan Mokhtar has emphasised, the onus is on each and every one of us to keep our housing estates clean. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has shown the way with the Nee Soon "No Cleaners Day". We must build a city that is truly clean because Singaporeans are gracious and mindful of their community and the environment.

Sir, to conclude, the EPH Amendment Bill is a milestone in our journey to transform our environmental services industry through innovation and technology. At the same time, we will upskill our environmental services workers, and improve their livelihood and working conditions. All Singaporeans will benefit as we ensure a cleaner and greener environment in the years to come. I thank Members for their support of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.