Planning (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Planning Act, administered by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) establishes the legal basis for the regulation of development, conservation, and land use planning in Singapore. As our built environment becomes denser and land development becomes more complex, URA has to apply a keener eye to guide development plans so as to safeguard the vibrancy and liveability of our urban space. The amendments proposed in this Bill have three broad aims.

First, to enhance the planning levers for URA to ensure a more liveable city; second, to strengthen the regulatory regime for development plans, including penalties to deal with violations of planning controls; and third, to calibrate and simplify the administrative processes involved in the execution of the Act. I will go through these three in more detail.

Firstly, let me touch on the first point of enhancing planning levers. Currently, URA may grant planning permission, subject to certain conditions and technical requirements that developers have to fulfil. This allows URA to establish and advance good practices and design specifications that serve the public good.

The Bill amends the Act to supplement the conditions that URA can place on developers seeking planning permission. These additional conditions aim chiefly to create a more liveable and walkable cityscape, for example, through the provision of public spaces and pedestrian connections, and guiding the external appearance of buildings, like the night lighting of building facades.

The Bill also clarifies the persons who are required to comply with a planning condition. Failure to comply with these conditions will amount to a breach of planning control, which is an offence. This is to ensure that the public can continue to enjoy the pleasant environment and connectivity that were planned for at the outset, even if developments undergo a change of owners.

That is the first limb, which is to enhance the planning levers. Next, let me touch on the provisions in the Bill to strengthen the regulatory regime and there are several amendments in this regard.

Let me begin with the role of Qualified Persons (QPs). The Bill introduces provisions relating to the responsibility of QPs, who are professionals, such as architects, engineers and surveyors. Currently, developers applying for planning or conservation permission are not required by the Act to appoint a QP to prepare the plans and make submissions to URA, although in practice, most of them do so. The Bill amends the Act to require that owners or developers appoint a QP to prepare these submissions to URA, in accordance with the Act's or URA's requirements.

The developer will similarly have to appoint a QP to supervise the development or works. And this QP will have to notify URA if the works deviate from the approved plans or planning conditions, take reasonable steps to prevent deviations, and submit reports or declarations as required by URA. This will minimise the need for subsequent rectification works, which can be costly for the developer or property owner. URA will be empowered to require the developer to submit as-built plans prepared by a land surveyor to facilitate cross-checking against plans which are initially approved.

With QPs engaged throughout the key stages of the development process and held accountable for the discharge of their professional work, the new provisions in the Bill will ensure that planning controls and regulatory standards are observed in the course of development. This serves to safeguard the quality of the environment and, at the same time, maintains good practices and overall standards in the industry. Minor works and simple applications may reasonably be exempted from these requirements.

Another aspect of strengthening the regulatory regime is to have enhanced powers of investigation which this Bill will provide for.

In particular, where URA officers believe that persons might have knowledge of a violation, the officers will be empowered to require these persons to attend interviews and question them. Apart from verbally examining witnesses and recording statements, URA will also be able to require the production of information or documents relevant to the violation, and to take video evidence on site. Where necessary, officers will be able to effect forced entry to carry out their investigation.

This broad set of provisions is aligned with the enforcement powers of other agencies.

There are also stricter penalties for unauthorised development or works because where violations are uncovered, the Bill puts in place a series of penalties for the offences under the Act.

The current level of fines is too low to serve as a strong deterrent against unlawful activity or conduct. For example, URA has increasingly encountered unauthorised dormitories, including some repeat offenders. The penalties for demolishing a conserved building must also be enhanced as any unauthorised demolition will result in an irrevocable loss of our built heritage.

With that in mind, the Bill will put in place stricter penalties. The maximum penalty for unauthorised development, works or subdivision for repeat offenders or for an offence involving the unauthorised use of any land or building for dormitory accommodation will be enhanced to include a custodial sentence. The maximum penalty for the partial or full demolition of a conserved building is a fine of $500,000 or a custodial sentence, or both.

The Bill also ensures that culpable parties are held to account by making it clear that permitting unauthorised development or works is an offence. An owner is presumed to have permitted unauthorised works carried out by his tenants or contractors, unless the owner can show that reasonable precaution was taken to prevent this. So, owners will have to exercise due diligence on their tenants and contractors.

The Bill will make explicit the lawful boundaries pertaining to residential rental and subletting.

Private residential properties should not be used for other purposes without planning approval, as there is a need to safeguard the living environment of residents in the neighbourhood. Where private residential properties are rented or sublet, URA has existing guidelines in place to ensure that these properties are not used to accommodate excessive numbers of occupants, and to make it clear that such properties are intended for long-term or permanent residence of at least six months.

This Bill inserts a new Schedule into the Act, which lists the uses of residential property that are illegal without permission. The uses listed are short-term accommodation and dormitory accommodation.

"Dormitory accommodation", which requires planning permission, is defined by the Bill to mean accommodation by seven or more persons. In other words, without planning permission, it will be illegal to have more than six tenants. This cap does not apply to families, as the amendment expressly excludes persons who are related, along with their domestic helpers and caregivers. For units currently housing seven or eight persons, URA will allow the tenancy agreements to run their natural course and will not clamp down on them before they expire.

This set of regulations will apply only to private developments and will not apply to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, which come under a separate set of controls managed by HDB.

I have covered the second broad component of provisions which relate to strengthening the regulatory regime. Thirdly, there are a series of things we are doing in this Bill to streamline the administration of the Act.

First, it allows URA to give preliminary advice to developers and property owners or their QPs on their proposals prior to submission of their development applications. This would be an added service for developers or their QP to seek a preliminary indication from URA, at an earlier stage, as to whether their proposal satisfies the relevant regulations or guidelines. The Bill provides for this additional service that URA will provide.

Second, the Act currently allows URA to defer the payment of the development charge for charity organisations; and the Bill amends the Act to allow the deferral of this charge to be carried on to the next property owner, where the Minister approves of the deferral, for example, where the next owner is also a charitable organisation.

Madam, the amendments to the Planning Act will ensure that our planning controls and regulations are up-to-date and relevant in guiding the physical development of Singapore. It will allow URA to be more effective in regulating planning violations and ensuring that our physical living environment continues to be of a high quality.

URA has consulted with stakeholders and professional institutes, including the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS) and the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA), on the amendments to the Act. They have provided useful feedback, which have been taken into consideration in the drafting of this Bill. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.

6.10 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Speaker, there is an old cautionary tale of an old man who wanted to buy an antique teapot. It was said that one day, this old man walked past a rundown knick-knack store and spotted an old ceramic teapot on display, his eyes gleamed and a grin spread across his face. He walked in briskly and said to the young man sitting rather boredly behind the counter and said: "Young man, I will give you $1,000 for that teapot in the window." The young salesman replied: "That old dusty teapot? Why would you want it?" Without explaining, the old man told him, "Wrap it up, I will be back in an hour with the cash," before leaving the shop.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

The young salesman thought to himself that it was incredible that someone would pay such an amount, but thinking perhaps the old man saw something of value, he quickly brushed the teapot and washed it out, wiping it so well that a shine returned. When the old man returned, the young man said, "Sir, I have polished it up and it is almost like new. I think it is now worth $2,000!" In horror and almost immediately crestfallen, the old man said, "My friend, sadly, it is now worthless, for its worth was in the well-seasoned pot blackened by decades of tea-brewing. Now that it is new and polished, it is worthless to me."

Mr Deputy Speaker, our built environment is one that is more than functional. It plays a huge role in affecting a community, a nation, both psychologically as well as culturally. It marks where we have come from and where we are headed. Therefore, the Planning Bill has played an important role in ensuring that the built environment that we choose to live in, and not just one that we have no choice but to try to live in, is one that is dynamic and yet true to our history and our culture.

Like that teapot, old may not always mean worthless and new may not always be valuable. Even as the Bill aims to create a delightful cityscape and a more walkable city, I hope that we take a moment to also ponder at what we have lost or might lose in the search of progress, in search of orderliness. Many of our heritage districts are wonderful to behold, picturesque, but to put it bluntly, they may be all but in name. They are often sterile, clean, clinical representations of their past; sometimes commercialised to the point of soullessness.

Perhaps the grime is a mark of character of a building, of a district, that in our urge to be utilitarian and for progress, we lose some of what makes us, us. As the Bill hopes to give powers to both afford greater protection against unauthorised demolition or alterations to conserved buildings, and at the same time, create a delightful cityscape, we might have to ask ourselves how we can best achieve most in creating the cityscape that incorporates and, in fact, celebrates our built heritage.

Whether by private hands or in the public interest, historic buildings are sometimes disappearing, not just physically but also slowly being drained of their souls. So, I seek the Minister's response on how best we should, not just as a government, but as custodians of our nation's collective storehouse of memories and history, preserve not just the shell of buildings but also the inner spirit and souls of our heritage buildings.

Take the case in point of the Ellison Building at the corner of Bukit Timah and Selegie. It is perhaps a bit ironic that we have in one Ministry gazetted it as a heritage asset but, in another, has had to take the hard decision to demolish it for the public good.

In my recent work trips to the United Kingdom and Taiwan, private enterprise and some government initiatives have returned life to old derelict structures, imbuing them not just with a new vitality, but also one that continues with tradition and one that is exciting to a new audience, welcomed not just by locals but tourists alike. What more can we do so that our children and future generations of Singaporeans do not become poorer for the heritage that we lose?

The Planning (Amendment) Bill sends a stronger signal with a custodial sentence being introduced, and the fine imposed being raised, but losing our heritage cannot be adequately compensated by a jail-term or half a million dollars. We need more than that, perhaps a stripping away of the licence of the developer or contractor involved in the destruction but, more importantly, also to educate Singaporeans on the importance of our built heritage.

Let me now move on to a more enlightening topic in the Bill − that of lighting up our city. Who does not delight in a beautiful cityscape skyline? Most major cities have one that they are proud of. We have one that we should be proud of, too − a marriage of old and new − a story of our nation's development in one picture-perfect photo. But I hasten to ask, who is going to pay for it all? Under the new URA guidelines and requirements, new buildings will be required to conform to certain design aesthetics. Who would not agree that it would be nice to light up the skies every night? But just as we go about urging Singaporeans to conserve energy and utilities, lighting up the night sky may end up burning a fire in the wallet. So, greater clarity in this area on expenditure and control of expenditure, and use of utilities would be useful.

With regard to the provision of public areas and pedestrian connections, I spent a working visit to Hong Kong late last year traversing the city centre and the civic district without once emerging into the direct sunlight or the light year-end drizzle. From skylinks to underground passages, you could cover a large portion of the financial and civic district with ease. Aiming towards this would certainly benefit Singaporeans and visitors alike, considering our very equatorial climate and fondness for the rain.

I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on how disagreements between different building owners can be resolved, especially between newer buildings and older ones. If a building, especially older strata title ones, holds out from renovation or rebuilding, can the Ministry compel the building owners to make earlier provisions for connectivity, especially when the buildings serve as the middle of the sandwich between two newer developments that have already made provisions?

In Hong Kong, I am given to understand that a large portion of the connected buildings are owned or managed by the same developer and, of course, it makes sense for them to have the connectivity planned early. In previous cases in Singapore, we have also seen new buildings which were required under the guidelines to provide linkages, but abutting buildings refusing to link up, resulting in gaps for pedestrians. Will this be sufficiently addressed by the amendments, and will abutting buildings also be compelled to make good on bridging the gaps?

In terms of a peaceful living environment, one of the areas that perhaps gained most interest on infringements and enhanced powers of investigations provided to URA, has to do with how we keep the peace in our living environment, especially when there are units that have a higher proportion of subtenants. Many are understandably concerned about their neighbouring units being overcrowded, and their safe and peaceful living environment is made less so by strangers coming in and out or changing ever so often.

I have a number of clarifications to seek from the Minister. Firstly, the amendment introduces a new Fourth Schedule that lowers the maximum number from eight to six. A custodial sentence is also introduced for infringements. This is well and good, but I am unable at the moment to reconcile the numbers with the guidelines that are set out separately by HDB. In 4-room and larger HDB flats, the number of subtenants allowed is nine. So, if a 4-room flat can have nine subtenants, the new limitations on private property, some of which would be bigger, seem to be out of sync.

I am not advocating for the fact that we should increase the number of allowed subtenants to nine, but the question remains whether HDB guidelines should also correspondingly be revised to reflect this new reality in the Planning (Amendment) Bill. Why is this so? In terms of the new limitations, I am happy to learn from the Minister that those that already have more than six subtenants will be allowed to have their leases lapse.

In terms of now legislating the minimum six months for short-term accommodation leases, this brings it in line with HDB sub-leasing requirements. But I understand that the URA guidelines have been in place since 2009 as guidelines. Why has it taken eight years for it to be legislated? Why now? Is it because of an increase in number of violations or number of complaints that we are, therefore, required to now legislate this?

This legislation will also make a rather popular travel arrangement seemingly legal. I am sure many of us who travel are familiar with the AirBnB concept or even couch-surfing. I know that the Ministry is currently studying and drafting legislation, or propose legislation on regulations on new markets, such as AirBnB. But by codifying the amendments to the Planning (Amendment) Bill now, does it run counter to what is being planned for any new legislation in the future? How will the URA, therefore, police current AirBnB listings now that they will all be considered legal subletting?

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, from our national infrastructure and cityscape to where we live and who our neighbours are, the Planning (Amendment) Bill makes major changes to our built environment and how it would look like, now and into the future. Notwithstanding the questions I have raised, I give my support to the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

6.21 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly for the amendments to address the provision of short-term accommodation, that is, for six consecutive months or less, in return for rent. With the insertion of the new subsection (3)(ca), failure to obtain written permission for this will be an offence. Many of my residents will appreciate this change, which states categorically that it will be illegal for owners to lease out their properties to short-term renters, unless they have a special permit.

I have received numerous negative feedback from my constituents about the disamenity caused by such visitors. They have expressed their concerns about compromised security in their estates, the loss of privacy and the occasional disturbances. Despite URA's guidelines forbidding such rentals, thousands of condominium and room listings can be found on rental portals, such as Airbnb, Roomorama, PandaBed and HomeAway. Many of them can be rented for durations as short as one night.

The Minister had shared with the House in a written reply in August last year that URA took enforcement action against 36 cases of unauthorised short-term subletting in private residential premises in 2014, 23 cases in 2015, and 44 cases in the first six months of 2016. These figures are very much lower than the number of complaints received by URA − 375 in 2014, 377 in 2015 and 161 in the first four months of 2016. I would like to ask the Minister why there is such a big gap in the numbers and whether URA has enough manpower and resources to follow up on the number of complaints.

Many of my residents have complained to me that the problem lies in the lack of follow up or enforcement. Usually, the Police and URA have the details, including the exact addresses and profiles of visitors. These beleaguered neighbours submit all the information required and hope for swift action to be taken. Unfortunately, the transient strangers continue to stream in. Due to the presence of these visitors, residents feel less safe and are perpetually on their guard. Such an uneasy atmosphere in an estate does not contribute to building neighbourly ties. Hence, I would like to suggest that the Minister consider giving the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) more power and greater means at its disposal for enforcement.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on the penalties non-compliant property owners would face and what action will be taken against non-compliant owners who do not reside in Singapore and who continue to ignore warnings to desist from short-term rentals.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

6.25 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore is a small, densely populated nation that relies heavily on good urban planning to maximise our space and resources. Barely half a century has passed since we implemented a proper framework, and our housing has been transformed from dirty slums and vulnerable kampungs to the beautiful high-rise buildings we have today. I welcome the changes to reduce the number of people to sublet to not more than six in private housing, and I am sure it will decrease the disamenities faced by the affected residents. After all, home is a place for us to rest after a long day. My question is: why not extend this to HDB flats?

Currently, for 4-room and bigger HDB units, the maximum number of persons residing is a maximum of nine people. Why the disparity? For private housing, it is six persons, but for HDB flats, which is even more compact, can house up to nine. I urge that this maximum number be whittled down to no more than six persons also. An overcrowded apartment can be very noisy and a constant source of stress and irritation to the neighbours. Residents have come to me with feedback about their neighbours' rowdy tenants. Furthermore, some of these tenants would leave footwear and other belongings along the common corridor, which is not only unsightly but inconveniences the other neighbours. During my recent house visit, a resident complained to me about a neighbour's sublet flat. She said that the tenants even spit and smoke at the lift lobby and loiter along the corridors. Quite often, it is because there are a lot of people in that flat.

On a related note, there needs to be stronger enforcement against home owners who rent out their homes as temporary accommodation to overseas visitors.

Currently, HDB and URA regulations dictate that renting a whole unit or individual rooms is only allowed for long-term stays of six months or more. This is a long-standing rule that applies to both private property and HDB housing. However, judging by the number of rentals still available online, this generally seems to be enforced only when people complain. In the meantime, many residents have to endure the ill effects. I have residents complaining to me about tourists on their floor, moving luggage in and out at odd hours of the day, disturbing their rest.

I would like to ask what is the Government's stand on such short-term renting? Instead of having this "one-eye open, one-eye closed" policy, we should state our stand clearly and take enforcement action immediately. Why wait until there are complaints for action to be taken? What I understood is that there are about 6,000 listings online. Trends like Airbnb rentals are rising, but I think we need to look into how to balance the two.

Some countries have designated certain apartment buildings for rental to foreigners. This way, locals know of the policy before they decide whether to buy that apartment. In Japan, hosts have to obey local laws set by Japan's Hotel Business Act which governs overnight stays. Just like these countries, we should look deeper into alternative ways to deal with this new trend. Meanwhile, everybody should stick to the law, and I hope that our relevant agencies will take action.

Next, moving on to structural issues, I would like to suggest extending this Planning Bill to include two things. First, imposing on the developer to build covered linkways from the condominium or executive condominium (EC) to the nearest bus stop. I think many of our new HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) flats have a covered linkway to the nearest bus stop but not the new condominium or new EC. And later on, when the residents shift in, they will ask for this new covered linkway which is very difficult for us to implement after that.

Second, facilitating linkages between buildings, like what Hong Kong's Planning Department does with their Urban Design Guidelines. This will make walking in the city more pleasant, with better connectivity. For those who have been to Hong Kong, I am sure you enjoy shopping and walking in Hong Kong much more than in Singapore because you can walk from one building to another building without walking under the sun because the buildings are all connected. I know that it is not easy, but we must start somewhere. We can learn from Hong Kong's experience.

On another point, I also wish this Bill could give more assistance to those who live in landed property and have difficulty obtaining access to do up their house, for example, plastering their external walls. I think all of us know that it is good practice to plaster the external walls so that you do not get water seepage. But I have seen cases from time to time, residents telling me that they really have problems in getting access because of the objections from neighbours and then when they go to URA or the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), no one can help them. I hope that with this Planning amendment, we can look into cases like this. And please allow me to summarise in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, our home should be our harbour. However, the neighbour's tenants can sometimes disturb the peace of other residents greatly.

This amendment provides that private housing can only house a maximum of six tenants. This will help to improve the situation faced by some residents. However, currently, 4-room or larger HDB flats can house a maximum of nine tenants. Tenants in HDB flats live in even closer proximity to their neighbours. Therefore, can the Government consider reducing the maximum number of people who can stay in an HDB flat to six as well?

On another note, short-term rental is becoming more and more popular. Although current rules dictate that no residence can be rented out for less than six months, there are plenty of such short-term listings online. Is the Government only able to act after people complain? Rather than adopting this "one eye open, one eye closed" approach, why do we not explore other solutions? For example, we can allow short-term rentals for certain apartments, as long as all the residents are agreeable to it.

Lastly, I hope that this amendment Bill will allow residents living in condominiums and ECs to enjoy covered linkways which connect their condominium or EC to the nearest bus-stop, just like HDB residents do. After all, the Government has always been encouraging Singaporeans to take public transportation.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with our limited land, urban planning is crucial to maintain a good quality of life and have good quality buildings. In this age of rapid developments, it is important that we frequently review the rules and update them whenever necessary. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

6.34 pm

Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill which will strengthen URA's enforcement powers and facilitate its administrative and planning processes. However, in my view there are some points for further review which I would like to share with the House.

The first is regarding the reduction of the permissible maximum number of unrelated persons for subletting, from the current eight to six persons.

I would like to suggest that this criterion be refined to take into account the size of the unit and the actual number of rooms per unit. The universal cap of six persons per unit may not be optimal. For smaller units, this could result in overcrowding. For bigger units, it is an unnecessary constraint which would deprive owners of additional rental income.

Casting a stronger focus on safety and hygiene, the Ministry could look into specifying available square footage per occupant and the level of amenities, such as toilets and bathrooms, provided on a per person basis. Such specifications will set the basic standards for living conditions and prevent owners from subdividing their units further to create more rooms. This will help to enhance not only the well-being of the occupants but of the neighbours as well.

Next, on the provision of dormitory accommodation for seven or more persons and short-term accommodation of six consecutive months or less for rent will be deemed a change of use for a dwelling-house for which failure to obtain written permission will be an offence.

With many rooms and residences in Singapore now being offered on Airbnb, it would be advisable to provide this group of owners with more clarity on whether they should withdraw their listings to avoid running afoul of the law.

Another area of concern is the proposed section 12A. The owner of a property must satisfy, on a balance of probabilities, that he has taken "all reasonable precautions" to prevent the contravention by the tenant or contractor, or demonstrate "due diligence" but could not have prevented the contravention by the tenant or contractors.

The challenge here is what constitutes "all reasonable precautions" or "exercise due diligence". These are grey areas that will only be decided if the case goes before a Court. The owner may think that he has taken "all reasonable precautions" but the authority may view otherwise.

Some of us may recall that many years ago, a number of landlords were charged for harbouring illegal immigrants. The law did not spell out the requirements and duty of the owners but merely stated the requirement of "due diligence". The Courts took pain in those years to interpret what constituted "due diligence". The result then was that the bulk of the cases were slapped with convictions rather than acquittal. Subsequently, in 2004 and 2007, section 57 of the Immigration Act was amended twice, and new sub-sections were inserted to explain the kind of acts that the house owners must carry out to avoid prosecution.

Similar ambiguity, if applied to section 12A, could cause undue stress on owners and result in unnecessary legal issues and costs. This is especially so if the owners are elderly, physically impaired or illiterate. In some cases, the owners have assigned power of attorney to a third party to lease to tenants and, in the event of a contravention of section 12A, does it mean that the owners would still be taken to task?

In my view, section 12A could be more prescriptive in listing out the due diligence steps that owners should take, such as requesting the tenant or contractor to sign an undertaking or affirm a statutory declaration.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

6.39 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, like any community or society, the locals expect to live in an environment that they are accustomed to, where they see familiar faces, understand one another's culture and respect one another's religion. It is the same whether you are in Singapore, Germany or the United Kingdom (UK).

Today, with the popularity of Airbnb, a Singaporean can, if there are no rules in place, wake up one day and find himself being stared at by, say, someone from another country staying next door and a new one every other week, month or so. I am sure it would raise his/her suspicions and he/she or would be asking himself or herself, "What and who is this?" And this is what will happen if we do not control property owners who turn their premises into a hostel or use it for Airbnb activities. Notwithstanding, Singapore also needs to embrace disruptive technologies or emerging opportunities, such as Airbnb and others, especially in an environment of softer growth and to capitalise on existing unproductive assets.

Hence, I am pleased that it is now spelt out in the Bill the rules that prohibit short-term lease to a large number of unrelated persons. With these rules in place, it will be easier to carry out enforcement against property owners who use their premises for prohibited activities. Perhaps, it would be good if the Minister could clarify what its policy will be on Airbnb going forward, if the owner of a premises applies for a licence to use it for vacation homes, for example?

Thanks to mainstream and social media, it is widely known that renting out homes for short-term stays is, in fact, forbidden. But this is not stopping Singaporean Airbnb listings from popping up ever so frequently. I think it is important that the Ministry takes a clear stand on it or it will be assumed that the regulation is a paper tiger. In this market where some flat owners are hard-pressed to get tenants, some of them have resorted to renting out their units to short-term travellers.

Next, I note that URA has been given more power in the decision-making process with regard to the physical appearance and design of buildings, with the goal of making Singapore a delightful and walkable city in relation to the latest rule on public spaces on private property to meet new design guidelines, such as providing ample shade, public seating and connectivity between buildings either above or below ground. But the question is: how will this affect the cost of development for the building owner? Will this deter old buildings from being redeveloped? In my constituency, there are quite a number of condominiums, for example, which may be affected by these changes in the Bill and also in the city-centre as well.

With so many different designs for buildings in Singapore, both residential and commercial, we need to have some coordination in their appearance. What can be done to ensure that there is some cohesion in the design, unless we are open to a bit of differentiation and chaos and that whether there is good connectivity for pedestrians to move from one to another and what it impacts as well?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.

6.42 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments in this Bill are encouraging and assist to explicitly explain certain details in existing rules which have been unclear or not legalised for enforcement to be carried out. With the rules clearly spelt out for enforcement purpose, it will positively support enforcement personnel to conduct their duties, hold the owners responsible and render early intervention to some local issues without wastage of our public resources.

The amendment on subletting of a property to an excessive number of unrelated persons in this Bill, I feel, is a welcome move. Not only does it assist enforcers to conduct their checks, it also prevents situations where safety is a concern and the relevant authorities were unable to gain access into properties to take the necessary actions. Such stories are not unheard of during my house visits and Meet-the-People sessions. Here, I would like to raise a few areas which I felt the Ministry should further consider, as enhanced enforcement powers may not suffice under some conditions.

One, in this amendment, it only refers to private properties and not HDB flats. But, with regard to concerns on overcrowding and safety, the size of a HDB flat generally poses more of these challenges, given its limited space compared to a landed property. I have received numerous feedback from residents living in HDB flats of suspected units housing more than the specified number of tenants allowed under the current guidelines. HDB had difficulties locating the owners, especially those who live overseas, and were unable to conduct the appropriate checks of the suspected units. I suggest that the Ministry consider applying the rule on the basis of the number of people per the built-up area, which is the gross floor area regardless of public or private property. In addition, all owners must be made to provide contactable details when declaring their property for rental and are held accountable if their tenants refuse to cooperate with the authorities.

Second, during my house visits, I have encountered units that are occupied by elderly couples or those living alone with a domestic helper. These people are understandably sometimes reluctant to provide access of their premises to the authorities due to uncertainty and lack of trust in strangers. The case in point is not a concern of excessive subletting but on other areas, like the need for the authorities to inspect the presence of mosquito breeding, building structure conformance and so on. Should the Bill be passed, how can the authorities assist these elderly persons to ensure that they are safeguarded through a process to provide access and not fear of being penalised for not complying on the first instance?

Third, while the current focus is about non-compliance being the responsibility of home owners and developers of the property, we may have neglected the role that the property agents play in such transactions. In cases where excessive subletting occurs, what is the probability that rental agreements were made without the assistance of a property agent and that the agent was unaware of tenancy conditions in the said property breaching the stipulated guidelines? And if proven so, will the property agent be equally liable for committing the offence as the home owner? I would urge the Ministry to consider having some of the enforcement terms as compulsory clauses within the rental agreements and the contractual agreements between the owner and the property agents. Tougher measures have to be taken against those who violate and possibly imposing a debarment period in which the owners are not allowed to rent their property.

Enforcement is often viewed as an essential process for checks on compliance when the rules or guidelines are in place. However, when it is not explicitly written in legal terms, it is usually difficult for the enforcers to take any recourse against those who offend. As such, I support the amendment and the introduction of sections 13, 19A and 20A. The requirement to appoint QPs is absolutely necessary as the process of compliance during planning, construction and the final building structure has tremendous implication on safety. Be it for conservation, commercial or residential purpose, safety is an aspect that we cannot compromise. If the buildings were not constructed in accordance with approved plans, the cost of rectification will be huge and, at times, irreplaceable.

It is likely that many owners are layman when it comes to building design and materials used, and they are ignorant of the building requirements and the terminologies. Many have dreams of what they hope their final design would be for their prized possession. However, many cannot articulate these details nor have any idea how the process may be like until they embark on some of these projects. Some errant developers may present false claims of their capabilities and hard sell before the contract is signed.

This was exactly the issue that one of my residents faced recently. Like most owners, they had entrusted the project solely to the contractors. Being a first-time owner of a landed property, they were unsure of the processes involved. Unknowingly, their trust in the contractor, whom they thought would have the architect and the QP appointed to supervise the project, turned out to be a nightmare for them.

Often, owners would not have sight of the new developments in the building rules and are technically challenged to understand the construction progress or even check against what materials had been used. This is even more difficult when the structures are embedded or concealed. Before they can reach the stage of obtaining the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP), it would have entailed legal suits and caused home owners unwarranted stress, notwithstanding the strain it creates in our mediation and litigation systems.

To reduce the frequency of such incidences, I would like to ask the Minister on the validation process of the QPs, how to ensure their certifications are kept relevant and that these QPs have duly carried out their duties and tasks before they endorse and sign off on the approval documents. If the QPs and/or developers were found to have violated the rules, how can it be made known to the public so that future consumers would not fall prey to the unruly players?

On this note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill and look forward to the inclusion of these new clauses and that legalising the terms would help our enforcers to carry out their duties more efficiently, giving rise to safer buildings and developments in our city state.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.50 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I will focus my speech on the short-term rentals, and I note that it is already illegal to lease a home for less than six months in Singapore.

However, what we are doing in this Bill is codifying this URA subletting guideline, and I have concerns about this. My concern is that this Bill might be passed too hastily. In May 2016, URA stated that the results of the public consultation on short-term rentals were "split, with no clear consensus". URA, by its own admission, added that "this issue on short-term stays is complex, multi-faceted, has wide-ranging implications and it warrants a careful and balanced review," and, therefore, it "needed more time to study the issue". I stress that these statements were published not more than a year ago. While this Bill might be passed, can the Minister clarify if his Ministry will be studying this issue further, will he be conducting more public consultations and do a further review on this?

The sharing economy, while disruptive, is here to stay. We have witnessed this with Uber and Grab. Likewise, home-sharing concepts, like Airbnb and PandaBed, are here to stay. Passing the law to combat the real or perceived negativities of the home-sharing economy diverges from the approach that was taken against similarly disruptive entrants in Uber and Grab.

We are also ignoring the popularity of such "disruptive" home-sharing concepts, especially with the younger generation, and how this might ultimately also affect our tourism industry. Just taking into consideration Airbnb, do we really want to ban a company which, according to some media reports, boasts more than a million listings across 190 countries in 34,000 cities with more than 25 million guests served, from operating in Singapore?

At last year's National Day Rally, the Prime Minister noted that there are two ways to respond to disruption: (i) to close Singapore off and try to stop people from using the new technology, or (ii) embrace change and let the disruption happen, but help the incumbents adapt. The Prime Minister said that old models are not working. New models are coming in thick and fast, and we have to adjust and keep up because of technology and globalisation, and the disruption will happen over and over again, relentlessly. I hope that we do not close Singapore off to the home-sharing economy and stop Singaporeans and tourists from using such platforms in Singapore. I believe that we should embrace this disruption and explore ways to help all stakeholders adapt to the new normal. We should regulate rather than ban.

Given that home-sharing platforms have many users and customers, does URA have enough manpower to undertake full enforcement measures in the first place? How many enforcement officers does URA have to enforce this? Following the passing of this Bill, will it require all the listings ‒ all 6,000 or so, as my colleague Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has stated ‒ on these home-sharing platforms to be removed?

And, lastly, has URA conducted research on how other countries have regulated the home-sharing concept? Can the Minister share if we are considering following some of these regulations?

Lastly, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for introducing a custodial sentence for repeat offenders of permitting unauthorised development and subdivision. This is necessary because recalcitrance at the expense of damaging Singapore's heritage and identity should never be tolerated. I am heartened by the addition of section 24B to the Act, which adds another layer of protection to conservation areas in Singapore.

I note that in discharging their duties, QPs are required to notify URA of any contravention or non-compliance with any provision, condition, requirement or plans in relation to this Act. Could the Minister consider adding a time factor into this obligation, to notify "without delay", "immediately" or "as soon as practicable"? I believe that the earlier the non-compliance is reported, the higher the chance that we could prevent or mitigate problems that may arise from that non-compliance. Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

6.54 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, thanks for allowing me to participate in this debate. I support the Bill but have some suggestions for the Minister's consideration.

As echoed by other Members who have spoken earlier on this Bill, I, too, would like to mention that, firstly, under the new Fourth Schedule, URA will reduce the maximum number of unrelated persons a property can be rented to from eight to six. The intention is to deal with the recurrent problem of subletting to too many tenants, resulting in overcrowding. However, as properties vary greatly in terms of size and configuration, may I recommend that the Ministry limit the number of tenants based on the sizes and types of rooms of the residences?

Secondly, I would like to advise that we seek consistency in our criteria for both public and private housing. Currently, a Singapore Citizen is allowed to sublet the entire HDB flat after fulfilling the minimum occupation period. The maximum number of sub-tenants allowed in each flat is based on flat type. For 1-room and 2-room flats, four sub-tenants; for 3-room flats, six sub-tenants; and for 4-room and bigger flats, nine sub-tenants. Private properties should be subjected to similar caps as well.

Thirdly, I would like to request for greater protection for tenants. In the last few years, there have been cases of owners who collected deposits and sublet the same property to multiple tenants. Does the Ministry keep track of how many such cases of complaints have occurred in the past five years? Will the Ministry implement measures to deter such cases from recurring? In addition, often, owners and their tenants have disputes over whether the deposits should be returned, and some owners keep the deposits at the end of the leases without valid reasons. Would the Ministry consider setting up a Government-approved lease deposit account in which landlords are required to place their tenants' deposits? This will help enhance protection for tenants and facilitate recovery of their deposits.

I would also like to ask how many cases there have been of tenants subletting to other tenants in the last five years. What are the typical profiles of such tenants and what actions have been taken against them? If they are foreigners, would the Ministry consider banning them from working and living in Singapore? In addition, would the Minister share how many cases of disputes between neighbours involving Singapore residents and foreign tenants there were in the past five years? Does the Ministry keep track of the nature of the disputes so that we will be able to formulate better preventive measures?

Finally, would the Minister share with the House how the Ministry works with MCSTs, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), the Police and Neighbourhood Committees to enforce and regulate the private property rental market?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.

6.58 pm

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members of the House who have risen in support of the Bill and for sharing their views. Let me now address the points that were raised in the course of the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe all the Members in this House would agree that a liveable and vibrant city must have attractive public spaces, good connectivity and also a built heritage that strengthens our sense of memories and shared experiences. And this is what the amendment in the Bill strives to achieve, by strengthening the planning levers under URA. So, in response to some of the queries raised by Members, I can confirm that URA will, indeed, make use of these provisions to require developers, where it comes to new developments, to put in place connectivity and better building standards, including more covered linkways between buildings or even to nearby bus stops. That is the very intention of this Bill and URA will, where meaningful to provide for such connectivity, require developers to do so for new developments.

For existing developments, the provisions in the Bill do not envisage an imposition on the existing buildings. But should the property owners of these existing buildings choose to redevelop their properties or choose to make additions and alterations in their properties, and they have to seek URA's planning permission to do so, then that would be an opportune time for URA to impose these new conditions.

I think many Members would be supportive of these additions and these provisions to impose conditions on developers to enhance connectivity and building standards. But there were some Members, in particular, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Alex Yam, who were concerned about the cost impact and how this will impact on the building and perhaps even on residents.

Generally, the cost of providing these features is a small component of the overall development costs. In addition, URA will not require every development to provide public space or connectivity. It will do so judiciously and where it is meaningful to do so. These requirements will only be applied, for example, to strategically located sites in key areas or where there is provision or if it is meaningful to provide for connectivity. In addition, the public spaces that are required may be excluded from the overall floor area, so there would be no impact on the development potential of the sites. So, there is a way to balance the different requirements, and we will be mindful that even as we impose these provisions, they do not lead to a significant escalation of costs.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked a separate matter about access to neighbouring property to execute works, such as the plastering of walls. I understand this is a concern very often found in private residential areas. It is really not so much a planning issue but a matter of resolving disputes between two property owners. URA cannot override the property owner's rights, but it will help to facilitate mediation between neighbours to resolve issues, if necessary.

That is my first reply on the broad area of planning levers. Next, let me touch on the points that Members have raised on the responsibilities of home owners, and potentially even extending that to other stakeholders like property agents. And here, there was also a mix of views.

Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheryl Chan wanted to be sure that we can take suitable action against home owners and property agents responsible for offences, but I believe Mr Chong Kee Hiong sought assurance that home owners would not be burdened unnecessarily by the amendments. And again, it is about striking the right balance. Where any property has been misused or unauthorised works done, URA will ensure that culpable parties are all taken to task, whether for committing or abetting the offence. For home owners who do not reside in or are not in Singapore, URA will obtain the owner's home address from ICA and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), and they still have to answer the charges if there is a violation of the rules. I think this is in response to Ms Joan Pereira's question. If there is evidence to show that a property agent is complicit in an infringement, they will be referred to the Council of Estate Agents (CEA), who will sanction them accordingly. I think that is something that Miss Cheryl Chan had asked about.

When it comes to enforcement, URA will, if necessary, beef up its enforcement capability and resources but it will also work with other agencies, for example, ICA, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the National Environment Agency (NEA), as Mr Gan Thiam Poh had suggested, to share information on any suspected cases of unauthorised use of private property and take the necessary enforcement actions.

Miss Cheryl Chan shared the concerns of elderly home owners who may be taken to task for not assisting enforcement checks. I would like to assure her that URA officers will take a reasonable approach in enforcement. They will, first, identify themselves when there is a need to inspect premises and also explain the intentions of their visit. Officers will not force the occupants to allow them to enter, unless repeated requests to enter have been denied or they assess that critical evidence will be lost if they cannot gain access in a timely manner.

Several Members, including Mr Alex Yam and Mr Chong Kee Hiong, asked about the precautions that building owners or property owners would have to take and what is deemed to be appropriate due diligence. I think it is very difficult and not so practical to draw out all the different scenarios and due diligence steps that have to be taken in legislation itself, but I would just like to assure Members that URA would carefully assess the culpability of persons involved, given all the facts available on each particular case at hand, and ensure that owners who have no part in directing the violation are not unduly penalised. URA will not make egregious demands on owners, and whether or not due diligence has been exercised will be assessed reasonably.

Another section of the provisions in the amendment Bill for which there were some comments was on the role of QPs. Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the professionalism of QPs. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board oversee the professional development of architects and engineers, respectively. For instance, in order to renew their practising certificates annually, both architects and engineers have to meet "continuing professional development" requirements to update their competencies.

All registered architects and engineers are listed on their relevant board's website. So, if there is any question or doubt about whether or not this is a QP, you can look at the website of the relevant board. The professions have their regulatory regimes in place to ensure that those listed are competent to discharge their duties lawfully. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board will not hesitate to take disciplinary action against registered professionals who fall foul of regulations. Depending on the severity, the QP may be fined, suspended or deregistered. This Bill also gives URA more powers to charge QPs in Court, if necessary, for instance, if they had provided false declarations.

Mr Louis Ng suggested that a time factor be added to QPs' obligation to notify URA of contravention or non-compliance of requirements under the Act. Other than notifying the authorities, the Bill already requires the QP to "take all reasonable steps to immediately stop or cease the contravention". This is ultimately what matters, as conditions at a construction site are constantly changing. So, I believe that the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to meet the Member's concern in this regard.

Next, let me talk about occupancy cap. It was, again, one of the topics here that has attracted quite a number of views. Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggest that the occupancy cap be calibrated according to the size of the residential unit. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that the flat cap of six tenants be now imposed on HDB flats, so that it is consistent between private and public housing. I think Mr Gan also suggested that.

In HDB flats, there are predictable typologies of design and layout, and a simple set of rules can be based on the number of rooms. That is what we have today. Unlike HDB flats, private housing comes in wide-ranging varieties and configurations. It would be hard to formulate a rule that could capture all the variations along the scale of private residential housing, from shoebox flats to bungalows. We have considered this, but we think that a complicated tiered cap may be confusing for the public and may result in uncertainty for those who want to rent or sublet legitimately.

In fact, the cap of six persons was the original cap that used to be in place before. But this cap was raised to eight in 2008, and it was due specifically to ease a crunch in the housing supply for workers. Since then, we have built up a good supply of alternative accommodation catering to groups other than families, such as hostels for students and dormitories for company employees and workers. So, we believe it is timely to revert to the cap of six, which was what it used to be before 2008.

As for reviewing the HDB limits, I think that is a separate matter. It is not within the remit of the Planning Act because the HDB controls are regulated separately, but we would be happy to do the review of the occupancy cap for HDB flats on a separate basis.

Finally, on the most interesting issue of this debate and the one which got most contributions from Members – short-term accommodation. Let me address the queries and the points that have been raised by Members with regard to this particular issue.

I must first clarify that the amendments in this Bill do not amount to a change of policy. There is already an existing URA guideline against any short-term accommodation of less than six months in private residences. A breach of these guidelines can be considered a material change of use, which will then be deemed an offence under the Planning Act. This remains the case under the amendments to the Act and the same penalties apply. So, we are not changing policy. We are taking the same approach. In fact, URA had undertaken public consultation on this matter of short-term accommodation in 2015, and in its focus group discussions with stakeholders, such as Neighbourhood Committees and managing agents of private residential developments, there was also strong endorsement of the need to preserve the privacy and sanctity valued by the vast majority of home owners.

Likewise, several Members just now − Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereria, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Alex Yam, among others − shared their constituents' experiences and expressed strong support for these rules, and also, in fact, strong support for enforcement. I know Mr Louis Ng felt that this perhaps was done in haste, but I also heard Er Dr Lee Bee Wah who asked why we took so long to put this in place.

On balance, we will have to enforce the current rules, which we have been doing and will continue to do.

Indeed, over the past year, URA has already seen a 60% rise in complaints from home owners about breaches of this short-term rule in their residential properties, and the complaints are related to public nuisance or even safety concerns for their families. These are issues that we take seriously and we should enforce the current rules, as we are already doing, and make sure that the issue does not worsen further. The amendments to the Act will enable URA to do so.

In terms of enforcement, URA will continue with its current enforcement approach on errant home owners, which means that when you look at advertising on home-sharing or rental websites, that, in itself, is not an offence and it is not regulated under the Planning Act, because these listings typically do not indicate the tenure of lease. On the basis of the listing on the site, it is not possible to take action. But as a first step, what URA will do is to work with the MCST of the development which have units with online listings and they will put up notifications to the residents in that development, so that the residents are aware of the rules on short-term accommodation. Then, if the short-term rentals persist and cause disamenities for other home owners, URA will step in to enforce.

I agree with Ms Joan Pereira that MCSTs can also do their part. Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), MCSTs have oversight of common property. For example, they can pass their own by-laws to manage the use and enjoyment of their common property through screening and record-keeping. They can also pass by-laws to register the details of all visitors. These are meaningful and practical things that MSCTs can do, and we will encourage them to do so and assist URA in its enforcement action.

I should also clarify that the minimum period of six months for short-term rental in private residences is set out in the Schedule of the Act, and the Government can adjust this parameter in future by gazette. Indeed, in its earlier consultation, URA had received feedback from a number of respondents, including home owners, that there was scope to reduce the minimum period of rental in a private residence. So, URA is studying this carefully, and will consider a possible reduction in the minimum rental timeframe. This is the six-month time frame. URA will consider whether there can be scope to reduce this timeframe.

But whatever adjustments we may make to this minimum period, it is clear that it will not accommodate residential homes that are being put up for daily rental, which is meaning to say, even if we were to reduce from six months to three months, for example, this would not accommodate residential homes that are converted to daily rental of rooms which are operating very much more like hotels. In fact, such premises which are rented out on a daily basis really ought to be regulated more like hotels rather than residential homes, and they should be subjected to relevant licensing and conditions to ensure proper standards. That was also the feedback that URA had received from various stakeholders, and we also note that many cities in Asia and around the world are likewise regulating short-term home-sharing platforms in a similar way to hotels and serviced apartments. So, in response to the point made by Mr Louis Ng, we had, indeed, studied the models used by other cities. Indeed, for many of them, where it comes to short-term stays that are operating very much more like daily rentals the way a hotel or a service apartment would, the city municipal governments are taking actions and regulating them like hotels or serviced apartments.

In this regard, I am happy to share that URA is studying the option of creating a new use class for private residences that wish to engage in short-term rentals. Such properties would then be approved for that specific purpose, like serviced apartments or hotels today. New residential sites can be sold with such an approved use, allowing flexibility for short-term rentals. For existing residential buildings, they would then require planning permission for change of use, and this would be subject to a set of guidelines which URA is looking into.

What I have described just now, these proposed measures are separate from the amendments that are being tabled today. What I have described just now with this option of creating a new use class for private residences to engage in short-term rentals, can be done without changes to the Act. So, these are separate from the amendments. URA is studying them, and they will provide more details soon for further engagement and consultation with the stakeholders.

I shared what we are thinking about because there is obviously strong interest from Members, and I thought I should clarify our approach and current thinking on this matter, and also explain that we do see a role for home-sharing platforms to continue operating in Singapore so long as they are properly regulated and so long as there is a level playing field between them and similar entities that provide short-term rentals like hotels and service apartments.

I agree that the sharing economy is here to stay; this is a point that several Members had said. We will allow a space in our city for such platforms to exist.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed the points raised by Members, and I thank them for their contributions and support of the Bill. The amendments in this Bill will strengthen URA's ability to safeguard and enhance the vibrancy and liveability of our urban space. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

7.16 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation. On the part of the access for plastering, if you think that mediation can solve the problem, then we do not have residents coming to us, complaining or sharing with us the problems that they face. So, I thought this is the right time to put in place a requirement. Actually, if the house owners know that, at the end of the day, they have no choice but still have to give them the access, maybe the problem can be resolved much easier. Because today, they know that your URA, your BCA, all have got no teeth. So, you cannot get them. So, this is why I want to urge the Minister to reconsider this.

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, we know that this is a difficult issue. We have to balance the need for intervention and action against property owners' rights to their own living spaces and to their own homes. But we are not just leaving this alone. The Planning Act amendments, as I have said, that are in the Bill, do not cover the full extent of what the Member would like to see. We will continue with the mediation route which we have already been doing and will continue to do more of that, but we will continue to study and see if other things can be done to address these difficult issues between neighbours and between two property owners where there are conflicting issues, like the one that the Member has raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker: May I remind Members to only raise clarifications. Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, I thank the Minister for sharing that they are reviewing the regulations for short-term home-sharing. But can I ask if there is a timeframe for this review?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, in fact, we have been doing this for some time already. The consultation was done in 2015. Since then, we have obtained further feedback from different parties. We have been examining different models from the various cities, as I have described earlier. We do have some sense of what we would like to see happen. I have described very broad outlines of some of the approaches that we are thinking about. I would expect URA to be able to come up with something quite soon. It will seek further engagement and consultation from different stakeholders before finalising and implementing these plans.

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. – [Mr Lawrence Wong].

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