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

Affordability of Public Housing

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

Sir, the majority of Singaporeans are residing in public housing and the affordability of public housing is ever more an important topic for us to emphasise on. This will be my focus for this speech.

The property market has been vibrant over the past two years amidst the pandemic, largely due to the delays in BTO construction and, hence, resulting in higher resale market housing prices.

While MND had all hands-on deck to better manage the delays in BTO construction through providing concessionary work passes for construction workers from neighbouring countries, to extending the duration of steel price protection to shield the construction companies from rising cost pressures, we were still unable to prevent the delay that is involved.

As I mentioned in my Budget speech, Singapore, as a small nation, we are very susceptible to supply chain disruptions and shocks. With more unseasonable weather occurring globally and unstable political situations, the likelihood of these supply chain disruptions would only continue to persist. Would MND be able to share the plans in place to build resilience in our construction ecosystem as we continue to be dependent on them as we develop this nation and manage the potential future disruptions?

Since the onset of hybrid working, many have realised that their existing homes may not be adequate to facilitate both working from home and for their children to continue home-based learning on certain school days. Some may look to upgrade and having more space or the younger members of the family may choose to have their own spaces as they look out because they want to have a private working space. This trend is further accelerated by COVID-19. Also, the trend may further pick up, as seen in some Western societies, whereby the young would leave their “nests” when they turn of age. How can we prepare for this sociological change that we are seeing in our society today?

At this point, I must commend MND for the timely intervention in the fast-heating property market in 2021. As we all know, it is a tight balance to let market forces operate on its own to sustain a property market but, at the same time, introducing property cooling measures that do take some effect in the short term to prevent any possible housing bubbles. One of the schemes that was introduced is the Prime Local Public Housing (PLH) scheme, and that is not so much about the housing bubble but to manage the evolving housing needs and trends that we are seeing in our country. But very often, we forget that, with limited land available, the affordability of public housing does hinge upon forward planning of land usage and allocation of land in Singapore. We need to ensure that we have a delicate balance in the many needs from residential, commercial, leisure and environmental sectors.

In last year’s COS, MND announced the commencement of the public engagement exercise for the Long-Term Plan Review (LTPR). I personally attended some and am heartened to see the active participation of Singaporeans in envisioning, together with our land planners, on how they would like the future Singapore to be. I am encouraged at how our citizens have reflected the needs of incorporating natural and environmentally sustainable solutions in addressing housing needs moving forward. But at the same time, they also acknowledged that, sometimes, trade-offs are inevitable. May I ask the Minister on the current progress of this public engagement exercise and what are the next steps to involve more citizens in shaping our future land use together?

As the LTPR is more strategic in nature and with the plans materialising only in the decades ahead, can the Minister shed some light on whether there are plans to expand the PLH scheme to beyond the core central regions? During my walkabouts and house visits, residents have expressed reasons why some choose to purchase public housing outside of the core central regions and they do prefer to have this in actually the mature estates. I understand there could be some challenges because the mature estates are quite highly built by today. But their reasons do range from convenience of facilities in the mature housing estates to the ability to stay closer to their parents who can assist with caregiving for their young children and some also want to do the same for their elderly parents. Would there be a possibility for the PLH scheme to be extended to popular mature estates? With headlines last year heralding that our public housing in mature estates is being sold at record-breaking prices, it does not help that some young working adults do desire their own independence but yet still would like to live near their parents for mutual support.

Sir, public housing is a necessity for many individuals and with the young families that we are looking at. As we pride ourselves for having one of the highest home ownerships around the world, we must continually find ways to enable this to remain affordable for the generations to come.

Question proposed.

Prime Location Public Housing Scheme

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): The use of the word "lottery" to refer to the allocation of HDB flats in the online domain dates to as far back as 2003. The term "lottery effect" started coming into widespread use in 2015, after flats at The Pinnacle@Duxton reached their Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). This lottery effect was explicitly commented on by Minister Lawrence Wong in 2016 when he was asked about it while he was the National Development Minister. He talked about possible measures to curb this effect and the PLH scheme was finally launched in 2021 with the project at Rochor. The second PLH project was launched on 17 February, that is, last month. The PLH scheme continues to raise many questions. The first question is: how was the subsidy clawback determined for Rochor and the Kallang-Whampoa developments? How did the Government arrive at the figure of 6%?

The second related question is what is the purpose of the clawback? Is it to avoid high prices for PLH flats, or is it to lower the lottery winnings of PLH flat owners? If it is to avoid high price rises, that may not be the result of the subsidy clawback. Six percent is likely to be included in a future sale price after the MOP, with a very long 89 years left on the lease. Buyers and sellers are likely to simply add the 6% into their overall calculations. The unintended effect could be that prices are driven up even higher than they otherwise would be. The higher the clawback, the higher the prices may be driven up.

2.30 pm

The third question concerning the PLH scheme is: how does the HDB determine which development would be considered as being in a prime location? This is not merely being asked to satisfy curiosity. If the Minister makes known the criteria, then economists, urban planners and other experts may study the criteria and give feedback to the Government on their validity or otherwise.

And the fourth question is: would the PLH scheme further drive up the prices of developments and resale flats close to PLH estates? The scheme does not admit of gradual differences between PLH projects and non-PLH projects. The distinction is all or nothing. Has the Government done calculations or made an assessment of the likely effects on the prices of non-PLH flats in close proximity to PLH projects? If so, I ask the Minister to share the calculations with this House.

These questions need answers, because it is important that the perceived solutions to problems do not create new problems themselves. Ameliorating the lottery effect should not be a gamble.

Enhancing Prime Location Public Housing Model

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Chairman, there are two main issues regarding the PLH model which I would like to address. The first is that windfall gains or the so-called "lottery effect" from the PLH scheme is inadequately addressed.

When a PLH flat is sold on the open market for the first time, owners will have to pay 6% of the higher of resale or valuation, as a subsidy clawback. However, my view is that the obvious outcome of this is that 6% will simply be factored into the asking price of the flats in the future – "priced in", in market lingo.

And if we are to use the example of The Pinnacle@Duxton, which frequently transacts for over a million dollars, this 6% will be less significant than the windfall gains the first-time seller of the PLH flat would stand to make. Furthermore, having a 10-year MOP may reduce the number of property speculators, but it does not go far enough in reducing the lottery effect and merely kicks the can down the road.

Chairman, rather than having these onerous mechanisms, which distort the market, a simpler and more equitable solution, especially from the perspective of those who may not have the good fortune to buy into the new BTO PLH flats, who far outnumber the lucky few who managed to, is to reduce the quantum of subsidy given at the onset and provide higher subsidies for resale flat buyers who perhaps need them more.

Reduced subsidies at the onset better tackles the issue of windfall profits and the perception of fairness to the broader Singapore population, while giving less room for market distortion. This is especially so when considering that there are already many HDB flats today located in various prime locations that are transacting at very steep market values and, hence, generating much windfall profits – a record 261 million-dollar transactions in 2021, based on The Straits Times article in January, for example.

Arguably, the widest subset of such HDB resale flats would have very high market values and would require significant additional subsidies to keep such flats affordable. Their need for additional subsidies is much more so than the still limited new launches of PLH flats. And for many Singaporeans, the resale market is the only available housing option if they remain unsuccessful in the BTO lottery.

The second issue is that singles are not being allowed to buy PLH flats even on the resale market. One of the most baffling aspects of the PLH model is its discrimination against singles, whereby singles are not allowed to buy PLH flats even on the resale market. As it stands, singles are not allowed to be sole owners of large BTO flats in mature estates and can only buy resale non-PLH flats if they are aged 35 and above.

Chairman, if there is no coherent reason why MND should impose additional restrictions on singles for PLH flats in the resale market, the message that this sends is that the needs, aspirations and sacrifices of singles are less valued, despite the Minister's claim that MND is not taking a step backward in this regard, as it would have the perception of doing so.

While the PLH model is new and will need to be reviewed over time, I had asked specifically in January this year if singles would, eventually, be allowed to be sole owners of new or resale PLH flats and, if this were to happen one day, what are the key considerations before these are lifted. Minister Desmond Lee stated in January that the PLH model is designed with the objective of being inclusive for Singaporeans, and I trust that singles should be considered Singaporeans as well.

The Chairman : Mr Louis Ng, you can take your two cuts together.

Certainty in Housing for Single Unweds

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank HDB for the change in our policies that now allow single unwed parents to rent and purchase HDB flats more easily. This has provided a lifeline for many of them. But we can do more and help reduce the stress and uncertainty for single unweds who already feel that they are at the end of the road at times.

I understand that single unwed parents can only get their rental flat after the child is born. Assurance of having a roof over one’s head is as important as the roof. Single unweds need a clear timeline for their applications to be completed so they have the assurance and can plan for the future.

Most of us here would know the chaos of settling into a new home. Let us not forget that single unweds have to do so alone while caring for a newborn and with a median salary of only $600 a month.

Can MND provide a timeline for single unweds to obtain housing once they apply for it and also allow housing to be allocated to them by the third trimester of their pregnancy, so that they can welcome their newborn into their home from the day the baby is born?

More Lactation Rooms for Working Mothers

A survey by Singapore’s Breastfeeding Mothers’ Support Group found that the top reason for stopping breastfeeding was the challenges of expressing milk at work. One thing working mothers say they need the most is a lactation room. Currently, buildings with a Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 10,000 square metres and above are required to only have at least one lactation room.

This is sorely inadequate. Expressing milk is not like using the toilet. It takes time. Unlike queuing up for a toilet which does not take that long, breastfeeding mothers are stuck when the only lactation room in the building is used.

Some have shared that, out of desperation, they sometimes express milk in the storeroom or in the toilet. One mother shared: "HR arranged a janitor room which is so small and stuffy with no chair at all for me to express breast milk. It is so inconvenient as the janitor will need to go in and out all the time and I am always only able to express halfway through."

Why subject breastfeeding mothers to such an unhygienic and undignified situation? Will MND increase the minimum number of lactation rooms currently required and lower the GFA threshold?

HDB Priority Schemes

Mr Pritam Singh: The HDB's web page lists seven separate priority schemes to book a flat under the Build-To-Order (BTO) or Sales of Balance Flat exercises. My purpose in speaking on them today is to ask whether HDB has explored whether the thresholds of these priority schemes remain fit for purpose, in light of current demand in relation to supply, and under what circumstances does HDB review and adjust them.

The Minister for National Development, in his written answer to several Parliamentary Questions in January this year, said that there were 5.5 applications for each BTO flat in 2021, after an even higher 5.8 applications per flat in 2020. While he explained that the numbers include repeat applications and that they increased partly due to the raising of the monthly income ceiling, he agreed that there is, currently, a strong demand for public housing.

Taking into consideration this mismatch, the Government should take a look at whether the allocation of HDB flats, including through the use of these schemes, is being done in the fairest and most optimum way possible. One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the priority schemes do not truly give priority. They do not ensure that applicants in the schemes get allocated flats over those not within the schemes. The schemes merely increase the probability of being allocated a flat and, thereby, give the appearance of being awarded priority.

For example, 30% of BTO flats are set aside for first-timer married couples with children. If more than 30% of applicants are first-timer married couples with children, then there will be a ballot. If a couple is unsuccessful, then they go into another balloting pool, but they could again be unsuccessful. It must have happened many times in the past that non-prioritised applicants, for example, second-time applicants got BTO flats while perhaps so-called prioritised applicants did not. Higher chances and multiple chances are just that – chances. It does not matter how many chances an applicant has over others. If they fail, it is still 0% success in getting a flat.

If they are really deserving groups, the Government should look into the possibility of giving such groups actual priority. The question, of course, is, who should get the priority and to what extent? Should it remain at 30% for married couples with children, or should this go up to a higher percentage and include even newly-married couples? I am minded to think so.

In order for Singaporeans to better prepare for their own BTO plans going forward, would the Government publish the number of applications under each priority scheme as a percentage for every HDB BTO exercise after the selection process is completed? This information would make it clearer to applicants and to market watchers what the current trends point to. This would also prompt proactive adjustment of the policy scheme thresholds to be more attuned to the market and population demands.

To conclude, the current system is reminiscent of a previous system in allocating Primary school places. Singaporeans were given priority in the sense that they got more ballot chances than Permanent Residents (PRs), but this meant that, many times, PRs would be successful while Singapore Citizens were not. This has now been changed, of course.

The principle is the same when it comes to BTOs. The Government should consider making priority an actuality, rather than, for some – a probability. From a national perspective, is there scope to increase priority for first-timer married couples with children and newly-married couples?

The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Chairman, can I take the two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes, please do.

Public Rental Scheme

Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Thank you. Under the Joint Single Scheme (JSS), some applicants have cited difficulties in looking for a partner. Will HDB share an update about the JSS-Operator-Run (OR) pilot, where a flat mate will be assigned to the applicant?

HDB indicated that it will help to match the applicants based on their common factors, to increase the likelihood of successful matches and reduce potential friction. How successful has this endeavour been and what is the percentage of flats allocated for JSS-OR?

For those applying under the Family scheme, would HDB consider assigning larger rental flats to bigger families, such as those with more children, three-generation or extended family households? Bigger units will reduce the problem of overcrowding and are more conducive for work-from-home (WFH) arrangements and for the children to study at home.

I am also concerned that due to a lack of space, the children may choose to stay outside of the home more often. This may lead to higher chances of them becoming wayward and delinquent and being victims of crimes; similarly, for the youths and adults who might be sleeping rough outside. Their health and ability to study or work productively are also likely to be affected.

Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme

The average waiting time for a BTO project is four to five years, which is not a short period, especially for young couples with children on the way. Many applicants have to stay with parents or other family members in the meantime. This is a particularly challenging arrangement, with more people working from home these days.

Will HDB provide more flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) and consider including unsold sale of balance flats, surrendered flats and confiscated flats under BPHS? Also, if HDB does not have sufficient units for PPHS, would HDB consider giving more grants to first-time owners for the purchase of resale flats, especially young families or singles?

This is in view of the higher prices of resale flats in recent transactions. In particular, the bigger grants will be helpful to young couples desperate to find a resale flat to accommodate their growing families.

Interim Rental Housing

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): There are many residents who have approached me to request assistance in appealing to HDB for subsidised rental housing. Some have had to sell their flats after a divorce, or they have to move out of their current homes due to family issues. Most cannot afford to buy flats and face being homeless.

The Minister said previously that the overall stock of rental flats is sufficient to meet demand. Unfortunately, problems remain. First, some residents exceed the Public Rental Scheme income threshold, but do not earn enough to afford to rent in the open market. Others may be single unwed parents who do not qualify for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS).

Second, applicants who qualify for public rental housing may still have to wait between three and eight months before they can collect their keys. Many need a place to stay urgently as they do not have family or friends who can take them in.

Could the Minister share, since 2020, the number of applications HDB receives for rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme, the Interim Rental Housing Link (IRH) scheme and the PPHS? How many approvals were granted under each scheme and what were the main reasons for approvals or rejections under these schemes?

I urge HDB to increase the number of flats under the IRH scheme. HDB could offer tiered rental rates that are higher than the Public Rental Scheme rates, but lower than the open market prices. This will help many families and individuals that fail the strict means test of the current rental schemes, but are not earning enough to rent in the open market and need housing urgently, to avoid being left homeless.

2.45 pm

The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, can I take the two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes, please.

Interim Rental for First Timers

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: May I ask the Minister how many interim rental flats are there available to help first-timers, pending the completion of their BTO flats? Will there be more of such flats reserved to support first-timers and help them to settle down early? Would the Ministry consider giving priority to those with children or with children on the way?

Help for Rental Flat

How many households formerly living in rental flats have been helped successfully to own their flats in the last three years? Will the Ministry be reviewing its existing scheme further to help encourage tenants to own their flats?

Support Housing Aspirations via Rentals

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: As we think about our new way forward, I find it timely to bring up the Adjournment Motion that I moved last November on supporting diverse aspirations through rental housing. If anything, I am glad that my views on how this policy will strengthen communities, as opposed to weakening them, have sparked conversations within and beyond this House from online discussions to forums and news articles.

Meanwhile, however, many of my residents continue to struggle with seeking their temporary home under the existing rental schemes, be it the family which applied for PPHS, only to be unsuccessful for five consecutive times, or the family which meets the stringent eligibility criteria and was even successful in applying for a public rental flat, only to be told that there are many applicants on the waiting list and of the long wait times.

Hence, I would like to humbly request once again that the Government significantly increase the stock of rental flats across flat sizes, thereby creating a viable and expanded public rental scheme with an emphasis on ensuring that our lower- to middle-income households' needs are well looked after.

Perhaps, we could also explore expanding our notion of what it means to have homeownership via a rent-to-buy model.

This scheme aims to ease the transition from renting to buying a home by providing subsidised rent. This is not a new idea and, in fact, has been adopted in several parts of the world, such as the Rent to Own scheme in Wales or the Rent to Buy scheme in the UK.

If home ownership is a cornerstone of this Government's housing policy, enabling residents the option to buy the same house after renting it for a certain number of years does seem like a viable solution. A solution might be for HDB to build more flats and allocate a portion of them as rent-to-buy units, instead of just limiting all rental flats to 1- or 2-room flats.

This has the potential of concurrently addressing two systemic socioeconomic concerns of eliminating the stigma of residents living in rental flats and reducing the burden on the next generation of Singaporeans who could use their freed-up finances on housing to explore more daring career choices and/or entrepreneurial pursuits.

HDB Rental Flats

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, for the past few years, I have been asking HDB to review the policy of not allowing singles to rent flats on their own. This is especially so for elderly singles, some of whom are divorcees or estranged from their spouse or children. For this group of people, due to their age and behaviour, they just cannot get along with another person in the same rental flat.

I have come across cases where HDB pairs two total strangers to rent a 1-room flat. However, they are not able to get along with each other due to different habits, different hygiene practices or medical conditions. As a result, sometimes, they quarrel with each other. Sometimes, one of them will move out and sleep at the void deck to avoid further quarrels.

Last December, HDB launched the JSS-OR pilot whereby an operator, which is a social service agency, will try to pair up single applicants for rental flats. It has been four months since. May I ask MND for an update on this Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run Pilot?

How many tenants have been successfully paired? What is the feedback on the scheme so far? Were they able to stay with each other without quarrels? What if a quarrel or dispute should break out between the two of them? What if one of the applicants had an unacceptable behavioural issue, like hoarding? Would the operator try to mediate a settlement of the dispute or would the operator try to pair them with another single applicant?

Eligibility for BTOs and Executive Condominiums (ECs)

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, the prices of resale HDB flats have gone up quite a bit recently. What measures are available to assist Singaporeans who are ineligible for BTO flats and executive condominiums (ECs) due to their higher household incomes but who still find resale flats and private properties not so affordable? Would HDB consider allowing Singaporeans whose earnings exceed the household income ceiling to purchase BTOs and ECs at a non-subsidised or tiered subsidised rates?

Improving Current BTO Model

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Chairman, long waiting times for BTO flats have been a persistent concern among Singaporeans with current average waiting times of around four to five years and, in some cases, six to seven years, where projects have been delayed by COVID-19. Such long waiting times are not just an inconvenience but seriously affect Singaporeans' life plans, such as causing young couples to delay starting a family.

The BTO demand and supply situation is made even more challenging by rising demands for BTO flats. As the Minister recognised in January this year, a strong demand for flats has been driven by factors, including rising marriage and family formation rates, smaller household sizes and higher income ceiling, allowing more households to qualify.

In view of these realities, it is an apt time for the Government to review and improve its approach towards the supply of HDB flats in order to keep waiting times in check.

We recognise that large housing development projects simply take at least three to four years to complete. Therefore, in order to achieve shorter average waiting times of, say, two to three years, Singaporeans must be allowed to apply for new flats at a point in time much closer to project completion and delivery.

This basic idea is not new and, indeed, MND confirmed that, where possible, HDB has, since 2011, already been commencing some BTO projects ahead of demand or actual bookings. In 2017, the Government specifically introduced a plan to offer BTO flats with shorter waiting periods of two to three years, such as approximately 3,000 flats launched in 2018 with a waiting time of 2.5 years. More recently, HDB also announced BTO flats with waiting times of two to three years, such as in Tenggah and Yishun.

Unfortunately, despite these apparent relaxations of the BTO system, average BTO wait times are still stubbornly long, suggesting that HDB's efforts, though welcomed, do not go far enough.

A potential approach would be to expand on HDB's existing initiatives and create two distinct application tracks for BTO flats: first, the current system with a four- to five-year wait; and second, some kind of BTO express lane for projects already one to two years into construction, resulting in a much shorter waiting time of two to three years.

In order to maintain parity between the two tracks and to mitigate the risk of vacant flats, the express lane option should perhaps offer applicants less specificity in their preferences. For example, an applicant may only specify a unit type in the ranking of different floors of the zones.

For this to work, there may need to be a larger percentage of HDB stock being contracted every year ahead of demand. For instance, there could be a certain baseline of HDB supply, say 15% to 30% of the annual new stock, that is continually constructed every year, regardless of prevailing BTO demand.

To be clear, this is not a proposal to revert to the pre-BTO era with the registration for flats system. We saw an oversupply of flats in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis. However, the proposal does involve an acceptance of some risk of excess supply if there were to be a severe demand shock.

That being said, I strongly believe that such a risk is low and, in any event, worth taking, given the stubborn problem of long BTO wait times plaguing us today. It is worth pointing out that, since 2010, BTO flats have consistently been multiple times oversubscribed, with only one exercise where the ratio specific to that of 2-room Flexi Flats was close to one time.

Support for Young Couples

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Chairman, there were HDB flats built in advance in the past and allocated successfully. Will the Ministry consider building more such flats in the new towns ahead of their launches to support couples to get married and start their families without delay? I hope that more BTOs could be built in the Sengkang and Punggol new towns.

Singles' Eligibility Age for HDB Flats

Mr Pritam Singh: A single Singaporean has to be above 35 years of age to purchase a resale public housing flat or to apply for a Build-to-Order 2-room Flexi Flat. The Workers' Party's position is that the eligibility age for singles to buy a flat should be lowered to the age of 28.

According to the latest Government census, the proportion of singles has risen across age groups. The increase was most significant for those between 25 and 34 years of age. Between 2010 and 2020, the proportion of singles among residents aged 25 to 29 rose from 74.6% to 81.6% for males and from 54% to 69% for females. Similarly, the proportion of singles among those aged 30 to 34 rose to 41.9% for males and 32.8% for females.

In 2018, then Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong stated in Parliament that as marriage rates among singles under 35 was still high, the age of 35 remained a valid number. Does the Government intend to move from 35 as the magic number?

There is a prevailing orthodoxy that Singaporeans should be married by 35 and that offering flats to those of a younger age could somehow discourage marriage. Alternately, there may be an assumption that offering flats to those younger than 35 would jeopardise the value of filial piety.

The National Youth Council's 2021 publication on the state of youths in Singapore is helpful in this regard. The publication reports the results of the National Youth Survey 2019 covering those between 15 and 34 years of age. Those surveyed were asked: how important are the following aspirations or life goals in your life? They were given 19 possible choices to rank from not important at all to very important.

The top choice selected by our youths was to maintain strong family relationships while the second choice was "to have a place of my own". Both choices were ranked somewhat important or very important by at least 95% of the respondents.

To our youths, filial piety and having one's own home are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are both almost equally important values.

To be clear, strong family relationships did not automatically mean marriage or having children to those surveyed because those were the 10th and 11th choices respectively.

One assumption we should question is that offering flats to 28-year-olds would discourage genuine interest in long-term marriage. Is it not possible that some people who want to be married may be discouraged from tying the knot early because they prefer to have financial security before getting hitched and having children? If a single person is allowed to purchase HDB property, whether BTO or resale, earlier, this may well open new prospects to, concomitantly, move on to marriage and parenthood.

In addition, the prospect of purchasing a flat at 28 years of age, down from 35, would leave more scope for the growth of one's CPF balances for peace of mind and for retirement adequacy.

We must ask whether it is reasonable to continue disallowing singles from purchasing a BTO or resale flat once they are financially able to do so before 35. The Government should look into rolling out more housing choices for singles to purchase public housing at the younger age of 28 rather than 35 currently.

The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Chairman, can I take the two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes, please.

BTO Affordability

Mr Chong Kee Hiong: According to HDB, most new flat buyers use less than 25% of their monthly household income to service their monthly instalments for a 25-year loan. This is viable, provided that the buyers are able to keep their jobs and maintain uninterrupted employment.

I spoke about this during the debate on the President's Address in September 2020. The employment situation today is less favourable for holding long mortgage tenures, compared to the past when people used to hold jobs for life. Going forward, people will change jobs more frequently and quite a number are making a living from the gig economy. This new job trend and the higher macroeconomic risk backdrop should be captured in the analysis of the affordability of HDB flats.

With lower employment security and reduced market predictability, affordability of HDB flat prices should be measured based on a tenure that is less than 25 years. HDB flat prices should, therefore, be priced lower to adequately reflect this new normal. This would also provide flexibility to structure lower instalment payments by stretching the loan tenure should financial circumstances of the buyer change over time.

Alternatively, HDB should find ways to increase affordability, such as giving more grants, to help first-time owners with their BTO flats, especially those from the lower-income group. HDB should continue to tap on technology and improve building techniques to keep the cost of construction of BTO flats low, as it confronts rising labour and material costs.

3.00 pm

Would the Ministry share what measures HDB is implementing to improve affordability of its BTO flats?

Ethnic Integration Policy

Some owners have difficulty selling their flats due to the Ethnic Integration Policy. They are mostly from the minority ethnic groups. A few owners had complained that they could not even get a single offer to negotiate upon. This situation causes hardship for families who need to move for personal reasons, such as those that need to be nearer other family members who can be caregivers, or who need money for retirement or family emergencies and, hence, are downgrading.

Will HDB consider helping them out and facilitate such sales by providing a grant or subsidy to a buyer from the eligible minority group? This will help to plug the difference between the sellers' asking price and what the eligible buyer can afford. This grant can be piloted in areas where there are more mismatches and where the gaps are more significant. Alternatively, HDB can act as a buyer of last resort for such flats and purchase the flats from the sellers.

These flats can then be leased to singles or families in the eligible minority ethnic groups under the parenthood provisional housing scheme or public rental scheme. Similarly, BTO and sale of balance flats, which have been reserved for certain ethnic groups under the EIP and which have remained unsold for an extended period of time can be included under PPHS and the public rental scheme.

Ethnic Integration Programme

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, like Mr Chong Kee Hiong who spoke before me, for the past two years, I have received several appeals from residents of the minority race living in an HDB estate in my constituency asking for waiver of the EIP quota. Some of them wanted to sell and right-size their flat because their children have moved out. Some wanted to sell their flat because they needed a larger flat due to increased family members. However, due to EIP, they are unable to sell their flat to a Chinese family.

A few of them wrote to me to say that they have advertised for several months without receiving a single offer from someone of the minority race. Some of the potential buyers for their flat know of the policy and they may depress the prices because they know that there is limited demand for these flats due to the restriction.

Sir, I understand fully the need for EIP and the need to ensure that we do not have racial enclaves in our heartlands. However, it seems unfair that existing minority sellers of the flat have to carry the burden of having to accept a lower price for their flat due to a national policy.

Like Mr Chong Kee Hiong before me, I am asking HDB if it could review the possibility of allowing some form of compensation to the minority sellers of the flats based on HDB's independent valuation of the flat. This is especially so if he has not been able to sell the flat for several months due to EIP.

Ethnic Integration Policy Data

Mr Pritam Singh: In September last year, I asked the Minister for National Development a written Parliamentary Question for data on each of the respective five-yearly intervals from December 1990 to December 2020 to detail, amongst other things, the names of the EIP-affected neighbourhoods where at least one EIP limit was reached and the total number of HDB units in each of these aforesaid neighbourhoods. The Ministry only provided data for 1990 and 2020, even though it was able to provide information at five-yearly intervals for the EIP-related question earlier. Why was it unable to provide the information as requested?

Ethnic Integration Policy Refinements

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, the fact that Singaporeans of various races live and interact with one another in harmony differentiates us from many other countries. Similar to three other Members who have shared on the EIP, the unintended economic consequences of EIP have been repeated frequently, including in this House. Minorities sometimes face or perceive difficulties in selling their HDB flats at their desired price, especially where they are prevented from selling to Chinese buyers who make up a large proportion of the market. I have also heard the same from my Malay and Indian residents.

Is there room for us to refine EIP so that we do not economically disadvantage our minority residents while ensuring that we do not form significant ethnic enclaves? As we move to unite larger neighbourhoods with community hubs like Our Tampines Hub and Kampung Admiralty, is it possible to loosen the block-by-block quota and enforce a second-level "cluster" or "district" quota, while still maintaining the broad principles in EIP?

Better Living Environment

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Chairman, peace and quiet are two of the most important characteristics of a better living environment. All residents, whether they are staying in HDB or private properties, should have the right to peace and quiet in order to catch up on their rest and sleep.

Unfortunately, for some beleaguered residents of HDB blocks with sky or roof gardens, they have not been able to enjoy this basic right for years. We all recognise that such public housing projects are considered to be representative of the new-generation of public housing in Singapore, with a focus on community bonding, greenery and lifestyle. However, the sky gardens located at HDB blocks, while still public spaces, are unique, because of the very close proximity to residents' homes, which means that any noise or disturbances at the gardens will directly affect these residents, especially if they occur at night. The well-being of our residents is important, especially when the noise disturbances and disamenities have been going on for so many years.

Therefore, I would like to ask if there could be additional enforcement powers to allow the authorities to put a stop to the noise and disturbances taking place at the sky gardens so that affected residents can have peace of mind and a good night's sleep. We require more regular patrols by the authorities and agencies.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Safe Distance Enforcement Officers, the Police, MOM, NEA, HDB, the Town Councils, RC volunteers and residents for all their efforts in patrolling the sky gardens, tackling safe distance breaches, noise disturbances and disamenities over the years. Many residents have sent me emails to thank our volunteers and agencies. However, the current arrangement is not sustainable.

For the safety, security and well-being of my residents, I sincerely hope that MND would consider installing a gate which allows access only during the day and early evenings. This will greatly cut down on the requirements on manpower. As these sky gardens will increasingly be a common feature in future public housing developments, I appeal to the Ministry to reconsider installing a gate to such sky gardens as the longer-term solution.

The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim; not here. Ms Carrie Tan; not here. Mr Gerald Giam.

Town Improvements Costs

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, construction costs have skyrocketed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The price of materials has shot up, wages have increased and the cost of bringing in foreign workers is also elevated. The construction industry's confidence has been shaken up late, resulting in shorter payment terms and demands for higher upfront payments.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that recent bid prices for town improvement projects, like the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, are up to 50% higher than pre-tender estimates. Yet, HDB's grants to Town Councils have not kept up with these price increases.

Some may suggest that Town Council's existing funds can be used to cover the cost increases. However, doing so would be unfair to the majority of residents as each project mainly benefits residents living in a particular precinct. It is also unfair for residents of those precincts if the new projects are pared down to meet the original budget.

I have three suggestions. First, can HDB temporarily increase its NRP grants to Town Councils to cover these short-term cost increases? Second, can HDB provide contractors and subcontractors for town improvement projects some price protection for raw materials, like steel and concrete – similar to that of HDB's BTO projects? This will better ensure residents receive comparable amenities, regardless of market conditions at the time of tendering. And third, can the Ministry explore more measures to restore confidence among construction firms, so as to ameliorate the need for onerous upfront payment terms? This could also help temper price increases across the industry.

Fairer, Greener, more Inclusive Housing

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Chairman, a fairer, greener, and more inclusive Singapore requires fairer, greener and more inclusive housing.

Fairer: while the EIP continues to be relevant, it remains a concern that it causes negative externalities to minority home owners who face difficulties in selling their flats as well as renters and home buyers who cannot get a flat close to their parents. How can the Minister address the rough edges of the policy?

Greener: buildings account for a large share of emissions. Can the Minister share how HDB is playing its part to move to greener buildings, both new builds and retrofits?

More inclusive: can the Minister update on the outcomes of the policy to integrate rental units with purchased units instead of dedicated rental blocks? What more can be done to facilitate the forming of support networks within the community for rental flat residents in these integrated blocks? Can the Minister also update on measures to enhance the HDB experience for the elderly and persons with disability?

The Chairman: Miss Rachel Ong, please take your two cuts together.

Improved Equity in Housing Subsidies

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Thank you, Chairman. A citizen's contribution to the nation-building effort is not limited by their marital status. Singles and married citizens can both participate in the workforce and serve the community. It may be argued that singles could even expend more time at work and the community than those with family commitments. At the same time, while singles may not have to care for children, many provide essential care for ageing family members, be it physically, through financial support, or both.

My residents, who are single, have shared that in the bid to prioritise housing for families, they feel that the housing and home ownership policies are less equitable for singles. Singles can only purchase 2-room Government-subsidised BTO flats which cannot be in mature estates nor prime location public housing. This means that their flats are less easily sold in the market, with relatively lower-value appreciation over time than the bigger flats.

Such a housing policy impacts not only space allocation, but cumulative asset value over time for singles. With that said, how can HDB housing subsidies be made more equitable across both single and married Singapore Citizens who contribute to Singapore's nation-building efforts in their different ways?

Regulating Prices of HDB Resale Market

Despite the cooling measures applied, resale flat prices have continued to climb with first-time home buyers competing with those who are looking for bigger spaces after selling their private condominium units. We have also seen an unprecedented number of million-dollar flats being sold this season. I believe that the mandate to keep our housing affordable to Singapore Citizens extends to all Government-built flats, not only BTOs.

Apart from the new flats under the Prime Land Housing model, are there plans for MND to regulate the prices of the HDB resale market to make housing more accessible to Singapore Citizens who do not qualify for the BTO market? An example is the non-citizen spouse scheme.

The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru; not here. Mr Xie Yao Quan; you may take your three cuts together.

Vibrant HDB Estates

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Chairman, heartland shops are a precious part of our HDB estates. They provide convenience to residents by bringing various goods and services close to homes. They provide jobs and livelihoods in the community. Heartland shop proprietors are quite often also residents within the same estate and they hire assistants, roles quite often filled by residents who are caregivers or seniors, who need or value work flexibility and proximity to home.

And heartland shops provide a place for residents to meet one another, for ties to form, a focal point for each community. In short, heartland shops make our HDB estates not only places to live, but also work, play and bond. They make our HDB estates "Home".

3.15 pm

Yet, many forces are disrupting the retail sector at large. And heartland shops, too, would need to keep abreast with changes, transform where they must, and indeed, look beyond the estate to capture new opportunities. To this end, how does MND plan to support heartland shops to thrive and remain a vibrant part of our HDB estates?

Built Heritage

Chairman, in November 2021, MND announced a pilot heritage study for the Old Police Academy site, with a view to informing both future studies on other sites and the larger assessment and planning process, how we can continue to strengthen this, including the possibility of formalising a framework by which such heritage studies may be required. Could MND update on its plans to formalise such a framework to require heritage studies for certain sites?

Community Care Apartments for Seniors

Chairman, since MND and MOH launched their assisted living pilot, the Community Care Apartments last year, there has been a lot of interest by seniors – seniors who wish to right-size, live independently, with the right care support when needed, and in the company of fellow seniors. I have asked before in this House, and I would like to ask again, if MND plans to launch more of such Community Care Apartments? And would MND be minded to work with the private sector, to promote the development of private assisted living options?

Private Assisted Living Options

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Chairman, many Singaporean seniors prefer to age-in-place. Our high housing density, in both the HDB and private estates, affords Singapore the chance to create excellent age-in-place conditions.

We can create a strong eco-system of well-integrated, affordable and high-quality private assisted-living and home-based healthcare services. This is an issue that many of my colleagues and I from PAP care deeply about. We do so because we believe that doing so will help our seniors and their caregivers. Doing so will minimise the cost associated with ageing.

To create this ecosystem, we must create a strong vision, build common physical infrastructure, provide a digitalised services platform and create a suitable financing framework, as well as to put in place effective regulations and standards.

Does MND have plans to guide or promote the development of private assisted living options for residents staying in both the HDB and private estates?

The Chairman: Ms Nadia Samdin. Please take your four cuts together.

Housing for Seniors

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Chairman. People aged 65 and older are projected to hit 47% of our population by 2050. Many seniors wish to right-size while retaining their independence. Single or widowed seniors, especially those with no children, often do not have anyone to turn to for housing advice and one bad decision could spiral into another. What efforts and safeguards are in place to ensure that seniors understand their various options and financial ability in considering housing options, prior to making a firm decision?

Recognising our nation’s changing demographics, last February, MND partnered HDB and MOH to launch the first Community Care Apartments in Bukit Batok. Last year, all 169 Community Care Apartment units were oversubscribed within one day. Given the high demand, how can these Community Care Apartments be complemented by programming on the ground? Given rising housing prices and competing uses for land, does MND have a framework in place to keep the price of these homes at an affordable level for our seniors?

Public Rental Housing and Home Ownership

Singapore’s Public Rental Scheme (PRS) is a key social safety net for households with no other housing options or family support. As of 2020, about 50,000 households lived in rental flats under the PRS. I note the recent announcement which shared that 4,500 households living in public rental flats moved on to buy their own homes over the past five years with the help of various HDB schemes and grants.

Many of these families aspire to move on to home ownership, especially those young families with working-age adults. However, this can be an uphill battle. For instance, some families have previously owned an HDB flat but fallen on hard times, such that HDB subsidies are less readily available. Others receive variable incomes in the gig economy, making it more difficult for them to access loans. How can we support them, too?

I would like to ask what criteria does MND use to preliminarily assess individuals to be ready to buy a flat, such that they can be supported by the home ownership support team. And for those who are unable to, what are the typical barriers which prevent them from doing so? During COVID-19, we saw an increasing number of PRS applicants who may not fall within the original policy intent but do have pressing needs. Given limited resources, does MND have plans to expand or evolve the options, criteria and objectives of the PRS to cater to a more diverse group of Singaporeans?

Vibrancy of Heritage Precincts

As Singapore continues to develop, we have seen how our heritage districts have evolved over the years. They are an important part of keeping our history and traditions alive and relevant today. But our local businesses in these districts have faced many challenges in the last few years. What plans does the Government have to reinvigorate the vibrancy of Kampong Glam and our other heritage districts after the pandemic shock to increase footfall?

Would the Government consider looking into best practices on tenant mix to ensure a seamless integration of our older tenants and newer stallholders in the area? What plans does the Government have to balance heritage and conservation against the risk of gentrification and how does the Government intend to involve all the local stakeholders?

Updates on Ecological Profiling Exercise

Finally, last February, NParks launched an Ecological Profiling Exercise (EPE) in consultation with the nature community and academics. The EPE studies the ecological profile of green spaces in Singapore and understands how these spaces can boost ecological connectivity. One year on from its launch, what are EPE’s findings so far? How have findings from EPE shaped NParks’ internal nature conservation strategies and approaches to safeguarding our green spaces? May I also ask how have consultations with academics and the nature community supported these profiling efforts, and are there plans to further involve the community?

City in Nature

Prof Koh Lian Pin (Nominated Member): Chairman, it has been two years since MND announced its City in Nature vision. May we please have an update on the progress made on transforming Singapore into a City in Nature and how NParks will continue ramping up efforts on this front? What more can be done to inform and interest our people, especially the young, in conserving our biodiversity and nature?

The Chairman: Mr Henry Kwek. Please take both cuts together.

Construction Sector Challenges

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: Chairman, COVID-19 has posed significant challenges to the construction industry over the last two years. The industry appreciates the tremendous support that MND has provided since the start of the pandemic.

With the Omicron variant, the construction industry continues to face challenges. Can MND provide an update on the help provided to the construction industry thus far, especially on the progress of replenishing the sector's foreign manpower, the availability of bank financing, especially for subcontractors, as well as MND's current assessment of where the sector is heading?

Can MND also share on how the Government can, together with the various built sector trade associations and chambers, continue to help our industry overcome the challenges from COVID-19?

Built Sector Manpower Adjustments

COVID-19 has highlighted the pressing need to reduce our reliance on low-skilled foreign manpower. At the same time, digitisation and automation can significantly help us transform our industry.

For example, digitisation allows players to better coordinate and, therefore, increasing efficiency. The automation of construction techniques also promotes the use of technology on site, as well as the pre-fabrication and modularisation of construction methodologies. More importantly, digitisation and automation may create jobs that appeal to Singaporeans. Can MND share on the measures that the Government will take to build a more resilient and manpower-lean built sector, as well as to encourage further localisation of jobs in the sector?

Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction

Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Chairman, prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) is attractive as it has been assessed to improve building productivity by up to 40%, resulting in substantial onsite manpower and time savings. It is green and sustainable since it reduces construction material wastage and can incorporate green features, such as green concrete.

It is popular because it reduces all the disamenities of a construction environment, such as noise and dust. Since most of the installation works and related manpower are offsite, this also results in improved safety on the construction site. It costs about 10% more than conventional building methods, but is expected to come down in price as more projects use this method, which has been experienced in overseas markets.

I would like to ask the Minister, with higher labour costs and lower number of foreign workers, have the overall cost gaps been breached? Would MND provide an update on the status of PPVC adoption in all categories of construction, including for HDB projects?

The use of PPVC has been required for some residential, non-landed Government land sales sites since 2014. Why is it required only for these selected sites? Would MND consider requiring more builders to use PPVC and speed up its adoption? What are the constraints which are preventing wider adoption?

Sustainable Buildings

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Chairman, buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions. This is significant. With technology and advancement, new buildings today can use green material and smarter designs to reduce emissions. But in a highly built‐up environment like Singapore, we have many mature estates with a high concentration of buildings that are decades old.

Many of these buildings are homes to our people. Therefore, how will the Government and BCA continue to support our transition into a low‐carbon built environment? What are our progress and quick wins so far? How can emissions in existing buildings be reduced without affecting homes, where precious memories are forged?

The quantum advancement in green technology and digitalisation of energy can allow us to move from reactive to predictive maintenance. These can reduce waste, save energy and enhance user experience. Over the long term, these can lead to cost savings for the public, too. Could the Government give an update on its plans to leverage smart technology and data to enhance the quality of living while preserving the tangible and intangible values of housing estates?

The Chairman: Mr Mohd Fahmi Bin Aliman; not here. Mr Dennis Tan.

HDB Flats with No Lift Upgrading

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Chairman, I return to the issue of lift upgrading for the six blocks of HDB flats in Hougang SMC where there are still certain units which do not have the same floor access to lifts and this is a very real issue affecting a number of my residents. We were told that there are about 150 such HDB blocks left in Singapore. At COS last year, the Minister replied to my cut and said that, for blocks where the costs are still too high, it will not be prudent to offer the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). He also said that while the Government continues to explore new technical methods to bring down LUP costs, the Government had also introduced the Lift Access Housing Grant of up to $30,000 in 2020, which is supposed to assist residents with urgent mobility or medical needs to move to another flat with direct lift access.

While this may provide an option, shifting can be a more complicated decision for many, more than one would imagine, especially if the residents have been living in the same flat for a considerable time. Some prefer to stay on, even if it meant carrying their elderly relative on their back, or together with the relative's wheelchair, down two flights of stairs. But a year on, residents in affected blocks have continued to speak to me of their frustration with no same floor lift access. Unsurprisingly, the Lift Access Housing Grant is no panacea to many of the residents who spoke to me. Many residents feel frustrated by HDB's explanation of the issue of costs, something which could have been avoided if HDB had tendered out lift upgrading projects consisting of these blocks with design issues together with the bulk of the HDB blocks with no design issue for LUP access to all residents in the blocks, as former Hougang Member of Parliament Png Eng Huat had raised in the House way back in 2014.

I would like to seek an update from the Minister on HDB's quests for new technical methods to bring down LUP costs for these affected blocks in Singapore. I also hope that HDB will work on this issue expeditiously to bring lift upgrading to all.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take a break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY – HEAD T (MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT)

(Creating an inclusive and sustainable home)

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Head T (cont) −

Transforming Facilities Management

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Mdm Chairman, Singapore's facilities management sector has been challenged by manpower shortages, ageing facilities, the need to make existing and new buildings more sustainable and varying service standards. I understand that in the Facilities Management (FM) sector's transformation, the key areas identified are design for maintainability, procurement, smart FM and manpower development.

However, some businesses have cited the delay in adopting technologies due to the higher implementation cost and the immediate impact of workers' cost with the Progressive Wage Model.

Today, we are at the intersection of urbanisation, digitalisation and innovation. By not enabling smart facilities through technology, they will face even more challenges ahead by not knowing where to harness efficiencies using conventional FM methods. Take, for example, rainwater harvesting. There is enough technology in this space to allow for some upgrades through incorporating IOT solutions to better harness and understand the environment and know which part of the facilities to manage and be more effective in the waterflow.

Could the Minister share the steps taken to accelerate the transformation of the FM industry and encourage the adoption of new technologies?

Below are a few areas for consideration in the transformation.

First, use of data analytics to improve maintenance outcomes. Second, share best practices in design or retrofits that enable optimal building performance and sustainability. Third, focus on outcome-based contracts to achieve cost efficiency and improve the service delivery. Lastly, partner industry players to map technology solutions and invest in R&D for complex infrastructure environment analysis.

Allow the Keeping of Cats in HDB Flats

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Madam, as I have done in the past decade and as I did at the last COS and the one before and the one before and I think the one before, I am speaking up again and asking that we allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats.

Minister Desmond Lee replied to me previously that MND does not intend to play a cat-and-mouse game on this issue. Indeed, let us stop chasing each other and let us focus on the facts.

Let me share the President of the Law Society, Mr Adrian Tan's thoughts on this. He calls this rule "irrational and unfair". He gave a breakdown on the four reasons HDB bans cats.

"Reason 1: 'Cats are generally difficult to contain within the flat'. So are dogs, birds, mice and even humans. I rate this a bad reason.

Reason 2: 'Cats tend to shed fur'. So do dogs. Another bad reason.

Reason 3: 'Cats tend to defecate or urinate in public areas'. So do dogs. Bad reason.

Reason 4: 'Cats make caterwauling sounds'. Very rarely. And dogs bark, especially at strangers walking past a flat. Birds, especially parrots, make a lot of noise, too. Bad reason.

Verdict? All four reasons are terrible."

I encourage everyone to read Mr Tan's full post on this issue.

It is time that we progress on this issue and change our policy to accept what we already accept in reality – that HDB residents are allowed to keep cats, who can be removed if they are found to cause disamenities within the community.

Bird Population Control

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: My residents in Bedok Reservoir and Hougang have given me feedback on the nuisance caused by pigeons, crows, mynahs and even quails around the housing estates.

The proliferation of the bird population is often a public hygiene concern and, in the case of crows, a safety issue, which worries residents. The Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) has been doing its part to combat this problem. The AHTC puts up banners to caution residents against bird feeding and works with residents to identify and report feeders. It advises food stall operators on proper food waste disposal methods and our conservancy workers regularly remove unattended food sources. The Town Council also conducts regular tree pruning and, as a last resort, pigeon culling.

Despite these efforts, the bird nuisance problem has persisted. NParks, occasionally, sets up crow traps but these are rather ineffective as crows are intelligent creatures and tend not to fall for these traps.

I believe this problem is not unique to AHTC. A national level effort by MND and its agencies may be needed to combat it. These may include more public education to discourage bird feeding, setting up CCTV monitoring and stepping up enforcement action against bird feeders.

It would be helpful if NParks could regularly share with Town Councils its research and recommendations on best practices for controlling the population of various bird species. It could step up efforts to trap and relocate birds in areas where they are causing a nuisance to the public. Together with the efforts of Town Councils, MND's stepped up involvement could help residents and our ardent friends to co-exist more peacefully in our urban environment.

The Chairman: Miss Cheryl Chan, take your two cuts together.

Evolving the OneService App

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: The OneService App began as a one-stop platform for Singaporeans to provide feedback on municipal issues without having to go through hoops to figure out the appropriate agency to undertake the issue raised. Since 2015, it has, indeed, brought much operational efficiencies to both the Government agencies and Singaporeans alike. Anecdotal sharing suggests that many have found this app very helpful with ease of use and some having their feedback addressed in a timely manner. However, I have also received feedback that some cases have been closed or deemed resolved by the agency, but the action done did not exactly resolve the issue raised or it was not satisfactorily managed. One suggestion is for a summary report of the actions taken by all agencies to be provided to the complainant so that they can be actively involved in the matter's closure.

With the OneService App now evolving to include more features, such as the "Help Neighbour" and parking facilities, can the Municipal Services Office (MSO) share the impact of these new features on the user base? What has the adoption rate been like for these new features?

Can the Minister also share if there are any additional features that are still under consideration and yet to be implemented? How does MSO envisage the future of the OneService App?

Building Neighbourliness

Since the start of the pandemic, many people have experienced working from home. Even as the borders are gradually opened up and corporations transition to hybrid work, this trend of hybrid working is likely to stay post-pandemic.

While some relish the prospect of spending more time with their loved ones, there are also more media reports and ground feedback on neighbourly disputes as a result of spending more time at home.

In cases where neighbours are unable to resolve their differences, HDB refers cases to the Community Mediation Centre (CMC). And since 2014, over 70% of cases are resolved through CMC. But there is also difficulty underlying mediation, as when the relationship is acrimonious, this option may be futile. For the longstanding and intractable cases, what else can be done if the cases taken through the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRTs) still remained inconclusive? I have had such case feedback, some of which occur in private condominiums where the MCST and the by-laws are unable to assist.

Will MSO consider having other pilot schemes, like Project Restore, that is run by social service agency, the Lutheran Community Care Services (LCCS). LCCS actually gets parties to come together and talk and they create what they call a "peace-making circle". The parties can discuss issues objectively and without feeling being judged. So, besides mediation, what further assistance can MSO provide to address such disamenities?

And since the launch of the "Help Neighbour" function in June 2021, can MSO update the number of cases that was received thus far and the nature of the cases? What is the success rate like?

And since the function is targeted at the vulnerable groups, will MSO consider a more extensive outreach effort to educate the mentioned group on the use of the app and how to maximise its usage?

The Chairman: Mr Yip Hon Weng, please take your two cuts together.

Digital Service Delivery

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Madam, I wish to raise two issues for improvement for the OneService App.

Firstly, tracking and coordination of municipal issues across agencies until resolution. A resident can submit feedback but there is no information about the status of operational processes. Sometimes, the case is closed before the problem is officially resolved, something that Member Cheryl Chan has earlier raised as well.

4.00 pm

How does MSO track and coordinate issues for all cases until resolution, especially complex ones that may require collaboration with other agencies? How does smart technology assist us in this area?

Another area is the resolution of neighbourly disputes, such as community noise and corridor obstruction. Such issues have been aggravated by work from home arrangements during the pandemic period.

I think it was useful for OneService to disclose the units in the resident's block which are undergoing renovation works so that, in the event of noise issues, the resident can contact the owners of the unit. Can we go further to integrate this, for example, by allowing residents to raise concerns about noise issues in the app in a dedicated category?

Furthermore, if the flat owner has downloaded the app, they would be able to see the concerns and respond, with a mediator on-hand to assist.

Some residents do not wish to attend in-person mediation at the Community Mediation Centre or bring the matter to CDRT. Technology has made online mediation more accessible and popular. It is certainly something we should explore.

Housing to Support Ageing-in-place

As our population ages, we should aspire towards having our housing typology cater to our life needs. This is especially so when there is a growing preference among our seniors to age in place.

Good housing designs should adopt universal design elements that are not only elderly-friendly but also cater to impaired mobility due to unexpected illness, injury or disability. The Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) is a good initiative. But sometimes, residents wait until something has happened, like after a fall, before they make the application. We should take a more proactive approach towards home safety for the elderly because a fall can really impair them.

Indeed, we must do more, beyond the basic infrastructure, something that the PAP Seniors Group is pushing for.

Can we look into integrating senior-friendly features that come with the new Community Care Apartments into our existing HDB estates? Some of the services in the optional service packages, like housekeeping, meal services and medical escorts, can also be designated to service providers and even senior activity centres in the community and extended to all mature estates with a high population of seniors.

What other upcoming senior-friendly initiatives will be introduced to our housing estates? How is MND working with MSF and MOH to ensure that our built environment supports ageing in place?

Ensuring Municipal Services Office's Efficiency

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry: COVID-19 has exacerbated the challenges in municipal service delivery, with manpower constraints even more binding, especially over the past two years.

Because more Singaporeans are working from home, we see a significant increase in the use of common area within our estates as well as increased disputes among neighbours. We also see heightened expectations from our residents with regard to cleanliness standards.

With our Government's digitalisation effort, Singaporeans also expect timely and comprehensive responses from MSO's app.

All these conditions create considerable challenges for MSO despite all the hard work and resources that MSO has already committed to keeping our estates clean. As we enter the endemic phase of living with the virus, what are MSO's plans to ensure that municipal services are efficient and resident-centric?

Neighbour Disputes

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Madam, in the course of my work as a Member of Parliament, I receive many complaints from residents complaining about noise from their neighbours. Many times, it is about heavy steps from the higher floors, noise from shifting of tables, chairs or furniture in the middle of the night. Sometimes, it is about noisy music or children screaming. Sometimes, it is about noisy renovation works.

Due to unhappiness about the noise, neighbours do start quarrelling with one another and allegations are made. Sometimes, abusive language is also used against one another and the living environment in the area becomes hostile.

It seems that we are helpless to help these neighbours resolve such disputes. The resident has to simply live with the noise.

Last year, I spoke about the disputes between neighbours during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate for MinLaw. I asked how CDRT could help to resolve these disputes. However, surely, a better option is to try to nip the problem in the bud before it even gets to CDRT.

Is there room for Government agencies to do more to address such neighbourly disputes? Can we do more to promote neighbourliness among residents so that they can build on the relationship with one another and become friends who can discuss issues without having to resort to loud voices against each other or to quarrel? Can such disputes be resolved by encouraging neighbours to be more considerate towards one another?

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Mdm Chair, I need to confess that I have been an inconsiderate neighbour before.

I was staying at my first matrimonial flat, a 3-room resale flat in Toa Payoh. It was a slab block design where the units are side by side and have windows that open into the common corridor. We had some friends over for a gathering and it lasted into the wee hours. Naturally, there were chatting and laughter. On hindsight, we must have sounded especially loud in the quiet of the night. Our next-door neighbour, an elderly uncle, approached us at around 2.00 am, complaining about the noise and reminding us to keep our volume low.

The next morning, we heard that the neighbour had to see a doctor because his blood pressure went up after a disturbed night's rest. We felt so bad, we bought some chicken essence to express our apology and wished him well. After that episode, we became more careful and managed to maintain a friendly relationship with the uncle for the rest of our stay there.

Mdm Chair, I shared this because, sometimes, these things happened when we were not thoughtful enough, not because we have any ill intention. I am sure Members have had their fair share of complaints from residents of issues and disputes with their neighbours. This has become more prevalent these two years with work from home and home-based learning practices.

Personally, I feel that such matters are best settled between neighbours. I thank the uncle for letting us know personally and allowing us the opportunity to make amends. If he had reported to the authorities immediately, I could conclude that he preferred a more officious approach towards our relations.

On the other hand, if he had suffered in silence, I would not have known that it was an issue and might have organised even more house parties. His frustrations and unhappiness would have built up without me knowing.

The worst scenario would be a retaliation. The uncle could have vented his displeasure by banging on our common wall and that would have embarrassed me in front of my guests. Perhaps, a tit-for-tat war would erupt.

Therefore, I always advise my residents with such issues to first talk nicely to their neighbours. Actually, we should go further upstream and make friends with our neighbours when there are no issues. We should not let the first encounter to be an unpleasant one.

Typically, a neighbourly dispute is more complicated, with different versions of the situation. The misunderstanding and mistrust between neighbours are likely to have developed over years.

Having said that, there will be cases when there is ill will or neighbours who are just being difficult and unreasonable.

I do hesitate to ask the MSO what the Government could do more to address such disamenities and neighbourly disputes. But with the spectrum of neighbourly disputes that MND has come across, I would appreciate if the Minister could share some insights and suggestions on how such matters could be addressed.

The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Chair, even as we continue fighting COVID-19 today, we are focused on our mission of building an even better Singapore tomorrow.

I will explain how we at MND are doing this in these key priority areas: (a) keeping public housing affordable and accessible and meeting the housing aspirations of Singaporeans; (b) transforming the way we design, build and maintain our city; (c) growing our City in Nature; and (d) safeguarding our built heritage.

My MND colleagues will give more details on the various areas of our work.

Helping Singaporeans own their homes is a key national priority and a promise that the Government has been committed to for decades. A home that we can call our own provides the basic foundation to raise our families and bring up our children.

If you look at other cities, they have different ways of housing their people. Some leave housing largely to the private market while others provide rental flats to certain demographic groups at subsidised rates. But the experience of these cities shows that the private market will often not provide adequately for the low-income or even middle-income families.

That is why our focus is to sell flats to Singaporeans, including low-income households, at highly subsidised prices rather than offer them rental units at subsidised rents. We are committed to ensuring that public housing remains affordable and accessible to help meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans.

We plan the supply of new flats by taking into account long-term factors, such as demographic changes and trends, including family formation rates and household sizes. We also monitor the market and make adjustments to meet cyclical shifts in demand.

In addition, we provide generous grants for first-timers, for both new and resale flat purchases, with more help for lower-income buyers.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked if we should review our affordability benchmarks.

Most first-timers buying HDB flats in the non-mature estates only need to set aside a quarter of their income or less to pay for their monthly loan instalments. This is already significantly lower than the international benchmark of between 30% and 35% for affordable housing. And it allows buyers to pay their mortgage with their CPF savings, with little or no cash outlay.

To ensure prudent use of public funds, we impose a monthly income ceiling to allocate housing subsidies to those who may need it more.

To Ms Poh Li San's question, the current income ceiling of $14,000 for BTO flats already covers more than eight in 10 Singaporean households. The income ceiling for executive condominiums (ECs) is even higher, at $16,000. Households earning an income above $14,000 have a variety of housing options, such as resale flats, ECs and private developments.

The income ceilings were just raised in 2019, but we will continue to review them.

In the immediate term, the pandemic has had a serious impact on the construction sector, causing housing delays, concerns about the tight housing supply and worries about rising resale home prices. At the same time, marriage and family formation, a growing trend of smaller households and the current low interest rate environment have led to strong housing demand in both the BTO and resale markets.

Since last year, we have been working closely with the industry on two important tasks: first, we are working hard to minimise delays in the ongoing construction of flats; and second, we are ramping up our building programme to meet the strong demand for public housing. We will launch 23,000 flats per year in 2022 and 2023 and are prepared to launch up to 100,000 flats from 2021 to 2025, if needed. Miss Cheryl Chan asked about these efforts.

This is difficult work, especially in the midst of an ongoing pandemic. Our HDB colleagues have been on the ground, working closely with contractors to overcome the many challenges that COVID-19 has thrown at them: (a) bringing in workers safely to make up for manpower shortages due to border restrictions; (b) coping with the impact of public health measures on productivity at worksites; (c) sharing cost increases when prices of construction materials rose sharply; (d) localising more precast production and stockpiling more materials in case of further disruptions in supply chains and so on.

We have seen some progress. In 2021, we delivered about 14,500 new flats, more than the 9,400 flats in 2020 and the 13,500 flats in 2019, pre-pandemic.

We are also increasing the supply of private housing through the Government Land Sales Programme and, last year, we introduced measures to cool the property markets to pre-emptively address the risk of home prices running ahead of market fundamentals and, in doing so, keep housing affordable for genuine home buyers.

So, that is how we are addressing the housing situation today – by increasing both private and public supply to meet the strong demand while moderating market movements and minimising delays.

4.15 pm

We are not out of the woods yet, because the pandemic situation remains uncertain and the geopolitical situation increasingly volatile. But the delays have impacted many Singaporeans’ life plans. We seek your understanding and support, as we press on to try to minimise delays and deliver your homes to you as soon as we can.

In the meantime, for first-timer families who face challenges renting on the open market, we assist them with interim rental housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Gerald Giam asked about the PPHS supply.

We are on track to add 800 more units by mid-2023. We have tripled the number of PPHS flats offered at each application exercise. But supply remains tight. So, we are prioritising families with the greatest needs. As a result of these efforts, application rates have fallen significantly, from about 20 times to about nine times in the most recent exercises – though that is still high. That said, around half of the applicants who are invited to select a flat decide not to do so, suggesting that many may have other options.

HDB also offers Interim Rental Housing (IRH) on a case-by-case basis to those who do not have other interim housing options. To Mr Gerald Giam’s suggestion, the supply of IRH flats varies to meet the demand, as these flats are also used for PPHS or public rental.

Members have made other suggestions to address concerns about housing delays and supply. Mr Louis Chua and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested building more flats with shorter waiting times. Significant land and infrastructure preparation is needed before we can build BTO flats. Where possible, we have brought forward our plans for land preparation. This allows us to launch flats with shorter waiting times. In November last year and February this year, we launched more than 4,000 flats with waiting times of around three years or less. We will launch more such flats in future where we can. Sale of Balance Flats, Open Booking of Flats are also flats with shorter waiting times. But all these depend on whether sites are available. For brownfield redevelopment, we may be delayed if, for example, existing users of land require more time to relocate or if existing services need to be diverted. For greenfield sites, we need to carry out detailed environmental studies.

In fact, we have accelerated many of our plans in order to increase the BTO supply over the next two years. That is our priority, to meet the current strong demand.

The Leader of the Opposition asked if we would also review the various HDB priority schemes and give absolute priority to certain groups. Priority schemes allocate housing supply to meet the needs of a wide range of Singaporeans – to support marriage and parenthood aspirations of young couples, the desire to live with or close to parents or married children for mutual care and support, or the housing needs of our singles and seniors. These objectives all remain relevant and important.

Let me explain how our priority schemes work. For each scheme, we set aside a certain proportion of flats. Those who qualify for the scheme and are balloted within that quota are guaranteed the chance to select the flat. Those who are balloted outside of the quota will be considered with the other applicants who do not qualify for the scheme. In that sense, each priority scheme guarantees a certain number of flats for qualifying applicants and so, addresses different categories of households and families in Singapore who have needs. But we cannot guarantee a flat for all the applicants in any one of these priority schemes for a particular launch because there may well be more applicants than there are flats set aside for each scheme. It would mean that the other groups who do not qualify for that scheme would not get a chance to book a flat at all. This could include singles, couples who do not have children and others. We would also need to build a lot more flats and use a lot more land to meet this demand if done this way. Instead, our approach is to strike a calibrated balance between the housing needs of different groups.

So, contrary to the Leader of the Opposition's characterisation of the way in which we set aside our priority schemes, it is not one in which priority refers only to more chances but, rather, in trying to balance the needs of different groups, we provide absolute priority within certain quotas to ensure that one group does not then eat up the quotas and spaces for other groups.

As for putting up information on the application numbers under different priority schemes, HDB already provides the number of applications received for each project across the various household types for every town and flat type. These figures are updated through the application period for each BTO and SBF exercise. Applicants can refer to this information in deciding which project to apply to.

Besides managing current demand and supply, we also continue to enhance our housing policies. Ms Mariam Jaafar asked what we were doing to make public housing fairer and more inclusive.

One major policy we rolled out last year was the new prime location public housing model (PLH), after many years of study and engagement. This allows us to build flats in prime locations and keep them affordable, so that these areas remain diverse and inclusive and do not become places where only the well-to-do can live.

We have just launched two PLH projects. They attracted a lot of interest, with more than three applicants for each 3-room flat and more than 10 for each 4-room flat. We also plan to build public rental flats in future PLH projects where possible. To Ms Mariam Jaafar's question, our approach has been to integrate sold and rental flats in the same BTO projects, including in prime areas where feasible, to enable Singaporeans across different backgrounds to build neighbourly ties, form community bonds, build a stronger and more cohesive community and society. We have completed two new blocks that integrate both rental and owned HDB flats in the same block, and more are in the pipeline.

Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua raised some concerns about the PLH model. These are not new. They have been raised by others, considered and addressed during our extensive public engagements. But let me go through them again quickly.

Mr Pritam Singh asked how we determine the subsidy recovery rate. As we have explained, because PLH flats are in prime locations, we need to provide additional subsidies, on top of the usual BTO subsidies, to bring the price of the flat down to an affordable level for more Singaporeans. Mr Louis Chua suggested lowering the subsidy quantum at the point of sale. If we were to do that, it would just mean that only those with higher incomes or wealth can afford these flats. This would go against the intention of the PLH model. We size the subsidy recovery rate to recover these additional subsidies, as a percentage of the resale price, when the flat is sold on the open market. This is to be fair to the other BTO flat buyers who do not get these additional subsidies. Taken together with the other measures, such as the 10-year MOP, disallowing of rental of whole flats and ring-fencing the pool of eligible buyers to those meeting the BTO eligibility conditions at the point of resale, among others, would help to mitigate excessive windfall gains.

Mr Pritam Singh also asked how we determine which projects come under the PLH model and, if PLH might push up resale prices of neighbouring flats. We look carefully at the attributes of each project, including expected selling prices, to decide if we should apply the PLH model. As to whether neighbouring resale flats will see higher prices, this is unlikely as they are much older flats. In any case, it will be another 15 years or so before PLH flats reach the resale market. So, we will keep studying and monitoring this.

Mr Louis Chua asked why singles are not allowed to buy PLH flats. To moderate resale prices, we require resale PLH buyers to meet BTO eligibility conditions, which are a set of criteria that most people are familiar with. These criteria include singles who are part of larger households with caregiving responsibilities, say, they are buying a home with parents or with their siblings, if their parents are not around. And these would apply mostly to older singles. The PLH model is very new and we have only launched two projects. We will continue to monitor the response to PLH projects and review the parameters as part of our regular policy reviews.

Besides socioeconomic inclusiveness, we also want our public housing estates to reflect our society’s ethnic diversity. The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) seeks to support that. It enables people from different ethnic backgrounds to interact in their daily lives – around their homes, at the markets or hawker centres, in schools, in neighbourhood shops, in playgrounds and so on. That provides some of the conditions to foster tolerance and understanding and counteract the powerful social forces that tend to divide societies.

Even today, nearly one in three HDB blocks, and 16% of HDB neighbourhoods, have reached one or more of the EIP limits. Without EIP, racial concentrations could be much higher in various parts of Singapore. So, EIP remains relevant and important in promoting racial harmony and I am glad that we had established bipartisan consensus on this after our debate in this House last July.

We are mindful that some flat owners may face difficulties selling their flats when the EIP limits are reached. For example, some may have to lower their asking price or may take longer to sell their flats. We have been helping these families in different ways, such as by giving them more time to sell their flats and even waiving the EIP limits in exceptional circumstances. But it is not sustainable to keep waiving the EIP limits, because this would erode the very objectives that EIP seeks to achieve.

Over the years, we have continued to receive feedback about the rough edges of EIP and suggestions on how to smoothen them from the public and Members of Parliament, including Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Lim Biow Chuan, during this debate.

We have said before that we would continue to study these options. Having done so carefully, we have decided that, for EIP-constrained households who face genuine difficulties in selling their HDB flats, HDB will buy back their flat on a case-by-case basis. This complements existing forms of assistance that I have just articulated.

To ensure that we focus on households with the greatest needs, we will offer this buyback assistance to those who have owned their homes for at least 10 years. But those who are EIP-constrained and need to move out earlier due to extenuating circumstances can still apply to HDB for special consideration.

In assessing households for buyback assistance, we will consider the household’s specific circumstances, including how long the household has been EIP-constrained and whether they have marketed their flats consistently at reasonable prices. If HDB assesses that the conditions have been met, it will appoint a professional licensed valuer to perform a valuation and HDB will make a fair offer, so that the household is not unduly disadvantaged due to EIP.

In deciding how best to assist EIP-constrained flat owners, we had considered other suggestions. Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested applying the EIP limits over a larger geographical area. Mr Pritam Singh had also previously suggested this. But this could likely lead to over-concentration of particular ethnic groups at the local level, in specific blocks or neighbourhoods, rendering EIP less effective. And when the limits are reached in larger geographical areas, significantly more flat owners will be constrained. At that point, HDB may have to waive the EIP limits in even more cases. So, this is not a viable long-term solution.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Lim Biow Chuan suggested giving a grant to households which may have to sell their flats at a significantly lower price due to EIP. We have studied this in detail, but found that it would be difficult to implement in practice.

First, it would be difficult to size the grant fairly. A fixed grant may undercompensate some sellers but overcompensate others. Yet, a variable grant, say, a certain percentage of the transacted price, would give sellers with higher flat values more support in absolute terms, which might not seem fair to others.

4.30 pm

Second, some buyers and sellers might well artificially lower their transaction price to take advantage of the grant and it would be hard to guard against this. This would be unfair to taxpayers.

So, on balance, we have decided that the most feasible option would be to buy back flats from EIP-constrained households in genuine need. This is not a decision that we make lightly, because it requires significant Government resources. But we believe it is the right thing to do, because EIP benefits all of us and helps to foster a more cohesive society.

Finally, a quick response to Mr Pritam Singh’s question about EIP data. During our exchange in Parliament on EIP last year, he wanted data to understand what was unique about EIP-constrained neighbourhoods. I had said that we would look into what we could practically provide, given the large volume of data requested.

In our response to his two Parliamentary Questions, we had provided comprehensive figures, such as the number and proportion of blocks and neighbourhoods that have been constrained by the different EIP limits over the last 30 years as well as the areas corresponding to some of the neighbourhoods that were EIP-constrained in both 1990 and 2020.

However, there are practical limitations to providing all the data sets requested. For instance, he had requested the names of all EIP-constrained neighbourhoods from 1990 to 2020 – a 30-year period. But there are no public maps or demarcated areas that we can make reference to. So, we did the next best thing and provided corresponding areas, but it would have been difficult to do so for all neighbourhoods without significantly compromising accuracy. So, where practical, we have and will continue to provide the information requested to further everyone’s understanding of the issue. I think it is important to clarify this.

Next, we want to contribute to a more inclusive society by meeting the housing aspirations of low-income families that need more support.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked how we will help families in rental housing to own their own homes. Our public rental housing system is not just about providing homes for lower-income citizens. We also want to provide integrated social support – in education, healthcare, training, employment and many other areas – to help them achieve stability and improve their situation.

And that is what Community Link, or ComLink, is all about – to enable lower-income families with children to achieve stability, self-reliance and, ultimately, social mobility. More will be said during MSF’s COS.

For those who are ready for home ownership, HDB’s Home ownership Support Team (HST) will guide them through their journey. We also provide financial support to make home ownership more affordable for these families.

First-timer families can benefit from the usual first-timer grants like the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG), whereas for second-timer families with children, we introduced the Fresh Start Housing Scheme in 2016. Under the Scheme, families can receive a $35,000 housing grant. They can buy 2-room flats with a shorter lease, which are otherwise only available to seniors. Families will also receive close support from a social service agency to ensure that they can sustain home ownership.

We want to give more support to these families who aspire to own a home again for their children to grow and develop. So, as the Finance Minister had announced in his Budget speech, we will enhance the Fresh Start Housing Scheme in two ways.

First, we will increase the grant to $50,000, to help more tenants afford a home.

Second, we will allow families to buy 3-room flats with a shorter lease to meet a wider range of housing needs, rather than just short-lease 2-room flats.

This is the first time that we will offer new 3-room flats on shorter leases. We are doing so to provide these families with more housing options. It is a substantial change that we are making in our housing policies, to support lower-income families and their children, as they seek to improve their lives.

My colleague, Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim, will share more details on our other efforts to uplift households living in rental flats.

As our population ages, we are also paying close attention to the needs of our seniors. In particular, we are doing more to help seniors age-in-place while getting appropriate care. We launched our very first Community Care Apartment, an assisted living pilot, in Bukit Batok last year. Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim will share more details on our plans to launch a second Community Care Apartment pilot and to work with the private sector to provide more assisted living options.

Members have suggested that we do more to support the housing needs of other groups, such as singles or those who prefer rental to home ownership. My colleague, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, will address some of these suggestions. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will also share more about how we are making our HDB estates more vibrant and liveable.

Let me now turn to how we are transforming the Built Environment (BE) sector. The sector was badly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and Members, such as Mr Henry Kwek, have asked about its progress.

Throughout this period, we have worked closely with the industry – not just on BTO projects, but also more widely across the sector to deal with the challenges that have come our way – from manpower shortages to cost increases and supply disruptions.

We still hold regular meetings and site visits to understand the situation on the ground and to find a way forward. We are thankful for the close partnership with trade associations, companies and workers, as the sector recovers.

We are seeing encouraging signs. Construction output has reached close to pre-COVID-19 levels and work is progressing steadily.

The manpower situation is also improving. Between November 2021 and February 2022, around 16,000 S-Pass and Work Permit holders from the Construction, Marine and Process sectors entered Singapore each month. This is more than five times the monthly average of 3,000 between May and October 2021, when travel restrictions were in place.

While the Omicron variant has had an impact on firms, we are much better prepared this time around, after the difficult lessons we have learnt when the pandemic first struck. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully, because the sector is still under some stress.

Above all, the pandemic has reminded us how important it is for the sector to be resilient to shocks. The sector remains heavily dependent on migrant workers to take up manpower-intensive jobs at construction sites. So, we need to step up our transformation of the sector, which we started when we launched the Construction Industry Transformation Map in 2017.

Together with our industry partners, we are determined to make a decisive change in how we do things in the sector. We will push on to improve the quality of our construction workforce and shift more towards productive work processes.

To drive this transition, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Manpower had earlier outlined the changes that we are making to our foreign workforce policies.

First, we will remove the current Man-Year Entitlement (MYE) framework in 2024 and introduce a new levy framework that encourages off-site prefabrication work. This will make it easier for firms to hire workers for more productive and skilled work.

Second, we will reduce the Construction Dependency Ratio Ceiling, from 1:7 to 1:5. This means that firms will be able to hire fewer migrant workers per local worker.

Some might ask why we are making these changes when the industry is still recovering. But it is precisely our painful experience from the pandemic that has shown us why these changes are necessary. And as the sector recovers, we should seize this opportunity to fundamentally change how we design, build and maintain our city.

These foreign manpower moves should be looked at together with other efforts to raise productivity. For example, we have enhanced our buildability framework over the years to raise the standards for manpower-efficient designs and technologies. And from April this year, all larger buildings must be designed in ways that require less manpower to construct. This means that the industry should need fewer workers when the foreign workforce policies take effect from 2024.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Henry Kwek have asked how we will support firms to digitalise and adopt productive technologies, such as Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC).

Indeed, this continues to be a key priority. This year, to support firms and workers to be more productive, we will extend various schemes under the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF). My colleague, Minister of State Tan Kiat How, will elaborate on this later.

We will also push ahead with built environment sustainability to address climate change. During the Green Plan Joint Segment, I had spoken about the importance of greening our buildings. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked if we will do more to reduce emissions in existing buildings.

Today, more than half of our buildings that are more than 20 years old have not been retrofitted and they lag behind newer buildings in terms of energy performance. Retrofitting older buildings costs a lot more upfront and it may take several years to recoup this investment.

This is why we will provide $63 million in grants to help building owners undertake retrofits and achieve higher standards of energy efficiency and sustainability.

We will do this by significantly enhancing our Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings. The previous scheme supported retrofitting costs for more than 80 buildings and achieved more than 180 gigawatt hours in annual energy savings. This is equivalent to the annual energy consumption of close to 40,000 4-room flats.

Under the enhanced scheme, we will raise the minimum qualifying standard from Green Mark Gold to Green Mark Platinum and expand the scheme to include residential as well as light industrial buildings.

Building owners can choose the strategies and technologies that are most appropriate for their building. For example, they can upgrade the cooling system, install solar panels or redesign spaces for natural ventilation.

The grant amount will be based on the additional carbon abatement and Green Mark certification achieved, instead of the cost of works, as was used by the previous scheme. For example, a project that achieves zero-energy certification can receive up to $1.2 million under the enhanced scheme. You can apply for this scheme from the second quarter of this year.

We are also exploring whether to require building owners to conduct energy audits to improve the energy performance of their buildings. We will consult our industry partners on this before deciding. Together, these efforts will help to enhance the productivity, sustainability and resilience of our built environment sector.

Transformation is never easy, but it also creates many exciting growth opportunities and we look forward to working with the industry on this.

Let us turn to another important priority: transforming Singapore into a City in Nature. During the Joint Segment on the Green Plan, I spoke about the progress that we have made. Why are we striving to become a City in Nature?

We face intense land-use pressures, as a city state. We need to find space for all the things that a country needs, within the limits of our city-state – not just homes, community amenities, industries and offices, but also reservoirs, airports, seaports, military bases and all the other things that larger countries can site far outside their cities. And amid these intense pressures, we also want to conserve our natural heritage. It is a tough balancing act.

To do this, we take a science-based approach – to understand the ecological value of our green spaces and identify the most important ones to conserve. In some cases, this means retaining green spaces that were intended to be developed for other purposes. For example, we have retained the Rifle Range Nature Park and the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat, which were originally intended for housing and industry respectively, because they are important buffer zones for our core biodiversity habitats. These nature parks will be completed by mid-2026, along with Khatib Bongsu Nature Park.

Last year, we also launched the Ecological Profiling Exercise (EPE), in partnership with experts and members from the nature community. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked for an update on this. Based on the EPE’s findings, we are creating more ecological corridors between our core nature areas. For example, we have found that the forests at the western half of Ulu Pandan are richer in biodiversity than its eastern half. So, we will safeguard a sizeable nature park there.

We also found that the green networks around Toh Tuck, Maju and Clementi are important stepping stones between Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and the Southern Ridges. So, over the next few years, we will establish a Clementi Nature Corridor that runs through these green spaces, including the eventual nature park in western Ulu Pandan.

Beyond strengthening ecological connectivity, we also continue to expand our islandwide park connectivity networks, to give Singaporeans greater access to green spaces near their homes. Today, we have around 370 kilometres of park connectors – more than seven times the length of Singapore from east to west – and we keep adding more.

In January, we launched the eastern half of Phase 1 of the Round Island Route. Covering a total distance of 75 kilometres, this green connection makes the journey from Rower’s Bay to Berlayer Creek more seamless and accessible.

4.45 pm

Prof Koh Lian Pin asked what more we can do to involve Singaporeans in nature conservation.

This is an important point. Being a City in Nature is not just about our living environment. It is about who we are as a people – how we respect nature, take care of it, steward it responsibly.

We are encouraged by the strong support of our community partners.

Over 320,000 trees have been planted under the OneMillionTrees movement, involving over 30,000 members of the community. Many volunteers have also helped restore and enhance our green spaces, through the Friends of the Park initiative. And last December, through our City in Nature Conversations, we heard many thoughtful suggestions on how to advance our greening journey.

We invite Singaporeans to join us in realising our vision of a City in Nature and grow a greener, more liveable and sustainable home.

Besides stewarding our natural resources, we also want to safeguard our history and heritage. As we look to the future, we must also remember our past.

Our built heritage is important because it gives present and future generations a sense of place, identity and rootedness. Our built heritage has significant intangible value that we should safeguard.

Today, heritage conservation is an important consideration in our planning process. When evaluating development proposals, URA works closely with the National Heritage Board (NHB) to determine the conservation merit of our buildings, consult relevant stakeholders and calibrate how to balance conservation with development.

Despite our short nation-building history, our conservation efforts have achieved good success, with close to 7,200 heritage buildings gazetted for conservation.

Over the years, we have continued to refine our approach to safeguard our built heritage and expand our engagement efforts with the heritage community and key stakeholders.

For example, we formalised constructive working relationships with the heritage community by setting up public-private-people partnerships like the Heritage and Identity Partnership (HIP) and NHB's Heritage Advisory Panel (HAP). These partnerships allow us to tap on their expertise upstream at the planning and design stages of developments to optimise how we conserve and celebrate our built heritage.

We have been developing a structured framework to evaluate when and how additional heritage impact studies should be conducted as part of the planning process.

In 2018, URA, HDB and NHB commissioned NUS' Department of Architecture to pilot a large-scale detailed heritage study of the Old Police Academy.

The Old Police Academy played an important role in the professional development of Police officers from the 1920s until 2005. And since 2016, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), URA and HDB have been engaging the larger Police fraternity on how we could celebrate and sustain the heritage of the Old Police Academy. The heritage study report was also published for public feedback last year.

Members of the public who wrote in include a former trainee who shared his memories of the place. He suggested retaining certain roads and certain road names.

Taking into consideration the study findings and the feedback received, we plan to conserve six buildings, including four within the new housing estate. They will be meaningfully adapted for contemporary use. Part of the parade square will also be retained as an open space.

For buildings and spaces which cannot be retained in their entirety, we will explore how to sustain their heritage significance in the design of the new housing estate. HDB and SPF have also formed a dedicated workgroup chaired by Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim with Police and heritage stakeholders and have started to discuss how to celebrate the rich heritage of the Old Police Academy.

In response to Mr Xie Yao Quan, we are glad to announce that we will formally implement the structured heritage impact assessment, or HIA, framework.

Under this new framework, developing agencies for public projects that are likely to cause major impact to significant heritage sites will need to consult URA and NHB, to determine if a heritage study is required.

For sites that require an HIA, which is the most extensive of heritage studies that may be imposed, agencies will engage consultants to provide an additional and more detailed assessment on the significance of each heritage element and the recommended interventions. The HIA will complement URA and NHB's existing processes.

Findings will be shared, unless there are security or other concerns, and members of the public will be invited to give feedback. Heritage communities and other stakeholders will continue to be engaged throughout the process.

We expect such detailed and in-depth HIAs to only be necessary for larger-scale public development projects in areas of rich and complex heritage significance. For other projects, URA and NHB's existing processes remain adequate.

The implementation of the HIA framework marks an important milestone in the maturation of our heritage evaluation process and we will continue to refine this process along the way.

Keeping public housing affordable and accessible, transforming the built environment sector and growing Singapore into a City in Nature and safeguarding our built heritage – these are some of the key priorities that we are working on.

We have to do all these, while meeting the evolving needs and aspirations of Singaporeans, all within the confines of our small city state. This is a big challenge. There will be difficult trade-offs. But it is also due to tight constraints like these that the most creative and resourceful ideas are born.

As part of our Long-Term Plan Review, we are reaching out to Singaporeans from all walks of life, to hear their goals and dreams and aspirations for our future city. My colleague Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will give an update on this. We hope all Singaporeans will walk with us on this journey, as we build a better city, together. [Applause.]

The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mdm Chairman, I thank Mr Henry Kwek for highlighting the challenges facing MSO, our partner agencies and Town Councils.

Feedback on municipal issues has indeed significantly increased with the onset of COVID-19 as Singaporeans spend more time at home. This has spurred us to find new ways to work and to forge stronger partnerships with the public on issues which the Government alone cannot fully resolve.

MSO will work with our partners to make progress in three areas: increasing productivity of municipal services; improving processes for better user experience; and forging stronger community partnerships to holistically address complex neighbourhood issues.

Our key goal is to deliver resident-centric services in an efficient and seamless manner. The OneService app has been a useful platform to achieve this. It is, today, a one-stop neighbourhood platform with many functions, beyond reporting feedback.

Since its launch in 2015, our user base has increased 10-fold to more than 430,000 users. This is the result of MSO constantly enhancing the OneService app to meet residents' evolving needs.

For instance, to help residents plan around potential disamenities and inconveniences, residents can now refer to the "Happenings" feature for information on HDB-approved renovation works at their blocks and will soon be able to check the crowd levels at public libraries should they wish to find alternative locations to study or to work.

Residents can also access the "Book Facilities" feature to perform end-to-end contactless booking and payment for the use of common areas and facilities, such as multipurpose halls and void decks in their estates.

We are also finding ways to deliver better services with the pilot of integrated municipal operations in Tampines town and have commenced ground operations last month.

Next, I will speak about improving user experience, as mentioned by Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Every day, agencies and Town Councils receive over 4,000 cases of feedback on municipal issues. Most are straightforward cases that can be resolved within a week, but some complex cases can be long-drawn, especially where investigations or neighbours' cooperation are required.

Case owner agencies, currently, have the flexibility to decide how to close cases, be they straightforward or complex. MSO is working with our partners to improve the handling of municipal feedback, in terms of how they should close the feedback loop for the different types of cases.

For straightforward cases that involve only one agency and where concrete actions can be taken to fully resolve the case, agencies should close the feedback loop only upon complete resolution of the case.

For complex cases, agencies should close the feedback loop only after explaining to the feedback provider the actions taken or the intended action plan, as well as provide an estimated timeline.

We have implemented two corresponding changes in the OneService app.

First, photo evidence is provided upon resolution of straightforward cases. This initiative has been implemented since 2020 for feedback concerning public cleanliness and has since expanded to include other straightforward issues, such as the maintenance of common property in HDB estates, HDB car parks and commercial properties, and lights along covered walkways and footpaths.

Second, we have differentiated the status of cases since May 2021. Where, previously, all cases were labelled as "Closed" once the agency had responded to the feedback, now they are labelled as either "Resolved" or "Replied". With differentiated case status, residents have a more accurate understanding of the status of their case and can be assured that unresolved cases continue to be worked on.

We will also continue to make our OneService e-services more accessible by introducing them on more digital platforms. In the second half of the year, residents will be able to submit feedback using the LifeSG app, in addition to the OneService app. In time, more of our digital offerings will be available on LifeSG so that residents who are currently not users of the OneService app can also enjoy our e-services.

Together, we hope that tighter collaboration in the delivery of municipal services will bring greater convenience and satisfaction to residents.

Mr Dennis Tan asked for an update on new technical methods to lower the costs of the Lift Upgrading Programme, or LUP, for HDB flats without direct lift access.

Over the years, HDB has adopted innovative technical solutions, such as machine-room-less elevators and bubble lifts to provide direct lift access for such flats. More than 5,000 HDB blocks have thus benefited from LUP. There remains about 150 blocks where it is not possible to implement LUP due to prohibitive costs or existing technical and site constraints. We will continue to explore how to bring down LUP costs, as well as alternatives to LUP, such as powered stair climbers for wheelchair users. The Lift access Housing Grant is also available to help residents with urgent mobility or medical needs to move to another flat with direct lift access.

Several Members – Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about MSO's efforts to address neighbourhood disamenities that arise due to differences in social norms or behavioural issues, such as the cluttering of common spaces, high-rise littering, bird feeding and noise from neighbours, given that work-from-home will remain an option for many people in the longer term.

First, we are collaborating with the business community and the public to harness innovative ideas and bring practical solutions to residents.

Switch is one such company. We facilitated the "Switch for Community" initiative by the People's Association (PA), HDB and Switch, which offers affordably priced and conveniently located Switch work booths for residents whose attempts to study or work-from-home are affected temporarily by renovation works or other forms of noise.

I am happy that residents have found this initiative useful. Since its launch last December, over 100 individuals have used the work booths located at the Bukit Timah Community Club and Trivelis Residents' Network in Clementi. Due to demand, the operating hours of the work booths at Trivelis Residents' Network centre have also been extended to late evenings and the weekends. We will continue to monitor the outcomes of the pilot after a year and consider scaling it up if there is good demand.

5.00 pm

In the spirit of Singapore Together, PA and HDB will also be co-leading an Alliance for Action (AfA) to study practical solutions to better facilitate group-buy activities in HDB estates. Group-buy activities support small businesses and promote interaction among residents. But when large quantities of goods are delivered to an estate and redistributed to individual buyers, there could be inconveniences, such as cluttering of goods at the common corridor and blocking of passageways.

We would like to identify win-win solutions so that residents can continue to engage in group buying and support small businesses while minimising inconvenience to others. Members of the AfA will consist of stakeholders, such as group-buy hosts, grassroots leaders and potential solution providers from the private sector, to explore better ways of facilitating the delivery, storage and distribution of group-buy items, such as making use of HDB void decks.

Second, we will continue to focus on shaping positive social norms to mitigate neighbourhood disamenities due to human behaviour. This is an upstream measure and one of many that needs to be put in place to holistically address the management of community disputes, as explained by Minister Edwin Tong during MinLaw’s COS.

Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Lim Biow Chuan rightly highlighted that neighbourhood noise is a complex issue to resolve and can cause significant tension and unhappiness between neighbours. MSO and MCCY are exploring various ways to tackle this issue. As part of a holistic response, we intend to set up a Community Advisory Panel on Neighbourhood Noise to look at defining what is deemed as unacceptable noise disturbances, as well as what constitutes good civic norms that residents should observe, to reduce noise disturbances to their neighbours.

The Community Advisory Panel (CAP) will consist of representatives from the community who have the relevant experience and expertise in managing municipal issues. The "community norms" developed by the CAP will help neighbours to better communicate with one another, as well as serve as a useful "benchmark" and reference for our public advisories, and to facilitate mediation and decision-making at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal. We hope to establish CAP soon and for the panel to submit its recommendations by the end of the year.

MSO is also working with MCCY on how agencies would enforce against neighbourhood noise using these "community norms" as a reference and Minister Edwin Tong will share on this aspect during MCCY’s COS.

Miss Cheryl Chan also asked for an update on the "Help Neighbour" feature in the OneService app since its launch in last September. Thus far, "Help Neighbour" has referred 272 cases of seniors in need, rough sleepers, cardboard collectors and tissue sellers to the social agencies for targeted assistance – of which, about 50% were new cases unknown to the agencies. With this feature, concerned residents can directly connect persons-in-need to social agencies, without risking over-exposing them on social media. I thus encourage everyone to use "Help Neighbour".

I would now like to address Mr Xie Yao Quan’s query about HDB’s plans to keep our heartland shops vibrant and sustainable, amid the rise in online shopping and changing consumer habits. Our heartland shops must do well if our neighbourhoods are to remain vibrant and endearing. Beyond serving the day-to-day needs of residents, heartland shops reflect the distinctive character and identity of our neighbourhoods, provide spaces for residents to meet and interact and serve as a social glue for the community. Our heartlands can also be incubators for budding entrepreneurs and exciting new business ideas.

Since 2007, HDB co-funds physical upgrading works and promotional activities through the Revitalisation of Shops scheme to improve the shopping experience for our residents. HDB also partners Enterprise Singapore to encourage our heartland retailers to modernise their operations and embrace digitalisation.

To ensure our heartland shops stay relevant and vibrant, HDB and Enterprise Singapore are further engaging the public through the Heartland Shops Study to understand what Singaporeans value most in the heartlands. Since October last year, we have engaged over 2,400 residents, business owners and shop employees through surveys, interviews and focus group discussions.

I joined one of these public engagements earlier in February and was excited to hear ideas on how we can shape the heartland retail scene, while preserving its cultural and social value. Together with HDB, we will thus explore ways to better curate the trades at our neighbourhood centres, taking into consideration the attributes that residents and businesses have told us they value and also better support the digitalisation and business sustainability of these shops.

I encourage all Singaporeans to participate in the online survey for the Heartland Shops Study which is available on the REACH website until the end of this month. The findings from the study will help to shape and refine national programmes and plans to support our heartland merchants. We will follow up on participants’ feedback and partner Enterprise Singapore to rejuvenate our heartland spaces with new experiences as part of "Our Heartlands 2025", a new initiative announced by Minister of State Low Yen Ling during MTI’s COS.

Finally, I would like to provide an update on our public engagement exercise for the Long-Term Plan Review (LTPR), as enquired by Miss Cheryl Chan. We embarked on the review last year to refresh our long-term land use plans for the next 50 years and beyond. This is not a new exercise. We have conducted regular reviews of our long-term plans since the first Concept Plan in 1971. Key infrastructure outcomes of the 1971 Concept Plan include Changi Airport and our current MRT lines.

From July to September last year, URA engaged more than 5,800 Singaporeans through polls and workshops, to better understand Singaporeans’ values, hopes and concerns for the future. We found that Singaporeans aspire towards four key broad outcomes for Singapore.

First, a sustainable Singapore – a city where we can grow in an environmentally responsible way, especially in light of climate change. Minister Desmond Lee covered our sustainability efforts extensively earlier.

Second, an inclusive Singapore – a city where we can meet the diverse needs of our people and foster social cohesion and harmony. Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim will share more on how we are supporting our vulnerable citizens and forging community partnerships later.

Third, an adaptable and resilient Singapore – a city where we can adapt nimbly to disruptions and seize emerging opportunities. MSE colleagues yesterday provided an update of our efforts to build a more resilient Singapore, such as our coastal protection plans to combat rising sea levels, our development of weather-resilient water sources through desalination and the transformation of our used water network with the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System.

Fourth, a distinctive and endearing Singapore – a city that we are proud to call our home. Minister Desmond Lee shared earlier about how we will strengthen the character and identity of our city by safeguarding our built heritage.

Since October last year, we have followed up and facilitated in-depth discussions with more than 1,000 participants. We also tapped on discussion forums and webinars involving more than 7,000 participants. We discussed how we could achieve the four desired outcomes and how we should balance the trade-offs required. A wide range of ideas were raised. Some of them were quite imaginative, like using our canals and waterways as transport networks, or building floating or underground housing apartments to overcome our land constraints.

The public engagement is still ongoing and will culminate in an exhibition in the middle of this year. We encourage Singaporeans to continue contributing their ideas and views. While not all of them are feasible today, they are harbingers of the future possibilities we need to keep in mind. Given the greater uncertainties we face in the future, key focus areas of the LTPR would be strengthening the resilience, flexibility and inclusiveness of our long-term plans and strategies.

On public housing specifically, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Mr Louis Chua asked about expanding public rental housing to cater to more groups of Singaporeans. The Leader of the Opposition and Miss Rachel Ong also asked about housing access for singles and families with non-citizens.

Madam, a vibrant housing market exists. For the rental housing that HDB offers, our emphasis is on providing highly-subsidised rental flats to those who have no other housing options, such as those with financial difficulties, as well as first-timer families who have challenges renting from the market while waiting for their booked flats to be completed.

To Mr Louis Chua's suggestion of a Rent-To-Buy model, our Government already provides generous grants and subsidies to help most Singaporeans own either a BTO or resale flat directly. Rent-To-Buy arrangements may serve a purpose in societies where there are significant gaps between home ownership aspirations and affordability.

In Singapore, we design our public housing financing policy to minimise this gap. Flat buyers in Singapore, generally, require little or no cash outlay in servicing the payments for their flats as their mortgage loans can be paid using their CPF contributions, which leaves flexibility for them to pursue other aspirations and goals with their disposable income. Therefore, it is not clear how Rent-To-Buy is better for the aspiring Singapore home owner.

We have also been expanding housing options and grants over the years for households of singles and families with non-citizens. For instance, single buyers have access to housing grants and can buy smaller BTO units in non-mature estates. While our overall housing policy continues to support families, we, nevertheless, recognise the home ownership aspirations of singles and, particularly, the circumstances of singles who are also caregivers and seniors. We are very mindful of their concerns and will continue to study ways to assist them.

With limited land, we will have to consider the trade-offs and resources needed whenever we make policy changes. For instance, whenever we raise the income ceiling or liberalise eligibility criteria for public housing – for example, by lowering the age limit, demand will go up and we will need to make sure we have the land and the resources to meet such demand.

While our current priority is to catch up on the delays caused by the pandemic which Minister Desmond Lee has spoken about, we recognise that the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans are changing, including those who are single or have non-citizen spouses and will continue to study how best to extend more support to them as the situation stabilises.

As we carefully balance trade-offs and hedge against future uncertainties, innovation and human ingenuity offers opportunities for us to overcome our constraints. Minister Desmond Lee earlier spoke about enhancements to our Cities of Tomorrow (CoT) R&D programme to fulfil our vision of a more sustainable, liveable and resilient Singapore. The research efforts under the CoT programme also allow us to tap on advancements in big-data analytics and social science research to aid our urban planning and design.

In July last year, HDB completed a research project, in collaboration with Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), using data analytics and behavioural studies to look at how to foster the "kampung spirit" in our heartlands. One of the findings was the importance of visual connectivity and the development of a social hub to promote neighbourly interactions. This led HDB to develop a new model of "raised" multi-storey carparks, where the carpark levels are lifted to introduce a porous space on the ground floor where residents from surrounding blocks can interact and gather for social activities. Mdm Chairman, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singaporeans are spending more time at home since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, feedback on municipal issues has significantly increased in the last two years. Among these, neighbourhood issues, such as noise from neighbours, cluttering of common spaces, high-rise littering and bird feeding, are more difficult to resolve.

MSO will work with Government agencies, residents and communities to collectively address these neighbourhood issues and maintain a pleasant living environment, in two ways.

First, we are collaborating with the business community and the public to harness innovative ideas and bring practical solutions to residents.

For example, we piloted the “Switch for Community” initiative in Bukit Timah which offers affordably priced and conveniently located Switch work booths for residents whose attempts to study or work from home are affected by noise concerns. The pilot will last for a year, after which we will consider scaling it up to other areas.

PA and HDB will also be co-leading an Alliance for Action (AfA) to study practical solutions to better facilitate group-buy activities in HDB estates. Group-buy activities are getting more popular these days, supporting small businesses and promoting interaction among residents. However, it can also cause inconveniences to some residents, such as cluttering of goods at the common corridor and blocking of passageways. The AfA will invite stakeholders, such as group-buy hosts, grassroots leaders and private companies, to identify better solutions together.

Second, as an upstream measure, we will continue to focus on shaping positive social norms to mitigate neighbourhood disamenities due to human behaviour.

In this regard, MSO and MCCY will set up a Community Advisory Panel (CAP) on Neighbourhood Noise.

The CAP will consist of representatives from the community who have the relevant experience and expertise in managing municipal issues. We hope to establish CAP soon and invite the public to jointly discuss and develop a set of “community norms” regarding neighbourhood noise. For example, defining what is deemed as unacceptable or uncivil behaviour, as well as what residents should do to reduce noise disturbances to their neighbours.

The “community norms” developed by CAP will facilitate mediation and decision-making at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal, as well as serve as a useful reference for our public advisories.

Let us work together to create a better living environment for all.

(In English): We will continue to work closely with our partners to maintain high service standards. To emerge stronger as a society, we need residents and communities to work together towards our shared goal of a better living environment for all.

The Chairman: Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim.

The Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mdm Chair, the fight against COVID-19 has been long and hard. But the past two years have also shown us that Singaporeans share common aspirations for a caring and inclusive society and want to contribute to making Singapore a better home for all.

Today, I will share more about our efforts to support different groups of citizens, especially those who may require more assistance, and create vibrant places in partnership with the community.

First, on those staying in public rental flats. Some Singaporeans face more challenges than others in life. For those who are lower-income or more vulnerable, providing highly subsidised rental housing is an important first step. With shelter, they have a safe space to come home to, a stable foundation upon which they can regroup and stabilise.

Mr Louis Ng spoke about giving more assurance to single unwed parents. We understand the anxiety that families may face when their housing arrangements are uncertain.

Generally, single unwed parents can receive the outcome of their rental flat applications within three weeks of submitting all required information, although more time may be required for complex cases. All rental flat applicants may contact HDB at any point for updates on their applications. HDB will also prioritise flat allocations for those with urgent housing needs as far as possible.

Beyond housing, those in public rental may also be grappling with other challenges: health issues, family conflict, employment troubles and more. So, public rental housing is not just a shelter; it is a home that comes with social support, to help our rental tenants bounce back stronger.

For example, under Community Link, or ComLink, HDB and many other agencies work together to support families with children living in public rental housing.

ComLink is a flagship project led by MSF and it is being scaled up nationwide to cover some 14,000 families over the next few years.

ComLink proactively reaches out to families to understand their unique challenges and aspirations, provides close case support through befriending and action planning, and works with community partners and volunteers to offer customised programmes and services that meet families' needs.

Through ComLink, we hope to empower families to regain stability, become self-reliant and, eventually, achieve social mobility.

On Mr Chong Kee Hiong's concerns regarding larger families in public rental flats, families may request for a 2-room flat if there are three or more persons. Multi-generation families that can form two family units may also apply for two flats and HDB will try to ensure that both flats are located near each other.

We also work closely with MSF and Family Service Centres at selected ComLink sites to offer 3-room rental flats, coupled with social support, to larger families with children. With a limited supply of 3-room flats, however, we are only able to offer them to a small number of families on a case-by-case basis.

Like Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, we hope to help rental tenants achieve their aspirations to own their homes.

HDB has a dedicated team of officers, the Home ownership Support Team, who will guide rental tenants on their journey towards home ownership. Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked how families will be identified. The Home ownership Support Team estimates the housing budget of households, based on their income and CPF information that they last shared with HDB. These officers then provide one-to-one guidance. They help families make sense of available housing schemes and grants, provide practical tips and advice, and walk families through the processes of buying a flat.

Over the past two years, the team has successfully helped about 110 households own their own homes and another 230 should be ready to apply for a flat in the next one to two years.

Families can also benefit from generous housing grants when they purchase a flat. For example, first-timers can tap on the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant and receive up to $80,000, on top of already subsidised flat prices, if they purchase a new flat. Second-timers can tap on the $15,000 Step-Up CPF Housing Grant.

We are also enhancing the Fresh Start Housing Scheme this year, as Minister Desmond Lee shared earlier, to help second-timer families with young children in public rental to own a home again.

These grants ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible, especially to lower-income families.

Owning a home is an achievable goal. Between 2019 and 2021, over 2,200 rental households have moved into flats of their own. Another 2,200 or so households have also booked a flat and are waiting for their new homes to be ready.

I encourage all rental families to aspire and work towards home ownership. The Government and community will support and complement your efforts, as you work towards better lives for yourselves and your loved ones.

For low-income singles under the Joint Singles Scheme, or JSS, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Chong Kee Hiong spoke about the unique challenges they face when it comes to finding or getting along with their flatmates. We understand these concerns and are continually exploring ways to address them.

Last year, I shared that HDB will pilot the JSS Operator-Run model. Under this model, singles can apply for public rental without finding a flatmate first and an appointed social service agency will manage the flats and flat-sharing arrangements.

I am happy to update that the pilot has started and is progressing well. We currently have two sites, in Bedok North and Buangkok Crescent, which are managed by Good News Community Services.

HDB started accepting applications last December. So far, about 90 tenants have confirmed their tenancy and some have already moved in with the flatmates whom they were matched with.

I visited the site at Bedok North recently and was encouraged to see that tenants were, generally, able to get along.

I also spoke with the operator, who plays a critical role in this model. They help tenants adjust to living together, address other challenges that tenants might face and foster a living environment that is comfortable and supportive.

Plans are underway for a third site in Bukit Batok and we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this model, to see how it can be improved to better meet the needs of singles.

Next, on supporting our rapidly ageing population. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about our efforts to help seniors age in place, including our plans to provide assisted living options.

As Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Yip Hon Weng mentioned, this is something that the PAP Seniors Group also cares about. I thank Members for their strong interest and support on this.

We understand that many seniors prefer to age in environments they are familiar with, surrounded by family and neighbours they can depend on. So, we have made extra efforts to provide senior-friendly homes and estates.

Within homes, seniors can tap on HDB's Enhancement for Active Seniors programme, or EASE, to install senior-friendly features for mobility and comfort. These features include grab bars, mobility ramps for wheelchair users and slip-resistant treatment to toilet floor tiles. There has been strong demand and over 250,000 households have benefited from EASE so far. Together with other agencies, we will continue to refine the enhancements offered under EASE, to help seniors age independently in their own homes.

At the town level, our physical infrastructure also offers an inclusive and user-friendly living environment for all ages. We have features like gentle-sloping ramps for barrier-free accessibility, and pictograms on directional signages to aid wayfinding.

Earlier this year, we also formed a pilot community partnership in Boon Lay, called "Our Accessible City @ Boon Lay Neighbourhood". Together with the local community, including seniors and persons with disabilities, we will study how to address accessibility gaps in the HDB heartlands. We also intend to form a similar partnership in Nee Soon Central later on.

Beyond infrastructural features, we work with agencies to provide amenities and services in HDB towns so that seniors can meet their needs easily. For example, at the integrated developments at Kampung Admiralty and Yew Tee, senior-friendly housing is co-located conveniently with healthcare, commercial and community facilities under one roof.

In each HDB estate, HDB also sets aside spaces for social service agencies to offer services to residents onsite. Depending on residents' demographic profile and needs, these services could include home and day care services or befriending services, which provide support for seniors to age in place.

We want to offer a spectrum of housing options to meet the aspirations of seniors to age autonomously and gracefully in place. In particular, we want to meet the aspirations of our senior population for assisted living housing typologies that integrate housing and care services together. Hence, MND, HDB and MOH worked together to develop the Community Care Apartments (CCA).

5.30 pm

CCA is a new public housing typology. Affordably priced, it combines senior-friendly housing with care services that can be customised according to seniors’ needs. It also offers communal spaces and social programming for seniors to interact and stay engaged with the community. The first pilot we launched last year in Bukit Batok was very well-received, with an application rate of 4.2 applicants per unit. So far, over 90% of the units offered have been booked.

To meet the demand for assisted living, we will launch a second CCA pilot this year in Queenstown. About 200 CCA units will be offered and the project will also include other flat types. There will also be common facilities, such as roof gardens, fitness stations and community living rooms, to promote social interactions among all residents.

This second site is situated within the Health District at Queenstown, where HDB, NUS, healthcare partners like NUHS and local grassroots organisations are piloting new strategies to create a built environment that promotes a healthy lifestyle and active and healthy ageing. Queenstown also has the Alexandra Hospital, which will allow medical and healthcare services to be seamlessly incorporated into the care model for residents. HDB will share more specific site details later this year.

We will also launch a site at Parry Avenue for sale by public tender later this year, for a private assisted living facility, to give seniors even more assisted living options. The facility may accommodate about 300 to 400 seniors. I invite prospective tenderers to propose innovative assisted living models to help our seniors age gracefully within the community. We look forward to partnering the private sector to co-create new assisted living housing products that will further enhance the quality of life for our ageing population.

Beyond seniors, other segments of our population also have diverse needs and aspirations. For example, Mr Louis Ng asked about catering more lactation rooms in buildings to better support working mothers. The Code on Accessibility which buildings have to meet, by default, includes a requirement to provide lactation rooms. Only certain types of buildings, like offices, are currently not required to provide lactation rooms if they are below a certain size, in consideration of practical space limitations. Nonetheless, the Government encourages building owners and occupants to go beyond the requirements of the Code to cater to the needs of building users. Building owners can tap on co-funding under BCA's Accessibility Fund to undertake voluntary upgrading to provide accessibility and inclusive features like lactation rooms.

Finally, on working with community stakeholders to rejuvenate heritage precincts in Singapore, which Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about.

Our heritage precincts were impacted by COVID-19. For instance, businesses suffered when footfall fell, due to border closures and other safe management measures. To rejuvenate these heritage precincts, the Government takes a participatory approach on the ground – to actively engage and respond to local communities and find a more resilient and sustainable way forward. This includes working with stakeholders to mitigate gentrification risks and allow older tenants and newer stallholders to exist alongside each other in a seamless and complementary way.

In Kampong Gelam specifically, local businesses, institutions, landlords and residents had come together to form the Kampong Gelam Alliance, or KGA, to collectively look into various long-term issues concerning the area. To encourage greater interest in the rich heritage that Kampong Gelam offers, the alliance recently worked with URA, LTA and students from LASALLE College of the Arts to put up posters detailing Kampong Gelam’s storied history around Bugis MRT Station.

I have taken on the role as advisor to this alliance and will work closely with existing and new community stakeholders to support their efforts for the area. Together, we hope to preserve the heritage that makes Kampong Gelam distinctive and, at the same time, refresh it so that it remains relevant for future generations. I also invite Singaporeans to share your visions for Kampong Gelam when KGA engages the community and public later this year. Your ideas will guide our efforts to keep Kampong Gelam alive as a centre of community, culture, heritage and enterprise.

Through partnership platforms like the pilot Business Improvement District programme, URA also works closely with local stakeholders to transform other neighbourhoods into vibrant and attractive destinations. They are making good progress and we will continue to collaborate with private sector and community partners to enliven neighbourhoods across Singapore. Mdm Chairperson, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last week, Mr Faisal Manap spoke about Malay families living in public rental flats.

We understand that families in public rental have the same aspirations as other families. They want a home where they hope to build a bright future for their families. But many of them are also dealing with multiple challenges, such as health issues, family conflict and employment.

So, in public rental housing, the Government gives them both a physical home as well as social support.

We take a holistic and coordinated approach to uplift families in rental flats.

Through initiatives like ComLink and Project DIAN, HDB works closely with other social agencies and community partners to identify families’ needs and provide the support they need to achieve self-reliance.

When families are ready to own a home of their own, they will also receive the help they need.

We are ramping up our public housing supply to provide more affordable housing options for Singaporeans, including those from the Malay community.

Today, families can receive personalised guidance from HDB’s Home ownership Support Team, that is, HST, who will advise them on their housing options and guide them through the flat purchase process.

Families can also benefit from significant housing subsidies and grants, such as the CPF Housing Grant and Step-Up CPF Housing Grant.

Between 2017 and 2021, over 1,800 Malay rental households progressed to home ownership. This is more than double the number in the previous five years.

This year, we will do more. As Minister Desmond Lee mentioned earlier, we will enhance the Fresh Start Housing Scheme, which is for second-timer families with children in public rental. We will increase the grant amount from $35,000 to $50,000. We will also expand the scheme to include the purchase of 3-room flats with shorter leases. We hope these enhancements will make it easier for rental families to have a better living environment for their loved ones.

If you would like to find out more about how you can work towards home ownership, HDB will be happy to assist.

Let me also share a bit about our plans for Kampong Gelam. Kampong Gelam is an important area to the Malay/Muslim and wider Singapore community. So, we want to work hand in hand with the local stakeholders and other citizens, to keep it vibrant and preserve its culture and heritage.

I recently took on the role as advisor to the Kampong Gelam Alliance, that is, KGA, which unites local stakeholders, such as businesses, residents and institutions. Together, we will work closely to address local issues and ensure that Kampong Gelam continues to be a place that we hold dear.

I also invite Singaporeans to share your ideas with us at an engagement session organised by KGA later this year.

(In English): Mdm Chairperson, to conclude, let me reassure everyone that we are committed to supporting vulnerable citizens, meeting the diverse needs of all Singaporeans, and creating vibrant and endearing spaces. And we will do so in close partnership with citizens and the community, to make sure that Singapore continues to be a place that all of us can truly call home.

The Chairman: Minister of State Tan Kiat How.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mdm Chairman, I will speak on how we will accelerate our transformation plans for the built environment (BE) sector.

Over the past two years, COVID-19 has posed significant challenges for the BE sector, as shared by Mr Henry Kwek and others before him. The Government has provided substantial support to help the sector tide over this pandemic. This includes the $1.36 billion Construction Support Package, the Jobs Support Scheme, Foreign Worker Levy waivers and rebates, and legislative relief under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (COTMA).

The support has been made available to all our construction firms, including sub-contractors. The Government has also recently announced the extension of the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme (TBLP) and the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Project Loan to support firms’ cash flow needs.

Notwithstanding the support available to contractors, we understand that some Town Councils are facing higher tender prices, as raised by Mr Gerald Giam. This issue was also raised by Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Ng Ling Ling last year.

Mr Giam suggested that HDB temporarily increase its Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) grants. Upgrading projects, such as the NRP, remain important to rejuvenate older HDB estates to benefit our residents. As I shared with Ms Tin then, our overall fiscal situation remains tight and I encourage Town Councils to start by reviewing the scope of your projects and reduce upgrading items if possible. Nonetheless, we are in regular discussions with all Town Councils and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Mr Giam also suggested that HDB provides materials price protection for contractors of town improvement projects. HDB does provide such price protection for its BTO contractors. This includes offering contractors the option of guaranteed protection against steel price fluctuations, where HDB will pay their contractors, if the price of steel exceeds the price that is protected by HDB.

Another example is stipulating a fixed quantity of concreting material that HDB will supply at the point of tender closure. However, the contracts for town improvement projects are between Town Councils and their own contractors, and it is up to each Town Council to decide whether to adopt this approach. HDB understands that Town Councils, generally, do not do so as their projects are not as complex or as extensive as BTO projects.

Mr Giam also suggested that MND explores measures to strengthen confidence within the construction sector and for parties to better manage risk. We have been doing so and the public sector is taking the lead.

5.45 pm

Last November, we amended the Public Sector Standard Conditions Of Contract, or PSSCOC, to reduce the need for our contractors to buffer in additional cost in their tender bids.

First, we made clear the grounds for the Extension of Time caused by pandemics. Second, we included provisions for parties to co-share equally the relevant cost increases incurred due to pandemics – such as labour, plant and equipment, materials or goods and site overhead costs. Third, BCA has also worked with Government Procuring Entities (GPEs) to provide a provisional sum for anticipated cost items during the pandemic, such as swab tests, in their new tenders. With this, contractors need not price these costs into their tender bids. These practices minimise the need for contractors to buffer significant additional cost in their bids to cater for uncertainty.

Mr Henry Kwek asked about the inflow of foreign manpower for the sector. He also asked how the Government can continue to work with our trade associations to support the sector.

The Government has worked closely with the industry to facilitate the inflow of migrant workers. Our industry partners, including trade associations like the Singapore Contractors Association Limited or SCAL, spearheaded efforts to implement a tightened end-to-end process to bring in migrant workers in a safe manner. Workers can also enter Singapore via MOM's Work Pass Holder General Lane.

While this arrangement has served the industry well, there is scope to streamline the entry requirements as the COVID-19 situation improves.

That is why we have recently announced that the entry requirements for vaccinated new Work Permit holders in the Construction, Marine shipyard and Process, or CMP, sectors will be streamlined with effect from 13 March 2022. The streamlined process will help the CMP sectors accelerate the entry of necessary workers for ongoing projects, alleviate the labour shortage while building greater resilience in the workforce.

At the same time, we must accelerate our push for transformation.

We started this journey back in 2017 and have worked with stakeholders to put together the Construction Industry Transformation Map or ITM. There are three key outcomes: achieving automation through Design for Manufacturing and Assembly or DfMA; enhancing digitalisation through Integrated Digital Delivery or IDD; and promoting sustainability through green buildings.

Through DfMA, we are moving construction work off-site into a controlled factory environment, where building modules are prefabricated before assembly onsite, achieving higher labour productivity and safer worksites. We have been pushing for DfMA adoption in the industry over the years. In 2021, around 44% of building projects by gross floor area (GFA) adopted DfMA and we remain on track to meet our target of 70% by 2025.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong spoke about raising the adoption of Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC), which is a form of DfMA. It is well suited for residential and hotel developments.

Our PPVC adoption rate is, currently, about 20% by GFA. The cost premium for PPVC, compared to the traditional construction methods, has decreased from 10% to 15% in 2015 to 7% to 8% in 2019. It has remained at around this level during the pandemic. This is because while labour costs have risen, the cost of imported PPVC materials has also risen.

We will continue to encourage PPVC adoption through the Government Land Sales (GLS) programme. For instance, we require PPVC adoption for suitable residential and hotel GLS sites, including HDB executive condominium developments.

We are also putting in place greater modularisation and standardisation requirements under the Buildability Framework to lower costs.

However, PPVC may not be suitable for all developments, especially developments with site constraints or smaller developments without economies of scale. But let me reassure the Member that we will continue to push for the wider adoption of DfMA, including PPVC, wherever possible.

Another focus area is IDD. Through IDD, stakeholders across the building lifecycle from upstream design to downstream facilities management can collaborate more seamlessly through digital platforms. This digitalisation improves the accuracy of design and planning and reduces abortive work in construction and maintenance.

We have raised IDD adoption by GFA from 20% to 34% in the past year alone and continue to make good progress towards our target of 70% by 2025. And we have greened more than 49% of our buildings by GFA under the Singapore Green Building Masterplan.

Mdm Chairman, we have made steady progress over the years. But we will need to accelerate our transformation efforts in light of the lessons learnt from COVID-19. At the same time, the operating environment for the built environment sector is rapidly changing.

Against this backdrop, we have begun refreshing our transformation plans under the Future Economy Council (FEC) Urban Systems (US) Cluster Sub-Committee. Co-chaired by Mr Liam Wee Sin from UOL Group Limited and myself, we have been engaging stakeholders across the sector – developers, builders, consultants, contractors and facilities managers. We will share more details later this year.

However, to kickstart the next bound of transformation, we encourage our built environment firms to tap on various incentive schemes in making the transition.

First, we will extend the Productivity Innovation Project (PIP) scheme until March 2024. PIP has helped many firms, including SMEs, adopt DfMA and IDD technologies that have made construction work more productive. Under PIP, firms can benefit from support of up to 70% of the cost of adopting solutions like DfMA and IDD technologies.

Second, we will extend the iBuildSG Scholarship and Sponsorship scheme until March 2023. This scheme has been very helpful in enabling our built environment firms to attract young talents. Since 2010, the scheme has supported more than 3,700 Singaporeans with the costs of their studies and to pursue careers in the sector.

Firms can also continue to apply for the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG), which co-funds up to 70% of the cost of adopting off-the-shelf digital solutions.

Taken together, these Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) schemes will support firms to transform and build the pipeline of local talent and be better prepared for the foreign manpower tightening moves that would be implemented in 2024.

In addition to transforming the way we build, we need to change the way we maintain our buildings through facilities management (FM).

By 2025, more than 50% of our buildings will be above 30 years old. Given the twin pressures of ageing buildings and rising manpower costs, we will need to press on with our efforts to transform the FM industry.

Miss Cheryl Chan asked what steps we will take to accelerate the FM transformation. We agree with Miss Cheryl Chan that there is a need to do more to encourage the adoption of new technologies. In particular, FM firms can harness efficiencies from managing different FM services on an integrated platform and aggregating FM services across many different buildings.

I recently visited CBRE, a firm that provides FM services to office buildings, industrial spaces and laboratories. Through its integrated Vantage Analytics platform, CBRE is able to virtually manage its entire portfolio of buildings for its full suite of FM services, including security, cleaning and energy management.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

CBRE's services have helped its clients, including public sector agencies, attain significant cost savings. For instance, CBRE has worked with JTC to achieve up to 15% operational cost savings in the maintenance of its buildings, including Space@Tuas and JTC Chemicals Hub.

This is what we call integrated and aggregated FM.

Both service buyers and providers play key roles in the adoption of advanced technologies, as a part of integrated and aggregated FM. This includes smart FM technologies that enable predictive maintenance and investing in the infrastructure for data and analytics, as both Ms Tin Pei Ling and Miss Cheryl Chan had pointed out.

And we also agree with Miss Cheryl Chan that service buyers, including our Town Councils, should look at adopting outcome-based contracts that can facilitate advanced technologies. At the same time, service providers will need to level up their capabilities.

That said, the adoption of integrated and aggregated FM remains nascent, especially for existing buildings, given the high retrofitting costs.

To encourage building owners and the FM industry to adopt these good practices, we will introduce a new $30 million grant, which will co-fund up to 70% of the initial capital investment and retrofitting costs for integrated and aggregated FM. We plan to fund around 10 to 15 projects across different building typologies. This will establish the business case for wider adoption.

To qualify for funding support, building owners will need to work with FM firms to install smart infrastructure, such as sensors and intelligent building management systems and rework their procurement practices and processes, to integrate at least three FM services for at least three buildings in their portfolio.

The grant will be available for a period of three years from the second half of this year. I seek the strong support of our building owners and FM firms to explore integrated and aggregated FM for your operations.

In addition, we will continue to leverage R&D to push the boundaries for automation, digitalisation and sustainability through innovation.

Since the launch of the Cities of Tomorrow (CoT) programme in 2017, we have supported a wide range of R&D efforts for the built environment sector. We will further invest $46 million to support innovations for advanced construction and FM.

These innovations include customisable robotic systems for on-site assembly and off-site construction, and building designs that facilitate the use of robotic solutions. We are also investing in next-generation construction techniques and technologies, such as 3D concrete printing (3D CP), to complement the adoption of robotics in raising productivity.

Chairman, I have detailed how we will transform the built environment sector to be more manpower-lean and resilient. But we will need to complement these efforts with a resolute focus on jobs.

Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Cheng Hsing Yao had asked how we would attract more Singaporeans to join this sector. Our ongoing transformation efforts have helped us to create good jobs for locals in the areas of DfMA engineering and digital delivery.

I recently met Mr Teh Ming Xuan, a planning engineer working for Kimly Construction whose studies were supported by a joint iBuildSG scholarship between BCA and Kimly. Through an internship with Kimly, Ming Xuan became interested in how construction can be radically transformed via DfMA and IDD. He now provides technical support in these areas, working on the implementation of digital platforms and prefabrication to raise construction productivity. He also contributes to Kimly's R&D efforts in advanced robotics and automation and actively explores how new innovations can be deployed for Kimly's projects.

In addition to the iBuildSG Scholarship and Sponsorship scheme, we have put in place a multi-pronged approach to attract and upskill talent.

First, we will continue to work closely with our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to engage our students on built environment careers through the iBuildSG Club. We are also working with IHLs to incorporate emerging skillsets in DfMA, IDD and green buildings into their curriculum.

And we will undertake further initiatives to better retain our Polytechnic and ITE graduates. We will partner our IHLs to put in place more work-study programmes and provide meaningful internships for our students.

Second, we will support our mid-career entrants through putting together more Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs), which provide on-the-job training to help our mid-career entrants pick up new skills more quickly.

6.00 pm

For instance, we have managed to train 94 individuals as Building Information Modelling (BIM) modellers in the past three years.

Third, we will continue to work closely with trade associations on accreditation schemes to raise standards within the BE sector and encourage more firms to adopt the Built Environment Skills Framework. For example, I recently met Boustead Projects, a firm that has actively invested in training its employees to keep pace with industry transformation.

Over the years, Boustead has leveraged BIM to deliver quality construction projects, through digital visualisation of building designs, documentation and cost estimation. This has allowed Boustead to develop its own in-house training programmes to train its employees in these skillsets. In fact, Boustead has curated training programmes, in partnership with NTUC Learning Hub, BCA Academy and IHLs as a SkillsFuture Queen Bee, for employees of SMEs across the BE sector.

As we embark on the next bound of industry transformation, we will also need to update our existing initiatives. This is why we are embarking on a Jobs Transformation Map (JTM) study for the BE sector. Many of our existing schemes adopt a broad-based approach to workforce development. But there is a need to be more targeted in our approach and tailor our initiatives to grow in-demand jobs for the next bound of industry transformation.

In this regard, the JTM will examine the combined effects of COVID-19 and industry transformation and chart out targeted interventions for specific roles. We aim to conclude the JTM in the second half of this year and will work with our IHLs, trade associations and firms to implement the recommendations. Mdm Chairman, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Over the past two years, COVID-19 has posed significant challenges for the BE sector, such as the increase in construction costs, supply chain disruptions and manpower shortages. The Government has provided comprehensive support to help the sector tide over the pandemic. With the support provided, and the resilience and actions of our industry partners, we continue to see signs of recovery from COVID-19 for the BE sector. Construction output has recovered to close to pre-COVID-19 levels. That said, the Government continues to monitor the situation carefully and could introduce further support measures if necessary.

Above all, the pandemic has reminded us how important it is for the sector to be resilient to shocks. We will need to accelerate our push for transformation. In particular, we will need to become more productive and reduce our heavy dependence on migrant workers. In this regard, the Government will continue to support our firms on this journey. We will extend various schemes under the Construction Productivity and Capability Fund. To address climate change, we will make available $63 million in grants to retrofit existing buildings to achieve higher sustainability standards. We will launch a new $30 million grant to transform the Facilities Management industry and accelerate the adoption of advanced technologies.

I encourage firms to make full use of our schemes. If we work together, we can create a resilient, sustainable and liveable built environment.

(In English): Across our collective efforts to transform the BE sector, the Government will take the lead through our public sector projects. We also remain committed to working hand in hand with our industry partners on charting the path ahead in the new normal. Together, we can create a future-ready built environment and emerge stronger from COVID-19.

Let me now address some other cuts.

Mr Gerald Giam had asked about our efforts to manage bird pest issues in housing estates.

NParks will continue to work with Town Councils, including Aljunied-Hougang Town Councils, to manage the population of pest birds in residential areas through measures such as habitat modification and food source reduction. NParks is also carrying out research to understand the ecology of birds, including how their reproductive biology and factors, such as food availability, can affect their population. And NParks has been sharing best practices with our Town Councils. In fact, on 24 February 2021 and 17 August 2021, NParks briefed all Town Councils on some of the best practices and findings and held a dedicated session for Aljunied-Hougang Town Council on 18 May 2021.

That said, trapping birds and moving them to another location, as suggested by Mr Gerald Giam, is not a feasible approach. We will be transferring the problem to another group of residents. A more sustainable approach will be keeping our public and common areas clean and free of food waste. In this regard, we will need the assistance of all our Town Councils and the public.

Mr Louis Ng had also raised the issue of cat ownership in HDB flats. As part of our broader efforts to improve standards in the pet sector, we have been engaging stakeholders on a range of issues, such as improving dog rehoming and adoption processes, raising standards of pet boarders and breeders. And we are reviewing and will continue to review pet ownership policies to ensure that they balance the needs of different segments of the community, including pet lovers and those who might have concerns about disamenities that may arise.

We are considering this issue from various angles, including enhancing our strategies for the management of both pet cats and stray cats, to effectively manage the overall population of cats in Singapore. I would like to assure the Member Mr Louis Ng that we will continue to work with stakeholders to study this issue carefully.

The Chairman: Ms Joan Pereira.

Ms Joan Pereira: Thank you, Chairman. I have a clarification for the Senior Minister of State. The issue I highlighted for MND's consideration is not really one between neighbours. Rather, the issue is disamenities caused mostly by non-residents and we know they are non-residents because we patrol the sky gardens or roof gardens nightly. I note that a committee looking into disputes will be formed and I hope that the gating proposal that I made can be seriously considered, studied and, hopefully, implemented.

Ms Sim Ann: I thank Ms Joan Pereira for her clarification. HDB has been working together with Ms Joan Pereira and her team on the management of the sky gardens that she has talked about. And one of the considerations is the importance of keeping our HDB estates open in terms of their nature. I am also glad to update that we have been working, not just with HDB, but also with other agencies like MOM and NEA, in doing joint operations to manage against safe distancing or safe management measure violations at these sky gardens. My understanding is that the situation has come under control. We understand where Ms Joan Pereira is coming from and will continue to work with her to look for sustainable solutions.

The Chairman: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Chairman. I thank the Minister for responding to some of my cuts. Just a few clarifications.

First on the priority schemes. I note that the current information provided by HDB does not detail whether the respective priority schemes have been fully allocated for a typical BTO exercise. And to that extent, for example, it is difficult to assess whether the current 30% threshold of priority for married couples with children is at the appropriate level, particularly given the recent demand in public housing.

Can the Minister share, for example, for marriage or priority scheme, whether HDB believes that threshold can be raised? But more importantly, does it suggest from HDB's data that, for the more recent BTO exercises, this rise is actually warranted? We recently heard feedback from residents, as I am sure Minister would also have received from newly married couples and couples with children that they are repeatedly unsuccessful in their BTO applications. So, I think that clarity would be quite helpful.

The second clarification pertains to EIP. I welcome the announcement of the buyback option for EIP-constrained households, so as to make things fairer for Singaporeans. But I note that this position that was announced today was actually the original last resort solution that was put out by then MND Minister, Mr S Dhanabalan, when he introduced the policy in the late 1980s. Can I confirm if HDB had applied this last resort earlier and, if not, why had it not applied it earlier, because the Minister in the late 1980s already said that this was a last resort option to buy the property from the affected EIP household?

Actually, I had asked a written question in July about how many times HDB had purchased an EIP-constrained flat and the reply actually was specific to voluntarily surrendered flats. That was the reply that the Ministry gave. So, I am not sure whether it was an answer to the same thing, whether the flat was actually purchased by HDB in the first instance, as HDB would have committed to do if there were EIP-related constraints, or whether it had not purchased any EIP-affected flat previously. So, has this actually been done before, because the policy was already announced earlier?

My third point relates to EIP data. I acknowledge the Minister's point about the difficulty in coming up with a map which is consistent over time. I asked the question because of the previous EIP-related question I filed. The Ministry actually provided the five-yearly interval data. So, naturally, I asked whether that data could be further clarified in those five-yearly intervals, but I note the Minister's point.

Finally, I believe my cut on singles and whether HDB would consider reducing the eligibility age for singles to buy a 2-room BTO Flexi Flat or a resale flat could be reconsidered.

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for sharing his immediate reaction to the change to EIP where we will introduce the buyback to support EIP-constrained families on a case-by-case basis. But let me first talk about the priority schemes.

I said in the speech that we provide data for individual BTO launches. So, let us, say, we launch in a particular area, like Tengah. Each BTO launch, we put out a couple of locations and we say what kinds of housing typologies are available in each location and we specify the application rates for each project, at each launch on a daily basis. That will, in our view, give potential home buyers the most practical and meaningful data that they will then be able to use in determining whether to make an application for that flat in that location or not.

So, we provide that data, not only for the location, but for each housing typology. We think that the data we put out needs to be practical and meaningful for flat buyers. And the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that he, anecdotally, hears of cases of people who cannot get flats. We have said that virtually all who apply as first-timers for non-mature estate BTO flats, virtually all, on the third try, should be able to get their flat.

Of course, those who apply for balance flats or flats in mature estates, particularly where the attributes are very attractive, demand will, naturally, be high across all the possible priority schemes. So, for each launch, for each site, we have allocated quotas for each group, for example, for married children and their parents; for multi-generation families, where relevant; for the Tenant Priority Scheme. For ASSIST, you should be a widowed or divorced second-timer with children.

6.15 pm

The application rates will vary for a variety of reasons. One, of course, because of the current pandemic situation where people are concerned about housing delays and more people put in applications earlier or based on location and attributes. Some are extremely attractive and lots of people will apply for them. So, in terms of the data we put out, we want it to be practical and useful for home buyers.

And whether the Married Child Priority Scheme can be raised, in a way when you talk about "X" number of dwelling units or units in any particular launch in any particular location, it is almost like a zero-sum game because, you have, say, 1,000 units and you have a certain percentage for married children, a certain percentage for other groups, for seniors, based on typology, if you increase one group in terms of quota, then you must eat into other groups and, ultimately, the second-timers will be squeezed out.

So, we want to make sure that we provide a balance. HDB looks at all the data, not just for individual sites, but overall launches across the years, and also looks at long-term demographic trends and data, to decide whether we need to make any adjustments to the quotas and priority schemes. Therefore, we keep a very close eye on this.

For the prime location public housing, if the Leader of the Opposition recalls, we had made some adjustments to the MCPS, by reducing the quota available to them, if I recall, five percentage points [Please refer to "Committee of Supply – Head T (Ministry of National Development)" for a clarification on the number, Official Report, 8 March 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 56, Budget section.], because we considered it and we said that, yes, we want to ensure that children who want to live near their parents in the area can get access to some of these flats. But we reduced it because we had a bigger objective, or equally important objective, of allowing inclusion in these estates and allowing people who used to live in other parts of Singapore to also have a fair opportunity to buy a flat in some of these very prime locations. So, that is first.

On EIP, when EIP was introduced in 1989, the resale market was really nascent. The number of resale transactions back then pales in comparison with the resale market that we see today. In fact, all the way to the year 2000, if my memory serves me right, people could surrender their flats to HDB for any reason and not just because of EIP. And it took a period of time for the resale market to become mature in Singapore. When the resale market became mature, HDB stopped the buyback option as a last resort. And then, we put in the various measures that we put in place that I have articulated before – waiving EIP on exceptional basis; giving home buyers more time to sell if they feel the constraint and so on.

So, that is my response to the Leader of the Opposition's question, if I got him right, in terms of when the buyback option was last used.

Then, the Leader of the Opposition had asked the question about the written Parliamentary Question for data and I had explained that we received a request for significant data-sets by the Leader of the Opposition. We had endeavoured to give the data that we were able to provide. And for the second Parliamentary Question that there were constraints with regard to neighbourhoods, neighbourhood names, boundaries and so on, it is all in the reply. And if the Leader of the Opposition looks at the Hansard and he is not satisfied about the response in any way and needs more clarification, we welcome him to put forward a further request and we will clarify.

On singles, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann had explained that we want to be responsive to the evolving aspirations of all Singaporeans. A number of years ago, singles could not buy HDB BTO flats. But keeping an eye on how society is evolving and that more Singaporeans are either choosing to remain single as a matter of choice or becoming single because of circumstance – they have caregiving obligations and so on – that group is growing and we wanted to provide for them. Hence, we made the decision to provide BTO eligibility for singles quite a number of years ago, but, certainly, less than 10 years ago.

And along the way, we have adjusted the grants and made more flexibilities to accommodate singles and to provide for them. But every group that has eligibility for HDB BTOs, there will always be constraints. So, even for married families, there are income ceilings, there are different criteria – citizenship, household type.

And then, for singles, when they apply, they have caregiving obligations and they put their parents as essential occupiers, they can get housing – BTO, not just resale. Or if they are much older and their parents are no longer around and they want to have mutual care and support for single siblings living with each other, we also provide eligibility for them.

The Leader of the Opposition earlier said that he wanted the priorities to be real priorities, not a gamble – you have high priority but, actually, it is really just a ballot and a gamble and more chances.

As I have said before, each group has a specific quota so that we make space for every group that has needs for housing. But if we provide absolute priority for certain groups, like the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, households, then, even if you make adjustments for singles, as proposed, it will not come to fruition because all their spaces will be taken up. So, the reality that the Leader of the Opposition now recognises also is that we will have to make adjustments along the way, but also balance the needs of different groups for it.

The Chairman: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: I would like to thank the Minister for sharing that.

With respect to my last point about eligibility for singles, I take the Minister's point that there are zero-sum realities to think about here. But I also wish to come back to the point that the Minister made earlier about the number of flats that HDB is prepared to construct from 2021 to 2025. I think the number was up to 100,000.

In view of what I shared in my cut about the latest population census and the number of singles that has gone up from the age groups 25 to 29 and 30 to 34, has that information prompted a change in HDB's thinking about its options for singles – which I acknowledge there were not any previously, and these have now been introduced – but in view of new information that is coming online, through the census as I explained, is there some scope to include the building of more flats for singles, for example, within that timeline the Minister has shared?

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that. The census makes clear the social demographic trends in Singapore, including that of singles or even of delayed marriage and parenthood. But this is not something that is news to us. We have been looking at social demographic trends all the while and, therefore, the moves on singles through the years, both in allowing them to apply for BTO flats and also adjusting the grants' eligibility along the way.

So, we will continue to look at our HDB eligibility criteria and make adjustments where we can. As both the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann and myself have said, our priorities are to make sure that we deliver the flats that people are waiting for and also address the significant demand from newly-formed households as well as nuclearising households. In fact, in a paper that the Workers' Party itself put out in 2019, they cited data from, I believe it is the Department of Statistics, showing the family size or the median family size per household, coming down very sharply. And that, of course, comes through in the form of greater demand, both for married households, households with seniors, singles and so on.

But as Senior Minister of State Sim Ann said, both sides of the House, we all want to provide for Singaporeans and meet as many needs as we can and to help as many people achieve their home ownership aspirations as possible. We both want to do that. But we live in a situation where both land and resources pose real constraints. And, in fact, if neither land nor resources were constrained, we want to meet everyone's needs all the time. But we will have to make priorities for different groups, based on income, nationality, number of chances they got owning a home based on their family obligations and then make some adjustments, helping those who may need more help and giving them more support.

So, that is where we are and we continue to look at the needs of Singaporeans and the housing options that they have.

The Chairman: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Thank you, Chairman, for seeing my hand at that little corner where I was.

Can I ask Senior Minister of State Sim Ann about this Community Advisory Panel? Who is expected to be on this panel? Would it be community leaders? Would it be mediators? Would members of the public be involved in this panel? Also, what about other issues, like second-hand smoke and hoarding? Would Senior Minister of State Sim Ann be able to clarify that?

Ms Sim Ann: I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for the clarifications.

For the Community Advisory Panel on Noise, we intend to invite onto this panel community leaders who have experience in handling or mediating issues to do with noise in the neighbourhood. And we also plan to have engagements and discussions where members of the public can also take part because the idea is to formulate a set of norms or benchmarks that can be useful in mediating conflicts arising from noise and also to guide our agencies in terms of their public education advisories.

We are starting with noise because, amongst the different kinds of neighbour disputes that I have raised, which have their roots in human behaviour, neighbour noise is the most numerous and we would like to gain more experience from using this Community Advisory Panel to form these norms and then work in concert with enhanced community dispute resolution mechanisms and gain some experience from that before we apply it to other forms of neighbour disputes.

The Chairman: Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Thank you, Chairman. I just have two clarifications.

The first is regarding the BTO cut that I had filed. It is really whether or not we could set aside a minimum target percentage of the flats. We have the shorter wait times. So, instead of the Build-to-Order (BTO) process, we have one which is build-ahead-of-order, considering that we do have a very significant demand and supply imbalance in the market today, with very high over-subscription rates for the BTO flats.

The second is in relation to resale subsidies and ensuring affordability. As it is, there are already a lot of public housing flats today in areas where only the better-off can afford them. I spoke about the 261 million-dollar flats. But if we look at the median resale prices of, say, a 5-room flat in places, such as Bukit Merah, Queenstown, Toa Payoh, these range from $800,000 to $900,000. So, what is it that the Ministry would be looking into to ensure that it is not only the better-off who can afford a flat in these places?

6.30 pm

Mr Desmond Lee: The Member asked if more shorter waiting time flats can be built. The answer is that we are doing everything we can to do so. The reason why flats have shorter waiting times and, in the case of the most recent launch – two in Yishun, if I am not wrong – it is two years plus to get the flat. That is because the land was available, we were able to carry out the very significant land preparation and infrastructure development to enable those two projects to be launched ahead of time, ahead of our BTO launch, so that when people actually select the flat, the time to them collecting the keys is much less.

But that requires us to not just do land preparation and that work is very significant – you have to clear encumbrances, do land preparation, you may need to clear the land, provide the services, the roads. That work takes time. Singapore is land-scarce. So, where does this land come from to meet all these needs, or growing needs? To which, the Workers' Party would like to add more demand, which we will look at.

But we will have to take land from greenfield sites. And the Workers' Party has said, "Please keep as much greenery as possible". But some of these sites, we will have to use. So, please support when the studies are out.

Some are greenfield sites. Some of them are brownfield sites, which means they have been cleared of their previous use and the land is ready to be developed. But often, brownfield sites are still being used – whether they are used for businesses and industry or for nurseries, farming or retail or whatever, and we have to give the user of the land the time to be able to clear out and then we take over. And if there is a delay in that, that will affect our land preparation, that will affect our launch, that may cause delay to our housing plan.

So, to plan for a BTO programme requires many years of planning ahead of time. And, wherever possible, we will advance it in order to allow shorter waiting time flats to be launched.

In addition to that, as I have said in my speech earlier, we have both Sale of Balance Flats options as well as the Open Selection of Flats, where we put the balance units from all over the island and allow people to select. In fact, one is coming up, starting this month. I look forward to residents who need immediate housing to apply for those.

As for affordability of resale flats, there are certain areas which are very popular, the flats' resale prices are higher. But part of it is in the last year or so, because of COVID-19, because of concerns about construction delays, coupled with the ongoing socio-demographic trend of household formation and smaller households, had resulted in greater demand for resale flats; particularly in some areas which are very popular.

In fact, for the last six out of seven years, resale prices have been trending downwards.

We provide generous subsidies for those buying resale flats, up to $180,000 [Please refer to "Committee of Supply – Head T (Ministry of National Development) for a clarification of the number, Official Report, 8 March 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 56, "Budget" section.], depending on income level, to help with the affordability of resale flats. But we also have put in place the Prime Location Public Housing flats to ensure that, in some very prime locations, eventually, when they become resold on the market and became resale flats themselves, we have enough mechanisms and levers to try to ensure that they remain affordable, not just at first launch, but, over time.

The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Thank you, Chairman.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what are some of HDB's considerations in considering the profile of shops that it would prioritise in an area.

Ms Sim Ann: Mr Chairman, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh for his question. With regard to the features of heartland shops, we are now conducting a public consultation exercise. According to the feedback we have received from the public consultation so far, they have a few unique features. Some participants have shared that heartland shops should provide essential goods and services for residents and blend in with the spirit and ambience of the estate. They also hope to see more specialty shops and heritage shops in the heartlands and that the heartland shops will continue to operate and retain their local identity and connection. At the same time, there are others who wish to see more innovative shops that can offer residents a fresh shopping experience.

In general, most of the participants from the public consultation were of the view that there should be active curation and management of goods and services offered by the heartland shops. We will continue with the consultations based on the feedback received. After collating and analysing all feedback, we will craft a plan to enhance the shopping experience in the heartlands.

The Chairman: Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Ms Mariam Jaafar: Thank you, Chairman, two questions for the Minister. One is on EIP – wonderful news. On the flip side of my question, the group that, due to EIP, cannot rent or buy flats nearer to their parents, is there something that the Ministry is also thinking to do for them?

Secondly, on green buildings. Great to hear about the grants for retrofits being extended to residential buildings, too. But, of course, HDB is the primary volume driver here. Can the Minister also give an update on the roadmap for HDB to retrofit its large base of buildings, as well as new buildings, to become greener? I say this knowing that it has a lot of socioeconomic impacts; I do not take it lightly, but it would be great if the Minister could share something on the roadmap.

Mr Desmond Lee: I will take the second question first. In the joint segment on the Green Plan, I had shared briefly about efforts that we will be undertaking under HDB Green Towns. For existing flats, we have committed to emplace solar panels on the roofs of 8,400 blocks and have done so for about 2,700, which is roughly around 30%. We aim to put solar panels on as many HDB rooftops as possible, subject to studies like loading, technical considerations, whether it gets adequate exposure to the sun and so on.

And for new BTOs, to make every HDB rooftop solar panel-ready, so that when the SolarNova contracts come their way, they are ready to be fitted out with solar panels.

The pneumatic waste management system under the HDB Green print in both Ang Mo Kio and Yuhua has shown that they are best done for new BTOs. Likewise, for the rainwater harvesting pilot in Yuhua. But for existing BTO flats, we are piloting cool paints on the surfaces of existing HDB blocks to reflect more heat away and to make the ambient environment in the homes more liveable and, in that regard, help families manage the cost of keeping their homes cool at the hottest times of the day or year.

And, of course, making every effort to green our HDB towns as much as possible and, hence, the OneMillionTrees, getting people heavily involved in HDB towns to plant as many trees in the town as possible. So, these are just some of the many things we are doing to retrofit, or to help our existing estates to be greener and more sustainable.

On EIP, our announcement focuses on those who are EIP-constrained and, despite marketing their flats for up to six months at reasonable prices, they are not able to sell and can show to HDB their efforts. So, HDB has now one more tool in the toolkit to help some of these families address their personal pain points, in order for society as a whole in Singapore to understand and support the policy of EIP, to keep our estates ethnically diverse.

The Member's point is about the reverse, people who want to buy a resale flat in an area that is near their parents' homes, but are facing a constraint because the seller cannot sell to them. In those cases again, I would say, put an appeal through. Let HDB take a look because it works both ways. They cannot buy, seller also wants to sell. And then, we will have a look globally at both the buyer and seller's situation.

The Chairman: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I got one clarification in regard to EIP and it is addressed to the Minister.

First of all, I thank the Minister for the explicit move on the EIP. It has been a long time coming to help families or individuals who cannot sell. My first clarification is about the fair offer. In what way can the Minister reassure sellers involved in this EIP appeal, on a case-by-case basis, and residents have suggested this as well, as in a buyback from HDB? But how can the Minister reassure that the price will not be too low when the valuation comes in and what is the valuation level that will be coming up?

The second question is, sometimes, the seller could be seniors who stay in some of these old mature flats and they stay alone. How can HDB help them to compile these documents for submission? I know property agents may be involved, but, in some ways, how can we inform some of these senior sellers with regard to documentation? Because it looks quite onerous in terms of collecting listings for six months and all that.

Mr Desmond Lee: As I have said, HDB, when considering this buyback option for the seller, will appoint a professional valuer. We will look at the inputs and then make a fair offer, taking into account the specific circumstances that the family is in. Certainly, we cannot match the highest possible resale prices in the area. But we will make sure the offer is fair, the seller will be told and given time to consider. He can, of course, write to HDB if he feels that he disagrees with the quantum, but that is an offer that HDB makes after taking in inputs.

On seniors living alone and if they face these difficulties, please ask them to approach the HDB branch office and we will do what we can to support them if they face difficulties carrying out the process in order to avail themselves of some of these support mechanisms.

The Chairman: Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Chairman. I have two clarifications for Minister of State Tan Kiat How. Today, NTUC has formed Company Training Committees (CTCs) with some Facilities Management (FM) companies. Through these CTCs, we are working very closely with the companies to transform their business operations and upscale their workers, achieving win-win outcomes.

6.45 pm

So, my first clarification is whether MND and BCA will work with NTUC and Building and Allied Trades' Union (BATU), that is, our building, construction and timber industries employees' union, to reach out to more FM companies to establish CTCs with them?

My second clarification is whether the FM sector, both employers as well as workers, could benefit from adopting Progressive Wage Model (PWM) with its wage and skills ladders, so that we can better attract, retain and develop local professionals in this growing sector?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Chairman, Mr Melvin Yong had two clarifications. I will answer the first one about working with NTUC and, specifically, BATU, in terms of upskilling and raising the level of professionalism, as well as wage and career progression for our FM workers. The answer is, certainly, yes, we are happy to work together with NTUC, as well as our partners in BATU to do so.

In fact, this is something we are working very closely on with all partners: industry partners, companies, employers as well as our union leaders. Specifically, on the modality of CTCs, it is one modality that we work closely with the union leaders and companies on.

Broadly speaking, I would say that we encourage the FM and the MA workers to go for training and accreditation to raise their professionalism and improve their competencies. Because that is the sustainable way for wage progression and career pathways in both sectors. And we are very heartened that many companies and workers have come on board many of the training programmes conducted either by BCA Academy or our trade associations, including the Singapore International Facility Management Association (SIFMA), the Association of Property and Facility Managers (APFM) and the Association of Strata Managers (ASM). So, we are working together and we welcome a tripartite approach.

To the Member's second question about the PWM within the FM sector, I understand that the NTUC friends are working very closely with MOM. The Member has raised a proposal to look at the PWM for workers in the strata management sector and we are working very closely with MOM to look at the scope, as well as the merits of the issue. We look forward to continue working with our NTUC colleagues on this.

The Chairman: Mr Yip Hon Weng. Keep it short, please.

Mr Yip Hon Weng: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Two clarifications: can services in the Community Care Apartments (CCAs) be extended to seniors living in existing HDB estates? And two: why is a first-timer family not eligible for the Fresh Start Housing Scheme?

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for the questions. CCA is a new concept and we need to evaluate the pilot to see how it helps in the physical and socioemotional well-being of the seniors. We will also take the Member's suggestion.

That said, today if you look at MOH, they also have services that look after the frail, for example, home and day care. At the same time, for those who need social support, we have the befrienders. As we move forward, there will be a levelling up of the elder care centres to see how these can better serve as a point of contact for seniors in every community, providing active ageing, befriending and many more services where they can be a point of contact.

But we are encouraged by the support and also the responses from the public about CCA. We will closely study its impact and we really want to make it work, so that we can give opportunities for our seniors to age-in-place.

The Chairman: Minister Desmond Lee.

Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you, Chairman. I just want to make two factual clarifications. I misspoke earlier in response to Mr Louis Chua. I said that the resale grant is up to $180,000. It should be $160,000.

And in relation to the Leader of the Opposition, when I mentioned the MCPS adjustments for the first PLH and second PLH, it was 30% to 20%. So, it is a cut of 10 percentage points, rather than five percentage points.

The Chairman: Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong: Thank you, Chairman. I thank Minister Desmond Lee for buying back flats from EIP-constrained owners under certain conditions. I have the following clarifications: would these flats be added to the PPHS or Public Rental Scheme to meet rental demand from singles or families in the eligible minority ethnic groups?

My second clarification is for Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim. Could the Minister of State provide an update on the current situation of EIP-constrained owners? Has the number of appeals increased?

Mr Desmond Lee: All flats that are bought back, we are likely to prioritise them for home ownership, put subsidies and put them out as balance flats to meet housing demand. But depending on circumstances and on location, we may also consider them for PPHS or other uses, subject, of course, to EIP.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: For the number of appeals, we have seen the number of appeals going down over the years, from 2019 to today. So, with these changes, we hope we can support the home owners better.

The Chairman: Miss Cheryl Chan. Keep it very, very short.

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Chairman, because I am also aware of the Guillotine Time, so, I shall file my clarifications in subsequent Parliamentary Questions (PQs) instead. Would you like me to withdraw my amendment?

The Chairman: Yes, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling: Thank you, Chairman. I want to begin by thanking Minister Desmond Lee, Second Minister Indranee, whom we miss but I am sure she has been preparing for this COS as well, Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, Minister of State Faishal Ibrahim, Minister of State Tan Kiat How and the entire MND team who have been working very hard to address all the varying topics that we have raised. Housing policies and land planning topics are complex for the fact that they have a lot of stakeholders that they interact with and also because they address genuine needs on a day-to-day basis.

So, it is not an easy balance. By recognising this, the Ministry has been trying its very best to help many people on the ground, based on all the feedback that we have received. I hope that we can continue refining the policies over time, in order to make sure that we can strengthen the schemes that are available, so that it really helps people.

Last but not least, it is important that we continue engaging citizens and partners to be able to shape the future Singapore, so that we can truly have a sustainable, resilient and liveable city and, together, we can build a home for all. Chairman, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,426,272,700 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $7,806,220,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.