Rationale for 75% Support Level from Households in Neighbourhood Renewal
Ministry of National DevelopmentSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns the rationale for the 75% household support requirement for the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and the establishment of timelines for project tenders. Mr Png Eng Huat suggested lowering the support threshold because residents do not co-pay and are already consulted through multiple channels. Second Minister for National Development Desmond Lee explained that the 75% level ensures majority support, fosters community ownership, and confirms that improvements meet the needs of the residents. He noted that while a 12-month tender timeline is recommended to Town Councils, actual timelines vary depending on project complexity and feedback received. The Minister maintained that polling is necessary to verify that facilities are welcomed within the residents' immediate environment, despite the lack of financial contribution.
Transcript
14 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for requiring 75% support level from eligible households for the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) where residents do not need to co-pay; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider setting a timeline for the calling of a tender for NRP works when the NRP for the precinct is announced.
The Second Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) emphasises the active engagement of residents in shaping their living environment. The requirement to have at least 75% support from residents before NRP proceeds provides certainty that the proposed improvements meet the needs of the majority of residents. It also promotes a sense of ownership for the proposed improvements and enhances residents' sense of belonging to their neighbourhood.
The recommended timeline for calling of tender for NRP works is within 12 months from announcement. This has been communicated to all Town Councils which carry out NRP.
In practice, however, the time taken varies from one project to another, and may not fall within the recommended timeline. Factors that could affect the calling of tender include the size and complexity of the project, consultation processes adopted by Town Councils, and the extent of feedback and suggestions received from residents. As far as possible, Town Councils should expedite the NRP process where possible.
Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Just one supplementary question. Would the Minister consider reviewing the 75% support level? Because the awareness of NRP is already achieved through 100% direct mailing to the houses. We also have two exhibitions, the Public Consultation and Consensus Gathering. We also have house visits. Furthermore, the NRP plan would have undergone multiple reviews even by the Housing and Development Board and then also taken into consideration the wish list from the Town Councils, residents, Members of Parliament, the Residents' Committees. So, that plan itself is almost like optimised for that precinct. So, would the Ministry consider reviewing that 75% requirement, even 50%? Because when we do house visits, a lot of residents asked us why they still need to vote when they do not need to pay for this external thing. They also said that they were also not consulted. For example, they do not need to vote whether they want the silver zone or—
Mr Speaker: Can we keep this succinct, please?
Mr Png Eng Huat: So, could the Minister review that?
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. As I said earlier, the requirement to achieve at least 75% support from residents for NRP is to ensure that residents, or the majority of the residents, indeed support the proposal. Getting the residents aware of the project through direct mailers, exhibitions, community consultation is but one important part of that process. Getting feedback and ultimately persuading residents that this plan benefits them is best evidenced through residents' support for the proposal.
If you reduce or do away with the poll requirement, then the question is how certain are we all that these facilities, indeed, are welcomed, or are needed by the residents? Even though the residents do not have to pay for these improvements, they relate to that immediate lived environment and I think they ought to have a say.