Hansard, Friday, 29 January 2016

1 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development in view of complaints by owners of HDB BTO projects, how does HDB ensure the quality of its flats and what recourse do owners have when defects have not been rectified to their satisfaction.

Mdm Speaker, HDB adopts a comprehensive management system to track the construction process of all BTO projects.

First, HDB engages consultants with full-time staff onsite to supervise the construction works. The consultants will set up a supervision system at the site at the beginning of the building project.

Second, HDB keeps a list of recommended building materials and equipment suppliers to prevent the use of sub-standard materials or equipment.

Third, HDB takes a systematic approach to deliver buildings of high structural quality, such as checking that the building piles are constructed to the correct depth.

Fourth, HDB requires the contractor to provide timber mock-ups for the toilets, kitchens, air-con ledges and service yards to be constructed. This will help HDB identify potential design, safety and maintenance issues, and get the contractor to resolve these issues upfront before construction begins.

Fifth, HDB requires samples of actual units to be constructed for each different flat type in the project. Once these sample units are approved, they serve as the benchmark of quality for the entire project.

Sixth, HDB conducts regular audits and deploys its Central Audit Team to perform focused process checks at different stages of construction.

Seventh, HDB's Project Directors also make regular checks on the works for compliance with approved drawings, specifications and work methods.

Eighth, all flats, when completed, will have to pass the handover inspection by HDB. Finishes and fittings are inspected for proper installation and compliance with the required standard. All visible defects found by the inspection team will be rectified before handover.

Ninth, HDB conducts functional tests to check on the mechanical and electrical services installed as well as the water-tightness of bathrooms, windows and external walls.

Finally, HDB conducts a final inspection before the keys are handed over to the buyers.

After the keys are handed over, a one-year Defects Liability Period (DLP) will kick in. During this period, the contractor will be obliged to rectify any other defects that are detected. During the DLP, a Building Service Centre (BSC) is set up in every new precinct to attend to feedback from residents promptly. The BSC will operate for a year on site so that residents have sufficient time to submit their feedback. All feedback to the BSC are monitored closely to ensure defects are rectified in a timely manner and to an acceptable quality standard.

The rectification works will be inspected and certified by HDB's supervising consultant before a joint inspection with the owners is arranged to hand over the unit. For cases where owners are not fully satisfied with the rectification works, they can approach HDB, who will look into very case and take all reasonable efforts to address the owner's concerns. HDB will get the contractor to rectify the defects in accordance with acceptable industry norms.

An objective assessment of the quality of HDB flats is the BCA's Construction Quality Assessment System (CONQUAS) score. This is the industry standard to measure the quality of building projects. Over the years, the quality of BTO flats has improved from a score of 79 in 2003 to 89 in 2014. This is comparable to that of private developments. This reflects HDB's push to secure high quality and workmanship standards for its flats.

While the situation has improved, HDB is continually looking at ways to do better. It will continue to seek improvement in its design, choice of material and construction to improve the quality of its flats.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to ask would the Ministry consider making public on HDB website for each BTO project the nature of complaints and the progress and schedule of rectification works so that it becomes transparent. When this happens, such information not just helps educate the owners on industry norms and standards, but would also better manage expectations.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for her suggestion. The CONQUAS score reflects three components: architectural merit, which is what the Member is concerned about, quality of finish and the build quality; as well as two other components, such as structure and M&E. CONQUAS score for each development, each BTO already reflects the standard, albeit in a numerical nature.

Each BSC will typically receive one-third of the residents approaching them for various issues: complaints, defects as well as requests for information. About 25% of them relate, for example, to water flow. This is because there are water management and flow requirements at the input. The remainder relate to a variety of issues that reflect build quality and other areas. Many of these can be solved and HDB's BSC staff continue to work on this.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarification. Can I just check and clarify what recourse does a resident have if the defects were reported within the DLP period, but rectified not to the satisfaction of the resident and the defects continue to persist? Will HDB then consider extending DLP?

Madam, each case will turn on the facts. For specific cases, let us have a look at them. HDB will do what is appropriate and right in the circumstances.

Madam, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what can the owners do if the contractors or the BSC are reluctant or are dragging their feet in responding to the defect complaints, knowing very well that time is not on the side of the new owners because they have a short window within which they must move in? They know that if they can drag further, the likelihood is that the owners will just accept the defects. So, what can the new owners do? How can we help them?

Secondly, my sense on the ground is that in some of the projects that I have encountered, there are really quite a number of defects. The HDB officers are just not able to cope with them. Manpower resource is a problem and they may not be empowered to do some of the things to rectify certain defects. It always comes upon the contractor. The contractor will again try to use the default response and push back and say, "No, it could be due to some other things". How do we help the new owners so that they have a positive experience moving into the new flats?

Madam, HDB sets a 14-day period as a standard for contractors to rectify defects that are reported. Of course, if the defect needs more work, on exceptional basis, these would take more time. Based on the statistics that we have, some 95% of these defects reported through BSCs are rectified within 14 days. Some take longer.

If the Member or his residents are aware of these incidences where they feel that the contractors are dragging their feet, alert the BSC and HDB, and he can alert us.

As for the capacity of HDB branch offices and BSCs to cope with the number of issues that are raised, let us know which areas are of concern. We will look to enhancing them. Already, HDB has increased the number of staffing at BSCs to deal with the issues that are surfaced by residents.

2 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for National Development (a) how does the current number of heavy vehicle parking lots measure up with the current number of such vehicles and the demand for these lots; and (b) whether there are plans to review the location and availability of such lots.

Madam, currently, there are 34,400 heavy vehicles in Singapore and about 44,170 heavy vehicle parking lots island-wide. There are more lots than there are heavy vehicles. Seventy six percent of the lots are provided by the private sector, with the rest by URA and HDB.

We recognise that there is demand for more public heavy vehicle parks near housing estates as drivers prefer to park near where they live. However, there are practical difficulties to provide more heavy vehicle parking lots in residential estates. First, these estates are highly built up; second, land is needed for housing and other community uses residents need; and third, we also receive feedback of residents' concerns on noise and above all, safety arising from heavy vehicular traffic in or near residential areas.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of business owners to have parking solutions for the vehicles they own and also to work out with their drivers appropriate transport options to commute to work, especially for those who have to drive during the wee hours.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. There are quite a few occasions where I have come across drivers who actually have to sleep in the vehicles because they really cannot find a heavy vehicle parking lot and they have to park by the roadside somewhere and they are worried about summonses.

I was wondering whether the Ministry can do some kind of review. We understand the disamenities that can arise from heavy vehicles parking close to residential areas, but perhaps a review targeted to specific areas would be useful as well.

Madam, perhaps to set the Member's concerns in the context of the nature of this issue, let me start out by saying that LTA currently requires every heavy vehicle to secure an overnight heavy vehicle parking lot at an LTA-approved vehicle parking area. And the Vehicle Parking Certificate (VPC), to that effect, needs to be produced before: one, a heavy vehicle is registered; two, before road tax is renewed; and three, before the ownership of the heavy vehicle is transferred.

Technically, every single heavy vehicle that runs on the road in Singapore already has a designated lot and a VPC. Otherwise, they cannot be driving. The drivers that the Member referred to, there are already designated lots for their vehicles, by way of the VPC.

I said earlier that numerically, there are more lots than there are vehicles. The problem that the Member articulated in context is largely one of localised mismatch of supply and demand. There are a variety of instances, but let me draw to the House's attention, three situations that we can encounter.

The first situation is business owners want to park their vehicles after the working shift, near to their business premises. It is a factor of production; they went to keep it nearby for servicing, maintenance, security and so on. But they cannot find lots, because the parking in that area is heavily subscribed.

The second situation is a bit more interesting. Business owners have a VPC for their vehicle, that means they have a certificate and a lot, but they are not permitted to park in the lot for which they bought the VPC. Sometimes, we find that it is because the private operators of that particular parking lot is misusing the space, for example, using it to store goods, equipment for his own vehicles. So, it is a phantom lot. It is a VPC on paper; the business owner buys it, can renew road tax and all, but for all purposes and intents, the business owner does not have a lot and the driver bears the brunt of it.

The third situation is probably the one that Members see the most. The vehicle owner has secured the VPC but the driver prefers instead to park as close to home as possible, often, in and around HDB residential estates. But there are not enough of such lots and there is a waiting queue. I said earlier in my reply that these lots are scarce. They are located in heavily built-up areas. There is demand for land and there is a lot of security and safety concerns. In these situations, the drivers have difficulty getting to and from the lot in which the owner has gotten. The owner just gets a lot but leaves it to the driver to sort out his own commute. If it is ending work at 11.00 pm, midnight or starting work at 2.00 am to 3.00 am, for some drivers, that can be a challenge. It is largely because the company, the employer does not provide for that commute.

We will look to address the three big scenarios in a number of ways. For the first situation, we plan to inject more heavy parking lots in industrial estates where business owners have a lot of demand. For example, URA and JTC will continue to mandate the building of heavy vehicle parks in heavy industrial developments. The Member may like to know that since two years ago, since 2014, successful tenderers of selected Government Land Sale sites for industrial development have been required to build and to co-locate a multi-storey heavy vehicle park with their industrial development because it then supplements the spaces in that area.

For new industrial estates and whenever older industrial estates are being re-developed, both HDB and JTC will inject more heavy vehicle parking. This will be particularly useful for HDB industrial estates being redeveloped because they are not that far from some of our HDB estates.

For the second situation, the phantom lots, it is an issue of enforcement. The drivers who are faced with this ought to make a report so that the proper action can be taken.

For the third situation, and this is the one we are most sympathetic about, when employers get a lot and it is far from the driver's home and the company does not provide or does not wish to provide a service to bring the driver to work. We are looking at how best, through a number of levers, to get companies and businesses to meet the transport and commuting needs of their drivers. For public heavy vehicle parks that are at the fringes of residential estates, URA is looking at putting bicycle racks to enable the drivers to cycle home, if they wish to.

There are a number of areas that we need to look at and it is not an issue that is one dimensional.

Mdm Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry of National Development (MND) will consider other options. I raised this during the Committee of Supply (COS) last year, which is about using other car park places available at night. For example, sports stadiums. If you go to a sports stadium, the car parks at night are totally empty because there is nobody in the stadium. Can we not think about converting such places to become parking lots for heavy vehicles on a temporary basis?

Essentially, we are talking about more efficient use of land. Whenever we talk about heavy vehicle car park lots, most of the time in the day, they are empty. So, we are keeping them empty in the day, only to be used at night. Can we not think of a way where we have lots of car park spaces that are for commercial or sports use and they are available at night, and we allow the heavy vehicle drivers to park there.

I thank the Member for his suggestion, which we have noted from various previous COS sessions. A whole variety of out-of-the-box solutions is certainly being looked at all the time. The idea about parking space at stadiums, at schools for school buses, all these are things we look at. We need to be mindful, of course, about the concerns that are raised about safety. If the car park is near or within residential estates, then, that poses concerns that residents will raise.

What about working with industry associations or unions? Individual companies arranging transport for one person may be difficult, but as an association or union, perhaps, they can cobble up enough companies and drivers to run a transport service circuit to address this location mismatch.

About 92% of all heavy vehicles are owned by companies with the remainder being owned by individuals, maybe they are sole proprietors or otherwise. So, 92% owned by businesses large and small and even medium size. Apart from working with businesses, we will also look at associations to see how they can come in and play a part. I thank the Member for his suggestion.

Currently, there is a situation where the company buys the VPC for a location in Changi but the driver stays in Jurong. Another company may have bought the VPC in Jurong but the driver stays in Changi. Can we not have a matching system where they can just swop the VPC? Because currently, on its own, the company would not have the resources and the network to realise that there is an opposite match.

This is about coordination at the broader level. From the company's point of view, if they know the driver lives in Jurong, they should try to look for a heavy vehicle park that is not that far away. As I said, there are about 30,000-plus vehicles and 40,000-plus lots. Businesses can play a part and they can have a conversation with their drivers to get a better sense of what their needs are. There are many levels where people can play a part.

3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether any of the MRT's components or systems are operating past the manufacturer's recommended end-of-life date and/or end-of-life operating cycle; (b) if so, what is the planned approach to replacing these components or systems; and (c) what measures does the Ministry plan to take to ensure a systematically timely replacement of MRT parts and systems.

Mdm Speaker, the recommended lifespan of train components and systems is taken into account when decisions have to be made as regard their replacement. In practice, many components are replaced before their expiry, for safety and reliability reasons. This is because how long they will actually last depends on many other factors, such as how often they are used, how they are treated and maintained, as well as the operating environment.

It is the responsibility of the train operators to make this detailed assessment and replace deteriorated components earlier than their end of life if necessary, to maintain the safety, reliability and performance of the system. This is especially so for critical components and those with safety implications. This expectation of the operators is set out in the Rapid Transit Systems Act, the Licence Agreement with the operators and the Code of Practice on Maintenance, amongst others.

To further ensure timely replacement and upgrades, LTA has been working with the operators to install condition-monitoring tools – tools that can continuously monitor the condition of the components that they are interested in – as well as sensors, when they become available in the market. They also jointly monitor and analyse data and trends to try to anticipate any asset deterioration so as to eliminate such risks. LTA will continue to work with the operators to further tighten the maintenance and replacement regime. This is a top priority for us.

I thank the Minister for providing the answer to my question. I have a few supplementary questions. The first is a clarification: I am not sure I heard the Minister correctly as to whether he has answered the first part of my question on whether any of the MRT's components or systems are operating past the manufacturers' recommended end-of-life date and end-of-line operating cycle.

My next supplementary question: if a certain part has already expired according to the manufacturer's recommendation, but for some reason SMRT has still decided that they are in working condition, what will be the margin of tolerance that the Minister feels may be acceptable? Would it be six months to a year or more?

My next supplementary question: would the Ministry consider requiring the transport operator to have a proper rail asset renewal schedule for the expired or soon-to-be expiring parts, even if the parts do not seem to be breaking down yet, so that we can stay on top of the curve as far as system performance is concerned?

My next supplementary question: would the Ministry consider publishing input KPIs to measure parts replacement and maintenance works, setting targets and benchmarks against other MRT systems to track not just that the inspections are done regularly but also indicators like the ratio of engineers to the length of tracks and proportion of parts past their end-of-line dates?

My last supplementary question: under the new contracting model, who pays for and is responsible for triggering parts replacement. Is it LTA or SMRT? If there is a change from the current situation, when will this take place, given that negotiations between LTA and SMRT have dragged on for two years or so?

I thank the Member for the questions. It is quite a number of questions, but actually my reply has contained the essence of what I wanted to say. Trains are a very complicated system, much more complicated than, say, cars that most people are familiar with.

Madam, I hope the Member was in this House when my GRC colleague, Minister Ong Ye Kung, gave his speech, which I thought was an excellent speech. He talked about evolution and the way going forward. He said we should have "faster legs, bigger hearts and wiser minds", and in particular, the point about wiser minds. His point was that when things are simpler, it is possible to distill it into one figure or one rule, and then, we just go "law by law". But when the situation becomes more complicated, then you would require judgement, which requires hands-on experience and with time, you will develop judgement because you cannot just simply go "law by law".

So, if we applied it to preventive maintenance, cars, especially new cars during their first five years, it is simple. Anyone who buys a car knows that the dealer will give him a book: first 5,000 kilometres, send the car into a workshop; the next 10,000 kilometres, do this; the following 10,000 kilometres, do that.

When it becomes more complicated, like a train, which requires interactions between many components, systems and parts, it is no longer so straightforward. That is why I said that a manufacturer's recommendation is just a reference, a guide. Specifically, when do you replace it? That must take into account various other factors which are included in my reply.

In fact, we have gone beyond this. It is just no longer a case of "Well, just replace those parts because manufacturers say year x". We are now often in situations where parts are replaced, not because they are going to reach or about to expire, but because of obsolescence. Just this morning, I read an industry article talking about German trains. The knowledgeable analyst made a comment that because trains took many years to manufacture and trains nowadays contain a lot of electronic components, and, dramatising a little, he said that there are occasions when as soon as a new train is delivered to the operator, some of the components are already in obsolescence, to the extent that the supplier of the components may no longer maintain them.

The report talked about the development in Germany where they have an engineering firm who decided to set up a factory to take care of these obsolescent components where no more suppliers want to deal with them. In layman terms, you know that some of the early-generation PCs are still functional but nobody maintains them anymore. In that case, the operators do have some problems.

In short, sometimes, we have to replace before the expiry date, even though they are still functioning, because of obsolescence and sometimes, better, more reliable and easier to maintain parts are now available. That is the situation we are working in.

On asset replacement and who does it, that depends on ownership. If I own the assets, then, I take charge and I decide on when I should replace them. But you must have a reason if you want to vary or adopt a particular approach, to decide if you want to keep it for a longer or shorter time. There must be valid engineering reasons for doing so and that has to be captured and explained if you are confronted by the regulator.

The Member asked can we publish KPIs for every component: when are you going to replace this, and so on and so forth? I suppose you can. But, Madam, as you probably know, I have been spending a lot of my time visiting depots because I wanted to talk to the people on the ground and also see their working life.

The first time I visited one depot, I was curious to look at their warehouse where they stocked all the spare parts. It was a huge place. They have to make use of automated warehousing with computerised forklifts to move the stock. I asked, "How many items?" It is a five-digit figure. Tens of thousands of components, which just shows how complex a train system is. So, if you publish for each item and track when you are going to replace this, and so on, I think it would be such a mass of data that I do not think it conveys much useful information.

The bottom line is this. Rail reliability is an engineering problem. Let us let our engineers solve it the engineers' way. As users, commuters, commentators and some armchair critics, you can just look at it from the outcome point of view; say to yourself, "When I need a train, is it there?" Yes, we are not quite where we want it to be, but we are making improvements. This is a top priority for myself, for my Ministry. Members could just look at me; look at my hair! I think it is mess of duckweed, multiple colours! I promised my wife last night that I will make time to go and dye it before Chinese New Year.

Just to conclude the story. Yesterday, I talked about my cholesterol. This morning, when I went to see the cardiologist, I expected it. He upped my dosage again. Over lunch just now, I was chatting with some colleagues and they asked, "Well, what has changed in the last few months?" They asked if I had changed my lifestyle or diet. I said, "No, nothing". But I can think of one change, which is I changed my job. So, maybe that is the reason. I believe I have answered the questions, Madam.

4 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent instance of a child being hit by a cyclist at Serangoon Park Connector, what are the measures taken to safeguard vulnerable persons on footpaths such as children and the elderly.

Mdm Speaker, the incident to which the Member referred to concerned a three-year-old boy. I believe his name is Kyle. His parents had posted a photograph of him after the incident on social media. Some of us would have seen the photograph. Kyle suffered nasty bruises around his mouth. His lips were swollen. His teeth loosened. As a result of that, he could not eat or sleep very well. It has been about three weeks since the incident. I hope he has fully recovered by now.

His parents were very sensible and mature in their handling of the matter. Even though they posted the photograph on social media and it went viral, they made it very clear that their purpose was not to denounce the cyclist but to alert other cyclists of the potential risks when they use shared pathways, such park connectors.

Indeed, although such cycling is allowed, cyclists must always remember that they have a duty of care not to endanger others through inconsiderate, reckless or irresponsible behaviour. In this incident, as is the case for other accidents, the Police will investigate and, if the cyclists are found to have been errant, the Police will take appropriate action against them. At the same time, LTA is stepping up enforcement efforts, it is developing a National Cyclist Education Programme with the Singapore Road Safety Council. It is clear that we do not just need enforcement. We need more education in order to further promote safe and considerate cycling.

The Active Mobility Advisory Panel led by my colleague, Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal, is also reviewing the rules and safety guidelines for cyclists and users of personal mobility devices. The panel is expected to release its report in the second quarter of the year.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive reply. It is an issue that residents in Clementi, both cyclists as well as pedestrians, have raised on how to peacefully and happily co-exist and share spaces together.

Would the Ministry consider mandating the use of licensed plates on bicycles to enhance accountability in the unfortunate event of accidents and also to protect cyclists from cases of mistaken identity?

Madam, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is a pertinent question, whether licensing will help. And one can imagine the benefits of doing so. With licensing, you could maintain a register and, in the event there is an accident, presumably we can trace who might have caused it. But it really depends on whether the register is regularly updated and whether the information which it contains is accurate.

Years ago, I was living and working in China, and I remember buying a bicycle. It was a pink one. My memory is fading but I can remember having to give my name, address and, of course, I had to pay a fee. And then I was given a small little plate to affix to my pink bike. So, there was a register that said who had purchased this bike. When I finished my posting and was packing to go home, this bicycle just would not fit. So, I gave it away and, if you ask me whom I gave it to, I honestly cannot remember. Quite frankly, whoever was maintaining that register is not any wiser.

This is just one of the implementation difficulties. As Members of Parliament on the ground, we have also encountered in void decks sometimes abandoned bicycles, unclaimed bicycles still chained to the bicycle racks. We are at a loss as to what to do because we cannot figure out who owns it and what will happen if we just removed it.

Bear in mind also that bicycles are owned by people of a very wide age range. So, you could have children owning bicycles. They use it for a few years and then the family decides to hand it down to someone else. There will be movement of these bikes and we will have to decide where to draw the line.

These would be some of the practical difficulties involved in licensing bicycles. I am not sure whether in China they still maintain such registers but, in fact, most countries do not have licensing for bicycles.

Mdm Speaker, the Senior Minister of State has said something about education for safe and considerate cycling. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) would think about introducing speed limits for cycling at parks or park connectors?

Just to share that I was doing a jog at Gardens by the Bay East and I had cyclists zipping by at high speed as if they were on a racing track. I thought it was very dangerous because there were also young children running along the park connectors. It may be a Ministry of National Development (MND) issue because we should not really design park connectors with too-wide bicycle paths that allow bicycles to speed.

Mr Lim, can you put the question, please?

Yes. Would MOT introduce speed limits for cycling at parks or park connectors?

Madam, I believe this is one of the questions that Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal is considering as part of his panel's work.

5 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the current waiting times for children and adults with disabilities to get their assessments made by psychologists, speech therapists and other trained personnel.

Madam, the waiting times to have a disability diagnosed or assessed depend on a number of factors, including the purpose of the assessment. As at October 2015, for pre-schoolers aged six years and below, who have developmental problems, the median wait time for an appointment for an initial assessment by a doctor at KKH and NUH is between seven and 17 days. For children of schooling age, the corresponding median waiting time for an appointment at KKH, NUH and IMH is between six and 19 days. Compared to 2014, both figures have shown an improvement.

Some of the children need to be assessed for suitability for early intervention programmes. For example, the Development Support Programme (DSP) supports children with milder needs who are in mainstream preschools. The time taken for assessment for suitability for the DSP is below four weeks from the time of referral. The Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) serves preschoolers with more severe needs. The average time taken between referral and assessment for suitability was about three months in 2015.

Students in our mainstream schools can be referred for assessment conducted by MOE psychologists. Such referrals are prioritised jointly between the school and the MOE psychologist based on the urgency and severity of the child's needs. In 2015, the median time taken to complete a case assessment was about 2.5 months.

Adults with disabilities may also require assessments for suitability for a range of Government-funded programmes. The time taken from referral to assessment for day care services was around three months in 2015. For services, such as home-based care and drop-in services, the waiting time was between one and three months.

After assessment, some of the children and adults may have to find a place to receive the appropriate service. MSF is working with VWOs and other Government agencies to further improve both the waiting times for assessment, as well as the time for subsequent placements into the most suitable services. We will continue to expand the capacity and improve the delivery of services for both children and adults with disabilities. We are also working on manpower initiatives, such as developing hubs that employ psychologists and therapists so that their services, which are needed for assessments and intervention, can be rendered more efficiently.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I just have two points to raise. Firstly, several months ago, I was seeing parents who approached me because the waiting time was ranging from six months to over a year. But if the response is that the waiting times have improved, then I am heartened to hear so. I hope that we can continue to monitor this because, as you can imagine, the parents are anxious when it is an initial diagnosis that needs to be made, especially in the case of EIPIC for infants and children where I think they are really starting very early these days. The earlier the intervention starts, the better the success and outcomes.

Madam, I agree with Assoc Prof Fatimah's suggestion and I would like to assure her that we are looking at this trend, keeping a close eye on it. And particularly, for EIPIC, we are also increasing, the number of places available. Three new centres with about 400 places will be opened in the second half of the year. Following that, we have also planned for three other centres within the next three years. All in all, by 2018, we should be able to have 3,200 EIPIC places in Singapore.

6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he can provide data on the long-term impact of Singaporean children's exposure to haze in terms of the likelihood of developing respiratory illnesses, including chronic conditions such as asthma, later in life; and (b) what is the estimated healthcare cost of this impact.

Mdm Speaker, in Singapore, transboundary haze is a short-term, episodic, recurrent event with varying severity every year. There is currently no data both locally or internationally, that looks into the long-term health effect of short-term, episodic exposure to the haze.

Researching this would be highly challenging as any results would be based on observational studies only which would not be able to show a definite cause-and-effect relationship. Hence, it would be difficult to ascertain the direct long-term health effects due to the episodic exposure to haze as there could be many contributing factors to the long-term health outcome we are measuring. For example, it would be difficult to determine that intermittent exposure to haze 20 years ago would have caused the chronic obstructive airways disease in a person, since it could also have been caused by other factors such as smoking, previous lung infection, or existing lung diseases.

However, overseas studies on long-term health impact have been based on long-term exposures, which are different from the pattern of exposure here. These studies showed that continuous, long-term exposure to air pollutants over several years may result in lung function abnormalities in children and subsequently, in adulthood. This could lead to greater susceptibility to the effects of ageing, infection and other pollutants, such as tobacco and smoke in adults.

Nevertheless, I appreciate that as parents, we are concerned about the impact of haze on our school-going children. The short-term health impact of haze is well documented for children and adults alike. Short-term exposure to high levels of haze particles may cause irritation of the eyes, throat and nose. Such irritation usually resolves on its own. In individuals with pre-existing chronic heart or lung diseases, short-term exposure may trigger an episode or exacerbate the underlying diseases, such as an asthma attack.

Besides widely publicised health advisories, we have put in place several measures to protect and enhance the health and well-being of Singaporeans.

First, the Haze Subsidy Scheme (HSS) assists children, the elderly and the lower- to middle-income Singaporeans with their outpatient haze-related medical treatments. We provided subsidies of more than $3.3 million in 2015 which helped with over 77,000 haze-related attendances.

Second, my Ministry has also worked with community partners to distribute we-care packs and masks to the needy, ensuring there are adequate supplies of protective masks in the market, educating the public and raising awareness of the health effects of the haze. In addition, my Ministry also welcomed the efforts by ST Dynamics to develop N95-equivalent masks that can fit children's faces. We note that preliminary data from ST Dynamics indicate that the mask should pose no safety concerns when used with the micro-ventilator. To ensure that it is safe for children to wear the masks even without the micro-ventilator, there are plans for clinical trials locally. In the meantime, we have stockpiled these smaller sized masks to ensure that there would be sufficient supply available to the general public.

Third, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has school continuity plans in place to take appropriate haze management measures.

Two days ago, my colleague from MOE outlined the move to provide air purifiers to all primary and secondary schools to further enhance the well-being of our schoolchildren. Most importantly, we want to prevent haze from occurring in the first place. To this end, Singapore is working closely with neighbouring countries to tackle the haze issue, which is largely caused by irresponsible business practices. The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution is the key framework for ASEAN Member States to work collectively and take concerted action against haze. Singapore has also led the development of the ASEAN Haze Monitoring System which would help to increase transparency and accountability of errant companies that are responsible for the forest fires.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive and helpful reply. Notwithstanding the difficulty of predicting longer term health outcomes, would the Ministry consider developing an estimate for what the long-term health impact would be in terms of the healthcare cost that would have to be borne by the Singapore Healthcare System, both Government and consumers and companies in the long term, from our children suffering exposure to haze so that we can use that dollar figure, even if it is an estimate, derived from other international studies that have been done – as the Minister of State acknowledged – so that we can use that estimate as a planning parameter to decide how much to invest in haze-proofing our schools and ensuring our children are better protected against haze? This approach to policymaking and decision making may be helpful to assess the future impact, so as to decide investment today.

I would like to thank the Member for the suggestion. As I have mentioned in my reply, it is indeed rather difficult to ascertain the long-term health effects of short-term exposures like those that we have encountered in Singapore. Having said that, I think, we will continue to look at what the other countries have done; the studies that they have conducted. And whatever information that we can get from these studies, we will definitely put them into our planning norms.

7 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the measures that the Ministry is considering to put in place to ensure accident victims and seriously ill patients continue to receive timely ambulance evacuation to hospitals

Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)'s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded to more than 155,000 calls in 2014. This means that there are more than 400 calls a day. Despite the high volume of calls, SCDF has responded to 83% of these cases within 11 minutes in 2014. This was an improvement from 78% in 2013. The 2015 figures are still being finalised and will be released in February.

The number of emergency ambulance calls has been increasing at a rate of about 5% a year. At this rate of growth, we can expect the number of calls to double in 15 years' time. However, it will not be possible to grow our number of ambulance and ambulance crew at the same rate. So, SCDF has adopted a number of strategies to cope with this trend.

First, SCDF will be increasingly adopting a tiered response model so that resources are channelled to areas of greatest need. For example, to ensure swift response to critical cases where time is of the essence, SCDF deploys Fire Bikers in addition to emergency ambulances. Equipped with Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) and other medical equipment, these Fire Bikers have been effective in ensuring that cardiac arrest patients receive prompt medical attention before the arrival of the emergency ambulance. In the case of industrial accidents or road traffic accidents, fire fighting vehicles may arrive earlier than an ambulance. These fire fighters would be able to render the initial assistance to stabilise the patient before the arrival of the emergency ambulance.

Second, SCDF has been implementing initiatives to equip and train members of public to render assistance. This is important as every minute counts for certain time-critical cases, such as cardiac arrests. For example, SCDF's "Save-a-Life" initiative trains and mobilises volunteers to respond to cardiac arrest cases. As part of this initiative, SCDF has begun installing AEDs in public spaces for use during medical emergencies and created a mobile app to alert the Community First Responders should a case happen nearby where they are.

Together, these strategies will allow SCDF to optimise its limited resources to deliver swift medical support to critical cases and calibrate its response for non-critical cases.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his comprehensive answer. If I may just ask a supplementary question: he has mentioned the time criticality and indeed, as a medical professional, we are often aware of time critical situations such as acute myocardial infarction, which lay persons understand as a heart attack. There is data showing that the door-to-balloon time – the time from getting the patient evacuated to getting the angioplasty – can be important, in such cases. So, in a situation where the ambulance crew has a working diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction, would the ambulance prioritise evacuation to a hospital with the facilities and staff for coronary artery angioplasty?

In a medical emergency, the timely arrival of patients at the nearest hospital with the appropriate facilities can make the difference between life and death and that is very important. Based on this principle, SCDF conveys patients requiring emergency medical treatment to the nearest available MOH-designated hospital based on the fastest possible route.

8 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can include the construction of portable/fixed ramps at main entrances of HDB flats that have more than a single step as part of the Enhancement for Active Seniors funding package/scheme.

Madam, the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme offers a set of standard and cost-effective items to make the flat more elder-friendly. These items include ramps for single-step entrances. For flats with more than a one-step difference, there are technical, space as well as configuration challenges to building a standard ramp. These challenges are not insurmountable, but they require customised solutions to fit the various flat configurations and resident needs.

And this is why our approach is to let flat owners identify and choose their preferred solutions from among the wide range of commercially available options in the market. What HDB does then is to work with the relevant agencies and the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) to assist those who need help in implementing these solutions. And for those who need help with financial assistance, they can also seek assistance from ComCare, SG Enable, as well as various VWOs.

9 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development what can be done to owners/lessees of commercial premises/land who fail to properly maintain their perimeter/surrounding areas including footpaths and roads which the public and pedestrians have access to.

Madam, it is the responsibility of the private landowners and lessees to maintain their facilities and surrounding areas on their land. So, we are very clear it is the responsibility of these landowners.

For specific cases where public safety is concerned, Government agencies can and will carry out enforcement action against the private owner. For example, SCDF will carry out enforcement action if there is any infringement of fire safety regulations. Building and Construction Authority (BCA) may issue Notices to Maintain under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act if commercial buildings and their surrounding structures are not properly maintained in a serviceable condition. Under the Street Works Act, LTA may also require private footpaths and roads that are in a dangerous or defective condition to be rectified.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I will ask this particular question, I think he is very familiar to the Boon Lay constituency, certain parts of the constituency where there are some commercial premises in which the roads which are publicly accessible are actually in disrepair. I hope the Ministry will take action to ensure that these potholes and other disrepair would be rectified so that the senior citizens and those who make use of those private areas, but publicly accessible roads, are not in any danger.

Madam, I have moved from Boon Lay to Marsiling, Yew Tee but I have not forgotten my old constituency, so I would like to assure the Member that we will follow up on the areas of concern and get the relevant agencies to take enforcement action.

10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for National Development whether NParks will consider providing (i) free parking at its facilities for the public for the first two hours and at off-peak times; and (ii) free parking for residents holding a season HDB parking label within a reasonable vicinity and, if not, a concessionary parking rate for such residents.

Madam, most of our parks are within 400 metres or a 10-minute walk from residential areas. Our parks are also well-linked by the extensive park connector network and are served by public transport. Aligned with Singapore's car-lite vision, we encourage Singaporeans to walk, cycle or take public transport to our parks.

For those who need to drive, parking spaces are provided but these are limited. These car park lots are charged to regulate usage and to ensure availability of lots for park users.

Since September last year, NParks has revised the car park operating hours for various car parks in seven parks, to effect charging from 8.30 in the morning to 6.30 the next morning, instead of doing so on a 24-hour basis. This is to benefit early morning park users, many of whom are seniors and retirees. NParks has been monitoring the usage patterns in these car parks and will consider extending this scheme to other parks.

The users of our parks come from all over the island. Therefore, it would be difficult to justify why those staying within the vicinity of a park should be given preferential treatment and accorded free or concessionary parking rates, over those who live further away. In fact, for those staying near a park, we would want to encourage them to leave their cars at the HDB parking lots and walk or cycle to the park.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive answer. If I may ask just one supplementary question, which has been very much on the minds of my Clementi residents who are affected by the change in policy. Would MND be able to share to what extent car park occupancy was reduced following NParks' decision to start imposing charges for car-parking at these public parks?

Madam, let me first say that there are 71 car parks managed by NParks, of which 42 remain free. There is charging in 26 car parks: 18 since last year, eight from before that. Three are under re-development.

Some car parks managed by NParks were observed to have occupancies from 60% to about 100% prior to the implementation of charged parking at these more popular parks. And at times, park users were unable to find a car lot due to high demand and low turnover because people were not leaving.

NParks also received feedback over many years that some non-park users, such as weekend car owners, second-hand and rental car dealers, goods vehicle owners and vehicles belonging to residents living nearby, have been parking at these free car parks and, therefore, depriving genuine park users who need to drive from parking space. In fact, last year, a total of 1,178 Notices of Offences were issued by NParks for such misuse of car parks. It takes time and enforcement effort and there is a need to investigate circumstances.

Following the introduction of charged parking at those car parks, occupancy at car parks with such high demand has reduced to a more manageable 20% to 60%, depending on the time of the day.

As I said earlier, to benefit early morning park users, many are seniors and retirees, they go almost every day, even on weekdays, and if they need to drive, we have revised the operating hours for various car parks in those seven parks since September last year.

11 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) will approve the installation of gondola points in the private areas of flats in high-rise residential developments; and (b) what recourse do home owners have to request developers to use alternative gondola systems that are not installed at the expense of their family safety.

BCA does not regulate the use of gondola systems nor specify the location of gondola points to anchor the system.

Such gondola points or other building maintenance systems are provided by the developer to facilitate maintenance works on the building facade, such as cyclical maintenance, cleaning or repairs. These gondola points are typically provided at the roof of the development and, in the case of some private residential developments, they may also be provided at the external wall, planter, air conditioner ledge, roof terrace, balcony of some of these units.

Developers will generally inform home buyers of the gondola points and the need for access through their Sale and Purchase Agreement. Any request to change the gondola points or system is a contractual matter home buyers need to settle with the developer and, subsequently, the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST).

The safety requirements for the erection and operation of gondolas are governed under MOM's Workplace Safety and Health Act. Gondolas are required to be of good construction and sound material, and adequately and securely supported. Operators of these gondolas are required to be trained and competent. These measures ensure the safe use of gondolas in high-rise residential developments. Members of the public who are concerned about the safe usage of such gondolas can call MOM's hotline at 6317 1111 to report workplace safety and health violations or lapses.

Would the Ministry agree that developers must opt for alternative gondola points or systems if proven viable to fix these points at common areas without resorting to installing these points at the private balcony areas of home owners, which would compromise the family's safety and privacy?

These developers generally inform home buyers of where these gondola points are – it is all in the documentation – and the need for access in order to do so. Home buyers should engage the developer on any request regarding gondola points or systems. If they have difficulty, then of course, at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) or Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) it may be necessary for residents to reflect this request to their Managing Council.

Madam, in most cases, the clauses in the Sales and Purchase Agreement are very generic and not being made very clear to the potential home owners. Should there be any dispute, who could actually mediate the developers and the home owners in such cases?

Madam, I believe in some of these Sale and Purchase Agreements for condominium developments, you may find or tend to find clauses that provide for mediation. One institution that can help the process is the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC). Of course, they can approach the developer directly or go for an AGM or EGM. If they approach URA, and some residents have done so, URA will facilitate by getting the developer to look seriously at the residents' concerns.

12 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) why are the fares for Downtown Line (DTL) stations between Bukit Panjang and Newton and between Bukit Panjang and Bugis inconsistent and exceptionally high; and (b) whether this is a fair and logical basis to compute fares for commuters.

Madam, fares should be based on the actual distance covered by commuters. However, different commuters may take different routes on different MRT lines to connect between two stations. To compute the fare, the Public Transport Council (PTC) uses the route which enables the shortest time of travel.

Before Downtown Line 2 (DTL2), commuters travelling from Bukit Panjang to Newton or Bugis would have had to use the North-South East-West (NSEW) Lines. With DTL2, a faster route is now available. Logically, PTC should then use this DTL2 routing to compute the fares. Unfortunately, while this would mean lower fares for adult commuters, it would result in higher fares for two other groups of commuters: the seniors and the disabled.

Fares from Bukit Panjang to Newton or Bugis for these two vulnerable groups are currently $0.88 based on the NSEW Lines routing. Had PTC used the DTL2 routing, our seniors and disabled would have had to pay a higher fare of $0.

92. This is because of the way their concessionary fares are calculated and capped, coupled with the fact that higher fares are charged for travel on completely underground MRT lines like DTL2 where the stations are all air-conditioned, which incurs higher operating costs.

PTC has, therefore, applied an additional fare charging principle: it will use the route for fare calculation only if all commuters will enjoy lower or the same fares. For DTL2, this is, indeed, the case for almost all journeys.

With DTL2, with so many stations, it is quite easy to work out different permutations, how many possible journeys can be generated – something like 11,000 possible journeys. Actually, 99% of the journeys will be based on the distance approach to calculating fares. Therefore, commuters using 99% of such journeys will get to enjoy faster time and cheaper fares.

For example, for an adult commuter travelling between Farrer Park and Newton, their fares have come down from $1.09 to $0.

93. This is a saving of 15%. DTL2 has saved them both time and cost. However, for a few station pairs, such as Bukit Panjang-Newton and Bukit Panjang-Bugis, PTC has used the old NSEW Line routing to compute the fares so as to ensure that no commuters need to pay higher fares as a result of DTL2. This directly benefits our seniors and disabled, while the fares for all other commuters do not increase. In fact, by adopting this method, it benefits the seniors largely living near Bukit Panjang station. At first, I thought it was in Mayor Teo Ho Pin's constituency but it has turned out to be Mr Liang's constituency.

This method of computation by PTC therefore benefits the seniors and the disabled living in Mr Liang's constituency, without causing any additional cost to all the other commuters. In fact, the other commuters also benefit because of time-saving. If you take DTL2 from Bukit Panjang to Chinatown or wherever, the savings sometimes can be half an hour or 25 minutes.

Understandably, this approach by PTC gives rise to some inconsistency, some anomaly, in the fare framework. But PTC did so in order to take care of the interests of the more vulnerable commuter groups amongst us. I think it is a commendable principle on the part of PTC.

13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) (a) what is the breakdown of the number of patents developed by Government research centres/institutes and Autonomous Universities in the past 10 years which have been commercialised by the private sector by way of (i) licensing via A*STAR's Exploit Technologies Pte Ltd (ETPL); (ii) licensing without going through ETPL; (iii) mechanisms other than licensing via ETPL; and (iv) mechanisms other than licensing without going through ETPL; and (b) for each group, what is the breakdown by Government-linked companies, public-listed companies, MNCs and local SMEs.

Mdm Speaker, from 2004 to 2014, a total of 1,759 patents were awarded to Singapore's public sector research performers in A*STAR and our Institutions of Higher Education.

A*STAR and MOE track the total number of licensing agreements executed by Exploit Technologies Pte Ltd (ETPL) and the Autonomous Universities (AUs) including those that involve Intellectual Property (IP) that is not patented.

The total number of licensing agreements signed by ETPL with private sector companies between FY2004 and FY2014 was 920. Of these, about 80% were with SMEs and start-ups.

The number of licensing agreements signed by the Technology Transfer Offices in our AUs from FY2008 to FY2014 was 418. MOE does not have a breakdown of the number of licensing agreements by corporate segments but plans to start collecting this data from FY2016.

Companies collaborate with our public sector research institutions on R&D in different ways. However, licensing is the primary mode adopted by ETPL and the AUs for the commercialisation of IP. A formal licensing agreement between research performers and companies ensures that both parties entering into such a commercial arrangement fully understand their rights and obligations.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I just have two supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Minister consider creating a more active match-making function or facility among the Government agencies involved, such as SPRING, A*STAR, IDA, and so on, in order to make our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) more aware of the available IP that they can license or commercialise in a more proactive way?

My second supplementary question is: would the Ministry consider creating a facility whereby SMEs may be able to approach the research centres, institutes and universities in some collective way to request if a certain kind of IP can be developed for their commercial purpose; and if there is a research institute or research team that is willing to take that up, to then execute the research and allow the SME to commercialise that IP when it is developed, with some cost and profit-sharing from the Government.

The reason I ask this is because there is a database of IP, there are events to promote this, there is a scheme to attach researchers to SMEs, but I think this sort of match-making and system whereby we can request the institutes to develop IP may be a way to be more proactive to enable our SMEs to really leverage the expertise in our community of researchers in a similar way to, for example, the Fraunhofer model in Germany.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I think, in essence, the question is whether we can have more intermediation between the research performers in the public sector on one hand and the potential users of research on the other.

As I have said in my reply earlier, there are different ways to achieve this. Licensing is but one mechanism. In fact, with many companies, we have joint laboratories which do proto-typing and test-bedding in order to develop new products. We also have research collaboration agreements which may entail a group of research institutes collaborating with one or a group of companies on specific projects.

Also, we do have other efforts in order, to facilitate greater engagement between our companies and our research institutes. For example, A*STAR does an annual SME Day, where SMEs from very diverse sectors are invited to participate, not just those which are already in collaboration but many others, so that they understand the suite of capabilities that are available for them.

As the Member has alluded to, and I will just elaborate for the benefit of all Members, A*STAR does engage our SMEs in a very deliberate fashion.

One mechanism is the Growing Enterprises through Technology Upgrade (GET-Up) programme which essentially allows for the secondment of researchers to these SMEs, whether it is to work on specific ideas or to map out a larger technology blueprint for them. And similarly, we have got Technology Adoption Programme (TAP) where they modularise technology like radio-frequency identification (RFID) and others so that SMEs which are not really capable or keen at this stage to engage in a very deep research, but want simple modular technology that they can plug in to, or that can be plugged into their systems. Those are some of the products that A*STAR has also developed and RFID is one example.

In general, I would say that that has been the mechanism of engagement and we are always open to other ideas on how it can be improved. But I would say that we need effort on both sides: both on the part of the research institutes to reach out and also for the end-users or those who have the need, to also make the effort to find out more and participate actively.

I would say that the trade associations and chambers, particularly those that are focused along sectoral lines like the precision engineering groups and so on, I think they have very good mechanisms through which some of the more broad needs of an industry cluster can be raised by SMEs.

Order. End of Question Time.

[(proc text) "to amend the Registration of Criminals Act (Chapter 268 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by Mr Desmond Lee; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [25 January 2016] (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]

'[(proc text) We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Christopher de Souza]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address. In his Address, the President highlighted the need for the Government to partner citizens to shape our common future. He also urged all Members to work closely with the people to write the next chapter together. We must and we shall. As a more diverse society emerges and with a more complex global environment to navigate, we should put our heads together, to take things forward as one people.

Madam, in 2012, we held Our Singapore Conversation to listen to what mattered most to Singaporeans. We heard from some 47,000 Singaporeans, expressing views on matters concerning our livelihood, such as job opportunities and housing. We also heard calls for a more fulfilling pace of life, where we can pursue other aspirations outside of work. There was also interest among many to forge a stronger sense of a national identity and these are all important, and have guided the Government's work in the last few years. This is still work-in-progress.

But we need to adapt how we, as Singaporeans, want Singapore to be run, with the new challenges we face. And as it is evolving quicker than ever, we need everyone to chip in, to make it work for all of us. As Minister Grace Fu said last week, we need all hands on deck to face the challenges ahead. It is time to take action. We want to build a democracy of deeds, where Singaporeans have a greater sense of ownership, responsibility and a greater connection to what it means to be Singaporean.

That is the premise behind the SGfuture engagements launched last November. It is an opportunity for Singaporeans to come forward to share their views and suggestions on how to build a better future for Singapore. These are focused engagement sessions, aimed at looking into specific topics, including the arts, sports, volunteerism, environment and even hawker food culture. These are not just discussions, but brainstorm sessions to establish the next steps on matters that concern us.

I attended one of the sessions last Thursday with over 70 youths. Their enthusiasm was infectious. Ideas came fast and furious, on ways to help other segments of society. For instance, one participant had the idea of building public gyms for people with special needs. Another suggested having retro disco parties for the elderly in the void decks of housing blocks. There are all ideas worth pursuing, so I encouraged them to take it further and, if necessary, consider how they can partner the relevant Government agencies and other organisations to turn these ideas into reality.

Madam, I believe we have all seen on reality TV shows, how it is not just the celebrities, but also ordinary people who shape the plot and attract viewership. Not everyone can be on the show. But there is a role for the audience to play in deciding who gets to go, who gets to stay and who finally wins the contest. Hence, we should not sit passively to watch the Singapore Story unfold. Take part in one of the SGfuture sessions, or get involved in other forums that exist. We should take an interest in following the developments and better still, play a part in shaping the Singapore we want for our future generations.

We have all seen the power and effectiveness of collective wisdom. Crowd-sourcing and crowd-funding, for instance, are concepts that have fuelled opportunities for many people and businesses. The run-away successes of Kickstarter, Uber and AirBnB for instance are not solely because of the technology or the products they offer. They manage to effectively match demand with supply and vice versa. Their apps bring people together for a mutually-beneficial outcome and their apps make it easy for people to see what is out there, seize it and achieve a better outcome for themselves. In the same way, SGfuture harnesses the wisdom of crowds.

This idea of co-creating with the people is not entirely new. But SG50 has given us a renewed sense that Singaporeans want to be involved. This democracy of deeds will therefore be an integral part of this term of Government. This also means within the Government, public agencies will need to reorganise ourselves, in order to effectively involve and engage Singaporeans. The SGfuture engagements give a glimpse into how we are intending to do so by matching ideas with action and people with projects.

As Members of the House, we also need to do more engagement with our residents, whether is it to decide on what to build and where to build in estate upgrading projects.

Madam, one of the groups that I hope to involve closely in this, is our youths. They are vocal, energetic and teeming with ideas. I know many of them want to be involved in shaping the Singapore they hope to live in. I have been hearing from more of them since taking up my appointment at MCCY. Recently, I spent a day at Outward Bound Singapore on Pulau Ubin kayaking and abseiling with students from Bartley Secondary School and Tanjong Katong Girls' School. As I think about the time we spent together that day, I was encouraged by the display of teamwork and resilience in our youths.

I hope to be able to catch up with more young Singaporeans in the coming months. I want to hear about what moves them and what they want for Singapore. I hope to share with more of them that they are in a good position to make a difference for Singapore and that the future is theirs to own. I hope to do so through more informal ways, including more kayaking or abseiling, if necessary.

Over the last few years, as a Member of Parliament, I have found it useful to create such relatively informal channels to reach out to Singaporeans, through face-to-face conversations, social media and even exercising.

Madam, since General Elections (GE) 2011, I have been holding monthly "KopiTalks" in a food court and online chats through my Facebook account. It is a way to connect with my residents in Tampines and the public at large. During these informal sessions, my residents raise questions as well as give feedback on improvements for the constituency. We also talk about ways to manage issues, from noisy neighbours to national topics like whether there should be free parking at national parks, which the Senior Minister of State talked about just now. It is all very casual and free-flowing. But from these regular check-ins with my residents, and even some non-residents, I get a good sense of what concerns them.

What I have observed, over the last few years of such engagements is that Singaporeans are moving away from just giving feedback or complaints. Increasingly, I see offers to get involved, for example, the Hope Centre's monthly bread distribution to rental flat residents in Tampines North which started last year. Hope Centre and Tampines North grassroots organisations are now discussing and planning for a new free tuition service for children of needy families.

At the same time, I am also getting requests to help with their causes, for instance, in promoting a giving culture, better road manners and even attending their baby shower parties. This is encouraging and affirms, too, that the approach we are taking as a Government, starting with the SGfuture citizen engagement, is timely and a step in the right direction.

Madam, another way I try to reach out to fellow Singaporeans is through exercise. I run about twice a week. Regularly, I would post an open invitation on social media, for anyone to join me in my runs. These sessions, which I call "Run with BYK", allow me to meet more people. As we jog around places like Marina Bay or Tampines EcoGreen, we chat and learn more about one another. These groups are not large; in fact, often, there are just about two, at most six people. But what makes it different is that it is also very conducive to hear from one another because every new person I speak with is a new opportunity to learn about them, to gather feedback and to look at how we can improve the way we do things in Singapore.

I think this is the mentality we should adopt when we talk about engaging the public, that there are no "right" platforms. We just need to recognise the many opportunities around us to engage with one another, to enlarge the common space to collaborate and to co-exist. And "Run with BYK" is all the more meaningful too now that I am with MCCY, where together with Sport Singapore, we are promoting better living through sport. During each small group run, we enjoy our conversations as well as the beautiful sights and green spaces of Singapore along the way. So, if you are keen, you can look out for the next run through hashtag #runwithBYK. Well, this is my personal exercise regime which I do anyway. I am just opening it up for others to join me. Likewise, public engagement should be and will be in the Government's DNA.

These channels will augment the other established channels that the Government already has, from the REACH platforms, to the hotlines and Facebook pages that almost all agencies have. Our Singapore Conversation and the SGfuture engagements are the most recent efforts to reach out. These are not one-off efforts, but they are a continuum in the Government's plans to reach out to Singaporeans over the years. And with SGfuture, we also want Singaporeans to take up projects, to seed a change and to shape our future.

Many views will emerge, as well as ideas to take Singapore forward. Importantly, we want people to take these ideas and views further, to translate them into action. The Government cannot do it alone or unilaterally, more so as our society becomes more diverse and the demands more diffused. But the Government can and will partner people in making Singapore a better home for all.

Madam, on this note, I would like to comment on several issues raised by Members Sylvia Lim and Leon Perera earlier in the week.

Mr Perera spoke about an op-ed piece by Arts Engage on the Government's role in funding the arts. In Singapore, funding of the arts is a partnership between the state, corporates and individuals, which reflects the spirit of shared responsibility and co-creation that I talked about earlier on. This approach acknowledges the role that the Government plays in supporting the development of the arts sector. Over the last three years, with the Arts and Culture Strategic Review, we have not only seen increased funding but also more arts groups and talents in the arts community are benefiting from this funding. This is because the Government sees the importance of the arts and culture in meeting the aspirations of the people and in building a sense of national identity.

But as the custodian of public funds, the Government is also accountable to the public in the application of funds towards achieving our social objectives. The need to maintain a wide common space among communities and ensure social harmony in our multi-racial and multi-religious society has been expounded by many speakers before me. The public expects the Government and public agencies to uphold these values in our policies, including our funding guidelines for the arts.

At the same time, there is funding from the private sector: corporates and individuals. They do not necessarily carry the same social objectives and are not bound by our arts funding guidelines. However, one can expect conditions to be similarly imposed by these private donors and individuals. The conditions may vary from meeting brand attributes to audience size, but the point is that there will be conditions.

It is therefore not realistic to expect any public funds to be given out unconditionally. For example, the Productivity and Innovation Credit that helps companies raise productivity comes with conditions in employment. Sports scholarship for our athletes comes with conditions in training and in performance. The public expects us as custodian to discharge our responsibility with care and to good effect.

But rest assured, as an advocate of the arts, NAC will continue to focus on arts excellence and continue to make the case for enlarging the space for our artists and arts groups to grow. We will get better in doing this. And when there are broader interests of society that may be at odds with this role, we will try to bridge the differences. At the very least, we seek to help all parties see the other points of view. After all, there should be better and deeper engagement.

Madam, let me now talk about the National Sports Associations (NSAs) that Ms Sylvia Lim had talked about. She questioned the need for Members of Parliament to take up leadership roles in NSAs. I would like to clarify in the House that all the leaders in NSAs have to be elected in accordance with the respective constitutions. The Ministry does not appoint Members of Parliament to head NSAs. They must be elected by their members.

The only exception today is the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) where the President of FAS has been appointed by the Minister responsible for Sports. But this, too, is changing. FAS is transiting to a system of election by members. By June, an AGM will be called during which members will elect their next president.

Members of Parliament who are holding NSA leadership positions have to earn their stripes and gain the respect of the members of the associations. They bring along with them experience and expertise in their own right. At the same time, the vast majority of NSAs, in fact, 55 out of the 63 NSAs, do not have Members of Parliament as their leaders, for example: Singapore Swimming Association, Singapore Sailing Federation, Singapore Bowling Federation, Singapore Rugby Union, Fencing Singapore, Singapore Silat Federation and many others; and these are very good NSAs. In fact, leaders from NSAs have joined us in the Chamber as Nominated Members of Parliament. We have Jessie Phua, Nicholas Fang and Dr Benedict Tan. Madam, I would like to clarify in the House again that leadership in NSAs is not dictated by the Government.

Madam, let me now touch on my last topic of today's speech, long-time PRs. There is a group of Permanent Residents or PRs in Singapore who have been calling Singapore home for decades but they do not enjoy the privilege of having our red passport or pink IC. Many of them live through the years when Singapore and Malaysia were both British colonies, when Singapore joined and subsequently separated from Malaysia.

Typically, they will fall in such a profile: with little or no education, about 60 years old and above and have raised a family of children who are Singapore Citizens. Usually, only they themselves or sometimes with their spouses, still hold Malaysian passports.

I have seen enough appeals for citizenships and permanent residency to speculate that ICA look at the following key factors in assessing the application: applicants' educational level, income status, age and how well they have integrated into the Singapore community. This group I am speaking up for today, most probably or most definitely, would fail the first three criteria miserably. They would also fail the minimum English Language standard for new citizens as proposed by Member Darryl David.

However, they would be able to strike a good conversation with many of our Pioneer Generation members in Mandarin, dialects, Malay, Tamil; and Mr Seah Kian Peng would be happy to hear, probably Singlish, too. After living in Singapore for the most part, and some, all of their life, they are as Singaporean as can anyone can be in their experiences, lifestyles, attitudes and social habits.

Some of these PRs tried applying for citizenship in the past but did not succeed. Others did not even try, for two reasons: either they did not think they stood a chance, or they did not see the need then. To be fair to them, Singapore only started to make a bigger distinction between citizens and PRs in the last five to 10 years. For a long time, PRs were treated no differently from citizens. Hence, many of them did not bother with the hassle of going through the paperwork.

But now, there is a huge difference between subsidies for PRs and citizens especially in education and healthcare, for very good and valid reasons. While education may not be the top priority for this group of residents at this phase of their life, healthcare cost is. So, do we begrudge them that they are now seemingly only re-aligning their loyalty or allegiance for selfish interests?

Yes, indeed, they may now realise that by not being citizens in Singapore, they would face higher medical expenses. But it is probably their Singaporean children who have to shoulder the heavier burden. What matters to them too is that after all these years in Singapore, they hope to able to travel with their children without having to apply for visas. They hope to queue in the same line when they are at the Singapore immigration counters, or simply to rest in peace as Singaporeans. There is a Chinese saying, 没有功劳，也有苦劳. While these people may not be well-qualified in education, may not earn a high income, they have contributed to Singapore, even as a housewife, taking care of children, raising a family of children. They have done their part as good member of the Singapore society and the Singapore community. Therefore, I hope the Government can give this group of long-time PRs from Malaysia special consideration and concession in their citizenship application.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude by re-affirming my support for the Motion and for the President's call to partner citizens in writing the next chapter of the Singapore Story, as we progress towards a better, more inclusive nation in SG100.

Ms Sylvia Lim, you have a clarification?

Thank you, Madam, a clarification for the Parliamentary Secretary. He spoke in his speech about leadership of sports groups and also referred to what I had said earlier. I am glad to hear his confirmation for the association where the Government is nominating all the council members, in other words, in the Football Association of Singapore, that that is being changed and now they would have an election. But, of course, he brought up the bigger point about leadership in other sports associations and he pointed out that many of them who are led by non-politicians are actually doing very well.

I wonder if the Government thinks it is actually better for politicians to refrain from going into contest in these sports associations. After all, we have enough talent in the sporting fraternity and I am not doubting the sincerity of the PAP Members who have gone into certain sports associations, but the bigger point is: is it not better to build a stronger sporting leadership and for politicians actually to sort of step back and let others take the lead and they can always support in other ways?

I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the question. I was the President of the Volleyball Association for eight years. Honestly, I do not know a lot about volleyball. But the Association had benefited from various Presidents coming from Parliament through our networks, through our grassroots experience and they have continued to request for us to continue and for other Members to succeed when our term ends.

As I mentioned, currently, there are only eight NSAs with Members of Parliament at their leadership. A huge majority of NSAs do not. The Government does not ban politicians from entering NSAs nor dictate that the leadership must be helmed by Members in this Chamber. So, it is really up to NSAs to decide and to elect their president, their leadership as they deem fit, that is, in the best interest of the NSA.

Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would just like to put a clarification question to the hon Parliamentary Secretary Mr Baey Yam Keng. Mr Baey referred to my speech when I quoted from an op-ed piece by some of our artists.

I would like to ask the hon Parliamentary Secretary if he agrees with the views specifically expressed because it was not entirely clear. So, here, I am quoting from the op-ed piece by Mr Tan Tarn How and Mr T Sasitharan. Mr T Sasitharan, as you know, if I am not wrong, is a Cultural Medallion recipient. In any case, he is a very prominent local artist speaking on behalf of the Arts Engage network of Singapore which involves a number of local artists.

The view that he expressed was, and I quote verbatim here, "Our website also documents cases of works censored to protect the Government from embarrassment rather than for society's good. Perhaps it is fitting to remember here that arts funding is not the Government's but the people's money." So, I would like to ask the hon Member does he agree with that view; and if not, why not?