Hansard, Tuesday, 7 February 2023

1 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth as this year marks the 100th anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s birth, whether there are plans to observe the anniversary, and to reflect on his contributions and the values he had stood for.

Mr Speaker, as our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew holds a special place in Singapore’s history.

The date, 16 September this year will be the 100th anniversary of Mr Lee’s birth. Many groups from the community – business leaders, the grassroots, academia, media, just to name a few – have come up with ideas to pay tribute to Mr Lee this year. They felt it was important to remember Mr Lee’s contributions to Singapore and the ideals that he represented. They especially wanted to raise awareness of Mr Lee’s contributions amongst Singaporean youths, many of whom were very young or not yet born when Mr Lee stepped down from the Cabinet.

Some ideas that have been suggested include conferences to examine Mr Lee’s legacies, publications drawing inspiration from Mr Lee’s values and life work, and activities to engage a new generation of Singaporeans on Mr Lee’s role in Singapore’s history. Some business leaders have also proposed setting up a fund for private donations that will go towards supporting educational causes. Education was a cause dear to Mr Lee’s heart and they felt the fund would be a fitting tribute to him.

The Government is working with these parties to coordinate these efforts. We welcome these ground up initiatives and the spirit in which they have been conceived.

On the Government’s part, some agencies have planned initiatives for this year, in which Mr Lee will feature. For example, the National Heritage Board has an ongoing travelling exhibition for the Founders’ Memorial, as part of a public call for artefacts and stories from our nation-building years. Later this year, they will have a more extensive exhibition at the National Museum on key historical milestones our founding leaders rallied our people through. This year also marks the 60th year of Singapore’s greening journey since Mr Lee launched the first tree planting campaign in 1963 and NParks will have various activities to mark this milestone. MAS will also be issuing a commemorative coin later in the year, as a reminder of Mr Lee’s values and vision. The respective agencies will announce more details in due course.

As Prime Minister Lee said in his April 2015 Parliamentary Statement, how we honour Mr Lee Kuan Yew “must be faithful to the ideals he lived by and fought for”. Efforts to mark the 100th anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s birth should, as the hon Member Mr Sitoh said, serve to remind us of the values Mr Lee stood for and the ideals he and his fellow founding leaders fought for. Through such efforts, we hope that a new generation of Singaporeans will be inspired and continue the work of our Pioneer and Merdeka generations in nation building.

2 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is studying the preliminary safety concerns flagged by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine safety surveillance system on an alleged increased risk of stroke for people aged 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine.

After more than two years of COVID-19 vaccinations, there is now a well-developed and transparent safety monitoring system, where regulators around the world will highlight observations once they detected it, even if not fully investigated. Such is the nature of the recent preliminary signal reported by one of the vaccine monitoring centres in the US about strokes in individuals aged 65 and above who have had the said vaccine.

Upon further investigations, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assessed that this was very unlikely to reflect a true risk. The signal of a possible risk was neither observed nor validated in other US safety systems or analyses, or by other countries.

Similarly, our local data accrued for the bivalent vaccines so far also do not show any increased risk of ischaemic stroke after receiving either the bivalent Moderna/Spikevax or the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine. In fact, HSA’s latest safety report showed that the incidence rate of severe adverse event after taking bivalent vaccines, at about one in 100,000, is lower than that of the original vaccines, at around seven in 100,000.

The US CDC and FDA are not making any changes to the vaccination practice in US and will continue to monitor the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. Similarly, the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination (EC19V) and Health Sciences Authority (HSA) maintain that the benefit of both the bivalent Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh the risks, especially for vulnerable individuals.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have senior residents in Yio Chu Kang who have raised similar concerns about bivalent vaccines having higher risk of stroke. Hence, some are reluctant to take the bivalent vaccine. How will the Ministry work towards allaying some of these concerns and thereby, improving the take-up rate of the bivalent vaccine among our seniors?

Sir, I thank the Member for the question. Allaying such concerns will require a multi-channel, multi-stakeholder approach, as we have been doing for any issues and concerns around the vaccines and the vaccination programme from the start. The transparency of our processes, the information available from experts, academics and the professionals, the honest and complete discussion about risks and benefits – not that there are no risks, but the benefits significantly outweigh the risks – as well as that last-mile communication. I hope Members in this House can assist in that process of last-mile communication, taking the information provided by the Ministry of Health (MOH), by HSA, by the EC19V, by colleagues and replies in this House, and helping to convey to their residents as well.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. MOH had recently published figures on the number of individuals who have received payments under the Vaccination Injury Financial Assistance Programme (VIFAP). Of these individuals, may I know how many of them had suffered from an ischemic stroke after receiving the bivalent vaccine?

Sir, I thank the Member Ms Joan Pereira for her question. Among the subset of patients having received the vaccine who then subsequently received the VIFAP that she referred to, the data has been released, there were no cases of acute ischemic stroke. So, the short answer to her question is zero.

But we do not monitor the VIFAP applicants or recipients only. We monitor and look for safety signals across the entire population of people who receive the vaccines, who come to our clinics or centres, who receive medical care at our hospitals. And we are looking for that safety signal that this type of adverse event has increased. And it has not. That is the clear message that we want to send.

3 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the outlook for inflation and cost of living in 2023; (b) what are the key drivers; and (c) whether there is further scope to reduce imported inflation with a stronger Singapore dollar.

Speaker, Singapore’s inflation outlook this year is dependent on both external and domestic factors. Externally, global inflation is likely to stay firm in the near term as global energy and food commodity prices remain elevated despite coming off their peaks in 2022. At the same time, labour markets in advanced economies remain tight, thereby keeping pressure on wages.

Domestically, businesses are likely to continue to pass through elevated import and utilities costs, along with rising labour costs, to consumer prices. Meanwhile, housing rent and car inflation are projected to remain firm due to the strong demand for rental housing and tight COE quotas respectively.

Taking these factors into account, inflation in Singapore is expected to remain elevated in the first half of 2023, before slowing more discernibly in the second half, as global inflation moderates and the current tight domestic labour market eases. For 2023 as a whole, the CPI-All Items inflation is projected to come in at 5.5% to 6.5%, compared to 6.1% in 2022. Over the same period, MAS Core Inflation – which excludes accommodation and private transport costs – is expected to average between 3.5% and 4.5%, compared to 4.1% in 2022.

On our monetary policy, as I had explained to this House in November last year, the effects of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)’s five successive monetary policy tightening moves will continue to dampen inflation in the year ahead. MAS remains watchful of the near-term risks to inflation and growth. The agency will review our monetary policy in April 2023.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Sir. I appreciate the proactive move by the MAS with the stronger Singapore dollar to help mitigate the imported inflation. We have also read about how the supply chain has stabilised, which hopefully, will not add new pressures to our inflation from external sources. I wish to ask the Minister of State how much inflationary pressure does he see coming from domestic sectors. In other words, how much of the inflationary pressure is domestically driven? Secondly, what more can we do to manage this domestic cost pressure, which the businesses are facing?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. In fact, MAS was very pre-emptive in its response to the pick-up in inflation, having started monetary policy tightening in October 2021, even when global inflationary pressures were relatively modest. That is important. And just to give Members a sense, as at end January 2023, the Singapore dollar nominal effective exchange rate (S$NEER) has strengthened by 7.8% against a basket of currencies of our major trading partners, if you compare that to October 2021, when MAS first began tightening monetary policy.

On domestic inflation, domestic inflation is related to external factors. So, if you look at the external front, you might have fresh shocks to global commodity prices such as those arising from worsening geopolitical tensions or a significant strengthening of demand following the reopening of China's economy. This, naturally, will result in higher domestic inflation, particularly for food and energy-related items.

Domestically, more persistent than projected manpower shortages could culminate in stronger labour cost pressures.

The Government is aware of this but we expect this current tightness in the domestic labour market to ease over the course of the year, particularly with labour demand likely to soften amidst global economic headwinds, while continued non-resident inflows could also help to reduce labour market tightness and moderate cost pressures.

For labour costs, the Government is also co-funding the wage increases of lower-wage workers for five years, from 2022 to 2026, under the Progressive Wage Credit scheme (PWCS). As part of this $1.5 billion support package announced in June, the Government's co-funding share of this 2022 PWCS support was enhanced from 50% to 75% for wages up to $2,500, and from 30% to 45% for wages above $2,500 and up to $3,000.

The Government will look into the business environment and assess if more support schemes are required to support our businesses.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the answers he gave earlier. I just want to ask a broad, macro question. Can I have a sense of the Government's view of the growth and inflation bias for 2023 and into 2024 as well, especially with China reopening. The Minister of State has given a very extensive answer on inflation. But may I have a rough sense, what is the growth and inflation bias in terms of the outlook for 2023 and going into 2024?

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, CPI-All Items inflation is projected to be higher, as well as our core inflation, but the global market outlook is uncertain; in part, because of potential geopolitical tensions that we have been seeing in the news almost every day. There is also a softening of or normalisation of supply chains but it continues to be tight. We are still quite moderate in our expectations for growth, but at the same time, it is important for us to keep a longer-term view. That is why, for example, for the monetary policy to be proactive, for fiscal policy to be also supporting both our businesses as well as Singaporeans as a whole.

4 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether due diligence was done by NEA on carbon credits issued by Gold Standard and Verra before Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) were signed in 2022; (b) if so, what are the findings of the due diligence; (c) what is NEA's assessment of recent claims by researchers that most of Verra's rainforest offset credits are phantom credits; and (d) whether the MOUs with Verra will remain in force in light of the recent developments.

Mr Speaker, the MOUs that the National Environment Agency (NEA) signed with Gold Standard and Verra aim to facilitate Singapore-based companies in exercising the option to use high-quality international carbon credits (ICC), to offset up to 5% of their taxable emissions from 2024. The MOUs are not legally binding and do not qualify all ICC issued by Gold Standard and Verra, as companies must meet the environmental integrity criteria of the Singapore Government.

Gold Standard and Verra were selected as MOU partners as they are two of the largest carbon crediting programmes which have been accepted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation or ICAO to issue carbon credits for compliance under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or CORSIA for short. CORSIA standards have been developed and backed by a multilateral process led by ICAO, in consultation with green groups and experts, and are widely regarded as being among the most rigorous standards in the industry.

The Singapore Government is aware of The Guardian's report on rainforest credits issued by Verra and the response and clarification issued by Verra. We take all scrutiny of carbon markets and projects seriously, and are committed to ensuring that carbon credits uphold high environmental integrity standards. We will take these developments into account as we finalise the environmental integrity criteria for the ICC that are eligible for carbon tax offset. We will publish a whitelist of acceptable ICC later this year, which will include eligible host countries, carbon crediting programmes and methodologies.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two quick supplementary questions. The first is in relation to the whitelist and eventually the list of approved and eligible credits. What are the steps that the Ministry will take to ensure the veracity of these credits that are available today and in future? Secondly, in terms of the Singapore-based companies themselves who are looking to use carbon credits to offset their carbon emissions, how do we ensure that the companies themselves buy only the verified and so-called legitimate credits?

Thank you very much. As I mentioned in my main reply that we would consider all developments in standard settings or discussions or multilateral fora including in CORSIA and other discussion fora. And we will do our best to work with stakeholders to ensure that the carbon credit offsets have a good chance of developing into a healthy set of markets.

As to the second questions on companies, different companies have different purposes and motivation when going into carbon credits, I do not think the Government should tell them how they would offset their carbon but reputable companies may want to also monitor what Governments are doing and if necessary, they may like to follow what the Government has stated in our whitelist and also in our methodologies.

Ultimately, I think all companies, players in the carbon credit markets, will have to look at standards, have to look at methodologies and all the assumptions therein. The carbon credit market is a very, very broad and extensive one, covers many, many sectors and so companies will have to pick and choose the sector they are interested in and pay attention on methodologies.

5 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in view of the recent finding of wrongful arrest by the High Court, whether the Police will consider reviewing its operating procedures to minimise such occurrences in the future.

6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent court finding that an individual has been wrongly arrested by a Singapore Police Force (SPF) officer (a) whether a review of SPF’s procedures in relation to a person suspected to have a mental disorder has commenced; and (b) whether the incident and the results of any such review will be publicly addressed to maintain confidence in the SPF’s ability to deal with cases of suspected mental disorder.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 5 and 6 in today's Order Paper? My response will also cover the matters raised in the question by Mr Leong Mun Wai, which is for written reply.

Please do.

In the Mah Kiat Seng case, the High Court made a number of observations about the conduct of a specific Police officer. The officer had detained a person under section 7 of the Mental Health (Care & Treatment) Act (MHCTA).

The subject was believed to be dangerous by reason of mental disorder. He was reported to have suddenly touched the head of a stranger's four-year-old child, without having any reason to do so. He was also observed to have behaved erratically. In fact, it was the child's mother who gave the report.

We are studying the judgment in this case. Our concern is that the Court's findings may adversely impact the Police's ability to detain persons under the provisions of the MHCTA, as they stand.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) will be advising on whether we should file an application for permission to appeal, in respect of the judgment.

Since an appeal may be filed, we usually refrain from commenting in detail on Court decisions – unless it is in the public interest that we do so. The Administration of Justice (Protection) Act provides for statements on pending Court proceedings to be made, in such situations. In our view, this is one such case. But nevertheless, I will be careful in what I say, and will be quite constrained and circumscribed.

Before I comment on the case itself, let me give Members some perspective.

Today, we are one of the safest countries in the world. Our level of safety and security is underpinned by the high levels of trust between the Government and the public, and a system of policing that is highly trusted and effective. In the 2022 Gallup Law and Order Survey, 95% of Singapore residents said they felt safe walking alone on the streets at night. The Singapore Police Force (SPF)'s Public Perception Survey in 2021 showed that public trust in the SPF is at 96%. In the same survey, 98% of respondents said that they would provide assistance and information to the Police, if there was a need.

This would not be possible without the high levels of trust in, and competence of, the Singapore Police Force, built up over the years. If you compare it with countries where they want to abolish the Police, first world countries, you can see the contrast.

The framework we have in place, to ensure that our officers behave in accordance with the law, has helped to maintain standards and trust. I will mention the following:

First, the Police themselves are the first layer of check; there is a process to investigate any abuse of power. And we ourselves take action against errant officers. People know that we will do so. Patrol Officers wear body-worn Cameras. Officers' actions can be assessed and actions taken.

Second, where necessary, we can convene – and we have convened – the Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP consists of former judges, former senior public officers and other individuals with significant standing in society. It provides an independent assessment on whether the internal investigations were fair and thorough.

And third, if criminal offences are potentially disclosed, we recommend Court prosecution and let the Courts deal with the matter. The Courts thus provide a third layer of safeguards. The supervision of the Courts is an integral part of ensuring that our system functions properly.

To give Members a sense, over the past three years, an average of 78 Police officers have been subject to disciplinary proceedings annually. And about 10 Police officers have been charged in court each year, for the past three years, for criminal offences.

We will not hesitate to take action when there is an infraction – that is essential to maintain trust with the public and discipline within the Force.

At the same time, while we have to be strict about upholding the highest standards for Police, we have to ensure that our analysis of officers' ground judgments is reasonable and fair.

Police officers work in high-stress and dynamic environments. They often have to make split-second decisions and take decisive action, based on the limited information that they have. It would not be realistic to critique their every move with the benefit of hindsight, removed from the conditions on the ground. The officers must be given sufficient latitude to make swift ground assessments and decisions, as long as they have acted in good faith.

An environment in which Police actions are unfairly critiqued, will inevitably undermine public trust in the Police. It will also lead to defensive policing – where the ground officers will try to do the least possible. They will fear that everything they do will be over-analysed and picked apart unfairly. It would be easier in such situations to not do anything.

Defensive policing is, essentially, no policing – and that can have a detrimental effect on our safety and security. And an unfair characterisation of the Force will eventually also lead to the public thinking of the Police as the enemy and viewing the Police with suspicion. That has happened in other countries. We have so far avoided that situation and we have to be careful to avoid that outcome.

On the specifics of this case, we do have some concerns about the judgment that has been delivered, in this respect.

The Court found that the detained subject had "unusual" behaviour, but those did not qualify as symptoms of someone with a mental disorder. But the Police officer was just equally observing and had to make decisions on the ground. The Court also said that the officer took a dislike to the detained person and that the officer had made up observations about him. We are looking closely at the Court's reasons for reaching these conclusions – the Police tell me that they take a different view.

The Police and AGC will look at these points and decide whether the Court's decision should be appealed. In deciding what to do, we have to bear in mind that decisions in individual cases – Court decisions – can have a much larger and unintended effect, of negatively impacting how officers react in future to such situations.

The Court also made some comments about several issues in law. Such as what the word "danger" in the MHCTA must entail, on the ground. And whether the powers for the Police to "apprehend" someone under the MHCTA and to "arrest" someone under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) are the same. These comments might have an impact on how the Police can exercise their powers and may have adverse public safety implications.

We are studying the Court's comments carefully. We will then decide whether to file an application for permission to appeal or make changes to the law as necessary, to address any gaps that may have arisen between the policy intent and the position in law. If we reach the conclusion that the Court's findings are in fact – as advised by AGC – reasonable and correct, then we will have to internalise that, and make sure the key points are made clear to our officers, so that they understand the situation better. Right now, the sense amongst the Police officers is one of concern, on what liability may befall them, for actions which they may take in the discharge of their duties.

In summary, there are concerns with the judgment. We are now considering the next steps.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I definitely concur that Singaporeans have high trust in the Police force and a Police officer on ground need to have the latitude in carrying out their duty.

I have two clarifications. One, can I just clarify if all the patrol officers on the ground are wearing the wearable CCTV, the cameras, throughout the whole force? Second, the Minister said that a few of the Police officers were charged in Court for criminal offence. Were they charged in the course of their duty or their own behaviour which caused them to be charged in Court?

On the first question, yes, the patrol officers wear body-worn cameras (BWCs). On the second question, it is for a variety of conducts – some in the discharge of their duties, some are outside. The point I am making is that the fact that they are Police officers, gives no immunity. If they have committed an offence and we investigate and we find that there is a prima facie case, where AGC believes that it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, then they will be charged.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answers. My question is probably on the on the flip side. I have a resident who came to me recently about the case of her husband who, supposedly, has a mental disorder. When he was violent towards her, the Police could not take action against him.

My question is, if the Minister can share, what processes could be made to be clearer to the ground officers in cases involving mental disorder, especially as what you mentioned just now, the risk of defensive policy to the ground officers. My suggestion is possibly, if there could be further link-up between officers dealing with mental capacity cases and IMH, and whether there be could be quicker relations, with regard to individuals with mental disorders?

The Police do liaise closely with IMH. In the Mah Kiat Seng case, the person's behaviour was observed to be erratic. In fact, the judge accepted that there was some of that. But IMH felt that he was not mentally insane; and that is entirely possible; there is a wide continuum.

Likewise, I will have to look at the facts of the case that you referred to. It is a bit difficult to answer here. But it is entirely possible that one can exhibit various degrees of bizarre behaviour without actually being classified as insane by IMH. So, the wife might well consider the husband to be mentally unsound, but the husband may not qualify in the facts of your case to be classified as unsound.

In such a case, the Police can only intervene if there is a threat of imminent danger or violence or assault or something along those lines. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs and Law", Official Report, 7 February 2023, Vol 95, Issue 82, Correction by Written Statement section.] It does not have to be physical assault, but if there is a risk, then there are possibilities. Well before that, the person who came to see you, can be assisted to seek Protection Orders from the Courts as well.

7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether he can provide an update on how the maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) sector of our aviation industry is currently coping with the present demands for their services arising from the increase in the past year of commercial flights in Changi Airport; and (b) whether the MRO sector will be ready to cope with the likely increase in flights in the coming months which may arise from the re-opening of China’s borders.

Sir, our aerospace industry is coping well with the increase in demand for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services, following the reopening of borders. The industry's monthly index of industrial production has exceeded pre-COVID-19 levels since the second quarter of 2022 and grew 27.7% year-on-year in 2022.

We expect MRO demand to grow further as China opens its borders. To cope with this demand, aerospace companies are increasing their recruitment efforts and looking to fill about 3,000 new roles by the end of this year. They are also investing in technology and innovation. For example, Pratt & Whitney announced plans last September to establish its Technology Accelerator here in Singapore, which will develop technologies to increase productivity and help the company meet future demand.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Minister of State for the answer. I just have a few supplementary questions. I would like to know whether are there any efforts being made to recruit local MRO professionals or workers who have left the industry during the pandemic? And if so, why efforts have been made to recruit them again? Is there any shortage of local MRO workers and professionals at this point in time?

I thank the Member for his questions. I think it is good now to paint a broader picture of the aerospace industry, and to welcome both new entrants to the aerospace industry and also workers who have left and can come back. Let me give Members a broader picture and in this case, it is a bit of a HR practitioner, in this regard.

First, we are attracting new MRO operations in Singapore. I give you two examples. First, there have been many MRO companies that have expanded their operations since last year. They include Liebherr, who is expanding their in-house repair capabilities for hydraulic and heat transfer equipment. They are also working with our EDB to train and develop programmes for their employees. We also have Meggitt, who doubled the size of their centre of excellence to accommodate MRO capabilities for over 100 new aircraft components.

So, we are continuing to attract these aerospace companies into Singapore and helping them also to expand their offerings into Singapore and therefore increasing our manufacturing output.

The second is the ensuing jobs created. Aerospace companies, as mentioned in my earlier reply, are actively recruiting talent to fill the various roles across all of the different MRO sub-segments. There are many roles in demand, you might want to try including technicians, engineers, production associates; and companies are also keen to hire talented emerging areas such as digital services as well as autonomous technologies. This can enhance productivity and innovation in the MRO process.

On the localisation, the aerospace industry has a high rate of job localisation of almost 80%. Majority of them are working as PMETs and the Government is working closely with companies, schools and unions to build a robust local talent pipeline for the sector. So, we will focus on reskilling and upskilling workers in this regard.

Please do join our aerospace industry. We are expanding the industry, we are also creating jobs and we also provide training. I give you two quick examples, SkillsFuture Singapore transition programme on aircraft maintenance for technicians and then also there is a Workforce Singapore's career conversion programme.

Finally, we are also developing technology and innovation. So, it is not just bringing them in, providing jobs and skilling, but we are looking forward bound into the future. For example, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Rolls-Royce and Singapore Aero Engine Services Private Limited (SAESL) have set up the smart manufacturing joint lab to develop next-generation MRO and manufacturing capabilities. More than 100 SMEs have thus far participated in the joint lab with some becoming qualified suppliers to global aerospace companies.

Finally, we also have a plan. Deputy Prime Minister Heng and I launched our aerospace industry transformation map in October 2022. It is a forward-looking map, which has plans for the aerospace industry to 2025 and we hope to achieve $4.6 billion in real value-added by 2025, which is a 15% increase in our target of ITM 2020.

So, the aerospace sector is looking bright and I encourage Singaporeans to also apply and join the sector.

8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether current efforts to educate youths on the harm of drugs have considered (i) the opportunities and challenges arising from the increased availability of mobile devices (ii) the evolving media environment overseas and (iii) the risks of very young Singaporeans inadvertently coming across drug content; and (b) what is being done to keep up the educational efforts with the ongoing and emerging trends of content promoting drugs.

Sir, the ubiquity of mobile devices and use of social media has indeed exposed youths more to liberal drug views and lifestyles. They also make it easier for people to procure drugs.

The Central Narcotics Bureau, or CNB, has therefore also been actively using social media platforms to reach out to youths, to educate them on the harms of drugs through explainer videos, news stories, infographics and other means.

CNB also works with youth advocates, such as students from Institutes of Higher Learning, to ensure that its anti-drug messages and campaigns are relatable to youths. For example, CNB collaborated with students from Singapore Polytechnic's School of Business last year to roll out two anti-drug social media campaigns.

CNB works with MOE and schools to incorporate anti-drug messages into the school curriculum. It engages students through talks, sharing sessions, exhibitions and skits.

There are also efforts to get parents on board. In 2022, CNB collaborated with 13 community libraries to bring attention to the important role that parents play in helping their children to understand the dangers of drugs. CNB produced a range of anti-drug materials suitable for families with young children for display at these libraries. Some of the libraries organised family-friendly activities, such as storytelling and craft sessions, to raise awareness of the harms of drugs. CNB also commissioned editorials in The Straits Times' "Smart Parenting" column to highlight the important role of parental guidance in drug issues.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have met Clementi parents who are worried about foreign drug cartels and foreign influence and sponsorship that may be leading to a proliferation of drug lifestyle, media and related contents that may find its way into the handphones and mobile devices that their children are using. So, can I ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions?

Firstly, how is CNB looking out to prevent, detect and take down content that facilitates access to or acquisition of controlled drugs? Secondly, can the Minister of State also tell us what are the most commonly abused drugs among youths under the age of 16 in Singapore at the moment?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. We are aware of online platforms being an opportunity for the drug cartels or even people in the different lines of drug supply and trafficking who may share on online platforms. So, as such, we engage social network services, e-commerce businesses, Internet service providers and technology companies to seek their cooperation. We work with them to detect and prevent the advertisements of controlled drugs. So, we do that. And this involves taking down the advertisements, banning the account from being used to peddle drugs and publishing anti-drug advisories on their platforms.

That is something, from the operational perspective, that we do.

If you look at the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2019, where we introduced new offences that aim to address the acts of contamination, where any person who disseminates or publishes information on the cultivation, manufacturing, consumption, trafficking, importing and exporting of controlled drugs, may face an imprisonment term of up to five years or fine up to $10,000 or both with harsher punishments for repeat offenders. So, this is where we target persons who share harmful information regarding drugs, particularly online to influence others towards the commission of drug activities.

We will continue to navigate this because we also look at issues, not only in the upstream, but we are also looking at the operational and intelligence angle, and we continue to improve and be ahead of what the cartels or syndicates are doing.

The Member asked a question about the most commonly abused drugs among youths. Essentially, it is methamphetamine, or in short, meth, cannabis and new psychoactive substances. This is the trend that we have been seeing in the last five years and we will continue with our preventive drug education at the various platforms.

At the end of the day, we also want the youths to feel empowered. We have been working with them to co-create not only to produce the information materials but co-create the feeling of being empowered to stay drug-free. They also engage their counterparts from overseas. Recently, we had youths from Hong Kong visiting us. So, we also involve our youths in this process.

As a whole, it is not only about Singapore. We want to make sure that our youths also understand why drugs are so harmful, not only within the Singapore context but also beyond and how they can play a part in this effort. We cannot do this alone. We need to work with youths and the community.

Essentially, while we continue to engage via online means, we also do not forget the face-to-face. That is where we engage parents – we share with them what they should do, some of the signs and symptoms of when their child is taking drugs and so forth. It is hard work but meaningful and worthwhile, to keep Singapore safe and secure.

9 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on how many Autonomous Vehicles (AV) have passed Milestone 1 and 2 tests respectively; and (b) whether AV development in Singapore is progressing as planned, particularly for autonomous public transport.

Mr Speaker, as of 27 January 2023, 43 autonomous vehicles, or AVs, have passed the Land Transport Authority (LTA)'s Milestone 1 test, and one AV has passed LTA's Milestone 2 test.

The AV trials in Singapore which we had facilitated since 2014 have yielded important capability development in testing and certification, and an understanding of the operational requirements for the safe deployment of AVs alongside conventional motor vehicles. These trials have also informed us that the capabilities would need to be further developed for local operating conditions, particularly in public transport, before larger-scale deployment on our roads can be achieved. These include the perception and sensing capabilities of AVs under complex scenarios in our urban environment and during inclement weather conditions.

AV companies would, therefore, have to undertake further research and development and trials. LTA will continue to facilitate these efforts.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. I first declare my interest as the executive secretary of the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU).

I think, globally, we have started seeing commercial trials of AVs ferrying passengers. However, there remains significant concerns over safety risks, especially in high-density environments, such as that in Singapore. As the Government reviews its AV plans, will the Ministry consider a deliberate slowing down of our deployment timelines, especially for our public transport, until such time when the technology is more mature and safer?

I would also like to ask if the Ministry can work closely with the unions to prepare and transit our workers in the public transport sector, such as bus captains, taxi drivers, private hire vehicle drivers, in line with the AV deployment timeline. I think we should provide our unions and our workers sufficient time to adjust and to adapt to a driverless world.

Mr Speaker, the deployment of AVs in Singapore would depend on a few factors. First, of course, is the progress of the AV technology and, importantly, to be able to meet safety standards and operational requirements. There is also the commercial viability perspective. And then, finally, there is public acceptance, which is also very important in order for larger-scale deployment.

Our assessment is that it will take some time to achieve this larger-scale deployment in Singapore for the reasons that I have mentioned in my main reply, and I think Mr Melvin Yong also mentioned some of these. The impact of AV deployment, therefore, would be gradual. We have time to continue to work closely with the commercial operators, the researchers and also, with our unions and our workers.

So, I would not want to characterise this as a deliberate slowing down, but neither are we trying to intentionally speed it up. We will let the technology and the commercial viability, and also, the awareness and public acceptance, make progress steadily. But if we are able to have some breakthroughs, I think that will be beneficial.

With regard to the collaborations on preparing our workers for this transition, I think that is an extremely important area. Allow me, Mr Speaker, just to share briefly. For the bus sector, for example, we have been working closely with the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) and also, our public transport operators to develop a skills and training roadmap. The roadmap will identify emerging skills and what are some of the new job roles arising from the deployment of autonomous technologies, and what are the courses and on-the-job training that we can provide to our workers.

LTA will also work closely with industry players and with SkillsFuture Singapore to update the existing skills framework to ensure relevance for the bus workforce. For the point-to-point (P2P) sector, from March 2022, the training curriculum for the Taxi Driver's Vocational Licence (TDVL) and Private Hire Car Driver’s Vocational Licence (PDVL) have been updated to help taxi and private hire car drivers adapt to technological advancements, such as the emergence of AVs and the likelihood of jobs that will evolve arising from this trend.

10 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry provides guidelines or subsidies for entry pricing for major attractions for tourists relative to Singapore residents and, if so, whether steeper discounts for residents are possible.

): Sir, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) encourages attraction operators to offer discounts to Singapore residents. However, admission pricing is, ultimately, a decision to be undertaken by the operators themselves.

Some attractions have differentiated pricing or seasonal discounts for locals, vis-à-vis tourists. For instance, Universal Studios Singapore (USS), S.E.A. Aquarium, ArtScience Museum and the Mandai Wildlife Parks all offer cheaper, single-entry tickets to locals. These attractions also typically offer seasonal or annual passes to locals. And other attractions, such as the National Museum of Singapore and the National Gallery, also offer free admission to locals. So, please, visit all of our attractions.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. And, indeed, one of the motivations for me to ask the question was because I went for such a visit with my family, and what I observed was, in contrast to many other countries, the discount turns out to be a very small fraction of the total ticket price. More generally, it makes me wonder whether there could be a greater effort by the Government for either, perhaps, a one-off ticket that could be available for every household who are in the Singaporean Core so that they can at least experience these world-class attractions just once, or perhaps more substantial discounts for low-income families, because, right now, as far as I can gather from the site, the more substantive discounts are just for seniors.

I thank the Member for supporting our attractions. Well, at this moment, Singapore Tourism Board (STB) does not have plans to provide guidelines for direct subsidies pertaining to admission prices for Singapore's attractions. However, if the Member would remember during the height of the COVID-19 crisis, where many of our attractions and, indeed, our tourism sector was hardest hit by COVID-19, we launched SingapoRediscovers Vouchers (SRVs). And that, indeed, helped a lot of the attractions.

It did not just help our tourism sector, but it also enabled Singaporeans to go out there and to participate and enjoy the many attractions we have to offer.

Just to give Members some data, about 1.9 million Singaporeans used their SRVs, generating about $300 million in voucher redemptions, including $180 million in vouchers and about $120 million in out-of-pocket top-ups for the SRVs bookings.

The scheme also assisted and helped many of our retail, food and beverage and transport in about $100 million dollars' worth of ancillary spending. Although the scheme has ended, we urge the Member, and many Singaporeans, to continue supporting our local businesses and exploring our country. We have many new developments coming up, including Bird Paradise in the second quarter of this year. So, please do visit and support our tourism attractions.

11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will conduct a public consultation on a generational ban on smoking; and (b) whether the Ministry will set up a citizens' workgroup to study the possibility of imposing a generational ban on smoking.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) is reviewing the feasibility of a generational ban on tobacco, also known as Tobacco-Free Generation policy, as part of our tobacco control strategy.

We thank Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. As part of the review, we will consider public consultation or other engagement to gather feedback from the population on potential new tobacco control policies, which may be implemented.

Mr Louis Ng.

Just a quick one, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply that MOH is considering a public consultation. But what about the citizens' workgroup that I suggested as well?

We are not closed to the different modalities of engagements, so we will consider this as part of our efforts in getting and gathering feedback from the public.

12 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what measures will the Ministry propose to close the pay gap between ITE, polytechnic and university graduates over the course of their careers; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to engage with employers to address pay disparities among graduates in the workforce.

Mr Speaker, various Government agencies, including the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), have been working together to tackle the issue of wage differences amongst graduates. There are ongoing efforts in partnerships with companies, and we are also working on new initiatives to address the differences in wages.

It is important we narrow these differences to ensure social cohesion is not impacted.

First, we need to enable our ITE and polytechnic graduates to enter good quality, in-demand jobs so that they can enjoy good career prospects and sustained wage growth. We do this in a few ways. Our ITE and polytechnics regularly review their curricula to ensure their industry relevance and this includes aligning with the skills framework and the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs).

They also work closely with employers and sector agencies to provide quality internships to students, equipping them with skills to enter good jobs related to their training. Additionally, MOE is scaling up Work-Study Programmes, where fresh polytechnic and ITE graduates are placed into jobs where they can deepen their skills through a structured training programme that includes on-the-job training, while pursuing careers related to their disciplines of study.

MOE regularly tracks the effectiveness and relevance of these Work-Study Programmes. More than 95% of graduates were employed within six months after completion of the programmes. And based on MOE's latest survey findings, median salaries had also increased compared to what they received at the start of the programme. For example, ITE is growing its Work-Study Diploma Programme from 1,200 places to 1,500 places each year by 2025, so more graduates can benefit from Work-Study Programmes. This is complemented by new sector-specific programmes, which were launched last year.

To Dr Wan Rizal’s question on how we plan to engage with employers, IMDA, together with industry players, has set up the TechSkills Accelerator, or TeSA programme for short, for ITE and Polytechnics Alliance, or the TIP Alliance in short, to equip our polytechnic and ITE graduates with the skills to kickstart their careers in tech. The TIP Alliance will work with participating companies such as Accenture, Google and Singtel to provide internships and apprenticeships.

MTI has also introduced the Accelerated Pathways for Technicians and Assistant Engineers for Manufacturing, or APT(M) to support manufacturing companies with progressive HR practices in hiring and training ITE graduates for Technician and Assistant Engineer roles, and providing them with career, skills progression and competitive salaries.

Secondly, we need to support our ITE and Polytechnic graduates to continuously upskill and progress in their careers. As our economy continues to restructure, as it continues to transform, jobs as well as careers will also keep evolving.

The National Centre of Excellence for Workplace Learning, or NACE helps companies to strengthen their workplace learning capabilities, so that their workers can upskill on the job. ITE and Polytechnic graduates can pursue modular upgrading or part-time full qualification programmes at the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) while they are working. These modular courses can stack up to diploma, post-diploma and degree qualifications.

Over time, workers may also consider pivoting to new careers as interests change and new opportunities emerge in the economy. Workforce Singapore (WSG) offers close to 100 Career Conversion Programmes, or CCPs, across about 30 sectors, to help workers to transition into new in-demand jobs. More than 12,000 Polytechnic and ITE graduates have benefited from CCPs in the last five years and moved into new jobs into sectors including air transport, financial services and early childhood.

Thirdly, we also need employers to consider ITE and Polytechnic graduates fairly for job and promotion opportunities and prospects, instead of being pigeonholed unfairly based on their starting qualifications. The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices set out fair and merit-based employment practices that all employers should adopt when making employment decisions. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP, has been supporting employers with advisory services and resources to implement fair practices. In addition, the Institute for HR Professionals (IHRP) works closely with enterprises and HR professionals to strengthen overall HR capabilities, such as via the Human Capital Diagnostic Tool (HCDT) to identify developmental areas and upskill HR in fair and progressive practices via IHRP skill badges.

I have outlined our very comprehensive approach to ensure that our ITE and polytechnic graduates will continue to enjoy good career prospects and for them to achieve their fullest potential. Success will require buy-in from everyone in society to do our part to recognise, to value one another, and to embrace a broader definition of meritocracy.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. My concern is really about the growing divergence in the starting pay of the ITE, the polytechnic and the university students. My greatest concern really is over time, this gap widens, it increases and it is very difficult to catch up over time.

Having taught students from ITE and right now in polytechnics too, I can see the potential in them especially when they come back to do their part-time diplomas or degrees. But they do feel that because they had started way further, it becomes more difficult for them to come forward. Many of this issue stems from the issue of stigmatisation. How do we overcome this? And that is why I ask in the Parliamentary Question what are the measures that the Ministry would take to change the mindset among employers? And that would be my supplementary question.

But at the same time, can we set a timeline for an implementation? At the very least, we can give ourselves this idea that we are going toward somewhere. And we can give our ITE and polytechnic graduates that idea that we are trying our best to close this gap. In that regard, would we be willing to start a longitudinal and continual study, and data collection on the pay gap between the different groups so that we can use this data to supplement our policy planning?

I thank the Member for his suggestion. Members of the House, this is an ongoing exercise. The Government tracks the employment outcomes of graduates through surveys. This includes the graduate employment survey as well as the comprehensive labour force survey. To complement these surveys, the MOE is working with the IHLs to pilot tracer surveys that can track key trends on graduates' employment status and wages five years after graduation. The findings will then be used to engage the relevant stakeholders to improve employment outcomes for all of graduates.

In response to the Member's suggestion, on top of these surveys and the studies that have been ongoing, as I have said earlier on, it takes all the different stakeholders in our society to come together to recognise the contributions of each and every one of our workers, irrespective of the qualifications.

So broadly, if I may share a bit under the Forward Singapore "Empower" pillar, we are further looking into how to help our workers develop their career health, by helping them to make clearer and informed career decisions; help them to better navigate the labour market as well as be rewarded for their skills. We believe that by investing in this and by continually helping them to upgrade, to re-skill, to keep relevant to the rapidly changing disruptions that we are seeing around us, they will then be able to, as a result of the re-skilling and the upgrading, improve their wages as well as their career prospects.

13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will implement mandatory installation of water coolers in areas of high footfall for drinking water to be readily available so as to promote better health.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) has worked with the National Environment Agency (NEA), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Land Transport Authority (LTA) and National Parks Board (NParks) to increase the availability of water dispensers. They are now installed at all hawker centres, and are also available at parks, bus interchanges and terminals. Owners of other premises are also encouraged to install water dispensers and water coolers.

Mr Perera.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. I am wondering if these can also be extended to other areas of high footfall that are not those specified by her, which is tourist attractions and other areas where the Government could have some influence to have those water coolers installed. That is my first supplementary question.

And secondly, is there any impediment to expanding this more quickly given that we do face a problem in terms of cultivating healthier habits amongst Singaporeans as an important national issue? I think better hydration would help with that. And this conversation I think has been going on for some time and various Members and others in the public have called for more water coolers. Is there any impediment that is holding it back?

Mr Speaker, in respect of other areas with higher footfall, it is something that we can certainly take into account and encourage them to install. However, in relation to the mandatory installation which is being proposed, mandatory installation entails regulation, enforcement and other resources that has to be put in place. At this juncture, drinking water is potable and it is something that is available largely from taps and that might not be the direction that we are heading to at this juncture.

Having said that I do see the importance of actually encouraging hydration, but our healthy lifestyle strategies are quite multi-faceted, and we are looking at various dimensions to increase awareness and also implementation of nudges for healthy lifestyle behaviours to the public.

14 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in view of the potential conflicts and legal disputes that may arise between a Singapore Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) and an equivalent instrument executed in a foreign jurisdiction (a) whether the current legislation requires an LPA certificate issuer to enquire if a donor has previously executed a LPA or a similar instrument in a foreign jurisdiction; and (b) if not, whether such a requirement can be considered as part of the legislation.

Mr Speaker, the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Capacity Regulations do not require Lasting Power of Attorney Certificate Issuers, or LPA CIs, to enquire if a donor has previously executed a foreign LPA or an equivalent instrument. We do not expect such scenarios to be common and are mindful to keep the LPA application process simple.

Nevertheless, we note the suggestion raised by the Member and will take it into consideration when the legislation is next reviewed.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have just one supplementary question. Some of the participants in the LPA value chain have given feedback on the concern that LPA Certificate Issuers are merely rubber-stamping. While I do not think so, there is a possibility that that may happen in the future, especially in relation to LPA applications with the Government's push towards more LPAs and enhancement of knowledge of LPAs.

So, can the Ministry consider looking into publishing more detailed guidance on the duties and responsibilities of Certificate Issuers in the making of LPAs? I think the LPA certificate issuers play a major role in terms of safeguards to ensure that LPAs are effective and not being used as a tools of court litigation going forward as well.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I fully agree with the Member that the role of the LPA Certificate Issuer is not merely to rubber-stamp the LPA application. In fact, LPA Certificate Issuers play a very key role in the entire process.

First of all, who can be a CI? It is not any Tom, Dick or Harry who can be a CI. You have to be a medical practitioner that is accredited by the Public Guardian, or you have to be a practising lawyer or you have to be a registered psychiatrist. So, first of all, the qualification to be a CI is already one step in ensuring that this is a professional service that is provided. And this process is an important safeguard in the LPA application process.

What does a CI need to do in the entire process of discharging his or her duty? First of all, the CI has to meet the donor in person. We have required this as a safeguard because the CI needs to play a few roles and one of which is to make sure that the donor is of sound mind, understands the intent and the scope of the LPA, and at the same time, verify that the donor is not induced by fraud or is under any undue pressure to make the LPA. In that meet-up process, the CI also verifies the donors' identity. I shall not go into details of how this is done. Thereafter, when all these steps have been made, the donor then digitally signs the LPA in the presence of the CI.

For this entire process, the CI must keep clear and detailed records of the steps that had been taken in order for him to ascertain the mental capacity of the donor and how he has arrived at this conclusion that the donor has mental capacity.

These are guides that have been given to the CIs. But we take the Member's suggestions that we can perhaps beef up the guide that is currently being provided. For the Member's assurance, we do currently have regular sessions where we meet up with the CIs through their respective professional organisations to reiterate the important role that the CIs play in this process.

15 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how much are the financial losses that EDBI and Temasek Holdings accrued respectively from the recent liquidation of Zilingo; (b) how many companies have received fundings from both EDBI and Temasek; and (c) what are the similarities and differences in the criteria that EDBI and Temasek use to assess the financial and corporate governance risks posed by startups they have invested in and the measures taken to mitigate these risks.

Mr Speaker, EDBI is the corporate investment arm of Economic Development Board (EDB) and its mandate is to invest in globally competitive startups and high-growth enterprises with the potential to operate and grow from Singapore. Temasek's mandate is focused on delivering sustainable returns over the long term and it invests across all stages of the business life cycle, from early stage to mature, as well as unlisted and listed companies.

EDBI and Temasek invested in Zilingo from 2018 to 2020. These investment decisions were made independently by the two entities to fulfil their respective mandates. EDBI and Temasek typically do not comment on their investments in specific companies, or the performance of these individual investments. The Government's approach is to review the overall performance of EDBI's and Temasek's portfolios, rather than the performance of specific investments, to ensure that they are meeting their respective investment mandates.

As established investors, EDBI and Temasek recognise the inherent risks of investing in startups and take steps to mitigate these risks. Both entities follow industry practice to assess financial and corporate governance risks, such as having a structured due diligence process and engaging the management of investee companies to monitor their business strategy and performance.

Mr Leong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State one supplementary question. Given the recent event, whether Temasek will review their due diligence processes, especially when it comes to charismatic founders and whether they plan to engage founders and the board more regularly to ensure good governance?

Mr Speaker, we have explained this both in the House and also on other occasions, that for Temasek, for example, they do have a process to assess the risks of the various companies that they invest in, and they will also, as part of this process, engage the board and the management of these companies regularly. For the process to work well, it is important, and I hope Mr Leong agrees with me on this point, that we have to pay attention to what is the performance of the overall portfolio and not just on specific investments because on specific investments, there will be some that will make money and there will be some that will not make money.

16 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Health whether there will be a review of the enforcement measures on vaping users and sellers of vaporisers and consumables.

17 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry considers the outright ban on vaporisers since 1 February 2018 to be effective in combating the growing popularity of vaping and e-cigarettes; and (b) what are the causes for the continued rise in the vaping trend in Singapore over the last three years.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 16 and 17 in today's Order Paper together?

Yes, please.

The harms relating to e-vaporisers are clear and Ministry of Health (MOH) takes a multi-pronged approach to curb the illicit sales and use. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) oversees enforcements and works closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) in relation to illegal imports of e-vaporisers. In schools, MOH and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) work with the Ministry of Education to raise awareness about the harms of vaping and encourage children and youths to lead a nicotine-free lifestyle. Schools take a serious view of vaping.

However, we have seen a worrying trend in the increasing use of e-vaporisers both locally and globally which could be attributed to the packaging and the variety of attractive flavours and scents and the easy access to e-vaporisers through e-commerce. There are also common misconceptions regarding the harm of e-vaporisers.

MOH is closely monitoring the use of e-vaporisers and reviewing the strategy against vaping. We will work with our partners to strengthen both enforcement and education measures to curb e-vaporiser use.

Mr Shawn Huang.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have several concerned residents and parents and despite the current efforts – education, outreach, enforcements – there is still an upward trajectory. So, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what more can be done to reverse this trend and if you have done sufficient – given enough effort to reach out to our youths, to educate them on the adverse effects?

I thank Member for his question. Indeed, it is a problem that we are also very concerned about, which is why we are working very closely with the different partners at different parts of the equation. Upstream, HSA is looking at enforcement, looking at the online social media spaces, we are looking also – sorry, at the social media platforms. We are working with ICA to stop the illegal imports and with schools, HPB is also working in educating students about the harms of vaping. So, this is an ongoing review that we are looking at.

There is a larger effort in looking at the tobacco control measures. This is something that we probably have to take multi-faceted approach and also to walk together with the public. This awareness is something that we have to push through a lot more. There is a lot of misconceptions about the vaping being, perhaps, less harmful. It is actually a starter product that actually opens up doors to tobacco consumption and smoking and we need to have a harder push but we need efforts from all fronts – from parents, from teachers, from schools, from the community to encourage this effort. We are also rolling out a digital vape-free campaign and we are also hoping to get support from the community on this.

Hopefully, with all these efforts, we will be able to build greater awareness and create better enforcement so that we can reduce the incidence of vaping amongst our young.

18 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the current trend of vaping among students in primary, secondary, pre-university institutions and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs); and (b) what measures have been put in place by schools and IHLs to address the issue of students vaping on school and IHL premises.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a firm stand against vaping. We work closely with the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) and Health Promotion Board (HPB) to educate students on the harmful effects of using imitation tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and e-vaporisers. In schools, students learn about Singapore's laws and regulations on vaping and the consequences on individuals, families and society. Students in MOE schools also learn to recognise impulsive and addictive behaviour and are equipped with skills to say "no" to e-cigarettes and e-vaporisers as well as strategies for self-control and to manage negative peer influences. The Autonomous Universities (AUs), polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) also raise awareness among students about the harms of vaping and the benefits of leading a vaporiser-free lifestyle.

When students are caught using or possessing e-vaporisers, the prohibited product will be confiscated, parents are informed and school-based disciplinary action will be taken, including suspension, or caning for boys. They are referred to Student Health Advisors or lifestyle coaches or are placed on cessation programmes by HPB where counsellors will guide them through their cessation journey to effect long-term behavioural change. Recalcitrant offenders may be referred to HSA which may issue them a fine.

19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there is a shortage of manpower in the biotech sector currently; (b) if so, how will the shortage of manpower in the biotech sector be addressed over the next decade; and (c) what are the key areas or levels of seniority in which the shortage of manpower in the biotech sector is most acute.

Mr Speaker, we expect the biotech sector to grow by 8% per annum and concomitantly, its manpower needs, especially for roles such as regulatory affairs and clinical project management.

We are addressing the biotech sector's manpower needs in several ways. Firstly, by expanding the talent pipeline. A*STAR has nurtured a pool of 560 PhD-level talents for biomedical-related sectors to-date, including the biotech sector. In addition, we have a pipeline of 250 A*STAR scholars who are currently pursuing biomedical-related fields of study. The number of students admitted to biotech disciplines in our Autonomous Universities has grown from 1,200 in 2018 to 1,400 in 2021.

Second, we are nurturing talents who not only understand the science but also have the capabilities to commercialise, to fundraise and to scale up their business. We do this through efforts like the SGInnovate’s Helix Immersion Programme and the A*STAR’s Singapore Therapeutics Development Review (STDR) initiative. There is also the Innovation and Enterprise Fellowship Programme (IFP) which has attracted more than 90 fellows since its launch in 2020 and has seen 50 deep-tech startups, accelerators and incubators participate in its pilot.

Thirdly, we are supporting the industry's need for scientific talent through A*STAR's T-Up programme. T-Up is the Technology for Enterprise Capability Upgrading programme, which has seconded close to 70 researchers and scientists to 45 biotech-related companies.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to check whether there will be any comments from the Ministry on the SGInnovate report that was published last year about whether there is going to be a widening gap that is projected, I think, 30% shortfall in talent within the next decade or so and whether there are any steps going to be taken to address some of these findings.

I want to thank the Member Ms He Ting Ru for paying close attention to the report which was just recently released and allow me to quickly elaborate on how the Government will take action from the report in terms of boosting the skills and manpower in the biotech sector.

Today, we have tripled the number of companies in biotech related areas compared to a decade ago. We have about 140 companies in Singapore involved in therapeutics, diagnostics, drug delivery as well as drug delivery tools. And to support the vibrant growth of this sector, as indicated in the report, we will continue to boost our talent pipeline all the way from the young university entrants, the entire spectrum to established researchers. I have highlighted some of the numbers about A*STAR PHD talent as well as the A*STAR scholars.

We will continue to do so through targeted programmes and initiatives that build and support the sector's manpower needs. For instance, I mentioned briefly about STDR and this programme is about giving our scientists, our researchers opportunities to develop the skills and ability to fundraise in addition to their scientific talents, to commercialise and also scale up their business.

The Member may be interested to know that between 2015 to 2021 STDR has funded 44 therapeutics projects over seven grant calls, of which 18 projects have been completed.

I want to quickly also elaborate on the IFP that I mentioned because this offers our researchers, scientists and engineers, in fact working professionals, one year to one and a half years of formal and on-the-job training to help them develop entrepreneurial skills and since about two and a half years ago, since 2020, more than 90 fellows from academia and industry have onboarded, with many of them joining the deep tech startups and taking up technology commercialisation roles after completing the programme.

Another one – let me touch on the Helix Immersion Programme. By year 2025, this programme will place-and-train some 100 fellows in bio-tech startups and companies and more recently, just last month, on 13 January, we launched the Deep Tech Talent Central and this is led by SGInnovate and supported by the private and public sector partners. This programme offers apprenticeship for students and mid-career on-the-job training programmes.

So, I want to assure the Member that the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and our agencies will certainly continue to work closely with the industry, the universities and the stakeholders to follow up on this report to strengthen, boost and also nurture a vibrant and healthy talent pipeline for the growth and the future of our biotech sector.

20 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs in the past three years (a) how many incidents of assault involving migrant workers at dormitories have been reported to the Singapore Police Force; (b) of the number of incidents reported, how many have racial undertones; and (c) what proactive steps have been taken to reduce the risk of such incidents occurring.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there were about 990 cases of assault involving migrant workers at dormitories reported to the Police from 2020 to 2022. These include cases of affray and rioting. A minority of the cases involve persons of different races. As far as we are aware, none were reported to be racially motivated.

The Police work with the dormitory operators on safety and security issues. The operators are required as part of licensing conditions under the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), to put in place security arrangements, including closed circuit television systems and deployment of security officers. The Police also work with the operators to engage dormitory residents on crime prevention and safety and security matters.

Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Questions [6 February 2023], (proc text)]

[(proc text) That this House affirms the importance of keeping public housing affordable and accessible while protecting the interests of current and future generations of Singaporeans, and endorses the commitment of the Government to these twin goals. – [Minister for National Development]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) That this House calls upon the Government to review its public housing policies in order to deliver affordable and accessible HDB flats to all Singaporeans, strengthen the owner-occupation intent of public housing, protect retirement adequacy and keep public housing inclusive for every Singaporean of each generation. – [Mr Leong Mun Wai]. (proc text)]

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

In accordance with the decision of this House to have a simultaneous debate on both Motions, I will now call on Members to make their speeches. Members are allowed to consider both Motions in a single speech. Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the two Motions before the House today touch on a subject that is near and dear to Singaporeans – housing.

The first part of my speech will touch on the overarching principles and values that should guide our housing policy.

In the early years of our Independence, HDB flats were built for rental and then later for sale primarily as an affordable home. But today many younger Singaporeans feel that the Singapore dream of a HDB flat is increasingly out of reach, or at least, severely challenging.

I spoke to a young Singaporean recently who will be marrying this year. She tried and failed twice to get a Built-To-Order (BTO) flat in a non-mature estate. Given this, as well as the time factor, she is now looking at resale options, but resale prices are high. On top of the price, the cash plus the CPF upfront component that they need to pay to get a bank mortgage loan, or even a HDB loan is substantial. Both of them are young and have little CPF savings, so they have to seek funding from their parents, who have their own difficulties to cope with, or find other solutions.

In fact, nearly six in 10 or 60% of people want to rent or buy, so they find property becoming more unaffordable, according to a poll of 790 respondents conducted in July last year by a private company that provides online services for home rentals.

Let us unpack this. Why do people feel this way? It is because the most affordable type of HDB flat – the BTO flat – is seeing excess demand, many launches substantially oversubscribed. And that feeling is coupled with another – the high price of resale flat, which keeps getting higher.

The generation that grew up during the heyday of the asset appreciation approach to policy have grown up with the expectation that HDB prices will keep on rising and that this is very, very good. But one simple truth is dawning on more and more Singaporeans. If HDB flat prices rise and rise, that inevitably tends to affect our house prices for the young. That is because land sale values from the state to HDB seem to be influenced by historical sale transactions and that in turn affects BTO prices. The fiscal capacity of the state to provide subsidies out of the Budget is not unlimited. Hence, the HDB flat lessee may realise some capital gain, but his or her children may be struggling in the housing market.

The passing of the years in generational change has made more and more Singaporeans grasp this fundamental reality.

There is another fundamental reality that has not been fully grasped and that is that the resale prices of flats will inevitably hit a point when it starts to decline. Many of us are not so focused on this lease decay issue right now. With the HDB resale market buoyant, it can seem like it is not relevant to the time that we are living in. But it is something Singapore will have to contend with the medium to longer term.

Sir, we are facing the inevitability of lease decay as well as the need to keep housing affordable for the young who are starting families. Facing these two realities, I think the time has come for us to reboot, refresh and reframe mindsets and start thinking of our HDB flats as primarily a home to live in, an affordable home and much less of an asset whose value will rise and rise in the same way that the value of, for example, developed country equities. Stocks and shares have generally risen over the long term. HDB flats are not like stocks and shares.

Framing policies, setting expectations that the price of a flat is going to go up and up and up, and never come down, is not sustainable. Older HDB lessees can see this when their children start to enter the housing market.

Sir, I spoke about the need to keep flats affordable for new families. There are two other reasons to reboot our mindset and move away from the mental model of the HDB flat as an ever-appreciating asset that uplifts generations through property price uplift.

First, if we frame our policies to prompt rising resale values in the belief that monetising that resale value should be one of the main ways we provide for retirement, where does that leave those who do not want to sell and move out?

Many elderly Singaporeans are living in flats worth a considerable sum, but they do not want to downgrade. Some want to stay put in the communities where they have sunk roots, where their friends and relatives are, where they have social capital, where they are familiar with the neighbourhood and its hawkers.

Others may look around at the market for buying a smaller home and find that after deducting brokers' commission, renovation and moving costs, and after factoring in the need to repay CPF accrued interest which more and more sellers are finding that they cannot do, the prospect of downgrading does not release enough cash for the upside to outweigh the downside. Plus, most are unwilling to take up the Lease Buyback Scheme, as most probably they want to leave their flat to their children, who they think will face even higher property prices in the future, which probably explains the scheme's low take-up. Many are unwilling or unable to rent out their flats for reasons of privacy or not having alternative dwellings.

Sir, there are and will be many people who will not benefit from an ecosystem of policies centred on people monetising their HDB flat for retirement.

Secondly, if Singaporeans accept that HDB flat prices will keep rising and rising at a rate that will give them a significant capital gain, that may blunt the drive to do other economically meaningful things – to retrain, to set up a business, to innovate at work, to increase productivity. Markets reward such economically useful behaviours normally. But when greater rewards can be gotten from gaming the property market and flipping properties, the urge to do those other things lessens. The expectation of ever-rising property prices can become the opiate of the masses, depleting our entrepreneurial and innovative impulses.

Rising property prices can also suck away household capital from other uses like financing a spell away from the workforce to retrain or pursue a further degree, for example – something that is very relevant in this age of disruption.

So, rather than focus on rising HDB flat prices to uplift the generations, I believe we should rewire our thinking to once again view HDB flats as, first and foremost, an affordable home to live in. And Singaporeans will get a better and more sustainable uplift if all our minds are focused instead on nurturing an economy that creates better-paying future-proof jobs with a decent career path, including vocational ones and combine that with some degree of national redistribution to offset advantages of birth.

Sir, I come now to the second part of my speech where I pose a few questions to the Government. I have four questions here.

Firstly, and most importantly of all, I would like to ask the Government if it still sees HDB flats as an ever-appreciating asset. More specifically, does the Government designate HDB flats as a retirement asset which necessitates their appreciation of the time even though the inherent nature of the finite lease requires that they must eventually depreciate and expire zero? Is this asset appreciation assumption still the centre of gravity of our housing policy?

There are various statements from the Government on this, and some seem, on the face of it, to be contradictory. There have been statements that prices may keep on rising even after year 70, for example from former Ministry of National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan in September 2018. And there was Deputy Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong's statement in 2017 that resale prices will eventually come down to zero as the lease decays. I will not quote the various statements that could be quoted, due to time limitations. That is my first question.

Secondly, what is the Government's view on the affordability of HDB flats? What in Government policy-making is the boundary line that divides affordability from unaffordability on a metric of housing affordability? One widely used housing portability metric is the median multiple or house-price-to-income ratio. This indicator was a primary indicator of the 1991 World Bank UNCHS housing indicator system and was used as a measure of how affordability by the UN Commission for Sustainable Development. Its use has been publicised by an organisation called Demographia which studies housing affordability. Demographia views a multiple 5.1 as severely unaffordable, 4.1 to 5 is seriously unaffordable, 3.14 is moderately unaffordable and under 3 is affordable.

My Parliamentary colleague, Sengkang Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua, filed a Parliamentary Question to obtain data as regards HPI for first timers who bought resale HDB flats. HPI in 2022 ranged from 5.7 to 4.

2. For those who bought BTO flats ranged from 4.8 to 2.

9. The average for BTO flats was four and the average for resale flats was 5.1.

At this point, Sir, I note that the hon Member Xie Yao Quan referred to our 2020 manifesto formula which called for a maximum debt-service ratio selling price for HDB BTO flats in non-mature estates. This cap to the debt-service ratio applies to all flat types, including 5-room BTO flats. There are other elements in the formulation, such as a cap to loan tenure and further discounts for 2- to 3-roomed flats in that manifesto formulation.

Mr Xie's example compares median 4-room BTO flats in non-mature estates to our maximum cap. That is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Our position now of three, or close to three HPI for BTO in non-mature estates that my hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim explained is developed based on new information derived that my hon friend, Sengkang Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua, from his Parliamentary Question, that first-time applicants collecting keys for BTO flats had a median household income of $7,700 per month.

We believe that it is useful to refocus the conversation on first-timer median income, not national household median income. Hence, the Workers' Party view that we should aim for HPI of three or close to three for non-mature BTOs as a function of first-timer household income.

Annex 2, which Minister Desmond Lee circulated, puts the HPI for BTO flats in non-mature estates now at around 4.5 for 3-room flats and 5.5 for 5-room flats.

Sir, I repeat my question on what the Government defines as unaffordability going by HPI. Does it view, for example, anything under an HPI level of six as affordable, or HPI level of five as affordable? To be sure, I am not saying that the Government should accept the Demographia classification, but the Government should clarify what its stance on the HPI is.

My third question is on planning sufficient supply of HDB flats for new household startups. Member of Parliament Louis talked about this. Clearly, the rate of formation of new households as a result of marriages, or even other kinds of events like divorces, is not something that changes drastically from year to year. It is demographic data that does not see sudden or radical changes in general. The Government controls most of the land in Singapore and hence, does not face impediments in terms of being able to acquire land to build HDB flats, unlike in many countries.

Why then do we get into situations where the supply of HDB BTO flats cannot keep up with demand. Where there is excess demand such that BTO projects are oversubscribed at increasing ratios as my hon friend, Louis Chua, has expanded on in detail and much demand that would go to BTOs ends up going instead into the resale market leading to resale price spikes? Why does demand and supply get mismatched? It is not just due to COVID-19 delays. This happened in the pre-COVID-19 past, too, at times. It would be useful if the Government can share its perspective on this and also share what it does to research and plan ahead to match supply with demand.

My fourth and last question to the Government is on the link between housing and our total fertility rate, or TFR.

It is often said that economic factors like house price are not the only factor affecting the willingness of couples to have children. Talking to many of my constituents in Serangoon ward and Aljunied GRC and fellow Singaporeans over the years, I am of the view that while not being the only factor, it is a very important factor indeed.

I recently spoke to a constituent in Serangoon. She had married recently. Both the husband and wife are university graduates. Surveying their housing options, she felt that the burden of debt to acquire a decent home was so high that they were unsure as to whether to bring children into the world if they did not have the economic means to give their children all the support they would need to thrive in Singapore.

Hence, I would like to ask the Government if it takes seriously the possible linkage between TFR and housing access and affordability. Has it studied the effect of rising and high house prices on our TFR?

A PhD student at NUS Kidjie Saguin in a paper she authored for the Asian Development Bank Institute in March 2021 found a statistically significant link between higher resale prices and lower TFR in Singapore. Surely, this is a question that can be addressed through economic modelling, regression analysis and so on. Has the Government studied this and shared data on this? If it has not studied, would it do so?

This brings me to the third and last part of my speech where I will share two concrete suggestions to improve accessibility and affordability for HDB housing.

First of all, Sir, I would like to suggest that the Government consider building some BTO flats sold at 70-year leases with the option to top up to another 29 years. This will allow BTO flats to be sold at a lower price. Such flats may also will better suit the life plans of many buyers.

For example, someone aged 50 may buy such a 70-year-lease flat at year 20 because they want a shorter lease and they do not expect to live beyond 100, or those who may want to stay in the same flat for life may also find this attractive.

This would be another addition to the HDB ecosystem that widens choice to Singaporeans who may want very different things at different stages in their lives. In this proposal, payment for the optional additional 29-year period is made only upon the exercising the option, but the option payment is locked in from the day of the initial purchase.

This option should be exercised not later than five years before expiry of the initial lease period. This would allow a five-year planning window for HDB to decide how best to deal with the site.

Certainly, tiered BTOs like this would be sold at a significantly cheaper price due to the shorter lease duration. That cheaper price may make possible a shorter loan duration, which many would welcome as being less risky, given the vicissitudes of life. The CPF funds saved thereby would get compounded in the buyer's CPF accounts and boost retirement adequacy.

There is no loss to the state. The state can take back the flat upon lease expiry and it can be put to various uses such as public rental housing or Sale of Balance Flats.

The assumptions and principles behind this new 70+29 BTO flat have some parallels with those behind the Lease Buyback Scheme, which allows leases to be shortened, with some monetary benefit gained for the lessee.

Sir, my second proposal is to build a new class of flats which are built ahead of demand and not Built-To-Order. The core idea in this proposal is actually mooted in this House by my hon friend and Member of Parliament for Sengkang Louis Chua at MND's Committee of Supply last year.

Sir, young couples and families waiting for BTO flats can sometimes wait for four or five years or more. Is this a reasonable expectation for our society to have of newlyweds and new households starting up?

During those years of waiting, the couple will have to find other living arrangements. Many choose to stay with parents but that does not come without challenges, for obvious reasons – challenges that can strain young families. Some would certainly postpone childbearing for this reason. Is this healthy?

Building more flats ahead of demand would create some buffer stock – some redundancy in the system – to allow couples to buy a BTO flat faster without the current wait times.

Sir, I am aware that HDB currently does sometimes build flats without waiting for 70% of the units to be sold. In comments HDB made to CNA in November last year said that it is already building ahead of demand or actual bookings where possible. Since May 2011, it has called for and awarded construction tenders for the majority of BTO projects ahead of the outcome of the flat selection. Minister Desmond Lee also yesterday said that the proportion of Shorter Wait Time BTOs will rise.

My suggestion here is to build more of such advance build BTOs more frequently and to create a special class of flats built ahead of demand as another complementary plank in our HDB ecosystem once market conditions have become normalised from what they are today. These would be flats where there is no requirement to sell before construction starts.

One objection to this proposal is what if the flats remain unsold for a long time? The cost of maintaining those empty flats would be a loss to the state. However, if such flats remain unsold, the selling price could be reduced until we reach a market clearing level where someone will buy – which is how markets operate. The risk of flats remaining permanently unsold is small once you consider this.

Moreover, HDB would obviously conduct market research before deciding to build certain flat types in certain locations, which would lower that risk even more. Unsold flats could also be repurposed for the expanded public rental stock as proposed by my colleague and Member of Parliament for Sengkang Jamus Lim. I am not calling for all flats to be built this way – only some.

Sir, one of the mantras of our industrial development, one reason EDB was able to attract investment in the 1960s and subsequently, was our willingness to build industrial facilities, factories, industrial parks and so on ahead of demand so that investors could start up their factories quickly.

If we can build industrial facilities ahead of demand, can we not also build residential homes ahead of demand to reduce the wait time for new couples to encourage faster new household formation and perhaps childbearing to lift our globally abysmal total fertility rate (TFR)?

I should note that I am suggesting building this new class of built-in-advance flats after we have cleared the we have cleared the current BTO backlog so as not to divert resources away from that task, though planning for that should start early.

Before I end my speech, I have some clarifications for Minister Desmond Lee and his Annex 9, which compares the house price index (HPI) in Singapore to several cities with very high house prices such as London, Los Angeles and Sydney.

My question is: are the HPIs in these cities based on all home transactions, including landed homes in those cities? Would the Minister have the HPI in those cities for apartments with the same average square footage as HDB flats in Singapore? I think that would be a more useful apples-to-apples comparison and I hope the Minister or the Government can share this information, if possible, during the course of today's debate.

Secondly, would the Minister also acknowledge that people living in London, Los Angeles and Sydney who cannot keep up with high house prices can move to cheaper suburbs or move to a smaller city or another state where house prices are substantially lower whereas in Singapore, people can only do that if they migrate? With that, I end my speech.

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Leon Perera for responding to my question yesterday. Just to recap, the Workers' Party's manifesto in 2020 said, and I quote, "HDB BTO selling prices in non-mature estates should be based on a 20-year mortgage, 10% downpayment and monthly repayment of a maximum of 25% of the median monthly household income." So, it is pegged to the median household income.

If I heard Mr Leon Perera correctly just now, the Workers' Party's position is that they should apply to all flats, including 5-room flats. Is that correct?

The 25% debt service ratio formula expressed in our manifesto in 2020 is a maximum cap. It is a maximum cap. It is not an expression of a target for the average. It is a maximum cap.

Our formulation also has other elements in it, which differ from typical transactions right now – a 20-year loan tenure, 10% downpayment and additional subsidies for 2- and 3-room flats to lower the eventual BTO selling price even more. So, yes, it applies to all flats – that position in the manifesto, but it is a maximum cap.

Sir, I thank Mr Perera. So, if I hear him correctly, the Workers' Party was suggesting in its manifesto, offering a definition of affordability. That definition is based on median household income applied to all flat types, including 5-room flats, when we know that HDB flats cater to the whole range of Singaporeans up to the 80th income percentile.

So, the Workers' Party's position is basically to peg the definition of affordability to median household income, even for higher-income earners in Singapore.

As I mentioned to Mr Xie, that formulation was a maximum cap, not the expression of where the average should be targeted at. So, I am not sure I fully understand his question. But he is referring to the 2020 manifesto's formulation that we gave and I would remind him that it includes various elements which he did not allude to – a 20-year tenure, a 10% downpayment and additional subsidies for 2- and 3-room flats.

We have said that we believe that three or close to three is the right HPI target for BTO in a non-mature estate.

So, I would like to ask Mr Xie what is the point that he is trying to make and also, I would like to ask Mr Xie what is his view on affordability? Where would you draw the line? At what level of HPI between what is affordable and what is not affordable?

Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Well, Sir, I think the point is this that according to Mr Perera's clarification, the Workers' Party's proposition of pegging the highest flat type – a 5-room – to median income, basically must mean that the cost of a 5-room flat for higher-income Singaporeans must come down. That must be funded in some way. I think it is reasonable to assume that a proposal to peg housing price to median income must be based on a median flat type.

If Mr Perera is proposing that the highest flat type must also be pegged to median income, then I would like to ask Mr Perera just how exactly does he suggest funding this – because it must mean that the price of a 5-room flat must come down to a median income level.

As I clarified several times, I am not sure why there seems to be a disconnect here. That formulation in the Workers' Party's 2020 manifesto was a maximum cap for 5-room flats. It is a cap that comes about by way of capping the debt service ratio at 25%. Then, you work out a price based on that. There are other elements in that formulation as well. The prices of other types of flats would follow correspondingly from that maximum cap which would probably apply for a 5-room BTO.

To address his question on funding, if you listen to the proposals that we are making in this debate in totality, we have spoken to that question. We have spoken, for example, about the approach to land valuation that can be taken. So, I think we have got proposals that addressed how these things are going to be funded. And I would remind Mr Xie again that our position is aiming to three or close to three HPI for BTO in a non-mature estate.

I would like to ask Mr Xie again because he has not replied to me – what does Mr Xie feel is the boundary line between affordable and unaffordable? What is the HPI? I would like to know what the Government's view is but I would also like to know what Mr Xie's view is.

I have another question for Mr Xie as well. Does Mr Xie Yao Quan acknowledge that if we have a mental model of ever appreciating house prices and then we have a model of valuing land based on comparables and historicals, the tail is wagging the dog? We will get an escalation of prices going on for a long, long time. That will mean that if we want to keep BTO prices stable, we have to increase subsidies more and more and more. I would like to ask Mr Xie where the money for those subsidies is going to come from in this model, if he believes in that model.

Sir, I think this has been useful and I think it is what is clear from the Workers' Party's position is that they are proposing to peg the price of a 5-room flat that is not our median flat type to the median income and to then peg subsequently a 4-room flat, a 3-room flat – a 4-room flat being a median flat type at something that is lower than median income.

This is something that is useful that has come up and I think we can debate on that. But to Mr Perera's question, I agree with the Minister that our housing prices for non-mature estate BTOs are affordable. I would like to ask Mr Perera what his benchmark for affordability for a median non-mature 4-room BTO flat is.

To Mr Xie, I would reply that I have stated what that criteria of affordability is several times in my speech and several times in my exchange with you. It is a HPI of three for a BTO in a non-mature estate.

I would like to clarify Mr Xie Yao Quan's position. You are saying that the current HPI for BTOs – you feel that this is affordable, basically.

You did not answer my other question, which is if we have an ever appreciating cycle of property prices that lead to higher BTO prices because the land valuation goes up and we still want to keep BTOs affordable, that needs bigger and bigger subsidies from the Budget. I think $1.5 billion, it has gone up to close to $4 billion and it is going to go up even more. So, where does Mr Xie think the money is going to come from?

I would like to move on. Mr Murali Pillai, do you have any clarifications? I understand you have some clarifications.

Thank you, Sir. I thought I would be outstaying your welcome by asking.

Both of them have outstayed their welcome, not you. Not yet.

Just a short clarification for the hon Member Leon Perera. He mentioned that one of the reasons people do not want to use the Lease Buyback Scheme was because they want to fund the purchase for their children's flat. May I just ask for the source of this reason, having regard to the fact that in November 2022, this question was asked in the House and the hon Minister has given a comprehensive answer?

One of the major drivers is that these people would find that their retirement needs are met and therefore they do not need to enter into Lease Buyback arrangements. That is the primary reason. Secondly, there are other schemes that the Government avails to seniors, such as the Pioneer Generation Package and so on, which allows them to meet their expenses.

I thank Mr Pillai for his clarifications. This was referenced in the Workers' Party "HDB Reforms" paper. We had a section of it where we talked about what is the available evidence at the time the paper was written – which was November 2022. So, what is the available academic evidence out there were the reasons why the take-up rate for the LBS has been so low. My understanding of that is that there is some qualitative research that suggest that the bequest motive, parents wanting to leave the flat to their children, is a very, very important reason. I am not aware of any statistical survey that has been done – to be fair to Mr Pillai's question – but I believe that there is some qualitative evidence on the table.

Certainly, from my conversations with constituents, with Singaporeans who are in that older category who would qualify for the LBS, I have found from those conversations that many of them are very worried about an environment of ever-increasing property prices that their children will have to face in later years. And therefore, they want to keep that flat, pass on to their children, in view of their lack of confidence that houses will continue to be affordable for their children. That is my sense of it.

The second question that Mr Pillai asked was — there was only one question? Okay. So, I think in my speech, and to address Mr Pillai more holistically, other than wanting to leave your flat to your children, there is also the fact that not everyone wants to rent out their flat or is able to rent out their flat. In other words, not everyone is able to monetise their flats. So, if we build an ecosystem of policies where monetising your flat – because the price is high and appreciating – monetising your flat is going to be one of the key planks of retirement adequacy. Those people who want to keep the flat for their children, those people who do not want to tap on LBS, do not want to rent out their flat, will not be able to benefit from that plank of retirement adequacy. So, that was the point of my speech.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

Sir, with 80% of our population living in public housing, today’s Motions are of paramount importance to Singaporeans, as it affects the majority of us on something so fundamental as the roof above our heads.

I have considered very carefully the motions put up by the hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa, which I will refer to as the “PSP Motion”; and that put up by the hon Minister for National Development, which I will refer to as the “Government’s Motion”.

The points raised in the PSP Motion are, in my view, raising correct objectives for public housing. Affordable and accessible public housing, preserving the owner-occupant nature of it, ensuring that retirees have access to public housing and keeping it inclusive are all ingredients of a successful public housing policy. The PSP Motion calls for a review of policy is also not objectionable – government policies should be reviewed from time to time. And it is precisely the role of Parliament and Parliamentarians to point out areas of public policy that should be revisited and changed if they are not working or not working optimally.

However, I find that I am not able to support the PSP’s Motion because the manner it is worded suggests that the Government public housing policies at this point do not deliver on these objectives or do not even have these as objectives.

The operative two words in the PSM Motion is “in order”. I quote: “That this House calls upon the Government to review its public housing policies in order to deliver affordable and accessible HDB flats”. The use of the words “in order” suggests that existing policies do not deliver the objectives. While I agree that certain aspects of Government policies should be reviewed, I simply cannot agree that current policies do not aim to provide accessible and affordable housing or that they do not look at providing for retirees and so on.

In fact, even a cursory review of public housing policies would show that all of the points raised in the PSP Motion are actually explicitly stated objectives. These rebuttals have been made by the Government and speak for themselves.

I further do not agree with the hon Members Mr Leong’s proposal in his speech, in particular, that buyers be exempted from paying the purported land cost of their flats until they sell their flat. I will elaborate on why I disagree with this.

I will therefore support the Government’s Motion but I would also like to make several observations and suggestions on public housing.

My first point is that affordable public housing should not be seen as cheap public housing and that accessible public housing does not mean that everyone will be able to get a flat in their choice location at the time that that may want it, devoid of other considerations.

As a small country with land scarcity, high level of development and general affluence of our population, we cannot expect that property prices would be anything else than fairly pricey. And this will be so whether it is public housing or private housing. Affordability and accessibility should be created by Government policies like grants, the provision of HDB loans, where possible, waivers of certain requirements and flexibility in imposing eligibility criteria, for example. Accessibility is also created by varying, amongst other things, lease tenure and limiting certain types of flat to only certain categories of buyers, like flats for the elderly.

My second point is that public housing has to go beyond just affordability and accessibility. The PSP Motion mentions retirement and inclusivity. Indeed, public housing policies are not merely about bricks and mortar and the cost of flats, but it is also a set of social policies that aims to achieve various objectives.

If we look at one such policy – the Prime Location Public Housing scheme, which gives higher subsidies for flats in prime locations like the Greater Southern Waterfront, so that they become more accessible to a wider range of Singaporeans. As the hon Minister said when launching the scheme, without Government intention, only the well-to-do would be able to afford housing in attractive locations and that the Government was determined not to let such stratification and segregation happen, as it has successful cities. In this regard, to ensure inclusivity, rental flats would also be built within these prime estates.

My first impression reading about the scheme when it was first mooted was that some buyers would strike a lottery if they win the ballot for these flats, as, after having taken advantage of the higher subsidies, they would be able to get a windfall when they sell the flat after the Minimum Occupation Period. This would be hardly ideal.

However, when the scheme was eventually rolled out, the Government layered a safeguard against precisely this “lottery effect”, including a higher Minimum Occupation Period and a subsidy recovery mechanism even when the flat is sold after a 10-year period. As such, thought had obviously been put in such that while pursuing the objective of inclusivity, other undesirable consequences do not inadvertently arise.

But another aspect that public housing policy as a social policy should take into consideration, is how to give effect to the aspirations of Singaporeans for upgrading. As we all know, Singaporeans have an almost innate desire for upgrading our property as we earn more and as our families grow larger. In this regard, it is also important to create opportunities for upgrading within the public housing milieu, including the possibility of upgrading by getting a bigger flat or a flat in a better location.

This brings me to my third point – that HDB must continue to show value to buyers. Even as I say that prices of public housing will continue to rise due Singapore’s characteristics, HDB should continually look to building and selling flats of a high quality and also of diverse types to cater for all Singaporeans.

The Prime Location Scheme was one such example that I had raised. In Punggol, there are beautiful, new seafront flats, of which I am sure view is absolutely amazing. There is also a need to accommodate the elderly, which includes downgraders – silver Singaporeans who wish to downgrade from their private properties or larger flats, as their children move out or as their mobility is reduced. Singles are another group and many not look not to buying just small two room flats, but larger flats as they may wish to also house their parents or to just have more space for lifestyle.

HDB must look into all of these aspirations – from the practical like ageing and retirement to the aspirational like upgrading and lifestyle; and for some, the desire for a fantastic view. This must be so, because our public housing cannot be, like in other countries, basic. With 80% of our population living in public housing, it is a diverse group with a range of income, priorities and aspirations.

My next point is to caution about generalising about public housing, based on a few cases or news reports. An example is the increasing number of flats being sold above $1 million in the resale market. If we look at these flats, they have a particular nature. They are larger and they are in choice locations. They also make up a very small proportion of the total number of sales – I understand just between 1% and 2%. Their impact on the price of new flats or resale flats that do not have these characteristics, is minimal.

As such, while these make the headlines, they are not indicative of flats, in general, becoming unaffordable.

Another example is that of the flat being put up for sale without the buyer having ever occupied it. Based on what the Ministry and HDB has said, these are rare cases of abuse and there are penalties that can be applied to such incidences. One swallow does not make it spring and these outliers do not mean the public housing system has failed. There will always be people who will try their luck at these things. What is important is that they are caught and they are brought to task.

Let me now address the hom Member Mr Leong’s proposal that HDB owners pay for the purported land cost of their flats only when they sell their flats – the Affordable Homes Scheme. The idea is that if these buyers occupy the flats for their entire lives, that they would essentially never have to pay for the land cost, and that this would make flats affordable at the outset.

First, let me say that I imagine that this proposal arises from Mr Leong’s fixation with land cost and his fixation with the payment made by the Government to the state as consideration for state land. If we recall Mr Leong’s earlier proposal in December, it was that, and I quote “Land costs should be take out of the picture”. He had also proposed that HDB flat prices should account only for construction costs and price differences between locations. Mr Leong had also separately suggested that land could be sold at historical rates.

The hon Minister had addressed these proposals in Parliament last month and explained how this proposal would amount to a raid on the reserves.

Mr Leong now makes a different proposal – that the land cost be paid only when the flat is sold. So, it appears that he has accepted the Minister’s explanation that land cost should, in fact, be “part of the picture”, as it were, but that payment for it should be kicked down the road, albeit with interest. This proposal fails on several fronts.

First, if it is a matter of the Government purchasing the land first but not charging it when it sells the flat, it means that the Government will become a de facto creditor to all persons living in HDB flats who have not sold their property. And the question arises whether the Government should be essentially lending money to citizens in this way.

Second, it means that when a person sells their flat, they may be left with nothing or even a deficit – because interest continues to run as long as they live in the flat. So, their debt to the Government actually grows larger over time and this could become a disincentive to remain in the flat.

Related to this is what is the rate that interest should be fixed at – because anything lower than the fair market rate would mean that the Government is being deprived of a certain amount of money that could be used for expenditure in other areas that could benefit a larger number of people.

Third, even if a person lives in the flat for his whole life, he is unlikely to live longer than the period of the 99-year lease. What then would happen when he passed away? Is the cost of the land to be borne by the purchaser, the inheritor, or will the land cost merely disappear? None of these options is acceptable.

All these questions arise, of course, in a model where the Government pays the state for the land first, then sells the flats once they are built on the basis of the proposed scheme. However, it appears that Mr Leong is actually suggesting that the state not be paid first but only once the buyer sells his flat. Because Mr Leong mentioned that the payment would be made back into the past reserves.

Sir, this is an even more difficult proposal because it will again result in a raid on the reserves because the value of the land should be determined, to my understanding, at the point that the transaction occurs – not what the historical cost of the land is, even if interest is applied to it. It is simply wrong and it is not the way that the reserves work.

In this regard, although Mr Leong started his speech by saying that he would like to propose a reset of housing policies, in fact, Mr Leong is proposing a reset of much more, including the entire system of how our reserves are maintained and managed. He is proposing to turn the system that has underpinned our financial stability on its head.

But, Sir, arising from these Motions, this debate and the various proposals by Mr Leong, is a larger question of democratic accountability and the nature of politics and political debate in Singapore. Over the Chinese New Year period, while chatting with friends at gatherings, this issue of public housing and land costs came up more than once. I was disappointed when some of my friends and relatives said that, well, paying for state land is simply a matter of left pocket, right pocket; and that Mr Leong’s original proposal of excluding land costs would make sense.

This, Sir, is a sad instance of where something incorrect is repeated oft enough, it becomes to believed to be the truth. In fact, in his speech yesterday, Mr Leong continued to conflate the Government's accounts with the past reserves.

But coming back to these Chinese New Year gatherings, I took pains to explain to them that this is not a matter of left pocket, right pocket. In fact, it is a matter of two completely pairs of trousers worn by two completely different people. The hon Minister had given his explanation on precisely this last month. For me, it is intuitive, because many years ago, I worked in the Singapore Land Authority, in the land sales department. So, to me, I could understand immediately.

But what is the reality of how it will be received by the public?

When faced with a correct but more technical and complex explanation as the Minister had made, which may take some time and thought to understand, as compared to an incorrect but simplistic and far more delicious proposition, I expect that the delicious proposition, the nod to a populist position, will have more traction and agreement amongst the public. But it will create confusion and misunderstanding of Government policies and it will create unreasonable expectations.

This, Sir, of course, is a larger question of how we want our politics to evolve, what is the level of democratic accountability we expect, whether there can be some sharing of the burden of responsibility, to increase accountability and the accessibility to information.

Coming back to these Motions, Sir, many of our policies are finely calibrated and work in tandem with each other. As I had mentioned, our housing policies are also a set of social and economic policies. It is often meaningless to look at just one factor, criticise it and make suggestions on how to change it, without looking at the whole. The PSP Motion and its related proposals does precisely this and I therefore find myself unable to support it. I stand in support of the Government’s Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, a public housing flat should be an affordable home for our families to live and grow up in. The original mission behind the Housing and Development Board (HDB) when it was set up in 1960 was to alleviate the severe housing shortage at that time by building affordable homes for the population.

However, in 1989, public housing flats took on another role as an appreciating asset for their lessees when the Government announced several major policy changes with regard to HDB resale flats.

First, the income ceiling for the purchase of resale flats was removed. This allowed people to buy HDB flats even if they were higher-income earners.

Second, Permanent Residents (PRs) were allowed to buy HDB resale flats. This supported the Government's liberalisation of immigration policies to attract more middle- and higher-income foreigners to come to work in Singapore.

And third, HDB flat owners were allowed to purchase private property for investment purposes.

These measures added liquidity to the public housing market which pushed up prices.

The Government also introduced various upgrading programmes for HDB flats and estates. In addition to improving the living environment of HDB flat dwellers, this also bolstered the view that HDB flats are an appreciating asset.

Flat upgrading was pitched to voters by the PAP during the 1997 General Elections (GE) as a benefit they would enjoy priority for if their precincts voted for PAP candidates. Voters were told that after upgrading, their flats will increase in value. Conversely, precincts that voted for the Opposition risk being placed further back in the upgrading queue.

Soon after the 1997 GE, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong assessed that linking the upgrading programme to electoral support was the single most important factor in the vote swing to the PAP and that it was decisive in tipping floating voters in the PAP's favour.

The PAP's votes-for-upgrading election strategy continued into the 2006 election when PAP candidates promised $180 million of upgrading projects for Hougang and Potong Pasir if voters tossed out the Opposition there and voted for the PAP. Hougang and Potong Pasir voters did not bite the carrot offered.

However, by 2015, Opposition-held wards like Hougang eventually started getting their lifts and flats upgraded. The scheme lost its effectiveness as a political tool. In fact, in my conversations with many residents in Hougang, it was this perceived unfairness that prompted them to vote against the PAP.

It is natural for people to not just desire a home to live in, but also to own an asset which grows in value. Many people think that their salaries alone will not make them rich. Properties, including HDB flats, are seen as very attractive assets to grow one's wealth. For the first two decades of the Government's asset-enhancement policy, the property asset drive mindset worked like a charm. HDB resale flat prices increased 382% in value from 1990 to 2010. Many HDB lessees saw eye-watering increases in their property wealth.

However, this pathway to wealth requires ever-increasing property prices to sustain it. Every property bought would need to be sold for significantly more than the purchase price. Yet, perpetual property price increases are neither sustainable nor in the public interest.

There are currently about 70,000 flats that are more than 40 years old, with remaining leases of 59 years or less. These flats will decline in value after the 50- to 60-year mark, as illustrated by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim yesterday. Those who bought HDB flats in the 1980s and 1990s may be glad to see that their properties have increased in value. However, to unlock the value of these assets, they will need to sell and downgrade their properties before their leases start to decay.

Those with adult children would realise that the situation is much more precarious for their offspring. Many parents of young adults nowadays worry that their young children may not be able to realise the same dream they themselves achieved to own a home of their own.

Those who are better off had gone ahead and bought properties for their children to move in when they get married. Others have migrated to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where they are able to buy landed property for the price of an HDB flat. But where does that leave the rest of Singaporeans who do not have wealthy parents and want to remain in this country to build their homes, careers and families?

While many who graduated in the 1970s were able to afford a landed home after a few years of work, private properties are now out of the question for most younger graduates. Even resale flats are now out of reach for many of them, leaving BTO flats the only remaining option.

My hon friends Louis Chua, Leon Perera and Jamus Lim have tabled proposals on making the price of BTO flats more affordable. In the remainder of my speech, I will focus on moderating the price of resale flats.

Many young couples buying their first flat prefer to live near their parents. This provides them the familiar surroundings that they grew up in and the companionship they can offer to their parents and vice versa. Their parents are also able to help care for their children when they are at work. Many home buyers also prefer living in mature estates were amenities and transport links to the city are better developed. Only resale flats can meet many of these requirements.

This is also why BTO flats in mature estates are so popular. Many of my residents have approached me to ask me for help to appeal to HDB for priority to get a BTO or Sale of Balance Flat in a mature estate, after trying many times to secure one in balloting exercises and failing. When I suggest using a resale flat and using Government grants to help with the downpayment, my suggestion is often met with great scepticism, because resale flat prices feel so far out of reach for them.

The median house price to income ratio or HPI after grants for first-timer families who bought a resale HDB flat in the last five years was between 4.6 and 5.

0. This ratio is the resale flat price divided by the household income of the buyers. According to the International Housing Affordability ratings by Demographia, such a median multiple would be rated as "seriously unaffordable". The median multiple would need to be 3.0 and under to be considered affordable.

This has pushed many of my residents to either rent at high open market rates or compete with other home buyers to ballot for BTO flats.

We need to moderate the growth in resale flat prices. Our goal must be to moderate the growth, not to make the prices collapse, because the latter would negatively affect many existing flat lessees who are depending on their flats as a source of future retirement income.

There are two ways to moderate resale flat price growth without imposing price caps by government fiat. These are: to reduce demand and to increase the supply of resale flats. The Government has already introduced the 15-month waiting out period for private property downgraders to reduce demand. I will focus on measures to increase the supply of HDB resale flats.

There is potentially a large stock of HDB resale flats that can be put on the market. Many seniors live in flats that are larger than what they require after their children have gotten married and moved out. It becomes difficult for them to clean and maintain such a large flat on their own. As at 2021, there were 71,000 flats that are 3-room or larger which were owned by married persons over the age of 65 whose children had moved out.

These flats could potentially be sold on the resale market if their owners are prepared to move into new 2-room Flexi flats on short-term leases. Many of these 2-room flats come with elderly-friendly fittings and nearby amenities, which seniors find quite attractive.

However, not all elderly applicants for 2-room Flexi flats are successful. The application rates of BTO 2-room Flexi flats allocated to elderly households as at September 2022, ranged from 2.0 to 4.6 times in non-mature estates, and 9.9 times in mature estates.

If a larger proportion of the 71,000 senior households decided to sell their flats and buy 2-room Flexi flats, the demand will far outstrip supply. By 2030, 25% of our population will be over 65. The number in need right-sized flats will only grow as the years go by.

The Government needs to provide more help to seniors who wish to right-size their flats by building more 2-room Flexi flats. Doing so will have the twin benefit of increasing the supply of resale flats for new hone buyers and moderating their prices.

Another area that the Government should look into to increase the supply of resale flats is to prospectively restrict the concurrent ownership of HDB and private property. Currently, private property owners who want to buy an HDB flat are required to dispose of their property before buying an HDB flat. The Government has stated that this is to prioritise our limited supply of public housing for residents who do not own other properties. However, the reverse is not true – HDB flat owners are allowed to buy private residential property without selling their HDB flat. They can do so if they meet the Minimum Occupation Period and pay the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty (ABSD) of at least 17% on the purchase of their second and subsequent residential property.

The Government has stated that this is allowed because HDB recognises that the financial position of HDB flat owners may improve over time and some may aspire to own private residential property. While I acknowledge that this is a valid aspiration of many higher-income Singaporeans, realising this aspiration cannot come at the expense of less well-off Singaporeans who are only looking for a roof over their heads.

As at October 2022, about 3% of HDB flat owners owned at least one private property. This translates to about 32,600 units. Of these, 45% are not living in their flats. So, there are about 15,000 HDB units which are not occupied by their owners who live in another private property that they own. This represents a not insignificant number of HDB flats that could potentially add to the resale flat supply and moderate the price of resale flats.

I do acknowledge that many of these flats are rented out, adding to the supply of open market rental flats.

Has the Government given further consideration to the possibility of future buyers of private properties being required to sell their HDB flats? When I asked the Minister for National Development in November last year, he said that the Government has been "gathering views from Singaporeans as part of Forward Singapore and will study these as well as other views and ideas carefully".

For those who are already concurrently owning both a private property and an HDB flat, the Government could incentivise them to sell their HDB flat by rebating the ABSD they paid at the time they purchased their private property if they choose to sell their HDB flat. This would encourage private property owners to free up their HDB flats for others who cannot afford to buy private property.

This policy should be prospective so that it will not compel current HDB and private property owners to dispose of any property. It will only affect those who currently own an HDB flat and decide to purchase a private property after the policy takes effect.

If this policy is implemented prospectively, it will not immediately add to the supply of resale flats. However, in the medium to long-term, it will better promote the owner-occupation intent of public housing and better ensure an adequate supply of affordable resale flats.

Mr Speaker, housing is a basic human need. Singapore's public housing policies were a great success in the first few decades after our independence. But the Government got distracted along the way when it started pairing the objective of affordable housing with that of asset enhancement. As a result, public housing has become unaffordable by some international measures. The longer we allow these two objectives to be conflated, the more unaffordable housing will become for future generations. It is time that we stopped kicking the can down the road and focus on HDB's original mission of providing quality and affordable housing for all Singaporeans, especially the lower- and middle-income earners.

Dr Shahira Abdullah.

Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this Motion.

At the end of 2020, I began my own journey in looking for a flat of my own to start a family. It was admittedly an exciting time when we looked at all the factors and options we could consider in the public housing domain.

There were many factors we had to consider:

Should we stay in a mature or non-mature estate?

Who will help when we have kids in the future?

Will it make a difference if we do not have a car?

Is the opportunity cost of time due to longer travelling times, for example, be taken into account if we settle for a further location?

Will this be our forever home or will it be a stepping stone to something else?

To complicate things further, due to the effects of the pandemic, there were BTO project delays, which resulted in the rise of resale flat prices. It did make us jittery to see the price going up month on month the longer we took to make a decision.

Buying house is one of the biggest purchases a young couple can make. For me at least, it shone a spotlight on the role of HDB and how has it evolved over the years. And more importantly, moving forward, how will it be in the future?

Since its inception, HDB's goal has been to encourage home ownership by making public housing affordable and accessible. We can see that this has come to fruition as 80% of Singapore's population currently reside in HDB flats, of which about 90% own them.

The last few years have seen many significant and rapid changes to the housing landscape. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on supply chain and manpower disruptions have driven up the price of resale flats for the eleventh consecutive quarter as people look for quicker alternatives.

This is a concern, especially for those who cannot qualify for BTOs and ECs but are unable to afford private property. In the recent October sitting in 2022, I had asked about the number of HDB homeowners who have purchased a second private property. In response, it was found that the group made up 3.3% of all HDB flat owners. In the subsequent sitting, it was mentioned that about 45% of this group are not living in their HDB flats as they have rented out their whole flat.

In view of the strong demand in public housing and the high resale prices, will the Government consider HDB flat owners to sell their flats when they purchase a private property to free up more flats moving forward? In this way, we can prioritise couples and families who need a house.

Secondly, executive condominiums (ECs), a hybrid of public and private housing, targeting inspiring middle-class families who are unable to qualify for BTOs but find private condominiums or properties, too expensive. They are subject to an income cap of $16,000. However, still they qualify for subsidies.

I did a quick check on the DBS home loan website. For couple who is a first-timer with a combined income of $16,000 which is the cap looking to buy an EC, based on the indicative prevailing interest rates of 3% to 4.25% and the maximum loan period of 30 years, the couple will be eligible for a loan of up to $975,000 and affordability-wise to purchase a property worth $1.3 million. However, if we were to take a look at the recently launched Tenet EC, the units actually range between $1.1 to 2.1 million. Even with the HDB grants, it may still be challenging for the couple to afford the larger unit with a combined income of $16,000. Therefore, would the Government consider reassessing the income caps for executive condominiums?

Finally, the long waiting time to BTO flats is mainly due to the construction delays brought about by the perfect storm of the effects of the pandemic and less so due to the waiting time to secure a place for a flat as even in non-mature estates, the flats are oversubscribed. Therefore, how can we overcome BTO construction delays and be resilient against such supply chain and manpower disruption in the future?

HDB taken a bold step forward by embracing new technologies that can accelerate construction and completion times. For example, the BTOs at Tengah are expected to yield a 25% improvement in site productivity compared with other BTO projects. This is promising and paves the way for looking at technology which can create a more resilient construction industry. I commend them on going on this path of research, innovation and hope this can continue.

In conclusion, I still believe that the public housing policy has responded well to the changing needs of Singaporeans over the years. It is heartening to see how the policies have continuously evolved to ensure accessibility and affordability.

Public housing is not just affordability though. The curated shared life experiences in HDBs for social cohesion and diversity are unmatched anywhere else in the world. For that, I support the Ministry's Motion.

Ms Carrie Tan.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak. Having heard the debate yesterday and comments on social media, especially after having heard the speeches of Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Members of Parliament, I feel that I should say a few words.

First, yesterday, Member of Parliament Hazel Poa asked why we could not build sufficient flats in one go, like what we have done during Mr Lee Kuan Yew's time. She also asked the Minister whether he thought Mr Lee Kuan Yew had raided our reserves. Her questions surprised me.

Times have changed. At that time, we didn’t have a mature HDB resale market, nor did we have much reserves to speak of. What was the point or purpose of her question?

Second, Mr Leong Mun Wai had also spoken about PSP's Affordable Homes Scheme, the purpose of which is to strengthen the principle that a HDB flat is for owner occupation, not investment. However, when he responded to a netizen's comment on his Facebook, he said that his intention was for Singaporeans to keep their CPF money, and not to be "condemned to living in HDB flats" forever because they cannot afford private housing. When I read this, I was very puzzled. What did he mean by saying "condemned to living in HDB flats"?

In Singapore, more than 80% of our citizens live in HDB flats and many of them have been living there for their whole life. We bring up our children in HDB flats and some of us have upgraded from a 3-room flat to a 5-room flat. Many middle-income families are very proud of this. Mr Leong Mun Wai really should not say that people are "condemned" to stay in HDB flats. What is wrong with staying in a HDB flat? By saying so, Mr Leong seems to be subconsciously looking down on those who live in HDB flats.

Since December last year, Mr Leong has kept on changing his stance. First, he said that we should not include the cost of the land into the prices of HDB flats; then he said we should use historical prices; yesterday he said that we could include the land cost, but delay it until we sell, and give it back to HDB together with interests. Within three months, he changed his stance three times. Can such a scheme be reliable?

Shifting stances aside, I tried to give serious thought to his proposal. Mr Leong suggested that when selling new flats, the price should only include building cost, thus reducing the price drastically. Hence, people do not need to spend their CPF money to buy a flat. This is indeed very appealing.

However, if you think twice, you will realise that this will further increase the price gap between BTO flats and resale flats. Looking at the BTO application data last year and considering our "kiasu" mentality, the PSP proposal will only cause more people to apply for BTO flats, because it is a good deal! But the resale market will suffer from lack of buyers, the resale price will fall precipitously. Can Mr Leong be sure that such a scenario will not happen?

If this were to happen, the asset value of current HDB flat owners will fall. How is Mr Leong going to resolve this?

In my constituency in Yishun, there are many Ah Gong and Ah Ma in their 70s or 80s who are thinking of leaving their flat to their children, or selling it and distributing the proceeds to their children, or selling it back to the Government at market price. In this way, they will not only be able to stay in the same flat, but also have spare money to spend for the rest of their life, without the need to depend on their children so much. If we were to implement the PSP's policy, Ah Gong and Ah Ma's asset value will drop sharply. Where then can they get their retirement security?

I can understand the anxieties our residents have been feeling in the past two years. Geopolitical uncertainty, rising prices and the pandemic have made young people, who were forced to stay at home, to want to have their own space more urgently. Construction delay has also made the younger generation worry about if they are able to get a flat. All these anxieties add up to the challenges in getting a flat successfully. It is human nature to feel this way.

However, if we look further, these feelings are all transitory and caused by the special circumstances in the past two years.

We cannot step on the brake suddenly on the government policies and simply reset. What will happen if you brake suddenly? The cars behind will ram into you.

Now the PSP is calling for a policy reset and its proposals are only for immediate convenience, hoodwinking the people with short-term interests. Their so-called policy reforms on retirement security are likely to cause 80% of Singaporeans who own HDB flats to lose their safety net overnight.

I believe Singaporeans are rational. We need to address the immediate challenges with right solutions, not empty theories on paper.

I urge Singaporeans to think over this thoroughly and not try to make hasty changes to important policies because of temporary challenges. Hasty actions will only lead to our forefathers’ efforts being wasted away.

To resolve the current issue, I think the Government is right to step up the supply of BTO flats and give young couples priority to get a flat through targeted measures. I support the Motion raised by the Minister for National Development, Mr Desmond Lee.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.14 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm.

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

(Simultaneous debate on both Motions)

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, can I make a comment?

Are you doing a clarification, Mr Leong?

Yes, a clarification. Because before the break, two Members made certain allegations about my proposals and all that. So, I think I have to make a clarification.

Please keep it succinct.

Thank you, Madam. Before the break, the Member Ms Carrie Tan made a speech questioning my stance on land cost and public housing policies that I had discussed on social media. I would like to make a clarification to address this issue.

Firstly, Ms Tan has argued, as Minister Desmond Lee did during last month's Sitting, that I had said that HDB prices should be based on the historical cost of land. Member Mr Raj Joshua Thomas also referred to the same.

Minister Desmond Lee referred to the Facebook post that I make on 8 December 2022, where I said "land cost should be taken out of the picture because much of the land used for building HDB flats were surrendered by the Pioneer Generation to the Government for a relatively modest sum under the Land Acquisition Act, between 1970s and 1980s." This is also in the Hansard. It should be quite clear from this, that I have not called for HDB prices to be based on the historical cost of land.

Secondly, Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas have tried to imply that I have been flip-flopping on my stance on land cost. What I have just read out is not inconsistent with what I proposed in the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS). AHS takes land cost out of the picture for people who buy flats for owner-occupation.

I have not pursued the matter up to now because I want to focus on the substance of the debate. But I categorically reject allegations that I have been flip-flopping or made any proposal that HDB flats should be based on the historical cost of land.

Finally, Ms Tan has taken issue with the fact that last night, I wrote on Facebook that Singaporeans are condemned to live in HDB flats. She has taken the quote totally out of context. I was trying to explain to a Facebook comment which said that AHS will condemn Singaporeans to a life in HDB flats – to which I replied that that is not the case because AHS will actually give Singaporeans the opportunity to upgrade, because under AHS, Singaporeans would have more CPF savings in their CPF accounts.

If anyone has taken offence by my choice of language, I retract the use of that word, but the quote that Ms Tan has taken, is out of context.

Ms Carrie Tan.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Leong for the clarification. I am sure it is reassuring for people to know that he does not look down on Singaporeans who live in HDB flats.

But I just want to offer a clarification in response, is that when I read the response and the question posed by the member of public, in the member of public's words, he was concerned about whether the Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS) proposed by Mr Leong would keep citizens stuck in a particular type of housing. And that was the exact word that the citizen said in the Facebook comments. He said "stuck". But it was Mr Leong who responded with the word "condemned", so that is all I wanted to clarify.

Ms Hazel Poa, are you making a clarification?

Madam, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Just now, Member Ms Carrie Tan asked me what is the point of talking about reserves when there were not any at that time? What I am saying is that reserves are not just money; state land also forms part of our reserves. Several Ministers have educated the House many times on this. Does the Member Ms Carrie Tan not agree with this?

Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion by the Minister for National Development. I believe all Singaporeans want housing to be affordable. That has always been the commitment of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government. The PAP Government has committed that they will price new flats at affordable prices, so that Singaporeans are able to provide for a roof over their heads when they want to start a family. The way that they have done so is through the sale of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.

If we look at the prices of BTO flats in the non-mature estates, many of the flats sold are indeed affordable. Minister Desmond Lee has shown that the median prices in his charts yesterday, the average price of a 4-room BTO flat in a non-mature estate is kept at $342,000. For those who are lower-income, they can opt for a smaller 3-room flat, and in addition, obtain even more generous housing grants. And I have seen many such cases when I refer my residents to HDB during the Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). These are actual figures; these are actual facts.

And these prices that Minister Desmond Lee had quoted are before the Government grants. When you factor in all the Government grants, then it is within the range of most home buyers. That is the reason why the majority of Singaporeans live in HDB flats which they have bought and which they have lived in. If HDB flats are not affordable, then simple put, Singaporeans will not be buying these flats as they will be priced out of their budget.

There are a few recent developments in my constituency – Dakota Breeze, Dakota One, Dakota Crest and Pine Vista. Every one of these BTO launches were over-subscribed, even though the prices of the flats in mature estates were priced slightly higher. In fact, I received many, many appeals from residents asking whether they can get priority for these BTO flats.

I believe the reason why these flats are in high demand is because they represent good value-for-money for that location and they are affordable to the applicants. One would not apply for a BTO flat if they feel that they cannot afford it.

In December last year, HDB released a press release to explain that HDB flats are priced with affordability in mind. HDB does not apply a profit margin on costs. They look at household incomes, they look at the selling prices of flats on offer.

Despite the media release, there are still people who may not be aware of the way HDB flats are priced. Hence, it is important that HDB conveys the relevant information to members of the public, so that the public knows that the Government prices the flats so that they are affordable to residents.

I heard Mr Leong Mun Wai's speech yesterday and his proposed Affordable Homes Scheme (AHS) model. Mr Leong's proposal to charge for land upon sale simply does not make sense to me. He proposes that when the flat owner sells, the owner would be charged for the land costs, presumably at full cost calculated at the time of buying the flat. If HDB is not fully pricing for land when selling the flats, then surely, Mr Leong's proposal will result in a much higher charge to the owner when he sells the flat. How is the owner supposed to cough up the land costs when he sells the flat? Surely, he must pass on the costs to the next buyer.

But then, why would anyone wish to buy the resale flat if they can get a much cheaper flat from HDB, which according to Mr Leong, is construction costs plus a notional location premium? He did not give any information about how he would price the location premium and whether this would make the flat even more expensive. No information. But it also begs the question, why does PSP want to charge a flat owner for land cost when HDB currently prices its BTO flats based on affordability and they apply significant grants on top of this? How does that make the flat more affordable for the flat purchaser under the PSP scheme?

Today, the amount buyers pay HDB is much less than land cost plus construction cost. The deficit is made up under the MND budget.

Under PSP's proposal, land cost and construction cost are borne entirely by the buyer when he resells – plus interest accrued. If the buyer's children inherit the flat, if they were to decide many years later to sell the flat, they must pay the land cost plus interest charged over many years and perhaps even decades later. His children will be inheriting a huge debt as they cannot sell the flat without having to pay the land cost plus accrued interest. It thus will become a huge liability to the children of the flat owner and no longer an asset.

Even charging construction cost plus, to the first buyer is problematic. Construction cost shot up 30% during the pandemic. This means that prices of flats may fluctuate wildly, depending on the market conditions for construction.

Thus, while it may seem affordable to the first buyer, it may be even more expensive on the resale market than today. Because Mr Leong Mun Wai says that his scheme is designed to reduce resale supply and keep resale prices high. The resale price demanded by the seller will be higher because resale buyers will have to pay construction costs plus land cost, now payable by the flat buyer, plus interest and the profit the home owner wants.

On the Millennial Apartment Scheme – what makes this scheme different from the private sector renting out flats at market rental? There are already such flats located at various parts of the Central Business District (CBD) like the The Sail at Shenton Way. These are currently being rented out by private developers at market cost. Why does HDB want to be involved in the private market sector if it is not to provide home ownership to Singaporeans?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have visited many HDB flats in my estate. I also visit many friends who live in HDB flats. Recently, I went to Punggol. I paid a visit there and I walked down the river towards Coney Island. I posted on my Facebook that the flats look absolutely beautiful. In fact, I thought they were condominiums.

My view, Mdm Deputy Speaker, is that many of these flats are really world-class and well built. Eighty percent of Singaporeans live in these HDB flats. Like Ms Carrie Tan who spoke before me, I was aghast to read that in a reply to a comment by someone on Facebook querying PSP's scheme, Mr Leong Mun Wai said that PSP's scheme was needed so that Singaporeans are not condemned to living in HDB flats.

I am certainly glad that Mr Leong Mun Wai made a correction earlier on but I just want to say 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats. We should not – never – say that Singaporeans who live in HDB flats are condemned. It is a disappointing statement.

While Mr Leong Mun Wai may or may not be living in a HDB flat, he should not say that people living in HDB flats are condemned. I appreciate that Mr Leong Mun Wai made that correction and I want to say that those who live in HDB flats ought to be proud of the flat that they live in because these are really world-class flats.

Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I just want one point of clarification to the hon Member Lim Biow Chuan on the speech he just gave. I may have misheard him but what I heard was that the hon Member Lim said that the very fact that people are buying BTOs proves that it is affordable. If it is not affordable, they would not be buying it.

I would like to ask the Member whether he feels that the very fact of purchase is proof that it is affordable. Would the Member agree that there are certain people who have to find a home because living with their parents is not necessarily an option, for various reasons?

Would the Member also acknowledge that the concept of housing affordability is a concept in economics that is debated among economists on the understanding that there can be certain levels of house price that are too high in the sense that they crowd out other expenditures that one needs to make in life that are necessary for, for example, education and other things, and that —

Mr Leon Perera, I think you have asked your clarification. I will let Mr Lim Biow Chuan answer.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I think conceptually, one must understand that if you cannot afford, then you simply do not buy. If you cannot afford to buy a car, you do not go and buy a car.

If HDB flats are not affordable, simply put, people will say that, "well, I will find other options. I will rent a flat". In many parts of the world, people do not buy flats. They rent a flat because it is unaffordable. They simply cannot afford it.

If you look at the countries around the world where home ownership is low, it is because people cannot afford to buy a flat.

If I am not able to afford a 3-room flat or 4-room flat because my income is very low, then I will look at options like staying with my parents, I will look at applying to HDB to rent a flat. But the fact that many of them apply to buy a BTO flat suggests that they are affordable.

There are so many schemes that the Government has put out to make these flats affordable. You cannot just look at the price. You look also at the number of subsidies, the grants that the Government gives. That makes the flat affordable.

Of course, I want to qualify by saying that there will always be that small group of people who for whatever reasons will struggle – because their income is low, because they are not capable of holding onto a good job. But the Government's commitment to such people is that we will help you. If you look at those applicants who are living in rental flats, the Government has so many schemes to help you move from that rental flat to buy your own flat.

I hope Mr Perera will look at the various schemes available, understand how they work and understand that this Government is committed to making flats affordable for all Singaporeans.

Ms Carrie Tan.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, in response to what Ms Hazel Poa has just said, I am glad that PSP is now acknowledging the fact that the state land is also part of our reserves. I would like to seek a clarification from the Members of the PSP.

They said that the purpose of their Affordable Homes Scheme is to strengthen the principle of owner occupation. So, what PSP is promoting is that once you buy a HDB flat, you should live there until the end. Say someone lives in the flat until he reaches the end of his life, what is this person going to do with the flat? Is he supposed to sell the flat back to the Government and pay back the land cost together with interests? Take the example of an Ah Gong or Ah Ma in his or her 70s or 80s, who is no longer able to work. If he or she has to sell the flat back to the Government and pay back the land cost with interests, is he or she not going to leave a large debt to his children? Can you please clarify?

Mr Leong, are you seeking a clarification?

No, I am going to reply to Member Ms Tan.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I Thank Ms Carrie Tan for her query.

Our scheme is called 安居乐, not 安乐居. I would like to clarify this first. In my speech yesterday, I was not able to explain in details the contents of this scheme, so thank you for giving me a chance to clarify this —

Mr Leong Mun Wai, if I could just say, clarify and not make another speech, please.

She is asking for me to clarify —

So, just clarify. Please do not make another speech.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] According this 安居乐 scheme (Affordable Homes Scheme), if the original buyer of the flat passes away and leaves the flat to his children, his children do not need to return the land cost at that point of time. But if his children choose to sell the flat back to HDB, then the selling price will be based on the user price minus the locational premium and some depreciation. With this formula, they can sell it back to HDB.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion standing in the name of the hon Minister for National Development.

For many who live in cities, housing-related expenses are the largest share of the wallet. For many home owners around the world, the value of their homes is their largest asset.

Property prices have been rising globally. According to the 2022 Urban Land Institute Asia Pacific Home Attainability Index, home ownership in Tokyo is around 40%, around 51% in Hong Kong, 64% in New South Wales and 88.9% in Singapore. That number is an exception in a world where the norm sees homeownership rates across first world countries declining over the last few decades.

Housing policy requires precarious balancing and can sometimes have painful consequences. In my Adjournment Motion in July 2022, I spoke up for my residents impacted by the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme in Ang Mo Kio towards achieving more equitable outcomes in housing and highlighted the varying difficulties and needs of individual residents, the elderly, in particular, against existing schemes and levies for the Government to consider while attempting to redevelop land in mature estates for future generations. There is no easy answer.

While no housing system in the world is perfect, attempting to brand a system that has allowed for almost nine in 10 Singaporeans to own their homes in a first world city as a failure or malaise, is misleading. Let us also not forget that any reset or drastic change proposed for future home owners could affect existing home owners.

Madam, ideological disagreements are an important part of a maturing democracy. Should we continue to prioritise home ownership over rental? Should Singapore's housing needs continue to be serviced primarily by a public housing model or do we reserve public housing only for the low-income? Are there ways to allow for young Singaporeans to start building families earlier? How can we improve the quality of life for seniors to age in place?

These are all questions I have asked myself, my activists and my residents in the course of my work. And I know countless people in the Civil Service who are kept up at night pondering these questions. As society develops, needs and wants change.

Housing policy has not remained stagnant over the years. The work that we do here will ensure that it continues to meet the needs of Singaporeans in the future.

My speech will focus on three broad points.

Affordability can be objectively measured but it is subjectively felt. This is why you cannot soothe emotions using statistics. Let me share a personal anecdote.

My husband and I share household chores as we do not have a helper. Our older resale flat, which we first bought when we got married, is small enough for us to maintain together. In a hypothetical example, six out of seven days of the week, he will do his part of the chores, but on the one day that he does not, I remember the previous days that he did not. When he reminds me of his efforts on the six days, I feel frustrated and think about that one day.

We cannot soothe the emotions using statistics.

The illustration is my husband's own. So, firstly, I would like to thank him for it. Secondly, six out of seven may be a few more days than reality, but I digress.

In this debate, we will hear that the average percentage of monthly income that does towards housing payments averages at about 25% when in other cities, mortgages could be 40% to 50%. However, what may be remembered outside of these Chambers are the stories of the few million-dollar resale HDBs or how a couple tried six times to apply for a BTO in a mature estate, even though factually, HDB resale flats that have been sold for over $1 million dollars make up a minority – around 1% of all HDB resale transactions in the past five years as of 2022 – and when statistics show that less than 2% of first-time applicants took more than five tries to get a BTO flat in a mature estate between 2019 and 2021.

Madam, I acutely feel the worries of Singaporeans on affordability and accessibility of public housing and the desire to continue to improve our system. However, I do not believe it is time to throw the baby out with the bath water. The HDB was set up during a housing crisis in Singapore in the 1960s. And over the years, these flats are home to around 80% of our population – around 23 towns and three estates. We must not compare only harking back to the past, but our place vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

Moving on to some suggestions, the two areas of focus I would like to suggest are: policies that boost the resale market viability as housing option for first-time homeowners and policies that focus on increased access to temporary housing for Singaporeans who need to rent, while on their way to becoming homeowners. To meet the strong demand for public housing, HDB has already committed to ramping up the supply of BTO flats, with some of these projects being placed in mature estates.

We will need some time to see these come into effect. That alongside the ground structures available, support Singaporeans in our pursuit of purchasing our first home, be it first hand from HDB or in the resale market. However, despite the Government's best efforts in rolling out cooling measures to manage increasing prices in the resale market, sometimes market conditions will cause demand to skyrocket beyond predicted levels, and with it, prices increase.

I have some suggestions specific to future BTO projects. Introduce a stage of life housing grant designed to motivate Singaporeans to right-size our first homes and mortgages at the start of our home ownership journey and increase the supply of potential 3-room flats available in the resale market by adjusting the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) for such units downwards to three years.

Scenario A: a couple successfully ballots for a 3-room BTO. They are eligible for an HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) loan and receive the proximity grant to be near their parents. Lucky for them, three years later, they have a child and feel that maybe their house is a little too cramped as they also are considering employing a foreign domestic worker. Given that they have reached their three-year MOP, the couple contemplate selling their home to purchase a 4-room flat in the resale market to accommodate their growing family. After means testing, such a couple could be eligible for stage of life housing grant, which will help to further subsidise the cost of the 4-room resale.

Scenario B: same couple and choices, except they have not had the fortune to have a child yet. So, in considering their next home purchase, they are not eligible for this stage of life housing grant. However, because they had right-sized at the start, the share of wallet paying their mortgage from their monthly income is slightly lower and they have savings. They afford this first home comfortably and when their salary scales, they can afford a bigger home, either later down the line or when they have kids.

Finally, scenario C: a couple want more space, so they successfully ballot for a 4-room BTO. And the status quo continues to exist for them. The MOP period will continue to be at five years. These twin proposals encourage a rethink of how we as Singaporeans approach housing, buying the space that we need today and upgrading as needs change in the future, allowing space and assistance to go to those when you need it the most.

While there will naturally be many considerations in these suggestions, I hope that this concept can be considered and its potentials studied further as one of the many levers which the Ministry uses.

Next, as a Member of Parliament serving in a mature estate, I often receive feedback that the price of resale units are high. There are few new BTOs and that the younger generation wants to continue to stay in the same neighbourhood and nearer their parents who are part of their circle of care. My husband and I too, prioritise proximity to my senior parents so that we could be a short distance away if we needed them or if they needed us, even though the trade-off in that was an older flat and an older layout.

For BTO launches in mature estates, could the Government consider making three generational flats a key feature of every launch? This would allow both caregiving for children and parents more holistically in a larger space and also free up other units for resale when parents move in together with their children. Personally, I am grateful that the Government has started to consider prime location public housing and continues to find scarce piece in mature estates instead of such land being taken up by private housing only.

Third, on rental housing. Madam, homeownership remains the core aspiration of many Singaporeans today, but it would be remiss of me to not also mention accessibility of rental housing in Singapore for vulnerable families and individuals awaiting development of their BTO flats due to COVID-19 construction delays. I will continue in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There are around 50,000 households under the Public Rental Scheme. In 2022, the Government stated that the waiting period to get a rental flat from HDB is less than one year. This is lower than countries like Hong Kong, for example, where the waiting period for public housing is 5.6 years. However, many of my residents have shared their concerns – for example, a mother and her children who suddenly lost their home after a divorce and those living in 1-room rental flats, which is not suitable for children who are growing up. Sometimes there are also complex issues faced by families such as families that have recently reconciled or those with new family members at home such as in-laws.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is impossible to meet the short-term demand for rental flats, and in any case, many families hope to move into their own homes. As part of the programme to help low-income families, or those who wish to rent a flat through the PPHS scheme, can the Government consider an initiative to distribute housing cash vouchers? Such vouchers can complement the support provided by the Government to address the rental flat supply problem and can provide a quicker solution to a most pressing need. Indeed, this policy, if approved, should have a testing method and eligibility criteria such as an income limit, a maximum limit on the amount to be drawn out and consider whether it is appropriate for the Government to provide a repository of homeowners with additional rooms. In my view, such housing vouchers can provide more support for low-income Singaporeans and alleviate situations where there are no units available for them to rent. It also allows families to rent in locations closer to schools, workplaces or family support systems that they require.

I commend the Government's efforts and commitment to support Singaporeans' aspirations to own their own homes. I am glad to read that over 700 families living in rental flats were able to buy their own homes in 2022. The Home Ownership Support Team (HST), coupled with the Fresh Start Housing Scheme (FSHS), has helped them. I would like to ask if the HST can be extended to support more families in rental flats who have yet to own their own homes, and whether the FSHS can be enhanced further, for example, can the Government give an update on when will FSHS families be eligible to purchase 3-room flats, and how can it help families who are saddled with debt from their previous home?

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not a coincidence that close to 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats today, with nearly nine in 10 Singaporeans owning their own homes. Mortgage rates have doubled on average in developed countries in 2022. For instance, in Indonesia, a 2019 World Bank report on urbanisation, showed that the ratio of home prices to income in Jakarta was higher than Singapore and New York City, and this led to a reduction in home ownership rate. In Malaysia, a policy paper has suggested that housing prices remain unaffordable for many residents. Housing is a global problem, but remains a personal aspiration for many, and we must continue to improve accessibility and affordability for current and future generations of Singaporeans.

(In English): Madam, our housing policy approach has historically gone beyond infrastructure to include livability, social, familial and societal development considerations. We have worked so hard for generations of Singaporeans to own houses and build homes. And as we navigate new expectations and realities, I hope that the Government continues to listen to concerns as it has and also be open in communicating trade-offs so our people understand the different data points when discussing affordability and accessibility in housing. The Government's efforts on Forward Singapore are in the right spirit and I urge more Singaporeans to come forward to the table for this direct opportunity for consultation and co-creation.

Housing is a part of the Singapore dream, which must continue to be within the reach of each generation, so that our people feel like they have a home here and a tangible stake in our Singapore. [Applause]

Mr Raj Thomas.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thought I will just respond and clarify with Mr Leong why I said his previous proposals as regarding "taking out the cost of land from the pricing of HDB" and why his current proposals are different. Just to give the background as how I came to that conclusion and to clarify.

On a 8 December Facebook post, Mr Leong said, "in my opinion, the pricing of HDB flats should only account for construction costs and price differences between locations." He then said, "land cost should be taken out of the picture because much of the land use for building HDB flats were surrendered by the Pioneer Generation to the Government etc." On the 20 January, Mr Leong wrote again on Facebook, "it should be quite evident to Singaporeans that I am arguing for land cost to be taken out of the pricing of HDB flats", but in the current Affordable Homes Scheme that Mr Leong is proposing, the cost of land would be recorded and interests applied. And, that it would eventually have to be paid back to the past reserves. Whether it is now or whether it is later, it is still part. The land cost is still now part of the pricing of the HDB flat. And when a person purchases flat, surely, they will look at what this land cost is and consider it because it is a future liability.

So, the cost of the land is in fact, not out of the picture in this new proposal. It is, in fact, now in the picture, squarely in the picture, although it maybe in the background. So, this is the reason why I came to the conclusion that there were actually differences in what he had proposed earlier and what he is proposing now because it has quite obviously changed.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Madam. If I am a military strategist, obviously, I have just executed a very brilliant strategy. If you try to second-guess what my policy is and you fail to second-guess my policy, it is your problem. I am not flip-flopping, right? So, when I say the land cost should be taken out of the picture, I mean, it should be taken out of the picture for owner-occupation. And you did not guess that I actually have a second part to it. So, there is no conflict in my first idea that I put up on Facebook and what I actually proposed in my speech yesterday.

Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, please allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Since the earliest days of nation-building, home ownership has been a key cornerstone of our public housing policy and a key pillar of Singapore's social compact.

As a young nation, we want to support all Singaporeans to own their own homes, so that they can have stability to build their families and raise their children, have a sense of rootedness in Singapore, and have a stake in our country's progress.

We have delivered on this commitment. We have one of the highest home ownership rates in the world, at close to 90%. Many Singaporeans have also benefited from the growth in the value of their HDB flats and upgraded to new homes at different stages of their lives.

The Government's commitment to help Singaporeans own their own homes remain firm. Despite the disruptions caused by COVID-19, HDB has been catching up on its building programme. We will launch up to 100,000 flats between 2021 to 2025, if required. The Government has also kept BTO prices almost flat, despite escalating construction costs, in order to ensure that flats remain affordable.

Virtually all first-time buyers of subsidized flats get to select a flat within three tries if they apply for BTO flats in non-mature estates. Overall, almost nine in 10 first-time BTO buyers in non-mature estates can finance their monthly HDB housing loan fully with CPF, without any cash.

The facts speak for themselves. HDB flats remain accessible and affordable.

Moving forward, like what we have done before, we will continue to ensure that public housing is accessible and affordable for Singaporeans. We will also take care of the housing needs of those who are more vulnerable and lower-income families.

(In English): Madam, I will continue my speech in English, please. As Minister Desmond Lee said in his speech, one of the Government's key objectives is to create an inclusive society, through public housing.

This is why our housing grants are tiered to provide more support for lower-income families, on top of the significant subsidies provided for BTO flats. As a result, about 85% of our low-income households own their homes. This is something not commonly seen in other countries.

Take for example, a lower-income family with household income of $2,500, which is below the second decile of resident household income. They can enjoy $70,000 in grants. If they were to buy a 3-room flat in Vanda Breeze @ Yishun in the November 2022 BTO exercise, where the typical selling price was $200,000, the housing grant would reduce the selling price to $130,000, or about 4.3 times of their annual income. This family would only need to use about 16% of their household income for their monthly mortgage instalments. This means they can service their mortgage entirely using their monthly CPF contributions, without any cash outlay.

Or if you look at a household combined income of $5,000, which is below the third decile of resident household income, they can receive $45,000 in housing grants. Based on a typical selling price of $350,000 for a 4-room flat in West Glade @ Bukit Batok in the November 2022 BTO exercise, the housing grant can reduce the selling price to $305,000. This family would only need to use about 21% of their household income to pay for their monthly mortgage instalments. Again, they can service their mortgages entirely from their monthly CPF contributions, with no cash outlay.

As these examples show, HDB flats continue to remain affordable, even for families on the lower end of the income range.

Beyond delivering our commitment to affordable and accessible public housing, we have been going all out to take care of those who are more vulnerable. We recognise that some families may not be ready for home ownership yet as they need to build up their finances.

To ensure that these families and their children have a stable home as they work on their life challenges, we provide highly subsidised public rental housing as a social safety net. We have been making improvements to our rental flats over the years to provide a better living environment for our tenants and we will continue to do more.

For example, we improved the design so newer rental blocks have better lighting and ventilation. And going forward, we will be building rental blocks in the same projects as sold blocks and where possible, in the same block. Doing so also helps to ensure that our HDB estates remain inclusive.

For low-income singles in public rental flats who are under the Joint Single Scheme, or JSS, we know that some of them have difficulties finding a flatmate or getting along with them. A few years back, we started building partitioned 1-room flats for the JSS, to provide more privacy.

More recently, we started piloting an operator-run model for the JSS, where we appoint an operator to help manage the flat-sharing arrangements, and individuals can apply without having to find a flat-mate first. These efforts have been well received so far.

For our rental tenants, our approach goes beyond providing rental flats for shelter. We want to ensure that their children have a stable home environment to grow up in.

Ultimately, our goal is to help these families achieve stability, self-reliance and eventually, social mobility. This is why we have gone further upstream to pair rental housing with ComLink to provide holistic social support for families entering rental housing,

With the ComLink Rental Scheme we launched in November 2022, eligible families with young children will be automatically enrolled in ComLink when they apply to HDB for a public rental flat, even before they move in.

ComLink officers will work with the families to understand their needs and aspirations, then develop customised goals and an action plan. Depending on their needs, we bring in the relevant support schemes and programmes across the various agencies. For example, ComCare financial assistance, employment support for the parents, and KidSTART for the children.

For rental families who have achieved stability and have potential for home ownership, we set up the Home ownership Support Team, or HST in short, in HDB to journey with them through their flat-buying process.

The HST provides one-to-one guidance to help families work out their budget, make sense of the housing grants and schemes available, all the way until they move into their new flats. I work with them very closely and we engage rental tenants, as well as those who have moved into their new flats.