Hansard, Tuesday, 8 March 2022

1 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the 80:20 fund-raising rule requiring at least 80% of funds raised for foreign charitable purposes be applied towards charitable purposes in Singapore; (b) whether a specific list can be provided for fund-raising activities where this rule can be waived; and (c) whether this rule can be waived for more fund-raising activities other than those for immediate disaster relief in other countries.

Mr Speaker, the intent of the 80:20 fund-raising rule under the Charities Act is to ensure that donations from our Singapore public are used primarily to benefit locals and to address locals' needs. The intent of this 80:20 rule remains relevant.

Besides appeals in aid of providing immediate disaster or humanitarian relief to other countries, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) also waives this 80:20 rule for certain private fund-raising appeals. It would not be practical to provide a specific list of activities that would be eligible for waiver, as the COC considers a range of aspects in making its decisions, such as the nature of the appeal, target donor groups and beneficiaries, and the safeguards in place to mitigate risks.

But should an applicant wish to apply for a waiver of the rule based on its circumstances, the applicant may put forth its reasons for waiver of the rule in its application for fundraising for foreign charitable purposes permit to the COC. The COC will consider the application on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I understand he cannot provide a specific list. Then, could I ask whether he could at least provide the list of fund-raising activities that have got exemptions in the past few years, not including those for humanitarian disasters? Second, I really hope that the Government can take a more light-touch approach. We can trust Singaporeans to decide who they want to donate to. The Government, I hope, can take a step back but still have the check and balance in place, do audits to make sure that the funds go to the appropriate beneficiaries.

I thank the hon Member for his supplementary questions. I want to assure the hon Member that we do actually allow our charities and our organisations to raise funds for foreign charitable causes. In fact, in 2021, COC granted a total 78 permits for organisations to conduct fund-raising appeals for foreign charitable purposes. The COC, as I have mentioned earlier, can, on a case-by-case basis, waive this 80:20 rule, such as for appeals in aid of providing immediate disaster relief and for private donations raised for foreign charitable causes.

In fact, they have done so, including for private appeals and appeals for relief efforts going to causes, such as for COVID-19 in many different countries, for the Malaysian floods in December last year and January this year, and also for Typhoon Rai, which affected and afflicted the Philippines in December.

It is really encouraging to witness, during these challenging times, how Singaporeans have stepped up and also have been moved by foreign charitable causes overseas; and we are helping to facilitate that as well. It really speaks to who we are as a nation and our role in the global community. At the same time, as the Member had suggested, it is important that we provide the necessary safeguards as well as due process to help ensure that the funds go to verifiable and legitimate causes and to mitigate the attendant risks.

In this regard, the COC carries out reviews of the charity regulations on a regular basis. We will consider the Member's feedback and, in fact, welcome the Member's feedback in the next review.

2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether an update can be provided on the plans to regulate all foreign worker dormitories under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA); and (b) whether a timeline can be provided on when the FEDA will be amended.

Sir, last year, we announced the review of the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA) to expand its coverage to include migrant worker dormitories with fewer than 1,000 beds. This will strengthen our regulatory levers to raise and enforce new standards quickly during pandemics and introduce a consistent regulatory framework for dormitories of different sizes and types.

There are, currently, more than 1,000 of such smaller dormitories, including factory converted dormitories (FCDs), construction temporary quarters (CTQs), temporary occupation licence quarters (TOLQs) and non-government organisation (NGO) shelters. The significant number of dormitory beds across this diverse range of dormitory housing types and the broad landscape of operators necessitate more time to engage these groups to better understand the infrastructure constraints and the impact of the licensing requirements, especially on our smaller dormitories.

We intend to implement the expansion of FEDA by the end of the year and will share more details on the expansion in the coming months.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I think many NGOs have been waiting quite some time for the implementation of the amendments. Could I ask whether we are still in consultation with the NGOs, with regard to extending FEDA to cover all dormitories? Two, what kind of support are we providing to the dormitories when it comes to implementation of these new rules?

Sir, I assure the Member that we are continuing to engage the different operators of the different types of dormitories, including our NGO partners as well. We will, definitely, make sure there is sufficient time for this implementation and to develop a transition plan for the different dormitories to meet the new requirements. We will share more details in the latter half of this year.

3 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider a text messaging service in addition to the 24-hour National Anti-Violence Helpline to allow for the quick reporting of family violence cases or urgent queries for assistance via non-verbal means.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Anti-Violence Helpline (NAVH) was officially launched in February 2021 for members of the public and social service professionals to report cases of child abuse, vulnerable adult abuse and family violence. NAVH is a consolidation of 10 helplines into a single helpline to make it easier to report abuse and violence, reduce call waiting time and provide quicker support to callers. Since it started operations on 18 January 2021 until end-December 2021, NAVH has received 8,400 calls.

In line with efforts to make it easier to report abuse and violence, MSF will enhance NAVH to allow multiple modes of reporting, such as via a web link or mobile application. These modes of reporting would enable persons to quickly provide necessary details, such as timing, location and other key observations of the violent incidents, for follow-up action through an easy-to-use form. These new modes of reporting will increase the accessibility of NAVH and make it easier for survivors and bystanders, including persons who are unable to call NAVH, to report violence discreetly.

The enhancements will be rolled out by end-2022. MSF will give some time for the changes to stabilise. MSF will also study the feasibility and need for text messaging service to complement NAVH and web/mobile application in subsequent enhancements, taking into account considerations, such as the security of clients’ data.

NAVH should not be used for emergencies when there is imminent danger to safety. If members of the public require emergency assistance but are unable to call 999, they should use the SMS 71999 service of the Singapore Police Force.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

I thank the Minister of State for the announcement. It is very welcoming news of the new modes of reporting and assistance to complement NAVH. With discreet text messages or through web link or through the app, we do need to consider two considerations. One, is to minimise the risk of interception of the chat history, data on iCloud, the conversation thread; second, is preventing impersonation, perhaps by the use of code words or a phrase. In other jurisdictions, they will use code words like S-A-F-E to convey that there is some unsafe access to the conversations.

Could MSF look into this while looking into the rolling out of the other modes of reporting, to look at how to further enhance the protection and perhaps in concert with colleagues from MCI as well, together with the recently announced Code of Practices on Social Media Platforms? I would appreciate any clarifications in that regard.

I thank the Member for his clarifications as well as suggestions. Indeed, the security of client data is very important to us. That is why we are not just purchasing off-the-shelf solutions. We now have this dedicated NAVH. I mentioned earlier that we are looking into rolling out an easy-to-use form via a web link or a mobile application.

That easy-to-use form would already include areas where the caller can include items, such as timing, location and other details, that will be helpful to allow first responders to reach the person who is asking for help. This person could either be the survivor/victim himself or herself, as well as a bystander.

We will study the suggestion you have made about what the other jurisdictions are doing. Indeed, we have been doing so. That is why we had the signal for help hand signal to help the vulnerable as well as children who are suffering, potentially, from abuse and neglect. This was something that the Member had suggested. MSF had taken it up and we rolled it out as part of our "Break the Silence" campaign.

We will continue to look into improving the different modes and channels in which survivors and potential victims can report. Indeed, the security of the data is of utmost importance. We will be rolling out those implementation plans in stages to make sure that the system is stable, and also that when callers dial in, they get help. Because the information is triaged out into the Family Violence Specialist Centres or the Family Service Centres, to ensure that callers not only have convenient and safe modes of reporting, but also, that they get the help that they need.

4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in 2021, what has been the average frequency of the different rehabilitation programme interventions provided in (i) prisons (ii) drug rehabilitation centres and (iii) halfway houses; (b) what are the minimum qualifications and training which prison counsellors must have; and (c) what criteria are used to assess the effectiveness of these programmes.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) adopts an evidence-based approach in the rehabilitation of inmates. Factors, such as the inmates’ risk of re-offending, rehabilitation needs, conduct in prison and remaining length of the sentence, are taken into consideration in the allocation of intervention programmes.

In prison and drug rehabilitation centres, inmates undergo psychology-based correctional programmes to change their negative thinking and behaviours and improve their pro-social skills to minimise their risk of re-offending. Inmates may also undergo other types of programmes, such as family programmes, to help them build stronger bonds, employability and skills training, work programmes, education, release preparation and religious programmes.

The frequency of these programmes varies. For example, the psychology-based correctional programmes consist of individual and group-based sessions and take place one to three times a week, with varying intensity from a few weeks to a few months, depending on the inmates’ needs and risks. Religious programmes happen on a weekly basis, while pre-release programmes take place towards the tail-end of an inmate’s sentence.

SPS also partners halfway houses to provide community-based programmes to inmates. At these halfway houses, supervisees undergo a programme to reinforce the skills and concepts learnt in prison to cope with challenges in the community. This programme comprises 11 sessions, usually conducted within four months.

Depending on the programmes that they conduct, SPS staff and partners have a wide range of qualifications. They are selected and recruited on the basis that they have the relevant competency and skillsets to deliver the programmes.

SPS evaluates the effectiveness of its rehabilitation programmes. For example, SPS had conducted an evaluation of its high-intensity psychology-based correctional programmes, which included taking pre- and post-programme measures. The findings showed that inmates who had completed the programmes showed reduced negative thinking patterns and were more confident to stay away from drugs and crime. Inmate feedback on the usefulness of the programmes is also collected.

SPS provides different programmes in prison to help inmates in their rehabilitation and prepare them for reintegration into the society. Ultimately, there are other factors, such as having stable employment and positive pro-social networks, that will help in the successful reintegration of ex-offenders in the longer term. It would also depend very much on the individual’s personal motivation and desire to change.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

I thank the Minister of State for the clarifications. Just a full disclosure, I am on the Board of Yellow Ribbon Singapore. In September last year, I asked a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the rehabilitation challenges faced by elderly inmates and also, in the recent cuts in the Committee of Supply, I have asked on rehabilitation efforts.

The Minister of State mentioned about the various rehabilitation programmes, such as the release preparation, religious, work and family programmes. I was just wondering, how many, in terms of percentage, of inmates actually attended those programmes in the last year, in 2021. For those who did not attend, what are the reasons for them not attending? If so, what are the steps that SPS and the Ministry would be taking to enhance attendance in such programmes?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As I have shared earlier, SPS assesses inmates for programmes based on various factors, such as their risks of re-offending, rehabilitation needs and the remaining length of sentence and also looking at their responsivity with regard to the programmes that are available.

So, we assess that psychology-based correctional programmes and family programmes would be suitable for about half of the 2021 admissions into prisons. However, about 5% may, eventually, not attend the programmes due to motivation or mental health issues. For some, they also fall sick.

About 40% of the inmate population as at end-2021 attended skills training. About 30% of the inmate population as at end-2021 attended work programmes. For other programmes, such as educational, religious programmes, the participation ranges from about 5% to 60%, as it depends on the inmates' own needs and preferences.

All inmates, even those who decide not to attend the programmes, can access – using tablet computers – rehabilitation materials like e-versions of psychology-based correctional programmes, motivational talks and various guides on regulating emotions and communication skills.

At the halfway houses, all supervisees would have to go through a programme to reinforce the skills and concepts learned in prison, like what I shared in my answer earlier.

So, as I also said earlier, while SPS provides various programmes to help inmates, there are also other factors that will help in the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders, such as having stable employment and positive pro-social networks. It would also depend a great deal on the individual's personal motivation and desire to change. In fact, that is always the message whenever I visit the prisons to meet the inmates. I will always remind them "while we will do our best to help you to rehabilitate as part of your rehabilitation and reintegration journey, at the end of the day, a large part of it depends on you". Many of them agree. We will continue to support them, so that they are able to reintegrate into the society in a better and stronger way.

I thank the Minister of State for that helpful reply. Just two supplementary questions. One is that, if an inmate, for whatever reason – be it lack of capacity or any other reason – would like to attend educational, rehabilitative or religious programmes, but they find that they do not have access to those programmes, can they make a request to attend such programmes and will that be taken into consideration in giving them access to such programmes, if for any reason they do not have that? That is my first supplementary question.

Second supplementary question: it is my understanding, based on published, publicly available information, that SPS adopts a classification system for inmates based on what is seen as their propensity to be rehabilitated. So, I am wondering whether those who are classified in that way as being less likely to be rehabilitated, can also demonstrate, through acts of good faith, through requests, that they are open to attending these rehabilitative programmes and get access to them, if they demonstrate that.

Sir, as I have shared earlier, we use the risk, need and responsivity model approach, as well as the length of the stay in the prison or institution, to look at how that kind of programmes may be useful for the inmates.

We have received requests from inmates. And I would like to share with the House that every request that we see, we will assess it, consider it and we will also propose to the inmates what will be useful for them.

Rehabilitation is not only about giving them programmes. In fact, we adopt a throughcare approach where the process of rehabilitation begins when the inmates start their prison term, all the way, with the community, at the end of it. And even after the release into the community, SPS still continues to engage the ex-inmates and their families. So, we will look at all the different requests and we do our best to provide them the opportunities to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into the community.

5 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether prison and drug rehabilitation centre inmates are prohibited from exercising in their cells; (b) if so, what is the Singapore Prison Service's (SPS) rationale for the rule; and (c) whether SPS will consider allowing inmates to do prescribed workouts in their cells, given the significant psychological and health benefits of exercise.

Inmates in the prison or drug rehabilitation centre, generally, have at least an hour of recreational time per day on weekdays. They can use this recreational time for physical exercise and ball games in the recreational yard, or other activities, such as watching television and playing board games.

In the cells, inmates are allowed to do stretching exercises, but not vigorous exercise. And that is not allowed for the following reasons.

First, to prevent tension and conflict among cellmates. The majority of prison cells are designed to house up to four or eight inmates each, and there is insufficient space for inmates to carry out vigorous exercise without affecting the safety of cellmates, inconveniencing them, or intruding into their personal space. Doing so could lead to conflict among the cellmates. To ensure equal treatment, we do not allow vigorous in-cell exercise even if the cell is occupied by only one inmate.

Second, to maintain good order and discipline in prison. Some inmates may claim to be exercising in their cell when shadow-boxing or sparring, or giving tips and teaching others how to fight and attack opponents. This would pose challenges to maintaining good order and discipline in prison.

6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the plans and timeline to implement the busking zones that were announced in the Ministry's Committee of Supply debates in March 2020.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his support for the arts and busking. In March 2020, MCCY announced that we would introduce new busking zones at the Singapore River and Ang Mo Kio. The intention was for each of these zones to comprise a cluster of busking locations which our buskers would have the flexibility to move around. This would offer a more varied busking experience for audiences and ensure equitable access to popular busking spots. Unfortunately, the onset of COVID-19 in 2020 leading to a suspension of busking had meant that there was no opportunity for the new busking zones to be implemented and used by our buskers.

Since then, NAC has continued to engage our buskers and venue managers on ways to expand access to even more locations for our buskers, in preparation for the eventual resumption of busking. NAC has also been working on an online system to enhance access to busking locations and time for all buskers, in an equitable manner. NAC will share further details about this online system in the coming months.

The timeline for the implementation of these plans will have to take into consideration the prevailing COVID-19 situation. We have had to adopt a cautious approach due to the higher risk of virus transmission from activities involving singing and performing of wind and brass instruments, and the challenges of crowd management in open spaces.

Nonetheless, MCCY and NAC have been identifying ways to resume busking activities safely. In December 2020, NAC partnered Clarke Quay and *SCAPE to conduct busking pilots over three weekends which were well-received. Unfortunately, we had to delay the resumption of busking pilots due to the public health situation. We are looking to expand these pilots at the appropriate time.

Meanwhile, NAC has rolled out various alternative platforms and initiatives for our buskers, encouraging them to pick up new skills and bring their performances into the digital space. For example, in December last year, NAC supported the Buskers’ Association through the Self-Employed Persons Grant (SEPG) to organise a series of workshops for the busking community, culminating in live performances at Our Tampines Hub in December 2021 and via livestream in January 2022.

NAC is committed to improving our busking infrastructure and processes and will take into consideration the feedback it has received from buskers and other stakeholders, such as venue managers. We appreciate and salute our busking community for their resilience and positive spirit during this challenging period, and we thank them for their patience and understanding.

Order. End of Question Time.

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

Mr Speaker, Point of Order.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, during yesterday’s proceedings, you made a statement in Parliament to respond to the Facebook comments put up by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Mr Leong Mun Wai yesterday, shortly after the conclusion of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate.

Mr Leong has, subsequently, put up a video and further post at about 6.55 pm yesterday, captioned: "This is How The Speaker Prevents A Member From Speaking".

This video is accompanied by a further post in which he claims that he was “deprived of the opportunity to respond to Tan See Leng’s (TSL) 'red herring' statement made last Friday”, that you did not allow him “to speak using the cut-off time as an excuse”, that “there is flexibility because the Parliament schedule is ahead of time this year”, that other Members of Parliament (MPs) were “allowed to speak before” him and that you should have known that he “had an outstanding issue from the previous Friday’s sitting”.

This video shows the exchange between Speaker and Mr Leong just before the conclusion of MOM’s COS debate yesterday.

Mr Speaker, given that Mr Leong’s post raised questions about the basis of Speaker’s decision not to call him to seek further clarifications, I would like to seek a ruling from Speaker as to the basis for proceeding with the conclusion of MOM’s Committee of Supply (COS) debate, despite Mr Leong rising to make further clarifications.

Hon Members, I do wish to confirm in this House that the Guillotine Time for the debate on the Ministry for Manpower was Monday, 7 March 2022 at 12.40 pm, as all of you are aware.

The Guillotine Times were made pursuant to Standing Order 92(7)(a) which states that: "The Speaker shall fix the time on any allotted day at which the consideration of any head of expenditure shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. If the time so fixed is reached before the head concerned is disposed of, the Chairman shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of that head."

Members were all informed before the commencement of COS of the total time allocated to the debate for each Ministry, and the start and end times of the debates. Members were also informed that if the discussion of a head of expenditure is concluded before the Guillotine Time stated, the head next following will be entered into straightaway.

Members were informed of the Guillotine Times for MOM last week, on Thursday, 3 March 2022, through Notice Paper No B003 of 2022 and this information was published in the Daily Working Paper for Monday, 7 March 2022.

Thirty-and-a-half minutes were allocated for clarifications, but I allowed the clarifications to continue for 48 minutes till the Guillotine Time of 12.40 pm. There were no time savings for the debate on MOM based on the Guillotine Times.

Ten MPs made clarifications, including four Opposition Members, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Gerald Giam, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Pritam Singh and one Nominated MP, Mr Abdul Samad. So, in total, five Government MPs and five Non-Government MPs spoke and raised their clarifications.

Mr Leong Mun Wai was not the only MP who could not ask a clarification at the end of MOM’s debate. There were other MPs who had raised their hands or had indicated that they wished to speak, including Mr Edward Chia, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Janet Ang, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

I wish to emphasise that under Standing Order 92(7)(a), the Chair is under the duty to end the debate when the Guillotine Time for that Ministry is reached. As the Chair of the Committee of Supply, I will continue to ensure that the proceedings in the COS are undertaken in a fair and orderly manner.

I thank Mr Speaker for his ruling.

Mr Speaker, the COS for MOM took place yesterday, 7 March 2022. In the course of the COS, the Ministers from MOM addressed the cuts and queries filed by MPs. After the Ministers’ speeches, there was time to take some further questions but not all, given the number of hands raised by Members.

At the end of the time allotted for this head of expenditure, which had been made known to all Members beforehand in the Guillotine Time Notice Paper and the Daily Working Paper, Mr Leong Mun Wai, along with several other MPs, still wanted to ask further clarifications. However, as time was up, you, as Chairman of the Committee, invited Mr Desmond Choo to withdraw his amendment so that the COS for MOM could be brought to a close.

Mr Leong interrupted this repeatedly, saying that he would like to ask questions. And you informed Mr Leong that the time was up and asked Mr Choo to proceed. The MOM COS duly ended at 12.40 pm, the Guillotine Time.

Subsequently, Mr Leong Mun Wai made two comments on his Facebook profile as follows.

On 7 March, 12.52 pm: “Now I’m at the budget debate for the Ministry of Manpower. Following from Minister Tan See Leng’s (TSL) comments 'red herring' comments (sic) last Friday, I have a number of clarifications to make. But the Speaker didn’t even give me the chance. I will show you the video later when the volunteer has done it for me.”

On 7 March, 12.53 pm: “Completely ridiculous!” That was his comment.

Later in the day, at around 4.14 pm, as Chair of the Committee, you brought these two Facebook comments to the attention of Members and explained the following: (a) the parliamentary process for COS; (b) that COS proceedings are subject to timing deadlines known as the Guillotine Time under Standing Order 92(7)(a); (c) that when the Guillotine Time is reached for each Ministry, the question for the approval of the head of expenditure must be put and the COS concluded; (d) that there were other MPs who also wanted to ask further clarifications but could not do so as the time limit had been reached.

Notwithstanding this, at 6.55 pm yesterday, Mr Leong Mun Wai proceeded to post a video of the end of the COS with the caption “This is how Speaker prevents a member from speaking”. It was accompanied by a post which stated as follows: "Today I was deprived of the opportunity to respond to Tan See Leng’s (TSL) 'red herring' statement made last Friday because Speaker did not allow me to speak using the cut-off time as an excuse. The cut-off time is decided by the Speaker before the session but there is flexibility because the Parliament schedule is ahead of time this year. Many MPs were also allowed to speak before me. He should know that I had an outstanding issue from the previous Friday’s sitting (please view the video clip below)."

Mr Speaker, this was despite your clarification earlier in the afternoon and the fact that it was clear that the Guillotine Time had been reached and that, under the Standing Orders, you were required to bring the COS to an end.

Mr Leong’s posts and his video have impugned the Speaker and the processes of Parliament and have misrepresented how the COS proceedings for MOM were ended yesterday. And this is by suggesting that you could have called on Mr Leong but deliberately did not do so for improper reasons. This is dishonourable and a contempt of Parliament, and breaches the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Mr Leong has had the benefit of your remarks yesterday and has now also heard your ruling. I therefore request that Mr Leong do the proper thing and:

One, take down the video and the accompanying caption and post.

Two, take down his two Facebook comments of 12.52 pm and 12.53 pm on 7 March 2022.

Three, apologise before this House, and also via a Facebook post, for his words and actions in the following terms:

"I sincerely and unreservedly apologise to the Speaker and this House for my Facebook comments of 12.52 pm and 12.53 pm on 7 March 2022, and the video I posted at 6.55 pm on 7 March 2022, and the statements therein which impugn the Speaker and the processes of Parliament without any basis.

I have taken the posts down. I withdraw what I said in them, and undertake not to repeat such words and actions again.

I acknowledge that I had not set out all the facts in my posts and thus, gave a misleading impression. In fact, many MPs filed to speak both in the Budget debate and the Committee of Supply of the various Ministries. Every MP is given the same amount of time. The Guillotine Time for each Ministry is announced ahead of time and based on the MPs who have filed to speak. It is standard Parliamentary procedure that when the time that is allotted to the Ministry ends, Speaker will require that the votes on that Ministry be taken and the debate move to the next Ministry, even if some MPs’ questions have not been answered. Specifically, for the Ministry of Manpower debate, questions from several MPs could not be answered because the allotted time was up. I acknowledge that I have every opportunity to raise, during subsequent Parliamentary Question times, the questions which I had wanted to ask in the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Manpower."

Mr Speaker, I request that Mr Leong Mun Wai do these by the end of today’s Parliament’s Sitting on 8 March 2022. Thereafter, Parliament can decide whether and if so, what further steps may be necessary depending on how Mr Leong responds to my request.

I note that the Member is not in the Chamber. We will formally notify him of this Statement and my request to ensure that it is brought to his notice. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Head L (cont) – (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [7 March 2022], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang]. (proc text)]

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

Mr Chairman, should I take two cuts together?

Yes, please. There is only one cut right?

There is another one at the end.

Alright, you can take that later. Take this one first.

Okay.

Chairman, the Singapore Green Plan 2030 is well-timed to galvanise a national movement, not only to achieve sustainable development but also to build exportable capabilities, such as sustainable urban solutions. Our green agenda holds much promise for our future. The issuance of Green Bonds will provide a substantial capital base for sustainable developments not only in Singapore, but also throughout the region. Singapore is well-positioned to serve as a living lab and test bed for emerging green technologies as well as a hub to foster collaboration and co-creation.

It is critical that in our drive for sustainability, we fully leverage this opportunity to groom a new generation of green local firms, support them to build their green capabilities and position them to capture emerging opportunities.

So, I would like to ask the Minister what can be done to ensure that the development of green local firms is an integral part of the $25 billion investment under RIE2025. We should consider a special programme, with R&D funding to be carved out, especially to support and promote development of green technologies and solutions by our very own local firms and startups.

Sir, with SME making up 99% of Singapore enterprises, the need to embrace climate change and sustainability is also a matter of business survival. With successive carbon tax increases in the pipeline, as well as increasing demands from partners, investors and customers for sustainable practices, SMEs need support to pivot and adapt, in order to thrive.

I would like to repeat my call to support SMEs in the transition on three fronts. First, we can promote sector-based sustainability roadmaps with industry-aligned principles, frameworks and uniform standards. Second, we need to support SMEs with pre-identified sector-based green solutions to fast track their adoption. Third, we can leverage the ecosystem to build scalable green capabilities and collaboration.

Sir, the introduction of the new Enterprise Financing Scheme Green (EFS-Green) to support local farms with a range of financing needs, from developmental capital to a venture debt, is a great initiative. With the Government providing 70% of reshare to catalyse lending by participating financial institutions, there have been calls by the industry for more favourable terms, such as preferential interest rate and loan terms, in order to spur adoption.

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

Mr Chairman, Sir, nature-based climate solutions are powerful methods of carbon capture. They also have the added benefit of protecting ecosystems. As we move to set up our carbon trading hub and companies consider buying carbon credits from overseas entities to offset emission, there is a pressing need to ensure projects are socially sustainable. Lack of local buy-in, poor oversight and poor management can result in projects with less carbon capture than what companies pay for.

Indonesia's Katingan Mentaya project has reportedly been one such case. A Nikkei investigation found that more carbon credits were issued than it could likely make good on. Poor quality credits diminish accountability and reduce the emissions captured. Crucially, they could impact the Singapore brand. Renewable projects funded by Government-linked companies (GLCs) should also be accountable for Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) impacts. Reports mentioned that the Laos hydro projects could be negatively impacting food production, ecosystems and indigenous communities.

With Keppel recently signing its hydroelectricity import deal, I hope that our GLCs pay attention to such externalities. Impacts can be minimised with the adoption of free prior and informed consent policies. I would like to suggest that the Government step in to recommend consistent, baseline, transparency and traceability, and due diligence process guidelines for such renewable projects. This is important from the standpoint not only of promoting green outcomes, but for our national brand as well,

Lastly, my Parliamentary colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, previously expanded on the potential soft power benefits of having a foreign aid agency. Such an aid agency could support targeted cash transfers to indigenous and rural communities to manage and protect forests abroad. NGOs, like Cool Earth, already do this and one UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report studying Latin America found this to be a cost-effective way to preserve forests. In Indonesia, there are already community-managed forests.

Sir, we should come in to support such efforts as good neighbours on the same pale blue dot.

Ms He Ting Ru. She is not here. Prof Koh Lian Pin.

Chairman, as Singapore positions itself to become a leading climate services hub, we need to develop a healthy pipeline of talents for our green economy. What are the Government's plans for building a Singapore core of industry-ready talents to support our emerging sustainability sector, especially in relation to our Industry Transformation Maps?

Has the Ministry assessed whether our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) provide adequate training and upskilling programmes on sustainability-related competencies at the undergraduate, graduate and continuing education levels, to address talent gaps in our emerging sustainability sector? Are there plans to consult the public, private and people sectors, including IHLs, businesses, green groups and our youth, on the demand, content and modes of delivery for these training and upskilling programmes?

To build a vibrant and impactful sustainability ecosystem in Singapore, we should welcome and, indeed, encourage the participation of international organisations, including research and educational institutes, service providers and non-profits, to contribute to Singapore's efforts in building a green talent pipeline towards our sustainability goals.

But, crucially, to ensure success for Singapore's sustainability goals, we need to work closely with international stakeholders to build a common and deep understanding of Singapore's existing capabilities and gaps, ongoing efforts and investments and long-term vision and mission for sustainability, so that they might truly engage, collaborate and uplift our local enterprises, IHLs, civil society groups and other Singapore stakeholders.

What steps is the Government taking to ensure that all stakeholder participation in our sustainability journey will be well-coordinated, complementary and synergistic to ensure that all stakeholders work towards the common goal of building a Singapore core of talents and expertise to achieve our sustainability ambitions?

Mr Saktiandi Supaat, please take your two cuts together.

Mr Chairman, Minister Tan See Leng mentioned that Singapore could harness its robust legislative commodity trading and financial services foundation to develop an international trusted carbon services and training ecosystem here. We are not the only ones interested. Other countries, like China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, are all taking steps to establish its own carbon markets or frameworks to trade carbon credits. We need to coordinate a holistic inter-agency effort to create a vibrant marketplace with many active participants with clear ESG and carbon credit standards in place.

At present, carbon markets are plagued by low liquidity, scarce financing, inadequate risk management services and limited data availability. We will need to further encourage our financial institutions (FIs) to get involved to meet the liquidity and financing difficulties. Market infrastructure should develop along with deliberate and calibrated regulation by MAS and MinLaw. For example, what would be the risk-weighted asset, or RWA, to be associated with carbon credits? For FIs holding carbon credits, will we need clearing houses to mitigate risks? At the moment, the weights are high and unclear.

While the Government's decision to allow businesses to use high-quality carbon credits to offset up to 5% of the taxable emissions will help stimulate local demand for such credits, as with many other things, we must also look to cater to external demand. MTI and MFA must engage our partners to ensure that our carbon credits will be accepted in other countries, too. We may need to provide it in our Free Trade Agreements so that other countries cannot take protection and discriminatory approach.

Further, given our lack of natural resources, including land, we are unlikely to have any huge wind farms or hydroelectric plants that can originate a large amount of carbon credits for sale. We, therefore, require our agencies like EDB to go out and attract project developers to bring and sell their carbon credits in Singapore with an "ASEAN Registry" of sorts set up. We will also need to train the necessary subject matter expertise in our workforce, whether through our tertiary institutions or our various work training programmes.

Can the Government provide an update on our efforts to build a carbon credit trading ecosystem? Will we expect to see a detailed roadmap outlining how and when we will get there?

One of the most far-reaching crises today is the global energy crunch. Increased fuel consumption from an economy recovering from COVID-19, production outages and geopolitical events have driven up prices.

Presently, almost 95% of Singapore's electricity is generated using imported natural gas. Hence, our push to transition into a low-carbon energy future cannot come at a more opportune time. However, given our limited size, what challenges does the Government expect with energy transition and what measures have been put in place to ensure a smooth transition?

For Singapore, solar energy appears more promising than other renewable energy sources like wind or hydro. Can the Government provide an update on our solar development and deployment plans and whether there are any efforts to accelerate solar deployment? Will we look to incentivise individual households to install their own solar panels to defray their own consumption?

Mr Chairman, I would like to declare my interest as the founding director of Green SG, a registered charity that aims to catalyse and accelerate green action and develop future leaders for sustainability.

The price of natural gas spiked 25% in the UK to hit a record high last Friday. Italy uses natural gas to generate 40% of electricity demands and imports 90% of its natural gas, mostly from Russia. It is looking for alternatives from Algeria and Azerbaijan. In Germany, there were thoughts of cancelling plans to shut down nuclear plants and ramp up coal-powered generators.

Heavy industries are affected and are reducing production and shortening of working hours. Energy supplies cannot be replaced overnight. Power generation infrastructure cannot be built over a short period of time. We are well reminded of the 1973 oil crisis caused by the OPEC embargo; the 1990 oil shock caused by the Gulf war; 2001 California electricity crisis caused by market manipulation by Enron. And to remember that peak oil is on the horizon and oil production will go on a terminal decline.

We must, therefore, plan our energy transition well, well-diversified with price stability and affordability. How we plan our energy transition will affect future generations and the security of our economy.

As such, I would like to ask the Minister to share more on expected challenges ahead and how the Government will ensure a smooth energy transition. What is our latest progress and future plans for our solar deployment? How will our energy transition impact future electricity prices?

Mr Chairman, the Government has announced that, upon review, it will bring forward the timeline for us to achieve net-zero around 2050. Pre-pandemic, transport accounted for 16.2% of Singapore's carbon emissions. This is already a lower percentage than the US, UK and the global figure, but it is still a significant piece as we look out to cut our carbon emissions. What are the Ministry's plans to reduce transport emissions on land, air and sea?

A key pillar of our efforts to decarbonise our transport system is the adoption of electric vehicles, or EVs. Our Land Transport Master Plan 2040 aims to phase out internal combustion energy vehicles by 2040. To successfully do so, we must make EVs a financially sensible option for users, capitalise on rapid technological advancements and ensure that our infrastructure is integrated to support this switch to EVs.

Presently, a major obstacle to private adoption of EVs is the prohibitive costs involved. Vehicle prices in Singapore are already among the world’s highest, with our COE system to control the vehicle population in land-scarce Singapore. As most electric cars have a higher power output than the 97-kilowatt (kW) threshold under CAT A, they fall within CAT B where COE prices has recently soared past $93,000. This discourages the uptake of EVs and is likely preventing a wider choice of EVs from entering the Singapore market. We may need to relook how our EVs are classified for COE purposes.

Another question is whether the existing incentives and rebates for EVs are sufficient to affect consumer behaviour to the desired level. Given Singapore's car-lite strategy, we probably cannot afford to give EV owners a two-year road tax exemption like how Malaysia has done. However, we do need to study our incentive and rebate structure to see if any revisions are necessary. For example, I understand that road tax for EVs is currently based on the simple addition of the power output of its motors and this may lead to weird situations where an EV is taxed based on a total added output of 390 kW even though it can only deliver a maximum combined output of 240 kW.

Harnessing technological advancements can also promote the adoption of EVs by enhancing convenience and efficiency. Battery swapping technology has been tried and tested in markets like China and Norway and represents a more efficient proposition to users than electric charging at charging stations. This could complement our existing strategy of building more EV charging points closer to where people live.

Finally, the recent episodes of personal mobility device fires remind us of how the stability our vehicular batteries can become a safety issue. We must reassure the people that EVs are a safe option before they can decide to embrace it. Can the Ministry share more about its overarching strategy to further stimulate EV adoption among road users in Singapore? Would the Minister consider introducing an early adoption incentive for electric motorcycles?

Chairman, the number of registered EVs in Singapore more than doubled, from 1,397 EVs in year 2000 to 3,713 EVs in 2021 or last year. Most of the individuals who bought EVs are likely to stay in landed properties due to the high cost of EVs and the ease of installing mid-range EV home chargers for about $2,500 at the comfort of their home. Can MOT shed some light on the demographics of the first wave of EV buyers in Singapore? Before I proceed, I would like to declare my interest as I work in the transport industry.

I have always maintained that whether EVs can take off in the mass market segment is dependent on whether we have sufficient public charging stations in Singapore. This is a chicken-and-an-egg situation. If we leave it to market forces, few will be willing to install charging stations in large numbers. Thus, it is very important for Singapore to decisively incentivise companies to build EV charging facilities ahead of demand, like what the European countries and China have been doing. In particular, I would like to suggest four areas for MOT to consider.

First, many commercial properties are not able to install fast-charging stations at their commercial buildings because these fast-charging stations are needed by the large fleet owners, because they have to pay a high fee to build substations or upgrade the grid. So, I would urge the Government to consider paying for the upgrading cost of the grid and the expansion of the electric substations.

Second, to encourage the growth of the EV mass market segment, the Government can consider providing significant incentives for companies to install up to five charging stations at all HDB car parks that have a sizeable number of parking lots.

Third, for condominiums, few MCSTs are successful in installing the charging stations because they need to go through a long and tedious process to obtain the residents’ support. Could LTA work with MND to consider mandating all condominiums with a sizeable number of parking lots to install charging stations? Would it be possible for the Government to provide incentives for doing so, especially for the early adopters?

Fourth, would the Government consider mandating all commercial properties, including shopping centres and malls with sizeable parking lots, to install charging stations?

After solving the supply side of installing charging stations, we need to provide incentives to increase the ownership of EVs, like what Norway and China have been doing. In Norway, almost 65% of all new passenger cars sold in 2021 were EVs. How did Norway do it? The Norway government taxed internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles very heavily, but does not tax EVs at all.

In Singapore, the various incentives for the early adoption of EVs can amount to $45,000, but only the more expensive EV models get to enjoy these maximum savings. To further encourage the adoption of mass market EVs, I would like to propose reducing the 20% excise duty of EVs with Open Market Value (OMV) of less than $30,000. The reduction in the excise duty should be inversely proportional to the EV’s OMV, so that there would be a bigger discount for a cheaper EV. This would prevent profiteering by EV distributors and make EVs more affordable to the masses.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh. You can take your four cuts together.

Thank you, Chairman. We can expect emission improvements from passenger cars as we require all newly-registered vehicles to be cleaner-energy models from 2030. What about lorries, buses, and coaches and other heavy-duty vehicles? What are the Ministry’s plans to reduce transport emissions? Will the Government increase the use of incentives for the use of EVs and other clean energy vehicles?

With the steady increase in EV adoption and EV charging, will the Government set up a dedicated certification centre to oversee the safety and reliability of EVs and their charging points and batteries? What is the progress to set up a framework for the industry's safety standards for EVs and EV batteries permitted in Singapore?

Would the Ministry give an update on EV adoption so far and whether the set-up of charging points and provisions for battery changes are on track? Would the Ministry encourage more private participation, including the utilities companies, as what other countries have done, to set up and offer EV fast-charging services as well as battery changing services?

Transiting to a greener transportation sector will require quicker adoption of EVs by users. Will the Ministry consider further incentives and tax rebates to encourage the purchase and use of EVs, including commercial vehicles, such as vans, buses and coaches? How will the Ministry facilitate and expedite the electrification of our public transport fleets?

In embracing EVs, perhaps the biggest hurdle in the smooth transition to popular adoption of EVs is the issue of infrastructural coordination. For instance, what is the schedule like for charger deployment and how would this be synced with the gradual adoption of EV models? Will there be priority given to livelihood vehicles like taxis and PHVs at charging docks? Would the Government regulate the cost of charging? Could the Ministry give a clearer account of the overall plan on how the charger deployment will be financed and accelerated?

In 2021, Singapore's population of electric cars more than doubled from 1,217 to 2,942 cars. This, however, only represents 0.5% of the 645,000 cars in Singapore today. So, this uptick is encouraging, considering that much of it was contributed by the increase of 924 units in the number of Tesla's here in Singapore, which costs about S$200,000 each.

The economics of EVs currently is still such that it is difficult for the average Singaporean to adopt EVs. EVs are much more expensive compared to the equivalent for internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and you see that the Hyundai Ioniq Electric, after considering various rebates, retails for $173,000, that is, $45,000 or 35% more, compared to the $128,000 for the Ionic Hybrid, and $65,000 or 59% more than the $108,000 for the ICE Hyundai Avante.

I believe more can be done to ensure that we phase out ICE vehicles ahead of 2040, especially in the context of Singapore's COE system. Norway, for example, saw 84% of new car sales in January being all electric.

Even as EV prices start to come down with advancements in manufacturing, the disparity in price between EVs, after factoring in Government incentives, are still significant. EV owners will also expect to fork out an additional tax of $700 a year from 2023, introduced to partially cover the loss in fuel excise duties from ICE cars, with the higher charges already starting to be phased in since 2021. This reduces the attractiveness of EVs to consumers at a time where we should be pushing forward for adoption.

I hope the Government will also consider longer-term policies, such as preferential access and toll rates, which have been shown to show a significant impact on boosting EV sales in Oslo and several Chinese cities. We also need to accelerate the rollout of EV-charging points across Singapore to further incentivise EV adoption and ensure it is both economical and practical for Singaporeans to adopt EVs.

The increase in our green ambitions requires us to look at emerging trends in last-mile logistics. Online retail sales have averaged 13.5% in total retail sales in Singapore in 2021, compared to an average of 5.4% of retail sales between 2018 and 2019.

This has meant great convenience to Singaporeans who purchase from online platforms, but it also is likely to mean that there is more demand for last mile logistics. Today, all types of goods vehicles are of the diesel engine variety. The increase in demand for last-mile logistics will mean an increase in our carbon footprint.

A study by the World Economic Forum in 2020, prior to the pandemic, indicates that the expected growth in last mile delivery is likely to increase carbon emissions by 30% by 2030. The accelerating effects of COVID-19 would have increased the carbon emissions more rapidly. To be clear, the Government has taken some steps to mitigate the issue. During the COS last year, then Minister for Transport Ong Ye Kung made the announcement that no new diesel cars and taxis will be allowed to be registered from 2025.

The current Commercial Vehicle Emissions scheme, which started in April last year, was designed, in part, to persuade owners of light commercial vehicles, which make up 68.9% of all goods vehicles, over to vehicles that burn cleaner fuels. We have also seen electric light commercial vehicle models increasingly being rolled out by manufacturers, such as Renault, Opel and BYD.

The main constraint is electric charging infrastructure, which is still in its infancy. I, therefore, wish to seek updates from the Minister on the plans for a green transition for such goods vehicles, starting with an update on the Government's targets to convert goods vehicles to EVs and other green options and plans to achieve these targets.

Will the Ministry be getting more industrial estate operators to roll out more EV charging infrastructure around industrial areas and encourage a switch to electric light commercial vehicles and vans? Will there be subsidies for companies that adopt these EVs early?

Chairman, the EV charging sector is growing rapidly with the acceleration of EV adoption. Has the Ministry considered the need to strengthen regulations on EV chargers and EV charging operators, to ensure a safe and reliable charging network?

The Government has announced targets for the greening of our public transport and point-to-point fleets by the year 2040. Will the Ministry be announcing further details of our EV roadmap, particularly in relation to any intermediate targets for the greening of our public transportation fleets, similar to what has been done for private vehicles?

Chairman, at MND's COS 2021, I said that for urban infrastructures to be more climate-resilient, it is imperative to adopt the use of existing climate change information and resources for urban planning. Further, to have buildings designed with lower carbon emissions and for sustainable maintenance, we should incorporate innovative design solutions.

The Government announced then that it is driving R&D in urban sustainability, such as climate-resilient urban infrastructure with reduced carbon emissions. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress made and how the Government plans to encourage stakeholders to adopt these solutions further?

Often, when people think of sustainable projects, they will, naturally, associate it with higher costs. However, that is because they did not consider sustainable principles in the project planning for building lifecycle costs. By optimising resources during the planning stage to evaluating environmental and performance trade-offs, finding a good balance between capital and lifecycle costs, it can effectively improve the outcome of the system.

The push towards a low-carbon built environment also has to do with scale, speed of adoption and investment in technologies. When larger players in the value chain utilise good asset management programmes and invest in technologies at scale, the trickle-down effect will benefit the smaller players, too.

With emerging trends in sustainability towards dynamic master planning for city planning or utilities, I believe we can leverage algorithms and digital tools to predict and test extensive scenarios to better organise capital allocation, project prioritisation and develop strategies to improve the city’s resilience and liveability.

With all these giving momentum to the industry and deepening research for solutions, we will soon be able to put sustainability concepts into real-world practice. I would thus like to ask BCA: apart from the sustainability guidelines, as introduced for existing and new buildings, how is BCA supporting the industry to effectively transit to a low-carbon built environment?

Sir, Singapore should build up our capabilities in urban sustainability to help solve our own problems and to develop an exportable industry. To do so, we can look at R&D and talent development. The Government announced last year it is driving R&D in urban sustainability. Can MND update on the progress of the efforts in R&D?

As the R&D topics are so wide-ranging, does it make sense to focus on specific areas, such as coastal protection and issues unique to the region or the tropical belt? This can help us focus, as well as differentiate, our capabilities. Can the R&D be commercialised by Singapore companies and developed into exportable services?

The built environment (BE) sector will be the key sector that needs to be transformed to fulfil our future urban sustainability needs. However, the built sector has difficulty attracting more talent.

To build up a critical mass of talents, we should have a holistic approach. For example, curriculum in schools and tertiary institutions should be updated and jobs redefined to better reflect the new capabilities needed.

It may also be useful to reframe the built environment jobs to better reflect their contribution. Jobs in this sector are not just about building things. Rather, they help to enhance our liveability, support our economy with intelligent infrastructure while allowing us to be sustainable. We should also seek more ways for public-private sector collaboration. For example, I co-chair with BCA the Central Procurer Panel that works with various built sector trade associations and chambers (TACs) to administer accreditation of professions, such as construction manager, surveyor and facilities manager. The aims are two-fold: one, to help employees with continuous learning and upgrading of their professional skills; two, to help employers better recognise and reward higher skill levels.

Can MND comment on how to better build up a critical mass of talents in urban sustainability?

Singapore has taken the bold step of enhancing its climate change target and having its carbon emissions target set to net-zero by around 2050. This is especially reflected in its plans for urban development. The Government aims to green 80% of Singapore's buildings by 2030. We can do so by designing and constructing greener buildings. Currently, buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions. In addition to that, according to the Singapore Green Building Council, the shorter building lifespans due to urban renewal means that embodied carbon emissions could go up to 40%. How will BCA continue to support our transition to a low-carbon built environment?

The Government is also driving R&D in urban sustainability. This is to ensure that our urban infrastructure is made more climate-resilient while reducing carbon emissions. Can the Ministry give an update on the progress made and how it plans to encourage or incentivise stakeholders to adopt these solutions?

It has been a year since MND announced the latest edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan. May we please have an update on the progress made so far? Buildings account for over 20% of our carbon emissions. How will the Building and Construction Authority support our transition to a low-carbon society?

The Government announced during the Committee of Supply 2021 that it was driving R&D in urban sustainability with the goal of enhancing the climate resilience of our urban infrastructure while reducing their carbon footprint. May we please have an update on the progress made so far? How does the Government plan to encourage stakeholders to adopt these solutions?

Chairman, we have seen that many of our existing HDB and commercial buildings have installed solar panels on their respective rooftops. Can we know how much energy efficiency and savings have been made since the installation? Some of my friends and cousins have been asking what does this bring to them as residents? Can the Ministry also share their plans for those remaining HDB blocks and do we actually target to do for all the residential properties? If so, what is the timeline that we aim for? In addition to that, is MND also planning to do this for the new HDB residential properties via the BTOs and the new buildings upcoming?

I would also like the Minister to share how can the residents know the value of the solar panels installed on top of their blocks. This knowledge will go a long way in educating not just adults but everyone in the household. Will HDB start to explore having solar window panels so that residents can also play their part in adopting solar consumption?

On the commercial building front, will there be plans to move our old existing substations, with their reasonably large land spaces and even those on prime land, underground? I understand there is, currently, an ongoing construction of an underground transmission substation, with commercial buildings above it. Will it just stop there or will it increase progressively over time?

Mr Xie Yao Quan, you can take your two cuts together.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Buildings account for over 20% of Singapore's carbon emissions. Therefore, green buildings will be a key lever for our net‐zero ambitions. How will MND and BCA continue to support our transition to green buildings and a low carbon built environment?

Also, MND announced last year that it was driving R&D in urban sustainability such that our urban infrastructure is made much more climate‐resilient while reducing carbon emissions. Can we have an update on the progress made and how MND plans to encourage stakeholders to adopt these solutions? Have we achieved any innovation that has the potential to be commercialised and exported to the world?

Mr Chairman, HDB envisages the Green Towns Programme as a 10‐year plan that aims to reduce energy consumption, recycle rainwater and cool the built environment in all HDB towns. Can MND provide an update on the progress of the HDB Green Towns Programme? I know the target for solar panel installation has been revised upwards. How about the targets for other aspects of the programme? How much have we moved beyond pilots to deploy solutions at scale?

Mr Chairman, to support our goal of growing 30% of our local nutritional needs by 2030, the Ministry should encourage more local community efforts, such as growing small edible plants in households and available plots in housing estates. Urban rooftop farms on multi-storey carparks will not only contribute to this movement but also bring together neighbours in a meaningful endeavour and build social cohesion. How will the Ministry support such farming efforts?

Will MND consider incorporating green features into our HDB flats by adopting sustainable materials and designs in future housing projects, concurrently upgrading our existing ones through the Home Improvement Programmes? Many of our existing HDB flats comprise full-glass windows that transfer considerable amounts of heat through the afternoon sun. Will HDB consider appropriate greener alternatives, like installing low-heat transfer windows, to cool down our flats, thereby enabling residents to be less reliant on fans and air-conditioning and, indirectly, contribute towards saving their utility costs?

Miss Rachel Ong, you can take your two cuts together.

Chairman, in my house visits and conversations with residents, I have observed increasing interest amongst private estate residents, specifically condominium residents, in being engaged in sustainability efforts. However, access to recycling bins for different materials is limited in condominium estates. In addition to keeping HDB estates sustainable, with the rising proportion of residents living in condominiums and other apartments over the last decade, it is vital that we also support these residents in Singapore's sustainability efforts. Can the Ministry share future plans to support and encourage recycling efforts in private estates, especially in the condominiums?

A 2018 study by Future Cities Laboratory found that the less-educated and less-wealthy people in Singapore are less actively engaged with urban nature, with potential negative impact for health and well-being. Understandably, expending finances on travel to nature reserves would not be a priority for the lower income. Many lower-income working adults also may have limited time to access nature. For some, the distance between their households and green spaces deters the frequency of their visits.

With this in mind, how will the Ministry continue to improve equity in green space access for the lower-income families, especially for our children?

Chairman, Singapore has long been known as a Garden City. Two years ago, MND announced its plans to transform our green landscape even further, turning Singapore into a “City in Nature”. This includes dedicating another 200 hectares of nature parks by 2030 and having 300 kilometres of Nature Ways and 500 kilometres of park connectors by 2030. Could the Minister please give an update on the progress made so far in transforming Singapore into a City in Nature? Does NParks have further plans to enhance and expand Singapore’s green and blue spaces?

Ultimately, our green and blue spaces exist for our people and for future generations. As such, it is important for the community to have a voice in shaping the landscapes they live and play in. How can the Ministry better collaborate and consult with the community?

Furthermore, visitorship to our Southern Islands increased by 20% to 30% in 2020 and they are being promoted as a good escape from the city. What are the strategies to ensure that the amenities are kept up-to-date and the Ministry’s plans to balance competing priorities both on the islands and in the sea space surrounding it? Will the Ministry consider carrying out a capacity assessment to ensure our nature spaces are protected?

Chairman, climate change and sustainability education requires the teaching of not only sustainability-related skillsets, values and principles but also the ability to think ecologically and holistically at a systems level. Future generations of Singaporeans need to be both digital citizens and ecological citizens.

Has the Government considered incorporating sustainability competencies and systems level thinking into our education curriculum at appropriate levels to ensure that our learners are well-equipped for a global green economy and will be ready to compete with global talent? Are efforts being undertaken to ensure teachers have access to sustainability resources and training in order to deliver such curriculum?

Ms Poh Li San, you can take your two cuts together.

Mr Chairman, how is the Government preparing our teachers from Primary schools to Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) for the green economy? Do we have a roadmap for Universities, Polytechnics, ITEs, JCs and Secondary schools to support the green economy?

The Government will need to update the education curriculum and teaching materials for sustainability-related courses. Is this being done for our teachers? What are the programmes to train and equip our teaching staff with the latest skillsets and knowledge so that, in turn, they can teach their students the same required by businesses and industries?

In order to prepare our students for the green economy, changes will need to be made to our curriculum. Has the Government set up a general roadmap for all our education institutions so that the design of the courses and programmes fulfil the wide-ranging demands of the green economy?

The inaugural Skills Demand for the Future Economy report has identified more than 450 green job roles across 17 sectors, ranging from manufacturing and trade and connectivity, to financial services and the built environment. How does MOE ensure that relevant courses, diplomas and degrees are offered in the IHLs and schools in order to prepare a pipeline of local talents to fill the jobs required for the green economy?

Considering lifelong learning now to be an integral part of Singapore’s education, the system should incorporate sustainability modules which can be picked up at all ages. Is provision being made for such flexibility in the SkillsFuture courses and programmes? How will the Government facilitate collaboration between education and training institutions, research and industry stakeholders to create relevant academic, internship and apprenticeship in sustainability-related industries?

Chairman, in my speech supporting the second Parliamentary Motion on Climate Change earlier this January, I highlighted the need for our IHLs to enhance their course offerings in PET to better integrate sustainability-focused and related modules.

This is because, with the greening of jobs over time, increasing fields of disciplines will need to embrace sustainability in their practice.

I also shared on the need to better complement PET curricula with CET Sustainability Modules to ensure that, by the time our students graduate, they are equipped with up-to-date skills and knowledge required for their fields.

Can the Ministry please share what efforts the IHLs are undertaking to further support the green economy and sustainable living?