Hansard, Wednesday, 11 March 2015

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

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [10 March]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim]. (proc text)]

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

Madam, as Parliamentarians, we often meet our residents and fellow Singaporeans who engage us on housing issues. Depending on the circumstances, these are moments of happiness, anxiety, eagerness, concern and worry.

Having a home is key to the development of an individual, family and society. Such development is often hampered when a marriage breaks down. It not only affects the family structure, it brings emotional and psychological stress to the members of the family. In most cases, part of the settlement of the divorce is the sale of the matrimonial home. This is when the worry starts to come in.

I have had cases where both ex-spouses would come to meet me to seek help in exploring avenues for their housing option post-divorce. In fact, I just had two cases during my Meet-the-People Session two nights ago. I am particularly concerned about the lives of the party with the custody of the children, particularly those with young children. Some may not be aware of the avenues available, while others may not be able to afford to purchase a

Page: 9

home. Many ended staying with their parents or siblings, whose home may already have many occupants, thus, exerting stress points on other families. Some would also rent homes in the open market. The waiting time for a home is another issue which is often raised by these residents.

Madam, we need to help these people. The more difficult they face in getting a home, the more susceptible they are to social issues which will linger in their lives for many, many more years and perhaps generations to come.

I would like to ask the Minister: how many single parents with children arising from a divorce apply to purchase or rent a flat in the last three years? How is the Ministry helping them? How long do they have to wait to be allocated a flat and ultimately collect keys to their new flats? What more can the Ministry do to help this group of Singaporeans to have a home to continue their journey in the next phase of their lives?

Mdm Chair, unless they receive sufficient support to stabilise their lives, many of the divorcee- and single-parent families remain vulnerable.

Speaking of vulnerability, I am also concerned about what has been reported in the local media about fish mortalities at our fish farms. I would like to ask what steps is the Ministry of National Development (MND) taking to mitigate the adverse impact on the fish farms and the environment as well as to minimise the vulnerability of our fish farmers.

Madam, our home ownership policy is a key pillar of Singapore's social system and the reason why most Singaporeans today own their homes. A home is more than just a physical space, more than a roof over the head. It provides a feeling of security and a sense of place which one owns, roots oneself and where one belongs. For that reason, a 90% home ownership rate, by any standard, is most unusual. This did not happen by chance but is the result of a conscious political choice and deliberate Government intervention. For the past 50 years, we have enabled two generations of Singaporeans to own their own homes.

For those who cannot own a home immediately and have no family support, we provide heavily subsidised quality public rental flats. This is not an alternative or substitute to home ownership, but a resting stop, a stepping stone and a safety net for those who have tripped and need help to bounce back. Going forward, we will better bridge this path from public rental to home ownership and help more public rental tenants become home owners. We will work out a more inclusive and compassionate approach, with greater incentive for self-reliance and stronger community support. Let me elaborate.

Page: 10

In recent years, we have stepped up efforts to help lower-income and vulnerable families own their homes. In 2006, Housing and Development Board (HDB) re-introduced 2-room flats and has launched 11,500 units since. Many families have benefited, including 1,900 earning $1,000 or below. We help them buy their first home through generous housing grants of up to $60,000. Thus far, 1,700 families earning $1,000 or less have benefited from this. In 2013, we further introduced the Step-Up Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant to help families upgrade from a 2-room to a 3-room flat when their circumstances improved.

We empathise with the challenges faced by vulnerable families, including divorcees with children, and continue to extend help to them. Housing stability is paramount as they go through this transition. This is why, in 2013, we introduced priority for such families applying for a 2- or 3-room Build-To-Order (BTO) flat in a non-mature estate and provided them subsidised temporary housing under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) while they wait for their new flat. We also shortened the debarment period from five to three years, enabling 290 divorcees to buy a subsidised flat earlier. Over the last three years, 8,800 divorcees with children applied to buy HDB flats and 3,800 successfully booked one – 130 did so with the help of the priority. Ninety-five rented a PPHS flat.

Despite generous Government assistance, some families are unable to own a home immediately. For these families, we provide highly subsidised public rental flats to meet their housing needs. In the last three years, HDB helped more than 1,800 divorced parents with public rental flats. Mr Pritam Singh asked that HDB also allow single unwed mothers to apply for public rental flats. In fact, HDB already allows them to do so, on a case by case basis, if they do not have family support or other housing options.

We increased HDB's stock of rental flats from 42,000 in 2007 to 51,000 today and are further ramping up to 60,000 by 2017. Mr Pritam Singh asked what had been the impact on allocation and waiting time. In 2014, we successfully placed 2,300 households in public rental flats. The average waiting time has come down from 21 months in 2008 to 5.5 months now. With more flats coming on stream, we will be able to help low-income families in a more timely fashion.

Mr Zainudin Nordin asked that we relook our rental housing policy to ensure that we continue to help low-income families have a roof over their heads. The public rental scheme was launched in 1960, the same year that HDB itself was formed. But it has not remained static. We review the eligibility criteria from time to time to ensure that they meet today's needs. We are ramping up supply. Today's public rental blocks provide a totally different living environment from those of yesteryears. I know for a fact as I used to live in one of these rental flats and I am sure many Members of this House did, too.

Page: 11

We have and will continue to transform our public rental landscape to keep up with the times. In fact, the only feature that has remained unchanged through the years is the public rental rates; the lowest rental rate of $26 a month was set in 1979 and it is still $26 a month today, after 35 years.

That is why, even as we ramp up supply, we must continue to be judicious in allocating these highly subsidised rental flats, so that we target help where it is most needed, and stretch each dollar to help as many as possible.

Hence, as a policy, singles, including elderly and divorced singles, are required to co-rent a flat and are not allowed to rent alone, as Mr Lim Biow Chuan has suggested. However, if co-sharing is not feasible, due to medical conditions, for example, HDB makes exceptions. We are driven by need, not by rules. Even when we exercise flexibility, we will continue to work with our partners in the social service sector to help these families improve their socio-economic circumstances that would enable them to own their own homes subsequently.

However, as we improve access to public rental flats, we observe a worrisome trend: more families coming into public rental today used to be home owners but had sold their flats for various reasons. Just five years ago, they comprised only 52% of public rental applicants. Today, the proportion is 59%. Some of them have benefited from one housing subsidy before and, while they still qualify for another subsidised BTO flat, they have to pay a resale levy and are no longer eligible for generous first-timer housing grants. Some have enjoyed two housing subsidies and cashed out, quite substantially, and more than once. They no longer qualify for subsidised flats and face an even steeper climb. As they are likely to be older, they also have problems getting sufficient housing loan. Also, many of them have children who are financially dependent on them.

Mdm A's family is one such example. Mdm A and her husband upgraded from a 3-room resale flat and bought their first subsidised 4-room flat in 2003 at $190,000. Despite HDB's assistance, they were unable to keep up with the mortgage payments and decided to sell the flat in 2010. They received a CPF refund of $32,600 and cash proceeds of $198,000, more than what they paid for the flat. But with this, Mdm A bought a weekend car and rented a private apartment. She set up a food stall but business was poor and closed shop soon after. She then invested a large sum in a business venture which turned out to be a scam. At the same time, her husband developed a serious medical condition and part of the proceeds was used to pay his substantial medical bills. They also sold the car.

In less than two years after selling their 4-room flat, the money ran out. Mdm A earned just $800 and her husband was unemployed because of his medical condition. They could not afford to buy another flat or rent on the open market. Their relatives were also unable to accommodate their large family of six. Mdm A's three youngest children lived separately

Page: 12

with different relatives while she, her husband and their elder son spent their nights at the void deck or beach. When they appealed for a public rental flat, HDB accepted their application on compassionate grounds even though they had enjoyed substantial sales proceeds and were not eligible to rent. They moved into a 2-room rental flat in 2013 and have been there ever since. Mdm A aspires to own a home again to provide a better living environment for her children. We will try to help her as far as we can.

Mdm A's case is not an isolated one. Many Members in the House would have met families with such a background. Indeed, we must recognise that the HDB flat is a home for loved ones, as well as a valuable nest egg for retirement, especially for the lower- income. In a rising property market, or when one is financially strapped, the temptation to sell is a very real one. But my advice is: resist the temptation and do not cash out too early. Keep your home; protect your nest egg; life may be harder in the short -run; but it will work out.

We have seen many cases like Mdm A. With better outreach and community engagement, we hope home owners will make informed choices and not be easily taken in by the promise of short-term gains without realising the serious longer-term implications.

Mr Zainudin Nordin asked what more can MND do to help low-income families get decent housing at affordable prices. Mr Pritam Singh suggested loosening restrictions on the Tenants Priority Scheme. Mr Zainal Sapari offered various suggestions, including providing them a third bite of the cherry, but impose safeguards and conditions.

Like them, we instinctively want to help these public rental tenants achieve home ownership again. Our hearts go out, especially to their children, because if we can, we would like the children to be able to grow up in a more stable and conducive home ownership environment. But as Minister Khaw earlier said, this is something we need to think through very carefully. There are at least two issues that we need to take time to ponder.

The first question is one of equity. Will our society support giving them more housing grants than what other families, including lower-income families, receive, if the reason why they need more help is because they have used the proceeds from the sale of their previous HDB flats unwisely or even irresponsibly? The second question is one of sustainability. Would such a well-intended policy change result in moral hazard? What are the right enabling conditions needed for these families to become home owners and remain as such? As Members are well aware, money can help buy another flat, but more than that is needed to create a stable home. As a society, we have to find a way forward.

Page: 13

In 2012, I started a small pilot to work out a way to help low-income families living in two interim rental housing blocks to rebuild their lives and own their homes. The project is called P4650. P4650 is not a housing initiative, but a community project. Through P4650, we bring together social intervention and community support as we realise housing problems are only the tip of the iceberg for many low-income families. They face challenging and complex social issues. The hand-holding of each and every household is highly resource-intensive, and the support customised, whether it is budgeting, job matching, skills upgrading or supporting children in school or after-school care and even mental health- related support. We have had some good results with this pilot, not just in terms of helping many of these families be home owners again, but, more importantly, in terms of changed behaviour and transformed lives that are essential to making home ownership sustainable.

Even so, we are far from 100% success. Why? Government assistance and community support are extended to all. But what we find differentiates success and failure is personal motivation. Those who succeed are those who, from the bottom of their hearts, want to carve out a better life for themselves and their children. It is this personal drive, coupled with Government help and community support, that makes the difference.

Let me cite an example. Mdm S is a divorcee with two young children, who used to stay in an interim rental housing block in my constituency in Siglap division. She was placed in our P4650 programme. She was waiting for her 2-room BTO flat to be completed. She was working as a relief infant care teacher and earning a monthly income of just $1,000. With that income and two young children, she struggled with rental and utilities payments. She was overwhelmed with the challenges she was facing. P4650 helped Mdm S stabilise her situation with rental vouchers and School Pocket Money Fund for her children. MENDAKI and Homework Cafe, run by volunteers at the Siglap Community Centre, helped her son with free tuition and homework supervision. This helped improve his school results. And Mdm S herself never gave up, wanting to build a better life for her young ones. On her social worker's advice and support from Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and South East Community Development Council (CDC), she took up a basic Early Childhood Education course. After she completed the course, she was promoted and her wages rose. I am happy for Mdm S. She is now a proud owner of her own flat. More importantly, she has rebuilt her life and the life of her two young children after her divorce, and there is hope of a better future for the family.

On this note, Mr Zainudin Nordin asked if there are Singaporeans still living in interim rental housing. Today, there are 1,140 households in interim rental housing. The majority, about 70%, are waiting to be allocated a public rental flat or have booked for a new flat and will move out when their flats are ready. For the remaining 30% who are still working out their long-term housing option, HDB works closely with the social agencies to help them stabilise their family circumstances and find employment or get better-paying jobs, so that

Page: 14

they can secure a longer-term housing option. Since interim rental housing started, 4,250 of the 5,390 households who took it up successfully have moved out to rental or purchased flats or found alternative accommodation.

Based on my experience with P4650, I believe that collective responsibility, built on personal motivation and self-reliance, will have to underpin the more inclusive and compassionate home ownership policy we seek to develop. If families, particularly those in rental flats, take up the opportunity to work towards home ownership, they will not have to go at it alone. We know it is not easy for them. We empathise with their plight. That is why, together with our community partners, we stand ready to help them get back on their feet again so that they can then build a better life for themselves and their family. We will target assistance where it is needed and create the right enabling conditions for as many Singaporeans as possible, including those in the lower-income group living in rental flats, to be home owners, with a stake in this country and its future.

Let me now touch on municipal parking issues.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap suggested standardising the season parking rates for Class 3 passenger vans. Today, HDB charges different rates, depending on the size of the unladen weight of the vehicle. This is to preserve the character and ambience of the HDB residential estates.

HDB upgrades its car parks from time to time. Mr Pritam Singh suggested that there is scope to better coordinate the Repair and Re-decoration (R&R) works under HDB with the routine maintenance under Town Councils. We agree. Today, HDB already alerts Town Councils on its schedule for multi-storey car park (MSCP) R&R works in advance.

Mr Pritam Singh said that HDB has yet to reply to his request for more information on the schedule for car park upgrading. HDB told Mr Singh that most of the HDB surface car parks in Kaki Bukit, Eunos and Bedok Reservoir wards have already been upgraded, and the remaining car parks have also been scheduled to be upgraded progressively from 2017 to 2021. HDB needs a bit more time to confirm the exact schedule of the works over the next six years, so that it can minimise subsequent adjustment and disruption to the Town Council's plan. On behalf of HDB, I ask Mr Singh for some understanding. HDB has been working on his request since he asked at the end of January 2015. It will be finishing its study and should be able to reply to him soon.

Mr Png Eng Huat expressed concern about the fruits from some trees in car parks in Hougang causing dents to vehicles and discomfort to pedestrians. I would like to assure Mr Png that HDB and the National Parks Board (NParks) recognise the importance of selecting

Page: 15

the right species of trees in residential estates, including car parks. The particular species of trees that Mr Png referred to is commonly known as the "Sea Apple" and has also been planted by NParks in other parts of Singapore. It is a common species found in many car parks across Singapore. The trees in the Hougang car parks have, in fact, been there for the past 15 to 20 years. If these mature trees remain healthy, they should be retained. HDB will continue to ensure that the trees are regularly pruned.

From time to time, there may be some imbalance between parking demand and available supply, as was the case in the car park at Blk 538 along Bedok North Street 3, cited by Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap. Through HDB's measures, such as the introduction of EPS to encourage higher vehicular turnover, HDB has managed the situation and all residents who have applied for season parking tickets for this car park have managed to obtain one.

Let me address the issues raised on Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). Mr Pritam Singh asked about CIPC. To set the issue in context, we must recognise that there is a difference between CIPC under the charge of Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs), and programmes like Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) which are nominated by Town Councils. So, there is a difference.

As Mr Singh would be aware, from FY2012 to FY2014, over just a three-year period, MND has given Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) six HIP and three NRP projects. This is comparable to the number of projects received by other Town Councils.

MND gave AHPETC full flexibility to nominate and prioritise the eligible HIP and NRP projects assigned to it. AHPETC has used this flexibility to give a big share of the projects to Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC), although Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) has more eligible projects. Nonetheless, that is, of course, a call the Members of Parliament (MPs) are entitled to make.

Mr Pritam Singh would also be fully aware that after various NRP projects were handed over to the AHPETC to be implemented, AHPETC had unilaterally cut the works at Serangoon North Avenues 1 and 2. The works were cut because the Town Council's cost overran and exceeded the approved budget. As a result, residents will no longer get shelters over the basketball court at the Family Park and the Community Plaza, which were committed earlier. The local grassroots informed HDB that residents had the impression that the items were cut by HDB because AHPETC was run by the Opposition. That is not true. Again, this is a mischievous distortion. These items were cut because the Town Council's costs are higher and exceeded the approved budget.

Page: 16

MND has been fair to AHPETC and has treated AHPETC no differently from other Town Councils. Indeed, when it comes to exerting its autonomy even against prevailing HDB policies, it is the AHPETC that has been especially aggressive and often with total disregard for such national policies.

In the case of the CIPC, Mr Singh would be aware that CIPC funds are disbursed through the CCCs, not the Town Councils. We have said this in this House many times before. It is, therefore, incorrect for Mr Singh to say that MND had previously given CIPC funding to the former Aljunied Town Council, but withdrew it from AHPETC. This is untrue. The funds were never disbursed through any Town Council. They were disbursed through the CCCs.

Just as we give Town Councils flexibility over proposals under HIP and NRP, we give the CCCs flexibility to assess proposals under CIPC and to prioritise them for implementation. The CCCs are close to the ground and will be better able to decide on the projects which will be most useful for the local residents. CIPC is community-oriented. Its key objective is to bond residents, working together with their community leaders, to improve the living environment. CCCs also have to raise the 10% co-payment for CIPC and will have to be prudent in what they decide to do as they have the responsibility to raise the funds, thus the need to consult the residents and know what the residents want and whether the residents are prepared to support the CCCs in their fund-raising efforts.

In the case of AHPE CCCs, I understand that it had earlier consulted residents on the proposed CIPC projects in their HDB estates and received 90 project proposals. The number of projects residents proposed had busted the CIPC budget for the year and the CCCs needed, therefore, to prioritise these projects. Notwithstanding this, the CCCs reached out to AHPETC for its nominations; AHPETC proposed 52 projects.

This meant that there was a long list of proposals, 90 that the CCCs received from the residents, plus 52 with some overlaps between them. The CCCs, which comprised community volunteers, needed time to go through all these proposals. Eventually, the CCCs identified 17 projects which could be funded within the allocated budget: six were proposed by both the Town Councils and CCCs; that is the overlap; six were proposed by the Town Council and the remaining five were proposed by the CCCs. So, AHPETC's proposals actually accounted for 12 out of the 17 projects selected. And the CCCs have to raise funds for these AHPETC's proposed projects. The CCCs would need a bit more time to implement the projects.

I do not know why Mr Singh would now turn around, blame the CCCs for tardiness, and unfairly paint them in such a negative light in the eyes of the public when the CCCs took the time and trouble to seek, go through and, as it is clear, gave significant consideration to the Town Council's proposals and were prepared to support many of them. I think the grassroots

Page: 17

and the local community leaders are fully prepared to work with the Town Council to serve residents better. But it takes two hands to clap.

Mdm Chair, let me now respond to Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim's query on the recent plankton bloom that affected our fish farms in the East and West Johor Straits.

The fish losses have come up to 600 tonnes so far, most of which are from farms near the East Johor Straits. The farms near Lim Chu Kang on the West Johor Straits are less affected, with losses of about 10 tonnes. Most of the dead fish reported in that area at Lim Chu Kang jetty and Sungei Buloh coastline were wild fish from the sea. The plankton situation has since improved, with reduced fish mortality. During my visit to the fish farms in East Johor Straits last week, I personally saw a farm that lost its entire fish stock. I fully empathise with the fish farmers on their losses. I know it must be a very painful experience for those whose farms were badly affected.

According to experts, the plankton blooms that caused the fish mortalities could be due to a confluence of unfavourable environmental factors, such as neap tide, dry weather, increased nutrients in the water possibly due to untreated sewage, oil palm discharge and other pollution. We are investigating and will see what can be done to reduce such pollution at source.

Agri-Food and Veterinary (AVA) has collected samples from the affected farms for laboratory analysis. No marine biotoxins that are harmful to humans were detected from any of these samples. AVA will continue to test fish samples from the affected farms to ensure food safety.

AVA has been monitoring the situation at the fish farming areas daily over the past weeks as there were concerns about the potential impact of the recent hot and dry weather spell on our fish farms, and they do it every year. On 30 January, AVA alerted the fish farmers to the adverse weather conditions and advised them to monitor the situation. As soon as AVA detected the elevated plankton levels at the East Johor Straits, they alerted the fish farmers on 16 and 17 February so that they could take immediate action. AVA advised them to deploy canvas bags to isolate the fish from their external environment, harvest their fish early to cut losses and transfer their fish stock to unaffected areas. The farmers, who heeded AVA's advice before the fish deaths peaked on 27 February, averted the worst. Similar warnings were given to fish farmers in the West Johor Straits on 25 February, prior to the fish deaths on 6 March.

Page: 18

One of the farmers whom I met, Mr Gary Chang of San Lay Marine Culture Co, took early action after AVA's warning on 30 January. Mr Chang lined his net-cages with canvas and installed a simple filtration system to maintain the water quality. His losses this year were only one-tenth that of last year's fish kill that he experienced.

Unfortunately, there are many farmers who did not react in time and suffered much worse losses. To assist farmers in the disposal of dead fish, AVA officers worked hard and deployed waste disposal vessels, even working and visiting the farmers daily during the Chinese New Year period.

We cannot prevent plankton blooms from recurring, but we can take steps to minimise their impact when they recur.

First, AVA will work with the fish farmers to recover and build up resilience against similar future incidents. AVA will help farmers to develop operationally-ready contingency plans to reduce their losses in future occurrences. I strongly urge the fish farmers to work with AVA on this. We also plan to help farmers learn from their counterparts who have installed resilient systems. Farmers can tap on AVA's Agriculture Productivity Fund to purchase relevant equipment to enhance their resilience.

MND and AVA are exploring further assistance, beyond these measures, for affected farms to restart their operations. Similar to last year, AVA will not impose the minimum production requirement on affected farms nor take action against them for not meeting the minimum production requirement. We are very reasonable people. We are not heartless. We understand the difficulties the farmers face during these times and will allow them sufficient time to get back onto their feet and we will continue to help them do so.

Second, we need to better understand the science behind this phenomenon. AVA is collaborating with agencies, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), the National Parks Board (NParks) and the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and experts from research institutes, such as the Tropical Marine Science Institute (TMSI), to study the relationship between plankton blooms and fish kill.

Third, through the Co-Innovation Partnership Programme (CI Partnership), AVA has commissioned projects to develop closed containment systems which can reduce the vulnerability of the fish stock to water conditions. The existing mode of farming in net cages in the sea exposes the fish to unnecessary risks. Fish farmers must consider modernising their farming methods so that they are better protected in the longer term.

Page: 19

A good case in point is Singapore Aquaculture Technologies. The company puts their fish stock in a closed containment system and has an appropriate water treatment system to protect the fishes from the harmful effects of the algae. They managed to save two-thirds of their fish stock with their system. I am glad that there are already several farmers who realised this and have invested in technology, such as the closed containment systems.

Mdm Chair, first, let me declare my interest as a board member of NParks. Singapore is a City in a Garden, and, to that end, we have, indeed, one of the most comprehensive landscaping and greening efforts in Asia, maybe even the world. In reducing pollution and dust, and improving air quality and the quality of life, we see that there is immeasurable value in this.

There are two issues that I want to raise: first, I would like to point out that despite our highly regarded tagline of being a City in a Garden, over 120 square kilometres of land have been added to Singapore's land area; and more than 95% of Singapore's original forest cover, which is about 578 square kilometres, has been cleared. This means that we could, effectively, become more a city than a garden.

Given the increasing urbanisation and demands for various development works, what safeguards are being adopted to ensure that our green cover is being maintained and that we retain the "Garden in a City" and "City in a Garden" uniqueness for Singaporeans and visitors to our country to continue to enjoy and experience?

Second, I know that we have taken some measures in "greening" Singapore. For example, between 1986 and 2007, the green cover in Singapore grew from 35.7% to 46.5%. But I ask that we be clear-eyed about it – a 100-year-old tree is surely different from a six-month-old shrub and manicured road dividers in terms of ecological value. Like avocados and kang kong, not all greens are the same.

I understand that there have been efforts to encourage skyrise greenery, such as the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises (LUSH) programme, started in 2009. Although 62% of residential projects approved by URA and 34% of commercial, hotel or mixed-use projects have taken up LUSH incentives over the last two years, could and should there be more? What could be done to encourage a greater take-up of the LUSH incentives?

Last, can URA's Master Plan do more in ensuring that Singapore's green cover remains adequate and sustainable, not just in terms of providing a green cover, but in protecting old

Page: 20

trees?

Madam, the call to make Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs) an integral part of any major development project in Singapore is not a new one. Many Singaporeans have, in the past, made such appeals, including inside this House.

The Government has acknowledged the importance of EIAs in general terms and also stated that we should not have EIAs for every single development, that EIAs do take up time and resources and, as such, we should apply them selectively to projects that may most adversely affect our environment.

Could the Government provide more specific guidelines relating to when EIAs will be required for development projects, perhaps for projects of a certain type, above a certain size, in certain zones, and how the assessments and public consultations would be carried out? Could these be specified and formalised in a published framework or in legislation?

If we take reference from the EIA legislation of some other countries, we can find that the scope of projects that require EIAs is often defined in the law. If we have an EIA law, it does not mean that all projects must have EIAs, but that when EIAs are required would be defined and known to the public, along with guidance on how they would be conducted and so on.

To be balanced against the time and resources of conducting EIAs, of course, would be the cost – both present and future, and tangible and intangible – of potentially damaging or losing vital components of our natural and other heritage.

If an EIA finds a development project to be potentially harmful to our environment, it does not mean that the project has to be stopped altogether. It does mean that if the project was to proceed, we would have to take concrete measures to mitigate or avoid the negative impact to the environment. While EIAs have the potential to slow down plans for development, Madam, they would be an important safeguard for our environment.

(Punggol East): Madam, pigeon-related nuisance is a common problem faced by the MPs as well as Town Councils. Pigeons often rest on air-con ledges of residential units, dirtying the place and the surroundings. Some residents also encounter pigeons flying into their kitchen to pick on food. It gets so bad that some cannot even hang out their laundry.

Page: 21

Pigeon-related nuisance include inconvenience to residents, hygiene issues, damage to building facades, they attract pests and, most importantly, may spread disease.

I understand that AVA works with Town Councils and NEA to manage pigeon pollution. Town Councils will carry out pigeon control works to reduce the pigeon population in the estate while NEA will enforce against high-rise litterers. Unfortunately, we are aware of the challenges faced in trying to catch high-rise litterers. Controlling the population of pigeons will only work if the breeding stops, that is to say, the availability of food must stop.

I have written an email to AVA asking for assistance to deal with this problem. The solutions given by AVA were:

One, residents can consider bird-proofing their air-con ledge areas. This would mean that residents will have to incur unnecessary costs because of a few inconsiderate people.

Two, the Town Council can consider installing nets at the external facade covering the air-con ledges to deter pigeons from resting along the air-con ledge. This will cost the Town Council a large sum of money from operating expenses. Moreover, I have also received feedback from units with netting that such netting causes inconveniences as well. Just yesterday, in the Straits Times, an article entitled "Pigeon problem ruffles feathers" reported an increase in complaints on pigeon-related nuisance. There were 1,420 cases in 2012; 2,080 in 2013; 2,419 in 2014.

In view of the increase in such complaints, what else can AVA or MND do to assist?

Lastly, as mentioned by a Forum writer – and I agree – preventive measure is a better way to deal with this, through better design of buildings to prevent roosting and entry of birds.

Madam, for every responsible cat feeder out there, there are probably more feeders that are ignorant of the safety and hygiene issues cat feeding activities can cause to the environment. A few years back, an elderly resident in Hougang had a nasty fall caused by some cat food left at the void deck. Rotting food, cat urine and droppings are some of the issues residents have to put up with constantly due to the large congregation of cats brought on by feeding activities.

I have met some cat feeders who are very responsible. They do pick up after the cats. However, if these cat feeders do not show up one day for some reason, the cats will go up

Page: 22

to the flats and park themselves at the doors and window ledges of homes, waiting for humans to feed them, as they are conditioned into thinking. Some cats even venture into the flats uninvited. It is a common sight in some parts of Hougang to see wire mesh nettings lining the main gates, solely to prevent cats from wandering into their flats.

Perhaps it is time for the Ministry to review the ban on cat ownership for HDB flats. By doing so, I hope cat lovers can adopt the community cats legally and take them home to feed and care for them as pets. I have friends who are cat lovers and they do take good care of their pets.

We do not allow the feeding of pigeons, dogs, monkeys and so on, because we know the harm it causes to the animals' behaviour and the community at large over time. Hopefully, by allowing people to keep cats in HDB flats, we can inculcate responsible ownership and discourage indiscriminate cat feeding at our void decks and common properties.

Ms Rita Soh; not here. Minister of State Desmond Lee.

Mdm Chair, I thank Members for their thoughtful comments. Fifty years ago, our Pioneers had to meet many pressing challenges of a young nation that needed housing, jobs and infrastructure.

But even amidst rapid urbanisation, our Pioneers had the foresight to ensure that we could all grow up and live in a green and liveable environment. Let me give an example and with your permission, Madam, may I display some slides on the LED screens?

Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

In 1971, the Government, with the support of the United Nations Development Programme, drew up the first Concept Plan for Singapore, charting out our development plans over the longer term.

Many key ideas in the 1971 Concept Plan have been realised.

One, there would be a ring of HDB towns around our Central Water Catchment area, which serves as a "green lung" for Singapore. These towns include Yishun, Ang Mo Kio,

Page: 23

Bishan and Toa Payoh.

Two, to improve the quality of the living environment for our people, we moved heavy industries to the West in Jurong, and our airport to the East in Changi.

Three, to provide connectivity, land was safeguarded for a North-South and East-West Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line, and expressways to link up HDB towns and areas where people worked.

Even in those early days, our Pioneers already appreciated the need to preserve elements of our past. In 1967, Mr Alan Choe, who led the then-Urban Renewal Department, had received a note from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the then-Prime Minister, asking if he had thought about conservation. This was 1967. Mr Choe sent Mr Lee the plans that he had prepared to preserve the historical places in Singapore. This initiated thinking about urban conservation and the protection of well-loved places such as Kampong Glam, Chinatown and Little India, which are an integral part of Singapore's history and heritage.

Today, we benefit from a good home and good environment because we are building on the good work of our Pioneers. But the obligation to strengthen and enhance Singapore and to make it better for future generations now falls on all of us.

Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister launched the updated Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, or SSB 2015. This blueprint, first published five years ago in 2009, was drawn up collectively by many Government agencies after extensive consultation and reviewing inputs from around 6,000 people. SSB 2015 charts out our plans and targets for a sustainable and liveable Singapore. The Government has committed $1.5 billion to implement these plans over the next five years.

A major part of our commitment to create a sustainable, liveable environment is our effort to make Singapore a City in a Garden. In 2013, we celebrated 50 years of greening Singapore. Mr Seah Kian Peng spoke about retaining our green cover, even as we face development pressures. Singapore has been carefully balancing development with greenery and conservation. Under the URA Master Plan, we have dedicated close to 10% of our land for parks and nature reserves. By this year, we would also have developed 300 kilometres of Park Connectors. By 2030, we target to complete around 400 kilometres of Park Connectors, including a Round Island Route.

Our greening efforts have also gone skywards, as Mr Seah had mentioned. Last year, URA expanded the Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High Rises (LUSH) scheme, to cover more types of developments and geographical areas. The LUSH scheme, together with HDB's

Page: 24

rooftop greening efforts and NParks' Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme, has increased the total area of skyrise greenery to more than 65 hectares. Where possible, we will incorporate more greenery within our public housing estates and infrastructure, such as MRT stations and covered linkways, to create a rich, pervasive green environment around us.

Mr Seah also spoke passionately about protecting old, mature trees, those above 100 years old. His call resonates deeply with all of us. To help achieve this, we introduced the Tree Conservation Areas in 1991 to ensure that trees would not be cut down indiscriminately. There is also the Heritage Trees Scheme that protects our mature trees. Two hundred and twenty-two trees have been designated as Heritage Trees, some of which are more than 150 years old. These trees are our natural heritage and distinguish Singapore as a City in a Garden. They represent important green landmarks of our Garden City and lend a sense of continuity and identity to our home.

Unfortunately, mature trees sometimes need to make way for necessary developments, such as flood alleviation work or road works. This is done only after very careful consideration. Where possible, we will find new homes for these mature trees. We have transplanted some 2,100 such trees just last year alone. This is a very major undertaking.

Also, the task of tree planting continues unabated. In 2014, NParks planted more than 38,000 trees, or 1.5 times more than the average in recent years. NParks also accelerates replacement of greenery by setting up tree banks to raise semi-mature trees for planting.

Madam, the Rail Corridor is another good example of how a number of key strategies in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint will be realised. The Rail Corridor is the former KTM railway track that stretches 24 kilometres from Woodlands in the north to Tanjong Pagar in the south and is closely linked to our history and heritage. It provides tremendous opportunities, in the coming years, for us to realise a continuous green corridor and active public space for recreation, active mobility and community activities.

This vision of the Rail Corridor is shared by many Singaporeans from all walks of life. Over the past few years, MND, together with URA, have been actively seeking views and ideas on what people would like to see in this space. We invited suggestions on the name of the corridor, conducted workshops with students, design professionals and residents, and organised a competition and exhibition on possible ideas and designs. We also formed a group called the Rail Corridor Partnership, to foster dialogue with interest groups, academics, design professionals and Government agencies.

Even as we seek public views on the Rail Corridor, many people have already stepped forward to activate the space along it. For example, the Green Corridor Run has been held

Page: 25

annually for the past few years – the most recent being a couple of days ago, on the weekend. The former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station has also hosted a wide range of community activities, including most recently, a flea market. At Buona Vista, graffiti artists have a dedicated space to legitimately showcase their talent.

Many people are excited about the possibilities presented by a continuous green corridor. Avid cyclists, such as Mr Han Jok Kwang, have suggested that we encourage commuter cycling as a sustainable means of personal transport. Indeed, there is potential for the Rail Corridor, linked to our park connector network, to become an attractive commuter cycling route into the Central Business District. With a typical width of 12 metres to- 18 metres, it is wide enough for us to develop a trail for cycling and walking, and even for enhanced biodiversity in certain areas, through environmentally sensitive strategies and design.

Singaporeans have also told us that the Rail Corridor can provide respite and greenery in our dense urban environment. Those living and working nearby can use and enjoy the Rail Corridor. Residential, industrial and commercial developments can also benefit from their proximity to it. Some people have suggested that spaces along the Rail Corridor be made available for community uses, such as gardens and urban farms, and that these spaces can evolve according to the community's needs. We should support this, to encourage community ownership of the Rail Corridor.

Over the past year, URA has been working painstakingly to study and incorporate Singaporeans' inputs into the planning and design goals for our Rail Corridor. We are now ready to launch a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the concept master plan and design concepts for the Rail Corridor. A public exhibition will be held later this year to showcase the various proposals that are brought forward.

The RFP will enable us to firm up the overall plan and design for the Rail Corridor, which will then guide how it will be realised in the coming years. However, given that the length of the Rail Corridor is 24 kilometres, there is no rush to work on the whole stretch, all at once. Instead, the enhancement of the Rail Corridor will be carefully and sensitively staged, and we will work closely with local communities to realise its full potential.

Madam, apart from consultation and outreach, our commitment to a sustainable, liveable environment is increasingly being supported by science and technology. This includes the use of environmental modelling for new housing areas, computational software for building design and enhancing walkability, the choice of streetscape trees and advanced technology to plant trees in built up areas. We will continue to invest in meaningful research,

Page: 26

such as this, through the $135 million Land and Liveability National Innovation Challenge.

A scientific approach is also taken to better understand and mitigate the impact of future developments on our environment. In land-scarce Singapore, some developments may inevitably come close to environmentally sensitive areas, a concern raised by Mr Chen Show Mao. Currently, major development projects are required to undergo an EIA, especially when they are near to sensitive areas such as nature reserves, nature areas, as well as marine and coastal areas.

As EIAs do take significant time and resources, we apply them to projects that may most adversely impact our protected natural spaces and coastal and marine environments. These EIAs are gazetted and made public and stakeholders' views sought. The Government takes EIA recommendations seriously and uses the studies to finalise plans and mitigate any development impact by modifying the scale or scope of such works.

Let me illustrate with an example. The Maritime Port Authority (MPA) is consolidating Singapore's port activities in Tuas over the next few decades to free up prime land occupied by these terminals today. An EIA study in 2012, initiated by MPA, highlighted the possible impact of the Tuas port developments on nearby corals at Sultan Shoal. To save these corals, MPA worked with NParks on a coral relocation programme and successfully relocated some 1,600 coral colonies to the Southern Islands in 2014 with the help of blue group volunteers.

In protecting corals, we went one step further – using predictive models. NParks found that the Sisters' Island is a potentially strong source of coral larvae for other reefs in our southern waters. This is, therefore, an ideal site for the development of Singapore's first Marine Park, which is underway. Today, you can join NParks' guided tours of Sisters' Islands for a first-hand experience of our oft-hidden marine biodiversity.

Madam, even as we build a modern, green and cosmopolitan city, we want to retain unique features of Singapore's identity and history amid our changing skyline.

Our conservation journey started many years ago, and was a thrilling and sometimes even life-threatening experience for some of the officers who kickstarted this. As URA Senior Planning Executive Doris Lee recalls – she is now shown on the screen –while taking measurements in old shophouses in Tanjong Pagar and Cuppage Terrace during the 1970s with a colleague, her colleague had fallen and his leg got stuck through some of the rotting floorboards!

Today, the spirit of conservation is very much alive and more active than it has been before. URA's Architectural Heritage Awards recognises sensitive restoration of conserved

Page: 27

buildings for today's use. A recent award winner is the Yueh Hai Ching Temple, shown on the screen, along Philip Street. It also won the prestigious UNESCO Asia-Pacific Award for Cultural Heritage Conservation last year. For the history and stories behind conserved areas and buildings in Singapore, you can access URA's Conservation Portal and share your memories there as a record for posterity.

But restoring our built heritage only retains a physical reminder of the past. What are harder to retain are the personal stories and memories of the way of life from before. While we are working with the National Heritage Board to realise these efforts, the community is indispensable in conserving the richness of our heritage.

For instance, volunteer groups, such as the Tiong Bahru Heritage Volunteers and Friends of the Museum, make the history of our old neighbourhoods come alive with the stories and anecdotes that they tell.

Enterprises also can play a role, too. The Hong How Group, for instance, has volunteered several heritage buildings for conservation and had won the URA's Architectural Heritage Award.

Similarly, many Singaporeans see greenery as part of our unique identity and heritage. Indeed, our efforts in building our Garden City would not have been successful without the longstanding efforts of our Pioneer officers.

Mdm Veeranathan Kogila joined the then-Parks and Recreation Department at the age of 16. With an amazing 44 years of experience, she uses her expertise to bring out the vibrancy of many of our Singapore Garden Festivals and has helped nurture the future generation of nature lovers.

The community also plays an increasingly active role in the greening of our city. Over the years, we have given the community more autonomy to grow and own green spaces through programmes, such as NParks' Community in Bloom.

Fifty-eight-year-old Mdm Kamisah Binte Atan is a passionate champion of our Community in Bloom programme. Travelling 40 minutes daily from her home to the gardens, she has transformed the community gardens into meaningful places for the elderly in the neighbourhood, forging bonds through growing, cooking, sharing and eating the fruits and vegetables together.

Page: 28

Madam, we are continuing to work in step with the community to shape the places we know and love. Other than the Rail Corridor, we have been stepping up engagement with the community through The Ubin Project for people to build on existing efforts and shape a common vision for Pulau Ubin. The Jurong Lake Gardens, under the stewardship of a committee led by Minister Lawrence Wong, is another such initiative. The Jurong Lake Gardens is intended to showcase our strong community spirit, where everyone plays a part in preserving the beauty of our natural spaces. Besides the ongoing public consultations, NParks will be reaching out to more Singaporeans through a roving exhibition and focus groups ahead of the design competition for the Gardens later this year.

Let me now address the remaining cuts. Ms Lee Li Lian spoke about pigeon nuisance in her area. AVA is the first responder for animal-related issues, which means people contact them, including Town Councils, for animal-related issues. But addressing this is a multi-stakeholder effort which requires coordination amongst Town Councils, members of the public and Government agencies, such as AVA and NParks. For example, AVA coordinates with Town Councils and NParks to prune trees to deter the roosting of pigeons, as well as with NEA on proper food-waste management in food centres, so as to reduce the food supply for pigeons. This is what Ms Lee spoke about earlier, the need to work upstream to control the food source for breeding of pigeons. In particular, it is important that residents do not feed pigeons and thereby not encourage their population to grow.

Mr Png Eng Huat also spoke about keeping of cats in HDB flats. There is an ongoing pilot project in Chong Pang, Project "Love Cats", where community groups, such as the Cat Welfare Society, together with the Town Council, the local community, grassroots groups and residents, have been piloting a trial for the keeping of cats in HDB estates. We will take a look at the results of the pilot when it is over in our ongoing review of our animal-related policies.

Madam, Ms Sylvia Lim, in a cut yesterday, had suggested setting up a tribunal to resolve issues among residents, Town Councils and HDB. Our experience dealing with residents suggests that our residents are, generally, cooperative if agencies engage them patiently and professionally. Agencies, including Town Councils, must be prepared to take the time to engage, educate and persuade.

Ms Lim is, of course, right to observe that there are a minority of residents who are uncooperative or unreasonable. These residents engage in various forms of anti-social behaviour like noise nuisance, obstruction of common corridors, illegal subletting, or refusal to address ground leaks that affect the ceilings of their neighbours below. Like HDB, I am sure the Town Council has its fair share of such residents. For these recalcitrant cases, after persuasion and mediation have failed, agencies, including Town Councils, must be prepared

Page: 29

to take enforcement action for the good of the larger community.

To this end, we are amending the Housing and Development Act to empower HDB officers to enter a flat to carry out investigation and repair where works are urgent, for example, urgent ceiling leaks, or where there is imminent danger affecting public health and public safety, for instance, where there is hacking of structural members affecting the structural integrity of the building. I hope Ms Lim will support the Bill when it is debated in this House next month.

From time to time, I recognise that there may also be differences of views between HDB and Town Councils over such issues. MND is the Ministry that oversees the administration of the Town Councils Act, and the Minister is the final authority under the Act.

In MND, we have a full team of officers overseeing Town Council matters who can help look into this. Indeed, this has long been the recourse for Town Councils to engage when they have issues with HDB or other public agencies. Otherwise, Members can also write to MND office-holders and we will be happy to see how we can help resolve the situation.

Finally, in our system, any aggrieved party can, of course, seek redress through the Courts.

That said, Town Councils must also be prepared to accept the decision and abide by the rules and procedures that govern all Town Councils. A Town Council cannot only accept decisions or rules that suit the Town Council and disregard what is inconvenient to the Town Council. All parties must play their part and work within the framework of the laws and national policies.

For instance, all Town Councils are required to maintain letterboxes as these are part of the common property. All Town Councils have abided by this statutory duty for many years. But HDB has told us that AHPETC has refused to carry out its duty to repair a resident's defective letterbox, even after HDB has clarified this several times with the Town Council. I wonder if this is one of the cases which Ms Lim sees as one that would go to the Housing Tribunal that she had suggested.

But, in fact, AHPETC's General Manager insists that HDB requires all residents in its constituency to sign a letter of undertaking to maintain and repair their own letterboxes. If residents refuse to sign this undertaking, AHPETC wants HDB to hand over the residents' letterbox keys to the Town Council. HDB cannot agree to this because it is clearly the Town Council's responsibility to maintain the letterboxes, and it is collecting S&CC; the Town Council should not be passing the cost of repairs and maintenance to its residents. HDB also

Page: 30

cannot agree to passing over the residents' keys as it compromises the privacy of residents. I must say, I think we all agree with HDB.

These are different dimensions – there are disputes between residents as well as HDB and Town Councils. But also, equally, there may be some disagreements between Town Councils and HDB. HDB has also told us that AHPETC has been letting out public spaces at Hougang Central Hub and Kovan City to outside businessmen and retailers for profit. This contravenes HDB's guidelines, which allow but control the frequency of such promotional activities, to mitigate the impact on the businesses of shopkeepers who also pay the Town Council S&CC.

A number of the shopkeepers are unhappy about this. HDB has, therefore, written several times to remind the Town Council of the guidelines to no avail. The Town Council had simply ignored HDB.

Madam, MND is prepared to help Town Councils, all of them, but Town Councils must also comply with the rules. Otherwise, a Housing Tribunal of any form will not help.

Madam, we are building on the efforts of our Pioneers over the last 50 years to create a Singapore that is green, sustainable and highly liveable. The community is an indispensable partner whom we will work with closely as we continue to shape the city we know and love, as a home for all Singaporeans.

We have a bit of time for clarification. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Madam. I have three clarifications. First, on Studio Apartments. Yesterday, I spoke about elderly residents who would like to right-size and want to buy Studio Apartments. I would like to ask the Minister: will there be building of more Studio Apartments, in general, and in Yishun Town, in particular?

My second clarification is on the Construction Productivity Roadmap. I am glad to note that it will focus on building as many parts as possible in offsite factories and also on building up a skilled workforce. On focusing on building as many parts as possible in offsite factories, this is a new concept and purpose-built factories and huge investments in machinery will be required.

I would like to ask how many such pieces of land have been set aside for building such factories and, for those that have been tendered out, what is the progress, that is, the stage of progress now. Would there be a large enough volume for all these contractors or investors

Page: 31

who have put in huge investments in building up these factories?

My third clarification is on building up a skilled workforce, not just at the workers' level. I am glad to hear that building up the workforce will be upfront, that means, including those at the design office. I would like to ask: what plans does BCA have in order to change or train the designers? I know that, nowadays, because of the shortage in the workforce, everybody is so busy. I doubt that, without proper guidance or certain programmes, companies will be able to release their staff for training.

Madam, there are three queries and Senior Minister of State Lee Yi Shyan will answer two of them. Let me take the one on Studio Apartments, whether there will be more Studio Apartments coming up in Yishun. We definitely will want to continue to build more Studio Apartments and 2-room flats. Yesterday, I spoke a little bit about the possibility of how to rationalise the two schemes because, indeed, the two now exist. Basically, they are the same, but the terms are very different. One is 30 years, one is 99 years, and that has, sometimes, caused some confusion on the ground.

We are actively looking at how to rationalise, with the view to unify the two schemes into one, so that it can suit different needs of the population. But whatever it is, we will definitely be building more 2-room flats. Whether specifically in Yishun in the next few years, the details I do not know. But Yishun is a growing town, I am quite sure there will be a possibility.

Mdm Chair, I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for speaking passionately on the industry's productivity. Specifically, on the roadmap, as she has mentioned and I have also mentioned in my speech, we are promoting the design for manufacturing methodology with the industry. What has to happen is that the industry must really change the way they design and approach a particular development project. To do so, they also have a tie-up with the fabricator, in other words, those people who create the prefabricated parts in the various factories. We have identified about 10 to 12 such plots to be tendered out. In fact, I did the ground-breaking for the first one, and I am aware that the second and third ones are at different stages of being built.

As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has mentioned, they are very capital-intensive and they need a certain volume to sustain their demand. On the demand side, as I explained earlier, the Government procurement agencies are taking the lead in specifying some of these methods of construction, so that in our tender requirements, we want to see a greater use of prefabricated parts to be made. That, hopefully, will provide a certain baseload of demand

Page: 32

for this kind of new factories to be set up.

On the Member's second question about the skilled workforce not just applying to the workers' level but also the designer, professional and PMET level, in fact, that is true. We have adopted a multi-pronged approach.

First of all, BCA has worked with the industries to create scholarships and bursaries, both at the university and diploma level. For a few years now, we have been awarding a few hundreds of them per year, to encourage students at the tertiary level to take on specific studies and courses related to this industry. Because of the focused effort working with the industry, they have a very strong industry orientation when they are studying.

For the rest of the engineers, architects, designers and project managers in the workforce, we are also providing on- the- job and part-time courses to help them upgrade. Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an example. We are encouraging the companies to send their existing workforce to go for such training, so that they can master the new skills.

Ms Foo Mee Har.

Madam, I have one clarification for the Minister. I would ask the Minister to consider using a longer-term price index, maybe using an average of three years' prices, for schemes like Lease Buyback. This is to take the volatility out of the property market, so that seniors do not have to try and time the market. In this way, whether the price goes up or down, it works both ways for them. The key point is that they do not know how to time the market and they should not try to do that. So, if it is a more moderated price point for them than valuations at a point in time, that should hopefully help them to monetise the flat.

Madam, I thank the Member for her clarification. For computing of lease for the Lease Buyback Scheme, we rely on the professional valuers. As far as the profession is concerned, they typically look at the value of the plot based on what is the prevailing price.

But for us to intervene to tell them that they should try to moderate by either averaging the last three or five years so as to squeeze out the volatility, I am not sure whether the profession will find it acceptable. We will take the idea back to them.

Page: 33

The bottom line is that the Lease Buyback Scheme is one of several options that are open to them. The key is that, in Singapore, at least our seniors have options to consider, like having an asset, quite unlike many other cities. It is an idea which I think they should think through very carefully and consult widely. If they have a good MP, like the Member Ms Foo, who knows a lot about the market, do consult her as well.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Madam, I refer to the comments made by the Minister of State. According to the expenditure control document, about $40 million is allocated to MND for CIPC projects. These are national funds and every Town Council should be allocated these funds fairly.

Madam, I reject the Minister of State's call that my cut is a mischievous distortion of the facts. The allocation extended from MND to the CCC for CIPC resources are publicly available through the Government Gazette. The facts are that for the previous Aljunied Town Council, about $12 million was allocated to the CCC through MND between FY2009 and FY2011. That is about $4 million a year. Nothing has been allocated to AHPETC since 2012.

The CCC can work much faster as shown under the previous Town Council management. The Minister of State has said that it takes two hands to clap, and he is right. He should be reminded that it was the Town Council that initiated contact with the CCC to seek CIPC funding to benefit residents. I have personally asked for information on the budget and timings of various nominations and when these should be put up to the CCC.

Having said that, it is quite clear that the system, the CIPC nominations system, can be improved in Opposition wards, and should be improved. Can I confirm that the Minister of State would be keen to pursue this, or at least to create a forum where CIPC nominations can be discussed more reasonably, and without any concern about some political interference or delay from one party or another because it does not benefit the residents?

The second issue is on the cut with regard to car park upgrading information. The Minister of State's information is wrong. My email to HDB was not dated January 2015 as he suggested, although I do not think this is an intentional error. The email is actually dated 13 October 2014, and I think this fact can be confirmed by HDB.

The final point about nominations for HIP and NRP, and that the Town Council is preferring Hougang to Aljunied. The latest nominations for HIP and NRP are quite instructive. For NRP, one precinct in Hougang has been nominated by the Town Council; four for Aljunied.

Page: 34

Two precincts for HIP have been nominated by the Town Council; 16 for Aljunied.

There is a reason why, in the earlier years, more Hougang precincts were nominated for HIP and NRP, and that is because Hougang was not given any Main Upgrading or Interim Upgrading projects prior to 2011. And that is the reason.

Mdm Chairman, let me first start off with the issue of CIPC. Yes, it is Government funds, but the Government decides on the nature of the programme, based on different objectives. CIPC, as I mentioned in my reply earlier, is a community-oriented programme. It is community-oriented because we want to build community cohesion through an upgrading programme. Not all upgrading programmes are just purely upgrading.

CIPC is unique. We started CIPC with the intended objective of getting residents together, getting residents to come up and work with their community leaders – who amongst themselves are fellow residents – and bring about the cohesion in the community.

That is one of the reasons why we decided to allocate the funds through the CCC, and not through the Town Council. There is nothing wrong with the programme, and there is nothing wrong with that objective, because it goes back to the residents. The beneficiaries are the residents. It is a different objective from the other upgrading programmes, like HIP, NRP and LUP. So, the original intent of CIPC must be seen in that context.

That is one of the reasons why community engagement is critical and we continue to uphold this objective because we have seen it work. We have seen how community leaders engage residents and how residents respond, and they also have to work towards their 10% co-payment component that has to be borne by the CCC.

The objective of the programme must be understood. It is not just about allocating funds to a Town Council, because CIPC funds have never been allocated to the Town Councils. It has always been allocated to the CCCs. The CCCs decide on the managing agent, and subsequently work or discuss with the Town Councils for maintenance of the project that has been completed.

I just want to clarify the objectives behind the CIPC programme. It has worked and we will continue to uphold and continue to use this platform, because it is very important for us in building up our HDB estates. Community cohesion is important. Community bonding is important. Residents must want to own the projects that they require. And when we say "own the projects", it means that they want to work with the community leaders to raise the

Page: 35

funds that are required. There is some ownership; there are some issues of responsibility.

On the Member's explanation, I take the Member's explanation as to where and when they want to nominate the different projects of the HIP and NRP. As I have mentioned, those projects are given to AHPETC, and AHPETC and its members have the prerogative to decide where and when they want to allocate the funds to.

Ms Lee Li Lian.

Thank you, Madam. I have three clarifications, please. The first two are for Senior Minister of State Mr Lee Yi Shyan. One, are there plans to build a temporary, or better still, heavy vehicle car park in the Sengkang/ Punggol area, given the fact the temporary one in Anchorvale is giving way soon?

The next one is on the second point in my speech. Will the Ministry look into having some open air car parks in new estates, instead of just multi-storey car parks? This is especially useful for vehicles that cannot enter multi-storey car parks because of their height.

My third clarification is for Minister of State Mr Desmond Lee. Will Mr Lee agree with me that tree pruning does not solve the root of the problem, because trees grow again? I am of the view that food source is the main contributing factor to this problem. When and how does AVA conduct their inspections and take enforcement actions?

Mdm Chair, to better optimise land use and to enhance the living environment of HDB precincts, HDB has been trying to build more multi-storey car parks and sometimes basement car parks, instead of open air or surface car parks, simply because multi-storey and basement car parks are better ways of using our limited land.

These carparks are not designed or intended for heavy or commercial vehicle use because of safety and also, sometimes environmental concerns, and we want to also preserve the character and ambience of the residential estate. Vehicles that exceed the height and weight limits have to park at heavy vehicle parking lots or centralised storey parks, or in industrial estates at the fringe of housing estates.

For Ms Lee's specific question on Sengkang, our general approach is that if the area does not have heavy industry or industrial estates, then we will not build heavy vehicle parks in those areas. But if she has a very specific location in mind, she can file a Parliamentary Question subsequently, and we can answer it fully.

Page: 36

Madam, in response to Ms Lee's query about the management of the pigeon problem in localised areas, tree pruning is but one of many strategies that needs to be undertaken by AVA and partner agencies, such as Town Councils, NParks and NEA, to tackle this upstream. Tree pruning prevents roosting and is one of the strategies. Of course, going upstream to manage the population and prevent breeding through good food waste management is critical. That is NEA's role, and it needs to work with Town Councils to manage the waste in the estate where the localised problem arises. In short, this is a partnership of agencies to tackle problems that plague residents in localised areas.

Ms Rita Soh.

My sincere apologies for missing my cut. I would like to ask the Minister two questions. As BCA hopes to achieve a national target of grading 80% of Singapore's building stock by 2030 and to sustain a low-carbon high-quality built environment for everyone, and with the Government aiming to invest in economic and social infrastructure for the future, I am concerned that this growth may counter the 2013 Green masterplan unless there are measures being put in place to ensure we do not seek to demolish and rebuild whenever there is a sale of site. This is especially unsustainable when redevelopment —

Ms Soh, please do not read from your speech. Just put the clarification.

Yes. Under the current Green Mark Scheme, the legislation only provides for the construction of new buildings and retrofitting of existing buildings. There is no requirement to encourage a conscious effort in conserving the existing building structures as the first design strategy for redevelopment.

I would like the Minister to consider putting in place a requirement to incentivise and recognise conscious efforts by owners as well as the consulting team that work the new development programme within the framework of existing structural systems instead of only just the need to recycle old building materials as components.

On the second question, over the last two to three decades, the move to adopt technology had launched a suite of CORENet initiatives and, recently, to also embrace BIM, a technology to improve productivity and level of integration across various disciplines in the entire construction value chain.

I would like to ask, as we move towards being a Smart Nation, seeking to upscale the use of available technologies, and with this introduction of BIM technology, can the Minister provide an update on the creation of a geo-spatial model of the entire Singapore island for

Page: 37

which this can better assist in making a more realistic use of computational simulations and analyses required to assess the energy performance of buildings, both collectively and individually?

Madam, I thank Ms Rita Soh for her questions. The first question is on whether there are incentives to encourage existing building owners to conserve the building, even as they retrofit it to make it green and sustainable. BCA does give recognition to conscious conservation of existing building structures under the Green Mark Scheme, where credits are awarded for the conservation of existing building structures or building envelopes by area.

One example is Capitol Development, a Green Mark Gold Plus rated building, where points were awarded for the conservation of the existing building structure. Together with the Capitol Building and Stamford House, the new Capitol development has been developed to high performance standards with the building structure and its facade of these iconic buildings conserved.

The Member also asked about waste management after demolition. BCA, indeed, has a demolition protocol, which is a set of procedures to help demolition contractors better plan their demolition procedures to maximise the recovery of waste materials for beneficial reuse and recycling. This protocol has also been incorporated into the new standard SS 557 for the code of practice for demolition, and I am sure Ms Soh is familiar with that.

The other question is on the use of geo-spatial models to make computational analyses for building performance more realistic. Under the Green Mark scheme for Districts, geo-spatial modelling can be recognised as one of the simulation methodologies to demonstrate the environment performance of a district across time, for example, potential for flooding, use of heat maps, biodiversity growth and so on.

In addition, BCA is encouraging the use of 3D BIM in support of the Government's move towards a Smart Nation. Today, the industry has achieved high BIM adoption rates at the individual firm level. More than 60% of larger contractors and around 80% of larger consultants have already adopted BIM. To realise the full potential of BIM, BCA has formulated a second BIM roadmap in 2014 to focus on encouraging the use of BIM technology to increase collaboration among various stakeholders across the value chain. I hope that addresses the Member's queries.

Page: 38

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mdm Chairman, I wish to ask the Minister whether there will be a price review for Studio Apartments. Currently, the tenure for Studio Apartments for senior citizens is only 30 years, whereas the lease for 2-room flats is 99 years. I compared the price of a Studio Apartment to that of a 2-room flat. For a 2-room flat, after subsidy, the price of the flat can be as low as $10,000 to $20,000, whereas that for a Studio Apartment which is on a 30-year lease in the new towns is about $50,000 to $60,000 each. My question is whether there will be a review of the price and I hope that the price of Studio Apartments can be lowered to help the senior citizens.

Madam, the couple of prices quoted by the Member are really apples and oranges. For a 2-room flat, where he quoted a very low price, these are for first timers. Because for the first timer, you are getting a subsidy; and there is substantial housing grant according to your income level. But in the case of a Studio Apartment, it was meant for largely second timers, or even private property owners. So, firstly, they are not entitled to the grant; and secondly, most of them, although being second timers, they would not have to pay a resale levy, which they are liable if buying a 2-room flat.

Thank you, Madam. Madam I would like to respond to some statements made by Minister of State Desmond Lee earlier. Sorry, I was not in the House to hear exactly what he said but I am basing on what I have been told.

First, he responded to my cut on Housing Tribunal. I think he mentioned that, right now, the Town Council is having an issue over the Hougang Central Hub. I believe that he may have said that the tribunal may not be necessary if we did not have this issue.

In any case, I would like to highlight that the case is now still before the Court, because we believe that the Town Council has a legitimate interest and is empowered to manage, not just to maintain the common property. And exactly what the ambit of that is, has still not been decided. So, I do agree, of course, that, in fact, in line with my suggestion, if we had a low-cost tribunal, we would not have to resolve these issues in Court. We could have another better and perhaps more amicable way to resolve it. But right now, that avenue is not available.

The second point is that I think he made some observations about Serangoon NRP – I am not sure whether Minister of State Maliki also made that point, I am sorry. Yes. In any case, from what I understand of what was being said and what I recollect, the decision to omit a particular item that was mentioned was actually done quite early in the process, nothing to do with overspending as such. But it may have been linked to the tender prices

Page: 39

that we received.

I would like to highlight also that, for this particular NRP in Serangoon, the consultants were appointed before we took over. So, the architects and other consultants were actually passed over from the previous Town Council management to work with us. The project management fees which our managing agent is charging for that project is 3.5% and it is within the market norm. So, I do not really know exactly what is being meant but, in any case, I thought I would mention this for now. And after I have read fully what was being said, I will reserve the right to give more information to the public on this.

Madam, if I may just respond to the first part of Ms Sylvia Lim's query and Minister of State Maliki will take the other part on NRP.

The first point is to set the framework of the comments that I made earlier. And that was in the context of Ms Lim's suggestions yesterday that there be a Tribunal to tackle disputes among HDB, Town Councils and residents on matters that may affect all three of them.

This issue about the Hougang Central Hub Trade Fair, let me be clear that it is not a matter of NEA enforcement action for which it is before the Courts, but about the HDB guidelines that have been put in place to manage the use of such spaces; to manage HDB's land for such purposes. The point that I was making is that whatever may be the proposal Ms Lim makes about the need for such a Tribunal, ultimately, what is key is that all parties, including Town Councils and HDB, can agree to abide by the rules, guidelines and framework. But there is disrespect even though HDB had repeatedly referred the Town Council to the guidelines that restrict or control the use of such spaces for the benefit of existing businesses and stakeholders in the area. This was not followed. That really was the point.

Madam, just to clarify. The point I made was, first, the fairness of MND in giving out budgets to Town Councils for projects like HIP and NRP and that AHPETC has also been given its fair share of HIP and NRP projects.

The second point was about the Serangoon North NRP projects, where some of the projects had to be cut; and it was unilaterally cut because of cost overruns. And the point I was making was that it was unilaterally cut because the working committee, as I understand it, was not consulted.

I think in the nature of the NRP, there was a working committee that was formed and we hope that the process is one in which the decision to cut whichever projects because of cost issues would have been better managed and handled in consultation with the working

Page: 40

committee.

Please keep Members' clarifications short. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Thank you, Madam. I am referring to Senior Minister of State Lee Yi Shyan's reply just now to the building up of a skilled workforce. He cited two examples: giving scholarships and providing courses on BIMs. I am afraid that these two will not be able to bring about a marked improvement in productivity for the construction industry. We need to have a mindset change, make adjustments to the work process and the thinking of the existing workforce. That is why I am asking if, is there any other new initiative that BCA is putting in place because, to construct prefabricated parts in the factory, that is quite a lot of change, compared to what is currently being done.

Secondly, to improve productivity, it also involves the approving Government agencies. We have been receiving a lot of feedback that they are being kicked around from one agency to another, or there are contradicting requirements. Perhaps this is an area that needs to be looked into as well.

I thank Er Dr Lee for her further comments. She is right that our initial efforts had been focused on the leading companies, the companies that have the scale and also enough manpower depth to effect this change. Some of these companies have been working closely with BCA to build up their team, including BIM capability. As I mentioned in my speech yesterday, some 60% to 80% of the leading companies are already BIM-enabled. Our challenge is how to go out to the 6,500 that are there. Of course, this has to be done in phases and, if we can create role models and live cases of how things have changed for some of these companies, I am quite sure the rest of the industry can look up to them and quicken the pace of learning.

For the Member's second comment on approving agencies, we will work closely with the industry. We have a productivity committee that I chair and apart from looking at building industrial capabilities in various aspects, such as workforce, technology, use of different methods, we also have a group looking at internal requirements of different Government agencies. We are going through the process and, where we think it is onerous, and if companies find it onerous, they have to give the feedback to us so that we can simplify our requirements or cut through the red tape, so to speak.

Ms Rita Soh Siow Lan.

Thank you, Madam. I would like to respond to the Minister of State's clarification on conservation. My reference was to buildings that are not identified

Page: 41

within the conservation areas. For those buildings outside the conservation areas, there is no incentive for building owners to look at conserving. That is something which I have asked the Minister to look into.

With regard to the adoption of technology, I really appreciated what the Minister of State has said. I believe the industry could work with the Government agencies to better develop vertical applications to leverage the use of BIM technology.

I thank the Member for her suggestion. With regard to the first point about whether there need to be incentives for existing buildings, let us take it back and take a look.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Thank you, Madam. Clarification for Minister of State Desmond Lee as well as Minister of State Maliki. Earlier, Mr Desmond Lee responded to me and said that there was this issue of HDB circulars being sent to us. I mean, that is precisely the point. Of course, our Town Council – I am sure every Town Council – would like to abide by the circulars issued by Government departments. But when we find that some of the circulars perhaps are inconsistent, for example, or we find them inconsistent with certain laws, there should be some avenue for us to resolve it. The Minister of State will agree that the circular does not have the force of law anyway, so these things will need to be clarified and, hopefully, by a Tribunal that is neutral.

Secondly, with regard to Minister of State Maliki's statement, do I understand him that, actually, his main concern is that the variation to the works was not worked out together with the working committee?

I thank the Member for the clarification. I said earlier that this example, one of the two examples I gave earlier, was in the context of emphasising the need for all parties to abide by a certain set of rules and procedures, guidelines and framework. We are not here to debate the merits of the guidelines. Suffice to say that there were guidelines in place, which all Town Councils abide by and, for which, there has been no compliance in this particular regard by AHPETC.

I accept that the Member has referred these matters to the Courts, in the context of the NEA case, not specifically on HDB guidelines because that was not the basis for the enforcement of action. Notwithstanding that Court case, which is still pending, compliance with the guidelines which all Town Councils abide by has not been forthcoming by the Town Council even though the matter has been adjudicated at first instance. The key is a

Page: 42

framework in which all parties can come to an agreement, but ultimately agreeing to follow the policies and guidelines that have been set. That is the context.

Madam, the point is that the NRP is a project conducted via a process of consultation. So, there was a working committee that was formed and they consulted the residents. Residents gave input and there was a decision made.

In this case, two projects were shelved because of budgetary reasons. The committee was not consulted on the decision. It was unilaterally made by the Town Council and the local community leaders and residents informed HDB that the residents had the impression that the items were cut by HDB because the Town Council was run by Opposition.

We are concerned about this kind of impressions being made. More importantly, if it is because of budget, then consult the working committee, inform them so that the residents are aware why the decision was made that way. Or even, could there be others that could have been prioritised because of budget constraints, if their reason for the need to cut projects was due to budget.

Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?

Madam, I would like to thank the Minister, Senior Minister of State and the Ministers of State for answering our questions and clarifications as well as sharing MND's plans in moving forward. On that note, Madam, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $1,448,785,200 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The sum of $10,484,798,500 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]

Page: 43

Mr Cedric Foo, you have three cuts, you can take them together.

Thank you, Mdm Chair. I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Madam, my first cut is on commuter experience with public transport. I would like to address this topic in three areas, namely, (a) reliability; (b) capacity; and (c) commuter needs.

Firstly, reliability. For public transport to be a choice mode for commuters, a basic requirement is reliability. Punctuality of our bus services have improved with various measures, like bus priority lanes and more and newer buses under the Bus Services Enhancement Plan, or BSEP.

The same cannot be said for trains, unfortunately. The recent numerous train disruptions – five of them over a span of eight days between 23 February and 3 March – had greatly inconvenienced many commuters. And then, to make matters worse, we had the Bukit Panjang Light Rapid Transit (LRT) shutdown just this Monday.

The public transport mode share has been increasing from 59% of trips during the morning and evening peak hours in 2008 to 66% in 2014. This is good news since extensive use of public transport is the only sustainable way forward for a small city state like Singapore. We want to achieve this high mode share because public transport is cost-effective, reliable and comfortable.

We want a road transport network befitting the efficiency hallmark often associated with Singapore. It would be very disconcerting if the mode share increased only because commuters have no other choice but to take to a below-par public transport. A world-class land transport network is not just about commuter comfort; it brings with it many positive externalities. It makes Singapore attractive to foreign investments and increases productivity all round. I know that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) recognise this and have been working hard to bring this about. That is why the recent spate of train disruptions must be very disappointing for all stakeholders – commuters, regulators and operators alike.

Over the last few years the Government has introduced various measures, including tightening regulatory standards, and the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) have made additional investments in repair and maintenance. LTA and the PTOs have also moved from

Page: 44

a "find and fix" approach to a "predict and prevent" approach in terms of maintenance. This approach seeks to predict problems even before they occur and to take pre-emptive measures to avoid failures.

Why then do the recent disruptions still occur and with such regularity? I would like the Minister to help us understand this issue better. Firstly, by providing progress updates on the implementation of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) recommendations which were issued as far back as 2012, following the disruption in December 2011. Secondly, his assessment on the effectiveness of this new maintenance approach, "predict and prevent". Thirdly, whether or not the existing penalty system imposed on PTOs is effective as a deterrent.

Ultimately, it would be good for the commuting public to hear from the Minister when he sees a return of stability to our train network in terms of reliability.

Secondly, on capacity. Bus capacity is generally recognised to have improved through the BSEP. I think the public is better for it. Train capacity, though has seen some improvements, with waiting times declining and crowdedness somewhat better than in previous years as new trains are being delivered. However, crowdedness on trains during peak hours remains a key gripe of commuters.

Would the Minister provide an update on the delivery of new trains for the network and also the re-signalling initiatives which would go a long way to increase headways and how these measures would improve rail capacity as well as rail service? Would the Minister also provide an update on BSEP and whether or not there are plans beyond the 1,000 buses that were announced previously?

My third point is on commuter needs. Beyond the basics of reliability and capacity, the commuter experience also depends on other related infrastructure, such as covered linkways to train stations and bus stops and accessibility for commuters with special needs. Can the Minister update this House on the progress of improving the first- and last- mile commuter experience between homes and transport hubs and vice versa? How is the progress in the construction of covered linkways to achieve that first- and last- mile experience?

LTA's announcement of free wi-fi access for a total of 32 stations by the end of this year is a positive step in understanding commuter needs and trying to meet them. Beyond wi-fi access in train stations, would the Government also consider introducing wi-fi access in train cars themselves to meet commuter needs for uninterrupted wireless connectivity?

Page: 45

Mdm Chair, on the public transport mode share, specifically, an update on the progress vs the objectives that were spelt out in the Land Transport Master Plan, or LTMP, in 2013. Even as we try to solve the reliability and capacity issues today, MOT's focus on the long-term plans for the transport network is a very important undertaking.

As I said earlier, public transport's share, as a commuting mode, has been increasing from 59% in 2008 to 63% in 2012 and 66% in 2014, so almost improving one percentage point each year. The target is to achieve 75% by 2030. Since we have achieved 66% last year, logically, if we make a projection, we should be able to achieve 75% probably in the next nine years and that would be in the mid-20s. But the objective, as stated in LTMP, is to reach this level of public transport share only in 2030. So, my question is whether the Minister sees it fit and is confident enough to bring forward the target date to achieve this 75% mode share.

The other area that is particularly important in land-scarce Singapore is vehicle growth. We have seen this problem emerging in some cities. And when urban planners fail to anticipate and control car population, all sorts of issues arise.

For example, I know of a certain city in Asia which only allows even number plate cars on even days of the week, like Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday; and odd number plate cars on odd number days of the week, like Monday, Wednesday, Friday. So, you may own a car but you can only use it on alternate days. And I am told that some car owners buy two cars: one with an odd number plate, one with an even number plate. And there are even others desperate enough to buy ambulances because they have the right of way, and sometimes police cars.

These examples highlight the wisdom of anticipating future problems. Though Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) are unpopular and vehicle growth is something that commuters would like to see more of, the problems are real and the issues are very stark, as we can see in many cities around us.

The LTMP highlighted several areas of focus. "More connections" is one, which is expanding networks – making walking and cycling to transport hubs more attractive; better service, that is, improving frequencies, shortening waiting times, reduce crowding and tightening taxi availability standards.

And lastly, the third point, "liveable and inclusive community", for public transport to be more user-friendly to a diverse commuter base, including the elderly, persons with disabilities and also the impact on common living spaces. I would like the Minister to provide

Page: 46

us an update on progress of these objectives, whether or not we are tracking them well and, if so, are we sufficiently confident to realise these goals even earlier.

Madam, the Government bus contracting model seeks to introduce competition, as opposed to concessions, which is the state of play today in order to discover what is the "market clearing price" for a specified set of bus services. This objective can only be realised if there are sufficient competing bids.

The Bulim package has been introduced recently. I understand that bids have been received and I would like the Minister to update this House on the number of bids that are received and whether or not these bidders include foreign operators and whether our local operators have also participated in the bids and when will the bidding bid be announced.

Also, whether or not the procurement costs from the Government's standpoint for the Bulim Package would be reduced as a result of the bidding and how this will impact bus fares and services when the winning bidder commence operations. Also, it would be interesting to learn from the Minister whether there are lessons learnt from this particular bidding package for Bulim and how this will inform future packages.

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

Mdm Chair, I would, first, like to commend MOT on the many improvements made so far on public transport. The latest "customer satisfaction" survey showed that the satisfaction levels for bus and train services have both turned around and improved from last year despite train disruptions. I am sure MOT will continue to make even further improvements. Could the Minister elaborate on what further improvements are planned for our land transport, especially for Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) trains and buses, for the coming years?

A new record of passenger traffic was registered at Changi Airport last year although the growth was slower compared to previous years. My concern is on the capacity of our two runways. May I ask the Minister whether these two runways will be compromised anytime soon by the increasing traffic? Are plans for the construction of a third runway in the pipeline? If so, when will the third runway be operational? In the meantime, what can be done to improve and increase the use of the two runways productively?

Page: 47

Could the Minister give an update on the project progress of Jewel Changi Airport since the groundbreaking last year? Madam, this Jewel Changi Airport will be the pride of Singapore, and many Singaporeans were excited about it when it was first announced and its perspectives were shown by Prime Minister Lee.

Many Singaporeans are, indeed, looking forward to its completion. Could MOT involve the public in the building of this project right from the beginning, from the early stages? Could there be more public consultations and more inputs from citizens? Would it not be nice if MOT could turn this project into a truly Singaporean-centric one, one that many Singaporeans can say they have had a hand in it when it was being built?

Our MRT trains during peak hours are no different from those in major cities, such as Tokyo or Hong Kong. Commuters may have to be "packed" into the trains at peak hours. Female commuters will frequently experience a more uncomfortable journey to their destinations and this situation could be worse when trains are packed to their fullest at peak hours. The threats to their modesty, with possibilities of sexual harassment, are always imminent. Many countries have implemented "ladies only" cars for their trains. I have written to Minister of State Josephine Teo to suggest similar "ladies only" train cars in Singapore in June 2013 and I would like to now ask the Minister if any plans to implement this "ladies only" train cars in Singapore are coming online soon. I feel that allowing our female commuters this facility is only fair and wise.

Singaporeans welcome the plan to increase our rail capacity. Many welcome the setting up of new MRT stations at their doorsteps. But during the construction time, this will also mean inevitable inconveniences for residents, which can last for four to five years at their doorsteps. I know that MOT had tried to engage local residents affected to mitigate those inconveniences. Can there be better public consultation at earlier stages of planning, in order to get better buy-in from local residents, as some of their feedback can still be taken into consideration at the planning stages? Issues of contention can be on repositioning of bus stops, routes, paths and setting up of foreign workers' dormitories at their precincts.

During the transition to the contracting model for bus operators, apart from the usual specifications for safety and reliability of bus services, could we make sure that there are specifications to ensure the employability of local Singaporeans? There should also be consideration of the "pleasant travel index" for commuters. Inconsiderate drivers with their bad driving habits can often make journeys very unpleasant for commuters. Perhaps we should allow commuters to judge our bus service standards through feedback from their

Page: 48

journey experience.

I would also like to raise some issues over taxi transportation. The average taxi utilisation rate is at 68% as of 2014. May I ask the Minister whether there can be further steps to increase the utilisation rate of registered taxis? Many taxi drivers also complain that they have to pay high rental for renting their taxi to earn their living. What kind of costs and profitability are the taxi companies facing? Is there any better way to ensure better equitability between taxi fares to consumers and rental rates to taxi drivers?

Madam, as what I have said in the debate on the Budget Statement, let us move towards further improving the quality of our public engagement as a Government in meeting the higher public expectations so as to strengthen trust, support and confidence of the public.

Madam, so far this year, we have been hit by a spate of train disruptions, the most recent one just last week. All lines seem to have been affected by one problem or another. A number of such incidents were during peak hours, causing massive jams and delays. Understandably, commuters were frustrated and disappointed. On the other hand, commuters also noted the improvements in our train system over the past few years though it is still not entirely satisfactory.

I would like to ask the Minister why we are continuing to be plagued by MRT disruptions and what have been done to minimise such incidents. How can we ensure that we can achieve an optimal balance between efficiency and safety as the headway between trains during peak hours is minimised. In addition, what improvements have been made to our trains for the past few years and going forward, to make our system economical, relevant, reliable, efficient and convenient?

Mdm Chair, with the coming of age of our MRT tracks and lines, the noise emitted when the MRT trains run on overhead tracks are becoming especially loud and accentuated. As such, residents in Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency (GRC), particularly those in Nee Soon East living within close proximity of these MRT tracks, have been sharing with me when I meet them during my regular house visits that the noise has become louder through the years. Can I, therefore, urge MOT to look into reducing the noise by constructing effective noise barriers to reduce significantly the noise along the entire route along the GRC? And if MOT is supportive and already looking into this suggestion, I hope to know when it can be started and completed.

Page: 49

Mdm Chair, in its 2013 Transport Masterplan, LTA aimed to have eight in 10 homes within a 10-minute walk of a train station by 2030. This is almost achievable for Hillview and Hume residents in Bukit Gombak constituency.

Unfortunately, they are so close to having an MRT station and yet, so far. This is because they are unable to unlock the station box that is built in Hume on the Downtown Line. At this juncture, Mdm Chair, can I seek your kind permission to display a slide on the LED screen, please?

Yes, please.

As Members can see, this is a picture with Hume Park 1, Hume Park 2 condos, just a stone's throw away from the location of the Hume box. So, despite many appeals since 2011, MOT and LTA have rejected our requests for an MRT station in Hume although there is a box that is constructed.

The main reason given was insufficient residential population density. However, the resident populations of Hillview and Hume have increased over the years to about 20,000 residents today and it will increase further with more developments adding to the over 30 condos in Hillview. So, I sincerely appeal to MOT and LTA to review and please reconsider its decision on Hume MRT station since the box is already constructed. In fact, Prime Minister Lee announced in 2013 that the Government is committed to cater for infrastructure needs and build ahead of demand.

So, on that note, I seek to know: first, what is the minimum size and density of residential population that is needed for MOT to build Hume station? Secondly, in the case of Buangkok, Woodleigh and Haw Par Villa MRT stations, what was the population density or factors that resulted in their construction?

My residents tell me over the years repeatedly at various platforms that the demand for Hume station is very strong because Hillview and Hume residents have no viable source of transport. In fact, they are caught between a long span of 2.6 kilometres between the upcoming Hillview station and the upcoming Beauty World MRT station. It is 2.6 kilometres – this is more than double the average length of 1.41-kilometre distance between stations. It suggests that the passenger load and catchment areas served by these upcoming stations – Hillview and Beauty Word – will likely be higher than average, thereby possibly leading to the chance of increased commuter congestion and compromised service. LTA's plan of a

Page: 50

liveable and inclusive community is really but a dream for many Hume residents.

If they choose to go to the city via the upcoming Hillview station, they will have to head north instead of south, effectively backtracking and loading crowded bus services on Hillview Avenue during the peak hours. And, for those of you who have been to Hillview, you will know that it is also an upslope climb to Hillview station because Hillview station is built on hilly ground. And for residents who choose to get to the city via Beauty World, a long bus wait awaits them. Most buses plying Upper Bukit Timah Road are full by the time they reach Bukit Gombak. And many residents have to wait for more than 15 minutes before getting onto the bus. So, really, their first- and last- mile experience is little to look forward to.

On the other hand, opening the Hume MRT station will support LTA's aim to make public transport a choice mode of travel. It also aligns well with Prime Minister Lee's vision of an eco-friendly and car-lite future as part of a sustainable Singapore blueprint. The car-lite vision is, indeed, achievable because bus service 653 that was introduced in Bukit Gombak last year has received very good feedback from residents, so much so that they left their cars at home during weekdays. So, as you can see, people's commuting behaviour can change if given a compelling public transport option that makes better sense in terms of time, money and value.

I really want to recap the few reasons that I think Hume MRT station should be opened. First, we need to build ahead of demand to meet our infrastructure needs. Hume MRT station will give our commuters a compelling option to make public transport their choice mode of travel, thereby reducing road travel and traffic. Finally, Hume MRT station is really part of the answer to realising the vision of a car-lite and sustainable future.

Last but not least, my concluding question to MOT is, what does it take for MOT and LTA to open Hume MRT station in time for the Downtown Line launch? This answer is urgent as people and activities at Hillview and Hume have grown to an extent that it would impact traffic, quality of life and environment should the Hume MRT station be withheld any longer.

Madam, there is a growing trend of molestation on public transport. In 2014, there were 164 reports of molestation; whereas in 2011, there were only 114 reports. This is a 44% increase in three years.

Although the numbers seem small, I believe the reports are only the tip of the iceberg, as it is very embarrassing for many women to cry out in a crowded train and claim in front of everyone that she was molested. Molesters get away with their crime most easily when

Page: 51

trains are packed during peak hours, with people standing very close to one another.

I doubt the current attempts at public education are working. The National Crime Prevention Council's posters in public transport showing a male attempting to molest a woman from behind and asking women to protect themselves may be backfiring. Internationally, such anti-crime campaigns and posters have been criticised for putting the onus on women to prevent the crime and promoting a culture of blaming the victim for the crime.

I urge the Minister to mandate the MRT service providers to have prominent signs on the floor and doors, and within the cabins, to designate specific cabins as for women only.

Many train stations now have wardens on duty to guide peak-hour traffic. The wardens could tell the men to move to other cabins. Japan and Taiwan have implemented women-only cabins with success. Although not all women will choose to take these cabins, at least, those who feel vulnerable or have had bad experiences will have the option of travelling to work and back home to their families with peace of mind.

I believe that men will automatically respect the women-only cabin by refraining from entering the cabin during the peak hour. This is a sign of a mature society respecting the rights of women.

Madam, the spate of vandals breaking into trains at Bishan Depot causes much concern. From May 2010, there have been four incidents of such break-ins detected at MRT depots, the latest in November last year. This was despite various security measures being employed by SMRT and reassurances given in this House since 2010 about the comprehensive security review being undertaken by the Public Transport Security Committee to address security gaps in our entire transport system. Are these measures working? Just last month, on 27 February, train services were stopped briefly in the evening as a result of a man walking on the viaduct between Bukit Gombak and Choa Chu Kang stations.

Madam, we have been extremely lucky that the security breaches so far involved graffiti artists rather than terrorists. We were told in Parliament in 2010 that the current security framework was that PTOs bear the primary responsibility for day-to-day operational security and are best-placed to decide which measures are the most feasible. We were also told that the Government sets security standards and also does security audits. It is thus worrying that despite the specific concern about depot security being flagged out in 2010, it seems that certain vulnerabilities of Bishan Depot were only attended to in 2014 after two intrusions

Page: 52

there. Why was this not picked up earlier?

The Minister has announced that LTA will introduce new security-related standards within the operating performance standards for PTOs. Failure to comply will attract penalties up to $1 million or 10% of the licensee's annual fare revenue of the affected rail system, whichever is higher. The next breach may not be by a graffiti artist but by a terrorist, and a fine of $1 million then will be too little and too late, compared to the grave consequences of a terrorist attack. Is it time for the Government to be more proactive in assisting the PTOs to enhance security?

Mr Seng Han Thong, you have two cuts, please take them together.

Yes, Madam. Last year, at the COS of MOT, I mentioned, "Train services have been disrupted quite frequently due to different factors. Such incidents have impacted on the reliability of public transport and, at the same time, the confidence of commuters in general."

I am repeating the same concern in view of the latest spate of disruptions on SMRT's rail network.

SMRT has apologised and pledged to analyse each incident thoroughly. LTA called the spate of disruptions "unacceptable".

Local Member of Parliament (MP) Liang Eng Hwa has expressed his disappointment and called for LTA and SMRT to get their act together to really bring up the reliability of the system and bring back the public's confidence. And to the 40,000 commuters who were affected by these disruptions, they were very frustrated by the lack of reliability of the system.

On top of this, there are also high-profile vandalism cases at Bishan MRT depot that put the trains' safety and security standards in the spotlight.

Apart from the public apology and promise to increase manpower from the operator and public reprimand from the regulator, what else do we need to do to restore commuters' confidence in our train service?

Page: 53

May I ask the Minister to give the House an update on the preventive and pre-emptive actions announced last year?

Has the Government ensured that the operators provide the necessary manpower capabilities and financial resources to fully comply with the "Predict and Prevent" whole-life maintenance approach to the train service assets?

To adequately address those questions in the minds of commuters, could the Minister share if LTA has a comprehensive plan or strategy as the regulator to ensure that its appointed operators and their employees would deliver the expected level of reliability and security in our train services?

On train reliability and security, the questions in the minds of commuters are:

How can these outsiders enter the protected area of the train depot so easily?

How can these people remain undetected while they went on vandalising the trains?

How to ensure that every train leaving the station and depot is secure and safe?

How can we shorten the response time when there is a disruption?

How can we minimise human errors leading to train service disruptions?

How can we make sure that our equipment is fit to serve, in tip-top condition, every day before the trains leave the depot to serve public commuters?

Why am I paying higher fares to contribute to the profits of the operators and not to the higher maintenance and security standards of the train services?

Average daily bus ridership has hit 3.8 million. We have seen improvements in the public bus services, especially in bus waiting time and frequency. How can we sustain these improvements so that bus commuters could continue to experience better and affordable public bus services?

There are two frameworks.

Page: 54

One, financing framework. With the bus contracting model, the Government takes the unprecedented step to build and own the operating assets of the public bus service, in particular, the bus monitoring and deployment system and the purchase of buses.

The contracted operators are paid by the Government to operate these assets while the Government collects the fare revenue. Through open tender, we now see real market competition in terms of management solutions and fees charged by the competing companies to operate the bundles of public bus routes.

As the public transport infrastructure and operating assets are long-term capital investments, could the Minister share with us what would be the long-term financing framework for public bus service? How would public bus fare be set under the bus contracting model?

Two, operating framework. We used to have multi-model public transport operators who operate both the public bus and train services. Bus and train services are designed to complement each other and not competing against each other. Currently, when the train service is disrupted, public buses belonging to the same PTO —

Mr Seng, your time has ended. Please conclude.

— could be activated to provide free connecting services. What would happen if it is under the bus contracting service?

Mdm Chairperson, I still receive regular complaints from residents that bus services do not come regularly according to their published headway. There are also occasions when buses that arrive are already packed with commuters such that other commuters cannot board the bus.

For residents who rely on these buses to take them to work on time every day, buses that fail to adhere to schedule or are so crowded that commuters are unable to board is a main source of frustration. The average bus commuter simply wants a bus service that is reliable and can take them to the next destination in a reasonably comfortable manner.

Can the Minister explain what else can be done to improve the services of the bus companies? Has BSEP really improved the service standards of bus companies and the regularity of bus services?

Page: 55

Next, I wish to appeal for better last mile connectivity. In my constituency, I have three MRT stations. Yet, there are so few feeder buses that will take residents from the private estates along Meyer Road, Amber Road and Haig Road to these MRT stations. If we can have mini-buses, similar to those buses in Hong Kong, to transport residents to the nearest MRT station, Singaporeans will see the benefit of using public transport instead of driving to work. Will LTA consider opening up such services to foreign operators for tender as well so that there is more competition?

Mdm Chair, in the last few years, LTA and MOT have worked closely with my community leaders and have improved the commuting experience and accessibility for Bukit Gombak residents. For that, we are very appreciative for the introduction of City Direct bus service 653 in January 2014. In fact, it has eased commuting to and from the central business district (CBD) during peak hours for residents staying at Hillview and Hume areas. Many of these residents who use this bus service have told me at various platforms and occasions that because of the convenience and comfortable ride on service 653, they now leave their cars at home on weekdays. We want to encourage more of such commuter behaviour, is it not? However, we face a continual challenge of bus connectivity within the Bukit Gombak constituency. One example is that our residents do not have a direct bus service that takes them from the eastern part to the western part of the constituency and vice versa.

Let me explain. For instance, a Hillview or Hume resident cannot get to the western side of Bukit Gombak directly by bus, and the western side is where the Bukit Gombak neighbourhood centre of more than 100 shops, seven coffeeshops, two supermarkets, as well as the Bukit Gombak MRT station and the sports stadium are located. And, likewise, residents staying near the Bukit Gombak MRT station do not have a direct bus bringing them to the eastern part of the estate like the Hillview area and the Hillview area is where the upcoming Bukit Gombak Community Club will be built. So, this state of affairs that divides our constituency into two distinct areas due to lack of direct connection is really puzzling.

The residents from Hillview, Hume and Pavilion estates especially need ease of access to key transport nodes and community facilities. So, to address this situation, in the last four years, we have put up several requests to MOT and LTA to seriously review bus connectivity in Bukit Gombak. However, this has not improved. Today, some 20,000 residents from Hillview, Hume and Pavilion estates still have no direct access to the MRT station in their constituency, which is Bukit Gombak MRT station. Presently, it takes them more than 45 minutes to get to the Bukit Gombak MRT station either by a single bus transfer or by foot. I have tried that before. So, it really is about 45 minutes.

Page: 56

Residents who rely on buses to get to the city are really not much better off. From my several site observations of peak-hour commuting, I noticed that most of the buses – service numbers 176, 177, 963 and 970 – were full by the time they reach Hillview Avenue. This means a long wait for many of my Bukit Gombak residents who can only board upon the arrival – if they are lucky – of the second or third bus. So, to overcome this problem, we really need halfway on-service buses to meet the transport demand, ease the waiting time and improve bus access to the city. And we also hope MOT and LTA can reinstate the old route of service 989 – I repeat, service 989 – to serve the residents of Woodville Gardens, Pavilion Estate as well as the students and staff of ITE College West. This will enable the 7,000-plus HDB residents from Woodville Gardens, many of whom are elderly residents relying on public transport, to get to the Bukit Gombak MRT station. Together, our residents and the ITE population, form a sizeable mass for a direct bus service to the MRT station and the Bukit Gombak neighbourhood centre.

So, we sincerely appeal to MOT and LTA to be more forward looking in their consideration in injecting buses where they are needed.

The Government had announced its intention two years ago that it will commit resources and build ahead of demand. In addition, in unveiling the Sustainable Singapore blueprint in November last year, Prime Minister Lee spelled out the goal to foster an eco-friendly environment and make Singapore a car-lite nation. In view of all these aspirations, we hope MOT can provide clarity in its response to our requests. We would like to know whether MOT would (a) introduce new buses linking up the eastern and the western flanks of Bukit Gombak to improve localised routes and provide residents direct bus access to Bukit Gombak MRT station; (b) consider reinstating service 989; (c) release halfway on-service buses to improve the frequency of service numbers 176, 177, 963 and 970 during peak hours in the morning and evening. This will, indeed, be a step forward for bus connectivity in Bukit Gombak.

Mdm Chair, currently, there are 10 City Direct bus services serving Jurong West, Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Batok, Hillview, Sengkang, West Coast, Sembawang, Jurong East, Eunos, Bedok and Hougang. As I also heard very positive feedback from Members, may I ask how successful have these services been to others? What is the feedback so far and will the services be sustainable in the long term?

I understand that five more City Direct bus services will be available to serve parts of Marsiling, Woodlands, Pasir Ris, Tampines East, Simei, Yew Tee and Yishun from the next quarter. Are there plans to increase such services in Sengkang, Buangkok and Punggol?

Page: 57

Mdm Chairperson, as it currently stands, full-time caregivers do not qualify for specific transport subsidy under the various LTA and TransitLink-managed concession schemes. They do not qualify for the Workfare Transport concession as they are not deemed to be part of the workforce. However, they do need to travel to accompany their spouses or family members who can be persons with disabilities or mental illnesses and should be considered for a special subsidy or be allowed to apply as a supplementary applicant for the person with disability concession card, for example.

I understand the Social Service Office under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does provide a transport subsidy to Singaporeans in the appropriate case, especially for those who qualify for financial assistance. However, my understanding from resident caregivers who request for such a subsidy is that they do not qualify for it as a matter of course. In fairness, they may qualify for other subsidies like S&CC and utilities.

The prevailing wisdom seems to be that as they are caregivers and are likely to be at home looking after their loved ones, they do not need to travel much. This is not correct. In some cases, transport costs can be quite high. I hope the Ministry, in cooperation with TransitLink and MSF, can look to better assist caregivers holistically, and even more so, if there is little or no family help to support the caregiver.

Mdm Chair, the fare review formula is based on four components: core CPI, the average wage increase, energy index and productivity index. These four components of the fare formula are reasonable, in my view. However, my concern is with the significant time lag between the data that were used and the actual fare adjustment date. For instance, in computing the 2014 fare adjustment, the energy index was based on 2013 data, whereas the actual fare adjustment will only be effective from April this year. So, as Members can see, this long lag of 15 months is in contrast to the quarterly economic indicators and statistics that are available from MTI.

I would like to request the Ministry to consider applying more current data for fare review so that the actual fare adjustment is reflective of prevailing market conditions. Commuters can then better relate fare revisions with prevailing realities.

Mdm Chairperson, first, let me thank Members of the House for their thoughtful views, questions and feedback on public

Page: 58

transport. I have no doubt that a number of them, like me, would have had to write, rewrite and yet again rewrite our cuts and speeches in recent days. But let me start off, first of all, with an assessment of the latest spate of MRT and LRT disruptions.

These recent disruptions, including the most recent one at Bukit Panjang LRT due to an electrical fire, show the range of problems we continue to face and how much more we need to improve in terms of rail reliability. This comes about despite the intensive efforts that LTA and the rail operators have put in over the last few years. While I can accept the occasional breakdown, and I can even tolerate a more severe disruption if it occurs very rarely, I am most upset with the current situation in the last few weeks. The incidents have inconvenienced many commuters, disrupted their routines and schedules, and, once again, undermined confidence in the transport network and the progress that we have made.

The recent spate of disruptions, coming against a trend of general improvement in rail reliability, is something that really pains me. As Dr Lily Neo pointed out, prior to this, the public perception of the public transport system seems to have improved. We track this via the Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Survey (PTCSS), which is something that I share on an annual basis at the start of every Committee of Supply (COS). This is something that Singapore Institute of Management University (UniSIM) conducts every year. With your permission, Mdm Chair, may I ask the Clerks to distribute some handouts and also to display some slides on the screen so that Members can refer to them during my speech?

Yes. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

The latest survey results indicate that Singaporeans' overall satisfaction with public transport had increased from 88.5% to 91.3% in 2014. Satisfaction with rail improved by about four percentage points, from 88.9% to 92.8%, and this reversed a four-year decline. For buses, the satisfaction level had risen for a second consecutive year. I must add though that the survey was conducted in October last year, as it is done in October of every year, and I think it reflected the prevailing sentiments then that commuters were starting to feel the effect of the improvements and investments that we have made in our buses and trains over the last few years.

And if I may point out, for MRT, if we look at the range of attributes from waiting time to reliability to comfort and so on, the attribute that had scored the highest for at least the past two years was safety and security. I will refer to those later on in my response, because of the cuts that were filed by Members on these issues.

We track commuters' satisfaction with public transport closely, in part because it also helps us to understand whether my Ministry is on track to attain the long-term objective of

Page: 59

making public transport the choice mode for Singaporeans. As Mr Cedric Foo has noted, we had identified three areas of focus and set ourselves ambitious targets for 2030 in the Land Transport Master Plan (LTMP) – a 70% peak-hour public transport mode share by 2020, rising to 75% by 2030. Last year, public transport mode share grew to 66%, up from 64% in 2013.

Other 2030 goals that we had set ourselves in the LTMP include eight in 10 households living within a 10-minute walk from a train station; and 85% of public journeys of less than 20 kilometres completed within 60 minutes. Here, we have also made some progress. In 2014, close to six in 10 households live within a 10-minute walk of a train station; and about 77% of public transport journeys of less than 20 kilometres were completed within 60 minutes. These goals were only revised and announced in 2013, so, it is useful for us to look at the data for a number of years before we revise them further.

Let me now address the three key issues of reliability, capacity and affordability. I will first talk about train reliability because a number of Members had spoken on this. Mr Foo, in particular, asked for an update on the implementation of the Committee of Inquiry (COI)'s recommendations. We set up Joint Teams – LTA with the operators – and we have gradually tightened the regulatory framework after the COI, and it has been what I would say is a long and difficult journey to claw our way back to a position where we can say that reliability has improved somewhat. For most of 2014, the Public Transport Operators (PTOs), through the change in their maintenance approach and also, in particular, through the hard work of their staff, had made significant inroads in improving reliability.

This is a slide I had shown in previous years and this is something we had updated with the data in 2014. For the North-South Line and East-West Line, we halved the number of unscheduled train withdrawals, bringing it down to 1.1 per 100,000 train-kilometres, compared to 2.2 in 2013 and about 3.3 in 2012. I am loathe to provide a concrete target to what Mr Foo asked about, but I feel that we can certainly still do better in the coming years as this improved rate is still double what we see for the North-East Line and the Circle Line, even though the 1.1 withdrawals per 100,000 train-kilometres had brought us back to the level where we were at in about 2007. But there is still some way to go.

Normalised service delays lasting more than five minutes have also improved on the North-South Line and East-West Line, going down to 1.3 in 2014, compared to about 1.6 in 2012, an improvement of close to about 20%.

For the LRT network, there has also been some improvement. The withdrawal rate for the Bukit Panjang LRT had come down to 4.5 per 100,000 car-kilometres, compared to about 6.1 in 2012. For the Sengkang-Punggol LRT, the order of magnitude is also better. It improved to about 0.7 per 100,000 car-kilometres from 1.5 in 2012. Delays in both LRT systems, too, have been reduced, and we certainly expect to have more improvements when we start the

Page: 60

mid-life upgrade of the Bukit Panjang LRT train-cars later in the year.

But while the statistics may show some improvement, I think the recent incidents are stark reminders that we still have quite some way to go. Mr Gan asked what we can do to further minimise incidents. Well, I think the operators must persevere and redouble their efforts to do better. They need to intensify their maintenance regime, undertake additional preventive and detection measures, as well as further improve their processes to enable prompt and effective response to maintenance issues. We will work with them to continue with track renewal and also to make mid-life upgrades of their trains.

LTA, on its part, will augment SMRT with additional engineering expertise where required and will also step up audits of SMRT's maintenance procedures and resources. In the event of a disruption, like what we saw in the Bukit Panjang LRT incident, we will require SMRT to respond better, as well as to deploy more service ambassadors to better assist commuters. I would like to assure Members that we will spare no effort to find out the causes of this recent spate of breakdowns and also to take the necessary measures to stem these problems.

Another important aspect of public transport is capacity, again something that Mr Foo had asked about. We are addressing this through new rail lines and by adding capacity to existing lines. But we are also trying to encourage more commuters, especially those who are able to travel outside of the peak hours. Indeed, there has been a number of initiatives, including the introduction of Off-Peak Monthly Travel Passes later in the year.

By this time next year, Stage 2 of the Downtown Line (DTL2) will open and it will increase the peak capacity for travel from the west to the city by about 50%. Residents in Bukit Panjang and Bukit Timah will have a more direct and convenient route to the city, compared to today. The full Downtown Line will be completed when Stage 3 opens sometime in 2017, while the Thomson-East Coast Line, which we have begun construction, will open from 2019 onwards.

We are constructing these new lines at a pace that is unprecedented in Singapore's history. By 2030, our rail network will be almost as dense as what you see in New York and London today, and we would have achieved this in less than 50 years, compared to the more than 100 years that it took both cities to do so. I know that, in doing so, there will be some inconveniences, like those that Dr Neo's residents have shared with her. LTA and their contractors have been actively engaging the community before and during the construction. We will continue to try our best to reach out to residents early and to mitigate the inconveniences, such as through installing protective hoarding to minimise noise and dust. But we need to try and get the understanding and support of residents, so that projects can be completed in a timely manner and that all Singaporeans, including themselves, can begin

Page: 61

to enjoy the benefits of the new rail lines.

But new rail lines will take 10 to 12 years to construct. In the meantime, we have also been adding new trains to the system. We added 13 new trains to the North-South and East-West lines last year and I have no doubt that they have helped us improve our scores for waiting times because that was the attribute that saw one of the biggest improvements in the recent satisfaction survey. But we will not stop there because we intend to add another 57 new trains from 2016 to 2019, which is about a 40% increase of the fleet that we have today.

The first of 18 new North-East Line trains and 24 Circle Line trains will be deployed by the middle of this year. In total, with all the trains that are coming in – 99 of them – entering service over the next five years, the overall train fleet will increase by almost 50% and we can expect that peak period wait times will come down by about 25%, on average, across all three rail lines.

For our LRT systems, six of the 13 new train-cars for the Bukit Panjang LRT have been deployed as of end-February. We intend to deploy the remaining seven by the end of this year, although I think it is useful for us to be able to pinpoint exactly what were the causes of the Bukit Panjang LRT incidents because a number of these were actually power trips and we want to make sure that the running of these additional trains would not be imposing a load that is beyond what the system can bear. I think it is something that we will only know much clearer when we are able to diagnose fully the causes of the LRT incidents.

Residents in Sengkang and Punggol can also look forward to 16 new train-cars in 2016. We will also convert some of the train-cars to two-car operations as this will add further capacity to the system.

Dr Neo and Mr Low Thia Khiang suggested having women-only cabins on the MRT during peak hours. This is a suggestion that had been raised and looked at carefully before. There are practical difficulties and challenges, such as how to, and also how strictly to enforce the rule, and also how this could sub-optimise the capacity of our trains. From the experience that we have garnered from other systems, the women-only cabins are often utilised less, meaning that more commuters will have to crowd into the remaining cabins or they will simply have to wait for the next train.

Let me move on to buses because we have also expanded the capacity of our bus network. We have completed the addition of the 550 Government-funded buses under the original Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), two years ahead of the original

Page: 62

schedule.

We will further expand BSEP to add another 450 buses by 2017. Together with the buses injected by the PTOs themselves and the use of private bus operators to provide additional capacity through the City Direct Services and the Peak Period Short Services, for instance, we would then have increased the bus fleet by about 35% since the start of BSEP in late 2012. By 2017 also, we will see all bus services running at shorter intervals, and the intervals specifically for feeder services will be no more than six to eight minutes during the peak period.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked how bus service standards have improved. We track the number of hotspots, which show areas with average loading that is higher than 80% in the morning peak. I have a slide to show Members the situation of what it was like in July 2012, prior to the start of the BSEP programme.

In January this year, which is what the next slide will show, we have been able to significantly reduce the number of hotspots, although this is a situation that is quite dynamic, and it is something that we have to keep responding to. We use this as a way in part to identify the services across the network that require more buses to be added.

But as Mr Lim also noted, the timeliness of bus arrivals is equally important. To this end, LTA introduced a two-year Bus Service Reliability Framework (BSRF) trial for 22 bus services last year, which is an incentive- cum- penalty scheme to encourage bus operators to improve the regularity of bus arrivals. I am happy to report that the BSRF trial results have been encouraging so far and LTA will provide detailed information in time. I have also asked LTA to expand the trial to include more bus services. Eventually, when we have moved to the Government contracting model, which is something that I will speak about next, we intend to make this a feature of the new contracts and negotiations.

More fundamentally, the Government is transiting the bus industry to this contracting model that I have just talked about, to inject more competition into the industry and also to be able to respond more quickly to the needs of commuters.

Mr Cedric Foo asked about the status of the first package. Eleven bids were received – four were from local bus operators, six were from overseas and one was a joint bid. We have not completed the evaluation yet. We expect to do so in the next quarter. The bid prices will be published in due course, and we will use the experience of the first bid to improve future

Page: 63

exercises.

I would also like to update Mr Foo that the second bus contract for services operating out of the Loyang depot will be put out for tender in the second quarter of this year. We expect to complete all evaluation before the end of the year. I expect to see similar strong interest in the Loyang package, which will comprise about 25 bus services, starting with about 400 buses.

Let me assure Dr Neo that under the Government Contracting Model, we have placed strong emphasis on the tenderer's plans for local recruitment and retention and, equally so, we agree with her that customer service is pivotal to the commuter's experience. This is also why we are monitoring commuters' satisfaction levels closely through satisfaction surveys that we conduct on an annual basis.

More infrastructure will be needed to support the extended bus network and fleet. Already, we are building new bus interchanges and terminals in Sengkang, Changi and Tampines, as well as expanding existing ones. Some of these upgrades will include new and improved facilities for our bus drivers, such as staff lounges and canteens. Bedok Integrated Transport Hub (ITH) is a good example of what we can achieve as we renew, upgrade and build new hubs.

Indeed, the welfare of our bus drivers is something that is really important to us. The Public Transport Tripartite Committee that is chaired by Mrs Josephine Teo was set up precisely for stakeholders, including bus employees and union representatives, to work together on such issues. In September last year, the Committee announced a set of guidelines on Good Employment Practices in the Public Bus Industry. I would like to thank the Committee, especially the National Transport Workers' Union, for their efforts in engaging bus employees. I hope that they will continue to support this transition as we move to a new bus industry model.

Let me at this point sum up the major improvements to our bus and rail services that Singaporeans can look forward to in the next 12 to 15 months. We will complete the sleeper replacement programme on the North-South Line and we will lift the temporary speed restrictions before the middle of the year. What it means is that commuters can then expect journey times similar to what they first experienced when we operated the MRT system back in the 1980s and 1990s.

We also expect to complete the upgrade of the signalling system for the North-South Line by mid-2016. The operators will need a couple of months to adjust their deployment schedules for trains. But by the time this is done, commuters can expect up to six trains,

Page: 64

instead of the current maximum of five trains every 10 minutes, meaning a capacity increase by about 20%.

For the North East Line and Circle Line, I have mentioned 42 trains earlier; 33 of them will arrive by the end of this year. They will be deployed progressively, starting from the middle of this year until the first quarter of next year. So, in about 12 months or so, we will see the addition of 33 new trains into the North East Line and Circle Line.

Of course, another impactful development will be the opening of Downtown Line 2 by the first quarter of 2016. We will also initiate mid-life upgrades of the older trains as well as the replacement of the third rail system to further enhance rail reliability.

On bus services, we can expect further improvements in the next 12 to 15 months. We will add another 210 buses this year to improve the frequencies of feeder services islandwide, and to introduce new services in areas, such as Choa Chu Kang, Bukit Panjang, Punggol, Yishun, Sengkang and the Jurong Lake District. In addition, 12 City Direct Services will be introduced from the second quarter of this year. Commuters and residents in the West can also look forward to the completion of Joo Koon ITH by the third quarter of this year.

The first issue was on reliability; the second was on capacity; and the third and I think the most important aspect of public transport, is affordability. A key tenet of the Public Transport Council (PTC)'s responsibility is to keep fares affordable, with particular attention to be paid to lower-income commuters. PTC, thus, monitors fare affordability for a typical household in the second quintile, or between the 21st and 40th percentile of the household income distribution.

The proportion of their household income that is spent on public transport has declined steadily, from 3.2% back in 2003 to 2.2% in 2013, in part because of rising wages and the fact that any increases over the intermittent period had lagged those wage increases. This shows that public transport affordability, on average, continues to improve, because what Members see on the chart is what they spend on public transport, measured against household income.

We also look at another group, the second decile, which is a group from the 11th to 20th percentile. For them, the figures have come down from 4.6% to 3.1% over the same period.

That said, I am keenly aware that there are some segments of our population that may still require additional help to cope with the cost of commuting. Besides the Public Transport Vouchers, we have put in place a comprehensive system of targeted concession schemes.

Page: 65

These include two new Government-funded concession schemes introduced in 2013 for lower-wage workers and for persons with disabilities.

Mr Pritam Singh has suggested some special scheme or transport subsidy for full-time caregivers. This idea was considered carefully by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee back in 2013 as part of their review of concession schemes, but it was not implemented as they felt it would be too complex to identify the caregivers and, therefore, difficult to administer. We know that caregivers' needs are varied and often extend beyond public transport, so, a more broad-based approach to lighten their burden may actually be more effective. The Ministry of Health offers a number of financial assistance schemes, such as the Foreign Domestic Worker Grant and the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly, that help defray costs on multiple fronts, including on transport.

Mr Foo suggested shortening the time lag so that the annual fare review exercise is reflective of prevailing market conditions. The fare adjustment quantum will always have some degree of time lag as fare review exercises are always based on the previous year's full-year indices, since the full-year figures in the year of review are not available when the review is being conducted.

The PTC had initiated the 2013 fare review exercise in November 2013, following the finalisation of the work by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee (FRMC). Members may recall that we suspended the fare exercise in 2012, gave the FRMC time to do its work. It completed its work in 2013 and then the PTC initiated the 2013 exercise in November that year.

From there, the 2014 fare review exercise was carried out on the same annual cycle based on the same timeline. In about November last year, it initiated the latest fare exercise. As some time is needed for system adjustments, the fare changes approved by the Council can only be implemented in a number of months and, therefore, April of the following year. In April this year, we will have the 2014 adjustment.

I accept that it is confusing with all these time lags. But if I may say so, from a commuter's perspective, because these are fare increases, a certain degree of inefficiency is not necessarily a bad thing. Now that we have completed that 6.6% increase, including the carry-over of the 3.4% into the 2014 fare exercises, as I said in Parliament previously, we do expect that this year's fare exercise, the 2015 fare exercise later in the year, could result in a fare reduction. I promise you that I will certainly be more efficient in carrying out this coming fare exercise.

Page: 66

The safety and security of our commuters are also important and I want to assure Mr Seng Han Thong and Ms Sylvia Lim that we are committed to ensuring the security of our public transport system. Under our existing framework, the PTOs, being the domain owners and ground operators, are primarily responsible for ensuring the security of their facilities as they are best-placed to decide what those measures ought to be, with the recommendations of the Public Transport Security Committee.

Beyond the Government's role that Ms Sylvia Lim had briefly highlighted, I would also like to share that the Government, through this Public Transport Security Committee, had also reviewed the security measures in the public transport system twice in 2011 and 2013. All those recommendations from the two reviews, including enhancements in physical security measures and formalisation of security standards for public transport facilities, will be implemented fully by 2017.

In addition, the Government has, and continues to assist the operators in enhancing public transport security. For instance, the Government has put in place enhanced security measures, such as CCTVs. We also deploy regular Police patrols on the MRT trains and conduct regular exercises with the operators to identify areas for further improvement.

I agree, however, that we can and must do better. The recent intrusions at the Bishan Depot and onto the North South Line show that determined intruders will probe for the slightest weakness in our system. They will exploit the smallest of gaps. Thus, we have added multiple layers of security, so that if one layer fails, hopefully, the next layer will prevent the intrusion or at least mitigate the consequences.

For instance, the train depots have perimeter and CCTV security, supplemented by security patrols. Because it is a large area, if an intruder still manages to slip through, their actions should be detected when operators conduct rigorous pre-operation checks on both the interior and exterior of the trains prior to their launch for service every morning.

Beyond the physical measures and the security patrols, the last line of defence is to make sure that the Captains who are responsible for the trains, conduct a physical check on the inside and exterior of the trains. This is a requirement that we ask them to do every morning. This is how the Train Captains discovered the graffiti in the last two incidents at Bishan Depot. If there are suspicious packages that are left inside the train, I certainly expect the Train Captains to be able to pick them up, prior to the deployment of the trains for service in the morning.

Page: 67

Finally, let me quickly address some of the local concerns that Members have raised. Mr Patrick Tay spoke about the noise from the MRT that his Nee Soon residents had told him about. We have already begun Phase 1 of installing some 14 kilometres of railway noise barriers at 25 locations. I understand that one of the locations is between the Simpang Kiri Park Connector and Yishun Avenue 5. This stretch will be completed next year. We will be announcing Phase 2 of this programme later this year.

Ms Low Yen Ling spoke at length about a Hume station on Downtown Line 2 (DTL2) and having more bus services for her residents in Bukit Gombak. This is something that she had brought up on a number of times and I really respect and admire her perseverance. On the Downtown Line, she is referring to the basic structural provisions that we had made for a possible future station between Hillview and Beauty World stations. Let me repeat that – it is basic structural provisions. We have not even begun the process of constructing an actual station and we will not be able to do so for a while yet as I will explain.

We made these provisions for what are called box stations, as part of our advanced network planning to allow us to add a new station to an underground line in future, given URA's long-term development plans, without the need to do additional excavation when we pull the trigger. To transform these provisions into a full-fledged station and to run the station, however, are different things, and it will still incur substantial costs and can only be justified if there is sufficient ridership. As I understand it, from the numbers that she mentioned in her cut, there are only about 1,500 dwelling units within a walking distance of 600 metres from the Hume box station. I know also that URA has no plans to develop the immediate areas around the Hume box station in the short to medium term. And until they do so, we really do not have sufficient ridership to justify for that station. In the meantime, residents along Hillview and Hume roads are served by direct bus services to DTL2 at Hillview and Beauty World stations.

I also hear Ms Low's appeal for more bus services, and I am glad that at least her residents have found the new City Direct Service 653 something that is convenient for them.

I note, too, that residents in Bukit Gombak constituency are already served by a total of 22 services which link them to existing stations and, in time to come, to future stations, as well as to amenities, such as West Mall and surrounding towns, including Woodlands, Jurong East, Boon Lay, Clementi, as well as Orchard. LTA has regularly engaged Ms Low to understand her concerns and we will improve bus services where possible, although I must add that it is not always possible to have direct connections between all parts of a constituency.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked whether there are plans to enhance bus services for his constituency. Mr Lim's constituency is currently served by 21 bus services and all his

Page: 68

residents staying along Haig Road, Meyer Road and Amber Road have access to bus stops within 400 metres of their homes, with bus services that connect them to the Circle Line and/or the East-West Line, such as Dakota, Mountbatten, Paya Lebar and Kallang MRT stations. It is not always possible to deploy public buses within these private estates due to road constraints and insufficient ridership.

But even if we were to consider using mini-buses in such low demand areas like Mr Lim has suggested, we would still need to ensure there is sufficient ridership to cover the cost of operating the mini-buses, which actually is not much lower than the normal buses. Here, I am talking about operating cost, not the acquisition cost, because a large component of operating cost for buses actually comes from manpower. Whether you drive a double-decker, a single-decker or mini-bus, you still need a driver and, therefore, that large part of the operating cost does not change very much, regardless of the type of buses that we use.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the success of the City Direct Service or CDS. Ridership has been increasing steadily since its launch. In fact, we have increased the number of trips on six of the 10 existing services to cater to the demand. This included one additional morning trip for CDS 654 in Mr Gan's neighbouring constituency for Sengkang residents in July 2014. There are plans to introduce 12 more CDSs, and I assure Ms Low, Mr Lim and Mr Gan that we will continue to monitor bus connectivity across the island on an ongoing basis in order to better serve our commuters.

Finally, let me just touch very briefly on how we will use technology to enhance the public transport experience. Today, technology is already empowering commuters by giving them more information and choices over their commuting modes. I have thus encouraged LTA to continue experimenting with new ideas and initiatives on this front. As the transport agency, LTA is uniquely placed in terms of data, resources and capabilities to leverage technology to provide more accurate and timely information for commuters to better plan their journeys.

For instance, commuters can soon use the enhanced "Bus Arrival" function to check the estimated time of arrival for the next bus as well as its level of crowdedness. The accuracy of arrival times has been recently improved with the installation of new equipment on board the buses and the level of crowdedness is estimated through the use of farecard data. The enhanced function will be released for use at the end of this month, and I think this is something that actually gives commuters more choices because they will have a better idea in terms of the arrival of the next bus that they are waiting for, as well as how crowded it is, and the choice to make alternative plans whether to walk, take another service or change their travel plans a little if it suits them.

Page: 69

This is a work-in-progress and, like all experiments, not all of them will be equally useful or perfect. But I think it is important that LTA continues to experiment now and then and, if the experiments do not work well, to either continue to improve, or actually to fail quickly and just move on.

I have also requested that LTA do more to facilitate co-creation with the private sector by releasing more transport data to third-party app developers through its DataMall. This DataMall actually hosts about 80 datasets currently. Subscribers to the DataMall include the developers for mobile applications, such as SGBuses, gothere.sg and Traffic@SG, which I am sure a good number of Singaporeans are familiar with. And I hope to see even more collaborations with the release of additional datasets.

Mdm Chairperson, I hope that I have managed to give Members a better appreciation of the resources that we are putting in, particularly for public transport and what more we will do to invest in the reliability and capacity issues that have come up in recent years. As I emphasised earlier, even though we have made some progress, much remains to be done.

Commuters have certainly been inconvenienced through the recent spate of disruptions and it has undermined their confidence in the public transport system. We need to do a lot more in order to regain their confidence. But I believe that just as have been able to do so after December 2011 and after spates of disruptions that we have encountered from time to time over the years, we will be able to do so. We will be able to regain their confidence in time to come, through redoubling the efforts of the operators, as well as LTA, to make sure that we systematically identify the root causes of these problems and devote all the resources and all the energy necessary to bring about the improvements that are expected.

As we get more new trains coming in, with the completion of more new lines, there will also be additional avenues for commuters, stations that are nearer to their home, as well as a greater resilience in the network, so that if there is a disruption, there are more opportunities to bypass these disrupted areas because there will be more interchange stations and more alternative ways of getting to their destinations.

We are doing this to make public transport the choice commuting mode for all Singaporeans. At 66% now, we still have some way to go to achieve our target of 75% peak-hour public transport mode share by 2030, but it is something that is definitely doable. In the instances where public transport is not adequate – and these instances should be few – we want to give commuters access to alternative transport options, without necessarily owning a car. Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo will talk more about our efforts on this front. Parliamentary Secretary Faishal will also elaborate on how we have to significantly improve the first- and last-mile experience, especially through active mobility, such as

Page: 70

walking and cycling, so that, overall, that does not pose a deterrent to the use of public transport. And if we implement all these three parts well, we will be able to ensure a sustainable, very high-quality public-centric transportation system that fulfils the needs of Singapore commuters.

Madam, it has been 12 years since the deregulation of the taxi industry in 2003.

In this aspect, may I propose that LTA conduct a Taxi Industry Review that will nurture taxi industry developments in the next four to eight years so that the different interests of all the stakeholders, from taxi passengers, taxi drivers to taxi companies, are taken into consideration?

The review should cover the following key areas. One, taxi fare structure. As we know, the taxi fare structure comprises flag-down charge, distance meter charge, time meter charge, peak-hour surcharge, location surcharge and taxi call booking fee, hourly charging rate, flat fee transfer and, on top of all these, Electronic Road Pricing (ERP).

In recent years, we even see different prices for the same category of taxi services and for the same vehicles of different registration periods.

We should frame a set of rules for compliance when taxi companies go about setting their respective taxi fare structures. For example, one taxi company should not set two different prices for the same category of taxi service.

Two, from August 2012 to December 2013, taxi fleet growth was capped at 2% for all taxi companies without conditions. From January 2014, taxi fleet growth for individual taxi companies, still capped at 2%, is subject to the company having met the required taxi availability (TA) standards. As the regulatory framework for the TA standards is established, LTA would need to review if the cap for taxi fleet size growth is still justifiable.

Three, on taxi COEs, can the Minister explain if the policy to disallow taxi companies to bid for COE has served its intended purpose? LTA should allow market forces to determine the price of COEs and, more importantly, the actual fleet size of each taxi company. We need to take a long-term view on taxi COE policy. This will help the taxi operators plan their fleet size and the corresponding capital investment which is long term in nature.

Page: 71

Four, on taxi service and private-chauffeured car service regulations, LTA has announced that it will regulate the third-party taxi service booking smartphone application operators. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the same smartphone application is also used to book private-chauffeured car service at the same time.

Five, on taxi diesel tax, petrol duty has increased by more than 33% following this year's Budget announcement and immediate implementation. To those taxi drivers who are driving non-diesel powered taxis, they, too, would be paying higher fuel tax.

LTA should review the approach we go about equalising the statutory cost of buying a private car and that of providing a taxi service. In the meantime, I would like to appeal to the Government not to increase the annual taxi diesel tax or special tax just to equate the increase in petrol duty.

Mdm Chair, several Members have already reiterated on other occasions the importance of taxi drivers as a key group of public transport service workers. I would like to join in the call for improvements in the welfare of taxi drivers. I would also like to point out that taxi drivers need support in order to serve the public efficiently, especially in managing the difficulties they face in terms of health and safety.

Beyond their critical role in the transport industry, taxi drivers are an important part of our society. I am sure many of us are personally familiar with taxi drivers who work hard, drive long hours and successfully support and raise their families.

I have growing concerns about the way our taxi drivers are being treated as a group of service providers. They are increasingly being exposed to unnecessary discomfort and even danger, especially when on late-night shifts. If this continues, a long-standing source of stable employment in our society will be compromised. Driving a taxi involves significant challenges, and some of these were highlighted by The Straits Times journalist Toh Yong Chuan in his article of 1 December last year. Taxi drivers probably span the entire range of personalities and it is difficult not to see individual drivers from extreme ends of the behavioural spectrum stand out. Mr Toh's article reminds us that they do a job few would consider easy. More should be done to provide a safer and better work environment for them.

Page: 72

We hear of taxi drivers whose services are terminated as a result of customer complaints. My first question, therefore, is: what recourse do taxi drivers have in such a situation? Do taxi companies have a non-punitive system of counselling for taxi drivers to help them make improvements in response to commuter complaints of poor service?

My second question is: can more be done by LTA, in concert with taxi companies, to help taxi drivers benefit from the wide range of third-party booking apps that are increasingly becoming available?

Finally, taxis serving entertainment spots into the early hours of the morning play a very important role in the service industry. For patrons who drink, taxis are vital in ensuring the journey home is safe for themselves as well as other road users, while we hear of the difficulties of serving such a segment of commuters, especially relating to drunken patrons. My final question, therefore, is whether more can be done to ensure the welfare of taxi drivers is protected in such situations.

Madam, in February 2014, we changed the COE classification system by including the car's engine power in addition to engine capacity. These determine whether a car falls into Category A or Category B. The stated purpose of this change was to promote social equity by serving mass-market car buyers.

One year on, how has this policy fared? Overall, COE premiums have fallen. The latest results show that the Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP) was $63,865 for Category A cars for March 2015. This is a drop of nearly $10,000 from the same period last year. But this is not solely or even mainly on account of the change because the price has dipped for Category B cars as well.

The lower COE premiums are more likely a result of an increased supply of COEs as more cars reach the 10-year mark and the cooling measures introduced in 2013 on car financing. What is more significant is that the difference between Category A and Category B COE premiums remains narrow.

So, has the change worked? I would submit, no. Ultimately, differentiating cars by engine capacity and power serves no cause. COE prices have less to do with engine capacity or engine power, but more with market forces – meaning demand and supply.

So, if the intent is to have a real difference in the COE prices of small and large cars, then let us do something which is more likely to work. And the only effective way to do this

Page: 73

is to increase the number of COEs for small cars. The way to do this is to use the quota reserved for the Open Category or Category E.

While an Open Category COE can ostensibly be used for any kind of vehicle, there is no doubt that they are being used for bigger cars. LTA has announced that beginning February 2015, the contribution rate of deregistered cars to the Open Category will be reduced from the current 15% to 10%. But why not just scrap the Open Category entirely and transfer its quota entirely to Category A?

Alternatively, as I have previously suggested, because we cannot satisfy everyone, let us use the COE system to promote a sensible and viable cause. Category E or Open Category, can be allocated for green or, more specifically, electric vehicles (EVs). EVs are uniquely suited for Singapore's size and urban environment. For example, even after accounting for taxes and rebates under the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme, a Nissan Leaf electric car costs about $200,000, while its non-electric equivalent, a Nissan Sylphy, will cost $110,000. So, it is a no-brainer where the consumer is concerned. They are more likely to go for non-EVs. So, it does not promote the use of electric cars.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the current COE system and, if not, whether he is proposing to make any further changes.

According to the LTA website, COE represents a right to vehicle ownership and the use of the limited road space for 10 years. Thus, there are two aspects to the COE – the right to own the vehicle, as well as the right to road usage.

Since road usage is part of the rationale, there is a case for making the system fairer for those who currently have vehicles that are under-utilised and are seeking to extend their COEs for the same vehicle. I have in mind retirees who use their cars only to send their disabled spouses for medical check-ups or to ferry their grandchildren to and from school. As these vehicle owners are no longer earning an income, they are now faced with giving up their vehicles when their COEs expire due to the high COE prices. This decision is painful as it would mean that they can no longer contribute to their family lives the way they used to.

I would like to ask MOT to look into the possibility of giving vehicle owners, who are renewing their COEs for the same vehicle, a rebate or concession if their usage of the vehicle in the first 10 years is below a threshold and the COE renewed is not transferable.

There would also be a corresponding need to regulate auto-meter reading and have inspections for tampering, which would, at the same time, be a good safeguard for

Page: 74

consumers buying used cars.

(Punggol East) : Madam, in the first three months in 2015, COE for Category D hit a historic high of $5,800 at the second tender in February 2015. At least 70% of 140,000 motorcycles are those not exceeding 200cc, corresponding to Class 2B riding licence. I believe these high COE prices are being pulled up by bidding for more expensive and luxury motorcycles requiring Class 2A and Class 2 riding licences. A motorcycle is a necessary tool for many low-wage workers. Some of them hold jobs like despatch riders for courier companies or delivery riders for fast-food companies.

We could consider splitting Category D into D1 for motorcycles not exceeding 200cc, and D2 for those exceeding 200cc. As 65% of motorcycles registered in 2013 and 2014 are not exceeding 200cc, it can be estimated that the D1 category will have a quota of 1,111 total COEs for the months of February to April 2015. This is equivalent to Category C for goods vehicles and the open Category E. So, we should not see price volatility for Class 2B riders and the riders can be protected from higher bids by Class 2 riders.

Alternatively, would it be possible for motorcycle owners to pay the COE by instalment, so as to lighten their financial burden? In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At least 70% of 140,000 motorcycles on our roads are those not exceeding 200cc, and they are a necessary means of living for many low wage earners. COE for category D, that is, motorcycles, hit a historic high of over $5,000 in 2015, which caused grave concern among low-income workers.

I suggest that we divide Category D into D1 and D2. D1 is for smaller motorcycles under 200cc, and D2 is for those exceeding 200cc. This way, low-income earners do not have to compete with owners of larger and more expensive motorcycles for a COE. If we cannot split Category D, may I suggest that we allow the successful COE bidders to pay by instalment to alleviate their burden?

Madam, over the years, LTA has tweaked the COE system to try to manage supply-demand mismatches and price fluctuations. LTA has moved from linking COE quotas to de-registrations in the past 12 months, then to forecasting of de-registrations in the current year, and then to de-registrations in the past six months and, currently, to de-registrations in the past three months.

Page: 75

However, the problems of feast-and-famine patterns of supply and wild price fluctuations are still persisting. There are now renewed calls for LTA to make COE supply smooth by keeping COEs during bumper years in reserve for release in future dry spells. LTA said it was studying the proposal in August 2013 and the Minister himself acknowledged it is a good idea worthy of consideration earlier that year.

I would like to know what is the status of the study and whether LTA is seriously considering implementing a new formula to temper the supply and price fluctuations. If so, when is LTA going to implement it? What will the new formula be and over what time period? How many COEs will be reserved and when will they be released? How will the new system ensure that the market mechanism of allocating COEs is preserved?

If LTA is not considering implementation of such a system, then I would like to ask what are the reasons for not doing so and what other measures would be taken to temper the supply and price fluctuations of COEs?

Mdm Chair, I echo the concern raised by hon Member Ms Lee Li Lian on the rising cost of Category D COEs. Category D COEs for motorcycles has almost tripled lately, from $1,989 in January 2014 to $5,500 this month. In contrast, the price of Category D COE hovered mostly between $1,500 to $2,500 in the three years before that, from January 2011 to January 2014.

For the longest time, motorbikes are a popular choice for students, first-time employees, the elderly and blue-collar workers. They are affordable, convenient and mobile. And although it has a reputation for being unsafe, with good driving habits, a biker can generally avoid getting into serious accidents.

This group of bikers tends to be of modest income. There is also the affluent group who go for pricier bikes like Harley Davidson, Ducati, KTM and BMWs, and who bid for the same Category D COEs. More recently, I understand that there is a trend for middle-income earners, who are put-off by the stratospheric prices of cars, to switch to motorbikes.

But the group which will be hit hardest by the rising Category D COE prices will be those whose job requires frequent travel, such as messengers and despatch riders. Should current price trend continue, motorcycles may no longer be affordable for this segment and, for them, it is a threat to their livelihood.

Page: 76

I spoke to an elderly despatch rider who has worked for more than 30 years in the same company. He shared that other than reimbursements for parking and petrol, he had to bear all other costs, such as the cost of motorbikes, maintenance cost, road tax, insurance and even the occasional parking fines. He shared that although petrol prices have gone up, he is still stuck with the same reimbursable petrol mileage rate set more than 10 years ago. Although he had requested for an increase in the reimbursement rate, he did not make a fuss when the company retained the same rate. His biggest fear, he says, is if the company chose to switch to courier services if he is deemed to be too costly. When asked what he would do if motorbike COE prices continue to rise and he had to buy a new bike, he said that he may need to stop working if he cannot afford a motorbike.

Madam, we should spare a thought for those whose livelihood may be affected by the rise in cost of motorbikes. Can the Ministry, therefore, look into how motorbike costs can remain affordable for those with modest income?

Additionally, can the Ministry provide its insight into the cause of the spike in Category D COE prices and whether this spike is likely to be temporary or permanent?

Mdm Chairperson, in 2007, after a review of the effectiveness of bus lanes, it was decided to cease bus lane operations on Saturday.

I wish to make an appeal for a similar review of the effectiveness of ERP on Saturdays. ERP is meant to manage road congestion. However, many offices do not operate on Saturdays anymore and there is less traffic along Shenton Way and the Raffles Place area. For the shopping belt, I have received feedback from some shops in the Orchard Road area that there is less traffic because many consumers have moved to the suburban shopping areas like JEM, NEX and Tampines Mall.

Where the road is not congested on Saturdays, like at Nicoll Highway, which is relatively clear all the way to Shenton Way, LTA should consider removing the ERP gantry. LTA should also review the relevance of ERP for the Orchard Road area since it is clear that they are struggling to remain relevant as a shopping destination for Singaporeans. Some congestion along the roads on Saturdays will not hurt the economy.

Mdm Chairperson, I thank Members for their questions on car ownership and taxis. Land scarcity is very much a factor shaping the overall vision of transport for Singapore. There is a role for private transport as a complement to public transport, which must remain the main mode of transport for the daily commute. Our policies on car ownership and taxis are shaped by these

Page: 77

considerations.

Unlike countries that are far less land-constrained, there is a real limit to how many cars we can accommodate on our roads. Even then, Singapore is not alone in having to manage traffic congestion caused by heavy car usage, a point which Mr Cedric Foo also highlighted. Where we are different is that we introduced car ownership and usage controls before the problems became severe, through the COE and ERP systems.

Over time, the car population has grown, and so has usage. Some observers may feel that road congestion happens more often these days, but it has largely been kept in check.