Planning (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

6.50 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I will focus my speech on the short-term rentals and I note that it is already illegal to lease a home for less than six months in Singapore.

However, what we are doing in this Bill is codifying this URA subletting guideline and I have concerns about this. My concern is that this Bill might be passed too hastily. In May 2016, URA stated that the results of the public consultation on short-term rentals were "split, with no clear consensus". The URA, by its own admission, added that "this issue on short-term stays is complex, multi-faceted, has wide-ranging implications and it warrants a careful and balanced review," and, therefore, it "needed more time to study the issue". I stress that these statements were published not more than a year ago. While this Bill might be passed, can the Minister clarify if his Ministry will be studying this issue further, will be conducting more public consultations and will do a further review on this?

The sharing economy, while disruptive, is here to stay. We have witnessed this with Uber and Grab. Likewise, home-sharing concepts like Airbnb and PandaBed are here to stay. Passing the law to combat the real or perceived negativities of the home-sharing economy diverges from the approach that was taken against similarly disruptive entrants in Uber and Grab.

We are also ignoring the popularity of such "disruptive" home-sharing concepts, especially with the younger generation and how this might ultimately also affect our tourism industry. Just taking into consideration Airbnb, do we really want to ban a company which, according to some media reports, boasts more than a million listings across 190 countries in 34,000 cities with more than 25 million guests served, from operating in Singapore?

At last year's National Day Rally, the Prime Minister noted that there are two ways to respond to disruption: to close Singapore off and try to stop people from using the new technology, or embrace change and let the disruption happen − but help the incumbents adapt. The Prime Minister said that all models are not working. New models are coming thick and fast, and we have to adjust and keep up because of technology and globalisation, and the disruption will happen over and over again, relentlessly.

I hope that we do not close Singapore off to the home-sharing economy and stop Singaporeans and tourists from using such platforms in Singapore. I believe that we should embrace this disruption and explore ways to help all stakeholders adapt to the new normal. We should regulate rather than ban.

Given that home-sharing platforms have many users and customers, does the URA have enough manpower to undertake full enforcement measures in the first place? How many enforcement officers does URA have to enforce this? Following the passing of this Bill, will it require all the listings ‒ all 6,000 or so, as my colleague Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has stated ‒ on these home-sharing platforms to be removed?

And, lastly, has the URA conducted research on how other countries have regulated the home-sharing concept? Can the Minister share if we are considering following some of these regulations?

Lastly, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for introducing a custodial sentence for repeat offenders of permitting unauthorised development and subdivision. This is necessary because recalcitrance at the expense of damaging Singapore's heritage and identity should never be tolerated. I am heartened by the addition of section 24B to the Act, which adds another layer of protection to conservation areas in Singapore.

I note that in discharging their duties, qualified persons are required to notify the URA of any contravention or non-compliance with any provision, condition, requirement or plans in relation to this Act. Could the Minister consider adding a time factor into this obligation, to notify "without delay" or "immediately" or "as soon as practicable"? I believe that the earlier the non-compliance is reported, the higher the chance that we could prevent or mitigate problems that may arise from that non-compliance. Sir, notwithstanding my comments, I stand in support of the Bill.

6.54 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, thanks for allowing me to participate in this debate. I support the Bill but have some suggestions for the Minister's consideration.

As echoed by other Members who have spoken earlier on this Bill, I, too, would like to mention that, firstly, under the new Fourth Schedule, URA will reduce the maximum number of unrelated persons a property can be rented to from eight to six. The intention is to deal with the recurrent problem of subletting to too many tenants, resulting in overcrowding. However, as properties vary greatly in terms of size and configuration, may I recommend that the Ministry limit the number of tenants based on the sizes and types of rooms of the residences?

Secondly, I would like to advise that we seek consistency in our criteria for both public and private housing. Currently, a Singapore citizen is allowed to sublet the entire HDB flat after fulfilling the Minimum Occupation Period. The maximum number of subtenants allowed in each flat is based on flat type. For 1-room and 2-room flats, four sub-tenants; for 3-room flats, six sub-tenants; and for 4-room and bigger flats, nine sub-tenants. Private properties should be subjected to similar caps as well.

Thirdly, I would like to request for greater protection for tenants. In the last few years, there have been cases of owners who collected deposits and sublet the same property to multiple tenants. Does the Ministry keep track of how many such cases of complaints have occurred in the past five years? Will the Ministry implement measures to deter such cases from recurring? In addition, often, owners and their tenants have disputes over whether the deposits should be returned, and some owners keep the deposits at the end of the leases without valid reasons. Would the Ministry consider setting up a Government-approved lease deposit account in which landlords are required to place their tenants' deposits? This will help enhance protection for tenants and facilitate recovery of their deposits.

I would also like to ask how many cases there have been of tenants subletting to other tenants in the last five years. What are the typical profiles of such tenants and what actions have been taken against them? If they are foreigners, would the Ministry consider banning them from working and living in Singapore?

In addition, would the Minister share how many cases of disputes between neighbours involving Singapore residents and foreign tenants there were in the past five years? Does the Ministry keep track of the nature of the disputes so that we will be able to formulate better preventive measures?

Finally, would the Minister share with the House how the Ministry works with MCSTs, ICA, the police and Neighbourhood Committees to enforce and regulate the private property rental market?

6.58 pm

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members of the House who have risen in support of the Bill and for sharing their views. Let me now address the points that were raised in the course of the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe all the Members in this House would agree that a liveable and vibrant city must have attractive public spaces, good connectivity and also a built heritage that strengthens our sense of memories and shared experiences. And this is what the amendment in the Bill strives to achieve, by strengthening the planning levers under URA. So, in response to some of the queries raised by Members, I can confirm that URA will, indeed, make use of these provisions to require developers, where it comes to new developments, to put in place connectivity and better building standards, including more covered linkways between buildings, or even to nearby bus-stops. That is the very intention of this Bill, and URA will, where meaningful to provide for such connectivity, require developers to do so for new developments.

For existing developments, the provisions in the Bill do not envisage an imposition on the existing buildings. But should the property owners of these existing buildings choose to redevelop their properties or choose to make A&A in their properties and they have to seek URA's planning permission to do so, then that would be an opportune time for URA to impose these new conditions.

I think many Members would be supportive of these additions and these provisions to impose conditions on developers to enhance connectivity and building standards. But there were some Members, in particular, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Alex Yam, who were concerned about the cost impact and how this will impact on the building and perhaps even on residents.

Generally, the cost of providing these features is a small component of the overall development costs. In addition, URA will not require every development to provide public space or connectivity. It will do so judiciously and where it is meaningful to do so. These requirements will only be applied, for example, to strategically located sites in key areas or where there is provision or if it is meaningful to provide for connectivity.

In addition, the public spaces that are required may be excluded from the overall floor area, so there would be no impact on the development potential of the sites. So, there is a way to balance the different requirements and we will be mindful that even as we impose these provisions, they do not lead to a significant escalation of costs.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked a separate matter about access to neighbouring property to execute works such as the plastering of walls. I understand this is a concern very often found in private residential areas. It is really not so much a planning issue but a matter of resolving disputes between two property owners. URA cannot override the property owner's rights, but it will help to facilitate mediation between neighbours to resolve issues, if necessary.

That is my first reply on the broad area of planning levers. Next, let me touch on the points that Members have raised on the responsibilities of homeowners, and potentially even extending that to other stakeholders like property agents. And here, there was also a mix of views.

Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheryl Chan wanted to be sure that we can take suitable action against homeowners and property agents responsible for offences, but I believe Mr Chong Kee Hiong sought assurance that homeowners would not be burdened unnecessarily by the amendments. And again, it is about striking the right balance.

Where any property has been misused or unauthorised works done, URA will ensure that culpable parties are all taken to task, whether for committing or abetting the offence. For homeowners who do not reside in or are not in Singapore, URA will obtain the owner's home address from ICA and IRAS and they still have to answer the charges if there is a violation of the rules. I think this is in response to Ms Joan Pereira's question.

If there is evidence to show that a property agent is complicit in an infringement, they will be referred to the Council of Estate Agents (CEA), who will sanction them accordingly. I think that is something that Miss Cheryl Chan had asked about.

When it comes to enforcement, URA will, if necessary, beef up its enforcement capability and resources but it will also work with other agencies, for example, ICA, SPF, MOM, SCDF, NEA, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh had suggested, to share information on any suspected cases of unauthorised use of private property and take the necessary enforcement actions.

Miss Cheryl Chan shared the concern of elderly homeowners who may be taken to task for not assisting enforcement checks. I would like to assure her that URA officers will take a reasonable approach in enforcement. They will first identify themselves when there is a need to inspect premises and also explain the intentions of their visit. Officers will not force the occupants to allow them to enter, unless repeated requests to enter have been denied or they assess that critical evidence will be lost if they cannot gain access in a timely manner.

Several Members, including Mr Alex Yam and Mr Chong Kee Hiong, asked about the precautions that building owners or property owners would have to take and what is deemed to be appropriate due diligence. I think it is very difficult and not so practical to draw out all the different scenarios and the different due diligence steps that have to be taken in legislation itself, but I would just like to assure Members that URA would carefully assess the culpability of persons involved, given all the facts available on each particular case at hand and ensure that owners will have no part in directing the violation are not unduly penalised. URA will not make egregious demands on owners, and whether or not due diligence has been exercised, will be assessed reasonably.

Another section of the provisions in the amendment Bill for which there were some comments was on the role of the Qualified Persons (QPs).

Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the professionalism of QPs. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board oversee the professional development of architects and engineers, respectively. For instance, in order to renew their Practising Certificates annually, both architects and engineers have to meet "continuing professional development" requirements to update their competencies.

All registered architects and engineers are listed on their relevant Board's website. So, if there is any question or doubt about whether or not this is a Qualified Person, you can look at the website of the relevant Board. The professions have their regulatory regimes in place to ensure that those listed are competent to discharge their duties lawfully. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board will not hesitate to take disciplinary action against registered professionals who fall foul of regulations. Depending on the severity, the QP may be fined, suspended or deregistered. This Bill also gives URA more powers to charge QPs in court if necessary, for instance if they had provided false declarations.

Mr Louis Ng suggested that a time factor be added to QPs' obligation to notify URA of contravention or non-compliance of requirements under the Act. Other than notifying the authorities, the Bill already requires the QP to "take all reasonable steps to immediately stop or cease the contravention". This is ultimately what matters, as conditions at a construction site are constantly changing. So, I believe that the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to meet the Member's concern in this regard.

Next, let me talk about occupancy cap. It was, again, one of the topics here that has attracted quite a number of views.

Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggest that the occupancy cap be calibrated according to the size of the residential unit; Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that the flat cap of six tenants be now imposed on HDB flats, so that it is consistent between private and public housing. I think Mr Gan also suggested that.

In HDB flats, there are predictable typologies of design and layout, and a simple set of rules can be based on the number of rooms. That is what we have today. Unlike HDB flats, private housing comes in wide-ranging varieties and configurations. It would be hard to formulate a rule that could capture all the variations along the scale of private residential housing, from shoebox flats to bungalows. We have considered this but we think that a complicated tiered cap may be confusing for the public, and may result in uncertainty for those who want to rent or sublet legitimately.

In fact, the cap of six persons was the original cap that used to be in place before. But this cap was raised to eight in 2008 and it was due specifically to ease a crunch in the housing supply for workers. Since then, we have built up a good supply of alternative accommodation catering to groups other than families, such as hostels for students and dormitories for company employees and workers. So, we believe it is timely to revert to the cap of six, which was what it used to be before 2008.

As for reviewing the HDB limits, I think that is a separate matter. It is not within the remit of the Planning Act because the HDB controls are regulated separately, but we would be happy to do the review of the occupancy cap for HDB flats on a separate basis.

Finally, on the most interesting issue of this debate and the one which got most contributions from Members − on short-term accommodation. Let me address the queries and the points that have been raised by Members with regard to this particular issue.

I must first clarify that the amendments in this Bill do not amount to a change of policy. There is already an existing URA guideline against any short-term accommodation of less than six months in private residences. A breach of these guidelines can be considered a material change of use, which will then be deemed an offence in the Planning Act. This remains the case under the amendments to the Act and the same penalties apply. So, we are not changing policy; we are taking the same approach.

In fact, URA had undertaken public consultation on this matter of short-term accommodation in 2015, and in its focus group discussions with stakeholders such as Neighbourhood Committees and managing agents of private residential developments, there was also strong endorsement of the need to preserve the privacy and sanctity valued by the vast majority of homeowners.

Likewise several Members just now − Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereria, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Alex Yam amongst others − shared their constituents' experiences and expressed strong support for these rules, and also, in fact, strong support for enforcement. I know Mr Louis Ng felt that this perhaps was done in haste, but I also heard Er Dr Lee Bee Wah who asked why we took so long to put this in place.

On balance, we will have to enforce the current rules, which we have been doing and will continue to do.

Indeed, over the past year, URA has already seen a 60% rise in complaints from homeowners about breaches of this short-term rule in their residential properties, and the complaints are related to public nuisance or even safety concerns for their families. These are issues that we take seriously and we should enforce the current rules, as we are already doing, and make sure that the issue does not worsen further. The amendments to the Act will enable URA to do so.

In terms of enforcement, URA will continue with its current enforcement approach on errant homeowners, which means that when you look at advertising on home-sharing or rental websites, that in itself is not an offence and it is not regulated under the Planning Act, because these listings typically do not indicate the tenure of lease. On that basis of the listing on the site, it is not possible to take action. But as a first step, what URA will do is to work with the MCST of the development which have units with online listings and they will put up notifications to the residents in that development, so that the residents are aware of the rules on short-term accommodation. Then, if the short-term rentals persist and cause dis-amenities for other homeowners, URA will step in to enforce.

I agree with Ms Joan Pereira that MCSTs can also do their part. Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act or BMSMA, MCSTs have oversight of common property. For example, they can pass their own by-laws to manage the use and enjoyment of their common property through screening and record-keeping. They can also pass by-laws to register the details of all visitors. These are meaningful and practical things that MSCTs can do, and we will encourage them to do so and assist URA in its enforcement action.

I should also clarify that the minimum period of six months for short-term rental in private residences is set out in the Schedule of the Act, and the Government can adjust this parameter in future by gazette. Indeed, in its earlier consultation, URA had received feedback from a number of respondents, including homeowners, that there was scope to reduce the minimum period of rental in a private residence. So, URA is studying this carefully, and will consider a possible reduction in the minimum rental time frame. This is the six-month time frame. URA will consider whether there can be scope to reduce this time frame.

But whatever adjustments we may make to this minimum period, it is clear that it will not accommodate residential homes that are being put up for daily rental; meaning to say, even if we were to reduce from six months to three months, for example, this would not accommodate residential homes that are converted to daily rental of rooms which are operating very much more like hotels. In fact, such premises which are rented out on a daily basis, really ought to be regulated more like hotels rather than residential homes and they should be subjected to relevant licensing and conditions to ensure proper standards. That was also the feedback that URA had received from various stakeholders and we also note that many cities in Asia and around the world are likewise regulating short-term home-sharing platforms in a similar way to hotels and service apartments. So, in response to the point made by Mr Louis Ng, we had indeed studied the models used by other cities. Indeed, for many of them, where it comes to short-term stays that are operating very much more like daily rentals like the way a hotel or a service apartment would, the city municipal governments are taking actions and regulating them like hotels or service apartments.

In this regard, I am happy to share that URA is studying the option of creating a new use class for private residences that wish to engage in short-term rentals. Such properties would then be approved for that specific purpose, like service apartments or hotels today. New residential sites can be sold with such an approved use, allowing flexibility for short-term rentals. For existing residential buildings, they would then require planning permission for change of use, and this would be subject to a set of guidelines which URA is looking into.

What I have just described just now, these proposed measures, are separate from the amendments that are being tabled today. What I have described just now with this option of creating a new use class for private residences to engage in short-term rentals, can be done without changes to the Act. So, these are separate from the amendments. URA is studying them, and they will provide more details soon for further engagement and consultation with the stakeholders.

I shared what we are thinking about because there is obviously strong interest from Members, and I thought I should clarify our approach and current thinking on this matter, and also explain that we do see a role for home-sharing platforms to continue operating in Singapore so long as they are properly regulated and so long as there is a level playing field between them and similar entities that provide short-term rentals like hotels and service apartments.

I agree that the sharing economy is here to stay; this is a point that several Members had said. We will allow a space in our city for such platforms to exist.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed the points raised by Members, and I thank them for their contributions and support of the Bill. The amendments in this Bill will strengthen URA's ability to safeguard and enhance the vibrancy and liveability of our urban space. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

7.16 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation. On the part of the access for plastering, if you think that mediation can solve the problem, then we do not have residents coming to us, complaining or sharing with us the problems that they face. So, I thought this is the right time to put in place a requirement. Actually, if the house owners know that at the end of the day, they have no choice but still have to give them the access, maybe the problem can be resolved much easier. Because today they know that your URA, your BCA, all got no teeth. So, you cannot get them. So, this is why I want to urge the Minister to re-consider this.

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, we know that this is a difficult issue. We have to balance the need for intervention and action against property owners' rights to their own living spaces and to their own homes. But we are not just leaving this alone. The Planning Act amendments, as I have said, that are in the Bill, do not cover the full extent of what the Member would like to see. We will continue with the mediation route which we have already been doing and will continue to do more of that, but we will continue to study and see if other things can be done to address these difficult issues between neighbours and between two property owners where there are conflicting issues, like the one that the Member has raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker: May I remind Members to only raise clarifications. Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for sharing that they are reviewing the regulations for the short-term home-sharing. But can I ask if there is a time frame for this review?

Mr Lawrence Wong Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, in fact, we have been doing this for some time already. The consultation was done in 2015. Since then, we have obtained further feedback from different parties. We have been examining different models from the various cities, as I have described earlier. We do have some sense of what we would like to see happen. I have described very broad outlines of some of the approach that we are thinking about. I would expect URA to be able to come up with something quite soon. It will seek further engagement and consultation from different stakeholders before finalising and implementing these plans.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [ Mr Lawrence Wong ].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Coordinating LED Night Illumination in our National Infrastructure: ###### 7.20 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, as the sun sets outside this House, it seems timely that we consider the night, the colour of the night and how we light the night.

Over the past 10 years, we have seen improvements in lighting technology. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have become more prevalent on the commercial market and have transformed the market for lighting. The lifespan of an LED is longer than that of a traditional incandescent light bulb. LEDs give out less heat, important in a tropical country like Singapore. LEDs generally are more energy-efficient than other types of light bulbs or even fluorescent lamps, and their energy efficiency is getting better year-by-year. They are an example of how science and technology are improving people's lives − new solutions to old problems.

Today, there are many different types of LED lights, each with slightly different shades of colour, even different shades of white. To describe the shades of white, the experts use the phrase "colour temperature". This is not the temperature of the light bulb, but − if I may use the language of scientists − it is the temperature of an ideal black-body radiator giving out light of comparable colour to the light source. What does that mean? You might call it the colour of "red-hot", of "yellow-hot", or "white-hot". Even if the LED light itself does not give out much heat. So, we have some LEDs which give out a yellowish, warmer, more natural-looking white. Colour temperature around 3,000 Kelvins. Some have a harsher white colour, with a little bit of blue light as well. Colour temperature closer to 4,500 Kelvins or more.

Over the years, it has become easier for us to light up the night but this has also brought to light new challenges as well. For example, Mr Deputy Speaker, exposure to light has been reported to suppress the production of melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone produced by the body that influences the body's own biological rhythms − what we call the circadian rhythms that tell our bodies when we feel sleepy, and when we feel awake.

While any kind of visible light can suppress the production of melatonin, we know from research at Harvard University that blue light, in particular, has a stronger effect than other kinds of light. For example, blue light suppresses the production of melatonin for about twice as long as green light of comparable brightness. It shifts the circadian rhythm − the sleeping, waking rhythm − by three hours instead of just one-and-a-half hours. Some researchers have even raised concerns about whether shifting this circadian rhythm can affect eating habits, and in turn the risk of obesity and diabetes. The research is on-going but questions like these are being talked about. We also know that modern fluorescent lights and LEDs produce more blue light than traditional light bulbs. So, this is a growing issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, what have other countries, other jurisdictions tried to do about these questions? If we look at the USA and Europe, increasingly there are policy suggestions proposing that the colour of light is important, especially at night. In Switzerland, the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) recommends that LED lamps should have less blue-light component. The American Medical Association has also called for a reduction in the amount of blue-light component in LED lights. The Harvard Medical School, in their Harvard Health Letter, has pointed out that having too much blue light at night may not be optimal for health. I am grateful to experts such as Prof Michael Chee from the Duke-NUS Medical School for highlighting some of these pointers.

Even in the commercial sector, even among the companies that build your portable devices, even the Apple iPhone has a "night mode" where the colour of the display shifts to a more yellow shade of white, with less blue light emitted.

So, why is this important to Singapore? This is because in our built-up housing estates, the colour of night is shaded by what kind of lighting we choose. Corridor light in our housing estates and in our void decks can shine into living rooms and bedrooms. It is not a short exposure. At the same time, it is also important that our housing estates are energy efficient. And our housing estates must also at the same time be brightly lit enough so that all residents, especially our vulnerable and elderly, are able to move about safely at night.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am told by HDB colleagues that, for health and safety of lights, HDB relies upon the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard called IEC 62471. Currently, both the pure white-light and warmer yellow-white-light LEDs would satisfy this IEC criteria. But at the same time, given the discussions going on in America and Europe, it is quite possible that the consensus may be shifting in favour of warm yellow-white LED lights, lights which are less pure white but have a warmer yellow-white colour.

Mr Deputy Speaker, even if the consensus does not shift for a few more years, it would be prudent of us to consider possible future developments in the industry, future shifts in the consensus because, an LED lamp once installed, is an investment that will be around for many years − long enough to possibly become obsolete if international safety standards shift. And even if we leave aside the discussion about health implications, there is something to be said for having the night-time lighting look just that little bit more natural − a more yellow shade of white, a city at night that looks warmer and more natural.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I call upon MND and HDB to look at this issue, to consider standardising, consider moving towards LEDs which give out less blue light. We can do this by choosing LED lights with a bit more of a natural yellow colour − a "warm white" colour. To ensure that our living environment is still bright enough for the elderly, HDB could also study the perceived brightness of different types of LEDs. What kind of power output is needed for a pure white LED to look as bright as a warm yellow LED − how to calibrate this, how to have these standards. And once these standards have been studied by HDB, they could be shared with other agencies as well as the private sector. And I wonder if HDB's Building & Research Institute could help look into this.

We should also encourage LTA to think about having less blue light, when illuminating our roads at night. Safety on the road is important. It is important that road users can see each other, can see pedestrians, can stay out of danger. But within these limitations, we should look at how to reduce the amount of blue light given out by LED lights.

With LTA's plans to replace all street lamps with LED lights by 2022, we are at an inflection point in our national lighting infrastructure. It is not too early for us to be thinking about these questions. And in our MOE schools as well, there may be a role for looking at warm yellow-white LEDs, when replacing the older fluorescent light tubes.

And Deputy Speaker, all these could be part of a shared design language. A shared design language that shapes the aesthetics of our housing estates and our shared spaces throughout our little red dot.

Deputy Speaker, as a little red dot on the Equator, we have 12 hours of daylight each day. The rest is night − one half of our existence. So, it matters how we light the night. The colour of night matters, and there is emerging evidence that by choosing a better way to colour the night, we can reduce the risk of casting a shadow on our sleep and our health.

May we always choose well, and always seek the right kind of illumination.

7.30 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Deputy Speaker, I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng that night lighting has an impact on the everyday lives of Singaporeans. Our lighting must, first, be functional − from drivers on our expressways to passers-by along our HDB estate corridors, night lighting must be calibrated to suit their different needs. Second, it must be aesthetically pleasing. It should positively shape how we perceive and interact with our estates and public spaces. And, third, it has to be safe. This is important, given how pervasive night lighting is in a dense built-up city like Singapore.

To achieve this, one of the specifications we take into account is the light colour. And those of you who have bought fluorescent or LED lights will know that they generally come in three colours, as Dr Tan had described − warm white, pure white and cool white.

Warm white has the least amount of blue-light, giving it a yellow hue and a colour temperature of about 3,000 Kelvin. Pure white has a more balanced mix of blue-light, giving it a natural daylight feel and a colour temperature of around 4,000 Kelvin; while cool white has the highest amount of blue-light, resulting in a harsh white colour and a colour temperature of around 6,000 Kelvin.

Light colour is important for both functionality and aesthetics. For our street lighting, LTA is moving towards pure white because it offers drivers a high colour contrast, allowing them to see better at night.

In our new HDB developments, light fittings at common areas, such as corridors, also use pure white − but for a different reason. The previous feedback garnered from residents indicated that warm white was too dim for HDB estates. Light colour can affect safety, too, as Dr Tan rightly pointed out. I have explained how LTA uses light colour to improve road safety at night, for drivers and pedestrians.

Dr Tan has cited several reports which advise minimising the amount of blue-light for health reasons. Based on these reports, he has suggested we use warm white in our HDB common areas and LTA street lighting. These reports make two broad points. First, they state that long-term or high intensity exposure to blue-light can damage the retina of the human eye. Second, they highlight that exposure to any light at night − especially blue-light − can affect our sleep cycles by suppressing the production of a hormone called melatonin, and affect our circadian rhythm or body clock. This has been linked to impaired daytime functioning and obesity.

I would like to clarify that care has been taken by agencies to ensure that the lighting installed in public places do not cause harm to the human eye. So, the first point about potential damage to the retina of the human eye is not a significant concern in Singapore, given our regulations.

Lighting in our HDB common areas and LTA street lighting follow the globally-recognised International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards, which Dr Tan had articulated earlier. These spell out technical and safety requirements for lighting, including the safety limits for exposure to white light. Indeed, the same report by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health states that "commercial LED lamps represent no health risk when used correctly" − in terms of the risk to human retina.

On the second point on the impact of blue-light on melatonin and our sleep cycles, as Dr Tan pointed out, there is no medical consensus on the issue as yet. The reports do not rule out the use of pure white lighting in street lighting or in public spaces like HDB common areas.

And the specific implications of the reports' findings on our HDB common areas and LTA street lighting are as yet unclear. For example, the Harvard Medical School's Harvard Health Letter is based on studies which exposed people to blue-light for six and a half hours or longer, while the exposure of most Singaporeans to HDB corridors and street lighting by LTA is much shorter.

Apart from changing the colour of all our lighting, there may be other ways to address this issue. Indeed, one of the possible solutions mentioned by the American Medical Association is dimming LED lighting during off-peak periods. We have, in fact, already installed LED lighting with motion sensors along staircases for all BTO projects launched since 2014, and we are testing out sensor-controlled smart lighting in the common areas of Punggol Northshore estate. Not only will this make our HDB estates more energy-efficient, it would also minimise ambient blue-light at night.

Ultimately, we must ensure that our lighting remains functional, aesthetically-pleasing and safe. The light colours of HDB common areas and LTA street lamps are carefully selected to meet the functional, safety and aesthetic needs of Singaporeans. We should only decide how best to enhance our lighting after further study on the appropriate length and intensity of blue-light exposure at night has been done.

This, notwithstanding, I agree with Dr Tan that it is not too early for us to be thinking about the long-term implications of these reports on the health and safety of Singaporeans. We will, therefore, continue to keep a close watch on the evolving research on this area.

HDB will also take up Dr Tan's suggestion to study how to vary lighting levels (or luminescence) based on different colours of LED lights. This will allow us to better decide on the appropriate light colours in different settings − be it for functional or aesthetic reasons.

On its part, LTA will continue to use pure white lighting for expressways and major arterial roads for road safety reasons, because of the greater colour contrast. In the meantime, because street lamps use high intensity lighting, LTA will study whether it is feasible to use warm white lighting for street lamps on minor roads, especially those located in residential estates.

Deputy Speaker, the scientific research into lighting is evolving, and new lighting solutions will come on the market. We will continue to take steps to find better ways to colour the night, to keep our city vibrant and safe.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at 7.38 pm.