Head L – Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources

Environment for Our Future

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Madam, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

We have just passed the time of the year when the majority of Singaporeans were engaged in zealous efforts to give their homes a good wash-down and make-over. Generally, Singaporeans are house-proud and they want to keep their homes clean. Yet, when you look at the public areas, you see litter everywhere. The cleaners may have swept the area just hours or even minutes earlier but their efforts go to waste at the void decks, parks, walkways, lift landings, corridors, car parks, etc. I always wonder if these very same people who litter our neighbourhoods would act differently at home.

Through working with my grassroots, we have been able to encourage residents to come forward and participate in my monthly community litter-picking activities. But this is not enough. We want to grow this group so that they can influence more people to be like-minded. The notion of leaving it to the cleaner, or the "This isn't my property" mindset has got to change.

How can we get people to be genuinely interested in public cleanliness? How do we inspire them to have an emotional attachment with their surroundings like they would their homes? I had the privilege of joining our Public Hygiene Council Members in a study trip to Taiwan last December and I would like to share my observations.

In Taiwan, most schools do not employ cleaners, as the government does not provide funding for this. The students are assigned cleaning duties, including washing toilets and cleaning up school compound, in addition to cleaning their own classrooms, an aspect similar to education in Japan. We visited the Taipei Municipal Minsheng Junior High School, one of the top 10 academic schools in Taipei.

I was very impressed. The students brought their own cutlery for lunch, and they would wash their own cutlery. The graduating class would bring their school uniform for recycling. Students sort out litter for recycling, into as many as 15 categories, to be collected by the Department of Environmental Protection and other partner organisations. Be it the examination period or not, the students are expected to keep up with their cleaning duties in the classrooms and the school compound.

The message about public cleanliness is consistent across schools. The schools thus emphasise cleanliness just it does on academic performance. And it is not just the students who are involved. Residents would bring their litter and throw them into the collecting trucks early in the morning. If they miss the trucks, they will have to deposit the litter at the various litter depository centres in the city. They have to use the designated plastic bags which they have to pay. So, the more they throw, the more they have to pay.

5.30 pm

I woke up early in the morning and walked along the street to see if it is the same situation as in Singapore before the cleaners started to clean. There was no tissue paper, no plastic bag on the floor. Keeping the environment clean was clearly something that flow in their blood.

Having said that, they also have enforcement team. Their enforcement team is any person who has a phone to capture the act of littering. Their City Council put up in their web site teaching people how to take photos, video and report the littering act. Any successful prosecution, the informant will get a share of the fine.

We only have this little tiny red dot. Do we want our next generation to enjoy a clean and green living environment? Will we allow our little ones in schools to clean their classrooms and toilets? Will we allow public to be enforcement officers? If Taiwan can do it, why can we not do it? Action starts from now.

Action starts from everyone for our future generation. Together, let us transform our tiny red dot to a big green dot! Madam I beg to move.

High-rise Littering

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): Mdm Chair, high-rise littering is an extremely anti-social behaviour that has caused much heartache to residents of HDB estates. Despite public education efforts, this issue remains a menace. Apart from inconveniences caused to neighbours and additional unnecessary work for cleaners, hygiene and safety of unsuspecting passer-by are of concerns as well. Some people throw litter out of the window out of convenience, some throw food out of the window to feed birds believing that they are doing a good deed, while some throw waste out of the window thinking that they can teach their neighbours a lesson because of past disputes.

During past Parliamentary exchanges, I have observed that the rate of successful prosecutions was relatively low compared to the number of complaints received. For instance, between September 2013 to September 2014, NEA received feedback on high-rise littering involving 2,200 cases, but only 273 litterbugs were caught despite having deployed 1,500 cameras.

In this regard, could the Minister share how MEWR intends to better enforce against high-rise littering; will the Ministry consider installing surveillance cameras at hotspots permanently? Will the Ministry consider putting in place hardline measures to enforce against recalcitrant offenders, who remain defiant despite being slapped with thousands of dollars in fines? These acts may seem harmless for now but if we do not start sending a stronger deterrent message now, it might foster bolder acts in the future such as throwing killer litter from high floors. In this regard, will the Ministry consider naming and shaming these recalcitrant offenders?

Towards a Clean Society

Mr Png Eng Huat: Madam, the late Mr E W Barker, in his answer to a parliamentary question on whether his ministry would consider launching another "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign because "the bad habits of littering has come back", said, "It has not come back. It has always been with us. It has not gone away." The year was 1978.

Almost four decades later, the bad habits of littering are still here. From the observation on the ground, Singapore has not become cleaner over the years despite NEA having to spend an average of $3 million a year on anti-litter campaigns and outreach activities since 2010.

I do not know how much did the late Minister spend on anti-litter campaigns but I can remember those early campaigns. There were no fanciful messages, just "Keep Singapore Clean". There were jingles and commercials broadcast daily over the air. There were posters and banners put up all over the island. The simple campaign message was visible everywhere especially in schools. Most important of all, the impact of the campaign on the ground was felt.

The success of the early campaign was due largely to the involvement of the society as a whole. From schools to factories to markets, shops, restaurants, and so on, every fabric of our society was involved in helping to spread the message – "Keep Singapore Clean".

Fast forward to today, how many of us can remember the anti-litter campaign message launched in 2010? The answer to this $3 million question is "Do the Right Thing. Let's Bin It". Therefore ,I would like to encourage the Ministry to bring back the spirit of our early anti-litter campaign and to spare no effort in its drive to keep the bad habits of littering at bay.

Let us recycle those old posters, banners, jingles, and so on, not just to bring back a sense of nostalgia in our jubilee year but to drive home the message that the community as a whole needs to work together to keep Singapore clean.

Dengue Outbreak

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, this is the third year in a row that I have spoken on dengue, as this continues to be a concern in my ward, where dengue clusters continue to emerge from time to time, especially in the vicinity of Serangoon Gardens, Rosyth and Kovan.

Despite the best efforts of residents and NEA officers to do source eradication, the spread of dengue has persisted. Ministry of Health data shows that the total number of reported cases of dengue in 2014 was 18,315. This was down from the 2013 figure of 22,000. However, both the 2013 and 2014 figures were a massive jump from 2012 where only 4,600 dengue cases were reported. In the first seven weeks of this year alone, there were 1,468 reported cases of dengue.

It is vital to pursue other responses. We are aware that there is a local research scene on dengue immunology, on vaccines and on anti-viral drugs. The Sanofi vaccine has been on trial in Singapore since 2009. The Ministry previously seemed very cautious about its prospects. Would the Minister give us an update on the state of vaccine or drug research relevant to Singapore?

In addition, in October last year, the Dengue Expert Advisory Panel appointed by the Government supported the use of Wolbachia technology to control the Aedes mosquito population. Is there a timeline for field trials, and what further progress has been made? Finally, is the Government looking at any other counter-dengue measures?

The Chairman: Dr Teo Ho Pin, not here. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang.

Waste Management

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, the amount of food waste generated in Singapore is on the rise and the rate at which food waste is being recycled has remained relatively stagnant at about 13%. I would like to know what the Ministry's plans are to increase the recycling rate of food waste in Singapore.

Many of us might perceive that the word "food waste" is generated by food that actually we did not consume. But in actual fact, most of the food waste in Singapore, on the contrary, is generated by business practices.

In a study conducted by several NTU students, they found that majority of the food waste is generated upstream by wholesalers and retails where they would actually discard fruits and vegetables that have blemishes as they perceive themselves to be unable to sell these "ugly" fresh fruits and vegetables to consumers so they throw it away. Another major contributor of food waste is from the F&B industry where the industrial practice is to produce more than what can be sold.

I would like to ask the Ministry what is their plan to implement more measures to address this issue both upstream and downstream of food waste by businesses and consumers. Madam, let me continue in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Not only is the amount of food waste in Singapore huge, the current disposal methods also cause a lot of environmental problems.

A lot of food waste is stored temporarily near kitchens, which exacerbates the problem of pest and rodent breeding, and in turn, affects the hygiene of F&B outlets and public health.

In addition, the weather in Singapore is hot and humid, and when food waste contains high levels of moisture, they decompose faster and emit foul smells which affect environmental quality.

The Government should consider implementing new disposal standards like Taiwan and cities in China, as well as roll out assistance schemes similar to ICV, to encourage the local F&B industry to bring in new technology and provide businesses with grants to purchase kitchen waste disposal machinery. In this way, they can try and reduce the amount of waste at their premises.

In Taiwan, such machines process food waste on-the-spot by grinding and removing the moisture. This helps to reduce food waste by one-third or one-sixth of the original amount. As the reduction of moisture in food waste slows down the decomposition process, pests and foul smells are not produced as easily.

We should work towards this direction.

Food Waste

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Chair, each one of us is likely to waste 400 grams of food today. In 2013, there was food wastage of 796,000 tonnes - this had increased from the 703,200 tonnes in 2012. A 13% increase – the sharpest spike in six years. In 2013, food waste made up about one tenth of all waste generated.

How does the Ministry intend to address this? Food wastage is a huge problem around the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, a third of all food produced for consumption goes to waste, which is about 1.3 billion tonnes worth of food. In the UK, 7.2 million tonnes of food and drink is thrown away each year, and in Europe, this figure goes up to 100 million tonnes of food wastage per year.

Food wastage, or for that matter any form of wastage, is never good, but in our case I think it is worse here because we import 90% of all we eat.

It is heartening to know that the Government has started to look into this programme. I know Minister Grace Fu is very passionate about this, so am I. One of Government's effort has been the commissioning of a food waste survey. I would like to bring up two ideas for Ministry's consideration.

First, we can use the power of social norms. We could have a "Clean Plate" campaign that encourages everyone to finish their food and have a "clean plate" at the end of their meals. By encouraging this habit, we are likely to facilitate it becoming a norm, which would then make it easier for people to adhere to this norm and harder to detract from it. Personally for myself when I was young, my mum always taught me to finish every grain of food on my table. That was more for financial reasons. I have carried this habit up to my current age – I am 53 years old now. Whatever I take, I will finish everything.

Second, could we get schools into the act, not the usual Primary and Secondary schools but also the tertiary education institutions and their hostels. By introducing this in schools, I think students are more likely to pick up this desirable habit through social learning and at an earlier age as well. I understand that some hostels in NUS already have this – it would be interesting to collect this data to see what works and what does not in persuading people to reduce – or to eliminate – food waste. Perhaps the Ministry could jointly work with MOE on some of these campaigns.

Biodegradable Plastic Bags

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Chair, a number of my residents who reside at the Jalan Tenaga cluster have asked me what more can be done to improve community efforts at environmental protection and recycling.

Some have suggested greater governmental intervention to ensure that commonly available plastic bags that are not reused such as those used to pack kopi or the can be phased out over the long term in favour of biodegradable cups. Not too different from the CornWare cups available at the Members' Lounge which are coincidentally produced by a Singaporean company.

In fact, some hope that the Government can pass a law so that all plastic bags in circulation today can be fully biodegradable instead of the high-density polyethylene bags in wide circulation today.

However, the application of this positive suggestion is not so straightforward in practice as our waste to incineration plants burned the larger plastic bags that are reused, always disposed by many Singaporeans and it is also open to question how significant the impact would be should biodegradable bags be used instead of HDP bags given the Singapore waste management ecosystem.

There is also the question of the type of biodegradable bag that ought to be introduced because of the differing manufacturing processes that can be equally environmentally unsustainable even if the current HDP bags are certainly an environmental worry as about 1.2 kilograms of crude oil is used to manufacture one kilogram of plastic bags.

Mdm Chair, late last year, the European Union began deliberating whether member states could choose to either ban free plastic bags for shoppers by 2018 or take measures to make sure that the average consumption of such bags drops to 90 a year for each person by 2019 and 40 by 2025 from a high of 200 today.

I would like to ask if the Minister would consider working towards new initiatives to alter consumer behaviour to move to lower Singapore's environmental footprint and separately to incentivise companies and users to move away from plastic bags which are not reused to more environmentally sustainable products, where it is appropriate in our waste management context. Would the NEA consider implementing long-term targets like in the UE to move Singaporeans towards greater environmental consciousness as part of its sustainable Singapore 2015 blueprint?

Waste Disposal

Mr Charles Chong: Madam, waste electronic and electrical equipment or e-waste is a generic term embracing all types of waste containing electrically powered components including TV sets, computers, mobile phones, fridges, washing machines and consumer electronics.

E-waste contains both valuable as well as hazardous materials that may require special handling and recycling methods. Because of their hazardous material content, and if not managed properly, can cause major environmental and health problems.

5.45 pm

E-waste is a waste stream that will grow rapidly over time. In the European Union (EU), it is already one of the fastest growth streams and is expected to reach 12 million tonnes by 2020. Legislation has already been introduced in the EU to improve the environmental management of waste electronic and electrical equipment, and the restriction of the use of certain hazardous material in electrical and electronic equipment.

Could the Minister tell us if there are any plans to introduce regulations or guidelines to ensure proper management of e-waste in Singapore and, if so, when will this be done?

Regulate Construction near Residences

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Chair, in my constituency, there are many residents who have raised health concern due to increasing building construction near their homes, which can lead to respiratory health problems, lowered visibility and damage to property due to degradation. Such construction, even if necessary, should not be done at the expense of the quality of life of our Singaporeans.

In Australia, Sydney, construction companies are legally bound to control dust emissions from construction sites, so as not to contribute to environmental degradation and pollution. This is done by using approved methods of assessment of air pollutants, such as dust sensors or dust deposition gauges.

I would like to call upon the Ministry to consider imposing tighter regulation on building construction near heavily populated areas to mitigate the environmental impact which affects the living environment of the residents in that area.

Currently, NEA, to a certain extent, does regulate the dust issue at construction sites. However, at present, they have no means of measuring dust particles and there are no standards governing the acceptable range in terms of air quality. As such, complaints and feedback by residents can often only be acted upon purely by visual assessment which limits its efficiency in remedying the issue.

I believe that instead we should look into mitigating the issue at one of the sources, that is, the construction works. NEA could consider adopting the Environmental Management Standard by taking reference to Australia's practice and adapting it to suit our local conditions. This would include having a Dust Management Plan before construction begin and requiring site measures during construction to reduce dust emission.

[ Mr Deputy Speaker:

(Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]: As construction may take one to two years, having such tighter and mandatory regulation can give assurance to residents that such development in residential areas can be done without them having to compromise on their quality of life.

Air Quality and Carbon Footprint

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Pollution makes life inhabitable. In urban cities, the sources of pollution are mainly linked to urban activities like transport and cooling, industrial, construction activities and trans-boundary. In percentage terms, how much carbon footprint are the vehicles, construction works and buildings adding to our total carbon footprint count, and how is this compared to international benchmarks?

Vehicles are key domestic contributors of PM2.5. What is the Ministry doing to reduce the domestic emissions from vehicles? In particular, there appears to be more and more heavy vehicles emitting black smoke on the roads today. What is the Ministry's enforcement plan and how can this be substantially strengthened?

Given the proximity of contsruction sites to the heartlands, especially in new towns like Punggol, are there tools and strategies in place to assess, monitor, model – including source apportionment – to improve air quality and noise pollution?

Ill designed buildings also sap more energy. How is the Ministry using design thinking, laws, technology, incentives and behavioural change to find sustainable solutions in Singapore?

Lastly, what has the Ministry learn from its involvement in the Kyoto Protocol and other international negotiations? What awareness-raising actions and policy support activities are there to encourage smaller companies, SMEs and consumers to go green?

Air Quality

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah:

): Mr Chair, we must always aim for high standards of air quality and benchmark against international standards and guidelines set by the World Health Organizations (WHO).

One of the main culprit and contributor of air pollutants are the industrial emitters and from construction sites. What are the Ministry's plans to better address industrial pollution as well as to meet our 2020 Air Quality Targets? What are the Ministry's plans to better address industrial pollution as well as to meet our 2020 air quality targets?

Notwithstanding the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint's plans to move towards a "Car-Lite Singapore", emissions from vehicles will continue to be a challenge. We know that vehicles are significant domestic contributors of PM2.5. What is the Ministry doing to reduce the domestic emissions from vehicles?

During the 2013 haze crisis, individual's daily lives were affected. The three-hour Pollution Standards Index (PSI) in Singapore reached a record high of 401 in June 2013, surpassing the previous record of 226 set during 1997. The threat of haze was not over since there were still intermittent hazes every year since. The Transboundary Pollution Act was read in Parliament in 2014 to deter misaligned commercial interests of companies burning forests and engaging in unsustainable degradation of land in order to maximise short-term profits.

What is being done to implement the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act? And now that the Act has been enacted, what other measures is the Government pursuing to prevent the recurrence of the haze?

The Chairman: Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, you have five minutes for your two cuts.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Mr Chair, NEA formed an advisory committee in 2010 to advise a set of air quality targets for Singapore by 2020. I would like to know whether we are on track towards meeting this target.

In the same report, it was also mentioned that diesel-driven vehicles are deemed to be the major contributor of PM2.5 pollutants in Singapore. Could the Ministry give us an update on the efficacy of these enforcements in reducing PM2.5 emission? Also, does the Ministry have further plans to reduce harmful emissions from diesel-driven vehicles?

One of most effective ways to further reduce vehicle emission is to actually intensify the adoption and usage of electric and hybrid vehicles. However, many private car owners are deterred by the cost as well as the limited number of charging CNG refill stations.

I hope the Government could also consider providing incentive to improve the facilities and infrastructure that support the usage of green vehicles. The Government should explore the option of converting our fleet of public transport vehicles, buses and taxis, into electric and hybrid vehicles. In fact, this is not actually new because, like Seoul, the Government actually is currently running the world's first commercial all-electric bus service. In Malaysia, they also have already considered such bus service in Malacca. In the United States and Europe, these are all very common. While the running of an all-electric public transport system seems to be quite difficult in the past, I think now with the technological advancements, this should not be a problem today.

In a factsheet published by LTA, buses and taxis actually made up only approximately 5% of our total number of vehicles in Singapore in 2014. Studies showed that if we are able to convert these 5% of the vehicles, we will be able to reduce our total vehicle emission by half. So, why does the Government not do so to consider converting the public transport, the buses and the taxis, into a new system to be more eco-friendly for all of us.

Hawker Centres

My next cut. Sir, one of the suggestions given by Hawker Centre Public Consultation panel is to outsource the running of the hawker centres to social enterprises or private managing agents. I would like to ask the Ministry to provide an update on the reception of the new management model among the hawkers, as well as an appraisal on the operations of these privately run or managed centres?

I would also like to know, based on the experience of the four sold centres, how would the Ministry tweak the current operation model to ensure that future centres sold to managing agents are successfully run? Given that the lease of more hawker centres are expiring in the near future, would the Ministry explore new options and new models?

One of the biggest concerns that many potential and existing hawkers have is the impact of this outsourcing model on stall rental. Consumers are also worried that if stall rental went up, the hawkers will actually pass the increase of the rental onto them with higher food pricing. Would the Ministry actually provide an update on the mean rental and prices of the food in a privately-managed hawker centre vis-Ã-vis an NEA-managed centre? Are there substantial differences on these two metrics? Mr Chair, I will continue in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Chairman, hawker centres are essential amenities in the everyday life of Singaporeans. With the ageing population and shortage of labour, people are worried that business and hygiene standards at hawker centres will deteriorate. I would like to know what the Government is doing to ensure that hygiene and service standards will not be adversely affected by the shortage of manpower.

A recent study by the Consumer Association of Singapore revealed that food prices at hawker centres have gone up by 10-20%. I would like to know what can be done to help hawkers ensure that food prices do not increase and remain affordable, amidst rising costs of rental, ingredients and wages.

Let me conclude with this simple phrase: our hawker centres should provide delicious food at affordable prices with better hygiene standards, and building 10 hawker centres in 10 years is not enough.

I hope the Government will work harder in this aspect and build more hawker centres. Building 10 centres in 10 years is really not enough.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Hawker centres have always had a special place in the hearts of Singaporeans. They are an affordable source of delicious cooked food. Hence, any news pertaining to hawker centres, be it about upgrading, or the re-building of a new centre, invariably draws plenty of attention from the public.

In the past few years, many plans and changes have been announced for hawker centres around Singapore. Today, I wish to get some clarifications regarding their progress.

In May last year, the lease of four hawker centres expired, and NEA made an open invite to interested parties who could run them on a not-for-profit basis. Can the Ministry provide an update on the current status of these centres? What will happen to those centres that are not awarded to an approved social enterprise? Can the Ministry also provide an update of the new management model of hawker centres, where managing agents are managing the centres on a not-for-profit basis? How sustainable is the model? Aside from this, are there further plans to ensure the affordability of hawker food?

Next, I would like to ask for an update on the progress of the 10 new hawker centres announced in 2012. I do not see anything on site for the hawker centre in Yishun. If I may put it in Hokkien, "w o si wu tia thio sia, bo kua thio ngia ." (I hear about it, but I do not see it). When will construction start and when will it be completed? Why has it got to take so long? For comparison purpose, a block of BTO flats with much more complex structures would take just about two to three years to build. Is there any way to make the process of building hawker centres more efficient and faster? Perhaps to speed up the process, NEA should have internal capability instead of outsource from project management, architect, engineers and contract team. NEA should also compile guideline for hawker centre design, putting together all the good design, detailing and practices.

Last but not least, can the NEA build more hawker centres? The Minister had shared last year that the NEA is working with other agencies and partners to encourage new entrants into the hawker trade. While I do not envision an overspill of budding hawkers at this point of time, I think the prospect of more opportunities would be a promising motivation for more to venture into the trade. Therefore, I would like to see more to be done. As my colleague, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, mentioned just now, 10 years, 10 hawker centres, is really too slow.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: There are a few hawker centres which were sold many years ago and their 20 years lease would be running out soon. One of them is located in Marine Parade Town under the Marine Parade Town Council. For the hawkers operating their stalls at the hawker centre, they feel that their future is uncertain and they are concerned whether their livelihood would be affected once their 20 years lease has expired.

May I ask the Minister what are the plans for these sold hawker centres whose leases have expired or will be expiring. Does the Government intend to allow the premises to continue to be used as a hawker centre or are there plans to redevelop the place into some other use? If the Government intends to renew the leases, would the renewal be for the standard two years' term? I am concerned that if the Government does not renew the tenancy for the hawkers' stalls, then this may result in higher food prices, as hawker food can help stabilise food prices.

The current hawkers operating their stalls should also be given enough time to decide on their future plans and whether to find alternative places to sell their food produce.

I urge the Government to announce their plans earlier, so that the hawkers will have greater certainty in planning for their future.

6.00 pm

I have also received frequent feedback that the cleaners at the hawker centres are not able to cope with the huge number of plates and utensils to clear during peak dining hours. Can NEA assist the hawker associations to engage more cleaners to maintain a reasonable level of hygiene at the hawker centres? I have received feedback that these hawker centres need help as they do not have the skills or management ability to manage the cleaning companies.

Has the "Return Your Tray" programme work well in the hawker centres which has implemented the scheme? May I have the Government's assessment whether the "Return Your Tray" programme can be extended to all hawker centres?

Control of Food Prices in Hawker Centres

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Mr Chairman, since 2011, the year-on-year change in the Consumer Price Index for hawker food at hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts has been increasing at an average of 2% to 3% per annum. Cumulatively, the increases can be quite significant for our lower income households whose incomes may not be increasing by as much.

Hawker food is one of the essentials of Singaporean life. It is delicious, accessible, convenient and hygienic, and offers great variety. Hawker food is a boon for the elderly who are too weak to cook, and for workers and employees who are too busy or too tired after a day of work to cook. Hence, I urge the Ministry to do its best to ensure that our hawker food prices remain affordable to all.

The Chairman: Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, you have got your two cuts – four minutes.

Progress of New Hawker Centre in Yishun

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Transport (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Thank you. Sir, many Singaporeans welcome the Ministry's move to build hawker centres in various parts of Singapore.

With the increasing population in Yishun, many residents are looking forward to the new hawker centre. I would like to thank the NEA for spending time to do a thorough needs analysis of the proposed hawker centre so that it can cater to the future demand of the residents in Yishun.

During my recent house visit to a block near to the site of the proposed hawker centre, many of the residents asked about the status and update about the proposed hawker centre. I understand that my fellow Members of Parliament also received similar queries. Thus, I would like to ask the Minister on the progress thus far and when it will be completed.

ABC Waters Programme

Sir, since its launch, the PUB's ABC Waters Programme has been well received by Singaporeans. My family and I often use the facilities around the area that has undergone such a programme. I feel that the Programme has brought life to these areas. Many of them were once deserted and quiet, now they have become a centre of activities for fellow Singaporeans and their families. The Programme not only transformed the waterways, but it also provided us the opportunities to build ancillary facilities and created platforms for the creation of more nodal points and helped to build our social capital and recreational opportunities for our people.

Can the Minister provide an update on the ABC Waters Programme and are there plans to expand the Programme to benefit more areas in Singapore such as in Yishun?

ABC Projects

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Sir, since launching the Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters (ABC Waters) Programme in 2006, the numerous ABC sites have won many admirers for their picturesque scenes. The initiative to create beautiful community spaces for all to enjoy while integrating our networks of waterways and reservoirs is a big success. Singapore is on her way to transforming into a City of Gardens and Water.

Hence, my residents are keen to know if there will be an ABC Programme site in our constituency and if there are any plans to improve more areas. When will PUB carry out improvement works to Sungei Pinang, Hougang Avenue 10? Would PUB consider including Hougang Avenue 8 as well?

Water Resilience

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mr Chairman, Singapore experienced the longest dry spell on record early last year. February 2014 was the driest spell in Singapore since 1869. I understand that PUB had increased the amount of NEWater injected into our reservoirs then to maintain the water levels in the reservoirs.

We need to be assured that we will similarly be able to cope with such dry spells in the future, especially since water demand actually went up during this period despite public appeals to conserve water.

I would like to ask the Ministry what plans they have to better prepare ourselves against future dry spells. Are there any steps being taken to educate the public on the value of water?

PUB has a number of noteworthy initiatives like the Water Conservation Awareness Programme that has been running since 2011, the Water Efficiency Management Plan introduced in 2010, and the sharing of water reduction measures for during dry spells. What has been the impact of these initiatives? Given these initiatives, are we adequately prepared for future dry spells? Do we need to institute water rationing days for Singaporeans and all so that we can be future ready to face such a crisis in event of another prolonged dry spell?

Drainage

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, recently, part of Mountbatten road was flooded after a heavy downpour. Several of my residents were surprised as we understand that PUB has been taking several measures to improve the nation's drainage system to alleviate the flooding situation. PUB has also spent a large amount of money to manage the floods. Can the Minister share how have these efforts reduced the flood-prone areas in Mountbatten as well as for the rest of Singapore?

I know we are having a dry spell this period as the hon Member Mr Seah has said. In view of the erratic weather conditions which has affected many other parts of the world, what is the likelihood that we may see a repeat of the floods which affected Singapore a few years ago?

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank Members of the House, both the Government as well as the Opposition Members, for their support of the programmes of my Ministry. I also thank the 6,000 Singaporeans who contributed their ideas to the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB) 2015.

I think it is very clear that Singaporeans are proud of our environment. Singaporeans want a liveable and endearing home, a vibrant and sustainable city and an active and gracious community.

This is our 50th anniversary, our Golden Jubilee. It is worth reflecting that our pioneers, led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had a very bold vision. Mr Lee insisted on a clean and green Singapore 50 years ago, way before being green became fashionable all over the world.

He realised that a good environment was essential because this is democracy in action. We all breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat the same food at hawker centres and share the same neighbourhoods. The environment and economy is not a zero sum game. On the contrary, our pioneer leaders recognised the synergy between having a green, clean and safe environment and a dynamic economy – they are part of a virtuous cycle. And achieving this required an exercise of strong political willpower. Our pioneers were determined, they had detailed plans, they implemented, they enforced and we arrived where we are today. Singapore is recognised as one of the world's most sustainable cities, and clean and green. I want to address the issue of "clean" in more detail later on.

It is now our responsibility to build on this legacy and I was also struck by the fact that if you had listened to all the speeches made, there are actually two key values underlining the conversations here. First, that we must not be wasteful. Singapore is small and we will always be resource-constrained. We have to consume wisely and to reduce and recycle as much as we can. This fundamental constraint has not changed. The second key value relates to the fact that we are small, dense and crowded. Therefore, we need to be considerate to one another. Being a gracious people is not a luxury; it is essential for the circumstances in which Singapore society evolves.

So, with these two values in mind – not being wasteful on one hand; and being gracious and considerate to one another on the other hand, let us deal with the issues that you have brought up.

First, let me deal with public health and, in particular, dengue. In 2014, we had over 18,000 cases of dengue. This is slightly lower compared to the over 22,000 in 2013. In the first two months of this year, we had 1,637 cases. Actually, this represents a40% reduction in the number of cases compared with the first two months of last year. It is improving but we are not out of the woods yet.

The explosion of dengue cases in Singapore is part of a global resurgence of dengue in many cities in the tropics, and even in some of the sub-temperate zones in other parts of the world. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about our strategy and I need to emphasise that at this point in time, our key strategy remains the elimination of mosquito breeding.

Last year, the staff of the National Environment Agency (NEA) carried out more than 3.5 million inspections island-wide. I am sure we would all like to record our appreciation to the 850 staff from NEA who worked tirelessly under the sun or rain, knocking on doors, facing sometimes not so welcoming receptions in order to perform their jobs, to inspect homes, construction sites and other public areas.

My Ministry has also had to take a very tough stance against errant contractors at construction sites. Last year, we issued more than 1,000 Notices to Attend Court and issued 132 Stop Work Orders. This is a two-fold increase from the year before. But NEA cannot be everywhere all the time. I realise its acronym can be said to be the "Nearly Everything" or "Nearly Everywhere" Agency, but this is physically not possible. Therefore, we need all stakeholders, citizens and residents to play their part to stay vigilant and keep their premises free of mosquito breeding habitats.

Ms Lim also asked about the recommendations of the Dengue Expert Advisory Panel. They gave us many good suggestions, including affirming our current strategies. One proposal which they suggested to us was to continue our exploratory work on the use of Wolbachia bacteria as a novel but safe biological control method to suppress the local mosquito population.

I am unable to give you a specific timeframe now because one of their -recommendations was to use a slightly different strain of the Wolbachia bacteria. We will have to introduce that bacteria into the mosquito population, establish another colony and then test again for both safety and efficacy., The Environment Health Institute (EHI) is working actively on this, but you will appreciate that this is not something which I will rush into unless I am convinced that it is both safe and effective.

A similar situation exists for vaccines. You are right; there are several vaccines undergoing trials in different parts of the world. The key problem is that there is no single vaccine yet which is uniformly effective across all four serotypes. Nevertheless, in the long run, a vaccine is the definitive solution. But, again, we will be monitoring the progress of the vaccine trials in other parts of the world as well as our own data. The moment we are convinced that it is safe and effective, we will make sure the vaccine is available to Singaporeans. So, you will have to watch this space. Mr Chairman, if I could get your permission to display some slides on the screen.

The Chairman: Yes.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: These are some sad pictures which, unfortunately, many of you would be all too familiar with. There is an unsatisfactory state of cleanliness in Singapore. And Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is right. Just now Mr Png Eng Huat referred to Minister E W Barker's comment that littering has always been with us. I think you all know me by now, I am brutally frank. I would state that the standard of cleanliness in Singapore has fallen. Let us call a spade a spade.

Let me share some numbers. Our surveys have showed that from 2006 to 2010, the number of litter items observed or collected had doubled. We are also projecting that our cleaning bill – the amount that public agencies spend to clean public areas, is as high as $120 million a year. That is not a small sum. People may not even be aware that there are some hotspots in Singapore that are being cleaned once every two hours. So, we are spending a lot of money, spending a lot of effort and we have got an army of cleaners.

6.15 pm

But, I do not think this is a sustainable solution. We cannot keep having an ever-growing army of cleaners. As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah observed in her trip to Taiwan, and all those of you who have been to Japan; they do not rely on an army of cleaners. It is about habits and peer pressure.

Unfortunately for us, a survey that NEA conducted in 2010 revealed that a third of Singaporeans would litter if they think they can get away with it. Opportunistic Littering. Such a blasé attitude towards littering reflects a lack of pride in your own country, as well as a lack of respect and consideration for others.

Therefore, we have to step up other measures. One measure that we have stepped up in the last couple of years is our enforcement efforts. Last year, we issued 19,000 tickets for littering, double the rate in 2013. Let there be no doubt that litterbugs will face heavy fines and, for repeat offenders, Corrective Work Orders (CWO). In fact, we have found that a Corrective Work Order is quite a good deterrent because less than 6% of people who ever had to serve a Corrective Work Order re-offend again. So, we will have to step up enforcement. We have to make sure that the probability of being caught goes up significantly and we will continue to do so until there is a noticeable impact on the ground.

Unfortunately, our enforcement officers on the ground are also facing resistance. We had a case last year in April. An officer approached an offender who was smoking illegally at the void deck. The offender refused to provide his particulars, and ran away. When the officer attempted to catch up with him, he was punched in the face; and we had to get help from the Police. Eventually, this person was charged for assault and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Such cases are not common, but nevertheless, this shows a lack of respect for authority; and signals, I think, another danger sign for our community.

We will not tolerate abusive behaviour towards our staff; and, therefore, to further protect our officers, we will be equipping them with the same body-worn cameras that the Police will be using. This will record the interactions between members of the public and our officers. We will also take up the other suggestions, I think it was from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, to make it easier for members of the public to submit video or photographic evidence which we can use for investigation and prosecution. Again, these measures are a clear signal that we will increase the probability of culprits being caught.

Another issue that has escalated over the years – and I think Ms Tin Pei Ling referred to it, is that of high-rise littering. Last year, we received 2,500 complaints – this is an increase, it was 1,600 in 2013. In the past, such offenders were very difficult to catch. We would receive over 1,000 complaints and we would maybe bring about 10 offenders to court. We have resorted to having to use high resolution high-rise video surveillance, and we have now successfully taken more than 500 enforcement actions against people who conduct high-rise littering; this was just last year alone.

One high-rise litterbug was recently fined a total of $19,800, and many others are pending prosecution. Their actions do not just dirty our environment. They endanger public health and public safety. I believe all Members of this House will support our increased action, surveillance investigation and prosecution of such cases.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also spoke about the need for greater community participation and a sense of ownership. I am heartened to see that there is a growing number of individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who have stepped forward into this space to help educate others about cleanliness, to be advocates, to help in public education and to take ownership of public spaces. NEA's Community Volunteer Scheme has now expanded to over 250 passionate individuals from various NGOs. These community leaders, these volunteers, reflect our values and help exert social peer pressure. We must become more like Japan, more like Taiwan, where it is peer pressure and role modelling which sets the standard.

Our volunteers have told me that they want to take greater ownership and be able to contribute in ways which best suit their skills, their experience, their temperaments and their preferences. I agree with them and we are going to expand our scheme to provide more avenues for them to pursue – advocacy, enforcement, and public education.

We will provide all new volunteers to our scheme the same training that a new NEA officer would undergo. The scheme will therefore allow them to also be accorded similar status and authority as a regular NEA officer. I will have to return to this House with legislative amendments. But the point is that the members of the public who volunteer will become part of an extended NEA family and they will play a critical role in setting the tone, in helping us advocate for a clean environment, and helping us in enforcement if they wish to.

But enforcement alone is not enough, and we really need to reach a stage where there are internal values that guide our behaviour and we do not litter because we are proud of our environment and care for our neighbourhood. I just participated in the Green Corridor Run over the weekend. We were there because we want to preserve the Green Corridor through the heart of our natural reserve. The organisers did a wonderful job. There were water points and convenient drop-off bins, and yet, I still saw many runners simply dropping their cups along the trail. In this context, I need to encourage participants as well as the organisers of mass events to focus on this message.

I am glad Minister Ng Eng Hen, when he described plans for the National Day Parade, mentioned that spectators and participants will be encouraged to clean up the Padang at the end of the show and its fringe celebrations. The Padang is sacred ground and we need to make sure it is clean after the National Day Parade, as a reflection of our national pride.

I am also pleased to inform Members that the various Town Councils – and this is one where I hope the Opposition Town Council will also participate with us – are planning on setting a day aside to mobilise the community to clean our own neighbourhoods and give our cleaners a day off. This is an opportunity for us to show appreciation to our cleaners. It is an opportunity for us to activate our neighbourhoods and hopefully, if you had to pick up litter from your neighbourhood, I think you will take more proprietary interest in making sure everyone keeps it clean.

I agree with Mr Png Eng Huat on campaigns and that campaigns have a part to play. Our campaigns have never stopped. I think what has changed is behaviour, and perhaps, our propensity to enforce in the past. But now that we have changed to a higher enforcement posture, and with more volunteers and everyone being prepared to exert peer pressure, I am determined to make a difference on the ground as far as littering is concerned.

Let me now move on to air quality. Many Members have raised pertinent points. In 2012, we committed to achieving air quality targets benchmarked on the WHO's Air Quality Guidelines, and we said we will achieve this by 2020. If I could display that slide, you will realise that we are not there yet. In 2014, the annual mean for PM2.5 was 18 µg/m3 while our target is 12 µg/m3. You will notice that PM2.5, in fact, rose in 2013 and that was because of the episode of severe transboundary haze that we had that year. As far as sulphur dioxide is concerned, the chart will show you that our highest 24-hour mean was 83 µg/m3. We are not close enough to our target of 50 µg/m3. So much more needs to be done.

Last year, industries such as power stations and oil refineries accounted for almost 99% of locally generated sulphur dioxide emissions and a significant 43% of PM2.5 emissions. We are therefore working with the companies involved in these industries to reduce their emissions and we will be tightening the industrial emissions standards for a range of air pollutants, in order to help us achieve our targets for cleaner air. More details on this will be released later.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang rightly pointed out that vehicles are significant domestic contributors of PM2.5. To be exact, our vehicles account for 57% of local PM2.5 emissions. We need to do more to ensure a cleaner fleet. Last year, NEA announced that the Euro VI standards for new petrol and diesel vehicles will be implemented in 2017 and 2018 respectively. To pave the way for cleaner vehicles and reduced emissions, we will also have new and more comprehensive fuel quality regulations on fuel itself. This will be implemented from 2017 – so, the vehicle emission profile as well as the fuel standards will be improved.

We will also be enhancing the Early Turnover Scheme for diesel vehicles. In 2013, we had 37,500 Pre-Euro and Euro I vehicles on the road. We introduced the ETS in April 2013 and as of December 2014; about 6,200 of these vehicles have been replaced with less pollutive new models ahead of time.

The Ministry of Transport and my Ministry will be extending the Early Turnover Scheme to allow an additional 59,000 Euro II and Euro III commercial diesel vehicles to qualify for this scheme. In other words, in previous years, it was only pre-Euro and Euro I but now, we are extending it to Euro II and Euro III. With effect from August 2015, Euro II and Euro III light commercial diesel vehicles will be given a COE bonus of 10% of the remainder of the vehicle's 20-year lifespan. Similarly, heavy commercial diesel vehicles will be given a COE bonus of 90% of the remainder of its 20-year lifespan.

This slide gives you some indicative numbers. Without going into details, the point is that the actual cost savings will depend on three factors – the number of years left on COE; the age of the existing vehicle at deregistration and the Prevailing Quota Premium. The point is that we will make it worth their while to replace their older pollutive vehicle with a cleaner newer vehicle.

Miss Penny Low mentioned that she was worried about black smoke from vehicles. We, in fact, tightened the standards for diesel vehicles. The standard used to be 50 HSU. We tightened it to 40 HSU since January last year. In 2014, there was, in fact, a 19% decrease in the number of Singapore-registered vehicles being caught for emitting black smoke. This is not solved yet but it is improving.

There were also questions about the carbon footprint of our vehicles. Right now, road vehicles account for about 15% of Singapore's carbon footprint. Under our Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB), we plan on having a public transport modal share of 75% by 2030. I think our current number is about 59%. So, we have got a lot more work to do together with the Ministry of Transport to shift more of us into public transport.

6.30 pm

One other scheme which we hope will make a difference is the improved Carbon Emissions Vehicle Scheme, announced by the Minister for Transport earlier. LTA will also be test-bedding a diesel hybrid bus and there are also plans for EDB and LTA to conduct a pilot electric vehicle car-sharing programme.

Let me now move on quickly to transboundary haze. We passed the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act (THPA) last year. We have been actively monitoring the haze situation since the Act came into force. So far, the trigger conditions for the Act have not been invoked yet but actually there were even more hot spots in Riau last year than there were in 2013. The only reason we were spared was because the winds were in our favour. We will have to continue to monitor the situation and especially during the dry period which will begin from June to October.

The legislation is not a silver bullet. Haze is a transnational problem and it requires all affected countries to come together. We welcome Indonesia's ratification of the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. They finally did so last year and we remain committed to working with them to tackle this recurrent problem. We had previous good collaboration in Jambi province and we hope to resume our joint project there.

I want to reiterate the importance of cooperation with foreign governments and private companies. All of us need to work together to deter the culprits who have been damaging our health for the sake of short-term private profits. I do not intend to engage in barbs with other foreign politicians but let me just say this: Remember that it is not just Singaporeans who are the victims. There are even more Indonesian victims who are suffering even more because they are living right in the midst of the peat fires. The governments of Indonesia and Singapore have a duty to cooperate to deal effectively with this problem. Let us leave it at that.

Mr Zainal Sapari and Miss Penny Low were concerned about the impact of construction works on residents. The Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) already requires construction sites to meet high standards on noise and dust, and for large contracts which exceed $10 million, they have to appoint an Environmental Control Officer (ECO) to be responsible for maintaining these standards. As a regulator, NEA takes enforcement actions against those who fail to comply. We will study the suggestion by Mr Zainal Sapari on the management of dust standards in Australia and other countries, including sensors and imposing standards.

I have also noted Miss Penny Low's suggestion on green buildings. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) administers the Green Mark scheme and BCA also published the third Green Building Masterplan last year. We also have incentive schemes including the Grant for Energy Efficient Technologies (GREET) and Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme (EASe).

I am going to call on Minister Grace Fu to address the issues related to hawker centres and waste management.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Chairman, may I have your permission to show some slides and also to speak in Chinese.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Lim Biow Chuan have asked for updates on our hawker centres.

Our hawker centres are an essential social infrastructure – they provide a clean and hygienic environment for our hawkers to ply their trade and enable Singaporeans access to good food at affordable prices. Several of MEWR's recent policy changes achieve this objective of ensuring that hawker centre food prices remain affordable.

In determining the price for his or her food, a hawker has to consider many factors. We conduct an annual survey on more than 1,000 hawkers' operations, and have found that raw materials typically comprise more than 50% of hawkers' costs. Rentals form a much smaller proportion of costs for hawkers at about 12% of total costs. That is actually the third component (of hawkers' cost). The first is raw materials, the second is manpower, and the third is rental.

For instance, average rentals of the six hawker centres in Toa Payoh were around $650, with more than half of the stalls, primarily those on subsidised rents, paying $320 or less. If we exclude them, average rentals are around $1,100, which still compares favourably to the coffee shops or food courts nearby.

In fact, over 85% of hawkers in our hawker centres pay less than $1,500 per month in rent. As you can see from the pie chart, rentals make up a very small proportion of cost. Rentals higher than this are typically found in hawker centres that are in the city, such as at Newton or Maxwell. Therefore, there is little substantive evidence to say that rentals are the main driver of hawker food prices. Nevertheless, the Government has made several policy changes over the last few years to moderate rentals, to ensure that it does not put upward pressure on food prices over time.

Firstly, sub-letting or assignment of stalls is disallowed for stall-holders. This policy took effect for new stall-holders from April 2012 while the existing non-subsidised stall-holders were given a grace period of three years from April 2012 to comply. This means that from 1 April 2015, all non-subsidised stall-holders will have to personally operate their stalls. Subsidised stall-holders are already not permitted to sublet their stalls.

Since April 2012, more than 1,900 new cooked food stall-holders have taken up stalls in our hawker centres. NEA has taken action against 64 stallholders for not operating their stalls personally. Stall-holders who do not regularise these requirements promptly will have their tenancy terminated. By enforcing against those who sub-let their stalls, we are freeing the stalls up for those who are genuine hawkers, and ensure they pay lower rentals by cutting out the sub-letting profit.

Secondly, we removed the concept of Reserve Rent in our tendering exercises since March 2012 to allow stall rentals to fully reflect market conditions. This has benefitted hawkers, with some cooked food stalls awarded at bids as low as $1.

The results of these measures have been bearing fruit – average tendered rents for new stalls have declined over the whole of 2014. The rate of increase in rentals in 2014 for stalls that pay assessed market rents has also moderated.

To further increase the number of stalls, and to have hawker food available in many areas, we announced in 2011 that we will build 10 new hawker centres over 10 years. From the pictures, you can see that the first two new hawker centres in Bukit Panjang and Hougang will be opened this year. NTUC Foodfare will operate the new Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre using a non-profit operating model.

We hope that by inviting managing agents to operate our new hawker centres, they will bring new ideas as well as their experience in food and beverage operations, property and lease management, to diversify food options, enhance the dining experience at the hawker centres, while still keeping food prices affordable. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang also enquired about our assessment of using managing agents to manage hawker centres. Given that managing agents have had limited time operating hawker centres and this is a relatively new approach, we are closely assessing the results before making any conclusions on their approach.

NTUC Foodfare also manages a former "sold centre" in Bedok Town Centre, while three other former "sold centres" at Block 117 Aljunied Ave 2, Block 20 Ghim Moh Road and Block 503 West Coast Drive whose leases expired in May last year are now managed by NEA.

I would like to assure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that all stall owners at "sold centres" whose leases have expired and are interested to continue their businesses will have the option to do so. Stall-holders who were previously on the subsidised scheme will pay current subsidised rental rates. Stall-holders who were not previously subsidised, will pay the prevailing market rental. Regardless of the management model adopted, the fundamental objectives of hawker centres in providing affordable, hygienic food will be maintained.

The remaining eight new centres will be progressively completed over the next few years. We will work in consultation with the local community to meet their needs. Er Lee Bee Wah and Associate Professor Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim may wish to note that construction works for the centre at Yishun will commence later this year and will be completed by 2017. Preparation work requires more time, so as to meet local needs, particularly for discussions on the carpark for the centre. We have tried our best to take into consideration the feedback given by the local MPs and residents.

As we are making good progress over the 10 new centres, we will do more. I am pleased to announce that the Government will be building an additional 10 new hawker centres by 2027. They will be located in new estates or in existing ones that are relatively under-served. We have identified the towns for five of these new centres - Bidadari, Sengkang, Choa Chu Kang, Bukit Panjang and Bukit Batok. The locations of the remaining hawker centres will be made known later in the year. Altogether, the 20 new centres will inject an additional supply of more than 800 cooked food stalls and we believe this will help to further moderate rentals and also bring everyone's favourite hawker food to residents.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang also enquired about the cleanliness of hawker centres. The majority are owned by the HDB and thus the Town Councils undertake the general cleaning. The hawkers undertake the table-cleaning function, usually through out-sourcing by the Hawker Association on behalf of the individual stall-holders.

Most Town Councils and Hawker Associations have been managing their responsibilities well. For the rest, there is potential for better outcomes and economies of scale by integrating the general cleaning and table-cleaning contracts. The Town Councils should consider taking over the table-cleaning contracts at these centres as part of their effort to enhance the cleanliness of all common areas in the Town.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about the tray return initiative. Since 2012, tray return has been implemented in 67 hawker centres, and will be extended to the remaining 37 hawker centres with cooked food stalls by the end of the year. We hope that everyone will continue to lend their support by returning their utensils after meals, not just at hawker centres but also at other food establishments. This will allow everyone to enjoy a cleaner and more comfortable dining environment.

Just now, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang dedicated a very amusing poem about hawker centres, which covered topics such as the quality and prices of hawker food.. I found it very interesting and would like to respond to Mr Yeo with my own poem. It is as follows: "Hawkers cook with their hearts, Food price should be good (for both customers and hawkers), Public hygiene is a must, 10 more hawker centres after 10 will benefit all citizens." Hawker stall-holders can cook with dedication because they are operating their stalls personally and do not need to worry about subletting stalls from a landlord. This way, they will enjoy better returns for their efforts and be more dedicated in the preparation of their food. Hawker food should also be priced reasonably because various measures have been implemented to progressively moderate rental costs. We also need to ensure that hawkers are reasonably compensated given their hard work and challenging working conditions. Hygiene obviously cannot be neglected as it is very important. The addition of 10 hawker centres to the 10 that have already been planned will bond more Singaporeans together. Thus, "Hawkers cook with their hearts, Food price should be good (for both customers and hawkers), Public hygiene is a must, 10 more hawker centres after 10 will benefit all citizens."

6.45 pm

( In English ): Now, I will like to move on to update on our waste management strategies and measures. Singapore has limited land, yet we are producing waste at a significant rate. Last year, we generated about 7.5 million tonnes of waste, which is 50% more than 10 years ago. If this trend continues, Semakau Landfill will run out of space in 20 years' time. Many of us would still be around to see that day if this happens.

Last year, we announced plans, as part of the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB), to work towards becoming a "Zero Waste Nation". By reducing consumption, and reusing and recycling as much waste as possible, we can conserve resources and free up space that would otherwise have been used for landfills. The Government will work with the community and businesses to make this our way of life.

We must also continue to ensure that waste collection, disposal and treatment methods are safe and sanitary.

Mr Charles Chong has talked about e-waste. Electronic and electrical products are becoming more and more ubiquitous. As they contain harmful substances, such as heavy metals, the improper disposal of electronic waste can affect public health. For example, cadmium which can be found in rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries can accumulate in the human body upon exposure and cause lung and kidney damage in the long term.

To maintain a safe living environment for future generations, we are considering upstream controls by restricting the use of hazardous substances in certain electrical and electronic equipment. Importers and manufacturers will be required to comply with these restrictions. These controls will reduce the amount of hazardous substances getting into our waste stream and eventually entering Semakau Landfill. This will also improve the potential of recycling incineration ash which NEA is exploring.

We will make it easier for everyone to safely recycle their e-waste. As you can see in the picture, we have the support of the industry's stakeholders, such as StarHub, DHL Express and TES-AMM. They are providing e-waste bins across the island for the convenience of members of the public. NEA will form a national voluntary e-waste recycling partnership programme. This will bring together stakeholders from the entire value chain, from producers to retailers to recyclers, to raise awareness and to provide better recycling infrastructure. I welcome companies and organisations joining this new partnership as we work towards its launch later this year.

For the longer term, we will be studying options for a regulated system for treating and recycling electrical and electronic waste.

Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang mentioned food waste. Food waste has increased by almost 50% over the past 10 years, and currently makes up about 10% of the waste we generate. As with electronic waste, food waste poses resource and environmental health concerns. Reducing food content in our general waste stream will help reduce smell and pest concerns. Upstream food waste segregation will also reduce contamination and enable greater recovery of other recyclable materials like plastic containers and cardboard cartons.

One effective way to manage food waste is to avoid creating it in the first place. Consuming only what we need also makes us more resilient against food security risks. In September 2014, NEA and AVA commissioned a survey on consumer attitudes and behaviour regarding food waste. We will study the findings when it is ready, to formulate strategies to cut food waste. NEA and AVA are also working with the industry to develop good practice guides for food manufacturing and retailing.

We can also improve our management and recycling of food waste. Companies who wish to invest in technology to improve their food waste management can consider tapping on our existing funding schemes such as NEA's 3R Fund. Only 13% of all food waste is recycled today. NEA will conduct food waste recycling pilots at two hawker centres – to raise recycling rates, and to try out different onsite recycling models. A district-level pilot will also be conducted at Clementi, where food waste collected from multiple premises will be sent to a centralised recycling facility for anaerobic co-digestion.

Besides e-waste and food waste, we will also be enhancing one of our long-standing programmes – the voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement (SPA) to reduce packaging waste. The SPA has been successful, currently having more than 160 signatories which have cumulatively reduced about 20,000 tonnes of packaging waste and saved more than $44 million in material costs of locally-consumed products.

We will be extending the SPA to 2020 to continue the good progress we have made. The extended SPA will contain new initiatives, such as a database to allow producers to benchmark and realise the potential of reducing their packaging. We will also be introducing a logo to identify products with reduced packaging so that consumers can make informed choices.

Finally, we want to help each of us recycle more at home. The domestic recycling rate in 2013 was around 20%. Much more can be done to reach our goal of 30% in 2030. To achieve this, the "last mile connection" for residents will be crucial. All HDB estates now have one recycling bin per block. To make recycling even more convenient, since 2014, all new HDB blocks have been designed with centralised chutes for recyclables on every floor.

I am glad that Ms Rita Soh supports this and had suggested during the Budget debate that we extend centralised chutes for recyclables to private estates, and embrace the use of Pneumatic Waste Conveyance Systems. We agree that we should move in this direction, and we will consult the industry further on this. In some residential developments such as Parc Emily and One Shenton by City Developments Limited (CDL), such facilities are already voluntarily incorporated. We want more developments to go this way, and do more to encourage their residents to recycle.

Mr Pritam Singh suggested replacing single-use plastic bags with biodegradable ones. Indeed, there are some countries such as France and Italy that strongly encourage the use of biodegradable plastic bags because their waste is landfilled and the plastic bags would remain in the landfill for many decades. However, we do not share this concern in Singapore as our plastic bags are incinerated safely and not landfilled as they are. Nonetheless, we still encourage shoppers to reduce the excessive use plastic bags and to use reusable bags as much as possible.

Minister Vivian will now touch on the topic of water and conclude the response for our Ministry.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you. Members would have noticed that we had our longest dry spell in 149 years, last year. I think you would also be aware that this year, we are facing – not as severe as last year – but nevertheless, drier weather than usual.

The reason we did not have to resort to water rationing last year, unlike some neighbouring areas, is because of our many years of investment in water infrastructure, and in particular, our desalination plants and water recycling activities. That enabled us to tide through the situation last year.

This year, in fact, our desalination and recycling plants are functioning at 70% capacity and that is why if you jog around our reservoirs, the water levels are not as low as it would be otherwise. If you want to see low water levels, perhaps, look at what the water levels are in golf courses, in the natural ponds in those areas.

Mr Seah Kian Peng is right that we need to prepare for periods of drought and dry spells in the future. Pursuant to this, we will build a third desalination plant in Tuas, and construction will begin later this year. We are also planning on additional desalination plants which will be sited in other parts of Singapore and we will announce that later on.

We recognise, however, that water infrastructure takes up land and land is precious. We will therefore be exploring the possibility of building the Water Reclamation Plant and NEWater Factory in Kranji underground. This obviously will be more expensive so we have to carefully study the financial and technical aspects of doing so. But nevertheless, I think we have to start conserving land on the whole-of-government basis.

I think it was Mr Seah Kian Peng who mentioned, and it is worth reiterating, that last year despite the dry spell, our water consumption went up during the dry spell. This clearly is not a sustainable trend. Whilst I do not envisage the need for water rationing, I do need to put people on notice that if the dry spell or drought is prolonged, we will have to impose water restrictions and to impose this through subsidiary legislation. In addition, we will also study whether we need to further refine the current legislative framework to give legal effect to water restrictions. What that means, is that during prolonged dry spells, we will make it illegal to use water to wash cars, or on pavements or to water grass and lawns.

It is possible to make people change habits. Over the years, our per capita domestic water consumption used to be 165 litres per person per day – that was in 2003. Today, we are down to about 150 litres per person per day. We aim to bring this down to 140 litres per person per day by 2030.

I want to quickly move on to the issue of flooding which Mr Lim Biow Chuan brought up. Members would have noticed that PUB has actually been working very hard over the last three years. Since 2012, they have completed drainage improvement projects at more than 190 locations. Work is on-going at another 119 locations, and this will be completed within the next three years. This year, we will commence drainage improvement projects at another 35 locations.

7.00 pm

The Stamford Canal Detention Tank construction work is progressing well and we expect that it will be ready by 2016. Together with the Stamford Diversion Canal, which will be completed by the end of 2017, the level of flood protection for the Stamford Canal catchment area which includes the Orchard Road area, will be enhanced significantly. Our drainage improvement efforts, over the years, have reduced the flood-prone area in Singapore from 3,200 hectares in the 1970s to only 34 hectares today.

Unfortunately, for Mr Lim, Mountbatten Road, especially that section near Sea View, is a part of those 34 remaining hectares. It is low-lying. In fact, it is only about 1.4 metres to 1.5 metres above sea level, and the drains there are subject to tidal influence. PUB will be upgrading the drains, but the long-term solution is to raise the platform level of the road and premises. Owners of premises in that neighbourhood will realise that as and when they submit plans to redevelop their houses and premises, PUB will insist on increasing the platform level. So, until Mountbatten as a whole increases its platform level, the risk of flooding remains.

In the meantime, we will continue to provide timely advisories and information to residents. They can subscribe to our free SMS advisory services as well as use our apps so that they at least have time to prepare and to respond to any emergencies. The last episode you described occurred on 26 December, and as luck would have it, coincided with the high tide. I cannot give a 100% assurance that these things will not recur but we will reduce the probability and the impact and, we will work on the long-term solution.

Let me quickly move on to the ABC Waters programme because that is very popular with the public and Members in this House. We have completed 27 ABC projects so far and more are forthcoming. In fact, just this Sunday, the Rochor Canal project was officially opened by Ms Denise Phua – you can see that the photo on the right is not an artist's impression but an actual photograph of the event on Sunday.

Another two projects at Sungei Api Api and Sungei Tampines are scheduled to open later this month, and another four projects will be completed and opened to the public later this year. We will also be starting work on six new projects in 2015, and Mr Gan Thiam Poh would be happy to know that there are plans to implement projects at Sungei Pinang and the canal along Hougang Avenue 10 in 2016. And, over time, we hope to bring ABC Waters project to more communities across Singapore.

Mr Chairman, as I round up, I just want to reiterate again that as we celebrate our 50th anniversary, it is a legacy that we have inherited and we have a responsibility to build on that legacy to protect our environment and to provide a higher quality of life for all Singaporeans. I thank Members for your support over the years and I will be happy to take any questions or clarifications which arise.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have five clarifications. I am happy to hear of the No Cleaners Day nationwide as the Minister has announced just now. We have done it at Nee Soon South for the last two years.

I would like to ask the Minister will the Ministry be bold enough to work with MOE to remove the cleaners in the schools. That means, get our children to do the cleaning of the classrooms, the toilets, the school compound as what is being done in Japan and Taiwan because this habit need to be inculcated since young.

Question number two: in Taiwan they have implemented Environment Education Act in 2011, and under this Act, every civil servant and student have to undergo four hours of environmental education every year. Are we exploring this?

Question number three: public as environment officers. It is a good move but I think it is still not good enough. I have just heard from the Deputy Prime Minister Teo that we have five million smartphones in Singapore, why do we not open this to everybody? Anybody can be an enforcement officer so long as they follow certain rules and regulations. That will get rid of your one-third who will litter when they know that there are no enforcement officers around.

The Chairman: Er Dr Lee, please keep your clarifications short, we have got a few minutes and we have got other hands up

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Yes. Question four: high-rise littering. One thing that I cannot stand is the sanitary pads, and there is one block where we perpetually experience that problem and the CCTV was only put there for five days and the littering was not caught. And the second time they mobilised the CCTV, they put it there for seven days, and the littering is still not caught. I would like to ask the Minister is it because there is a shortage of CCTVs. I do not understand why the littering was not caught within five days; I mean, which woman will menstruate again within five days.

The Chairman: I think the Member has made her point about sanitary pads. Minister, would you like to reply?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: NEA will take menstrual cycles into account. The Member's first point was on No Cleaners Day. It is something that we want to work on at the community level. The schools have begun programmes where the students do get involved in cleaning their classrooms. I think some schools may even have extended it to cleaning toilets. I will leave Minister Heng to decide whether to go as far as what the Member has recommended, of not having cleaners in schools. That will be quite a big step to take.

We want to do more public environmental education. But whether you want to pass legislation to make it mandatory for four hours, I think, that, again, may be overdoing it at this point in time. But let us not dismiss it completely.

I agree with the Member on her suggestion. There are five million handphones with cameras. Earlier, when I said we are going to make it easier for people to submit photographic or video evidence, I do need to also make it easier for them to use their smartphones. We will develop apps or we will encourage the development of third-party apps so that everyone is put on notice that it is not just the NEA officer who is there to detect and deter littering but, in fact, all Singaporeans – everyone who cares about the environment.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have a clarification for the Minister about dengue, in particular the experiments now on Wolbachia technology. I understand from reading some articles that there was a professor or somebody from Monash University who commented that the approach that Singapore is considering is quite costly because it will involve continual releases of these mosquitoes with bacteria into the environment. I would like to ask the Minister how far will cost be a consideration in taking this forward here.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank Ms Lim for asking that question. I am afraid I have to give you a technical answer, if you do not mind. Wolbachia works at two levels: one is that if you have a Wolbachia -infected male mosquito mating with a native female mosquito, the offspring are not viable. One means of control is to release male mosquitoes and hope that these male mosquitoes will mate with the female mosquitoes out in the wild and therefore by reducing the offspring, you reduce the population. The advantage of that is that you are releasing male mosquitoes and male mosquitoes do not bite, it is only the female mosquitoes that do. In terms of public acceptance and in terms of public messaging that is probably easier to achieve. The downside of that is that in order to keep the population suppressed, you may have to keep releasing more of these mosquitoes. So, that is why the comment that such a strategy may be more costly because you have got to keep releasing successive waves of Wolbachia -infected male mosquitoes.

The other alternative is to release both male and female mosquitoes with Wolbachia . The purpose of that strategy is to infect most mosquitoes out there in the wild with Wolbachia because there is a secondary effect of Wolbachia infection in mosquitoes. It makes them a bit more resistant to the dengue virus proliferation within the mosquito itself. That has been tried in some places. My hesitation is the fact that you are going to be releasing female mosquitoes which actually bite people, and I think there will be some public resistance to that.

The secondary consideration there is that not all Wolbachia bacteria are the same. So, in fact, part of the reason for our current reconfiguration is that we are trying to identify the most effective Wolbachia strain which also has a dengue virus inhibitory impact.

Sorry to give the Member a technical answer to that question. The bottom line is this: we already have a very low mosquito population in Singapore. Paradoxically, if you already have a very low mosquito population, it is very expensive to try to suppress that population further. In fact, because we have got low mosquito population and relatively low infection rates, we also have low immunity and therefore from time to time, we are prone to these epidemics.

Like many things in Singapore, we are also victims of our own success. Nevertheless, I want to give the Member the assurance that if we can find the right strain of Wolbachia and it is effective in lowering mosquito population and the rate of dengue, we will do so, and I am sure you will support us as well.

Ms Tin Pei Ling: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have two clarifications. The first on high-rise littering: I note that the survey has shown that people will litter if they know that they can get away with it, and I agree that peer pressure is important. But for high-rise littering, peer pressure is not as applicable given that they do it in the confinement of their flat. So in this case, I would like ask the Minister whether the Ministry will consider naming recalcitrant offenders so that neighbours will know and help to keep a look out and assert that pressure.

For the second one, I will speak in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] :The second question concerns prices at the hawker centres and wet markets. As I understand, currently, there needs to be two bidders for a stall before it can be rented out.

However, in some centres, especially wet markets, the number of successfully rented stalls is small, leaving the centres relatively empty. Some food items are only sold by a single stall. Hence, residents have been concerned about the lack of competition thereby risking high prices. The high prices then increase the financial burden on residents.

Hence, I would like to ask if the Minister could, in such special situations, consider allowing the stall to be rented out even if there was only one bidder?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member's suggestion on naming and shaming people who engage in high-rise littering. Since we have just introduced these high resolution video cameras for high-rise surveillance, and since we are now able to identify and proceed with prosecutions of hundreds in the first instance, I do not want to rush into this next stage. I think naming and shaming in a sense works well for the Corrective Work Order. But I do not want to jump straightaway into this.

The Member is right in a sense that people who are convicted in a court of law, there are some records for that, but I do not think our courts – lawyers here can correct me if I am wrong – I do not think our courts provide a database where you can log on and search on who has been convicted for littering, at least not yet. Let give us some more time to pursue surveillance, prosecute people, subject them to high fines, and I think the message will get through.

The Chairman: Mr Liang Eng Hwa. I am sorry, Ms Grace Fu.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : I would like to clarify on the question where the Member asked about renting out stalls to a single bidder. In the case where the hawker stall tender attracts only a single bidder and is put up for tender again, and the same situation is arrived at, then that single bidder will be able to rent the stall.

The issue that Ms Tin Pei Ling has raised is worth our attention, i.e. the demand for wet markets will change in tandem with people's changing lifestyle and their demand for cooked food. When more people are going to cooked food stalls and hawker centres for their daily meals, fewer people will go to the wet markets to buy groceries to cook at home. We are paying attention to this current trend, and we are trying to observe the long-term demands for wet markets stalls.

7.15 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: ( In Mandarin ): Thank you, Sir, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : I am inspired by the poem that the Minister just read out. The last sentence of her poem is "10 plus 10 to benefit all", I would like to add another sentence, "It would be even better if we could build faster". I would like to ask the Minister, when will these new hawker centres be completed. Not only do we need to build more, but also faster.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : This is indeed a fast-paced era. We only just announced it and now the MP have asked to have it expedited. However, I would like to seek the Members and the residents' understanding on this. We are stepping up the pace to complete the 10 hawker centres that were announced earlier. After the completion of these 10 hawker centres, we will start the preparation work on the next 10 centres.

We have to bear in mind that we are doing this in conjunction with other infrastructure projects and many of these new hawker centres are part of integrated development projects. The development of the new hawker centres will be a concerted effort, involving many other Government agencies. Therefore, the timing would have to be managed carefully, but we will fulfil our promises as soon as we can.

The Chairman: Would the Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah like to withdraw your amendment?

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I would like to thank both Ministers for your comprehensive answers. I am very heartened to hear of many improvements. Certainly, together we hope to have a cleaner and greener living environment. And certainly we hope to have more hawker centres at a faster pace. Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: Is the Hon Member given leave to withdraw the amendment? I think leave of the majority is given. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,174,711,200 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $579,247,400 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.