Committee of Supply – Head L (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources)

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Page: 2061

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Social Behaviour

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Mr Chairman, I beg to move,

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

Our rapid population growth and urbanisation have brought about new challenges as we endeavour to provide liveable home for all Singaporeans. The resource constraints, coupled with uncertainty in our weather patterns, will make it harder to maintain the same standards we have grown accustomed to. To keep the status quo, we need to do more to sustain the high standards of our environmental quality. The Minister has demonstrated a keen interest and capability in analysing the problems, such as floods and climate change. I hope the Minister will be able to share some insights about the Ministry's plans to tackle the issues, what is in place and what are in the pipeline?

To build a congenial living habitat is a responsibility that requires the participation of the whole community. We must instil a sense of appreciation for the environment so that Singaporeans can see how it all begins with our social behaviour.

What makes a place liveable is a person's day-to-day experience, be it a walk home from the MRT station or exercising in the park. What my residents have told me, and which I have also observed, is the prevalence of littering within our estates. Litter on the ground can be unsightly. The past anti-litter campaigns have achieved so much. We should take on a new approach to bring the message home. What is the Ministry doing to address this problem of littering? Can we start another campaign, for example, "Take Your Rubbish Home", "Make Singapore Clean and Beautiful"? I understand that this "Take Your Rubbish Home" campaign in Taiwan and Japan is very successful.

Another thing which can sour a person's daily experience is exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke. While there is currently a smoking prohibition for some places, public spaces, such as linkways, overhead bridges and parks, do not have such restrictions. My residents have been calling for expansion of "no smoking" in our community park, which is NParks. Having laws is one thing; having it enforced is the other. General observation is that there is a lack of resources to enforce the penalties.

This problem is not unique to us, and we may get inspiration from other countries that are also devising solutions to deter law breakers who get away scot-free. In Taipei, security cameras are installed at hot spots for littering, and the culprits caught littering on camera will be tracked down and fined. Security cameras will solve the problem of nabbing litterbugs. In South Korea, snap-happy citizens are rewarded for catching crime perpetrators on camera. Perhaps, we can put ours on STOMP and YouTube. Catching criminals on camera would be something that may be the solution.

I hope, together, we can make Singapore clean and beautiful and the most liveable place that it can be!

Cleansing of Common Residential Areas

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon): Sir, within a typical HDB precinct and residential estate, there are few agencies which own these land and amenities, and are responsible for the management and maintenance of these areas. For example, in the HDB estate, the cleaning and maintenance of the common areas of each block, together with the front and back apron, are done by the Town Council. As we move away from the block, the pavement along the road, the turf next to the road, the road itself, overhead bridges and the bus stops are cleaned by the NEA. If there is a State Land within the HDB estate, the land is usually maintained and cleaned by the Land Management Unit of the HDB. The Park Connectors, which are connecting many towns these days, are cleaned by the NParks. As a result, we often hear the question, "Who owns this land?" or "Which agency maintains this land or amenity?" before we further discuss any issue.

Page: 2062

4.00 pm

I know that cleanliness is the joint responsibility of everyone. While there are various agencies which are responsible for each of these areas highlighted earlier by me, as far as our residents are concerned, they would want these areas to be cleaned. I have received feedback that residents sometimes feel confused and unhappy when they are told that the land belongs to so and so agency and will need to be cleaned and maintained by that agency. To prevent such a weird situation, sometimes I ask the Town Council staff to come in and assist to clean the high traffic area, where urgent needs arise.

Sir, I have no doubt about the commitment of the cleaners. They have worked very hard to clean the areas under their charge. I feel and I have received feedback that it is about having too many agencies involved in cleaning the various demarcated common areas in residential estates; sometimes these are located very close to each other. I strongly feel that there is a need to streamline and integrate the cleaning functions of all these agencies. I hope that the Minister will review the current situation.

Cleaning Companies

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, Singapore is reputed for being a clean and green country. However, the reality is that all the cleanliness comes about due to the many cleaning companies which we have in Singapore. Many of these cleaning companies rely heavily on foreign workers as Singaporeans do not wish to work in this industry.

With the tightening of the work permit for foreign workers, is MEWR monitoring the performance of the cleaning companies? Will there be a fall in the standards of cleanliness due to this shortage of workers? As it is, I receive frequent complaints from residents that the public roads are less clean due to less frequent sweeping.

I would like to ask the Minister this: how many cleaning companies have been accredited by the Government? Has there been any improvement in the cleaning standards with this accreditation? How does the Government intend to improve their productivity or improve their professionalism and quality standards of these cleaning companies?

Page: 2063

A Clean Home for All

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, Singapore is famous for its campaigns and one of the most longstanding one is the anti-littering campaign. However, despite many years of campaigns and the efforts that we have put in, we are still plagued with inconsiderate anti-social littering behaviour. It is disturbing to see that after a mass event, there is usually a lot of rubbish on the floor. In the housing estates, litter is often seen scattered all over the void decks in the early morning before the cleaners start work. This is a sign that people have forgotten about their social obligations as responsible citizens to keep our country litter-free and clean.

Sir, it is sad that there are Singaporeans who are still not taking ownership of the clean and green environment that we have worked very long to achieve. In fact, people have forgotten about doing what is right, only about not getting caught. This is not the way forward. We need to address the root of the problem and not just focus on enforcement but also on proactive risk management by shifting the mindset and instilling the right behaviours.

While on the subject of littering and enforcement, I am distressed that we are still seeing cases of high-rise littering. In my constituency, we have also faced this problem but one big challenge is in holding the culprit accountable despite knowing who the culprits are. We have found that NEA is unable to do anything because we have to catch them in the act. It seems ironic to me that NEA officers are catching more people on the street throwing cigarette butts, such smaller littering offences, than the more serious culprits who throw rubbish from their flats and vehicles day in, day out. Why are there more litterbugs being fined or taken to task for smaller offences than those who perpetuate even more anti-social littering behaviour? Why are we unable to hold this group of litterbugs accountable for their anti-social action? I would like to ask NEA to review their enforcement and regulation.

( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 2124 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Chairman, Sir, today, we still see many litterbugs around. It is unfortunate that these litterbugs throw things out of their windows every day. And NEA seems unable to do anything about them. My residents told me that they would sing the song "Ask the Sky". But I told them that I would not ask the sky, I would only ask the Minister. I hope the Minister can help us resolve this problem.

Cleanliness

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, I echo the sentiments on littering expressed by fellow Members. Singapore used to have a global reputation for being a clean city. Going by my observation and feedback received from Singaporeans on littering as reflected in the media and other channels, I worry that we may have lost our global reputation for being a clean city. I googled to see whether Singapore is listed as one of the top 10 cleanest countries in the world, but, unfortunately, we are not. In fact, there are many blogs and remarks lamenting the deterioration in the level of cleanliness in our beloved country.

Sir, I believe the state of cleanliness of a country or a city reflects many things about our society: the level of civic consciousness, our attitude towards the environment, our values, etc. If we assess these areas by using the state of cleanliness as a yardstick, I am afraid we have failed and we are far from being a gracious society. Many of us would have noticed that Singapore's parks, estates and streets are cluttered with fresh litter despite the daily cleaning being done. This is a tragic problem and unless addressed, we run the risk of turning Singapore into a "grubby, trash-laden metropolis", as quoted by one Canadian tourist who revisited our country and expressed his disappointment in his blog. A recent survey showed that 36.2% of people said that if they do not get caught, they will litter. This reflects the lack of civic consciousness in this group of people. NEA has conducted numerous anti-littering campaigns and increased the fines imposed for littering, but the littering problem has not abated. I would like to ask the Minister for plans to inculcate a greater sense of personal responsibility in Singaporeans in relation to cleanliness. Let us reclaim back our reputation as a clean and green city that our previous generations have worked very hard to achieve.

Page: 2064

Midges at Bedok Reservoir

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I believe the Minister is well aware that residents living near Bedok Reservoir have been plagued by midges again recently. The swarm of green flies seems to have become an annual affair since their outbreak in 2010. According to NEA, midges do not bite or carry diseases but this is hardly a consolation to residents whose lives are affected by this nuisance. Some residents are also worried that property prices in the area may also be affected if the problem is not solved.

Much as I appreciate that the various Government agencies such as NEA, PUB and NParks worked closely with the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council during the outbreak to minimise the impact of the midges on the residents and shop operators, it is imperative that the Ministry solve the problem soon. Sir, we cannot fire fight the problem every year. Not only is it is a problem for the residents, it is also costly, as daily fogging must be carried out during the outbreak. Moreover, fogging is not a solution to the problem. Fogging will kill the adult midges and lower their numbers, but not the larvae, which is the root cause.

I understand that the breeding ground of midges is in the reservoir. I would like to know whether the PUB has done any study or research to find the cause for the repeated outbreak over the last two years and the long-term solution to the problem.

High-rise Littering

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, despite years of public campaigns by the Government, littering, and in particular high-rise littering, remains a major problem in Singapore. I understand that I am not alone in receiving complaints from residents about this problem which seems to be worsening in some of our estates. As soon as the cleaners have completed their morning rounds, the estates are dirtied again in the afternoons.

During my visits to Japan and Taiwan, I noticed that although there were few litter bins in public places − in fact, sometimes, I notice there are none at all − they were clean and litter-free. How I hope Singapore can achieve what Japan and Taiwan have achieved in public cleanliness. If we can all work together towards that, then there will be no need for us to rely on foreign workers to help maintain the cleanliness of our estates or worry about the dangers of high-rise littering and killer-litter. There should be a better solution than blaming the problems on foreign workers and foreign domestic maids, though some may be culprits, or trying to ensure that the cleaning contractors carry out their jobs properly. It is important that we all play our part to keep Singapore litter-free and maintain her status as a Clean and Green City. Will the Ministry share with us any updates it has to tackle this growing problem? Without tackling it, very soon you will see, you will hear many people complaining or saying " siam, siam, siam " in the housing estates.

Page: 2065

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, as Members, we often received complaints from residents about their upstairs neighbour throwing things out of the window. Just last night, in my Meet-the-People Sessions, I had a resident from Block 520, Jelepang Road who was both angry and frustrated about his upstairs neighbour throwing still-lit cigarette butts out of the window. He was angry because these cigarette butts caused burns to his curtains. He was frustrated because despite numerous complaints to NEA, nothing was done or can be done. The NEA officer told the resident there is not enough evidence to prosecute the resident and there is really nothing much that can be done.

I find this unacceptable. Do we surrender to these recalcitrant litterbugs? I say we declare war with these culprits and take firm measures as well as send a strong signal that such acts would not be tolerated. Clearly, NEA would need more resources and would need to invest in more technology to deal with such dangerous and anti-social act. NEA would need more advanced surveillance devices. I understand that Hong Kong has started using the digital high-rise littering surveillance system where CCTV and even laser guns are deployed to detect high-rise littering. In some cases, in order to drive the point, evidence such as cigarette butts or litter items should be sent for forensic or DNA testing to ascertain the identity of the culprit.

Sir, as more than 80% of our population live in high-rise buildings, we require a certain level of social behaviour and responsibility so that our estates will be a pleasant place to live in. We need both hard and soft measures to deal with this problem.

The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. I wish to thank Members for their questions and suggestions. With a growing population and increasing resource constraints, we must ensure our economy grows in a sustainable manner so that current and future generations of Singaporeans continue to enjoy high standards of liveability.

We have made progress on many fronts. Our air quality compares well against other leading cities in the world. We managed to keep dengue incidence at bay. There have been improvements in public cleanliness, though some litter hotspots still persist. However, we can do more to make Singapore a better, a more liveable city − a city where the air is always clean, and where streets and urban spaces are free of litter, where surroundings are well-kept and tidy because Singaporeans treat them like their home, and where our neighbourhoods are beautiful places we are proud of and our children can thrive.

To realise this, we will all need to work together. Ultimately, sustained improvements in our quality of life will require greater collective responsibility from all of us − Government, businesses, people and community.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked what the Ministry is doing to reduce the incidence of littering. Ensuring a high standard of public cleanliness and hygiene is a key priority. NEA adopts a three-pronged approach comprising (a) an effective cleansing regime, (b) stepped up enforcement and (c) educational outreach efforts. Last year, NEA focused on the provision of better litter bin infrastructure, increased visibility of enforcement and public outreach efforts targeted at youths. The initial results of this strategy have been encouraging and we will continue with these efforts, as well as support ground-up efforts to build community responsibility and ownership.

Page: 2066

We will be improving our cleansing regime. My Ministry agrees with Assoc Prof Faishal and other Members that the current arrangement where multiple agencies are involved in cleaning common public areas is not optimal. This was a point raised by Mr Heng and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also during the Budget debate.

4.15 pm

To better manage cleaning contracts, improve service standards and to improve our responsiveness to public feedback, we will be integrating the cleaning functions of public areas under a new Department of Public Cleanliness (DPC) within NEA. This will be done in phases from 1 April 2012. The DPC will ensure public areas are well-cleaned, and progressively integrate existing contracts to achieve higher operational efficiencies. It will also improve on supervision of contractors' performance by, for example, using web-based remote camera systems to monitor litter-prone places. A one-stop call centre will be set up within the DPC to provide a single point of contact on issues pertaining to public cleanliness. From 1 April 2012, the public can give their feedback via the new hotline 1800-600-3333 or email [email protected].

We will raise the overall standards and professionalism of the cleaning industry in Singapore. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked what we are doing to improve the quality of cleaning companies in Singapore. To this end, NEA has been leading an inter-agency Cleaning Industry Productivity Work Group, comprising members from MOM, WDA and NTUC (e2i), to develop a productivity roadmap for the cleaning sector. This supports the broader national efforts of the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) to raise productivity of businesses and workers.

The Work Group consulted the industry to better understand the challenges and concerns faced by cleaning companies. Industry standards and manpower capabilities were identified as two aspects that can be improved. We will work with industry partners to develop clear standards and best practices for premises such as commercial buildings, F&B establishments, and conservancy areas.

We are also considering a Bill to license cleaning companies in the next two years. This will set minimum standards that all cleaning companies must meet before they can operate. The voluntary Clean Mark accreditation scheme that NEA has put in place since mid-2010 will complement this. The scheme recognises companies that deliver high standards of cleaning through their training of workers, good use of equipment, and sound employment practices. Since its launch, 60 cleaning companies have attained the Clean Mark Silver Award. In the Budget debate, Mr Zainal exhorted that both Government and private sectors should engage only accredited cleaning companies. The Government is indeed taking the lead in this, with some 27 Government agencies already engaging accredited cleaning companies. As announced by MOF a few days ago, all Government agencies, including the newly-established Department of Public Cleanliness, will procure cleaning services only from accredited companies. With this, we expect more cleaning companies to come forward to be accredited.

Page: 2067

During the Budget debate, some Members have called for improvements to the employment conditions of cleaners. NEA will be working closely with MOM to enhance the Clean Mark accreditation scheme, and stipulate the higher training, standards and productivity required in the trade. This will ensure cleaners receive better wages for their efforts. WDA programmes, such as their Environmental Cleaning Workforce Skills Qualifications, are in place to raise their skill levels. By raising industry standards, encouraging best sourcing and developing worker capabilities, we hope to uplift the standards of both companies and cleaners. As highlighted by Mr Ang Wei Neng, this may mean an initial cost increase, but in the long run, we believe it will improve the standards of cleanliness.

Mindful of the impact of rising costs, we will create opportunities for greater cost efficiencies in cleaning and waste disposal. Fuel and manpower costs have been rising, and this has been reflected in our latest public waste collection tenders when contracts were renewed. We will do our best to mitigate rising costs. We will reduce the number of public waste collection sectors from nine to six over the next few years to achieve greater economies of scale, whilst still ensuring robust competition. From this year, we will be aggregating waste collection fees progressively to reduce the volatility and remove the disparity in waste collection fees for households. The implementation details are being worked out, in consultation with industry.

The second thrust of our public cleanliness strategy is stringent enforcement. We continually seek new ways to improve the effectiveness of our enforcement efforts. The example of high-rise littering illustrates how we are doing this. Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang highlighted the persistent problem of high-rise littering and how this undermines public safety and cleanliness. My Ministry agrees that this is an area of concern.

However, enforcement operations against high-rise littering are typically labour-intensive, and involves many hours of stakeouts. We carried out a pilot project last year at 10 hotspot areas using surveillance cameras and video analytic software to assess its effectiveness. Our trials have achieved some success, and Members can see a picture of the kind of images we can receive.

We will be installing surveillance cameras where there is a persistent high-rise littering problem. For killer litter, or high-rise littering, which endangers the personal safety of others, offenders can face imprisonment, a fine, or both. HDB may also compulsorily acquire the HDB flat or terminate the flat tenancy if the killer litter is thrown from any HDB property.

Stepping up enforcement for littering does not completely address the deeper challenge of nurturing the right values. This is alluded to by Er Dr Lee, Mr Yeo and Mr Zainal. We must build greater individual ownership and community action if we are to raise the standard of cleanliness in all our public spaces. We need to cultivate these attitudes and values from a young age. And we are working with MOE to integrate environmental responsibility into MOE's values-driven school curriculum. Also, since last year, a day in April has been marked Youth for the Environment Day, where schools organise activities in support of the environment. This year, it falls on 20 April. Through such efforts, we hope young Singaporeans will think more deeply about the environment and take meaningful steps to care for the environment.

Page: 2068

As Mr Yeo commented, proactive measures to foster a mindset change within the community are necessary. We have been promoting ground-up efforts to develop stronger community ownership and support for a clean environment. The Litter-Free Ambassador (LFA) programme, for instance, has to date accredited about 2,800 youth and grassroots ambassadors who are spearheading litter-free initiatives in the community.

This year, we will focus on fostering a stronger sense of social responsibility among the public in partnership with NGOs, corporations and youth representatives. We will leverage on the Keep Singapore Beautiful Movement and the Public Hygiene Council, to lead in galvanising community-wide efforts to enhance the cleanliness and hygiene standards in Singapore.

After all, keeping our surroundings clean is about being thoughtful and considerate to those around us, and having our choices guided by an appreciation of our fellow citizens. These are the kind of values that our parents imparted to us and that we want to impart to our own children. All of us need to acknowledge the responsibility we have to each other to keep the place clean, so that we can continue to enjoy a clean and healthy environment.

Smoking is another area that requires everyone to play a part. As Er Dr Lee pointed out, we need to minimise the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke on non-smokers. Today, smoking is prohibited in most indoor public areas and on all public transport. Our long-term goal is to prohibit smoking in all public places except in designated smoking areas. We will implement this incrementally and consult the relevant stakeholders to address their concerns.

Last November, we conducted a public consultation exercise via a REACH e-poll. There was broad support for extending the smoking prohibition to places where non-smokers cannot reasonably avoid in their daily lives.

As Members can see [ _Aslide was shown to hon Members _ ], these are some of the common areas that the survey participants have fed back to us. These include common corridors, void decks and staircases within residential buildings, sheltered walkways and overhead bridges and outdoor hospital compounds. There was also support for a clearer demarcation of smoking and non-smoking areas. Taking in these views, we will extend the smoking ban to these areas in the coming year. We will also prohibit smoking within a 5-metre radius around bus shelters. Implementation details of the smoking prohibition will be refined in consultation with the community and building owners.

The Health Promotion Board also recently launched the Blue Ribbon movement in Singapore to recognise hawkers and communities that have voluntarily declared their premises to be smoke-free. Currently, Sir, 39 of our hawker centres are smoke-free. Ten of these centres are participating in the Blue Ribbon movement by committing to actively advocate for smoke-free premises and spread smoke-free messages to patrons. I hope the rest of the centres will follow suit, so that we can create the momentum for more centres to also become smoke-free. With the support of local stakeholders and agencies, we will also consider extending the smoking prohibition to selected parks and town centres.

Page: 2069

Community engagement and individual responsibility are very key to successful implementation as there is a limit to the resources we can commit to enforce a wider smoking prohibition. Going forward, with more areas gazetted as non-smoking, we will need clearer demarcation of areas where smoking is allowed, with everyone playing their part to observe the rules. Our aim, in collaboration with the Health Promotion Board, is to work towards a future where Singaporeans consider smoking not only detrimental to health, but also socially unacceptable.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked what we are doing to address the problem of midges in Bedok Reservoir. Chironomids, commonly known as "midges", are insects that breed in water bodies. Fortunately, although they look like mosquitoes, they neither bite nor spread disease. Nonetheless, as Mr Low has pointed out, we recognise they are a nuisance. Last year, Bedok Reservoir residents experienced two incidents of midge emergence, each lasting about four to six weeks. We worked with NParks and the Town Councils to mitigate the nuisance by fogging the surrounding area. Larvacide was also applied to the reservoir and around its edges to kill the larvae. We are monitoring the midge population in the reservoir and will step up control operations accordingly.

4.30 pm

Midge emergence is a complex issue which involves the biological and ecosystem balance of the reservoir. Since March last year, a joint PUB-NEA task force has been coordinating measures to tackle the incident. To help assess these measures and identify possible long-term solutions, we have commissioned external experts to undertake a deep study of the midges' behaviour.

Unlike nuisance like midge, vector borne diseases like dengue are not harmless, and we need to stay vigilant. Dengue has been a continuing threat to public health for several years. We have been successful in addressing this challenge. In 2011, there were a total of 5,330 cases, a decrease of 33 cases as compared to 2010, marking the fourth year we bucked the predicted rising trend of dengue. As there continues to be a possibility of a dengue serotype switch, I urge members of the public to conscientiously eliminate potential dengue breeding spots around your homes, such as flowerpots and roof gutters, at least once a week. Beyond our enforcement approach, NEA introduced a new "Homeowner Engagement" approach last November 2011, to provide free on-site advice to keep premises dengue-free.

Ultimately, how much we are able to enjoy our homes and neighbourhoods depends on how willing we are to make a personal commitment to keep them clean and pest-free. Government initiatives need to be complemented by support from the people and a strong sense of community pride. In the increasingly densely populated spaces we share, every thoughtless act has a significant impact on those around us. Conversely, behaving with consideration extends further than we imagine. We need to act responsibly, not just for ourselves, but for our community.

Page: 2070

Hawker Centres

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I am very happy to note the Minister's prompt decision to build 10 new hawker centres. May I ask the Minister where are these 10 new hawker centres? I hope to have one serving residents in Yishun. All my parliamentary colleagues in Nee Soon GRC have been asking for it. I would also like to ask the Minister if he can bring forward the building of these hawker centres instead of the 10-year timeframe? In view of the ever rising cost of cooked food, building it as soon as possible will be helpful to residents.

For these new hawker centres, I hope that there will be new design features to solve the common complaints about poor ventilation, stuffy on hot days, with birds and strays making forays on the left-over food. I also hope to see that there are designated areas for patrons to return their used utensils.

May I offer further suggestions − let the nearby residents have the priority of renting the stalls, for example, Nee Soon GRC residents to get priority in getting a stall in the hawker centre in Yishun. This will provide residents a workplace that is near their homes and hence save on transport. All potential stallholders should be screened and only stallholders who can cook and generally want to run a hawker stall are allowed to rent a stall; and, if possible, rent it at a subsidised rate instead of bidding at market rate. And why not bidding? My residents told me that a cup of kopi O costs only 50 to 60 cents in Ang Mo Kio, but the rest of the hawker centres charge 80 to 90 cents. So, it could be because those old hawker centres are having subsidised rental rate. I hope the Minister will consider all these suggestions.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, I want to thank the Minister for the decision to resume building hawker centres after a 26-year break, something many Members in this House have spoken about for many years. Judging from the very positive reaction from the public, we can see that this is what Singaporeans have wished for, for a long time. Indeed, the significant growth in our population and the high rentals of food stalls make this resumption to build new hawker centres a necessity.

The question next then is how many hawker centres to build and how fast to build them. There are two key issues here that need to be addressed − firstly, it is the under supply of affordable eateries in new estates as well as some of the more densely populated workplaces. Second, what is the effective model to run hawker centres that will eradicate high rental premiums and to keep food prices at affordable level?

Sir, building 10 new hawker centres in 10 years, to me, is just too few and too long. It will not be of sufficient scale and urgency to impact the overall market rentals and to keep food prices affordable. In my view, a more appropriate number and timeline should be to build 20 new hawkers centres in five years. This will not only address the under supply situation but also to allow us to build ahead of demand. Last year, HDB launched 25,000 new flats and will be launching another 25,000 units this year. So, there are clearly more dwelling units coming up in the next few years.

Sir, my idea of a new hawker centre is that it need not be a massive or grand structure. For those that are in neighbourhoods, we do not need hawker centres that are of the scale or size of the Maxwell Food Market or the Bukit Timah Hawker Centre. In fact, if the hawker centres are too big in neighbourhood locations where there are space constraints, it may result in parking and congestion problems. For neighbourhood hawker centres, I think an optimum size would be about 40 to 50 stalls. And we need more of such bite-sized hawker centres spread across more locations so that it is convenient and accessible to more residents.

Page: 2071

Sir, the new hawker centres should not cost too much to build or take too long to build. What residents want is a simple, practical and environmentally friendly centres that Singaporeans from all walks of life can enjoy their favourite food. So, let us keep our hawker centres as a low capital spending item as well as low cost to maintain, so that at the end of it all, what we want is the low cost end product, which is cheap-and-good food.

The public consultation panel recently shared their recommendations on the design and management of new hawker centres. How would these recommendations influence the building of new centres? Will the remaining new hawker centres be operating on the social enterprise model as the panel recommended? And will there be sufficient safeguards to prevent profiteering by the stallholders?

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Mr Chairman, Sir, our hawker centres serve food to the masses. Whether it is for breakfast, lunch or dinner, Singaporeans from all walks of life patronise these stalls regularly. For those in the lower income groups, hawker centres are an important part of their lives as they provide delicious, affordable food at convenient locations and save them the trouble of cooking as they rush about earning a living. Hence, it is important that we keep food prices at our hawker centres affordable and stable to help reduce the cost of living for Singaporeans.

May I ask the Ministry to consider fixing the food prices at these hawker centres? This measure can help to disincentivise operators from offering high premiums or "goodwill money" to take over the running of the stalls as the premiums paid for taking over will definitely be passed on to the consumer ultimately.

I would like to suggest that the Government directly control the rental of the stalls and phase out sub-letting. If the operator is no longer able to run the stall, it should be returned to the Government to lease out to another who can. The stall should not be sub-let out for the operator to earn rental income. This will ultimately be borne by the consumers.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, I am not asking for hawker centres. There are three in Mountbatten.

There are 107 hawker centres in Singapore. Some of the food stalls in these hawker centres have been given an "A" or "B" grade for hygiene. Nevertheless, several residents have given me feedback that some of these stalls do not practise proper food hygiene. Thus, do these grades really reflect the level of cleanliness at the stalls? Has there been any increase in food hygiene offences for the past year? Would NEA consider a different manner of grading the stalls to reflect the real level of hygiene and cleanliness?

Sir, within the hawker centres, the Hawker Association engages a cleaning company to clear the food waste and the utensils left on the tables by residents. During peak meal hours, the feedback is that these tables are frequently dirty and messy. The Hawker Association complains that they have no power to enforce collection of cleaning fees, and hence the level of cleanliness from the cleaning companies deteriorates. Would NEA consider taking over the cleaning of these hawker centres? They can be responsible for the collection of cleaning fees from the hawkers to pay to the cleaners.

Page: 2072

Sir, with the recent announcement of the 10 new hawker centres, the Hawker Centre Public Consultation Panel came up with some recommendations recently. Has NEA considered these proposals of the Public Consultation Panel to allow a social enterprise or a co-operative to manage the hawker centre? I can see merits in their proposal to allow opportunities for enterprising individuals to operate their own stalls. At the same time, their proposals also allow some degree of control to keep the costs of food prices affordable. When will NEA make its decision on the proposals?

Hawker Centre and Market at Pioneer SMC

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Sir, unlike Mr Lim, I am asking for a hawker centre. I would like to take this opportunity once again to request NEA to construct a hawker centre-cum-market to serve residents at Pioneer constituency. Being a relatively new estate, MND's policy so far has been that new estates would not be provided hawker centres or markets. However, both of these are institutions of Singapore. So, I am very heartened that this policy has been reviewed.

Such outlets provide a cheaper alternative for food when compared to air-conditioned food courts and supermarkets. In addition, they serve as wonderful congregation hubs to bring residents closer to one another.

It is also heartening to hear that there are plans to do away with the tendering out of stalls to the highest bidders and instead to run these centres as "cooperatives" or "social enterprises". Such a move presumably will keep prices down but I am not sure whether the hawkers will raise margins instead of passing on the lower cost. Will the Minister advise how this objective can be met?

Also, for these outlets to be successful, although it is very laudable to focus on the social objectives which are central, we should also be cognisant that hawker centres finally must sell good food where customers will come back again and again. So, they must also be successful enterprises.

In terms of design and "tenant mix", I would urge NEA not to be too prescriptive as local conditions differ from estate to estate and to allow the local community to be involved. For example, at Pioneer, there is a strong demand for fresh food stalls, like chilled meats, fish and vegetables, in addition to cooked food stalls. Finally, I would offer Pioneer Constituency as one of the first estates to try out this new concept. After all, we are known as "Pioneer".

Management of Hawker Centres

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, it seems to me that managing cleanliness in a hawker centre can be a complex matter, because there are different groups in charge of different pieces of the pie. While the Town Councils are responsible for cleanliness of the common areas, the responsibility for table cleaning usually lies with the stalls.

Page: 2073

It makes sense to have a specific cleaning contractor appointed to clean the tables. Does NEA have a standard policy as to how table cleaning is managed at hawker centres? Or are there different models in place at different food centres?

In a Parliamentary answer on 9 January this year, the Ministry had indicated it would work with the relevant hawkers' association and Town Council with regard to hawker centre cleanliness. Would it be better for NEA to manage the table cleaning contractor directly, for better control and efficiency?

Hawker Centres and Wet Markets

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Sir, hawker centres are food and social icons of Singapore. Many Singaporeans and tourists enjoy the cheap, good food provided at the 107 hawker centres in Singapore. In HDB heartlands, many hawker centres serve as gathering places for residents to meet and interact with one another.

Sir, over the years, the management of hawker centres by NEA has changed to be more market-driven. To date, some hawker stalls are sold while others are rented out at market rate. These arrangements have increased the rental and cost of running hawker stalls, resulting in an increase of hawker food prices. This situation is further aggravated by the policy to stop building hawker centres, and allowing assignment and sub-letting of the stalls. Many HDB eating houses were let to competitive tender at high prices to companies which, in turn, sub-let to eating house operators who ultimately rent out the stalls at high rental. As a result, the stallholders have no choice but to sell food at higher prices. Residents in housing estates do not have much choice but to patronise these eating houses in their neighbourhood.

4.45 pm

Sir, I am pleased that Bukit Panjang Constituency will have the first hawker centre built after 27 years, although we are not called "Pioneer"! But I am concerned whether the business operating model of the hawker centre will bring cheap and good food to my residents. I wish to ask the Minister the following questions: (1) What are the long-term plans of the Ministry to make cooked food and uncooked food competitive and affordable in hawker centres and wet markets? and (2) What is the business operating model of the new generation of hawker centres and wet markets?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: ( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 2125-2126 for Vernacular Speeches.] Hawker centres were originally built to improve on public hygiene and resettle street hawkers. Today, they have become an indispensible part of every Singaporean's life. Not only do they provide a source of affordable food for our three meals, but they are also synonymous with many of our signature local dishes. Hawker centres are also a focal point of the neighbourhood and a community space for all to interact, regardless of age, race, religion or background. As such, following the October 2011 announcement to build 10 new hawker centres in the next 10 years, there has been an enthusiastic response from the public. The public has expressed particular interest in the location and completion date of the new centres, food price affordability and hygiene standards.

Since the end of last year, my Ministry has been reviewing our hawker centre management policies with people − the public and the stallholders – as our top priority. In November last year, industry professionals across various fields were invited to form the Public Consultation Panel to deliberate on the management, design and vibrancy of these new hawker centres. They recently shared their recommendations and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Panel for their efforts and their valuable suggestions.

Page: 2074

While we are still in the process of reviewing our policies, I would like to provide an initial update of our progress. First and foremost, the location and completion date of the new hawker centres has been a subject of interest. We have identified seven towns where new hawker centres will be located. These are Bukit Panjang, Yishun, Pasir Ris, Jurong West, Admiralty, Tampines and Punggol. Mr Cedric Foo has requested that a hawker centre be built in the Pioneer SMC. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Liang Eng Hwa have called for the Government to speed up the pace of development to meet the community's needs. We estimate that within the next five years, these hawker centres will be completed and able to serve the community. The centre to be built in Jurong West will be adjacent to Pioneer SMC, and can serve its residents. My Ministry will continue to work closely with the relevant Government agencies to identify suitable sites in other towns to build more new hawker centres, should there be a need.

Second, food price affordability in our hawker centres is an issue which members of the public and various MPs are concerned about. Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have shared some valuable suggestions. The 10 new hawker centres are expected to add about 600 hawker stalls to the market, which will help better meet the demand for stalls and moderate stall rentals. The new stalls will provide residents with more choices and in so doing, ensure food prices remain affordable. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested fixing prices that stallholders can charge as a way to ensure affordability. In determining the price for his food, a hawker has to consider many factors. These include stall rental, utilities, labour and raw materials. These factors differ from hawker to hawker, depending on the type of food they sell. If the Government were to fix prices, this would limit stallholders' income and affect their livelihood.

Mr Gan and Er Dr Lee also suggested that the Government control the sub-letting of stalls to reduce speculation which could raise rentals. This suggestion is aligned with the Panel's recommendations. Hawker stalls were set up to provide an opportunity for Singaporeans to run their own small business. As such, we agree that stalls should be personally run, and should not be used for profiteering. I would like to announce that for all new stallholders, full-day subletting and assignment will not be allowed from 1 April this year. Existing stallholders will have a three-year grace period to adjust to these new conditions. Controlling the sub-letting and assignment of stalls will help to stabilise rentals, reduce costs for stallholders and achieve our objective of food price affordability.

The Panel had suggested that operating hours of hawker centres be extended, which would not only meet residents' dining needs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but would also improve the vibrancy and viability of hawker centres. We recognise it is not easy for a stallholder to operate a stall by himself or herself for all three meals. As such, from 1 April, we have decided to permit joint tenancies and do away with the requirement that each stall can only have a single tenant. We will also not set a reserve rent when tendering out vacant stalls. This means that even if the bidding price is below market price, we will allocate the vacant stall to the highest bidder, as long as there are competitive bids. Taken together, we hope that these measures will help to moderate costs in running a hawker stall, and maintain food price affordability.

Page: 2075

Third, high standards of hygiene from our stallholders and hawker centres are key. Since 2002, NEA has been using the grading system to assess the hygiene of stalls, and the proportion of "A" and "B" graded food outlets and hawker stalls has increased steadily from 58% in 2002 to 95% last year. On the whole, there has been an overall improvement in Singapore's food hygiene standards in the past decade. To further raise the food hygiene standards, my Ministry intends to publish more detailed up-to-date information on the hygiene lapses of food operators from June 2012. Beyond the track records of food caterers which are already available online, this will include other food operators, including hawker stalls, and enable Singaporeans to make more informed dining choices. From June, we will also enhance our food grading system by adjusting the grading in a timely manner following any verified food poisoning incidents.

We will also draw on the Panel's recommendations on design, to provide tray return facilities in our new hawker centres. The Panel has also provided a number of infrastructure and design-related suggestions which we will consider and put in place to improve the ventilation and comfort of our hawker centres.

Both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked if the Government could consider taking over the cleaning of hawker centres. Under NEA's regulations, all cooked food stallholders are required to maintain a proper system of crockery removal. At present, many stallholders rely on Hawkers Associations to help engage table-cleaning services on their behalf. My Ministry will consider the feasibility of NEA taking over this function from the Hawkers Association. In the meantime, NEA will work closely with Hawkers Associations to ensure that high standards of cleanliness are maintained.

( In English ): My Ministry has also been asking fundamental questions on whether we can adopt alternative hawker centre management models. In their recommendations, the Panel proposed that a social enterprise or co-operative manage the new hawker centres. We are keen to explore this suggestion. Under such a model, the operator can consider Mr Lim's and Assoc Prof Fatimah's suggestion to set aside stalls for the lower income and special needs persons to set up low-cost businesses. We are currently assessing the suitability of different management models. But regardless of the management model adopted, the key social objectives of hawker centres of affordability, cleanliness and vibrancy will be maintained. And as Mr Gan has so aptly described earlier on, residents want delicious, affordable food at convenient locations – a very simple request but very important ones that the hawker centres will serve.

Besides operating stalls, as highlighted by Mdm Halimah in her Budget speech, Dewi (the Women's Wing of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry) has put forth a proposal to allow for home-based catering as a source of income for needy individuals. My Ministry will study this closely with HDB, URA and AVA.

In the year ahead, we will be consulting closely with members and grassroots on the new centres that will be built. As Mr Foo has suggested, this is something that we should get the local community involved, they should have a say in the tenant mix and the design, so that is something they will do for the Jurong West centre for Pioneer constituents. Their design and development should be informed by the views of the people they will serve as hawker centres are more than just places for affordable food. They are also important common spaces that cultivate the sense of community upon which environmental stewardship depends. Like schools, parks, playgrounds and community centres, they are places where Singaporeans from different walks of life encounter one another, share the same space and experience things together. As lively public spaces, they can make our society stronger, and grow the connections that Singaporeans feel for each other, for their neighbourhoods and their environment. They are a necessary part of a city that is inclusive and makes room for everyone.

Page: 2076

Climate Change and Intense Rainfall

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, I am sure I am not alone in having this feeling that the rainfall that we have experienced these days in our little island is more intense and more frequent. In the last six months, sudden heavy downpour with thunder and lightning seems to be frequent occurrences. Anecdotally, I am also experiencing more wet weather programmes in my community activities and events. I am sure some of you feel the same. Singapore is not alone in experiencing this intense rainfall. Many of our neighbouring countries like Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, are also experiencing damaging floods that lasted for months.

Sir, there could be many factors contributing to the increased frequency of flooding in Singapore. So, I would like to ask the Minister: are the recent bouts of intense rainfall linked to climate change and what is the Government doing to understand this phenomenon? Given the complexity of climate and weather, how do we ensure that our efforts are properly directed?

5.00 pm

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong, can I invite you to take both your cuts together, please?

Flooding

Mr Charles Chong (Joo Chiat): Mr Chairman, Sir, the expert panel on drainage design and flood protection measures released its report, setting out key findings and recommendations in January this year. The recommendations of the panel were wide-ranging and addressed improvements which could be made in Singapore's flood prevention efforts from very many perspectives. It is certainly a very comprehensive report and one, which will lay the groundwork for our next generation of flood protection.

The Government has accepted the recommendations of the expert panel and has since announced further investments into flood protection mechanisms. As it has been about a month since the Government announced that it was accepting these recommendations, could the Minister provide an update on PUB's response and whether any more concrete plans have been formulated to implement these recommendations? Could the Minister also provide an update on the enhancements to how flash flood information is disseminated to the public including, as previously announced, CCTV footage on PUB's website? And could the Minister also provide some data on flash flood alerts in terms of how accurate the information eventually turned out to be and the incidence of false alarms?

Page: 2077

One would understand if PUB tended to err on the side of caution in forecasting flash floods. But this must be balanced against the need to avoid causing undue alarm amongst the general public. Finally, could the Minister also comment on whether there are any plans to require buildings in flood-prone areas with basement car parks to construct automatic flood defence mechanisms to avoid damage being caused to vehicles by flood waters, especially when heavy rains occur at night?

Water Supply

For my next cut, Mr Chairman, under the current projections by MEWR, Singapore will only be completely self-sufficient in terms of water supply around the time that the 1962 Water Agreement with Malaysia expires, that is, by 2061. While NEWater and desalinated water will form a proportionately larger part of our water supply over the next 50 years, we are still some way off from being completely water self-sufficient. The Minister has recently said that droughts are more worrying than flash floods. Now clearly, being in our position, having any sort of weather change could affect our ability to provide for our own water, which is something which we should be very concerned about. Could the Minister therefore provide some insights into what Singapore is doing to enhance the resilience of our supply against the likelihood of extreme weather patterns? And given that we are an island with easy access to sea water for desalination, are we looking at investing more resources to identify and develop more cost-effective desalination technology for our water supply?

For example, I understand that electro-chemical technology was being tested to desalt water with testing scheduled to have ended in 2011. I also understand that low-temperature evaporation technology was being evaluated as an alternative means of desalting sea water. Could the Minister please provide an update as to the results of these studies? And finally, I understand that a few sites along our coastline have been identified for future desalination plants, in addition to the one in Tuas. But has any progress been made on constructing these new plants?

End of 2011 Water Agreement

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The cut on the 2011 Water Agreement. According to the PUB, Singapore's water supply comes from four taps: local catchment, desalination, NEWater and water from Malaysia. There has been some concern expressed about the greater fear of droughts as opposed to flash floods. I would like the Minister to clarify the situation affecting our water resources in view of the recently lapsed 2011 Water Agreement with Malaysia. More specifically, has the water supply, previously provided by the 2011 Water Agreement, been completely replaced by one or more those taps? Would the Minister also update the public on the current and future water situation, specifically how much the desalination, NEWater and local catchment taps, each provides as a percentage of the overall water supply? In addition, and with the respect to current patterns of water consumption and projections, what future population size can our four taps of water actually accommodate?

Charges on Water Consumption

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Chairman, Sir, all of us can appreciate the importance of water conservation especially in a place like Singapore. However, I am of the view that the Government has over-taxed Singapore households for water consumption. Besides charging water consumption by block, the Government also imposes a water conservation tax, a sanitary appliance fee and a waterborne fee. While it is important to discourage excessive water consumption, the Government should not take the punitive approach or slapping households with heavy tax measures, given that water is an essential commodity in every household.

Page: 2078

According to the Government, the water conservation tax is to reinforce the water conservation message. However, charges for consumption are already based on block usage; households using more than 40 cubic metres a month are charged a much higher tariff. Is this not enough to reinforce the message of water conservation? The sanitary appliance fee and waterborne fee are to offset the costs of treating used water and for the operation and maintenance of the public sewage system. With the advent of NEWater, the whole public sewage system is now part of operation for producing NEWater. This is now a source of income for the PUB which resells the clean water to households.

With this development, is it fair to continue charging households the same fee? Should the Government not review the fees charged? Finally, we also have an issue of a tax-on-tax. Households have to pay GST for the water conservation tax. That is not right to further tax the people on the taxes they pay. I urge the Government to consider removing the water conservation tax and reduce the fees imposed on domestic water consumption to help lower the cost of living for Singaporeans.

Active, Beautiful, Clean (ABC) Waters Programme

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Chairman, Sir, a man does not exist in a vacuum. We live within an environment and we either learn to love that environment and take good care of it, or we will live to regret it when it comes back to haunt us individually and as a community. There are two things that we need to do about the environment: one, for the negative things that are happening such as littering, then all the measure that we need to take to contain it. But I would like to say that it is equally important for us to look on the upside of things and to say what more can we do to exploit our environment to the advantage of our community. And here I refer to the Active, Beautiful and Clean Waters Programme that has been a key programme of the MEWR in Budgets and COS past. Under this programme, we look at water bodies within Singapore, and we look at it as more than just providing for our consumption and sustenance but to develop it and to expand it and overcome a constraint in terms of possibilities for us to use; for population to enjoy Singapore, not only on land but also on the water. And in this regard, much effort, I believe, has been put into implementing projects under the ABC Waters Programme.

Over the last year, we also know that resources have also been directed towards flood alleviation and so on. So, I would like to ask the Ministry for assurance that notwithstanding the attention paid to flood alleviation and resilience building, that the attention paid to the ABC Waters Programme will continue and that the commitment to build those 100 projects will be fulfilled. And in this regard, I would also like to ask specifically with regard to the Whampoa River, which is within my constituency. I thank the Government for picking it as one of the 100 projects, and I would like to ask for the status of that and whether or not, we will see it being implemented soon.

Page: 2079

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, like Mr Heng, I would like to enquire about the ABC Waters projects. A number of such water projects have been completed over the last few years and my constituency has been a beneficiary of one of these projects at the Alexandra Canal. The programme has increased and improved the community space available. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, looking ahead, what the public can expect in terms of projects in the pipeline?

Energy Efficiency

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, rising affluence in Singapore households has also resulted in the purchase of more electrical appliances such as plasma TV, high performance hi-fi stereo system, water heater, side-by-side refrigerator, and multi-split air-conditioning system. These additional and high performance appliances have increased demand for electricity in many households.

Sir, promoting the use of energy-efficient electrical appliances is one effective way of conserving energy and reducing our carbon footprint. Therefore, the Government must implement Industry legislation and consumer education to achieve the desired outcome of having energy-efficient appliances in households. Sir, I support the implementation of the Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) for household air-conditioners and refrigerators in September 2011. I would urge the Ministry to extend MEPS to water heaters, lightings, and other electrical appliances so that consumers can purchase more energy-efficient appliances in the future.

Sir, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions: first, which policies and incentives are effective in promoting energy efficiency among various stakeholders in our built environment? Two, what are the plans of the Ministry to promote ownership among households to save energy?

Air Pollution

Mr Charles Chong: Mr Chairman, Sir, as mentioned earlier by Senior Minister of State Grace Fu, Singapore's overall air quality has generally been rated good. There are, as everyone knows, periods in which our PSI readings may creep to the moderate or even unhealthy levels. Fortunately, we do not cross into this unhealthy territory very often. While updated PSI figures are always available on NEA's website, one of the more worrying components of air pollution – particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5) is not measured by PSI. Instead the PSI measures larger particulate matter of PM 10. PM 2.5 has the potential to have far more serious health implications than PM 10.

Could the Minister provide a comparison of how our overall PM 2.5 levels compare with international standards? Some reports I have read have indicated that our readings in Singapore exceed those being accepted as being safe by both the World Health Organization as well as the United States Environmental Protection Agency. And one of the major components of air pollution in Singapore is sulphur dioxide. There are significant amounts of sulphur dioxide emitted by oil refineries as well as by our power stations and ships. Could the Minister please let us know if there are any plans to decrease the amounts of sulphur dioxide emissions permitted by these major contributors? Could the Minister also provide some further information as to how the other main components of air pollution in Singapore? Could the Minister please also set out MEWR's long-term plans to improve air quality especially in areas where international standards have not been met, such as PM 2.5 levels? And could the Minister please also inform us as to how long, as to the long-term targets for PM 2.5 and sulphur dioxide and other pollutant levels, and when are we expected to meet these targets?

Page: 2080

Finally, although PSI has been used in Singapore for a very long time and Singaporeans are familiar with the Index, given that PSI does not provide indications as to the levels of smaller particulate matter, which may enter a person's blood circulation, is there any intention, either to adjust the PSI, to take into consideration PM 2.5 or, alternatively, to adopt a different index which will provide members of the public with details about the components of air pollution?

Environmentally-friendly National Events

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, according to the World Wildlife Fund which released its report yesterday, Singapore had the largest carbon footprint per person in the Asia-Pacific region in 2010. I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider making public events in Singapore greener. For example, I recall that at the last Year End Countdown party, which is into its seventh year, there were 20,000 plastic wishing spheres, which were set afloat in Marina Bay. It was indeed a spectacular visual arts display. I hope the spheres were picked up and recycled. There was also a Countdown fireworks set off from the octagonal-shaped pontoons. Another "stunning pyrotechnic display" as the organisers promised. But, again, what is the cost in economic and environmental terms?

5.15 pm

If our public events are wasteful and have a high carbon footprint, it betrays the fact that we do not take environmental issues seriously. There is no harm, but much good, to be gained from a careful redesign of how we celebrate as a nation.

In this respect, I think the annual Clean and Green week would be a good national event to start this drive. I have said it before in the last COS, I want to say it again, it is said in the past that some events can be "carbon neutral" – some companies for example, ask their staff to donate a certain amount to plant trees to offset the carbon emitted when they take airplanes. Can the Minister come up with a set of KPIs for green public events? What measures can be taken to mitigate the impact on the environment?

In fact, can we get all Ministries to declare the amount of waste generated for each major national event that is being organised and work towards reducing this volume of waste with each year?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Adopting the 3P Approach to Challenges

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Ten years ago, MEWR recognised that Singapore's environmental sustainability will suffer irreversibly if the Ministry does not have a strong focus on the environment, and if it does not get every citizen, every resident on board. As a result, the Singapore Green Plan 2012 was launched in 2002, and it has got a very strong 3P approach – involving the people, the private and the public sector. The idea then was not just to tell people what to do, but to provide sufficient information and alternatives, with a combination of carrots and sticks, to let people decide on their needs and priorities, and take charge.

Page: 2081

Today, we see its policy effects, with many green environment-related interest groups mushrooming on a whole range of issues. Ten years on, could MEWR share with this House, what are the lessons learnt from this approach, the hits and misses, and whether it has created a framework to ensure the effective collaboration amongst the 3Ps, and hopefully, beyond that of just environment-related issues?

In fact, could the Minister also update us on the progress of the six focus areas being: (i) air and climate change; (ii) water; (iii) waste management; (iv) nature; (v) public health; and (vi) international environmental relations. Further, could the Minister also enlighten us on what is beyond the 2012 Green Plans?

Sir, feedback also has it that while the people sector has increased its ground up activities, many of these groups are either directly or indirectly initiated by the Government. These organisations tend to be better funded, have lots of facilitation and goodwill from the public sector, which enable them to attract good people and grow. While all initiatives are welcomed, I hope that the Government will also level the playing field for those who are genuine ground up initiatives. Very often, these organisations do not get the same facilitation or funding or demand for their works, even though they are more passionate and no less effective than the Government-initiated NPOs.

Moreover, many do not survive because they tend to be self-funded from the founders' pockets and that limits its growth and its scope in many ways. My question, therefore, is how does the Government intend or not, to work with such NPOs and help them to grow? And even better, how can the Government encourage collaborations amongst the various types of NPOs, so that they can share knowledge and expertise, and streamline their value chain? And in addition, how can the Government encourage the private sector to play a bigger role, beyond that of being technology or products partners, beyond that of being a sponsor, to becoming a true partner and collaborate with the people sector?

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank Members of the House for their questions and their suggestions. I think by now it should be clear to all of you that there are three broad themes behind all of MEWR's programmes. First, to ensure that we continue to have a very high quality of life in Singapore; second, to do our part in an inclusive society, in particular, meaning, to always leave a low cost option on the table and also provide opportunities for fair wages and good jobs; and third, to make sure that we have a sustainable future.

Let me summarise our position as far as these three themes are concerned. First, on quality of life, many Members have mentioned the absolute importance of maintaining our reputation for cleanliness. Senior Minister of State Grace Fu has explained what we are doing. Basically to summarise: by having an integrated cleaning agency that will be in charge of all public areas. It will take on the contracts of all the multiple agencies that currently do the job. So, you only need one number, one contact point. Secondly, to increase and step up enforcement. And Members have asked for videos and evidence and the rest of it, and we will certainly use the latest technology in order to take enforcement actions against killer litter and other types of anti-social behaviours. Thirdly, to also promote public activism – the sort that Miss Penny Low has referred to – because we need all Singaporeans to become part of the solution, to jealously guard our cleanliness.

Page: 2082

On hawker centres, I am glad that this has been welcomed not only by all members in this House but indeed many; I think I can say, practically all Singaporeans out there. And I want to assure Singaporeans that we will continue to make sure that we focus our top priority on ensuring that it is cheap, it is good and it is clean. Everything else would be a "nice to have", would be a frill but let us focus on making sure these key priorities: cheap, good and clean.

Similarly, when we talk about cleaners, I would like to make this commitment – that it is time that the wages of cleaners go up. And therefore we need to redesign jobs and we need to improve their productivity so that we can give them a fair wage. And at the same time, while some of that increase must filter back into prices; that firstly, people will accept that this is fair; and secondly, because we redesigned our processes, it does not necessarily lead to a sudden big jump in prices. But for a long while, we in Singapore have enjoyed First World living and paid very little relatively for human services because they have been getting Third World wages. So, in the name of an inclusive budget, this is the change that must come about and I hope Members of this House will support that.

Let me now move on to the question of a sustainable future. Now, Singapore has enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as a Clean and Green city in a garden – a working model of the sustainable city of the future. Now, this is not just a matter of national pride, but indeed a source of competitive advantage. And this is even more important now because we live in a world with seven billion people, and for the first time in human history, more than half of humanity lives in cities. Therefore, the way we structure and organise ourselves, and the way we create a sustainable city for the future, will be a source of competitive advantage and will give us many opportunities for the future.

So, I say this so that you understand that our current environmental excellence was not achieved overnight but indeed over five decades, way before it was fashionable, Mr Lee Kuan Yew embarked on a clean and green Singapore − planted trees; made sure we did not pollute the air that we breathe and insisted on clean and safe water. And of course the iconic project was the 10-year clean up of the Singapore River, which was formerly an open sewer. Most of us in this House would still remember the pungent aroma of the Singapore River. Today, Marina Bay is an icon, a magnet for the world in the midst of our new downtown. The audacity, the ambition and the scale of that project transformed Singapore and, in fact, has defined Singapore. I say this because we need to remember that we have to make sure we do not lose this pole position that we have. And we have to continue to make the necessary investments and to take the long-term horizons that these sorts of plans require.

One of the key uncertainties when you are taking a 50-year time frame is obviously climate change. Mr Liang Eng Hwa has asked how we are preparing for this and he has referred to his own anecdotal experiences with having wet weather programmes, having to be invoked more often than it was in the past. Well, it is not just anecdotes – we have looked at 30-year data from the Meteorological Service and it has shown that the intensity and the frequency of high intensity rainfall have increased over the past 30 years.

Page: 2083

Climate change, whether you believe in it or not, is going to be another confounding factor. And in the case of Singapore, what it does mean is that it will increase the intensity and the frequency of such extreme weather events and we have to prepare for it. We have to make sure our infrastructure is ready and you cannot wait for a disaster to occur; you have got to prepare years or decades in advance. And one of the problems with climate change and the difficulty overseas is that there is too much politics in climate change and not enough science. In the case for Singapore, we intend to approach it from a strictly scientific point of view.

One of the things which we are establishing is the Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) this year which will run high-resolution regional climate models. This will allow us to generate long-term projections of rainfall, temperature, wind and sea-level in Singapore over the next 50 to 100 years. The Centre will also undertake research on the complex weather systems which affect Singapore and the region, such as the severe tropical thunderstorms. Those of you who were looking out of the windows yesterday morning will have seen a very dark cloud – a Sumatran squall moving across from west to the east. And these types of events we think will increase and we need to understand the mechanics behind it in order to make sensible predictions and plans to deal with it. The CCRS will also build up its capability by leveraging on existing research partnerships and linkages with both local and international experts and organisations, such as the UK Met Office Hadley Centre.

Last year, we appointed an Expert Panel to review our drainage and flood protection measures. The Panel concluded its review and shared its recommendations. I am glad to inform Mr Charles Chong who is now Chairman of the COS, that we have accepted the recommendations of the panel, and we will implement a comprehensive plan to strengthen Singapore's flood resilience. This plan will cover the full spectrum of the drainage system: it will enhance the design and also impose tighter regulatory standards; it will explore new engineering solutions as well as improve the accuracy of flood risk assessments. The implementation of this plan has commenced, so for instance, by the end of the year, we will have a high resolution digital elevation map for the Marina Catchment area. This will enable us to carry out 3-dimensional modelling of the catchment and it will in turn allow us to engage in more accurate flood risk maps and to provide catchment-specific flood management solutions. For Stamford Canal in particular, whilst the long-term measures such as the diversion canal or detention ponds are being considered, work is already underway within the canal itself in order to increase its flow capacity.

We will also have to extend the inter-agency collaboration on drainage infrastructure and to focus on non-traditional measures, such as minimising urban surface runoff generated by new developments. And we will continue to engage the various professional bodies such as the Institute of Engineers, Singapore − which I believe Er Dr Lee is the past President of − the Association of Consulting Engineers of Singapore, and all the other relevant professional groups.

I would like to assure Mr Chong that my Ministry will do our best and we will make all the necessary long-term investments into the drainage system. Over the next five years, we will invest in at least 20 new drainage infrastructural projects in order to achieve a higher level of flood protection across the entire island. And I also want to give this House the assurance that we will do so but with a very keen eye on the bottom line, and we will make sure that these investments are cost-effective, and we will also adjust the plan as the situation evolves.

Page: 2084

Let me also say, quite candidly, given the complexity of the weather systems and the uncertainty in the future, it is not possible for any Minister for Water Resources to guarantee that floods will never recur. We will therefore have to take the approach of taking all reasonable and cost-effective measures to prevent and to mitigate the impact of floods in Singapore. This means not just drains but also looking at the protection of local buildings. I think a Member had recommended just now about making sure that basement car parks have flood protection barriers. These will be imposed through regulatory standards.

5.30 pm

But another key element of this strategy is transparency. We will make all the data from all our sensors available in real time – so that the public can be kept fully informed of the situation in real time and can take the necessary precautions. It will also be an avenue for more stakeholders to generate innovative solutions. That is why you may have noticed that whenever there is a heavy storm, there is literally a flood of SMS alerts; a flood of tweets from drain sensors; and updates on social media platforms. Eventually, we will put all the real-time closed-circuit television images available on websites and for the public to access. So, remember, it is about keeping the public informed, being transparent and honest, and providing new avenues for innovative solutions, so that everyone can have a chance to become part of the solution, rather than just to complain about the problem.

Whilst flood management is an urgent task, the longer term concern of my Ministry has to be the resilience and security of our water supply. This has been our abiding strategic obsession since Independence. I think we are perhaps the only nation in the world whose Independence documents have as an annex to it, water agreements, and water agreements which we have lodged with the United Nations. This gives you an idea of how central it is to our Independence, our survival, and our viability. It will also give you an idea of what a long-time horizon we take. We look in terms of 50 years and 100 years.

Sir, I have some slides and I think they have been distributed to all Members. I can take Members through and give an update on our current integrated water system [ _Aslide was shown to hon Members _ ].

We have Four Taps. The first tap that you see is imported water from Johor. You all know that it is a matter of public record that we have the right to draw 250 million gallons a day from Johor. What most people in Singapore do not realise is that the catchment area for the Johor River (reservoir), which supplies half our water, is twice the size of Singapore. I say that so that you understand what we are dealing with, and the vulnerability and preciousness with which we have to treat water in Singapore.

The second tap is our local catchment. As you will recall, we now have 17 reservoirs, and we have now made two-thirds of our island a water catchment area. What that means is that we have increased our local water catchment, and that is also one reason why we could allow the first agreement – which was 1961, not 2011 − to lapse last year; because we have enough in our current menu of choices. The latest two reservoirs, the Punggol and Serangoon reservoirs, were commissioned last year. And that, together with Marina Reservoir, has led to our current situation where we have, given current circumstances, maximised our water catchment area. But that is not enough. I have told PUB that we need to expand our water catchment area until we cover all meaningful land areas in Singapore. Now, that poses a special challenge because it means we have to ensure that the quality of water drawn from all the catchments, or literally, from all land in Singapore, is suitable for treatment to potable standards, and eventually through your tap, to end up as a glass of water for you to drink or to make formula milk with.

Page: 2085

You think about that: every drain in Singapore leads to your tap. That requires obsessive environmental engineering, enforcement, monitoring, cooperation and community ownership by every single Singaporean. And we have to make sure that all activities on our island do not pollute our reservoirs, and we have to regularly update the processes in our six waterworks. If you look at the chart, as it evolves, apart from desalinated water, which I will explain more on, and NEWater, you will notice we have 17 reservoirs and we have seven treatment plants – six in Singapore and one in Johor.

As Mr Chong pointed out just now, because of variability in weather and the fact, therefore, that we cannot assume we will always have surface water available, we have had to increase the resilience of our water supply by expanding rainfall-independent sources, that is, basically the other two taps − desalinated water and NEWater. The construction of our second desalination plant in Tuas commenced last year and will be ready next year. When that is ready, we will have a capacity of 100 million gallons per day of desalinated water. In the longer term, we will also have to increase our capacity for NEWater. Currently, it stands at about 120 million gallons per day. We will have to step that up progressively over the next decade or two. In the long run, by 2061, we expect that desalination will provide about 30% of our water needs and NEWater will provide 50% of our water needs. This means that we will still be dependent on surface water for the remaining 20%.

Mr Charles Chong asked about electro-chemical desalting and Memstill. These are new technologies which are still in evaluation. The results are not in yet, but I assure you that we will, in Singapore, always be amongst the first to test whatever is new. In particular, what we are looking for is lower energy expenditure in order to produce fresh water. The key thing that has changed in the last 10 years, with the advent of membrane technology, is that now water per se is not the limiting factor. It is energy. As long as you have energy, you can produce water good enough to drink, and water good enough for consumption. So Mr Pritam Singh's question about maximum population size − if you had asked that question 10 years ago − water would have been a limiting factor. Today, water is not the rate-limiting factor. There are other rate-limiting factors for population size, but I do not intend to go into that now.

We need to continue to make investments to build up all these Four National Taps and we need to improve the security, the diversity and the resilience of our water supply, and it has to survive 50 years and beyond because we are planning for 2061. From these Four National Taps – from the seven water treatment plants, the water goes to 14 service reservoirs. These are usually reservoirs on high land because from there, it gravitates down to the 1.3 million premises, about 1.1 million or 1.2 million households where people live, and the other 100,000 or 200,000 of commercial premises. You will notice that I have put down high-level water tanks. All of you here have HDB blocks to look after. On top of every HDB block, there are between three and five high-level water tanks, and so there are 54,000 high-level water tanks. I have put all these so that you understand that high-level water tanks in HDB blocks are a critical piece of national infrastructure. Although the Town Councils are in charge of maintaining and looking after them and ensuring security, this is a national project. If I can move on to another slide, I want to also point out that we now have a closed water loop. That means after water is used, it goes into our sewers, and mind you, we have 3,400 kilometres of sewers and also a deep tunnel sewerage system, 50 metres deep into the ground, which ultimately leads to our water reclamation plants, and then it is treated. First, we have to treat it to the level where it is fit for discharge into the sea. Then, another separate pre-treatment and reverse osmosis is needed to make it suitable for use, for potable or, in our case, indirect potable use.

Page: 2086

I have spent some time going through all this because I wanted to address Mr Low's question. His question basically was: are we overcharging for water? Well, this entire chart which I have put up here, our plan for a 50-year safe, secure, resilient supply of water for our country does not come cheap. If you look at the annual report of PUB − which has been laid on the Table, so all Members should have access to it − it costs us basically $1.3 billion a year to run the system that you see. Can it be done cheaper? Of course, it can be cheaper, and you can cut corners and not be so worried about future reliability. But this is what it costs. Mr Low asked about the charges. Again, if you look at the annual report, for the sale of water (that is, water tariffs), for the financial year that ended March 2011, PUB collected $674 million. For the waterborne fee and the sanitary appliance fee, it collected about $327 million. You can do a quick arithmetic. You know that is nowhere near $1.3 billion. Even if you add the water conservation tax, you still do not reach $1.3 billion. So, the point is, we are not overcharging for water as far as funding the system which we have.

In fact, we are right here in the Budget debate, because my Ministry, and in particular PUB, is asking Parliament to approve an operating expenditure of $224 million and another $400 million of development expenditure for PUB because we need to continue investing in the system. So, I want to give the assurance to Mr Low and to all Singaporeans that we are not profiteering or overcharging for water. If you want to lower the prices further, you can, but it just means we have to come back to Parliament and ask for more tax revenue.

But I think it is very important for us to understand that we have to right-price water. The Water Conservation Tax is a signal to remind all of us that water is precious, it is a scarce commodity and, indeed, our nation's survival and viability depends on it. So please do not waste it. I did consider consolidating the sanitary appliance fee and the waterborne fee, as Mr Low suggested, to make it all a volumetric charge. But because this year's Budget's theme was "An Inclusive Society", when I tried to merge the sanitary appliance fee and the waterborne fee into a single volumetric charge, I realised that would mean charging smaller households more. In a sense, the larger households with more toilets would get a bigger discount. I did not think that was right for this year's climate, so I decided we would not change the two. But I give you the assurance that the combination of the waterborne fee and sanitary appliance fee is still less than the cost of treating used water. I would also like to confirm for this year that there will be no change to water tariffs and water charges, because I am assuming that Parliament will approve the Budget and give PUB the additional tax dollars that it needs in order to continue investing in the water system.

Page: 2087

Having said that, I am also glad to report that our water consumption in the domestic sector has actually been coming down. Our per capita consumption has come down from 165 litres per day in 2003 to 153 litres per day in 2011. Since the introduction of the Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme in 2009, the number of water-efficient products with a minimum one-tick rating has increased from 852 to 7,600. PUB will continue to reach out to the public and we will continue to run our annual Water Conservation Awareness Programmes.

5.45 pm

Let me now turn to energy, since I have told you that in the future, energy equals water. Dr Teo asked what we are doing to promote energy efficiency among our stakeholders. I agree with him that the public sector has to lead by example. So, for instance, public sector agencies are required to conduct energy audits of their large buildings and to implement cost-effective energy efficiency measures in order to reduce our consumption.

In the industry and transport sectors, energy management practices will be mandatory for large users from 2013 under the Energy Conservation Act, which I will be taking through Parliament later this year. We will offer assistance to companies to improve their energy efficiency by appropriate design, building energy management capabilities and investing in new technologies. We have a scheme called the Grant for Energy Efficient Technologies. So far, NEA has approved about 30 projects worth $65 million by 27 companies. This is supposed to generate about $163 million in cost savings over the lifespan of the equipment.

To further moderate energy consumption in households, we have the Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) which I am glad that Dr Teo has supported. So far, this has been implemented for refrigerators and air conditioners, and it basically works by removing inefficient models from the market, therefore we avoid consumers being locked into high operating cost of running inefficient appliances. We will be further tightening the energy performance standards for household air conditioners and refrigerators by the end of 2013. The same Minimum Energy Performance Standards will also be extended to general lighting by 2014 and we will consider extending this scheme to other appliances, such as televisions, in the future.

Let me now turn to better air quality. The major sources of air pollution in Singapore are the oil refineries, power plants and motor vehicles. We currently impose safe emission standards and progressively cleaner fuels on our industry. Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) remain pollutants of concern. In order to curb SO 2 , we require industries to use fuel oil with a low sulphur content of not more than 1%. To further lower PM2.5, NEA will require all new diesel vehicles registered on or after 1 January 2014 to meet mandatory Euro V standards and the introduction of near-sulphur free diesel for Euro V diesel vehicles will further reduce emissions from diesel vehicles and industry in general.

Page: 2088

I am also glad to inform the House that we currently meet the World Health Organization (WHO) Interim Targets on safe air quality for both SO 2 and PM2.5. But that is not enough. We will continue to work on a roadmap to meet the final WHO Air Quality Guidelines in the medium to long term. This will require us consulting industry and working on a practical cost-effective plan in order to achieve those long-term targets.

But vehicles and industries are not the only sources of particulate matter pollution. Our air quality is also adversely affected by transboundary haze. I think you all know that it requires us to work more closely with our neighbours and to put more commercial pressure on the companies which are burning the forests in the region around us. NEA will be enhancing our air quality reporting system. We already publish the annual levels of PM2.5 and this is available on our website. We will be reporting the levels of PM2.5 more frequently and updating our website, and making that available for the public. So you can be rest assured that there will be complete transparency on all these data.

We will also be improving our waste management system. Senior Minister of State Grace Fu has explained some of the changes we are making to the sector and more details will be announced later. I am glad to tell Members that our recycling rates have gone up from 40% to 59% in just the last one decade. We will need to continue making these improvements in order to ensure our landfill site at Pulau Semakau lasts for another 50 to 100 years.

We will be amending the Environmental Public Health Act to introduce mandatory reporting of waste management data and improvement plans by large commercial premises, starting with large hotels and shopping malls in 2014. And this will improve the companies' oversight of the waste produced, and also sustain management focus on minimising waste.

NEA will also be implementing a Pneumatic Refuse Conveyance System on a district level for the first time in Marina Bay by 2015. This will be an automated system that centralises refuse collection, improves efficiency, and you do not have so many people on vehicles running around collecting garbage. It all goes underground, and then a single centralised disposal.

We will also be trying to grow our environmental and water industries using technologies and prototypes which are developed in Singapore. This will help position ourselves as a hub for clean environmental technologies. That is why we are also acting as host for the inaugural CleanEnviro Summit which will be held from 1 to 4 July this year in conjunction with the fifth annual Singapore International Water Week (SIWW) and the World Cities Summit. Basically, we have turned strategic disadvantage into an economic opportunity, and our companies' calling card to the rest of the world is our success in Singapore.

I would also like to update the House on the ABC Waters programme – "Active, Beautiful and Clean". It may have started off by making it more beautiful and getting community support and ownership, and that continues to be important. But now it has also become clear that it is also part of the solution for dealing with floods and for preparing for climate vulnerability. For instance, in two weeks' time, the Prime Minister will open the new Bishan Park where the Kallang River flows through. It used to be just a canal. Today, if you go there, it is a meandering river. But if you watch it with a more technical eye, we have actually created a system in which its carrying capacity has actually increased; and it also now serves a dual function, not just cosmetic and community support, but also a functional drainage purpose.

Page: 2089

We have identified about 100 sites across the island. Twenty have been completed, five are currently under construction, and three will be completed by next year. The three which will be ready by next year are Sungei Ulu Pandan, Sungei Pandan and the Geylang River. PUB is finalising plans for the next batch, and the next batch will include the Kallang Riverside, Pang Sua Pond which is in Bukit Panjang, Sungei Pinang which I believe leads into the Punggol River, and the Jurong Lake.

I have three minutes left. Miss Penny Low highlighted the importance of the 3P approach. While I do not have time to answer all the six points that she has brought up, I agree with her that we certainly can and should do more to work closer with all three sectors and to allow ideas to be generated and to translate those into solutions.

I agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng's suggestion that we need to make our national events more environmentally friendly. I think all of us remember the sight when South Korea was taking part in the World Cup, when they had practically a million people in their central square. The most amazing thing to me was not just the football, but the fact that after the million people left, it was clean.

We need to get that level of community and public spiritedness, that we leave a venue better than when we first arrived at it. And I also agree with Mr Seah that even at the organisational level, we need to do better. For instance, I am always slightly amused when we have a health promotion event and the food is not all that healthy, or when we have a recycling event, I notice we are still using plastic cups and all other paraphernalia, which may not necessarily be environmentally friendly. So, we need to do all these things with a certain amount of planning, a certain amount of forethought and a certain amount of consideration. And the key thing, again, is to persuade people that each of us has a responsibility and has to become part of the solution.

I want to end by saying that making a choice to care for our environment has to reflect our values as a nation: that people come first, that convenience or profits should not come at the expense of the health or well-being of our families; and that everyone has the same equal right to clean air, clean water and green spaces. If we can bear these in mind, and if I can count on the support of Members of the House for the programmes that we are running, both in the short term and long term, I think we can continue to do our part to build a liveable and sustainable Singapore as our home, and as a working model of the future to our children and grandchildren.

The Chairman: There is time for clarifications. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Thank you, Sir. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for giving residents in Nee Soon GRC a new hawker centre. I have two clarifications: first, I would like to ask if the Ministry would consider giving the residents living near the hawker centre some form of priority in running the hawker stalls. Next clarification is on "no smoking at parks". Just now the Senior Minister of State mentioned that it will be carried out at some selected parks. I would like to ask: what are the criteria, and why is it that smoking is not banned in all the parks?

Page: 2090

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I think the Member is aware that we intend to accept the recommendations and the management of the new centre should be by social enterprises, probably a co-operative, and I hope there will be more than one co-operative or other social enterprises that will step up to the plate. So, these local decisions as to who to accept as a hawker, the food mix and pricing, I believe should be done at the local level. So, I do not want, on the Ministry level, to be overly prescriptive.

Her point on smoking, Ms Grace Fu expressed our position that in the long run, we want no smoking in public areas unless otherwise designated. In other words, today we have a list of areas where you are not allowed to smoke. In the future, I think we will have a positive list of areas where you are allowed to smoke and everywhere else, you are not allowed to do it. But we have to manage this transition, taking into account local conditions and local support for it. So, that is why, for instance, hawker centres and parks, we want the local community to decide collectively and take ownership, whether they want to have a "Blue Ribbon" park or a "Blue Ribbon" hawker centre, and then it is a community decision. It is not something top-down that has been forced upon them. I believe we need to move towards such a system because you cannot have an NEA officer everywhere trying to enforce rules which the community is not prepared to support. So, I have expressed our long-term position and that the transition will have to be guided by community support. On the pace and extent of the non-smoking zones, the community has to decide.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Senior Minister of State earlier on responded to my cut on "midges" which has been a problem faced by Bedok Reservoir residents. Sir, I would like to complain to you that there is nothing new in her response to me. I read all the content from the newspapers. What I wanted to know is, what is the long-term solution to the problem? And I understand that they have engaged an external expert to do some research into the problem. May I know what is the progress so far? And please do not tell me that they are using larvacide again. They used it last year, but the problem remains the same. So, what I want to know is: what can the residents at Bedok Reservoir area expect this year? Will we be facing the same problem again? Fire-fight the "midges" and going to fog every day?

Sir, the next clarification is pertaining to water. The Minister said that PUB did not overcharge Singaporeans for water. He referred to the collection of Conservation Tax plus the waterborne fee and appliance fee. Perhaps, I think he should let us know what is the cost per cubic metre of water PUB produces and what is the effective tariff that PUB charges Singaporeans or the household users. What do I mean by effective tariff − you have a tariff on the first 40 cubic metres of water and different tariffs after that. That is tariff on the water, and that is excluding water conservation tax, appliance fee and waterborne fee. So, if you take all that in, what is the effective tariff per cubic metre that you charge Singaporeans vis-a-vis the cost per cubic metre of water that PUB produces?

6.00 pm

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Let me deal with the water issue. That is far more important, with due respect. You are aware of the tariffs that are charged. If you are not, it is all available in the Annual Report.

It is important to go back to the overall system because we need to ensure that Singapore will have a secure and reliable supply of water even when contracts expire, even when we face droughts, and even if there are any accidents or other disasters in parts of our island. That should immediately tell you, it is not a simple matter of how much it costs to buy water from Malaysia, or to even get water from a desalination plant. You have to pay for the cost of an entire system. And this is all very transparent and it is laid before Parliament. It costs PUB $1.3 billion to run a water system that we have today. And it is also equally transparent that for a household that consumes less than 40 cubic metres a month, the tariff is $1.17 per cubic metre, plus a Water Conservation Tax. So, they will end up paying about $1.52 per cubic metre. That is for potable water. For water that has to be treated, the Waterborne Fee is $0.28 per cubic metre. Then there is a Sanitary Appliance Fee of about $2.80 per latrine or water closet.

Page: 2091

Again, if you want, I can go through the figures with you to show that, on used water, we are not collecting what it costs to treat the water to a standard where it can be discharged into the sea. This is excluding the cost of treating it as NEWater and making it safe for use. So, the figures are all there, and I would like you to go through this, in detail with me if you like, and we will show you that, in order to provide the water system which I have described, we still require tax subvention from Parliament. So, if you are proposing that we lower water tariffs, I would suggest that we do not, because let us talk about real life.

In real life, the median 3-room HDB flat pays about $30 per month. Now we also have the U-Save scheme, part of the GST offset scheme, which gives between $110 and $240 a year. What we have is a system in which a scarce, precious commodity is right-priced so people do not waste. At the same time, we have vouchers for the lower income, so that people can always afford the water and electricity that they need. It is far better to do it this way than to do what many other countries have done, where they subsidise water or they give it at a fixed price, at a level which causes people to not regard it as something precious. If a leak springs up in your pipe, you just let it leak. I have lived in a country like that. More importantly, there is also no signal to the private sector to invest in infrastructure, to provide technology and infrastructure for the future. So, the challenge for us is to make sure our system is resilient, that we right-price water, and that water remains affordable to everyone. On all these three counts, I submit that the answer is yes.

If you are not convinced, I would be happy to go through in detail the finances of PUB. Clearly, there are some things which, for national security reasons, I cannot make public pronouncements on. But if you like, I will take you in confidence and show you that we have provided a safe, resilient, reliable water supply system. If you go through the information with me, I am pretty sure I can convince you of that.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, we have been studying this problem of "midges" extensively with my colleagues in PUB and NEA. I myself, for example, have gone to Google to try and search for some of the scientific information that is out there. If you look at the studies that are out there, you will see that, actually, many teams are studying the problem of "midges". In fact, there are many teams, not just in the tropics, that are studying it. As far as Denmark, teams are studying the problems of why we have a sudden increase in the population of such insects. Some have attributed this to climate change, rainfall, the amount of nutrients in the water. The truth is, I do not think anybody has been able to lay their hands on the exact cause of the explosion of "midges".

That is the reason why Mr Low will hear the same reasons in the House, and outside from the papers, because we are trying our best and explaining what we are doing. What we are doing right now with the use of larvacide is what we know at this point in time to be the most effective method. Of course, if the Aljunied Town Council is able to fumigate and destroy the adult population, then we will not have the larvae and the eggs being bred in the water. But is that a realistic goal? I think all of us who are involved in the management of municipal issues would know that we have not been able to wipe out the population of flies, mosquitoes and, now, probably "midges". So we are not taking a position that this part is PUB's solution and this part is Town Council's solution. We are taking a collaborative approach, working with the Town Council to address the whole problem of the life cycle of "midges" from, if you like, cradle to grave. And, hopefully, we can find a way to break the cycle more effectively. And if Mr Low, with his experience in Aljunied Town Council, is able to give us suggestions as to what more we can do, we would be most happy to consider it.

Page: 2092

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, I have something to add as well − back to high-rise littering. The Senior Minister of State talked about the difficulty in enforcing as well as prosecuting the high-rise litterers, which I agree is difficult. That is why I spoke about having really stronger measures to take care of this problem and also to do it with skill. We know there is some equipment there but are we going to step up on this so that more and different parts of Singapore and the towns will all have this equipment to monitor it?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Chairman, the answer is, yes, we will be stepping up the team that is doing the surveillance. We are increasing the number of equipment that is available for this purpose.

But, of course, maybe I would just like to clarify that this will not be our first response to any complaints of high-rise littering. We still believe that going down the route of engaging the community and getting the community to cooperate probably promotes better neighbourliness than if we were to send in an enforcement officer at the very first complaint. So, we would still like to go through this process of Town Councils, together with the grassroots organisations, approaching the supposed culprit to execute public education exercises as the first way to manage local littering problems rather than to send in an enforcement team to address every single complaint at the first instance.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, while I agree with the Senior Minister of State that education and all these are important, we all know that usually the majority of the residents are not anti-social or have that sort of behaviour. So, I think the problem is always that it is a small minority that is the culprit and perhaps we should target at this minority as the root of the problem.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: I appreciate the Minister sharing with me his views that national events should also be made more environmentally-friendly. I would like to ask the Minister whether we can expect any change in the way these are being organised for the coming national events. I would like to raise the suggestion that perhaps we could use the Ministry's, in this case, NEA's flagship event, the Clean and Green Week, to spearhead this drive. I do hope that this year's Clean and Green Week will be organised in a different manner which reinforces the view that national events should try their very best to be environmentally-friendly.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank Mr Seah for that additional question. As I said, I agree with him. If we look at last year's National Day Parade as an example, the organisers made sure that there were sufficient litter bins and recycling bins and that the waste and the recyclables that were collected, we are actually keeping track of it at the NEA level. At the Clean and Green Singapore events held last year, we ensured that the exhibits were made of recycled materials. We also ensured that they were portable exhibits so that they could be reused. We had recycling bins provided; we used energy-saving light bulbs and made sure that the events were held near MRT stations so that people could take public transport. So, we have made a start but I agree with Mr Seah that we can do more.

Page: 2093

Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I have a question on the operating model of the hawker centres. Earlier, the Minister said that he intends to accept all of the Panel's proposals, so I would like to ask regarding the model of letting the social enterprises run the operations. Will the Ministry be keeping a very close watch on the rents and the way the operations will be run? I consider the provision of hawker centres to be essential social goods, to make food prices affordable to everybody. I am concerned that sometimes when we let market forces take over the provision of social goods, we can end up with rising cost, just like we saw industrial spaces going to REITs and then prices have been creeping up. So, is there some assurance that there will be very close monitoring on the way this is run, especially when more and more hawker centres are being run by social enterprises?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: First, I better clarify that I did not say that I would accept all the recommendations of the Panel. I was referring to the Drainage Panel. The Hawker Centre Panel has not submitted their final recommendations yet, so I do not want to jump the gun. But let me tell you basically how I see this.

First, I have to persuade all of you to accept that hawker centres are social infrastructures. Therefore, as the ultimate landlord, we are not trying to maximise rentals from it.

I am keen to accept the recommendation for social enterprise because, if you remember, when I first announced that we would reverse this policy, I said that I wanted the management to be a not-for-profit model. Basically, you still need to be viable and to make ends meet. But you are not out there as a real estate player and you are not engaging in arbitrage. And what starts off as a hawking business becomes a real estate business. All this is very easy to express but I am not going to underestimate the difficulty of making it work in practice.

In the context of Singapore, the most successful co-operative is FairPrice. I give all due respect to Mr Seah Kian Peng. It is a social enterprise, it has fulfilled a social mission of ensuring commodities and essential food are priced reasonably and provides competition. What I am hoping to do by changing this hawker centre policy is, number one, increase the supply of places. That should have some effect on prices, both in terms of rental as well as the prices charged by hawkers. But having said that, I do not believe that simply lowering rentals by itself will necessarily lead to lower prices charged by hawkers. At the end of the day, they are people making a living. They will also try to charge what the market will bear.

6.15 pm

Page: 2094

So, I just want the Member to understand − let us not be overly simplistic in the way we implement this, and also to be very careful that we do not get unintended consequences. For now, if we can get a cooperative to run it, and the cooperative knows that what we are after is cheap, good and clean food, and that the people who are working there are Singaporeans, locals − better still if they are people within the community, they are there to make a living for themselves and they are preparing cooked fresh food, good enough for their own families and friends to eat − I think that will be an achievement. That already makes us unique, because when we first created hawker centres, it was just a hygiene measure – clear mobile hawkers on the streets. But this has taken on a life of its own, it has become a unique icon of Singapore life. I give the Member the assurance that we will certainly be watching it very, very closely, and to watch the evolution of these new generation hawker centres, that it does not deviate from the original objective. Does the Member have a specific suggestion in mind?

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: No, I do not have a specific suggestion. I thank the Minister for the answers. It is easier to control when we have one or two hawker centres being run by a particular social enterprise. But I imagine a day when maybe we have half or even more of our hawker centres being run by social enterprises, and then they become a very sizeable market force. So, would we want to start thinking right now how do we set the KPIs to ensure that the outcomes will always be affordable food, whether it is done through fixing the rent that they can charge to the hawkers or through other means? I think we should think seriously about this rather than leave it to market forces.

Mr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Minister, first of all, my apologies for not having caught your entire speech. My reservist training started today – not that I am complaining, given the good news from MINDEF this morning. Not to worry. I have been granted leave from my reservist training!

I have two clarifications pertaining to the issue of air. It is heartening to note that we are now meeting the WHO guidelines. As far as I know, that is 10 microgrammes of PM2.5 per cubic metre. In 2010, Singapore was at 17. I think MEWR's aspirational guideline is 12, by 2020. I would like to ask if we have already met the target of 10.

My second clarification pertains to the interest in Euro V. Euro V is better than Euro IV, which is better than Euro III, which is better than Euro II. But within Euro V, the issue is that diesel cars are, of course, restricted to less carbon emissions compared to petrol cars. At the same time, in terms of nitrous oxide and particulate matters, they are allowed a higher percentage compared to petrol cars. So, if we instil PM2.5 requirements for all diesel vehicles, carbon emissions will go down. But if more cars switch to diesel, we might actually see more PM and nitrous oxides going up in comparison to petrol cars. That is actually worse for health.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Thank you. That made it worth your while coming back from reservist. We meet the WHO interim standards II. WHO has three different standards and we are supposed to meet them progressively. We have not yet reached the final standard. But having said that, we do want to make sure that we are at an internationally comparable standard because this is part of our competitive advantage. The Member has my assurance that we will continue to monitor this very closely. And, more importantly, because I believe in transparency, all the data will be available so the Member can see how we do over the course of time.

Page: 2095

I am glad the Member brought up the point about Euro V. There are actually two different programmes. While they are related, they are quite distinct. I think the Member was referring to the Carbon Emissions Vehicle Scheme (CEVS), which is meant to replace the Green Vehicles rebate. We thought the CEVS is a better scheme than the current Green Vehicles rebate because it is technology agnostic, meaning, it encourages you to get more fuel-efficient cars. It sends a signal to you and also penalises you if you use a less fuel-efficient car. That is what the CEVS is about. I do not expect that the CEVS will result in an overnight transformation of all petrol cars into diesel vehicles. I do not think that will happen.

Separately, we are making this move towards Euro V. And the environmental performance of Euro V – both the vehicles as well as the near sulphur-free diesel fuel that they will use – will make a significant difference to our SO 2 , nitrous oxides and our PM2.5. That is what we expect, based on our current models. But we will be monitoring the data, and the data will be available. So, he has my assurance that we will watch very closely what is happening on all the pollutant fronts, as far as all of them are concerned.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, we also googled "midges" to try to find out what happened. I understand that PUB and NEA have brought in a foreign expert to do some research and study. May I know what progress has been made and whether there is any target set, at least to come up with some result on the research where we can have some solution to the problem?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, I can appreciate the attention that Mr Low is putting on this very important topic. Let me update the House that we have commissioned a three-year study. The objective of the study is: first of all, to establish which species contribute to the mass emergence event; also to compare the composition and abundance of the midges collected and study that of the 1960s and to look at how it has changed over time to 2011 and 2012; and to establish the inter-annual variation in the key midges groups, and also to investigate the correlation of the abundance of the adult and larval midges with meteorological condition, season and water quality.

Why I am doing this, Mr Low, is really just to explain that this is a complex issue. As much as we would like to study the problem with dengue and the emergence of new serotypes, and how that would have changed, and be affected by climate change, this is a complex issue. As much as we would like to have an immediate solution, I do not think we can offer any promise that it is going to be an immediate one, except to say that the team will provide us with quarterly updates and we wish them the very best in their discovery, because if we can leave them to do their work, then perhaps they will be in a better position to give us practical solutions.

But, meanwhile, let me assure Mr Low again that PUB and NEA will do more than just putting larvacide. We are also scrubbing – can you imagine PUB scrubbing the sides of reservoirs – to clear off eggs and larvae? We are also monitoring the amount of larvae that we are observing in our water samples, to try to get ahead of the next cycle of population explosion or whatever you may call it. So we are trying, as much as possible, to be ahead of the game. But as I said, it is not an easy problem to solve and we hope that all the parties, including the Town Council, will also be part of our solution.

The Chairman: Last question, Miss Low.

Page: 2096

Miss Penny Low: Sir, I have two questions. First, I would like to join the chorus of thanks to the Minister and the Ministry for reintroducing the hawker centre. My Punggol residents will definitely be very happy and we cannot wait for it to come to Punggol. And it would be even better if it is run on a social enterprise model. On that note itself, I am not sure what the fear about social enterprises becoming a big market force is about, because after all, social enterprises in the case of hawker centres is not just about having good or reasonably priced food. But if it also creates jobs for Singaporeans and gives opportunities to small businesses to upgrade themselves, then why not? The more the merrier. So, my question on the hawker centre part, really, is would we have any fear about 10 hawker centres all running on social enterprise models, and whether we could have one in Punggol sooner than at the end of the 10 years itself.

My second question is, involving all hands on the deck when it comes to sustainability and cleanliness issues. I agree with Mr Seah that, indeed, we need to ensure that national efforts, the leaders in this field, but also small efforts at home or at the community ground −

The Chairman: Miss Low, we should leave some time for the Minister to reply. The guillotine time is 6.30 pm.

Miss Penny Low: Sir, my question is: what are some of the plans that the Ministry might have to roll out this year to involve more people, more hands from every community?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: First of all, I think the model that is recommended by the Panel based on the social enterprise model is something that is very new to us. We are very keen to adopt and pilot it. If it is successful and can be replicated, I think we will definitely consider replicating it and implementing it across all the 10 centres. On the other hand, I think we just have to be mindful that if we can find alternative models that are as effective, we may also consider alternatives as well. So, we are not, in any way, bound to any fixed model at this point in time.

As I mentioned in my speech, the key point is really, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh has said, delicious, good and cheap food at convenient locations. I think that is really our most important social objective. As for Punggol, I would just like to clarify what I have said in my speech is that Punggol would be the first of the seven in Phase One and we will complete it within five years, not at the end of the 10 years. How would we try to encourage more in the community? As I have said earlier on, whether it is through MOE working with the youths and working with NGOs, I think that we will try to get ground-up support for what we are doing as far as keeping Singapore clean, green and beautiful for everybody is concerned.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Mr Chairman, Sir, I am sure our fast-working Minister has heard all of us and I am confident that he will take prompt action in addressing the issues, perhaps including building 86 hawker centres − 86 because Mr Lim Biow Chuan does not need one. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $829,926,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $474,034,600 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Page: 2097