Committee of Supply – Head T (Ministry of National Development)

Head T (cont) −

11.00 am

Infrastructure to Meet Population Growth

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah) : Mr Chairman, Sir, one of the most pressing issues today has to do with that of Singapore's burgeoning population. In the annual Population Trends report released by the Department of Statistics, the total population grew by 2.1%, with our total population hitting 5.18 million at the end of June last year. This has fuelled many practical fears and concerns by Singaporeans as to the adequacy of the nation's infrastructure to absorb such rapidly increasing numbers.

Page: 1859

One group feeling the strains of this is young, newly-working adult Singaporeans. I would like to ask the MND whether more can be done to ensure that newly built flats are made affordable for younger start-up families as well as the average working-class family. Would the Ministry also continue to review and revise income ceilings on a more regular basis so that it corresponds to the demands of Singaporeans from a wider segment of society, thereby ensuring that homes remain affordable for a broad section of the population?

Does the Ministry have plans to help target groups such as divorcees with children and low-income families? Especially divorcees with children, who may be neglected by policies traditionally aimed at catering to the majority of the population? Are there more creative solutions in the line-up beyond just building more subsidised rental flats?

Also, as the population increases, we would need more "spill out" spaces such as parks and gardens where people can unwind and come close to nature and feel restored and refreshed. Also, given the many tributaries and rivers in Singapore, how could we help to bring even more Active, Beautiful and Clean (ABCs) projects and near-the-river experiences to Singaporeans? If there are these pockets of solace, close to mother nature, away from busy roads and concrete infrastructure, it could well help Singaporeans cope with the inevitable increase in population which globalisation brings to a small and attractive city-country.

Lift Upgrading Programme

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, please forgive my flu-stricken voice. First, Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). The LUP is a Government programme where the bulk of the cost is to be borne by the Government with the balance co-shared between residents and Town Councils, each paying between 5% and 12.5%. However, based on the accounting used by HDB, the Town Councils are paying much more and are subsidising HDB's share. This is because HDB's definition of LUP costs is different from what a common person understands. HDB defines LUP costs as "the total cost of lift upgrading minus the Town Council's share of the lift overhaul costs".

What then is lift overhaul? During LUP, new lift shafts are erected. Once operational, HDB requires one or two of the existing lifts to be shut down. According to HDB's logic, the shutting down of these lifts is deemed an overhaul. The Town Councils have to pay HDB the overhaul costs, as overhauls are cyclical works to be done by the Town Councils. The overhaul cost is based on a 28-year life span for a lift. If the lift is 24 years old now, the Town Council has to pay the depreciated portion, that is, 24 out of 28 years of value based on HDB's costings, which cannot be challenged. This could easily work out to about $100,000 for each lift. For 10 blocks, the Town Council would be required to pay a substantial amount of $1 million, just for the shutting down of lifts.

There are several issues here. First, use of the word "overhaul" to cover shutting down is convenient to HDB but does not square with the usual meaning of overhaul. Second, from the Town Councils' perspective, it is unjustifiable to pay HDB $100,000 per lift when no physical overhaul work was done but the lift instead became extinct. What HDB is bearing is not based on the total bill of the LUP but a lesser amount after first making the Town Council pay to HDB part of the total LUP bill through such lift overhaul costs. This results in a significant drain on the Town Councils' sinking funds, way above the one-off LUP assistance provided by HDB. How does HDB justify such accounting?

Page: 1860

Car Parking for HDB Residents

My next cut, Sir. In mature HDB estates where there are few multi-storey car parks, families may be asked to park their cars some distance away from the block, even a few hundred metres away, for the second car, in particular. In other car park clusters, even the first car may need to be parked some blocks away. Residents are concerned not just because of the inconvenience. It poses difficulties to the less mobile, and ladies have expressed to me safety concerns. It was reported in December that MND is studying a mechanised parking solution for implementation in mature HDB estates. Since then, some parking experts and others have thrown up some possible strategies. Could MND share more information about what it is looking into to ease the car park shortages for residents in mature HDB estates?

More Heavy Vehicle Parking Sites

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, under the vehicle parking certificate scheme implemented in 1994, all heavy vehicles in Singapore are required to have a parking lot in an authorised parking place licensed by LTA. Many of these designated parking spaces are located far away from residential homes of drivers of heavy vehicles. For example, they could be located in the industrial estates. On the roads, I have seen prime movers with bicycles mounted at the back of the vehicles as an innovative way to cycle home after the drivers have parked their vehicles in the industrial parks. For many of these drivers, getting home after duty can be a challenge, especially when they start work early and they end work late. They have to travel long distances back to their homes and there are also no public transport vehicles available at those early hours.

As a result, some resort to illegal parking along public streets near their homes. This can cause them to be fined and bring inconveniences to others. For example, many of my residents in Seletar have given me feedback that there have been many instances of overnight parking of heavy vehicles along public streets and sometimes within the residential estate. These vehicles pose safety concerns and congestion problems especially to vehicles, such as the public waste collection vehicles, that need to move within the estate in the mornings to remove garbage.

Can MND set aside more interim heavy vehicle parking spaces situated near residential areas to meet the needs? Currently, such parking sites are available, located near to residential areas such as those in Bishan and Ang Mo Kio Ave 1. These parking sites are conveniently located under the MRT tracks or near to HDB housing estates. These are heavily sought after by drivers of heavy vehicles and often have a long wait list. It demonstrates that the practicality and needs of such parking sites. Currently, there are also many empty plots of land under MRT tracks which are not utilised, such as the space next to Yio Chu Kang MRT Station. These plots of land can offer temporary parking spaces for heavy vehicles. Will MND be able to identify more of such sites to bring relief to residents and drivers, so that drivers of heavy vehicles need not park illegally or find other means to get home after work? It would therefore be easier for them to go home after their work. Residents need not put up with the potential safety hazards and inconveniences, and there will be a win-win situation for everyone.

Page: 1861

Growing Alternative City Centres

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, URA's Master Plan 2008 envisioned more regional commercial hubs being developed outside the city centre to offer alternatives for businesses and provide jobs closer to homes. One of the objectives of the Master Plan is to achieve better job distribution island-wide, and reduce congestion and commuting to the city.

Sir, having a large proportion of commuters travelling to and from the city centre at the same time, puts huge stress in the transportation network. This necessitates the building of more roads and MRT lines to serve the city centre and puts pressure on public transport operators to add more bus and train capacity to cater to the very high peak loads heading in the same direction.

I understand that the Jurong Lake District and Paya Lebar Central are currently underway. May I ask MND for an update on progress of these developments and any other decentralised commercial centres? To what extent will these reduce the crowding in the city centre and manage the stress on the transportation network? Does the Ministry have plans to develop more such commercial hubs and, if so, where will they be located?

Sports Stacks in HDB Estates and Second Floors in HDB Blocks

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, I wish to speak on the topic of sports stacks and use of second floors at HDB developments. I have spoken on these two topics before, so I apologise for being repetitive. It is just that I notice when I broach the topic with some HDB officials, the idea still seems to be relatively new to them, so I was not sure that the idea had actually permeated through the levels of MND. And since there is a new Minister since the last time I spoke on it and a new Minister of State and a new Permanent Secretary, I thought I would raise the topic again, believing like Robert the Bruce that if at first you do not succeed, you must try and try again.

On the question of second floor of HDB developments, I have noticed that over the years, we are using more and more of the void deck space and taking it away from the use of residents. The problem was best illustrated perhaps by the recent furore over the day care centre at Woodlands. Whilst one should be mindful of the need to have amenities, there is also a need to balance the void deck space available. I thought it would be a good idea to reserve the second floors of new HDB precincts that are being built for amenities, such as elderly day care centres, senior activity centres, facilities for the disabled or childcare centres. There is precedence for this – Block 118 at Bukit Merah View in my constituency has the Moral Neighbourhood Link, a VWO which serves the residents in that area. I would urge HDB to consider this because that way, we can keep the void deck space void but, at the same time, still provide the amenities and facilities that are needed for various precincts.

The second idea was the one of sports stacks. Inevitably, every HDB estate will have complaints about boys playing football and that is natural. Boys will be boys. They will play football. Other people also want the space for games, and I also understand that space is a premium and we have limited space. I thought that the idea of having a sports stack, meaning set aside some land away from the main blocks but still part of the precinct. One level could be used for football; another level could be used for ball games like basketball or netball; another level more for the senior-type games like gateball; and another for racquet games like badminton, table tennis and things like that. In that way, we can still maximise the use of the land, the footprint is kept small because we will stack it up so it benefits the residents. It promotes sports and at the same time, it takes away the noise nuisance for the residents. I would like to ask HDB to consider these ideas.

Page: 1862

Secure Bicycle Parking in HDB Estates

Mr Ong Teng Koon (Sembawang): Mr Chairman, Sir, many of our residents in HDB estates find cycling a good recreational activity, a convenient form of transport around the neighbourhood and a way for them to travel to the nearest MRT stations. HDB estates were often not designed to cope with this increased demand for bicycles and the resultant need for more parking facilities. Also, HDB estates provide only basic bicycle parking facilities that afford inadequate protection against theft. Residents do not feel confident with parking their bicycles in allocated areas. Instead, they park the bicycles on their floors of residence. And when I do my block visits, you can often find bicycles clogging up the corridors which lead to congestion and fire hazards. Would the Ministry be open to (i) re-designing bicycle parking facilities that provide more security against theft, and (ii) increasing the number of secure bicycle parking facilities?

Designing Great Neighbourhoods

Mr Laurence Lien (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, I would like to respond to Minister Khaw's call to go beyond building homes to building communities. Indeed, we need to design and build our neighbourhoods into places which are not just great places to live, work and play, but also places where we have strong relationships and community life. Today, people mostly live in gated communities and for many, the main value of the home is its dollar market value. There is often little value ascribed to the value of the community they live in, or the social capital and relationships in their neighbourhood. Social ties among HDB residents seem to have worsened, households more isolated and neighbourly disputes.

11.15 am

In our context, let me give the Minister my suggestions. I shared the long version of this as a Guest Speaker at HDB's Senior Management Retreat last year. I am strongly influenced by Jane Jacob's New Urbanism – Prof Robert Putnam, who taught me all I know about social capital and the asset-based community development approach.

Sir, in my dream, I hope that each neighbourhood is unique and diverse, and has distinctive characteristics, reflecting the identity of the residents who have emotional attachments to it. Each neighbourhood has a discernible centre, which can be a square or a busy street junction, where the bus or train stops. Homes are within a five-minute walk from the centre, or within the 400-metre radius. There are mixed types of homes housing people with different demographics, facilitating the bridging type of social capital. Within the neighbourhood, there are shops and services of sufficient varied types to supply the weekly needs of a household, so they do not need to visit the mall. There are so called Third Places where people can be regular customers and visitors, and can establish connections. There are attractive, usable public spaces for formal and informal community gatherings. The Residents' Committee in the neighbourhood are empowered to take on estate management, and they constantly engage residents to make meaningful decisions and set rules on how their neighbourhood should evolve and be uniquely organised. More "white spaces" are set aside for this. There is depth of interactions, mutual self-help, and more informal volunteerism. There are formal and informal groupings within the community to plan and organise activities and initiatives within the neighbourhood.

Page: 1863

I urge MND to experiment with some of these design elements in building new HDB estates. Let me just summarise the core differences with today's approach. First, there is more emphasis on the software, including infrastructure that supports the building up of relationships, like Third Places. Secondly, very importantly, there needs to be co-creation and genuine empowerment of residents with much more active participation from them. Thirdly, everything needs to be on a human scale, walkable. Together, with having a distinctive character, this will make people stay outside their homes, in their neighbourhoods. I hope MND will take into account my suggestions.

The Chairman: Miss Penny Low. Miss Penny Low is not in the House. Dr Teo Ho Pin.

Ageing Population

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Sir, the fast ageing population of Singapore requires fast implementation of elderly friendly features in our built environment. Many Singaporeans are ageing within their respective communities, and thus require these elderly friendly features to enjoy a good quality of life. Sir, the introduction of barrier-free access amenities in housing estates and lift upgrading of HDB flats have brought much convenience to our residents. But barrier-free access amenities may not be adequate to make our built environment elderly friendly. We need to better understand the needs of our elderly, and facilitate them to live, work and play in our community. Sir, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions: (i) what is the long-term plan to facilitate Singaporeans to "age in place" in the community; and (ii) can the Ministry identify and implement more elderly friendly features which are necessary for the elderly to live, work and play in our built environment?

Home Improvement Programme

Mr David Ong (Jurong): Sir, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) is an upgrading programme for flats built in 1986 or earlier. They have not undergone upgrading before. It is highly popular with residents. Currently, there are 300,000 eligible flats for HIP. I am glad to know that the Ministry is rolling out HIP at a faster pace. Last year saw a doubling of beneficiaries of 5,500 to 10,000 flats. However, MND's assurance that they would take 10 years to complete the balance of 250,000 flats – is too long. This is an important consideration as rising cost due to inflation and manpower may further delay its full implementation. As the ageing of these older flats give rise to higher incidents of defects such as spalling concrete and leaking ceiling and pipes, what can the Ministry do to speed up the completion of HIP?

Page: 1864

Food Supply Resilience and Food Safety

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, eating is often called the natural pastime of Singaporeans. We love our food but many do not know too much or do not think too much about where our food comes from, unless there is a sudden surprise shortage or sharp increase in prices. With limited land and resources, Singapore, in fact, imports more than 90% of the food we consume. This reliance on imported food make us more vulnerable to shortage, especially with the threat of climate change and inflation food cost. Sir, it is good that the AVA has taken effort to ensure that, except for eggs, most other key food items in Singapore has less than 50% of their supplies coming from a single country. What is the Ministry's plans to continue to bolster sufficient supply of key food items and restore their supplies in the event of surprise disruption and mitigate sharp price increases? With increased globalisation and diversifying food sources, how would the Government assure that the food that comes in will remain safe to eat, so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy their food with confidence? Let me continue in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 1981 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Chairman, Singapore can be considered a food paradise. Just counting eggs alone, Singaporeans consume 4 million eggs a day. However, whether it is rice, wheat, fish, meat, vegetables, fruits, eggs or tea, we rely on imports for all these. The smooth, steady supply and safety assurance of our food, which we have enjoyed for so many years, does not happen by chance, neither should we take it for granted. The Ministry of National Development must continue to act as a safeguard for us, do more to explore more food sources, and work with all businesses in the food industry, as well as the public, to safeguard our food safety and the stability of our food supplies. We hope that the situation in Taiwan – where people are worried about eating beef, chicken and eggs – will not happen here, so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy their food with a peace of mind. Even if something unfortunate happens, and we are unable to avoid it, I hope that the Government also has plans to help Singaporeans deal with it calmly, and minimise the negative impact.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yi Shyan): Mr Chairman, Sir, when Singapore started out as a young nation, providing adequate housing was a pressing task. In 1960, it was estimated that a quarter million people were living in slums, and another 200,000 to 250,000 in attap squatter settlements, which means leaking roofs and flooding during rain, not to mention the poor hygiene and being prone to fire. As Minister Khaw highlighted, we built 21,000 flats in just three years back then to relieve the pressure on housing.

Today, we are also building as quickly as we can, at 25,000 flats per year, but for a very different context – 90% of Singaporeans own their homes. There are currently 900,000 HDB flats and 300,000 private homes. Our housing programme is very well regarded internationally. Singapore is frequently cited in the ranking for "Top Global Cities" and "Most Liveable Cities". Our economy has advanced, and so has the standard of living for Singaporeans.

However, we cannot stand still. The external environment requires us to adapt. Our society and demographic changes necessitate Singapore to experiment and adjust. As an open economy and a metropolitan city, we must find ways to stay relevant in the web of global cities, trades and investment. But being economically vibrant or world-class is not the end in itself. Rather, it is the means to create an endearing home and an inclusive society for all Singaporeans.

Page: 1865

At 7,200 people per square kilometres, Singapore is perhaps amongst the densest countries in the world. As we face tighter constraints in terms of land and space, we will need to be creative in space planning and judicious in land use. There will be inevitable trade-offs between competing demands. But I believe the next phase of nation-building can also be very exciting as we seek new and bold ideas with Singaporeans to co-create our 21st-century Singapore.

A key enabler for a city of the future is its infrastructure. As Mr Christopher de Souza rightly pointed out, we must ensure that our infrastructure meets the needs of both our economy and population. Minister Khaw earlier shared about our accelerated public housing programme. Our public transport systems will also be expanded, with the doubling of the rail network over the next 15 years. The upcoming discussions on the Population White Paper, as announced by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, will help sharpen the focus on future infrastructure planning and execution. We will extend the Concept Plan review to take in findings from these discussions.

In building our home, it is not just housing, but also the amenities such as parks, park connectors, community clubs and commercial centres. Ms Sylvia Lim highlighted the need for more parking. We are doing two things. For new estates, HDB is designing multi-storey or podium car parks within a precinct. In other words, a few blocks of flats sharing a common cluster of facilities. For existing estates, we wish we could do the same but not all the estates have the space for us to do so. We will try whatever is practical. So, besides multi-storey car parks, if we can find the space, other possible solutions include additional surface lots, electronic parking systems to regulate demand, and also mechanised car parks if user acceptance proves positive.

For heavy vehicle parking raised by Mr Ang Hin Kee, we do face a real trade-off in allocating limited space for different vehicle groups. Not all empty plots near residential areas are suitable for heavy vehicles because of alternative development plans, noise and safety concerns. But I noted his suggestions on making use of space under the MRT tracks, so I think we can explore that with LTA.

As a living city, we must continue to rebalance our centres of growth to create comfortable spaces for "live, work and play". Mr Gerald Giam asked about alternative city centres. We do take a comprehensive approach to shaping our city.

In the city centre, we are building up Marina Bay as our new commercial heart. Along with the new infrastructure for business, it will bring many new and good jobs for Singaporeans. Marina Bay is also becoming a bay for the people as it establishes itself as a venue of national events and celebrations. Community events such as arts festivals, sailing and charity walks are also being held.

Beyond the city centre, we are creating new growth centres in different parts of the island. These will provide jobs and amenities closer to homes and minimise the need for cross-town travel, as Mr Giam has pointed out. Under Master Plan 2008, the Government announced the development of three growth centres in this decade – Jurong Lake District, Paya Lebar Central and Kallang Riverside. To-date, 450,000 square metres of commercial GFA has been made available for development in these centres. How large is 450,000 square metres? This is equivalent to about nine AMK Hubs.

Page: 1866

Each growth centre will be developed with a unique personality. For example, Kallang Riverside aspires to be Singapore's sports and lifestyle hub. Anchored by the new Sports Hub, Kallang will provide 4,000 new homes, complemented with shopping, F&B, commercial, entertainment and leisure places – this will amount to over half a million square metres; or about five Vivo cities. New parks and improved riverfront promenades will also bring people closer to the waterfront.

Next, our homes in a global city. Mr Laurence Lien and Ms Indranee Rajah spoke about the need to rethink the way we build our neighbourhoods to meet changing needs and allow community bonding to flourish. Indeed, to meet future aspirations, HDB's aim is to build well-designed, sustainable and community-centric towns as part of its recently launched "Roadmap for Better Living in HDB towns". We will invite Members and Singaporeans to co-create these new towns with ideas and suggestions, some of which have been made in the speeches.

11.30 am

If you visit newer towns such as Punggol, you will find a number of new ideas being adopted. For example, HDB has paid special attention to promoting vibrant community spaces. At the town level, Punggol will have a Town Plaza as the epicentre for community events. At the precinct level, Treelodge@Punggol is an example where HDB has piloted a "stacked development", with a first-storey podium car park, a roof deck above that provides space for greenery, playgrounds, fitness corners and other facilities, and, finally, flats above the roof deck. There is also a conscious effort to locate facilities nearer to residents to help lower transport costs and minimise inconvenience. In fact, if Members look carefully at the picture, sometimes when you are in there, it is quite hard to tell whether you are on the first, second or third floor, because of the design and because it is well-integrated. I appreciate Ms Indranee's idea to integrate these facilities into the precinct but we need a certain minimum size in order to incorporate all these features in one precinct. We will unveil the plans for Punggol's next phase of development in the second half of this year.

For existing towns, HDB plans to roll out pilot projects under the Greenprint concept. For a start, HDB will "green" a neighbourhood in Jurong East with water and energy-saving solutions, as well as a Pneumatic Refuse Collection System. To promote eco-friendly transport, HDB will also enhance the cycling and pedestrian network complemented with secured bicycle parking facilities which Mr Ong Teng Koon spoke about. The Greenprint will also look at supporting greener living by piloting a Green Home Package, where residents can choose the types of energy-saving appliances to green their homes. From the pilot's findings, HDB will then refine the Greenprint model for possible rollout to other HDB estates.

Beyond our housing estates, we are committed to ensuring a greener overall environment for Singaporeans. As Singapore continues to urbanise, it will be even more important to soften our otherwise hard, concrete landscape, as Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned. Our aim is to develop an urban landscape with pervasive greenery, where our parks, gardens and green spaces are linked up to form large tracts of greenery. We want to transform from a garden city to a City in a Garden. What this means is that instead of having a garden just outside our homes, we will have the entire city nestled within a garden.

Page: 1867

As part of this vision, NParks will add a world-class garden, the Gardens by the Bay, when it officially opens in June this year. We will also enhance the connectivity of our green spaces, including the proposed Round Island Route which Deputy Prime Minister Teo just announced. As greenery becomes more pervasive, we will also bring biodiversity back to the heart of the city, so that daily encounters with nature become a way of life. We will actively engage Singaporeans to co-create and co-own our garden.

I spoke about the attributes of an exciting Global City. A pre-requisite is safety – whether people feel safe living here. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang urged the Government to safeguard Singapore's food supply and safety. As we import over 90% of our food, we cannot control global food prices and supply. To mitigate supply disruptions and volatile food prices, AVA will continue to actively diversify our overseas supply sources. AVA is also working to boost local production of three strategic food items, namely, leafy vegetables, eggs and fish to further enhance the resilience against supply shocks.

To-date, AVA has allocated $20 million for its Food Fund to support R&D, local farm capability upgrading and food source diversification. To ensure food safety, there is also overseas accreditation and inspection of food sources. AVA also conducts rigorous testing of imports before they are allowed for sale in Singapore. Even as Singapore forges ahead as a global city, we cannot forget that our ultimate goal is to build an inclusive society and a better home for everyone. We must be alert to changing demographics and anticipate future needs.

In the coming decade, the ageing of our population will become much more apparent. Our first batch of baby boomers will start to turn 65 this year, and within the decade, we will see the number of seniors increase by 60%. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked about our plans to help Singaporeans "age-in-place". Let me elaborate on some of our key ongoing and upcoming efforts in response.

First, the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) is on track to complete by 2014 to improve accessibility for residents, especially the elderly. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about LUP costing for Town Councils. The understanding is totally correct in terms of how it is computed. The principle, however, is applied consistently to all Town Councils. The Government will fund up to 90% of the lift upgrading costs. As Town Councils are responsible for replacing lifts at the end of their lifespan in the first instance, they will bear their share of the costs if existing lifts are replaced as part of LUP, with the Government shouldering the bulk of the remaining cost. The Town Councils are required to bear the depreciated portion of the replacement costs based on the age of the lifts. This is something the Town Council should have been saving up in the form of the sinking fund over the years. Ms Lim asked why Town Councils are required to pay for old lifts that are overhauled or replaced. In fact, these lifts are all replaced – it may not be at exactly at the same lift shaft but in different parts of the block where a new lift is provided and an old lift is shut down. So, when we do LUP, we make sure that each block gets at least the same number of lifts, if not more. With the current funding structure, LUP, as a programme, will cost a hefty $5.5 billion to complete.

Page: 1868

Second, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), which provides practical improvements such as safer clothes drying racks and elderly-friendly toilets, is being ramped up, as suggested by Mr David Ong. This year, up to 28,000 households will stand to benefit from the programme. Within these five years, we aim to cover 160,000 flats. This is about 60% of the remaining eligible households. If we sustain this pace, we will be able to complete HIP in 10 years, budget permitting. We will accelerate HIP where possible, but seek the public's understanding that HIP is a massive programme covering 300,000 flats.

Thirdly, to meet the needs of both the young and the old, HDB has adopted Universal Design guidelines for its new residential projects since July 2006. Universal Design features include larger and lower light switches, wider corridors, wheelchair-accessible bathrooms, and door levers. To-date, 24,600 flats have been built with Universal Design. Sir, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 1982 for Vernacular Speeches.] I have just given an update on the $5.5 billion Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) as well as the Home Improvement Programme which will benefit 300,000 households. This is what the Government has been doing to build a more inclusive society.

However, we are not resting on our laurels, and we will continue to implement more upgrading programmes. As announced by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, we will make our homes more age-friendly, especially for those in need. Today, there is a pilot to retrofit 500 households in Marine Parade with senior-friendly features like grab bars; slip-resistant treatment for bathroom floors; and ramps within the flat. The initial response has been encouraging, with over 50% of households taking up the offer. One of these households is Mdm Loo. At 90 years old, Mdm Loo previously had to grab anything within her reach (for example, chairs, tables, doors and so on) to move around her flat. After the retrofit, she can now move around her flat more confidently with the new grab bars. In fact, when she was trying out the new grab bars, she was all smiles and happily said "not bad, not bad, it's more convenient for me now."

To help more seniors like Mdm Loo, we will extend these retrofits to more households under the "Enhancement for Active Seniors" or EASE programme, starting from July this year. EASE will be rolled out as optional improvements under HDB's enhanced Home Improvement Programme. Implementing both programmes at the same time can reduce the inconvenience to benefiting households.

We also understand that there are some families who may not need all the improvements under the EASE programme. Hence, families can choose their own combination of improvements based on their needs. In addition, elderly and vulnerable residents who wish to get the enhancements earlier can apply directly to HDB.

To ensure affordability, the Government will heavily subsidise the enhancements. Similar to HIP, citizen households can expect to co-pay 5% to 12.5%, or $100 to $250, depending on flat-type. We aim to launch the programme in July 2012 and will provide more details then.

( In English ): To increase accessibility for residents to the community, HDB will roll out a lift installation programme for all its existing Multi-Storey Car Parks (MSCPs) that are without lifts. While all HDB MSCPs built from 2007 are fitted with lifts, there are still about 550 older ones that are without lifts. This programme is estimated to cost $120 million, and will be rolled out from this year to 2016.

Page: 1869

Besides the hardware, we must ensure that the right services and facilities are built in the estates to help residents to age in place. We will work closely with MOH and MCYS to ensure that social facilities are integrated with other town amenities to better serve our seniors. But it is not just physical integration; we need to be open and mutually accepting as a society about catering to the needs of different groups – seniors, the young, and families – alike. This mutual acceptance will help us grow to be more gracious as a society, and build a truly caring and inclusive home for all. Today, some of our playgrounds in HDB estates have become examples of meeting points amongst the young and old. I hope to see more residents making full use of integrated facilities.

11.45 am

Sir, as we seek to position Singapore as a Global City, it is important to think about what makes Singapore a special place. Our skyscrapers may awe us, our greenery may soothe us, but it is the time that we spend with our family and friends, the helping hand we extend to our neighbours and the common memories we create and share together that will render this place special, a place we call home.

Heritage

Mr Charles Chong (Joo Chiat): Mr Chairman, as we advance as a society, we must not forget our past. The collective history of Singaporeans is what makes us unique. Stories of our forefathers coming from foreign lands – some distant, some not so distant – landing in Singapore, living here, working here, setting up families and businesses here and, in time to come, passing on here. Finding the bridge to our past is important as it keeps us rooted to the generations of people who have in some way shaped or formed and moulded us into the people we are today.

In my constituency of Joo Chiat, there is a strong link with Peranakan heritage and culture. The residents there are very proud of this link with the past. The benefit of this, we have found, is that they have started to attract people from all across the island who are attracted to this nugget of Singapore's past. It might be because they have some Peranakan heritage themselves, or it could be just because they are interested in something which they are interested in. Nevertheless, the experience of Joo Chiat in heritage-related events does have their own following and there is a growing interest among younger Singaporeans in participating in such events.

Having said that, there is more that can be done, not only by MND but by other agencies as well, such as the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee when it comes to naming constituencies and demarcating boundaries. It should perhaps consider the heritage of the area in addition to the population shifts. For example, it is a bit odd that Joo Chiat SMC is named after a geographical area that it does not cover. I am sure there are other examples. Names are important. They provide identities and a visual and mental cue for our memories and experiences.

Page: 1870

Another topic which generated much public debate was Bukit Brown. Apart from the fact that exhumations are emotional issues for many, concerns were also raised that Bukit Brown contained much which were worth preserving. Interestingly, Chew Joo Chiat, after whom my constituency is named, is buried in Bukit Brown, alongside with several other prominent Singaporeans in days gone by. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can institute a system whereby decisions are made in relation to sites or matters of significant historical value and the relevant stakeholders would be consulted at an early stage of the process so that views of interested parties can be taken into account, and informed decisions eventually made.

Conserving Cultural and Natural Heritage

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, in this fast-paced and globalised world, we should not underestimate the necessity and desire to identify and protect heritage sites that can give Singaporeans a sense of identity and belonging. We should be very careful to ensure that locations treasured by people do not get demolished too easily in the name of progress, as we may lose a part of our soul with it. We have felt the pain of losing iconic buildings before – the National Theatre, the old red-brick National Library, the Van Kleef Aquarium. Good reasons were trotted out by the MND leaders of the day – too expensive to renovate and maintain; need the land for other uses and redevelopment. Today, some still wonder: were the right decisions taken? This question often enters my mind when I drive through the short Orchard Road tunnel, for which the old library building had to be crushed.

Sir, it is a healthy sign that there is a surge of interest today on heritage issues. It signals their search for emotional anchors and for a narrative that connects the present to the past. The latest evidence of this is the civic effort to save the Bukit Brown cemetery. I visited it recently and found it informative. It gave deeper insights into how our early pioneers lived and died. Some of the tombs are decorated with sculptures and works of art.

We know that not everything old has heritage value. But what are the criteria applied? What are the processes in place to make a proper evaluation? Are the views of experts, civic groups, independent heritage organisations and stakeholders adequately taken into account? It is necessary to lay down clear guiding principles and to put in place a wide consultative process. We should not rush to demolish what some may treasure as heritage sites - as once demolished, what is lost cannot be recovered.

Sir, we know that space is always a constraint in Singapore. This is a given. But it does not answer the question of why a road to cater to a group of some motorists, say, is given higher priority over what some others may value as a heritage site. In fact, the space argument can also be used to support higher priority for heritage conservation. Singapore, being a small and relatively young nation, has fewer heritage sites for the people to focus its attachments on. Precisely because of this, even if a few of those areas go, the effect would be even more devastating than in big countries which could boast a host of landmarks spanning centuries.

We know that MND has done much to conserve our natural and cultural heritage over the years. I would urge MND, however, to do another review on the merits of preserving Bukit Brown, or some parts of it, with a more open mind.

Page: 1871

Highway on Lornie Road

Ms Faizah Jamal (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, sometime late last year, LTA announced that a dual four-lane highway in Bukit Brown will be built from early 2013 to alleviate congestion along Lornie Road and the Pan-Island Expressway during peak hours. In a statement, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) added that the new road, to be completed by 2016, will also cater to expected growth in future traffic demand. It said that the new road will cut through parts of the Bukit Brown Cemetery, and it estimated that it will affect about 5% of the more than 100,000 graves there.

Upon the announcement, several groups of stakeholders voiced their concerns and their unhappiness, with one grouse being that stakeholders were not consulted prior to the decision, and the other being the impact the project will have on Bukit Brown. Mr Chairman, here let me declare my interest as a member of Nature Society Singapore, one of the groups of stakeholders which have voiced our concerns.

Then, on 22 November 2011, to a question raised by Ms Irene Ng in this House, Mr Khaw Boon Wan explained that these options had been considered, three of them: (a) the widening of Lornie Road, (b) viaduct above Lornie Road, and (c) a tunnel below. All these options were thought to be unworkable; thus, the need to stick to the decision for the proposed highway.

On 4 February this year, The Straits Times reported that the Minister of State for MND BG Tan Chuan-Jin said that plans for the proposed highway will proceed. Here are my questions. I have broken them up into four parts.

Apart from the three options mentioned, that is, the widening of Lornie Rd, the viaduct and the tunnel, what were the other options, if any, that had been considered before they were narrowed down to these three options? My second and third questions are related. We all understand that forests provide free eco-services, one of which is that they act like a water storage tank as they absorb water through the soil and the roots when it rains. We also know that when these natural areas are removed and are paved, ground infiltration is interrupted, surface storage is removed and, as a result, there will be an increase in the speed and the quantity of the surface run-off. This is serious in view of the close proximity of the proposed project to Bukit Brown. In fact, in a report, in January 2012, by the Expert Panel on Draining Design and Floor Protection Measures appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, it is stated that rapid urbanisation had been a contributing factor to the floods. Here are my two related questions.

Firstly, has a complete Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) that includes biophysical, especially hydrological, social and other relevant effects of the highway been conducted and, if so, what are the results? Secondly, in view of the recent floods and the resulting public concerns and outrage and the report by the Expert Panel aforementioned, would the authorities consider deferring the project until an EIA, if it had not been done, conducted or concluded, or other sorts of studies, are then conducted and concluded?

Lastly, in keeping with Budget 2012's tagline of an "Inclusive Society, a Stronger Singapore" and in view of the outcry that ensued after the proposed highway was announced, would MND ensure that there will be more effective and inclusive channels for public engagement and consultation in the future and, if so, what would these plans look like?

Page: 1872

Land Use

Ms Janice Koh (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, I have been visiting the Bukit Brown cemetery since I was little. My great-grandfather was one of the many tens of thousands of early migrants buried there and, as far back as I can remember, every Qingming festival, my parents would dutifully visit his grave to clear the weeds, bring offerings and pay their respects. As a child, I never thought much about its significance. As an adult and a parent, however, I have come to treasure this link that I have to my ancestral past.

This connection was particularly poignant for me when I took my two children to visit the grave a few weeks back. Nothing quite replicates the emotional experience of standing on the very ground where your forefathers were buried five generations ago. A cemetery is not just for the dead and about the dead. It is about keeping our history, our memories and all the meanings of our past alive for the living and for future generations of Singaporeans.

But one cannot always be sentimental about land use in Singapore. In a short span of 40 years, we have seen the destruction of over 200 cemeteries in Singapore. Many of our housing estates, our schools and amenities would not be here today if previous cemeteries had not made way for them.

Yet, the most compelling point for me in this debate about Bukit Brown is that Bukit Brown is not one of the many cemeteries in Singapore. It is, in fact, now one of the important few left behind in our midst. And as such, it is fitting that we deliberate on this question of its demolition with a lot more care and consideration.

In the early years, we cleared many shophouses and old buildings to make way for urban development. But at some point, we realised that if we did not start preserving and conserving whatever shophouses we had left, even the remaining few would be gone. My question is: has MND conducted any systematic survey or impact study to look at the tangible and intangible benefits of preserving Bukit Brown? If so, can these findings be shared with the public? And if not, would MND consider holding back road-building works until a more in-depth impact study is conducted?

Sir, Deputy Prime Minister Teo also recently announced that the Government is preparing a White Paper on Population that will be released at the end of the year. Should we not wait until there is a stronger national consensus on our population growth strategy before we commit irreversibly to this course of building more roads and more housing on this historical piece of land? Sir, I suppose, in short, my question is: can we ask for a "stay of execution" on Bukit Brown? There will be other sites with similar issues in the future. How will MND incorporate citizen consultation and engagement with civic groups into their decision-making process when it comes to long-term urban planning?

Animal Welfare and Pet Ownership

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Mr Chairman, pet ownership has been a hot topic of late. It comes as no surprise as animal welfare groups, such as the Cat Welfare Society and SPCA, have ramped up their efforts to raise awareness of proper pet care, highlighted cases of abuse and work towards the ethical treatment of animals. But instead of fire fighting, I think the authorities must do more to improve the pet ownership framework and the regulations here as well, including minimising abandonment of pets.

Page: 1873

Currently, AVA oversees the licensing or regulation of animals while HDB regulates the size of dogs allowed for the flats. These rules have not been reviewed to keep up with changing times. For one, cats are still not allowed in HDB flats despite repeated appeals from cat lovers to review the law. We are still seeing disputes between neighbours arising from nuisance and noise caused by pets. Often, pet owners and neighbours requesting for information or enforcement find themselves in a no-right-door situation.

I would propose that AVA and HDB streamline regulations regarding pet ownership and make the channels of complaints, action and appeal more integrated. We also have to improve pet ownership education to hold the pet traders – the ones who sell the pets – and also pet owners to be more accountable. Can we look into requiring new pet owners to attend training or orientation programmes?

12.00 pm

Proactive education is needed to ensure that when people purchase a new pet, they understand the commitment that is involved, their responsibility and how to manage their pets. We should request pet traders to play a more active role in this area as well. Lastly, would AVA consider the AWG's proposal to set up an adoption centre which will provide a dedicated community facility that supports and encourages adoption. Sir, I will continue in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 1983 for Vernacular Speeches.] Sir, Singapore is considered the most liveable city. However, in our living environment, we often find that there are a lot of conflicts caused by men. It shows that there is much to be done in our journey towards becoming a civil society. Currently, we often witness many conflicts related to pets and neighbours. We hope that, if we want our environments to be more harmonious, and allow the ecosystems to co-exist, we must resolve the issue of homeowners with dogs and cats. Although the problem appears simple, we must nip the problems in the bud. Ultimately, we must link pet business owners, pet lovers, animal rights activists, residents and grassroots together on a platform, to work together to create an inclusive and sustainable green environment for all.

Construction Productivity

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Sir, there are four areas which hinder productivity increase in the construction industry. First, too many rules to comply with. Sir, many practitioners complained that we have too many rules to comply with in the construction industry. Each time an accident occurs, many new rules will be introduced. As a result, many practitioners are spending time doing paperwork, instead of construction work. Sir, we need to review our Building Control Act and rules to ensure that our rules enhance productivity. We must also set productivity performance standards for various Government approving agencies to reduce bureaucracies and delays in approvals.

Page: 1874

Secondly, design and supervision. Almost every building in Singapore has a unique design, and thus a learning curve in construction. There is a lack of standardisation in the design of building components to facilitate increase in productivity. Except for HDB, the private sector lags behind in the introduction of prefabrication technology to expedite construction. We should encourage the use of more prefabrication of building components, and set higher buildable score by BCA to increase productivity.

Due to the low fees paid to building professionals, there is a lack of supervision on site. Very often, the Resident Technical Officer is the only person who controls the speed of construction. The lack of supervision by professionals also resulted in many abortive works, thus causing wastages and delays.

Thirdly, procurement methods. In Singapore, many developers still adopt the traditional method of engaging contractors through lump sum contracts. Under such arrangements, the consultants and contractors do not share the same objectives of ensuring that the project completes on time and within budget. As such, many unproductive hours are wasted in resolving conflicts and problems. Sir, design and build contracts are usually considered better procurement method as it provides a one stop service in the delivery of projects. In Japan, design and build contracts are commonly used to build good construction teams which deliver high productivity and quality projects.

Fourthly, high turnover of workers. The high turnover of skilled workers in the industry is another barrier to achieving higher productivity. Many foreign workers are trained in Singapore but do not stay long enough to contribute productive work. Sir, may I ask the Minister what are the plans to increase the productivity of the construction industry?

The Minister of State for National Development (BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin): Mr Chairman, Sir, as all of us sit here today and as we talk about our heritage and history, I wonder, what are our memories of our past, of our growing up days, when we went to school; stories our parents or grandparents told us. Ms Janice Koh shared about her growing up years; her memory of going to Bukit Brown.

I have been taking pictures of Queenstown as there have been a lot of developments there. I remember my parents bringing me to Queenstown when I was young. I remember the pasar malams along the streets; I remember the cinemas, which are now churches. I remember when we went to cinemas in the old days, we bought kacang putih in newspaper cones; I do not know if they are still around. Or the hawker centre there that has recently been torn down. I will always remember the yew zhar kway stall. I always marvelled at the way the stallholder kneaded the dough, and the way he made the yew zhar kway. I would go home and practise doing it with plasticine.

We remember many things from our younger days and they are all precious. Many of these places that we reminisce about, and talk about have made way for housing and other developments.

All of us have our memories and these memories are precious and unique. We can bring our children to some of these places that mean a lot to us, and they will take on board our perspectives, our stories. But they will also create their own and the cycle continues.

Page: 1875

In many ways, today's moments become past memories for our children when they look back in the future. I understand where Mr Charles Chong, Ms Janice Koh and many of you are coming from. As I do the many passionate Singaporeans who champion the Bukit Brown cause or that of their alma mater, or of the various locations around Singapore that hold meaning to them. I do also understand that many of us sometimes wonder if we are changing too fast. What price, development?

We must not forget our past. The issue at hand, as many of you have shared, is about our identity and our sense of what it means to be Singaporean; our sense of what it means to be Singapore. It is about our spirit; it is about our soul. Often, we do not talk about these things enough.

Where does it all start? We know the emotive stories leading up to our Independence and thereafter but our history goes way beyond 1965, beyond the heroic accounts of Lt Adnan during the Second World War and even before Raffles. We all grew up with tales about Sang Nila Utama and his exploits. Real or otherwise, it all makes up part of our history. Our history provides us with a sense of who we are. With the passage of time, stories are interwoven with documents, images captured, virtual constructs, and physical markers that are left behind whether by design or by chance.

Last week, we talked about culture, we talked about art. Those things, together with our stories, define who we are as a people. We are a young nation but that should not discount us from valuing a very rich heritage that all of us share. These memories are anchors to our past even as we look forward to our future. This is why we can proudly call ourselves Singaporeans and not just any global citizen.

When I came to MND, one of the first things I wanted to know was what is being done on this front. Like many, I also wondered, are we developing too fast and are we tearing things down where we should not? It has been an eye-opening and a humbling experience. I would say this quite definitively: my colleagues in URA care a great deal about these things. In our earlier years, our urgent priorities were to develop, to get the economy right so that we could provide jobs for our people and house our people. But we also realised, as pointed out earlier, that if we were not careful, we were beginning to lose some of our precious past.

URA's conservation arm was set up to ensure that we tread carefully. Many areas and buildings were deliberately saved from urban renewal. Today, we have conserved over 7,000 buildings and earmarked our oldest urban areas like Kampong Glam, Little India, Chinatown and Boat Quay for conservation. In fact, we drive past many of these developments every day; we have taken them for granted; and we forget. As Mr Low Thia Khiang pointed out last week, although we talk about heritage and history, sometimes not enough people visit them, and we should encourage more people to visit all these places that have been kept. It is, and I want to emphasise this, not about economics and it is not about development value because if it were, many of these sites would have been long gone in order to maximise plot ratio.

In this vicinity, around Parliament House, you will see the work of URA and other agencies like NHB and Preservation of Monuments Board. This area was first set aside by Raffles in the 1820s as the Administrative District. Today, many of its buildings and civic uses have been retained. The Old Parliament House, just behind us, at its core, is Singapore's oldest building. It is now a venue for arts programming.

Page: 1876

The Old City Hall, where the Japanese surrendered and where self-rule was proclaimed, where our parents paid their PUB bills and where couples still go to take their wedding portraits, this will soon be one -half of The National Art Gallery.

I will add that our natural environment is also very much part of our heritage. We declared Bukit Timah and Central Catchment as Nature Reserves; they harbour one of the richest sources of biodiversity in the region. Thanks to the efforts of National Parks Board and stakeholders like the Nature Society of Singapore, we can continue to appreciate our natural heritage and bring people there, such as to some of the treetop walks. The majestic hornbills, for example, which used to be extinct in Singapore, can once again be seen and heard on our island, as we try to bring back some of this wildlife into the city.

There is so much that we should celebrate and be proud of. No one is like us. We are an entire nation squeezed into just over 700 sq km. We need to decide how best to allocate land to live, work and play and, as Mr Laurence Lien commented earlier, to build communities. We have to decide how best to, at the same time preserve our environment, our heritage and our history. Few cities, if any in the world, need to make these choices, because most, if not all, of these cities are part of a much larger country.

Clearly, conservation is but one part of a larger story to celebrate our history and heritage. We should also focus our energies on ways to document our stories and to share them. To be proud of the history and heritage that we already possess. Stories and memories make all the difference.

MICA plays a very important role in this. I fully agree with what Minister Yaacob shared on Friday. MICA's Singapore Memory Project builds on much work already done over the past years and takes it further. It is an exciting and, I think, a very meaningful project where Singaporeans should come on board and act upon it. With advancements in technology, we can now collect and share memories in ways which we could not before. We can weave our heritage together, individual by individual, memory by memory. We need to move fast because with the passing of time, as the older generation passes on, we need to capture those memories.

NHB will continue to create heritage markers, and that remains important, to bring trails to life to educate and to inform Singaporeans. The National Library Board and National Archives will also continue to document and promote our collective stories and memories. There is very much more that we still need to try and capture and to document.

And what about Bukit Brown Cemetery? You will realise that Bukit Brown is part of a much larger fabric that is our history and heritage. I will say this: I believe that Bukit Brown is very rich in heritage value. Many of our forefathers who built this nation, such as Lim Chong Pang, Lim Nee Soon, Chew Boon Lay and Chew Joo Chiat are buried there. Indeed, these names remain familiar to us because parts of Singapore are named after these pioneers. But the legacy of these pioneers does not lie with the tombstones in Bukit Brown. It lies in their works among us. Those things can be celebrated as well.

12.15 pm

Page: 1877

In fact, this is why the Government had taken such a long time and deferred our development plans for Bukit Brown. Ms Irene Ng asked us not to rush. We have not. The 2-km long road across the cemetery will replace Lornie Road – we are looking at replacing Lornie Road with a stretch that will cut across Bukit Brown. This is part of the Outer Ring Road System. It is not a new thing. This Outer Ring Road System has been around since the British days. What it does is it enables motorists to bypass the city. There is already a traffic jam at Lornie Road during peak hours, and the new road is urgently needed, not simply for future developments but it is needed because housing is also being developed in the northeast and northern part of Singapore. It represents part of that network to allow people to move back and forth; not just people driving but public transport as well.

Ms Faizah Jamal asked if we considered other options. We did. Our efforts to enhance public transport, and manage and optimise traffic flows will continue. However, the road is required for the Outer Ring Road System, so we are left with few options. We considered widening Lornie Road but that would have encroached into the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, and it would also have entailed land acquisition which where we can, we try to minimise and avoid. A viaduct: that was something that we had considered but it would also have had similar impact. For example, road diversion would have been required during the process of building some of these viaducts. Tunnelling – a tunnel would have caused more damage to the cemetery as major tunnels are typically constructed by the cut-and-cover approach, meaning you cut a hole for the tunnel and then you cover over it. Boring – if you were to bore the tunnel, you do not have a bore that is large enough to create this eight-lane road. You would have to create three separate tunnels in order to create that. You would have to go deep but at the ends, again, you would have the cut-and-cover method to provide for the exit points. And that would, again, cause quite substantive damage, more so than a road would. So, the proposed road was decided upon because it had the least impact.

Our planning process also required agencies to evaluate the impact of the proposed road on the environment. PUB and National Parks Board studied the drainage requirements and its impact on the environment before the plan was approved. LTA is also carrying out a biodiversity study to address specific concerns arising from the roadworks. We are exploring ways, and I think it is quite possible, and we will ensure that wildlife can continue to traverse within the Bukit Brown area.

Ms Jamal's concern about drainage is valid. But for Bukit Brown Cemetery itself, development will not be taking place there until about 20 years.

How about the rest of the cemetery, having decided on proceeding with the road? Most of our projected plans for housing will be effected much later. In the near term, the southern part of the area, which largely centres around the old Police Academy, will be developed for public housing. It is an extension of Toa Payoh, which is why the whole area there is significant from the housing perspective. Toa Payoh, in fact, used to be called An Xiang Shan. It used to be a cemetery, as with Tiong Bahru, as with Bishan. These are now homes for many, many Singaporeans. In these places, our children are growing up and forming their new memories of these places themselves.

Plans for Bukit Brown were surfaced many years ago as part of the Concept Plan. And as with all Concept Plans, there was public consultation, getting stakeholders and various groups to share their views. With the surge in interest, I asked for these plans to be re-surfaced, to go through in detail again to see if we had missed anything. Could we have shared better with the public at the earlier stages? I think we could have. Some of these briefings that we have provided to various groups, we could have done them, perhaps, on a much broader basis. But not all plans can be shared beforehand largely due to market sensitivity, especially where land acquisition could take place. And, inevitably, it is our responsibility to make the final call on the trade-offs between competing land needs. I have been corresponding with many who actively champion the Bukit Brown cause. One shared with me that he felt moved when he was brought round the cemetery. I know how he felt. I feel it too, every time I go there to run and to explore the place, to bash through the bushes and stumble upon new tombs that have been overgrown by plants and trees. The earlier exhumations at Tiong Bahru, many years ago, also raised similar community concerns. Recalling the opposition then, the late Mr Lim Kim San had asked a group who came to see him, "Do you want me to look after our dead grandparents or do you want to look after your grandchildren?"

Page: 1878

Mr Lim's thoughts still ring true today. How do we preserve the past while we build the future? I will say this: it is a very difficult decision, but it is a decision that we need to make.

Given our development plans, does this mean that the heritage of Bukit Brown and our other historical areas are lost to future generations? I think not. Last week, Mr Laurence Lien and many of you here also shared about the need for empowerment, the need to be able to participate, and I agree. There are areas that we should co-create. And Singaporeans have stepped forward.

Since October last year, the URA and LTA have been funding the documentation of about 5,000 graves which may potentially be affected by the road. Dr Hui Yew Foong championed this initiative and is now leading the effort. He has brought on board Dr Loh Kah Seng, who is helping to capture the stories which are important, and Dr Gan Su-lin, who is exploring how best to record the religious and cultural rites involved with exhumation. I think many of these rites and practices would fade with time if we do not document them. I also want to recognise the work of the many volunteers who stepped forward and put in many hours. I visited them recently and met volunteers, such as Ms Wendy Tan and Mr Chua Seng Huat, who coincidentally are from my constituency; architecture post-grad students like Zhen Ru and Qiao Ling, and champion documenter Mr Seow Kit Chua, who apparently is able to document up to 41 graves in half a day!

There is still actually very much more that we can do together. I am discussing this with some of you out there who care for this part of our history and with our various agencies on the next steps to take and to explore actively what else we can do to retain, capture and promote this story that is Bukit Brown. And this is again, I would say, part of a much, much larger story which is about where we come from and who we are. This is not the end of the road.

In similar fashion, we also formed a consultation group, comprising nature lovers, heritage buffs, cyclists and the like to discuss how best to shape the future of our Rail Corridor. That is also another important part of our history and heritage and our bio-diversity. We have envisioned together that, indeed, a continuous green strip can co-exist and can complement developments along that corridor. Work goes on to define that space together.

Page: 1879

Co-creation also extends to other areas like our common space, where we work on how best to take a more compassionate approach towards our cats and dogs and animals. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang spoke about a more responsible pet ownership ecosystem and how we can streamline and update regulations for pets. This is something that we are working on, again, with many of the stakeholders.

Promoting responsible pet ownership is an area where we need to work with the community. I would particularly like to acknowledge many of the animal welfare groups and individuals who have come forward, in particular, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), which has shared with us a proposal to enhance animal welfare legislation. And we are working on this, this year.

Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore's development should not and need not come at the expense of our heritage, our identity and our sense of belonging. We have been able to conserve and preserve much. But we do also need to make hard choices on how our land is used. That is a reality that we face. When we are unable to preserve certain aspects of our heritage, it does not mean that we do not care; it does not mean that we have no regard for who we are. We can and must conserve and celebrate it in the many different ways that are available to us.

This journey in building our nation has to be taken together as we remember our past and we build our futures. There is much that we should take pride in. And there is much common space that we can work together on.

Our Singapore story is a special one. What makes us who we are can be found here, in our heads, and here, in our hearts. And nothing, no development, can take that away from us.

The Chairman: Members, we have some time for clarification.

BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Chairman, there is a second part to my response which is on construction productivity which does not quite fit into the earlier portion on heritage and history.

Sir, let me now address Dr Teo Ho Pin's questions on construction productivity. Our previous efforts to raise construction productivity have had some positive results. But, as Dr Teo highlighted, productivity improvements have been very slow. It is not good enough. It is a structural problem because of our industry's heavy reliance on workers and especially foreign workers. While we have seen some technology adoption among our construction companies, we can do more. Our annual construction productivity growth still lags behind those in the manufacturing and services sectors. And it is behind those in developed countries.

This situation cannot continue. Recognising this need to take more fundamental steps, MND and the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) deepened the already close working partnership with industry stakeholders – including developers, architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and contractors – to formulate and launch our Construction Productivity Roadmap in 2011. This Roadmap aims to turn the industry around and to make it into a more productive one.

Page: 1880

There are essentially three key thrusts.

First, we put in place a schedule to reduce Man Year Entitlement (MYE) and to raise foreign worker levy, to regulate the supply and demand for foreign workers. While regulating the overall foreigner numbers, we also recognised the need to retain the more experienced ones in the workforce, given their higher productivity.

Second, we set minimum buildability and constructability standards to require adoption of easier-to-construct designs and labour efficient technologies to reduce the industry reliance on labour.

Third, we rolled out incentives to narrow the substitution cost between labour and technology.

In this year's Budget, we have announced further reductions in MYE by an additional 5% with effect from 1 July 2012, and the introduction of a foreign worker levy of $650 for Basic Skilled work permit holders in the new tiered MYE-waiver category from 1 January 2013.

To complement these changes, BCA will step up its outreach to companies to help them restructure processes and increase technology adoption. We will also step up efforts to enhance the quality of our construction workforce.

Our industry partners have given us feedback that experienced foreign construction workers are a plus for productivity. Unlike new workers, the experienced workers are more productive and more familiar with the safety requirements in the construction industry, simply because they have spent time here.

Our companies have also indicated that they have to hire and re-train new workers to replace those Basic Skilled workers who are sent home after working the maximum of six years here, if they are on R2 qualifications. This is not very efficient. Employers are calling for the retention of experience in the construction workforce, especially as the industry presses ahead with the productivity drive. We agree with our industry partners. MND and BCA will work with the Ministry of Manpower on how we can retain experienced workers to support our productivity drive, and to moderate the demand for foreign construction workers over time. And we should be able to make some announcement in a very short time.

Besides experience, we also must continuously upgrade the skills of our construction workforce. Since 2008, BCA has certified more than 10,000 workers to possess specialised skills in 17 key construction trades, through its Construction Registration of Tradesmen Scheme, or CoreTrade in short.

To complement the CoreTrade scheme, BCA will launch a new multi-skilling scheme in July this year, to recognise workers with a breadth of construction expertise under the "Higher Skilled" category. For example, workers with structural steel and welding skills; or, those with drywall and ceiling board installation skills will be classified as such.

The outcome of this new upgrading pathway is clear. With more of such multi-skilled workers who can take on more and varied assignments, companies will have greater flexibility in optimising their manpower deployment on site and, hence, are able to hire fewer workers. Under this scheme, the workers must pass BCA's skill assessments to qualify for lower levy as "Higher Skilled" workers. Employers will, hence, be encouraged to send their workers for training outside of their first skill to boost their productivity.

Page: 1881

While upskilling is important, it is also important to encourage the greater use of technology, standardisation and prefabrication. We have already seen some results. Our public housing projects are generally more productive than the industry overall, given the greater use of prefabrication.

By manufacturing building components like walls, floors, toilets off-site, we can eliminate most of the labour-intensive, dirty and cumbersome onsite work, thus also reducing some of the disamenities to the people around the area. Consequently, our construction sites will not only need less manual labour but will become cleaner, tidier and, less noisy.

12.30 pm

The Government has committed a sizeable $250 million Construction Productivity and Capability Fund (CPCF) to help companies make the transition to greater productivity. Through the CPCF, we encourage firms to mechanise their operations, re-engineer the processes, to adopt the Building Information Modelling (BIM) approach to better integrate the entire construction value chain, and also upgrade their workforce.

The take-up rate is growing steadily, with more than $40 million committed to more than 1,100 individual firms within the past two years. Sixty-five per cent of the CPCF beneficiaries are smaller firms. We need to pay particular attention to these companies as they represent a large pool that must be plugged into the construction productivity drive, if we are to see productivity gains for the sector as a whole. This year's Budget is committed to extending special help to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), because they will be the group most affected by the need to restructure and operate in a new environment with fewer foreign workers. BCA's Construction Productivity Centre provides customised approaches to help companies get a head-start on their productivity journeys.

In conclusion, Sir, these changes in our construction industry have begun, but will take time for the effects to be felt. We are also fully aware of the pressures faced in these few years of transition as our construction demand remains high. We will work closely with industry to navigate this journey together.

It is clear that we need to transform the industry. In part, we have no choice because going forward the industry can no longer rely on an abundance of cheap foreign labour. We need to move up the productivity chain. Already the construction industry employs 38% of all Work Permit holders. As the Minister of State in the Ministry of Manpower, I have keen interest in this particular concern and am also keen to achieve significant labour savings in the construction industry, in order to bring down the number of foreign workers in Singapore as a whole.

The Chairman: Brigadier-General, I just want to make sure that there is no third part. Yes, Members, you have some time for clarification. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Page: 1882

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of National Development will review some of the very old rules and regulations or practices that may be obsolete, for example, the one that I cited last week about asking the divorcee to get a letter of confirmation from the ex-husband. I believe this is something that could be obsolete and is causing a lot of pain to the residents.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, we certainly have and we do review policies all the time. Since I stepped into MND, quite a number of rules and policies have been changed and I do not think that is the end of it, and we will continue to press on. Some rules are put in for good reasons. I do not think they are frivolous, for example, the rule on divorcees and the need to get ex-spouses' consent, which I have a lot of sympathy with. Therefore, I also asked why it was so.

Let me try to explain this in simple terms. You have a couple – let us call them A and B. They can own one subsidised flat, if they keep the marriage intact. But if there is a divorce, A or B may then retain or apply for a subsidised flat within five years. So, that was the rule. There was a five-year debarment period. If they want, only one of them may retain or apply for a subsidised flat. The other party can only buy a resale flat; in other words, an unsubsidised flat, which is not an issue. The issue is subsidy.

So, you have a couple, if the marriage remains intact, they have one flat. If they divorce, and if without this rule, they may split the children between them and have two subsidised flats. Then, which couple is better off? To stay married or go for divorce? So, that was the basis behind this policy. It is not a new policy, it is quite old. There were cases in the past where people were gaming. It was very unfortunate; it was an abuse. They were never divorced but just wanted to take advantage of having these two subsidised flats, and they feigned divorce, while remaining married in practice. Their marriage is intact but, in form, seemingly they divorced, and then they opt to buy two flats. This was an old case, and that prompted this policy, but the story did not end there. I recalled reading in either Wanbao or Shin Min a few months back, about a reporter interviewing some sales agents. The sales agents told them that that there were some couples thinking of doing this, that is, they are actually not divorcing but they intend to file a divorce, so that they can have two flats. Their plan is to rent out one flat, while continuing to stay together in another.

So, let us not be naive and think that everybody is honest. The vast majority are, but there are cases of abuse like these. And that is why the policy was put in. Without the time bar, each party who has custody of the child could then apply for a subsidised flat immediately after divorce, thus resulting in two subsidised flats. The time bar ensures that a divorced couple is not treated better off than a married couple. However, the time bar is waived if a divorcee buys a subsidised flat with his or her parents or a new spouse. In other words, the family unit is different from the original one.

As I said, it was introduced in response to some abuses. I must say it is not a common occurrence but it is not uncommon either. It is not a common occurrence, perhaps, because of the rule. Because without this rule, it may then become common, which is what we are trying to avoid. As only A or B is allowed to have one subsidised flat, we need the other party's consent to give up the right during this five-year debarment period. Because we are in no position to decide whether A or B is more deserving of a subsidised flat, in the case where the kids are split between them.

Page: 1883

But as I heard from you and my own experience at MPS, the rules have, , created problems for many genuine divorcees. Therefore, what I have told HDB is to be sympathetic to genuine divorcees. They turn back to me to say, how do I know whether it is genuine? I said, well, we have to try to ascertain. Therefore, we need to probe. That is why it has to be on a case-by-case basis. However, over the weekend , as I thought through what had been raised by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, and after many e-mails with my staff, I told them, let us do this: if A and B divorced, and A has custody of all the children who are young – let us say the settlement between the two is that one of them has full custody of all the young children − then in cases like this, we shall, henceforth, immediately waive the time bar for A without the need to seek consent from B. But the time bar must continue to apply to B who has no kids in custody. In this way, we put the interest of the young kids uppermost. In addition, given the MPs' feedback, I will also review whether the time bar of five years is a little bit too long. I think to waive it, or to make it zero, is unwise. But I want to mull over this one – whether five years is too long − and we will try to balance between deterrence against abuse and minimising hardship on divorcees.

Ms Sylvia Lim: May I seek some clarification from Minister of State Lee Yi Shyan concerning my cut on Lift Upgrading Programme? The nub of my cut is actually to ask why Town Councils are paying HDB for older lifts that are being shut down under the name of overhaul cost. I have four clarifications in relation to this.

First, does Minister of State Lee agree that to use the term "overhaul" to describe a lift that is shut down is actually not in keeping with the meaning of the word "overhaul"? The second clarification is on HDB's definition of lift upgrading cost, which is a net of the actual lift upgrading cost minus away Town Council's contribution towards the overhaul cost. Does this actually mean that the Town Council is subsidising the cost of the LUP, in particular the Government's portion of the LUP? The third clarification: I agree with Minister of State Lee that cyclical works such as lift overhaul are part and parcel of Town Council's work and, of course, Town Councils do accumulate sinking funds for that. But does he also not agree that if Town Councils were to do these cyclical works on our own, we could determine the timing and also the costing of the works? And we note that HDB's costing is rather higher compared to our own estimates. The fourth clarification: two years ago, during the COS of MND 2010, it was announced that HDB would provide one-off LUP assistance to Town Councils. If we looked at the debate there, there was a recognition by MND that LUP does cause a strain on Town Councils when it comes to sinking fund usage; in other words, more than above the cyclical funds that Town Council accumulates. As usual, LUP does cause a burden, so that is why the LUP Assistance (LUPA) was provided.

We have looked at some of the LUPA provided by some of our clusters for LUP and we find that in a particular cluster − if I can just give an example of, say, about 11 flats which are largely 3- to 4-room flats − the Town Council's share of the LUP cost is supposed to be about 7%. But including the overhaul cost which we have to pay, it becomes about 16%. Despite the LUPA being provided of half a million dollars, we are still paying about 12%, which is much higher than the roughly 7% we are supposed to pay. In light of this, would the Government at least consider looking at the LUP Assistance amounts?

Page: 1884

Mr Lee Yi Shyan: Sir, I want to thank Ms Sylvia Lim for her clarifications. I also want to commend her for knowing the mathematics very well. Sir, if you want to take a step back on the LUP programme, this is a programme that was added on in year 2001, to give access to all the residents in different floors. We know back in the older days when HDB flats were first built, there were lift landings, and residents actually shied away from those units because it meant noise and loss of privacy, and so on. So actually, people wanted to stay away from lift landings. Anyway, fast forward, decades later, we find that people are requiring that facility, especially when they are getting older, and there is no question about the need. So, the LUP programme comes in and, as I have mentioned, this is a $5.5 billion programme over a period of 15 years or so. As you can imagine, when this programme was introduced, the estates are at different ages. Some were maybe 15 years old; some may be 20 years old; and some may be very near the lift replacement cycle which is 28 years. As part of the discipline of the Town Councils, and I mean all Town Councils, they always set aside a portion of their S&CC charges into a sinking fund. And one of the biggest items of the sinking fund usage is actually for lift replacement. So, at the 28th year, if you have been saving regularly, conscientiously, you would be able to have, say, $100,000 to replace each of the lifts that is "retiring".

12.45 pm

Since LUP was introduced halfway, some of the lifts may be 20 years old, some may be 22, 25 years. What the Government is saying is that for this portion of the money that they have saved up, "Don't worry, you know, we know you haven't saved for the 28 but you saved for the 22, that is fine. We give you a new lift, and you pay for the 22 years and the new lift will start from there." I think this is fair because this is something that the Town Councils have been anticipating to spend on. So, it is fair to draw down this amount from the Town Council's sinking fund.

Likewise, the formula will apply to other lifts of different ages. However, the costs associated with replacing the lift is not just the lift carriage or the lift car. In most cases where we need to build new lift shafts, across the slab block, let us say, there will be costs incurred in the building of lift shafts, diverting the service lines below the lift shafts, putting in power and so on. These are additional costs that the programme will bear. Also, using analogy A and B, so A, Town Councils will pay for a portion of the lift costs, X over 28 and then for the other component of the costs, let us say, call it B, HDB will pay up to 90%. When it was introduced in 2001, many Town Councils said, "If we charge 10% to the residents, maybe it is too high. Town Councils will be happy to chip in the 5%." That is why we have the formula – 90% by HDB; 5% from Town Councils; 5% from residents on the component B. A and B together, we are able to roll out this programme quite successfully and we expect to complete by 2014.

There is no doubt that the drawdown for lift replacements will be the highest item in the cyclical work of the Town Councils because the other cyclical works, such as painting, water tanks and so on, will occur in shorter intervals but the cost is much lower. Therefore, I think, going forward, it will be prudent for Town Councils to review what will be needed in another 28 years' time and then to adjust S&CC charges accordingly.

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon): Sir, I am happy that the Minister mentioned that MND is helping Singaporeans who are in distress with regards to their housing matters. I am also hopeful that he mentioned that he is mulling over the issue of how to help singles to own flats. He mentioned that singles attaining the age of 21 can form a family nucleus with their parents. However, if you look at the environment today, I feel that even at the age of 21 or even late 20s or early 20s, one is not sure whether one is going to be single. Sir, I am very concerned, especially, for older singles who would like to form a family nucleus with their parents. However, their parents are constrained with the fact that they already got the maximum number of times of grants or subsidy. So, I hope Minister will exercise his discretion and be sympathetic and compassionate to this group of Singaporeans, especially singles with parents who are in distress.

Page: 1885

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Chairman, as Members know, sympathy and compassion, we have plenty. The difficulty is how to apply them sensibly so that they do not get abused. And that is why we have no choice but to review case by case. And as I said on Friday, I also need Members' help. As Members of Parliament, you are closer to your ground and you would know your residents better than bureaucrats would. In our evaluation, we do take into account what is your own assessment. If you are discerning, you will find that we can be more responsive. But if you simply pass on what you heard and push it all to us without any due process, then we just have to evaluate it as how a bureaucrat normally would.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for his view on the negative reaction by some segments of the population towards the studio apartments for the elderly, for example, in Toh Yi Drive. Just today, we heard that the Toh Yi Drive residents have selected another location for the apartments but the residents of that other location also feel that it is not appropriate and also are rejecting that option. Can I ask the Minister whether MND should take a firmer stand on this issue because the elderly is a group to be treasured and valued, and not to be treated like a leper colony to be shunned?

Can I also ask the Minister to spell out clearly what is the process in place to select locations so that residents, when they object, cannot use the argument that it is not an ideal location to reject the idea?

My other question is a related one but it is to the Minister of State. It is about honouring the past and the older generations before us. Sir, I understand that hard decisions have to be made and that the Minister of State has done a lot to engage the civic groups and to document the significance of the graves. But there must be a distinction made between documenting graves and putting it in the CD or online, and a physical marker where people can go and appreciate the engravings, the stories that tombs tell. For example, the Ong Sam Leong grave has engravings to do with filial piety and this kind of value can be passed down to future generations not only through stories or CDs, but through a physical focal point for the story, and how we ourselves are honouring the graves of those who have contributed to Singapore. Can I ask the Minister of State whether it is possible for him to consider preserving some of tombs that have significance to the country and which can help us to remember the past and honour it?

The Chairman: Before the Minister answers, can I just remind Members that this is a time for clarifications and not a time for speeches. Some of the clarifications are as long as the answers from Ministers.

Page: 1886

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Yes. Mr Chairman, I will try to prove your point by giving a short reply. Indeed, we must be firm with the policy of helping the seniors and that is why I stress the ancient Confucian saying in my earlier speech. That ethos of helping seniors to age with peace of mind underpins my policy and I hope Singaporeans, in general, would embrace that, too. We will all grow old one day, so let us try to put ourselves in the seniors' shoes. And where facilities are needed, let us try to think about whether that option should not be exercised so as to help our seniors age with peace of mind. But the process is important and, therefore, the engagement is important. We will continue that process of talking but, at the end of the day, a decision will have to be made and if, indeed, that is the best option for the seniors, then we will press on.

BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Chairman, physical markers are utterly important. In fact, in my discussions with the advisory group and the various stakeholders involved over Bukit Brown, there are different ways that we can try to preserve, whether tombstones, carvings, tiles, apart from just documentation alone. There are really three parts. I mean, one, documentation of the physical graves by marking it through GPS and so on. That is important. The other one is in terms of capturing the stories, which as the Member mentioned, are the carvings, the inscriptions placed there. And another part, which is also very important, is capturing the rituals that will take place with exhumation.

I would like to emphasise that a large part of Bukit Brown Cemetery would actually be remaining as it is for the next two decades or so, because the bulk of the development in the immediate future will take place in the south, the old Police Academy area. Apart from the road, the rest of the Bukit Brown Cemetery will remain. We will work closely with the interest groups in terms of how we think we could possibly preserve some of these things and that is quite possible.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mr Chairman, I thank the Minister for adjusting the policy to allow those who exceed the $1,500 salary threshold to still rent flats from HDB but at higher rental rate. I believe this will help many families in difficult housing circumstances. I have three questions. Will requests under this new policy be more easily approved than previously, or will they still have to go through the trouble of appealing through their Members of Parliament? Secondly, can this be extended to families who are ineligible for rental flats due to other factors like the 30-month debarment period or having working children whom they are estranged from? Thirdly, what are the rental rates under this new policy?

Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Chairman, because the cases are usually unique, it is very hard to generalise. Of course, they will have to appeal. They can appeal directly to the HDB, as most do, or sometimes they do double barrel. They go straight to the Member in parallel. Either way, whether it comes from the Member or from the HDB branch office, we will look at each case. Last year, just as an example, we approved more than 100 families whose income exceeded the $1,500 ceiling. I expect the numbers to grow for this year and in the future.

If the 30-month debarment should affect some families, then you have to look at the individual case. If we deviate from the rule, we have to find a reason for doing so. I have expressed the principle last Friday that for victims of misfortune, like a sudden death of a breadwinner, our default position is to try to say yes. Try to find a reason to say yes, so long as the spirit of the policy is not flouted.

Page: 1887

What is rental rate? Rental rate will depend on their salary. If he is earning, let us say, $2,500 versus another one with $2,000, there must be a difference in their rentals. For those earning below $1,500, for example, rental for a 1-room flat is $30 and $110 for 2-room flat, or thereabout. For those, earning about $2,000, we are charging something like $200 plus. It is still heavily subsidised. But I think there must be a difference for those who are earning below $1,500.

The Chairman: Dr Teo Ho Pin, last clarification, please.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, I wish to ask the Minister of State whether the Ministry would consider setting up a construction productivity committee comprising various Government agencies and stakeholders of the industry to better coordinate and spur the improvement of productivity in the industry.

BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Chairman, we are already working very closely with the industries. There are already committees looking at not just the construction industry, but we are also very much interested in productivity across the various sectors. Whether there is a need for a committee looking specifically at construction, we believe that the on-going committees that we have with the stakeholders would suffice for the moment.

The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, can I invite you to withdraw your cut?

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Chairman, Sir, I am very glad that we are working with a very compassionate Minister and a poetic one as well. I am sure he heard all of us and I am sure he will try his best to help every deserving Singaporean. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,008,915,900 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $5,327,192,500 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.