MND – geraldgiam.sg

Seafood safety following the Fukushima waste water release

Next year, Japan will start releasing treated radioactive water from its damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean. Many people in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Singapore, are concerned about this move’s radiological impact on people and the environment. On 3 Aug 2023, I asked Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu if the Government is monitoring the water around the areas (in the Pacific Ocean) where our sources of seafood come from to assess whether or not the release of the wastewater will impact Singapore.

The Minister said that the Government will monitor reports coming from those areas but because Singapore does not have jurisdiction in those areas, it would be “very unrealistic to expect NEA to be monitoring the quality of waters several thousand miles away from Singapore”. She said, however, that the Government assesses the plan put up by the Japanese authorities on how they intend to discharge the wastewater and takes guidance from IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency). She also said that the Singapore authorities “take food samples” to manage the risks.

This is the full exchange in Parliament:

Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the release of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Sea by Japan (a) what measures are in place to ensure the safety of our food products, especially seafood, imported from Japan; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the potential impact on Singapore’s surrounding waters.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the impending release of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the ocean (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) will review the safety of seafood imports from Japan; and (b) what actions will SFA take when an imported food is found to have elevated levels of tritium or other radionuclide levels.

The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 8 and 9 together in the Order Paper today, because they relate to the same matter?

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you very much. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) adopt a science-based approach towards assessing food safety risks and environmental impacts respectively.

To ensure food safety, food imported into Singapore is subjected to SFA’s surveillance and monitoring regime, which includes radiation surveillance. Food products that fail SFA’s inspections and tests will not be allowed for sale. SFA has been closely monitoring food imports, including those from Japan, and our surveillance results have been satisfactory. SFA also keeps abreast of international developments and expert reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and foreign food safety authorities to augment our surveillance and monitoring regime.

NEA assesses that Japan’s planned discharge of treated radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea is unlikely to impact the seawater quality in or around Singapore waters. Since 2019, NEA has been closely monitoring Singapore’s waters as part of NEA’s environmental baseline radiation monitoring programme. The radioactivity measured continues to remain within our natural background levels. SFA and NEA will continue to monitor closely radiation levels in our food imports and our environment respectively.

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. I note that NEA operates a network of about 40 ambient radiation monitoring stations in and around Singapore, which provide a daily update on radiation levels. First, may I ask if the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment (MSE) has any plans to increase the frequency of monitoring to more than once a day or to include more monitoring stations?

The second question is a request for the readings to be made known to the public; and third, does MSE have any processes presently to monitor the presence of tritium in our environment?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, sorry, I could not catch hold of the Member’s second and third points – made known to the public on what?

Ms Joan Pereira: Make known to public on the radiation levels.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Yes, okay. And the third?

Ms Joan Pereira: Any process presently to monitor the presence of tritium in our environment.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I thank the Member for the questions. I would like to assure Members here as well as members of the public that we do keep a close watch, as I have mentioned earlier, including the readings from the 40 monitors that Member Joan Pereira has mentioned. And we do include readings on radiation and, if necessary, we will make some of these known if we need the public to be aware. Because these monitors actually collect a lot of data, so, we do not think that it is necessary to highlight one of them, unless it is in the public interest to do so.

And we have in the past, for example, when it comes to haze, we do highlight certain readings when we think that it is necessary for the public to take action. Otherwise, there will be a lot of data that may inundate the public and actually may not have the desired impact.

Having said that, we will monitor closely. For some indicators, we do intend to increase the number of monitors, but I will just assure the Member that we will look into the overall requirements of environmental protection and assess our capability from time to time.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Sir, I thank the Minister for her reply. My supplementary questions relate to food products. First, I would like to ask if SFA tests all imported food products coming from high-risk locations where there are potential nuclear contamination issues. Second, what would be the recourse for consumers who suspect that they have bought or consumed a product that contains high radionucleic levels?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you very much, Mr Melvin Yong, for the question. We take a risk-based approach when it comes to food safety and these risks could be many different types of risks. It can be from nuclear activities, nuclear active materials, it can be contamination from the environment. We are inundated actually with many, many different types of risks. So, I would not want Members to go away thinking that nuclear contamination is the only thing that we are concerned with or this is an issue that we are concerned about right now. As I have mentioned earlier in my reply, we have actually been monitoring a whole host of risks and you can see that SFA, from time to time, does take action against food items that do not meet our requirements.

So, this regime will continue and, of course, we will watch the situation with the discharge of Fukushima wastewater carefully. We will also rely on international assessments and we do exchange data and intelligence with other food safety authorities.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for her replies. I note the Minister said that the discharge of wastewater is unlikely to impact the waters around Singapore. But can I ask the Minister if NEA or SFA is monitoring whether the water around the areas where our sources of seafood come from is being monitored to assess whether or not it will impact Singapore?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Of course, we will monitor reports coming from those areas. As you see, we do not have jurisdiction in those areas. So, it is really not very realistic for us to expect NEA to be monitoring the quality of waters several thousand miles away from Singapore. Having said that, we do assess the plan that has been put up by the Japanese authorities on how they intend to discharge the wastewater. We do watch what IAEA is doing because IAEA is obviously monitoring the discharge and also on the lab reports very closely.

More importantly is that we do take food samples to manage the risks. So, I can assure the Member as well members of the public that this item is on our agenda and we will be taking all necessary actions to keep food coming into Singapore safe.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Photo by Tamas Pap on Unsplash

Cat management framework in HDB flats

In September 2022, NParks launched a six-month long public consultation exercise on the cat management framework. I asked the Minister for National Development on 5 July 2023 for an update on the cat management framework, specifically whether NParks will complete the framework by late 2023, what are the results of the six-month public consultation exercise on the framework that was launched in September 2022, and whether due consideration will be given to responsible cat owners, such as allowing cats as pets in HDB flats.

This was my question and the Minister’s answer:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks’ review of the cat management framework is on track for completion by late 2023; (b) what are the results of the six-month public consultation exercise on the framework launched in September 2022; and (c) whether the review will give due consideration to responsible cat owners, in deciding whether to allow cats as pets in HDB flats.

Mr Desmond Lee: The key findings of the National Parks Board (NParks)’s public survey on the proposed cat management approach were shared at the Pets’ Day Out event on 6 May 2023. NParks is further engaging the community on the proposed approach, including through focus group discussions with various stakeholder groups. NParks aims to share more details on the proposed approach in the later part of this year.

In deciding whether to allow cats as pets in HDB flats, we will continue to carefully balance the needs of different segments of the community. This was explained in our response to a Parliamentary Question from Mr Louis Ng, which was issued on 7 November 2022.

7 November 2022

Review of pet cat ownership in HDB flats

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) how long will the Ministry take to complete its review of pet cat ownership in HDB flats following the end of the public consultation; and (b) what are the key factors which the Ministry will consider in this review.

Mr Desmond Lee: In September this year, NParks launched a six-month public consultation exercise on our proposed cat management framework. The framework aims to promote responsible cat ownership and caregiving, while safeguarding public health and ensuring the well-being of our pet and community cats. Following the public consultation, we aim to complete our review, including the possibility of allowing pet cats in HDB flats, in the later part of next year.

As we review HDB’s pet ownership policies, we will carefully consider the feedback received through our various consultation channels. These include our online survey, which has gathered close to 30,000 responses so far, and our upcoming community dialogues and focus group discussions. In conducting the review, we will continue to balance the needs of different segments of the community, such as residents who would like to keep cats in their flats, and others who may have concerns about the disamenities caused by irresponsible cat ownership.

We will also place importance on protecting public health and animal welfare. For example, the possibility of regularising the keeping of pet cats in HDB flats will be studied alongside the proposal to introduce a licensing and microchipping scheme for pet cats. This would improve the traceability of pet cats, so that we can respond to animal disease outbreaks more effectively and better protect public health. In addition, this would allow us to hold irresponsible cat owners to greater account if their cats are found to be neglected, abused or abandoned.

We will also be mindful of the circumstances of existing cat owners, including those with multiple cats. Any new measures will be carefully studied and implemented in phases where necessary, and we will provide the necessary support to help affected stakeholders adapt to any changes that are introduced.

In the meantime, we encourage members of the public to share their views by taking part in our survey and upcoming engagement sessions, as we work together to improve our policies for cat management and welfare.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Photo by Nathan Fertig on Unsplash

HDB flats without direct lift access

I filed a question for written answer from the Minister for National Development for an update on the Lift Upgrading Programme at the 4 July 2023 Parliament sitting, in particular how many HDB blocks still lack direct access to lifts and whether HDB will continue to retrofit units with direct access as new solutions become available.

This is the answer provided by the Government:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied GRC) asked the Minister for National Development after the first round of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) and subsequent retrofitting to provide direct lift access for more of HDB units (a) how many HDB blocks still have units without direct access to lifts; (b) where are these blocks located; (c) what are the criteria for the post-LUP retrofitting of such flats; and (d) whether HDB will continue to retrofit units with direct lift access as new design and technical solutions become available.

Mr Desmond Lee (Minister for National Development): To date, more than 5,000 HDB blocks have benefited under the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). There are about 140 blocks island-wide without direct lift access where LUP will incur high cost and, in some cases, not be feasible due to existing technical and site constraints.

Over the years, HDB has piloted and adopted different design approaches and innovative technical solutions to bring direct lift access to more blocks under LUP. Some examples of the solutions that have been successfully implemented include machine room-less lifts, home lifts and bubble lifts.

There are some HDB blocks which have undergone LUP but do not have lifts stopping on the same floor level, due to technical constraints at the time of lift upgrading. For such flats, some residents need to climb about one flight of stairs to get to their units as compared to three or four flights of stairs prior to upgrading.

For blocks without direct lift access, HDB will continue to explore new technologies and adopt them where feasible. Residents who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or mobility reasons can apply for the Lift Access Housing Grant of up to $30,000 to help them buy another flat with direct lift access.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

MND: Assisted living options for seniors

By 2030, almost one in three people in Singapore will need some form of eldercare service. However, Singapore’s limited assisted living options mean seniors have few choices beyond living unassisted at home, engaging a foreign domestic helper or moving into a nursing home.

Nursing home residents in Singapore tend to stay for extended periods of five to 15 years. In contrast, the typical nursing home stay in the US is about two years, in part due to its more diverse aged care options like retirement villages and assisted living.

The high demand for nursing homes has led to bed occupancy rates exceeding 90%. More nursing homes should be built, but these are expensive to construct and operate.

HDB’s Community Care Apartments (CCA) could be a cost effective alternative for seniors who need assisted living but are not in need of round-the-clock care.

What has been the take up rate for CCAs so far? What is the projected demand and how many CCAs does HDB plan to build in the next 10 years?

The Government could boost the availability of CCA by purchasing and renovating existing HDB flats. This was suggested during a roundtable organised by the Leadership Institute for Global Health Transformation and reported in the Straits Times. By converting these flats into CCAs, seniors will be able to more conveniently access the care services they need. It will help scale up the provision of CCAs to more seniors and enable more of them to age in place, in familiar surroundings.

________

Committee of Supply Debate, Ministry of National Development, 2 March 2023

Photo by Singapore Stock Photos on Unsplash

Providing affordable homes for all Singaporean families

A public housing flat should be an affordable home for our families to live and grow up in.

The original mission behind the Housing and Development Board (HDB), when it was set up in 1960, was to alleviate the severe housing shortage at that time by building affordable homes for the population. However in 1989, public housing flats took on another role as an appreciating asset for their lessees, when the Government announced several major policy changes with regard to HDB resale flats.

First, the income ceiling for the purchase of resale flats was removed. This allowed people to buy HDB flats, even if they were higher income earners.

Second, permanent residents were allowed to buy HDB resale flats. This supported the Government’s liberalisation of immigration policies to attract more middle- and higher-income foreigners to come to work in Singapore. And third, HDB flat owners were allowed to purchase private property for investment purposes.

These measures added liquidity to the public housing market which pushed up prices.

The Government also introduced various upgrading programmes for HDB flats and estates. In addition to improving the living environment of HDB flat dwellers, this also bolstered the view that HDB flats are an appreciating asset.

Flat upgrading was pitched to voters by the PAP during the 1997 General Elections as a benefit they would enjoy priority for if their precincts voted for PAP candidates. Voters were told that after upgrading, their flat would increase in value. Conversely, precincts that voted for the opposition risked being placed further back in the upgrading queue.

Soon after the 1997 GE, then-PM Goh Chok Tong assessed that linking the upgrading programme to electoral support was the “single most important factor” in the vote swing to the PAP and that it was “decisive in tipping floating voters” in the PAP’s favour.

The PAP’s “votes-for-upgrading” election strategy continued into the 2006 election, when PAP candidates promised $180 million of upgrading projects for Hougang and Potong Pasir if voters tossed out the opposition there and voted in the PAP. Hougang and Potong Pasir voters did not bite the carrot offered.

However by 2015, opposition held wards like Hougang eventually started getting their lifts and flats upgraded. The scheme lost its effectiveness as a political tool. In fact, in my conversations with many residents in Hougang, it was this perceived unfairness that prompted them to vote against the PAP.

It is natural for people to not just desire a home to live in, but to also own an asset which grows in value. Many people think that their salaries alone will not make them rich. Properties, including HDB flats, are seen as very attractive assets to grow one’s wealth.

For the first two decades of the Government’s asset enhancement policy, the property asset-driven mindset worked like a charm. HDB resale flat prices increased 382% in value from 1990 to 2010. Many HDB lessees saw eye-watering increases in their property wealth.

However, this pathway to wealth requires ever increasing property prices to sustain it. Every property bought would need to be sold for significantly more than the purchase price. Yet, perpetual property price increases are neither sustainable nor in the public interest.

There are currently about 70,000 flats that are more than 40 years old, with remaining leases of 59 years or less. These flats will tend to decline in value after their 50 or 60 year old mark, as illustrated by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim yesterday.

Those who bought HDB flats in the 1980s and 1990s may be glad to see that their properties have increased in value. However, to unlock the value of these assets, they will need to sell and downgrade their properties before their leases start to decay.

Those with adult children would realise that the situation is much more precarious for their offspring. Many parents of young adults nowadays worry that their children may not be able to realise the same dream they themselves achieved to own a home of their own. Those who are better off have gone ahead and bought properties for their children to move in when they get married. Others have migrated to Australia, New Zealand and Canada where they are able to buy landed property for the price of an HDB flat. But where does it leave the rest of the Singaporeans who don’t have wealthy parents and want to remain in this country to build their homes, careers and families?

While many who graduated in the 1970s were able to afford a landed home after a few years of work, private property is now out of the question for most younger graduates. Even resale flats are out of reach for many of them, leaving BTO (Built-to-order) flats the only remaining option.

Moderating the price of resale flats

My honourable friends Louis Chua, Leon Perera and Jamus Lim have tabled proposals on making the price of BTO flats more affordable. In the remainder of my speech, I will focus on moderating the price of resale flats.

Many young couples buying their first flat prefer to live near their parents. This provides them the familiar surroundings that they grew up in and the companionship they can offer to their parents and vice-versa. Their parents are also able to help them care for their children when they are at work. Many homebuyers also prefer living in mature estates where amenities and transport links to the city are better developed. Only resale flats can meet many of these requirements.

This is also why BTO flats in mature estates are so popular. Many of my residents have approached me to ask me to help them appeal to HDB for priority to get a BTO or Sale of Balance flat in a mature estate, after trying multiple times to secure one in balloting exercises and failing. When I suggest buying a resale flat and using government grants to help with the down payment, my suggestion is often met with great scepticism because resale flat prices feel so far out of reach for them.

The median house price-to-income ratio (HPI) after grants of first-timer families who bought a resale HDB flat in the last five years was between 4.6 and 5.0. This ratio is the resale flat price divided by the household income of the buyers. According to the International Housing Affordability Ratings by Demographia, such a median multiple would be rated as “seriously unaffordable”. The median multiple would need to be 3.0 and under to be considered “affordable”.

This has pushed many of my residents to either rent at high open market rates or compete with other homebuyers to ballot for BTO flats.

We need to moderate the growth in resale flat prices. Our goal must be to moderate the growth, not make the prices collapse, because the latter would negatively affect many existing flat lessees who are depending on their flats as a source of future retirement income.

There are two ways to moderate resale flat price growth without imposing price caps by government fiat. These are: To reduce demand or increase the supply of resale flats.

The Government has already introduced the 15-month waiting-out period for private property downgraders to reduce demand. I will focus on measures to increase the supply of HDB resale flats.

Right-sizing for empty nesters

There is a potentially large stock of HDB resale flats that can be put on the market. Many seniors live in flats that are larger than what they require after their children have gotten married and moved out. It becomes difficult for them to clean and maintain such a large flat on their own.

As at 2021, there were 71,000 flats, 3-room or larger, which were owned by married persons over the age of 65, whose children had moved out. These flats could potentially be sold on the resale market if their owners are prepared to move into new 2-room flexi flats on short term leases. Many of these 2-room flats come with elderly-friendly fittings and nearby amenities, which seniors find quite attractive.

However, not all elderly applicants for 2-room flexi flats are successful. The application rates of BTO 2-room flexi flats allocated to elderly households, as at September 2022, ranged from 2.0 to 4.6 times in non-mature estates, to 9.9 times in mature estates.

If a larger proportion of the 71,000 senior households decided to sell their flats and buy 2-room flexi flats, the demand will far outstrip supply. By 2030, 25% of our population will be over 65. The number in need of right-sized flats will only grow as the years go on.

The Government needs to provide more help to seniors who wish to right-size their flats by building more 2-room flexi flats. Doing so will have the twin benefit of increasing the supply of resale flats for new homebuyers and moderating their prices.

Concurrent ownership of HDB flats and private property

Another area that the Government should look into to increase the supply of resale flats is to prospectively restrict the concurrent ownership of HDB and private property.

Currently, private property owners who want to buy an HDB flat are required to dispose of their property before buying an HDB flat. The Government has stated that this is to prioritise our limited supply of public housing for residents who do not own other properties.

However the reverse is not true: HDB flat owners are allowed to buy private residential property without selling their HDB flat. They can do so if they meet the Minimum Occupation Period and pay the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) of at least 17% on the purchase of their second and subsequent residential property. The Government has stated that this is allowed because HDB recognises that the financial position of HDB flat owners may improve over time and some may aspire to own private residential property.

While I acknowledge that this is a valid aspiration of many higher income Singaporeans, realising this aspiration cannot come at the expense of less well-off Singaporeans who are only looking for a roof over their heads.

As at October 2022, about 3% of HDB flat owners owned at least one private property. This translates to about 32,600 units. Of these, 45% are not living in their flats. So there are about 15,000 HDB units which are not occupied by their owners, who live in another private property that they own. This represents a not-insignificant number of HDB flats that could potentially add to the resale flat supply and moderate the price of resale flats. I do acknowledge that many of these flats are rented out, adding to the supply of open market rental flats.

Has the Government given further consideration to the possibility of future buyers of private property being required to sell their HDB flats? When I asked the Minister for National Development about this in November last year, he said that the Government has been “gathering views from Singaporeans as part of Forward Singapore, and will study these as well as other views and ideas carefully.”

For those who already concurrently own both a private property and an HDB flat, the Government could incentivise them to sell their HDB flat by rebating the ABSD they paid at the time they purchased their private property, if they choose to sell their HDB flat. This would encourage private property owners to free up their HDB flat for others who cannot afford to buy private property.

This policy should be prospective, so it will not compel current HDB and private property owners to dispose of any property. It will only affect those that currently own an HDB flat and decide to purchase private property after the policy takes effect.

If this policy is implemented prospectively, it will not immediately add to the supply of resale flats. However, in the medium to long term, it will better promote the owner-occupation intent of public housing and better ensure an adequate supply of affordable resale flats.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, housing is a basic human need. Singapore’s public housing policies were a great success in the first few decades after our independence. But the Government got distracted along the way when it started pairing the objective of affordable housing with that of asset enhancement. As a result, public housing has become unaffordable by international measures. The longer we allow these two objectives to be conflated, the more unaffordable housing will become for future generations. It is time that we stopped kicking the can down the road and focus on HDB’s original mission of providing quality and affordable housing for all Singaporeans, especially the lower and middle income earners.

This is my speech in Parliament during the debate on public housing policies on 7 February 2023.

Govt grants to Town Councils to cope with higher costs

All Town Councils in Singapore depend on government grants to offset their costs. In recent years, many costs, including that of electricity, manpower, construction and maintenance services, have gone up significantly. I asked the Minister for National Development if the Ministry has any plans to increase its grants to Town Councils to cope with these higher costs. Mr Desmond Lee acknowledged that TCs face higher costs. Although he did not immediately commit to increasing grants, he said the Government will continue to monitor the larger macroeconomic environment, the cost drivers affecting TCs, their income sources and overall financial positions, and assess if further funding support is required.

This was my full question and the Minister’s answer on 10 Jan 2023:

PLANS TO INCREASE GRANTS TO TOWN COUNCILS TO COPE WITH HIGHER COSTS

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry has any plans to increase its grant to Town Councils to cope with higher costs, including for electricity and other Town Council contracts.

Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils (TCs) are autonomous legal entities formed under the TCs Act and managed by elected Members of Parliament. The TCs are responsible for their financial sustainability, through managing their income and expenses prudently.

We understand TCs face higher costs due to higher energy prices, manpower costs and costs of maintenance services. Such cost increases are not unique to Singapore and the Government has taken steps to partially cushion the impact on residents. To help TCs cope with costs, the Government provides grants such as the Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Operating Grant, Lift Maintenance Grant, GST Subvention Grant and Lift Replacement Fund Matching Grant. Collectively, these grants to TCs amount to about $239 million a year.

The Government will continue to monitor the larger macroeconomic environment, cost drivers affecting TCs, their income sources and overall financial positions, and assess if further funding support is required.

Bird population control

My residents in Bedok Reservoir and Hougang have given me feedback on the nuisance caused by pigeons, crows, mynahs and even koels around their housing estates. The proliferation of the bird population is often a public hygiene, and in the case of crows, a safety issue, which worries residents.

The Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) has been doing its part to combat this problem. AHTC puts up banners to caution residents against bird feeding and works with residents to identify and report feeders. It advises food stall operators on proper food waste disposal methods, and our conservancy workers regularly remove unattended food sources. The Town Council also conducts regular tree pruning and, as a last resort, pigeon culling.

Despite all these efforts, the bird nuisance problem has persisted. NParks occasionally sets up crow traps, but these are rather ineffective as crows are intelligent creatures and tend not to fall for these traps.

I believe this problem is not unique to Aljunied-Hougang town. A national level effort by MND and its agencies may be needed to combat it. This may include more public education to discourage bird feeding, setting up CCTV monitoring and stepping up enforcement actions against bird feeders.

It would be helpful if NParks could regularly share with Town Councils its research and recommendations on best practices for controlling the population of various bird species. It could step up efforts to trap and relocate birds in areas where they are causing a nuisance to the public.

Together with the efforts of Town Councils, MND’s stepped up involvement could help residents and our avian friends to co-exist more peacefully in our urban environment.

Speech in Parliament during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development on 8 Mar 2022.

Interim rental housing

There are many residents who have approached me to request assistance in appealing to HDB for subsidised rental housing. Some have to sell their flats after a divorce or they have to move out of their current homes due to family issues. Most cannot afford to buy flats and face being homeless. The Minister said previously that “the overall stock of rental flats is sufficient to meet demand”. Unfortunately, problems remain.

First, some residents exceed the Public Rental Scheme income threshold but do not earn enough to afford rent in the open market. Others may be single unwed parents who do not qualify for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme.

Second, applicants who qualify for public rental housing may still have to wait for between three to eight months before they can collect their keys. Many need a place to stay urgently as they don’t have family or friends who can take them in.

Could the Minister share, since 2020, the number of applications HDB received for rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme, the Interim Rental Housing Scheme and the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme? How many approvals were granted under each scheme and what were the main reasons for approvals or rejections under each scheme?

I urge the HDB to increase the number of flats supplied under the Interim Rental Housing scheme. The HDB could offer tiered rental rates that are higher than Public Rental Scheme rates but lower than open market prices. This will help the many families and individuals that fail the strict means test of the current rental schemes but are not earning enough to rent in the open market, yet need housing urgently to avoid being left homeless.

This is a “cut” I delivered during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development, on 8 Mar 2022.

HDB flats approaching end of lease (MND – COS)

If the Government does not have any specific plans for flats when their leases expire, I think it should make this clear to the public, so that buyers can factor this in when choosing a resale flat, and they don’t pay too high a premium for older flats.

This speech today was a follow up to a Parliamentary Question I asked in January, regarding the value of HDB flats at the end of their 99-year lease. I will post the Minister’s reply next week once it is out on the Hansard.

———–
Madam,

Government leaders have, over the years, frequently told Singaporeans that their HDB flats are an asset which they can monetise during retirement. However, less frequent are the reminders that, as a flat approaches the end of its 99-year lease, its asset value will depreciate to zero.

While most Singaporeans know that their flats are on a limited lease, many assume that HDB will not let their assets become worth nothing, or that their flats will eventually go through an “en bloc” before their leases expire.

The Minister told me in a reply to my PQ in January that the selection of sites and the pace of SERS (the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme) will depend on factors such as their redevelopment potential, and the availability of replacement sites for rehousing, and other resources.

Can the Minister confirm whether all old flats will eventually be replaced through SERS before they reach their end of lease? If not, what proportion will be not be replaced?

Other than SERS, what are the Government’s plans for HDB flats that approach their end-of-lease? For example, will their leases get topped up, and will the topping up cost be borne by HDB, or the lessees?

There are now over 31,000 flats which are more than 40 years into their lease. I’m sure many young couples are still buying these resale flats, which would mean that the leases may end within their lifetimes.

Ensuring indoor air quality during occurrence of haze

On 8 July 2013, Parliament debated the Government’s response to the perennial haze problem. These are the questions I asked the Minister for National Development and Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, and their responses (Part 3 of 3).

————————–

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development during this haze period, whether BCA is taking any steps to inspect the air-conditioning and mechanical systems of commercial and industrial buildings to ensure that the indoor air in these buildings does not contain an unhealthy level of contaminants.

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yi Shyan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, under the Building Control Act and Regulations, building designs are required to comply with the performance requirements for fresh air intake and air change specified in the Singapore Standard called SS553. This is the Code of Practice for Air-conditioning and Mechanical Ventilation in Buildings. The design standard in SS553, such as air change and fresh air intake, are based on the standards published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), which are internationally recognised standards.

After any buildings are completed, building owners are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the buildings. For office buildings, building owners may refer to NEA’s “Good Indoor Air Quality in Office Premises” guidelines and Singapore Standards SS554, which is the Code of Practice for Indoor Air Quality for Air-conditioned Buildings. The SS554’s requirements are also aligned with international best practice. For example, guidelines on filters to protect building occupants from airborne particulate matter are aligned with test methods published by ASHRAE.

The recent extreme haze level was unprecedented. The 24-hour PSI hit a high of 246, while the previous high was 142 in 1994. At such a high level of outdoor pollution, the building owners may have to monitor its indoor air quality and take steps to minimise open contact with the outdoor fresh air and also to take steps to maintain air filters more frequently if the haze is a prolonged situation.

We have earlier commissioned a multi-agency team – involving NEA, BCA, MOM, MOH and MSF and local research institutes – to review the indoor air quality of various premises to determine if the current Codes of Practice need to be further refined. More measures may be introduced based on this study.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mdm Speaker, I appreciate the Senior Minister of State’s explanation of the regulations in place. My question was: During this period of the haze, were there any extra steps to enforce or monitor building owners to ensure that they actually do what they are supposed to do.

Mr Lee Yi Shyan: Mdm Speaker, I would just like to clarify that, currently, both BCA and NEA have no regulations on indoor air quality per se. What NEA has introduced is a code of best practices that building owners would want to adhere to for maintaining their air conditioning in office buildings. These are guidelines.

Instead of running the risk of over-legislation, we have to, in this instance, depend on the indoor users — the office workers and those people working in the air-conditioning environment — to take some responsibility and make sure that they provide feedback to the owners and the facility managers for building maintenance.

So this is a premise that we are working on and it has worked well. Whether we would want to refine subsequent best practices for indoor air quality, we will have to wait for the technical study that is being carried out. Necessarily, we would require quite a bit of data support to establish the difference between outdoor and indoor air quality. And, of course, as a technical standard, the Member will appreciate that it has to be implementable and also measurable when we publish the standards.

—————————-

ADVICE ON WAYS TO REDUCE LEVEL OF INDOOR AIR POLLUTION

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry can provide more advice to parents with young children (including newborns) and pregnant women on how to reduce indoor air pollution levels; and (b) what advice can the Ministry provide to households, childcare centres, kindergartens and schools on the appropriate types of air cleaning devices that may be needed to reduce the level of indoor air pollutants during the haze period.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: During the smoke haze episodes, the main air pollutant of concern is particulate matter.

When the outdoor haze situation deteriorates, young children and pregnant women are advised to stay indoors and reduce their activities. Doors and windows should be closed to reduce the entry of outdoor air pollutants. Fans and air conditioners could be helpful for air circulation. Any activity that generates more particles and particulate matter indoors such as cigarette/cigar/pipe-smoking, burning of candles, vacuuming, dry dusting and sweeping should be avoided.

During the periods of haze, air cleaners may be helpful in households, kindergartens and childcare centres. There are three main types of air cleaners which remove particulate matter: mechanical air filters, electrostatic precipitators and ionisers. Ozone-generating cleaners should be avoided as ground-level ozone is a harmful pollutant. As soon as the outdoor air quality improves to healthy levels, windows could be opened to enhance natural ventilation.

More information is available at the NEA Haze website at www.haze.gov.sg.

——————-

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)