预算辩论 · 2026-03-04 · 第 15 届国会
2026国家发展部供给委员会辩论：AI与机器人改造建筑业
MND Committee of Supply 2026 — AI & Robotics in Construction
国家发展部供给委员会辩论中讨论了AI和机器人技术对建筑业的变革潜力。技术进步如何帮助建筑行业节省时间、降低成本、减少人力需求成为核心议题。AI和机器人有望将建筑业转变为快速、智能和高度自动化的行业。
关键要点
- • AI和机器人改造建筑业
- • 节省时间、降低成本、减少人力
- • 推动建筑业智能化自动化
积极推动建筑业技术转型
Pritam Singh和Sylvia Lim参与辩论
建筑业AI自动化加速
参与人员（5）
完整译文（中文）
Hansard 英文原文译文 · 翻译日期：2026-05-02
主席：国家发展部（MND）T项负责人。郭庆兴先生。
上午11时32分
无障碍且负担得起的住房
郭庆兴（格文巴鲁选区）议员：主席，我提议，“将预算中国家发展部T项的总拨款减少100元。”
主席先生，在准备供应委员会（COS）期间，由于国家发展部涉及许多新加坡人的生活，我们的政府议会委员会（GPC）广泛咨询了民众、行业专家和住房专家，今天我们带来了一些想法。让我先概述一下我们GPC将要提出的内容。
副主席谢耀权将分享关于自愿提前重建计划（VERS）设计的一些想法。梁荣华议员将呼吁国家发展部扩大“乐龄邻里”和“社区关怀公寓”项目，并为市镇理事会提供更多支持，以应对成本上升。洪伟能议员将谈论改善单身人士、私人住宅区居民的组屋（BTO）可及性，并提高收入上限超过14,000元。
傅策祥议员将倡导放宽新加坡人与非居民配偶购买建屋发展局（HDB）组屋的限制，并引入灵活的短期租赁计划以惠及长者。纳迪亚·萨姆丁议员将提出如何改善我们住房结构多样性及如何提升我们的自然城市环境的建议。蔡银洲议员将谈论在社区中创造第三空间，如何重新构想全民拥有住房，以及如何让组屋寿命延长超过99年。
至于我本人，我将谈三个方面。如何让住房更易获得且负担得起，确保有足够的住房和土地满足不断增长的需求，以及如何加强我们的建筑行业。
我的第一点是提高可及性和负担能力。自COVID-19以来，我们积极建设住房，使首次购房者，尤其是有年轻家庭者，能够获得新组屋。现在这关键群体的需求已得到很好满足，是时候考虑如何改善其他群体的可及性和负担能力了。
首先是单身人士。我期待及时出台政策，将BTO组屋的申请年龄下调，最好降至33岁，以惠及单身人士。
第二是夹心阶层家庭面临贷款资格问题。我多次提到，这些家庭收入过高，无法申请公共租赁住房，但因离婚或过去的财务困难，无法获得贷款。他们最终只能租住他人组屋的房间，支付接近按揭甚至更高的费用，既无资产积累，也无保障给子女。
我理解这群体的需求由不同因素驱动，但我希望国家发展部能考虑设立针对性计划，类似“新起点”计划，利用多种政策工具，如结构化HDB贷款、政府担保按揭或长期可负担租赁，而无需等待BTO。
下一群是多代同堂家庭从私人住宅区缩小居住规模。这些家庭希望继续同住，但因家庭分裂、企业失败或财务困难，无法负担私人房产。如果他们的净资产与典型组屋家庭相当，国家发展部是否考虑允许他们立即申请5房BTO？
第四是大家庭。近期BTO扩建重点放在较小户型，但随着供应恢复，国家发展部能否确保5房组屋供应跟上需求？
第五是收入上限。收入上限未能跟上工资和房价，尤其是公寓价格的上涨。许多表现良好的新加坡人希望维持合理生活成本，尤其在未来就业不确定的背景下，他们更愿意选择组屋而非公寓。国家发展部能否及时审查收入上限？
第六是更多执行共管公寓（EC）及更负担得起的EC。目前EC可获得最高30,000元的购屋补贴。我希望能做更多，但单纯提高补贴可能无效，因为开发商可能会相应提高价格。因此，如果政府愿意加码，我希望也能采取其他措施，如延长最低居住期限（MOP）或引入转售前利润分享机制。
除了组屋，我们还应关注许多老旧私人公寓。这些老旧公寓面临维修基金不足和基础设施老化问题。我希望国家发展部考虑提供针对性支持，如电梯更换、升级或维护的资金援助，或为长者友好改造提供资金。国家发展部还应确保管理公司（MCST）提前设立充足储备，并审视MCST的治理方式。
第二点是确保建造足够住房，更重要的是找到足够土地。我很高兴国家发展部计划维持自COVID-19以来的积极建设计划。因为如果放宽BTO申请条件，需求将上升。除政策驱动需求外，基本需求也在增长。看看周围，家庭分裂增多，新加坡人寿命延长，单身人数增加。
关键是供应信心与供应本身同等重要。COVID-19期间，等待恐慌引发抢购。充足且可见的供应具有自我稳定作用。我支持国家发展部保持充足组屋库存的承诺。
但更难的问题是土地。我们从哪里找土地？目前我们已将15%的土地用于住房，这还要面对小岛国家的其他竞争需求。且这15%不包括组屋区内的基础设施、公园、道路和商店。因此，寻找新土地并非易事，答案只有三个。
一是建得更高，超过40至50层。但这也是重大转变，意味着更多电梯大堂、更高规格电梯、更严格消防要求、更高电梯维护费由市镇理事会承担，我希望国家发展部能协助分担费用。建高楼有其后果，不能过快过猛推行。
第二是除了建高楼，我们必须释放更多土地，并且必须坦诚面对这一权衡。如果决心保持住房可及和负担得起，就必须同样决心及时识别并释放合适的绿地和棕地。
作为格文巴鲁选区议员，毗邻中央自然保护区，我亲眼见证国家发展部如何谨慎与环保团体和居民沟通释放绿地。例如我刚当议员时，教师组屋区内有一整块绿地，现已转变为莲塘山发展区。
国家发展部官员和我进行了23次交流，咨询专家，听取不同群体意见，确保大家认可后才推进开发。我的亲身经历显示国家发展部找到了正确平衡。我希望我们有决心找到更多土地建房。
但同时，释放更多土地时，我们也必须积极通过新公园、生态走廊和持续植树来补偿失去的绿地。我记得“百万树木”运动，COVID-19期间，前国家发展部长德士蒙在植物园种下第一棵树，随后在格文巴鲁第四大道社区中心前种下第一排树。我希望“百万树木”运动展示了可能性，随着住房增长，我希望国家发展部和国家公园局（NParks）能考虑后续行动，或许是下一轮“百万树木”运动，让住房增长与绿化同步。
最后，未来土地供应也应来自VERS。VERS成功的关键是公平补偿和便捷融资。最近与居民交流时，有个建议反复出现。HDB应为50岁以上居民提供同户型替换组屋选项，可能是短期租约，这样他们无需筹现金补差价。这将增加对VERS的支持，释放更多土地。
最后一点是关于建筑行业和国家发展部支持企业。未来几年，建筑支出预计超过500亿新元。我们正加快推进第五航站楼建设，滨海湾金沙扩建，地铁和地下工程，以及更多组屋建设。500亿支出将持续两年，随后降至约400亿。
这与持续收紧外劳政策同时发生，组合挑战大，尤其是我们希望控制人力和建筑成本。因此，我欢迎国家发展部更新数字化和生产力提升进展，特别是建筑信息模型（BIM）应用和预制构件。
最后谈谈国家发展部支持企业。今年一月我参加建筑与建设局（BCA）会议，齐部长表示国家发展部将与业界合作，简化流程，更加支持企业。参与者反响热烈。国家发展部能否预告这项计划，说明如何更支持企业？
总之，国家发展部管理广泛多样的领域，从住房到绿化，从动物福利到建筑再到城市规划。这些职责共同塑造新加坡人的日常生活——我们回家的住所、散步的公园和建设未来的社区。感谢国家发展部及其机构官员的奉献，使新加坡成为今天和明天最好的家园。
（程序文本）提案提出。（程序文本）
主席：普里塔姆·辛格先生，您可以将三项提案一并提出。
BTO组屋收入资格上限
普里塔姆·辛格（阿裕尼）议员：议会成员可能遇到许多年轻新加坡夫妇期待组建家庭并购买首套HDB BTO组屋，但因各种原因无法实现或无法获得理想组屋。
部分原因是HDB设定的收入上限，目前夫妻申请BTO组屋的上限为14,000元，执行共管公寓（EC）为16,000元。
上午11时45分
虽然HDB转售市场没有收入上限，但新加坡人，尤其是年轻家庭，仍担心租约递减、退休保障不足，以及错失BTO购屋的纳税人补贴。同时，新一代新加坡人的置业阶梯已非父辈故事。许多工资收入者无法像父母那样，从组屋搬到公寓再到有地房产。
组屋将继续为大多数新加坡人提供住房，尤其是新私宅（包括EC）所需的财务投入比以往更大。但新现实正在形成：年轻和中年新加坡人的就业环境日益不可预测和不确定。
如今，年轻和中年新加坡人担心被技术进步和岗位重组淘汰。考虑长期融资的组屋购买时，这些现实因素影响他们的决策。夫妻合计收入可能目前高于收入上限，但未来未必如此，尤其是配偶失业或选择专职育儿或照顾长辈时。
近年来，HDB推出多项政策杠杆以提高BTO组屋负担能力，部分因转售价格飙升。例如补贴回收机制，从约6%提高到部分BTO项目的14%；延长最低居住期限（MOP），至少有一项HDB计划设定20年MOP，专为租户转组屋设计。
鉴于这些杠杆，HDB是否考虑允许收入超标的首次购房夫妇仍可选择购买BTO组屋？即使大多数买家收入资格定期调整，这将有效取消小部分买家的收入上限。为确保公平，若首次购房夫妇选择此类BTO组屋，可附加一项或多项要求，如限购首套婚房，夫妻任一年龄上限35岁及以下；设定比该BTO类别（Plus、Prime或Standard）更长的MOP；和/或增加补贴回收机制。
为此，部长能否分享2020年至2025年间，每年因收入上限而被拒绝购买BTO组屋的首次申请者申诉数量？现有收入上限覆盖8成新加坡家庭，为首次购房年轻人提供附加购屋选项，预计不会显著增加BTO建设数量，但能为部分对未来就业环境不确定的新加坡人带来极大安心。
外墙维修共付计划
2004年，HDB推出外墙维修共付计划，HDB为外墙相关维修提供资金，并补偿市镇理事会对组屋外墙损坏的维修费用。2023至2028年间，针对外墙风险较高的砖砌和部分金属装饰组屋，补助提高至75%。
但因外墙渗水导致住户单位内漏水的情况，不在任何共付计划覆盖范围内。随着HDB组屋老化，尤其是老旧组屋外墙渗水现象据说有所增加。HDB是否会通过外墙维修共付计划协助市镇理事会，将因外墙渗水产生的索赔纳入补助范围？
公布HDB商业租金
2026年1月10日，针对公众对商业租金上涨的关注，HDB宣布，任何HDB商铺的成功投标者须承诺租金维持两个租期共六年，而非一个三年租期，以鼓励谨慎投标。
这些措施可能促使更谨慎的投标，但对高人流区域商铺的影响尚待观察。
大多数HDB商铺为私人持有，约8,500间，HDB出租约7,000间。部分商铺，尤其是咖啡店，HDB承认部分承租人对个别摊位加收高额租金，而他们向HDB支付的租金基本保持稳定。
我于2025年10月呼吁HDB公开转租租金信息。2026年1月10日HDB宣布将收集摊位租金数据，之后决定如何公开。
我建议所有HDB商业租金，包括转租，应在易于访问的中央平台公开。尽管大多数HDB商业物业为私人持有，基本租金信息可在其他渠道获得，但HDB提供集中信息将方便市场参与者和新入者，尤其是小企业，做出明智租赁决策，无论房东是HDB还是私人。
设立租金监管委员会
阿扎尔·奥斯曼（提名议员）：鉴于近期对租金上涨不满事件，我建议设立类似公共交通理事会的独立监管法定机构，隶属国家发展部，负责监控市场租金水平。此举将向公众保证，政府正采取有效措施解决新加坡人面临的租金问题。
此外，理事会成员将能够识别潜在的洗钱活动，尤其是在租金异常高的情况下。目前，租金价格一般可接受的涨幅在3%至15%之间。任何超出此范围的增长都应在批准或不批准继续之前进行仔细审查。
主席：Louis Chua先生，您可以将您的两次发言合并进行。
现有镇区食品和饮料的可及性
Chua Kheng Wee Louis先生（盛港）：主席，早在2023年的财政预算辩论以及同年关于建屋发展局（修订）法案的辩论中，我就曾表达过对新加坡小贩中心和咖啡店分布不均的担忧。快进到2026年，盛港终于拥有了自己的小贩中心，布昂谷于2023年开业，安可谷村于2024年开业。随着河滨岸区的竣工，整个河滨岸区约有18,000户家庭终于拥有了不止一家咖啡店。
国土部在早前的财政预算答复中提到，大多数居民可以在距离家中400米内，或大约步行五到十分钟的范围内，访问带有美食广场或餐饮场所的商业设施。那么问题是，有多少比例的居民需要步行超过400米才能到达美食广场或餐饮场所？
虽然我理解新的建屋发展局组屋项目确实包含零售和餐饮选项，但仍有跨越邻里范围的区域内外缺乏此类设施。一个例子是2025年3月启动的西南项目的经济套餐，旨在在社区核心位置放置80台自动售货机供居民购买。随后，这些自动售货机也安装在榜鹅，引用副总理颜金勇的话，他希望在榜鹅部署更多此类自动售货机，方便居民。
在盛港，经过与建屋发展局和外部供应商的合作期后，我们终于在三个地点设有热食自动售货机和咖啡馆：108号河滨岸步道、188C号河滨岸大道和288B号指南针谷环路。我感谢供应商，作为初始供应商退出后的替代者，尽管面临需求不确定和高额固定及运营成本等各种挑战，仍承诺支持该项目。
我希望建屋发展局能考虑在各镇区大规模招标多个地点，而非在榜鹅、盛港或其他镇区引入零散项目，以确保所有新加坡居民，尤其是目前家中400米内没有美食广场或餐饮场所的居民，都能获得负担得起且易于获取的餐饮。这将为潜在经营者提供足够的规模经济，使其业务更具可持续性和可见度。此外，建屋发展局从中获得的额外租金收入不应成为主要考虑因素，因为自动售货机占地面积小，空置的底层空间本来就不会产生收入，因此不存在机会成本问题。
我敦促国土部考虑在全岛范围内推广类似举措，就像它在建屋发展局底层空间试点的Pick Locker网络一样，方便所有居民。负担得起的食品获取不应取决于居住的区属。
重新审视执行共管公寓模式
主席，新加坡执行共管公寓（EC）的价格在过去十年飞涨。EC被宣传为年轻夫妇购买私人公寓的更实惠选择，但他们无力负担。可以理解，EC的每平方英尺价格会高于转售组屋。但我认为，如今的价格已过于昂贵，无法实现其最初的意图。
EC被定位为更高端但可负担的公私合营混合住房，其溢价可与转售组屋市场比较。2016年，转售组屋的平均每平方英尺价格约为424新元，EC约为782新元，差距约为84%。2021年，转售组屋为488新元，EC为1,176新元，差距达141%。到2024年，转售组屋约为603新元，EC为1,531新元，差距达154%。这些数字会因组屋和EC所在社区类型而异，但作为大致比较基础仍有参考价值。
绝对价格差异更为显著。2016年新EC的平均价格约为86万新元，转售组屋为43.9万新元，差额约42.1万新元。到2025年，新EC平均价格为170万新元，转售组屋为65.2万新元，差额超过100万新元。
1996年EC住房计划推出时，时任国土部长林荣强表示，过去几年私有物业价格的急剧上涨再次造成了一批夹心阶层的年轻人，他们超出组屋收入上限，但买不起私人物业。
首先，我不认识许多能负担EC的年轻人，尤其是当平均价格高达170万新元，统计数据也显示，从2021年到2025年，只有四成EC购买者是首次购房者。即便如此，我认为如果没有父母的经济支持，首次购房者很难支付EC所需的首付。
更讽刺的是，根据现行融资规则，目前无法负担EC的年轻人被认为能够负担甚至购买价格更高的私人公寓。这是因为EC适用30%的按揭偿还比率，而私人公寓仅适用55%的总债务偿还比率。
以每月家庭收入上限16,000新元计算，潜在EC买家可根据30%的按揭偿还比率获得近100万新元贷款。以当前EC平均价格计算，仍有约70万新元的缺口。然而，同一家庭若选择购买私人公寓，可获得约128万新元贷款，缺口缩小至约40万新元。
除了直接增加补贴外，还有两个简单方案：提高按揭偿还比率，使家庭能承担更高贷款，以及提高家庭月收入上限，允许更多买家进入市场。但这并未解决EC本身价格的根本可负担性问题。反而，由于买家群体扩大，可能导致EC价格进一步上涨。
主席，鉴于EC市场日益难以负担，我敦促国土部认真重新思考现行EC模式，并考虑上游政策，将EC价格调整至符合其最初意图的范围。可负担性和公平获取应成为新EC模式的核心原则。
组屋居住者的最低居住期限
Sylvia Lim女士（亚历山大）：先生，建屋发展局的使命是提供负担得起的优质住房和良好的生活环境，促进社区繁荣。随着新加坡家庭结构多样化，建屋发展局需要评估如何在各种不同情况下分配纳税人的补贴和资助，这使使命变得更加复杂。有些人晚年组建家庭，有些人优先考虑多代同堂的照顾，同时生活和职业路径也不总是线性的。
我想提出审视对非业主，即列名居住者施加的最低居住期限（MOP）政策。这项政策在某些情况下可能给家庭带来困难。例如，一位丧偶或离异的中年父母想要缩小居住规模，决定购买一套补贴的三房组屋，并将未婚成年子女列为必要居住者。根据建屋发展局政策，MOP期限适用于业主和居住者。标准组屋的MOP为五年，Plus和Prime组屋为十年。
12点整
对仅为居住者的未婚成年子女施加此限制，将限制他们的生活选择。如果他们后来遇到伴侣但推迟结婚五到十年，可能会错过关键的生育年龄。新加坡面临极低的总生育率，仅为0.87，远低于2.1的更替水平。我们的住房政策不应无意中阻碍希望组建家庭的年轻新加坡人。
先生，MOP政策旨在减少公共住房市场投机，这是完全可以理解且值得赞赏的目标。但随着新加坡家庭结构和生活轨迹日益多样化，我们的公共住房政策需要响应这些现实。我敦促部委继续考虑如何更好地完善现有规则和框架，以符合新加坡人的多样化愿望。
重新构想全民置业
Cai Yinzhou先生（碧山-大巴窑）：我们正处于一个转折点。随着建屋发展局供应增加以满足需求，我们必须超越仅提供“有屋可住”，进一步完善社会契约的包容性。我请求部委明确如何优先处理五个关键领域。
第一，中产阶级压力。随着中位家庭收入超过12,000新元，许多年轻夫妇陷入困境——不符合建屋发展局组屋或父母支持计划（PPHS）资格，却买不起转售市场的房屋。是否该调整收入上限以反映当前工资现实？
第二，关于换屋者的流动性。15个月的等待期是必要的冷却措施，但对处于人生转折期的家庭和公民来说，仍显得过于粗糙。我们能否采取更细致、基于个案的方法，促进换屋？
第三，关于单身人士的愿望。许多年轻新加坡人选择非传统生活路径。政府是否会考虑降低组屋资格年龄，从35岁开始，让他们更早安定未来？
第四，新加坡人与外国配偶通常面临更严格的置业路径。在全球化环境下，这些家庭的住房稳定关系到我们公民的长期国内稳定。
最后，单亲未婚父母面临最大挑战，等待时间最长，补贴最少。我请求部委考虑基于子女年龄的更有同情心的优先顺序，并平衡补贴，使每个孩子无论家庭结构如何，都能在安全环境中成长。让我们敢于想象一个新加坡，负担得起的住房不仅对部分人开放，而是以合适的价格和规模，真正惠及所有人。
主席：Fadli Fawzi先生，请将您的两次发言合并进行。
放宽租赁组屋的置业路径
Fadli Fawzi先生（亚历山大）：主席，我建议改善目前居住在租赁组屋家庭的置业路径。总理在预算辩论总结讲话中提到，赋予新加坡人积累资产的重要性。正如他所说，资产所有权让家庭在国家成功中拥有实实在在的利益，并能直接分享新加坡的发展成果。
想象一个五口之家住在租赁组屋。父母做多份工作，孩子努力学习。月复一月，他们支付补贴租金，却一无所获——没有房屋资产，没有可传承的财富。这是新加坡成千上万个家庭的现实。2020年，国会获悉每年只有2%的公共租赁家庭转为置业。对于90%拥有自住房屋、房屋资产占家庭财富一半以上的国家来说，租赁组屋家庭需要更多机会。
除了从租赁组屋到置业，从有屋可住到有保障，从生存到繁荣，我首先建议部委重点帮助更多租赁家庭实现置业。
2021年5月，时任部长李显龙在国会答复中提到，每年只有2%的租赁家庭转为置业。对于成功转变的家庭，这一过程耗时较长。超过三分之一耗时超过10年，三分之一耗时5至10年，三分之一在5年内完成，不到十分之一在3年内成功。
我希望自那时起，随着增强型住房补贴、阶梯式公积金住房补贴和新起点住房计划等项目的改进，这些数字已有所提升。我也认可建屋发展局置业支持团队的努力，以及跨部门协调的ComLink+支持。
在这方面，我想问部长：部长设定了哪些目标，以提高每年转为置业的租赁家庭数量，直至2030年？部委采取了哪些策略缩短家庭从公共租赁住房过渡到自有住房的时间？
我的第二个建议是共享产权试点计划，帮助家庭更早实现置业。目前，家庭可能想买房，符合社会机构的关键评估，但因无法支付现金或公积金首付而受阻。即使有建屋发展局补贴，也需多年稳定工作和储蓄才能积攒首付。在此期间，家庭错失置业和积累资产的机会。
试点将针对35岁及以下、目前居住租赁住房的年轻家庭，以及开始组建家庭时申请另一租赁单位的年轻成年人。政府将作为共同所有者，持有约20%的产权，买家只需支付2%的现金或公积金首付，门槛大幅降低。这将减少前期成本和贷款需求。
家庭仍需按月偿还按揭，像任何房主一样。随着财务状况改善，他们可分阶段回购政府股份。若最终出售房屋，政府按比例收回销售款。
与租购模式不同，此方法让家庭早期拥有新房并积累资产。或者，建屋发展局是否可考虑将这些家庭的租金支付转为抵扣购房成本？
先生，我的目标很简单。我们必须帮助更多来自困难背景的年轻家庭打破租赁住房循环，积极参与建立稳定的置业、宝贵的资产和长期财富，与新加坡共同成长。
舒适的居家养老
一项于2023年10月至2024年4月间进行的研究发现，决策者年龄在65岁及以上的老年家庭现占建屋发展局所有家庭的三分之一，较2018年的四分之一有所增加。
这是一个显著的人口结构变化。与此同时，85.9%的老年家庭希望继续居住在现有组屋，而非搬迁。他们希望实现居家养老。单人家庭数量也在增加。2023年，110万户组屋家庭中有15.6%为单人家庭，高于2018年的12.6%。
绝对数字上，五年内增加了超过3万个单人家庭，其中许多是独居老人。我们必须理解这在实际生活中的意义。
当今大多数老年人是1946年至1964年出生的婴儿潮一代。他们通常在二十多岁结婚，1970年代搬入新组屋。这些组屋现已接近50年。
整个镇区，如勿洛、宏茂桥和海滨坊，反映了这一现实——成熟的社区，老化的组屋和居民，越来越多的人独居。随着这些老人和他们的家园一同老去，他们必须应对老化的电气系统、管道问题、磨损的装置和过时的电器。这是我在选区家访中亲眼所见。
虽然“活跃长者提升计划”（EASE）和“家居改善计划”（HIP）旨在帮助长者在家中保持安全和行动能力，但这些计划仅提供补贴，而非现金支持，帮助长者在老旧组屋中安全舒适地生活。
此外，即使维修费用从我们的角度看不算高，但对独居长者来说，可能是沉重的负担。
有人可能认为，若长者希望继续居家养老但无力承担装修费用，可以通过出租房间或参与“租赁回购计划”（LBS）变现房屋，但这些计划主要用于补充退休收入和医疗费用。
尤其是LBS是不可逆的。长者不应被迫考虑变现房屋，仅为支付基本维修费用。
我想请政府考虑为居住在较旧、较小组屋中的老年人提供有针对性的现金支持，他们可能在EASE或HIP维修费用方面遇到困难。这将帮助那些选择在原地养老的老年人，尤其是那些独居、没有亲属在经济或精神上支持他们的老年人——让他们能够有尊严、安全和基本舒适地生活。
主席：梁荣华先生，您可以将您的两段发言合并发表。
安享晚年邻里计划
梁荣华先生（武吉班让）：主席，新加坡今年将成为“超级老龄化”国家。我们面临的关键挑战不仅仅是寿命的延长，而是生活质量，确保我们的老年人能够安享晚年，积极参与社交生活，健康地生活在自己的社区中。
总理在去年的国庆集会上宣布了“安享晚年邻里计划”，支持那些偏好在家中养老、且老年人口较多的地区的长者。其目标是让老年人在社区中有尊严地养老，提供如家居维修、健康检查、社交活动等服务，同时保持融入社区而非孤立。
无障碍通道、治疗花园、适合老年人的导向标识、配备低冲击健身器材的健身角以及医疗和社会服务的共址等特色，都是有意义的改善。我欢迎国土部重新设计我们较旧组屋区的计划，使老年人能够舒适地在原地养老，保持活跃和社会联系。
大巴窑将成为首批设有安享晚年邻里的城镇之一，我期待部长分享全岛更广泛的实施计划。我也想请部长分享国土部如何与卫生部及社会及家庭发展部合作，将社区护理、积极养老中心和初级医疗服务整合到这些邻里中？
除了物理基础设施，原地养老还依赖于社会基础设施。保持社会联系的老年人往往享有更好的健康状况。我希望国土部能详细说明城镇设计如何促进代际互动，例如通过共享社区空间、活动节点以及靠近托儿所或学校。
第二，关于社区护理公寓。社区护理公寓是公共组屋中的一项重要创新。它们将适合老年人的设计与护理服务、公共空间和紧急响应系统结合起来。需求令人鼓舞，许多老年人欣赏这种独立与支持的结合。
在武吉班让，我们看到越来越多的老年人希望从较大的组屋换到合适大小的单位，同时保持靠近子女和社交网络。许多人重视熟悉的环境和既有设施。因此，我想请问部长：未来五年社区护理公寓的预计供应量是多少？国土部如何评估不同城镇的需求？如果入住率持续强劲，供应能多快提升？未来的社区护理公寓是否会探索更灵活的护理套餐，以满足不同需求层次的老年人？
随着人口老龄化，住房政策必须与医疗保健和社区护理系统同步发展。目标应是打造邻里，使老年人能够无缝过渡不同的养老阶段——从独立生活、支持生活到更高层次的护理——而无需离开熟悉的环境。
在这方面，安享晚年邻里计划和社区护理公寓的整合呈现出一个整体模型。一个强化更广泛的环境；另一个提供有针对性的住房解决方案。两者结合，可以构建一个全面的原地养老生态系统。我期待部长的回应。
中午12时15分
老龄组屋维护与家居改善计划II
主席，我声明本人是人民行动党组屋管理委员会的协调主席。
尽管我们继续建设新的建屋发展局组屋，但我们的组屋存量中越来越多的是老龄化的。未来几年，将有更多组屋超过30年。随着组屋老化，维护需求增加，不仅是维修频率更高，维修工作也更复杂且成本更高。
组屋管理委员会在多个方面面临持续的成本压力。
首先，市政合同成本大幅上升。保洁服务的招标价格显著上涨。最近一次续约中，投标价格比之前合同高出多达86%。承包商表示，工资进步模式带来的劳动力成本上升、外劳住宿成本增加以及更严格的运营条件是主要原因。
其他必需服务的成本也大幅上涨。例如，乌鸦、鸽子和啮齿动物的害虫控制费用呈上升趋势。园艺合同上涨了多达60%，渗漏维修费用上涨了多达32%。
主席，这些都不是可自由支配的工作，而是保持组屋安全、清洁和宜居的核心服务。
第二，除了成本上涨趋势，老化基础设施还需要更大力度的干预。虽然国土部的家居改善计划和邻里更新计划非常有帮助，但日常组屋维护的大部分责任仍由组屋管理委员会承担。诸如外墙渗漏修复、电梯维护和升级、重铺屋顶、外部重新布线、更换照明系统以及结构和外墙修复等工作变得更频繁且更密集。组屋管理委员会也关注气动废物输送系统的长期维护影响。
虽然最初有补贴支持，但这并非永久性的。因此，随着时间推移，运营和维护成本必须由组屋管理委员会预算吸收。这些累积压力不可避免地影响组屋管理委员会的财务状况，进而影响居民支付的服务与保养费。
政府通过服务与保养费运营补助金、电梯维护补助金和电梯更换基金配套补助金等拨款，每年提供约2.4亿新元的实质支持。2023年，国土部还推出了限时特别资金，帮助缓解成本上涨并调节服务与保养费调整。这些支持非常有帮助，但现已到期。
因此，我代表人民行动党组屋管理委员会感谢国土部和建屋发展局的重大支持。没有这些支持，服务与保养费会更高。但尽管如此，我仍希望呼吁进一步审视资金框架。
首先，鉴于工资进步模式和监管变化带来的成本上涨是结构性的而非周期性的，国土部是否考虑调整服务与保养费运营补助金的基线金额，以反映新的成本现实？第二，国土部能否研究为老龄化比例较高、维护强度明显更大的组屋区提供额外支持？第三，关于工资进步信贷计划，国土部能否明确长期成本分担模式及是否会提供过渡性资金？
主席，组屋管理委员会致力于维护清洁、安全和管理良好的组屋区。居民理应期待高标准，但服务与保养费也必须保持可负担，尤其是对中低收入家庭。
主席，最后，我还想请教部长去年八月提到的家居改善计划II。他提到该计划将更为广泛。能否请部长分享家居改善计划II的范围、规模及实施时间表？
自愿早期重建计划
谢耀权先生（裕廊中央）：部长最近在回应议会质询时表示，自愿早期重建计划（VERS）不应制造“彩票效应”，也不应成为受影响业主的财富增值计划。
今天，我想提出相反的观点。虽然VERS不应让受影响业主获得暴利，但也不应让他们吃亏。所有受影响业主都应获得公平的交易和公平的补偿。
根据VERS收购的组屋通常已有70年或更长的产权，换言之，剩余产权少于29年。这些产权的市场价值相对有限，可能不足以匹配一套全新、同类型且产权至少延续至95岁的替代组屋的价格或市场价值。
在这种情况下，受影响业主通常需要现金补差价。但这对大多数可能是退休且正在消耗财富以维持退休生活的老年业主来说，显然并不理想。
因此，我敦促部委考虑将VERS的基础交易，即基础补偿方案，设定为受影响业主无需为新替代组屋补差价。换言之，政府可能需要介入，为受影响业主补贴现金差价。显然，这样的补贴或计划将需要政府动用比仅按市场价值收购产权更多的财政资源。政府实际上需要支付高于市场价值的溢价，以实现对当前受影响业主的公平。
那么，这样的补贴应有多大规模？对当前受影响业主而言，公平的估值应如何确定？政府需要采用合理且一致的原则来进行此类评估，以证明更高公共支出的合理性。
我认为一个合理的原则是，有序城市更新本身就有公平成本，超出物业成本。搬迁和重新安置生活有成本，尤其是对部分业主来说可能是非自愿的，尽管对大多数是自愿的。政府已在租赁回购计划中按市场价值向仍居住在原处的业主支付租赁权价款。因此，理应有额外成本因搬迁和重新安置而产生并获得补偿。如此，政府才能对所有业主公平。
主席：蔡银洲先生，您可以将您的两段发言合并发表。
组屋99年产权适应
蔡银洲先生：产权递减是许多新加坡人真正关心的问题。我敦促部委转变叙事，不再将组屋视为贬值的储值资产，而应视为“终身之家”。这意味着确保每位新加坡人，无论年龄或能力如何，都能在生活不同阶段的需求变化中，带着尊严和安全感，住在同一个家中。
我有四项建议。
第一，重新构想家居改善计划I和II。部委是否研究过在升级期间增加改造选项？对于多代同堂家庭，可包括空间隔断和隔音。并将EASE扩展至支持有特殊需要家庭成员的家庭。
第二，技术支持的长者护理。我们能否扩展家居改善计划，纳入内置跌倒检测传感器、消防喷淋和紧急报警按钮？
第三，关注社会中最脆弱群体。根据我去年十月提交的议会质询，超过五万套公共租赁组屋中仅有7,000套配备空调。部委是否考虑为公共租赁组屋提供更多资源以增强气候适应性，鉴于这些组屋空间有限且结构上不利于自然通风？
第四，创造成功空间。如果教育是伟大的社会平衡器，那么学习空间是基本公平的基础设施。在拥挤的两房租赁组屋中，六个孩子没有安静角落或专用书桌，更别说六个孩子各自有了。我们已有EASE计划支持长者。我建议在ComLink+下设立新的ACCESS计划。ACCESS将为租赁组屋中有幼儿的家庭提供模块化、节省空间家具的里程碑激励。正如预算辩论中所建议的，ACCESS可代表“适应性、紧凑、以儿童为中心、小空间增强”。
如果我们真正相信社会流动性，就必须优先设计流动性起点的空间。“终身之家”不仅是口号，更是确保居民对社区的长期安全感，他们不仅有屋顶遮蔽，更有信心在此扎根成长。
城市发展中的第三空间
我已故的祖母住在旧机场路，她的生活和友谊深深扎根于此。2014年，当附近的达哥达组屋居民被告知搬迁时，我创办了“达哥达探险”，与长者居民共同带领超过1,500名新加坡人参观，包括尊敬的傅瑾部长。
2017年，当时的黄循财部长宣布保护15栋组屋中的6栋，以便未来世代能在此建立回忆。
我们需要更健全且本地化的城市更新框架。部委是否会推行正式的社会与遗产影响评估？这将使我们能够主动重新构想现有空间，而非事后保护。同时，也能考虑潜在搬迁对尤其是老年居民的遗产和社会影响。
此外，我们的ABC水道网络穿越家园和社区，长达8,000公里。我希望部委能超越仅以“水景”作为推广方式，转而纳入活跃的“蓝色空间”，用于水上运动、钓鱼等休闲活动，甚至考虑探索水上交通。
主席，我期待一个更具社会和遗产意识的城市景观愿景，真正反映如达哥达组屋等地标的社会价值，该地标至今仍被珍藏。
主席：陈德麟先生，您可以将您的两段发言合并发表。
重新思考重建
陈德麟先生（后港）：在我一月的休会动议中，我谈到了重新思考绿地保护的紧迫需求。对此，国务部长将实龙岗河森林地块描述为前垃圾填埋场，植被已再生，包含“以外来物种为主的年轻次生林、灌木丛、草地和池塘”。
我随后收到居民韩赛波女士的反馈，她指出政策缺口的核心问题。她说，分歧不在于可持续发展的意图，而在于土地估值和静态规划的问题。我们当前的规划体系严重依赖过去。如果一个地块在1998年是垃圾填埋场，或几十年前被划为保留地，这种历史分类似乎凌驾于2026年的生物现实之上。
然而，过去25年，自然已重新占据这些空间。虽然是次生林而非原生林，但它们为密集社区提供了前线气候韧性、河岸稳定、径流过滤和显著的城市降温。
这是动态规划的案例。我们必须摒弃纯粹以物种为中心、忽视年轻森林的土地观念，转而关注居民对城市热岛效应的担忧。树木非本地种并不意味着其降温功能较弱。一些国家已将棕地复兴作为自然基础解决方案战略的重要政策议题。我们是否也该开始如此？当前规划框架是否充分重视这些再生生态系统？在决定是否清理地块时，如何量化生态系统服务价值，如洪水调节和降温？
关于透明度和评估的坚定承诺。生态敏感性的判定仍不透明。目前，公众通常只有在项目确定后才能看到环境影响评估（EIA）结果。我们很少看到决定无需EIA的筛选过程。然而，早在1990年，汤米·许教授在新加坡自然学会《新加坡自然保护总体规划》的前言中就表达了希望，“新加坡所有开发项目都将需要环境影响评估”。
我呼吁国土部将其评估框架整合为两项强制承诺。
一、综合基线和功能评估，部委承诺对所有林地地块，无论分区如何，进行基线研究，评估生物多样性和气候功能角色，包括降温和洪水吸收，且在任何开发决策最终确定前完成。
二、制度化EIA透明度。部委是否会强制执行EIA，并设定更明确的休耕期限和地块规模阈值？研究显示，棕地地块可在5至10年内变得生态重要，且再过10年可成为成熟生态系统。即使是0.1至0.5公顷的小地块，也可能在同一时间段内因其功能和位置而具生态意义。关键是，如果政府决定无需EIA，部委能否公布评估和科学依据？
总结，避免-减少-缓解的层级原则是环境政策基石。但我们常常直接跳到缓解，例如使用隔音屏障或分阶段清理，而避免被视为既定事实。
实例如实龙岗河森林的公交车场建设。我们必须彻底评估替代方案，如多层工业车场和现有交通节点，方可触及剩余绿地缓冲区。
中午12时30分
所有组屋单位同层电梯直达
组屋发展局（HDB）于2001年启动了电梯升级计划，旨在为居民提供每层楼的电梯通达。今年的财政预算案中，我再次呼吁为所有居民提供同层电梯通达。这不仅仅是便利问题，更是公平、安全和尊严的根本问题。
随着人口老龄化，几级台阶成为每日难以逾越的障碍，将老年人和行动不便者与社区及基本服务隔离开来。
过去几年，我代表没有同层电梯通达的居民多次致函HDB申诉，HDB的常见回复是，由于成本高昂和/或技术限制，此类组屋不符合电梯升级计划（LUP）的资格。
在后港，近期的突破既令人欢迎又令人困惑。2023年，HDB开始为后港中央833座实施电梯升级计划。2025年9月，HDB为后港大道5号363座剩余单位提供了电梯升级计划。2024年9月6日，HDB书面回复我为363座一名居民的申诉，明确表示每单位成本“已大幅超过电梯升级计划的成本上限，因此无法实施电梯升级计划”。然而，仅仅12个月后，HDB改变了主意。
830、831、832和835座的受影响居民不解为何HDB为833座和363座剩余单位提供了电梯升级计划，却未涵盖他们的组屋。HDB未对其改变决定提供任何理由。
国家发展部长于2026年2月3日对我的国会质询中透露，新加坡140座无全层电梯通达的组屋中，有100座因电梯升级成本超过每单位20万新元而仍不可行。部长还表示，电梯升级计划将逐步扩展至另外40座组屋。我们希望知道这些组屋具体是哪几座，以及电梯升级计划何时会启动？有了明确的路线图，剩余组屋的居民将不再处于焦虑的等待状态。
尽管电梯通达住房补贴提高至8万新元，许多受影响居民告诉我，他们不愿搬迁，想要有尊严地留在家中。这些建筑障碍源自90年代中期之前的过时设计，居民并非自愿选择。事实上，最近一次家访中，一位832座的居民告诉我，当初选购单位时，并未被告知该单位没有同层电梯通达，而同座其他单位则有。
无论这是历史建筑债务还是HDB的债务，提供同层电梯通达对所有HDB业主来说都是公平的。
因此，我想请教部长：第一，请为40座组屋的电梯升级计划设定明确时间表，让居民尽快了解HDB对他们的计划。第二，请考虑取消对剩余100座组屋的硬性成本上限，并预留专项资金支持电梯升级计划。
前后港国会议员冯荣发先生曾在本议院表示，为什么受影响的组屋未与邻近组屋合并进行早期的大规模电梯升级计划，而是后来单独招标？前者可能更具成本效益，更何况电梯升级成本在10至15年前，或至少在疫情前，肯定更低。
主席先生，我们不能让剩余无同层电梯通达的居民被过去时代的技术限制所定义。我敦促政府跨越这最后一里路，确保每位HDB业主都能有尊严地享受同层电梯通达。
主席：洪伟能先生，请将您的两段发言合并。
分割单元
洪伟能先生（西海岸-裕廊西）：主席，我们注意到约有100座HDB组屋因估算成本超过每单位20万新元而无法受益于电梯升级计划。虽然理解成本限制，但我们希望HDB继续研究新的工程解决方案和新兴技术，以扩展电梯通达至这些剩余组屋。
大量受影响组屋位于南洋，许多居民每天仍面临无障碍挑战。许多分割单元的家庭在30多年前购买，当时每层楼直接电梯通达尚非普遍设计。年轻时，他们行动自如，也欣赏该设计带来的隐私。但如今，随着年龄增长，每天多次爬楼梯才能乘电梯变得越来越困难，甚至对部分人来说不安全。这归根结底是关于居家养老、尊严和包容性公共住房的问题。
如果电梯升级计划对这些组屋仍不可行，我恭敬建议HDB考虑若干政策调整。
首先，关于电梯通达支持的资格。目前，家庭通常需提供医疗证明，证明居住者是轮椅使用者或有严重行动障碍。然而，许多70岁及以上的长者可能尚未严重行动不便，但面临逐步衰退和跌倒风险增加。
我们希望HDB考虑将电梯通达住房补贴扩展至至少一名居住者年龄70岁及以上的家庭，类似于个人行动辅助器具的资格标准。早期介入可预防困难，而非仅在行动能力显著恶化后才响应。
第二，关于长期住房结果。分割单元业主若欲出售，HDB可研究以市场价回购的可行性，并与裕廊工业区管理局（JTC）或其他机构合作，将单位租给更能应对步行楼梯的租户。这有助于避免未来老年居民反复面临同样的无障碍限制。
第三，关于市场透明度。若回购不可行，HDB或可要求向潜在买家明确披露这些单位在可预见未来内不太可能受益于电梯升级计划，确保买家做出知情决定，避免不切实际的期望。
主席，这100座组屋的居民并非要求特殊待遇，他们只是希望有公平机会在自己的家中安全独立地养老，就像大多数HDB家庭现在享有直接电梯通达一样。我希望HDB和国家发展部继续审视政策选项，推动更包容、更适老的公共住房体系。
害鸟问题
主席，每年国家发展部收到约22,000宗关于害鸟的公众反馈，这数字不小。每宗反馈背后都是一位居民的日常生活受影响。持续的噪音导致失眠，家园和公共区域被鸟粪污染，甚至出现居民被攻击的令人担忧的情况。在南洋，我们亲眼目睹了此类事件。
新加坡人支持我们的“自然之城”愿景，但共存不能以牺牲公共安全、卫生和宜居性为代价。当不便持续存在时，我们必须更果断地采取行动。
请问部长：目前负责管理害鸟反馈的国家公园局（NParks）团队人力规模是多少？鉴于每年持续大量的案件，现有资源是否充足？
根据NParks的鸽子管理计划，工作仍主要集中于鸽子。我敦促NParks在国家发展部更广泛的人与野生动物管理框架下，向综合害鸟管理方向发展，涵盖对其他适应城市环境的物种，如八哥和乌鸦的管理，尤其当它们持续给居民带来不便时。
这需要系统性方法：加强对非法喂鸟的执法，严格控制餐饮和市场周边的食物废弃物，社区层面的栖息地管理，以及必要时基于科学的种群控制。在这方面，我欢迎NParks决定恢复射杀乌鸦。
主席，我建议国家发展部加强害鸟管理的专项资金和人力，并制定明确的国家战略，设定可衡量的目标，在未来几年减少害鸟案件、攻击事件和环境滋扰。
乌鸦种群管理
普里坦·辛格先生：主席，我于2月19日提交了发言稿，在部长2月23日公开谈及国家发展部如何管理乌鸦种群之前。既然部长的言论已阐明未来方向，我想就扑杀问题提出一点。NParks一直协助市镇理事会，帮助拆除巢穴和安装临时陷阱以控制乌鸦种群。请问部委能否分享关于扑杀，特别是射杀作为减少乌鸦种群手段的相关程序？
何时以及如何判定某地区的乌鸦数量已超过可接受水平或过度繁殖？
我了解到国家发展部近月来与新加坡警察部队合作，计划重启射杀乌鸦。此合作取得了什么成果？部长能否更新何时将在所有市镇理事会实施此措施？频率如何？又将采取哪些措施确保公众安全？
保持空调机架无鸟粪
阿卜杜勒·穆海敏·阿卜杜勒·马利克先生（盛港）：主席，虽然我认可NParks试点项目中市镇理事会鸽子数量减少了50%的鼓舞人心成果，但我必须强调此问题的紧迫性。鸽子不仅是滋扰，更带来真正的健康风险。它们的粪便携带隐球菌病、组织胞浆菌病和鹦鹉热等危险疾病。干燥的鸟粪变成尘埃，居民吸入受污染颗粒，可能导致严重呼吸道感染，尤其影响老年人和免疫力低下者。
除了健康问题，居民还承担经济成本。一位选民分享，他不得不聘请空调专家清洗压缩机，因为鸽子反复在上面排泄，费用自理，问题却非他所致。
还有多少居民默默承受类似不便和开支？我担忧推广速度。NParks试点于2024年7月启动，最初涵盖三个市镇理事会，直到2025年6月才扩展至另外三个，近一年时间。许多社区仍持续遭遇鸽子问题，部长能否提供明确时间表，将该计划推广至所有剩余市镇理事会？受影响地区居民不能无限期等待缓解。
关于35户的网罩试验，我建议部委考虑缩短试验周期，以更快收集足够数据。这将使有效方案更早推广至受影响社区，给居民带来急需的缓解。有效的鸽子管理需要政府领导、社区合作和充足资源。我们的居民应享有清洁、安全、卫生的居住环境，免受可预防的健康危害和不必要的经济负担。
主席：李慧女士，您可以将两段发言合并。
城市空间中的动物
李慧莹女士（义顺）：主席，动物是我们共享环境的重要组成部分。我们持续收到关于动物福利的反馈，证明居民期望社会不仅高效，更和谐有礼。
我们已取得长足进步，但仍需更多努力。近期一名男子剪断社区猫胡须的事件在网络上引发关注，提醒我们社区中仍潜藏虐待行为。部委2026年在动物福利立法方面有何具体计划？
随着空间绿化，城市鸟类数量上升，我们一直在与大自然玩猫捉老鼠的游戏，采用生态敏感的解决方案。虽然鸽子数量控制取得一定成效，但我们仍面临家乌鸦数量激增，影响所有居民。
随着射杀乌鸦成为最新控制措施，我想问：关于射杀的操作规程，尤其是在住宅区使用时，有哪些保障措施以最大限度减少公众暴露，特别是儿童？能否安排在学校通勤时间之外，避开学校和游乐场附近儿童聚集区域进行？
有效执法至关重要。除了被动措施，如何加强对非法喂食的执法？是否计划加强热点区域监控、提高重复违规者处罚、定期修剪树木或加强公众教育？NParks是否拥有足够执法资源？
12点45分
上游措施——更好的废弃物管理和环境设计——能否加强，以减少对射杀的依赖？部委是否考虑进行生态影响评估，研究扑杀对本地生物多样性的更广泛影响？
让我们从源头着手，避免问题演变成全面的“乌鸦危机”。
建筑业在建成环境中的挑战
随着第五航站楼等重大基础设施项目推进，我们的建筑业持续面临显著的成本和人力压力。政策必须精心调整，以支持劳动力转型和企业可持续发展。
我接触过的建筑商，包括部分居民，欢迎由部长领导的新行动小组，对行业给予强有力领导和关注。他们关心部委的长期规划，如何发展基础设施、人力和人才储备，确保供应满足需求。
我有以下建议。
第一，关于外劳成本。S准证资格薪金的周期性提高造成“多米诺效应”，不必要地推高企业成本。与其提高薪金，永久性增加工资账单，不仅针对外劳，连带公司其他员工薪资也需相应上涨。承包商建议改为提高工人征费，这样政府仍能获得收入，同时避免过度支付工人要求的薪资。
第二，承包商面临日益波动的环境。国家发展部是否已充分规划，避免供应链中断？例如，是否有足够的搭建和弃料场地，裕廊港处理水泥进口的能力是否充足，工人宿舍是否满足预计需求？
第三，本地人才是国家韧性关键。年轻新加坡人因工作时间长、工地环境艰苦而避开建筑业，本地核心劳动力也在老龄化。我们不能仅依赖流动劳动力。国家发展部如何重新设计建筑职业，吸引并留住大量本地人才？
第四，承包商责任框架。这也阻碍本地人进入行业。过度责任恐惧可能使人畏缩，但安全不可妥协。建筑与建设局法案下的处罚是否合理，既维护标准，又不制造恐惧氛围，阻碍有能力的领导者？
第三，随着数字化推进，法规是否跟上？若期待转型，政策、法规和支持必须同步推进——
主席：纳迪娅·艾哈迈德·桑丁女士，您可以将两段发言合并。
功能性自然之城
纳迪娅·艾哈迈德·桑丁女士（宏茂桥）：谢谢主席。部长先生，新加坡被全球认可为世界上最绿化的城市之一。尽管城市化广泛，我们的绿地覆盖率仍达40%。这得益于一代代人的承诺和有意为之。
2020年，国家发展部推出愿景，致力将新加坡转型为“自然之城”。自然不仅关乎美学。我们从小就学到，自然是功能性的。不同物种各司其职，在生态系统中协同工作。作为气候基础设施，树冠和绿色缓冲区缓解城市热岛效应，降低冷却需求，使积极出行成为可能。社会上，自然提供休闲和锻炼空间，支持心理健康和恢复性空间。经济上，游客从抵达机场起就被我们的自然之城形象吸引。
自然是唯一同时具备降温、保护、过滤和再生功能的基础设施。许多人视城市化为自然的对立面，但新加坡如何平衡两者的实践提供了不同视角。这是我们卓越之处的一部分。如果规划得当，自然不会与我们的城市未来发展计划竞争，而是保障它。
在这方面，国家发展部能否分享如何权衡取舍，将自然（包括现有动植物保护）纳入新建和即将建设的组屋设计原则，以提升抗热能力和应对海平面上升挑战？
在国家发展部推动的自然之城计划中，已设定多项2030目标，包括动植物物种恢复计划，以及森林、海洋和沿海栖息地修复。我赞赏这些努力。NParks能否更新过去五年加强生态连通性和生物多样性敏感设计的举措，以及未来计划？
同时，我们认识到人民是自然之城的共同居民。国家愿景之一是每户家庭距离公园不超过10分钟。这也意味着野生动物距离我们仅10分钟，增加了人与野生动物的互动和冲突——从猴子到水獭，从野猪到蛇，从犀鸟到貘，从马鹿到迁徙的鹳。
我想问，建屋发展局（MND）是否观察到过去五年内事件的趋势，包括迁徙动物的事件？MND是否评估过现有的计划、应急小组和协议是否仍然足够？MND如何看待长期策略中遏制、威慑与共存之间的平衡？最后，我们是否在公共教育上投入足够，使“城市中的自然”被理解为超越植树的共同目标和责任？
住房类型多样化
新加坡的公共住房系统也因大规模提供可负担的优质住房而获得全球认可。我们的住房不仅提供庇护，还构建社区，促进组屋区的社会凝聚力。虽然与其他城市相比，拥有住房的比例仍然相当高，但重点通常是支持年轻夫妇和首次置业者应对不断上涨的成本，这当然对国家建设至关重要。
但如今人口和家庭规划动态正在变化。鉴于我们社会老龄化、总生育率、结婚和离婚率的变化，我们有更多单身人士、二次置业者和强烈希望原地养老的长者。我们的公共住房供应是否已完全适应这些变化？
或许需要重新多样化住房类型，以支持新加坡人在其一生中不断变化的需求和愿望。更广泛的选择范围将使公民不仅能找到符合收入的住房，还能匹配其人生阶段和理想。
在我之前的发言中，我曾谈及更好支持希望与家人邻近或同住的夫妇和家庭的必要性。早期，一对年轻夫妇首次购买三房组屋（BTO）后，随着时间推移可以期望拥有其他类型的住房，如巨型组屋、复式单位、行政公寓，甚至低层和排屋公共住房。这些选项提供了更多的配置和生活多样性，超越了简单的改造扩建或从公共住房转向私人住宅，而后者越来越难以实现。
如今，组屋类型基本保持不变，实际上随着我们优化速度和规模，类型变得更加相似。MND如何审视新加坡人的住房愿望？是否考虑在未来项目中探索一些独特的户型，例如适合照护的双钥匙或模块化布局？
我想简要谈谈另外三个群体。
首先，离婚者试图重新安置住所。许多人经历长时间等待、高昂的临时租金和不确定性。除了“二次置业援助计划”（ASSIST）等方案外，MND是否考虑为这一群体提供其他形式的支持，帮助他们开启新生活？
第二，单身人士迄今通常只能购买两房、灵活式或转售组屋。鉴于两房灵活式组屋深受单身和长者欢迎，部委是否考虑扩大选择？毕竟，许多人还要照顾与他们同住的年迈父母，以应对紧急情况，或在周末帮助侄子侄女。
最后，对于那些想拥有自己的空间但尚无能力负担的人，部委近年来试验了两种住房类型：单人房共享设施（SRSF）和联合单身计划运营模式。由于这两种模式均受欢迎，未来有何计划扩大这些项目的范围？过去几年，住房拥有支持团队服务了多少租赁家庭？成功率如何？是否有计划整合——
主席：傅策祥先生。
让更多新加坡人拥有住房
傅策祥先生（丹戎巴葛选区）：主席，新加坡的住房从来不仅仅是为人遮风挡雨。它还意味着给予每个新加坡人对国家的归属感。
先生，我要感谢建屋发展局和组屋局多年来为实现这一使命所做的努力，同时应对人口结构和偏好的变化。
1980年至2025年间，常住人口从240万增长到420万。与此同时，平均家庭规模从1980年的约五人减少到2025年的三人。因此，在此期间，组屋局不得不将组屋数量从33万增加到超过120万，同时还要满足提升质量和设计的期望。
在这种背景下，国家发展部长提出的“多建快建”指令非常恰当且及时。
去年总统致辞的补充中，MND宣布组屋局将审查BTO组屋的收入上限，并研究更多适合单身、长者及大家庭的住房选项。还表示将为更多租赁家庭提供过渡至拥有住房的援助。我希望部委能提供最新进展。
此外，我还想进一步为两类新加坡人发声。
第一，拥有非居民配偶且无新加坡公民或永久居民子女的新加坡人。目前，这类新加坡人只有在年满35岁且首次置业时，才能购买组屋局的两房灵活式组屋。我请求MND考虑放宽此要求，允许这类新加坡人购买所有户型的组屋，且无年龄限制。
先生，正如副总理颜金勇在议会中指出，新加坡面临生育率降至历史低点0.87的生存挑战。我们需要支持所有夫妇的育儿之路。
在这方面，跨国婚姻呈上升趋势。过去三年，每四对公民婚姻中就有一对是与非居民结婚。这是一个显著比例，正如其他议员所提，年轻夫妇在决定是否生育时，拥有足够大的住房是关键考虑因素之一。
限制拥有非居民配偶的新加坡人只能购买两房灵活式组屋，实际上限制了25%的潜在父母生育。鉴于我们的生存挑战，这一比例风险过高。我们需要支持所有夫妇的育儿之路，包括新加坡人与非居民组成的家庭。
第二，55岁以上长者希望购买短期租约的两房灵活式组屋。上个月我在议会中询问，MND是否考虑将“终身拥有”条件放宽至剩余租约覆盖最年轻业主至83.5岁（即预期寿命年龄），而非95岁。这样可让长者购买更实惠的短租两房灵活式组屋。对他们而言，这可能是从租房转向拥有住房的关键。
MND回应称，许多长者寿命超过83.5岁，若放宽条件将影响“终身拥有”政策。我理解将年龄设为95岁的政策理由，覆盖大多数新加坡人。但实际上，未能活到95岁的新加坡人可能比活到95岁的更多。
因此，我的问题是，MND是否考虑为这类长者设立方案，允许他们购买剩余租约覆盖最年轻业主至85岁的短期两房灵活式组屋？关键条件是若业主在租约到期前搬出或去世，组屋将无偿归还组屋局，业主或其继承人不获退款或赔偿。
这些提前归还的剩余租约组屋可用于安置同一方案下寿命超过85岁、租约已到期的其他长者。整体方案层面，这将符合我们的“终身拥有”原则。
放宽组屋资格
洪伟能先生：主席，我们欣慰组屋局已清理了因新冠疫情积压的BTO申请。约13,000套组屋将于2026年达到五年最短居住期（MOP），几乎是去年的两倍。
同时，组屋转售价格涨幅去年放缓至2.9%，为2019年以来最低。随着供应改善和价格压力缓解，现在是调整资格政策的合适时机，让更多新加坡人能获得可负担住房，同时保持市场稳定和财政责任。
首先，我敦促组屋局审查单身人士BTO购屋资格年龄，考虑降至30岁。如今许多单身人士更早寻求稳定，承担家庭责任，想建设未来。拥有住房不仅是庇护，更是尊严、安全和社会归属感。
第二，我们可以更新首次置业家庭的BTO收入上限。自2019年以来，14,000新元的上限未变，尽管名义工资上涨超过25%。越来越多年轻夫妇收入超出上限，却买不起私人住房或行政公寓。将上限提高至16,000新元，可让公共住房对广大中产阶层保持可及，符合经济现实。
下午1点
第三，我希望MND能免除私宅业主因离婚或经济困难出售私宅后，购买组屋四房或以下转售组屋需等待15个月的限制。这将提供稳定性，同时避免需求过热。
主席，供应改善时，政策需跟上。住房不仅关乎市场，更关乎人民。
主席：齐部长。
国家发展部长（齐鸿达先生）：主席，我感谢议员们的提问和建议。
过去60年，我们共同努力建设新加坡。我们为新加坡人提供了可负担且易获得的公共住房，实现了世界最高的拥有住房率之一。我们发展了强大的建造环境行业，能在密集的城市环境中高效规划、建造和维护大型项目。我们通过长期规划，整合不同用途，最大化有限土地的整体价值，平衡当前和未来世代的需求。
我们需要在坚实基础上继续前进。今年的财政预算演讲中，我想介绍MND未来几年的三大重点。
第一，我们将继续履行住房承诺，保持充足供应。我们将多建快建，以满足新加坡人不断变化的住房需求。高级国务部长孙先生和高级议员哈伦将详细介绍提升组屋区宜居性的努力。印德拉妮部长和国务部长陈先生将谈论提升私人住宅区宜居性及“城市中的自然”计划。
第二，我们将继续转型建造环境行业，实现更高生产力、可持续性和韧性，为人民创造更多优质就业。印德拉妮部长将介绍相关内容。
第三，国务部长陈先生将总结，分享新加坡发展更长期规划，平衡不同土地使用需求，处理有限空间内的权衡。
先生，过去几年，我们重点改善首次购房者的负担能力和可及性。这仍是MND的重点。
我们提供了充足的组屋供应，并预留更多单位给首次置业家庭。首次置业家庭申请三房及以上BTO组屋的中位申请倍率，从2020年近七倍降至2025年间的1.1至1.9倍。最近一次BTO销售中，首次置业家庭的中位申请倍率为0.9倍。
这是好消息，但若包括二次置业家庭，三房及以上BTO组屋的整体申请倍率为2.6倍。单身和长者申请两房灵活式组屋的倍率也较高。
这些数字反映了公共住房持续强劲的需求，也说明我们未来几年需保持充足供应。
我们现在有能力满足不同群体的新加坡人的额外住房需求。许多议员，包括郭振辉先生、傅策祥先生和纳迪亚·艾哈迈德·桑丁女士，都对此表示关注。
我们将通过提供不同的合适规模和变现选项，支持长者，并使社区更适合长者居住。对于低收入家庭，我们将继续改善公共租赁住房。我们也在审查方案，更好满足需要搬迁或因子女增多而换大房的家庭需求。高级国务部长孙先生和高级议员哈伦将分享更多。
议员们也询问了支持单身人士的最新计划。近年来，我们已采取措施改善单身人士的住房选择。2024年引入新的组屋分类框架后，首次置业单身人士可在全岛范围内购买BTO组屋，而不仅限于非成熟组屋区。自此，单身人士首次在金文泰、勿洛、宏茂桥和加冷-黄埔等镇预订组屋。去年，我们还将家庭照护计划的优先权扩展至单身人士，方便他们申请与父母同住或邻近的新组屋。
政府正考虑提高所有购房者的收入上限，降低单身人士购组屋的资格年龄。我们也在审查方案，更好满足其他单身群体的需求，例如希望与家人共同购买更大组屋者。
但要为单身人士及其他购房群体做更多，组屋局需建造更多组屋，确保供应充足以满足更高需求。
因此，自我接手MND以来，我一直强调的重点是多建快建。
今年，组屋局将推出约19,600套BTO组屋。其中，超过4,000套为短等候时间组屋，等待时间少于三年。我们还将从2026年至2028年将两房灵活式组屋供应增加近50%，以满足长者和单身人士日益增长的需求。这包括加快在旧镇注入新住房的努力。让我分享两个例子。
第一个是位于乌节区附近的珍珠山社区，靠近中央商务区。借助新组屋分类框架下的Plus和Prime组屋额外补贴，我们能为不同购房群体提供位于极具吸引力地段的可负担公共住房。我们还为符合条件的首次置业家庭提供最高12万新元的购屋补贴，进一步降低购房成本。
时隔40多年，我们将在珍珠山建造公共住房。新组屋项目将位于欧南园地铁站旁，珍珠山城市公园山脚下。项目包括两房灵活式、三房和四房BTO组屋及公共租赁组屋。
设计理念借鉴附近牛车水的文化遗产，灵感来自“山水画”，如同描绘山川流水的中国画。我们的愿景是让居民在珍珠山的宁静中生活，同时与城市的活力紧密相连。
新项目底层将设有绿色公共空间，类似河流平原。上层设有瀑布式水景，用于暴雨时管理雨水。绿色树冠将提供遮荫，与附近公园的绿意无缝连接。这些设施也将惠及更广泛的珍珠山社区，公园与地铁站之间将实现无障碍通行。
住宅楼将设计成不同高度，宛如画中的山脊。楼内设有空中花园和露台，提供不同层次的景观视角，让居民从多个角度欣赏周边环境。
根据我们的城市设计指南，我们将保留一条40米宽的视线走廊，确保新建筑间无遮挡。空气和光线可流通，避免高楼压迫景观，让公众享受珍珠山城市公园的视野。
该项目将包括新加坡有史以来最高的公共住房建筑，高达60层。
先生，60层并非首创，国内外已有更高住宅楼。但60层将比我们目前最高的组屋项目“滨海湾峰”高出10层以上。
这是我们通过提高土地使用强度和尽可能建造更高楼宇，寻找更多公共住房建设方式的努力之一。60层楼可比40层楼（目前大多数最高组屋高度）多提供50%的单位。
目前，大多数高楼位于中央区，因樟宜和实里达机场周边的航空高度限制。这些限制自1950年代由国际民航组织（ICAO）设定。过去十年，新加坡与ICAO合作修改了这些限制，现可在机场附近建造更高楼宇。此举释放了更多非航空用途的空域，为我们在新加坡不同地区加密开发提供了机会。
通过这些监管变革以及我们在珍珠山的经验，建屋发展局将在新加坡各地找到更多建设高层组屋的机会。
我们将谨慎而敏感地推进，仅在条件允许时建设更高的楼层。我们还将密切关注设计和宜居性。这些努力将有助于提高土地生产率，并支持我们继续提供充足建屋发展局组屋供应，以满足新加坡人的住房需求。
另一个我们将开发大量新组屋的地区是大巴窑。大巴窑是1960年代中期第一个从零开始全面规划和建设的镇区。多年来，该镇通过“重塑我们的家园”计划、邻里更新计划和银发升级计划等努力不断发展。我们改善了连通性，并投资了该地区的重要基础设施，如卡尔德科特地铁站，该站是汤申-东海岸线和环线的换乘站。
过去十年，我们在大巴窑新增了4500个新家园，吸引了更多年轻家庭。为了保持大巴窑独特的特色，我们保留了标志性设施，如龙形游乐场和镇中心的步行街。
今年，建屋发展局将在卡尔德科特地铁站旁推出另一批组屋建屋计划（BTO）地块。该地块将提供约1600个单位，包括公共租赁组屋、两房灵活式和四房组屋，以及大巴窑的首批社区关怀公寓。
该开发项目将包括一个新的邻里公园，设有供居民锻炼、玩耍、休息和享受治疗活动的空间，以及商业设施，如美食广场和快餐店、超市、零售商店和托儿中心。还将设立一个活跃老龄中心，服务社区关怀公寓居民及社区内其他长者。
几年后，随着居民入住，附近的其他重大工程也将完成。其中包括南北走廊的地下工程，这将使我们逐步改造地面街道，加强大巴窑西部与周边地区的连接。
向西，汤申路和洛尼路的更宽人行道将为行人创造更安全、更舒适的过街环境。居民可以骑行或步行，享受距离不远的麦里芝蓄水池的自然风光。
向东，居民将能轻松前往大巴窑其他地区，包括预计2030年（或更早）完工的大巴窑综合发展项目（体育与生活枢纽）。居民可以享受该综合发展的体育设施，以及焕新的大巴窑镇公园、图书馆和综合诊所。
卡尔德科特地铁站地块还将建设一个新的综合用途开发项目，包含私人住宅、零售和社区用途。这将包括一个购物中心，为居民提供更多零售和餐饮选择，规模类似碧达里伍德利购物中心。
下午1时15分
未来十年，我们将在大巴窑西部和山景区推出超过一万个额外住宅单位。这些将主要是公共组屋，也包括一些私人公寓，包括我刚才提到的综合用途开发项目。在大巴窑西部，这些住宅将融入郁郁葱葱的丘陵地形，有些可眺望麦里芝蓄水池。我们将建设更多邻里公园，让居民享受与自然融合的城市生活。我们还将确保有足够的设施，如学校、社区空间和交通选择。
部长先生，建屋发展部将继续开发和振兴大巴窑及其他较老的组屋区，作为我们为新加坡人提供充足住房供应的努力的一部分。
主席先生，普里坦·辛格议员建议完全取消建屋发展局组屋建屋计划的收入上限，并对超过收入门槛的买家施加额外限制。
我们目前的收入上限涵盖了约八成的新加坡家庭。通过新的组屋分类框架，收入上限仍然必要，以确保高度补贴的建屋计划组屋优先分配给收入低于上限的人群。这是因为高收入者可以选择其他住房选项。
正如洪伟能议员和蔡银洲议员所指出，我们正在审查组屋建屋计划的收入上限。由于提高收入上限会导致更多人申请，我们需要确保供应充足后才会做出调整。
部长先生，我手头没有超过收入门槛的申诉人数数据。因此，我想邀请辛格议员或许提交国会质询，我们将向他提供相关信息。
但部长先生，请允许我澄清，申诉数量可能无法完全反映如果完全取消收入上限后组屋建屋计划需求的潜在增长。因此，这需要我们仔细研究。我们需要了解权衡，包括取消收入上限后，收入超过门槛的买家将增加竞争，这会影响收入低于门槛买家的机会。
所以这是我们需要认真研究的问题。我理解辛格议员的出发点，确实存在一些权衡，我认为这是一个需要仔细权衡利弊的举措。
未来几十年，我们将通过“活力重建计划”（VERS）逐步重建较老的建屋镇区。我们的计划是在下一个十年上半期启动几个地点，之后从2030年代后期扩大该计划。
我感谢郭振辉议员和谢耀权议员的建议，我们将认真考虑。
我之前说过，活力重建计划应对现有组屋业主公平，也要对未来世代可持续。我也分享过，我们目标是在本届政府任期内尽可能完善活力重建政策框架。当我们准备好初步方案时，建屋发展部和建屋发展局将与新加坡人沟通，听取更多意见和反馈，然后再确定政策。与此同时，我们较老的公共组屋区居民可以继续受益于现有升级计划，如邻里更新计划和银发升级计划。
梁荣华议员和蔡银洲议员询问了组屋升级计划（HIP），以及HIP II如何满足居民随着组屋老化而变化的需求。组屋业主可以期待在组屋达到60至70年时，通过HIP II进行第二轮升级。HIP II将比现有HIP更全面，并将利用新技术，如微波扫描，确保我们的老化组屋得到良好维护和宜居。我们将在适当时候分享更多该计划细节。
梁议员还请求为市镇理事会提供更多资金支持，以应对成本上升和老化基础设施（如水渗漏）带来的挑战。辛格议员询问扩大外墙维修共付计划，使政府和市镇理事会共同资助因楼宇外墙水渗漏而需维修的费用。
政府为协助市镇理事会履行职责提供资金支持。梁议员刚才提到的包括组屋维护和改善工程、电梯维护及楼宇外墙维修，以确保公共安全。此类资金支持适用于所有市镇理事会。
对于涉及公共安全的水渗漏外墙维修，建屋发展局目前通过外墙维修共付计划共同资助维修费用。建屋发展局还与市镇理事会密切合作，针对更复杂的水渗漏案例提供技术指导。我们将审视辛格议员的建议，但由于不同案例可能有其独特考虑，我们需要逐案评估。
部长先生，维护我们的组屋区是共同责任。居民通过管理费和公共设施费（S&CC）贡献，市镇理事会在确保维护和其他服务以成本效益方式提供方面发挥重要作用，政府则提供补助和技术支持以配合这些努力。
我认为这将是我们继续采取的做法。这是共同责任，因此各方都需为实现居民的良好生活成果贡献力量。
除了公共组屋，我们也在加快私人住房供应。我们预计今年开发商将推出约12,000个私人住宅单位，包括执行共管公寓（EC）。这比2024年推出的单位数高出50%以上，与2025年大致相当。
我们也在研究如何提升私人住宅区的宜居性。许多私人住宅区居民，包括长者，表达了对维护成本上升和设施老化的担忧，尤其是较老的住宅区。我们正在探讨政府如何为私人住宅区的关键升级工程提供部分资金支持，特别是涉及安全和宜居性的项目。这将需要奖惩结合。印德拉妮部长将分享更多计划细节。
近几个月，建屋转售市场和私人住房市场均有所趋缓。组屋转售价格涨幅从2021年的12.7%放缓至2025年的2.9%。2025年第四季度，转售价格与上一季度持平，这是自2020年第一季度以来首次出现此情况。
截至2月中旬，2026年建屋转售价格略降0.1%。这得益于我们充足的组屋建屋计划供应以及过去几年推出的四轮降温措施。这些措施需要时间在市场中发挥作用，我们开始看到初步成效。
我们密切关注市场，准备根据情况调整措施，同时考虑未来几年更多组屋达到最低占用期（MOP），从而增加转售组屋供应。
洪伟能议员和蔡银洲议员询问私人房产拥有者购买转售组屋的15个月等待期规定。该规定适用于55岁以下的私人房产拥有者，或55岁以上但购买五房及以上组屋者。
部长先生，尽管近期数据表现良好，如我之前所述，审慎起见，我们将继续观察一段时间再做调整。我向议员们保证，条件允许时，我们将取消该限制。与此同时，建屋发展局将继续考虑面临特殊情况家庭的申诉，按个案处理。
在私人住宅市场，2025年价格涨幅同样是自2020年以来最小。
刘路易斯议员询问如何继续确保执行共管公寓（EC）的可负担性。此前包括郭振辉议员和穆拉里·皮莱议员也提出过类似观点。
执行共管公寓旨在为有志拥有私人住房的高收入新加坡人提供选择。EC项目为分契产权，设计和设施类似私人公寓。因此，EC更接近私人公寓，而非转售组屋，因为转售组屋仍属公共住房。虽然EC价格由私人开发商定价，但由于我们施加了初始资格和拥有限制，如收入上限和最低居住期，价格低于私人住房。EC新售价格比同类私人公寓低约20%至30%。符合资格的EC买家还可享受最高30,000新币的公积金住房补贴。
部长先生，我理解各位议员对EC的关切。我们正在审查相关政策，并将在审查过程中考虑各位的建议。
建屋发展部的第二个优先事项是转型我们的建成环境（BE）行业，提高生产力，降低成本、时间和人力。这不是新优先事项，但我们需要重新聚焦并加大推动力度。
我们已制定雄心勃勃的计划，将新加坡建设成为宜居家园和全球城市；从提供充足的公共和私人住房，到为新加坡下一阶段经济发展奠定基础——建设樟宜机场第五航站楼和大士港，打造新的经济区，扩展铁路网络等。这些都是长期项目，将惠及多代新加坡人，并产生数十年持久影响。
要将这些计划变为现实，我们的建成环境行业必须做好准备。郭振辉议员和李慧莹女士提到了这一点。
例如，我们如何利用技术进步节省时间、成本和人力？人工智能和机器人技术可将建筑转变为快速、智能、高度自动化的过程，软件系统帮助设计师优化可由3D打印机在数天内完成的子组件。自主机器人可用于建造建筑，实时由无人机监控延误和安全。我们将拥有更安全的工地、更低成本、更少浪费和更高质量的建筑，交付速度更快，业主和住户获得更高价值。
这也将为新加坡人开辟更多令人兴奋且有意义的就业机会，这些工作不再被视为“尘土飞扬、肮脏和危险”，而是“充满活力、低碳和数字化”。仍是三个“D”，但含义不同，具有强劲增长前景和职业发展路径。
为实现这一目标，我上个月宣布成立一个行动小组，提升建成环境生产力。该小组由政府机构和行业代表组成，将制定措施，帮助行业节省时间、成本和人力。重点包括：推广生产性技术和先进实践；审查监管方式，减轻合规负担，支持创新，改善采购和合同实践；支持行业生态系统，促进系统层面协同，解决行业普遍挑战。
我们还将继续关注提升建筑师、工程师、造价师、项目经理等专业人士技能和投资，因为人才是建成环境行业的核心。
政府方面将继续审查政策、规则和流程，尽量降低监管负担和合规成本。印德拉妮部长将在她的发言中分享更多。
建屋发展部的第三个优先事项是确保我们持续可持续地发展新加坡，为子孙后代平衡不同土地使用需求，妥善处理有限空间内的权衡。
我们计划建设更多住宅、新经济区、更多交通连接和节点。但作为一个小岛城市国家，土地供应有限。因此，我们必须富有创造力，深入思考如何优化每块土地的使用。
下午1时30分
一种方式是振兴较老的组屋区，确保其宜居和充满活力，同时提高土地使用强度。前面提到的牛车水和大巴窑就是例子。
我们将继续研究如何利用新技术，比如在新加坡其他地区建设更高的组屋，以及使用气动废物输送系统等，这些系统可释放土地供其他用途。我们还将探索优化土地使用的其他方法，如更好利用高架桥和地铁高架轨道下的闲置空间。
随着发展和增长，我们将关注保护——保存关键的绿色和蓝色空间，以及珍贵的文化遗产。我们必须谨慎处理这些权衡，确保为未来世代可持续发展新加坡。州部长陈振声将分享更多相关内容。
主席先生，过去六十年，新加坡人将我们这个小岛变成了繁荣的全球城市和宜居家园。但我们建设新加坡的工作尚未完成。我们必须继续巩固基础，同时以信心和乐观展望未来。
对于购房者和居民，我们将保持充足的公共和私人住房供应，打造共用空间，促进社区凝聚力。对于行业伙伴，我们将携手打造更强大、更高效、更具韧性的建成环境行业，为新加坡人提供更多优质就业机会。对于年轻一代和未来世代，我们将继续大胆规划、可持续建设，确保为你们留下比前辈更美好的未来。
主席：印德拉妮·拉贾部长。
国家发展部第二部长（印德拉妮·拉贾女士）：主席先生，感谢议员们的发言。我将涵盖三个广泛领域：转型建成环境行业并加强建成环境专业人才储备；治理、宜居性及分契物业维护；以及提升建筑物的无障碍性。
我们对我们的城市有许多令人兴奋的规划。去年十二月，我们公布了总体规划，勾勒出新加坡未来10至15年的发展蓝图。我们将建设樟宜机场第五航站楼，重建巴耶利峇空军基地为新一代城镇，释放大南部海滨的潜力，并打造长岛，以建设住房并加强东海岸的海岸保护。
未来10至15年，我们将在全岛超过10个新住宅区建设至少80,000套新住房。到2030年代，我们将扩展铁路网络超过100公里，并规划超过50公里的新公园连接道，打造一个更连通、可持续且宜居的新加坡。
为了实现我们雄心勃勃的发展计划，我们需要更多的建筑师、工程师、造价师、项目经理、建筑商及其他专业技术人员。我们估计未来十年，每年需要至少1,000名新的建筑师和工程师加入行业，为新加坡的发展贡献力量。因此，年轻人如果寻求未来有强劲增长前景、富有意义和目标的职业发展道路，应考虑建筑环境（BE）行业。
我们独特的城市天际线，标志性建筑如Jewel和滨海湾金沙，每一套组屋承载一个家庭，每个地铁站连接社区，每所学校培养下一代——这些都是建筑环境专业人士的遗产，他们的工作对人民生活产生了深远影响。在气候变化时代，建筑环境专业人士将成为可持续发展斗争的先锋。
2024年，我们成立了建筑与工程顾问工作组，由顺丰裕廊集团董事长马查理先生和我共同主持。去年，工作组完成工作并推出了11项建议，旨在加强建筑环境人才储备及其转型。今天，我很高兴分享行业的积极响应和迄今取得的实质进展。
为了深化在职学习、改善导师制度并提高起薪，我们推出了名为“INSPIRE”的强化实习计划。其主要特点包括互动导师指导、结构化学习、有目的的任务、创新解决方案和有益的体验，因此命名为“INSPIRE”。
在INSPIRE计划下，实习时间将延长至至少30周，结构化设计帮助实习生发展关键的技术和软技能。实习可分多次在同一公司完成，且不会延迟毕业时间。
专门的导师将指导实习生，提供职业发展和职场表现方面的建议。公司还将提供至少1,500新元的更高实习津贴，实习生毕业后若加入公司，起薪也将高于市场水平。行业反响积极，PH Consulting、DCA Architects和Aedas等公司已承诺参与该计划。
顺丰裕廊集团自2026年1月起已接纳六名实习生，其中包括南洋理工大学土木工程三年级学生Charlotte Chan。她选择了30周的INSPIRE实习，而非标准的20周实习。Charlotte希望能更多地参与项目并深化学习体验。她对导师的悉心指导和INSPIRE实习生获得的更高津贴表示感谢。
随着更多行业参与者认识到培养具备强大职场准备能力实习生的价值，参与公司数量预计将增长。由于INSPIRE实习将深化技能获取，专业工程师局（PEB）和建筑师局（BOA）将认可此毕业前经验作为专业注册的合格实践经验。
除了应届毕业生，PEB和BOA还将认可相关的商业和领导力课程，作为持续专业发展框架的一部分，鼓励在职专业人士加强商业能力和洞察力。
行业品牌推广工作也初见成效。通过BuildSG营销活动，我们与行业领导者、行业协会和商会、在职专业人士、学生及公众紧密合作，将该行业定位为首选职业。过去一个学年，申请和入读建筑及土木工程课程的学生人数有所增加。我们将继续努力，吸引更多优秀人才加入建筑环境行业。
下一阶段，我们将致力于提升造价师职业。造价师（QS）处于工程、财务和法律的交汇点，在项目顺利交付中发挥关键作用。他们的专长在于管理合同和项目成本。
随着造价师的工作越来越多地被技术自动化，造价师职业需要重新定义角色，提供更多增值服务以保持相关性。这要求造价师建立新能力，掌握新技术并加强人才储备。
我们已成立工作组，成员包括造价师代表、服务采购方、高等院校和相关机构。造价师工作组将广泛咨询利益相关者，提出提升和未来保障造价师职业的建议。我鼓励大家向我们反馈意见和建议。
黄振辉议员询问我们如何提高建筑环境行业的生产力并更支持企业发展，李慧莹议员询问我们通过基础设施、人力和人才支持建筑业长期发展的计划。这些问题切中要害，凸显建筑环境行业持续转型的必要性。
议员们还提出了关于成本压力增加和供应链波动的合理关切。我们听到了大家的担忧，并采取多项措施应对。
首先，我们认识到承包商需要更清晰的关键成本驱动因素以便有效规划。政府正跨部门紧密合作，改善关键资源的前瞻性预测和协调，包括土壤处置能力和宿舍供应。此外，我们将探索如何向行业提供重大基础设施项目时间表的定期更新，支持更明智的项目规划决策。
齐部长早前分享了我们通过行动小组提升建筑环境生产力，帮助更广泛行业节省时间、成本和人力的计划。让我补充几个由不同利益相关者推动的例子，配合这些举措。
首先，我们完善了采购和监管框架。
继“降低费用评分”试点成功后，建屋发展局（BCA）自2025年12月起将该评分扩展至公共部门1亿新元以下项目，以遏制低价竞标，强调质量导向采购。初步结果令人鼓舞——自2024年以来，11个采用降低费用评分的招标中，有10个授予了质量评分最高的投标。
责任限制条款现已成为政府采购实体与顾问之间标准咨询协议的默认条款。这有助于实现更公平的风险分配，并使顾问能更好地投保专业责任险。
我们听取了李慧莹议员关于审视承包商责任框架的建议，以确保安全标准稳健，同时允许行业高效运作。BCA将继续与承包商密切合作，结合行业反馈更新政策。
第二，我们推出了建筑环境尊重、关怀与同理心文化（BE CARE）宪章。宪章列明最佳实践，促进项目团队更协作的关系，强化职场福祉。自2025年9月以来，已有超过50家公司和服务采购方承诺遵守。
Arup新加坡是BE CARE精神转化为实际行动的典范。Arup倡导员工敢于发声和提出关切的文化，建立了员工可向领导层和人力团队报告问题或寻求支持的框架，包括匿名热线和举报渠道。
在项目会议中，Arup实行智能沟通，规划清晰议程，仅邀请相关人员参与。员工尊重彼此休息时间，避免下班后发送邮件，并在休假前进行结构化交接。这些简单做法有助于营造支持员工福祉的文化。
我鼓励更多公司加入，共同改善建筑环境职场文化。
第三，我们在技术应用方面取得进展。建筑事务所积极采用人工智能转变工作流程。DP Architects成立了技术初创公司Spatial Intelligence for Design，开发行业AI解决方案。
我们鼓励更多公司抓住技术成熟带来的新机遇。有兴趣的公司可申请生产力解决方案补助金或建筑环境技术与能力补助金支持。
新一轮生产力解决方案补助金将扩大支持范围，涵盖更多解决方案，包括人工智能和先进设备，如机器人和自动化设备，包括远程控制机械及检测成像设备，这些设备已显示出令人鼓舞的生产力提升。
第四，行业协会和商会加大力度支持会员企业，推动行业多领域转型。例如，新加坡建筑师学会将开发就业资源指南，包含结构化课程和实务工作坊，帮助会员企业的人力资源官员更好地定义职位和规划职业发展路径。这将帮助企业吸引合适人才，更好地制定雇佣合同并支持员工职业发展。
下午1点45分
以上是落实工作组建议、转型建筑环境行业的一些举措。我们的工作不会止步于此。未来，我们期待更多利益相关者参与，推动更大动力。政府也将继续与行业合作，审视政策，进一步提升建筑环境效率和生产力。
接下来，我谈谈改善公寓及其他分层物业治理、宜居性和维护的计划。
随着分层物业老化，管理委员会（MCST）和业主对维护成本上升、设施老化及集体决策改善的挑战表达关切。我们必须解决这些问题，确保这些物业持续宜居，满足居民需求，尤其是老年人。
我们正在全面审查《建筑（分层管理）法》，重点关注四个方面：一是帮助MCST积累足够的专项维修基金，用于必要的维护、修理或升级；二是降低必要工程的同意门槛；三是加强自治框架，促进公平高效的物业管理；四是明确分层产权相关方的责任。
让我详细说明引导MCST保持充足专项维修基金的拟议改进。
目前，许多MCST仅在老化电梯出现磨损和零件过时时才开始筹集电梯更换资金。如果专项基金不足，MCST需向业主征收特别费用，这可能金额不小，业主也未必准备好。若MCST提前积累资金，可避免此类情况。
为加强对MCST财务规划的监督，我们正探索要求MCST以标准格式提交并公布预算和财务关键信息，便于业主和潜在买家了解和跟踪MCST的财务健康和专项基金充足性。
关于加强治理，我们研究防止投票系统被操控的措施。我们收到反馈，某些小团体收集大量委托票，控制物业决策，可能不代表大多数业主的最佳利益。因此，我们考虑限制每户可持有的委托票比例，并确保理事会成员接受适当培训。
这些变革旨在使物业管理更公平、更高效。
自2025年6月起，BCA通过焦点小组讨论等平台与分层物业利益相关者就部分拟议修订进行交流。为深化此工作，我们将于2026年3月9日至4月8日开展公众咨询，强烈鼓励分层物业居民提供反馈。此次审查将强化分层管理框架，确保私人住宅物业维护良好、便捷宜居。
我们正在研究提升建筑和基础设施安全及无障碍性的措施。
其中一项是加强老旧电梯和自动扶梯的安全。我们正在审查措施，确保老旧电梯和扶梯符合现代安全标准，如增加调节速度和运动的功能。我们也在探索为符合条件的私人建筑业主和运营者提供部分安全设施的共资支持。详情将适时公布。
随着人口老龄化，无障碍需求将增加。许多建筑建于无障碍标准尚不完善的早期。
2007年推出的无障碍基金为私人建筑业主升级无障碍及通用设计设施提供共资支持。国土部正审视无障碍基金的潜在改进，以更好支持老年人、残疾人士和家庭安全便捷地使用生活环境，包括私人物业。
目前，无障碍基金不涵盖积极老龄化和痴呆友好设施。审查中，我们将考虑扩大基金范围，涵盖老年人相关设施，如老年友好健身站和痴呆友好标识。这些改进旨在创造生活空间，使老年人保持行动能力和身体活跃，舒适地在熟悉环境中安享晚年。
为鼓励更多建筑按最新无障碍规范升级，我们也在探索扩大无障碍基金的适用范围，涵盖1990年和2013年无障碍规范实施前建造的更多私人建筑。
为提高参与度并降低私人物业成本，我们也在审查共资支持金额，详情将适时公布。
我今天介绍的举措体现了我们坚定不移的承诺，致力于为当代及未来世代建设更美好的新加坡。我们携手共建未来新加坡，坚信今天的投资将打造一个世界级标准、深植包容、安全与卓越价值观的建筑环境。这是确保新加坡成为每位公民引以为豪的家园的方式。
主席：国家发展部高级国务部长孙雪玲。
国家发展部高级国务部长（孙雪玲女士）：主席先生，感谢议员们的提问和建议。
住房是一个非常个人化的问题，因为不同家庭和人生阶段的住房需求各异。例如，考虑安家立业和组建家庭的年轻夫妇，与为退休和独立生活做规划的长者需求不同。我们希望确保住房政策和选择满足不同群体在不同人生阶段的多样化需求。
许多年轻夫妇申请建屋发展局（BTO）组屋作为首套住房。正如傅哲祥议员指出，负担能力和可及性是这些年轻夫妇最关心的问题。这可以理解，因为住房很可能是他们人生旅程中最重要的财务承诺之一。
对于刚开始工作的人来说，或者听说有人多次申请却未能成功购屋，获得住房可能令人感到压力重重。我们理解这些担忧，因此将继续支持年轻夫妇的置业之路。
首先，正如齐部长在演讲中提到的，我们将保持充足的BTO组屋供应。
其中大多数——至少90%的四房及以上组屋——预留给首次置业家庭。2023年和2024年申请的首次置业家庭中约有三分之二成功预订组屋。此后，申请率进一步下降。就在上个月最近一次BTO销售中，首次置业家庭申请三房及以上组屋的中位申请率为0.9倍。
对于希望更早获得组屋的年轻夫妇，我们鼓励您考虑申请竞争较小的项目。您的成功机会将更高。
第二，我们继续保持组屋的可负担性。
我们的建屋发展局（BTO）组屋价格给予了显著的市场折扣。即使是刚开始职业生涯的年轻夫妇，您也很可能能够以很少或无需现金支出的方式偿还每月的组屋贷款。2025年，九成首次置业家庭领取BTO组屋钥匙时的情况就是如此。
对于首次置业的年轻夫妇，分期首付计划将首付降低至组屋价格的最低5%。如果夫妻一方正在就学或刚完成国民服役，可以申请推迟收入评估，以获得增强版中央公积金住房补贴和组屋贷款，首付甚至可能进一步降低至组屋价格的2.5%。
第三，对于已预订组屋且在等待组屋竣工期间需要临时住房的合资格家庭，我们通过“父母临时住房计划”（PPHS）提供补贴租金支持。自2021年以来，我们已大幅增加PPHS供应，从约800个单位增至目前超过4,000个。
蔡银洲先生询问是否提高PPHS收入上限。目前，PPHS的收入上限设定为7,000新元，以更好地将支持针对那些较难负担市场租金的家庭。
这些措施共同体现了我们支持年轻夫妇购买首套住房的承诺。
随着家庭安居乐业并不断壮大，他们的住房需求可能会发生变化。傅哲祥先生和娜迪亚·艾哈迈德·桑丁女士询问我们如何支持大家庭的需求。
目前，拥有三个或以上子女的家庭可以受益于第三胎优先计划（TCPS）。该计划对首次和第二次置业家庭均开放。符合条件的家庭可优先分配最多占BTO和余屋销售（SBF）项目中5%的组屋。
TCPS相当受欢迎，五房及以上组屋的申请倍率约为五倍。我很高兴地宣布，我们将加强TCPS。
首先，我们将把TCPS配额从目前占BTO和SBF组屋供应的5%翻倍至10%。这将使更多符合条件的家庭能够获得组屋。
其次，我们将扩大资格标准，使家庭在母亲怀第三胎时即可符合TCPS资格。
这些变更将从2026年6月的销售活动开始生效。
此外，为支持大家庭，我们将致力于长期增加大户型组屋的供应。这是我们维持组屋供应充足的策略之一。
我们认识到，部分申请者可能面临特殊和独特的挑战，例如蔡银洲先生和傅哲祥先生提到的单亲未婚父母，或林秀慧女士提到的丧偶或离异父母。大卫·何先生也曾建议，对于家庭成员增多且需要更大空间的家庭，应对最低居住期限（MOP）给予更大灵活性。
对于此类情况，我们将考虑其特殊情形，并准备根据个案灵活处理。
除了组屋的可负担性和可及性，我们还在努力提升居民的入住和居住体验。
对于搬入新大型BTO组屋区的居民，新设施可能需要一些时间才能全面投入使用。为改善入住体验，国土发展部（MND）和建屋发展局（HDB）成立了BTO协调委员会，成员包括陆路交通管理局（LTA）、国家环境局（NEA）、早期儿童发展局（ECDA）、信息通信媒体发展局（IMDA）和人民协会（PA）等合作机构。过去八个月，我们与基层顾问进行了深入讨论，确定了五个关键领域，相关机构将更好地支持搬入新大型BTO组屋区的居民。
第一，新组屋区的公交运营通常在居民达到一定规模后启动，大约在首批居民领取钥匙后三个月。我们听到反馈，首批居民需要更早的交通连接以便搬入。
为支持交通连接，HDB和LTA将规划至少一条公交线路，与新大型BTO组屋区首批领取钥匙的居民同步运营。这些公交线路将设有步行可达的公交站点，连接居民至便利设施和交通枢纽，如公交换乘站或地铁站。
若常规公交服务无法立即启动，相关机构将考虑临时穿梭巴士服务。
下午2时
第二，居民希望搬入时能方便购买熟食和杂货。目前，租用HDB商铺的经营者通常在首批居民领取钥匙后约九个月开始营业，因为他们认为此时已有足够居民支持其业务。HDB将推出三项举措，支持商铺经营者，使居民能更早享用熟食和杂货。
首先，HDB重新审视施工时间表，尽可能将商铺完工时间提前至首批领取钥匙时间附近。HDB还将预建户外休憩区，免去咖啡店经营者自行建设的时间和成本，这可节省多达八个月的时间并降低运营成本。
其次，HDB将把新BTO项目中HDB商铺的免租期从两个月延长至最多六个月。咖啡店的免租期也将从目前的三个月延长至最多六个月。此措施适用于2026年3月起的商铺招标，商铺需提前开业以享受最长六个月免租期。
在运营的前两年，HDB还实行分阶段租金，第一年租金为80%，第二年为90%。为进一步支持商铺经营者，HDB将把第一年租金降至70%。商铺经营者可先提供较少的杂货和熟食，待居民达到一定规模后再逐步扩大经营。
最后，视市场需求，HDB将考虑在部分远离咖啡店的组屋楼栋部署即食套餐和经济套餐。
第三，托儿所开业时间不一。有些托儿所可在首批居民领取钥匙后七个月内准备就绪，而有些则需一年以上。这对有幼儿的家庭来说可能带来不便。未来，我们将与ECDA紧密合作，更好支持有幼儿的居民搬入新大型BTO组屋区。
首先，HDB将优先在首批完工的楼栋设立托儿所，使托儿所准备时间与首批居民搬入时间更匹配。其次，HDB和ECDA将简化施工和交付流程，尽早邀请潜在托儿所经营者参观场地，便于规划装修工作。综合来看，新大型BTO组屋区的托儿所将更早投入运营，计划在首批居民领取钥匙后六个月内开业。
第四，关于有盖连廊。当前，HDB在规划新BTO组屋区时，会设计有盖连廊网络，支持居民从小区内步行至附近的主要交通节点，如公交站。若条件允许，连廊也会连接至邻近的便利设施，如学校或邻里中心。未来，HDB将提升新BTO组屋区有盖连廊的建设标准，确保在保障居民安全和便利方面有明显益处的连廊，在居民入住前建成。
然而，并非所有连廊都会在领取钥匙前建成，因为居民的步行路线和无障碍需求可能在入住后发生变化。市镇理事会和其他机构也可能根据居民的步行习惯和新增设施，逐步增建或延伸连廊，确保小区长期保持良好连通性，满足居民需求。
最后，我们也听到关于部分新BTO项目，尤其是初期搬入期间，存在随意倾倒大件废弃物的问题。HDB正与NEA和市镇理事会合作，加强提供大型废弃物收集箱（跳箱）及金属笼或回收箱等容器，方便居民在搬入初期处理大件废弃物。
自2025年8月起，HDB为希望在项目竣工后一年内部署跳箱的新建项目提供50%的资金支持。我们将继续为新大型BTO组屋区的项目提供此支持。此外，HDB将加强对装修承包商随意倾倒废弃物的执法力度，包括审查处罚框架，对违规承包商实施更严厉的处罚。
每个组屋区情况不同，可能存在项目特定问题导致差异。但有了基本原则，我们可以努力实现新大型BTO组屋区的这些标准，提升居民的入住体验。
我们也通过利益相关者和居民参与，提升组屋区的宜居性。我们认识到，组屋不仅是遮风避雨的住所，更是成长和提升福祉的地方。
去年12月，我们推出了“游戏价值框架”。该框架认识到游乐场是年轻有孩家庭的重要基础设施和社区空间。为此，我们积极咨询了早期儿童和健康专家、游乐场专家及家长。
该框架强调游戏的三个关键方面——身体、社交和创造力，满足2至5岁幼儿及5至12岁儿童的发展需求。我们将从2026年起在新BTO项目中应用该框架建设新游乐场，并与市镇理事会合作，更新其他已开发组屋区的游乐场。未来几个月将有更多分享。
良好居住环境的另一个方面是便捷获取必需品和服务。蔡路易先生询问我们如何确保邻里商铺的良好供应和多样性。我们的常规做法是在每个组屋镇中心设立市镇中心，作为主要商业枢纽，提供超市、餐饮和零售店等多样商品和服务。市镇中心由分布在镇内的邻里中心补充。
在部分远离市镇中心和邻里中心的选定区块，HDB还将建设区块商铺，通常包括食阁、超市或便利店及若干商铺。大多数居民可在400米内步行到达设有食阁或食肆的商业设施。
感谢蔡路易先生建议开展大型热食自动售卖机咖啡馆招标。大多数居民更倾向于食阁或食肆等商业设施。当议员们指出具体需要自动售卖机或热食的组屋区，并有市场需求和供应支持时，HDB将与议员沟通，促进相关进程。
阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生和普里塔姆·辛格先生提出了关于租金水平和透明度的建议。包括郭振辉先生、洪伟能先生、玛丽亚姆·贾法尔女士和蔡路易先生在内的多位议员于2025年9月24日在本院也提出了类似观点。阿扎尔建议由类似公共交通理事会的委员会监控和调整租金。
我要强调的是，商铺租金与公共交通票价本质不同。商铺因地理位置、布局、经营用途和品牌等多样属性，导致服务内容不同，租金水平也不同。此外，商铺租赁是房东与租户之间的独立合同，双方会考虑市场动态后做出决策。公共交通则服务大众，票价设定需兼顾可负担性和财务可持续性。
阿扎尔·奥斯曼先生和普里塔姆·辛格先生，以及之前的郭振辉先生、洪伟能先生和玛丽亚姆·贾法尔女士，都希望看到合理且可持续的HDB商铺租金水平。国土发展部也有同样目标。让我分享HDB为保持租金合理和具竞争力所做的工作。
首先，HDB确保每个组屋区和市镇有充足的商铺供应。供应充足时，租户有更多选择，顾客也有更多购买地点。如果租金和商品价格过高，租户和顾客都可以选择其他地方。
其次，对于HDB出租的商铺，我们引入新措施保持租金稳定。自2026年1月起，所有新商铺招标的中标者须维持其投标租金两期租约，而非以往的三年一期租约。投标者因此被鼓励在竞争力和业务可持续性之间取得平衡。
对于面临财务困难的HDB商铺租户，HDB将密切合作，提供有针对性的支持，确保居民继续能在邻里享用负担得起的商品和服务。
关于HDB咖啡店的档口租金，HDB意在提升透明度，支持良性市场运作，向公众提供相关租金数据，帮助潜在档主做出明智的商业决策。HDB已于2026年1月宣布开始收集管理下咖啡店经营者收取的档口租金数据，并将研究如何以便捷方式向公众展示这些数据。我们也在探讨收集和公布其他相关租金数据的可行性，如HDB对户外休憩区的租金。
对于私人持有的已售HDB商铺，新加坡税务局（IRAS）保存有关租赁和租约交易的记录，这些记录用于缴纳印花税。IRAS收集的租金数据按地理位置和物业类型在市区重建局（URA）的房地产信息系统（REALIS）上公开。我们致力于发布准确数据，帮助潜在商铺或档口经营者做出决策，并会考虑是否需要专门门户网站。
更广泛地，我们也采取政府整体措施预防、侦测和惩治洗钱活动，包括加强监控和情报分析机制。这有助于保护我们的市场，包括公共和私人租赁市场，防范非法活动的影响。
综合来看，这些措施确保居民继续方便地获得负担得起且多样化的心脏地带商铺和服务。主席先生，我现在用普通话说几句话，请。
（普通话）：[请参阅方言发言。] 为帮助居民获得优质且负担得起的商品和服务，并保持合理稳定的租金，HDB将确保每个组屋区和市镇有充足的商铺供应。
对于HDB管理的商铺，我们还有其他措施维持租金稳定。自2018年以来，HDB采用“价格-质量”方法评估新咖啡店和超市的招标。
HDB不仅考虑投标价格，还对投标方案进行更全面评估。此外，HDB今年1月还推出了以下措施。
第一，为鼓励理性投标，中标者须维持其投标租金两期租约，而非以往的三年一期。第二，为保护档主利益，HDB开始收集其管理下咖啡店经营者收取的档口租金数据，向档主提供更全面透明的租金信息。
上述政策确保HDB管理商铺租金的合理性和稳定性，使居民继续享用价格合理的商品和服务。
（英语）：主席先生，我们将更新住房政策，支持不同群体的多样化需求，包括年轻夫妇、大家庭和长者。近年来，我们加大力度，使HDB镇更宜居、更包容、更能响应居民需求。
我们将继续与新加坡人携手建设他们引以为傲的组屋和邻里。
主席：国土发展部高级议会秘书赛义德·哈伦·阿尔哈布西博士。
国土发展部部长高级议会秘书（赛义德·哈伦·阿尔哈布西博士）：主席先生，感谢议员们的提问和发言。
下午2时15分
建设一个包容和凝聚的社会一直是新加坡公共住房故事的核心。正如齐部长所提到的，我将分享我们如何以及将如何继续加强对更弱势的新加坡人的住房支持。
让我从公共租赁计划开始，这是我们低收入和弱势家庭的重要社会安全网。
多年来，我们一直在改进建屋发展局（HDB）组屋的设计，包括公共租赁组屋。较新的租赁楼宇拥有更好的通风和自然采光。我们改进了每个单位的布局，以最大化可用空间。租赁楼宇也更好地融入各个组屋区，方便居民使用区内设施。
事实上，如今我们在同一栋楼内既有租赁组屋，也有出售组屋。我们称这些为综合楼宇。它们为租赁组屋和出售组屋的家庭创造了更多互动机会，有助于实现我们建设更包容社会的宏伟愿景。建屋发展局已完成八栋此类综合楼宇，另有36栋正在建设中。
综合楼宇将成为未来五年内约6,300个公共租赁组屋的一部分。这不仅将增加我们的租赁组屋总供应量，还将帮助更新部分现有租赁库存。同时，这也将进一步缩短租赁组屋的等待时间，等待时间已从疫情期间的11个月高峰缩短至目前的平均三个月。
对于许多弱势家庭来说，公共租赁计划一直是重要的支持来源。以纳兹里先生一家为例。纳兹里·扎卡里亚先生、努尔菲特拉·雅哈女士及其四个年幼的孩子于2020年搬入一套两房公共租赁组屋。那时，拥有自己的住房似乎遥不可及。但相关机构伸出援手。他们一家受益于ComLink+计划，社会及家庭发展部（MSF）与包括建屋发展局在内的机构合作，为21岁以下有子女的家庭提供综合支持。与此同时，建屋发展局的住房拥有支持团队联系了纳兹里先生和努尔菲特拉女士，帮助他们迈向拥有自己住房的旅程。
纳兹里先生和努尔菲特拉女士分享说，住房拥有支持团队的帮助非常宝贵。虽然纳兹里先生已获得稳定的全职公交司机工作，帮助家庭恢复经济基础，但最初拥有自己的住房仍感觉遥远。这是因为购房确实是一个重大决定。
住房拥有支持团队详细计算了他们可能选择的组屋的购买价格，解释了所需的首付款金额以及预计的每月按揭还款。通过分解成本，这对夫妇更清楚地了解了如何将购房纳入预算。拥有自己的住房开始变得更可实现。随后，住房拥有支持团队指导纳兹里先生和努尔菲特拉女士选择组屋，并一直是他们家庭的重要资源，直到他们最近在义顺领取新四房组屋的钥匙。
如今，纳兹里先生和努尔菲特拉女士已成为幸福的业主，我有幸在他们的新家见到他们一家。
我对法兹利·法乌兹先生支持政府帮助低收入家庭加快实现住房拥有的努力感到鼓舞。事实上，纳兹里先生和努尔菲特拉女士的故事只是众多中的一个。到2025年，已有超过2,000个现有租赁家庭预订了组屋，正等待交付。
我们一直在加大对租赁家庭的支持力度。去年，我们将符合条件的第二次购房ComLink+租赁家庭的新起点住房补助从50,000新元提高到75,000新元。60,000新元将预先发放，帮助家庭减少购房所需的按揭贷款，剩余的15,000新元将在领取钥匙后五年内分期发放，以支持他们的按揭还款。
我们还将新起点住房计划扩展至首次购房的ComLink+租赁家庭。他们现在可以购买较短租期的两房Flexi或三房标准组屋，这比99年租约的组屋更实惠。作为首次购房者，他们有资格获得最高120,000新元的增强版中央公积金住房补助，代替新起点住房补助。
这些改进将帮助更多家庭实现拥有住房的目标。建屋发展局也将继续根据每个租赁家庭的具体情况，个别协助他们实现住房拥有，因为购房是一项长期的财务承诺，最好基于对每个家庭独特情况的了解。主席先生，请用马来语。
（马来语）：[请参阅方言发言。] 对许多弱势家庭来说，建屋发展局的租赁组屋计划是重要的支持来源，在他们面临困难时提供保护和援助。
以纳兹里先生一家为例。我最近在他们准备庆祝开斋节时见过他们。
2020年，纳兹里·扎卡里亚先生、妻子努尔菲特拉·雅哈女士及其四个年幼的孩子搬入一套两房建屋发展局租赁组屋。他们受益于ComLink+计划，社会及家庭发展部与包括建屋发展局在内的机构合作，为21岁以下有子女的家庭提供综合支持，涵盖就业、教育和住房等方面的援助。
情况进一步改善，当建屋发展局的住房拥有支持团队联系他们时。该团队指导他们审视购房预算和组屋选项，并制定清晰的购房计划。通过稳定就业、共同努力和持续储蓄，纳兹里先生和努尔菲特拉女士如今自豪地拥有了义顺一套新的四房组屋。
他们的旅程并不容易，但有了强有力和持续的支持，变得更加顺利。
许多其他家庭也经历类似的生活挑战。2025年全年，已有超过2,000个建屋发展局租赁家庭预订了组屋，正等待交付。我们正在扩大对建屋发展局租赁家庭的支持力度。
去年，符合条件的第二次购房ComLink+租赁家庭的新起点住房补助从50,000新元提高到75,000新元。此外，新起点住房计划也扩展至首次购房ComLink+租赁家庭，使他们能够购买较短租期的两房Flexi或三房标准组屋。
这些措施将为更多建屋发展局租赁家庭提供实现拥有住房梦想的机会，从而改善他们家庭的福祉。
（英语）：虽然大多数租赁家庭是家庭单位，但有相当40%的租户是单身人士。根据联合单身人士计划，单身申请者必须先找到合适的共同申请人才能申请。我们认识到这可能具有挑战性。
因此，我们于2021年推出了由运营商管理的联合单身人士计划试点（JSS-OR）。在JSS-OR下，申请者可以单独申请，由指定的社会服务机构作为运营商帮助他们寻找合适的室友。
李翠山先生就是其中一位申请者。他于2022年单独申请，位于武吉巴督的JSS-OR运营商新希望社区服务帮助他找到合适的室友。
运营商还协助管理租赁事务，必要时调解租户间的纠纷，并组织活动促进租户间的交流。这对我最近见过的李先生产生了积极影响。他参加了新希望组织的捞鱼生活动，并分享说此类活动，包括游戏和其他节日庆祝，是与同楼租户互动和建立联系的宝贵机会。
我们于2024年进一步推出了单人房共享设施（SRSF）试点。在SRSF中，租户拥有独立卧室，但共享公共设施。
这两个试点满足不同偏好，均获得积极反馈。因此，我们于去年十月推出了首个专门建造的SRSF楼宇，并将在未来几年扩大这两种类型的规模。更多细节将在准备好时公布。
我们越来越关注的另一群体是我们的长者。正如纳迪亚·艾哈迈德·桑丁女士所强调，随着年龄增长，您的住房需求会发生变化。一些长者希望通过出租组屋或将剩余租期部分出售给建屋发展局来变现他们的组屋。其他人则可能更愿意换住较小的组屋，尽管对现有住所有美好回忆。较小的组屋维护更便捷，出售所得可补充退休生活所需。
这些都是个人决定，我们将支持新加坡人无论选择哪种方案。
对于希望原地养老的长者，您可以通过租期买断计划（LBS）将组屋剩余租期部分出售给建屋发展局。所得款项将用于补充您的中央公积金退休账户，并通过中央公积金终身年金计划（CPF LIFE）为您提供每月终身支付。LBS还为业主提供最高30,000新元的现金奖金。2021年至2025年间，四房组屋的平均LBS收益（包括用于补充退休账户的部分及奖金）超过200,000新元。
或者，您可以换住较小的组屋，用出售所得支持退休生活。换住三房或更小组屋的长者可获得最高40,000新元的银发住房奖金。例如，长者可考虑申请建屋发展局的新两房Flexi组屋，或换住社区关怀公寓。社区关怀公寓将住房与护理服务结合，配备预装设施和适合长者的设计。定期组织活动促进长者交流，并由社区经理提供托管支持，带来安心感。
自2021年以来，我们已推出五个社区关怀公寓。今年晚些时候将在大巴窑推出下一个。我们将根据需求继续在各镇推出更多社区关怀公寓。
但社区关怀公寓的建设数量有限。因此，我们也在努力使居住环境更适合长者，确保他们能舒适地原地养老。郭振贤先生和梁荣华先生会高兴地听到，相关机构正合作推出“安享邻里”计划，首个试点位于大巴窑。在每个安享邻里，我们将改善医疗服务的可及性，升级适合长者的设施。这将丰富长者的住房和护理选择。我们将持续审视和完善这些长者选项。
我们也很高兴听到蔡银洲先生对适合长者原地养老的设施感兴趣。
即使您不在安享邻里，也能通过我们的升级计划受益。这些计划包括邻里更新计划和银发升级计划，针对建屋发展局组屋区，以及私人组屋的组屋区升级计划。崇文的四个组屋区将是银发升级计划的首批受益者，工程预计今年晚些完成。明年，安详、武吉美拉和大巴窑的另外12个组屋区工程也将完成。
法兹利·法乌兹先生询问了改善组屋内部设施以提升长者舒适和安全的计划。长者可通过EASE计划获得补贴，安装改善行动能力和安全的设施。该计划作为家居改造计划（HIP）和EASE（直接申请）的一部分提供。从今年四月起，私人组屋区也可享受EASE（私人）计划。
下午2时30分
蔡银洲先生还提到了火灾和跌倒检测等技术。我们已在超过80%的公共租赁组屋安装了家用火灾报警装置，其余组屋也将逐步免费安装。家用火灾报警装置的安装也包含在EASE计划内，以及在HIP计划中安装防火门的组屋。
关于跌倒检测，建屋发展局与商业供应商合作，提供可选的跌倒检测套餐，出售组屋的居民可订购。卫生部也将推出增强版家居个人护理服务，包括全天候技术监控以检测跌倒和意外事件。
洪伟能先生和陈德兴先生询问了我们的无障碍提升计划（LUP）。自2001年以来，LUP已为99%的建屋发展局楼宇带来直达电梯。多年来，建屋发展局试点并采用了多种方案以实现更多楼宇的直达电梯，包括无机房电梯和泡泡电梯。2025年，六栋楼宇宣布实施LUP，计划逐步扩展至约40栋楼宇。相关楼宇的居民将适时获知详情。
对于居住在无直达电梯楼宇的居民，包括分段组屋，我们去年提升了电梯无障碍住房补助。符合条件的家庭和单身人士分别可获得最高80,000新元和40,000新元的补助，以搬迁至有直达电梯的组屋。建屋发展局继续探索新方法，为剩余楼宇提供直达电梯，如与研究机构合作开发和测试新方案。
今年早些时候，建屋发展局还启动了“建屋发展局酷点子企业”征集计划。该平台为企业提供资金支持、指导和测试设施，联合开发改善建屋发展局居住环境和居民生活质量的解决方案。
我还想回应陈德兴先生提到的832座楼宇居民在购房时不知晓其组屋无同层直达电梯的问题。如果居民直接从建屋发展局购买，相关信息会在当时的销售手册中提供。如果居民从转售市场购买，是否有直达电梯是该物业可观察的物理特征。
关于是否无论成本如何都为所有楼宇提供LUP，我希望陈先生理解政府需谨慎使用公共资金。建屋发展局将继续探索新技术，在可行情况下为剩余楼宇提供直达电梯。
我们将尽力覆盖尽可能多的楼宇。但若提供直达电梯的成本过高，更审慎的做法是业主利用去年提升至80,000新元的电梯无障碍住房补助，搬迁至邻近有电梯的单位。
主席先生，新加坡的公共住房格局不断演变，我们将尽力满足每位新加坡人的多样化需求。无论您是在生活困难时需要住所，还是退休后希望优雅地原地养老，我们都将支持您。
主席：国家发展部国务部长陈振声。
国家发展部国务部长（陈振声先生）：主席先生，我曾在本议院谈及我们必须谨慎管理有限资源。这意味着在为人民建设住房、学校、医院和交通枢纽的同时，也要保护我们的绿地和水域。还要照顾我们的动物，并在出现人兽冲突时妥善处理。
让我先谈谈我们的动物。李慧莹女士呼吁加强立法手段以遏制虐待动物行为。我们确实在加强动物健康和福利体系。首先，我们将成立兽医理事会，作为专业监管机构，提高兽医专业人员的标准。该理事会将注册兽医，认证兽医培训项目，并设定继续教育要求。必要时还将调查不当行为案件。我本周将提交《兽医执业法案》，以设立该理事会，感谢兽医界及其他利益相关者自2021年以来与我们共同制定该法案。
其次，我们正在审查相关法律和守则，以改善动物健康和福利，加强防止虐待动物的保障。自2022年以来，我们广泛征询了《动物与鸟类法》的修订意见，以更好地加强动物疾病预防和控制的权力。我们也在研究如何更有效遏制虐待动物行为，包括审查监禁期限、罚款和禁止令等处罚措施。我也曾与动物关怀研究与教育协会（ACRES）及防止虐待动物协会（SPCA）会面，讨论他们关于此议题的白皮书。我们将认真审视所有建议，并于今年晚些时候向公众咨询。
今年，我们还将审查《动物福利守则》，重点关注美容师，并新增犬类训练师章节。目前这些行业无执照制度，标准不一。我们将咨询利益相关者和公众，持续提升这些行业的标准和专业水平。
与此同时，我们还必须管理害鸟种群，以保护公共卫生和安全。阿卜杜勒·穆海敏·阿卜杜勒·马利克先生询问如何更好地管理鸽子在空调机位的栖息和排泄问题。李慧莹女士、梁荣华先生、洪伟能先生和普里坦·辛格先生也询问如何更有效管理鸽子、八哥和乌鸦种群。
要控制害鸟数量，必须从根本解决问题，即食物。因此，我们与合作伙伴共同改善食物废弃物管理，执法打击非法喂鸟行为，并且非常重要的是，开展公众教育。
2025年6月，我们将鸽子管理计划扩大至惹兰勿刹、马西岭-裕廸和义顺地区。我们将分阶段在全新加坡推广该计划。建屋发展局（HDB）也在榜鹅和大巴窑试验安装半高网，以防止鸽子在组屋空调机架上筑巢。试验结束后，我们会将建屋发展局的发现分享给所有市镇理事会。
Pritam Singh先生和Lee Hui Ying女士也询问了乌鸦射击的安全协议。国家公园局（NParks）已与内政部及相关机构合作，制定了严格的射击协议。这包括确保射击轨迹始终向上，设置安全隔离区并配备适当标识，以及部署人员管理公众进入和限制未经授权的行动，确保乌鸦射击行动的安全。
国家公园局将从本月下半月起逐步恢复乌鸦射击。我们将根据多种因素选择地点，包括公众反馈和乌鸦射击行动的技术可行性。但归根结底，尽管我们做了许多工作，仍需要大家共同努力，承担共同责任。请不要喂食鸟类，保持环境清洁。这些小事将有助于让我们的生活环境更加宜居。
先生，正如我们谨慎管理身边的动物一样，我们也必须管理好我们的绿色和蓝色空间。我同意Nadia Samdin女士的观点，自然对我们作为城市的长期韧性至关重要。这就是为什么我们作为“自然之城”愿景的一部分，正在扩大我们的绿地。未来五年，我们计划建设超过25个新公园和50公里的公园连接道。
我们还在加强全岛的生态连通性。我们沿道路种植更多本地树木和灌木，模拟森林的多层结构。这些“自然之路”帮助鸟类和蝴蝶等动物在自然保护区、公园和花园之间移动。结合公园连接道和公园，它们将形成更广泛的自然走廊，连接我们生物多样性最丰富的区域。
我们还让公园更加欢迎和便捷，比如标志性的滨海湾花园。今天，我很高兴宣布，滨海湾花园将迎来全新的“滨海湿地”。我们将扩展现有的翠鸟湿地区域，种植超过600株红树林和沿海植物，游客可以划皮划艇穿行其中。面积将是现有的三倍，植物数量也将增加三倍。
我们还将建造一条新的树冠步道，横跨湿地，连接滨海湾花园地铁站与南湾花园的主要景点。我们还将建设“林间草坪”，一个新的社区绿地，将举办活动和项目，同时为游客提供放松休憩的场所。
我们也开始建设一座新的行人桥，直接连接南湾花园和东湾花园，预计2028年完工，这样游客就无需绕行滨海堤坝到另一侧。
除了滨海湾花园，我们还在振兴并连接新加坡西南部的13个公园，其中包括三个目的地公园。今天，我很高兴分享约2500份反馈中的一些关键想法，这些将塑造这些公园的未来。
许多参与咨询的市民希望在关键路段改善无障碍设施和便利设施，如增加娱乐选项、洗手间和遮荫区。同时，你们也希望我们在增加不同用户体验的同时，保持公园的绿意和宁静。
因此，我们将探索包容性的自然步道，连接西南部公园，通过探索和游戏拉近社区关系。
我们将通过融入海洋和文化遗产元素，增强西海岸公园的海岸魅力。我们还将引入新设施，同时细心保护西海岸公园的宁静自然。
对于园艺公园，我们将使其成为更具包容性和欢迎感的园艺中心，社区可以聚集并参与实践项目。我们将保持拉布拉多自然公园的宁静和自然，同时增加新设施，展示其遗产和生物多样性。
因此，我感谢公园使用者、社区和居民的宝贵反馈，期待提升这些公园及更多公园的品质。
接下来，让我从我们的公园和绿地谈到蓝色空间。2014年，我们建立了姐妹岛海洋公园，成为海龟保护的安全港和珊瑚活体基因库。事实上，我去年曾访问该海洋公园，释放了国家公园局在东海岸公园发现的76只幼年玳瑁海龟。该海洋公园是热门的海龟筑巢地，设有海龟孵化场，保护幼龟免受人类活动、捕食者和高潮的威胁。
今年，我们将正式指定第二个海洋公园，位于拉扎鲁斯南部和龟屿礁，以提供更多休闲、保护、研究和教育机会。先生，保护我们的水域也意味着更好地了解它们。因此，我们将投资6000万新元建设新的海洋科学研究卓越中心。该中心将由新加坡国立大学主办，并由“研究、创新与企业2030”基金支持。
该中心将汇聚跨学科专业知识，发展本地能力和人才，并与圣约翰岛国家海洋实验室及海洋界合作伙伴合作。国家公园局正与新加坡国立大学合作建设该中心，详情将于今年晚些时候公布。
主席先生，发展新加坡时，我们面临许多相互竞争的需求，我们通过审慎的总体规划平衡这些需求，采取长远视角，结合新加坡人的期望。Chee Hong Tat部长分享了建屋发展局的重点之一是确保可持续发展新加坡，平衡土地使用需求。但由于土地有限，某些权衡始终存在。
下午2时45分
正如Nadia Samdin女士所倡议的，我们在管理绿地和蓝地的同时，也必须谨慎平衡自然与发展的关系。我想向她保证，我们非常重视规划开发的生态影响。
Dennis Tan先生再次提出对实龙岗森林和罗弄哈鲁士巴士车厂的关切，并要求对所有林地进行基线研究。我已在1月的休会动议中回应过，但因这些问题重要，我将简要重申。
我们必须在有限土地条件下平衡住房、教育、绿地等多种需求。Tan先生也提到其他国家如何利用自然解决方案保护和振兴棕地。正如我所说，我们没有其他国家那样的土地和空间奢侈。我们必须充分利用有限资源。
但我同时想向他保证，我们已有健全框架，平衡发展需求与保护大家享有的绿地。这不是非此即彼的简单选择。
根据《规划法》，未经规划许可不得进行开发。作为审批流程的一部分，我们会评估地块的潜在生态和生物多样性价值，基于地块现状而非分区。位于或邻近敏感区域、可能产生跨界影响的项目，必须与技术机构深入协商，若有重大环境影响潜力，需进行环境影响评估（EIA）。即使不需EIA，相关机构仍可施加减缓措施。
因此，正如Tan先生所说，不仅是减缓，很多情况下还包括避免和适应。通过EIA，我们综合考虑住房、就业等需求与拟议开发的生态和生物多样性影响。决策是在权衡这些艰难取舍后作出。Henry Kwek先生提到建屋发展局官员与他及居民多次沟通的例子，正是此方法的体现。此举保护了最具生态敏感性的地点，同时兼顾紧迫的发展需求。
[副议长（Christopher de Souza先生）主持]
先生，我们也在管理承载集体记忆的场所。Cai Yinzhou先生询问是否会考虑为城市开发项目设立社会和遗产评估框架。这已是我们规划的一部分。我们与利益相关者合作，识别具有建筑和社会意义的建成遗产，提前咨询遗产与身份伙伴关系和国家遗产局遗产咨询小组等团体。
我们的方法不断演进。2018年，我们试点了位于Mount Pleasant的旧警察学院遗产研究。该地位于Cai先生选区，临近且对面是我的选区。我们已保护了六座最重要的建筑，并赋予新用途，包括邻里警察局和新加坡警察部队遗产展览馆。我们还保留了部分旧阅兵场作为社区公共空间。这些元素将融入新的Mount Pleasant组屋区，容纳6000户住宅，结合遗产与自然。
先生，2022年，我们推出了遗产影响评估框架，针对可能显著影响遗产地的项目。评估结果指导我们规划开发、保护或适应性再利用遗产元素，并与利益相关者沟通。
以武吉知马赛马场为例。2024年的评估认可其作为东南亚顶级赛马场66年的历史。即使我们将该地改造为住宅区，也会保护曾容纳数千观众的两座看台及旧武吉知马马术俱乐部会所。我们将敏感地改造并整合这些地标，保持该地区的历史记忆。
目前，我们已保护超过7200座建筑和结构。无法保护或受限保护的地方，我们通过精心设计和讲述故事来纪念其历史。我们还将加强六条身份走廊的吸引力和特色，这些是新加坡人熟悉的社区，拥有共鸣的地标。这让我们在建设未来的同时，根植于过去。
Cai Yinzhou先生还询问是否能更好地利用淡水水体进行休闲。如今，许多水库是活跃的水上运动中心，岛内设有多个水上活动点。我作为新加坡皮划艇联合会顾问，经常使用这些水域。许多水库活跃开展水上运动，居民可在多个水上活动点租赁设备，参与皮划艇和独木舟等运动。
我们即将开设位于滨海水库的PAssion Wave Outpost，将为新加坡人提供城市门口的水上休闲机会。我们希望这些游乐空间能让更多新加坡人聚集，使城市更有活力，更具吸引力。
先生，我们还需管理我们居住的地方。2014年，我们成立了市政服务办公室（MSO），让居民无需在多个机构间奔波解决市政问题。如今，他们只需通过OneService渠道提交问题，后台系统利用人工智能和智能分流功能，将约90%的案件指派给正确的机构或市镇理事会。
同时，我与OneService团队合作，改善应用程序功能，使居民反馈更便捷。我们在升级OneService应用的同时，也不断挑战自我，提升市政服务质量。先生，请允许我用中文分享我们的做法。
（中文）: [请参阅本地语言发言。] 2022年，MSO在淡滨尼启动综合市政服务试点，并扩展至白沙和榜鹅。
该模式整合了各政府部门提供的简单市政服务，统一由单一管理运营商负责。这样，我们能专注于解决问题，而非确定问题归属哪个政府机构。
如今，前线员工掌握更多技能，能更快处理问题。例如，清洁人员发现人行道不平整时，可立即封锁区域并通知维护团队。园林人员发现土壤沉降时，也能主动填补，防止居民绊倒及蚊虫滋生。如此，问题能更快解决，居民更满意，参与公司和员工也学到新技能。
去年，我们开始与运营商讨论如何进一步推广该模式，他们表示强烈支持。因此，我们将分阶段将综合市政服务模式推广至周边镇区，给予运营商足够时间适应，同时认真听取反馈并纳入规划。
（英文）: 主席先生，我们这座小岛是我们的家园。即使我们建设住房、学校、医院、机场和交通枢纽，我们仍持续谨慎管理自然和承载特殊记忆的地方。
先生，正如我多次在议会和本院提及，我们可用资源有限。作为土地的负责任管理者，我们将始终坦诚告知新加坡人我们能做什么、不能做什么，以便继续将我们的小岛国家塑造为世界上最宜居的城市之一。
主席：我们有时间进行澄清。看到有人举手。Henry Kwek先生。
Kwek Hian Chuan Henry先生：主席，我有三个简短的澄清。鉴于组屋价格和工资随时间上涨，建屋发展局能否分享收入上限审查的时间表？是几个月内完成，还是达到某些门槛条件后？
第二个问题，建屋发展局提到将增加较大单位供应，是否包括我之前提过的五房组屋？
第三个问题，较高楼栋意味着更高规格的电梯和更严格的消防标准，导致长期维护成本上升。建屋发展局是否准备协助市镇理事会抵消增加的生命周期成本？
Chee Hong Tat部长：主席，Kwek先生问及收入资格门槛审查时间。我们正在积极进行，暂时无法给出具体时间表，但审查完成后会及时公布。
第二个问题，是否会建更多五房组屋？答案是肯定的，我们会寻找更多地点建设，因此我之前提到需要寻找更多土地，准备地块以加快建设速度。我们也会通过巧妙设计、更多综合和混合用途设施，提高土地使用强度，提升土地生产力。这样，我们能挤出更多空间，满足不同买家需求，包括单身人士、长者和大家庭。
最后一个问题，较高楼栋是否会提供更多支持给市镇理事会？主席，我在主旨演讲中提到，我们将继续采取合作伙伴关系方式。我们认识到成本上升，也如梁先生早前所说，某些维护和服务成本可能高于传统方式。他提到气动废物收集系统，虽然节省土地，但维护成本因操作复杂而可能更高。
这是我们与市镇理事会密切合作的领域，实现双赢。对于较高楼栋，也有系统层面的收益。但若市镇理事会需额外支出，我们会探讨如何确保政府、市镇理事会和居民共同公平分担。
主席：梁永华先生。
梁永华先生：部长Chee在演讲中提到，今年将推出19,600个新建组屋单位。我想问，未来两三年内的供应趋势如何？是否能满足组屋的高峰需求，考虑到家庭组建数量远低于该数字？未来两三年内，这一趋势是否仍将持续？
我的第二个澄清是关于LUP。在剩下的100个组屋区块中，我相信有些组屋区块的某些单元堆叠在技术上非常具有挑战性，但另一些单元堆叠是可行的。建屋发展局会考虑对某些组屋区块进行部分的LUP吗？至少让部分组屋区块能够享有电梯通达，而不是因为某个单元堆叠无法实施，整个组屋区块就无法进行电梯升级。
下午3时
谢鸿达先生：主席，我将回答这两个问题。第一个问题的答案是肯定的，我们将继续提供充足的新建组屋（BTO）供应，以满足买家的需求。
我之前提到，我们正试图满足不同买家的需求。如果降低单身人士购买BTO组屋的资格年龄，将有更多人能够申请。如果提高收入门槛，将有更多人符合申请资格。如果我们想满足更多之前可能与家人同住但现在希望在附近拥有自己组屋的买家，这也会导致住房需求增加。
尽管家庭成员人数、平均家庭规模可能有所下降，但由于家庭分裂现象，家庭数量实际上是增加的。
今年，我们将建设19,600个单位。我之前说过，如果需求依然强劲，建屋发展局将继续保持充足供应，甚至超出之前承诺的三年内建造55,000个单位的目标。我们已准备好超额完成任务。
关于第二个问题LUP，我认同梁议员的观点，我们不应以二元方式看待这个问题，即因为某些部分无法实施，就认为整个组屋区块都无法实施。我接受他的观点。正如我的同事高级议会秘书哈伦早前提到的，我想向议员们保证，我们会尽最大努力，因为我们的目标是尽可能为更多住户提供电梯通达。我们会尽力而为。
但我也希望议会理解，在某些情况下，这可能无法实现，因为技术可能不允许我们针对该配置实施，或者成本过于高昂。正如高级议会秘书哈伦早前提到的，我们使用的是纳税人的钱，公共资金，因此需要权衡和谨慎。
我们会尽最大努力。我希望随着新技术的出现，并与业界紧密合作，将会有更多方案可供选择，使我们能够满足更多单位的需求。
主席：法兹利·法乌兹先生。
法兹利·法乌兹先生：谢谢主席。我有两个澄清。首先，我想问公共租赁计划的月收入上限最后一次修订是在什么时候？鉴于渐进式工资模式下工资的增长，是否有计划审视这一收入上限？第二，政府为增加租赁户转为拥有自住房屋的目标设定了哪些年度指标，直至2030年？
主席：高级议会秘书赛义德·哈伦，您会回答吗？请继续。
赛义德·哈伦博士：谢谢主席。关于收入门槛最后一次审视的时间，我目前没有相关信息。若议员愿意，可以提交国会质询。
但我想向议员保证，针对租赁户，我们确实希望尽可能支持弱势家庭。这不仅仅是租赁组屋的问题，还包括对他们的全方位支持。我们关注的不仅是租赁组屋，还包括他们维持收入的能力，如就业机会，以及支持整个家庭，包括子女的教育需求。
关于议员的第二个问题——抱歉，我能否先澄清一下第二个问题？
主席：法兹利·法乌兹先生。
法兹利·法乌兹先生：第二个问题是关于目标，即增加租赁户转为拥有自住房屋的目标。
赛义德·哈伦博士：感谢议员澄清问题。关于目标，我们没有设定每年租赁户转为拥有自住房屋的具体指标。原因是我们的目标是支持尽可能多的租赁户实现拥有自住房屋，只要他们准备好了。
正如我在演讲中提到的，去年我们帮助了2,000个租赁家庭实现向拥有自住房屋的过渡，他们正在等待分配组屋。确实，拥有自住房屋是一项长期的财务承诺。家庭是否准备好转为拥有自住房屋，取决于他们的具体情况，如就业稳定性和储蓄。因此，我们与每个租赁家庭紧密合作，评估他们的准备程度，并支持他们的过渡。近年来，我们持续加强这方面的支持。
主席：洪伟能先生。
洪伟能先生：我想就电梯通达组屋补贴（Lift Access Housing Grant）寻求澄清。是否可以放宽70岁及以上住户的资格标准，免除医疗证明的要求？此外，建屋发展局是否可以要求购买分段转售组屋的新买家签署承诺书，表明他们知晓该组屋短期内不太可能符合LUP资格？
下一个澄清。我们对靠近珍珠山台的60层组屋感到兴奋。考虑到未来的住房需求，我同意应探索更多建造高层组屋的选项。部长能否分享哪些建屋镇实际可支持50层以上的高层发展？
最后一个澄清是关于害鸟和野生鸟类。城乡发展部是否对目前应对每年22,000起害鸟案件的资源感到满意？是否愿意增加资源以加强害鸟治理，包括加大对食物浪费和喂鸟行为的控制力度？
赛义德·哈伦博士：主席，我将回答关于电梯通达组屋补贴的问题。感谢洪伟能先生的提问。电梯通达组屋补贴是针对有成员患有医疗状况或行动不便、急需购买带有直接电梯通达的组屋的公民家庭。资格评估基于需求，而非住户年龄。申请条件之一是该家庭成员或业主必须有医疗状况，导致行动不便，爬楼梯存在困难，成为限制因素。
目前我们没有计划基于年龄扩大电梯通达组屋补贴的资格范围。真正的依据是医疗需求。如果有医生证明该个人患有影响行动能力的疾病或状况，符合补贴的其他条件，我们会考虑该申请。
主席：谢鸿达部长，您会回应洪伟能先生的另外两个澄清吗？请继续。
谢鸿达先生：谢谢主席。主席，关于60层高楼的问题，现在下定论哪些建屋镇能实现还为时过早，除了我刚宣布的珍珠山那一处。但正如我在演讲中提到的，只要条件允许，我们希望尽可能建造高层组屋。因为这是增加单位数、充分利用有限土地、创造更多空间的方式。
关于野生鸟类问题，感谢洪伟能先生的支持。正如国家发展部高级国务部长陈振声早前提到的，这需要全社会共同努力。我们不能仅靠增加执法人员或害虫控制团队（无论是国家公园局还是承包商）来解决问题。我们会确保他们有足够资源开展工作，但这还不够，还需其他措施配合。例如，正如高级国务部长陈振声早前所说，请不要喂鸟，这会大有帮助。请妥善管理食物浪费，这也有助于控制害鸟。我们需要全社会共同努力，保持环境安全和宜人。
主席：普里坦·辛格先生。
普里坦·辛格先生：谢谢主席。我有几个简短的澄清和问题。首先，关于降低单身人士购买BTO组屋的资格年龄。我相信这是部长提到国家发展部正在研究的方向，但如果我错了请纠正。同时，我听部长早前提到单身人士的中位申请倍率仍然很高，但他没有给出具体数字。不过，我记得他提到首购和二购者的倍率是2.6倍。
因此，我希望部长能分享目前单身人士的中位申请倍率是多少。
同时，鉴于正在审视降低单身人士资格年龄的问题，因为这对他们来说是一个有限的年龄窗口，国家发展部何时会确认新的单身资格年龄标准？
第二点是关于取消收入资格上限。我想澄清，这并非呼吁完全取消上限；我强调的是有附加条件的取消，这可以为某类BTO买家提供另一种选择。
最后，我感谢高级国务部长孙雪玲关注建立组屋商铺租赁信息门户的前景。我这里有个小更正，我说我去年10月呼吁建屋发展局公开这类信息，实际上应该是9月。
主席：谢鸿达部长，您愿意先回答吗？
谢鸿达先生：谢谢主席，我先回答前两个问题，我的同事高级国务部长孙雪玲会回答第三个。
先生，目前我没有具体数字可以分享，但可以肯定的是，单身人士和长者可申请的两房灵活式组屋（2-room Flexi）的申请倍率高于家庭组屋。这也是我在演讲中提到，未来三年我们将增加约50%的两房灵活式组屋供应，以满足强劲需求。
展望未来，我们也在审视是否允许某些单身人士与家庭成员共同购买更大单位，而非单独购买两房灵活式组屋，只要供应充足，这是我们正在考虑的。
我无法确定何时会审视此事，因为这取决于我们对供应充足的信心。
我希望辛格先生理解这一点，我相信他理解：如果在供应不足时降低年龄限制，可能会有更多人进入市场申请，需求上升，这也会影响现有申请者，包括35岁及以上的单身人士。为避免这种情况，我们应在有信心满足需求增长时适时调整。
关于取消收入上限，我们理解一致。我在演讲中提到，您并非建议完全取消，而是对超出收入门槛者施加某些限制。
下午3时15分
我也承认这需要仔细研究，因为存在权衡。例如，如果允许目前不符合资格的群体进入，他们将与其他80%收入低于上限的买家竞争同一批BTO组屋供应。
因此，为确保满足更高需求，供应是关键，这也是我希望议会支持我们加快建设的原因。我们需要做出一些权衡，包括丹尼斯·陈议员提到的。如果能避免影响某些区域，我会尽力，但我们确实面临艰难的权衡。如果议会同意将提供充足住房供应作为首要任务，我们就必须坦诚面对这些权衡。
主席：孙雪玲国务部长，您愿意回应普里坦·辛格先生的第三点吗？
孙雪玲女士：普里坦·辛格先生澄清了他的观点，没有向我提问，所以我无话可补充。
主席：娜迪亚·萨姆丁女士。
娜迪亚·艾哈迈德·萨姆丁女士：谢谢主席。我有三个澄清。第一是关于蓝色空间，向国务部长陈伟麟提问。我很高兴听到有关新海洋科学中心的消息。请问该中心的工作将如何补充现有机构的努力，例如圣约翰岛国家海洋实验室和新加坡海洋馆研究与学习中心？整体而言，新加坡青年和公民科学家如何参与其工作？
接下来，请问第二个海洋公园的休闲空间规划如何？我们能从第一个姐妹岛海洋公园学到哪些经验？我注意到第二个海洋公园涵盖拉扎鲁斯南和居銮岛，这些地方人类活动较多，例如居銮岛的朝圣季节，拉扎鲁斯南的休闲空间和微型住宅。城乡发展部如何考虑这些因素，比如分区和访客管理，以保护栖息地并减轻环境压力？
第二个澄清是给赛义德·哈伦议会秘书，关于SRSF和JSS-OR试点项目的经验教训，包括我所在的宏茂桥区。例如，有送餐员询问是否能提供摩托车停车位；还有居民有健康和福祉挑战，城乡发展部是否考虑集中更多服务，超出已有的“新希望”服务？
最后一个问题是关于进一步支持离婚人士，正如我在质询中提到的。
主席：陈伟麟国务部长，您愿意回应吗？
陈伟麟先生：主席，我将回应娜迪亚·萨姆丁女士的前两个澄清，后两个由赛义德·哈伦议会秘书回答。
首先，感谢娜迪亚·萨姆丁女士参与海洋公园之友的工作，这也是她对此事感兴趣的原因。关于第二个海洋公园，目的是保护该区域生态重要栖息地，并增强姐妹岛现有的生物多样性。
同时，目标是提供休闲、研究、推广和教育空间。在这方面，海洋公园之友、自然青年守护者以及其他研究、推广和政策团体是我们的关键利益相关者，我们将根据他们的反馈审视并增强第二个海洋公园的相关功能。
关于海洋科学中心，它是一个国家协调的研究项目。新中心将与海洋馆等机构合作，协调海洋科学能力和生物多样性研究，提供跨利益相关者的战略愿景，重点培养青年、政府部门、产业研究人员和大学人才，建立研究海洋生物学关键课题的人才库。
最后，我们还将与区域机构合作，提升对海洋生物学和保护的理解。
赛义德·哈伦博士：感谢娜迪亚·艾哈迈德·萨姆丁女士的提问。关于SRSF，正如我在演讲中提到的，反馈积极。居民喜欢拥有自己的房间，且共享公共设施，这一偏好受到欢迎。这也是我们计划扩大规模的原因。虽然您提到的一些限制与当前临时场所有关，但我们会采纳反馈，在转入永久组屋时纳入新功能。我们将持续改进空间，探索如何更好地提升公共租赁组屋的居住体验。
我理解这个问题是关于其他弱势群体的，接下来是第三个问题。我们将继续观察需求所在，并继续探讨如何最好地调整我们的一些政策，以便能够帮助这些弱势群体。我们的意图依然是确保能够支持尽可能多的弱势群体，包括离婚者和单亲家庭。我们将看看如何最好地调整一些政策以在这方面提供支持。
主席先生，若获准，我也想回应法兹里·法兹先生之前的澄清。我确实有回应。
主席：请继续。
赛义德·哈伦·阿尔哈布西博士：谢谢您，主席先生。关于公共租赁住房的收入上限，我想向议员以及在座各位保证，自2023年以来，公共租赁住房没有收入上限。申请会进行整体审查，考虑到个别家庭收入、家庭规模、住房预算以及个人情况。
因此，这确实体现了我们希望全面考虑每个人和每个家庭的愿望，以便能够找到最佳方式给予支持。
主席：刘志豪先生。
蔡庆伟先生：谢谢主席。我有两个问题想向齐部长澄清。第一个是关于执行共管公寓（EC）政策的审查——有没有时间表？
第二，关于部长提到的建立稳健供应管道，鉴于现在是2026年3月，关于建屋发展局（HDB），是否仍计划将供应量降至约15,700套左右，相较于目前的19,600套水平？这是针对2027年的计划。
同样地，关于私人住宅物业，2026年下半年及2027年的供应预期如何？原因是，如果我看最近三次政府土地出售计划，供应量尤其是EC供应量一直在减少。
齐宏达先生：谢谢主席。EC政策审查正在进行中，所以我无法给出具体时间表。我认为重要的是，蔡先生在他的发言中也提到了这一点——这并不简单。郭先生也提到了这一点。
如果只是通过增加补贴来解决，那比较直接。但在这种情况下，如果我们采取这种措施，因为我们不控制EC的价格——这些价格是基于开发商的竞标和销售——存在风险，即大量来自纳税人和公共资金的支持会被EC开发商吸走，而不是流向购房者，这不是我们的初衷。
所以，我认为这是我们需要仔细考虑的事情：如何适当干预，但又不从根本上改变EC的性质。正如我在回应蔡先生时所解释的，EC更类似于私人公寓，而非公共住房。实际上，10年期满后，它们就完全像私人公寓一样，可以出售给任何人，包括外国人。
因此，我们也需要问自己：如果进行这次审查，是否希望保留EC的基本性质，还是想改变它？这是一个非常重要的点。如果想保留，就要考虑如何在保持其更接近私人公寓而非转售组屋和公共住房的特征的同时，提高可负担性。
关于供应管道，我之前在回应一些澄清时也提到过，我们不会局限于55,000套的目标。如果需求强劲，需要超过这个数字，我们会这么做。
私人住宅也是一样，我之前也说过，如果需求依然强劲，我们有能力释放更多供应。方法有两种：一是启动新地块，通过政府土地出售计划释放；二是将一些储备用地转为政府土地出售计划，或者将新地块放入储备，开发商可在需求强劲时触发。
所以，有多种方式来实现这一点，但无论是公共住房还是私人住房，关键还是供应。
供应意味着我们必须建造更多房屋，激活更多土地，建设更高层建筑，提高土地集约利用，改进设计，实现更多综合混合用途。
这些都是增加供应的不同方式。
主席：傅泽祥先生。
傅泽祥先生：谢谢主席。我有三个澄清。第一，关于电梯。中峇鲁组屋区由战前和战后建筑组成，自建立以来一直没有电梯。许多居民年龄渐长。我想问是否可以与建屋及发展部合作，成立特别工作组，探索所有可能的方案。正如部长所说，他们愿意这样做。
第二，关于鸽子。我想我们都面临鸽子在空调外机架上排便的问题，我也一样。我期待榜鹅试点的建议，但我想问部委是否考虑使用可听见的驱鸽装置，比如利用预录掠食者叫声的生物声学装置，作为综合措施的一部分。这只是一个建议。
第三，关于超高层组屋的电梯。我认为双溪布洛克峰（The Pinnacle@Duxton）的例子很有启发性。目前，我从峰居民那里得到的反馈是：一，他们支付较高的管理费，但电梯有时为何会故障？二，很多人告诉我，他们至少预留15分钟等电梯，担心等待时间过长，尤其当其中一部电梯坏了时。
但现实是，虽然他们支付较高的管理费，维护这些电梯的成本实际上比其他典型组屋更高。因此，我认为部长提到的，建屋局、市镇理事会和居民需要有良好理解这一点非常关键。或许一开始就多配备电梯，支付更高成本，比未来长期维护大量不正常运行的电梯更好。这是我想强调的一点。
齐宏达先生：主席，我感谢傅先生的三点意见。我们当然乐意与他合作，解决他选区内老旧组屋面临的具体挑战。
下午3时30分
关于鸽子问题，我们愿意考虑不同可能的方案，并测试其效果。我不知道傅先生描述的方案是否可行，但我愿意尝试，我们应当开放心态，尝试不同想法。无论黑猫白猫，只要能抓老鼠就是好猫。只要方法有效，我们都应尝试。
关于电梯问题，这很重要。正如我之前所述，建造更高层建筑可以带来系统层面的收益，但我们也必须确保对市镇理事会和居民公平。峰的经验是在很久以前建造的。今天我们从中学习，设计时会引入最新设计规范和技术。
我们也会考虑如何支持市镇理事会和居民，尤其是当我们在组屋区引入一些带来系统层面收益但可能增加局部成本的设施时。如果能找到桥接方法，就能开启更多可能，对国家和社会都有益。
主席：陈泽祥先生。
陈泽祥先生：主席，惠英议员已经问了我想问的问题，所以没问题，谢谢。
主席：我们还有五分钟。丹尼斯·陈先生，您还有其他澄清吗？没有。惠英女士。哦，赛义德·哈伦·阿尔哈布西高级议员，您能说明您的意图吗？[笑声]
赛义德·哈伦·阿尔哈布西博士：谢谢主席，针对丹尼斯·陈先生早前的问题，我想给出更明确的答复。
主席：请继续。
赛义德·哈伦·阿尔哈布西博士：非常感谢。针对陈先生，我想说，我们计划在未来三年内推进针对这40栋楼的电梯无障碍改造。
主席：还有其他澄清吗？没有。郭振权先生，我可以请您撤回修正案吗？
下午3时41分
郭振权先生：主席，感谢建屋及发展部回应我们的质询，我请求撤回我的修正案。
[(程序文本) 经许可，修正案撤回。 (程序文本)]
[(程序文本) 头T项下的86亿4,005万8,800元主预算获批准。 (程序文本)]
[(程序文本) 头T项下的136亿1,353万5,500元发展预算获批准。 (程序文本)]
英文原文
SPRS Hansard 原始记录 · 抓取日期：2026-05-02
The Chairman : Head T, the Ministry of National Development (MND). Mr Henry Kwek.
11.32 am
Accessible and Affordable Housing
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru) : Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Estimates be reduced by $100."
Mr Chairman, in preparing for the Committee of Supply (COS), because MND touches on the lives of many Singaporeans, our Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) has consulted widely with our people, with industry experts, with housing experts and we have come today to put forward some of our ideas. Let me start by providing an overview of what our GPC will say.
Deputy Chair Xie Yao Quan will share some ideas around the design of the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) programme. Member Liang Eng Hwa will call for MND to scale up on the Age Well neighborhoods and Community Care Apartments, and for added support for Town Councils as Town Councils cope with rising cost. Member Ang Wei Neng will talk about improving Build-To-Order (BTO) housing accessibility for singles, private estate residents and raising the income ceiling beyond $14,000.
Member Foo Cexiang will advocate for relaxing Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat purchase restrictions for Singaporeans with non-resident spouses and introducing a flexible short-lease scheme for seniors. Member Nadia Samdin will provide suggestions on how to improve the diversity of our housing topology and how we can improve our city in nature. Member Cai Yinzhou will speak about creating third spaces in communities, how we can reimagine homeownership for all, and how we can adapt HDBs to last longer beyond 99 years.
As for myself, I will speak on three areas. How we can make housing more accessible and affordable, ensuring we have enough homes and land to meet rising demand and how we can strengthen our built sector.
My first point is on increasing accessibility and affordability. Our aggressive housing build since COVID-19 has enabled first-time buyers, especially those with young families to get a new flat. Now that this critical group has their needs well met, it is time for us to consider how we can improve accessibility and affordability for others.
First, singles. I look forward to a timely policy move to lower the BTO flat eligibility age to, hopefully, 33 for singles.
Second, sandwiched-class families facing loan ineligibility issues. I have mentioned several times that these families earn too much for public rental, but they cannot secure loans due to a divorce or through past financial difficulties. They end up renting rooms in others' flats, paying near-mortgage sums or even more, building no asset and no security for their children.
I understand that if you unpack the needs of this group, actually it is driven by different factors. But I hope that MND can consider creating a targeted programme, like they did for fresh starts, where they can use a combination of policy instruments, whether it is structured HDB loans, Government-backed mortgage guarantees or long-term affordable rentals without requiring a waiting BTO?
The next group is multi-generational families who are downsizing from private estates. Some of these families want to stay together but can no longer afford private property due to family fragmentation, business failures or financial difficulty. If their net worth is comparable to typical HDB-dwelling families, can MND consider giving them access to 5-room BTOs immediately?
And fourth, large families. The recent BTO ramp-up has focused rightfully on smaller type flats. But with supply recovering, can MND ensure that the 5-room pipeline keeps pace with this demand?
Fifth, income ceiling. The income ceiling has not kept pace with rising wages and property, especially condominium prices. Many capable Singaporeans who do well might want to have a reasonable cost of living, especially against a backdrop of uncertainty in employment in the future, and they want a HDB rather than a condominium. Can MND conduct a timely review?
Sixth, more executive condominiums (ECs) and more affordable ECs. ECs currently receive a housing grant of up to $30,000. I hope we can do more, but simply upping the grant may not help if the developers simply adjust the prices upward. Therefore, if the Government is prepared to do more, I hope we can also include other measures like extending our minimum occupation period (MOP) or introducing profit-sharing mechanisms upon resale before MOP.
Moving beyond HDB, we should also pay attention to the many ageing private condominiums. Many of these older development condominiums face insufficient sinking funds and outdated infrastructure. I hope MND can consider providing targeted support where there is funding assistance for lift replacements, upgrading or maintenance, or providing funds for senior-friendly upgrades. MND should also ensure Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs), moving forward, set adequate reserves early and review how MCSTs are governed.
My second point is to ensure that we build enough homes, but more importantly, we must find enough land. I am delighted that MND intends to sustain aggressive build schedules that has continued since COVID-19. Because if we relaxed BTO criteria, as what I have argued, demand will rise. And beyond this policy-driven demand, our underlying demand is also rising. Just look around, you are seeing more family fragmentations, more Singaporeans living longer, more singles.
And critically, supply confidence matters as much as supply itself. During COVID-19, fear of waiting triggered more panic-buying. Ample, visible supply is therefore self-stabilising. I support MND's commitment to maintain a ready stock of flats.
But the harder question is land. Where are we going to find the land? Today, we already devoted 15% of our land to housing, and this is against other competing demands for our small island state. And this 15% does not even include the infrastructure, the parks, the roads and the shops within the housing estates. So, finding new land is not trivial. And there is only, I think, three answers.
One is to build higher, beyond 40 and 50 storeys. But this is also a significant shift. It means more lift lobbies, higher-specification lifts, more stringent fire safety requirements, higher lift maintenance that Town Councils must bear, and I certainly hope that MND can help with that cost. So, building higher has its consequences. It cannot be rolled out too fast, too aggressively.
The second way is beyond building higher is that we must find more land to be freed up, and we must be very candid with this trade-off. If we are determined to keep housing accessible and affordable, then that same determination must also be matched by our willingness to identify and release suitable greenfield and brownfield sites in a timely manner.
As a Member of Kebun Baru, bordering the Central Nature Reserve, I have seen, in person, how carefully MND engages conservation groups and residents when land, greenfield sites is being freed. For example, when I first became a Member of Parliament (MP), there was this area within my estate, Teachers Estate, it is a whole greenfield site, that was being transformed to the Lentor Hills development area today.
The MND officers and I went on 23 engagements. We consulted experts, we talked to different groups of people and got everybody's comfort before we proceeded with development. And my personal experience showed that MND has struck the right balance. So, I hope we have the determination to find more land to build more.
But at the same time, as we free up more land, we must also actively replace the lost greenery through new parks, ecological corridors and sustained tree-planting. I recall that the Million Trees campaign, I believe during COVID-19, former-MND Minister Desmond planted the first tree in Botanic Gardens, and then the first row of trees started in Kebun Baru in Avenue 4, just in front of our Community Centre. So, I hope that this Million Trees campaign showed what is possible, and as we build more homes, I hope MND and the National Parks Board (NParks) can consider a follow-up effort, maybe the next Million Trees campaign, so that housing growth and greenery growth can continue together.
Finally, future land supply must also come from VERS. For VERS to succeed, fair compensation and accessible financing are essential. Speaking to residents recently, one suggestion came up consistently. HDB should offer residents, especially those above 50, the option of a same room-type replacement flat with perhaps a shorter lease, so they do not need to find cash to top-up for a new flat. This would increase support for VERS so that we can free up more land.
My final part is about the built sector and MND being pro-enterprise. Over the next few years, construction spending is projected to exceed $50 billion. We are powering ahead with Terminal 5, I think we are expanding on the Marina Bay Sands, there is a lot of underground and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) construction and more HDBs. And this $50 billion will be for two years before tapering to around $40 billion.
This coincides with continued tightening of foreign manpower policies. A challenging combination, especially if we want to keep manpower and construction costs manageable. Therefore, I welcome an update from MND on how our digitisation and productivity efforts, particularly building information modelling adoption and pre-fabrication are progressing.
Lastly, let me talk about MND being pro-enterprise. At the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Conference in January this year which I attended, Minister Chee signalled that MND would work with the industry to streamline its processes and be more pro-enterprise. Among the participants, I noted that his remark was very well received. So, can MND give a preview of this plan about how MND can be more pro-enterprise?
In conclusion, MND oversees a wide and diverse portfolio, from housing to greenery, animal welfare to construction to urban planning. What unites these responsibilities is that they shape the daily lives of Singaporeans – the homes we return to, the parks we walk in and the neighbourhoods we build our future in. I thank the officers of MND and its agencies for their dedication and for making Singapore the best home today and tomorrow.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman : Mr Pritam Singh, you may take your three cuts together.
Income Eligibility Ceiling for BTO Flats
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied) : Members of the House would have come across many young Singaporean couples looking forward to starting a family and buying their first HDB BTO flat, but for one reason or another are unable to do so or unable to secure a flat of their choice.
For some, they are unable to do so arising from the income ceiling imposed by HDB, currently set at $14,000 for a couple looking for a BTO flat, with $16,000 set as the ceiling for ECs.
11.45 am
While the HDB resale market does not impose any income ceiling, Singaporeans, in general, and young families in particular, remain concerned about lease decay, retirement adequacy and, in many cases, missing out on the taxpayer subsidies that come with BTO flat purchases. At the same time, for the new generation of Singaporeans, the property escalator of their parents' generation has become a Singapore story of the past. Many wage earners cannot aspire like their parents did in the context of moving from a HDB flat to a condominium and to a landed property.
HDB flats will continue to house the majority of Singaporeans, with the financial commitment of new private homes, in particular, including ECs, representing a more significant financial outlay than ever before. Significantly though, a new reality is setting in for newer generations of Singaporeans. The jobs environment for young people and middle-aged workers is increasingly unpredictable and uncertain.
Today, younger and middle-aged, Singaporeans are concerned about being made redundant by the rapid advance of technology and job redesign. For those who seek to purchase HDB BTO flats, these realities factor into their thinking when they consider property purchases, which have to be financed for the long term. A couple's combined income may be on the higher end or even surpassed the income ceiling threshold to varying degrees today, but that may not be so tomorrow. This is especially so if a spouse loses their job or decides to dedicate his or her life to raising children or looking after aged parents.
In the last few years, HDB has introduced a number of policy levers to make BTO flats more affordable, partly arising from galloping resale prices. One example is the subsidy clawback regime which started at around 6% and is now at 14% for some BTO developments. The other is the extension of the MOP. There is at least one HDB scheme that imposes an MOP of 20 years although this scheme is one that transits rental home dwellers to a HDB flat on a longer lease.
In view of these levers, would HDB consider allowing a first-timer couple who exceed the income eligibility threshold to, nonetheless, be given the option of purchasing a BTO flat? Even as the income eligibility criteria would be adjusted regularly for the majority of buyers, this would effectively remove the income eligibility ceiling for a small category of buyers. To ensure fairness, should this first-timer couple seek to purchase such a BTO flat, these flats can be encumbered with one or more additional requirements, such as: the purchase ought to be restricted to the first matrimonial home, requiring an age cap of either spouse to be 35 years and below; including a longer MOP than that set out for that particular category of BTO flats be they Plus, Prime or Standard; and/or include an additional subsidy clawback mechanism.
To this end, Sir, can the Minister also share how many appeals it has received from first-time applicants who sought to purchase a BTO flat but could not do so because of the income eligibility ceiling for each year from 2020 to 2025? With eight out of 10 Singaporean households covered by the existing income ceiling, the provision of an additional option to buy a new BTO flat with encumbrances to first-time young Singaporeans is unlikely to require the construction of a significantly larger number of BTO flats than it is already planned. However, it can give significant peace of mind to some Singaporeans for whom the jobs environment of the future is less certain that it was for previous generations of Singaporeans.
Facade Repairs Co-payment Scheme
In 2004, the HDB introduced the Facade Repairs Co-payment Scheme where HDB would fund facade-related repairs and reimburse Town Councils for repair works done to damaged facade of HDB blocks. This was increased to 75% for blocks with brick cladding and some metal fixtures under a special enhancement programme that runs from 2023 to 2028 for blocks with a higher risk of facade failure.
However, water seepage that emanates from the block facade into a resident's unit is not covered by any co-funding scheme. As the HDB stock continues to age, the prospect of water seepage, especially from the facade of older blocks, anecdotally appears to be on the rise. Would HDB reach out to assist Town Councils through the Facade Repairs Co-payment Scheme to allow for the inclusion of claims to be made for water seepage cases that originate from the block facade?
Publishing HDB Commercial Rents
On 10 January 2026, on the back of public concerns about rising commercial rents, HDB announced, amongst other things, that successful bidders for any HDB shops would have to commit to their tendered rates for over two tenancy terms totalling six years instead of one three-year term to encourage prudent bidding.
Taken together, these moves may contribute to more prudent bidding although it remains open to question what impact it would have on shops located in areas of high footfall.
The majority of HDB shops are in private hands, 8,500 compared to 7,000 rented out by the HDB. For a subset of the shops, namely coffee shops, HDB acknowledges that some lessees may impose high mark-up rentals on individual stallholders even as the rent paid by these operators to HDB have remained largely unchanged or stable.
I called on HDB to make public sublet rental information in October 2025. The HDB's announcement of 10 January 2026 indicates that the HDB has committed to collect data on stall rents charged by operators before it determines how the data can be made available publicly.
I would suggest that all HDB commercial rentals, including, if sublet, ought to be made reportable and published on an easily accessible central portal or platform. While the majority of HDB commercial properties are in private hands with the basic details of current rental rates available elsewhere, it would not be difficult for HDB to provide this information on the same centralised portal. This would give market players and new entrants, particularly small businesses an easy reference point and a clear-eyed perspective on their rental-related business decisions in the HDB commercial space, regardless of whether the landlord is HDB or a private owner.
Having a Council to Monitor Rents
Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member) : In light of recent incidents regarding dissatisfaction with rising rental prices, I propose that a council, like the Public Transport Council, an independent regulatory Statutory Board and in this case, under MND, be established to monitor rental rates in the market. This initiative will provide the public with assurance that effective measures are being taken to address rental issues faced by fellow Singaporeans.
Additionally, council members will be positioned to identify potential money laundering activities, particularly in cases of unusually high rental payments. Currently, it is generally acceptable for rental prices to increase between 3% and 15%. Any growth beyond this range should be reviewed closely and carefully before a decision being made to approve or disallow to proceed.
The Chairman : Mr Louis Chua, you may take your two cuts together.
Accessibility of Food and Beverages in Existing Towns
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang) : Chairman, at the COS debates back in 2023 and the debate on the HDB (Amendment) Bill in the same year, I raised my concerns about the uneven distribution of hawker centres and coffee shops across Singapore. Fast forward to 2026, Sengkang finally had its own hawker centres, with Buangkok opening in 2023 and Anchorvale Village in 2024. With the completion of Rivervale Shores, the entire Rivervale division with 18,000 or so households finally had more than one coffee shop.
The MND shared in an earlier COS response that most residents can access commercial facilities with a food court or an eating house within 400 metres from their homes or an approximately five to 10 minutes' walk. The question then is, what is the percentage of residents that have to travel more than 400 metres to access a food court or an eating house?
While I appreciate that new BTO projects do contain retail and F&B options, there remains spanning neighbourhoods within and outside that do not. A case in point is the value meals at Southwest Project that was launched in March 2025 which aimed to place 80 vending machines in heartland locations for residents to purchase. Subsequently, such vending machines were also installed in Punggol and to quote Deputy Prime Minister Gan, he hoped to deploy more such vending machines across Punggol for the convenience of our residents.
In Sengkang, after the projected period of working with the HDB and external vendors, we finally have hot-food vending machines, cafes, across three locations: at 108 Rivervale Walk, 188C Rivervale Drive and 288B Compassvale Crescent. I am grateful for the vendor, which is a replacement vendor after the initial vendor pulled out, for the commitment to the project despite the various challenges faced, chief of which is uncertainty around demand and the high fixed and overhead cost incurred.
Rather than the ad hoc projects being introduced in Punngol, Sengkang or any other town, I hope the HDB can consider a large-scale tender of multiple sites across HDB towns to ensure that affordable and accessible meals are available to all residents across Singapore, especially those which currently do not have a food court or an eating house within 400 metres from their homes. This would then provide for sufficient economies of scale for would-be operators, allowing them to have greater business sustainability and visibility. Moreover, any incremental rental revenue derived by HDB should not be a primary consideration, given that the physical footprint of a vending machine is small and the vacant void deck space would not have been revenue-generating in the first place. Hence, there is no issue of opportunity cost for HDB.
I urge the MMD to consider extending similar initiatives island-wide, similar to how it has piloted the Pick Locker Network island wide across HDB void decks for the convenience of all residents. Affordable food access should not depend on which district one lives in.
Relooking the Executive Condominium Model
Chairman, the price of ECs in Singapore has skyrocketed in the past 10 years. ECs are touted as a more affordable option for young couples who desire to purchase a private condo but not have the means to do so. Understandably, the price per square foot for an EC will be higher than a resale HDB flat. Well, I will argue that the prices today have become too expensive to service the original intention.
As ECs were slated as a more premium yet affordable public-private hybrid for prospective buyers, its premiums can be compared to the resale market for HDB flats. In 2016, the average per square foot price for a resale HDB flat stood at approximately $424, and approximately $782 for an EC in 2016. This is roughly an 84% difference. In 2021, the resale HDB flat per square foot price stands at $488 versus $1,176 for an EC, a 141% difference. Coming to 2024, a resale HDB flat is approximately $603 per square foot and $ 1,531 for an EC, a 154 % difference. These numbers would differ, of course, based on the type of neighbourhood that the HDB flats and ECs are located. Well, for the sake of comparison, they do serve as a useful broad basis for comparison.
The difference is even more stark in absolute terms. If we look at the average price of a new EC in 2016, this stood at around $860,000 versus $439,000 for a resale HDB flat, a difference of around $421,000. Fast forward to 2025, the average price of a new EC is $1.7 million compared to $652,000 for a resale HDB flat, a difference of more than $1 million.
When the EC housing scheme was introduced in 1996, then-MND Minister Mr Lim Hng Kiang stated that the sharp increases in private property prices in the last few years had again created a sandwiched class of young people who are beyond HDB's income ceiling, but who cannot afford private property.
Firstly, I do not know of many young people who can afford an EC, especially when the average price stands at a whopping $1.7 million and the statistics show for it. From 2021 to 2025, only four in 10 EC purchases were first-timers. Even so, I reckon one has to have access to the deep pockets of one's parents if one is lucky, without which a first-timer will find it very challenging to fork out the downpayment required to afford the EC in the first place.
Moreover, the irony is that based on current financing rules, young people who are currently unable to afford an EC are deemed to be able to afford and purchase and even higher price private condominium. This is because the ECs are subject to a 30% mortgage servicing ratio while private condominiums are only subject to the 55% total debt servicing ratio.
At a prevailing household income ceiling of $16,000 per month, prospective EC buyers will be able to secure a loan of close to $1 million based on an mortgage servicing ratio of 30%. This would mean a shortfall of just over $700,000 based on the price of an average EC today. However, the same household will be able to secure a loan of close to $1.28 million, leaving a smaller shortfall of just over $400,000 should they choose to purchase a private condominium instead.
Other than simply giving more grants, two other simple solutions are to raise the mortgage servicing ratio, which would enable households to take on higher mortgage to finance a property and to increase the monthly household income ceiling to allow more buyers into the market. However, it does not address the fundamental issue of affordability since the price of the EC itself will not be impacted. Perversely, these may even result in an even higher increase in EC prices, given the wider pool of buyers now available.
Chairman, given the increasing unaffordability of ECs in the markets today, I urge the MND to seriously re-think the current EC model and to consider upstream policies to bring the price of ECs into a range that will suit their original intentions. With affordability and equitable access being key tenets to underpin the new EC model.
Minimum Occupation Period for Flat Occupiers
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied) : Sir, HDB's mission is stated as providing affordable quality housing and a great living environment where communities thrive. That mission has become increasingly complicated as Singaporean households take on different structures and HDB needs to assess how to apportion taxpayer subsidies and grants in a myriad of different situations. Some form families later in life, others prioritise multi-generational caregiving, all while following life and career paths that are not always linear.
One area that I wish to raise for review is the imposition of the MOP on non-owners that is on the listed occupiers of a flat. Such a policy can cause hardship to families in certain situations. For instance, a widowed or divorced middle-aged parent may want to downsize and decides to purchase a subsidised 3-room flat, listing an unmarried adult child as an essential occupier. Under HDB's policies, the MOP period will apply to both owners and occupiers alike. In the case of standard flats, the MOP is five years, while for the Plus and Prime flats, it is 10 years.
12.00 pm
Such a restriction on the unmarried adult children who are only occupiers will restrict their life choice. If they later meet a life partner but defer marriage for another five to 10 years, this could take them out of their critical child-bearing years. Singapore is facing a critically low total fertility rate of 0.87, way below the replacement level of 2.1. Our housing policy should not inadvertently discourage younger Singaporeans who wish to start families.
Sir, the policy objective of the MOP to reduce speculation in the public housing market is an entirely understandable and laudable one. But as family structures and life courses of Singaporeans become more diverse, our public housing policies need to be responsive to such lived realities. I urge the Ministry to continue to consider how existing rules and frameworks can be better refined to align with these diverse aspirations of Singaporeans.
Reimagining Home Ownership for All
Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh) : We stand at an inflection point. As HDB supply ramps up to meet demand, we must move beyond merely providing "roofs over heads" to refining the inclusivity of our social compact. I ask the Ministry for clarity on how it will prioritise five key areas.
First, the middle-income squeeze. With median households crossing $12,000, many young couples are trapped – ineligible for BTO or Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) support, yet priced out of the resale market. Is it time to recalibrate income ceilings to reflect today's wage realities?
Second, on mobility for right-sizers. The 15-month wait-out period was a necessary cooling measure, but for families and citizens in life transitions, it remains a blunt instrument. Can we move toward a more nuanced, case-based approach to facilitate downsizing?
Third, on the aspirations of singles. Many young Singaporeans are pursuing non-traditional life paths. Will the Government weigh the call to lower the BTO eligibility age from 35, allowing them to anchor their futures earlier?
Fourth, Singaporeans with foreign spouses often face more restrictive pathways to home ownership. Housing stability for these families in a globalised environment is a matter of long-term domestic stability for our own citizens.
Finally, our single unwed parents face the steepest climbs, longest waits and fewer grants. I ask the Ministry to consider a more sympathetic prioritisation based on the child's age and to equalise subsidies so that every child, regardless of family structure, starts life in a secure environment. Let us dare to imagine a Singapore where affordable housing is not just available to some, but truly accessible, at the right price and the right size, for all.
The Chairman : Mr Fadli Fawzi, please take your two cuts together.
Easing Home Ownership for Rental Flats
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied) : Mr Chairman, I want to propose improving pathways for home ownership for households currently living in rental flats. The Prime Minister, in his Budget debate round-up speech, mentioned the importance of enabling Singaporeans to accumulate assets. As he said, asset ownership gives families a concrete stake in our nation's success and allows them to share directly in Singapore's progress.
Imagine a family of five in a rental flat. The parents work multiple jobs. The children study diligently. Month after month, they pay subsidised rent but build nothing – no home equity, no assets to pass down. This is a reality for thousands of families in Singapore. In 2020, Parliament heard that only 2% of public rental households transition to home ownership at each year. For a nation where 90% own their homes and home equity makes up over half of household wealth, families living in rental flats need a leg-up on the ladder of opportunity.
Apart from rental flat to home ownership, from shelter to security and from surviving to thriving. First, I am proposing that the Ministry focus on helping more rental households achieve home ownership.
In May 2021, then-Minister Desmond Lee shared in a Parliamentary response that only 2% of rental households transition to home ownership each year. For those who do make this transition, this journey takes considerable time. Over a third takes more than 10 years. Another third, take between five and 10 years. A further third managed it in under five years, while fewer than one in 10 succeed within three years.
I am hopeful that these numbers have improved since then, thanks to enhancements made to programmes like the Enhanced Housing Grant, the Step Up CPF Housing Grant and the Fresh Start Housing Scheme. I also recognise the dedicated efforts of the HDB Home Ownership Support Team and the coordinated support provided through ComLink+ across multiple agencies.
In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister: what targets has the Minister set to increase the number of rental households transitioning to home ownership for each year, up to 2030? And what strategies is the Ministry pursuing to shorten the time it takes for families to move from public rental housing into their own homes?
My second proposal is a shared equity pilot programme to help families achieve home ownership sooner. Right now, families may want to buy a home and may meet key social agency assessments, but they are stuck because they cannot afford the cash or Central Provident Fund (CPF) down payment. Even with HDB grants, it takes years of steady work and savings to build up that initial sum for down payment. During this time, families miss out getting on the home ownership ladder and building equity.
The pilot will target young families, 35 and under, currently in rental housing, as well as young adults in public rental flats who apply for another rental unit when they start their own families. The Government would step in as co-owner, holding perhaps 20% equity in the flat, and instead of the standard down payment, the buyer would only need to put down 2% in cash or CPF, a much lower barrier to entry. This will reduce both the upfront cost and the loan needed.
The family still pays monthly mortgage instalments, just like any homeowner. Over time, as their finances improve, they can buy back the Government's share in stages. If they eventually sell the flat, the Government receives its percentage of the sale price.
Unlike rent-to-purchase models, this approach lets families own a new home and build assets early. Alternatively, can HDB consider redirecting the rental payments of these households towards offsetting the cost of the new flat if they want to buy it?
Sir, my goal is simple. We must help yet more young families from challenging backgrounds break the cycle of rental housing and participate actively in building stable home ownership, valuable equity and long-term wealth alongside Singapore's growth.
Comfortably Ageing-in-place
A study conducted, between October 2023 and April 2024, found that senior households where the decision-maker is aged 65 and above now form one-third of all HDB households, up from one quarter in 2018.
This is a significant demographic shift. At the same time, 85.9% of senior households wish to continue living in their existing flats rather than move. They want to age in place. The number of single person households is increasing. In 2023, 15.6% of the 1.1 million households living in HDB flats were single person households, up from 12.6% in 2018.
In absolute terms, this is more than 30,000 additional solo households in just five years. Many of these are seniors living alone. We must understand what this means in practical terms.
Most of today's seniors are baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. They would have married in their mid-20s and moved into new flats in the 1970s. These flats are now close to 50 years old.
Entire towns, such as Bedok, Ang Mo Kio and Marine Parade, reflect this reality – mature estates with ageing flats and ageing residents with more and more living alone. As these seniors age alongside their homes, they must cope with ageing electrical systems, plumbing issues, worn fittings and outdated appliances. This is something that I have seen first-hand during house visits in my constituency.
While the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme and the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) exist to help seniors stay safe and mobile at home, the programme only provide subsidies rather than cash support to help seniors continue living safely and comfortably in their older flats.
Moreover, even if the repairs might not be a major cost from our perspectives, it can be a moderate burden that weighs heavy on the minds of our seniors living alone.
Some may argue that if seniors wish to continue ageing-in-place, but do not have the cash to afford the renovations needed, they can monetise their flats through renting out rooms or through the Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS), but these schemes are primarily meant to supplement retirement income and medical expenses.
In particular, the LBS is irreversible. Seniors should not be put in a position where they need to consider monetising their homes just to afford basic repairs.
I would like to ask the Government to consider providing targeted cash support for any seniors living in older, smaller flats who may face difficulties paying for repairs under EASE or HIP. This will help seniors ageing-in-place, especially those who are living alone, without any next of kin to support them financially or mentally – to do so with dignity, safety and basic comfort.
The Chairman : Mr Liang Eng Hwa, you may take your two cuts together.
Age Well Neighbourhoods
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang) : Sir, Singapore will be a "super-aged" country this year. The key challenge before us is not simply longevity, but quality of life, ensuring that our seniors can age well, age with active social life and healthy living within their own communities.
The Prime Minister announced the "Aged Well Neighbourhoods" at last year's National Day Rally to support seniors who prefers to age at home, where there are high senior populations. The aim is to enable seniors to age with dignity within their communities, offering services like home fixes, health checks, social activities while staying integrated, not isolated.
Features, such as barrier-free access, therapeutic gardens, senior-friendly wayfinding, fitness corners with low-impact equipment and co-location of health and social services are meaningful improvements. I welcome MND's plans to redesign our older estates so that seniors can age comfortably in place and to remain active and socially connected.
Toa Payoh will be among the first town to have Age Well Neighbourhood and I look forward to Minister sharing the broader implementation plan across the island. Can I also ask the Minister to share how is MND working with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to integrate community care, active ageing centres and primary care services within these neighbourhoods?
Beyond physical infrastructure, ageing-in-place also depends on social infrastructure. Seniors who remain socially connected tend to enjoy better health outcomes. I hope MND can elaborate on how town design will facilitate inter-generational interactions, for example, through shared community spaces, programming nodes and proximity to childcare centres or schools.
Second, on Community Care Apartments. Community Care Apartments are an important innovation in public housing. They integrate senior-friendly design with care services, communal spaces and emergency response systems. Demand has been encouraging and many seniors appreciate the combination of independence and support.
In Bukit Panjang, we are seeing growing interest among seniors who wish to right-size from larger flats while remaining near their children and social networks. Many value the familiar environment and established amenities. So, may I ask the Minister: what is the projected supply of Community Care Apartments over the next five years? How does MND assess demand across different towns and how quickly can supply be ramped up, if take-up remains strong? Will future Community Care Apartments explore more flexible care packages to cater to seniors with differing levels of needs?
As our population ages, housing policy must evolve alongside healthcare and community care systems. The goal should be to create neighbourhoods where seniors can transition seamlessly across stages of ageing – from independent living, to supported living, to higher levels of care – without needing to uproot themselves from their familiar surroundings.
In this regard, the integration of Age Well Neighbourhoods and Community Care Apartments presents a holistic model. One strengthens the broader environment; the other provides targeted housing solutions. Together, they can anchor a comprehensive ecosystem for ageing-in-place. I look forward to the Minister's responses.
12.15 pm
Upkeeping of Ageing Estate and Home Improvement Programme II
Sir, I wish to declare my interest as the Coordinating Chairman for the PAP Town Councils.
Even as we continue building new BTO flats, a growing proportion of our HDB stock is ageing. In the coming years, more flats will cross the 30-year mark. With ageing estates come higher maintenance demands, not just more frequent repairs, but more complex and costly rectification works.
Town Councils are facing sustained cost pressures on multiple fronts.
First, municipal contract costs have risen sharply. Tender prices for conservancy services have increased significantly. In one recent renewal, bids were up to 86% higher than the previous contract. Contractors have cited higher labour costs from the Progressive Wage Model, higher foreign worker accommodation costs and tighter operating conditions.
Other essential services have also seen steep increases. For example, pest control costs for crows, pigeons and rodents have trended upwards. Horticulture contracts have risen by as much as 60% and seepage repair costs by up to 32%.
Sir, these are not discretionary works. They are core services necessary to keep estates safe, clean and liveable.
Second, beyond the rising cost trend, ageing infrastructure also requires heavier intervention. While programmes by MND, such as the HIP and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, have been extremely helpful, the bulk of day-to-day estate maintenance remains the responsibility of Town Councils. Works, such as external wall seepage repairs, lift maintenance and upgrading, re-roofing, external rewiring, replacement of lighting systems and structural and façade rectification, are becoming more frequent and more intensive. Town Councils are also concerned about the long-term maintenance implications of the Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System.
While there was initial subsidy support, this is not intended to be permanent. So, over time, operating and maintenance costs will have to be absorbed within Town Council's budgets. These cumulative pressures inevitably impact Town Councils' finances and, in turn, will have a bearing on the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) paid by residents.
The Government has been providing substantial support, about $240 million annually, through grants, such as the S&CC Operating Grant, the Lift Maintenance Grant and the Lift Replacement Fund Matching Grant. In 2023, MND also introduced a time-limited special funding to help cushion cost increases and moderate S&CC adjustments. That support was very helpful, but it has since expired.
So, on behalf of the People's Action Party (PAP) Town Councils, I thank MND and HDB for this significant support. Without which, S&CC would have been higher. But notwithstanding that, I would still like to appeal for further review of the funding framework.
First, because given that the cost increases arising from the Progressive Wage Model and regulatory changes are structural rather than cyclical, will MND consider reviewing the baseline quantum of S&CC Operating Grant to reflect new cost realities? Second, can MND study whether additional support can be provided for estates with a higher proportion of ageing blocks, where maintenance intensity is clearly higher? Third, regarding the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme, can MND provide clarity on the long-term cost-sharing model and whether transitional funding will be available?
Chairman, Town Councils are committed to maintaining clean, safe and well-managed estates. Residents rightly expect high standards, but S&CC must also remain affordable, especially for lower- and middle-income households.
Sir, before I end, can I also ask the Minister something that he spoke about last August, about HIP II? He mentioned that HIP II would be more extensive. So, could I ask the Minister to share more details on the scope, the scale and the implementation timeline of HIP II?
Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central) : The Minister said recently, in response to Parliamentary Questions, that VERS should not create a "lottery effect" nor end up becoming a wealth-generating programme for affected homeowners.
Today, I would like to advocate for an opposite point. While VERS should not create a windfall for affected homeowners, it should also not short-change them. All affected homeowners should get a fair deal, fair compensation, from VERS.
Flats acquired under VERS will be 70 years or older generally. In other words, with leases of 29 years or less remaining. The market value of these leases will be modest and may well turn out to be insufficient to match the price or market value of a replacement flat that is completely new, of similar type and with lease covering the affected homeowner until at least 95 years old.
In such a scenario, affected homeowners would ordinarily have to make a cash top-up. But this is hardly ideal for affected homeowners who are most probably senior, no longer working and decumulating wealth to fund retirement life.
So, I urge the Ministry to consider making the baseline VERS deal, the baseline VERS compensation package, one in which an affected homeowner will not need to top up cash for a new replacement flat. This, in turn, effectively means that the Government may have to come in and subsidise the cash top-up for affected homeowners instead. And obviously, such a subsidy, such a scheme, will require the Government to utilise more fiscal resources than what is needed to simply acquire property leases at market value. The Government will effectively have to pay a premium beyond market value to achieve fairness for current, affected homeowners.
What would be a fair size to this subsidy? What would be a fair valuation of fairness to current, affected homeowners? The Government will need to use sound and consistent principles for such an exercise, to justify the higher public spending that this implies.
One plausible principle, to my mind, is that there is simply a fair cost to orderly urban renewal, beyond the cost of property. There is a cost to relocating lives, resettling lives, especially because it may well be involuntary for some even if it is voluntary for most. The Government is already paying market value for leases under the Lease Buyback Scheme to homeowners who remain in situ, in their current properties. It stands to reason that there should be additional costs crystalised and compensated for relocation, for resettlement. In this way, the Government will be fair to all homeowners.
The Chairman : Mr Cai Yinzhou. You can take your two cuts together.
Adapting HDB Flats for 99 Years
Mr Cai Yinzhou : Diminishing lease is a genuine concern for many Singaporeans. I urge the Ministry to shift the narrative from flats of stored value depreciating. They must be Homes for Life. This means ensuring every Singaporean, regardless of age or ability, to live in the same home through every life stage of changing needs, with dignity and security.
I have four proposals to make in this reality.
First, reimagining HIP I and II. Has the Ministry studied increasing the list of modification options during upgrading? For multi-generational families, this could include space partitioning and soundproofing. And extending EASE to supporting families with persons with special needs.
Second, tech-enabled eldercare. Can we expand HIP to include built-in for fall-detection sensors, fire sprinklers and emergency alert buttons?
Third, for the most vulnerable in our society. In response to a Parliamentary Question I filed in October, I note only 7,000 of more than 50,000 public rental flats have air-conditioning. Will Ministry consider resources for public rental flats to be more climate resilient, noting that they are space constrained and structurally disadvantaged for natural ventilation.
Fourth, creating spaces for success. If education is the great social leveler, then study space is essential equitable infrastructure. In a cramped two-room rental flat with six children, there is no quiet corner or dedicated desk for one, let alone six children. We already have the EASE programme for seniors. I propose a new ACCESS scheme under ComLink+. ACCESS would provide a milestone incentive for modular, space-saving furniture for families with young children in rental flats. As suggested during the Budget debate, it could stand for Adaptable, Compact, Child-centric, Enhancements for Small Spaces.
If we truly believe in social mobility, we must prioritise the design of the space where that mobility begins. Homes for Life is more than a slogan, but about ensuring our residents feel secure in the longevity of their community, where they do not just have a roof over their heads, but a place where their roots can grow with confidence.
Third Spaces in Urban Growth
My late grandmother lived at Old Airport Road, where her life and friendships were deeply rooted. In 2014, when nearby Dakota Crescent residents were told to move, I founded Dakota Adventures, co-guiding tours with senior residents for over 1,500 Singaporeans, including hon Minister Grace Fu.
In 2017, then-Minister Lawrence Wong announced the conservation of six blocks, out of 15, to allow future generations to build their memories.
We need a more robust and local framework for urban renewal. Will the Ministry implement a formal Social and Heritage Impact Assessment? This would allow us to proactively reimagine existing spaces rather than retrospectively conserving them. And also, to account for the heritage and social impact that potential relocation might have towards, especially, the seniors living in those estates.
Furthermore, our ABC Waterways network spans 8,000 kilometres through our homes and communities. I hope the Ministry can move beyond aesthetic "water views" as a mode of promotion and instead, incorporate active "blue spaces" for recreational activities, like water sports and fishing, and even consider exploring water-based transportation.
Chairman, I look forward to a vision for a more social- and heritage-conscious urban landscape that truly reflects the social value of landmarks, like Dakota Crescent, which remains hoarded up today.
The Chairman : Mr Dennis Tan. You may take your two cuts together.
Rethinking Redevelopment
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang) : During my Adjournment Motion in January, I spoke about the urgent need to rethink our approach to green preservation. In response, the Minister of State characterised the Serangoon River Forest site as a former landfill, regenerated vegetation and comprising of, "young, exotic-dominated secondary forest, scrubland, grassland and ponds."
I have since received feedback from a resident, Ms Han Sai Por, who articulated a point at the heart of this policy gap. She said that the disagreement is not about the intent to be sustainable. It is about the valuation of our land, the problem with static planning. Our current planning system is heavily anchored in the past. If a site was a landfill in 1998 or zoned as a reserve site decades ago, that historical classification seems to override the biological reality of 2026.
Yet, over the last 25 years, nature has reclaimed these spaces. The secondary forest, while not primary, now provide frontline climate resilience, riverbank stabilisation, run-off filtration and significant urban cooling for dense neighbourhoods.
The case for dynamic planning. We must move away from a purely species-centric lands that dismisses young forests to a resident worried about the urban heat island effect. The cooling services are not lesser because the trees are non-native. Some countries are starting to put the revitalisation of brownfield sites as a nature-based solution strategy high on their policy agenda. Is it time we start doing the same? Does our current planning framework sufficiently value these re-generated ecosystems? How is the ecosystem service value, such as flood regulation and heat mitigation, quantified when deciding whether to clear a site?
Firm commitments on transparency and assessment. The determination of ecological sensitivity remains opaque. Currently, the public often only sees the results of an environmental impact assessments (EIA) once a project is decided. We rarely see the screening process that concludes that an EIA is unnecessary. However, even back in 1990, Prof Tommy Koh had, in the forward for the Nature Society of Singapore's Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore, expressed hope that, "All development projects in Singapore will require an environmental impact assessment."
I call on MND to consolidate its assessment framework into two mandatory commitments.
One, integrated baseline and functional assessments, where the Ministry commit to conducting a baseline study for all forested plots, regardless of zoning, that evaluate both biodiversity and functional climate roles, including heat mitigation and flood absorption, before any development decision is finalised.
Two, institutionalising EIA transparency. Will the Ministry mandate an EIA and include clearer thresholds for duration of fallow status and site size? For a start, studies have shown that a brownfield site can become ecologically important within five to 10 years and become significant mature ecosystems after another 10 years. Even small sites between point-one and point-five hectares can become ecologically meaningful in the same time period, depending on their function and location. Crucially, if the Government decides an EIA is not needed, can the Ministry publish the assessment and scientific rationale?
In conclusion, the avoid-minimise-mitigate hierarchy is a cornerstone of environmental policy. Yet too often, we jump straight to mitigate, for example, using noise barriers or phased clearing while avoid is treated as a foregone conclusion.
A case in point is the current bus depot construction at the Serangoon River Forest. We must exhaustively evaluate alternatives, such as multi-storey industrial depots and existing transport nodes before touching our remaining green buffers.
12.30 pm
Same Floor Lift Access for All HDB Flats
The lift upgrading programme was launched by HDB in 2001 to provide residents with lift access to every floor. In this year's COS, I am asking once again for same floor lift access for all residents. This is not merely about convenience. It is a fundamental issue of equity, safety and dignity.
As our population ages, a few steps become a daily insurmountable wall, separating seniors and those with mobility challenges from their community and essential services.
HDB's common reply to my many appeal letters to HDB, on behalf of residents, without same floor lift access in the past few years, was that such blocks are not eligible for Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) due to high cost and/or technical constraints.
In Hougang, recent breakthroughs are both welcome and puzzling. In 2023, HDB started work on offering LUP for Block 833 Hougang Central. In September 2025, HDB offered LUP to the remaining units at Block 363 Hougang Avenue 5. On 6 September 2024, HDB replied in writing to my appeal for a Block 363 resident, stating explicitly that the cost per flat had, I quote, "exceeded the LUP cost cap substantially, hence, we are unable to implement LUP", unquote. Yet, barely 12 months later, HDB changed their minds.
Affected residents at the remaining Blocks 830, 831, 832 and 835 have wondered why did HDB offered LUP to remaining units of Blocks 833 and 363, but not their blocks. No reasons have been offered by HDB for their change of minds.
The Minister for National Development's reply to my Parliamentary Question of 3 February 2026 revealed that of the 140 blocks in Singapore with no full same floor lift access, 100 blocks remain unfeasible, because cost of LUP exceeds $200,000 per unit. The Minister also said that LUP will be extended to the other 40 more blocks progressively. May we know which are these blocks and how soon will LUP be awarded? With a clear roadmap, residents in the remaining blocks will not be in a state of anxious limbo.
Notwithstanding increase of the value of the lift access housing grant to $80,000, many affected residents have told me that they do not want to be uprooted and they want to stay in their homes with dignity. These architectural barriers result from an outdated design before the mid-90s. Residents did not choose them. In fact, during a recent house visit, one affected Block 832 resident told me that at the time of choosing the unit, they were not told that it did not come with same floor lift access, unlike other units in the same block.
Whether it is a historical architectural debt or an HDB debt, providing same floor lift access is only fair to all HDB homeowners.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister: one, please define a clear timeline for LUP for the 40 blocks. Let the residents know as soon as possible HDB's LUP plans for them. Two, please consider removing the proposed hard cap for the remaining 100 blocks and set aside a dedicated final amount to fund for LUP.
Former Hougang MP Mr Png Eng Huat, had said in this House previously, to the effect that why were the affected blocks not combined with other neighbouring blocks in previous bulk LUP projects in the earlier days, instead of tendering difficult blocks for LUP by themselves later on? The former could have been more cost effective, not to mention that LUP costs would have been lower, say, 10 to 15 years ago or definitely before COVID?
Mr Chairman, we must not let the remaining residents without same floor lift access, be defined by the technical limits of a bygone era. I urge the Government to bridge this final mile and ensure that every HDB homeowner can edge in place with the dignity of same floor lift access.
The Chairman : Mr Ang Wei Neng, please take your two cuts together.
Segmented Units
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West) : Chairman, we note that about 100 HDB blocks are unable to benefit from the LUP, mainly because the estimated cost exceeds $200,000 per flat. While we understand the cost constraints, we hope HDB will continue to study new engineering solutions and emerging technologies to extend lift access to these remaining blocks.
A significant number of affected blocks are in Nanyang and many residents continue to face daily accessibility challenges. Many households in these segmented units bought their flats more than 30 years ago, when direct lift access on every floor was not the norm. In their younger days, they were mobile and valued the added privacy due to the design of the flat. But today, as they age, climbing stairs several times a day before they can take the lift has become increasingly difficult and, for some, unsafe. This is ultimately about ageing in place, dignity and inclusive public housing.
If LUP remains unfeasible for these blocks, I respectfully suggest that HDB consider several policy adjustments.
First, on eligibility for lift access support. Today, households typically need medical certification that an occupier is wheelchair-bound or has serious mobility limitations. However, many seniors aged 70 and above may not yet be severely immobile, but face progressive decline and rising fall risk.
We hope HDB can consider extending the Lift Access Housing Grant to households where at least one occupier is aged 70 and above, similar to the criteria to qualify for a personal mobility aid. Earlier intervention can prevent hardship, rather than respond only after mobility has significantly deteriorated.
Second, on long-term housing outcomes. Where owners of segmented flats wish to sell, HDB could study the feasibility of buy-back at market value and engage JTC or other agencies to lease out to tenants who are better able to manage walk-up access. This may help avoid a recurring cycle where future elderly residents face the same accessibility constraints.
Third, on market transparency. If buy-back is not viable, HDB may wish to require clear disclosure to prospective buyers that these flats are unlikely to benefit from LUP in the foreseeable future. This ensures buyers make informed decisions and avoid unrealistic expectations.
Chairman, residents in these 100 blocks are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair chance to age safely and independently in their own homes, just like what majority of HDB households would now enjoy the direct lift access. I hope HDB and MND will continue to review policy options and work towards a more inclusive and age-friendly public housing system.
Pest Birds
Chairman, every year, MND receives about 22,000 cases of public feedback on pest birds. This is not a small number. Behind each case is a resident whose daily life has been affected. Sleepless nights from constant noise. Homes and common areas fouled by droppings and in some worrying cases, residents being attacked. In Nanyang, we have witnessed such incidents first-hand.
Singaporeans support our vision of a City in Nature. But coexistence must not come at the expense of public safety, hygiene and livability. When disamenities persist, we must act more decisively.
May I ask the Minister: what is the current manpower strength of the NParks team managing pest bird feedback and whether existing resources are adequate given the sustained volume of cases year after year.
Under NParks' pigeon management plan, efforts remain largely focused on pigeons. I urge NParks, within MND's broader human-wildlife management framework, to evolve towards a comprehensive Pest Bird Management approach, one that also addresses other urban-adapted species, such as mynas and crows, where they cause persistent disamenities to residents.
This requires a system-wide approach: stronger enforcement against illegal bird feeding, tighter food waste control around eateries and markets, estate-level habitat management and where necessary, science-based population control. In this respect, I welcome NParks' decision to resume shooting of crows.
Chairman, I propose that MND strengthen dedicated funding and manpower for pest bird management and develop a clear national strategy with measurable outcomes to reduce cases, attacks and environmental nuisance over the next few years.
Managing the Crow Population
Mr Pritam Singh : Sir, I filed my cut on 19 February and before the Minister's public comments on 23 February, on how MND intends to manage the crow population. As his comments set out the direction forward, I will make a narrow point about culling. NParks has been helpful to town councils, assisting in the removal of nests and the installation of temporary traps to manage the crow population. Can the Ministry share its protocols with regard to culling, or specifically shooting, as a means of reducing the crow population in Singapore?
When and how does it determine that the population in a given area has exceeded acceptable levels or is overpopulated with crows?
I understand MND has in recent months been working with the Singapore Police Force with a view to restart the shooting of crows. What has been the result of this collaboration? Can the Minister update when such measures will be implemented across all Town Councils? And with what frequency and what measures will also be imposed to ensure public safety?
Keeping Air-conditioner Ledges Free of Droppings
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang) : Sir, while I acknowledge the encouraging 50% reduction in pigeon population across the Town Councils undergoing the NParks pilot, I must emphasise the urgency of this issue. Pigeons are not merely a nuisance, they pose genuine health risk. Their droppings carry dangerous diseases, such as cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis and psittacosis. When dried droppings turn to dust, residents inhale contaminated particles that can cause severe respiratory infections, particularly affecting our elderly and immuno-compromised individuals. Beyond health concerns, residents bear the financial cost. A constituent shared that he had to engage an air-conditioning specialist to clean his compressor unit because pigeons had defecated on it repeatedly. He paid out of pocket for a problem not of his making.
How many more residents are silently suffering similar inconveniences and expenses? I am concerned about the pace of the roll-out. The NParks pilot began in July, 2024, with three Town Councils and only expanded to three more in June 2025 nearly a year later. With many estates still experiencing persistent pigeon problems, can the Minister provide a clear timeline for extending this programme to all remaining Town Councils? Residents in affected areas cannot wait indefinitely for relief.
Regarding the 35-unit netting trial, I propose that the Ministry consider reducing the trial duration to gather sufficient data more quickly. This would allow effective solutions to be rolled out to affected estates sooner, providing residents with much needed relief. Effective pigeon management requires Government leadership, community cooperation and adequate resources. Our residents deserve clean, safe and hygienic living environments free from preventable health hazards and unnecessary financial burdens.
The Chairman : Ms Lee Hui, you can take your two cuts together.
Animals in Our Urban Spaces
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon) : Mr Chair, animals are integral to our shared environment. The steady stream of feedback we receive on animal welfare proves that residents envision a society that is not just efficient, but harmonious and gracious .
We have come a long way, but more must be done. The recent viral incident of a man cutting a community cat's whiskers reminds us that cruelty still lurks in the estates. What are the Ministry's specific plans for 2026 regarding animal welfare legislation?
As our spaces become greener, urban bird populations have risen and we have been playing a cat-and-mouse game with mother nature to manage with ecologically sensitive solutions. While pigeon population control has seen some success, we continue to face a spike in house crow populations and it affects all our residents.
With crow shooting as the latest control measure, I would like to ask: on the protocols, particularly on the use of shooting in residential areas; what safeguards are in place to minimise public exposure, especially to young children, during such operations in estates. Can the operations be scheduled outside school commuting hours and avoiding areas near schools and playgrounds, where young children are present?
Effective enforcement is key. Beyond reactive measures, how will enforcement against illegal feeding be strengthened? Are there plans for stepped-up surveillance in hotspots, higher penalties for repeat offenders, regular tree pruning or enhanced public education? Does NParks have sufficient enforcement resources?
12.45 pm
Can upstream measures – better waste management and environmental design – can these be strengthened to reduce reliance on shooting over time? Will the Ministry consider conducting a Ecological Impact Assessment to study how culling efforts could affect our broader local biodiversity?
Let us act upstream, so that problems do not spiral into a full-blown "crow-sis".
Builders' Challenges in Built Environment
With major infrastructure projects such as Terminal 5 underway, our construction sector continues to face significant cost and manpower pressures. Policies must be carefully calibrated to support both workforce transformation and business sustainability.
The builders I have met, including some of my residents, have welcomed the New Action Team chaired by the Minister and they are encouraged by the strong leadership and attention placed on the sector. What are the Ministry's long-term plans to grow infrastructure, manpower and talent pipeline to ensure supply can meet demand?
I have the following suggestions.
First, on foreign manpower costs. The periodic raising of S Pass qualifying salaries creates a "domino effect", jacking up business costs unnecessarily. Instead of raising the salary, which permanently inflates the wage bill, not just on the foreign worker per se, the salary of other workers in the company will have to be increased accordingly. Contractors are suggesting the increase of the workers levy instead. This will still generate revenue for the Government without overpaying what workers ask for.
Second, contractors are facing growing volatility. Has MND planned adequately to avoid supply chain disruptions? For example, is there sufficient staging and dumping grounds, adequate capacity at Jurong Port to handle cement imports, and enough workers' dormitories to support projected demand?
Third, local talent is a matter of national resilience. Young Singaporeans shy away from the sector due to perceptions of harsh working hours and site conditions, and our local core is ageing. We cannot rely solely on a transient workforce. How will MND redesign construction careers to attract and anchor a sizable local talent pool?
Fourth, liability framework for contractors. This also deters locals from entering the industry. The fear of excessive liability falling on individuals can be paralysing, but safety is non-negotiable. Are penalties under the Building and Construction Authority Act calibrated so they uphold standards without creating a climate of fear that deters capable leaders?
Third, as we push digitalisation, are regulations keeping pace? If expect transformation, policy regulation and support must move in tandem —
The Chairman : Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, you can take your two cuts together.
Functional City in Nature
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio) : Thank you, Chairman. Sir, Singapore has been recognised globally for being one of the greenest cities in the world. Despite extensive urbanisation, our green cover spans a remarkable 40% of land area. This is only possible through the commitment and intentionality of each generation.
In 2020, MND launched their vision to transform Singapore into a city in nature. Nature is not about aesthetics. We have learnt since young that nature is functional. Different species play respective roles and in the ecosystem they work together. As climate infrastructure, tree canopies and green buffer zones mitigate the urban heat island effect, lowering cooling demand and making active mobility possible. Socially, nature serves as recreational and exercise spaces, supporting mental well-being and as restorative spaces. Economically, tourists are drawn to our city in nature identity right from the time they leave the airport.
Nature is the only infrastructure that cools, protects, filters and regenerates simultaneously. Many see urbanisation as the opposite of nature, but Singapore's lived experience of how we have balanced the two offers a different perspective. It is part of what makes us exceptional. If we plan it well, nature will not compete with our urban future development plans, it will secure it.
In this regard, could MND share how it has weighed trade-offs and integrated nature, including preservation of existing flora and fauna into design principles for newer and upcoming housing estates towards improving heat resilience and tackling rising sea level challenges?
Under MND's push for city nature, several 2030 targets have been laid out, including animal and plant species recovery plans, as well as forest, marine and coastal habitat restoration. I commend these efforts. Could NParks update on the initiatives it has undertaken to strengthen ecological connectivity and biodiversity-sensitive designs across green and blue spaces in the last five years, as well as any future plans?
At the same time, we recognise that our people are joint inhabitants in our city in nature. Part of our national vision is the goal that every household is 10 minutes away from a park. This also means that wildlife is 10 minutes away from us, increasing the number of wildlife human interactions and sometimes clashes – from monkeys to otters, wild boars to snakes, hornbills to tapirs, sambar deer to migrating storks.
I would like to ask, has MND observed any trend lines in incidents in the past five years, including of migratory animals? And has MND assessed if the current plans, response teams and protocols remain adequate? How does MND see the long-term approach balance between containment, deterrence and co-existence? Finally, are we investing enough in public education such that city in nature is understood as a shared goal and responsibility beyond tree planting?
Diversity in Housing Typologies
Singapore's public housing system has also been globally recognised for delivering accessible quality housing at scale. Our homes not only provide shelter but also build communities and encourage social cohesion in estates. While home ownership rates remain fairly high compared to other cities, the focus has typically been on supporting young couples and first timers with the rising cost, which is of course, net crucial for nation building.
But population and family planning dynamics today are changing. Given our ageing society, total fertility rate, marriage and divorce rates. We have more singles, second timers and seniors who strongly desire to age in place. Have our public housing offerings fully adapted to these changes?
Perhaps a re-diversifying of housing typologies might need to follow to support the needs and aspirations of a changing Singapore over Singaporeans' life course. A wider spectrum of options would allow citizens to find housing that matches not just income, but also life stage and aspirations.
In my earlier speeches, I have spoken on the need to better support couples and families who want to stay near or with family members. In the earlier days, a young couple who first purchases a 3-room BTO can aspire to other versions of home over the years, such as a jumbo flat, maisonette, executive apartment, or even low rise and terrace public housing. These options provide more configurations and variety of life one can look forward to beyond hacking and expanding rooms or moving from public housing to private dwellings, which can increasingly feel unattainable.
Today, flat typologies have largely remained the same, and in fact become even more similar as we optimise for speed and scale. How has MND reviewed the housing aspirations of Singaporeans, and can MND consider exploring some unique typologies in upcoming projects, for example, dual key or modular layout suitable for caregiving?
I would like to speak briefly for three other segments.
First, for a divorcee trying to re-establish a roof over his or her head. Many experience long waiting times, high temporary rental costs and uncertainty. Beyond schemes like Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (ASSIST), can MND consider other forms of support for this segment to find new beginnings?
Second, singles up till now can typically only purchase 2-room, Flexi or resale flats, given that two-room flexi flats are highly sought after by both singles and seniors, can the Ministry consider expanding the options? After all, many also support elderly parents who stay with them if there are emergencies or help with nieces and nephews on the weekend.
Finally, for those who want a space of their own, but cannot afford it yet, the Ministry trialed two housing typologies in recent years, the Single Room Shared Facilities (SRSF) and the Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run. As both models were well subscribed, what are the plans to expand the scope of these programmes? How many rental families has the home ownership support team served over the years? What are the success rates so far and are there plans to integrate —
The Chairman : Mr Foo Cexiang.
Enabling More Singaporeans to Own a Home
Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar) : Chairman, housing in Singapore has never been just about putting a roof over one's head. It has also been about giving every Singaporean a stake in the nation.
Sir, I want to acknowledge the work of MND and HDB officers over the years in working towards this mission while having to deal with changing demographics and preferences.
Between 1980 and 2025, the resident population has grown from 2.4 million to 4.2 million. At the same time, the average household size has decreased from about five in 1980 to three in 2025. So, in this period, HDB has had to more than triple the number of flats from 330,000 to more than 1.2 million, all these while also meeting expectations to improve quality and design.
In this context, the directive by the Minister for National Development to build more and build faster is apt and timely.
In its addendum to the President's address last year, MND announced that HDB would review the income ceiling for BTO flats and study more housing options for singles, seniors, as well as larger families. It also said that it would provide assistance for more rental households to transit into home ownership. I would like to seek an update from the Ministry.
In addition, I would like to further champion the case for two categories of Singaporeans.
First, Singaporeans with non-resident spouses with no Singaporean or permanent resident child. Currently, this group of Singaporeans can only purchase a 2-room Flexi flat from HDB if the Singaporean is a first-timer aged 35 and above. I seek MND's consideration to relax this requirement and allow Singaporeans with non-resident spouses and no children to purchase flats of all sizes from HDB with no minimum age for the Singaporean.
Sir, as highlighted by the Deputy Prime Minister Gan in this House, Singapore is facing an existential challenge as the fertility rate plunged to a historic low of 0.87. We need to support all couples on their parenthood journey.
In this regard, there has been an increasing trend of transnational citizen marriages. In the past three years, one in four citizen marriages were with a non-resident. This is a significant proportion, and as other Members of the House have raised, having a large enough home to raise a family is one of the key considerations that young couples have today when deciding whether to have a child.
By restricting our Singaporean with non-resident spouses to a 2-room Flexi flat, we are constraining 25% of would-be parents from having a child. Given our existential challenge, this is too high a proportion to risk. We need to support all couples in their parenthood journey, including those made up of a Singaporean and a non-resident.
Second, seniors above 55 years old seeking to purchase a short lease, 2-room Flexi flat. Last month in Parliament, I asked if MND would consider lowering the home for life condition to require the remaining lease to cover the youngest owner till 83.5 years, which is the life expectancy age, instead of 95 years. This would enable these seniors to purchase more affordable short lease, 2-room Flexi homes, given the shorter remaining lease. And it could be the difference between them renting their homes forever or making the transition to home ownership.
MND shared that many seniors would live longer than the average lifespan of 83.5 years, and this would compromise the home for life policy. I understand the policy rationale behind setting the age at 95 to cover most Singaporeans. However, there will be many Singaporeans who do not live to 95 years, perhaps even more so than those who do.
So, my question is, will MND consider a scheme for these seniors, which allows them to purchase a short-term 2-room Flexi flat with minimum lease term that covers the youngest owner up to age 85? And a key condition for this being that if the owners want to move out or pass away before this lease expires, the flat will be returned back to HDB with no refund or compensation to the owner or their next of kin.
These early return flats with remaining leases can then be used to house other seniors on the same scheme who live beyond 85 years and outlive their leases. And therefore at the overall scheme level, this will be in keeping with our home for life principle.
Relaxing HDB Flat Eligibility
Mr Ang Wei Neng : Chairman, we are encouraged that HDB has cleared the BTO backlog from the COVID-19 pandemic. About 13,000 flats will reach their five-year MOP in 2026, nearly double that of last year.
At the same time, HDB resale price growth has moderated to 2.9% last year, the slowest since 2019. With supply improving and price pressure easing, this is the right moment to finetune the eligibility policy so more Singaporeans can access affordable housing while keeping the market stable and fiscally responsible.
First, I urge the HDB to review the BTO eligibility age for singles, with consideration to lower to 30 years old. So, 30 years old, we let the singles buy a BTO flat. Many singles today seek stability earlier, shoulder family responsibilities and want to build their own future. A home gives not just a shelter but dignity, security and a stake in the society.
Second, we could update the BTO income ceiling for first-timer families. The $14,000 cap has not changed since 2019 even though nominal wages have risen by more than 25%. More young couples are now squeezed above the BTO income ceiling, yet are unable to afford private housing or executive condominiums. Raising the ceiling to $16,000 keeps public housing accessible to the broad middle group of Singaporeans, in line with economic realities.
1.00 pm
Third, I hope MND can waive the 15-month wait-out period to buy a HDB 4-room or smaller resale flat after a private property owner sells the private property due to difficult life transitions such as divorce or financial strain. This provides stability without overheating demand.
Chairman, when supply improves, policy needs to keep pace. Housing is not just about markets, it is about people.
The Chairman : Minister Chee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat) : Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their questions and suggestions.
Over the past 60 years, we have worked hard to build Singapore together. We provided Singaporeans with affordable and accessible public housing and achieved one of the highest homeownership rates in the world. We developed a strong built environment sector, which can plan, construct and maintain large-scale projects efficiently in our dense urban setting. We have carefully balanced the needs of current and future generations through long-term planning, integrating different uses and maximising the overall value of our limited land.
We need to build on these strong foundations and go further. At this year's COS, I would like to present three key priorities that MND will focus on for the next few years.
First, we will continue to uphold our housing commitments and sustain a robust supply. We will build more and build faster to meet the evolving housing needs of Singaporeans. Senior Minister of State Sun and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Harun will elaborate on our efforts to enhance the liveability of HDB estates. Minister Indranee and Minister of State Tan will talk about our plans to enhance the liveability of private residential estates and our City in Nature.
Second, we will continue transforming our built environment sector to achieve greater productivity, sustainability and resilience and create more good jobs for our people. Minister Indranee will speak about this.
Third, Minister of State Tan will round up by sharing more about our longer-term plans for Singapore's development, balancing the different land use requirements and navigating trade-offs within the limited space we have.
Sir, over the past few years, we have focused on improving affordability and accessibility for Singaporeans looking to buy their first home. This remains a key priority for MND.
We provided a strong supply of HDB flats and set aside more units for first-timer families. The median application rates for first-timer families applying for 3-room and bigger BTO flats fell from a high of almost seven times in 2020 to between 1.1 and 1.9 times in 2025. In the most recent BTO sales exercise last month, the median application rate for first-timer families was 0.9 times.
This is good news, but the overall application rate for 3-room and bigger BTO flats was 2.6 times, if we include second-timer families. The application rates for singles and seniors for 2-room Flexi flats were also higher.
These numbers reflect the continued strong demand for public housing and why we need to sustain a robust supply in the years ahead.
We now have some capacity to meet additional housing needs of different groups of Singaporeans. Many Members, including Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Foo Cexiang and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, have asked about this.
We will support our seniors by offering different right-sizing and monetisation options and making our neighbourhoods more elderly-friendly. For lower-income households, we will continue to improve our public rental options. We are also reviewing our schemes to better meet the needs of families who need to move or switch to a bigger flat when they have more children. Senior Minister of State Sun and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Harun will share more.
Members have also asked for updates on our plans to support another group of Singaporeans – our singles. We have made some moves to improve the housing options for singles in recent years. With the introduction of the new flat classification framework in 2024, first-timer singles can now buy BTO flats island-wide and not only in non-mature estates. Since then, singles have booked flats in towns like Clementi, Bedok, Ang Mo Kio and Kallang-Whampoa for the first time. Last year, we also extended priority access under the Family Care Scheme to singles when they apply for a new flat to live with or near their parents.
The Government is looking at increasing the income ceiling for all buyers and lowering the eligibility age for singles to buy HDB flats. We are also reviewing our schemes to better meet the needs of other groups of singles, such as those who may wish to buy a bigger flat together with their family members.
But to do more for our singles and also for other groups of flat buyers, HDB will need to build more flats to ensure supply is adequate to meet higher demand.
Hence, a priority for the Ministry, which I have been emphasising since taking on the MND portfolio, is to build more homes and to build them faster.
This year, HDB will launch around 19,600 BTO flats. Of these, more than 4,000 will be Shorter Waiting Time flats, with a waiting time of less than three years. We will also increase the 2-room Flexi supply by almost 50% from 2026 to 2028 to meet growing demand from seniors and singles. This includes pressing on with the efforts to inject new housing in older towns. Let me share two examples.
The first is the Pearl's Hill neighbourhood in Outram, close to the central business district. With the additional subsidies for Plus and Prime flats under the new flat classification framework, we are able to offer different groups of buyers affordable public housing in very attractive locations. We also provide housing grants of up to $120,000 for eligible first-timer families, which further reduces the amount they need to pay for their flats.
After more than 40 years, we will be building public housing at Pearl's Hill. The new public housing development will be located right next to Outram Park MRT station, at the foothills of Pearl's Hill City Park. It will comprise 2-room Flexi, 3-room and 4-room BTO flats as well as public rental flats.
Drawing from the nearby Chinatown heritage, the design concept is inspired by "山水画", like a Chinese painting depicting mountains and flowing rivers. Our vision is for residents to live amidst the tranquillity of Pearl's Hill, while remaining connected to the dynamic energy of the city.
At the base level of this new development, residents and the public can enjoy green communal spaces, akin to river plains. Moving up, a cascading water feature will serve to manage stormwater during heavy downpours. A green canopy of trees will provide shade, flowing seamlessly from the nearby park. These features will also benefit the wider Pearl's Hill neighbourhood by having seamless barrier-free access from the park to the MRT.
The residential blocks will be built with varying heights like the mountain ridges in a painting. Within the blocks, sky gardens and terraces will offer views from different levels, allowing residents to experience the surrounding landscape from multiple vantage points.
In line with our urban design guidelines, we will preserve a view corridor, a 40-metre-wide unobstructed line of sight between the new buildings. Air and light will be able to flow through, ensuring that the tall buildings do not overwhelm the landscape and allowing the public to enjoy views to and from Pearl's Hill City Park.
The development will include Singapore's tallest ever public housing project, rising above 60 storeys.
Sir, 60 storeys is not the first of its kind as there are other taller residential buildings in Singapore and overseas cities. But 60 storeys will be more than 10 storeys taller than The Pinnacle@Duxton, which is our current tallest public housing project.
This is part of our efforts to find ways to build more public housing by intensifying land usage and building taller where possible. A 60-storey block can provide 50% more flats compared to a 40-storey block, the height of most of our tallest HDB blocks today.
Currently, most tall buildings are in the central region due to aviation height restriction requirements around our airports, such as those at Changi and Seletar. These requirements have been in place since the 1950s and were set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Over the last decade, Singapore worked with ICAO to change these requirements and taller buildings can now be built near airports. This change frees up more airspace for non-aviation purposes and presents opportunities for us to intensify development in different parts of Singapore.
With these regulatory changes and our experience in Pearl's Hill, HDB will find more opportunities to build taller flats across Singapore.
We will proceed carefully and sensitively, building taller only when conditions allow. We will also pay close attention to design and liveability. These efforts will contribute to increasing land productivity and support our plans to continue providing a robust supply of HDB flats to meet the housing needs of Singaporeans.
Another area where we will develop a large number of new flats is Toa Payoh. Toa Payoh was the first town to be comprehensively planned and built from scratch in the mid-1960s. The town has evolved over the years through efforts such as the Remaking Our Heartland programme, Neighbourhood Renewal Programme and the Silver Upgrading Programme. We have improved connectivity and invested in major infrastructure in the area, such as the Caldecott MRT station, which is an interchange for the Thomson-East Coast and Circle Lines.
Over the past 10 years, we have added 4,500 new homes in Toa Payoh, which have brought in more younger families. To maintain Toa Payoh's unique character, we have kept iconic features like the dragon playground and the pedestrian mall at the town centre.
This year, HDB will be launching another BTO parcel right next to Caldecott MRT station. The parcel will feature around 1,600 units, including public rental flats, 2-room Flexi and 4-room flats, and also, the first Community Care Apartments in Toa Payoh.
The development will include a new neighbourhood park with spaces for residents to exercise, play, rest and enjoy therapeutic activities as well as commercial facilities such as a food court and fast-food restaurant, a supermarket, retail shops and a childcare centre. An Active Ageing Centre will be established to cater to our Community Care Apartment residents and other seniors from the community.
As residents move in a few years later, other major developments in the vicinity will be completed. This includes the North-South Corridor underground works, which will allow us to progressively transform the surface streets and strengthen the connections between Toa Payoh West and its surrounding areas.
To the west, wider footpaths across Thomson Road and Lornie Road will create safer and more pleasant crossings for pedestrians. Residents will be able to cycle or walk and enjoy nature at MacRitchie Reservoir just a short distance away.
To the east, residents will be able to easily access the rest of Toa Payoh, including the upcoming Toa Payoh Integrated Development (Sports and Lifestyle Hub), which is expected to be completed by 2030, hopefully earlier. Residents can enjoy Toa Payoh Integrated Development's sport facilities as well as a rejuvenated Toa Payoh town park, library and polyclinic.
A new mixed-use development with private residential units, retail and community uses will also be built at the Caldecott site. This will include a shopping centre, which will provide residents with more retail and dining options. It will be similar in scale as Woodleigh Mall in Bidadari.
1.15 pm
Over the next decade, we will launch more than 10,000 additional homes across Toa Payoh West and Mount Pleasant. These will be mostly for public housing as well as some private condominiums, including the mixed-use development that I just mentioned. In Toa Payoh West, these homes will be integrated into the lush, hilly terrain, some with views of MacRitchie Reservoir. We will build more neighbourhood parks, so residents can enjoy urban living integrated with nature. We will also ensure sufficient amenities, such as schools, community spaces and transport options.
Sir, MND will continue to develop and rejuvenate Toa Payoh and other older estates, as part of our efforts to provide a robust housing supply for Singaporeans.
Mr Chairman, Mr Pritam Singh has suggested to remove the income ceiling for HDB BTO flats entirely and impose additional restrictions on the buyers who exceed the income threshold.
Our current income ceiling covers around eight in 10 Singaporean households. With the New Flat Classification framework, the income ceiling is still necessary to ensure that highly subsidised BTO flats are prioritised for those who are earning below the income ceiling. This is because higher income earners can have access to other housing options.
And as Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Cai Yinzhou noted, we are reviewing the income ceiling for BTO flats. As a higher income ceiling will result in more people applying, we will need to ensure that the supply is adequate before we make these changes.
Sir, I do not have the data on the number of appeals for people who have exceeded the income thresholds on hand. So, I would like to invite Mr Singh to perhaps file a Parliamentary Question and we will provide him with the information.
But, Sir, allow me to clarify that the number of appeals may not fully represent the potential increase in the demand for BTO flats if we were to remove the income ceiling entirely. So, this is something that I think we will need to study carefully. We need to understand what are the trade-offs, including that after you remove the income ceiling, there will be additional competition coming from those who have higher income, who have exceeded the income thresholds, for the buyers whose income fall below the income eligibility threshold.
So, this is something that I think we need to study carefully. I understand where Mr Singh is coming from and there are some trade-offs and I think it is a move that we will have to look at the trade-offs carefully.
Over the next few decades, we will progressively redevelop older HDB towns and estates through the VERS. Our plan is to start with a few sites in the first half of the next decade, before scaling up the programme from late-2030s.
I thank Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Xie Yao Quan for their suggestions, which we will consider carefully.
I have said previously that the VERS package should be fair to existing flat owners and also sustainable for future generations. I have also shared that we aim to flesh out as much of the VERS policy framework as possible in this term of Government. When we are ready with our initial proposals, MND and HDB will engage Singaporeans to take in further views and feedback before we firm up the policy. In the meantime, residents in our older public estates can continue to benefit from existing upgrading programmes, like the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme and the Silver Upgrading Programme.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Cai Yinzhou asked about HIP and if we can share more details about how HIP II will meet residents’ changing needs as their estates age. Flat owners can look forward to a second round of upgrading works via HIP II when their flats reach the 60- to 70-year mark. HIP II will be more extensive than the current HIP, and will make use of new technologies, like microwave scanning, to ensure that our ageing estates are well maintained and liveable. We will share more about the scheme in due course.
Mr Liang also asked for more funding support for Town Councils to cope with rising costs and the challenges posed by ageing infrastructure, such as water seepage. Mr Singh asked about expanding the facade repairs co-payment scheme, so that the Government and Town Councils co-fund repairs for water seepage from block facades.
The Government provides funding support to assist Town Councils with their various areas of responsibility. Mr Liang spoke about some of these earlier. These include estate maintenance and improvement projects, lift maintenance and building façade repairs to ensure public safety. Such funding support is extended to all Town Councils.
For water seepage-related cases which require façade repairs to address public safety concerns, HDB currently co-funds repairs under the Façade Repairs Co-Payment Scheme. HDB also works closely with Town Councils to deal with more complex cases of water seepage by providing technical guidance. We will review Mr Singh’s suggestion, but as different cases may have their unique considerations, we will need to assess each case on its own merits.
Sir, maintaining our estates is a shared responsibility. Residents contribute through their S&CC, and Town Councils play an important role to ensure that maintenance and other services are delivered in a cost-efficient manner, with Government providing grants and technical support to complement these efforts.
I think this is the approach that we will continue to take. It is a shared responsibility and therefore, all the different parties will need to contribute to achieving the positive outcomes for our residents.
Beyond public housing, we have also been ramping up private housing supply. We expect about 12,000 units of private housing, including ECs, to be launched for sale by developers this year. And this is more than 50% higher than the number of units launched for sale in 2024 and broadly similar to 2025.
We are also studying how to enhance the liveability of private residential estates. Many private estate residents, including our seniors, have shared their concerns about rising maintenance costs and ageing facilities, especially in older estates. We are looking into how the Government can provide some co-funding support for our private estate in key upgrading works, particularly where it concerns safety and liveability. It will require a combination of carrots and sticks. Minister Indranee will share more about our plans.
We have seen moderation in the HDB resale and private housing markets in recent months. Growth in resale flat prices has slowed from 12.7% in 2021, to 2.9% in 2025. In the fourth quarter 2025, resale prices remained flat compared to the previous quarter, and this is the first time it has happened since first quarter 2020.
As at mid-February, HDB resale prices for 2026 have shown a slight decline of 0.1%. This follows from our strong pipeline of BTO flats as well as the four rounds of cooling measures we rolled out over the last few years. The measures have taken time to work their way through the market, and we are starting to see some initial results.
We are watching the market closely and stand ready to adjust our measures, bearing in mind that more flats will reach their MOP in the next few years, thereby increasing the supply of resale flats.
Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Cai Yinzhou asked about the 15-month wait-out period for private property owners to purchase resale flats. This applies to the private property owners who are below the age of 55 or for those who are above the age of 55 if they were to buy 5-room and larger flats.
Sir, while the recent data looks promising, as I shared earlier, it is prudent to monitor for a while more before making any adjustments. I want to assure the Members that we will remove this restriction when conditions allow. In the meantime, HDB will continue to consider appeals from households facing their own set of circumstances, and this will be done on a case-by-case basis.
In the private residential property market, for 2025, we similarly saw the smallest increase in prices since 2020.
Mr Louis Chua asked about how we can continue to ensure affordability for ECs. Similar points have been raised by others in this House previously, including Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Murali Pillai.
ECs were introduced to provide an option for higher-income Singaporeans who aspire to own private housing. EC developments are strata-titled and have design features and facilities similar to private condominium developments. ECs are therefore more comparable to private condominiums than resale flats, because resale flats are still part of public housing. While ECs are priced by private developers, the prices are lower than private housing as we impose initial eligibility and ownership restrictions, such as an income ceiling and a minimum occupation period. EC new sale prices are about 20% to 30% lower than comparable private condominiums. Eligible EC buyers can also benefit from a CPF Housing Grant of up to $30,000.
Sir, I understand the concerns which various Members have raised about ECs. We are reviewing the policy and will consider your suggestions as part of the review.
The second priority for MND is to transform our Built Environment (BE) sector to improve productivity and to reduce costs, time and manpower. This is not a new priority, but we need to give it a renewed focus and stronger push.
We have set out ambitious plans for Singapore’s development as an endearing home and global city; from providing a robust supply of public and private housing to laying the foundations for Singapore’s next bound of economic development – constructing Changi Airport Terminal 5 and Tuas Port, building new economic districts, expanding our rail network, and many more. These are long-term projects that will benefit many generations of Singaporeans and have lasting impact for decades to come.
To turn these plans into reality, our BE sector needs to be ready for the challenge. Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Lee Hui Ying spoke about this.
For example, how do we benefit from advances in technology to save time, costs and manpower? AI and robotics can transform construction into a fast, smart and highly automated process, where software systems help designers to optimise sub-components that can be constructed by 3D printers in days rather than months. Autonomous robots could be used to construct buildings, monitored in real-time for delays and safety by drones. And we can have safer worksites, lower costs, reduced wastage and better-quality buildings delivered faster than before, at better value to the owners and occupants.
This will also open up more exciting and meaningful job opportunities for Singaporeans, jobs which are no longer perceived to be “dusty, dirty and dangerous” but “dynamic, decarbonised and digitalised”. So, it is still three “Ds”, but a different set of three “Ds”, with strong growth prospects and career development pathways.
To achieve this, I announced last month that we have set up an Action Team to improve BE productivity. The team comprises representatives from Government agencies and the industry and will develop measures to help the industry achieve savings in time, costs and manpower. It will focus on three areas: scaling up the adoption of productive technologies and progressive practices; reviewing our regulatory approach to reduce regulatory compliance burden, support innovation and improve procurement and contracting practices; and supporting an enabling ecosystem for the industry to reap system-level synergies and address industry-wide challenges.
We will also continue to focus on upskilling and investing in our architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, project managers and many more, because people are at the heart of the BE sector.
On our part, the Government will continue to review our policies, rules and processes to keep regulatory burden and compliance costs as low as possible. Minister Indranee will share more in her speech.
The third priority for MND is to ensure that we continue developing Singapore sustainably for generations to come, by balancing different land use requirements and navigating trade-offs within the limited space we have.
We plan to build more homes, new economic districts, more transport connections and nodes. But as a small island city-state, our land supply is constrained. So, we have to be creative and think hard about how to optimise the use of every parcel of land.
1.30 pm
One way is to rejuvenate our older estates to ensure that they remain liveable and vibrant, and at the same time we can intensify how the land is used. Outram and Toa Payoh, which I spoke about earlier, are some examples.
We will continue to study how we can harness new technologies, such as by building taller flats in other parts of Singapore and through the use of systems like the Pneumatic Waste Conveyance System, which frees up land for other uses. We will also look at other ways of optimising land use, such as making better use of under-utilised spaces like the area under flyovers and MRT viaducts.
As we develop and grow, we will keep an eye on conservation – preserving key green and blue spaces, and valuable pieces of our heritage. We will have to navigate these trade-offs carefully, to develop Singapore sustainably for future generations. Minister of State Alvin Tan will share more about how we are doing so.
Mr Chairman, over the past six decades, Singaporeans have transformed our small island into a thriving global city and endearing home. But we are not done building Singapore. We must continue to build on our fundamentals, while looking ahead to the future with confidence and optimism.
For our homebuyers and residents, we will keep up a robust supply of private and public housing, and we will create common spaces where we can build strong communities. To our industry partners, we will work with you to grow a stronger, more productive and more resilient BE sector. One which can also provide many good jobs for our people. And for younger Singaporeans and our future generations, we will continue to plan boldly and build sustainably for the longer term, so that we leave behind a better future for you than what we have inherited from our forefathers.
The Chairman : Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) : Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their cuts. My speech will cover three broad areas. Transforming the BE sector and strengthening the pipeline of BE professionals, governance, liveability and maintenance of strata developments, and improving accessibility of buildings.
We have many exciting plans for our city. Last December, we gazetted our Master Plan, which lays out the blueprint for the development of Singapore over the next 10 to 15 years. We will construct Changi Airport Terminal 5, redevelop Paya Lebar Air Base into a new-generation town, unlock the potential of the Greater Southern Waterfront and create Long Island to build homes and enhance coastal protection along the East Coast.
We will build at least 80,000 new homes across more than 10 new housing areas island-wide over the next 10 to 15 years. We will expand our rail network by over 100 kilometres and lay out over 50 kilometres of new park connectors by the 2030s, to create a more connected, sustainable and liveable Singapore.
To accomplish our ambitious development plans, we will need many more architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, project managers, builders and other skilled professionals. We estimate that over the next decade, we will need at least 1,000 new architects and engineers per year to join the sector and contribute towards Singapore's development. Hence, young people who are looking for future careers with strong growth prospects and rewarding career development pathways with meaning and purpose should consider the BE sector.
Our distinctive city skyline, our iconic buildings like Jewel and the Marina Bay Sands, every HDB flat housing a family, every MRT station connecting communities, every school nurturing the next generation – are all legacies of the BE professionals whose work has left a lasting impact on our people's lives. And in a time of climate change, it is the BE professionals who will be the vanguard in the battle for sustainability.
In 2024, we set up the Taskforce for Architectural and Engineering Consultants, co-chaired by Mr Chaly Mah, Chairman of the Surbana Jurong Group and myself. Last year, the Taskforce completed its work and launched a suite of 11 recommendations to strengthen the BE pipeline and its transformation. Today, I am pleased to share the strong industry response and tangible progress achieved to date.
To deepen the on-the-job learning, improve mentorship, and enable higher starting salaries, we have launched an enhanced internship programme called "INSPIRE". Its key features include Interactive Mentorship, Structured Learning, Purposeful Tasks, Innovative Solutions and Rewarding Experience – hence, "INSPIRE".
Under INSPIRE, the internships will be extended to minimally 30 weeks and are structured to help interns develop key technical and soft skills. The internship can be done over multiple stints with the same firm without delaying graduation timelines.
Dedicated mentors will guide interns and provide advice in areas such as career development and excelling in the workplace. Firms will also offer a higher internship allowance of at least $1,500, and a higher starting salary above market rate if the intern joins them after graduation. The industry has responded positively. Firms like PH Consulting, DCA Architects, and Aedas, have committed to the programme.
The Surbana Jurong Group has onboarded six interns who have started their internships since January 2026. Among them is Charlotte Chan, a third-year civil engineering student from the Nanyang Technological University. She opted for the 30-week INSPIRE internship rather than the standard 20-week internship. Charlotte was motivated by the opportunity to contribute more to projects and deepen her learning experience. She has expressed appreciation for her supervisor's dedicated mentorship and the higher allowance that INSPIRE interns receive.
The number of participating firms is expected to grow as more industry players recognise the value of nurturing interns with strong workforce readiness. As the INSPIRE internship will deepen skills acquisition, the Professional Engineers Board (PEB) and the Board of Architects (BOA) will recognise this pre-graduation experience as qualifying practical experience towards professional registration.
Beyond fresh graduates, the PEB and BOA will recognise relevant business and leadership related courses as part of the Continuing Professional Development framework to encourage our practising professionals to strengthen business capabilities and acumen.
Industry branding efforts are also showing early results. Through the BuildSG Marketing Campaign, we worked closely with industry leaders, trade association and chambers, working professionals, students, and the public to position the sector as a career of choice. Over the past academic year, there has been an increase in students applying for and enrolling in architecture and civil engineering courses. We will press on with efforts to attract our fair share of the best and brightest to join the BE sector.
For our next phase, we will work on uplifting the quantity surveying profession. Quantity surveyors (QSes), sit at the intersection of engineering, finance and law, and they play critical roles in the smooth delivery of projects. Their expertise lies in managing contracts and project costs within the consultant team.
As QSes' work will be increasingly automated with technology, the QS profession will need to redefine its role and provide more value-added services to stay relevant. This requires the QS profession to build new competencies, master new technologies and strengthen the talent pipeline.
We have established a workgroup to look into this, comprising QS representatives, service buyers, the institutes of higher learning (IHL), and relevant agencies. The QS workgroup will consult stakeholders widely and make recommendations to uplift and future-proof the QS profession. I encourage everyone to share your feedback and suggestions with us.
Mr Henry Kwek asked how we intend to increase productivity and be more pro-enterprise for the BE sector, and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about our long-term plans to support the growth of the construction industry through infrastructure, manpower and talent. These are pertinent questions that highlight the need for the continued transformation of the BE sector.
The Members also raised valid concerns regarding growing cost pressures and supply chain volatility. We hear your concerns and are taking several steps to address them.
First, we recognise that contractors need greater visibility of key cost drivers to plan effectively. The Government is working closely across agencies to improve forward projections and coordination for critical resources, including soil disposal capacity and dormitory supply. Additionally, we will explore how to provide the industry with more regular updates on the timeline of major infrastructure projects to support more informed project planning decisions.
Minister Chee earlier shared about our plans to help the wider BE sector save time, cost and manpower through the Action Team to improve BE productivity. Let me build on this with a few examples by various stakeholders that complement these initiatives.
First, we have enhanced our procurement and regulatory frameworks.
Following the successful pilot of the "Reduced Fee Score", BCA has expanded the Reduced Fee Score to cover public sector projects up to $100 million since December 2025, to discourage fee-diving and put greater emphasis on quality-based procurement. The early results are promising – out of 11 tenders using the Reduced Fee Score since 2024, 10 were awarded to bids with the highest quality scores.
The Limitation of Liability clause is now a default provision in the Standard Consultancy Agreement between Government Procuring Entities and consultants. This enables fairer risk allocations and allows consultants to be better insured against professional liabilities.
We hear Ms Lee Hui Ying's suggestion to review the liability framework for contractors, to ensure robust safety standards while allowing the industry to operate productively. BCA will continue to work closely with contractors and refresh our policies taking into consideration industry feedback.
Second, we have launched the Built Environment Culture of Appreciation, Respect and Empathy (BE CARE) Charter. The Charter outlines best practices to develop more collaborative relationships amongst project teams and strengthen workplace well-being. Over 50 firms and service buyers have committed to it since September 2025.
Arup Singapore is a good example of how the BE CARE spirit can be translated in practical actions. Arup promotes a culture where employees feel safe to speak up and raise concerns. It has put in place frameworks for staff to escalate issues or seek support from the leadership and people team, including anonymous hotline and whistleblower channels.
For project meetings, Arup practises smart communication by planning clear meeting agendas and involving only relevant participants. Staff also respect one another's rest periods by scheduling after-hours emails and having structured handovers before leave days. These are simple practices but make a difference in creating a culture that supports staff well-being.
I encourage more firms to come onboard to collectively improve the BE workplace culture.
Third, we are making progress in leveraging technology. Architectural firms are embracing AI to transform work processes. DP Architects has founded a technology startup, Spatial Intelligence for Design, which is developing AI solutions for the industry.
We encourage more firms to seize the new opportunities that arise as more technologies mature. Interested firms may tap on the Productivity Solutions Grant or the Built Environment Technology and Capability Grant for support.
The new Productivity Solutions Grant tranche will expand support to more solutions, including AI and advanced equipment, such as robotics and automation, including remote-controlled machineries and inspection and imaging equipment, which have shown encouraging productivity gains.
Fourth, trade associations and chambers have ramped up efforts to support their member firms and drive industry transformation in various areas. For example, the Singapore Institute of Architects will be developing an employment resource guide, which includes structured courseware and practical workshops for Singapore Institute of Architects member firms. This initiative equips human resource officers with the skills to better define job roles and chart career progression pathways across the firm. This will enable firms to attract suitable talent and better craft employment contracts as well as support employees in their career development.
1.45 pm
These are some of the efforts to implement the taskforce's recommendations to transform the BE sector. Our work does not end here. Moving ahead, we look forward to higher participation by even more stakeholders and greater momentum. The Government will also continue to review our policies in partnership with the industry to further improve BE efficiency and productivity.
Next, let me turn to our plans to improve governance, liveability and maintenance in condominiums and other strata developments.
As strata developments age, MCSTs and unit owners have expressed concerns about rising maintenance costs, ageing facilities and the challenges of collective decision-making to make improvements. We must address these to ensure that these developments continue to be liveable and meet residents' needs, especially for our seniors.
We are undertaking a comprehensive review to strengthen the Building (Strata Management) Act. We will focus on four key areas: first, helping MCSTs work towards accumulating adequate sinking funds for essential maintenance, repairs or upgrades; second, reducing consent thresholds for essential works; third, strengthening self-governance frameworks to promote fair and efficient management of estates; and fourth, clarifying the responsibilities of strata-titled stakeholders.
Let me elaborate on our proposed enhancements to steer MCSTs to maintain adequate sinking funds.
Today, many MCSTs only start collecting funds for lift replacement when the ageing lifts start to experience wear and tear and parts become obsolete. If the MCSTs do not have sufficient sinking funds, they will need to collect special levies from unit owners, which may not be an insignificant sum and for which the owners may not be prepared. This can be avoided if the MCSTs start building up the funds earlier.
To have some oversight over MCSTs' financial planning, we are exploring requiring MCSTs to submit and publish key information about their budgets and finances in a standard format. This would make it easier for unit owners and prospective buyers to understand and track the financial health and sinking fund adequacy of the MCSTs.
On strengthening governance, we are studying measures to prevent gaming of voting systems. We have received feedback on situations where a small group collects many proxy votes and controls decisions in the development. This may not necessarily reflect the best interests of the majority of owners. We are therefore considering limiting the percentage of total proxies which can be held by each household and ensuring that council members undergo proper training.
These changes aim to make estate management fairer and more efficient.
BCA has been engaging strata stakeholders on some of these proposed amendments since June 2025 through platforms such as focus group discussions. To build on this, we will conduct public consultations from 9 March to 8 April 2026. We strongly encourage residents of strata developments to provide your feedback. This review will strengthen our strata management framework to ensure that private residential developments remain well-maintained, accessible and liveable.
We are studying measures to improve the safety and accessibility of our buildings and infrastructure.
One area that we are looking into is enhancing the safety of older lifts and escalators. We are reviewing measures to ensure that ageing lifts and escalators keep pace with modern safety standards such as through the inclusion of features that regulate their speed and movement. We are also exploring providing co-funding support for select essential safety features to eligible private building owners and operators. We will share more details when ready.
As our population ages, our accessibility needs will increase. Many buildings were built in the earlier years when accessibility standards were less well developed.
Introduced in 2007, the Accessibility Fund provides co-funding to encourage private building owners to upgrade their properties with accessibility and universal design features. MND is reviewing potential enhancements to the Accessibility Fund to better support our seniors, persons with disabilities and families to navigate their living environment more safely, including in private developments.
Currently, active ageing and dementia-friendly features are not eligible for funding under the Accessibility Fund. Under the review, we will consider expanding Accessibility Fund funding to cover senior-related features such as senior-friendly fitness stations and dementia-friendly signages. These enhancements aim to create living spaces that enable seniors to stay mobile and physically active and continue living comfortably in familiar surroundings as they age.
To encourage more buildings to pursue upgrades in line with the latest accessibility codes, we are also exploring expanding the Accessibility Fund eligibility to include more private buildings beyond those built before the implementation of the 1990 and 2013 Code on Accessibility.
To boost participation and reduce the cost for private developments, we are also reviewing the amount of co-funding support. Details will be announced in due course.
The initiatives I have outlined today reflect our unwavering commitment to build a better Singapore for all generations, present and future. As we build tomorrow's Singapore together, we do so with confidence that our investments today will create a built environment that is world-class in standards and deeply rooted in our values of inclusivity, safety and excellence. This is how we ensure that Singapore remains a place every citizen will be proud to call home.
The Chairman : Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling) : Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their questions and suggestions.
Housing is a deeply personal issue because housing needs vary across households and life stages. For example, couples thinking about settling down and starting a family will have different needs from seniors planning ahead for retirement and independent living. We want to ensure that our housing policies and options cater to the diverse needs of various groups across different life stages.
Many young couples apply for a BTO flat as their first home. As Mr Foo Cexiang pointed out, affordability and accessibility are top concerns for these young couples. This is understandable since housing is likely one of their most significant financial commitments at this stage of their life journey.
Securing a home may feel daunting for those who have just started working or if you have heard stories of people who applied many times but were unable to secure a flat. We understand these concerns, which is why we will continue to support our young couples in your homeownership journey.
First, as Minister Chee mentioned in his speech, we will maintain a strong supply of BTO flats.
The majority of these flats – at least 90% of 4-room and bigger flats – are set aside for first-timer families. About two-thirds of first-timer families who applied in 2023 and 2024 were able to book a flat. Since then, application rates have fallen further. In the most recent BTO sales exercise just last month, the median application rate for first-timer families applying for 3-room and bigger flats was 0.9 times.
For young couples who want to secure a flat earlier, we encourage you to consider applying for a less competitive project. Your chances of success will be higher.
Second, we continue to keep flats affordable.
Our BTO flats are priced with significant market discounts. Even for young couples just starting out in your careers, it is likely that you will be able to make your monthly HDB housing repayments with little or no cash outlay. This was the case for nine out of 10 first-timer families who collected keys to their BTO flats in 2025.
For first-timer young couples, the Staggered Downpayment Scheme reduces the initial downpayment to as low as 5% of the flat price. Couples where one party is in or freshly out of school or National Service can apply to defer their income assessment for the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant and an HDB housing loan until just before key collection and potentially have their initial downpayment further reduced to 2.5% of the flat price.
Third, for eligible families who have booked a flat and require temporary housing while awaiting flat completion, we support them through subsidised rental via the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). Since 2021, we have significantly ramped up PPHS supply from about 800 units to more than 4,000 today.
Mr Cai Yinzhou asked about raising the PPHS income ceiling. Today, the PPHS income ceiling is set at $7,000 to better target support at families who are less able to afford renting a flat from the open market.
Collectively, these measures demonstrate our commitment to support young couples in purchasing their first home.
As families settle in and grow, their housing needs may change. Mr Foo Cexiang and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked how we are supporting the needs of larger families.
Today, families with three or more children can benefit from the Third Child Priority Scheme (TCPS). The scheme is open to both first- and second-timer households. Eligible families receive priority allocation for up to 5% of flats sold in the BTO and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises.
TCPS has been quite popular with application rates of around five times for 5-room and bigger flats. I am pleased to share that we will enhance the TCPS.
First, we will double the current TCPS quota from 5% of the BTO and SBF flat supply to 10% of the BTO and SBF flat supply. This will allow more eligible families to secure a flat.
Second, we will expand the eligibility criteria so that families can qualify for TCPS from the time when the mother is expecting her third child.
These changes will take effect from the June 2026 sales exercise.
Furthermore, to support larger families, we will work towards increasing the supply of bigger flats in the longer term. This is part of our strategy to sustain a robust supply of HDB flats.
We recognise that there will be applicants who face specific and unique challenges, such as single unwed parents, as mentioned by Mr Cai Yinzhou and Mr Foo Cexiang or those with widowed or divorced parents, as mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim. Mr David Hoe also earlier suggested greater flexibility on the Minimum Occupation Period for families who have grown and need bigger flats with more space.
For such cases, we will consider their extenuating circumstances and are prepared to exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis.
Beyond flat affordability and accessibility, we are also doing more to support residents' move-in and living experience.
For residents moving into new large-scale BTO estates, new amenities may take some time to become fully operational. To improve the move-in experience, MND and HDB set up the BTO Coordination Committee comprising partner agencies like the Land Transport Authority (LTA), National Environment Agency (NEA), Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and People's Association (PA). In the past eight months, we have had intensive discussions with grassroots advisers and identified five key areas where agencies will better support residents moving into new large-scale BTO estates.
First, bus operations in new housing estates are usually introduced when there is a critical mass of residents, about three months after the first residents have collected their keys. We have heard feedback that the first batch of residents need earlier transport connectivity to help in their moving-in.
To support transport connectivity, HDB and LTA will plan for at least one bus service to be operational in tandem with the first batch of key collection in new large-scale BTO estates. These bus services will be accessible from a bus stop within walking distance of the BTOs and connect residents to amenities and transport nodes such as bus interchanges or MRT stations.
In cases where a regular service cannot commence immediately, agencies will look at interim shuttle bus services.
2.00 pm
Second, residents want some access to cooked food and groceries when they move in. Currently, shop operators who rent from HDB commence operations about nine months after the first batch of residents collect their keys, as this is when they assess that there are enough residents to support their business viability. HDB will introduce three initiatives to support shop operators so that residents can enjoy earlier access to cooked food and groceries.
First, HDB has relooked construction timelines and will bring forward the completion of shops as close as possible to the first batch of key collection. HDB will also pre-build outdoor refreshment areas, instead of coffee shop operators having to do so themselves. This will reap time savings of up to eight months and provide cost savings for operators.
Next, HDB will increase the rent-free period for HDB shops in new BTO projects from two months to a maximum of six months. Similarly, for coffee shops, their rent-free period will increase from the current three months to a maximum of six months. This will apply to shop tenders from March 2026, and shops will need to start operations early to enjoy the maximum six-month rent-free period.
For the first two years of operations, HDB also staggers rents, with rent set at 80% and 90% for the first and second year respectively. To enhance support for shop operators, HDB will further lower the rent paid in the first year to 70%. Shop operators can start with a smaller offering of groceries and cooked food, before ramping up to the full offering when a critical mass of residents move in.
Finally, subject to market interest, HDB will consider deploying ready-to-eat, value meals in some HDB blocks that are further away from the coffee shops.
Third, the timelines for childcare centres starting operations can vary. We found that some childcare centres are ready seven months after the first batch of residents collect their keys, while others can take more than a year to be ready. This can be problematic for families who have young children at the point of moving in. Moving forward, we will work closely with ECDA to better support residents with young children moving into new large-scale BTO estates.
First, HDB will aim to site childcare centres in the first blocks to be completed. This better aligns the timeline for childcare centre readiness and the first batch of residents moving in. Second, HDB and ECDA will also streamline construction and handover processes. Potential childcare centre operators will be invited to view the premises as early as possible, to facilitate planning for renovation works. Taken together, childcare centres in new large-scale BTO estates will be up and running earlier. We will plan for them to commence operations within six months after the first batch of residents collect their keys.
The fourth area is with regard to sheltered linkways. Today, HDB plans new BTO estates with a network of sheltered linkways to support residents' daily movements from within the precinct to key transport nodes nearby, such as bus stops. Where practical, linkways are also built to connect residents to amenities adjacent to the BTO estate, such as schools or neighbourhood centres. Moving forward, HDB will enhance the standard for the provision of sheltered linkways in new BTOs where there are clear benefits to residents' safety and convenience, and these linkways will be built before residents move in.
However, not all linkways will be built prior to key collection as residents' walking patterns and accessibility needs may evolve after they move in. Town Councils and other agencies may also add or extend linkways progressively, factoring in residents' walking patterns and new amenities which may be introduced over time. This ensures that estates remain connected in service of residents' needs over time.
Finally, we have also heard feedback about indiscriminate dumping of bulky waste for a small number of new BTO projects, especially during the initial move-in period. HDB is working with the NEA and Town Councils to step up the provision of skip tanks, which are large bins for disposing of bulky items and receptacles, such as metal cages or recycling bins, to provide convenience to residents during the initial move-in period.
Since August 2025, HDB has been providing 50% co-funding to Town Councils that wish to deploy skip tanks at newly completed projects within the first year of the project's completion. We will continue to do so for projects in new large-scale BTO estates. In addition, HDB will strengthen enforcement against indiscriminate dumping by renovation contractors. This includes reviewing the penalty framework to implement stiffer penalties for errant contractors.
Every estate is different and there can be project-specific issues that cause some variation. However, with the basic principles established, we can strive towards achieving these standards for new large-scale BTO estates and can improve the move-in experience for our residents.
We are also improving the liveability of our estates through stakeholder and resident engagement. We recognise that our HDB homes are not only a roof above our heads but also a place to grow and to improve our well-being.
In December last year, we introduced the Play Values Framework. This recognises that our playgrounds are an important infrastructure and community space for our young families with children. With this in mind, we actively consulted early childhood and health professionals, playground specialists and parents.
The published framework emphasises three key aspects of play – physical, social and creative – to address the developmental needs of younger children aged two to five, and older children aged five to 12. We will apply the framework as we build new playgrounds in BTO projects from 2026, and we will work with Town Councils to refresh existing ones in other developed estates. More will be shared in the coming months.
Another aspect of a good living environment is convenient access to essential goods and services. Mr Louis Chua asked about how we ensure good supply and diversity of our neighbourhood shops. Our usual approach is to have a Town Centre at the heart of every HDB town, to serve as the key commercial hub and provide a broad range of goods and services, such as supermarkets, food and beverage outlets and retail shops. The town centre is complemented by neighbourhood centres that are distributed across the town.
In selected precincts that are located further away from the town centre and neighbourhood centres, HDB will also build precinct shops which generally include an eating house, supermarket or minimart and a few shops. Most residents will be able to access commercial facilities with a food court or eating house within 400 metres from their homes.
I thank Mr Louis Chua for his suggestion on having large-scale tenders for hot food vending machine cafes. Most residents would prefer commercial facilities, such as a food court or eating houses. When Members have identified specific HDB estates that need vending machines or hot food and which is supported by market demand and supply, HDB will discuss with Members to facilitate the process.
Mr Azhar Othman and Mr Pritam Singh raised suggestions on rental rates and transparency. Several Members including Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Louis Chua have made similar points in this House on 24 September 2025. Mr Azhar suggested that rents be monitored and adjusted by a committee, like the Public Transport Council.
I would like to highlight that shop rentals are fundamentally different from public transport fares. Shops can have a variety of attributes, like location, layout, trade use and branding, which leads to different service offerings and therefore command different rental rates. Also, unlike public transport, each rental transaction is a distinct contractual agreement between willing landlords and tenants, where landlords and tenants take into account market dynamics before making their decision. Public transport, on the other hand, serves the mass public and allows for fare-setting to ensure affordability and financial sustainability.
Mr Azhar Othman and Mr Pritam Singh, like the Members before them, including Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Mariam Jaafar, want to see reasonable and sustainable HDB shop rental rates. At MND, we have the same objectives. Let me share what HDB is doing to keep HDB rental rates reasonable and competitive.
First, HDB ensures a good supply of shops in every HDB estate and town. When there is adequate supply, tenants have a choice of where to rent, and customers have a choice of where to buy. If rents and product prices are too expensive, both tenants and customers have a choice to go elsewhere.
Second, for shops rented out by HDB, we have introduced new measures to keep rents stable. To encourage prudent bids, successful bidders of all new shop tenders from January 2026 are required to maintain their tendered rent for two tenancy terms instead of one tenancy term of three years. Tenderers are thus encouraged to strike a balance between competitiveness and business sustainability when submitting their tender bids.
For HDB shop tenants facing financial difficulties, HDB will work closely to provide targeted support, where feasible, so that residents can continue to have access to affordable goods and services in their neighbourhood.
In terms of stall rents in HDB coffee shops, it is HDB's intent to enhance transparency and support a well-functioning market by making available relevant rental data to members of the public so that potential stall holders can make prudent business decisions. HDB has announced in January 2026 that we will start collecting data on stall rents charged by rental coffee shop operators and we will look at how this data can be presented in an accessible way to the public. We are exploring the feasibility of collecting and publishing other relevant rental data for HDB coffee shops, such as the rent charged by HDB for outdoor refreshment areas.
For HDB sold shops which are in private hands, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) maintains records on lease and tenancy transactions of privately-owned HDB shops that are submitted to IRAS for the payment of stamp duty. This rental data collected by IRAS is made available by geographical location and property type on URA's Real Estate Information System (REALIS). We are committed to publishing accurate data which will help potential shop or stall holders make their decisions. And we will consider a dedicated portal if that is necessary.
More broadly, we are also taking a whole-of-Government approach to prevent, detect and penalise money laundering activities, including through strengthening our monitoring and sensemaking mechanisms. This helps to safeguard our markets, including public and private rental markets, guarding against the impact of such illicit activities.
Taken together, these measures help to ensure that our residents continue to have convenient access to an affordable and diverse selection of heartland shops and services. Mr Chairman, I will now say a few words in Mandarin, please.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] To help the residents access quality and affordable goods and services, as well as to maintain reasonable and stable rentals, HDB will ensure that each housing estate and town has sufficient supply of shops.
For shops under HDB, we have other measures to maintain the stability of shop rentals. Since 2018, HDB has evaluated tender submissions for new coffee shops and new supermarkets based on the “price-quality” method.
HDB not only considers the tender price but also conducts a more comprehensive evaluation of the tender proposals. In addition, HDB has also launched the following measures in January this year.
First, to encourage rational bidding, successful bidders are required to maintain their tendered rent for two tenancy terms instead of one tenancy term of three years. Second, to protect stall holders’ interests, HDB has begun collecting data on stall rents charged by coffee shop operators under its management in order to provide stall holders with more comprehensive and transparent rental information.
The above policies ensure the reasonableness and stability of rental rates for shops under HDB, allowing residents to continue enjoying reasonably priced goods and services.
( In English ): Mr Chairman, we will update our housing policies to support the diverse needs of different groups, including young couples, larger families and seniors. In recent years, we have stepped up our efforts to make our HDB towns more liveable, inclusive and responsive to residents' needs.
We will continue to work with Singaporeans to build flats and neighbourhoods that they are proud to call home.
The Chairman : Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi) : Mr Chairman, I thank Members for their questions and cuts.
2.15 pm
Building an inclusive and cohesive society has always been at the heart of Singapore's public housing story. As Minister Chee mentioned, I will share how we have been and will continue to strengthen housing support for the more vulnerable Singaporeans.
Let me start with the Public Rental Scheme, a vital social safety net for our lower-income and vulnerable households.
Over the years, we have been improving HDB flat designs, including for our public rental flats. Newer rental blocks have better ventilation and natural lighting. We have improved the layout of each unit to maximise usable space. Rental blocks are also better integrated within each estate to facilitate access to precinct facilities.
In fact, today we have rental flats in the same blocks as sold flats. We call these integrated blocks. They create more opportunities for families living in rental flats and sold flats to interact and contribute to our broader vision of building a more inclusive society. HDB has completed eight such integrated blocks and another 36 are under construction.
Integrated blocks will form part of the approximately 6,300 public rental flats that will be completed over the next five years. This will increase our total supply of rental flats while also helping to refresh some of our existing rental stock. It will also further bring down waiting times for rental flats, which has already improved from a high of 11 months during COVID-19 to an average of three months today.
For many of our vulnerable families, the public rental scheme has been an important source of support. Take Mr Nazri's family for instance. Mr Nazri Zakaria, Ms Nurfitrah Yahya and their four young children moved into a 2-room public rental flat in 2020. Back then, home ownership felt unattainable. But agencies stepped in to lend a hand. Their family benefitted from the ComLink+ programme, where MSF works with agencies, including HDB, to provide integrated support to families with children under 21. Alongside this, HDB's Home Ownership Support Team reached out to Mr Nazri and Ms Nurfitrah to help them along their journey towards home ownership.
Mr Nazri and Ms Nurfitrah shared that the assistance from the Home Ownership Support Team has been invaluable. While Mr Nazri had secured stable full-time employment as a bus driver to help his family regain their financial footing, home ownership still felt like a distant possibility initially. This was because the decision to purchase a home is indeed a big one.
The Home Ownership Support Team worked through the purchase price of their possible flat options, explaining how much downpayment would be required as well as the anticipated monthly mortgage repayments. By breaking down the cost, the couple had better awareness of how this could fit within their budget. Home ownership started to seem more attainable. The Home Ownership Support Team then guided Mr Nazri and Ms Nurfitrah in their flat selection process and remained an important resource for the family all the way until they collected the keys to their new 4-room flat in Yishun recently.
Today, Mr Nazri and Ms Nurfitrah are happy homeowners and I was privileged enough to meet their family at their new home.
I am heartened by Mr Fadli Fawzi's support for the Government's efforts in helping lower-income families accelerate their transition to home ownership. Indeed, Mr Nazri and Ms Nurfitrah's story is one of many. In 2025, more than 2,000 of our existing rental households have booked a flat and are awaiting its completion.
We have been doing even more to support rental households. Last year, we increased the Fresh Start Housing Grant for eligible second-timer ComLink+ rental families from $50,000 to $75,000. Sixty thousand dollars will be dispersed upfront to help the family reduce the mortgage loan required for the flat purchase and the remaining $15,000 will be dispersed over five years after key collection to support their mortgage payments.
We also extended the Fresh Start Housing Scheme to first-timer ComLink+ rental families. They are now allowed to buy a 2-room Flexi or 3-room Standard flat on a shorter lease, which will be more affordable compared to those on a 99-year lease. As first-timers, they are eligible for the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant up to $120,000 in lieu of the Fresh Start Housing Grant.
These enhancements will help empower even more households to achieve home ownership. HDB will also continue to work with rental households individually as home ownership is a long-term financial undertaking that is best informed by understanding each family's unique circumstances. Mr Chairman, in Malay, please.
( In Malay ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] For many vulnerable families, HDB's rental flat scheme has been an important source of support that provides protection and relief when they face hardship.
Take Mr Nazri and his family for instance. I met them recently when they were making preparations to celebrate Hari Raya.
In 2020, Mr Nazri Zakaria, his wife Ms Nurfitrah Yahya and their four young children moved into a 2-room HDB rental flat. They benefitted from the ComLink+ programme, where MSF works with agencies, including HDB, to provide integrated support to families with children under 21 years old. It encompasses assistance, such as in employment, education and housing.
Things improved further when HDB's Home Ownership Support Team reached out to them. The Home Ownership Support Team guided them to examine their home purchase budget and flat options and prepared a clear plan towards home ownership. Through stable employment, joint efforts and consistent savings, Mr Nazri and Ms Nurfitrah, are now proud owners of a new 4-room flat in Yishun.
Their journey was not easy, but it was made easier with strong and continuous support.
Many other families experience similar life struggles. Throughout 2025, more than 2,000 HDB rental households have already booked HDB flats and are waiting for their completion. We are expanding our efforts to support HDB rental households.
Last year, the Fresh Start Housing Grant for eligible Second-Timer ComLink+ rental families was increased from $50,000 to $75,000. Additionally, the Fresh Start Housing Scheme was also extended to First-Timer ComLink+ rental families, enabling them to buy a 2-room Flexi or 3-room Standard flat on a shorter lease.
These measures will give opportunities to more HDB rental families to achieve their dream of owning a home and therefore improve their family's well-being.
( In English ): While most of our rental households are families, a substantial 40% are singles. Under the Joint Singles Scheme, single applicants must find co-applicants before they apply. We recognise that this can be challenging.
That is why we introduced the Joint Singles Scheme Operator Run (JSS-OR) pilot in 2021. Under the JSS-OR, applicants can apply individually and the social service agency that is appointed as the operator will help them to identify a suitable flatmate.
Mr Lee Chwee San is one such applicant. He applied alone back in 2022 and New Hope Community Services, the operator for the Bukit Batok JSS-OR site, helped him to find a suitable flatmate.
The operator also helps to manage tenancy matters, mediates among tenants where necessary and organises activities to bring tenants together. This has made a difference for Mr Lee, whom I met recently. He had attended a lohei session organised by New Hope and shared that such activities, which also include games sessions and other festive celebrations, were welcome opportunities to interact and bond with other tenants in the block.
We further expanded options with the Single Room Shared Facilities (SRSF) pilot in 2024. Under SRSF, tenants have individual bedrooms but access to shared facilities.
Both pilots cater to different preferences and both have received positive feedback. That is why we launched the first purpose-built SRSF block in October last year and will scale up both typologies in the coming years. More details will be shared when ready.
Another group that we are paying increasingly close attention to is our seniors. As Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin highlighted, your housing needs will evolve as you age. Some seniors want to monetise their flat, either by renting their flat out or by selling part of the remaining lease of their flat back to HDB. Others may prefer right-sizing to a smaller flat, notwithstanding the good memories of their current home. With a smaller flat, maintenance is easier and the proceeds can supplement their retirement needs.
These are personal decisions and we will support Singaporeans regardless of the option they choose.
For those who prefer to age in place, you can sell part of your flat's remaining lease to HDB under the LBS. The proceeds will be used to top up your CPF Retirement Account and provide you with monthly lifelong payouts under CPF LIFE. LBS also provides owners with up to $30,000 in cash bonus. From 2021 to 2025, for a 4-room flat, the average LBS proceeds, including the portion used to top up the CPF Retirement Account, plus the LBS bonus received was over $200,000.
Alternatively, you can right-size to a smaller flat and use the sales proceeds to support your retirement. Seniors who right-size to a 3-room or smaller flat can qualify for the Silver Housing Bonus of up to $40,000. For instance, seniors can consider applying for a new 2-room Flexi flat from HDB or right-sizing to a Community Care Apartment. A Community Care Apartment integrates housing with care services and comes with preinstalled fittings and senior-friendly designs. Activities are regularly organised for seniors to interact and seniors receive custodial support through a community manager, providing a peace of mind.
We have launched five Community Care Apartments since 2021. The next one is in Toa Payoh later this year. We will continue launching more Community Care Apartments across various towns, depending on the need.
But there is a limit to how many Community Care Apartments we can build. That is why we are also doing more to make our living environment more senior-friendly and ensure that our seniors can age in place comfortably. Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Liang Eng Hwa will be pleased to hear that agencies are working together to roll out Age Well Neighbourhoods, starting with the first one in Toa Payoh. In each Age Well Neighbourhood, we will improve access to healthcare services and upgrade senior-friendly amenities. This will add to the housing and care options available for seniors. We will continue to review and refine these options for seniors as we go along.
We are also heartened to hear Mr Cai Yinzhou's interest in senior-friendly fittings for residents to age in place.
Even if you are not in an Age Well Neighbourhood, you can still benefit from the many improvements through our upgrading programmes. These include the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme and Silver Upgrading Programme for HDB precincts and our Estate Upgrading Programme for private estates. Four precincts in Chong Boon will be the first to benefit from the Silver Upgrading Programme when the works are complete later this year. By next year, works will complete for another 12 precincts in Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Merah and Toa Payoh.
Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about schemes for improvements within the flat to enable seniors to live more comfortably and securely. Seniors can tap on the EASE to receive subsidies to install items that improve mobility and safety. This is offered as part of HIP and EASE (Direct Application). From April this year, private estates can also benefit from EASE (Private).
2.30 pm
Mr Cai Yinzhou also mentioned technologies, such as fire and fall detection. We have installed Home Fire Alarm Devices in over 80% of our public rental flats, with the remainder being progressively equipped at no cost to tenants. Home Fire Alarm Device installation is also offered under EASE and in flats that have fire-rated doors installed under HIP.
On fall detection, HDB partners commercial vendors to offer optional fall detection packages that residents living in sold flats may subscribe to. The Ministry of Health will also roll out the enhanced Home Personal Care service, which includes 24/7 technology-enabled monitoring to detect falls and incidents.
Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Dennis Tan asked about our LUP. Since 2001, the LUP has brought direct lift access to 99% of our HDB blocks. Over the years, HDB has piloted and adopted various solutions to bring direct lift access to more blocks. These include machine-room-less lifts and bubble lifts. In 2025, LUP was announced for six blocks and there are plans for LUP to be extended to about 40 more blocks progressively. Residents living in these blocks will be informed in due course.
For residents living in blocks without direct lift access, including those in segmented flats, we have enhanced the Lift Access Housing Grant last year. Eligible families and singles can receive up to $80,000 and $40,000 respectively, to move to a flat with direct lift services. HDB continues to explore new ways to bring direct life access to the remaining blocks, such as working with research institutes to develop and test out new solutions.
Earlier this year, HDB also called for proposals under the HDB Cool Ideas Enterprise. This is a platform that provides enterprises with funding support, mentorship and access to testbed facilities to co-develop solutions that improve the HDB living environment and residents' quality of life.
I would also like to address Mr Dennis Tan's point that his resident at Block 832 did not know that their flat did not have the same floor direct lift access at the point of purchase. If the resident bought the flat directly from HDB, the relevant information would have been provided in the HDB sales brochure at the time. If the resident bought the flat from the resale market, whether a flat has direct lift access is an observable physical feature of the property.
On offering LUP to all blocks, regardless of cost, I hope Mr Tan appreciates that the Government needs to ensure public funds are spent prudently. HDB will continue to explore new technologies to provide direct lift access to remaining blocks where feasible.
We will do our best to cover as many blocks as possible. However, where the cost of providing direct lift access is too high, it is more prudent for the flat owner to move to another unit in the neighbourhood with lift access, using the Lift Access Housing Grant, which we enhanced last year to $80,000.
Mr Chairman, Singapore's public housing landscape is constantly evolving and we will do our best to meet the diverse needs of every Singaporean. Whether you need a place to stay as you navigate life's difficult challenges, or whether you have retired and want to age gracefully in place, we are here to support you.
The Chairman : Minister of State Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) : Mr Chairman, I have spoken in this Chamber about how we must thoughtfully steward the little we have been endowed with. And this means being aware and upfront of the trade-offs with our people as we build homes, schools and hospitals, connectivity nodes for them, and also safeguard our green and blue spaces. It also means taking care of our animals, while managing human animal conflicts when they arise.
Let me start with our animals. Ms Lee Hui Ying called for stronger legislative levers to deter animal cruelty. We are indeed strengthening our animal health and welfare ecosystems. First, we will establish a Veterinary Council as a professional regulatory body to uplift standards for veterinary professionals. The council will register veterinarians, accredit veterinary training programmes and set continuing education requirements. It will also investigate cases of misconduct, where needed. I will introduce the Veterinary Practice Bill to establish the proposed Council this week and I thank our veterinary sector and other stakeholders who have worked with us since 2021 to shape this Bill together.
Second, we are reviewing legislation and codes to improve animal health and welfare, and strengthen safeguards against animal cruelty and abuse. Since 2022, we have consulted widely on the Animals and Birds Act review, to better understand how we can strengthen powers for animal disease prevention and control. We are also studying how to better deter acts of animal cruelty and abuse. That includes reviewing imprisonment terms, fines and disqualification orders for animal welfare offences. I have also met with Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) and Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to discuss their White Paper on this issue. We will review all suggestions carefully before engaging the wider public later this year.
Sir, this year, we are also reviewing the Code of Animal Welfare, focusing on groomers and adding a new chapter for dog trainers. There is currently no licensing scheme for these sectors and standards vary. We will consult stakeholders and the public, as we continue to raise standards and professionalism across these sectors.
Meanwhile, we must also manage pest bird species to protect public health and public safety. Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked how we can better manage pigeon roosting and defecation at air-conditioner ledges. Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Pritam Singh asked also how we can manage pigeon, myna and crow populations more effectively.
To keep pest bird populations under control, we must tackle the root cause, which is food. We therefore work with partners to improve food waste management, enforce against illegal bird feeding and, very importantly, educate the public.
In June 2025, we expanded our Pigeon Management Plan to Jalan Besar, Marsiling-Yew Tee and Nee Soon. We will roll this out across Singapore in phases. HDB is also trialling half-height netting in Punggol and Toa Payoh to prevent pigeon nesting at the air-conditioner ledges of HDB blocks. We will share HDB's findings with all Town Councils after this trial.
Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked about the safety protocols for crow shooting. NParks has worked with the Ministry of Home Affairs and its relevant agencies to develop strict shooting protocols. This includes ensuring the shooting trajectory is always directed upwards, cordoning safety zones with the appropriate signages and deploying personnel to manage public access and restrict unauthorised movement during crow shooting operations.
NParks will resume crow shooting progressively from the second half of this month. We will select locations based on a range of factors, including public feedback and technical feasibility of the crow shooting operations. But ultimately, in spite of everything that we are doing, we need everyone to work together, a shared responsibility. Please do not feed the birds. Keep our environment clean. These small things will help keep our living environment all the more liveable for all of us.
Sir, just as we carefully steward and manage the animals in our midst, we must also steward and manage our green and blue spaces. I agree with Ms Nadia Samdin that nature is important to our long-term resilience as a city. That is why we are expanding our green spaces as part of our City in Nature vision. And we are on track to building more than 25 new parks and 50 kilometres of park connectors in the next five years.
We are also enhancing ecological connectivity across our island. We are planting more native trees and shrubs along roads that mimic the multi-tiered structure of forests. These Nature Ways help animals, like birds and butterflies, move between our nature reserves, parks and gardens. Together with park connectors and parks, they will form broader Nature Corridors that connect habitats across our most biodiverse areas.
We are also making our parks even more welcoming and accessible, like our iconic Gardens by the Bay. Today, I am pleased to announce that Gardens by the Bay will welcome an all-new Wetlands by the Bay. We will expand our current Kingfisher Wetlands precinct, with over 600 mangrove and coastal plants that you can kayak through. It will be three times the current area, three times the number of plants.
We will also build a new canopy boardwalk over the wetlands, connecting Gardens by the Bay MRT station to key attractions within Bay South Garden. We will also build Glade Lawn, a new community green space that will host events and activities, and also serve as a place for visitors to relax and unwind.
We are also starting work on a new pedestrian bridge that directly connects Bay South and Bay East Garden and we expect to complete the bridge by 2028 – so visitors do not need to go all the way across Marina Barrage to the other side.
Beyond the Gardens, we are also rejuvenating and linking 13 parks in southwestern Singapore, including three destination parks. Today, I am happy to share some key ideas from about 2,500 responses that will shape these parks.
Many of you who joined this consultation asked for better accessibility and amenities along key stretches, such as more recreation options, restrooms and shaded areas. At the same time, you also told us that you wanted us to preserve the greenery and the tranquility of the parks, while adding experiences for different users
So, we will explore inclusive nature-based trails connecting the southwestern parks to bring the community closer together through discovery and play.
We will enhance West Coast Park's coastal charm by integrating maritime and cultural heritage elements across the park. We will also introduce new amenities, thoughtfully taking care to protect West Coast Park's tranquil nature.
For Hort Park, we will make Hort Park an even more inclusive, welcoming gardening hub, where the community can gather and participate in hands-on programmes. We will keep Labrador Nature Park serene and natural, while adding new features to showcase its heritage and biodiversity.
So, I thank park users, the community and residents for their valuable feedback, and look forward to enhancing these parks and more.
Let me next move from our parks and our green spaces to our blue spaces. In 2014, we established Sisters' Islands Marine Park, which has become a safe haven for turtle conservation and a living gene bank for our corals. In fact, I visited the Marine Park last year to release 76 baby hawksbill turtles that NParks had uncovered at East Coast Park. The Marine Park is a popular nesting site, with the turtle hatchery there, keeping baby turtles safe from human traffic, from predators and high tides.
This year, we will formally designate a second marine park at Lazarus South and Kusu Reef to provide more opportunities for recreation, conservation, research and education. Sir, protecting our waters also means understanding them better. We will therefore invest $60 million in a new marine science research centre of excellence. This Centre will be hosted by the National University of Singapore and supported by Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2030 funds.
The centre will bring together expertise across disciplines to develop local capabilities and talent, working with institutions like St John's Island National Marine Laboratory and partners across the marine community. NParks is partnering the National University of Singapore on the Centre and will share more details later this year.
Chairman, we face many competing needs as we develop Singapore and we balance these needs through careful master planning, taking a long-term view informed by Singaporean's aspirations. Minister Chee Hong Tat shared how one of MNDs key priorities is to ensure that we develop Singapore sustainably and balance our land use requirements. But some trade-offs will always be with us because of our limited land size and land constraints.
2.45 pm
Even as we steward our green and blue spaces, we must also carefully steward this balance between nature and development, as Ms Nadia Samdin has urged. I want to assure her that we take the ecological impact of planned developments seriously.
Mr Dennis Tan again raised concerns over Serangoon Forest and the Lorong Halus bus depot and asked for baseline studies for all forested plots. I have already addressed this in response to its Adjournment Motion in January, but I will briefly reiterate because these are important points.
We have to balance many competing needs, including for housing, education, green spaces, within our constraints, our limited land. Mr Tan spoke also how other countries are safeguarding and revitalising brown field sites with nature-based solutions. As I have said, we do not have the luxury of land and space that other countries have. Instead, we must make do with what little we have.
But I want to assure him at the same time that we already have a robust framework in place to balance developmental needs against conserving green spaces that all of us enjoy. This is not a binary approach.
Under our Planning Act, no development can take place without planning permission. And as part of the planning approval process, we assess a site's potential ecological and biodiversity value. This is based on the site's current state, not its zoning. Projects in, or near sensitive areas or that have potential transboundary impact, must undergo in-depth consultation with technical agencies, and we require an EIA if there is potential significant environmental impact from the development. Where an EIA is not required, agencies may still impose measures to mitigate impact.
So, it is not just mitigate, as Mr Tan has said. In many instances, it is also avoid and adapt. Through our EIAs, we consider needs for housing, jobs and others, alongside the ecological and biodiversity impact of the proposed development. Decisions are made only after carefully weighing these very difficult trade-offs. Mr Henry Kwek's example of how MND officers engaged him and his residents 22, 23 times is a case in point. This approach protects our most ecologically sensitive sites while balancing against our pressing developmental needs.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
Sir, we are also stewarding places which hold our collective shared memories. Mr Cai Yinzhou asked if we will consider a social and heritage assessment framework for urban development projects. This is already part of how we plan. We partner stakeholders to identify built heritage that is architecturally and socially significant, consulting groups like the Heritage and Identity Partnership and the National Heritage Board's Heritage Advisory Panel upstream in planning.
We have evolved our approach over time. In 2018, we piloted a heritage study of the Old Police Academy at Mount Pleasant. That is in Mr Cai's constituency, upcoming and opposite mine. We have conserved six of the most significant buildings and given them new uses, including as a Neighbourhood Police Post and an SPF Heritage Gallery. We will also retain part of the former parade square as a public space for community use. We will weave these elements into a new Mount Pleasant estate that will bring 6,000 homes together with heritage and nature.
Sir, in 2022, we launched the Heritage Impact Assessment Framework for projects that may significantly impact sites with heritage significance. The findings from the assessment guide how we plan our developments, conserve or adaptively reuse heritage elements and engage stakeholders.
Take Bukit Timah Turf City for example. A 2024 assessment recognised its 66 years as one of Southeast Asia's top racecourses. Even as we transform the site into a housing estate, we will conserve the two grandstands that once housed thousands of spectators, as well as the former Bukit Timah saddle club clubhouse. We will sensitively adapt and integrate these landmarks into future developments to keep the area's history alive
Today, we have conserved over 7,200 buildings and structures. Where we cannot conserve, or there are constraints to conserving, we honour a place's history through thoughtful design and storytelling. We will also strengthen the appeal and character of the six identity corridors which are familiar neighbourhoods with landmarks that resonate with Singaporeans. This keeps us rooted in our past, even as we build for the future.
Mr Cai Yinzhou also asked if we can better use our freshwater bodies for recreation. Today, many of our reservoirs are active water sports hubs and we have multiple water activity outlets across our island. As an advisor to the Singapore Canoe Federation, I use those water bodies very often. Many of our reservoirs, as I mentioned, are active water sports hubs and we have multiple water activity outlets where residents can rent equipment and take part in water sports activities like kayaking and canoeing.
Our upcoming PAssion Wave Outpost at Bayfront, located at Marina Reservoir, will further give Singaporeans direct access to water recreation opportunities right at our city's doorstep. We hope that these play spaces will bring more Singaporeans together and make our city a little bit more vibrant, a little bit more endearing.
Sir, we also need to steward the place where we live. In 2014, we formed the Municipal Services Office (MSO), so residents need not navigate a maze of agencies just to resolve a municipal services problem. Today, they only need to submit issues through our OneService Channels. Our backend systems will do the rest, with AI and smart routing capabilities directing about 90% of cases to the right agency or Town Council.
At the same time, I have been working together with our OneService team to improve the functioning of the app and to make it even easier for residents to input their feedback. Even as we upgrade and improve on the OneService app, we also continue to challenge ourselves to improve how we deliver municipal services. Sir, allow me to share how we do so, in Mandarin.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] In 2022, the MSO launched the integrated municipal services trial in Tampines and expanded it to Pasir Ris and Punggol.
Under this model, we consolidated simple municipal services provided by various Government services and assigned them to a single management operator. This allows us to focus our energy on solving problems rather than determining which Government agency the problem belongs to.
Today, frontline staff have learned more skills and can handle problems more quickly. For example, if a cleaning staff discover uneven pavement on the walkways, they can immediately cordon off the area and notify the maintenance team. Landscaping staff who notice soil subsistence can also proactively fill it up to prevent residents from tripping, and also to prevent mosquito breeding. In this way, problems can be resolved more quickly. Residents are happier and satisfied, and participating companies and employees have also learned new professional skills.
Last year we began discussions with operators on how to further expand this model. They have expressed strong support for this. Therefore, we will expand the Integrated Municipal Services model to surrounding towns. We will implement in phases to give operators sufficient time to adapt while carefully listening to their feedback and incorporating it into our planning.
( In English ): Mr Chairman, our tiny island home is ours to steward. And even as we build our homes, our schools, our hospitals, our airports, our connectivity hubs for our people, we continue to carefully steward our nature and places which hold special memories for us.
Sir, as I have mentioned many times in this House and in this Chamber, we do not have much to work with. And as responsible stewards of our land, we will always be upfront with Singaporeans about what we can do and what we cannot do so that we can continue to shape our tiny island nation into one of the most liveable cities in the world.
The Chairman : We have some time for clarifications. See some hands. Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry : Chairman, I have three short clarifications. Given that condominium prices and wages have risen over time, can MND share a timeframe or timeline when the income ceiling review will be concluded? Is it in a matter of months, or is it when some threshold conditions are met?
Second question is, MND shared that we will have more bigger flats supply coming up. Does it include 5-room flats, which I have asked earlier on?
And third of all is, taller blocks mean higher specification lifts and stricter fire safety standards, driving up long-term maintenance cost. Is MND prepared to help Town Councils offset the added life-cycle cost?
Mr Chee Hong Tat : Chairman, Mr Kwek asked about the timing of our review of income eligibility threshold. This is something which we are actively looking at. I am unable at this point in time to give him a concrete timeline, but certainly we will be ready to share this when the review is completed.
Second question, are we going to build more 5-room flats? The answer is yes, we are going to look for more places where we can do this, and that is why I shared earlier that we need to look for more land that we can prepare the site to build more, build faster. We also need to look at how we can intensify land usage by building taller through clever design, use of more integrated and mixed-use facilities to be able to squeeze out more land productivity. Then, we will have more space. Land is going to be limited in Singapore. That is something which I think all of us would agree. But if we can improve land productivity, we are able to squeeze out more space, then, I can use that space to provide more supply to meet the needs of different groups of buyers – whether it is the singles, seniors, larger families and other groups.
Last question, taller blocks, are we going to be able to provide more support to our Town Councils? Sir, I mentioned earlier in my main speech that the approach that we will continue to take is a partnership. We recognise that the costs have gone up, and we also recognise, as Mr Liang mentioned earlier in his cut, that in some areas the cost of providing those maintenance and services would be higher than the conventional method. He mentioned about the pneumatic waste collection system. And there are some system level gains because you save land, but the maintenance cost in some areas could be higher because the operations are more complex.
So, this is an area where I think if we can work closely with the Town Council, it is a win-win outcome. Certainly, for taller blocks as well, there are system level gains that we derive. But if there are going to be areas where Town Councils will have to spend more, then we have to look at it to see what we can do to ensure that it is a fair arrangement where the Government, Town Councils and also residents would all contribute to this.
The Chairman : Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa : Sir, Minister Chee, in his speech mentioned that this year we will be launching 19,600 new BTO flats. So, I would like to ask, how he sees the trajectory in the next two, three years. Whether in the next two, three years, are we able to meet the peak demands for the BTO flats, mindful that family formations are much lower than that number? So, whether that trajectory is going to still be there.
My second clarification is on LUP. In the remaining 100 blocks, I am sure there are some blocks where some stacks of the blocks are technically very challenging to do, but another stack could be doable, is feasible to do. Will HDB look at LUP for some blocks on a partial basis? At least some blocks get to be served with lift access, rather than just because one stack cannot be done, the whole block cannot get the lift upgrading.
3.00 pm
Mr Chee Hong Tat : Chairman, I will take both questions. The question to the first question is yes, we will continue with a robust supply of new BTO flats to meet the needs of buyers.
I shared earlier that there are different groups of buyers that we are trying to cater to. If we lower the eligibility age for singles to be able to buy BTO flats, more people will be able to apply. If we raise the income threshold, more people will be eligible to apply. If we want to cater to more buyers who previously may be staying with their family members but now want to stay near but have their own flat, that will also lead to a higher demand for housing.
Even though the number of people in the household, the average household size, may have come down, the number of households have actually increased because of this household fragmentation that we are seeing.
This year, we are building 19,600. I have said earlier that if demand remains strong, HDB will continue with this robust supply and we will go beyond what we earlier committed, which is to build 55,000 in three years. We are prepared to go beyond. We are getting ready to be able to do that.
The second question on LUP, I take Mr Liang's point that we do not want to view this in a binary manner, that we cannot do for the whole block because some parts cannot do, so I take his point. The assurance I want to give Members, as my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Harun mentioned earlier, is that we will do our best, because it is our intent to try and provide lift access to as many households as possible. We will do our best.
But I also seek the understanding of the House that in some cases, this may not be possible because the technology may not allow us to do it for that configuration or it will just simply be too expensive. As Senior Parliamentary Secretary Harun mentioned earlier, we are using taxpayers' money, public funds. I think there is a need to balance and to be prudent.
We will try our very best. I am hopeful that with new technologies coming out and working closely with the industry, there will be more options available that will allow us to be able to cater to more units.
The Chairman : Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi : Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have two clarifications. First, I would like to ask when the monthly household income ceiling for the Public Rental Scheme's eligibility was last revised and whether there are any plans to review this ceiling in light of wage increases under the Progressive Wage Model. Second, what are the targets that the Ministry has set to increase the number of rental households transitioning to home ownership for each year up to 2030?
The Chairman : Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun, are you taking that as a response? Please proceed.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi : Thank you, Chairman. With regard to the question on when the income threshold was last reviewed, I do not have the information with me at this point of time. I invite the Member to file a Parliamentary Question if he so chooses.
But I would like to assure the Member that when it comes to rental households, we do look at wanting to be able to support our vulnerable households as much as possible. It is not merely just about the rental flats but also a wraparound approach with regards to supporting them. Certainly, it is not about just the rental flats, but also about their ability to sustain their income in terms of employment opportunities as well as supporting the entire family, including the educational needs of their children.
With regard to the Member's question on — sorry, can I just clarify the second question?
The Chairman : Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi : The second question is about targets, the target to increase the transition from rental housing to home ownership.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi : I thank the Member for clarifying the question. In terms of targets, we do not set any annual targets with regards to the transition from rental households to home ownership. Why we do this is because our objective is to support as many rental households as possible to achieve home ownership so long as they are ready.
As I have shared in my speech earlier, in the last year alone, we have helped 2,000 rental families transit in terms of their plans to home ownership and they are waiting for their flats. Indeed, home ownership is a long-term financial commitment. A family's readiness for the transition to home ownership depends on their very specific circumstances, such as employment stability and their savings. So, we work very closely with each rental family to assess their level of readiness for home ownership and to support them in their journey. In recent years, we continued to enhance this support for them to achieve so.
The Chairman : Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng : I would like to seek a clarification regarding the Lift Access Housing Grant. Could the qualifying criteria be relaxed for occupants aged 70 and above, without the need for medical certification? Additionally, could HDB require new buyers of resale segmented flat to sign a letter of undertaking to indicate that they know that the flat is unlikely to qualify for LUP in the near future?
The next clarification. We are excited about the 60-storey HDB flat that is near Pearl's Hill Terrace. Considering our future housing needs, I agree that we should explore more options to construct higher HDB flats. Could the Minister share which HDB towns could realistically support high-rise developments of above 50 storeys?
The last clarification is about pest, wild birds. Is MND satisfied with the current resources to deal with the annual 22,000 cases on pest birds, would MND be prepared to add more resources to combat pest birds, including intensified efforts to control food waste and food for feeding of the birds?
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi : Chairman, I will take the question on the Lift Access Housing Grant. I thank Mr Ang Wei Neng for the question. As far as the Lift Access Housing Grant is concerned, it is meant for citizen households with members who have medical conditions or mobility issues and who need to urgently buy another flat with direct lift access. The eligibility is assessed based on needs rather than the age of residents and one of the requirements is that there must be a medical condition for which this particular family member or this particular owner has difficulty in terms of mobility and navigating the stairs, which present as a limiting factor at this point of time.
We currently do not have any plans to expand the Lift Access Housing Grant criteria based on age. It is really about the medical needs. Where there is a doctor who can certify that this individual has an illness or conditions which affect his mobility, among other criteria of the Lift Access Housing Grant, then that is something that we will consider for that individual.
The Chairman : Minister Chee, are you going to respond to the two other clarifications from Mr Ang? Please proceed. Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat : Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, the first question about 60 storeys, I think it is a bit too early for us to pinpoint which towns we are going to be able to do this, besides the one at Pearl's Hill that I just announced. But certainly, as I said in my speech, where we can, where possible, we would like to do so. Because this is a way to be able to increase the number of units, making better use of the limited land that we have and create more space.
On wild birds, I thank Mr Ang for his support. As Minister of State Tan mentioned earlier, this requires a whole-of-society effort. We cannot solve the problem with just adding more and more enforcement officers or pest control teams, whether NParks or contractors. That is something that we will certainly do to make sure that they are adequately resourced to do their work, but we cannot just do that alone because we also need the other measures to work together as a package. For example, as Senior Minister of State Tan said earlier, please do not feed the birds. That is something which will help a lot. Please manage the food waste properly. That will also help. It takes a whole-of-society effort for us to do this and keep our environment safe and pleasant for everyone.
The Chairman : Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh : Thank you, Chair. Just a few very quick clarifications and questions. First, on the matter of lower eligibility age for singles who want to purchase BTO flats. I believe that is what the Minister shared MND was looking into, but please correct me if I am wrong. At the same time, I heard the Minister mention earlier that the median application rate for singles is still high, but he did not give a number. However, I believe he gave a number – 2.6 times for first- and second-timers.
So, I appreciate if the Minister could share what the median application rate currently for singles is.
At the same time, in view of the review with regard to the lower eligibility age for singles, because it is a limited window for those individuals vis-à-vis their age, when will MND confirm the new age eligibility criteria for singles?
The second point is on my cut on income eligibility thresholds, to remove the ceiling. Just to be clear, it is not a call to remove the ceiling carte blanche; there are encumbrances which I wish to stress. I think those encumbrances can offer another option. It will be as good as another scheme for a certain category of BTO buyers.
Finally, I thank Senior Minister of State Sun for looking at the prospects of a portal for publishing the rental of HDB shops. Just a small correction on my part. I said that I called on HDB to make this information in October last year. It should be September.
The Chairman : Minister Chee, would you like to go first?
Mr Chee Hong Tat : Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will take the first two questions and my colleague Senior Minister of State Sun will take that third one.
Sir, I do not have a number that I can share with Mr Singh at the moment, but it suffices to say that the application rate for the 2-room Flexi, which is what the singles and the seniors are able to apply for, that number is higher than for families. And that is why I mentioned earlier in my speech that we are going to increase the supply of 2-room Flexi flats by about 50% over the next three years to be able to meet this strong demand.
Looking ahead, I think we are also reviewing whether for some groups of singles who may not want to buy a 2-room Flexi on their own but they may want to buy with a family member, but they need a bigger flat, whether that is something that we can also allow, if we are able to have adequate supply. That is what we are looking at.
I cannot give a timing on when we can review this as well because it really depends on when we feel confident about the supply being adequate.
I hope Mr Singh understands this point and I am sure he does, which is that if I lower the age before supply is adequate, we may then end up with more people entering the market to apply. Then demand goes up. That will also affect the existing group of applicants, including the singles who are aged 35 and above. So, to avoid that, we should time this properly, do it when we are confident that we are able to meet the increase in demand from the various groups of buyers.
The second question on the removal of the income ceiling, we are of the same understanding, Mr Singh. I did mention in my speech earlier that you are not proposing to remove it – full stop; but with certain restrictions imposed on the people who exceed the income threshold.
3.15 pm
I did acknowledge in my speech that it is something that we have to study carefully, because there are trade-offs. For example, if you allow this group – currently they are not eligible – if you allow them to come in, they will then apply for the same stock, the same supply of BTO flats that the other buyers, the eight out 10 who are currently below the income ceiling, this group will come in and compete with them for this supply of BTO flats.
So, again, in order to ensure that we are able to meet this higher demand, supply is key, and that is why I hope to have the support of all Members of this House that we have to build more and build faster. There will be some trade-offs that we will need to make, including what Mr Dennis Tan mentioned. If I can avoid affecting some of the areas, I would, but we do have difficult trade-offs that we need to make. And if we prioritise providing adequate housing supply for our people as the number one priority, and if this House agrees with that, then what it means is that we have to be honest and candid about some of the trade-offs that we have to make.
The Chairman : Minister of State Sun Xueling, would you like to respond to the third point from Mr Pritam Singh?
Ms Sun Xueling : Mr Pritam Singh made a clarification on his cut and did not have a question for me, so I have nothing to add.
The Chairman : Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin : Thank you, Chairman. I have three clarifications. The first is on blue spaces for Minister of State Alvin Tan. I was very excited to hear more about the new Marine Science Centre. Could he please clarify how will its work complement existing efforts, for example, of St John's Island National Marine Laboratory and other institutions like the Singapore Oceanarium Research and Learning Centre, holistically, and how can Singaporeans, youths and citizen scientists be involved in its work?
Next, could he also share more on the plans for the second Marine Park's recreational spaces, and what lessons can be learnt from the first Sister Islands Marine Park? I also note that the second Marine Park, which includes Lazarus South and Kusu, generally have higher levels of human activity, for example, Kusu during the pilgrimage season, and Lazarus South, for example, recreational spaces and tiny homes. So, how will MND take this into consideration, for example, in terms of zoning and visitor management, when designating this second park, so that we can protect our habitats and minimise pressure on the environment?
My second clarification is for Singapore Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun, regarding lessons learnt from the SRSF and JSS-OR pilots, including in Ang Mo Kio, where I serve. For example, some who work as delivery riders have asked if there can be motorcycle lots provided, and also, as there are residents who have certain health and well-being challenges, can MND look at centralising more services beyond the example given, which was New Hope, who already does a very good job, I should add.
My last question is just for further help on supporting divorcees, as I asked in my cut.
The Chairman : Minister of State Alvin Tan, would you like to respond?
Mr Alvin Tan : Sir, I will respond to Ms Nadia Samdin's first two clarifications and I will leave Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun to respond to her latter two.
First of all, I wanted to thank Ms Nadia Samdin for her work with the Friends of Marine Park, and that is why she is very interested in this. For the second Marine Park, the intent is to safeguard the ecologically significant habitats around the area, and also to enhance the existing biodiversity with the existing ones on Sisters' Island.
The intent is also to provide spaces for recreation, for research, for outreach and for education. In this regard, the Friends of Marine Park stakeholders are very important, together with Youth Stewards for Nature, as well as other researchers, outreach, policy groups. They form our key stakeholder group for us to look into addressing and also enhancing many of these features for the second Marine Park. We will then also review any of these compatible features that we can put in after taking into consideration their feedback.
With regards to the Marine Science Centre, it is a nationally coordinated research programme. So, the new Marine Science Centre will in fact work with the Oceanarium and others to coordinate research about marine science capabilities and biodiversity. It will provide a unique strategic vision across all of these different stakeholders and critically involve youths, Government stakeholders, industry researchers, universities, building talent so that we can build a good talent source to research into all the critical marine biology topics that are critical for our area.
Finally, we will also be able to then partner with regional institutions to enhance understanding of marine biology and preservation.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi : I thank the Member, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, with regard to her two questions. For SRSF, as I mentioned in my speech, the response and feedback have been positive. I think the residents have found that their preferences of having a room to themselves and then, subsequent to that, having shared common facilities, continue to be something that has been well received. That is precisely why we are looking to scale. While some of the limitations that the Member has shared are specific to the current temporary site, some of the feedback will also be taken with us, as we transit into the permanent block as part of the new features. We will continue to develop the space and we will continue to see how best we can improve for our public rental flats.
I understand that the question was relating to other vulnerable groups, moving forward, the third question. We will continue to see where the needs are and we will continue to see how best we can align some of our policies to be able to reach out to these vulnerable groups. It remains our intent to make sure that we are able to support as many vulnerable groups, including the divorcees and the single-parent families. We will see how best we need to tweak some of the policies to support in that regard.
Mr Chairman, with your permission, I would like to also respond to Mr Fadli Fawzi's earlier clarification. I do have a response.
The Chairman : Please proceed.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi : Thank you, Mr Chairman. With regard to the income ceiling for public rental housing, just to reassure the Member, as well as Members here, that there is no income ceiling for public rental since 2023. Applications are renewed, reviewed holistically and taking into account the individual household income, household size, housing budget, as well as individual circumstances.
So, it really rings true with regard to our desire to look at the issue of each and every person and family holistically to then be able to see how best we can lean forward to support.
The Chairman : Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis : Thank you, Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Chee. The first is on the review of the EC policy – any timeline around that?
Second is in terms of how the Minister talked about building a robust supply pipeline and given that we are now in March 2026. On the HDB front, is it still the plan to have the supply come down to about 15,700 or so, versus the 19,600 levels today. That is for 2027.
Similarly, for private residential property, what are the expectations on supply for the second half of 2026 as well as 2027; the reason being, if I look at the last three Government Land Sale programmes, I think the supply has been coming down, especially for EC supply.
Mr Chee Hong Tat : Thank you, Mr Chairman. The EC review is ongoing. So, I cannot give you a specific timeline. I think the important thing is this. I think Mr Chua highlighted this in his cut as well – it is not so straightforward. I think Mr Kwek mentioned this as well.
If it is something that we can do by just increasing the grant, that is quite direct. But in this case, if that is the move that we make, and because we do not control the EC prices – these are based on what developers bid and what they sell – there is a risk that much of the support given, which is going to come from taxpayers, public funds, will be creamed off by the EC developers, instead of going to the home buyers, which was the intent.
So, I think this is something which we need to look at carefully: how do you intervene appropriately, but without fundamentally changing the nature of what the ECs are. As I explained in my speech to Mr Chua's cut, ECs are more comparable to private condominiums. They are not public housing. Actually, after the 10-year period, they become exactly like a private condominium. And you can sell to anyone, including foreigners.
Because of that, I think we need to ask ourselves as well: if you do this review, do you want to retain the fundamental nature of ECs, or do you want to actually change this? I think that is quite an important point to bear in mind. And if you want to retain it, then what are some of the moves that we can make to improve affordability but yet maintain this feature that it is closer to or more comparable to private condominiums, rather than to resale flats and to public housing.
On supply pipeline, I have actually addressed this earlier in my response to some of the earlier clarifications that we are not going to keep ourselves limited to the 55,000, which is what I said earlier as well. If we need to go beyond this 55,000, we will do so. If there is strong demand and we need to go higher than what we had earlier planned for, we will do so.
Private residential, same thing, I have also said this previously that if the demand remains strong, we do have some capacity that we can release. There are two ways to do this: we can either activate a new site and release it through the Government Land Sale programme; or we could convert some of the sites from reserve to the Government Land Sale programme, or put some new sites into reserve that the developers could trigger if the demand is strong.
So, there are very various ways to do this, but whether it is public housing or private housing, it goes back to the fundamental point that I mentioned earlier – which is that in order to meet all these different demands, all these different needs, supply is key.
And supply means we have to build more. We have to activate more pieces of land. We have to build higher. We have to improve land intensification, improve the design so that we are able to have more integrated mixed use.
These are all the different ways that we can increase the supply.
The Chairman : Mr Foo Cexiang.
Mr Foo Cexiang : Thank you, Chairman. I have three qualifications. First, on lifts. The Tiong Bahru estate, consisting of pre-war and post-war buildings, has not had a lift since its establishment. A lot of the residents are getting older. I would like to ask whether I can work with MND, with a special task force, to explore all options. As the Minister described, they would be prepared to do so.
Second, on pigeons. I think all of us face the concerns of pigeons defecating on the air-conditioning ledges; me as well. I look forward to the recommendations from the Punggol pilot, but I would like to ask the Ministry whether it would consider the use of audible pigeon deterrent devices, such as bio-acoustic units that use pre-recorded predator calls as part of the whole set of factors to combat this. This is just a suggestion.
The third one, the lifts in super high-rise flats. I think the example from The Pinnacle@Duxton would be quite instructive. Currently, the feedback that I receive from residents of Pinnacle is. One, they pay higher S&CC charges, but why does the lifts seem to break down sometimes? And two, a lot of them tell me that they set aside at least 15 minutes to catch the lift, for the fear of having to wait for a long time, especially when one of the lifts is broken down.
But the reality is that while they pay higher S&CC charges, the cost of maintaining this lift is actually more than for other typical HDB flats. So, I think this point which the Minister made that up front, HDB, Town Council and residents will need to have good understanding is a very critical point. It may be better to over specify the number of lifts at the start and pay a higher price at the start, rather than having to maintain a large number of lifts that are not functioning properly in the future, over the longer term. So, that is just a point for me to highlight.
Mr Chee Hong Tat : Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Foo for his three points. Certainly, we will be happy to work with him on some of the specific local challenges that he is facing with the older blocks in his constituency.
3.30 pm
On pigeons, we are open to considering different possible ways and we can test this out to see whether they are effective. I do not know whether what Mr Foo describe is a workable solution or not, but I am prepared to try it, and I think we should be open-minded trying different ideas. Black cat, white cat, as long as can catch mice, it is a good cat. So as long as the method works, I think we should be prepared to try.
The last point about lifts is an important one. Because as I described earlier, there are system level gains that we can derive when we build taller, but we do need to then make sure that we be fair to the Town Councils and be fair to the residents. The experience with Pinnacle that was built quite some time ago. I think, today, we learn from that and when we design, we will bring in the latest design specifications and technology.
And also, I think we will certainly bear in mind how we support the Town Councils and the residents where we have some of these features in our estates that derive system level gains that all of us will benefit from but can impose some local level additional cost. So, if we can find a way to bridge that, then we can open up more possibilities that will be good for the country as a whole, the society as a whole.
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong : I have two clarifications. My first clarification is for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun. Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary be able to give a clearer timeline for the LUP for the 40 blocks? At least give an indication, for example, does HDB expect this to be carried out within the next two years or five years?
My second clarification is for Minister of State Alvin. Minister of State Alvin was replying regarding the part in my cut on avoid-minimise-mitigate and he was giving some examples of how the Ministry may have carried out their obligation under "avoid". I just want to make a clarification regarding this. And if I may, I would like to also go back to his remarks in the Adjournment Motion as an example for this clarification.
And in the Adjournment Motion, in his reply, he has cited, for example and this is what is stated in my cut, the current bus depot construction at Serangoon River Forest. He said that, "Technical agencies have assessed that this site is not a sensitive nature area and environmental impact of the bus depot is limited. Hence, an environmental study was not required." Regretfully, no details of this study was done, and the extent of the study was done and, hence, in my Adjournment Motion as well as in my cut. Let me go back to the cut; I had called on MND to consolidate —
The Chairman: Mr Dennis Tan, if you could just, perhaps hold on.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong : Yes, I am going to put this as a point for Minister of State Alvin.
The Chairman : Hold on. Perhaps you can summarise the gist of what you said in your Adjournment Motion and then apply it to the cut that you had filed today and then ask your clarification.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong : Sir, I am going to explain now, exactly what you have suggested.
The Chairman : Please do so succinctly.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong : I am sorry about that Chairman. Chairman, so in my cut, I have asked, instead, for MND to require a mandatory baseline and functional assessment and institutionalise mandating an EIA. So, go directly to having a baseline study for all forested plots, regardless of whether it is primary forest or brownfield sites and have EIA for these sites, rather than to have what the procedure that was carried out in the case of the Lorong Halus bus depot.
The Chairman : Which political office holder would like to respond to this? Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun and then Minister of State Alvin Tan.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi : With regard to the clarifications from Mr Dennis Tan, I thank him for the clarifications. Unfortunately, I do not have the exact number now, but I can assure you that within the next few years, we endeavour to actually achieve the lift access specific to these 40 blocks. But I will give you a sharper answer as soon as I have it. Yes, that is my commitment.
Mr Alvin Tan : Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan. We have really sparred on this many times and I had already mentioned that Lorong Halus did not require an EIA because the agencies assessed that it is not a sensitive nature area.
I understand his point. We have a broader approach which I have articulated both in the Adjournment Motion as well as earlier on in my expansive reply. At the core of this is effectively, what do we need to steward? And we need to steward both our green spaces as well as address our competing needs for land. And that land, including for those in his area, that means greater connectivity in many other parts of Singapore. It means more schools, more housing, more hospitals.
So, taking a step back, that is important. We do not have a lot of land, and we need to manage all of these, and we need to say this upfront. So, even though we have different approaches to this, I hope that he understands the approach that MND and our agencies need to take for the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.
The Chairman : We are approaching guillotine time, 3.45 pm. I would like very much to give as many Members who have put their hands up a chance to clarify. The Clerks and I see Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Abdul Muhaimin and Ms Elysa Chen. I will call them in order. Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying : I thank both Ministers for their comprehensive replies on the efforts for the build environment. So, I have clarifications on other areas. First, is there updated timeline on the 15-month wait-out period for the sales of a private property for residents to purchase resale HDBs? Because every week, we meet residents who appeal to waive on this due to their unique and unfortunate circumstances; some with families with young children and sometimes have to sell because of failed businesses. So, I hope support will be provided to such families.
Second, I echo Minister of State Alvin's strong call to not feed the birds. But unfortunately, recalcitrant illegal bird feeders still continue to do so. So, will there be strengthened enforcement against illegal feeding? And will there be plans for step-up surveillance in hotspots and more importantly, higher penalties for repeat offenders? And on crow shooting, I have asked this earlier in the cut as well, whether there are safeguards to minimise public exposure, especially to young children. Will there be advanced notification protocols in place to inform residents in advance of such shooting efforts?
The Chairman: Perhaps a crisp response from a political officeholder. Minister of State Alvin Tan.
Mr Alvin Tan : Please do not feed the birds. [ Laughter .]
The Chairman: Minister Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat : Ms Lee had a question about the 15-month wait-out period. So, as I have explained earlier, we will monitor the situation in the resale market a little bit more. Last quarter, the resale prices remain flat. Up to the middle of February this quarter, there was a slight dip, very slight, minus 0.1%. I think it is still too early, given such trends, for us to remove this because, we will all agree, we do not want to remove this and then the prices spike back up. Then all the previous efforts are all wasted.
So, I think we should persist with this a little while more, monitor the data and at an appropriate time when we are ready, let us make a move. And in the meantime, if there are cases that require help, please do continue to appeal for your residents and we will look at each case on its own merits.
The Chairman : Mr Abdul Muhaimin.
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik : I have two clarifications for Minister of State Tan. Regarding the pigeon management plan, as mentioned in my cut, can the Minister of State provide a projected timeline, even an indicative one, for when all the remaining Town Councils can expect to be covered, maybe especially Sengkang?
And the other one is, would the Ministry be willing to share the specifications of the netting solution being trialled with Town Councils, so that T own Councils that wish to proceed may carry out their own installations in affected estates without having to wait out for the conclusion of the trial?
Mr Alvin Tan : Sir, it seems that the issue of birds has dominated this. I would just say that the trial for the 35 units is ongoing. We start in March. We will end next March. Give us that time for us to test whether the half height netting works.
And at the end of the trial period next year, we will share all of the findings to all Town Councils, and we welcome Town Councils to also share their feedback as well as their suggestions. I would also just say that there is no standardisation because different HDB blocks and different aircon ledges have different specifications. So, let us do the trial – 35 – and we will commit to sharing that outcome with all Town Councils.
The Chairman: Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen : Chairman, hon Member Hui Ying has already asked my question. So, it is fine, thank you.
The Chairman : We have five minutes. Mr Dennis Tan, you had another clarification, or not? None. Ms Lee Hui Ying. Oh, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun, can you state your intention? [ Laughter .]
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi : Thank you, Chairman, to give a sharper response to Mr Dennis Tan on his earlier question.
The Chairman: Yes. Proceed, please.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi : Much obliged. Just to give a sharper response to Mr Tan. We will be looking to implement the progress for the 40 blocks identified within the next three years.
The Chairman: Any further clarifications? None. Mr Henry Kwek, may I invite you to withdraw your amendment?
3.41 pm
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry : Chairman, I thank MND for responding to our cuts and I seek leave to withdraw my amendments.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $8,640,058,800 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $13,613,535,500 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]