預算辯論 · 2026-03-04 · 屆國會 15
2026國家發展部供給委員會辯論：AI與機器人改造建築業
國家發展部供給委員會辯論中討論了AI和機器人技術對建築業的變革潛力。技術進步如何幫助建築行業節省時間、降低成本、減少人力需求成為核心議題。AI和機器人有望將建築業轉變為快速、智慧和高度自動化的行業。
關鍵要點
- • AI和機器人改造建築業
- • 節省時間、降低成本、減少人力
- • 推動建築業智慧化自動化
積極推動建築業技術轉型
Pritam Singh和Sylvia Lim參與辯論
建築業AI自動化加速
參與人員 (5)
完整譯文（中文）
Hansard 原始記錄 · 2026-05-02
主席：國家發展部（MND）T項負責人。郭慶興先生。
上午11時32分
無障礙且負擔得起的住房
郭慶興（格文巴魯選區）議員：主席，我提議，“將預算中國家發展部T項的總撥款減少100元。”
主席先生，在準備供應委員會（COS）期間，由於國家發展部涉及許多新加坡人的生活，我們的政府議會委員會（GPC）廣泛諮詢了民眾、行業專家和住房專家，今天我們帶來了一些想法。讓我先概述一下我們GPC將要提出的內容。
副主席謝耀權將分享關於自願提前重建計劃（VERS）設計的一些想法。梁榮華議員將呼籲國家發展部擴大“樂齡鄰里”和“社群關懷公寓”專案，併為市鎮理事會提供更多支援，以應對成本上升。洪偉能議員將談論改善單身人士、私人住宅區居民的組屋（BTO）可及性，並提高收入上限超過14,000元。
傅策祥議員將倡導放寬新加坡人與非居民配偶購買建屋發展局（HDB）組屋的限制，並引入靈活的短期租賃計劃以惠及長者。納迪亞·薩姆丁議員將提出如何改善我們住房結構多樣性及如何提升我們的自然城市環境的建議。蔡銀洲議員將談論在社群中創造第三空間，如何重新構想全民擁有住房，以及如何讓組屋壽命延長超過99年。
至於我本人，我將談三個方面。如何讓住房更易獲得且負擔得起，確保有足夠的住房和土地滿足不斷增長的需求，以及如何加強我們的建築行業。
我的第一點是提高可及性和負擔能力。自COVID-19以來，我們積極建設住房，使首次購房者，尤其是有年輕家庭者，能夠獲得新組屋。現在這關鍵群體的需求已得到很好滿足，是時候考慮如何改善其他群體的可及性和負擔能力了。
首先是單身人士。我期待及時出臺政策，將BTO組屋的申請年齡下調，最好降至33歲，以惠及單身人士。
第二是夾心階層家庭面臨貸款資格問題。我多次提到，這些家庭收入過高，無法申請公共租賃住房，但因離婚或過去的財務困難，無法獲得貸款。他們最終只能租住他人組屋的房間，支付接近按揭甚至更高的費用，既無資產積累，也無保障給子女。
我理解這群體的需求由不同因素驅動，但我希望國家發展部能考慮設立針對性計劃，類似“新起點”計劃，利用多種政策工具，如結構化HDB貸款、政府擔保按揭或長期可負擔租賃，而無需等待BTO。
下一群是多代同堂家庭從私人住宅區縮小居住規模。這些家庭希望繼續同住，但因家庭分裂、企業失敗或財務困難，無法負擔私人房產。如果他們的淨資產與典型組屋家庭相當，國家發展部是否考慮允許他們立即申請5房BTO？
第四是大家庭。近期BTO擴建重點放在較小戶型，但隨著供應恢復，國家發展部能否確保5房組屋供應跟上需求？
第五是收入上限。收入上限未能跟上工資和房價，尤其是公寓價格的上漲。許多表現良好的新加坡人希望維持合理生活成本，尤其在未來就業不確定的背景下，他們更願意選擇組屋而非公寓。國家發展部能否及時審查收入上限？
第六是更多執行共管公寓（EC）及更負擔得起的EC。目前EC可獲得最高30,000元的購屋補貼。我希望能做更多，但單純提高補貼可能無效，因為開發商可能會相應提高價格。因此，如果政府願意加碼，我希望也能採取其他措施，如延長最低居住期限（MOP）或引入轉售前利潤分享機制。
除了組屋，我們還應關注許多老舊私人公寓。這些老舊公寓面臨維修基金不足和基礎設施老化問題。我希望國家發展部考慮提供針對性支援，如電梯更換、升級或維護的資金援助，或為長者友好改造提供資金。國家發展部還應確保管理公司（MCST）提前設立充足儲備，並審視MCST的治理方式。
第二點是確保建造足夠住房，更重要的是找到足夠土地。我很高興國家發展部計劃維持自COVID-19以來的積極建設計劃。因為如果放寬BTO申請條件，需求將上升。除政策驅動需求外，基本需求也在增長。看看周圍，家庭分裂增多，新加坡人壽命延長，單身人數增加。
關鍵是供應信心與供應本身同等重要。COVID-19期間，等待恐慌引發搶購。充足且可見的供應具有自我穩定作用。我支援國家發展部保持充足組屋庫存的承諾。
但更難的問題是土地。我們從哪裡找土地？目前我們已將15%的土地用於住房，這還要面對小島國家的其他競爭需求。且這15%不包括組屋區內的基礎設施、公園、道路和商店。因此，尋找新土地並非易事，答案只有三個。
一是建得更高，超過40至50層。但這也是重大轉變，意味著更多電梯大堂、更高規格電梯、更嚴格消防要求、更高電梯維護費由市鎮理事會承擔，我希望國家發展部能協助分擔費用。建高樓有其後果，不能過快過猛推行。
第二是除了建高樓，我們必須釋放更多土地，並且必須坦誠面對這一權衡。如果決心保持住房可及和負擔得起，就必須同樣決心及時識別並釋放合適的綠地和棕地。
作為格文巴魯選區議員，毗鄰中央自然保護區，我親眼見證國家發展部如何謹慎與環保團體和居民溝通釋放綠地。例如我剛當議員時，教師組屋區內有一整塊綠地，現已轉變為蓮塘山發展區。
國家發展部官員和我進行了23次交流，諮詢專家，聽取不同群體意見，確保大家認可後才推進開發。我的親身經歷顯示國家發展部找到了正確平衡。我希望我們有決心找到更多土地建房。
但同時，釋放更多土地時，我們也必須積極通過新公園、生態走廊和持續植樹來補償失去的綠地。我記得“百萬樹木”運動，COVID-19期間，前國家發展部長德士蒙在植物園種下第一棵樹，隨後在格文巴魯第四大道社群中心前種下第一排樹。我希望“百萬樹木”運動展示了可能性，隨著住房增長，我希望國家發展部和國家公園局（NParks）能考慮後續行動，或許是下一輪“百萬樹木”運動，讓住房增長與綠化同步。
最後，未來土地供應也應來自VERS。VERS成功的關鍵是公平補償和便捷融資。最近與居民交流時，有個建議反覆出現。HDB應為50歲以上居民提供同戶型替換組屋選項，可能是短期租約，這樣他們無需籌現金補差價。這將增加對VERS的支援，釋放更多土地。
最後一點是關於建築行業和國家發展部支援企業。未來幾年，建築支出預計超過500億新元。我們正加快推進第五航站樓建設，濱海灣金沙擴建，地鐵和地下工程，以及更多組屋建設。500億支出將持續兩年，隨後降至約400億。
這與持續收緊外勞政策同時發生，組合挑戰大，尤其是我們希望控制人力和建築成本。因此，我歡迎國家發展部更新數字化和生產力提升進展，特別是建築資訊模型（BIM）應用和預製構件。
最後談談國家發展部支援企業。今年一月我參加建築與建設局（BCA）會議，齊部長表示國家發展部將與業界合作，簡化流程，更加支援企業。參與者反響熱烈。國家發展部能否預告這項計劃，說明如何更支援企業？
總之，國家發展部管理廣泛多樣的領域，從住房到綠化，從動物福利到建築再到城市規劃。這些職責共同塑造新加坡人的日常生活——我們回家的住所、散步的公園和建設未來的社群。感謝國家發展部及其機構官員的奉獻，使新加坡成為今天和明天最好的家園。
（程式文本）提案提出。（程式文本）
主席：普里塔姆·辛格先生，您可以將三項提案一併提出。
BTO組屋收入資格上限
普里塔姆·辛格（阿裕尼）議員：議會成員可能遇到許多年輕新加坡夫婦期待組建家庭併購買首套HDB BTO組屋，但因各種原因無法實現或無法獲得理想組屋。
部分原因是HDB設定的收入上限，目前夫妻申請BTO組屋的上限為14,000元，執行共管公寓（EC）為16,000元。
上午11時45分
雖然HDB轉售市場沒有收入上限，但新加坡人，尤其是年輕家庭，仍擔心租約遞減、退休保障不足，以及錯失BTO購屋的納稅人補貼。同時，新一代新加坡人的置業階梯已非父輩故事。許多工資收入者無法像父母那樣，從組屋搬到公寓再到有地房產。
組屋將繼續為大多數新加坡人提供住房，尤其是新私宅（包括EC）所需的財務投入比以往更大。但新現實正在形成：年輕和中年新加坡人的就業環境日益不可預測和不確定。
如今，年輕和中年新加坡人擔心被技術進步和崗位重組淘汰。考慮長期融資的組屋購買時，這些現實因素影響他們的決策。夫妻合計收入可能目前高於收入上限，但未來未必如此，尤其是配偶失業或選擇專職育兒或照顧長輩時。
近年來，HDB推出多項政策槓桿以提高BTO組屋負擔能力，部分因轉售價格飆升。例如補貼回收機制，從約6%提高到部分BTO專案的14%；延長最低居住期限（MOP），至少有一項HDB計劃設定20年MOP，專為租戶轉組屋設計。
鑑於這些槓桿，HDB是否考慮允許收入超標的首次購房夫婦仍可選擇購買BTO組屋？即使大多數買家收入資格定期調整，這將有效取消小部分買家的收入上限。為確保公平，若首次購房夫婦選擇此類BTO組屋，可附加一項或多項要求，如限購首套婚房，夫妻任一年齡上限35歲及以下；設定比該BTO類別（Plus、Prime或Standard）更長的MOP；和/或增加補貼回收機制。
為此，部長能否分享2020年至2025年間，每年因收入上限而被拒絕購買BTO組屋的首次申請者申訴數量？現有收入上限覆蓋8成新加坡家庭，為首次購房年輕人提供附加購屋選項，預計不會顯著增加BTO建設數量，但能為部分對未來就業環境不確定的新加坡人帶來極大安心。
外牆維修共付計劃
2004年，HDB推出外牆維修共付計劃，HDB為外牆相關維修提供資金，並補償市鎮理事會對組屋外牆損壞的維修費用。2023至2028年間，針對外牆風險較高的磚砌和部分金屬裝飾組屋，補助提高至75%。
但因外牆滲水導致住戶單位內漏水的情況，不在任何共付計劃覆蓋範圍內。隨著HDB組屋老化，尤其是老舊組屋外牆滲水現象據說有所增加。HDB是否會通過外牆維修共付計劃協助市鎮理事會，將因外牆滲水產生的索賠納入補助範圍？
公佈HDB商業租金
2026年1月10日，針對公眾對商業租金上漲的關注，HDB宣佈，任何HDB商鋪的成功投標者須承諾租金維持兩個租期共六年，而非一個三年租期，以鼓勵謹慎投標。
這些措施可能促使更謹慎的投標，但對高人流區域商鋪的影響尚待觀察。
大多數HDB商鋪為私人持有，約8,500間，HDB出租約7,000間。部分商鋪，尤其是咖啡店，HDB承認部分承租人對個別攤位加收高額租金，而他們向HDB支付的租金基本保持穩定。
我於2025年10月呼籲HDB公開轉租租金資訊。2026年1月10日HDB宣佈將收集攤位租金資料，之後決定如何公開。
我建議所有HDB商業租金，包括轉租，應在易於訪問的中央平臺公開。儘管大多數HDB商業物業為私人持有，基本租金資訊可在其他渠道獲得，但HDB提供集中資訊將方便市場參與者和新入者，尤其是小企業，做出明智租賃決策，無論房東是HDB還是私人。
設立租金監管委員會
阿扎爾·奧斯曼（提名議員）：鑑於近期對租金上漲不滿事件，我建議設立類似公共交通理事會的獨立監管法定機構，隸屬國家發展部，負責監控市場租金水平。此舉將向公眾保證，政府正採取有效措施解決新加坡人面臨的租金問題。
此外，理事會成員將能夠識別潛在的洗錢活動，尤其是在租金異常高的情況下。目前，租金價格一般可接受的漲幅在3%至15%之間。任何超出此範圍的增長都應在批准或不批准繼續之前進行仔細審查。
主席：Louis Chua先生，您可以將您的兩次發言合併進行。
現有鎮區食品和飲料的可及性
Chua Kheng Wee Louis先生（盛港）：主席，早在2023年的財政預算辯論以及同年關於建屋發展局（修訂）法案的辯論中，我就曾表達過對新加坡小販中心和咖啡店分佈不均的擔憂。快進到2026年，盛港終於擁有了自己的小販中心，布昂谷於2023年開業，安可谷村於2024年開業。隨著河濱岸區的竣工，整個河濱岸區約有18,000戶家庭終於擁有了不止一家咖啡店。
國土部在早前的財政預算答覆中提到，大多數居民可以在距離家中400米內，或大約步行五到十分鐘的範圍內，訪問帶有美食廣場或餐飲場所的商業設施。那麼問題是，有多少比例的居民需要步行超過400米才能到達美食廣場或餐飲場所？
雖然我理解新的建屋發展局組屋專案確實包含零售和餐飲選項，但仍有跨越鄰里範圍的區域內外缺乏此類設施。一個例子是2025年3月啟動的西南專案的經濟套餐，旨在在社群核心位置放置80臺自動售貨機供居民購買。隨後，這些自動售貨機也安裝在榜鵝，引用副總理顏金勇的話，他希望在榜鵝部署更多此類自動售貨機，方便居民。
在盛港，經過與建屋發展局和外部供應商的合作期後，我們終於在三個地點設有熱食自動售貨機和咖啡館：108號河濱岸步道、188C號河濱岸大道和288B號指南針谷環路。我感謝供應商，作為初始供應商退出後的替代者，儘管面臨需求不確定和高額固定及運營成本等各種挑戰，仍承諾支援該專案。
我希望建屋發展局能考慮在各鎮區大規模招標多個地點，而非在榜鵝、盛港或其他鎮區引入零散專案，以確保所有新加坡居民，尤其是目前家中400米內沒有美食廣場或餐飲場所的居民，都能獲得負擔得起且易於獲取的餐飲。這將為潛在經營者提供足夠的規模經濟，使其業務更具可持續性和可見度。此外，建屋發展局從中獲得的額外租金收入不應成為主要考慮因素，因為自動售貨機佔地面積小，空置的底層空間本來就不會產生收入，因此不存在機會成本問題。
我敦促國土部考慮在全島範圍內推廣類似舉措，就像它在建屋發展局底層空間試點的Pick Locker網路一樣，方便所有居民。負擔得起的食品獲取不應取決於居住的區屬。
重新審視執行共管公寓模式
主席，新加坡執行共管公寓（EC）的價格在過去十年飛漲。EC被宣傳為年輕夫婦購買私人公寓的更實惠選擇，但他們無力負擔。可以理解，EC的每平方英尺價格會高於轉售組屋。但我認為，如今的價格已過於昂貴，無法實現其最初的意圖。
EC被定位為更高階但可負擔的公私合營混合住房，其溢價可與轉售組屋市場比較。2016年，轉售組屋的平均每平方英尺價格約為424新元，EC約為782新元，差距約為84%。2021年，轉售組屋為488新元，EC為1,176新元，差距達141%。到2024年，轉售組屋約為603新元，EC為1,531新元，差距達154%。這些數字會因組屋和EC所在社群型別而異，但作為大致比較基礎仍有參考價值。
絕對價格差異更為顯著。2016年新EC的平均價格約為86萬新元，轉售組屋為43.9萬新元，差額約42.1萬新元。到2025年，新EC平均價格為170萬新元，轉售組屋為65.2萬新元，差額超過100萬新元。
1996年EC住房計劃推出時，時任國土部長林榮強表示，過去幾年私有物業價格的急劇上漲再次造成了一批夾心階層的年輕人，他們超出組屋收入上限，但買不起私人物業。
首先，我不認識許多能負擔EC的年輕人，尤其是當平均價格高達170萬新元，統計資料也顯示，從2021年到2025年，只有四成EC購買者是首次購房者。即便如此，我認為如果沒有父母的經濟支援，首次購房者很難支付EC所需的首付。
更諷刺的是，根據現行融資規則，目前無法負擔EC的年輕人被認為能夠負擔甚至購買價格更高的私人公寓。這是因為EC適用30%的按揭償還比率，而私人公寓僅適用55%的總債務償還比率。
以每月家庭收入上限16,000新元計算，潛在EC買家可根據30%的按揭償還比率獲得近100萬新元貸款。以當前EC平均價格計算，仍有約70萬新元的缺口。然而，同一家庭若選擇購買私人公寓，可獲得約128萬新元貸款，缺口縮小至約40萬新元。
除了直接增加補貼外，還有兩個簡單方案：提高按揭償還比率，使家庭能承擔更高貸款，以及提高家庭月收入上限，允許更多買家進入市場。但這並未解決EC本身價格的根本可負擔性問題。反而，由於買家群體擴大，可能導致EC價格進一步上漲。
主席，鑑於EC市場日益難以負擔，我敦促國土部認真重新思考現行EC模式，並考慮上游政策，將EC價格調整至符合其最初意圖的範圍。可負擔性和公平獲取應成為新EC模式的核心原則。
組屋居住者的最低居住期限
Sylvia Lim女士（亞歷山大）：先生，建屋發展局的使命是提供負擔得起的優質住房和良好的生活環境，促進社群繁榮。隨著新加坡家庭結構多樣化，建屋發展局需要評估如何在各種不同情況下分配納稅人的補貼和資助，這使使命變得更加複雜。有些人晚年組建家庭，有些人優先考慮多代同堂的照顧，同時生活和職業路徑也不總是線性的。
我想提出審視對非業主，即列名居住者施加的最低居住期限（MOP）政策。這項政策在某些情況下可能給家庭帶來困難。例如，一位喪偶或離異的中年父母想要縮小居住規模，決定購買一套補貼的三房組屋，並將未婚成年子女列為必要居住者。根據建屋發展局政策，MOP期限適用於業主和居住者。標準組屋的MOP為五年，Plus和Prime組屋為十年。
12點整
對僅為居住者的未婚成年子女施加此限制，將限制他們的生活選擇。如果他們後來遇到伴侶但推遲結婚五到十年，可能會錯過關鍵的生育年齡。新加坡面臨極低的總生育率，僅為0.87，遠低於2.1的更替水平。我們的住房政策不應無意中阻礙希望組建家庭的年輕新加坡人。
先生，MOP政策旨在減少公共住房市場投機，這是完全可以理解且值得讚賞的目標。但隨著新加坡家庭結構和生活軌跡日益多樣化，我們的公共住房政策需要響應這些現實。我敦促部委繼續考慮如何更好地完善現有規則和框架，以符合新加坡人的多樣化願望。
重新構想全民置業
Cai Yinzhou先生（碧山-大巴窯）：我們正處於一個轉折點。隨著建屋發展局供應增加以滿足需求，我們必須超越僅提供“有屋可住”，進一步完善社會契約的包容性。我請求部委明確如何優先處理五個關鍵領域。
第一，中產階級壓力。隨著中位家庭收入超過12,000新元，許多年輕夫婦陷入困境——不符合建屋發展局組屋或父母支援計劃（PPHS）資格，卻買不起轉售市場的房屋。是否該調整收入上限以反映當前工資現實？
第二，關於換屋者的流動性。15個月的等待期是必要的冷卻措施，但對處於人生轉折期的家庭和公民來說，仍顯得過於粗糙。我們能否採取更細緻、基於個案的方法，促進換屋？
第三，關於單身人士的願望。許多年輕新加坡人選擇非傳統生活路徑。政府是否會考慮降低組屋資格年齡，從35歲開始，讓他們更早安定未來？
第四，新加坡人與外國配偶通常面臨更嚴格的置業路徑。在全球化環境下，這些家庭的住房穩定關係到我們公民的長期國內穩定。
最後，單親未婚父母面臨最大挑戰，等待時間最長，補貼最少。我請求部委考慮基於子女年齡的更有同情心的優先順序，並平衡補貼，使每個孩子無論家庭結構如何，都能在安全環境中成長。讓我們敢於想象一個新加坡，負擔得起的住房不僅對部分人開放，而是以合適的價格和規模，真正惠及所有人。
主席：Fadli Fawzi先生，請將您的兩次發言合併進行。
放寬租賃組屋的置業路徑
Fadli Fawzi先生（亞歷山大）：主席，我建議改善目前居住在租賃組屋家庭的置業路徑。總理在預算辯論總結講話中提到，賦予新加坡人積累資產的重要性。正如他所說，資產所有權讓家庭在國家成功中擁有實實在在的利益，並能直接分享新加坡的發展成果。
想象一個五口之家住在租賃組屋。父母做多份工作，孩子努力學習。月復一月，他們支付補貼租金，卻一無所獲——沒有房屋資產，沒有可傳承的財富。這是新加坡成千上萬個家庭的現實。2020年，國會獲悉每年只有2%的公共租賃家庭轉為置業。對於90%擁有自住房屋、房屋資產佔家庭財富一半以上的國家來說，租賃組屋家庭需要更多機會。
除了從租賃組屋到置業，從有屋可住到有保障，從生存到繁榮，我首先建議部委重點幫助更多租賃家庭實現置業。
2021年5月，時任部長李顯龍在國會答覆中提到，每年只有2%的租賃家庭轉為置業。對於成功轉變的家庭，這一過程耗時較長。超過三分之一耗時超過10年，三分之一耗時5至10年，三分之一在5年內完成，不到十分之一在3年內成功。
我希望自那時起，隨著增強型住房補貼、階梯式公積金住房補貼和新起點住房計劃等專案的改進，這些數字已有所提升。我也認可建屋發展局置業支援團隊的努力，以及跨部門協調的ComLink+支援。
在這方面，我想問部長：部長設定了哪些目標，以提高每年轉為置業的租賃家庭數量，直至2030年？部委採取了哪些策略縮短家庭從公共租賃住房過渡到自有住房的時間？
我的第二個建議是共享產權試點計劃，幫助家庭更早實現置業。目前，家庭可能想買房，符合社會機構的關鍵評估，但因無法支付現金或公積金首付而受阻。即使有建屋發展局補貼，也需多年穩定工作和儲蓄才能積攢首付。在此期間，家庭錯失置業和積累資產的機會。
試點將針對35歲及以下、目前居住租賃住房的年輕家庭，以及開始組建家庭時申請另一租賃單位的年輕成年人。政府將作為共同所有者，持有約20%的產權，買家只需支付2%的現金或公積金首付，門檻大幅降低。這將減少前期成本和貸款需求。
家庭仍需按月償還按揭，像任何房主一樣。隨著財務狀況改善，他們可分階段回購政府股份。若最終出售房屋，政府按比例收回銷售款。
與租購模式不同，此方法讓家庭早期擁有新房並積累資產。或者，建屋發展局是否可考慮將這些家庭的租金支付轉為抵扣購房成本？
先生，我的目標很簡單。我們必須幫助更多來自困難背景的年輕家庭打破租賃住房迴圈，積極參與建立穩定的置業、寶貴的資產和長期財富，與新加坡共同成長。
舒適的居家養老
一項於2023年10月至2024年4月間進行的研究發現，決策者年齡在65歲及以上的老年家庭現佔建屋發展局所有家庭的三分之一，較2018年的四分之一有所增加。
這是一個顯著的人口結構變化。與此同時，85.9%的老年家庭希望繼續居住在現有組屋，而非搬遷。他們希望實現居家養老。單人家庭數量也在增加。2023年，110萬戶組屋家庭中有15.6%為單人家庭，高於2018年的12.6%。
絕對數字上，五年內增加了超過3萬個單人家庭，其中許多是獨居老人。我們必須理解這在實際生活中的意義。
當今大多數老年人是1946年至1964年出生的嬰兒潮一代。他們通常在二十多歲結婚，1970年代搬入新組屋。這些組屋現已接近50年。
整個鎮區，如勿洛、宏茂橋和海濱坊，反映了這一現實——成熟的社群，老化的組屋和居民，越來越多的人獨居。隨著這些老人和他們的家園一同老去，他們必須應對老化的電氣系統、管道問題、磨損的裝置和過時的電器。這是我在選區家訪中親眼所見。
雖然“活躍長者提升計劃”（EASE）和“家居改善計劃”（HIP）旨在幫助長者在家中保持安全和行動能力，但這些計劃僅提供補貼，而非現金支援，幫助長者在老舊組屋中安全舒適地生活。
此外，即使維修費用從我們的角度看不算高，但對獨居長者來說，可能是沉重的負擔。
有人可能認為，若長者希望繼續居家養老但無力承擔裝修費用，可以通過出租房間或參與“租賃回購計劃”（LBS）變現房屋，但這些計劃主要用於補充退休收入和醫療費用。
尤其是LBS是不可逆的。長者不應被迫考慮變現房屋，僅為支付基本維修費用。
我想請政府考慮為居住在較舊、較小組屋中的老年人提供有針對性的現金支援，他們可能在EASE或HIP維修費用方面遇到困難。這將幫助那些選擇在原地養老的老年人，尤其是那些獨居、沒有親屬在經濟或精神上支援他們的老年人——讓他們能夠有尊嚴、安全和基本舒適地生活。
主席：梁榮華先生，您可以將您的兩段發言合併發表。
安享晚年鄰里計劃
梁榮華先生（武吉班讓）：主席，新加坡今年將成為“超級老齡化”國家。我們面臨的關鍵挑戰不僅僅是壽命的延長，而是生活質量，確保我們的老年人能夠安享晚年，積極參與社交生活，健康地生活在自己的社群中。
總理在去年的國慶集會上宣佈了“安享晚年鄰里計劃”，支援那些偏好在家中養老、且老年人口較多的地區的長者。其目標是讓老年人在社群中有尊嚴地養老，提供如家居維修、健康檢查、社交活動等服務，同時保持融入社群而非孤立。
無障礙通道、治療花園、適合老年人的導向標識、配備低衝擊健身器材的健身角以及醫療和社會服務的共址等特色，都是有意義的改善。我歡迎國土部重新設計我們較舊組屋區的計劃，使老年人能夠舒適地在原地養老，保持活躍和社會聯絡。
大巴窯將成為首批設有安享晚年鄰里的城鎮之一，我期待部長分享全島更廣泛的實施計劃。我也想請部長分享國土部如何與衛生部及社會及家庭發展部合作，將社群護理、積極養老中心和初級醫療服務整合到這些鄰里中？
除了物理基礎設施，原地養老還依賴於社會基礎設施。保持社會聯絡的老年人往往享有更好的健康狀況。我希望國土部能詳細說明城鎮設計如何促進代際互動，例如通過共享社群空間、活動節點以及靠近託兒所或學校。
第二，關於社群護理公寓。社群護理公寓是公共組屋中的一項重要創新。它們將適合老年人的設計與護理服務、公共空間和緊急響應系統結合起來。需求令人鼓舞，許多老年人欣賞這種獨立與支援的結合。
在武吉班讓，我們看到越來越多的老年人希望從較大的組屋換到合適大小的單位，同時保持靠近子女和社交網路。許多人重視熟悉的環境和既有設施。因此，我想請問部長：未來五年社群護理公寓的預計供應量是多少？國土部如何評估不同城鎮的需求？如果入住率持續強勁，供應能多快提升？未來的社群護理公寓是否會探索更靈活的護理套餐，以滿足不同需求層次的老年人？
隨著人口老齡化，住房政策必須與醫療保健和社群護理系統同步發展。目標應是打造鄰里，使老年人能夠無縫過渡不同的養老階段——從獨立生活、支援生活到更高層次的護理——而無需離開熟悉的環境。
在這方面，安享晚年鄰里計劃和社群護理公寓的整合呈現出一個整體模型。一個強化更廣泛的環境；另一個提供有針對性的住房解決方案。兩者結合，可以構建一個全面的原地養老生態系統。我期待部長的回應。
中午12時15分
老齡組屋維護與家居改善計劃II
主席，我宣告本人是人民行動黨組屋管理委員會的協調主席。
儘管我們繼續建設新的建屋發展局組屋，但我們的組屋存量中越來越多的是老齡化的。未來幾年，將有更多組屋超過30年。隨著組屋老化，維護需求增加，不僅是維修頻率更高，維修工作也更復雜且成本更高。
組屋管理委員會在多個方面面臨持續的成本壓力。
首先，市政合同成本大幅上升。保潔服務的招標價格顯著上漲。最近一次續約中，投標價格比之前合同高出多達86%。承包商表示，工資進步模式帶來的勞動力成本上升、外勞住宿成本增加以及更嚴格的運營條件是主要原因。
其他必需服務的成本也大幅上漲。例如，烏鴉、鴿子和齧齒動物的害蟲控制費用呈上升趨勢。園藝合同上漲了多達60%，滲漏維修費用上漲了多達32%。
主席，這些都不是可自由支配的工作，而是保持組屋安全、清潔和宜居的核心服務。
第二，除了成本上漲趨勢，老化基礎設施還需要更大力度的干預。雖然國土部的家居改善計劃和鄰里更新計劃非常有幫助，但日常組屋維護的大部分責任仍由組屋管理委員會承擔。諸如外牆滲漏修復、電梯維護和升級、重鋪屋頂、外部重新佈線、更換照明系統以及結構和外牆修復等工作變得更頻繁且更密集。組屋管理委員會也關注氣動廢物輸送系統的長期維護影響。
雖然最初有補貼支援，但這並非永久性的。因此，隨著時間推移，運營和維護成本必須由組屋管理委員會預算吸收。這些累積壓力不可避免地影響組屋管理委員會的財務狀況，進而影響居民支付的服務與保養費。
政府通過服務與保養費運營補助金、電梯維護補助金和電梯更換基金配套補助金等撥款，每年提供約2.4億新元的實質支援。2023年，國土部還推出了限時特別資金，幫助緩解成本上漲並調節服務與保養費調整。這些支援非常有幫助，但現已到期。
因此，我代表人民行動黨組屋管理委員會感謝國土部和建屋發展局的重大支援。沒有這些支援，服務與保養費會更高。但儘管如此，我仍希望呼籲進一步審視資金框架。
首先，鑑於工資進步模式和監管變化帶來的成本上漲是結構性的而非週期性的，國土部是否考慮調整服務與保養費運營補助金的基線金額，以反映新的成本現實？第二，國土部能否研究為老齡化比例較高、維護強度明顯更大的組屋區提供額外支援？第三，關於工資進步信貸計劃，國土部能否明確長期成本分擔模式及是否會提供過渡性資金？
主席，組屋管理委員會致力於維護清潔、安全和管理良好的組屋區。居民理應期待高標準，但服務與保養費也必須保持可負擔，尤其是對中低收入家庭。
主席，最後，我還想請教部長去年八月提到的家居改善計劃II。他提到該計劃將更為廣泛。能否請部長分享家居改善計劃II的範圍、規模及實施時間表？
自願早期重建計劃
謝耀權先生（裕廊中央）：部長最近在回應議會質詢時表示，自願早期重建計劃（VERS）不應制造“彩票效應”，也不應成為受影響業主的財富增值計劃。
今天，我想提出相反的觀點。雖然VERS不應讓受影響業主獲得暴利，但也不應讓他們吃虧。所有受影響業主都應獲得公平的交易和公平的補償。
根據VERS收購的組屋通常已有70年或更長的產權，換言之，剩餘產權少於29年。這些產權的市場價值相對有限，可能不足以匹配一套全新、同類型且產權至少延續至95歲的替代組屋的價格或市場價值。
在這種情況下，受影響業主通常需要現金補差價。但這對大多數可能是退休且正在消耗財富以維持退休生活的老年業主來說，顯然並不理想。
因此，我敦促部委考慮將VERS的基礎交易，即基礎補償方案，設定為受影響業主無需為新替代組屋補差價。換言之，政府可能需要介入，為受影響業主補貼現金差價。顯然，這樣的補貼或計劃將需要政府動用比僅按市場價值收購產權更多的財政資源。政府實際上需要支付高於市場價值的溢價，以實現對當前受影響業主的公平。
那麼，這樣的補貼應有多大規模？對當前受影響業主而言，公平的估值應如何確定？政府需要採用合理且一致的原則來進行此類評估，以證明更高公共支出的合理性。
我認為一個合理的原則是，有序城市更新本身就有公平成本，超出物業成本。搬遷和重新安置生活有成本，尤其是對部分業主來說可能是非自願的，儘管對大多數是自願的。政府已在租賃回購計劃中按市場價值向仍居住在原處的業主支付租賃權價款。因此，理應有額外成本因搬遷和重新安置而產生並獲得補償。如此，政府才能對所有業主公平。
主席：蔡銀洲先生，您可以將您的兩段發言合併發表。
組屋99年產權適應
蔡銀洲先生：產權遞減是許多新加坡人真正關心的問題。我敦促部委轉變敘事，不再將組屋視為貶值的儲值資產，而應視為“終身之家”。這意味著確保每位新加坡人，無論年齡或能力如何，都能在生活不同階段的需求變化中，帶著尊嚴和安全感，住在同一個家中。
我有四項建議。
第一，重新構想家居改善計劃I和II。部委是否研究過在升級期間增加改造選項？對於多代同堂家庭，可包括空間隔斷和隔音。並將EASE擴充套件至支援有特殊需要家庭成員的家庭。
第二，技術支援的長者護理。我們能否擴充套件家居改善計劃，納入內建跌倒檢測感測器、消防噴淋和緊急報警按鈕？
第三，關注社會中最脆弱群體。根據我去年十月提交的議會質詢，超過五萬套公共租賃組屋中僅有7,000套配備空調。部委是否考慮為公共租賃組屋提供更多資源以增強氣候適應性，鑑於這些組屋空間有限且結構上不利於自然通風？
第四，創造成功空間。如果教育是偉大的社會平衡器，那麼學習空間是基本公平的基礎設施。在擁擠的兩房租賃組屋中，六個孩子沒有安靜角落或專用書桌，更別說六個孩子各自有了。我們已有EASE計劃支援長者。我建議在ComLink+下設立新的ACCESS計劃。ACCESS將為租賃組屋中有幼兒的家庭提供模組化、節省空間傢俱的里程碑激勵。正如預算辯論中所建議的，ACCESS可代表“適應性、緊湊、以兒童為中心、小空間增強”。
如果我們真正相信社會流動性，就必須優先設計流動性起點的空間。“終身之家”不僅是口號，更是確保居民對社群的長期安全感，他們不僅有屋頂遮蔽，更有信心在此紮根成長。
城市發展中的第三空間
我已故的祖母住在舊機場路，她的生活和友誼深深紮根於此。2014年，當附近的達哥達組屋居民被告知搬遷時，我創辦了“達哥達探險”，與長者居民共同帶領超過1,500名新加坡人參觀，包括尊敬的傅瑾部長。
2017年，當時的黃循財部長宣佈保護15棟組屋中的6棟，以便未來世代能在此建立回憶。
我們需要更健全且本地化的城市更新框架。部委是否會推行正式的社會與遺產影響評估？這將使我們能夠主動重新構想現有空間，而非事後保護。同時，也能考慮潛在搬遷對尤其是老年居民的遺產和社會影響。
此外，我們的ABC水道網路穿越家園和社群，長達8,000公里。我希望部委能超越僅以“水景”作為推廣方式，轉而納入活躍的“藍色空間”，用於水上運動、釣魚等休閒活動，甚至考慮探索水上交通。
主席，我期待一個更具社會和遺產意識的城市景觀願景，真正反映如達哥達組屋等地標的社會價值，該地標至今仍被珍藏。
主席：陳德麟先生，您可以將您的兩段發言合併發表。
重新思考重建
陳德麟先生（後港）：在我一月的休會動議中，我談到了重新思考綠地保護的緊迫需求。對此，國務部長將實龍崗河森林地塊描述為前垃圾填埋場，植被已再生，包含“以外來物種為主的年輕次生林、灌木叢、草地和池塘”。
我隨後收到居民韓賽波女士的反饋，她指出政策缺口的核心問題。她說，分歧不在於可持續發展的意圖，而在於土地估值和靜態規劃的問題。我們當前的規劃體系嚴重依賴過去。如果一個地塊在1998年是垃圾填埋場，或幾十年前被劃為保留地，這種歷史分類似乎凌駕於2026年的生物現實之上。
然而，過去25年，自然已重新佔據這些空間。雖然是次生林而非原生林，但它們為密集社群提供了前線氣候韌性、河岸穩定、徑流過濾和顯著的城市降溫。
這是動態規劃的案例。我們必須摒棄純粹以物種為中心、忽視年輕森林的土地觀念，轉而關注居民對城市熱島效應的擔憂。樹木非本地種並不意味著其降溫功能較弱。一些國家已將棕地復興作為自然基礎解決方案戰略的重要政策議題。我們是否也該開始如此？當前規劃框架是否充分重視這些再生生態系統？在決定是否清理地塊時，如何量化生態系統服務價值，如洪水調節和降溫？
關於透明度和評估的堅定承諾。生態敏感性的判定仍不透明。目前，公眾通常只有在專案確定後才能看到環境影響評估（EIA）結果。我們很少看到決定無需EIA的篩選過程。然而，早在1990年，湯米·許教授在新加坡自然學會《新加坡自然保護總體規劃》的前言中就表達了希望，“新加坡所有開發專案都將需要環境影響評估”。
我呼籲國土部將其評估框架整合為兩項強制承諾。
一、綜合基線和功能評估，部委承諾對所有林地地塊，無論分割槽如何，進行基線研究，評估生物多樣性和氣候功能角色，包括降溫和洪水吸收，且在任何開發決策最終確定前完成。
二、制度化EIA透明度。部委是否會強制執行EIA，並設定更明確的休耕期限和地塊規模閾值？研究顯示，棕地地塊可在5至10年內變得生態重要，且再過10年可成為成熟生態系統。即使是0.1至0.5公頃的小地塊，也可能在同一時間段內因其功能和位置而具生態意義。關鍵是，如果政府決定無需EIA，部委能否公佈評估和科學依據？
總結，避免-減少-緩解的層級原則是環境政策基石。但我們常常直接跳到緩解，例如使用隔音屏障或分階段清理，而避免被視為既定事實。
例項如實龍崗河森林的公交車場建設。我們必須徹底評估替代方案，如多層工業車場和現有交通節點，方可觸及剩餘綠地緩衝區。
中午12時30分
所有組屋單位同層電梯直達
組屋發展局（HDB）於2001年啟動了電梯升級計劃，旨在為居民提供每層樓的電梯通達。今年的財政預算案中，我再次呼籲為所有居民提供同層電梯通達。這不僅僅是便利問題，更是公平、安全和尊嚴的根本問題。
隨著人口老齡化，幾級臺階成為每日難以逾越的障礙，將老年人和行動不便者與社群及基本服務隔離開來。
過去幾年，我代表沒有同層電梯通達的居民多次致函HDB申訴，HDB的常見回覆是，由於成本高昂和/或技術限制，此類組屋不符合電梯升級計劃（LUP）的資格。
在後港，近期的突破既令人歡迎又令人困惑。2023年，HDB開始為後港中央833座實施電梯升級計劃。2025年9月，HDB為後港大道5號363座剩餘單位提供了電梯升級計劃。2024年9月6日，HDB書面回覆我為363座一名居民的申訴，明確表示每單位成本“已大幅超過電梯升級計劃的成本上限，因此無法實施電梯升級計劃”。然而，僅僅12個月後，HDB改變了主意。
830、831、832和835座的受影響居民不解為何HDB為833座和363座剩餘單位提供了電梯升級計劃，卻未涵蓋他們的組屋。HDB未對其改變決定提供任何理由。
國家發展部長於2026年2月3日對我的國會質詢中透露，新加坡140座無全層電梯通達的組屋中，有100座因電梯升級成本超過每單位20萬新元而仍不可行。部長還表示，電梯升級計劃將逐步擴充套件至另外40座組屋。我們希望知道這些組屋具體是哪幾座，以及電梯升級計劃何時會啟動？有了明確的路線圖，剩餘組屋的居民將不再處於焦慮的等待狀態。
儘管電梯通達住房補貼提高至8萬新元，許多受影響居民告訴我，他們不願搬遷，想要有尊嚴地留在家中。這些建築障礙源自90年代中期之前的過時設計，居民並非自願選擇。事實上，最近一次家訪中，一位832座的居民告訴我，當初選購單位時，並未被告知該單位沒有同層電梯通達，而同座其他單位則有。
無論這是歷史建築債務還是HDB的債務，提供同層電梯通達對所有HDB業主來說都是公平的。
因此，我想請教部長：第一，請為40座組屋的電梯升級計劃設定明確時間表，讓居民儘快瞭解HDB對他們的計劃。第二，請考慮取消對剩餘100座組屋的硬性成本上限，並預留專項資金支援電梯升級計劃。
前後港國會議員馮榮發先生曾在本議院表示，為什麼受影響的組屋未與鄰近組屋合併進行早期的大規模電梯升級計劃，而是後來單獨招標？前者可能更具成本效益，更何況電梯升級成本在10至15年前，或至少在疫情前，肯定更低。
主席先生，我們不能讓剩餘無同層電梯通達的居民被過去時代的技術限制所定義。我敦促政府跨越這最後一里路，確保每位HDB業主都能有尊嚴地享受同層電梯通達。
主席：洪偉能先生，請將您的兩段發言合併。
分割單元
洪偉能先生（西海岸-裕廊西）：主席，我們注意到約有100座HDB組屋因估算成本超過每單位20萬新元而無法受益於電梯升級計劃。雖然理解成本限制，但我們希望HDB繼續研究新的工程解決方案和新興技術，以擴充套件電梯通達至這些剩餘組屋。
大量受影響組屋位於南洋，許多居民每天仍面臨無障礙挑戰。許多分割單元的家庭在30多年前購買，當時每層樓直接電梯通達尚非普遍設計。年輕時，他們行動自如，也欣賞該設計帶來的隱私。但如今，隨著年齡增長，每天多次爬樓梯才能乘電梯變得越來越困難，甚至對部分人來說不安全。這歸根結底是關於居家養老、尊嚴和包容性公共住房的問題。
如果電梯升級計劃對這些組屋仍不可行，我恭敬建議HDB考慮若干政策調整。
首先，關於電梯通達支援的資格。目前，家庭通常需提供醫療證明，證明居住者是輪椅使用者或有嚴重行動障礙。然而，許多70歲及以上的長者可能尚未嚴重行動不便，但面臨逐步衰退和跌倒風險增加。
我們希望HDB考慮將電梯通達住房補貼擴充套件至至少一名居住者年齡70歲及以上的家庭，類似於個人行動輔助器具的資格標準。早期介入可預防困難，而非僅在行動能力顯著惡化後才響應。
第二，關於長期住房結果。分割單元業主若欲出售，HDB可研究以市場價回購的可行性，並與裕廊工業區管理局（JTC）或其他機構合作，將單位租給更能應對步行樓梯的租戶。這有助於避免未來老年居民反覆面臨同樣的無障礙限制。
第三，關於市場透明度。若回購不可行，HDB或可要求向潛在買家明確披露這些單位在可預見未來內不太可能受益於電梯升級計劃，確保買家做出知情決定，避免不切實際的期望。
主席，這100座組屋的居民並非要求特殊待遇，他們只是希望有公平機會在自己的家中安全獨立地養老，就像大多數HDB家庭現在享有直接電梯通達一樣。我希望HDB和國家發展部繼續審視政策選項，推動更包容、更適老的公共住房體系。
害鳥問題
主席，每年國家發展部收到約22,000宗關於害鳥的公眾反饋，這數字不小。每宗反饋背後都是一位居民的日常生活受影響。持續的噪音導致失眠，家園和公共區域被鳥糞汙染，甚至出現居民被攻擊的令人擔憂的情況。在南洋，我們親眼目睹了此類事件。
新加坡人支援我們的“自然之城”願景，但共存不能以犧牲公共安全、衛生和宜居性為代價。當不便持續存在時，我們必須更果斷地採取行動。
請問部長：目前負責管理害鳥反饋的國家公園局（NParks）團隊人力規模是多少？鑑於每年持續大量的案件，現有資源是否充足？
根據NParks的鴿子管理計劃，工作仍主要集中於鴿子。我敦促NParks在國家發展部更廣泛的人與野生動物管理框架下，向綜合害鳥管理方向發展，涵蓋對其他適應城市環境的物種，如八哥和烏鴉的管理，尤其當它們持續給居民帶來不便時。
這需要系統性方法：加強對非法喂鳥的執法，嚴格控制餐飲和市場周邊的食物廢棄物，社群層面的棲息地管理，以及必要時基於科學的種群控制。在這方面，我歡迎NParks決定恢復射殺烏鴉。
主席，我建議國家發展部加強害鳥管理的專項資金和人力，並制定明確的國家戰略，設定可衡量的目標，在未來幾年減少害鳥案件、攻擊事件和環境滋擾。
烏鴉種群管理
普里坦·辛格先生：主席，我於2月19日提交了發言稿，在部長2月23日公開談及國家發展部如何管理烏鴉種群之前。既然部長的言論已闡明未來方向，我想就撲殺問題提出一點。NParks一直協助市鎮理事會，幫助拆除巢穴和安裝臨時陷阱以控制烏鴉種群。請問部委能否分享關於撲殺，特別是射殺作為減少烏鴉種群手段的相關程式？
何時以及如何判定某地區的烏鴉數量已超過可接受水平或過度繁殖？
我瞭解到國家發展部近月來與新加坡警察部隊合作，計劃重啟射殺烏鴉。此合作取得了什麼成果？部長能否更新何時將在所有市鎮理事會實施此措施？頻率如何？又將採取哪些措施確保公眾安全？
保持空調機架無鳥糞
阿卜杜勒·穆海敏·阿卜杜勒·馬利克先生（盛港）：主席，雖然我認可NParks試點專案中市鎮理事會鴿子數量減少了50%的鼓舞人心成果，但我必須強調此問題的緊迫性。鴿子不僅是滋擾，更帶來真正的健康風險。它們的糞便攜帶隱球菌病、組織胞漿菌病和鸚鵡熱等危險疾病。乾燥的鳥糞變成塵埃，居民吸入受汙染顆粒，可能導致嚴重呼吸道感染，尤其影響老年人和免疫力低下者。
除了健康問題，居民還承擔經濟成本。一位選民分享，他不得不聘請空調專家清洗壓縮機，因為鴿子反覆在上面排洩，費用自理，問題卻非他所致。
還有多少居民默默承受類似不便和開支？我擔憂推廣速度。NParks試點於2024年7月啟動，最初涵蓋三個市鎮理事會，直到2025年6月才擴充套件至另外三個，近一年時間。許多社群仍持續遭遇鴿子問題，部長能否提供明確時間表，將該計劃推廣至所有剩餘市鎮理事會？受影響地區居民不能無限期等待緩解。
關於35戶的網罩試驗，我建議部委考慮縮短試驗週期，以更快收集足夠資料。這將使有效方案更早推廣至受影響社群，給居民帶來急需的緩解。有效的鴿子管理需要政府領導、社群合作和充足資源。我們的居民應享有清潔、安全、衛生的居住環境，免受可預防的健康危害和不必要的經濟負擔。
主席：李慧女士，您可以將兩段發言合併。
城市空間中的動物
李慧瑩女士（義順）：主席，動物是我們共享環境的重要組成部分。我們持續收到關於動物福利的反饋，證明居民期望社會不僅高效，更和諧有禮。
我們已取得長足進步，但仍需更多努力。近期一名男子剪斷社群貓鬍鬚的事件在網路上引發關注，提醒我們社群中仍潛藏虐待行為。部委2026年在動物福利立法方面有何具體計劃？
隨著空間綠化，城市鳥類數量上升，我們一直在與大自然玩貓捉老鼠的遊戲，採用生態敏感的解決方案。雖然鴿子數量控制取得一定成效，但我們仍面臨家烏鴉數量激增，影響所有居民。
隨著射殺烏鴉成為最新控制措施，我想問：關於射殺的操作規程，尤其是在住宅區使用時，有哪些保障措施以最大限度減少公眾暴露，特別是兒童？能否安排在學校通勤時間之外，避開學校和遊樂場附近兒童聚集區域進行？
有效執法至關重要。除了被動措施，如何加強對非法餵食的執法？是否計劃加強熱點區域監控、提高重複違規者處罰、定期修剪樹木或加強公眾教育？NParks是否擁有足夠執法資源？
12點45分
上游措施——更好的廢棄物管理和環境設計——能否加強，以減少對射殺的依賴？部委是否考慮進行生態影響評估，研究撲殺對本地生物多樣性的更廣泛影響？
讓我們從源頭著手，避免問題演變成全面的“烏鴉危機”。
建築業在建成環境中的挑戰
隨著第五航站樓等重大基礎設施專案推進，我們的建築業持續面臨顯著的成本和人力壓力。政策必須精心調整，以支援勞動力轉型和企業可持續發展。
我接觸過的建築商，包括部分居民，歡迎由部長領導的新行動小組，對行業給予強有力領導和關注。他們關心部委的長期規劃，如何發展基礎設施、人力和人才儲備，確保供應滿足需求。
我有以下建議。
第一，關於外勞成本。S準證資格薪金的週期性提高造成“多米諾效應”，不必要地推高企業成本。與其提高薪金，永久性增加工資賬單，不僅針對外勞，連帶公司其他員工薪資也需相應上漲。承包商建議改為提高工人徵費，這樣政府仍能獲得收入，同時避免過度支付工人要求的薪資。
第二，承包商面臨日益波動的環境。國家發展部是否已充分規劃，避免供應鏈中斷？例如，是否有足夠的搭建和棄料場地，裕廊港處理水泥進口的能力是否充足，工人宿舍是否滿足預計需求？
第三，本地人才是國家韌性關鍵。年輕新加坡人因工作時間長、工地環境艱苦而避開建築業，本地核心勞動力也在老齡化。我們不能僅依賴流動勞動力。國家發展部如何重新設計建築職業，吸引並留住大量本地人才？
第四，承包商責任框架。這也阻礙本地人進入行業。過度責任恐懼可能使人畏縮，但安全不可妥協。建築與建設局法案下的處罰是否合理，既維護標準，又不製造恐懼氛圍，阻礙有能力的領導者？
第三，隨著數字化推進，法規是否跟上？若期待轉型，政策、法規和支援必須同步推進——
主席：納迪婭·艾哈邁德·桑丁女士，您可以將兩段發言合併。
功能性自然之城
納迪婭·艾哈邁德·桑丁女士（宏茂橋）：謝謝主席。部長先生，新加坡被全球認可為世界上最綠化的城市之一。儘管城市化廣泛，我們的綠地覆蓋率仍達40%。這得益於一代代人的承諾和有意為之。
2020年，國家發展部推出願景，致力將新加坡轉型為“自然之城”。自然不僅關乎美學。我們從小就學到，自然是功能性的。不同物種各司其職，在生態系統中協同工作。作為氣候基礎設施，樹冠和綠色緩衝區緩解城市熱島效應，降低冷卻需求，使積極出行成為可能。社會上，自然提供休閒和鍛鍊空間，支援心理健康和恢復性空間。經濟上，遊客從抵達機場起就被我們的自然之城形象吸引。
自然是唯一同時具備降溫、保護、過濾和再生功能的基礎設施。許多人視城市化為自然的對立面，但新加坡如何平衡兩者的實踐提供了不同視角。這是我們卓越之處的一部分。如果規劃得當，自然不會與我們的城市未來發展計劃競爭，而是保障它。
在這方面，國家發展部能否分享如何權衡取捨，將自然（包括現有動植物保護）納入新建和即將建設的組屋設計原則，以提升抗熱能力和應對海平面上升挑戰？
在國家發展部推動的自然之城計劃中，已設定多項2030目標，包括動植物物種恢復計劃，以及森林、海洋和沿海棲息地修復。我讚賞這些努力。NParks能否更新過去五年加強生態連通性和生物多樣性敏感設計的舉措，以及未來計劃？
同時，我們認識到人民是自然之城的共同居民。國家願景之一是每戶家庭距離公園不超過10分鐘。這也意味著野生動物距離我們僅10分鐘，增加了人與野生動物的互動和衝突——從猴子到水獺，從野豬到蛇，從犀鳥到貘，從馬鹿到遷徙的鸛。
我想問，建屋發展局（MND）是否觀察到過去五年內事件的趨勢，包括遷徙動物的事件？MND是否評估過現有的計劃、應急小組和協議是否仍然足夠？MND如何看待長期策略中遏制、威懾與共存之間的平衡？最後，我們是否在公共教育上投入足夠，使“城市中的自然”被理解為超越植樹的共同目標和責任？
住房型別多樣化
新加坡的公共住房系統也因大規模提供可負擔的優質住房而獲得全球認可。我們的住房不僅提供庇護，還構建社群，促進組屋區的社會凝聚力。雖然與其他城市相比，擁有住房的比例仍然相當高，但重點通常是支援年輕夫婦和首次置業者應對不斷上漲的成本，這當然對國家建設至關重要。
但如今人口和家庭規劃動態正在變化。鑑於我們社會老齡化、總生育率、結婚和離婚率的變化，我們有更多單身人士、二次置業者和強烈希望原地養老的長者。我們的公共住房供應是否已完全適應這些變化？
或許需要重新多樣化住房型別，以支援新加坡人在其一生中不斷變化的需求和願望。更廣泛的選擇範圍將使公民不僅能找到符合收入的住房，還能匹配其人生階段和理想。
在我之前的發言中，我曾談及更好支援希望與家人鄰近或同住的夫婦和家庭的必要性。早期，一對年輕夫婦首次購買三房組屋（BTO）後，隨著時間推移可以期望擁有其他型別的住房，如巨型組屋、複式單位、行政公寓，甚至低層和排屋公共住房。這些選項提供了更多的配置和生活多樣性，超越了簡單的改造擴建或從公共住房轉向私人住宅，而後者越來越難以實現。
如今，組屋型別基本保持不變，實際上隨著我們最佳化速度和規模，型別變得更加相似。MND如何審視新加坡人的住房願望？是否考慮在未來專案中探索一些獨特的戶型，例如適合照護的雙鑰匙或模組化佈局？
我想簡要談談另外三個群體。
首先，離婚者試圖重新安置住所。許多人經歷長時間等待、高昂的臨時租金和不確定性。除了“二次置業援助計劃”（ASSIST）等方案外，MND是否考慮為這一群體提供其他形式的支援，幫助他們開啟新生活？
第二，單身人士迄今通常只能購買兩房、靈活式或轉售組屋。鑑於兩房靈活式組屋深受單身和長者歡迎，部委是否考慮擴大選擇？畢竟，許多人還要照顧與他們同住的年邁父母，以應對緊急情況，或在週末幫助侄子侄女。
最後，對於那些想擁有自己的空間但尚無能力負擔的人，部委近年來試驗了兩種住房型別：單人房共享設施（SRSF）和聯合單身計劃運營模式。由於這兩種模式均受歡迎，未來有何計劃擴大這些專案的範圍？過去幾年，住房擁有支援團隊服務了多少租賃家庭？成功率如何？是否有計劃整合——
主席：傅策祥先生。
讓更多新加坡人擁有住房
傅策祥先生（丹戎巴葛選區）：主席，新加坡的住房從來不僅僅是為人遮風擋雨。它還意味著給予每個新加坡人對國家的歸屬感。
先生，我要感謝建屋發展局和組屋局多年來為實現這一使命所做的努力，同時應對人口結構和偏好的變化。
1980年至2025年間，常住人口從240萬增長到420萬。與此同時，平均家庭規模從1980年的約五人減少到2025年的三人。因此，在此期間，組屋局不得不將組屋數量從33萬增加到超過120萬，同時還要滿足提升質量和設計的期望。
在這種背景下，國家發展部長提出的“多建快建”指令非常恰當且及時。
去年總統致辭的補充中，MND宣佈組屋局將審查BTO組屋的收入上限，並研究更多適合單身、長者及大家庭的住房選項。還表示將為更多租賃家庭提供過渡至擁有住房的援助。我希望部委能提供最新進展。
此外，我還想進一步為兩類新加坡人發聲。
第一，擁有非居民配偶且無新加坡公民或永久居民子女的新加坡人。目前，這類新加坡人只有在年滿35歲且首次置業時，才能購買組屋局的兩房靈活式組屋。我請求MND考慮放寬此要求，允許這類新加坡人購買所有戶型的組屋，且無年齡限制。
先生，正如副總理顏金勇在議會中指出，新加坡面臨生育率降至歷史低點0.87的生存挑戰。我們需要支援所有夫婦的育兒之路。
在這方面，跨國婚姻呈上升趨勢。過去三年，每四對公民婚姻中就有一對是與非居民結婚。這是一個顯著比例，正如其他議員所提，年輕夫婦在決定是否生育時，擁有足夠大的住房是關鍵考慮因素之一。
限制擁有非居民配偶的新加坡人只能購買兩房靈活式組屋，實際上限制了25%的潛在父母生育。鑑於我們的生存挑戰，這一比例風險過高。我們需要支援所有夫婦的育兒之路，包括新加坡人與非居民組成的家庭。
第二，55歲以上長者希望購買短期租約的兩房靈活式組屋。上個月我在議會中詢問，MND是否考慮將“終身擁有”條件放寬至剩餘租約覆蓋最年輕業主至83.5歲（即預期壽命年齡），而非95歲。這樣可讓長者購買更實惠的短租兩房靈活式組屋。對他們而言，這可能是從租房轉向擁有住房的關鍵。
MND回應稱，許多長者壽命超過83.5歲，若放寬條件將影響“終身擁有”政策。我理解將年齡設為95歲的政策理由，覆蓋大多數新加坡人。但實際上，未能活到95歲的新加坡人可能比活到95歲的更多。
因此，我的問題是，MND是否考慮為這類長者設立方案，允許他們購買剩餘租約覆蓋最年輕業主至85歲的短期兩房靈活式組屋？關鍵條件是若業主在租約到期前搬出或去世，組屋將無償歸還組屋局，業主或其繼承人不獲退款或賠償。
這些提前歸還的剩餘租約組屋可用於安置同一方案下壽命超過85歲、租約已到期的其他長者。整體方案層面，這將符合我們的“終身擁有”原則。
放寬組屋資格
洪偉能先生：主席，我們欣慰組屋局已清理了因新冠疫情積壓的BTO申請。約13,000套組屋將於2026年達到五年最短居住期（MOP），幾乎是去年的兩倍。
同時，組屋轉售價格漲幅去年放緩至2.9%，為2019年以來最低。隨著供應改善和價格壓力緩解，現在是調整資格政策的合適時機，讓更多新加坡人能獲得可負擔住房，同時保持市場穩定和財政責任。
首先，我敦促組屋局審查單身人士BTO購屋資格年齡，考慮降至30歲。如今許多單身人士更早尋求穩定，承擔家庭責任，想建設未來。擁有住房不僅是庇護，更是尊嚴、安全和社會歸屬感。
第二，我們可以更新首次置業家庭的BTO收入上限。自2019年以來，14,000新元的上限未變，儘管名義工資上漲超過25%。越來越多年輕夫婦收入超出上限，卻買不起私人住房或行政公寓。將上限提高至16,000新元，可讓公共住房對廣大中產階層保持可及，符合經濟現實。
下午1點
第三，我希望MND能免除私宅業主因離婚或經濟困難出售私宅後，購買組屋四房或以下轉售組屋需等待15個月的限制。這將提供穩定性，同時避免需求過熱。
主席，供應改善時，政策需跟上。住房不僅關乎市場，更關乎人民。
主席：齊部長。
國家發展部長（齊鴻達先生）：主席，我感謝議員們的提問和建議。
過去60年，我們共同努力建設新加坡。我們為新加坡人提供了可負擔且易獲得的公共住房，實現了世界最高的擁有住房率之一。我們發展了強大的建造環境行業，能在密集的城市環境中高效規劃、建造和維護大型專案。我們通過長期規劃，整合不同用途，最大化有限土地的整體價值，平衡當前和未來世代的需求。
我們需要在堅實基礎上繼續前進。今年的財政預算演講中，我想介紹MND未來幾年的三大重點。
第一，我們將繼續履行住房承諾，保持充足供應。我們將多建快建，以滿足新加坡人不斷變化的住房需求。高階國務部長孫先生和高階議員哈倫將詳細介紹提升組屋區宜居性的努力。印德拉妮部長和國務部長陳先生將談論提升私人住宅區宜居性及“城市中的自然”計劃。
第二，我們將繼續轉型建造環境行業，實現更高生產力、可持續性和韌性，為人民創造更多優質就業。印德拉妮部長將介紹相關內容。
第三，國務部長陳先生將總結，分享新加坡發展更長期規劃，平衡不同土地使用需求，處理有限空間內的權衡。
先生，過去幾年，我們重點改善首次購房者的負擔能力和可及性。這仍是MND的重點。
我們提供了充足的組屋供應，並預留更多單位給首次置業家庭。首次置業家庭申請三房及以上BTO組屋的中位申請倍率，從2020年近七倍降至2025年間的1.1至1.9倍。最近一次BTO銷售中，首次置業家庭的中位申請倍率為0.9倍。
這是好訊息，但若包括二次置業家庭，三房及以上BTO組屋的整體申請倍率為2.6倍。單身和長者申請兩房靈活式組屋的倍率也較高。
這些數字反映了公共住房持續強勁的需求，也說明我們未來幾年需保持充足供應。
我們現在有能力滿足不同群體的新加坡人的額外住房需求。許多議員，包括郭振輝先生、傅策祥先生和納迪亞·艾哈邁德·桑丁女士，都對此表示關注。
我們將通過提供不同的合適規模和變現選項，支援長者，並使社群更適合長者居住。對於低收入家庭，我們將繼續改善公共租賃住房。我們也在審查方案，更好滿足需要搬遷或因子女增多而換大房的家庭需求。高階國務部長孫先生和高階議員哈倫將分享更多。
議員們也詢問了支援單身人士的最新計劃。近年來，我們已採取措施改善單身人士的住房選擇。2024年引入新的組屋分類框架後，首次置業單身人士可在全島範圍內購買BTO組屋，而不僅限於非成熟組屋區。自此，單身人士首次在金文泰、勿洛、宏茂橋和加冷-黃埔等鎮預訂組屋。去年，我們還將家庭照護計劃的優先權擴充套件至單身人士，方便他們申請與父母同住或鄰近的新組屋。
政府正考慮提高所有購房者的收入上限，降低單身人士購組屋的資格年齡。我們也在審查方案，更好滿足其他單身群體的需求，例如希望與家人共同購買更大組屋者。
但要為單身人士及其他購房群體做更多，組屋局需建造更多組屋，確保供應充足以滿足更高需求。
因此，自我接手MND以來，我一直強調的重點是多建快建。
今年，組屋局將推出約19,600套BTO組屋。其中，超過4,000套為短等候時間組屋，等待時間少於三年。我們還將從2026年至2028年將兩房靈活式組屋供應增加近50%，以滿足長者和單身人士日益增長的需求。這包括加快在舊鎮注入新住房的努力。讓我分享兩個例子。
第一個是位於烏節區附近的珍珠山社群，靠近中央商務區。藉助新組屋分類框架下的Plus和Prime組屋額外補貼，我們能為不同購房群體提供位於極具吸引力地段的可負擔公共住房。我們還為符合條件的首次置業家庭提供最高12萬新元的購屋補貼，進一步降低購房成本。
時隔40多年，我們將在珍珠山建造公共住房。新組屋專案將位於歐南園地鐵站旁，珍珠山城市公園山腳下。專案包括兩房靈活式、三房和四房BTO組屋及公共租賃組屋。
設計理念借鑑附近牛車水的文化遺產，靈感來自“山水畫”，如同描繪山川流水的中國畫。我們的願景是讓居民在珍珠山的寧靜中生活，同時與城市的活力緊密相連。
新專案底層將設有綠色公共空間，類似河流平原。上層設有瀑布式水景，用於暴雨時管理雨水。綠色樹冠將提供遮蔭，與附近公園的綠意無縫連線。這些設施也將惠及更廣泛的珍珠山社群，公園與地鐵站之間將實現無障礙通行。
住宅樓將設計成不同高度，宛如畫中的山脊。樓內設有空中花園和露臺，提供不同層次的景觀視角，讓居民從多個角度欣賞周邊環境。
根據我們的城市設計指南，我們將保留一條40米寬的視線走廊，確保新建築間無遮擋。空氣和光線可流通，避免高樓壓迫景觀，讓公眾享受珍珠山城市公園的視野。
該專案將包括新加坡有史以來最高的公共住房建築，高達60層。
先生，60層並非首創，國內外已有更高住宅樓。但60層將比我們目前最高的組屋專案“濱海灣峰”高出10層以上。
這是我們通過提高土地使用強度和儘可能建造更高樓宇，尋找更多公共住房建設方式的努力之一。60層樓可比40層樓（目前大多數最高組屋高度）多提供50%的單位。
目前，大多數高樓位於中央區，因樟宜和實裡達機場周邊的航空高度限制。這些限制自1950年代由國際民航組織（ICAO）設定。過去十年，新加坡與ICAO合作修改了這些限制，現可在機場附近建造更高樓宇。此舉釋放了更多非航空用途的空域，為我們在新加坡不同地區加密開發提供了機會。
通過這些監管變革以及我們在珍珠山的經驗，建屋發展局將在新加坡各地找到更多建設高層組屋的機會。
我們將謹慎而敏感地推進，僅在條件允許時建設更高的樓層。我們還將密切關注設計和宜居性。這些努力將有助於提高土地生產率，並支援我們繼續提供充足建屋發展局組屋供應，以滿足新加坡人的住房需求。
另一個我們將開發大量新組屋的地區是大巴窯。大巴窯是1960年代中期第一個從零開始全面規劃和建設的鎮區。多年來，該鎮通過“重塑我們的家園”計劃、鄰里更新計劃和銀髮升級計劃等努力不斷發展。我們改善了連通性，並投資了該地區的重要基礎設施，如卡爾德科特地鐵站，該站是湯申-東海岸線和環線的換乘站。
過去十年，我們在大巴窯新增了4500個新家園，吸引了更多年輕家庭。為了保持大巴窯獨特的特色，我們保留了標誌性設施，如龍形遊樂場和鎮中心的步行街。
今年，建屋發展局將在卡爾德科特地鐵站旁推出另一批組屋建屋計劃（BTO）地塊。該地塊將提供約1600個單位，包括公共租賃組屋、兩房靈活式和四房組屋，以及大巴窯的首批社群關懷公寓。
該開發專案將包括一個新的鄰里公園，設有供居民鍛鍊、玩耍、休息和享受治療活動的空間，以及商業設施，如美食廣場和快餐店、超市、零售商店和托兒中心。還將設立一個活躍老齡中心，服務社群關懷公寓居民及社群內其他長者。
幾年後，隨著居民入住，附近的其他重大工程也將完成。其中包括南北走廊的地下工程，這將使我們逐步改造地面街道，加強大巴窯西部與周邊地區的連線。
向西，湯申路和洛尼路的更寬人行道將為行人創造更安全、更舒適的過街環境。居民可以騎行或步行，享受距離不遠的麥裡芝蓄水池的自然風光。
向東，居民將能輕鬆前往大巴窯其他地區，包括預計2030年（或更早）完工的大巴窯綜合發展專案（體育與生活樞紐）。居民可以享受該綜合發展的體育設施，以及煥新的大巴窯鎮公園、圖書館和綜合診所。
卡爾德科特地鐵站地塊還將建設一個新的綜合用途開發專案，包含私人住宅、零售和社群用途。這將包括一個購物中心，為居民提供更多零售和餐飲選擇，規模類似碧達裡伍德利購物中心。
下午1時15分
未來十年，我們將在大巴窯西部和山景區推出超過一萬個額外住宅單位。這些將主要是公共組屋，也包括一些私人公寓，包括我剛才提到的綜合用途開發專案。在大巴窯西部，這些住宅將融入鬱鬱蔥蔥的丘陵地形，有些可眺望麥裡芝蓄水池。我們將建設更多鄰里公園，讓居民享受與自然融合的城市生活。我們還將確保有足夠的設施，如學校、社群空間和交通選擇。
部長先生，建屋發展部將繼續開發和振興大巴窯及其他較老的組屋區，作為我們為新加坡人提供充足住房供應的努力的一部分。
主席先生，普里坦·辛格議員建議完全取消建屋發展局組屋建屋計劃的收入上限，並對超過收入門檻的買家施加額外限制。
我們目前的收入上限涵蓋了約八成的新加坡家庭。通過新的組屋分類框架，收入上限仍然必要，以確保高度補貼的建屋計劃組屋優先分配給收入低於上限的人群。這是因為高收入者可以選擇其他住房選項。
正如洪偉能議員和蔡銀洲議員所指出，我們正在審查組屋建屋計劃的收入上限。由於提高收入上限會導致更多人申請，我們需要確保供應充足後才會做出調整。
部長先生，我手頭沒有超過收入門檻的申訴人數資料。因此，我想邀請辛格議員或許提交國會質詢，我們將向他提供相關資訊。
但部長先生，請允許我澄清，申訴數量可能無法完全反映如果完全取消收入上限後組屋建屋計劃需求的潛在增長。因此，這需要我們仔細研究。我們需要了解權衡，包括取消收入上限後，收入超過門檻的買家將增加競爭，這會影響收入低於門檻買家的機會。
所以這是我們需要認真研究的問題。我理解辛格議員的出發點，確實存在一些權衡，我認為這是一個需要仔細權衡利弊的舉措。
未來幾十年，我們將通過“活力重建計劃”（VERS）逐步重建較老的建屋鎮區。我們的計劃是在下一個十年上半期啟動幾個地點，之後從2030年代後期擴大該計劃。
我感謝郭振輝議員和謝耀權議員的建議，我們將認真考慮。
我之前說過，活力重建計劃應對現有組屋業主公平，也要對未來世代可持續。我也分享過，我們目標是在本屆政府任期內儘可能完善活力重建政策框架。當我們準備好初步方案時，建屋發展部和建屋發展局將與新加坡人溝通，聽取更多意見和反饋，然後再確定政策。與此同時，我們較老的公共組屋區居民可以繼續受益於現有升級計劃，如鄰里更新計劃和銀髮升級計劃。
梁榮華議員和蔡銀洲議員詢問了組屋升級計劃（HIP），以及HIP II如何滿足居民隨著組屋老化而變化的需求。組屋業主可以期待在組屋達到60至70年時，通過HIP II進行第二輪升級。HIP II將比現有HIP更全面，並將利用新技術，如微波掃描，確保我們的老化組屋得到良好維護和宜居。我們將在適當時候分享更多該計劃細節。
梁議員還請求為市鎮理事會提供更多資金支援，以應對成本上升和老化基礎設施（如水滲漏）帶來的挑戰。辛格議員詢問擴大外牆維修共付計劃，使政府和市鎮理事會共同資助因樓宇外牆水滲漏而需維修的費用。
政府為協助市鎮理事會履行職責提供資金支援。梁議員剛才提到的包括組屋維護和改善工程、電梯維護及樓宇外牆維修，以確保公共安全。此類資金支援適用於所有市鎮理事會。
對於涉及公共安全的水滲漏外牆維修，建屋發展局目前通過外牆維修共付計劃共同資助維修費用。建屋發展局還與市鎮理事會密切合作，針對更復雜的水滲漏案例提供技術指導。我們將審視辛格議員的建議，但由於不同案例可能有其獨特考慮，我們需要逐案評估。
部長先生，維護我們的組屋區是共同責任。居民通過管理費和公共設施費（S&CC）貢獻，市鎮理事會在確保維護和其他服務以成本效益方式提供方面發揮重要作用，政府則提供補助和技術支援以配合這些努力。
我認為這將是我們繼續採取的做法。這是共同責任，因此各方都需為實現居民的良好生活成果貢獻力量。
除了公共組屋，我們也在加快私人住房供應。我們預計今年開發商將推出約12,000個私人住宅單位，包括執行共管公寓（EC）。這比2024年推出的單位數高出50%以上，與2025年大致相當。
我們也在研究如何提升私人住宅區的宜居性。許多私人住宅區居民，包括長者，表達了對維護成本上升和設施老化的擔憂，尤其是較老的住宅區。我們正在探討政府如何為私人住宅區的關鍵升級工程提供部分資金支援，特別是涉及安全和宜居性的專案。這將需要獎懲結合。印德拉妮部長將分享更多計劃細節。
近幾個月，建屋轉售市場和私人住房市場均有所趨緩。組屋轉售價格漲幅從2021年的12.7%放緩至2025年的2.9%。2025年第四季度，轉售價格與上一季度持平，這是自2020年第一季度以來首次出現此情況。
截至2月中旬，2026年建屋轉售價格略降0.1%。這得益於我們充足的組屋建屋計劃供應以及過去幾年推出的四輪降溫措施。這些措施需要時間在市場中發揮作用，我們開始看到初步成效。
我們密切關注市場，準備根據情況調整措施，同時考慮未來幾年更多組屋達到最低佔用期（MOP），從而增加轉售組屋供應。
洪偉能議員和蔡銀洲議員詢問私人房產擁有者購買轉售組屋的15個月等待期規定。該規定適用於55歲以下的私人房產擁有者，或55歲以上但購買五房及以上組屋者。
部長先生，儘管近期資料表現良好，如我之前所述，審慎起見，我們將繼續觀察一段時間再做調整。我向議員們保證，條件允許時，我們將取消該限制。與此同時，建屋發展局將繼續考慮面臨特殊情況家庭的申訴，按個案處理。
在私人住宅市場，2025年價格漲幅同樣是自2020年以來最小。
劉路易斯議員詢問如何繼續確保執行共管公寓（EC）的可負擔性。此前包括郭振輝議員和穆拉里·皮萊議員也提出過類似觀點。
執行共管公寓旨在為有志擁有私人住房的高收入新加坡人提供選擇。EC專案為分契產權，設計和設施類似私人公寓。因此，EC更接近私人公寓，而非轉售組屋，因為轉售組屋仍屬公共住房。雖然EC價格由私人開發商定價，但由於我們施加了初始資格和擁有限制，如收入上限和最低居住期，價格低於私人住房。EC新售價格比同類私人公寓低約20%至30%。符合資格的EC買家還可享受最高30,000新幣的公積金住房補貼。
部長先生，我理解各位議員對EC的關切。我們正在審查相關政策，並將在審查過程中考慮各位的建議。
建屋發展部的第二個優先事項是轉型我們的建成環境（BE）行業，提高生產力，降低成本、時間和人力。這不是新優先事項，但我們需要重新聚焦並加大推動力度。
我們已制定雄心勃勃的計劃，將新加坡建設成為宜居家園和全球城市；從提供充足的公共和私人住房，到為新加坡下一階段經濟發展奠定基礎——建設樟宜機場第五航站樓和大士港，打造新的經濟區，擴充套件鐵路網路等。這些都是長期專案，將惠及多代新加坡人，併產生數十年持久影響。
要將這些計劃變為現實，我們的建成環境行業必須做好準備。郭振輝議員和李慧瑩女士提到了這一點。
例如，我們如何利用技術進步節省時間、成本和人力？人工智慧和機器人技術可將建築轉變為快速、智慧、高度自動化的過程，軟體系統幫助設計師最佳化可由3D印表機在數天內完成的子元件。自主機器人可用於建造建築，即時由無人機監控延誤和安全。我們將擁有更安全的工地、更低成本、更少浪費和更高質量的建築，交付速度更快，業主和住戶獲得更高價值。
這也將為新加坡人開闢更多令人興奮且有意義的就業機會，這些工作不再被視為“塵土飛揚、骯髒和危險”，而是“充滿活力、低碳和數字化”。仍是三個“D”，但含義不同，具有強勁增長前景和職業發展路徑。
為實現這一目標，我上個月宣佈成立一個行動小組，提升建成環境生產力。該小組由政府機構和行業代表組成，將制定措施，幫助行業節省時間、成本和人力。重點包括：推廣生產性技術和先進實踐；審查監管方式，減輕合規負擔，支援創新，改善採購和合同實踐；支援行業生態系統，促進系統層面協同，解決行業普遍挑戰。
我們還將繼續關注提升建築師、工程師、造價師、專案經理等專業人士技能和投資，因為人才是建成環境行業的核心。
政府方面將繼續審查政策、規則和流程，儘量降低監管負擔和合規成本。印德拉妮部長將在她的發言中分享更多。
建屋發展部的第三個優先事項是確保我們持續可持續地發展新加坡，為子孫後代平衡不同土地使用需求，妥善處理有限空間內的權衡。
我們計劃建設更多住宅、新經濟區、更多交通連線和節點。但作為一個小島城市國家，土地供應有限。因此，我們必須富有創造力，深入思考如何最佳化每塊土地的使用。
下午1時30分
一種方式是振興較老的組屋區，確保其宜居和充滿活力，同時提高土地使用強度。前面提到的牛車水和大巴窯就是例子。
我們將繼續研究如何利用新技術，比如在新加坡其他地區建設更高的組屋，以及使用氣動廢物輸送系統等，這些系統可釋放土地供其他用途。我們還將探索最佳化土地使用的其他方法，如更好利用高架橋和地鐵高架軌道下的閒置空間。
隨著發展和增長，我們將關注保護——儲存關鍵的綠色和藍色空間，以及珍貴的文化遺產。我們必須謹慎處理這些權衡，確保為未來世代可持續發展新加坡。州部長陳振聲將分享更多相關內容。
主席先生，過去六十年，新加坡人將我們這個小島變成了繁榮的全球城市和宜居家園。但我們建設新加坡的工作尚未完成。我們必須繼續鞏固基礎，同時以信心和樂觀展望未來。
對於購房者和居民，我們將保持充足的公共和私人住房供應，打造共用空間，促進社群凝聚力。對於行業夥伴，我們將攜手打造更強大、更高效、更具韌性的建成環境行業，為新加坡人提供更多優質就業機會。對於年輕一代和未來世代，我們將繼續大膽規劃、可持續建設，確保為你們留下比前輩更美好的未來。
主席：印德拉妮·拉賈部長。
國家發展部第二部長（印德拉妮·拉賈女士）：主席先生，感謝議員們的發言。我將涵蓋三個廣泛領域：轉型建成環境行業並加強建成環境專業人才儲備；治理、宜居性及分契物業維護；以及提升建築物的無障礙性。
我們對我們的城市有許多令人興奮的規劃。去年十二月，我們公佈了總體規劃，勾勒出新加坡未來10至15年的發展藍圖。我們將建設樟宜機場第五航站樓，重建巴耶利峇空軍基地為新一代城鎮，釋放大南部海濱的潛力，並打造長島，以建設住房並加強東海岸的海岸保護。
未來10至15年，我們將在全島超過10個新住宅區建設至少80,000套新住房。到2030年代，我們將擴充套件鐵路網路超過100公里，並規劃超過50公里的新公園連線道，打造一個更連通、可持續且宜居的新加坡。
為了實現我們雄心勃勃的發展計劃，我們需要更多的建築師、工程師、造價師、專案經理、建築商及其他專業技術人員。我們估計未來十年，每年需要至少1,000名新的建築師和工程師加入行業，為新加坡的發展貢獻力量。因此，年輕人如果尋求未來有強勁增長前景、富有意義和目標的職業發展道路，應考慮建築環境（BE）行業。
我們獨特的城市天際線，標誌性建築如Jewel和濱海灣金沙，每一套組屋承載一個家庭，每個地鐵站連線社群，每所學校培養下一代——這些都是建築環境專業人士的遺產，他們的工作對人民生活產生了深遠影響。在氣候變化時代，建築環境專業人士將成為可持續發展鬥爭的先鋒。
2024年，我們成立了建築與工程顧問工作組，由順豐裕廊集團董事長馬查理先生和我共同主持。去年，工作組完成工作並推出了11項建議，旨在加強建築環境人才儲備及其轉型。今天，我很高興分享行業的積極響應和迄今取得的實質進展。
為了深化在職學習、改善導師制度並提高起薪，我們推出了名為“INSPIRE”的強化實習計劃。其主要特點包括互動導師指導、結構化學習、有目的的任務、創新解決方案和有益的體驗，因此命名為“INSPIRE”。
在INSPIRE計劃下，實習時間將延長至至少30周，結構化設計幫助實習生髮展關鍵的技術和軟技能。實習可分多次在同一公司完成，且不會延遲畢業時間。
專門的導師將指導實習生，提供職業發展和職場表現方面的建議。公司還將提供至少1,500新元的更高實習津貼，實習生畢業後若加入公司，起薪也將高於市場水平。行業反響積極，PH Consulting、DCA Architects和Aedas等公司已承諾參與該計劃。
順豐裕廊集團自2026年1月起已接納六名實習生，其中包括南洋理工大學土木工程三年級學生Charlotte Chan。她選擇了30周的INSPIRE實習，而非標準的20周實習。Charlotte希望能更多地參與專案並深化學習體驗。她對導師的悉心指導和INSPIRE實習生獲得的更高津貼表示感謝。
隨著更多行業參與者認識到培養具備強大職場準備能力實習生的價值，參與公司數量預計將增長。由於INSPIRE實習將深化技能獲取，專業工程師局（PEB）和建築師局（BOA）將認可此畢業前經驗作為專業註冊的合格實踐經驗。
除了應屆畢業生，PEB和BOA還將認可相關的商業和領導力課程，作為持續專業發展框架的一部分，鼓勵在職專業人士加強商業能力和洞察力。
行業品牌推廣工作也初見成效。通過BuildSG營銷活動，我們與行業領導者、行業協會和商會、在職專業人士、學生及公眾緊密合作，將該行業定位為首選職業。過去一個學年，申請和入讀建築及土木工程課程的學生人數有所增加。我們將繼續努力，吸引更多優秀人才加入建築環境行業。
下一階段，我們將致力於提升造價師職業。造價師（QS）處於工程、財務和法律的交匯點，在專案順利交付中發揮關鍵作用。他們的專長在於管理合同和專案成本。
隨著造價師的工作越來越多地被技術自動化，造價師職業需要重新定義角色，提供更多增值服務以保持相關性。這要求造價師建立新能力，掌握新技術並加強人才儲備。
我們已成立工作組，成員包括造價師代表、服務採購方、高等院校和相關機構。造價師工作組將廣泛諮詢利益相關者，提出提升和未來保障造價師職業的建議。我鼓勵大家向我們反饋意見和建議。
黃振輝議員詢問我們如何提高建築環境行業的生產力並更支援企業發展，李慧瑩議員詢問我們通過基礎設施、人力和人才支援建築業長期發展的計劃。這些問題切中要害，凸顯建築環境行業持續轉型的必要性。
議員們還提出了關於成本壓力增加和供應鏈波動的合理關切。我們聽到了大家的擔憂，並採取多項措施應對。
首先，我們認識到承包商需要更清晰的關鍵成本驅動因素以便有效規劃。政府正跨部門緊密合作，改善關鍵資源的前瞻性預測和協調，包括土壤處置能力和宿舍供應。此外，我們將探索如何向行業提供重大基礎設施專案時間表的定期更新，支援更明智的專案規劃決策。
齊部長早前分享了我們通過行動小組提升建築環境生產力，幫助更廣泛行業節省時間、成本和人力的計劃。讓我補充幾個由不同利益相關者推動的例子，配合這些舉措。
首先，我們完善了採購和監管框架。
繼“降低費用評分”試點成功後，建屋發展局（BCA）自2025年12月起將該評分擴充套件至公共部門1億新元以下專案，以遏制低價競標，強調質量導向採購。初步結果令人鼓舞——自2024年以來，11個採用降低費用評分的招標中，有10個授予了質量評分最高的投標。
責任限制條款現已成為政府採購實體與顧問之間標準諮詢協議的預設條款。這有助於實現更公平的風險分配，並使顧問能更好地投保專業責任險。
我們聽取了李慧瑩議員關於審視承包商責任框架的建議，以確保安全標準穩健，同時允許行業高效運作。BCA將繼續與承包商密切合作，結合行業反饋更新政策。
第二，我們推出了建築環境尊重、關懷與同理心文化（BE CARE）憲章。憲章列明最佳實踐，促進專案團隊更協作的關係，強化職場福祉。自2025年9月以來，已有超過50家公司和服務採購方承諾遵守。
Arup新加坡是BE CARE精神轉化為實際行動的典範。Arup倡導員工敢於發聲和提出關切的文化，建立了員工可向領導層和人力團隊報告問題或尋求支援的框架，包括匿名熱線和舉報渠道。
在專案會議中，Arup實行智慧溝通，規劃清晰議程，僅邀請相關人員參與。員工尊重彼此休息時間，避免下班後傳送郵件，並在休假前進行結構化交接。這些簡單做法有助於營造支援員工福祉的文化。
我鼓勵更多公司加入，共同改善建築環境職場文化。
第三，我們在技術應用方面取得進展。建築事務所積極採用人工智慧轉變工作流程。DP Architects成立了技術初創公司Spatial Intelligence for Design，開發行業AI解決方案。
我們鼓勵更多公司抓住技術成熟帶來的新機遇。有興趣的公司可申請生產力解決方案補助金或建築環境技術與能力補助金支援。
新一輪生產力解決方案補助金將擴大支援範圍，涵蓋更多解決方案，包括人工智慧和先進裝置，如機器人和自動化裝置，包括遠端控制機械及檢測成像裝置，這些裝置已顯示出令人鼓舞的生產力提升。
第四，行業協會和商會加大力度支援會員企業，推動行業多領域轉型。例如，新加坡建築師學會將開發就業資源指南，包含結構化課程和實務工作坊，幫助會員企業的人力資源官員更好地定義職位和規劃職業發展路徑。這將幫助企業吸引合適人才，更好地制定僱傭合同並支援員工職業發展。
下午1點45分
以上是落實工作組建議、轉型建築環境行業的一些舉措。我們的工作不會止步於此。未來，我們期待更多利益相關者參與，推動更大動力。政府也將繼續與行業合作，審視政策，進一步提升建築環境效率和生產力。
接下來，我談談改善公寓及其他分層物業治理、宜居性和維護的計劃。
隨著分層物業老化，管理委員會（MCST）和業主對維護成本上升、設施老化及集體決策改善的挑戰表達關切。我們必須解決這些問題，確保這些物業持續宜居，滿足居民需求，尤其是老年人。
我們正在全面審查《建築（分層管理）法》，重點關注四個方面：一是幫助MCST積累足夠的專項維修基金，用於必要的維護、修理或升級；二是降低必要工程的同意門檻；三是加強自治框架，促進公平高效的物業管理；四是明確分層產權相關方的責任。
讓我詳細說明引導MCST保持充足專項維修基金的擬議改進。
目前，許多MCST僅在老化電梯出現磨損和零件過時時才開始籌集電梯更換資金。如果專項基金不足，MCST需向業主徵收特別費用，這可能金額不小，業主也未必準備好。若MCST提前積累資金，可避免此類情況。
為加強對MCST財務規劃的監督，我們正探索要求MCST以標準格式提交併公佈預算和財務關鍵資訊，便於業主和潛在買家瞭解和跟蹤MCST的財務健康和專項基金充足性。
關於加強治理，我們研究防止投票系統被操控的措施。我們收到反饋，某些小團體收集大量委託票，控制物業決策，可能不代表大多數業主的最佳利益。因此，我們考慮限制每戶可持有的委託票比例，並確保理事會成員接受適當培訓。
這些變革旨在使物業管理更公平、更高效。
自2025年6月起，BCA通過焦點小組討論等平臺與分層物業利益相關者就部分擬議修訂進行交流。為深化此工作，我們將於2026年3月9日至4月8日開展公眾諮詢，強烈鼓勵分層物業居民提供反饋。此次審查將強化分層管理框架，確保私人住宅物業維護良好、便捷宜居。
我們正在研究提升建築和基礎設施安全及無障礙性的措施。
其中一項是加強老舊電梯和自動扶梯的安全。我們正在審查措施，確保老舊電梯和扶梯符合現代安全標準，如增加調節速度和運動的功能。我們也在探索為符合條件的私人建築業主和運營者提供部分安全設施的共資支援。詳情將適時公佈。
隨著人口老齡化，無障礙需求將增加。許多建築建於無障礙標準尚不完善的早期。
2007年推出的無障礙基金為私人建築業主升級無障礙及通用設計設施提供共資支援。國土部正審視無障礙基金的潛在改進，以更好支援老年人、殘疾人士和家庭安全便捷地使用生活環境，包括私人物業。
目前，無障礙基金不涵蓋積極老齡化和痴呆友好設施。審查中，我們將考慮擴大基金範圍，涵蓋老年人相關設施，如老年友好健身站和痴呆友好標識。這些改進旨在創造生活空間，使老年人保持行動能力和身體活躍，舒適地在熟悉環境中安享晚年。
為鼓勵更多建築按最新無障礙規範升級，我們也在探索擴大無障礙基金的適用範圍，涵蓋1990年和2013年無障礙規範實施前建造的更多私人建築。
為提高參與度並降低私人物業成本，我們也在審查共資支援金額，詳情將適時公佈。
我今天介紹的舉措體現了我們堅定不移的承諾，致力於為當代及未來世代建設更美好的新加坡。我們攜手共建未來新加坡，堅信今天的投資將打造一個世界級標準、深植包容、安全與卓越價值觀的建築環境。這是確保新加坡成為每位公民引以為豪的家園的方式。
主席：國家發展部高階國務部長孫雪玲。
國家發展部高階國務部長（孫雪玲女士）：主席先生，感謝議員們的提問和建議。
住房是一個非常個人化的問題，因為不同家庭和人生階段的住房需求各異。例如，考慮安家立業和組建家庭的年輕夫婦，與為退休和獨立生活做規劃的長者需求不同。我們希望確保住房政策和選擇滿足不同群體在不同人生階段的多樣化需求。
許多年輕夫婦申請建屋發展局（BTO）組屋作為首套住房。正如傅哲祥議員指出，負擔能力和可及性是這些年輕夫婦最關心的問題。這可以理解，因為住房很可能是他們人生旅程中最重要的財務承諾之一。
對於剛開始工作的人來說，或者聽說有人多次申請卻未能成功購屋，獲得住房可能令人感到壓力重重。我們理解這些擔憂，因此將繼續支援年輕夫婦的置業之路。
首先，正如齊部長在演講中提到的，我們將保持充足的BTO組屋供應。
其中大多數——至少90%的四房及以上組屋——預留給首次置業家庭。2023年和2024年申請的首次置業家庭中約有三分之二成功預訂組屋。此後，申請率進一步下降。就在上個月最近一次BTO銷售中，首次置業家庭申請三房及以上組屋的中位申請率為0.9倍。
對於希望更早獲得組屋的年輕夫婦，我們鼓勵您考慮申請競爭較小的專案。您的成功機會將更高。
第二，我們繼續保持組屋的可負擔性。
我們的建屋發展局（BTO）組屋價格給予了顯著的市場折扣。即使是剛開始職業生涯的年輕夫婦，您也很可能能夠以很少或無需現金支出的方式償還每月的組屋貸款。2025年，九成首次置業家庭領取BTO組屋鑰匙時的情況就是如此。
對於首次置業的年輕夫婦，分期首付計劃將首付降低至組屋價格的最低5%。如果夫妻一方正在就學或剛完成國民服役，可以申請推遲收入評估，以獲得增強版中央公積金住房補貼和組屋貸款，首付甚至可能進一步降低至組屋價格的2.5%。
第三，對於已預訂組屋且在等待組屋竣工期間需要臨時住房的合資格家庭，我們通過“父母臨時住房計劃”（PPHS）提供補貼租金支援。自2021年以來，我們已大幅增加PPHS供應，從約800個單位增至目前超過4,000個。
蔡銀洲先生詢問是否提高PPHS收入上限。目前，PPHS的收入上限設定為7,000新元，以更好地將支援針對那些較難負擔市場租金的家庭。
這些措施共同體現了我們支援年輕夫婦購買首套住房的承諾。
隨著家庭安居樂業並不斷壯大，他們的住房需求可能會發生變化。傅哲祥先生和娜迪亞·艾哈邁德·桑丁女士詢問我們如何支援大家庭的需求。
目前，擁有三個或以上子女的家庭可以受益於第三胎優先計劃（TCPS）。該計劃對首次和第二次置業家庭均開放。符合條件的家庭可優先分配最多佔BTO和餘屋銷售（SBF）專案中5%的組屋。
TCPS相當受歡迎，五房及以上組屋的申請倍率約為五倍。我很高興地宣佈，我們將加強TCPS。
首先，我們將把TCPS配額從目前佔BTO和SBF組屋供應的5%翻倍至10%。這將使更多符合條件的家庭能夠獲得組屋。
其次，我們將擴大資格標準，使家庭在母親懷第三胎時即可符合TCPS資格。
這些變更將從2026年6月的銷售活動開始生效。
此外，為支援大家庭，我們將致力於長期增加大戶型組屋的供應。這是我們維持組屋供應充足的策略之一。
我們認識到，部分申請者可能面臨特殊和獨特的挑戰，例如蔡銀洲先生和傅哲祥先生提到的單親未婚父母，或林秀慧女士提到的喪偶或離異父母。大衛·何先生也曾建議，對於家庭成員增多且需要更大空間的家庭，應對最低居住期限（MOP）給予更大靈活性。
對於此類情況，我們將考慮其特殊情形，並準備根據個案靈活處理。
除了組屋的可負擔性和可及性，我們還在努力提升居民的入住和居住體驗。
對於搬入新大型BTO組屋區的居民，新設施可能需要一些時間才能全面投入使用。為改善入住體驗，國土發展部（MND）和建屋發展局（HDB）成立了BTO協調委員會，成員包括陸路交通管理局（LTA）、國家環境局（NEA）、早期兒童發展局（ECDA）、信息通信媒體發展局（IMDA）和人民協會（PA）等合作機構。過去八個月，我們與基層顧問進行了深入討論，確定了五個關鍵領域，相關機構將更好地支援搬入新大型BTO組屋區的居民。
第一，新組屋區的公交運營通常在居民達到一定規模後啟動，大約在首批居民領取鑰匙後三個月。我們聽到反饋，首批居民需要更早的交通連線以便搬入。
為支援交通連線，HDB和LTA將規劃至少一條公交線路，與新大型BTO組屋區首批領取鑰匙的居民同步運營。這些公交線路將設有步行可達的公交站點，連線居民至便利設施和交通樞紐，如公交換乘站或地鐵站。
若常規公交服務無法立即啟動，相關機構將考慮臨時穿梭巴士服務。
下午2時
第二，居民希望搬入時能方便購買熟食和雜貨。目前，租用HDB商鋪的經營者通常在首批居民領取鑰匙後約九個月開始營業，因為他們認為此時已有足夠居民支援其業務。HDB將推出三項舉措，支援商鋪經營者，使居民能更早享用熟食和雜貨。
首先，HDB重新審視施工時間表，儘可能將商鋪完工時間提前至首批領取鑰匙時間附近。HDB還將預建戶外休憩區，免去咖啡店經營者自行建設的時間和成本，這可節省多達八個月的時間並降低運營成本。
其次，HDB將把新BTO專案中HDB商鋪的免租期從兩個月延長至最多六個月。咖啡店的免租期也將從目前的三個月延長至最多六個月。此措施適用於2026年3月起的商鋪招標，商鋪需提前開業以享受最長六個月免租期。
在運營的前兩年，HDB還實行分階段租金，第一年租金為80%，第二年為90%。為進一步支援商鋪經營者，HDB將把第一年租金降至70%。商鋪經營者可先提供較少的雜貨和熟食，待居民達到一定規模後再逐步擴大經營。
最後，視市場需求，HDB將考慮在部分遠離咖啡店的組屋樓棟部署即食套餐和經濟套餐。
第三，託兒所開業時間不一。有些託兒所可在首批居民領取鑰匙後七個月內準備就緒，而有些則需一年以上。這對有幼兒的家庭來說可能帶來不便。未來，我們將與ECDA緊密合作，更好支援有幼兒的居民搬入新大型BTO組屋區。
首先，HDB將優先在首批完工的樓棟設立託兒所，使託兒所準備時間與首批居民搬入時間更匹配。其次，HDB和ECDA將簡化施工和交付流程，儘早邀請潛在託兒所經營者參觀場地，便於規劃裝修工作。綜合來看，新大型BTO組屋區的託兒所將更早投入運營，計劃在首批居民領取鑰匙後六個月內開業。
第四，關於有蓋連廊。當前，HDB在規劃新BTO組屋區時，會設計有蓋連廊網路，支援居民從小區內步行至附近的主要交通節點，如公交站。若條件允許，連廊也會連線至鄰近的便利設施，如學校或鄰里中心。未來，HDB將提升新BTO組屋區有蓋連廊的建設標準，確保在保障居民安全和便利方面有明顯益處的連廊，在居民入住前建成。
然而，並非所有連廊都會在領取鑰匙前建成，因為居民的步行路線和無障礙需求可能在入住後發生變化。市鎮理事會和其他機構也可能根據居民的步行習慣和新增設施，逐步增建或延伸連廊，確保小區長期保持良好連通性，滿足居民需求。
最後，我們也聽到關於部分新BTO專案，尤其是初期搬入期間，存在隨意傾倒大件廢棄物的問題。HDB正與NEA和市鎮理事會合作，加強提供大型廢棄物收集箱（跳箱）及金屬籠或回收箱等容器，方便居民在搬入初期處理大件廢棄物。
自2025年8月起，HDB為希望在專案竣工後一年內部署跳箱的新建專案提供50%的資金支援。我們將繼續為新大型BTO組屋區的專案提供此支援。此外，HDB將加強對裝修承包商隨意傾倒廢棄物的執法力度，包括審查處罰框架，對違規承包商實施更嚴厲的處罰。
每個組屋區情況不同，可能存在專案特定問題導致差異。但有了基本原則，我們可以努力實現新大型BTO組屋區的這些標準，提升居民的入住體驗。
我們也通過利益相關者和居民參與，提升組屋區的宜居性。我們認識到，組屋不僅是遮風避雨的住所，更是成長和提升福祉的地方。
去年12月，我們推出了“遊戲價值框架”。該框架認識到遊樂場是年輕有孩家庭的重要基礎設施和社群空間。為此，我們積極諮詢了早期兒童和健康專家、遊樂場專家及家長。
該框架強調遊戲的三個關鍵方面——身體、社交和創造力，滿足2至5歲幼兒及5至12歲兒童的發展需求。我們將從2026年起在新BTO專案中應用該框架建設新遊樂場，並與市鎮理事會合作，更新其他已開發組屋區的遊樂場。未來幾個月將有更多分享。
良好居住環境的另一個方面是便捷獲取必需品和服務。蔡路易先生詢問我們如何確保鄰里商鋪的良好供應和多樣性。我們的常規做法是在每個組屋鎮中心設立市鎮中心，作為主要商業樞紐，提供超市、餐飲和零售店等多樣商品和服務。市鎮中心由分佈在鎮內的鄰里中心補充。
在部分遠離市鎮中心和鄰里中心的選定區塊，HDB還將建設區塊商鋪，通常包括食閣、超市或便利店及若干商鋪。大多數居民可在400米內步行到達設有食閣或食肆的商業設施。
感謝蔡路易先生建議開展大型熱食自動售賣機咖啡館招標。大多數居民更傾向於食閣或食肆等商業設施。當議員們指出具體需要自動售賣機或熱食的組屋區，並有市場需求和供應支援時，HDB將與議員溝通，促進相關程序。
阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生和普里塔姆·辛格先生提出了關於租金水平和透明度的建議。包括郭振輝先生、洪偉能先生、瑪麗亞姆·賈法爾女士和蔡路易先生在內的多位議員於2025年9月24日在本院也提出了類似觀點。阿扎爾建議由類似公共交通理事會的委員會監控和調整租金。
我要強調的是，商鋪租金與公共交通票價本質不同。商鋪因地理位置、佈局、經營用途和品牌等多樣屬性，導致服務內容不同，租金水平也不同。此外，商鋪租賃是房東與租戶之間的獨立合同，雙方會考慮市場動態後做出決策。公共交通則服務大眾，票價設定需兼顧可負擔性和財務可持續性。
阿扎爾·奧斯曼先生和普里塔姆·辛格先生，以及之前的郭振輝先生、洪偉能先生和瑪麗亞姆·賈法爾女士，都希望看到合理且可持續的HDB商鋪租金水平。國土發展部也有同樣目標。讓我分享HDB為保持租金合理和具競爭力所做的工作。
首先，HDB確保每個組屋區和市鎮有充足的商鋪供應。供應充足時，租戶有更多選擇，顧客也有更多購買地點。如果租金和商品價格過高，租戶和顧客都可以選擇其他地方。
其次，對於HDB出租的商鋪，我們引入新措施保持租金穩定。自2026年1月起，所有新商鋪招標的中標者須維持其投標租金兩期租約，而非以往的三年一期租約。投標者因此被鼓勵在競爭力和業務可持續性之間取得平衡。
對於面臨財務困難的HDB商鋪租戶，HDB將密切合作，提供有針對性的支援，確保居民繼續能在鄰里享用負擔得起的商品和服務。
關於HDB咖啡店的檔口租金，HDB意在提升透明度，支援良性市場運作，向公眾提供相關租金資料，幫助潛在檔主做出明智的商業決策。HDB已於2026年1月宣佈開始收集管理下咖啡店經營者收取的檔口租金資料，並將研究如何以便捷方式向公眾展示這些資料。我們也在探討收集和公佈其他相關租金資料的可行性，如HDB對戶外休憩區的租金。
對於私人持有的已售HDB商鋪，新加坡稅務局（IRAS）儲存有關租賃和租約交易的記錄，這些記錄用於繳納印花稅。IRAS收集的租金資料按地理位置和物業型別在市區重建局（URA）的房地產資訊系統（REALIS）上公開。我們致力於釋出準確資料，幫助潛在商鋪或檔口經營者做出決策，並會考慮是否需要專門入口網站。
更廣泛地，我們也採取政府整體措施預防、偵測和懲治洗錢活動，包括加強監控和情報分析機制。這有助於保護我們的市場，包括公共和私人租賃市場，防範非法活動的影響。
綜合來看，這些措施確保居民繼續方便地獲得負擔得起且多樣化的心臟地帶商鋪和服務。主席先生，我現在用普通話說幾句話，請。
（普通話）：[請參閱方言發言。] 為幫助居民獲得優質且負擔得起的商品和服務，並保持合理穩定的租金，HDB將確保每個組屋區和市鎮有充足的商鋪供應。
對於HDB管理的商鋪，我們還有其他措施維持租金穩定。自2018年以來，HDB採用“價格-質量”方法評估新咖啡店和超市的招標。
HDB不僅考慮投標價格，還對投標方案進行更全面評估。此外，HDB今年1月還推出了以下措施。
第一，為鼓勵理性投標，中標者須維持其投標租金兩期租約，而非以往的三年一期。第二，為保護檔主利益，HDB開始收集其管理下咖啡店經營者收取的檔口租金資料，向檔主提供更全面透明的租金資訊。
上述政策確保HDB管理商鋪租金的合理性和穩定性，使居民繼續享用價格合理的商品和服務。
（英語）：主席先生，我們將更新住房政策，支援不同群體的多樣化需求，包括年輕夫婦、大家庭和長者。近年來，我們加大力度，使HDB鎮更宜居、更包容、更能響應居民需求。
我們將繼續與新加坡人攜手建設他們引以為傲的組屋和鄰里。
主席：國土發展部高階議會秘書賽義德·哈倫·阿爾哈布西博士。
國土發展部部長高階議會秘書（賽義德·哈倫·阿爾哈布西博士）：主席先生，感謝議員們的提問和發言。
下午2時15分
建設一個包容和凝聚的社會一直是新加坡公共住房故事的核心。正如齊部長所提到的，我將分享我們如何以及將如何繼續加強對更弱勢的新加坡人的住房支援。
讓我從公共租賃計劃開始，這是我們低收入和弱勢家庭的重要社會安全網。
多年來，我們一直在改進建屋發展局（HDB）組屋的設計，包括公共租賃組屋。較新的租賃樓宇擁有更好的通風和自然採光。我們改進了每個單位的佈局，以最大化可用空間。租賃樓宇也更好地融入各個組屋區，方便居民使用區內設施。
事實上，如今我們在同一棟樓內既有租賃組屋，也有出售組屋。我們稱這些為綜合樓宇。它們為租賃組屋和出售組屋的家庭創造了更多互動機會，有助於實現我們建設更包容社會的宏偉願景。建屋發展局已完成八棟此類綜合樓宇，另有36棟正在建設中。
綜合樓宇將成為未來五年內約6,300個公共租賃組屋的一部分。這不僅將增加我們的租賃組屋總供應量，還將幫助更新部分現有租賃庫存。同時，這也將進一步縮短租賃組屋的等待時間，等待時間已從疫情期間的11個月高峰縮短至目前的平均三個月。
對於許多弱勢家庭來說，公共租賃計劃一直是重要的支援來源。以納茲裡先生一家為例。納茲裡·扎卡里亞先生、努爾菲特拉·雅哈女士及其四個年幼的孩子於2020年搬入一套兩房公共租賃組屋。那時，擁有自己的住房似乎遙不可及。但相關機構伸出援手。他們一家受益於ComLink+計劃，社會及家庭發展部（MSF）與包括建屋發展局在內的機構合作，為21歲以下有子女的家庭提供綜合支援。與此同時，建屋發展局的住房擁有支援團隊聯絡了納茲裡先生和努爾菲特拉女士，幫助他們邁向擁有自己住房的旅程。
納茲裡先生和努爾菲特拉女士分享說，住房擁有支援團隊的幫助非常寶貴。雖然納茲裡先生已獲得穩定的全職公交司機工作，幫助家庭恢復經濟基礎，但最初擁有自己的住房仍感覺遙遠。這是因為購房確實是一個重大決定。
住房擁有支援團隊詳細計算了他們可能選擇的組屋的購買價格，解釋了所需的首付款金額以及預計的每月按揭還款。通過分解成本，這對夫婦更清楚地瞭解瞭如何將購房納入預算。擁有自己的住房開始變得更可實現。隨後，住房擁有支援團隊指導納茲裡先生和努爾菲特拉女士選擇組屋，並一直是他們家庭的重要資源，直到他們最近在義順領取新四房組屋的鑰匙。
如今，納茲裡先生和努爾菲特拉女士已成為幸福的業主，我有幸在他們的新家見到他們一家。
我對法茲利·法烏茲先生支援政府幫助低收入家庭加快實現住房擁有的努力感到鼓舞。事實上，納茲裡先生和努爾菲特拉女士的故事只是眾多中的一個。到2025年，已有超過2,000個現有租賃家庭預訂了組屋，正等待交付。
我們一直在加大對租賃家庭的支援力度。去年，我們將符合條件的第二次購房ComLink+租賃家庭的新起點住房補助從50,000新元提高到75,000新元。60,000新元將預先發放，幫助家庭減少購房所需的按揭貸款，剩餘的15,000新元將在領取鑰匙後五年內分期發放，以支援他們的按揭還款。
我們還將新起點住房計劃擴充套件至首次購房的ComLink+租賃家庭。他們現在可以購買較短租期的兩房Flexi或三房標準組屋，這比99年租約的組屋更實惠。作為首次購房者，他們有資格獲得最高120,000新元的增強版中央公積金住房補助，代替新起點住房補助。
這些改進將幫助更多家庭實現擁有住房的目標。建屋發展局也將繼續根據每個租賃家庭的具體情況，個別協助他們實現住房擁有，因為購房是一項長期的財務承諾，最好基於對每個家庭獨特情況的瞭解。主席先生，請用馬來語。
（馬來語）：[請參閱方言發言。] 對許多弱勢家庭來說，建屋發展局的租賃組屋計劃是重要的支援來源，在他們面臨困難時提供保護和援助。
以納茲裡先生一家為例。我最近在他們準備慶祝開齋節時見過他們。
2020年，納茲裡·扎卡里亞先生、妻子努爾菲特拉·雅哈女士及其四個年幼的孩子搬入一套兩房建屋發展局租賃組屋。他們受益於ComLink+計劃，社會及家庭發展部與包括建屋發展局在內的機構合作，為21歲以下有子女的家庭提供綜合支援，涵蓋就業、教育和住房等方面的援助。
情況進一步改善，當建屋發展局的住房擁有支援團隊聯絡他們時。該團隊指導他們審視購房預算和組屋選項，並制定清晰的購房計劃。通過穩定就業、共同努力和持續儲蓄，納茲裡先生和努爾菲特拉女士如今自豪地擁有了義順一套新的四房組屋。
他們的旅程並不容易，但有了強有力和持續的支援，變得更加順利。
許多其他家庭也經歷類似的生活挑戰。2025年全年，已有超過2,000個建屋發展局租賃家庭預訂了組屋，正等待交付。我們正在擴大對建屋發展局租賃家庭的支援力度。
去年，符合條件的第二次購房ComLink+租賃家庭的新起點住房補助從50,000新元提高到75,000新元。此外，新起點住房計劃也擴充套件至首次購房ComLink+租賃家庭，使他們能夠購買較短租期的兩房Flexi或三房標準組屋。
這些措施將為更多建屋發展局租賃家庭提供實現擁有住房夢想的機會，從而改善他們家庭的福祉。
（英語）：雖然大多數租賃家庭是家庭單位，但有相當40%的租戶是單身人士。根據聯合單身人士計劃，單身申請者必須先找到合適的共同申請人才能申請。我們認識到這可能具有挑戰性。
因此，我們於2021年推出了由運營商管理的聯合單身人士計劃試點（JSS-OR）。在JSS-OR下，申請者可以單獨申請，由指定的社會服務機構作為運營商幫助他們尋找合適的室友。
李翠山先生就是其中一位申請者。他於2022年單獨申請，位於武吉巴督的JSS-OR運營商新希望社群服務幫助他找到合適的室友。
運營商還協助管理租賃事務，必要時調解租戶間的糾紛，並組織活動促進租戶間的交流。這對我最近見過的李先生產生了積極影響。他參加了新希望組織的撈魚生活動，並分享說此類活動，包括遊戲和其他節日慶祝，是與同樓租戶互動和建立聯絡的寶貴機會。
我們於2024年進一步推出了單人房共享設施（SRSF）試點。在SRSF中，租戶擁有獨立臥室，但共享公共設施。
這兩個試點滿足不同偏好，均獲得積極反饋。因此，我們於去年十月推出了首個專門建造的SRSF樓宇，並將在未來幾年擴大這兩種型別的規模。更多細節將在準備好時公佈。
我們越來越關注的另一群體是我們的長者。正如納迪亞·艾哈邁德·桑丁女士所強調，隨著年齡增長，您的住房需求會發生變化。一些長者希望通過出租組屋或將剩餘租期部分出售給建屋發展局來變現他們的組屋。其他人則可能更願意換住較小的組屋，儘管對現有住所有美好回憶。較小的組屋維護更便捷，出售所得可補充退休生活所需。
這些都是個人決定，我們將支援新加坡人無論選擇哪種方案。
對於希望原地養老的長者，您可以通過租期買斷計劃（LBS）將組屋剩餘租期部分出售給建屋發展局。所得款項將用於補充您的中央公積金退休賬戶，並通過中央公積金終身年金計劃（CPF LIFE）為您提供每月終身支付。LBS還為業主提供最高30,000新元的現金獎金。2021年至2025年間，四房組屋的平均LBS收益（包括用於補充退休賬戶的部分及獎金）超過200,000新元。
或者，您可以換住較小的組屋，用出售所得支援退休生活。換住三房或更小組屋的長者可獲得最高40,000新元的銀髮住房獎金。例如，長者可考慮申請建屋發展局的新兩房Flexi組屋，或換住社群關懷公寓。社群關懷公寓將住房與護理服務結合，配備預裝設施和適合長者的設計。定期組織活動促進長者交流，並由社群經理提供託管支援，帶來安心感。
自2021年以來，我們已推出五個社群關懷公寓。今年晚些時候將在大巴窯推出下一個。我們將根據需求繼續在各鎮推出更多社群關懷公寓。
但社群關懷公寓的建設數量有限。因此，我們也在努力使居住環境更適合長者，確保他們能舒適地原地養老。郭振賢先生和梁榮華先生會高興地聽到，相關機構正合作推出“安享鄰里”計劃，首個試點位於大巴窯。在每個安享鄰里，我們將改善醫療服務的可及性，升級適合長者的設施。這將豐富長者的住房和護理選擇。我們將持續審視和完善這些長者選項。
我們也很高興聽到蔡銀洲先生對適合長者原地養老的設施感興趣。
即使您不在安享鄰里，也能通過我們的升級計劃受益。這些計劃包括鄰里更新計劃和銀髮升級計劃，針對建屋發展局組屋區，以及私人組屋的組屋區升級計劃。崇文的四個組屋區將是銀髮升級計劃的首批受益者，工程預計今年晚些完成。明年，安詳、武吉美拉和大巴窯的另外12個組屋區工程也將完成。
法茲利·法烏茲先生詢問了改善組屋內部設施以提升長者舒適和安全的計劃。長者可通過EASE計劃獲得補貼，安裝改善行動能力和安全的設施。該計劃作為家居改造計劃（HIP）和EASE（直接申請）的一部分提供。從今年四月起，私人組屋區也可享受EASE（私人）計劃。
下午2時30分
蔡銀洲先生還提到了火災和跌倒檢測等技術。我們已在超過80%的公共租賃組屋安裝了家用火災報警裝置，其餘組屋也將逐步免費安裝。家用火災報警裝置的安裝也包含在EASE計劃內，以及在HIP計劃中安裝防火門的組屋。
關於跌倒檢測，建屋發展局與商業供應商合作，提供可選的跌倒檢測套餐，出售組屋的居民可訂購。衛生部也將推出增強版家居個人護理服務，包括全天候技術監控以檢測跌倒和意外事件。
洪偉能先生和陳德興先生詢問了我們的無障礙提升計劃（LUP）。自2001年以來，LUP已為99%的建屋發展局樓宇帶來直達電梯。多年來，建屋發展局試點並採用了多種方案以實現更多樓宇的直達電梯，包括無機房電梯和泡泡電梯。2025年，六棟樓宇宣佈實施LUP，計劃逐步擴充套件至約40棟樓宇。相關樓宇的居民將適時獲知詳情。
對於居住在無直達電梯樓宇的居民，包括分段組屋，我們去年提升了電梯無障礙住房補助。符合條件的家庭和單身人士分別可獲得最高80,000新元和40,000新元的補助，以搬遷至有直達電梯的組屋。建屋發展局繼續探索新方法，為剩餘樓宇提供直達電梯，如與研究機構合作開發和測試新方案。
今年早些時候，建屋發展局還啟動了“建屋發展局酷點子企業”徵集計劃。該平臺為企業提供資金支援、指導和測試設施，聯合開發改善建屋發展局居住環境和居民生活質量的解決方案。
我還想回應陳德興先生提到的832座樓宇居民在購房時不知曉其組屋無同層直達電梯的問題。如果居民直接從建屋發展局購買，相關資訊會在當時的銷售手冊中提供。如果居民從轉售市場購買，是否有直達電梯是該物業可觀察的物理特徵。
關於是否無論成本如何都為所有樓宇提供LUP，我希望陳先生理解政府需謹慎使用公共資金。建屋發展局將繼續探索新技術，在可行情況下為剩餘樓宇提供直達電梯。
我們將盡力覆蓋儘可能多的樓宇。但若提供直達電梯的成本過高，更審慎的做法是業主利用去年提升至80,000新元的電梯無障礙住房補助，搬遷至鄰近有電梯的單位。
主席先生，新加坡的公共住房格局不斷演變，我們將盡力滿足每位新加坡人的多樣化需求。無論您是在生活困難時需要住所，還是退休後希望優雅地原地養老，我們都將支援您。
主席：國家發展部國務部長陳振聲。
國家發展部國務部長（陳振聲先生）：主席先生，我曾在本議院談及我們必須謹慎管理有限資源。這意味著在為人民建設住房、學校、醫院和交通樞紐的同時，也要保護我們的綠地和水域。還要照顧我們的動物，並在出現人獸衝突時妥善處理。
讓我先談談我們的動物。李慧瑩女士呼籲加強立法手段以遏制虐待動物行為。我們確實在加強動物健康和福利體系。首先，我們將成立獸醫理事會，作為專業監管機構，提高獸醫專業人員的標準。該理事會將註冊獸醫，認證獸醫培訓專案，並設定繼續教育要求。必要時還將調查不當行為案件。我本週將提交《獸醫執業法案》，以設立該理事會，感謝獸醫界及其他利益相關者自2021年以來與我們共同制定該法案。
其次，我們正在審查相關法律和守則，以改善動物健康和福利，加強防止虐待動物的保障。自2022年以來，我們廣泛徵詢了《動物與鳥類法》的修訂意見，以更好地加強動物疾病預防和控制的權力。我們也在研究如何更有效遏制虐待動物行為，包括審查監禁期限、罰款和禁止令等處罰措施。我也曾與動物關懷研究與教育協會（ACRES）及防止虐待動物協會（SPCA）會面，討論他們關於此議題的白皮書。我們將認真審視所有建議，並於今年晚些時候向公眾諮詢。
今年，我們還將審查《動物福利守則》，重點關注美容師，並新增犬類訓練師章節。目前這些行業無執照制度，標準不一。我們將諮詢利益相關者和公眾，持續提升這些行業的標準和專業水平。
與此同時，我們還必須管理害鳥種群，以保護公共衛生和安全。阿卜杜勒·穆海敏·阿卜杜勒·馬利克先生詢問如何更好地管理鴿子在空調機位的棲息和排洩問題。李慧瑩女士、梁榮華先生、洪偉能先生和普里坦·辛格先生也詢問如何更有效管理鴿子、八哥和烏鴉種群。
要控制害鳥數量，必須從根本解決問題，即食物。因此，我們與合作伙伴共同改善食物廢棄物管理，執法打擊非法喂鳥行為，並且非常重要的是，開展公眾教育。
2025年6月，我們將鴿子管理計劃擴大至惹蘭勿剎、馬西嶺-裕廸和義順地區。我們將分階段在全新加坡推廣該計劃。建屋發展局（HDB）也在榜鵝和大巴窯試驗安裝半高網，以防止鴿子在組屋空調機架上築巢。試驗結束後，我們會將建屋發展局的發現分享給所有市鎮理事會。
Pritam Singh先生和Lee Hui Ying女士也詢問了烏鴉射擊的安全協議。國家公園局（NParks）已與內政部及相關機構合作，制定了嚴格的射擊協議。這包括確保射擊軌跡始終向上，設定安全隔離區並配備適當標識，以及部署人員管理公眾進入和限制未經授權的行動，確保烏鴉射擊行動的安全。
國家公園局將從本月下半月起逐步恢復烏鴉射擊。我們將根據多種因素選擇地點，包括公眾反饋和烏鴉射擊行動的技術可行性。但歸根結底，儘管我們做了許多工作，仍需要大家共同努力，承擔共同責任。請不要餵食鳥類，保持環境清潔。這些小事將有助於讓我們的生活環境更加宜居。
先生，正如我們謹慎管理身邊的動物一樣，我們也必須管理好我們的綠色和藍色空間。我同意Nadia Samdin女士的觀點，自然對我們作為城市的長期韌性至關重要。這就是為什麼我們作為“自然之城”願景的一部分，正在擴大我們的綠地。未來五年，我們計劃建設超過25個新公園和50公里的公園連線道。
我們還在加強全島的生態連通性。我們沿道路種植更多本地樹木和灌木，模擬森林的多層結構。這些“自然之路”幫助鳥類和蝴蝶等動物在自然保護區、公園和花園之間移動。結合公園連線道和公園，它們將形成更廣泛的自然走廊，連線我們生物多樣性最豐富的區域。
我們還讓公園更加歡迎和便捷，比如標誌性的濱海灣花園。今天，我很高興宣佈，濱海灣花園將迎來全新的“濱海溼地”。我們將擴充套件現有的翠鳥溼地區域，種植超過600株紅樹林和沿海植物，遊客可以劃皮划艇穿行其中。面積將是現有的三倍，植物數量也將增加三倍。
我們還將建造一條新的樹冠步道，橫跨溼地，連線濱海灣花園地鐵站與南灣花園的主要景點。我們還將建設“林間草坪”，一個新的社群綠地，將舉辦活動和專案，同時為遊客提供放鬆休憩的場所。
我們也開始建設一座新的行人橋，直接連線南灣花園和東灣花園，預計2028年完工，這樣遊客就無需繞行濱海堤壩到另一側。
除了濱海灣花園，我們還在振興並連線新加坡西南部的13個公園，其中包括三個目的地公園。今天，我很高興分享約2500份反饋中的一些關鍵想法，這些將塑造這些公園的未來。
許多參與諮詢的市民希望在關鍵路段改善無障礙設施和便利設施，如增加娛樂選項、洗手間和遮蔭區。同時，你們也希望我們在增加不同使用者體驗的同時，保持公園的綠意和寧靜。
因此，我們將探索包容性的自然步道，連線西南部公園，通過探索和遊戲拉近社群關係。
我們將通過融入海洋和文化遺產元素，增強西海岸公園的海岸魅力。我們還將引入新設施，同時細心保護西海岸公園的寧靜自然。
對於園藝公園，我們將使其成為更具包容性和歡迎感的園藝中心，社群可以聚集並參與實踐專案。我們將保持拉布拉多自然公園的寧靜和自然，同時增加新設施，展示其遺產和生物多樣性。
因此，我感謝公園使用者、社群和居民的寶貴反饋，期待提升這些公園及更多公園的品質。
接下來，讓我從我們的公園和綠地談到藍色空間。2014年，我們建立了姐妹島海洋公園，成為海龜保護的安全港和珊瑚活體基因庫。事實上，我去年曾訪問該海洋公園，釋放了國家公園局在東海岸公園發現的76只幼年玳瑁海龜。該海洋公園是熱門的海龜築巢地，設有海龜孵化場，保護幼龜免受人類活動、捕食者和高潮的威脅。
今年，我們將正式指定第二個海洋公園，位於拉扎魯斯南部和龜嶼礁，以提供更多休閒、保護、研究和教育機會。先生，保護我們的水域也意味著更好地瞭解它們。因此，我們將投資6000萬新元建設新的海洋科學研究卓越中心。該中心將由新加坡國立大學主辦，並由“研究、創新與企業2030”基金支援。
該中心將匯聚跨學科專業知識，發展本地能力和人才，並與聖約翰島國家海洋實驗室及海洋界合作伙伴合作。國家公園局正與新加坡國立大學合作建設該中心，詳情將於今年晚些時候公佈。
主席先生，發展新加坡時，我們面臨許多相互競爭的需求，我們通過審慎的總體規劃平衡這些需求，採取長遠視角，結合新加坡人的期望。Chee Hong Tat部長分享了建屋發展局的重點之一是確保可持續發展新加坡，平衡土地使用需求。但由於土地有限，某些權衡始終存在。
下午2時45分
正如Nadia Samdin女士所倡議的，我們在管理綠地和藍地的同時，也必須謹慎平衡自然與發展的關係。我想向她保證，我們非常重視規劃開發的生態影響。
Dennis Tan先生再次提出對實龍崗森林和羅弄哈魯士巴士車廠的關切，並要求對所有林地進行基線研究。我已在1月的休會動議中回應過，但因這些問題重要，我將簡要重申。
我們必須在有限土地條件下平衡住房、教育、綠地等多種需求。Tan先生也提到其他國家如何利用自然解決方案保護和振興棕地。正如我所說，我們沒有其他國家那樣的土地和空間奢侈。我們必須充分利用有限資源。
但我同時想向他保證，我們已有健全框架，平衡發展需求與保護大家享有的綠地。這不是非此即彼的簡單選擇。
根據《規劃法》，未經規劃許可不得進行開發。作為審批流程的一部分，我們會評估地塊的潛在生態和生物多樣性價值，基於地塊現狀而非分割槽。位於或鄰近敏感區域、可能產生跨界影響的專案，必須與技術機構深入協商，若有重大環境影響潛力，需進行環境影響評估（EIA）。即使不需EIA，相關機構仍可施加減緩措施。
因此，正如Tan先生所說，不僅是減緩，很多情況下還包括避免和適應。通過EIA，我們綜合考慮住房、就業等需求與擬議開發的生態和生物多樣性影響。決策是在權衡這些艱難取捨後作出。Henry Kwek先生提到建屋發展局官員與他及居民多次溝通的例子，正是此方法的體現。此舉保護了最具生態敏感性的地點，同時兼顧緊迫的發展需求。
[副議長（Christopher de Souza先生）主持]
先生，我們也在管理承載集體記憶的場所。Cai Yinzhou先生詢問是否會考慮為城市開發專案設立社會和遺產評估框架。這已是我們規劃的一部分。我們與利益相關者合作，識別具有建築和社會意義的建成遺產，提前諮詢遺產與身份夥伴關係和國家遺產局遺產諮詢小組等團體。
我們的方法不斷演進。2018年，我們試點了位於Mount Pleasant的舊警察學院遺產研究。該地位於Cai先生選區，臨近且對面是我的選區。我們已保護了六座最重要的建築，並賦予新用途，包括鄰里警察局和新加坡警察部隊遺產展覽館。我們還保留了部分舊閱兵場作為社群公共空間。這些元素將融入新的Mount Pleasant組屋區，容納6000戶住宅，結合遺產與自然。
先生，2022年，我們推出了遺產影響評估框架，針對可能顯著影響遺產地的專案。評估結果指導我們規劃開發、保護或適應性再利用遺產元素，並與利益相關者溝通。
以武吉知馬賽馬場為例。2024年的評估認可其作為東南亞頂級賽馬場66年的歷史。即使我們將該地改造為住宅區，也會保護曾容納數千觀眾的兩座看臺及舊武吉知馬馬術俱樂部會所。我們將敏感地改造並整合這些地標，保持該地區的歷史記憶。
目前，我們已保護超過7200座建築和結構。無法保護或受限保護的地方，我們通過精心設計和講述故事來紀念其歷史。我們還將加強六條身份走廊的吸引力和特色，這些是新加坡人熟悉的社群，擁有共鳴的地標。這讓我們在建設未來的同時，根植於過去。
Cai Yinzhou先生還詢問是否能更好地利用淡水水體進行休閒。如今，許多水庫是活躍的水上運動中心，島內設有多個水上活動點。我作為新加坡皮划艇聯合會顧問，經常使用這些水域。許多水庫活躍開展水上運動，居民可在多個水上活動點租賃裝置，參與皮划艇和獨木舟等運動。
我們即將開設位於濱海水庫的PAssion Wave Outpost，將為新加坡人提供城市門口的水上休閒機會。我們希望這些遊樂空間能讓更多新加坡人聚集，使城市更有活力，更具吸引力。
先生，我們還需管理我們居住的地方。2014年，我們成立了市政服務辦公室（MSO），讓居民無需在多個機構間奔波解決市政問題。如今，他們只需通過OneService渠道提交問題，後臺系統利用人工智慧和智慧分流功能，將約90%的案件指派給正確的機構或市鎮理事會。
同時，我與OneService團隊合作，改善應用程式功能，使居民反饋更便捷。我們在升級OneService應用的同時，也不斷挑戰自我，提升市政服務質量。先生，請允許我用中文分享我們的做法。
（中文）: [請參閱本地語言發言。] 2022年，MSO在淡濱尼啟動綜合市政服務試點，並擴充套件至白沙和榜鵝。
該模式整合了各政府部門提供的簡單市政服務，統一由單一管理運營商負責。這樣，我們能專注於解決問題，而非確定問題歸屬哪個政府機構。
如今，前線員工掌握更多技能，能更快處理問題。例如，清潔人員發現人行道不平整時，可立即封鎖區域並通知維護團隊。園林人員發現土壤沉降時，也能主動填補，防止居民絆倒及蚊蟲滋生。如此，問題能更快解決，居民更滿意，參與公司和員工也學到新技能。
去年，我們開始與運營商討論如何進一步推廣該模式，他們表示強烈支援。因此，我們將分階段將綜合市政服務模式推廣至周邊鎮區，給予運營商足夠時間適應，同時認真聽取反饋並納入規劃。
（英文）: 主席先生，我們這座小島是我們的家園。即使我們建設住房、學校、醫院、機場和交通樞紐，我們仍持續謹慎管理自然和承載特殊記憶的地方。
先生，正如我多次在議會和本院提及，我們可用資源有限。作為土地的負責任管理者，我們將始終坦誠告知新加坡人我們能做什麼、不能做什麼，以便繼續將我們的小島國家塑造為世界上最宜居的城市之一。
主席：我們有時間進行澄清。看到有人舉手。Henry Kwek先生。
Kwek Hian Chuan Henry先生：主席，我有三個簡短的澄清。鑑於組屋價格和工資隨時間上漲，建屋發展局能否分享收入上限審查的時間表？是幾個月內完成，還是達到某些門檻條件後？
第二個問題，建屋發展局提到將增加較大單位供應，是否包括我之前提過的五房組屋？
第三個問題，較高樓棟意味著更高規格的電梯和更嚴格的消防標準，導致長期維護成本上升。建屋發展局是否準備協助市鎮理事會抵消增加的生命週期成本？
Chee Hong Tat部長：主席，Kwek先生問及收入資格門檻審查時間。我們正在積極進行，暫時無法給出具體時間表，但審查完成後會及時公佈。
第二個問題，是否會建更多五房組屋？答案是肯定的，我們會尋找更多地點建設，因此我之前提到需要尋找更多土地，準備地塊以加快建設速度。我們也會通過巧妙設計、更多綜合和混合用途設施，提高土地使用強度，提升土地生產力。這樣，我們能擠出更多空間，滿足不同買家需求，包括單身人士、長者和大家庭。
最後一個問題，較高樓棟是否會提供更多支援給市鎮理事會？主席，我在主旨演講中提到，我們將繼續採取合作伙伴關係方式。我們認識到成本上升，也如梁先生早前所說，某些維護和服務成本可能高於傳統方式。他提到氣動廢物收集系統，雖然節省土地，但維護成本因操作複雜而可能更高。
這是我們與市鎮理事會密切合作的領域，實現雙贏。對於較高樓棟，也有系統層面的收益。但若市鎮理事會需額外支出，我們會探討如何確保政府、市鎮理事會和居民共同公平分擔。
主席：梁永華先生。
梁永華先生：部長Chee在演講中提到，今年將推出19,600個新建組屋單位。我想問，未來兩三年內的供應趨勢如何？是否能滿足組屋的高峰需求，考慮到家庭組建數量遠低於該數字？未來兩三年內，這一趨勢是否仍將持續？
我的第二個澄清是關於LUP。在剩下的100個組屋區塊中，我相信有些組屋區塊的某些單元堆疊在技術上非常具有挑戰性，但另一些單元堆疊是可行的。建屋發展局會考慮對某些組屋區塊進行部分的LUP嗎？至少讓部分組屋區塊能夠享有電梯通達，而不是因為某個單元堆疊無法實施，整個組屋區塊就無法進行電梯升級。
下午3時
謝鴻達先生：主席，我將回答這兩個問題。第一個問題的答案是肯定的，我們將繼續提供充足的新建組屋（BTO）供應，以滿足買家的需求。
我之前提到，我們正試圖滿足不同買家的需求。如果降低單身人士購買BTO組屋的資格年齡，將有更多人能夠申請。如果提高收入門檻，將有更多人符合申請資格。如果我們想滿足更多之前可能與家人同住但現在希望在附近擁有自己組屋的買家，這也會導致住房需求增加。
儘管家庭成員人數、平均家庭規模可能有所下降，但由於家庭分裂現象，家庭數量實際上是增加的。
今年，我們將建設19,600個單位。我之前說過，如果需求依然強勁，建屋發展局將繼續保持充足供應，甚至超出之前承諾的三年內建造55,000個單位的目標。我們已準備好超額完成任務。
關於第二個問題LUP，我認同梁議員的觀點，我們不應以二元方式看待這個問題，即因為某些部分無法實施，就認為整個組屋區塊都無法實施。我接受他的觀點。正如我的同事高階議會秘書哈倫早前提到的，我想向議員們保證，我們會盡最大努力，因為我們的目標是儘可能為更多住戶提供電梯通達。我們會盡力而為。
但我也希望議會理解，在某些情況下，這可能無法實現，因為技術可能不允許我們針對該配置實施，或者成本過於高昂。正如高階議會秘書哈倫早前提到的，我們使用的是納稅人的錢，公共資金，因此需要權衡和謹慎。
我們會盡最大努力。我希望隨著新技術的出現，並與業界緊密合作，將會有更多方案可供選擇，使我們能夠滿足更多單位的需求。
主席：法茲利·法烏茲先生。
法茲利·法烏茲先生：謝謝主席。我有兩個澄清。首先，我想問公共租賃計劃的月收入上限最後一次修訂是在什麼時候？鑑於漸進式工資模式下工資的增長，是否有計劃審視這一收入上限？第二，政府為增加租賃戶轉為擁有自住房屋的目標設定了哪些年度指標，直至2030年？
主席：高階議會秘書賽義德·哈倫，您會回答嗎？請繼續。
賽義德·哈倫博士：謝謝主席。關於收入門檻最後一次審視的時間，我目前沒有相關資訊。若議員願意，可以提交國會質詢。
但我想向議員保證，針對租賃戶，我們確實希望儘可能支援弱勢家庭。這不僅僅是租賃組屋的問題，還包括對他們的全方位支援。我們關注的不僅是租賃組屋，還包括他們維持收入的能力，如就業機會，以及支援整個家庭，包括子女的教育需求。
關於議員的第二個問題——抱歉，我能否先澄清一下第二個問題？
主席：法茲利·法烏茲先生。
法茲利·法烏茲先生：第二個問題是關於目標，即增加租賃戶轉為擁有自住房屋的目標。
賽義德·哈倫博士：感謝議員澄清問題。關於目標，我們沒有設定每年租賃戶轉為擁有自住房屋的具體指標。原因是我們的目標是支援儘可能多的租賃戶實現擁有自住房屋，只要他們準備好了。
正如我在演講中提到的，去年我們幫助了2,000個租賃家庭實現向擁有自住房屋的過渡，他們正在等待分配組屋。確實，擁有自住房屋是一項長期的財務承諾。家庭是否準備好轉為擁有自住房屋，取決於他們的具體情況，如就業穩定性和儲蓄。因此，我們與每個租賃家庭緊密合作，評估他們的準備程度，並支援他們的過渡。近年來，我們持續加強這方面的支援。
主席：洪偉能先生。
洪偉能先生：我想就電梯通達組屋補貼（Lift Access Housing Grant）尋求澄清。是否可以放寬70歲及以上住戶的資格標準，免除醫療證明的要求？此外，建屋發展局是否可以要求購買分段轉售組屋的新買家簽署承諾書，表明他們知曉該組屋短期內不太可能符合LUP資格？
下一個澄清。我們對靠近珍珠山臺的60層組屋感到興奮。考慮到未來的住房需求，我同意應探索更多建造高層組屋的選項。部長能否分享哪些建屋鎮實際可支援50層以上的高層發展？
最後一個澄清是關於害鳥和野生鳥類。城鄉發展部是否對目前應對每年22,000起害鳥案件的資源感到滿意？是否願意增加資源以加強害鳥治理，包括加大對食物浪費和喂鳥行為的控制力度？
賽義德·哈倫博士：主席，我將回答關於電梯通達組屋補貼的問題。感謝洪偉能先生的提問。電梯通達組屋補貼是針對有成員患有醫療狀況或行動不便、急需購買帶有直接電梯通達的組屋的公民家庭。資格評估基於需求，而非住戶年齡。申請條件之一是該家庭成員或業主必須有醫療狀況，導致行動不便，爬樓梯存在困難，成為限制因素。
目前我們沒有計劃基於年齡擴大電梯通達組屋補貼的資格範圍。真正的依據是醫療需求。如果有醫生證明該個人患有影響行動能力的疾病或狀況，符合補貼的其他條件，我們會考慮該申請。
主席：謝鴻達部長，您會回應洪偉能先生的另外兩個澄清嗎？請繼續。
謝鴻達先生：謝謝主席。主席，關於60層高樓的問題，現在下定論哪些建屋鎮能實現還為時過早，除了我剛宣佈的珍珠山那一處。但正如我在演講中提到的，只要條件允許，我們希望儘可能建造高層組屋。因為這是增加單位數、充分利用有限土地、創造更多空間的方式。
關於野生鳥類問題，感謝洪偉能先生的支援。正如國家發展部高階國務部長陳振聲早前提到的，這需要全社會共同努力。我們不能僅靠增加執法人員或害蟲控制團隊（無論是國家公園局還是承包商）來解決問題。我們會確保他們有足夠資源開展工作，但這還不夠，還需其他措施配合。例如，正如高階國務部長陳振聲早前所說，請不要喂鳥，這會大有幫助。請妥善管理食物浪費，這也有助於控制害鳥。我們需要全社會共同努力，保持環境安全和宜人。
主席：普里坦·辛格先生。
普里坦·辛格先生：謝謝主席。我有幾個簡短的澄清和問題。首先，關於降低單身人士購買BTO組屋的資格年齡。我相信這是部長提到國家發展部正在研究的方向，但如果我錯了請糾正。同時，我聽部長早前提到單身人士的中位申請倍率仍然很高，但他沒有給出具體數字。不過，我記得他提到首購和二購者的倍率是2.6倍。
因此，我希望部長能分享目前單身人士的中位申請倍率是多少。
同時，鑑於正在審視降低單身人士資格年齡的問題，因為這對他們來說是一個有限的年齡視窗，國家發展部何時會確認新的單身資格年齡標準？
第二點是關於取消收入資格上限。我想澄清，這並非呼籲完全取消上限；我強調的是有附加條件的取消，這可以為某類BTO買家提供另一種選擇。
最後，我感謝高階國務部長孫雪玲關注建立組屋商鋪租賃資訊門戶的前景。我這裡有個小更正，我說我去年10月呼籲建屋發展局公開這類資訊，實際上應該是9月。
主席：謝鴻達部長，您願意先回答嗎？
謝鴻達先生：謝謝主席，我先回答前兩個問題，我的同事高階國務部長孫雪玲會回答第三個。
先生，目前我沒有具體數字可以分享，但可以肯定的是，單身人士和長者可申請的兩房靈活式組屋（2-room Flexi）的申請倍率高於家庭組屋。這也是我在演講中提到，未來三年我們將增加約50%的兩房靈活式組屋供應，以滿足強勁需求。
展望未來，我們也在審視是否允許某些單身人士與家庭成員共同購買更大單位，而非單獨購買兩房靈活式組屋，只要供應充足，這是我們正在考慮的。
我無法確定何時會審視此事，因為這取決於我們對供應充足的信心。
我希望辛格先生理解這一點，我相信他理解：如果在供應不足時降低年齡限制，可能會有更多人進入市場申請，需求上升，這也會影響現有申請者，包括35歲及以上的單身人士。為避免這種情況，我們應在有信心滿足需求增長時適時調整。
關於取消收入上限，我們理解一致。我在演講中提到，您並非建議完全取消，而是對超出收入門檻者施加某些限制。
下午3時15分
我也承認這需要仔細研究，因為存在權衡。例如，如果允許目前不符合資格的群體進入，他們將與其他80%收入低於上限的買家競爭同一批BTO組屋供應。
因此，為確保滿足更高需求，供應是關鍵，這也是我希望議會支援我們加快建設的原因。我們需要做出一些權衡，包括丹尼斯·陳議員提到的。如果能避免影響某些區域，我會盡力，但我們確實面臨艱難的權衡。如果議會同意將提供充足住房供應作為首要任務，我們就必須坦誠面對這些權衡。
主席：孫雪玲國務部長，您願意回應普里坦·辛格先生的第三點嗎？
孫雪玲女士：普里坦·辛格先生澄清了他的觀點，沒有向我提問，所以我無話可補充。
主席：娜迪亞·薩姆丁女士。
娜迪亞·艾哈邁德·薩姆丁女士：謝謝主席。我有三個澄清。第一是關於藍色空間，向國務部長陳偉麟提問。我很高興聽到有關新海洋科學中心的訊息。請問該中心的工作將如何補充現有機構的努力，例如聖約翰島國家海洋實驗室和新加坡海洋館研究與學習中心？整體而言，新加坡青年和公民科學家如何參與其工作？
接下來，請問第二個海洋公園的休閒空間規劃如何？我們能從第一個姐妹島海洋公園學到哪些經驗？我注意到第二個海洋公園涵蓋拉扎魯斯南和居鑾島，這些地方人類活動較多，例如居鑾島的朝聖季節，拉扎魯斯南的休閒空間和微型住宅。城鄉發展部如何考慮這些因素，比如分割槽和訪客管理，以保護棲息地並減輕環境壓力？
第二個澄清是給賽義德·哈倫議會秘書，關於SRSF和JSS-OR試點專案的經驗教訓，包括我所在的宏茂橋區。例如，有送餐員詢問是否能提供摩托車停車位；還有居民有健康和福祉挑戰，城鄉發展部是否考慮集中更多服務，超出已有的“新希望”服務？
最後一個問題是關於進一步支援離婚人士，正如我在質詢中提到的。
主席：陳偉麟國務部長，您願意回應嗎？
陳偉麟先生：主席，我將回應娜迪亞·薩姆丁女士的前兩個澄清，後兩個由賽義德·哈倫議會秘書回答。
首先，感謝娜迪亞·薩姆丁女士參與海洋公園之友的工作，這也是她對此事感興趣的原因。關於第二個海洋公園，目的是保護該區域生態重要棲息地，並增強姐妹島現有的生物多樣性。
同時，目標是提供休閒、研究、推廣和教育空間。在這方面，海洋公園之友、自然青年守護者以及其他研究、推廣和政策團體是我們的關鍵利益相關者，我們將根據他們的反饋審視並增強第二個海洋公園的相關功能。
關於海洋科學中心，它是一個國家協調的研究專案。新中心將與海洋館等機構合作，協調海洋科學能力和生物多樣性研究，提供跨利益相關者的戰略願景，重點培養青年、政府部門、產業研究人員和大學人才，建立研究海洋生物學關鍵課題的人才庫。
最後，我們還將與區域機構合作，提升對海洋生物學和保護的理解。
賽義德·哈倫博士：感謝娜迪亞·艾哈邁德·薩姆丁女士的提問。關於SRSF，正如我在演講中提到的，反饋積極。居民喜歡擁有自己的房間，且共享公共設施，這一偏好受到歡迎。這也是我們計劃擴大規模的原因。雖然您提到的一些限制與當前臨時場所有關，但我們會採納反饋，在轉入永久組屋時納入新功能。我們將持續改進空間，探索如何更好地提升公共租賃組屋的居住體驗。
我理解這個問題是關於其他弱勢群體的，接下來是第三個問題。我們將繼續觀察需求所在，並繼續探討如何最好地調整我們的一些政策，以便能夠幫助這些弱勢群體。我們的意圖依然是確保能夠支援儘可能多的弱勢群體，包括離婚者和單親家庭。我們將看看如何最好地調整一些政策以在這方面提供支援。
主席先生，若獲准，我也想回應法茲裡·法茲先生之前的澄清。我確實有回應。
主席：請繼續。
賽義德·哈倫·阿爾哈布西博士：謝謝您，主席先生。關於公共租賃住房的收入上限，我想向議員以及在座各位保證，自2023年以來，公共租賃住房沒有收入上限。申請會進行整體審查，考慮到個別家庭收入、家庭規模、住房預算以及個人情況。
因此，這確實體現了我們希望全面考慮每個人和每個家庭的願望，以便能夠找到最佳方式給予支援。
主席：劉志豪先生。
蔡慶偉先生：謝謝主席。我有兩個問題想向齊部長澄清。第一個是關於執行共管公寓（EC）政策的審查——有沒有時間表？
第二，關於部長提到的建立穩健供應管道，鑑於現在是2026年3月，關於建屋發展局（HDB），是否仍計劃將供應量降至約15,700套左右，相較於目前的19,600套水平？這是針對2027年的計劃。
同樣地，關於私人住宅物業，2026年下半年及2027年的供應預期如何？原因是，如果我看最近三次政府土地出售計劃，供應量尤其是EC供應量一直在減少。
齊宏達先生：謝謝主席。EC政策審查正在進行中，所以我無法給出具體時間表。我認為重要的是，蔡先生在他的發言中也提到了這一點——這並不簡單。郭先生也提到了這一點。
如果只是通過增加補貼來解決，那比較直接。但在這種情況下，如果我們採取這種措施，因為我們不控制EC的價格——這些價格是基於開發商的競標和銷售——存在風險，即大量來自納稅人和公共資金的支援會被EC開發商吸走，而不是流向購房者，這不是我們的初衷。
所以，我認為這是我們需要仔細考慮的事情：如何適當干預，但又不從根本上改變EC的性質。正如我在回應蔡先生時所解釋的，EC更類似於私人公寓，而非公共住房。實際上，10年期滿後，它們就完全像私人公寓一樣，可以出售給任何人，包括外國人。
因此，我們也需要問自己：如果進行這次審查，是否希望保留EC的基本性質，還是想改變它？這是一個非常重要的點。如果想保留，就要考慮如何在保持其更接近私人公寓而非轉售組屋和公共住房的特徵的同時，提高可負擔性。
關於供應管道，我之前在回應一些澄清時也提到過，我們不會侷限於55,000套的目標。如果需求強勁，需要超過這個數字，我們會這麼做。
私人住宅也是一樣，我之前也說過，如果需求依然強勁，我們有能力釋放更多供應。方法有兩種：一是啟動新地塊，通過政府土地出售計劃釋放；二是將一些儲備用地轉為政府土地出售計劃，或者將新地塊放入儲備，開發商可在需求強勁時觸發。
所以，有多種方式來實現這一點，但無論是公共住房還是私人住房，關鍵還是供應。
供應意味著我們必須建造更多房屋，啟用更多土地，建設更高層建築，提高土地集約利用，改進設計，實現更多綜合混合用途。
這些都是增加供應的不同方式。
主席：傅澤祥先生。
傅澤祥先生：謝謝主席。我有三個澄清。第一，關於電梯。中峇魯組屋區由戰前和戰後建築組成，自建立以來一直沒有電梯。許多居民年齡漸長。我想問是否可以與建屋及發展部合作，成立特別工作組，探索所有可能的方案。正如部長所說，他們願意這樣做。
第二，關於鴿子。我想我們都面臨鴿子在空調外機架上排便的問題，我也一樣。我期待榜鵝試點的建議，但我想問部委是否考慮使用可聽見的驅鴿裝置，比如利用預錄掠食者叫聲的生物聲學裝置，作為綜合措施的一部分。這只是一個建議。
第三，關於超高層組屋的電梯。我認為雙溪布洛克峰（The Pinnacle@Duxton）的例子很有啟發性。目前，我從峰居民那裡得到的反饋是：一，他們支付較高的管理費，但電梯有時為何會故障？二，很多人告訴我，他們至少預留15分鐘等電梯，擔心等待時間過長，尤其當其中一部電梯壞了時。
但現實是，雖然他們支付較高的管理費，維護這些電梯的成本實際上比其他典型組屋更高。因此，我認為部長提到的，建屋局、市鎮理事會和居民需要有良好理解這一點非常關鍵。或許一開始就多配備電梯，支付更高成本，比未來長期維護大量不正常執行的電梯更好。這是我想強調的一點。
齊宏達先生：主席，我感謝傅先生的三點意見。我們當然樂意與他合作，解決他選區內老舊組屋面臨的具體挑戰。
下午3時30分
關於鴿子問題，我們願意考慮不同可能的方案，並測試其效果。我不知道傅先生描述的方案是否可行，但我願意嘗試，我們應當開放心態，嘗試不同想法。無論黑貓白貓，只要能抓老鼠就是好貓。只要方法有效，我們都應嘗試。
關於電梯問題，這很重要。正如我之前所述，建造更高層建築可以帶來系統層面的收益，但我們也必須確保對市鎮理事會和居民公平。峰的經驗是在很久以前建造的。今天我們從中學習，設計時會引入最新設計規範和技術。
我們也會考慮如何支援市鎮理事會和居民，尤其是當我們在組屋區引入一些帶來系統層面收益但可能增加區域性成本的設施時。如果能找到橋接方法，就能開啟更多可能，對國家和社會都有益。
主席：陳澤祥先生。
陳澤祥先生：主席，惠英議員已經問了我想問的問題，所以沒問題，謝謝。
主席：我們還有五分鐘。丹尼斯·陳先生，您還有其他澄清嗎？沒有。惠英女士。哦，賽義德·哈倫·阿爾哈布西高階議員，您能說明您的意圖嗎？[笑聲]
賽義德·哈倫·阿爾哈布西博士：謝謝主席，針對丹尼斯·陳先生早前的問題，我想給出更明確的答覆。
主席：請繼續。
賽義德·哈倫·阿爾哈布西博士：非常感謝。針對陳先生，我想說，我們計劃在未來三年內推進針對這40棟樓的電梯無障礙改造。
主席：還有其他澄清嗎？沒有。郭振權先生，我可以請您撤回修正案嗎？
下午3時41分
郭振權先生：主席，感謝建屋及發展部回應我們的質詢，我請求撤回我的修正案。
[(程式文本) 經許可，修正案撤回。 (程式文本)]
[(程式文本) 頭T項下的86億4,005萬8,800元主預算獲批准。 (程式文本)]
[(程式文本) 頭T項下的136億1,353萬5,500元發展預算獲批准。 (程式文本)]
英文原文
SPRS Hansard · Fetched: 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)]