Introduction
Sir, the Statutes Miscellaneous Amendment Bill spans a wide range of topics, many of significant concern to Singaporeans. Today, I will speak on four amendments especially relevant to my work in Sengkang: first, the empowerment of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) to administer private estate upgrading programmes; second, increased penalties for wildlife feeding; third, the expansion of scope for MCST management fund utilisation; and finally, Housing and Development Board’s (HDB)'s cost recovery for compulsory acquisitions.
Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) and Estate Upgrading Programme
Sir, I am happy to see that Jalan Merdu in Sengkang has been shortlisted as one of the private estates earmarked for the Estate Upgrading Programme. The maintenance of estate amenities has always ranked high in the list of concerns among both private and public estate residents. With respect to this amendment, I would like to raise two specific questions for the Ministry of National Development (MND).
First, on the Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) Programme. Clause 2 amends Section 8(1) of the Building and Construction Authority Act 1999 to confer on BCA, the duty “to act as an agent of the Government in managing, implementing and administering programmes such as Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) Programme”. Currently, the EASE programme for public estates falls under the HDB. With BCA now undertaking management of the EASE programme for private estates, I would like to seek clarity on the implementation framework. How does BCA plan to partner with Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) to implement the installation of fixtures? Will BCA appoint contractors directly to coordinate installations and maintain quality control across all private estates? Or will MCSTs retain the discretion to hire their own contractors? If the latter, what quality assurance mechanisms will BCA put in place to ensure consistent standards across diverse contractors and estates, given that MCSTs have varying levels of capacity and expertise?
Sir, as of January 2025, the EASE programme for public estates has benefited 340,000 households. As the programme is extended to private estates, it is important that robust implementation and quality assurance frameworks are in place to ensure similar positive outcomes.
Second, on post-completion maintenance of the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP). The same amendment confers on BCA, the duty “to act as an agent of the Government in management, implementation and administration of programmes established and funded by the Government for the upgrading of public spaces, infrastructure and facilities in private estates”. While the BCA is given a role in consultations and site assessments, the Bill does not clearly address who bears responsibility for estate maintenance and upkeep after upgrading works are done. I would ask the Ministry to clarify whether this responsibility continues to rest with BCA, and if so, whether commensurate support will be extended to them.
Sir, neighbourhood estates are shared spaces that form a collective memory for all Singaporeans. Ensuring a fair, transparent, and sustainable allocation of resources is critical to the longevity of such programmes.
Increased Penalties for Wildlife Feeding
Sir, now, I would like to speak about the increased penalties for wildlife feeding. Clause 19 amends section 5A(3) of the Wildlife Act 1965 to “increase the penalties for an offence that relates to the intentional feeding of any wildlife in any place”. Over the past year, I have raised several parliamentary questions on the management of our pigeon population. Residents regularly flag concerns about pigeons roosting on air-conditioning ledges, and some have even had birds fly into their kitchens and balconies. I therefore welcome the Bill's stronger stance on wildlife feeding.
That said, I would urge the Ministry to also address the deeper social dimension of this behaviour. A recent CNA article highlighted that the habit of feeding birds can go beyond mere recalcitrance – it can reflect social isolation and a lack of purposeful engagement, particularly among seniors. Penalising behaviour without understanding its root causes risks addressing the symptom while leaving the underlying issue unresolved.
With this in mind, I would ask the Ministry to consider two complementary measures. First, to strengthen partnerships with social service agencies to engage residents, especially isolated seniors, on the consequences of wildlife feeding, and to connect them with more meaningful social activities. Second, to pair the increased penalty regime with a corresponding uplift in enforcement efforts, so that the deterrence is not only higher in principle but felt in practice.
Expansion of Scope for MCST Management Fund
Sir, I turn now to the proposed expansion of the MCST management fund's permitted uses. In Clause 16, the amendment to Section 38(3) of the Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 states that “moneys from a management fund may be disbursed for the following additional purposes: (a) to organise any social, cultural, educational or sports activity, or any other similar activity, that benefits all subsidiary proprietors and occupiers (b) to engage any legal services for the management corporation”. In short, management fund monies may now be applied towards social, cultural, educational or sports activities, as well as the engagement of legal services on behalf of the management corporation.
Management funds are, at their core, contributions made collectively by subsidiary proprietors, residents who trust that their money will be managed prudently and in the interest of the estate. Any expansion of how these funds can be used therefore warrants careful scrutiny.
Under the current framework, expenditures above a prescribed threshold must be authorised through an ordinary or special resolution at the Annual General Meeting, ensuring that residents have a say in significant financial decisions. I would like to ask the Ministry whether these same safeguards apply equally to expenditures under the newly expanded scope. If a management corporation wishes to draw on the management fund for a social event or legal engagement, would the existing resolution requirements still govern that decision
I raise this because the expansion, while bearing good intentions, opens the door to potential misuse if oversight mechanisms are not clearly extended to cover these new categories. The use of management funds for legal services is of particular concern. Without clear parameters, there is a risk that funds could be directed towards legal proceedings that serve the interests of a few rather than the collective. I would ask the Ministry to clarify what safeguards are in place to prevent such outcomes, and whether additional disclosure or reporting obligations will accompany this expanded scope.
Sir, expanding what the management fund can be used for is a meaningful shift in financial governance for strata communities. Getting the safeguards right is just as important as getting the scope right.
HDB cost recovery in compulsory acquisition
Sir, I wish to raise a final point concerning cost recovery by HDB in compulsory acquisition exercises. The clause in question amends Sections 59, 63, and 67 of the Housing and Development Act “enabling HDB to recover fees, expenses, and legal costs from any compensation payable whether in cases of property vesting under Section 59, or compulsory acquisition under Section 63”.
According to figures released by the MND, 203 HDB flats were compulsorily acquired between January 2020 and June 2022. Of these, 82% involved mortgage arrears. While this represents a small fraction of the broader homeownership population, each case is not merely a statistic, but a family in genuine financial distress.
In light of this, I would like to pose two questions to the MND. First, will there be a cap on the amount that may be clawed back from compensation payable to affected households? Second, for families who face not only mortgage arrears but other concurrent financial obligations, whether the Ministry will include a statutory floor below which compensation cannot be reduced by deductions, to ensure that no family walks away from compulsory acquisition with an amount insufficient to secure alternative housing. To prevent abuse, the floor will be activated as long as the government is satisfied that the family is truly in dire straits, through standard evaluation procedures already in place for assessing means.
Conclusion
Sir, the Singapore Statutes Miscellaneous Amendment Bill introduces meaningful changes across multiple domains, affecting residents of all walks of life.
My remarks today have centred on four areas of concern. First, the need for a robust implementation framework governing the EUP. Second, ensuring that increased penalties for wildlife feeding are accompanied by proportionate social support. Third, establishing clear safeguards around the expanded use of MCST management funds. Fourth, securing compassionate support for families facing compulsory acquisition by HDB.
Taken together, these are not merely technical amendments, they have real consequences for real Singaporeans. I urge the Ministry to address these concerns directly, so that the Bill's intentions are realised not just in letter, but in spirit, delivering outcomes that are fair, sustainable, and humane for all.
