A decade ago, Housing Board lifts were making headlines. Tempers flew, but the problem was not with existing lifts. Rather, it was over lifts yet to be built.

In the early to mid-2000s, lifts were a hot political topic, thanks to the Housing Board’s $5 billion Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP).

The scheme was for blocks built before 1990, which did not have lifts that stopped at every floor.

At its inception in 2001, the Government made it clear that the LUP was not free of political considerations – quite the opposite.

In announcing the LUP, then National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said that “upgrading programmes are possible only because our people continue to support the Government” which generates budget surpluses.

“That is why… the Government has given priority to those who have actively supported these programmes,” he said.

Two months before the 2001 General Election in November, Mr Mah was more blunt: “It’s only fair that we give those constituencies that have given us support, higher priority.”

In the 2006 General Election, many People’s Action Party candidates made lift upgrading part of their campaign promises.

Opposition candidates protested at what they saw as the partisan use of a national scheme, with Workers’ Party (WP) leader Low Thia Khiang calling the politicisation of the LUP “immoral”.

A day before the May 6 general election, Mr Low said: “If they want to continue with the policy of upgrading using government funding to selectively reward PAP supporters, they are dividing Singapore.”

Yet, between that election and the next, the LUP’s political significance receded.

The Government abandoned its earlier stance that lift upgrading would be completed in all PAP wards first.

In 2009, it was announced that precincts in the opposition wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir would be selected for LUP, rather than be sent to the back of the queue.

By the 2011 elections, lift upgrading was no longer a hot-button issue. Indeed, when a leaflet by several PAP candidates claimed that the WP was against national upgrading programmes, WP candidate Gerald Giam publicly rebutted this.

Mr Giam said the WP “has never been against HDB upgrading programmes, especially the Lift Upgrading Programme”.

And when the Workers’ Party won Aljunied GRC in the 2011 elections, lift upgrading there proceeded as planned.

By the end of 2014, the scheme had benefited residents in more than 500,000 households, bringing lift access on every floor to 5,000 blocks, with at least one new lift in each upgraded block.

janiceh@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on October 02, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

When an elderly Housing Board resident lost a hand in a lift accident last October, it turned out to be the first in a spate of accidents that have plagued HDB lifts over the last year.

Madam Khoo Bee Hua, then 85, had stepped into her lift in Jurong and pressed the lift button without realising that her dog was outside – while she was still holding its leash. As the lift rose, her hand is believed to have been pulled through a gap in the doors.

The worst of the incidents since then came this May when Mr Lim Hang Chiang, 77, died when his mobility scooter fell over while backing out of a lift that was not level with the ground floor.

Since then, the authorities have stepped up audits of lifts, and completed the first phase of a lift regulations review which began in 2014.

The latest move is a $450 million Lift Enhancement Programme (LEP) announced last month, under which the HDB will give town councils around 90 per cent of the funding required to modernise lifts of up to 18 years of age, by installing recommended safety features. Town councils will have to chip in the remainder.

The scheme is voluntary.

In addition, town councils face a new requirement, which is not voluntary: They will have to put more of their service and conservancy charges (S&CC) collections and government grants into their sinking funds, and allocate resources to a new Lift Replacement Fund.

The balance in sinking funds – used for long-term estate maintenance, repairs and upgrading – across all town councils is about $1 billion, some of which is used for lift improvements.

As noted by National Development Minister Lawrence Wong in a blog post on the scheme last month, that is considerably short of the estimated $3 billion needed from now to 2035 to cover the cost of future lift replacements.

What impact might the new programme and funding requirements have on town councils, whether in terms of residents’ demands or financial issues? And residents will be wondering: Will this lead to an increase in S&CC fees? And will we actually get improved lifts if the LEP is voluntary?

MODERNISING: WHAT IT INVOLVES

Preceding by three days the HDB’s announcement of the lift enhancement scheme was a call by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) for lift “owners” to modernise their older lifts for greater reliability and safety.

There are about 61,000 passenger lifts in Singapore, including those in private condominiums, malls, office buildings and public housing estates.

The BCA also released a list of eight recommended features that lifts should have. These include a battery-powered automatic rescue device that can bring a lift to the nearest landing and open the doors if there is a power failure.

In its announcement, the HDB said it would support town councils to modernise their lifts in line with the BCA’s list, with about 20,000 lifts expected to benefit.

Some might wonder why modernisation was not made mandatory, but the BCA noted that current lifts already meet safety standards.

“Existing lifts, when properly used, maintained and inspected, will continue to be safe for operation,” it said.

Newer lifts already have some or most of the recommended features, said industry players.

Town councils said they are now assessing how many lifts will come under the scheme, based on age and whether they lack the recommended features.

To be eligible for the LEP, lifts must have been in operation for no more than 18 years.

This thus excludes older lifts like those involved in the incidents that cost Madam Khoo her hand and Mr Lim his life. They had been operating for 19 and 24 years respectively.

Lifts that old will eventually have to be replaced entirely. The HDB generally recommends that town councils replace them after 28 years.

In his blog, MrWong said: “For the older lifts, it will make more sense for the town councils to replace them with new lifts which will come with these enhanced features.”

DOWNSIDE: IT COULD TAKE YEARS

The scheme instead seeks to improve lifts that are not yet up for replacement, but lag behind their newer counterparts.

Some new lifts might already have the recommended features. This could be the case in towns such as Punggol and Sengkang, as well as estates which have recently benefited from the Lift Upgrading Programme that ended in late 2014.

“As a mature estate, some of our lifts are currently either very new, as a result of the Lift Upgrading Programme, while others have been in operation for more than 18 years,” noted Mr Pritam Singh, chairman of the Workers’ Party-run Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.

Still, the town council will put up some lifts for consideration under the scheme, he added.

Finding out how many qualify is thus the first step.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, coordinating chairman for the People’s Action Party (PAP) town councils, said the PAP Town Councils Lift Taskforce – formed in July – will collate the number of eligible lifts from the 15 town councils.

For instance, Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council oversees 2,750 lifts, of which 78 per cent have been in operation for 18 years or less.

“We are currently checking to confirm the extent of works needed,” said its chairman Zainal Sapari.

The fact-finding stage could take a while. As a Nee Soon Town Council spokesman explained: “We are currently working closely with the various lift manufacturers on details of the enhancement required on a per lift basis.”

She added: “This exercise will require time and is important.”

Some town councils already plan to implement the LEP for all eligible lifts. But that may not necessarily be the case islandwide.

Dr Teo said the PAP’s lift taskforce will study the safety enhancements, cost implications, and benefits of implementing the features.

He added that it will then make recommendations to the respective town councils, “taking into consideration the eligibility of lifts according to their age, safety performance and maintenance costs”.

Even after such decisions are made, it could be years before the lifts are updated. The LEP is to be rolled out over 10 years, and implementation will have to be staggered.

“It will require scheduling… to minimise inconvenience to our residents – ensuring at least one working lift per block while the LEP is being carried out,” said the Nee Soon Town Council spokesman.

Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council chairman Chong Kee Hiong noted that the sheer number of potentially eligible lifts – 1,000 out of 1,300 under his purview – would require the programme to be carried out in phases.

“Completion of the LEP would also depend on the lift companies’ ability to cope with enhancement of lifts, due to demand from all town councils,” he said.

A SINKING FEELING?

Amid competing demands on finances, the LEP funding simply makes it easier for town councils to take that voluntary step.

“Town councils often have to look at different spending priorities,” said the Nee Soon Town Council spokesman. “This fund provides the town council with a dedicated budget to implement the necessary improvements.”

As it is, the town councils will only have to stump up about 10 per cent of the remaining LEP costs not covered by funding.

Less clear, however, are the likely effects of a new mandatory requirement: the Lift Replacement Fund.

Currently, town councils are required to set aside 30 to 35 per cent of their S&CC collections and government grants for their sinking funds every quarter. The rest goes into their operating funds.

But soon, town councils will have to contribute even more to the former. They will also have to set aside funds for a dedicated Lift Replacement Fund. This is because expenses related to cyclical works such as facade repair and repainting, which draw on the sinking funds, will rise as estates age.

And from now to 2035, some 11,500 ageing HDB lifts will have to be completely replaced – an exercise that may cost almost $3 billion.

Exactly how much will be needed, however, has yet to be determined. The Ministry of National Development will be asking all town councils to prepare and submit their financial projections for their sinking funds over the next 10 to 30 years.

“These projections will enable us to assess the appropriate levels of contribution to the TC (town council) sinking funds and Lift Replacement Funds,” said Mr Wong on his blog.

The changes will affect how much operating funds town councils have, as well as how much of the sinking fund is used for non-lift-related works, noted Dr Teo.

Town councils declined to comment on the likely financial impact until more details are released.

They also declined to speculate on how much they might be required to put into the new lift fund.

But if past expenditures are any indication, town councils may have varied needs. For Nee Soon Town Council, lift cyclical works took up 8 per cent of the sinking fund for the 2015-2016 financial year.

In contrast, lift works formed 20 per cent of the sinking fund expenditure for Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council.

Will S&CC rates – payable by residents each month- have to go up?

Dr Teo said the PAP town councils are “looking into” a revision, but gave no further details.

HIGH ANXIETY FOR SOME

Public attention may have been focused on lift-related incidents where there was a loss of life and limb, but other injuries have also drawn complaints from residents and observers.

A 23-year-old lift in Ang Mo Kio shot up and down suddenly in March, causing a domestic worker to fall and hurt her back.

And in June, a 22-year-old lift in Bukit Batok that was not level with the ground floor when the doors opened caused an elderly resident to trip and fall.

With such injuries making headlines, even incidents without casualties can cause unease.

In June, Sengkang resident Tan Joo Jin, 45, was in one of his block’s three lifts with his neighbours when it jerked suddenly, stopped briefly between floors, shot down, and then stalled again before eventually reaching the ground floor.

No one was trapped or hurt, but the memory lingers, said Mr Tan, an assistant health and safety manager.

“Now, some people prefer to only take Lifts A and B,” he added, referring to the block’s other two lifts.

He lives in Block 299A Compassvale Street, which was completed in 2001, meaning that its lifts might be eligible for the LEP.

Mr Tan hopes the lifts at his block will be updated – and that residents will be informed of the details.

“As residents, we don’t know what upgraded features have or haven’t been added to our lifts,” he said. “We are the ones living there, we should know the situation.”

The LEP is thus important, not just for the tangible benefits it could bring to some 20,000 lifts, but also the intangible reassurance it could provide to the many more residents who use the lifts.

Admittedly, it will take both time and money, and residents will have to put up with temporary inconvenience.

Replacing aged lifts across the island, with its estimated $3 billion price tag, will exact an even larger cost – one that could spill over to residents if S&CC charges rise.

But for safer lift rides and peace of mind, this is arguably not too high a price to pay.

This article was first published on October 02, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

The authorities recently announced that open prams will soon be allowed on buses.

But even before the ban on open prams is lifted, some parents of children with disabilities have asked if they can be exempted from the rule first.

As their children cannot walk and need to remain in prams or paediatric wheelchairs, they said that they need to be allowed to board buses with open prams.

They now have to put up with a lot of stress when taking the bus as they often have to negotiate with bus drivers to allow their children on board while getting impatient stares from other commuters.

They told The Sunday Times of instances where drivers did not recognise cards that identify children as people with disabilities and mistake paediatric wheelchairs for prams, thus not allowing children in such wheelchairs to board.

“The buses have labels to show they are disabled-friendly, but the drivers are not disabled-friendly,” said housewife Cindy Wong, 48. Her daughter, 13, has cerebral palsy, in which brain injury causes impairment of motor functions.

An estimated 3 per cent of the Primary 1 cohort each year have special needs, though this includes people with intellectual disabilities.

Mainstream schools have an enrolment of 18,000 special needs pupils and a smaller number are in special education schools.

BUS OPERATORS’ POLICIES

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) said prams on buses must be folded as open ones can “pose safety hazards to both the child and passengers if (bus) emergency brakes are applied”.

But a spokesman said this is being “actively reviewed” and LTA is studying different restraint systems with bus operators.

Most bus operators said they allow open prams for children with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.

SBS Transit, the largest bus operator, said that since late May, it has made arrangements to allow children with special needs to travel in their prams on its buses. It has been progressively briefing its 6,000 bus drivers about this.

Its senior vice-president for corporate communications Tammy Tan said the wheelchair ramp of buses will be deployed for the prams to be pushed on board.

“The caregiver has to hold on to the pram and ensure that the child is securely fastened at all times,” she said.

The caregiver has to produce the child’s SG Enable or Developmental Disability Registry (DDR) cards too.

Tower Transit said its bus drivers do not require proof before allowing the prams on board. But prams may have to be folded during peak periods, when the buses are crowded.

Go-Ahead Singapore said its bus drivers are trained to assess whether to allow open prams on buses, on a case-by-case basis.

SMRT said that its bus drivers would help to fold up prams and find a seat for special needs children.

PARENTS’ CHALLENGES

Parents told The Sunday Times that allowing their special needs children in open prams to board buses was long overdue.

They said it may be dangerous to require that prams be folded.

Said cabin crew Shirley Ong, 40: “Asking a parent to handle a special needs child with a folded pram in a moving bus is more dangerous than having the child strapped safely in the stroller, with brakes applied.”

Housewife Juliah Kasiman, 35, had to carry her son in a sling carrier till he was six, as bus drivers did not allow open prams on board.

She said: “If my son is in a sling carrier and I bend down to fold the pram, he’ll bend forward. His head is not supported and could hit the floor. Having to carry him and the folded pram and then tap the EZ-Link cards – I’d be like an octopus.” Her son is now seven years old.

Ms Jasmine Lee, 31, creative director of a resource website for parents of special needs children, said bus drivers need to be educated.

“A parent showed a driver the DDR card (to prove her child has a disability), but he still insisted that she fold the pram.”

Welfare groups agreed on the need for education and training.

Cerebral Palsy Alliance Singapore executive director Jessie Holmberg said: “Inclusive transport should help people with disabilities go to places without worries and negative reactions from service providers. It is vital that bus drivers go through training, from understanding the different types of disabilities to communicating with parents and children with disabilities.”

While noting “great progress” in the accessibility of public transport, Disabled People’s Association executive director Marissa Lee said some drivers may not be inclusive enough.

“Drivers need to understand why children with disabilities, like wheelchair users, should not have to transfer out of their prams.”

She said: “How can we hope to have social integration for these children when they are not able to get to the places where they can learn and play with other children?”

Bus rides an ordeal for mother of boy with cerebral palsy

Taking the bus is no simple matter for housewife Mutmainnabibi Angullia whenever she travels with her three-year-old son Arshad.

For the boy has cerebral palsy, a condition in which brain injury causes impairment of motor functions, and needs to sit in a pram.

The 37-year-old takes her son from their Tampines home to the Cerebral Palsy Alliance Singapore (CPAS) four times a week for an early intervention programme.

“Sometimes, when I wait for the bus, my heart is pounding. What type of driver would I get? Would I have to argue with him to let my son remain in the pram when we board the bus?” she said.

She estimated that for half of the bus rides she has taken with her son, the drivers had not let him board while staying in the pram, citing safety reasons.

She told The Sunday Times: “Once, I showed the driver my son’s DDR (Developmental Disability Registry) card and he still did not allow us to board.”

This card is administered by the National Council of Social Service and indicates that the cardholder has a disability.

“I decided to just carry the pram, with my son in it, up the bus, even though the ramp had not been lowered. But the driver refused to continue the journey. I just sat in the bus angrily and he eventually took off,” she said.

“When we alighted, I cried. Why is it so hard to go to school?”

She said it is unsafe, and hardly possible, for her to carry a folded pram in one hand and her son – who weighs 13kg and whose muscles can go stiff – in the other.

Frustrated, she wrote to SBS Transit in March.

She also ordered a paediatric wheelchair in May, hoping that more drivers would let her son board “since it is a wheelchair and not a pram”.

In July, SBS Transit e-mailed her, saying that arrangements had been made to let special needs children remain in prams on buses.

She now has that e-mail printout when she takes the bus and has had to show it to drivers sometimes.

As more drivers get briefed on the arrangement, she said there have been no problems in recent weeks, at least with drivers of bus service 518 which she takes to CPAS.

Bus operator Go-Ahead took over the service last month but she has not had any problems.

However, she is hesitant about taking other bus services with her son to go to other places.

She said: “I’ll take bus 518 with him several more times. If there’re no problems, I’d be more confident and perhaps I’d try taking him to other places in the pram.

“I want him to go out more, not just to school. I want to let him feel the wind, hear noises from cars and have fun.”

This article was first published on October 02, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

The estate of Mr Lee Kuan Yew yesterday took issue with a statement by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on interviews Mr Lee gave in the early 1980s, after a court ruling on copyright to them.

But AGC said in reply to press queries: “The judgment speaks for itself and there should have been no necessity for the Attorney-General to repeatedly correct inaccuracies about Court proceedings.”

Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang, the executors of the late Mr Lee’s estate, had last year applied to clarify an agreement their father had made over the control and use of the interviews.

Last week, the High Court ruled that the estate had a limited copyright to the transcripts – that is, only for the purpose of making sure the Government complies with the terms of the agreement Mr Lee had signed regarding the interviews, done when he was prime minister.

On Thursday, the estate welcomed the decision that it had the copyright, saying this “resolves a key point on which the Government disagreed with the estate”.

But on Friday, the AGC clarified this claim, saying the Government “agreed that the estate does have a limited copyright” to the material.

Yesterday, Mr Lee’s estate said their application sought a ruling “that all rights” given to him in the interview agreement vested in the estate, and “this clearly included the copyright”, but “the Government resisted the application”.

“Nowhere in the correspondence leading up to the proceedings, or the affidavits, or the documents filed for the proceedings, did the Government state that it agrees that copyright (whether in a limited form or otherwise) vested in the Estate,” the estate added.

It said “the Government’s concession” only appeared from its written submissions filed on July 7, one week prior to the hearing.

The AGC replied last night, saying: “The latest statement issued by the Estate of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew is as unfortunate as the last.

“It is not true that the Government changed its position on the issue of copyright. The Government had always held that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had a limited copyright to the transcripts during his lifetime, and thereafter for five years after his passing or up to 2000, whichever is the later. The agreement that the late Mr Lee and the Government signed makes this plain, and the Government has always honoured the agreement.”

“The point of contention between the Estate and the Government was not copyright. Rather, the point of contention was the Estate’s belief that it was entitled to free and unfettered access and use of the transcripts, which were produced as part of a Government project and protected by the Official Secrets Act,” the AGC added.

“The Government believed this was never the intention of the late Mr Lee, and had to stand firm. The Court upheld the Government’s position and consequently dismissed the Estate’s application in full.”

charyong@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on October 02, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.