Environmental Protection and Management (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.45 pm

The Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Desmond Tan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

There are two parts to the Bill. I will start with the first part on reducing the emissions of hydrofluorocarbon, or HFC, refrigerants from RAC equipment. RAC stands for refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.

In recent months, the world witnessed the devastating impacts of climate change, from the unprecedented heatwaves in North America, to the terrifying floods in Europe and China.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, in its latest report, warned of catastrophic impacts from climate change unless the world takes urgent action to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and I am heartened by the strong support given by this House earlier this year in acknowledging climate change as a global emergency and a threat to mankind.

Every tonne of GHG reduced can and will lead to tangible improvements to our environment. Singapore will play our part to meet ambitious GHG emissions reduction targets. These are set out under the 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution and our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy under the Paris Agreement. Earlier this year, we launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030, our national roadmap towards sustainable development. Our plans are not static. We will review our plans and continue to raise our climate ambitions as low-emission technologies become available to achieve net zero emissions as soon as viable.

One significant contributor to GHG emissions is the use of RAC equipment. Cooling is essential in our hot and humid climate but it is energy-intensive and generates carbon emissions. RAC equipment also use HFCs as refrigerants and emit HFCs into the atmosphere. These are potent GHGs which trap more heat than carbon dioxide.

This is why MSE announced a comprehensive package of measures at the Committee of Supply debates last year to reduce HFC emissions.

First, to shift the market towards climate-friendly RAC equipment. This addresses the root cause, by avoiding the use of certain classes of HFC refrigerants that have the most adverse impact on the climate.

Second, to raise the industry’s competency in handling HFC refrigerants during the installation, maintenance and decommissioning of the RAC equipment.

Third, to mandate the recovery of spent HFC refrigerants. HFCs from discarded RAC equipment will have to be collected and treated for reuse or destroyed, instead of being vented into the atmosphere.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now go through the new Part 10A of the Bill, which will give effect to the measures I have described.

First, we will phase out RAC equipment using refrigerants with high Global Warming Potential, or GWP in short, where climate-friendly alternatives are already available. GWP is a measure of the warming effect of a gas relative to carbon dioxide. For example, the typical refrigerant used in chillers, R134a, has a GWP of 1,300. In comparison, carbon dioxide has a GWP of one. The higher the GWP, the more heat the refrigerant will trap.

From 1 October next year, NEA will not allow the supply of RAC equipment with high GWP, starting with household air-conditioners that use refrigerants with GWP of more than 750; and household refrigerators and commercial water-cooled chillers that use refrigerants with GWP of more than 15.

Climate-friendly alternatives for such equipment are widely available. They are typically more energy-efficient and users can enjoy energy cost savings, too. For households, there is no cost difference in switching to climate-friendly refrigerators and air-conditioners. For commercial users, low-GWP water-cooled chillers cost 15% more on average, but as they are more energy-efficient, their life-cycle cost savings more than make up for the higher upfront cost.

In our industry consultations, most suppliers and importers of RAC equipment have affirmed that they are able to supply climate-friendly models. Countries in the EU, as well as the US and Japan, have implemented similar measures to curb HFC emissions. Major exporters of RAC equipment, such as the US and China, are also shifting towards more climate-friendly refrigerants.

These measures will be effected through sections 40B to 40D, which allow the Minister to prescribe the above RAC equipment as goods to be regulated and the requirements that they have to satisfy to be supplied in Singapore.

Sections 40E to 40G lay out the requirements for suppliers to register themselves and their RAC equipment with NEA. Suppliers will need to register themselves once, whereas the registration of the regulated RAC equipment will be valid for three years. This allows NEA to regularly review the standards of these RAC equipment and ensure that the equipment sold in Singapore is climate friendly.

Second, to raise the industry’s competency in handling refrigerants, we will regulate companies that carry out regulated GHG works. GHG works involve the use or handling of any GHG, such as the installation, maintenance and decommissioning of RAC equipment.

Companies that carry out any regulated GHG works will be required to establish and maintain policies, procedures and processes to carry out the regulated GHG works safely to minimise emissions. They must keep accurate records of those regulated GHG works and provide the records to NEA upon request. Regulated companies must provide their employees with adequate and properly maintained equipment to carry out the regulated GHG works and deploy at least one competent technician to supervise or carry out such works.

To be certified as competent, technicians must attend a training and certification programme that will equip them with the necessary skills to minimise HFC emissions when carrying out regulated GHG works. NEA has worked with Temasek Polytechnic to roll out a course on handling commercial water-cooled chillers this month. The training programmes will uplift the capabilities of technicians and harmonise HFC handling practices across the industry.

Competent technicians will need to comply with the policies, procedures and processes set out by their respective companies as well as prescribed statutory requirements.

For a start, these requirements will only apply to companies handling commercial water-cooled chillers, as these chillers have much larger refrigerant capacities than household air-conditioners. Companies handling household refrigerators and air-conditioners will not have these requirements imposed on them but are encouraged to certify their technicians.

Sections 40K to 40P will allow the Minister to prescribe the classes, descriptions or types of GHG works to be regulated and the requirements for companies carrying out such regulated GHG works, including registering themselves with NEA. The responsibilities of competent technicians are set out in section 40Q.

Third, we will introduce measures to minimise the venting of spent refrigerants into the atmosphere. The Bill will introduce a related amendment to the definition of "industrial waste" in section 2 of the Environmental Public Health Act to classify spent refrigerants as "industrial waste". With this change, spent refrigerants recovered during RAC equipment servicing and disposal must be sent for proper treatment by licensed toxic industrial waste collectors.

The Director-General will be empowered to administer and enforce the new Part 10A and to conduct the necessary inspections, tests and surveys to make sure that the requirements in the Part are complied with. These powers are set out in sections 40S to 40W.

The Director-General will also be given the power to grant waivers from specific requirements, as set out under section 40Y. These waivers will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The key offences set out in Part 10A include carrying out regulated activities without registering with NEA, supplying non-compliant GHG goods that are regulated goods, failing to meet stipulated requirements, failing to provide records relating to regulated goods or regulated GHG works and falsifying data. The penalties for these offences are pegged to similar offences under the Energy Conservation Act.

An appeal process, detailed in sections 40J and 40R, will also be put in place with regard to certain decisions of the Director-General concerning matters, such as registration. Reconsideration can be sought from the Director-General in the first instance. Thereafter, the person may appeal in writing to the Minister, whose decision will be final.

These three HFC mitigation measures are expected to reduce HFC emissions from the regulated equipment by around half by the year 2030. We can expect further abatement beyond 2030 when the current stock of less climate-friendly equipment is completely phased out.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now move on to the second part of the Bill which will introduce amendments to improve construction contractors’ compliance with the no-work rule on Sundays and public holidays.

Singapore is a dense, highly urbanised and vibrant city, and some amount of noise is normal and inevitable. This includes noise from construction projects which are needed to build our homes, MRT lines and our healthcare facilities.

Over the years, we have introduced a suite of measures to manage construction noise.

First, NEA stipulates maximum permissible noise limits for construction sites, taking reference from the World Health Organization’s guidelines. Construction sites within 150 metres from residential buildings and noise-sensitive premises, such as hospitals, are subject to more stringent noise limits. Contractors must install noise meters at the nearest affected premises and monitor the noise levels regularly.

Second, in 2011, we implemented the no-work rule to provide residents with greater quiet on Sundays and public holidays. No work is allowed on these days at construction sites located within 150 metres of any hospital, home for the aged sick or residential building, though NEA may grant permits for quieter forms of work.

Third, from April 2014 to March this year, NEA disbursed a total of $8.3 million in grants to incentivise contractors to adopt quieter construction equipment and methods. These include using quieter piling and hacking equipment, and installing noise barriers and enclosures.

While most contractors comply with noise management measures, there is a small group of contractors that has continued to violate the no-work rule. From 2016 to 2020, NEA prosecuted an average of 3% of construction sites, or around 150 sites, for first-time violation of the no-work rule each year. Twenty-two percent of this group would go on to repeat the offence.

When complaints on construction noise are received, NEA strives to respond swiftly to address the noise disturbance, especially on Sundays and public holidays. However, there are limitations to the current enforcement approach, as violations of the no-work rule can only be confirmed through physical site inspections by NEA officers. This is resource-intensive and not always effective, as the breach of the no-work rule could have stopped by the time NEA officers reach the construction site.

This is where technology can make a difference. From 1 October next year, we will impose electronic video surveillance on the small subset of offenders to deter further violations of the no-work rule and improve NEA’s operational effectiveness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me outline the key features of the new section 28A. It empowers the Director-General to require the owner or occupier of a construction site who has contravened the no-work rule to install, maintain and operate an electronic video surveillance system at their own cost. This includes visual monitoring devices, such as closed-circuit television cameras.

The notice issued to no-work rule offenders may specify the type of surveillance system required; the number of monitoring devices to be installed and where; the part of the construction site to be recorded; and the duration for which the surveillance system must be operational. The owner or occupier must store the recordings for the period specified in the notice and provide NEA with access to any stored recording so as to facilitate remote monitoring and enforcement.

The penalties for non-compliance are aligned with those for similar requirements in the Act, such as compliance with noise limits and installation of noise meters. Section 42 is amended to provide for appeals to the Minister against a notice issued by the Director-General under section 28A.

We recognise that the construction sector is facing significant challenges during this pandemic, such as a manpower crunch arising from border control measures and higher costs of construction materials. The new requirement will not affect the vast majority of compliant construction sites. It will only be imposed on the small number of construction sites that have violated the no-work rule and it is meant to deter further violations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill marks another milestone in our efforts to tackle climate change and maintain a quality living environment for Singaporeans. The first part of the Bill will ensure that we meet Singapore’s cooling needs in a responsible manner, by using climate-friendly RAC equipment and building up the industry’s competency in handling these equipment. The second part of the Bill will maintain a conducive living environment by strengthening enforcement on offenders of the no-work rule. We will continue to work with the industry and other key stakeholders to regularly review our approach of managing construction noise, taking into account public feedback, international best practices and our local context. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.02 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill tackles two distinct but important problems: noise and greenhouse gases. Residents will be happy to hear that the Bill empowers NEA to more effectively ensure that construction sites remain quiet on Sundays and public holidays. Singaporeans should also be happy that the Bill empowers the Government to better mitigate climate change, given that Singapore is getting warmer much more quickly than the rest of the world.

Sir, I have three clarifications about this Bill.

My first point relates to our efforts to reduce HFCs. Reducing HFC emissions, which make up about 7% of Singapore’s emissions, will contribute to our climate mitigation efforts and I wholeheartedly support this move. HFCs have nearly 12,000 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. And Singapore is emitting such gases more than ever before, a 30% increase from 2014 to 2016, based on the latest available data. Things might be getting worse, not better.

I am glad we are doing more, but my question is: why are household RACs and commercial water-cooled chillers the only equipment being regulated? I understand that these contribute to about half of the emissions and the question is: what about the other half? When can we expect to address emissions from the remaining types of equipment?

Beyond using the stick, can we offer more carrots, especially in terms of the remaining types of equipment that are currently not regulated? Can we increase grants for businesses to encourage adoption of cooling equipment with lower global warming potential? All these while we work on stricter regulations and an eventual ban on the remaining types of equipment which are currently not regulated.

My second clarification is about the requirements for becoming a competent person for carrying out greenhouse gas work. Training and certification are important to upskill our workforce, improve quality of services and reduce emissions by preventing leakage of greenhouse gases. However, training and tests are often conducted in English, which not all of our existing technicians may be fluent in, causing them to be disadvantaged. It is important that certification is accessible and fair so that we improve our workforce rather than cause some to be excluded. Can the Minister share the intended format of training and tests, whether they will be multilingual and what other measures will be implemented to support our existing technicians in getting certified?

My third and final clarification relates to the control of construction noise. In the post-COVID-19 world, more activities are taking place from the home, such as remote learning and working. Can the Minister provide an update on its review of construction noise limits and also consider whether we can have even stricter construction noise limits on Saturdays? This will give families more quiet time to rest and recover over the weekend. Can the Minister also share what other measures do agencies have in place to manage construction noise in residential areas? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

6.05 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA), originally enacted in 1999, is one of a number of key pieces of environmental legislation in Singapore, with a noteworthy recent addition being the Carbon Pricing Act which was introduced in 2018 and came into operation in January 2019.

The EPMA is the primary regulation for the environmental control of pollution and waste, including for hazardous substances in Singapore. What I believe to be noteworthy in this amendment Bill is clause 3 of the Bill which inserts a new Part 10A, comprising new sections 40A to 40Y, relating to the control of greenhouse gases. After all, anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with their far-ranging environmental and health effects, are just about the most hazardous substances nations around the world have to grapple with today.

The Bill goes into significant technical detail about the regulation, monitoring, prohibition and enforcement against a subset of greenhouse gas goods and related activities. However, I believe it is also crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture in terms of the urgent and bold actions that the Government, as well as all other governments around the world, have to undertake to curb greenhouse gas emissions adequately, in order to deal with the existential threat of climate change.

Today's debate is thus timely in the context of the recent August release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC's sixth Assessment Report or AR6 and as nations around the world prepare for COP26 at the 26th UN Climate Change conference coming up in November this year. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the recently published IPCC report "a code red for humanity", as it confirmed that we are observing unprecedented changes in the Earth’s climate "in every region and across the climate ecosystem".

It makes clear that the world faces a frightening future, even if – and that is a big "if" – the global economy is decarbonised rapidly. I would thus like to spend some time sharing more about the key implications of this report and also what we should do in light of these implications, especially since this could have serious repercussions on a coastal island nation that is our home.

In 2019, atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) concentrations were higher than at any time in at least two million years. Across all scenarios considered by the IPCC, global temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century. In fact, we are now expected to reach this 1.5 degree celsius tipping point earlier than expected. To limit warming to 1.5 degree celsius with no or limited overshoot, net global CO₂ emissions need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" by 2050. Unless immediate, rapid and large-scale action is taken to reduce emissions, the average global temperature is likely to reach or cross the 1.5 degree celsius warming threshold within 20 years.

Unfortunately, however, some climate changes are already locked in. Hot extremes have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes have become less frequent and less severe. Over the next 2,000 years, the global mean sea level will rise by about two to three metres, even if warming is limited to 1.5 degree celsius, with the effect irreversible for millennia.

At this point in time, remaining carbon budgets for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degree celsius and two degree celcius are estimated at 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) and 1,350 GtCO₂ respectively. With global emissions currently at a little more than 40 GtCO₂ a year and if continued, the budget would be exhausted in a mere 12 years.

Singapore is certainly not spared from the effects of a higher global temperature. Even in a 1.5 degree celsius warmer world, there will an increase in the number of unprecedented weather events with disasters to become more frequent and intense. Should emissions not come down to net zero by around 2050, there will be even more punishing heatwaves, severe coastal flooding events and bouts of heavier rain. As it is, Singapore has already seen record rainfalls in January, April and August. The recent memory of flash floods in August this year is a very sombre reminder of how things are no longer the way it used to be. What does this mean for daily life in Singapore?

Firstly, in terms of temperature, Singapore has already experienced warming higher than the global average because of the urban heat island effect. Local temperatures are 1.8 degree celsius higher than they were in 1948, as indicated in the MET Service database. In contrast, global temperatures have warmed by about 1.1 degree celsius from pre-industrial times, which ended around 1850.

The IPCC has identified Southeast Asia as a region experiencing severe heat waves, which used to occur once every 50 years but have become five times more frequent. Tropical cyclones are also getting stronger, severe droughts are happening 1.7 times as often and fire seasons are increasing in duration and intensity.

Secondly, bouts of rain could become more intense and frequent with each additional degree of warming. Southeast Asia would likely experience this, resulting in flash floods if the ground is covered with concrete and if drainage systems are overwhelmed, as in Singapore’s case recently.

Thirdly, sea level rises in Asia, especially critical to low-lying coastal regions like Singapore, are projected to increase faster than global average, alongside coastal area loss and shoreline retreat.

While there has been much focus on CO₂, the IPCC also assessed the possibility of actively targeting and removing methane as part of the pathway to limiting warming. While methane is less prevalent than CO₂, it is more than 80 times more powerful at trapping heat over the first 10 to 20 years in the atmosphere.

I had earlier filed a Parliamentary Question on whether the Government has conducted a study to assess the amount of external methane emissions associated with natural gas imported into and consumed in Singapore, across both piped natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is critical because even though methane emitted directly from Singapore is low, the use of natural gas as a source of energy could indirectly contribute significantly to methane emissions through upstream fugitive emission leakages, if these are not properly controlled. As a responsible consumer of natural gas, be it piped or LNG, it is important that we uphold strict monitoring and verification standards and promote the adoption of emission reduction technologies.

Having spoken much about the AR6 findings and their implications for Singapore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do have a number of clarifications I would like to raise about the Bill itself.

To begin with, I note that the Bill under section 40A provides certain definitions on GHG goods, GHG works and other interpretations of the new Part 10A. The first clarification is about sections 40A and 40B which deal with the power of the Minister, after consultation with NEA, to prescribe any class, description or type of GHG goods to be regulated.

To provide greater visibility to businesses and consumers, I would like to ask the Minister if there is currently a set of goods by which the Ministry and NEA plans to prescribe and regulate as GHG goods once the Bill is passed. If there is not such a list yet, would the Minister and agency consider putting a plan for such a list such that, by the time the Act comes into force, the Government may facilitate a swift recognition of such goods? How much of such goods and works that are available in our market today will now be subject to these amendments? In addition, could the Minister provide clarity on whether these GHG goods or works were originally excluded from the Carbon Pricing Act and if so, what is the assessment of the cost to measure and report these GHG goods compared to the amount of carbon tax that potentially could be collected?

Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry’s assessment of any possible impacts this amendment and the classification of the new GHG goods or works will have on our companies, such as the air-condition, chiller and equipment manufacturers as well as industries, such as the semiconductor manufacturing industry, which uses fluorinated gases?

Secondly, under section 40C, an importer or manufacturer has to be a registered supplier for these regulated goods. I would like to ask the Minister when will the regulation of such businesses commence; and in the future, should a new GHG good be added to the list of regulated GHG goods, what is the lead time for businesses to respond accordingly?

Thirdly, under section 40D, there are proposed restrictions on supplies and imports of regulated goods. I would like to ask the Minister how the thresholds of global warming potential are being determined for the regulated goods, and how often would NEA or the Director-General of Environmental Protection plan to review the GWP threshold and its basis for restriction of supply? For example, according to the NEA website, the typical refrigerant used in chillers is R134a, which has a GWP of 1,300. The climate-friendly alternative is R1233zd, which has a GWP of just one. Based on what is disclosed, the NEA will, from the fourth quarter of 2022, restrict the supply of certain air-conditioning equipment with a GWP of more than 750 and certain refrigerators and chillers with GWP of more than 15. How much of a decline in the percentage or volume of GHG emissions is this restriction expected to lead to?

Finally, my fellow Sengkang Member of Parliament He Ting Ru asked a Parliamentary Question about whether MSE has initiated a review of Singapore's ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and if so, what is the outcome of this review. To which, Minister Grace Fu shared that a review is ongoing and the decision for Singapore to ratify the Kigali Amendment will be finalised after consultation with key stakeholders.

I would like to ask if the current Bill amendment is a part of the process towards ratifying the Kigali Amendment and if the Minister can provide a timeline for the review as to whether Singapore will decide to join the 124 countries that have thus far already ratified the agreement.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill and its introduction of legislative safeguards and controls over greenhouse gases in Singapore. Yet, this Bill is but one of the many steps that Singapore will have to take in order for us to advance our efforts in addressing climate change.

As I shared in my speech on the Climate Motion earlier this year, even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. The science has spoken and there is no alternative except to urgently commit to reversing the trend of rising emissions. We can, should and must do more.

My fellow Sengkang colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, again had asked in a Parliamentary Question whether the Government plans to review Singapore's net zero emissions target and set a definitive timeline to achieve net zero emissions. Member Louis Ng too had asked in a Parliamentary Question whether the Government would review and bring forward the plans to reach net zero emissions.

I ask that we be that bright green spark and show the world that even in spite of our constraints, we can set a bold, ambitious and specific emissions reductions target that aligns with the global goal of reaching net zero by 2050 and not let it be that because of our constraints, "if"s and "only if"s dominate our vocabulary.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

6.17 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Climate change is affecting every country in the world and Singapore is not spared. The IPCC report published last month is a sobering reminder of the disastrous outcomes we can expect in 2050 if planet-warming emissions, also known as Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), do not come down to net zero.

I believe that the proposed amendments have balanced both the interests of businesses and protecting the environment. For example, the methods to appeal against a Director-General's (DG) decision are not onerous, whereby aggrieved persons may simply apply to the DG by way of a written notice for reconsideration of the decision.

Ultimately, the objective of the Bill is to regulate GHG emissions in Singapore and this will eventually benefit all stakeholders.

I would like to highlight three areas of the amendments and related suggestions for the Ministry's consideration. I believe that these suggestions will allow for a more calibrated approach in ensuring that businesses comply with the amendments.

First, on the implementation of a register of suppliers, regulated goods and registered GHG entities.

These provisions ensure that the Ministry retains oversight of all GHG goods and GHG-related stakeholders. This is particularly valuable where GHG goods are subsequently found to have been falsely reported as conforming to prescribed standards. The register will benefit suppliers of GHG goods in allowing them to recalibrate their business models where appropriate.

Can we presume that similar to the prescribed regulated goods and suppliers under the Energy Conservation Act, that the register under the amendments will also be made available online?

Second, on the offences relating to the falsification of data in the proposed section 40X. The falsification of data to the DG would render the objective of the Act nullified. For example, suppliers would be able to supply GHG goods that blatantly fall afoul of the prescribed limits of emissions. Furthermore, to ascertain the accuracy of every piece of information or data received would be operationally burdensome on the Ministry.

At present, a conviction for this offence attracts a fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.

I have two suggestions for the Ministry's consideration. Could the Ministry impose a minimum fine for an offence under section 40X? This will encourage businesses to take extra effort to ensure the accuracy of information to be submitted to the Ministry.

Additionally, could the Ministry adjust the maximum term of imprisonment under section 40X from three to six months? This harmonises the maximum term of imprisonment to that of section 177(1) of the Penal Code. The said section prescribes that it is an offence to give false information to a public servant if one is legally bound to do so.

Lastly, I am concerned about the hardships SMEs and smaller businesses may face in complying with the amendments. Doing our part for climate change has a cost and the cost could be placed upon these SMEs unduly, especially in the short term. While the obligations under the proposed amendments will help to combat climate change, they will be especially onerous to smaller businesses. For example, section 40D(4)(d) obligates suppliers of GHG goods to ensure that the goods are accompanied by information relating to their environmental impact.

To this end, I have two suggestions to make.

Firstly, I hope the Ministry will consider a transitionary period in relation to the new obligations under the amendments. While the impact of these obligations may not be large for individuals or larger businesses, I fear that SMEs may be adversely impacted in the short run. This is worsened by the fact that some businesses may still be suffering from the effects of the pandemic.

The new obligations imposed on related businesses are akin to new skillsets for their workers. An appropriately timed transitionary period will allow businesses the required time to adequately comply with the new obligations and retrain their workers.

Secondly, I propose for the Ministry to assist SMEs in complying with the new obligations. The Ministry can explore working with the unions and trade associations in providing practical information to affected SMEs. Furthermore, while the definition of who qualifies as a competent person has yet to be published, the union stands ready to conduct training programmes to ensure affected SMEs can comply with this new obligation with ease.

Perhaps the Ministry can also consider making such training courses approved courses under the SkillsFuture scheme for jobseekers who wish to update their skillsets.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill. These amendments feature a judicious, multi-pronged approach in targeting a key driver of climate change. Every one of us, businesses and consumers alike, have an important role in creating a sustainable Singapore for our future generations. I am confident that by passing the Bill, the House will further cement its commitment towards a greener future for Singapore.

6.23 pm

Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when an activity such as a firm's production of a good imposes a cost on the rest of society, which it does not pay for, for example, when it emits greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, the marginal social cost exceeds the marginal private cost.

In other words, the cost to society of producing an additional unit of the good includes not only the cost of factor inputs like labour and capital but also the harm the firm causes to the environment.

The result is that in the absence of government intervention, there is an overproduction of such a good and its concomitant emission of greenhouse gases.

The amendment to the Bill under consideration provides the Government the legal powers to set regulatory standards on the manufacture and import of certain goods as well as the carrying out of certain works in order to limit the amount of carbon emissions.

As policy tools to fight climate change, the setting of regulatory standards, which is a command-and-control measure, works to complement the introduction of carbon taxes, which is a price mechanism measure. When is it optimal to use the setting of regulatory standards, which target quantities directly and when is it optimal to use prices to achieve the aim of limiting greenhouse gas emissions?

When the compliance costs of limiting greenhouse gas emissions are fairly uniform across firms in the economy and the harm imposed on the rest of society rises sharply when the amount of greenhouse gas emissions crosses a certain threshold, it is optimal to set regulatory standards.

In practice, however, compliance costs might differ across industries and even across firms in the same industry. For example, newer firms might more readily take advantage of clean technology not available to older firms when the latter made their investment decisions. A policy question is whether older firms should be given more time and help in resources to make the transition to adopting clean technology so that there might be differential standards across firms temporarily.

In an environment with uncertainty about the cost of compliance due to new technological development, setting the same regulatory standard for all firms runs the risk of two possible types of error.

If the actual cost of compliance turns out to be less than initially expected, then regulation would, in retrospect, have turned out to be too stringent. On the other hand, if the actual cost of compliance turns out to be higher than initially expected, then regulation would, in retrospect, have turned out to be too lax.

It might be preferable under uncertainty to set a tax on greenhouse gas emissions and then allow firms to choose the extent to which they wish to control the amount of emissions so it gives firms some buffer time to transit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the emission of greenhouse gases from the manufacture and import of certain goods and carrying out of certain works by firms creates negative externalities on the rest of society. There is, therefore, a basis for government intervention to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

The set of optimal policy tools most likely includes both the setting of regulatory standards as well as the use of carbon taxes, which Singapore introduced in 2019. In combination with subsidies for research and development in clean technology, this set of policy tools can steer Singapore in the direction of being a leader in sustainable living. Sir, I support this Bill.

6.28 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the new regulations to reduce HFCs emitted by refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. As mentioned by my colleague Louis Ng, I share his concerns.

I am concerned too with the details concerning certified technicians who handle refrigerants. Some of these employees are not very proficient in English. This has an impact on their certification. What are the plans to help these workers? Will the Government provide free training before the test? Will the testing be difficult? Will training be arranged on a regular basis to ensure that all technicians keep up with the technological changes in this sector?

(In English): Sir, not all job sites will be forbidden from carrying on with work during extended hours and on Sundays and public holidays. Construction sites beyond 150 metres of homes and noise-sensitive buildings such as hospitals are exempted.

I have received quite a number of feedback regarding noise pollution from residents over the years, even though the construction sites producing the noise are some distance away. There is a continued need to improve on the noise insulation properties of new and existing flats. I urge the Ministry to continue to look into the use of technology to minimise the noise pollution from construction projects.

In addition, how can we ensure that the video cameras installed by errant contractors are working well and recording without deliberate intervention? Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

6.31 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, we must continue our work of reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions and sustain the reduction for decades to come. Under most emissions scenarios that are being modelled today, the global surface temperature will most certainly continue to increase until the middle of this century. In fact, the target of 1.5 degrees celsius and two degrees celsius temperature rise will most certainly be exceeded unless we do more, much more.

In the coming years and decades, we will experience changes in our climate system with increase in heatwaves, droughts and more intense storms. Here in Singapore, we will most probably experience heavier precipitation. Throughout the world, we will continue to see the massive loss of sea ice, snow cover and permafrost.

Many of such changes were caused by past greenhouse gas emissions and are irreversible for centuries and up to a millennia. These changes and impact are most prevalent in our ice sheets and global sea levels. Today's emissions and the emissions of the future, will further contribute to these irreversible changes: ocean warming, ocean acidification, deoxygenation, melting glaciers and ice sheets, just to name a few.

Recently, I visited Pulau Ubin – lovely island. Coincidentally, I was there at high tide. The waves were crashing onto the sides of the rocks near the jetty. It would probably take less than another metre of sea level rise before the seawater would flood the coastal roads. With current estimates, the sea level will rise by two to three metres if the temperature rise is limited to 1.5 degrees celsius and two to six metres if limited to two degrees celsius. At two degrees celsius and a six-metre corresponding rise in sea level, not much of Pulau Ubin would be left above water.

We must do more to better control and regulate our greenhouse emissions, be bold and quicken the pace. We are in a race against time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

6.34 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support all the measures to reduce the emissions of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants from refrigeration and air-conditioning (RAC) equipment. These measures, coupled with effective enforcement, will definitely go a long way to help mitigate climate change.

However, I have some concerns about the amendment to ensure that construction sites remain quiet on Sundays and public holidays. The Ministry intends to achieve this by requiring errant contractors to install electronic video surveillance systems.

Due to the pandemic, many construction projects have been delayed. Now, with our economy gradually adjusting to a new norm, contractors are trying to catch up on the works in progress. I would like to ask: how do we balance the need to expedite these construction projects, while ensuring disamenities like noise pollution are kept to acceptable levels?

With the shortage of workers and the urgency to rush jobs, more machinery might be used. Then, what comes immediately to mind is safety. So again, another delicate balance between productivity and safety. Would the Ministry be stepping up safety briefings and inspections? Can the same CCTVs be used to enhance safety at the worksites? The purpose is not so much to penalise and punish contractors, but rather to help spot any safety concerns early. This will allow contractors to be alerted and take remedial action to ensure safety.

Next, I have a query about the integrity of the video recordings. I had encountered cases in my community where NEA received complaints from residents about noise but when they went down to check the construction sites, the noise level was considered acceptable. As technology is so advanced, how can we be sure that the recordings that both the residents and NEA encountered are similar?

The layman does not know what is an acceptable noise level and what is not. I would like to suggest that information on how to discern when maximum levels have been breached be set up at our worksites. These would be very helpful, so that residents are informed and can tell if rules have been flouted. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have some questions regarding the amendment to ensure that construction sites remain quiet on Sundays and public holidays. Due to the pandemic, many construction projects had been delayed. Now, many contractors are trying to expedite their works. How are we going to balance their need to expedite construction, while at the same time, ensure that the noise pollution is maintained at an acceptable level? In addition, in this situation of rushing for work to be done, how do we ensure safety at worksites?

The Ministry will require errant contractors to install video surveillance systems. How can we ensure that the recordings will not be tampered with? Most residents do not know what the acceptable noise level is, as set by the Ministry. I would like to suggest that worksites set up information notices about noise pollution. This will be helpful to let our residents know under what conditions the regulations are violated.

(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.

6.38 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the measures to reduce the use and emissions of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants. However, in view of the current difficulties faced by many companies due to the untamed COVID-19 pandemic, would the Ministry consider reviewing the appropriate time to introduce these measures? My concern is that some of these measures will increase costs for SMEs.

For example, low Global Warming Potential (GWP) commercial water-cooled chillers cost more upfront. We can also expect the higher costs to impact end-users. What measures does the Government have to help manage the impact? How will the Ministry ensure that our cold chain needs will not be adversely affected by the increased costs?

Another area contributing to higher costs is the certification of technicians handling refrigerants. Only certified technicians will be permitted to supervise or service chillers. Mandatory collection and treatment of spent refrigerants will also entail additional costs. Who will bear the fees?

Hence, I appeal to the Ministry to consider delaying the implementation of some of the measures during these challenging times, so as to give our SMEs more breathing room and time to adjust to the new regulations. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In order to ensure that construction sites remain quiet on Sundays and public holidays, the authorities will require errant contractors to install video surveillance systems. I would like to know what is the impact of this new requirement on the construction sector. I am concerned that such unnecessary costs will be levied on these SMEs and many of them are already suffering now.

In addition, are the relevant departments considering using other measures to ensure that construction companies abide by the no-work regulations and better manage construction noise? Currently, what measures have the Ministry’s agencies implemented to reduce construction noise in residential areas? Can we use mobile phones to report errant contractors? Notwithstanding all my concerns and enquiries, I support the Bill.

6.41 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is timely to rein in the emission of pollutants such as gases and noise. This is pertinent in densely populated Singapore, where there are many concurrent ongoing construction activities, with some at close proximity to residential areas.

This is especially pronounced in Yio Chu Kang. There are construction works going on for the North-South Corridor and the new Thomson-East Coast Line. New BTO flats and private estate projects are being built in Yio Chu Kang. There are also existing upgrading works, for instance, at Mayflower Primary School. While I am happy to see such developments, many are taking place simultaneously. The effects of accumulated noise and dust can be vexing to residents. Furthermore, many projects have been extended due to COVID-19. I have received many feedback on noise pollution at my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS).

In my speech, I will focus on managing noise from construction sites.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should have better feedback management systems for residents to provide feedback on such matters. I support the new requirement for construction sites who have contravened the no-work rule on Sundays and public holidays to install electronic video surveillance systems.

Over the years, authorities have increasingly leveraged on technology to monitor noise levels at construction sites. However, feedback from residents in the vicinity remains important, as they are personally impacted and may have practical concerns. As such, there should be dedicated feedback channels for residents to relay their concerns to the contractor. There should also be clear escalation protocols to NEA as the regulator, should problems remain unresolved, despite the initial feedback to the contractor. The relevant authorities should ensure that clear service standards are in place as to when replies must be provided.

It should also be mandatory to provide advance notice to residents living within a 150-metre radius from the construction site. This could be in the form of information on display boards, as well as flyers distributed to nearby blocks. NEA should also consider using Municipal Services Office (MSO)'s OneService app to push out notifications to residents living near construction sites. This will give ample time to residents, whether it is to facilitate alternative arrangements, or to find ways to mitigate the noise.

Contact details for the contractor and the relevant NEA feedback channels must also be clear and visible to residents. On my rounds, I noticed that the display of contact details was not uniform for all sites. Some constructions sites display their contact details and project information on a large board. However, for certain works, especially smaller-scale ones, the information is not always immediately visible. Some residents can therefore be surprised to see a barricaded project site appear, out of the blue. They do not know what it was for and do not know who to ask. I hope the Ministry can standardise the format and requirements for displaying relevant information and communication channels.

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there needs to be more public education with regards to no-work days. Work is allowed on weekends for projects that meet certain criteria. Nevertheless, the ground reality is that this is not publicly known. As such, members of public would lodge a complaint when they see construction works during the weekends, despite the works being permitted by NEA. With the COVID-19-related delays, I expect that more projects would seek permission to work on weekends. Therefore, there needs to be more awareness and better understanding of the regulations. This is to avoid wasting residents' time and Government's resources to manage redundant feedback.

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to ensure that video surveillance support remains sustainable and effective. Can NEA provide a rough estimate on the cost of installation and maintenance of video surveillance equipment? One of the common reasons worksites contravene no-work days is because they are racing against a deadline and budget. So, my concern is if quality video surveillance equipment is costly to install and maintain, they may have some challenges setting it up within the stipulated timeline. Some errant contractors may even try to cut corners.

Moreover, as technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, we are observing a rise in digital capabilities to tamper with video equipment to create false content. How will NEA ensure that the equipment would not be tampered with, to present a fallacious impression?

Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, we need greater clarity on the type of construction projects covered under the new amendments. Besides construction sites, I would like to seek clarification as to whether it also covers other projects that generate noise and other possible disruptions. Are small scale infrastructure developments in the housing estates like the building of covered linkways by the Town Council, piping works by PUB, or road works by LTA covered as well? What about home renovations for HDB and condominium apartments, as well as additions and alterations for houses in landed estates?

The legislation ought to have a clearer definition on the projects it applies to. This could be determined by the project scale or some other measurable criteria, such as the amount of noise pollution emitted or the number of residents that would be impacted. Once the types of project sites are identified, we should also incrementally move towards having mandatory sound and dust-proof barriers for all these work sites.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my last point is on imposing heavier penalties on construction companies that breach the no-work rule. For many Singaporeans, Sundays and public holidays are the only days in a week when they can take a break and recharge. Loud noise over prolonged periods triggers anxiety and stress. This is exacerbated by work-from-home arrangements during this pandemic period. Also, noise monitoring should not be limited to volume alone, but also frequency. Having mediated for community disputes among neighbours previously, some arising from construction noise, I can attest first-hand to the impact of unwanted noise on one’s mental well-being.

Currently, there is a proposed penalty of a composition sum of $5,000 for construction sites that break the no-work rule for the first time. Subsequent offences lead to a Court summons with a maximum fine of $40,000. If we are to meaningfully address noise pollution as a threat to public health and not just as a mere annoyance, would these penalties be too light? As a more effective deterrent, violation of the no-work regulation ought to bear heavier consequences on the contractor’s ability to succeed at the next tender bid. We should also require such offences to be highlighted, when they next bid for projects.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, noise pollution is a real issue on the ground. I did a check in the Hansard. Issues relating to construction noise have been consistently brought up in Parliament on several occasions over the past 10 years, despite ongoing reviews to manage disamenities. Instead of having discrete and piecemeal recommendations, we need a multifaceted and holistic approach to tackle noise pollution. As mentioned in my speech, these include better feedback management, promoting greater public awareness of no-work days and having stronger guidelines on surveillance systems. We should also have greater clarity on the type of construction projects covered under the new amendments and have more enforcement bite.

I believe that these suggestions working together as a system, will make a difference on the ground. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Tan.

6.49 pm

Mr Desmond Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill. The thoughtful comments and suggestions that were raised reflect our collective commitment to climate action and to provide a quality living environment for Singaporeans.

I will first address Members’ questions on the measures to reduce HFC emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning, or RAC, equipment.

HFC accounts for a sizeable share of Singapore’s greenhouse gas emissions. As Mr Louis Ng pointed out, there was a 30% increase in HFC emissions from 2014 to 2016 and this underscores the urgent need for action, which Mr Shawn Huang as well as Mr Louis Chua have also emphasised. The measures introduced today will deliver deep cuts in HFC emissions and bring us closer to our climate goals.

Mr Don Wee suggested delaying the measures in view of the current economic conditions caused by the pandemic. I wish to clarify that the requirement to use low-GWP refrigerants applies only to new regulated equipment that is supplied from 1 October 2022. Companies can continue to use their existing equipment until the end of life for those equipment.

While low-GWP chillers may cost a little more, they are typically more energy and carbon efficient and offer net cost savings over their lifecycle. So, investing in them not only protects the climate, but also protects companies from being locked into the higher operating costs of less efficient chillers. For example, CapitaLand expects to reap lifecycle cost savings of $280,000 from its low-GWP chiller deployed in Funan.

Companies that are replacing their chillers in the immediate future can tap on the grant introduced in October 2020 to incentivise the early switch to low-GWP chillers, before the supply restriction comes into force in October 2022. So far, 10 projects have been approved or are under consideration. These projects are expected to collectively abate HFC emissions equivalent to 60 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide, comparable to taking around 18,000 cars off the road.

One grant recipient is Kaer Pte Ltd, an energy services company which provides "Cooling as a Service". With grant support, Kaer is replacing chillers at an industrial facility with climate-friendly ones that not only use low-GWP refrigerant, but will also improve the system’s energy efficiency by 35%.

As Mr Louis Ng has highlighted, proper refrigerant handling practices are important to minimise HFC emissions during servicing and maintenance of RAC equipment.

We have worked closely with Temasek Polytechnic and industry partners to develop a training and certification programme for chiller technicians. This two-day programme has been designed to be practical and relevant to the industry and will cover the processes for handling and recovering refrigerants from chillers. Technicians will be re-certified every three years to keep up with advancements in technology.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether the course could be held in other languages aside from English. The course is designed to meet the needs of the technicians. It will be conducted in simple spoken English. Temasek Polytechnic has ample experience in conducting other similar technical courses and trainers will tailor their delivery to suit the language competency of the technicians. Trainers will also give practical demonstrations and conduct hands-on practice to enhance understanding. To be certified, technicians have to pass an open-book test comprising multiple choice questions and a simple practical assessment. In fact, during my visit to Temasek Polytechnic, I noticed that the course will be conducted, hands-on, by technicians for the technicians themselves. So, it will be done in a simple manner, using languages that the technicians can understand.

Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have asked if there would be financial support for these technicians. Singaporeans and PRs will be eligible for up to 90% subsidies under SkillsFuture SG and the balance of $85 can be paid for using their SkillsFuture credits.

We agree with Mr Desmond Choo that companies need time to develop internal processes and train their technicians. For this reason, we announced the requirements early in March last year. We have since been engaging the industry closely to develop these measures and will continue to do so to ensure a smooth transition.

I am also pleased to inform Mr Desmond Choo that the register for registered suppliers and registered regulated goods will be made accessible online. This was a question that was asked by Mr Louis Chua as well.

Mr Desmond Choo also proposed stricter penalties for the offence of falsifying information or data under the new section 40X. The penalty of a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both, is aligned to similar offences under the Energy Conservation Act. From our experience, this serves as sufficient deterrence and we will review the penalty level should data falsification become an issue of concern, going forward.

Mr Don Wee asked whether requiring spent refrigerants to be recovered and treated will add to business cost. This is unlikely, as most of the spent refrigerants can be treated for reuse and have commercial value. Today, even in the absence of regulation, there is already a market for them and facilities to treat spent refrigerants are already available.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about our plans to address HFC emissions beyond the current measures. We are studying the potential for other types of RAC equipment, such as commercial and industrial refrigeration units, to switch to low-GWP refrigerants. We will need to assess the feasibility of available technologies, balancing considerations such as fire safety, toxicity, energy efficiency and the cost of suitable substitutes. In response to Mr Louis Chua, we will consult and work closely with industries and businesses, and give sufficient lead time before implementing any measures.

I assure Mr Don Wee that we will carefully consider the cost impact on our cold chain needs when assessing any future measures on commercial and industrial refrigeration units. The measures introduced today have no impact on cold chain needs, as climate-friendly household refrigerators do not cost more.

Prof Hoon Hian Teck asked whether it would be better to price HFC emissions rather than regulate these. While pricing remains an option, there are merits in adopting regulations to reduce HFC emissions. Most jurisdictions also take this approach. HFC emissions arise mainly from ownership rather than the intensity of use of RAC equipment and are locked in by technology choices. Given technical complexity and the need to balance multiple considerations in the choice of refrigerants as highlighted earlier, it is difficult for end-users to make informed choices or to influence upstream supplier decisions. Regulation offers much greater outcome certainty in abating HFC emissions. In commercial chillers, for example, regulation will effect a switch to a new generation of refrigerants with GWP close to zero, bringing HFC emissions to negligible levels when the entire stock of chillers turns over.

Even if taxation were to be introduced, these considerations mean that regulations may still be needed. We would have to consider the cost effectiveness of the taxation regime, given the highly distributed sources of emissions. While the tax can be levied upstream on importers, this has to be coupled with the system of downstream rebates for spent refrigerants that are recovered. This could potentially result in higher administrative costs.

Mr Louis Chua also asked about the abatement potential and plans for the Kigali Amendment. The HFC mitigation measures introduced today are expected to reduce HFC emissions from the regulated equipment by around half by the year 2030. With regard to the Kigali Amendment, my Ministry has initiated a review and is consulting key stakeholders. We will update when ready.

I will now address Members’ questions on construction noise and the requirement for contractors, who have violated the no-work rule, to install, maintain and operate video surveillance at their construction sites.

First, let me address questions on the implementation of the requirement for video surveillance.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the types of construction projects that are covered. The current regulations state that all construction sites located less than 150 metres from any hospital, home for the aged sick or residential building must comply with the no-work rule on Sundays and public holidays. The Bill does not change the no-work rule regulation or requirement. Under this Bill, the Director-General may now impose the requirement for video surveillance on any construction site that contravenes the no-work rule. So, the site has to contravene the rule first. The requirement applies to all public and private sector construction projects, regardless of the size, if they violate the no-work rule.

It is important to ensure the integrity and proper functioning of the video surveillance systems, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Joan Pereira have pointed out. NEA will carry out scheduled and surprise site inspections to ensure that the video surveillance systems are in good working condition and not tampered with.

The new section 28A empowers the Director-General to specify requirements for the video surveillance system, including ensuring that the system's security is not compromised. For example, contractors should implement robust digital identification (ID) and password controls and restrict access to the physical components of the system. The person required to install, to operate and to maintain the video surveillance system under the new section 28A must also take all reasonable steps to ensure that no person tampers with or does anything to compromise the proper functioning of the system or any image, sound or video recorded by the system.

Mr Don Wee asked whether phone video footages can be used to substantiate complaints on no-work rule violations in place of video surveillance. While phone video footages can be used as evidence for prosecution, they might not capture sufficient information on the construction activities being carried out to conclude that there was indeed an offence. Such footages received from the public might also not be timely enough to address ongoing construction noise infringements.

On the other hand, the installed video surveillance will allow NEA to remotely monitor construction worksites and deter repeat violations. It enhances NEA's efficiency and responsiveness, removing the need for officers to carry out repeated inspections to address recurring public feedback.

I assure Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng that we are mindful of the impact of the measures on the construction industry, which is facing challenging times. The requirement will only be imposed on the very small group of construction sites that have breached the no-work rule. This is around 150 out of the 5,800 construction sites a year, or about 3% of all active sites. It will not affect the vast majority of construction sites that comply with the no-work rule.

The cost of installing video surveillance stands at less than 1% of total construction project cost on average. One set of closed-circuit television (CCTV), for example, can cost about $5,000. Depending on the project size, a construction site that has violated the no-work rule may be required to install up to four CCTVs.

Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted other complementary measures to strengthen compliance to the no-work rule, such as introducing higher penalties. The vast majority of construction sites comply with the no-work rule. NEA will monitor the effectiveness of these measures in this Bill to address the remaining small group of non-compliant contractors and consider further measures, if needed.

Let me now address points raised by Members on managing construction noise in residential areas beyond the no-work rule.

We have to strike a careful balance between maintaining a conducive living environment and also allowing construction work to be completed within a reasonable duration and cost. We need to maintain a steady supply of public housing, continue expanding our public transport network and provide amenities such as hospitals and schools.

As Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out, many projects have been significantly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This impacts end users such as families waiting to move into their Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.

Project delays not only affect the construction industry and end users, they also prolong the disamenities experienced by neighbouring residents.

Ms Joan Pereira also spoke about balancing the need to expedite projects that have been delayed while keeping disamenities to acceptable levels. This, in fact, is the balance that we need to strike.

Mr Louis Ng asked for an update on the review of construction noise limits. Given the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the construction industry, this is not the time to tighten construction noise limits which will affect the whole industry. We recognise that the construction sector faces serious manpower and supply shortages during these extraordinary times.

Nevertheless, I assure Mr Louis Ng that NEA will monitor the situation and continue to work with stakeholders to review construction noise limits, including the limits for construction work on Saturdays, taking into account the World Health Organization's guidelines and our local context.

Mr Yip Hon Weng gave useful suggestions to improve feedback management for residents, including having dedicated feedback channels, clear escalation protocols, standardising format for displaying communication channels and providing advance notice to residents. Many of these measures are already in place and we will see how to improve and enhance them.

For example, as part of construction works that require a BCA permit, the contractor must erect a project signboard of at least 1.8 metres in width and one metre in height before work can commence. The project signboard displays information of the project parties and their contact numbers as well as the hotline numbers of MOM, NEA and BCA. Residents can also submit their feedback through the NEA website and the myENV and OneService mobile applications.

Upon receiving feedback, NEA officers will investigate whether the construction site has generated noise levels exceeding the noise limits or violated the no-work rule and then, they take enforcement actions accordingly.

NEA has also been advising contractors to engage the nearby residents early to develop plans to minimise the impact of construction work on residents' daily lives. Contractors have also been encouraged to implement additional noise mitigation measures where possible, such as noise barriers for noisy works like hacking and drilling.

We acknowledge Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Joan Pereira's suggestions on improving the public's awareness of the rules on construction noise.

Information on construction noise limits, permissible work hours and the no-work rule is published on NEA's website. Members of the public can reach out to NEA through various communication channels to find out if a particular construction site is permitted to carry out quieter works on Sunday and public holidays or if noise limits have been breached.

NEA will explore raising public awareness on the no-work rule via social media channels.

On Mr Gan Thiam Poh's suggestion to improve the noise-insulating properties of HDB flats, HDB will continue to explore practical noise mitigation measures for the comfort and well-being of residents. Given our high-density environment and with HDB flats being designed for natural ventilation, some noise will inevitably make its way into flats through our open windows and doors.

We will continue to work with stakeholders to better manage construction noise in order to maintain a conducive living environment while allowing projects to keep pace with providing infrastructure and amenities for our residents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments in the Bill help lay the foundations to achieve our climate ambitions. The early switch to low-GWP equipment and proper management of HFC refrigerants will ensure that the cooling needs and comfort of Singaporeans will not be compromised as we transit to a low-carbon future.

Imposing electronic video surveillance on construction sites which have violated the no-work rule is an important step and addition to our existing enforcement measures. We hope this requirement will improve compliance and help NEA to manage public feedback more effectively. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Tan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.