Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.38 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, it has been a month since the First Reading of the Bill and my excitement for this Bill continues to grow exponentially and so, I hope that you will continue to enjoy hearing my excitement in my Bill speeches today.

Let me start by sharing my journey in coming up with this Bill. I have to say first, that sometimes people do not like having a meal with me because I constantly nag them about not wasting food. In fact, I will sometimes join a table of people who are already eating and they will say, “Louis is here, cannot waste food already”.

I secretly quite like this when they say that because tackling food wastage is something very close to my heart. It is something I teach my daughters. I constantly tell them, “Do not waste food, take what you can eat and finish eating what you have already taken”.

Sir, it was a meal with my children that started this four-year journey of drafting and now tabling this Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. More than four years ago, I was at a buffet. Just as we were finishing our meal, my daughter, Ella, and I saw perfectly edible food being thrown away right before our eyes, because the buffet had ended. An entire cake, freshly brought out not long ago and missing just the slice, was dumped into a trash bag. As parents, we always tell our children not to waste food. I could not explain to Ella why we were now seeing good food being thrown away.

I spoke to the restaurant and asked if the food could be donated instead of being dumped or being wasted. The reply was that they were worried about liability issues. I offered to sign a waiver of liability and even offered to bring the food to distribute to families in Yishun, families struggling to have three meals a day. Even then, the restaurant refused to donate the food.

I actually do not blame the restaurant. Not all liability can be waived and the uncertainty of legal proceedings can be a huge business risk. It pains me to say this, but it can be easier to just throw food away.

More than four years after this meal, I stand here before this House with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. This Bill is only possible thanks to the amazing and collaborative work done by the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee over the past four years.

We consulted extensively, holding public consultations and meeting with restaurants, hotels, social enterprises, primary food producers, food processing companies, distributors, wholesalers, food logistics, transport and delivery provider companies, supermarkets and merchants, bakeries and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The Committee took the consultations seriously. The first public consultation was conducted through an online survey from 30 July 2021 to 12 September 2021. We also held several extensive focus group discussions. On 4 April 2024, the Committee conducted the second public consultation, where we presented the draft Bill to members of the public and seek their inputs and feedback.

We scrutinised and debated every clause of the Bill. We revised the draft Bill after the second public consultation to address all the feedback we received. Where we were not able to incorporate the feedback, we explained why to the public and the various stakeholders. In this Second Reading, in addition to responding to my fellow Members’ questions, I will also respond to additional feedback we received from members of the public and other stakeholders.

This Bill is the work of many people who have shared their views, suggestions and feedback, and I am immensely grateful for the important role they played in shaping this important piece of legislation. Let me now outline the problems this Bill aims to tackle.

We have a serious food waste problem in Singapore. An average of about 750,000 tonnes of food waste was generated every year for the past five years. We should be concerned about this astounding wastage for four reasons.

The first reason is food security. Food does not come naturally to Singapore. More than 90% of our food supply has to be imported. At the mercy of global trade winds, we have to fight harder than most countries to put food on our tables. When we waste food, we undermine this fight.

We can do the math – 750,000 tonnes of annual food waste divided by 1.6 million tonnes of commonly consumed food imported annually. The number is 47%. It could be that nearly half of our most commonly consumed food imports go into our trash, not our stomachs. We have to spend so much more and work so much harder because of our food waste habits.

The second reason to care about food waste is the strain it puts on our waste disposal system. Food waste makes up 11% of total waste in Singapore. As we incinerate food we do not eat, we will still have to find space to store the ashes left behind. Semakau Landfill is expected to fill up by 2035. There is no second landfill waiting for us. We must reduce the problem of food waste if we are to have a chance of prolonging the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.

The third reason to care about food waste is climate change. It is an issue I have spoken up about repeatedly in this House. I am glad that Singapore has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Reducing food waste is an often-overlooked climate solution. Producing food and transporting it takes up valuable resources. When we waste food, we also waste the energy and water it takes to produce the food.

Noor Hanisah, a Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee Member and an activist from the Singapore Youth for Climate Action, shared, I quote, “Food waste is one of Singapore’s biggest waste streams. And we often do not realise that each part of the food journey from production, transportation, handling to wastage have huge carbon footprints that worsen climate change. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Law can reduce this through excess food distribution to the ones in need.”

This Bill will also help address a fourth problem which Noor Hanisah spoke about. It will help increase availability of food for redistribution to needy families.

Sir, I am glad we are recycling the food waste as one of the ways to reduce wastage. We currently recycle less than 20% of our food waste. I am also glad that we have mandated food waste segregation for treatment and reporting this year. But we must remember that much of the food wasted is edible food. In addition to recycling food waste, redistributing excess edible food is another solution we must explore, especially when many people in Singapore still go to bed hungry.

A study by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation and supported by the Food Bank Singapore found that in 2019, 10.4% of the 1,200 surveyed households experienced food insecurity at least once in the past 12 months. Food insecurity is when a household does not have access to sufficient, adequate food for a healthy life.

While the figures represent a minority of the population, the numbers are still significant and troubling. Food insecurity has far-reaching impacts. The study found that food insecurity is associated with serious physical and mental health effects.

Sir, when we encourage food donation, we tackle so many of our existing problems. We address the issue of food security, we extend the lifespan of the Semakau Landfill, we tackle climate change and we increase the food redistributed to needy families.

During our consultations, I heard outrageous stories about the type of perfectly edible food that goes to waste. Chickens that are bruised are rejected because they do not meet beauty standards. Juicy fruits and crunchy vegetables are dumped because of their imperfect shape or colour. The food that we waste while others go hungry is astounding.

The Government recognised the need to address liability in food donation as early as 2014, nearly 10 years ago. Ms Tan Poh Hong, CEO of what was at the time the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore, said: "A lot of people do not want to donate […] in case someone gets food poisoning and sues you. [...] I am not saying we are going to have this [Good Samaritan] law, but we are learning from other countries."

In August 2019, the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) published a report which found that the lack of liability protection for donors means that traders, distributors and wholesalers prefer throwing instead of donating food. SEC noted that a possible solution is introducing policies to safeguard entities from liability.

In 2021, the then-Ministry of Environment and Water Resources partnered with youth from the National Youth Council's Youth Circle to study the effectiveness of a Good Samaritan Food Donation law. The study found that such a law will address the important concern of liability that businesses face.

The Government, our NGOs and our youths have all spoken up for a long time for a Good Samaritan Food Donation law. I am glad we are finally taking this step forward. This Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is an important step forward. It is a Bill for the people, by the people and for our planet.

Sir, I have shared the problems this Bill aims to tackle. Let me now explain how waiving liability, which is what this Bill is proposing and what many have been calling for, helps with the problem of food waste and food insecurity.

Like the buffet restaurant in my story earlier, many businesses are understandably worried about being liable for someone falling ill from eating the food they donate. Businesses have to worry about potential liability under common law negligence and potential penalties under the Sale of Food Act, the Food Regulations, the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations and the Penal Code, just to name a few.

Mr Dellen Soh, the Chairman and CEO of Minor Food Singapore and Committee Member of the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) shared, "Many restaurants want to do good. Restaurants do want to donate excess edible food to reduce food waste and help the community. But the very risk of liability from donated food has a chilling effect for many restaurants. Unfortunately, food waste may be priced into the cost of business. To encourage more food donation, we need laws to tackle the issue of liability."

I am very glad that a recent survey conducted by the RAS on the Bill found that 80% of surveyed restaurants strongly support or somewhat support this Bill. Importantly, 60% are very or somewhat likely to participate in food donation if the Bill is passed; and 20% were neutral.

However, the concern of legal liability is obviously very significant for restaurants with 80% of those surveyed remaining unsure whether the law will adequately protect businesses. This underscores what significant chilling effect the risk of liability has on restaurants.

Through this speech and the debate on this Bill, I hope to clarify how this Bill will protect donors who have done all that they can to ensure the safety and hygiene of donated food. I hope to allay the very valid concerns and uncertainties restaurants have.

Food charities too have to worry about liability under these laws that I have mentioned. I want to stress that we should never compromise on food safety and hygiene, whether the food is donated or sold. However, food donors and charities who have done all that they can to ensure that donated food is safe for consumption should not be punished for doing good because of things beyond their control.

After a food donor or charity has donated the food, a recipient may still fall ill from consuming the food if the food is not properly handled or consumed within a safe period by the recipient. Again, if a food donor or charity has taken all steps to ensure that the donated food is safe, they should be able to donate food with peace of mind from liability.

This is what we are proposing to do with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. In fact, this is nothing new. Many other countries have implemented their own food donation laws to address the concerns of liability. These laws have been effective in increasing food donation and still safeguard food hygiene and safety standards.

In the United States (US), the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act grants protection from civil and criminal liability as long as the food is fit for consumption and donated in good faith and if there is no intentional misconduct or gross negligence. The US introduced this law nearly 30 years ago in 1996. After this law was passed, 7-Eleven announced that the law would allow the company to increase its food donations by as much as 150% over two years.

Many other jurisdictions have similar laws, including Italy, Alberta in Canada, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania in Australia. In Italy, no safety issues have arisen in the 10 years since the passage of the law and their food banks have recovered more than three million meals and 23,400 tonnes of food products.

I should also add that in Singapore, the public understands and supports waiving civil and criminal liability: 83% of respondents to our public consultation agreed that donations to food charities should be exempt from civil liability; 81% agreed that donations to food charities should be exempt from criminal liability.

Businesses agree too. Marina Bay Sands shared, "Donating surplus food is important to Marina Bay Sands, demonstrated by our long-standing partnerships with Food from the Heart and The Food Bank Singapore, which have allowed us to donate over 51,000 kilogrammes of unserved food to communities in need between 2016 and 2023. We support the Bill and hope it will encourage other companies to donate food more regularly and reduce food waste."

Mr Sebastian Chung, who is the Director of Safety, Health, Environment and Food Hygiene at Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group said, "The implementation of the Good Samaritan Food Donation legislation will help to protect hotels against possible liabilities when re-distributing surplus food responsibly. This will encourage hotels to proactively embrace the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) of food waste management and to support Singapore's vision of becoming a Zero Waste Nation."

I have shared why we are proposing a waiver of liability but let me stress again and make clear that a waiver of liability cannot be a shield for those who donate unsafe and unhygienic food.

In the RAS' survey, all restaurants surveyed indicated that food safety and hygiene was a concern they had with the implementation of the Bill. We agree that food safety and hygiene must remain the top priority. This is why we will introduce four conditions that must be met before a donor can enjoy a waiver of liability. I will explain these four conditions later. These four conditions strike a balance between encouraging food donation through the waiver of liability and safeguarding food hygiene and safety standards.

Sir, let me now elaborate on the provisions of the Bill. The Committee took pains to ensure that the Bill takes a balanced approach. The waiver of civil and criminal liability is very carefully scoped and accompanied with the necessary safeguards. First, I will talk about the scope of persons covered by the Bill. Second, I will talk about the definition of food donations. Third, I will talk about the four conditions to be protected from civil and criminal liability.

Let me first talk about who is covered under the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill defines a "food donor" to mean a person who donates food or an entity which donates food in the course of a business. A food donor can be an entity or an individual. The entity does not need to be a registered charity.

The Bill does not differentiate between an individual, a community food rescue group, a religious organisation, a business or a registered food charity.

A food donor will cover those who donate food directly to beneficiaries, as well as those who donate food to an intermediary, such as The Food Bank or Food from the Heart, for ultimate distribution to beneficiaries. For example, the Bill will cover soup kitchens and non-profit organisations that donate food to needy communities, food businesses giving away its surplus canned food products to an aged care establishment for consumption by residents at that establishment, and local restaurants and grocery stores that allow individuals to pick up free food from their outlets.

Now that we have discussed the definition of a food donor, let us talk about what constitutes a food donation under this Bill.

Clause 2 defines "food" to have the same meaning as in the Sale of Food Act 1973. This may include packaged food, like canned food, bottled food or food packed and sealed in a plastic packaging, perishable food, like cakes or bread, cooked food, beverages, fruits and raw vegetables.

Clause 2 also defines "donate" to mean a person giving to another anything for a charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic purpose. The definition of "donate" also covers a person giving a thing donated by another for a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose. This means that the Bill covers both direct and indirect giving, as long as the purpose of the giving is charitable, benevolent or philanthropic.

Any person can be considered a recipient of food donations. There is no requirement that the recipient must be from a certain income group for the Bill to apply. This Bill will not apply if any money is exchanged for the food. This includes any fee charged by the donor for providing the food, even if the sum is a nominal sum or is lower than market price.

Next, clause 3 sets out the purposes of the Bill which are to reduce food waste and to increase availability of food for redistribution to food‑insecure communities.

I now move on to the waiver of civil and criminal liability.

Clause 4 protects a food donor from civil and criminal liability in respect of any death or personal injury that results from consuming the food donated. The protection applies to all food donors, regardless of whether the food is donated directly to consumers or given to an intermediary, such as a food bank. It also does not matter whether the intermediary is a charity or a profit‑making social enterprise.

Food donors must meet four conditions to ensure food safety and hygiene before benefiting from the waiver of liability. This is to balance the interest of donors with that of ultimate recipients. These conditions are not intended to be onerous for food donors. Instead, the Committee believes that these conditions will benefit the food donation ecosystem in Singapore. Beneficiaries would have confidence that the donated food is safe. The safeguards also prevent potential abuse of the waiver.

Through our consultations, we arrived at these conditions which are, in fact, best practices that many food donors are already following.

First, the food must not be unsafe and unsuitable at the time it was donated. Second, the food donor must inform the recipient of any particular requirements to handle the food to ensure it remains safe to consume. Third, the food donor must inform the recipient of any time limit within which the food remains safe and suitable. Fourth, the donor must take all reasonable measures to comply with food safety and hygiene requirements up to the point of donation.

If a donor meets these conditions, even if a beneficiary falls sick after eating donated food, the donor is shielded from civil and criminal liability. Importantly, being shielded from liability does not take away the Singapore Food Agency's (SFA's) powers to investigate any food safety issue. If any food safety issue arises with donated food, SFA can still investigate and take enforcement action. The difference is that food donors only need to show SFA that they have met the four conditions and SFA would not impose any liability on the food donor.

Let me now elaborate and give examples on how the four conditions can be met.

The Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee Members, The Food Bank Singapore and Food from the Heart helped to come up with these practical steps that donors can take to fulfil these requirements. These are examples of many different ways that a food donor can fulfil the conditions. A food donor does not have to do all the practical steps listed here to enjoy liability protections. Again, these are just suggestions so that everyone can better understand the four conditions.

The first requirement is that the food was not unsafe and unsuitable at the time it was donated. A food donor can show that the food was not unsafe and unsuitable by showing, for example, that the food donated had a reasonable period before its expiry date or that cooked food was donated within the four-hour timeframe recommended by SFA.

A food donor can also show that it has processes to ensure that the donated food was properly packed and that the packaging was not damaged. For example, Food from the Heart has guidelines on packaging of donated bread and the type of bread that it will accept from bakeries. This can be as simple as requiring donated bread to be tied up in plastic bags or not accepting buns with fillings. They also ask that homes and self-collection centres check the bread for mold, pest infestation, bad smells, before distributing to beneficiaries.

The second requirement is that the food donor must inform the recipient of any particular requirements to handle the food to ensure it remains safe to consume. These handling requirements may include proper refrigeration, heating, storage temperatures and packaging requirements. The food donor can use various means to inform the recipient of handling requirements.

For instance, food donors can ensure that each individual package of donated food has a sticker label informing the recipients of handling requirements. Food donors can also have a sign with handling requirements at the location where donated food is collected or they can verbally brief recipients on the handling requirements. They can either have recipients confirm in writing that they were briefed or can also show that recipients were briefed on handling requirements through messages sent to recipients.

The third condition is that the food donor informs the recipient of any time limit within which the food remains safe and suitable. Similar to the handling requirements, the food donor can use various means to inform the recipient of any time limit for consuming the food. The key is to ensure that the food donor has proper documentation of the information conveyed to recipients on the time limit for consuming food.

The fourth condition is that the donor took all reasonable measures to comply with food safety and hygiene requirements up to the point of donation. One key document here is the SFA Guidelines for Social Service Agencies and Community Groups Involved in Food Preparation and Distribution Activities for Charitable Causes. That was a mouthful and is probably the longest name for any guideline. Food donors must comply with these guidelines.

In addition, the donor can have a standard operating procedure (SOP) for its food donation operations and training for its volunteers which complies with food safety and hygiene requirements. As an example, again, Food from the Heart requires its donors to fulfil its SOPs for its Bread Run. Volunteers are also required to comply with the SOPs, including that bread must be collected and redistributed on the same day.

If all these four conditions are met, a food donor will enjoy the waiver of civil and criminal liability. All four conditions must be proven before protection can apply. I should stress that the defendant seeking protection has the burden of proof. The defendant continues to enjoy any defence available under any other laws like those in the Sale of Food Act and the Penal Code. I should also stress that clause 5 provides that the protection from liability applies only to liability arising on or after the operative date of the Bill.

Sir, the Committee intends for these conditions to be reasonable to meet and not any more than what a food donor would already be expected to do before they donate food. To increase safeguards for food safety and hygiene, the Committee considered requiring food donors to be accredited to enjoy waiver from civil and criminal liability. The proposal was surveyed in a public consultation and there was some support for accreditation. However, the Committee also received feedback from smaller food charities and food rescue groups that accreditation will make donation activities more onerous.

We did not want the Bill to have the unintended consequence of dissuading food donations by imposing conditions that are too difficult to achieve. For this reason, the Committee decided not to include accreditation as a condition for waiving liability.

Even then, the Committee recognises that food donors could use some help to incorporate the proof of meeting these conditions into their operations. I hope that the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), SFA and the Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to engage the industry and food charities and provide this support that is very much needed on the ground.

Finally, under clause 5(2), the waiver will not apply in two scenarios.

The first scenario is where food is exchanged between individuals as part of a personal relationship. For example, the Bill would not apply to giving food to friends or snacks in the office pantry bought for colleagues even though no money is exchanged.

The second scenario is where food is provided together with accommodation to an individual in a private residence in exchange for services or labour. This means that employers would not receive a waiver for food provided to their domestic helpers.

In conclusion, Sir, this Bill will encourage food donation to address the twin problems of food wastage and food insecurity by waiving civil and criminal liability for food donors. To enjoy the waiver of liability, food donors will have to fulfil four conditions which safeguard food safety and hygiene.

Sir, in closing, I once again thank the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee, who have worked tirelessly to make this Bill possible and who have helped to draft this Bill from scratch.

I am grateful to Ms Elyssa Chua from Breadtalk; Ms Adalia Tan from DBS Bank; Mr Robin Lee from Food from the Heart; Mr Tan Hang Chong from Foodscape Collective; Ms Soh Li Sar from NTUC Fairprice; Mr Dellen Soh from the Restaurant Association of Singapore and Minor Food Group Singapore; Mr Sebastian Chung from the Singapore Hotel Association and Mandarin Oriental Singapore; Ms Noor Hanisah from the Singapore Youth for Climate Action; Mr Nicholas Ng from The Food Bank Singapore; Ms Jeanne Ng from The Fullerton Hotels and Resorts; Mr Jesher Loi from Ya Kun International; grassroots leaders Ms Chua Wei-Shan and Mr Wong Jin Feng; and my fellow Members of Parliament, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this Bill to Nizar, the founder of Free Food For All, who passed away last year. He was invited to be a part of the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee but could not make it due to his health. Nizar was an inspiration to many for his work in providing food to the needy. I am sure he would be very proud to see what we have accomplished today. His legacy of giving to others will continue. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

6.06 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill being debated today is, in my view, a valuable piece of legislation that will improve the incentives for donations of food made in good faith while helping those in need, combating waste and promoting environmental sustainability. For this reason, the Workers' Party supports the Bill.

Let me begin, first, by acknowledging Member Louis Ng for his work on this front. I believe that he first flagged food waste as an issue back in 2018 before following up with a suggestion for a Good Samaritan Act in 2020. The Bill today is a culmination of his efforts.

I should also disclose, at the outset, that there are currently various food rescue and distribution programmes in operation across Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC), the constituency that I serve, and that I and my fellow Sengkang Members of Parliament have, at various times in the past, participated in these community-led initiatives while also offering our support to them. This is also the case for several other Workers' Party divisions in Hougang and Aljunied GRCs.

Sir, the Bill seeks to provide indemnity to food donors so long as reasonable steps have been followed to ensure that food safety and hygiene standards are being met. The four stipulations, outlined in clause 4 of the Bill, delineate these conditions while ensuring consistency with existing laws.

Part D, for example, requires that measures be taken "to comply with any applicable requirement under any written law relating to food safety and good hygiene".

This is sensible and the circumstance that especially comes to mind pertains to the existing NEA guidelines for catered meals, which limit the consumption time of food at room temperature to four hours from the time it is cooked. Notably, however, the observed duration is a guideline and, as far as I am aware, not mandated by law. This strikes me as fair since we do not wish to excessively police folks who may decide to tapao leftovers, nor would a blanket requirement cater for the wide variation in windows for safe consumption of different types of food. After all, I would be far more comfortable stuffing my face with a day-old cupcake, for instance, than I would with a day-old plate of laksa.

However, how would the fact that these existing guidelines not crossing the threshold of the law alter the stipulation in Part D? Would a potential donor be able to pass along leftover food that had been in a buffet line for four and a half hours to the youth hostel next door, for example, under this Bill?

I understand that Part C does insist on informing recipients of the timeline for safe consumption, but does this also imply that donating food that exceeds this duration is permissible so long as this step is undertaken? Would it perhaps be safer, for the case of cooked food, that a "donated food" label be affixed? This approach aligns with the US Department of Agriculture's definition of "qualifying food" under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.

Finally, it may also be useful if it is made explicit that the stipulations in clause 4 apply to donors who do so in good faith. In particular, I would suggest that line 19 on page 5 consider the inclusion of this term so that it would read "A food donor who donates any food in good faith shall not, in fact, be liable" and so on.

I also observed that this is not the first time that questions concerning Good Samaritan acts have been discussed in Parliament. This occurred on four prior occasions, in 2008, 2012 and 2014, by former People's Action Party Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, and more recently in 2021, by the hon Member Hazel Poa.

To be clear, on each of those occasions, the then-Ministers of Law explained that such legislation was unnecessary since both civil and criminal liability would generally be waived for those acting in good faith and it was stated explicitly that "our current laws strike the correct balance".

Granted, the context of those Good Samaritan discussions was distinct and applicable more to the provision of on-site physical or medical assistance to those in need. Importantly, such laws in many other jurisdictions actually compel aid, whereas the Bill in question today is essentially voluntary in nature.

Still, I believe it is fair to ask why this particular Good Samaritan law, which waives liability in a voluntary context, is deemed necessary while an analogous law that would do the same for involuntary harm is not.

Importantly, I think it is useful for us to put ourselves in the mindset of those rendering aid. Would their knowledge of the potential for liability inhibit their choice to render succour even if the law would not explicitly hold them to account? Would it be better to have the waiver made explicit, as it is in this present Bill, albeit in a different context.

Sir, in the final part of my speech, let me move on to practical ways that I believe the Government can further advance the objectives of this sustainability practice.

First, MSE can support the development of, potentially, an online database of potential food donors and recipients to promote scaling up at the national level. This could then become a one-stop shop which matches those in the F&B industry with those with a desire to contribute back to the community and social welfare groups, such as food banks or grassroots organisations.

This will relieve these groups from the need to maintain their own independent network of suppliers and distributors. It will also help imbalances of access where certain more-connected groups are able to leverage their establishment connections to acquire a higher volume of donations but may be left with perhaps an embarrassment of riches even as other groups face shortages.

Consistent with the thrust of the present Bill, the site can also prominently post reminders, perhaps even explicitly require donors to declare that the four stipulations of clause 4 of this Bill are being adhered to.

Second, I believe that the pervasiveness of residents participating in food rescue programmes hints at the squeezed middle class in our society. In Anchorvale, we routinely welcome an average of about 130 collectors on a weekly basis. While some of these participating households are undoubtedly doing so out of an abundance of thrift or a desire to promote sustainable living, many that I have spoken to do so because the regular channels of support are unavailable to them.

Indeed, their ranks have actually increased somewhat as the costs of living have risen and, as a House, we must be aware of the struggles with food security that are faced by Singaporeans that fall just above the threshold of assistance programmes but continue to struggle to stretch the purchasing power of their dollars.

By way of conclusion, I wish to thank the many donors, coordinators and food banks that have already stepped forward to support food sustainability programmes across the nation. They have done so despite the potential liability exposure that they could have faced prior to this piece of legislation and this speaks to both their commitment as well as courage. And for all the so-called "Food Rescue Uncles and Aunties" who have been tirelessly working to distribute food to those in need, week after week, including in our town of Sengkang, thank you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

6.14 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will encourage more food donation by offering legal protection to well-meaning donors against liability. At the same time, recipients are protected as there are clear specifications to ensure that the food donated meet hygiene requirements and delivery timeframes for food safety. This Bill will also go a long way to cut down on the unfortunately huge amounts of food waste in Singapore.

Many other countries had already enacted similar legislation. In the US, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act has been providing liability protection to donors since 1996. Canada has similar laws with slight differences in each province. In Australia, the Civil Liability Amendment (Food Donations) Act 2005 offers similar protections too. In 2016, the Italians passed a law in the Senate to relax regulations for food donated, such as allowing companies to donate mislabelled food as long as these do not pose a safety risk. France and Spain, on the other hand, have legislations penalising food waste, compelling entities, such as supermarkets, to donate unsold food to charities. Five years ago, Japan introduced the Act on Promotion of Food Loss and Waste Reduction to reduce food waste and support food banks. The South Koreans are charged for the disposal of food waste by weight, prompting them to treat surplus food more conscientiously.

It is a crying shame that much of perfectly safe and edible food are thrown away every day while the most vulnerable segments of our society face food insecurity. This new legislation will help suppliers and sellers overcome their concerns about liabilities and donate to those in need. Companies involved in food donation can enhance their reputation and image. Based on the information and food data available, there is more than enough food to feed our needy regularly and nutritiously. In addition to reducing food waste, food donation will reduce our environmental impact and footprint associated with the wastage. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to raise my concerns to the relevant Government departments. May I ask, how do the authorities enforce the guidelines established for the safe handling, storage and transportation of donated food? How will the relevant Ministry ensure that staff and volunteers receive regular training on food safety practices?

Will there be requirements to prove traceability of the donated items, such as the maintenance of records, to ensure accountability in case issues arise? Will the Ministry conduct audits or regular inspections to check on the food quality and safety standards? Will donors be encouraged or be required to have liability insurance as an extra layer of protection?

How will SFA foster partnerships between donors and reputable charities to ensure the proper distribution and use of donated food, avoid duplicate deliveries and prevent abuse of donations, such as reselling? Will public accountability measures be implemented, such as the collection and publication of donation data and impact reports?

(In English): By implementing these strategies, I am confident that Singapore can optimise the benefits of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, while mitigating the risks and preventing potential abuse of the system. I would like to conclude with my strong support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

6.18 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate on the Motion on Advancing Mental Health in February, I spoke about the importance of being kind, which would go a long way towards improving our collective mental health.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill that we are debating today helps to promote more acts of kindness in our society.

Every day, we throw away more than two million kilogrammes of food. This is a tremendous amount of waste, which is even more regrettable because we import more than 90% of our food. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) hopes that the enactment of this Bill will encourage more F&B premises, food producers and retailers to be kind and donate excess food instead of throwing it away.

With this Bill, these donors will be shielded from liability from deaths or health issues from the consumption of cooked food, provided that four conditions are met. We believe that these conditions, which include ensuring that the food must not be unsafe at the time it was donated and the food donor must inform the food recipient of the handling requirements, are reasonable and should not pose an excessive impediment to food donors.

The National Population Health Survey, conducted by the Health Promotion Board in 2019, found that approximately one in 10 households in Singapore lack sufficient access to food. [Please refer to "Personal Explanation", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Personal Explanation section.]

Even though we live in an era of great material abundance and our country has achieved great economic progress, there are still some amongst us who are struggling to even put food on the table. As a nation, we can and should do more to help this group of vulnerable Singaporeans.

Sir, I hope that beyond this Bill, the Government will also do more to encourage individuals and companies to donate their excess food to the needy. This will also have a positive impact on the environment. Singapore’s only landfill, Semakau Landfill, is already more than half full as of the end of last year and is projected to reach capacity by 2035. Food waste is one of our biggest waste streams, accounting for about 11% of the waste generated in Singapore in 2023. Any reduction in food waste will go towards extending the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.

The Government can consider implementing tax reliefs to businesses that donate unsold or excess food to charities, so that there is a stronger incentive for companies to do the right thing and redistribute their unsold or excess food instead of throwing it away.

Additionally, would-be food donors may face logistical challenges in transporting their excess food to food distribution centres or charities. We can also consider providing tax incentives to transport or platform companies to assist in this effort by providing food pickup and delivery services for larger F&B enterprises. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill.

In February this year, I spoke about the importance of being kind, which would go a long way towards improving our collective mental health. The Bill that we are debating today, will exempt businesses or individuals donating food from liability. This helps promote more acts of kindness in our society.

It is said that food is of utmost importance to people. In prosperous Singapore, approximately one in 10 households lack sufficient access to food. At the same time, every day, we throw away more than two million kilogrammes of food. Many of these discarded food items are still safe for consumption. If they can be redistributed to food-insecure households, it would benefit numerous families.

Besides passing this Bill, the Government can consider implementing tax reliefs to businesses to encourage them to donate excess food. Additionally, some food donors may face logistical challenges in transporting food. The Government can also consider providing tax incentives to transport or platform companies to assist by providing delivery services and deliver the donated food to charities. In doing so, we can also reduce the food waste in Singapore, contributing to environmental conservation efforts. It is a win-win situation.

Kindness makes us happy. I hope that after this Bill is passed, more companies and individuals will step up and generously donate excess food to help the needy.

(In English): Sir, I hope that after this Bill is passed, more companies and individuals will step up and generously donate the excess food after their catering events or unsold food at the end of the day to the needy. There will always be someone out there who will appreciate having that food on the table.

Let us reduce food waste and build a kinder Singapore together. Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.

6.25 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I had not actually intended to speak on the Bill, but this is more of a clarification in response to a few points raised by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had made a few observations regarding the Bill and statements made by various Ministers for Law in response to questions. And I was one of those, at that time, Senior Minister of State for Law, who had addressed a question on the point of Good Samaritan Bills.

I believe Assoc Prof Lim asked why this particular Good Samaritan law is deemed necessary, when an analogous law that would do the same for involuntary harm by a helpful bystander would not. And actually, the question, if you had listened to his speech, was actually answered by Assoc Prof Lim himself.

He had said this, and I quote, "Granted, the context of those Good Samaritan discussions was distinct and applicable more to the provision of on-site physical or medical assistance to those in need. Importantly, such laws in many other jurisdictions compel aid, whereas the Bill in question is essentially voluntary in nature." And that is exactly right. In short, the context of the previous Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and the replies to them is different.

The previous PQs referred to Good Samaritan laws in the context of rendering medical or emergency assistance to people who are ill or injured. For example, in his reply, Prof Jayakumar explained that Good Samaritan laws adopted in other countries broadly take two forms.

First, to reduce bystanders' hesitation to render assistance because of significant liability concerns. In these jurisdictions, there are laws granting persons who offer aid in emergency situations, certain protections from legal liability. And second, to impose a positive legal requirement on people to assist others in distress, unless they will put themselves in danger.

On the first point, that is, to overcome bystanders' hesitation, the various Ministers for Law explained in their replies that, in Singapore, we have not encountered reluctance on the part of our citizens to step forward to help in those emergency situations.

And on the second point, Prof Jayakumar said that helpful bystanders do not face any major liability concerns in Singapore. For civil liability, a person who offers assistance need only comply with what is expected of a person of his or her skills or experience, so an untrained person would not be held to the standard of a doctor, for example. As for criminal liability, that is generally premised on an intent to cause harm or injury. A person who has acted reasonably and in good faith is unlikely to be held criminally liable.

As such, in the context of rendering emergency assistance, it is MinLaw's assessment that there is no need to introduce a Good Samaritan law, though MinLaw said that it would continue to study the experience of other jurisdictions and would review our position if the need arises.

The context of the current Good Samaritan Bill is different. First, it deals with food donations, not emergency medical services. The considerations are different. And second, as I understand it, Mr Louis Ng is moving the Bill because potential donors are hesitant to donate because of potential liability concerns. And this is different from the emergency scenarios addressed by the Ministers for Law, where they have not encountered reluctance to step forward and there are no major liability concerns.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

6.28 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I thank the Minister for the clarification, which I truly appreciate. If I could clarify, since the Minister did suggest that she had spoken about this Good Samaritan law elsewhere before, do all other jurisdictions compel the rendering of aid? Are there some Good Samaritan laws that simply waive liability? And I ask this because in that case, then analogous to this law, the idea of providing that peace of mind to bystanders that may choose to render aid, I think, would nevertheless still be helpful.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for his clarification. I had actually addressed that earlier, because he asked whether all jurisdictions compel bystanders to provide aid. And as I had explained, which was also explained by Prof Jayakumar, there are two forms. Firstly, there are some jurisdictions where you have Good Samaritan laws because you want to reduce hesitation. So, in other words, it is because people are reluctant to step forward and help.

And in some other jurisdictions, they take a more aggressive approach and they say you must help. But of course, having said you must help, then the corollary is you also provide the waiver of liability.

So, in short, there is no one-size-fits-all, you have a law where there is a need or you assess that you want to do it for a particular reason. In this case, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill. The need, as I understand it, is Mr Louis Ng feels that people are hesitant to donate because they are concerned about liability.

The context of the Ministers for Law talking in the emergency medical assistance context was that there was not a need because people are not hesitant to step up, number one. And number two, there is no major concern about liability because our law pitches the liability at your level of skill or expertise. So, if you are a doctor, you are held to a higher standard. If you are just an ordinary person helping out, you are held to that standard. So, the considerations are different.

Mr Speaker: One final clarification.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I promise to be quick. Just one note and that is, I do not think we can actually know if it is true that someone who is hesitant has not actually hesitated to step up. Because we do not observe all those individuals that have stepped up. So, I am wondering if the Minister would agree with me that, indeed, we will never know the counterfactual to the situation.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.

The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had missed reports in the newspapers from the last few days. I was present at Home Team's National Day Observance Ceremony at the Home Team Academy and there were dozens of members of the public who had voluntarily stepped forward in emergency situations to help others. So, perhaps, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, would like to look at those news reports and see for himself.

Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee, would you like to respond as well?

Ms Indranee Rajah: I am sorry, Sir, because I was listening to Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean and I had forgotten Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's question, would the Member like to repeat it?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: The question is whether, it is not so much whether we observe that some people are indeed stepping forward. I am certain that is the case and we have news reports that say this.

My question is, what we do not observe is all the instances where people have chosen not to step forward because of fear of liability. That is fundamentally unobservable as a counterfactual and, that is why, I asked whether the Minister would agree that we would not know the full extent to which individuals have not stepped forward.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister Teo.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, perhaps instead of debating this issue in a theoretical manner, look at the practical issues, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Perhaps Assoc Prof Jamus Lim would join me in encouraging members of the public to do so rather than debating this in a theoretical manner. If all of us encourage members of the public to do so and tell them not to be afraid, I am sure they would do so and more of them would do more and not be hesitant.

Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I do not think I have more to add to what Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean has said, other than the fact that you take the assessment based on what you see. If we do not see that there is a particular need, then there is no need to pass legislation or move a Bill. But Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean's point is perfectly well taken, which is that it is good to encourage people to step up.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

6.33 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important step towards reducing food waste, increasing food availability for food-insecure communities and developing a more sustainable and compassionate society in Singapore. While this Bill has noble intentions, I have several clarifications.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Bill seeks to address liability concerns, we must also consider the practical aspects of encouraging greater participation. The intent alone, while admirable, may not be sufficient to shift behaviour on a larger scale. What specific incentives or support mechanisms are being considered to motivate eateries or bakeries to donate their surplus food? Although liability protection is a step forward, it is essentially removing a barrier; we must now provide and encourage people to be more active.

To this end, I urge the Government to consider tangible incentives. Tax benefits for food donations, like those already in place for charitable giving, could be effective. Subsidies for logistical costs associated with donated food, particularly for smaller businesses, could also boost participation. Furthermore, public recognition programmes, perhaps, a "Food Rescue Champion" award, could incentivise businesses through positive reinforcement. By incorporating such proactive measures, we can transform this Bill from a shield against liability, into a sword actively combating food waste.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, clear and consistent communication is paramount to ensure clarity and safety for recipients. Beyond merely requiring donors to inform recipients about handling requirements and consumption time limits, we should consider mandating information labels on donated cooked food.

A visible and clear "consume by" label could minimise the risk of foodborne illnesses arising from miscommunication or forgetfulness. Such labels would serve as a visual vivid reminder, even after verbal communication has taken place. This could empower recipients to make informed decisions about food consumption. It can also provide an additional layer of protection for well-intended donors. It would also foster greater trust and transparency within the food donation ecosystem.

However, practicality is key. We must consider the feasibility of implementing such labelling requirements, particularly for smaller businesses involved in food. A balanced approach, perhaps, with exemptions or tailored guidelines for different types of food donations, may be necessary.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, greater clarity is needed on the Bill’s stance on community fridges and food rescue initiatives. While we strive to ensure the safety and suitability of donated food, we must also recognise the valuable contributions of initiatives operating at the community level. These initiatives often involve collecting and redistributing food that might be aesthetically imperfect or nearing its "best by" date. However, they are still safe for consumption.

Does the Bill explicitly extend liability protection to these prevalent endeavours? Explicit inclusion would provide these groups with much-needed legal assurance and encourage their growth. This allows them to expand their reach and impact on minimising food waste in addition to supporting vulnerable individuals.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not overlook the critical issue of food allergies. These can present significant, even life-threatening risks, if not managed carefully. I seek clarification on how this Bill addresses the potential for allergic reactions, particularly, in situations where donors may not be fully aware of the allergen content in the food they are donating.

Among food-insecure groups, those with allergies already face an uphill battle in balancing their dietary needs with financial constraints.

While some might suggest that individuals with allergies could simply avoid donated food with unclear labelling, this ignores a critical aspect of food insecurity. By denying themselves access to potentially safe and nutritious food due to a lack of information, individuals with allergies are deprived of economical choices that could significantly ease their burdens.

To mitigate health risks associated with allergic reactions, I urge the Government to consider implementing guidelines for clear and consistent allergen labelling, wherever possible, within the framework of this Bill. Collaboration with health authorities to develop a standardised allergen labelling system, perhaps drawing from existing regulations requiring businesses to declare known food allergens on their food labels, would be invaluable. This could be done for common allergies, like seafood, nuts or gluten, if they are known to be present in the donated food. Furthermore, greater efforts could be made to educate food donors on best practices for minimising allergen consumption risks, such as avoiding cross-contamination and providing accurate ingredient information.

Fifth, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a multicultural society, we must respect and accommodate the diverse dietary needs of our population, especially those with specific religious or cultural requirements. For example, Muslims are required to consume Halal food and Hindus and many Buddhists abstain from consuming beef.

Therefore, I urge the Government to outline guidelines for donors to follow, preventing unintentional non-compliance with these various dietary standards. Clear and accurate labelling of ingredients, particularly when it comes to potentially "sensitive" ingredients like beef or pork products, is paramount in empowering recipients to make informed choices. Resources should also be made available on proper handling and labelling, to ensure that food intended for halal consumption remains untainted.

But in cases where this is not practical or where such oversights occur despite best efforts, does the Bill offer legal protection for donors who unintentionally provide food that does not align with a recipient's religious dietary needs? Addressing this aspect thoughtfully will not only demonstrate our commitment to inclusivity. It can also instil greater confidence in the food donation system, encouraging wider participation from both donors and recipients.

Sixth, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is equally critical that we ensure faithful compliance to food safety and hygiene. The success of this initiative hinges on maintaining public trust in the safety and quality of donated food. Therefore, I seek clarification on how the Bill will ensure that food donors are well-informed and fully compliant with existing food safety and hygiene laws.

Recent incidents, such as the mass food poisoning cases involving the Singapore Civil Defence Force Academy and Bytedance, serve as stark reminders of the risks associated with large-scale food handling. These situations, often involving catering or bulk cooking, can increase the likelihood of issues, such as undercooking, improper storage and prolonged exposure to hot weather, a concern further amplified by Singapore's rising temperatures.

It is also precisely such events, where large volumes of food might otherwise go to waste, that could benefit most from the food donation framework established by this Bill. Therefore, we must be particularly vigilant in mitigating the risks. I urge the Government to consider incorporating targeted guidelines and training for donors handling large quantities of food, emphasising best practices for safe storage and transportation.

Perhaps the Bill could incorporate provisions for mandatory training programmes or certifications for frequent food donors. These programmes could be developed in collaboration with relevant agencies, like SFA, providing donors with the knowledge and skills to handle food safely throughout the donation process. Additionally, raising awareness among recipients about the importance of thoroughly reheating donated food, where possible, before consumption, could further minimise the risk of foodborne illnesses.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications on the Bill's broader implications. The Bill has the potential to be more than just a legal framework. It can be a catalyst for positive change in how we, as a nation, approach food waste and food security.

To fully realise this potential, I believe it is vital that the Ministry provides us with a broader perspective. What are the long-term goals and strategic vision underlining this Bill? How will its implementation impact Singapore's overall food security and waste management strategy and contribute to our national sustainability targets, such as the "30 by 30" food sustainability goal set by MSE?

A clear understanding of the Bill's intended impact beyond the immediate legal implications would be invaluable to all stakeholders. It will enable us to identify potential synergies, areas for future refinement and opportunities for collaborative action. This can empower businesses, organisations and individuals to play a meaningful role in building a more sustainable and food-secure future for Singapore.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Yio Chu Kang, we have seen, first-hand, the power of community action on reducing food waste. Our Food Rescue programme, run entirely by volunteers, sees about 60 dedicated individuals, many of them youths from nearby schools, including Presbyterian High, Nanyang Polytechnic, the Institute of Technical Education Central and so on, coming together every fortnight to volunteer their time in the name of sustainability. They help to collect imperfect or expiring food from wholesale centres and shops that would have otherwise gone to waste. They sort out and throw away parts that cannot be eaten and redistribute the good and edible portions. We have about 200 regular residents who participate in this programme. Both our Prime Minister and Senior Minister Lee have witnessed how our Food Rescue Programme works during their visits to Yio Chu Kang.

Nonetheless, as much as we strive for careful sorting and quality control, there are always inherent risks associated with redistributing food that are deemed commercially unsellable or nearing its expiry date, particularly when problematic food products are unintentionally overlooked during the sorting process. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill would play a vital role in addressing these concerns, providing legal clarity and peace of mind for those involved in such initiatives.

While the Bill is a significant step in the right direction, I believe that addressing the points and questions that I have raised today will further strengthen its effectiveness. For instance, to truly shift behavior on a larger scale, we should go beyond merely removing legal barriers. Offering tangible incentives, such as tax benefits, logistical support and public recognition, could significantly motivate more eateries and bakeries to participate in food donation efforts.

Clear labelling is another important aspect that should be mandated. The Bill should also explicitly extend legal protection to community fridges and food rescue initiatives, which play a critical role in reducing food waste. Providing these groups with legal assurance would encourage their growth and amplify their impact. Additionally, this Bill must address the issue of food allergies, which pose significant risks if not properly managed. Clear guidelines for allergen labelling are essential to protect those with food allergies, ensuring that they have safe access to donated food.

Given Singapore's multicultural society, it is also equally important to respect religious dietary requirements in food donations. The Bill should include guidelines and legal protections to prevent unintentional non-compliance, fostering inclusivity and confidence in the food donation system.

It should also incorporate mandatory training for food donors, equipping them with the knowledge and skills needed to handle food safely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has the potential to be more than just a legal safeguard. It can serve as a catalyst for positive change in how we approach food waste and food security. It aligns perfectly with the spirit of Forward Singapore, where sustainability is a key pillar. By addressing these key areas and working collaboratively with all stakeholders, we can build a more sustainable and compassionate society in Singapore. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Resumption of Debate on Question [6 August 2024], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang, Member for Nee Soon].

Question again proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms See Jinli Jean.

12.34 pm

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I applaud the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee, comprising Members of Parliament Louis Ng, Poh Li San, Edward Chia and Hany Soh for the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. The Bill assures businesses and individuals of legal protection when they donate safe, surplus food to benefit households that struggle to meet their food needs. I support the Bill.

For the Bill to improve food security for those in need, steps must be taken to ensure that surplus food can be channelled safely and efficiently in sustainable and long-lasting arrangements. In this regard, I would like to suggest three measures for the Review Committee and the Government to consider alongside Bill implementation.

First, the Government could consider extending tax exemptions to businesses and individuals who been regular in channelling surplus food to recipients directly or through intermediaries. This would incentivise businesses to formalise food donation activities which would in turn stabilise food aid supply in Singapore. There is precedent implementation of such initiative in Colombia. Allow me to share.

The Global Food Donation Policy Atlas reported that the Colombian government allows food donors to claim a tax credit of up to 25% of the value of donations made to food bank members and other organisations that promote health, environmental protection, human rights and poverty reduction. I would suggest a closer study of this initiative as there could be valuable learning for Singapore.

Second, if well implemented, the Bill would elevate the extent and scale of food rescue and redistribution. This would mean that food rescue organisations would hope for more resources and support to enhance cold chains, to cater for adequate storage facilities and to continually train their staff and volunteers to know how to keep different types of food safe for consumption. Ultimately, the well-being of recipients is priority and I hope that the Bill can open doors for more of such help to flow.

Third, food rescue and redistribution efforts must be paired with public-private schemes and support that provide lower-income families with dignified, sustained and adequate access to nutritious food.

The Lien Centre for Social Innovation released its Hunger Report in 2020. The report brought to the fore the stigma surrounding food support. The report shared that food-insecure individuals more often experienced negative emotions of sadness, stress and embarrassment that might result in them shying away from help to meet food needs.

Because dining out at hawker centres and coffee shops is a mainstay for many Singaporeans, a lower-income family that can partake in affordable hawker meals alongside others in the community could feel more assured and secured in meeting their food needs and less burdened by negative emotions.

Hawkers that are committed to providing affordable and nutritious meals for lower-income families are thus integral to strengthening the food security and morale of these persons in need. These hawkers should be supported and I urge the Government and operators to consider extending subsidies or stall rental rebates to them. This matters because enhanced welfare for vulnerable families should not be at the expense of economic survival of hawkers, many of whom are self-employed and are working hard to make a living.

In summary, this Bill is a step towards building a kinder society. It shines a light on how some businesses and individuals have helped and how more businesses and individuals can now come forward to help to channel safe, surplus food to households struggling to meet food needs. By strengthening empathy and connections among the broader public, the Bill is a game-changer that can help to dismantle the social stigma surrounding food support while giving food-insecure families the confidence to benefit from food support that is dignified, sustained, adequate and enriching. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.

12.38 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am encouraged to witness the introduction of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, which aims to incentivise donors to reduce food waste without fear of legal repercussions. May I share some points of clarification and considerations that need to be addressed regarding the Bill?

Firstly, in conversation with a food rescue organisation we have worked with through the Telok Blangah Pulai Eco Club, it is important to note that while many well-meaning donor retailers or wholesalers contribute items that are past their "best before" dates but still in good condition, some companies use this as a means to dispose poor-quality items.

Food rescue organisations, despite their best efforts, may not be able to thoroughly inspect every donated item. Therefore, it is crucial to clarify whether the Bill will also protect these intermediary groups and who would be held liable if unsafe food is distributed.

Secondly, the term "donor" typically refers to those who give without receiving monetary incentives. However, some food rescue social enterprises may ask for donations or nominal fees to support sustainability efforts. It is important to determine if the Bill will cover these groups and establish requirements for their inclusion.

Moving on to points for consideration, it is essential to complement the implementation of the Bill with public education. This broadens the acceptance of rescued foods and should inform individuals on the different date labels, such as the distinction between "expiry," "best before" and "use by" dates. Understanding the difference between safety-based versus quality-based date labels is crucial to reducing household food waste.

Additionally, educating consumers on what shelf-stable items are is equally vital, especially since overseas manufacturers may not use date labelling terms accurately. Items, such as soy sauce, uncooked rice or salt, can be kept almost indefinitely when properly stored, further supporting this effort.

Rescued food should be embraced by everyone, not just those in need. While it is crucial to prioritise the needy in distributing donated food, it is equally important for the entire society to cultivate a mindset focused on reducing food waste for meaningful and collective effective efforts in Singapore.

Second consideration: public-private partnerships are vital for scaling food waste reduction efforts. I call on the Government to encourage corporations and suppliers to reduce food waste through measures, such as well-designed tax incentives on surplus food donations and supporting companies that implement effective waste reduction strategies.

Why explore tax incentives? While liability protection such as the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill removes barriers to food donation, tax incentives directly encourage food donation. Food donors need to invest time and resources in packing, storing and especially in transporting surplus food. These food items would otherwise be discarded, often at no cost to them. Tax incentives can help offset these expenses for them.

Having said that, to prevent potential misuse and ensure that the system encourage genuine efforts to reduce food waste, it is important to set sensible limits on the total amount of tax incentives available to each organisational food donor annually. Such tax incentives have already been adopted in the United States (US) and various European Union (EU) member states in efforts to minimise food waste.

In Japan and Australia, companies that adopt innovative waste reduction methods, such as tech-enabled inventory management, receive substantial government support and recognition. Voluntary commitments by organisations across the food system, such as those seen in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), with initiatives like the Courtauld Commitment, have created industry-wide movements to reduce food waste. These efforts are also strongly supported by the respective governments.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill represents a crucial advancement in the fight against food waste by safeguarding donors with good intentions. By defining liability and expanding protection to social enterprises and food rescue organisations, we enhance its impact across the broader community.

Addressing food waste requires a collective effort from the entire nation and demands a widespread societal transformation. Beyond legislation, it is essential to implement programmes that educate consumers while requiring businesses to take proactive steps in reducing food wastage. I am confident that together, we can establish a more sustainable and responsible food system in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.

12.44 pm

Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I first mention my involvement in commercial food services and catering, and also as an office holder in the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS).

I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Louis Ng for introducing the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. I would also commend him on the brevity and general simplicity of the Bill. It makes for easy and pleasant reading.

In introducing this Bill, Mr Ng mentioned it had been a four-year journey. The Bill intends to reduce food wastage and increase food available for the redistribution to food-insecure communities. Food wastage cannot continue to increase without responsible response at both national and international levels. Many initiatives continue in this attempt to curb food wastage. We must do our part in Singapore to reduce food wastage across all the areas, within our ability to do so.

Most of us in Singapore are blessed with the ability to afford all our meals. We are, however, aware that there are communities in our midst facing challenges to place food on the table, each meal, for various reasons.

Food wastage takes many forms. Some years back, a National Environment Agency (NEA) study found that each household disposed of about 2.5 kilogrammes of avoidable food waste each week. If each household took action to distribute some or most of this, Mr Louis Ng will see the tangible results of reducing unnecessary food waste and, concurrently, making food available for the food-insecure communities.

I accept that this may be too simplistic and general. Though efforts in this direction can result in many, many more good Samaritans stepping forward across Singapore. The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrated that we can and should show love for everyone beyond just family and friends.

I would like to now touch on some areas related to food services: catering and general retail and distribution of food.

The food and beverage (F&B) industry continues to face high operating costs. As a result, cost of food, whether raw or prepared, is often carefully controlled. Most operators will control inventory to minimise spoilage from overstocking perishable items. There are constant efforts to keep improving operational efficiencies and managing the bottom line. Controlling food wastage at source is primary in a sustainable F&B business.

Most commercial F&B operators require licensing and follow strict compliance requirements toward food safety and hygiene. Cooked food is to be consumed within stipulated time limits and consumers are provided with this information.

Owing to the health and safety regulations and also the cost controls by F&B operators, there would seem to be limited amounts of prepared or cooked food suitable for donation. Some foods, such as breads and pastries that have longer shelf life, may remain safe for consumption, though the quality may be affected after a period of time.

However, this does not suggest that the F&B industry cannot still be Good Samaritans. I would encourage the F&B industry, wholesalers and retailers of food in all forms, to be generous and work with groups, including the hon Member, to make available food to meet the basic needs of food-insecure sectors of our communities. Many F&B operators donated generously during COVID-19 and this spirit of generosity can find new avenues as we strive toward a more caring society, caring for each other and also caring for the environment.

Moving to the other sectors of food, may I suggest that wholesalers and retailers review the timelines set on donating food reaching expiry dates? It is, of course, clear that every business needs to stay profitable and viable. However, for those that continue to do well, perhaps donating dry goods with a longer shelf life can achieve the dual objectives of reduced wastage and more food for those who can benefit from such donations.

In passing this Bill, there should be guidelines on what types of food should not be donated, purely for health and safety reasons. Some suggestions from a RAS survey include exclusion of milk-based food and shellfish – generally, food that easily spoils.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move now to the second objective, which is the redistribution of consumable food.

Mr Louis Ng did a great deal of research and consultation in the four years and has reached some level of confidence that by absolving donors of liability there would be more food available for donation. In his opening remarks, Mr Louis Ng mentioned that with the removal of liability, some hotels and restaurants would be prepared to step forward and donate food. May I ask if he has identified other groups who are currently reluctant to donate but would possibly step forward with this protection from liability?

I initially struggled with the exemption of liability on some basic principles. The intended beneficiaries are fellow human beings who must retain their dignity and basic rights. In all likelihood, they would be vulnerable and, therefore, may need guidance. Unfortunately, if they do get ill from consuming donated food, they would have the added struggle of medical costs. It remained unclear to me what possible circumstances could contribute to illness if the food donated was safe and healthy at the point of donation. Could Mr Louis Ng provide us some examples the Bill intends to address this?

May I also suggest that there be sufficient channels of guidance for the food-insecure communities to, firstly, assist them in making the right choices; and, secondly, advise them of their rights.

Through this Bill, Mr Ng has continued to advocate for the need to being responsible in the area of food wastage and highlighting the existing needs of fellow citizens and residents who do not have access to three meals a day. We must continue to work on both these areas.

Successful implementation, looking ahead, could, therefore, bring us to this scenario where: firstly, efforts to reduce food wastage bring good results; secondly, food will still find its way to the food-insecure as part of the reduction in food wastage; thirdly, there may, however, be less food available for donation from the many sources as food wastage reduces. However, hopefully, when we get to that stage, there will be a sizeable reduction in those in our community who continue to be food-insecure.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in keeping with the brevity and relative simplicity of this Bill, may I conclude by lending support to the Bill and thanking the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, for bringing this to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

12.53 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Tamil, please.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. It is always a shame to waste food and in Singapore.

According to a 2022 article on the SG Government website, Singaporeans throw away a total of 2,000 tonnes of food every day. The same article suggested at least half of this is in the form of bread, rice and noodles. It could have been prevented.

This Bill aims to alleviate some of this food wastage. In particular, in relation to providers of food donations, provided certain safeguards are met, they would be protected from liability from recipients of their food.

The safeguards are both rigorous and reasonable. These are: one, the food must not have been "unsafe" for consumption when it left the control of the food donor; two, the food donor must inform the recipient of the handling requirements for the food so it remains safe for consumption; three, the food donor must inform the recipient of the food of the time limit for consumption; and four, the food donor should comply with food safety and food hygiene when handling the food.

Many of these are the same matters that the authorities would look into even today if there is a complaint. The main difference is this legislation sets out a positive list of requirements, which if met, would mean the food donors do not have to worry about liability from their food being eaten by recipients.

There are many organisations and people that currently collect and redistribute food from potential donors to recipients. This Bill aims to support the work of these organisations and groups by making their legal responsibilities clear and easy to comply with. I therefore support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

12.57 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that this Bill, when enacted, will encourage more food donations, thereby reducing food wastage and increasing the supply of food to our charitable organisations and households who face food insecurity.

Last year, Singapore disposed over 1,700 tonnes of food waste daily, including a lot of usable and edible food in good condition. One of the ways to reduce this wastage and contribute to food sustainability is to get suppliers and stores to donate their buffer stocks and surpluses. As storage space is costly, many companies have found it easier to just throw away and dispose of the food.

I strongly urge the Government to do more to educate and incentivise them to donate these precious foods. This would require some effort and coordination and, hence, I appeal to the Government to provide the necessary administrative and infrastructural support to help them get started on this journey of donation. The Government, food suppliers and stores, voluntary welfare organisations and volunteers, need to work together to develop an efficient and safe logistical supply chain to effectively channel such food donations to charities and beneficiaries. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I hope that the Government will provide more information to suppliers and commercial entities about the benefits of food donation and implement measures to motivate them to donate. As the donation process requires them to provide manpower and other resources and do coordination work, I therefore request the Government to provide the necessary administrative and infrastructure support to help them start on their donation journey. The Government, food suppliers and shops, voluntary welfare organisations and volunteers need to work together to develop efficient and safe logistics supply chains to effectively channel these food donations to charities and beneficiaries.

(In English): In some countries, such as Spain, businesses could face fines of up to €60,000 if they fail to reduce the amount of food they throw away. This Bill does not propose such a punitive measure, but waiving the liability alone may not be enough to move some suppliers and sellers to donate. Perhaps a tax incentive would be helpful and I hope that the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and the Ministry of Finance can consider this suggestion.

The Bill excludes situations of gross negligence, given the requirement that the food donors will still need to comply with all prevailing laws on food safety and food hygiene. May I ask if MSE can share more details of how it will enforce applicable regulations for donated food and whether there will be differences in how checks will be conducted?

I am happy to note that this Bill will provide liability protection for donors as well as the intermediaries, such as food banks and other charitable organisations, distributing the donated food. The Bill is also well-crafted in spelling out the responsibilities and duties of each party at every stage of the donation process, while ensuring food safety and hygiene, protecting the recipients. Hence, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

1.01 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill and I applaud the efforts of hon Members Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia for advocating the timely support of this crucial Bill that holds significance for our society and community. This Bill presents us with the opportunity to make a meaningful impact, particularly in the realm of community support and philanthropy, to encourage food rescue and food donation without the risk of criminal and civil liability for donors. Allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] One major aspect that is addressed by this Bill is to facilitate the processes for food contribution and donation, especially during events and important dates such as the month of Ramadan, the Prophet Muhammad's birthday and the Islamic New Year, when many generous donors will donate food for the congregants in the mosques and our community in general.

Our mosques, madrasahs and Muslim welfare bodies currently play an essential role, such as preparing dishes for the breaking of fast and pre-dawn meals. Many generous Singaporeans are also keen to donate in kind or spend their time cooking for the needy.

One inspiring example comes from the Al Firdaus Mosque located in the Keat Hong area. This mosque has consistently and tirelessly provided and served pre-dawn meals or meals for the breaking of fast for thousands of foreign workers living in the dormitory at Lim Chu Kang, which is near the mosque.

During each Ramadan too, the M³ network in Chua Chu Kang collaborates with the mosque to mobilise the manpower to distribute porridge that was donated by the public regardless of race or religion.

I have visited the mosques in Chua Chu Kang and all of them welcomed this amendment Bill. Previously, mosques that receive food donations would require donors to fill in their details in a form and require them to sign an indemnity form, so that the mosque and volunteers will be released from any claims for damages should anyone fall ill after eating the donated food.

However, that does not release them from any criminal liability. Hence, this Bill is expected to encourage even more donors and organisations to donate food because donors will have immunity from any civil or criminal liability. We will also hope to encourage the habits of food savings.

(In English): Speaker, in Keat Hong Chua Chu Kang, we receive many generous donations and contributions of food by kind-hearted individuals who want to give back to society. These come from individuals and also food rescue from the nearby farms in Keat Hong. Some of them take time to cook each month, specially for this. Take, for example, Mr Ong, a hawker from Teck Whye market who uses his time off to cook vegetarian bee hoon, which we distribute to residents monthly. Mr and Mrs Song, hawkers from Boon Lay, who contribute packets of chicken rice during our People's Action Party (PAP) branch’s free monthly haircut sessions for seniors in Keat Hong. These efforts have been ongoing in the town for years. They do this out of the kindness of their hearts but they face the potential risk of liability. It is time for us to repay their kindness.

While we welcome this Bill with open arms, it is essential to recognise that it is not a cure-all solution. One notable inclusion in the Bill is the exclusion of criminal liability, allowing Good Samaritans to step forward and organisations to do more for the community. However, prudent parties may still wish to take certain precautions, such as obtaining waivers or disclaimers of liability from consumers, seeking indemnity from donors, conducting due diligence on donors where possible and providing training to volunteers and raising awareness among beneficiaries regarding the donated food.

It is crucial to strike a balance between responsibility and philanthropy. In this regard, I have a clarification. Clause 4 of the Bill excludes civil or criminal liability in respect of any death or personal injury that results from the consumption of the food. However, section 2C of the Sale of Food Act's definition of unsafe food, which definition is imported in this Bill, uses the phrase "cause illness or injury or other physical harm to a person".

Given this disparity in the definitions used in the Bill as compared to the Sale of Food Act, is the Bill's scope narrower, focusing solely on death or personal injury, or should it also encompass illnesses or other physical harms as envisaged under the Sale of Food Act? This clarity is vital to prevent any ambiguity or disputes in the future.

Based on the current definition used in the Bill, any illness caused by the consumption of the donated food may not be caught under the Bill. If the intent in this Bill is to be consistent with the Sale of Food Act, then may I suggest importing the same phrasing used in section 2C of the Sale of Food Act within the Bill, meaning to cover "any illness, injury or other personal harm or death" that results from the consumption of the donated food.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I end this speech, I echo Mr Louis Ng's gratitude to the countless people and organisations who have supported in the process of the tabling of this Bill. Back in 2017, in my voluntary role with the self-help group AMP Singapore, we collaborated with Free Food For All to distribute over 9,000 meals to under-privileged households. It was a record number at that point in time. Free Food For All’s founder, the late Mr Nizar Shariff, was a Singaporean of the Year finalist and a winner of the President’s Volunteerism and Philanthropy Awards. Mr Nizar passed away last year.

I believe that this Bill represents a significant step forward for us to create more such individuals in our society in fostering a more caring and supportive community, where individuals and organisations can come together to make a positive impact without fear of criminal or civil liability from the donated food. Let us embrace this opportunity to extend a helping hand to those in need and create a stronger, more compassionate society for all. Sir, notwithstanding my clarification, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

1.09 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is the culmination of the close collaboration and consultations with various stakeholders for an important social cause. For this, I am grateful for having been able to work with my Parliamentary colleagues, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Edward Chia, alongside our PAP activists as well as industry players, social enterprises, public agencies and the community. The passage of this Bill is a milestone but not the end of our journey. We will continue to engage with the relevant stakeholders and community. There will always be room for further improvements.

According to the statistics tabulated by NEA, 755,000 tonnes, or rather 755 million kilogrammes, of food waste were generated last year. The amount was 813,000 tonnes in 2022, and 817,000 tonnes in 2021. Against this backdrop, and paradoxically, food insecurity remains a live issue. The Food Bank Singapore Ltd has produced over two million meals annually in the past three years. These are staggering figures.

The purpose of this Bill, as set out in clause 3, is to reduce food waste and increase the availability of food for redistribution to food-insecure communities. Through our consultations, we learnt that a key concern of our current and prospective food donors is liability, both civil and criminal. As shared by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Ng, in his opening speech, there are many donors and potential donors out there who would like to contribute but are understandably concerned about incurring liability, despite taking every precaution and doing their utmost best.

In Woodgrove, I am grateful to have many community partners and residents who are supportive of our call to embrace green sustainable living, reduce food waste and do good "For the Community, From the Community".

Several green sustainable events in Woodgrove, both large and small scale, have been held through the years, providing opportunities for residents and community partners, such as schools, to contribute ideas and take part in supporting our nation’s SG Green Plan goals. Events, such as our Woodgrove's World Environment Day, which is held on an annual basis for our community, would regularly see strong support by our community gardeners, donating their fruits and vegetables that were grown in over 100 plots of community gardens across Woodgrove.

In July 2023, Woodgrove set up our weekly community pantry located at the heart of Woodgrove, where residents are welcomed to help themselves with food rations and daily essential items which were donated by community partners, such as temples, as well as residents who have requested to remain anonymous but chose to do good for our community. I am heartened that during a National Day block party in Woodgrove held over a recent weekend, we announced a Woodgrove-FairPrice Group collaboration, under which the FairPrice Group, being Singapore’s largest retailer and one of the working committee members of this Bill, will be on board as another enthusiastic community partner to support our expansion of the community pantry initiative to benefit a larger community in Woodgrove through its Community Fridge Restock Initiative, which aimed at providing blemished but edible fruits and vegetables to families and individuals in need across Singapore for free.

These are just some examples of the many good work we have heard that are in progress in the community, which many are looking to operationalise and even expand under and upon the passage of this Bill, for our residents’ and the wider public’s benefit.

At the same time, I also hope that the Singapore Food Agency would continue to guide us in this important mission, such as coming up with clear and specific food safety standards and best practices for the purposes of this Bill that will be implemented by all food donors and understood by all of the donees as well. One particular area would be the public education on the significance and difference between "best by" and "expiry" dates used, like what my Parliamentary colleague, Miss Rachel Ong, has shared earlier. Would these categories of food be, therefore, acceptable and safe for consumption?

Mr Speaker, following the passing of this Bill, we should and we will keenly monitor and continue to engage the relevant stakeholders on the implementation and operations of food donation. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The purpose of this Bill is set out at clause 3, which is to reduce food waste and increase the availability of food for redistribution to food-insecure communities. Through our consultations, we learnt that a key concern of current and prospective food donors is liability, both civil and criminal.

We found that the balance of donors' and ultimate recipients' interests may be struck, by providing protection against liability for donating food where food safety laws in the handling of food have been met. This, would be a win-win. Perhaps collaterally, this Bill would also hopefully bolster Singapore’s "30 by 30" food security goal. With less wastage, the need for increased production could be ameliorated.

Recently, there has been a spate of mass food poisoning cases which reminded us the importance of complying with food safety laws when handling food. As members of the public, either as donors or beneficiaries, we must not take it lightly. I hope the relevant authorities such as SFA to continue working with community partners to increase public awareness of food safety. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

1.16 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this Bill. This Bill will help to cut down on food wastage while ensuring food safety and hygiene for recipients. The liability waiver will go a long way to empower all stakeholders, from the suppliers to donors and volunteers, to save and distribute edible food with peace of mind.

The amount of food waste in Singapore has increased by about 30% in the last decade. Such wastage is not right nor sustainable. I hope all stakeholders can do their part to anticipate demand more precisely and reduce potential wastage.

In the face of increasing challenges for food production and transportation, due to international conflicts and extreme weather, unpredictable conditions, food prices are expected to keep going up. Moving forward, we will have less room for waste. As a nation which imports 90% of our food, we need to invest more effort to identify points of wastage and work together to move unsold products to the needy expediently.

One of the greatest concerns we all share is our hot and humid weather condition. Food spoil quickly in this climate. For cooked food, for safety, they need to be eaten within four hours of preparation. Other products, such as bread and fruit, mould within days. We require a robust cold chain logistics network to support donors. The unpredictable amounts of donated food from different sources pose a challenge for storage and distribution by voluntary welfare organisations. Would the Government consider supporting interested donors to advise and assist them on food storage and transportation?

Suppliers and stores, together with the Government, should also clarify food expiry labels, such as "best before", "use by", "expiry", for the benefit of consumers and donation recipients. This is an important step to reduce the amount of food discarded prematurely.

Compared to other countries with similar legislation, such as the US, I would say that our proposed conditions are on par with these other countries.

I agree with the proposals in the Bill, such as for the food to meet the Sale of Food Act, that the food must not have been "unsafe" and "unsuitable" for consumption when it leaves the possession or control of the food donor, and that the recipients be informed of handling requirements and time limit for consumption.

In the EU, the labels on the donated food must also indicate the presence of common allergens. It would be a good condition for us to consider including as well. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Food donation can effectively reduce food waste. However, because donors are afraid of trouble or worry about legal liability due to food safety issues, they would rather throw away the food than donate it. However, there are still many families in need in our society. After all, we cannot stop eating because of the fear of choking. By legislating to exempt food donors who meet food safety and hygiene conditions, we will encourage food donations, reduce food waste, and help families in need. The experience of the US, Italy and other countries has proved that effective food donation laws can significantly promote food donation behaviour.

At the same time, we must have balance in the new legal framework and not go too far. If the conditions for exempting food donors from liability are too cumbersome, it will increase the cost for potential food donors, which will reduce their willingness to donate and lead them to do the convenient – discarding food. This leads to us missing the original goal of our legislation and the loss will outweigh the gain.

In addition to exempting food donors from liability through legislation, the government can also implement incentive measures. I have thought of tax incentives, however, tax incentives have pros and cons. They may inadvertently incentivise people to stockpile or over-purchase, causing unnecessary waste which is exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve.

In general, our legislation needs to balance the interests of food donors and the ultimate beneficiaries. It is the most basic requirement that food donors must comply with food safety regulations when handling food. The implementation of the Good Samaritan Food Donation legislation can not only reduce food waste, but also help people in need and reduce the burden on the environment.

(In English): I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

1.22 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, according to NEA's data, food waste accounted for 11% of the total waste generated by Singapore last year. I thus welcome the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill as I believe that it will further encourage the donation of surplus or unsold food to the needy, tackling the problem of food wastage in a meaningful and purposeful manner through redistribution to communities, families and individuals in need.

Notwithstanding this, I would like to raise some clarifications on the implementation of the proposed section 4 on the waiver of criminal and civil liability.

Let me start by first acknowledging the good work of various community organisations in food rescue and redistribution, such as Food from the Heart and GoodHood. These non-profit organisations have been at the forefront of addressing food insecurity among our vulnerable communities through ground-up support for food programmes.

Food from the Heart, for instance, has been collecting unsold and excess food and groceries from supermarkets and bakeries, and distributing them to those who struggle with food insecurity. Their initiatives, such as the School Goodie Bag and Community Food Pack programmes, have benefited the less fortunate families and children in our communities.

Similarly, GoodHood has revolutionised the concept of neighbourhood sharing through their "GoodHood.SG: Neighbourhood App", encouraging residents to share surplus food and other resources with their residents, with their fellow neighbours in need. Such ground-up approach not only fosters neighbourliness but also encourage Singaporeans to actively participate in the sustainability cause.

My residents in Jalan Kayu have benefited from many of such food donation efforts and I am deeply grateful to them.

Like several of my hon Parliamentary colleagues have mentioned, I note that there have been similar legislative efforts by other countries to encourage food donation. In the US, the Federal Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act enacted in 1996 protects donors from liability when donating to non-profit organisations. Similarly, Italy’s Good Samaritan Law protects those who donate food in good faith from civil and criminal consequences of their actions and limits their liability arising from food safety rules. Instead of legislation, some other countries, such as the UK’s Courtauld Commitment 2030, is a voluntary agreement amongst stakeholders to reduce food wastage by 50% by 2030. Although there may be different approaches to encouraging food donation, many local businesses prefer legislation that reduces their fear of liability and reputation damage, while helping to balance their corporate social responsibility with any potential legal obligations.

As we move forward, it is thus essential to ensure that the implementation of the Bill can effectively address the concerns raised by potential food donors while ensuring food safety for the recipients. Hence, I would like to seek clarifications on the administration, imposition of penalties, if any, in serious incidents of breaches and possible mediation process for conditions outlined in section 4 of the Bill.

The Bill provides a waiver of criminal and civil liability for donors of food, under four key conditions. Specifically, donors will be protected from liability for any death or personal injury resulting from the consumption of donated food, provided that: one, the food was safe and suitable at the time it left the donor's possession; two, the recipient was informed of any specific handling requirements that is required to ensure that the food remained safe and suitable for consumption after it left the donor’s possession; three, the recipient was informed of any time limits for the food's safety; and lastly, the donor complied with all food safety and hygiene laws.

It is essential to establish a clear oversight mechanism to ensure that donors adhere to the safety and hygiene protocols required by the Bill. As such, I hope to understand how the conditions under section 4 will be administered and monitored to ensure compliance by all stakeholders involved. Will MSE be looking at any specific statutory board, such as SFA, to be responsible for ensuring that the four conditions are met for the liability to be waived? Additionally, will MSE be the authority to revoke the waiver of liability if breaches, serious breaches occur? And will the investigation process into serious breaches be conducted similarly to the process for contamination and gastroenteritis incidents?

I also hope that MSE can work with stakeholders to provide training and guidance to potential food donors to help them understand and comply with the requirements of the Bill. This will also foster a culture of responsibility and encourage ethical behaviour among potential food donors.

Secondly, even though the Bill’s main intention is to address the fear of liabilities that prevent food businesses from donating their unsold food. I hope the Bill can also address potential penalties if any of the conditions stated in section 4 is seriously breached to safeguard the public who are potential recipients, especially if they are the vulnerable communities.

I would thus like to ask if the Government has considered any potential penalties for the donors if any conditions set in section 4 have been seriously breached. And will this be a graduated scale of penalties based on the severity of the breach, ranging from minor infractions to serious violations to give assurance to potential food donors?

Finally, I believe that establishing a clear and accessible mediation mechanism will be crucial in resolving conflicts efficiently and fairly.

As such, I would like to also clarify if there will be mediation or resolution processes made available to both donors and recipients to address any grievances or misunderstandings arising from possible disputes. I hope that the Government can consider providing a mediating channel that is reliable for all donors and recipients to address any issues that may arise.

Additionally, for small-scale donors who may not have the resources to navigate complex legal disputes, will the Government provide support mechanisms to assist them? Providing such support for smaller donors will encourage broader participation in food donation efforts, ensuring that even the smallest contributions can make a difference.

Mr Speaker, as I conclude, I would like to emphasise the significance of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill in helping to solve the country’s food waste problem while mitigating the fear of liability and encouraging more potential donors to step forward. This will help to foster a more giving and compassionate community in the long term.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Parliamentary colleagues – Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia – for their hard work and efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition today. Their dedication and hard work in engaging with relevant stakeholders have been instrumental in shaping this piece of legislation.

I hope that the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will become a pillar to sustain our collective work towards reducing food wastage, supporting food-insecure communities and fostering a culture of generosity and responsibility.

Notwithstanding my clarifications raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

1.30 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to declare that I own and operate a food waste recycling company. Through my professional experience, I have witnessed first-hand the shocking amount of perfectly edible food that is discarded into recycling bins. This has reinforced my firm belief that edible food should be redistributed, not recycled.

Therefore, I fully support this Bill put forth by the hon Member Louis Ng as it will enable more effective redistribution of edible food. It has been a real privilege to be part of this discussion along with Parliamentary colleagues, Ms Poh Li San and Ms Hany Soh at the onset. I would like to thank all the workgroup members for assisting in drafting this Bill.

In this speech, I will share the various opportunities that this Bill gives rise to. These opportunities support our nation's efforts to combat food waste and enhance the support for our food-insecure communities.

Firstly, by protecting food donors from liability for any harm that may arise from the consumption of donated food, under specific conditions, the amount of food that would be donated is expected to rise. This bodes well for any type of operation as economies of scale are key.

The increase in food sources enables non-profit organisations and social enterprises to achieve the required scale to optimise operations and logistics. With more food available, food caring organisaions (FCOs) can optimise their processes. They can better match the food with appropriate recipients and plan logistics more effectively. Also, with greater food volume, organisations can recover their investments in better infrastructure, such as transportation and storage, improving their overall efficiency.

The increase in food sources will also optimise the matching of donors' and donees' preferences. When businesses, restaurants and individuals donate more surplus food, it increases the potential diversity of food available for redistribution. This helps organisations have a more consistent and diverse supply to redistribute to those in need.

Combined with digital solutions, the increase in scale can also spark innovations in redistribution methods, such as using technology to track and manage food donations more effectively.

In the US, Olio is a food-sharing app that connects neighbours and local businesses with excess food to those nearby who can use it. Such hyperlocal innovations have the potential to enhance community bonds too.

Another area of opportunity is the issuance of a quality mark that ensures food is safely and effectively redistributed to those in need. Such certifications and standards typically focus on food safety, operational standards and efficiency. There are a few notable examples.

First, ISO 22000, an international standard that specifies requirements for a food safety management system to ensure that food is safe for consumption. Organisations involved in food rescue and redistribution can obtain this certification to demonstrate their commitment to food safety.

Second, Feeding America's "Certified Member Food Banks". Feeding America has its own set of standards and guidelines for member food banks. Certified members must meet rigorous criteria for food safety, handling and distribution practices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in creating a quality mark for the redistribution of food, food caring organisations benefit in several ways: one, ensure consistency in food safety and quality; two, build trust and credibility with donees; three, improve efficiency as processes are streamlined and staff and volunteers are provided stipulated training; four, facilitate partnerships and funding as partnership organisations and funding organisations look for evidence of quality and reliability when partnering or awarding funds; and five, support continuous improvements and monitoring as quality marks offer valuable feedback for ongoing improvements and adjustments.

For food caring organisations to harness the opportunities presented in this Bill, we need to enable them to take strategic and impactful steps. There are three ways we can do so.

Firstly, we must enable food caring organisations to pursue quality mark accreditation. To facilitate this, I propose that the Government provide grants to cover costs associated with adopting these standards and conducting necessary training. Furthermore, Enterprise Singapore's Quality and Standards division should consider developing a standard specifically tailored to our local context, ensuring it meets the unique needs of our community.

Secondly, FCOs need to address the challenge of logistics. While investing in additional refrigerated vehicles is one option, it may not always be the most efficient and can also contribute to traffic congestion. Instead, I recommend we focus on creating hyperlocal partnerships and community-based redistribution networks.

The Community Development Councils (CDCs), organised by districts, are ideally positioned to enable this. The CDCs could serve as the key node to enable FCOs to operate a hyperlocal hub and spokes redistribution. Within these hubs, several cold storage facilities can be added to extend the shelf life of perishable items. By collaborating with FCOs within the CDC districts, the CDCs can enhance existing support to resource low-income families.

This suggestion is built upon our existing weekly food rescue initiative that we have started in Zhenghua. Launched in September 2022, we have rescued approximately 7,600 kilogrammes of food and redistributed it to the residents of Zhenghua. We collaborated with local supermarkets and wholesalers to gather all unsold food items, which are transported to Zhenghua, where it is distributed among residents.

It is important to note that we have framed this as a Zhenghua green initiative, where all are welcome to collect the rescued food. In this way, we mobilise all in our community to do our part to reduce food waste.

Our on-ground experience shows how hyperlocal initiatives can successfully mobilise volunteers and consistently provided food to the community. This approach reduces logistical cost by keeping food redistribution hyperlocal, ensuring food reaches those in need quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, it enhances community resilience and promotes sustainability by fostering a strong network of support within the neighbourhood.

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, an exciting opportunity arises for food caring organisations in Singapore to issue carbon credits by redistributing food. By aligning with international methodologies that quantify greenhouse gas emission reductions, these organisations can not only contribute to environmental sustainability but also generate revenue through carbon credits. The revenue generated can support FCOs in their recovery of logistical costs.

This initiative presents a dual benefit – reducing food waste and contributing to our nation's carbon reduction goals. To fully harness this potential, I recommend supporting FCOs in adopting digital solutions to effectively track the amount of food waste redistributed. Such technologies will enhance transparency and accuracy in measuring their impact, enabling these organisations to capitalise on carbon credits. This potential further amplifies the impact of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, fostering a more sustainable and responsible approach to food management in our society.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill offers transformative opportunities for addressing food waste and enhancing support for food-insecure communities.

To fully leverage these benefits, we should: one, support food caring organisations with grants for quality mark accreditation and Enterprise Singapore's Quality and Standards division should consider developing a standard specifically tailored to our local context; two, focus on hyperlocal partnerships and community-based redistribution networks, utilising the CDCs to enable hub and spoke operations; and three, support FCOs to adopt digital solutions to effectively track the amount of food waste redistributed. Such technologies will enhance transparency and accuracy in measuring their impact, enabling these organisations to capitalise on carbon credits.

These steps will maximise the Bill's impact, ensuring a more effective and sustainable approach to food waste and community support.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

1.39 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Singapore is a food paradise filled with eateries and restaurants at every corner of our country. However, many of us are unaware of what happens to food that is unsold and how much food is wasted.

An elephant can weigh up to six tonnes. The food waste produced in 2023 was a staggering 755,000 tonnes. That is a gradual increase from 744,000 tonnes in 2019.

Here are some facts: one, while food prices are increasing consistently, the options for affordable food supplies for low-income families are still very limited; two, even though SFA has been working hard to meet the "30 by 30" national nutritional goal, a huge quantity of edible food is being thrown away daily; three, 11% of total waste collected in Singapore is food waste and this percentage can be reduced; four, we have a shortage of waste collection workers.

We need to ask ourselves why are we throwing away so much food when they can be channelled to feed our under-privileged groups? This food paradox arises because food is perishable, expensive to store and transport and food that does not look fresh is hard to sell or may even cause health issues.

It is not disputed that it is cheaper, more convenient and less risky for food suppliers and restaurants to simply throw away unsold and unconsumed food rather than to donate them. This practice is especially so for well-known food establishments. It is just not worth the risk of damaging an established food company's reputation should the quality and safety of the unconsumed food be compromised in the course of collection and distribution.

As Singaporeans become more affluent, many people tend to take a nonchalant and risk-averse attitude when it comes to wasting food. However, as a small and resource-scarce nation, we must stop the following from increasing – food waste, food costs, food insecurity, manpower needs and carbon footprint.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will be a good solution. This legislative amendment can be a significant game-changer in the management of under-utilised food resources and waste reduction while helping low-income families cope with rising food expenses and assisting them in monitoring their nutrition intake.

Presently, there are already several volunteer groups addressing the collection of unconsumed food and redistributing them to various communities. Just to name a few, the Food Bank rescues more than 800,000 kilogrammes of food annually. Food from the Heart will collect unsold bread, while Food Rescue Sengkang picks up vegetables and fruits from wholesale markets and food donors.

These rescued food items are mostly limited to those that are easier to transport, store, distribute and safe to mark as consumables. There are still plenty of untapped opportunities to rescue unconsumed high-quality foods from restaurants, hotel buffets, supermarkets and so on.

If sufficient protection from liability or even benefits are provided for the donation of unconsumed food, more food donors and distribution groups will come onboard. Such collaboration efforts can potentially create solutions for more ground-up initiatives and attract various communities to work together to reduce food waste and to do good. We can turn a vicious circle of waste into a virtuous circle of good deeds.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is a good solution. But needless to say, a lot more needs to be done in order to reduce significant amounts of food waste and to redistribute edible foods to the under-privileged communities in Singapore. The logistics is viable because Singapore is small with good transport accessibility to reach anywhere in a short time.

We need to create awareness of the Good Samaritan Food Bill and hopefully promote an enhanced liability protection extended to food donors. We have to encourage lighthouse partners such as the Restaurant Association of Singapore, Singapore Hotel Association and major supermarket chains such as FairPrice and Cold Storage to come onboard as examples for other food suppliers and operators.

We will need to increase the number of volunteers in various localities across Singapore to assist with the collection and distribution roles. Key food collection points, donation drop-off nodes and distribution points must be established in various zones across Singapore. Volunteer drivers of large vehicles could then ply between the collection nodes and the distribution points while volunteer distributors could help with sorting, cleaning, repacking and distributing the donated foods to beneficiaries. It is also important for the distribution points to be located at convenient and accessible locations for the beneficiaries. The Singapore Armed Forces can also consider activating some National Servicemen to be involved in this process.

We have to identify and reach out to more potential beneficiaries who are open to receive donated food and as much as possible, provide fresh and healthy foods. We also need to help these beneficiaries develop healthy eating habits, especially for growing children. It would be good for the local Social Service Offices and Family Services Centres work with and to support food donation groups in order to achieve more targeted outreach to low-income families that would benefit from regular food distribution. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now share my suggestions in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The purpose of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is to encourage food donations by providing liability protection for donors, so as to help more families and people in need and reduce waste and burden on the environment. We need to take the following steps to expand donation efforts and deliver donated food to more beneficiaries.

We need to raise awareness of the Bill and promote enhanced liability protection for food donors.

We must encourage large partners to participate, such as the Singapore Food and Beverage Industry Association, the Singapore Hotel Association and large supermarket chains, such as NTUC FairPrice and Cold Storage, to set an example for other food suppliers and operators.

We need to increase volunteers in various districts, including volunteer drivers of large vehicles, to assist in the collection, delivery and distribution of donated food. The Singapore Armed Forces could consider mobilising some National Servicemen to participate in this process. Collaboration between the community and the Family Service Centres and food rescue organisations is important to reach more low-income families in a targeted way who would benefit from regular food distribution.

(In English): I am very eager for the passing of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill as this will help scale up our food rescue and distribution efforts in Singapore. Our residents and volunteers in Sembawang West will also get to benefit more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to share our Food Rescue experience in Sembawang West. Five years ago, my PAP Sembawang West Branch volunteers and I started our "Colourful Food, Vibrant Life" fruits and vegetables distribution programme. We distributed free fruits and vegetables once a month to our residents staying at our rental block, as well as the 2-room and 3-room blocks. Apart from a few months during the COVID-19 pandemic, when we had to pause the programme, unfortunately, this programme has brought much joy to both volunteers and beneficiaries.

Our key partner, Sengkang Food Rescue will collect multiple truckloads of unwanted fruits and vegetables from the Pasir Panjang Wholesale markets and from other food donors and store them at their Fernvale facility. There are approximately 20 to 40 pallets collected each Saturday.

Thereafter, my branch volunteers will collect one truckload of fruits and vegetables from Fernvale and transport them to Sembawang West rental block. My volunteers will unload, sort, clean and display the food items at the void deck of the rental block. Typically, between 80 and 100 families will come by to collect the produce. Some of them will collect on behalf of their neighbours who may be out or unwell.

We started with the intention of reducing food waste, encouraging low-income families to eat more nutritious greens and also helping them reduce their food expenditures.

Over time, we got to know the residents better and we forged friendships with them through our chit-chats while they wait in the queue. Even though they may not be well-endowed or well-educated, many of these residents are very hardworking, warm and down-to-earth. They are very appreciative of our efforts and we often get warm hugs whenever they see us. There are many unexpected beautiful blessings and thank you notes from these distribution sessions are very much appreciated by our volunteers.

During the process, our volunteers, especially the youths, have the opportunity to learn about how we can help under-privileged living in our midst. It is a great eye-opener that brings valuable life education and experiences to these volunteers. In helping senior residents carry their bags of fruits and vegetables to their humble homes, the youths learn to appreciate how fortunate and well-endowed they themselves are.

There is a lot of good done whenever our branch volunteers collaborates with other community or corporate social responsibility groups who have come forward to contribute as well. Besides Sengkang Food Rescue, Sembawang Town Council, companies like TreeDots and Saint Gobain and volunteer groups like Smile!SG and MAD, have joined forces with Sembawang West Branch, to donate household necessities like toys, books, frozen foods, pillows and more, to augment the fruits and vegetables. Especially during festive periods, the additional donation items indeed bring lots of joy and relief to residents who are not able to afford such basic pleasures.

Recently, our volunteers even started additional services, by roping in hairstylists to provide free haircuts for residents who turn up for the food distribution. Residents will not only eat healthily but also look better and feel more comfortable. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will like to share our takeaways in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We started the "food distribution" initiative with the intention of reducing food waste, encouraging low-income families to eat more nutritious meals, and also helping them reduce expenses on food.

Over time, we had the opportunity to get to know the residents better and we developed friendships by chatting with them while they wait in queue. Even though they may not be affluent or well-educated, many of these residents are very hardworking, warm and down-to-earth. They are very appreciative of our efforts and greet us warmly whenever we meet. We receive many blessings and truly appreciate the thank-you notes that were given to us from these distribution sessions.

Throughout this process, our volunteers, especially the youths, have the opportunity to learn about how we can help the under-privileged living in our midst. It is a great eye-opener that brings a lot of meaning and real-life experiences to these volunteers, including helping senior residents carry their bags of fruits and vegetables to their humble homes, which helps the volunteers learn to appreciate how fortunate they themselves are.

There is a lot of good done whenever our branch volunteers work with other community or corporate social responsibility groups who have come forward to contribute as well. Besides Sengkang Food Rescue and Sembawang Town Council, companies like TreeDots and Saint Gobain, Smile!SG and MAD, have joined forces with Sembawang West Branch, to donate household items like toys, books, frozen food, pillows, fruits and vegetables. During festive periods especially, this additional donation brings lots of joy and relief to residents who are not able to afford such basic pleasures.

Recently, our volunteers started additional services, by roping in hairstylists to provide free haircuts for residents who turn up for the food distribution. Residents will not only eat healthily but also look better and feel more comfortable.

(In English): Thanks to the "Colourful Foods, Vibrant Life" programme, my Branch volunteers have forged a stronger camaraderie. Though it is hard work, we are always happy to be there for fellow Singaporeans who are less privileged in life. Everyone looks forward to the third Saturday of the month and we are passionate about helping our residents.

Hence, with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, I hope more food donors and Samaritans will come forward to contribute. With the additional support, programmes like Sembawang West's food distribution programme can be replicated in other localities and to many more towns in Singapore.

Finally, I would conclude with my sincere thanks to the leadership of fellow Member, Mr Louis Ng and his legal assistant, Ms Charmaine Yap, and many more Samaritans in the committee who have contributed in the drafting of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, over the past four years.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will assist in the reduction of food waste, help low-income families, inspire stronger volunteerism amongst more Singaporeans and make us a more caring society. Let us all turn a vicious circle of food waste into a virtuous circle of good deeds! Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

1.57 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Speaker, I would first like to thank Mr Louis Ng and his team for tabling the Private Member's Bill and for bringing this important issue to the fore.

In my speech, I will touch on three areas: one, how the work of food charities in Singapore fits with our social compact; two, how the Bill will support their work; and finally, how, as a society, we can join hands across Government, community and businesses to support more intentional giving.

Food support organisations play an important role in our society. They are a positive model of how community partners with families and the Government and exemplify our "many helping hands" approach.

In Singapore, we encourage self-reliance and family support. Individuals do their best for themselves and their families and families provide the first line of support.

The next layer of support is a caring community, comprising neighbours, community organisations and other partners, including corporates. Members of the community, like our food support organisations, contribute their time, resources and expertise and help create opportunities for those they help.

The Government helps to create conditions and opportunities for Singaporeans to provide a better life for themselves and their loved ones. On occasion, some families fall on hard times for a variety of reasons and the Government steps in to provide support, in essence, provide a social safety net to help them regain stability and self-reliance.

Thus, food charities do not work alone, but alongside many others who seek to help individuals and families in need.

There are many food charities in Singapore. Together, they provide a wide range of food support, such as cooking and delivering hot meals, distributing dry rations, setting up community shops, as well as providing digital credits that allow beneficiaries to select the food that best meets their dietary requirements.

Food charities complement the Government's support, by offering additional aid and expanding the range of choices for families in need. Their efforts go a long way in helping to alleviate the burdens of these families.

Not many people see their work. They are often unsung heroes, operating behind the scenes. Many food charities and their dedicated volunteers work tirelessly around the clock, including at night and in the wee hours of the morning. They collect donated food, prepare and repack them for their beneficiaries and help prepare cooked meals. Many also work closely with social services to identify needy families and make plans for supporting them, in line with their needs.

I have had the privilege of leading the Charity Food Workgroup, or CFWG, over the past four years. The CFWG was first formed in 2019 and today comprises 15 private and public stakeholders, such as food charities, Government organisations and corporate partners.

Our goal is to bring partners within the food donation ecosystem together so that we can harness our collective strengths to practise "good giving and giving right". We have done this by: (a) helping those in need identify and receive food support; (b) reducing duplication of food support and reducing food wastage through better coordination; and (c) encouraging better giving through a shared emphasis on providing food support that meets beneficiaries' dietary needs and in a way that gives beneficiaries greater choice and dignity.

The CFWG's work is beneficiary-centric and largely driven by the food charities which are the key enablers of these efforts. The workgroup has also risen to the occasion during difficult times. During the circuit breaker, the work of many food charities was disrupted, with many unable to operate. Recognising that there was higher demand for food support then, CFWG members rallied together and developed a central repository of food support beneficiaries' data. This enabled charities that were still able to operate to take over to provide support to those who needed help.

Today, that initiative has led to the establishment of a FoodConnect Database. Launched in 2022, the FoodConnect database provides food charities with a consolidated view of food support received by a household, thus facilitating better coordination and avoiding duplication. And we continue to encourage more food charities to come on board the database.

We have also launched a FoodConnect Directory that enables families to access food charities according to where they live and their dietary requirements. This has helped families more easily find food support that best meets their needs. The Directory has become more comprehensive over time. Today, it includes food charities offering halal, non-halal and vegetarian food support options in all service regions in Singapore.

The introduction of the Good Samaritan Food Donation, or GSFD Bill is a significant step forward to bolster efforts in the food support space. The Bill reflects the collective efforts of stakeholders in the food donation space who have come together to think about how to incentivise food donation and reduce food wastage in Singapore.

We welcome the protections conferred by the Bill, as more donors can confidently participate in food donation and less food will go to waste. Through our food charities and food support organisations stepping in to organise these donations, more food can be given to those in need. And organisations can also benefit from the assurance that there are legislative protections in place, as they carry out their work. I hope that, collectively, these measures will help encourage greater community giving while, at the same time, reducing food wastage. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) supports the spirit of the Bill.

With the GSFD Bill, we can look forward to an increase in the quantity and variety of donated food, as more businesses and individuals are encouraged to donate. My hope is that this will lead to greater choice and dignity for beneficiaries of food support, who will be better placed to get food support that best meets their needs and preferences.

With this Bill, I encourage food donors who are considering stepping forward to also work with food charities to understand the needs of food support recipients and donate in ways that provide greater choice, including healthier food options. We also encourage donors and food charities to work with CFWG and, together, we can address the community's needs more effectively.

Mr Speaker, in my past four years of involvement in this space, I have had the distinct privilege of seeing first-hand how giving has evolved over time. For our beneficiaries to have the option of choice is not simply or merely about preferences. I have a four-year-old boy at home, so, I know for young children, having a choice over food options not only helps them feel like they have some control over their lives, but learning to decide is also a key part of growing up. And yet, for others, being able to choose the food that they eat comes from a position of need. For diabetic patients, for instance, white rice and sugar, items that are often found in standard ration packs, would be of little help for them.

And that is why I have been so deeply inspired by the many big hearts that have been involved in this space, working hard to evolve our giving models, so that we do not just give but, more importantly, give better. And for that, I salute all who have been, and will continue, to be hard at work in our food charities. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng.

2.06 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Sir, MSE supports food waste reduction, whilst ensuring supply of safe food for Singapore.

Reducing food waste helps us realise our vision of a zero-waste nation. The total amount of food waste generated in Singapore in 2023 was 755,000 tonnes, which accounted for about 11% of the total waste generated in Singapore. We support the GSFD Bill as we believe it will help reduce food waste by facilitating the donation of surplus food to beneficiaries.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about my Ministry's broader goals in managing food waste. Mr Speaker, food waste is a priority waste stream under the Zero Waste Masterplan and we have implemented a range of efforts under the Masterplan. We have set out regulatory measures in the Resource Sustainability Act that progressively require, from 2024, large commercial and industrial food waste generators to segregate food waste for treatment or conversion into useful products and to submit annual food waste reports. Concurrently, we are building up our food waste treatment capacity through the construction of the upcoming Food Waste Treatment Facility, which will produce biogas and boost electricity generation.

The preferred way to manage food waste is to avoid food production in excess of consumption at the onset. We encourage all food establishments, including manufacturers, caterers and retailers, to review processes and practices, to reduce the incidence of excessive food production upstream. Stakeholders may consult the food waste minimisation guidebooks available on the NEA and SFA websites. Where there is unsold or excess food, we support food donation as a possible avenue to reduce wastage.

The GSFD Bill thus complements existing efforts to reduce food waste by facilitating food donation which would then avoid the need for food waste treatment and its associated operational costs. Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Jean See, Miss Rachel Ong and Ms Joan Pereira suggested further measures to encourage food waste reduction through food donations. We thank the Members for their suggestions and will study them further together with MSF as they continue to look at ways to strengthen efforts in the food support space.

As we facilitate and support measures that reduce food waste, we must also ensure that the donated food is safe and suitable for our consumption. Mr Don Wee and Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about food safety risks and the importance of ensuring that donors with ill intentions do not misuse the protection accorded by the GSFD Bill. The Bill aligns with MSE and SFA's approach to assure food safety and strikes a balance of roles and responsibilities among various parties. It makes clear that the safety of donated food is a joint responsibility of the Government, food donors, intermediaries, such food distribution organisations, and consumers.

MSE and SFA are responsible for establishing the regulatory framework for food safety and providing an enabling environment for the food industry. Mr Don Wee, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia mentioned the need for clear guidelines and standards to guide food donors. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about how we could ensure that food donors are well-informed and fully compliant with existing food safety and hygiene regulations. Since 2021, SFA has published a set of guidelines for food safety practices during the preparation, delivery, storage and distribution of food for charitable causes. These guidelines are refreshed periodically to ensure their continued relevance to food donors and food distribution organisations, and they are available online.

Mr Don Wee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Zhulkarnain and Ms Ng Ling Ling also mentioned other measures to ensure that food donors maintain proper food safety standards, such as the need for training of staff and volunteers, maintaining records for accountability and tracing, and regular inspections. These are good food safety practices which SFA will continue to raise awareness of and educate the food industry, food distribution organisations and consumers on. Where feedback is received and preliminary checks suggest food safety lapses, SFA will also utilise its levers, including inspection, sampling and testing, to investigate and take action.

Food donors and food distribution organisations continue to have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the food they are donating or distributing. For example, premises and equipment for food preparation and distribution should be kept clean and well-maintained, and employees and volunteers handling the food should adopt good hygiene practices. Recipients should also be advised by food donors and food distribution organisations on measures they could take to ensure food safety, such as checking the condition of food upon receipt and consuming it within the recommended timeline.

To this end, MSE and SFA support the inclusion of the four conditions in the GSFD Bill that food donors must comply with, before the protection from criminal and civil liability can apply. First, the food should not have been unsafe and not unsuitable at the time it left possession and control of the food donor. Second, the food donor should have informed the recipient of any food handling requirements to ensure that the donated food remained safe and suitable. Third, the food donor should have informed the recipient of any time beyond which the food would no longer have remained safe and suitable. Last, the food donor should have taken all reasonably practicable measures to comply with any applicable requirement under any written law related to food safety and hygiene when handling the food to be donated.

These conditions provide clarity to donors on the requirements that they should meet in order to be eligible for protection from any criminal or civil liability arising from food safety incidents. To address Ms Ng Ling Ling's query on whether MSE would be the authority to revoke the waiver of liability if food safety breaches occur, the Bill does not warrant the need for revocation of waiver as food donors would automatically forfeit their protection under the Bill if they failed to meet any of the four conditions. The conditions thus provide assurance to food donation recipients that donors would have taken necessary measures to safeguard the safety of the food they provide.

Recipients of donated food also have a part to play to ensure food safety. They should exercise due diligence and take responsibility in noting the information provided by donors or food distribution organisations so that the donated food remains safe and suitable to consume.

While the Bill facilitates food donation, it does not impede SFA's responsibilities as a regulator or its ability to investigate food safety lapses and take action against non-compliance with food safety directions.

Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about MSE and SFA's enforcement and investigation processes. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also enquired on what would happen when donors do not follow safety guidelines.

In the event of food safety incidents, SFA will continue to conduct investigations to determine the facts of the case and take appropriate measures to manage the risk to food donation recipients. The Director General (Food Administration) can issue directions to suspend food donation or distribution activities until appropriate rectification has been done.

Miss Rachel Ong asked whether intermediary food rescue groups would be held liable if food was found to be unsuitable and unsafe. The Bill covers all food donors, including food distribution organisations such as food charities, which distribute food donated by others for charitable purpose. If the donor or food distribution organisation is found to have donated or distributed unsafe or unsuitable food or did not take reasonable measures to ensure food safety, they would not be protected from liability under the GSFD Bill as they would have failed to meet the conditions stipulated in the Bill. SFA will continue to be judicious in its investigations and will only take action against the errant party.

For example, if a food distribution organisation had done its due diligence to ensure the food was safe and suitable when it left its possession, but unknowingly passed on erroneous information from the food donor, the donor would be held responsible while the food distribution organisation will continue to enjoy the protection under the Bill.

To better assure food safety in food donation activities, MSE and SFA will be strengthening SFA's regulatory powers through the upcoming Food Safety and Security Bill (FSSB).

As announced earlier this year, the FSSB will bring together food safety and security legislation from eight existing Acts into one single Act and provide an overarching framework to ensure coherence across the entire food value chain. We are currently engaging and consulting relevant stakeholders on FSSB. Given that similar food safety risks exist in both sale and donation of food, we intend to extend food safety requirements in the FSSB to cover food donation and distribution activities beyond the sale of food.

For example, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Yip Hon Weng spoke about the importance of clear and accurate labels on donated food, containing information such as the presence of cooked food and allergens. These are current requirements for food that is sold, which we are looking to extend to all food, whether sold or donated, under the FSSB.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will complement the upcoming FSSB by requiring food donors and food distribution organisations to comply with prevailing food safety requirements before protection from criminal and civil liability can apply.

To conclude, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will help encourage donation of surplus food and contribute to reducing food waste. Importantly, this will be conducted in a manner that does not compromise food safety and consumer health. It also provides assurance to food donation recipients that reasonable measures have been taken to ensure food safety.

On that note, my Ministry and I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

2.20 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for the Bill as well as their comments and very useful suggestions. This might be the shortest Bill with the most number of speakers – 17 Members spoke on our eight-page Bill.

One of our main aims was not just to pass legislation to waive liability for food donations but to shine a spotlight on this very important issue which is seldom debated in this House. I am glad to say we have achieved this through the debate we had over the past two days.

Allow me some time to now address key points and questions Members have raised. I will also address some of the key concerns that were raised to the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee through our consultations with stakeholders and members of the public. I will also explain why some suggestions raised to the Committee have not been incorporated into the Bill.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Bill is to encourage food donation to address food wastage and food insecurity by waiving liability.

As Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng just shared, food waste reduction helps us to realise our vision of a zero-waste nation. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua also shared that this Bill embodies the spirit of a caring society.

I should stress that more importantly, the waiver of liability is just one piece of the broader food donation ecosystem. There are many other things we can, should and must do to encourage food donation beyond this Bill. This Bill is just a starting point.

With these goals in mind, I will provide some clarification on the Bill. Members have raised several issues and I have grouped this reply into six areas of concern: one, the unintended and opposite effect of the Bill; two, who is covered under the Bill; three, meeting the four conditions; four, support and help for food donors; five, support and help for recipients; and six, public education and partnerships

Let me start by addressing one of the most common feedback we have received. The elephant in the room is whether this Bill might have the unintended and opposite effect of chilling food donation. We have worked hard to avoid this. This is a big elephant and as we learnt from Ms Poh Li San today, an elephant can weigh up to six tonnes.

There were concerns about whether this Bill will make some food donation activities illegal or whether existing food donors will be dissuaded because compliance with the four conditions is too difficult. Let me stress again that this is not the intention of the Bill. The Bill should not make it more onerous for donors to donate food. What it does is to strike a balance between encouraging food donation and at the same time, safeguarding food safety and hygiene standards. It is about striking the balance between responsibility and philanthropy that Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim so rightly said.

We aim to inspire more food donations and we are confident of achieving this through this Bill without compromising food safety and hygiene standards. As Ms Jean See shared, the well-being of recipients of donated food is priority.

Next, who is covered under the Bill? The Committee intended for the definition of a food donor to be as broad as possible to cover as many food donation activities as possible. For this reason, the Bill does not differentiate between an individual, a community food rescue group, a religious organisation, a business or a registered food charity.

NTUC FairPrice asked to clarify if a co-operative society is included in the definition of an "entity". Let me assure FairPrice that the definition of an "entity" is broad enough to cover a co-operative society.

Members of the public and Members here, including Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Rachel Ong, asked about the donation of food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates. The donation of food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates will not be covered under this Bill. The Committee debated this issue extensively but ultimately, one is not allowed to sell food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates. Taking that into account, we should not waive liability when one donates the same food. If it is illegal for sale, the Committee felt it would not be appropriate for donation of the same food to be protected from liability.

I should add that Singapore currently takes a relatively simple approach where "expiry", "best before", "use by" and all other dates are treated the same. I do note that there is room to debate this issue further, especially for the "best before" date. I understand MSE is studying this issue further and I eagerly await an update.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for greater clarity on the Bill's stance on community fridges and food rescue initiatives and whether the Bill extends liability protection to them. This was also raised at the second public consultation by Ms Robin, a zero waste advocate.

The Bill does not rule out waiver of liability for community fridges and food rescue initiatives, assuming that the four conditions are met. That said, the Committee acknowledges that it may be more difficult for donors or groups involved in community fridges to meet the four conditions since there might not be any direct communication or even face-to-face meetings between the donor and recipient. For community fridges, there are times we might not even know who the food donor is.

Food rescue initiatives, on the other hand, can more easily meet the four conditions. For the past few years, we have a monthly food rescue initiative in Nee Soon East. I have spoken to the team managing the food rescue and we are confident we can meet the four conditions.

Next, during the first public consultation, the Committee surveyed the public on exempting logistics providers from liability. The proposal received strong public support, with around three-quarters of respondents agreeing that logistics providers should enjoy protection from civil and criminal liability.

The Committee ultimately decided to take an incremental approach and waive liability only for food donors for now and not logistics providers. However, if our initial legislative efforts are successful in encouraging food donation, future amendments to expand the law to cover logistics providers is a possibility.

Next, on the definition of food donation, the Committee wanted to ensure that the focus of the Bill remains on charitable giving. To be considered a donation, the food must be given without payment to the donor. This includes any nominal sum or logistics fee. If in exchange for the food donation, the donor receives non-monetary benefits, such as publicity, the food given will still be considered a food donation.

Miss Rachel Ong asked if the Bill covers donors who receive monetary donations from the public who collect donated food. If the monetary donation is provided from members of the public and not the recipient of the food, the food donation still enjoys liability protection under the Bill. However, if the recipient is the one providing the monetary donation, this is akin to a pay-as-you-wish arrangement, which will not be protected under the Bill.

The Committee wanted to draw a very clear line on situations where the Bill applies as the focus of this Bill is on food donation for a charitable, benevolent and philanthropic purpose. I should also point out that where food donation is to needy families, it is fairly unlikely that the recipients will be asked to pay for the food.

NTUC FairPrice also raised a hypothetical situation of a supermarket paying a food surplus management company to redistribute the donated food to the community. The donation in this scenario will still enjoy liability protections. This is because no payment is received by the supermarket for the food given.

Next, Mr Keith Chua asked how the Committee determined that absolving donors of liability will increase the food available for donation. He also asked about the identity of potential donors who are currently reluctant to donate.

The Committee consulted extensively with restaurants, hotels, social enterprises, primary food producers, food processing companies, distributors, wholesalers, food logistics, transport and delivery provider companies, supermarkets and merchants, bakeries and non-governmental organisations. These stakeholders shared their direct experiences on how liability concerns have a chilling effect on potential food donors, including hotels, restaurants, bakeries and supermarkets.

The survey conducted by the RAS on the Bill also support this, with 60% of respondents saying that they are very or somewhat likely to participate in food donation if this Bill is passed. This sentiment is echoed by Mr Dellen Soh from the RAS who shared that "Restaurants do want to donate excess food to reduce food waste and help our communities. But the very real risk of liability from donated food has a chilling effect for many restaurants."

Finally, on this section, Mr Zulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether the Bill covers the waiver of liability only in cases of death or personal injury from consuming the donated food. He asked whether illnesses or other physical harms are covered.

For the purposes of this Bill, personal injury includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition. This is similar to the definition adopted under the Civil Law Act, the Limitation Act and the Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act. As such, illnesses and physical harms are covered.

I will, now, move on to clarifications on the four conditions to enjoy liability protection. I thank Mr Vikram Nair for his view that the four conditions are both rigorous and reasonable. I also thank Ms Hazel Poa for sharing that these conditions are reasonable and should not pose an excessive impediment to food donors.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng spoke about how ensuring donated food is safe and suitable for consumption is a shared responsibility among Government, food donors, community organisations and recipients of food donations. I cannot emphasise enough how this must be a shared responsibility. I also cannot emphasise enough that food safety cannot be compromised. Food safety was a non-negotiable component in all our consultations and in drafting this Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about how the Bill should not be misused by those with ill intentions. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh pointed out, a key challenge is ensuring that the liability protections are appropriately scoped. After much debate, the Committee came up with the four conditions that I have shared.

At the second public consultation, food donation groups asked how it will be determined whether food is unsafe and unsuitable. NTUC FairPrice, similarly, asked whether supermarkets can refer to established standards under food safety legislation to determine safety and suitability for consumption. The existing interpretations of whether food is unsafe and unsuitable, under section 2C and 2D of the Sale of Food Act, will apply in determining whether food is unsafe and unsuitable under this Bill.

For example, under section 2D of the Sale of Food Act, "food is deemed unsuitable if the food is damaged, deteriorated or perished to an extent that affects its reasonable intended use. Food is unsuitable if it has packaging that is damaged, deteriorated, perished or contaminated to the extent of affecting the food's reasonable intended use." Existing food safety legislation and case law on food safety will also apply.

Mr Keith Chua asked about when recipients might fall ill from consuming donated food, if the food was safe and suitable at the point of donation. Despite the best efforts of food donors to ensure that the donated food is safe and suitable, a recipient may still fall ill if the food was not properly handled, not properly stored and not consumed within the appropriate time.

During our consultation, one restaurant owner shared with us that some cleaners had packed leftover food from the restaurant to take home with them. The food had included delicacies, such as prawns. Seeing how good the food was, the recipient kept the food for the next day. The food likely went bad and the recipient suffered from food poisoning. After that incident, the restaurant did not dare to allow the leftover food to be packed and taken back.

Of course, in this situation, the restaurant would also have to inform the recipient of the handling requirements and the time limit for consumption and comply with all written laws on food safety and hygiene to enjoy protection from liability. However, this is a real story that shows how food that was safe and suitable at the time of donation, might still cause injury not through any fault of the donor.

Next, Assoc Prof James Lim referred to the four-hour rule under the NEA guidelines, which limit the consumption time of food from the time it is cooked. He asked whether the fourth condition, requiring a donor to comply with existing written law on food safety and hygiene, include this four-hour rule. I should clarify that the four-hour rule is not just an NEA guideline.

Regulation 13A of the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations prohibit caterers from selling or supplying food for consumption after four hours from when the food was first prepared. Breaching this regulation is an offence. The four-hour rule is a written law on food safety and hygiene and must be complied with to enjoy liability protection under this Bill.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested that in addition to the four conditions, we should also require that food donors act in good faith in order to enjoy liability protection. The Committee had considered this suggestion. The Committee decided, that good faith would introduce too much uncertainty for food donors on when they will enjoy protection, when uncertainty from the risk of legal liability is the precise problem this Bill is trying to address.

As I shared, the survey by RAS found that 80% of surveyed restaurants were unsure whether the law will adequately protect businesses, even with the express waiver of liability. Including good faith as a requirement, while it sounds good and I understand where Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is coming from, we feel it might cause even greater concerns for businesses and undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve.

The Committee decided that four clear conditions that donors can fulfil, to know that they enjoy liability protection, will provide responsible donors with certainty and peace of mind that is very much needed.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for guidelines for donors to follow to prevent unintentional non-compliance with standards. He also suggested having resources to be made available on proper handling. Mr Don Wee and Ms Hany Soh also spoke about having guidelines, best practices and safety standards.

SFA has, in 2021, published the Guidelines for Social Service Agencies and community groups involved in food preparation and distribution activities for charitable causes. These guidelines would be relevant in considering if the four conditions for a waiver of liability have been met.

I urge SFA to expand these guidelines to also cover food donors, such as restaurants, hotels and bakeries. This will provide them with the much-needed guidance. I also urge organisations to familiarise themselves with these very good guidelines and strictly adhere to them. I hope SFA will also consider doing briefing sessions for food donors to ensure food donors understand the guidelines and clarify any doubts they have. SFA should also make these guidelines more easily accessible to the public.

As mentioned in my Second Reading speech, complying with these guidelines is one of the conditions to enjoy the waiver of liability. Before I end this section, I should address another point that Mr Keith Chua made about providing guidelines on what can and what cannot be donated. This should actually be included into the SFA guidelines as well. It is a good suggestion.

During our consultations with the hotels, some of the hotels actually mentioned that they already have these guidelines on what they will donate and what they will not donate. That could be a good starting point of including this current list into the existing SFA guidelines.

As another example, Food from the Heart also have guidelines on what bread they will accept for donation and what bread they would not accept. For example, bread with fillings would not be accepted by Food from the Heart. Again, we have a starting point in terms of developing guidelines on what can and cannot be donated.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested that we consider mandating information labels on donated cooked food. NTUC FairPrice also asked about the role of packaging and labelling in meeting the conditions on communicating handling requirements and expiry date.

Properly packaging and labelling donated food are examples of how a donor can meet the conditions on communicating handling requirements and time limits for consuming donated food. There are other ways that a donor can communicate handling requirements and time limits to recipients. For instance, they can do so through text messages. We are mindful that mandating labelling might be too onerous for some small donors and we do not want this Bill to have the unintended effect of turning food donors away.

However, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng had just mentioned in his speech, I understand MSE is considering mandating labelling and I look forward to the Food Safety and Security Bill.

Lastly, on this section, Mr Don Wee suggested other methods for ensuring accountability, including maintaining records of donation, requiring reporting on food donation, regular audits and publication of donation data and impact reports. Mr Don Wee's suggestion on requiring reporting on food donation is a next step that the Government should seriously consider. The mandatory requirements on segregation and reporting of food waste came into effect this year for industrial and commercial buildings that generate large amount of food waste. As a further step, I hope the Government will look into food donation reporting requirements for these big players as well. It is a good suggestion from Mr Don Wee.

The Government should also look into the suggestion and ideas by Mr Edward Chia about using technology to track and manage food donation more effectively. Mr Edward Chia gave good examples, which follow on nicely from Mr Don Wee's suggestion. Apart from the four conditions, the Committee however decided against having some of the mandatory requirements Mr Don Wee raised as they might be a burden for some donors, especially the smaller ones.

We intended for these conditions to be reasonable to meet and not any more than what a food donor would already be expected to do before they donate food. As Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out, we need to take a balanced approach on this. However, the suggestions that members have raised are all good ideas that MSE, SFA and MSF should look into. I hope MSE, SFA and MSF will continue to engage the industry on how they can meet the four conditions and provide the support needed.

Next, I will talk about support and help for our food donors. I fully agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua that food charities augment the support provided by the Government. Food charities truly embody the spirit of the "many helping hands" approach that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua spoke about. They are our unsung heroes and I thank them for the work they do behind the scenes to ensure that families never go hungry or without nutritious food.

Businesses who donate food are equally important too and we should also support them. Ms Ng Ling Ling spoke about how businesses would like the help of legislation that reduces the fear of liability and reputational damage so that they can meet their societal responsibilities. I spoke to many businesses, including restaurants, hotels, bakeries, supermarkets and merchants. I can assure the public that food donation is not just a matter of checking off a corporate social responsibility obligation.

Many of the businesses I spoke with, see food donation as one way of giving back to the community. The liability protection is one way of helping these businesses and food charities do good. But as Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested, liability protection essentially removes a barrier but we must now provide active encouragement. Members have raised many good ideas for further incentivising and supporting food donation.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Jean See and Ms Hazel Poa suggested tax benefits for food donation. Mr Yip Hon Weng also suggested subsidies for logistical costs and Ms Hazel Poa suggested tax incentives for transport or platform companies who assist in providing food pick-up and delivery services for larger F&B enterprises.

Mr Yip Hon Weng raised examples of tech-enabled inventory management that receives substantial government support and recognition in Japan and Australia. These were suggestions that were commonly raised during our consultation. We heard from many businesses that some additional financial support from the Government could make it easier for them to donate food.

One possible avenue for support is to give subsidies or tax incentives for capital-heavy equipment, such as blast chillers. These chillers can be used to quickly freeze cooked food, extending its shelf life beyond the normal four-hour mark and making it easier to donate.

Many businesses are already doing this and what would help further is to incorporate guidelines on the use of blast chillers into the expanded SFA guidelines that I called for earlier. These guidelines will help provide some certainty to food donors. Businesses and food charities also shared with us that refrigerated trucks would be very useful for supporting food donations and hope to receive subsidies for purchasing these. All these suggestions will help food donors and, very importantly, help to ensure safer and more efficient handling of donated food.

Another suggestion raised, is tax deduction for donated food. As Mr Yip Hon Weng noted, this is currently being done in other countries, including the US and Italy. As Ms Jean See shared, this could help incentivise businesses to institutionalise food donation activities.

We studied these tax deduction suggestions. We put this through a public consultation as well and an overwhelming majority of the public supports this. However, there are currently challenges with accurately valuing food for the purpose of tax deduction and preventing any potential abuse. After exploring these options with the Ministry of Finance, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, MSF and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, the committee concluded that these financial incentives have to be studied further and can be considered for future implementation.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Don Wee and Ms Ng Ling Ling also raised other suggestions, including public recognition programmes for food donors and encouraging food donors to purchase liability insurance as an extra layer of protection. These, again, are all good suggestions. I hope the Government will continue to study the possibility of additional support that can be extended to food donors. The Charities Food Work Group that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua chairs, may be a good platform for these suggestions to be explored further.

For instance, while liability insurance may be difficult to mandate because it may not be feasible for smaller players. There is scope to explore this option for larger players. The Government can take steps to encourage liability insurance and monitor the take-up rate of such insurance.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested mandatory training programmes or certification for frequent food donors. He suggested that SFA develop such programmes. Mr Don Wee, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Jean See, similarly, suggested training programmes. The Committee considered and consulted the public on requiring food charities to be certified, accredited and undergo training. While the proposal received significant public support, smaller food charities and community groups expressed concerns that the accreditation and training requirements may hamper their work.

Smaller groups shared that their volunteer pool may be individuals who volunteer on an ad hoc basis. These volunteers may be dissuaded if they have to undergo compulsory training. The groups also shared that they may not have the resources to meet the accreditation requirements.

After considerable debate – and it is a tough balancing act – the Committee decided that requiring accreditation to enjoy liability protections may again have the unintended effect of reducing food donations in Singapore.

That said, voluntary training and certification are steps that may be good for the Charities Food Work Group to explore further. The Government can also provide the much needed assistance on this.

Mr Edward Chia had shared about the importance of accreditation and suggested that the Government provide grants to cover costs associated with adopting these standards and conducting necessary training. His suggestion of Enterprise Singapore's Quality and Standards division developing a standard specifically tailored to our local context, ensuring it meets the unique needs of our community, should also be looked into.

As I mentioned earlier, a good start which can be done very soon would be for SFA to do a briefing session for food donors on the SFA guidelines. That would be a good starting point.

Lastly, on this section, Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about mediation mechanisms and legal assistance for small donors. Mediation is always a possibility for civil disputes. As for donors who require legal assistance, there are existing avenues for legal support, including legal clinics for individuals and the Singapore Association of Trade and Commerce, which provides legal support for businesses.

I will now talk about support and help for recipients of donated food.

Mr Yip asked if the Bill offers legal protection for donors who unintentionally provide food that does not align with a recipient's dietary needs. The Bill does provide this legal protection as long as the four conditions are met.

Mr Keith Chua suggested that we introduce channels of guidance for food-insecure communities to assist them in making the right choices and advising them on their rights. The usual channels for legal aid and assistance, including the Legal Aid Bureau and Pro Bono SG, are available.

On helping food insecure communities to make the right choices, our social service agencies, food charities and Government agencies play an important role in helping those they serve make informed choices while respecting their autonomy to decide for themselves. What Mr Chua suggested is very much needed and public education is key to this Bill.

Finally, on public education and partnerships.

Waiving liability is just one part of the food donation picture. Miss Rachel Ong spoke about how public education alongside the Bill's implementation is key. I could not agree more with Miss Ong's point that rescued food is not meant only for the needy, but for all of us. The rest of society must adopt a similar mindset for food waste reduction efforts in Singapore for it to be significant and effective.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh noted that there is a need for education and understanding, especially over social and cultural norms on food wastage. Mr Don Wee suggested fostering partnerships between donors and reputable charities to ensure proper distribution and use of donated food.

These are good questions. Encouraging food donation requires tackling a much broader set of issues than just liability. As Ms Poh Li San rightly noted, there is much work to be done after we introduce this Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. We will need to encourage businesses and supermarkets to come onboard as examples for other food suppliers and operators. We will also need to increase the number of volunteers, food collection points, donation drop-off nodes and distribution points.

Stronger partnerships between food rescue groups, Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres will also help in strengthening food donation networks. As Mr Edward Chia suggested, the CDCs also have an important role to play in terms of establishing community-based redistribution networks.

I feel like I am just shooting arrows here, but the point is that many people have to come onboard this journey for this to be a successful journey. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is important, but, again, it is just one part of a larger picture. I hope the Government will continue working with businesses and food charities to look into what else we can do to encourage food donation.

As Ms Joan Pereira suggested, the Government should also consider providing the administrative and infrastructural support to help organisations get started on this journey of donation. MSF's Food Charities Work Group that I have mentioned many times in this speech is an important platform for such conversations.

I should add that following this Bill, I will continue to speak up about tackling food waste. This is not the end of my journey. I promise to continue to file Parliamentary Questions on this and to continue to push the Government to, as always, do more and, before I forget, do more, more quickly.

Sir, let me conclude. It has been an absolutely rewarding four-year journey in drafting this Bill. As Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out, this Bill can be a catalyst for positive change in how we, as a society, approach food waste and food security. It is about developing a more sustainable and compassionate society. I hope we become more compassionate.

I sincerely hope we can achieve what Ms Jean See shared in her speech, that this "Bill is the gamechanger that can help to dismantle the stigma surrounding food support while giving food-insecure families the confidence to benefit from food support that is dignified, sustained, adequate and enriching". I hope we become more sustainable.

Miss Rachel Ong shared about how reducing food waste is a nationwide effort and requires a society-wide change. We have to change. I have to stress that the key point of this Bill is not just about urging people to donate food but to really have people rethink our throwaway culture. Think about not wasting food in the first place. Change our habits. It is scary that food waste is so ingrained in our society now. Some of the businesses were telling me that they already factored food waste into their business costs. Do not need to worry about throwing food away. They already factored it in.

The work of the Committee and the Government is far from done. This Bill is only a starting point to create an effective legal and policy framework for the food donation ecosystem in Singapore. I hope that the learnings from this Bill will form the foundation for future improvements in our food donation landscape and I hope we will see an update in the next few years.

As I worked on this Bill, I was constantly reminded of my late grandmother. Actually, I constantly nag people about not wasting food because my grandmother constantly nagged me when I was young to not waste food. One of my tasks at family meals when I was a little boy was to scoop rice for everyone. I always remember opening the rice cooker and seeing my grandmother's food there.

She was always one meal behind the rest of the family. When we were having dinner, she was having the leftovers from lunch. After dinner, she stored the leftover food overnight to eat the next day. For her, and for many of our Pioneer Generation, even the smallest scrap of food waste is unthinkable.

My grandmother did not even want to waste gas to warm up her food. She warmed up her food using the steam in the rice cooker as we cooked our rice.

We now live in a time when food is more abundant as compared to the past. Most Singaporeans not only have more than enough food available, we are spoilt for choice, with food from all corners of the world being imported into Singapore daily.

But let us not forget that there are also many Singaporeans who are not sure what or when their next meal will be. I hope this Bill will bring back the spirit of the Pioneer Generation, the true champions against food waste, and cultivate these habits in our younger generations.

Sir, I hope I have answered all the clarifications that Members have raised and I again thank everyone for your strong support and for your very good questions. I would be glad to answer any further clarifications.

Let me now end with a quote, as always, in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "Earth provides enough to satisfy every person's needs, but not every person's greed". Let us treasure our precious resources and, together, tackle this throwaway culture.

Sir, you have no idea how much it means for me to say the next few words, how much it means for our extremely hardworking Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee members and my Legislative Assistants, for the passionate food donors and dedicated food charities and community groups, how much it means for those struggling to have three meals a day and how much it means for our planet. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

2.54 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Ng, my grandmother and my mother had exactly the same behaviour as your grandmother. Any clarifications for Mr Ng? Looks like, Mr Ng, your wrap-up speech was very, very comprehensive. None?

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 Louis Ng Kok Kwang].

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. Members are reminded that when you have your food in the Members' Room, do not waste food.

I suspend the Sitting and I will take the Chair at 3.20 pm. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.57 pm until 3.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]