Resource Sustainability Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.29 pm

The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the presence of 31 individuals from our 3P sectors who are here in this House for the reading of this Bill.

Just last week, my Ministry launched Singapore's inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan, a critical achievement in this Year Towards Zero Waste. This is a limited print edition of the Masterplan. In the spirit of Zero Waste, you can access the Masterplan on our Towards Zero Waste website too.

The Masterplan draws on ideas and contributions from a vast array of our population. The Masterplan lays out our strategies and policies to close our resource loops via a circular economy approach and to achieve our vision of a Zero Waste Nation. The Resource Sustainability Bill will give effect to the policies and targets outlined in the Masterplan.

The Masterplan also marks an important milestone in Singapore's sustainable development journey over the last five decades.

Back in the 1970s, my family wrapped our household waste in newspapers. Food waste was manually collected in little buckets outside our homes and used as swill in our farms, and in return, we received some eggs. I am not sure how many people in this House remember that. From time to time, we experienced the waft of interesting odours.

Today, things are very different. Waste disposal is clean and hygienic and we make use of pneumatic technology to convey waste from our chutes to a collection point for subsequent disposal. "Clean and Green" has become synonymous with Singapore. And we have also demonstrated that environmental protection can co-exist with economic growth. Indeed, we were ranked Asia's most sustainable city in the 2018 Sustainability Cities Index and second in the 2018 World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index.

We have come a long way, but we must do more to ensure that the next generation continues to enjoy a liveable and sustainable home. Doing our part for the environment is even more critical now as we seek to address climate change. Someone has said that we should never argue about climate change – it always turns into a "heated debate", if you pardon the pun.

But climate change is no joking matter. As highlighted by the Prime Minister in his recent National Day Rally Speech, climate change is undoubtedly a massive existential challenge confronting our next generation. To tackle climate change, we need a paradigm shift – from the "take-make-throw" linear model to the circular economy where resources are used over and over again. Efficient waste disposal is necessary, but our goal must first and foremost be to reduce, reuse and recycle; in other words, zero waste. This is the core of the Resource Sustainability Bill.

What we produce, consume, and throw away all have an impact on the climate. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, Special Report released last year, current rates of human activity may lead to 1.5°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030. We must therefore change our current patterns of production and consumption to reduce emissions and limit global warming. Our zero waste efforts will play a key role. They will help cut down on carbon intensive activities along the supply chain, and reduce the amount of heat-trapping emissions we put into the atmosphere.

We face a second challenge. Global economic growth is driving resource consumption at an unsustainable rate. Studies show that we are at the limits of Planet Earth’s ability to fulfil our resource needs.

Take lithium, for instance, which is used in batteries for electric cars, laptops and smartphones. Demand for lithium has tripled in the last decade. Companies which rely on lithium to make batteries, along with cobalt and nickel, warn of impending shortages of such critical materials. The message is clear and ominous. If we do not change our habits, there will simply not be enough resources to sustain our way of life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is to confront these challenges that my Ministry is working to build up a three-fold resilience for Singapore.

First, climate resilience. We must address the existential threats of climate change, especially rising sea levels, and cope with rising temperatures and extreme rainfall patterns. We are building up our knowledge of climate science to guide our actions to protect Singapore. We are also stepping up efforts to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Apart from how we transform our industry, transport and energy sectors to pursue sustainable production and consumption, our zero waste efforts are key.

Second, resource resilience. We must overcome global resource constraints, and ensure a safe and secure supply of critical resources such as water, food and other materials. Closing resource loops and turning waste into resource will reduce our vulnerability to global supply shocks. One way that this can be done is through urban mining. A research group from Tsinghua University in China has found that recovering resources like gold, copper and other metals from e-waste is 13 times cheaper than mining them. In the process we do not need to go back to nature to exploit and restore it. The World Economic Forum estimates that 50 million tonnes of e-waste, equivalent to 120,000 jumbo jets, are produced globally each year. Of this, only 20% is recycled.

Imagine the potential in urban mining where precious metals can be mined from e-waste, and energy from food waste. What more if NewSand can be "mined" from incineration bottom ash! We can then "save" Semakau and extend its useful life beyond 2035. Figuratively speaking, we can look at Semakau not as a landfill for trash but as a treasure island right in our very own backyard.

Third, economic resilience. For Singapore companies to continue to thrive in the future economy, they must adapt to the growing constraints on carbon and other resources. Globally, a number of businesses are already taking the lead to adopt a more circular supply chain. This could entail using recycled materials as raw materials, extending the life of products or recovering resources from products at the end of life. Unilever has introduced post-consumer recycled waste materials into products such as dishwashing liquid detergent bottles, with some of their brands using 100% recycled PET packaging. Similarly, automobile companies like General Motors and BMW are working with renewable-energy storage suppliers to create an aftermarket for end-of-life batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles.

These new business models will open new economic opportunities and create good jobs for Singaporeans. Preliminary studies have estimated that if Singapore recovers and reuses materials from e-waste, we can reap a net benefit of $40 million. This includes indirect benefits such as helping our companies export overseas and creating jobs.

Singapore must adopt a circular economy approach to build these three resiliences and sustain future growth. We must make every effort to close our resource loops and reuse our resources for as long as possible and this is not new to us. We have done so for water, and in fact, even for waste streams such as construction and demolition waste. This is the approach we must also take for other resources.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is in this spirit that we move this Bill. The Resource Sustainability Bill will, for the first time, put in place a systems-level approach that mandates key responsibilities to enable reuse and recycling nation-wide. This will complement and support the voluntary efforts of our people and private sectors.

The Bill will bring our regulatory framework upstream. It will send economic signals to producers such as manufacturers and importers to take into account the cost of environmental externalities. It also encourages innovation and the redesigning of products that require less materials, last longer and are more easily recycled.

The regulatory framework will also fund the recovery and aggregation of useful materials such as metals from e-waste, which makes recycling more viable. We will target the three priority waste streams of electrical and electronic waste, or e-waste, packaging waste including plastics, and food waste. Let me explain why we are focusing on these three waste streams.

E-waste generation is growing exponentially with rising affluence. Singapore generates about 60,000 tonnes of e-waste annually, yet very little is recycled. This translates to each person throwing away the equivalent of six mobile phones every month.

Such waste may contain heavy metals and other hazardous substances, and improper disposal may lead to the contamination of our environment and harm public health. Precious metals like gold are also being thrown away. We will introduce the Extended Producer Responsibility or EPR approach to e-waste by 2021, to ensure the proper handling and extraction of resources from e-waste. This will mandate producers of covered electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) to be responsible for the collection and proper treatment of their e-waste. All producers of covered EEE will need to register with NEA. Producers of consumer products which exceed the prescribed thresholds will need to join the Producer Responsibility Scheme (PRS) and finance the collection and recycling of e-waste. In return, the PRS operator will be responsible for meeting e-waste collection targets set by NEA.

To minimise the regulatory impact on smaller players, we have set thresholds to exempt smaller producers, which supply about 10% of the consumer products that are put-to-market in Singapore by weight, from joining the PRS. This means that producers of 90% of the consumer products put-to-market in Singapore will be subjected to the EPR framework. We will monitor the implementation of the EPR framework, and ensure that these thresholds remain relevant.

The next priority waste stream is packaging waste, including plastics. We generate large amounts of this – around a third of the total domestic waste disposed of in Singapore. Almost all of this packaging material is incinerated.

This ensures that the environmental impacts are managed effectively, and our packaging, including plastics do not end up in the sea, mangling creatures such as cute baby dugongs in Thailand. However, we ought to do more to reduce and recycle packaging. External forces are also changing the economics of the recycling industry. China’s ban on the import of plastic waste has shifted the trade patterns of plastic recyclables. As a result, our plastics recycling rate, which hovered around 10%, dropped to 4% in 2018. We cannot continue with business as usual. We can and must do more to better manage packaging, including plastics.

As a start, next year, we will implement mandatory reporting of packaging data as well as plans to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging, including plastics.

The requirements will apply, for a start, to companies with an annual turnover of over $10 million. This will cover approximately 4,500 medium and large enterprises in Singapore who put packaging on the market. Micro and small enterprises will be exempted. This reporting will focus management attention on the packaging that companies are placing on the market and spur reduction efforts that will save them costs. This will lay the ground for an EPR framework for packaging waste, which will be put in place no later than 2025, if not earlier.

Third, food waste is a major waste stream with high generation tonnage and low recycling rates. In 2018, we generated 763,000 tonnes of food waste. Of this, only 17% was recycled.

From 2024, we will make it mandatory for the owners and occupiers of commercial and industrial premises which generate large amounts of food waste, to segregate their food waste for treatment.

We will also require owners and occupiers of new buildings which are expected to be large food waste generators, to treat food waste on-site. In preparation for this, we will require developers of new buildings which are expected to be large food waste generators, to make provisions for on-site treatment of food waste in development plans submitted from 2021. These new requirements will ensure that food waste from large food waste generators is diverted for treatment or converted into useful products, such as compost and animal feed, instead of being incinerated.

This will also reduce odour and pest nuisances at the premises, and reduce the contamination of recyclables by food waste, allowing for greater resource recovery.

We will complement the regulatory frameworks with other measures. These include educational campaigns, co-creation efforts with the community and grants to support ground-up initiatives. For example, NEA launched the "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign in June as part of the Year Towards Zero Waste movement to reduce the excessive consumption of disposables and packaging and encourage the use of reusables. NEA has also launched the "Towards Zero Waste Grant" to support individuals, interest groups, NGOs, grassroots organisations and corporations to initiate or scale up waste reduction and recycling initiatives. A vibrant Zero Waste eco-system will encourage our citizens to reduce, reuse and recycle. Our regulatory measures will be key in incentivising producers to play an active role in building this Zero Waste eco-system with us.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now highlight the main elements of the Resource Sustainability Bill.

Part 3 of the Bill establishes the EPR framework for e-waste. Clause 8 requires producers, as defined in the Bill, to register with NEA in order to supply regulated products, and clause 12 requires large producers above prescribed thresholds to join a Producer Responsibility Scheme (PRS) before they can supply regulated consumer products.

For producers of regulated non-consumer products, clause 13 requires them to collect any of such products upon request by customers at no charge.

Clause 14 requires retailers to offer a one-for-one collection of an unwanted product at no charge when retailers deliver a product of the same type to a customer. Clause 15 requires large retailers to provide in-store collection of e-waste. Retailers are important stakeholders in this EPR framework for e-waste, and are often the interface with customers.

To ensure that e-waste is properly managed and disposed of, clauses 16 and 17 lay out restrictions on the collection and disposal of e-waste to ensure proper treatment.

The next part of the Bill, Part 4, establishes the mandatory reporting framework for packaging, including plastics. Clause 20 requires producers of specified packaging that fulfil the threshold criteria to report on the packaging they introduce onto the Singapore market. They will also be required to submit plans to NEA to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging under clause 21. As mentioned earlier, the threshold criteria will, for a start, be set at an annual turnover of above $10 million.

Part 5 establishes the mandatory segregation of food waste for treatment for buildings which are large generators of food waste.

Clause 25 requires occupiers of a prescribed building to segregate their food waste and dispose of it in a facility provided by the building manager, who will be obligated to provide such facilities under clause 26. Clause 27 requires the building managers of prescribed buildings to also ensure the treatment of all food waste.

Part 6 covers the requirements on operators of the PRS. They are fundamental in any EPR framework as they establish the network for public collection of the regulated waste and ensure that the waste collected is properly treated and recycled. Clause 28 will require operators of the PRS to be licensed. Clauses 30 to 32 empower NEA to determine the conditions of the licence and to take necessary actions to ensure effective operation of the PRS.

As NEA will be providing the licensee with certain information submitted by obligated producers for the purpose of the EPR, clause 36 makes it an offence for the licensee or former licensees to disclose any confidential information received from NEA. This will ensure the confidentiality of data to safeguard the interests of producers.

Part 7 contains the provisions necessary for the enforcement of the Bill. Clauses 37 to 40 empower authorised officers to request for information and documents from any person, and enter any non-residential premises to investigate or monitor compliance with the provisions of the Bill. Clause 41 penalises anyone who hinders an authorised officer in the performance of his or her duty.

Part 8 contains miscellaneous provisions necessary for the administration of the Bill. As a large part of the regulations is dependent on information furnished by the obligated persons, clause 42 makes the provision of any false or misleading information an offence. To safeguard information, clause 43 prohibits NEA from disclosing any confidential information or document except in accordance with the clause.

The penalties laid out in the Bill are in line with other similar legislation, such as the Energy Conservation Act and the Environmental Public Health Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear that business as usual in the way we produce and consume is not sustainable. The impacts of climate change and the carbon and resource constraints we face respect no geographical or national boundaries. The Resource Sustainability Bill is an integral part of our strategy to close resource loops through a circular economy approach to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Not only will it contribute to environmental sustainability, it will also help to build up the three resiliences – climate, economic and resource. Only by doing so can we create a sustainable Singapore of tomorrow and secure our collective future for our children.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.53 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to take a strong stance on global warming. We cannot afford to leave it to future generations to worry about. I am glad to hear that we are planning for both climate change and rising sea levels and doing our best to use resources sustainably. The Zero Waste Masterplan launched last week highlighted that we want to cut waste sent to the landfill by 30%. This is a worthwhile goal but a very big one. We will all need to pull together to achieve it.

I often hear Singaporeans say, "But we are such a small country, how can we make a difference?" Indeed, our carbon footprint is comparatively low compared to other larger countries. Our global emissions amount to about 0.1%.

But this effort can put us as a world leader on the international stage and, hopefully, we can inspire others to do their part. Actions from everyone add up. If everybody thinks tackling climate change is someone else's responsibility, then who will take responsibility?

This Resource Sustainability Bill, which aims to improve waste management in Singapore and support businesses to reduce and recycle their waste, is a step in the right direction.

The Bill does well to hold key producers of various types of waste accountable for waste management and reduction. I would like to ask: when businesses report how they will cut down on excessive packaging, do they have to meet a certain target? What will be the targets set? How will they be monitored? If companies do not meet the targets, what penalties will be imposed? We need ambitious targets to ensure that companies take this seriously but, at the same time, it should not be too onerous. Companies should not be unduly over-pressurised by this requirement. After all, doing business nowadays is not easy.

At the same time, the Government also needs to simplify reporting as much as possible and train companies accordingly. Will the new requirements raise the prices of goods? This is my concern.

Some eateries, hawker centres and fast food restaurants, for example, provide single-use plastic spoons and forks for customers having their meals on-site. Are these single-use items regulated as packaging? If not, that could become a loophole in the law.

Next, if the Minister can explain more on electrical and electronic waste. Given the expected increase in volume of e-waste, can our current e-waste recycling capability cope? What are the plans to grow this capability?

Next, on food waste. It concerns me that building managers will have difficulties implementing segregation and treating of food waste on-site, especially if occupiers of the prescribed buildings do not cooperate. This would be just like our HDB recycling bins, where just one uncooperative person can contaminate the whole bin.

Can the Minister elaborate, how massive is this exercise? How many buildings would fall within this category? How many NEA-operated hawker centres have such facilities at the moment? How would food prices at hawker centres, coffeeshops, schools and so on be affected? Are there local commercial buildings that have already adopted the practice of segregating and/or treating food waste on-site? What are their challenges, the results and benefits?

The law is mainly focused on businesses. But individual actions will make a difference, too. What I hope to see is this message trickling down to individuals. Nothing is too small or too little to combat climate change for our next generation. On this note, I would like to take this opportunity to once again call for a charge on plastic bags. The impact may be insignificant, as the Senior Minister of State alluded to in her reply to my Parliamentary Question recently. But I strongly believe that such a gesture will make people more conscious of what they do, how many plastic bags do they need and such consciousness will have knock-off effects on their daily lives and the consumption pattern. Certainly, we must stop consuming more than what we need. Reduce, reuse, recycle must be the norm of our society. Fighting climate change should not be the job of just the Government. Everyone has a role to play. And we have to do this seriously for the survival of our country and for our next generation.

I have mentioned recycling bins. Can we please do more to get all residents to use recycling bins appropriately? Are there plans to improve the heartland recycling network? Also, many depend on the "karang guni" man to dispose of our unwanted items. How will this new Bill impact their trade?

Another facet of our life is the PMDs. How are people to dispose of their PMDs? When UL2722-certified e-scooters coming into effect next July, at least 80,000 PMDs will be disposed of in the coming year. Can the Minister give some guidance on these areas? How will this be done?

Domestic helpers and foreign workers play a big role at home and at work when it comes to waste management. What is the Ministry doing to reach out to these groups? Sir, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Everyone has a duty to protect the Earth. The Bill stipulates that large companies must inform authorities how much single-use packaging they are using and how to reduce packaging. We must treat this matter seriously. But at the same time we must also be aware of price increases brought about by the new regulations.

The Bill also stipulates that food waste must be processed in a special machine. May I ask whether we are prepared for this change and how hawker centres, schools and military camps are going to cope? How are they going to train tenants of a building? We do not want it to be like our HDB recycling bins where just one person can contaminate the whole bin, causing all items inside to become unrecyclable.

Separately, will the new regulations affect food prices?

Talking about recycling in the HDB precincts, how will the new regulations affect the "karang gunis (rag and bone men)". Will they lose their trade entirely?

There are many people who are about to change their PMDs to the ones that comply with the UL2272 standard. May I ask how to dispose of these PMDs correctly?

Whether it is at commercial premises or at home, foreign workers and domestic helpers play a big role in waste management. Do we have plans to educate them on these new regulations?

(In English): We will continue to push on with more efforts to promote sustainability.

3.03 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with climate change and sustainability increasingly a hot-button issue across the globe, it is timely to think about how we manage our waste as we set about building a sustainable Singapore.

The amount of solid waste disposed has increased exponentially due to our affluence, population growth and consumption habits. Singapore's only landfill, Semakau Landfill, is expected to reach capacity in just 16 years if we continue to generate waste at current rates. This is a ticking time bomb that needs urgency in tackling. I am, therefore, heartened to see efforts being dedicated towards that end.

The Resource Sustainability Bill we have before us is a timely addition to Singapore's waste management strategy by targeting the three main streams of waste in Singapore: electrical or electronic products and e-waste, food waste and packaging, and I support the Bill's aims to augment our waste management strategies. However, I would like to touch on a few topics related to circularity and resource sustainability, and I hope the Minister can clarify on how they will be addressed moving forward.

One, packaging reporting. There has been much coverage over the impact of packaging waste over our environment. However, our reliance on such single-use packaging has only continued to deepen despite efforts, such as the voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement. A main source of such packaging waste is made from plastic and, looking at the statistics over time, plastic waste disposed has gone way up from 540,800 tonnes in 2003 to 908,600 tonnes in 2018. As such, this House has unsurprisingly seen much debate over single-use plastics, including those used for packaging. However, data on the detailed use of such packaging does not seem to be tracked for now.

Therefore, mandatory packaging reporting seems necessary as a first step towards a framework to regulate packaging products. And such is the case under Part 4 of the Bill. Under clause 20 of the Bill, companies are required to submit a report relating to the specified packaging provided that they fulfil the prescribed threshold criteria. While it is not clear in the Bill itself, the Zero Waste Masterplan notes that the problem is on excessive packaging, and the initial aim of the framework is at producers of packaged products and supermarkets with a turnover of more than $10 million. This is a start, but I do have some concerns.

Singapore currently serves as a key market and a regional showcase for many companies and franchisees, be it home-grown brands or foreign brands. The packaging waste generated by many such companies can be substantial, including companies or businesses with not more than a turnover of $10 million.

Can I ask the Senior Minister of State why a revenue threshold was chosen in the reporting standard? The concern here is that by focusing on the bigger players, we may be losing sight of the SMEs or the smaller businesses who may be used to single-use plastics as they have no resources to work on alternatives. How will the Ministry help businesses below that turnover threshold limit their packaging, especially businesses that have always used much packaging, for example, food and other retail businesses?

This issue is important to get right, especially for currently small but fast growing companies, such as Grain and Wok Hey. Helping them with packaging standards at first will be more cost-effective than to have them switch over and comply with new standards at a later date.

Furthermore, since producers of specified packaging who fulfil the prescribed threshold criteria in any year – let us call it "T" – must, in year T+2, submit to NEA a report relating to the specified packaging that is imported or used in year T+1, it appears that there will be a two-year time lag in calculating the total amount of packaging reported. Therefore, the earliest this information will be reported will be in 2021, as noted in the news. In the meantime, how will NEA work to ensure that between now and 2021, the companies will actively work towards less packaging? Has there been any companies that have given information to the relevant agencies on this? Will this data be made public?

A clear benefit of releasing such data is to let relevant organisations use it for a Green Score system that allows companies to be judged on their efforts and targets to reduce packaging waste. This can incentivise companies to work towards reduction targets as an interim measure until NEA releases an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging companies.

Two, treatment of food waste. Mr Deputy Speaker, food waste looks to be a costly and big problem that we have yet to find an effective way to handle. The Singapore Environment Council indicated in a recent study that food loss contributes to an estimated $2.54 billion from farm to market within Singapore. Key waste statistics from NEA indicate that while food waste stands at 10% of all waste generated, recycling stands at 17% of the food waste generated in 2018. It is an improvement from 6% in 2003 but, evidently, more can be done to tackle the remaining waste.

However, our campaign against food waste seems lacklustre. The year-long Food Waste campaign is non-binding on citizens. In many Government and university events, anecdotes of good catered food going to waste as they are left unconsumed are a dime a dozen. Even as we must balance the needs between hygiene and waste management, the fact remains that food waste is a fundamental issue that requires bigger changes, indeed, an overhaul, to ensure that the loop can be closed and allow for effective regeneration of such resources.

In the news, there are reports of plans from PUB to treat food waste into biogas at Tuas Nexus and of urban insect farms supported by Enterprise Singapore that are targeted at the food waste issue as well. Such grandiose plans, however, will take time to integrate.

In the meantime, perhaps making consumption adjustments on major waste producers will see more immediate impact. As clause 4 of the Bill binds the Government on the provisions of the Bill, we could start from the Public Service to signal the seriousness that this Government takes in tackling a fundamental issue. How would the Public Service support efforts to reduce food waste internally? I have seen in a Straits Times Forum reply that SAF tries to keep food waste to a minimum. This could be extended to the whole of the Public Service, with a firm public commitment to lead by example and reduce food waste that it produces. This will send a good signal to the private sector and can even be a good way to reduce overheads in holding events, however slight.

Also, under the Bill, occupiers of a prescribed building or part of a prescribed building must segregate food waste. In addition to food waste segregation facilities, building managers of a new building must also provide treatment facilities. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what the expected use of food waste from new buildings will be, and if there will be enough off-takers of food waste slurry or compost.

Finally, how is the Ministry currently helping charities that collect food from shops or food outlets and deliver it to needy residents and, if so, perhaps the Senior Minister of State can share with us what are these efforts and whether more support can be extended to these charities as this would help support the food waste and packaging waste goals and such charities play an important role in helping us to achieve these goals.

Three, e-waste collection by individuals. Next, with the proliferation of digital devices, e-waste is increasingly a problem. Many households keep devices that no longer work, not knowing where to dispose of them. I am, therefore, concerned about how certain provisions in the Bill may adversely hinder certain current e-waste collection efforts.

Under the provisions of the Bill, public collection of e-waste will henceforth be prohibited unless they are operating a licensed scheme or have a written approval of NEA to do so. Any person who does so will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding S$5,000. Would these provisions within this Bill negatively affect well-intended public collection? How about the "karang guni" men who also provide collection services? I am of the view that NEA should encourage ground-up initiatives from members of the public, NGOs and small shops to enable such recycling in conjunction with industry stakeholders. Therefore, I hope that such written permission from NEA will be easy to obtain at little to no cost if they are doing such public collection with good intentions.

I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Ministry intend to enforce against retailers when they fall foul of the provisions of the Bill after it is passed and what recourse would the public have if retailers refuse to accept e-waste. What recourse can the public take to effectively report errant behaviour on the part of such retailers?

It was noted that by the Senior Minister of State in COS 2018 that through aggregating e-waste and enabling more efficient collection and processing, there would be greater value captured from e-waste and can help offset the cost of operating the e-waste management system. As the small but burgeoning e-waste recycling industry will be boosted by the introduction of this framework, I hope some insights and assurances can be given on regulating precious metal recovery from e-waste. At this point, how do we ensure that the export of our e-waste for recycling purposes, such that the Basel Convention is compiled with, and that the e-waste do not end up in a black market overseas? Given the potentially hazardous chemicals involved in recycling, what safety regulations are in place to ensure that such chemicals do not find themselves into the environment?

A case in point is Singapore-based Virogreen who had their import licence suspended for a year by Thailand’s Department of Industrial Works after police investigations. This was due to a batch of cargo with 96 tonnes of e-waste that was labelled as second-hand electronic appliances from countries, including Singapore, which found its way, according to Thai media reports, into their e-waste management plants.

Such news is disconcerting, as such waste exports have been a source of diplomatic tensions and we do not want to impact the environment of our neighbours adversely. Ministerial reassurances in this area will go some way to assuage concerns on the impact on our environment or that we may be exporting our e-waste problem away, to the detriment of our neighbours.

Four, marine pollution. Tackling the main streams of waste is key to minimise marine pollution that has impacted not just our shorelines, but also the shorelines and waterways of our neighbours. I wish to add my voice to support the recent Bangkok Declaration on combating Marine Debris that Singapore has adopted, but I hope we can do more on the preventative end.

A key source of marine pollution has been micro plastics. Singapore has not been immune from this source of pollution, with micro plastics in our own coastline found to be carrying toxic pathogens that cause coral bleaching and wound infections. To prevent more of such micro plastics from entering the environment and wrecking damage, I wish to ask the Senior Minister of State if she will consider a ban on primary micro plastic production and use. Such bans have been introduced in the European Union, to be enforced from 2020.

I believe that banning the production of micro plastics will send a good signal in our commitment to reduce the impact of micro plastics on our environment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in closing, I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications and answers, and notwithstanding my concerns, I support this Bill.

3.15 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, Singapore is facing a problem with waste. When something is thrown away, it does not disappear – it has to be disposed of somewhere or somehow. After reducing the volume of unrecycled waste through burning which produces energy, we need to put the remaining ashes somewhere. Landfills serve this purpose but, as the name connotes, it fills land and land is not something we have in abundance.

We need to be good stewards of it – we cannot waste it. We have already used up substantial areas in Choa Chu Kang, Lim Chu Kang and Lorong Halus as landfills. Pulau Semakau is currently a key landfill and we cannot afford to waste it. The current 157-hectare plot that we are using in Pulau Semakau can hold approximately 6,680 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of ash. Last year, before incineration which reduces the volume by about 90%, we generated 15,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools of waste. Over the past 40 years, the amount of waste increased seven-fold, with food waste increasing 30% in the last 10 years. In fact, the current projected lifespan of Pulau Semakau is 2035 – 10 years earlier from previous estimates and only about 16 years from now. What we are aiming for is to prolong this for as long as possible. This Bill supports the endeavour by addressing electrical and electronic waste, packaging waste and food waste.

Part 3 of this Bill addresses electrical and electronic waste. It makes sure users have a way to recycle these products. Clause 13 requires producers of non-consumer products to collect upon request what was produced or manufactured.

Clause 15 requires large retailers to accept used products similar to those they sell in order to dispose of them.

Clause 14 requires retailers who deliver products to accept and dispose the old item. This would be especially useful for bulky electric products such as washing machines and fridges. Not only would this reduce the toxicity of waste going to our landfill, it will also be able to extract valuable minerals and materials from these used products, finding treasure in the trash. This will reduce the demand on mining and make these limited resources on the earth last longer.

In essence, we have a duty in Parliament to ensure we entrench a sustainable plan to protect our green environment, reduce plastic-usage, increase recycling, enhance upcycling. If done correctly, Singapore can be a global thought leader on this. It must be a united effort across all sectors of our society.

Collection is the first step and there is a need to encourage and promote collection. This is done by requiring operators of the responsible producer scheme to hit a target collection in clause 30(c) and by requiring them to promote awareness of electronic waste disposal in clause 30(d).

After collection, the waste needs to be dealt with properly. clause 12 requires producers to manage electric waste by becoming a member of a responsible producer scheme, which is regulated by Part 6 of the Bill. Furthermore, clause 17 makes it an offence for non-individuals to dispose regulated products as waste instead of through the licensed producer responsibility scheme, licensed waste collector or licensed e-waste recycler, or someone approved to collect e-waste. Even as the consequences are quite serious for non-compliance, would the Minister explain how will they work with and assist those arrested and affected understand how to comply with this legislation?

Furthermore, as this Bill addresses regulated products, would the Minister explain how this might affect e-commerce of electronic products and how are concerns that those required to accept or collect waste might become inequitably burdened by waste that they were not responsible for producing; that is, how are these concerns going to be addressed?

Besides electronic waste, another important source of waste that this Bill seeks to address is packaging waste. Part 4 institutes a reporting regime relating to packaging which requires producers of specified packaging to monitor its packaging waste and to think about ways to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging. These reports are to be submitted according to the years that the producers hit the prescribed limit.

The flexibility in such a scheme is good. It encourages producers to be aware of what they are producing, why they are producing it and how they can reduce it. Yet, on the other hand, producers figure out for themselves how to get to the end goal of reducing packaging waste, allowing them to prioritise what they are looking for in packaging, accommodating the variety of purposes packaging may serve for that product. For instance, drink powder sachets apportion the powder, make it portable, differentiate sachet contents and protects it from getting wet. Yet, on the other hand, more environmentally-friendly packaging such as paper-based packaging may serve similar functions instead.

Relating to recycling packaging, I have three questions. Firstly, does biodegradable plastic help our landfill problem or are they treated the same way as non-biodegradable plastic. If so, is it feasible to tweak our waste management system to better tap into the biodegradable ability of these biodegradable plastics? Second, what plans are there to increase our capability to recycle our own waste product, especially plastic waste. This is especially important since there are reports that recyclable waste is ending up incinerated. Thirdly, because trash can be treasures for a different product, how can Singapore tap into upcycling our waste and promoting a circular economy even though Singapore may not have a very big manufacturing sector ourselves?

The third kind of waste this Bill addresses is in Part 5, being food waste. Clause 26 requires building managers of certain kinds of buildings to provide their own food waste management facility within the premises. If that building is an existing building, clause 27(2) allows the food waste management process to be outsourced instead of being situated onsite but the food must still be segregated and treated. Although the building manager needs to provide such a facility, the duty is not left to the building's management alone. An occupier is compelled to make use of it through clause 25 which creates an offence for an occupier of such buildings to dispose food waste together with other types of waste if the food waste was generated in that building.

While compelled by law to manage food waste, processing food waste on-site may actually save cost for management. This is what happened in Our Tampines Hub (OTH) where only one garbage compactor truck is needed daily, compared to three previously, saving the management about $40,000 annually. Because food was not left exposed overnight, pest and rodent problems are minimised. Food compost are used as fertilisers and non-potable water used for cleaning the eco-digester, rubbish bins or bin centres.

Would the Ministry kindly elaborate on who are the intended prescribed buildings? Would they include shopping malls and hawker centres? Additionally, since there is great benefit in composting food waste, does the Ministry have plans to extend food waste management systems to residential estates or make such food waste management facilities accessible to non-occupants of the prescribed building?

Besides dealing with food waste through a food waste management system, there is a need to minimise food contaminating recyclable items. Perhaps the Ministry could consider requiring regular dustbins be situated near recycling bins so that the inconsiderate actions of a few will not hamper the recycling efforts of the majority. What is being done to increase recycling literacy and how effective has it been?

Sir, in conclusion, while we increase efforts to reduce packaging and recycle food and electronic waste, what we need is renewed mindsets. For example, is the measure of unusability whether something is old and faded rather than spoilt and inoperable? Instead of reusing old mindsets, maybe we should discard them to have new ones – new ones that help us be content with what we have; new ones that help us prioritise responsible disposal over personal convenience; new ones that promote conscientious stewardship of our landfill over more short-sighted enjoyment of the temporal, without caring about the future. We need to change the way we conceptualise, handle and create waste. This Bill provides the important infrastructural support for that change, and therefore, I support it.

3.26 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, alarm bells have been ringing around the world about the Climate Emergency facing our planet. The Prime Minister addressed the Climate Emergency in his National Day Rally speech recently. Even before this Climate Emergency, Singapore has been facing a Waste Emergency for decades now. Already, our only landfill at Pulau Semakau had its lifespan shortened from 2045 to 2035. We only have 15-odd years left to solve this problem.

We knew about this emergency for a while and yet our responses have not been as strong as they should be. In laying the framework to compel producers of e-waste, packaging waste and food waste to reduce, reuse and recycle their waste, this Bill is good though late in coming.

There is a lot of discussion about the circular economy approach to addressing the problematic waste streams. The Zero Waste Master Plan is supposed to express the circular economy aspiration, to eliminate waste and to continually reuse resources in the production-consumption cycle. The target announced is to reduce the daily waste sent to Semakau by 30% by 2030.

Is this ambitious enough for the Waste Emergency we are facing? How much will this slow down the filling up of Pulau Semakau and extend its lifespan? What happens when Semakau is filled up eventually? Why not up the ante to halving the daily waste by 2030?

In addition to these general questions, I would like to discuss three aspects that I think are being neglected by the framework to be instituted by this Bill.

The first is that the treatment of the three waste streams does not address the issue of transnational waste cycles.

The second is that the treatment of the food waste stream is too focused on the waste itself and neglects the upstream causes of food waste, including the way we eat.

The third is that our public education approach is still stuck in the communication campaign model and neglects the more effective model of targeting problem areas smartly by social nudging.

The first issue is transnational waste streams. With regard to e-waste, the current framework targets producers of electronic and electrical goods with retail presence here in Singapore and also retail companies selling these goods. This is still based on the brick-and-mortar economy.

However, the trend is for consumers to order their electronic goods online. And it is not uncommon for small to medium-sized goods to be shipped from overseas these days through micro-retailers utilising online platforms to connect with consumers. How would the Extended Producer Responsibility framework apply to these micro-retailers and overseas producers? How would the e-waste from these production-consumption streams be audited and factored into the EPR system? These are not trivial questions as we should expect online shopping and transnational delivery to increase in scope and scale as technologies improve and society evolves.

The same applies to packaging waste. Online shopping and transnational delivery mean more packaging would be used to ensure goods are not damaged by extended shipping. The current framework targets producers of packaging and packaged produces with annual turnover of more than $10 million.

What percentage of packaging waste do these producers account for? Does this cover the growing online shopping arms of these producers? How about the growing field of micro-retailers and overseas producers selling to local consumers through online platforms?

The other major problem is the fact that we export 30% of our recyclable waste to countries including Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand for processing. Some of these countries are closing their doors to waste import, while there have been cases of waste dumping and e-waste pollution hurting local communities that give a bad name to countries that export waste like Singapore.

How can we ensure that our exported recyclable wastes are properly processed and recycled? What happens if we are not able to export the waste for recycling, for example plastic and packaging wastes, do we just incinerate them?

This is not just an accountability issue, but it is also about the integrity of the circular economy approach. If we are not ensuring waste materials get returned to the production-consumption cycle, but are simply trying to get rid of thrash to prevent Semakau from filling up, then we are not keeping to the true spirit of the circular economy.

Food waste also has a transnational dimension. The recent study by the Singapore Environment Council shows that one-fifth of total food in Singapore, over 390,000 tonnes of fresh produce, is wasted in the food supply chain. A significant portion, 144,000 tonnes are lost when imported food lands in Singapore. Why is this so and what can MEWR do to reduce this unnecessary wastage?

The second issue is that we need to go upstream to tackle the food waste, from tackling wastage in the food supply chain to the way the nation eats. We should deploy the circular economy approach here too in a whole-of-system manner.

I mentioned the significant amount of food lost in the importing food chain. One solution is to increase local production to supply food. To this end, the Government is targeting to increase local production to meet 30% of local nutritional needs by 2030. Increasing local food production will create other problems of food lost and wasted during the production process. MEWR should therefore look at this area and encourage the reusing of food lost during the production process as animal feed or their recycling into compost for farming.

The large-scale processing of food waste will also reap benefits. I understand that when the Tuas Nexus comes online in 2025, food waste and used water sludge will be co-digested to produce biogas for energy production. Does this mean the trade-off is that we will not be benefitting from composting food waste instead? Are the options for food waste treatment either co-digestion to product biogas or composting to produce fertiliser? If so, what are the calculations of MEWR in choosing co-digestion rather than composting, since the production of compost fertiliser could benefit local farming?

The current Bill targets commercial and industrial premises that generate large amounts of food waste to undertake food waste segregation for treatment. But given that half of the total food waste generated comes from residential households, should we not require the same undertaking for residential premises?

I understand from Minister Masagos' reply to my Parliamentary Question last month that a household food waste segregation pilot was conducted at Tampines GreenLace and the results were very promising, with 4,000 kg of food waste collected over three months. Residents even requested for the pilot to be extended. Given the success and the popularity of the pilot, and the fact that we are facing a waste emergency, should we not be bold and extend this now to all HDB estates?

The way we Singaporeans eat matter. We import 90% of our food and yet we consume in abundance with very little awareness of our food security issues. A lot of wastage is caused by near-expiry food being thrown away by both retailers and consumers. Yet, we have a not insignificant group of Singaporeans facing household food insecurity.

We need to encourage food donation to reduce food waste. I have spoken on this before, during the debate on the Singapore Food Agency Bill, the Government is in a good position to develop a National Food Support System to channel excess food to fight household food insecurity in Singapore and feed hungry Singaporeans. We should also legislate Good Samaritan laws to protect food donors and food distributors from criminal or civil liability for incidents arising from donated excess food.

The third issue is we have hit a green ceiling on education. We need to change our model from communication campaigns to strong and smart nudging using the social norms held by Singaporeans. Domestic recycling rates have remained stuck at 21%. The response by MEWR is to change the labels on the blue bins and paint the recycling trucks blue. We need to do better.

If we would identify a social norm that is blocking efforts to encourage domestic recycling and raising green consciousness across Singapore society, it is the norm of convenience. Convenience has become the norm that need no explanation when it comes to demand for Government and municipal services. To reduce littering, we make throwing rubbish convenient by placing green rubbish bins all over the city. To promote a hygienic environment, we make garbage disposal convenient by building rubbish chutes in each home or on each floor. Using the same reason or excuse, we refuse to consider banning or discouraging plastic bag usage, so that residents can conveniently bag their garbage to dispose.

Whenever a slight inconvenience is caused by maintenance or repair works, we apologise for it. That is why the blue recycling bin has hit a green ceiling, because the big bin conveniently placed at the foot of the block by the side of the road is a convenient bin to dump any rubbish indiscriminately. At the larger systemic level, we conveniently incinerate our rubbish when we can. We need to change this mindset of convenience. A true circular economy cannot have convenience as the dominant norm guiding our behaviour.

This is why I think the Government is mistaken in its reluctance to tackle single-use plastics as such despite the strong public calls to do it. It is not a populist move with little systemic impact. Yes, tackling single-use plastics will not have as much impact on reducing the waste streams filling up Semakau than the complex EPR systems being put in place. But it has tremendous educational value that will nudge Singaporeans to change their whole approach to consumption and disposal of waste.

Single-use plastics represent the epitome of convenience. For example, single-use plastic water bottles, instead of drinking from a cup that has to be filled and washed, one just has to open, drink and throw. When we tackle single-use plastics, we are not just tackling the plastic, we are challenging the idea of convenience and undermining its importance.

We do not have to ban plastic bags to do this. We need to nudge smartly. In some cities, authorities have mandated households to purchase and only use government-certified garbage bags for the disposal of thrash. This nudges citizens to think less of convenience and more of the cost of convenience and leads to overall reduction in the use of plastic bags.

We could also consider nudging household food waste segregation by mandating the use of Government-certified food waste bags with printed diagrams of what would be considered food waste.

Likewise, I remember the early days of our National Recycling Programme, when green translucent recycling bags were dropped at the doors of each household. On each bag, there were diagrams showing what items can be recycled and what cannot. The recycling bags were inconvenient, because it required residents to place items into the bag and bring it out to the lift lobby on a specified date every fortnight. It was also inconvenient as a system, because workers needed to go to each floor to collect the bags and bring them down to the truck.

But it gave those who would try to recycle purpose and a sense of achievement, and the green bags at home reminded everyone to recycle. Moreover, residents were encouraged and nudged when they can visibly see their neighbour recycle, bumping into the green bags of recyclables at the lift lobby on collection days. Neighbours can even gently correct recycling mistakes, since the bag was translucent. It promoted recycling as social behaviour and collective action, which is always more effective than to try to change individual behaviour.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are very far from our Zero Waste aspiration. The circular economy approach is the right one to adopt. The focus on e-waste, packaging waste and food waste is also a correct focus.

However, we need to pay attention to the growing transnational dimension of our waste streams to ensure our efforts do not go to waste. We also need to go more upstream to tackle the problem of food waste, reducing loss in the food supply chain and recycling food waste for compost to improve local food production. Lastly, we need to double down on education and get all Singaporeans to reduce, reuse and recycle as their second nature. We should do this by moving away from communication campaigns to social nudging, especially to shake up the norm of convenience at the heart of our problems.

This is not just about Semakau filling up, but it is also about how we see ourselves as citizens of this Earth, whether we should seek our own selfish convenience or to choose to protect Earth for the sake of our children. I support the Bill.

3.39 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill for this is critically necessary for the Zero Waste Masterplan to have any bite. This Masterplan has been eagerly anticipated by the community and was ceremoniously launched last Friday. In fact, I think even the Ministry was eager to get this going that the Bill was referred to as the Act in the Masterplan on the website when I checked in after the launch. I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for taking my feedback on that misunderstanding which has now been updated on the website and the Masterplan.

The Bill’s intent is to fortify the regulatory teeth needed to ensure sustainability in the consumption of resources, which our planet has a finite amount of. However, the Bill can and must do much more to reflect the urgency of the climate crisis which I would like to discuss. I would also like to take this opportunity with the Bill to urge the Government to take a bold and different perspective in solving food security challenge for our vulnerable groups as a critical climate change action.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not short of daily reminders that "yesterday would have been better" for taking actions against human-caused climate change. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, had warned in October 2018 that we only have 12 years, or 11 years now, for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 degrees celsius in order to limit climate change catastrophe per the Paris Agreement which we are a party of.

Closer to home, our waste generation has not reduced substantially at all. We generated 7.7 million tonnes of solid waste in 2018, only a 9,000 tonne or a dismal 0.1% decrease from the previous year. In 2018, we generated 763,100 tonnes of food waste, accounting for 10% of our total waste. At this rate, our landfill will run out of space in 2035.

Time is not on our side. Please allow me to propose further measures that must be implemented to signal the urgency.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, smart targets and goals. Having companies simply report on their plans to reduce, reuse or recycle products in the Bill is insufficient. Reporting obligations have no bite if it is not accompanied by waste production limits and recycling targets for producers. We must set SMART goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound so the producers can plan and prepare accordingly.

For example, the European Union Packaging Directive 2018 sets that by 2025, 65% by weight of all packaging must be recycled, with specific recycling targets for each material, such as 50% for plastic and 75% for paper and cardboard. By 2030, the target for recycled packaging is increased to 70%, including 55% for plastic and 85% of paper and cardboard.

Such reduction targets can be achieved with ingenuity. In 2018, Unilever launched a 3-litre bottle for their Omo laundry detergent brand in Brazil, with a formula at six times the concentration of the original, so it can be diluted in people’s homes. This has reduced the volume of plastic used by 75%. Companies must also inform customers about maintenance and repair services, environmental impacts and materials. Retailers should also actively inform customers of sustainable products. We can emulate the ambitious target setting and look to have companies report their progress on waste minimisation year-on-year via a measure of waste per unit of product output.

Second, we must encourage public accountability and corporate stewardship by mandating these reports to be made public. Currently, the Singapore Exchange listing rules already has sustainability reporting guidelines but with no specific metrics prescribed. If we would like to see resource sustainability as a core part of doing business, it would seem sensible to stipulate the targets above as a standard reporting requirement for all listed companies. I understand that the Hong Kong Stock Exchange had a recent consultation on ESG reporting to one, "require disclosure of significant climate-related issues" and two, amend the "Environmental" key performance indicators to require disclosure of relevant targets.

Third, to escalate the adoption of sustainability mindset and ensure affordability, we could incentivise producers and retailers with tax rebates, so that these obligations do not merely end in increased costs for reporting and collection, and the possibility of penalty – all of which will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. In China and Thailand, the EPR schemes introduced subjected companies producing non-biodegradable goods to taxes and offered tax credits as incentives for companies that used waste as raw materials.

Finally, if we want to reduce our resource footprint, we need to broaden the notion of sustainability. Singapore's Earth Overshoot Day for 2019 was 12 April 2019. This means that if the world consumed like us, we would be consuming three times as much resources as the earth can regenerate in a given year.

If we were to drive true resource sustainability we not only have to compel producers to reduce packaging, and have mandatory take-back programmes, we need electronics producers and retailers to be truly incentivised to extend product lifetimes, ensure maintenance and repair services availability. This is an area where legislation is fast moving in the EU. For example, in France, planned obsolescence of an electronic product is a criminal offence. There are also on-going discussions in the EU that expected product lifetime be labelled.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as we discuss these measures to address the climate crisis, we must not miss the tremendous opportunity to reduce and redistribute the phenomenal 763,100 tonnes of food waste generated every year can provide for a more climate-just outcome for the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore. Let me caveat this number as an estimate deliberation from the 2017/2018 household expenditure survey.

Let me illustrate why I think this is a tremendous opportunity and that the Zero Waster Masterplan must not be looked at in solo from the social challenges we have. Of the 763,000 tonnes of food loss a year, let us assume conservatively that half of them, or 382,000 tonnes, can be salvaged and redistributed. One meal, conservatively, uses 1 kg and, therefore, we will get about 382 million meals from the redistributable food loss. Each person eats 1,095 daily meals a year, which is to say, we can safely feed about 390,000 people a year. That means, Mr Deputy Speaker, this food loss every year could provide food security for all our vulnerable groups! I shared this in my speech during the debate on the Singapore Food Agency Bill as well. I know this is a simple calculation but I think we get the point.

Prime Minister Lee sounded a clarion call for Singapore to recognise the threat that climate change poses to us. We must never forget that for most of the world, Singapore included, the most vulnerable amongst us will be hit hardest. Climate change is already affecting rice production in the Mekong Delta. As temperature rises changes agriculture productivity and sea level rises, food availability will inevitably be affected. For the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore, any price increase is detrimental.

SG Food Rescue is a small group of individuals, and they have demonstrated that there is much in our food value chain that can be saved and redistributed. Its volunteers collect a staggering 1,500 kg of unsold fresh produce once a week from Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre. Sometimes, they collect twice a week for a total of 2,500 kg of unsold fresh produce. Five hundred to 700 kg of that goes to charities, namely, Free Food For All, Beyond Social Services and St Theresa's Home that feed the needy, while the rest is sent to a soup kitchen in Little India, Krishna's Kitchen. The soup kitchen processes the vegetables and turns them into meals to feed the hungry, especially migrant workers in the Little India area. About 200 kg ends up with a community initiative in Marine Terrace – just down the road from where I live – and one of the six public community fridges, benefiting low-income residents.

And we can do even more, and we need to do so urgently and systemically. We can shape food-loss-reducing behaviours by changing our food labelling policies and also enacting the Good Samaritan laws. In Singapore, "use by", "sell by", "expiry date" and "best before" all mean expiry date, according to the Singapore Food Agency. Products are not allowed to be sold or distributed in Singapore past that date. This is, therefore, a huge source of food waste.

In many jurisdictions, including United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, "use by", "best before" and "sell by" mean that after the food reaches its "use by" date, the quality and flavour of the food is lowered, but it could still be edible. Studies found that when a link between date labels, food waste and its environmental impacts is made, the willingness-to-pay for expired food increases, particularly for expired frozen or recently expired semi-perishable products.

Food that has gone past its "best before" date can be donated to charities so long as its within six months of the "best before" date. I am pleased to note that the Singapore Food Agency is exploring Good Samaritan laws to ease business concerns over the donation of excess food. I strongly advocate for the implementation of such laws which have been implemented in countries such as Italy and the United States, and have encouraged food donations and reduced food waste.

As I mentioned before, incentives to help drive corporate behaviours cannot be overlooked. We could consider extending the underused Business-IPC Partnership Scheme or BIPs to include donation of edible food that would otherwise go to waste to charities. When supported by the Good Samaritan laws, this is especially compelling for many businesses I know, like Samsui Supplies and Services, through the Company of Good, a corporate giving initiative by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre.

Mr Deputy Speaker, not only will such measures truly drive food resource sustainability, we could be relieving our financially strapped households of a huge burden. Based on the Report on the Household Expenditure Survey 2017/2018, comparing the expenditures on food and income, excluding CPF, of our lowest quintile Singaporeans, 49% of their income is spent on food.

Mdm Gopal, in her 70s, who lives in Toa Payoh, is one of them. She has zero income and survives on $500 per month from her SSO. As a beneficiary of Free Food For All, a charity that receives and redistributes donated food, she saves a minimum of $100 per month. Larger families are able to save much more.

We would also be freeing up scarce resources dedicated to our social safety net for other essential needs such as healthcare. Based on our estimates on how much it costs for programmes like Meals-on-Wheels and Willing Hearts, that provide more than 10,000 daily meals in total, close to $15 million could be redirected to other aspects of social support, especially as higher standards of living with higher temperatures mean that the basic needs of even our most vulnerable must also be constantly reviewed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, engaging the business community must be a top priority because sustainability is a future investment for economic growth, new market opportunities and job creation. Companies must be nudged out of their comfort zones into a greener and more innovative direction as we work towards building a circular economy. This Bill, and the Zero Waste Masterplan, is a step in the right direction but it is not enough, not with the fierce urgency of the climate crisis, and rightful ambition that we must have to be a leader in climate change mitigation.

And more than that, sustainability is also a social parameter to secure a more inclusive society. As urgent as addressing the looming threats of climate change by reducing significant food loss, is the need to solve the food insecurity problem of so many fellow Singaporeans by redistributing this food loss. If a small group of citizen volunteers like SG Food Rescue can move hundreds of tonnes of food loss every year to where they are needed most, imagine what we can do if we – Government, business and community – truly commit our will and resources to a national vision of getting all 400,000 people fed, and make climate change everyone's concern? I believe we can do this.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.55 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Resource Sustainability Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has had a long-standing commitment to sustainability. In fact, our journey towards sustainability started in the 1960s, when our late Mr Lee Kuan Yew laid down the foundations for a clean and green Singapore, even before it was trendy to be green. Even as we grappled with a fledgling economy and uncertain times, we consciously moved towards cleaner sources of energy, dedicated our resources to cleaning up our major waterways, as well as growing our Garden City. We must continue this legacy.

Sustainability is anchored in our ability to identify solutions that creatively minimise the trade-offs we have to make. And yet, allow us to achieve longer term goals in multiple domains. In Singapore, it is a commitment to balanced growth that benefits both the current and future generations, as well as a commitment to creating a high-quality living environment. Often, such sustainability solutions require that we are able to see different, seemingly disjointed parts of our economy and society function as part of an integrated, inter-connected ecosystem. Therefore, changes to the law to better manage how Singapore handles waste, and to help businesses that reduce and recycle electronic waste, packaging waste and food leftovers are a good first step.

Singapore is particularly vulnerable to global disruptions caused by climate change. The Amazon – a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming – has seen more than 80,000 fires break out so far this year. It is a 77% rise, compared to the same period in 2018. A change in weather patterns likely contributed to this. Urgent action is, therefore, needed.

While we cannot solve the Amazon problem, we can and still must play our part here in Singapore. The Resource Sustainability Bill is a good attempt to create a long-term solution to complement individual efforts in the 3Rs by placing more responsibility on businesses and producers in the supply chain to reduce, reuse and recycle. This aim is also in line with the Government’s international obligations and reflects our support for the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals which were adopted in 2015.

The Bill could also positively impact workers in providing new avenues for job creation. For example, more jobs would be created in supply chain management; or specialist fields, for instance, innovation and engineering in streamlining waste disposal, recycling processes and optimising packaging designs of products.

The next generation of our younger Singaporeans entering the workforce will also have very exciting opportunities to play an integral part in the national effort to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Labour Movement is currently working with tripartite partners to support our workers and young Singaporeans by ensuring skills acquisition training for new entrants and existing workers in the Environmental Services field.

However, we note that this Bill could also affect businesses negatively through changes to existing jobs and companies' processes. In the short term, companies could face increased compliance costs. This could be especially challenging in today’s global economy. This could potentially translate to cost-cutting measures felt by workers or consumers. In the longer term, companies may have to restructure their internal processes to reduce costs and promote innovation and sustainability.

So, I would like to check with the Minister how will the Ministry support businesses and workers through these short-term and long-term changes. Specifically, should there be extensions and/or staggering of timelines to encourage compliance by companies and time for workers to adapt? Do we expect to provide time also for workers to take on the necessary training? We should aim to enable workers to keep their jobs while ensuring that this process continues. In addition, we also cannot leave our SMEs behind. Can more assistance be provided to the smaller one who might struggle to afford the resources for compliance? Could grants be provided to smaller companies to help them comply? The Labour Movement will support workers through this transition. It is prepared to work with the Ministry to help our workers and companies adapt to this change.

I have some technical points of clarification that I would like to seek from the Minister.

First, section 7(3) appears to exempt any manufacturer of regulated products from being considered as "producers" and, therefore, subject to registration and/or licensed scheme requirements, if the regulated product was manufactured “for or on behalf of” a "Singapore-connected person". Section 19(2) is similar in the context of the use of "specified packaging". What examples are envisaged by this exemption? How would we know whether a manufacturer of a regulated product would specifically be manufacturing the product “for or on behalf of a Singapore-connected person”?

Are there estimates as to how many companies could feasibly take shelter under this exemption? On the face of it, it appears that many products supplied and manufactured in Singapore would generally be manufactured for or on behalf of Singapore-connected persons, that is, Singapore citizens/PRs or companies with a Singapore connection.

Furthermore, section 12(1)/(2) and section 20(1) make reference to the thresholds which the Minister may prescribe for regulated consumer products and packaging respectively. Can we have clarification on how the "prescribed threshold" will be determined? What are the criteria and how will these be determined?

As mentioned by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech, whilst we may not be able to halt climate change by ourselves, we all need to do our part to contribute to the global effort. Let us continue to strive for sustainability, not only because of the world we wish our future generations to inherit, but because we believe we stand to reap the rewards for doing so in a very tangible way. The Singapore Story is testament to our belief that economic growth and sustainability are themselves not mutually exclusive but are instead mutually reinforcing and beneficial. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

4.27 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as the Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Environment Council. I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, Singapore is a small nation with limited land area and no natural resources. This has necessitated us to import resources in order for us to build up our infrastructure and built environment to allow for Singaporeans to live, work and play as they do today.

Likewise, 90% of our food is imported from outside of Singapore. This is in addition to the natural gas and liquefied natural gas that we import to generate 95% of our electricity. In other words, we are heavily reliant on supplies that we import to survive. There should be no illusions that we can survive in isolation.

Yet, we are victims of our own success. Our economic growth has caused Singaporeans to become affluent and we have developed a tendency to over consume. This over-consumption is not isolated to merely food but also other resources, such as electrical and electronic appliances. Statistics released by the Ministry places the amount of food waste per year at 763 million kg and the amount of e-waste per year at 60 million kg.

Sir, climate change, an issue which Prime Minister Lee spoke on extensively at the recent National Day Rally, will pose threats to the supply of resources, such as reduction of harvest yields and disruptions to transportation. It is inevitable that these will affect Singaporeans, given our need to import resources. As such, all of us must play our part and make sustainability a way of life in Singapore.

The Bill provides a good first step in encouraging the responsible consumption of resources and the proper disposal of e-waste and food waste among Singaporeans. It is also a good starting point in the creation of a sustainable eco-system to manage waste in Singapore.

Sir, I would like to raise some questions relating to the Bill at this juncture.

In relation to paragraph 15(1), it is stated that "large retailers must offer in-store collection of certain e-waste". With the proliferation of e-commerce, it is conceivable that e-retailers sell a comparable amount, if not more, in comparison to traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. How does the Ministry intend for these retailers to provide these physical collection points when they do not have any physical stores?

In addition, the stipulations of paragraphs 14 and 15 are likely to cause large retailers of electrical and electronic appliances to incur additional costs. Has the Ministry studied how it can help to offset some of these costs?

Sir, to help alleviate the burden on businesses, I would like to propose three measures.

First, the Government should consider providing grants or tax breaks. These grants or tax breaks can be given when businesses invest in infrastructure to promote sustainable practices, such as the setting up of in-store collection points and waste recycling centres.

Second, the Government can look into the possibility of renting industrial buildings to these retailers at subsidised prices if they are used for waste disposal processes, such as consolidation or sorting. We can learn from the state government of Victoria, Australia, which provides grants and funding for programmes contributing to sustainability, including infrastructure. In particular, one of the grants, known as the Resource Recovery Infrastructure Fund, aims to improve the collection, sorting and recycling of processed materials. It has allocated A$19.1 million since 2017. It has proven successful, with an estimated reduction in 900,000 tons of landfill waste per year. We can learn from the Victorian government in incentivising the creation of waste disposal infrastructure in our nation.

Third, the Government should set up an online National Registry of Producers and Regulated Products. This will not only help businesses in reducing costs associated with developing their own systems to monitor and track these products, but will also help the Government in aggregating data on a national scale. This will help it to identify ways in which schemes can be improved upon, and programmes introduced, in order to ramp up sustainability efforts.

It is not sufficient to simply assign the responsibility to businesses. The contributions of businesses in efforts, such as carrying energy-efficient appliances, promoting the purchase of these, providing attractive trade-in deals to incentivise consumers to use energy-efficient products, and setting up more e-waste recycling points are bound to aid in sustainability. However, the pursuit of sustainability should be a collective effort by Singaporeans from all walks of life.

There are drawbacks to imposing the bulk of responsibility on the retailers. First, this will result in rising business expenditures for the retailers. In turn, they will pass on these increased costs to consumers. This may disincentivise Singaporeans from procuring more energy-efficient appliances and keeping up with technological advancements. The former will definitely not support environmentalism, while the latter will create speed bumps in our drive to make Singapore a smart nation and a global tech hub.

Sir, I wish to make three proposals as to how we can take the provisions of the Bill further and work towards Singaporeans coming together to reduce waste and engaging in measures beneficial for the environment.

First, the Government should launch an education campaign aimed at educating businesses and consumers on how to properly dispose of various kinds of waste, including food and e-waste. The goal of this campaign is to ultimately ingrain sustainable practices into the subconscious of each and every Singaporean, in a similar fashion to how the proper separation of waste has become a given to most Japanese people. In addition, in relation to education pertaining to consumers and businesses, the Government should aim for the three following policy outcomes.

One, for consumers and businesses to make every conscious effort to fight climate change and engage in sustainable practices, such as using energy-efficient appliances and purchasing the right amount of food.

Two, for responsible consumption and proper disposal of waste to become second nature to consumers and businesses.

Three, for consumers and businesses to encourage others to adhere to sustainable practices, through whistle-blowing or otherwise, and to prevent the indiscriminate disposal of waste.

Second, the Government can provide tax breaks or grants to retailers who choose to engage in corporate social responsibility programmes, such as replacing the energy-inefficient appliances of low-income households with more energy-efficient models.

Sir, air conditioners and refrigerators which are energy-inefficient consume a great amount of energy. Low-income households are unable, rather than unwilling, to replace these. It would be beneficial if the Government can provide tax breaks for these companies as their actions will help not just the environment, but also our less fortunate.

Third, the Government can work with our supermarkets to ensure that food nearing expiry is not simply disposed of but is provided to the less well-off in Singapore.

The French Government passed a law in 2016 mandating that large supermarkets have to donate excess food to food banks and charitable organisations. If we had a similar initiative in Singapore, we can not only reduce the amount of food waste, but can also help those in need. Struggling households will greatly benefit from receiving this food, while we make strides in cutting down on waste. I would like to propose that the Ministry study the possibility of enacting similar measures.

Sir, in conclusion, while I stand wholly in support of the Bill, I believe that future legislation or initiatives should make more room for the inclusion of all those who reside in Singapore to contribute more to sustainability. I believe that the best solution to solving our issues pertaining to waste is to foster an environmentally-conscious society on all levels and across all sectors, in which the pursuit of reduced waste is a concept which is ingrained on a subconscious level in Singaporean businesses, people and Government.

4.38 pm

Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as Board Director of the Singapore Environment Council.

In the face of scorching temperatures, environmental degradation and climate change, the Resource Sustainability Bill, an entirely new Bill to address these critical issues, is very welcome, indeed.

We in Singapore have become well-acquainted with the 3Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle – perhaps to the point that they have become somewhat trite and lost valuable traction. In truth, although many of us try hard to practise these 3Rs, it seems like broader structural factors and norms work against our best efforts.

Let me illustrate with one of my favourite Instagram accounts, that of Tabao Girl. This environmentally-minded young woman meticulously details the steps she takes daily to reduce her use of disposables. On most days, she succeeds remarkably with her inspiring arsenal of reusable cups, containers and cutlery, and enjoys her takeaway food like the rest of us.

But one day in July this year, she recounted in a post her distressing experience at a bakery while waiting behind another customer. She said, "When he was done paying, I was almost going to cry. First, the 13 buns, each in one plastic bag of its own. Then he wanted six buns in one bag and seven buns in another – and he wanted them double-bagged. Then he asked the cashier to give him one large bag to put everything into. In one bakery trip for 13 buns, there was a total of 18 – eighteen plastic bags – used in one single transaction."

I share her distress when I witness such scenes in bakeries, hawker centres and supermarkets. It seems that, as consumers, we have become so precious that food items must be individually packed for fear that they come into contact with each other. Heaven forbid that we allow our floss buns to defile our chocolate croissants! Indeed, I often find it difficult to advise service staff that I do not wish to have my breads individually packed and that I have no need for disposable cutlery. Many look at me with annoyance, as if I have disrupted their well-established work processes.

I do not fault these staff. The broader structural factors we all labour under are norms set in place by industries and consumer expectations which have been shaped as a result.

Companies are keen to win over customers and see offering individual packaging and free bags as good service. Consumers are, in turn, trained to expect and demand such provisions and this vicious cycle perpetuates itself countless times every single day. Over time, such norms and expectations result in mountains of trash and ingrain in our people wasteful habits that generate more rubbish than we can handle. These harmful norms and expectations exist not only in F&B but in virtually every industry.

I would, therefore, like to propose an alternative set of 3Rs that can take environmental sustainability at institutional and individual levels to a higher plane. In addition to reduce, reuse and recycle, therefore, I propose that we strive to reinvent, recalibrate and reward.

The Resource Sustainability Act will be an excellent initiative with regard to reinvention. By requiring that those who profit from the supply of products be responsible for collecting and treating these products when they become waste, companies will be more cognizant of downstream effects of their commercial activity. Hence, this will motivate them to invest more heavily in reinventing their products so that waste generation is minimised.

On the specific issue of e-waste that the Bill seeks to address, technology companies have for too long practised planned obsolescence to boost consumer demand. They design lifespans of products, such as smartphones and laptop computers, to be artificially short so that consumers are forced to ditch functional products and acquire new ones. Some devices are also designed to be difficult to repair, or with replacement parts that are tightly controlled by the company, thereby making it challenging to extend their lifespans through replacing faulty parts. Consumers find it far easier to buy a whole new device and junk the old one.

In contrast, consider the Dutch social enterprise Fairphone which produces smartphones with significantly less environmental impact. Fairphones are designed to be easy to open, repair and upgrade. For example, Fairphone owners can unscrew their phones and replace the cameras, thereby enjoying the latest technology without having to buy an entirely new phone. Their phones are designed to last for at least five years, more than twice the standard 24-month smartphone replacement cycle.

Examples such as Fairphone show us that resource sustainability is achievable through reinvention, especially if we introduce the right levers. In addition to the much welcomed Resource Sustainability Act, therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to consider introducing additional laws to combat the exploitative practice of planned obsolescence, as well as laws to strengthen consumers' rights to repair their electrical and electronic products.

The next "R" we must act upon is to recalibrate. It is time we recalibrate people's expectations for what constitutes excellent service and warm hospitality. When did we transform into a society where events must involve goody bags, bottled water and an oversupply of catered food? How did our homes start to be filled with conference swag – stuff we all get – that we dump into landfills after engaging in Marie-Kondo-inspired spring cleaning?

Thankfully, these norms need not be cast in stone. Collectively, we can forge fresh norms that help to advance resource sustainability. Conference organisers should dispense with goody bags, hotels can do away with small toiletries bottles and bakeries must discontinue this practice of wrapping buns in individual bags.

I was delighted to learn before entering the House today that Fairprice is starting a month-long trial to charge for plastic bags in various outlets.

Every industry can identify positive disruptions to enhance environmental sustainability. Once we create new norms, we recalibrate consumer expectations and break the cycle of wasteful product practices that seem to be more entrenched as we become more affluent.

Finally, the third "R" is to reward. Beyond punitive measures that clearly have their place in our eco-system, we must also consider introducing more schemes to reward companies and consumers for their efforts towards resource sustainability.

As the recent study by the Singapore Environment Council on building a circular food economy revealed, an estimated $2.54 billion of food loss occurs in Singapore from farm to market annually. This astounding loss must be addressed.

We need to introduce more incentive schemes for companies to invest in technology to extend the shelf-life of food items. We also have to encourage different players within the food supply chain to collaborate on practicable solutions to stemming food waste. We should also develop Singapore as a centre where we specialise in innovations to transform food waste streams into valuable by-products. By rewarding such investments, collaborations and innovations, we can steer companies towards greater resource sustainability.

Similarly, on the consumer level, we can introduce schemes to change consumer behaviour. Those who choose options with a smaller carbon footprint can be rewarded with loyalty points that translate into discounts. Similarly, consumers can be encouraged to reward companies that offer more green alternatives through rating and voting systems. Step by step, through actions big and small, we can shift mindsets and change behaviour for the better.

In conclusion Mr Deputy Speaker, I firmly support the Resource Sustainability Bill and urge companies and consumers to reduce, reuse and recycle, but also to reinvent, recalibrate and reward.

4.46 pm

Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interests as the President of Singapore Manufacturing Federation, Vice Chairman of Singapore Business Federation, Vice President of Singapore National Employers Federation and Chairman of Sakae Holdings Limited. I rise in support of the Resource Sustainability Bill.

The Resource Sustainability Bill seeks to better manage three critical waste streams: electrical and electronic waste; packaging waste, including plastics; and, food waste.

Over the last few years, as sustainability took on greater prominence worldwide, I am happy to report that as a federation, the Singapore Manufacturing Federation (SMF) has through our various industry groups held numerous events and dialogues with the manufacturing community with a focus on the journey towards Zero Waste. In fact, the SMF has a function committee set up to advocate good practices specifically in the fields of health, safety, security and environment.

One of the cross-industry collaborative examples which I am proud to share is that for the first time, the packaging industry group and the food and beverage industry group jointly held the annual Packaging Council of Singapore Conference, titled "Journey towards Zero Waste".

However, while trade associations and chambers such as the SMF continue to champion the need for environmental awareness and conservation, it is clear that there are some speed bumps which we must address preliminarily. These take the form of the following: business priorities and increasing costs; support for the required reporting processes; and thirdly, education, outreach and enforcement.

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, please allow me now to move into each of the three areas of wastes identified by this Bill and share with this House pertinent views from the industry players in the three sectors.

Under the Bill, E-waste, which encompasses electrical and electronic consumer equipment, large scale producers are required to fund a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) which will be responsible for organising e-waste collection and recycling. This move brings Singapore on par with numerous similar collection and recycling initiatives worldwide, including Japan's Home Appliance Recycling Law, the EU's Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive), the US state recycling laws on waste electrical and electronic equipment.

Many MNCs have taken it upon themselves to include waste management into their business strategy as part of their sustainability responsibilities. I agree that more can be done and more companies in Singapore need to take active measures to be on par with global standards. There are already a number of retailer-driven collection initiatives in place in Singapore. With the collection efforts being moved to the producers as well, there is optimism that we will truly be able to close the loop and have some materials recovered for future use by the producers.

Yet, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a legitimate and common concern for the industry – will there be any form of support, in terms of funding or subsidies, for the extra manpower or training of manpower for the required reporting processes detailed in this Bill?

I now move to speak on Packaging Waste. The Packaging Council of Singapore, or PCS in short, is an Industry Group of the SMF representing the local packaging industry, not just locally but also at the world and Asian levels of the packaging world.

Since five years ago, the PCS has been organising an Annual Star Awards to recognise outstanding packaging innovations, some of which have also won international acclaim. At this year’s awards held last month in August, Senior Minister of State for Health and Law Mr Edwin Tong graced the event as the Guest of Honour. In his keynote speech at the event, Mr Tong noted that many of this year’s winners displayed environmental awareness by innovating packaging materials and design with the use of recycled or more environmentally friendly products.

While there is still much room to improve in this particular industry, especially in relation to packaging materials for the food and beverage industry, I am heartened to see companies already creating packaging solutions for commercial use by utilising recycled materials such as crop waste and mineral stone instead of plastics. I am especially happy and proud to add that, of the 29 awardees of the awards this year, 20 were awarded to students from our local Polytechnics. This demonstrates that our young and our future are already gearing up for a future where sustainable materials should take centrestage.

The next steps for the packaging industry would be for companies downstream to adopt and use sustainable solutions and thereby further encouraging future innovations.

However, the use of such sustainable packaging may in some industries lead to increased costs. For some companies, and even some sole proprietors, such as those operating food stalls, the increase in such costs are not justifiable even if indeed in the long run, such options may prove to be more beneficial. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if there are plans to incentivise the use of more sustainable packaging materials or disincentivise the use of non-environmentally friendly packaging.

In addition, under this Bill, producers now have to report the amount of packaging put to market annually. While this will definitely give an idea of the packaging volume we are dealing with, packaging producers share the same concerns as their electronic and electrical counter parts in terms of support required for the additional manpower which I stated earlier in my speech. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The next area of focus of the Bill is that of food waste. In Singapore, food waste has grown by around 30% over the last 10 years. In 2018, 738 million kg of food waste was generated.

When food is wasted, there is a need to source for more food to meet demand, which results in increased costs. Resources that were used to grow and deliver the food is also wasted and more resources are also consumed to dispose of the waste.

In the Journey to Zero Waste, businesses play a major role. Adoption of smart storage and preparation processes reduces excess food production and wastage. In the food waste management strategy laid out in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015, the key goal is to Prevent and Reduce Food Wastage at Source. In this regard, a Food Waste Minimisation Guidebook for Food Manufacturing Establishments is now available from the National Environment Agency to help businesses with this goal.

It is undeniable that for food manufacturers, waste reduction and management is key, and this should be part of the long-term business operations for major companies. The SMF is committed to continue to hold dialogues to assist companies on this journey. Under this Bill, from 2024, commercial and industrial premises that generate large amounts of food waste must segregate and treat the food waste on their premises.

For food producers seeking to treat their own food waste, they do see that this is a way forward. However, the concern from local companies operating at scale is what resources will be made available in terms of equipment and training since waste treatment is quite a specific process.

In addition, the generation of waste from the food industry can also be attributed to the transportation process of the supply chain. In this context, may I ask the Minister if there are plans to better support the infrastructure for better standards in cold food chain management to reduce food loss and waste? And relatedly, if more incentives can be made available for food manufacturers to buy more local farm produce?

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the above, it is clear that the plank in the concerns of industry players are the immediate increased costs and resources available for them in navigating the sustainability journey. For some businesses, especially SMEs, the actual or perceived costs of changing their business model towards a more sustainability friendly model may indeed become the obstacle.

In this regard, may I ask the Minister if there are plans for the Ministry to help encourage financial institutions to give more "green financing" in the manufacturing sector? While the "green financing" concept is relatively known to the building sector, this does not seem to have gained traction in other sectors.

Further, the manufacturing industry would like to lobby for more support for SMEs to help secure loans when they raise their sustainability standards. This would also play a part in enabling the circular economy as expressed by the Ministry for the electronics and food manufacturing industries.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is welcomed because of the common consensus that this world does not belong to any one generation but always to the next. Yet, the concerns that I have raised above are indeed legitimate concerns especially in the current uncertain global economic climate.

As a strong advocate of Singapore's own brand of tripartite partnership that of the Government, the employers and the employees working as one, I am confident that the issues I have raised earlier in my speech can be overcome. Continued dialogues and cross-engagement amongst all three groups will be key. The Government looks to the employers for their support in achieving the objectives of a sustainable future. The employers look to the Government for direction and support and the employees look to their employers to learn how their own individual conduct in the office can affect the environment. The concerns, views and contributions of each individual group of the tripartite partnership must always be valued and should never be trivialised.

As a trade association, the SMF has already been working closely with the Singapore Environment Council, the SEC in short, on a couple of initiatives. The first is to help industries embed green culture and DNA by certifying them with the "Eco-Office" mark which helps employees in companies better understand the co-relation between climate change and their behavioural attitudes in the workplace.

Secondly, the SMF is also working with SEC to develop an "Eco-Manufacturing" certification label to ensure that environmental sustainability standards and capabilities are raised and embedded in companies. The Eco-Manufacturing initiative will encourage companies to continue to set higher standards in sustainability.

In concluding my speech, it is my heartfelt hope that with support from the Ministry, other trade associations and chambers will all come together and work together with the SMF in achieving a better future for our next generations.

Debate resumed.

4.59 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as Board Director of the Singapore Environment Council.

This Bill takes an important step towards greater sustainability for our environment in legislating better ways of tackling ever increasing amounts of waste generated in Singapore, with the biggest groups being the ones targeted in this Bill, namely e-waste, packaging waste and food waste. I applaud the move to work with retailers and suppliers to collect and dispose of unwanted consumer and non-consumer products.

Besides getting large retailers to offer in-store collection of certain e-waste and onsite collection upon deliveries to customers, the legislation also makes provisions for these services to be without charge to consumers. But the reality is that there is no free lunch in this world and the cost of labour and transportation will be included and recovered through sales, with prices increased across the board for retailers to remain viable as businesses.

Hence, my concern is whether the process of collecting and disposal of such items is affordable for businesses and consumers? Can the Ministry review processes and facilitate cooperation among stakeholders to take advantage of economies of scale to minimise duplication of routes, maximise storage efficiency and so forth? In addition, the expected high prices on goods are not quite fair to consumers who are not disposing of any items. Can this be rectified? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Bill stipulates that companies which collect e-waste may not charge for this service but they will offset the cost of collection by raising fees for other products and services. In order to ensure that recovery costs remain at an affordable level for businesses and consumers, can the authorities assist all parties to cooperate fully to reduce costs? Customers who do not need recycling should not pay a higher fee. Can this be rectified?

(In English): Next, I would like to express my concern about the collection processes in place. Are these processes simple and fairly straightforward? If they are not, I would like to suggest that stakeholders be provided guidance and infrastructural and administrative support from the various Government departments involved.

Another concern is manpower and resource constraints, especially now that we have tightened up on the number of foreign workers allowed here. This is a challenge particularly for our SMEs. To make up for the shortfall in manpower, can more of our workers be trained to take on these tasks?

With these, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

5.02 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I have spent the past four years in this House speaking up and calling for greater protection of our environment. This Bill is a positive step in the right direction and I wholeheartedly support it and I thank MEWR for taking this progressive step forward. The amendments proposed are substantive and will help to tackle the supply side of the equation and tackle it at the root rather than tackle the symptoms of the problem.

We are starting the Extended Producer Responsibility framework with e-waste and subsequently packaging waste and I hope we will soon extend it to other waste.

We are all aware that when it comes to the environment, it cannot be business as usual. We cannot go on generating and incinerating waste indefinitely. Our landfills are rapidly filling up and our planet is at her breaking point.

We need become a zero waste nation and we need to do it soon. We need to remember that ensuring resource sustainability is not merely about waste management. We have to tackle the issue holistically. Our efforts must both aim to manage waste and reduce the generation of waste in the first place. Our measures have to address both the producers on the supply-side and the consumers on the demand-side.

With this in mind, I would like to raise some clarifications and recommendations.

Singapore generates 60,000 tonnes of e-waste annually. Only 6% or 6 tonnes of every 100 tonnes of e-waste is recycled. This is a staggering loss of recoverable raw materials and a huge waste.

From 2016, EU members states had to collect 45 tonnes of e-waste for every 100 tonnes of electronic goods put on sale during the previous three years. The target was revised up to 65 tonnes in 2019.

What are the envisaged collection targets in Singapore as a result of this Bill over the next three years? What will be the next targets thereafter in the next three-year cycle?

Can the Minister share how the collection targets are calculated? Can the Minister also shed light on why is there a three-year grace period for missed collection targets?

Next, the Bill defines "large retailers" as retailers that occupy any premises with a floor area of 300 sqm or larger. However, this does not take into account e-commerce retailers, like other Members of this House have just raised.

With the rise of e-commerce, "large retailers" may not need to supply RCPs from a large shopfront area. In fact, all a "large retailer" needs is a warehouse and an internet connection. Will the Minister consider also requiring e-commerce retailers to partner with PRS operators or e-waste recyclers to collect and process unwanted e-products?

Next, I understand that the Bill seeks to cover 90% of Singapore's e-waste. Yet, small producers will be exempted from financing critical producer responsibility schemes (PRS).

In line with the polluter-pays principle, the PRS should not have the effect of excluding niche and low-volume producers. What measures will be imposed upon such small producers in the future in order that they be accountable for the e-waste that they generate? As an interim measure, could the Ministry look into setting up subsidised, voluntary PRS schemes for such small producers who wish to contribute?

Similarly, I understand that producers with an annual turnover below $10 million will not need to report the packaging they imported or used and also need not submit to NEA a plan to reduce, reuse or recycle the packaging in Singapore, and how they will implement this plan. Why?

Can the Minister clarify how the $10 million threshold was determined and what proportion of the market these exempted producers of packaging waste form?

Small producers of low-cost goods can generate just as much waste as one with a high turnover. Can the Minister further share what plans there are to integrate these small producers into reporting schemes in the future?

Next, I understand that a producer will submit their plan to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging and their implementation plans. Can I ask if there will be any penalties if these plans are not adhered to? Also, in future, will MEWR consider setting reduction targets for these producers? Otherwise, while we collect data from this exercise of submitting their plans, I am not sure we will achieve much in terms of reducing the amount of waste generated.

In addition to the broad framework under the Bill, we should also have initiatives on the ground to tackle the packaging waste generated by supermarkets. I am astounded by the amount of unnecessary packaging used at supermarkets. While it is often argued that plastic is required to protect fresh produce during shipping and storage, I have been told that some items do not arrive already packaged in the plastic packaging that we see on the shelf. They are shipped in plastic packages and are then re-packaged into even more plastic packaging.

I suggest we learn from what other countries have done to tackle waste generated at supermarkets. Can our supermarkets go "nude"? Major supermarket chains in the UK such as Waitrose and Morrisons have gone "nude" by having "nude zones" where products are not packaged in plastic packaging. I would love to one day walk down our supermarkets in Singapore and see "nude" vegetables and fruits without any plastic packaging. I hope MEWR will consider launching a pilot for this.

On the supply side of the equation, we are doing well for e-waste and packaging waste where we are addressing the root of the problem. However, for food waste, we seem to be addressing the symptoms of the problem. The focus of the Bill here is on processing the food waste rather than preventing or at least reducing it.

Does MEWR have plans for the businesses to also report their plans to reduce their food waste, similar to how producers of packaging and packaged products have to submit plans to NEA on how much packaging they put-to-market annually and, again, their plans to reduce, reuse and recycle packaging waste.

We currently have technology on the market to identify and track the components of food waste for commercial businesses in order for them to plan their production better. One local example is the Singapore start-up Good for Food. Their Smart Dustbin allows hotels and large commercial kitchens to measure, track and identify all food waste thrown into it. The data allows businesses to adjust the type and quantity of food produced. This prevents food waste and reduces business costs wasted on producing unsold and unconsumed food.

Beyond the reporting on how a business will reduce food waste, will the Ministry also consider encouraging businesses to adopt such technology?

Sir, we have a strong focus on tackling the supply side of the equation and I hope we have an equally strong focus on tackling the demand side of the equation. We all know that if there is demand, there will always be supply.

If there is continued demand for packaging, then the EPR that we will introduce for packaging waste will be futile. Producers will likely continue to provide packaging and the EPR will simply be another business cost.

Can MEWR share what plans it has to urge Singaporeans to reduce and reuse? I know we have a lot of plans for recycling but I stress again that recycling does not address our throw-away culture. We need to urge people to reduce and reuse. If MEWR feels that a plastic bag charge is not the way to go then I hope they can share with this House what are the alternative plans.

Sir, our economy is important and dollar and cents issues are critical. However, a good economy will be useless for all of us is we do not have a healthy planet to live in. In the words of Mdm Ho Ching, "There is no Plan B...because there is no Planet B." Notwithstanding the above queries, I stand in strong support of this Bill.

5.10 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Resource Sustainability Bill is part of a wider movement in Singapore that recognises the way that we consume, produce, and live our lives, must change to ensure that our children have a sustainable future. The Bill has to be read in conjunction with the inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan, which sets a bold target to reduce per-capita landfill waste by 30% by 2030, while promoting the development of a circular economy that generates efficiencies from reducing and reusing waste.

Sir, I took a look at the history of recycling as a topic of debate in Parliament. If you exclude the recycling of water, the first time Parliament debated the merits of recycling was in the 1983 Budget debate. The hon Member Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee suggested that EDB set up industries to recycle industrial waste. Recycling was quiescent for some years after, but has been resurrected of late. I think the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources must feel that recycling has been debated at nearly every other Sitting in the last few years.

Now, why does recycling have new urgency? We were a nation of conscientious recyclers until recently? Or have we been shocked from our wasteful slumber? Sir, the waste and inefficiency we see in our consumerist society is really a symptom of economic growth. It is, like some fat around the middle, a bit of a sign that times are very good for most Singaporeans. And like excess fat, trimming it will do us some good.

I submit that recycling was hardly discussed from independence through the 1980s because we were not rich yet. Recycling is both the necessity of the poor and the luxury of the rich. It was obvious to the post-Independence Singaporean that our appliances – our TVs, radios, fridges and stoves, had to be repaired, refurbished, reused for as long as possible. It was obvious that letting food spoil today meant less food on the table tomorrow. Within our lifetime, many of us remember a vibrant, privately organised recycling industry for many of the wastes targeted by this Bill. The karang guni men had a good trade in fixing and recycling scrap. Even food waste was collected for use by the pig farmers.

So, why did that grassroots recycling system break down? The problem is the economics. The value of scrap materials are low and the costs of new manufacture are also low. Meanwhile, the cost of labor required to repair, refurbish, or re-purpose waste has increased significantly. Consider the problem of plastic bottles. Members will remember when soft drinks were sold in glass bottles. When you finished your drink, the glass bottle would be collected and it would be washed and refilled at the factory. This practice has ceased because the costs of refilling have become too high, compared to the cost of providing single-use plastic or glass bottles.

Sir, it is really a problem of prices. The goods that we consume – from consumer appliances to bottled drinks to food – they have no price attached to reflect the problems that their disposal will create. Even in countries where bottle deposits and other taxes are applied to encourage recycling, the prices appear to be incorrect and too low.

We know this because the world’s recycling infrastructure has essentially collapsed in just a few years. As the Economist pointed out in an article on June 15, 2019, and I quote: "There is no point collecting recyclable waste unless someone is willing to buy it and actually do the recycling. Until late 2017 China was the world’s biggest importer of scrap by far. All this came to a halt when the Chinese government banned the import of all but the purest scrap material in 2017, killing a trade worth $24 billion a year." End quote.

The recycling trade is ironically unsustainable, premised on the assumption that the cost of recycling in developing countries would remain artificially low forever. But these countries no longer wish to accept the world’s trash.

So, what is heartening about this Bill and the Masterplan is that it confronts these economic realities squarely for the most part. It does not depend on the illusion of cheap recycling in some faraway land. It recognises that real costs will be required to improve sustainability in Singapore. Now, I wish to discuss the three areas of focus in the Bill – Electrical and electronic equipment waste, packaging and food waste.

First, let me commend the Extended Producer Responsibility Framework. Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) producers simply have little incentive to consider seriously how their products will be disposed off at end of life. It is efficient that they should bear responsibility for managing the life cycle costs of their products.

My only concern here, is how the regulatory cost will affect competition in this sector. Sir, the retail sector for EEE is very diverse, ranging from large branded retailers to small and medium enterprises. Many retailers now operate largely or exclusively online. Many of them are foreign retailers. The distribution channels are also diverse. While many brands only have a few authorised retailers in Singapore, parallel imports are common. This competition has been good for Singaporeans. We should ensure that regulation preserves competition as far as possible, while ensuring that retailers live up to their responsibilities.

The question is how the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Framework can be customised for the needs and business models of the different stakeholders in the EEE retail space. At the moment, large EEE retailers are the focus of regulation. They will be expected to facilitate the disposal of e-waste for any products they supply. For example, section 15 provides that large retailers must offer in-store collection facilities.

Because collection of e-waste is not – and should not – be tied to new sales, large retailers are essentially providing a public service by using their scarce retail space. If all retailers were large, this would not distort competition, because all would be facing the same burden. But smaller retailers and online retailers appear that they will escape this particular responsibility. How, then, can we ensure that all retailers face the same regulatory costs?

One possibility is to impose the appropriate, pre-paid disposal fee on new EEE products at the point of sale in Singapore, regardless how they are supplied. While the administrative burden may at first seem significant, especially for smaller retailers, the economics of scale of market platforms today means that a high proportion of EEE products are actually retailed or sold through only one of a few websites. While I understand there may be reluctance to impose new Government fees, the EPR will in any case result in costs for retailers, which will be passed on to consumers. What is more important is that competition is preserved for consumers as this could more than offset any increases in cost.

Next, the problem of excessive packaging. I see the problem of excess packaging, at least for consumer goods, as essentially a coordination failure. Packaging is cheap, but branding is valuable. Retailers would prefer to use less packaging but, because, we often believe attractive packaging is a sign of a product's quality, we encourage retailers to compete on how elaborate their packaging is. Those who have visited Japan know that the Japanese, despite their attention to recycling, are completely buried in excessive packaging.

This Bill will lay the groundwork for an eventual EPR framework for packaging waste. But we have to be cautious about the tools we use to enforce this framework.

While I am not one to shy away from taxes when necessary, we have to avoid what the economist Prof Ng Yew Kwang calls the diamond goods effect: in a world with substantial packaging taxes, an over-packaged product is likely to be an excellent signal of the purchaser's wealth. Sir, it appears that the mooncake industry has completely internalised this principle. One can hardly find the more luxurious mooncakes sold in plain boxes anymore. It appears that showing you can afford an expensive mooncake is far more important than how that mooncake actually tastes.

To guard against making packaging appear even more valuable, perhaps we should consider creating limits on the amount of packaging that can be used. This would encourage firms to compete on value, taste and price instead. That is what really matters!

Now, on food waste. We are accustomed now to seeing food stalls, restaurants and hotels throwing out massive amounts of uneaten food. This Bill will provide for the proper disposal of such food waste. But obviously, we must also focus efforts on reducing the volume of food waste in the first place.

It may seem like a mystery why food retailers have so much wasted food, given that they lose money on unsold food. The problem seems to lie in how we, as consumers, make choices. Who among us likes to pick the last piece of fish at the economy rice stall? How do we feel if we attend an event and the buffet runs out?

I think it will be difficult to change our beliefs about food abundance and quality. We basically like to see an abundance of food as a signal of quality. This may be evolutionarily hardwired. But we can encourage retailers to use technology and analytics to better plan how to serve their customers.

Rayner Loi, a student at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, is running a start-up, Good For Food, that uses AI-enabled dustbins to automatically identify and log the type of food waste disposed. Good For Food has helped clients cut food waste by up to 30% to 40%, through better planning.

And finally, some thoughts on role of economics and culture in managing our waste problem. Sir, it is common to frame the problem of sustainability as one of a consumerist culture, as if changing our culture, or refusing plastic straws, is the obvious solution to the sustainability problem. I think we need to recognise the central role of prices and regulation, in setting our behaviour on a more sustainable path.

I agree there are some cultural practices that resist economic explanation, that harm sustainability. For example, our preference for meat products instead of vegetable or insect protein, that is a leading factor in unsustainable consumption. Impossible Foods and Beyond Burger, which market meat-free burger patties that taste like beef made headlines in Singapore and throughout the world. I found this incredible, because Chinese vegetarians have been producing all manner of mock meats for centuries. There is nothing new there, but clever marketing. There is potential, therefore, to change our food culture, but I daresay the Government will not want to be the one to tell us to order "Mee Siam, mai (or minus) cockroach". Perhaps, it is best to leave that to the private sector.

There is also much interest in behavioural interventions to promote recycling and more consideration for the environment. These are all valuable interventions. Consumer recycling, for example, seems to be strongly driven by social norms, since recycling rates vary widely across the world, even in the absence of strong local regulations. The planned improvements in recycling signs for our blue bins will no doubt enhance recycling rates by providing more salient information to households on how to recycle. Social norms interventions, where people are told how their consumption patterns compare with that of their neighbors, have also been shown to generate sustained reductions in energy usage in large-scale randomised trials.

But we should resist the temptation to believe that education and behavioural interventions alone can generate sustained change in consumption habits or eliminate a "throwaway culture". The throwaway culture exists because it is cheap, Sir. This basic underpricing and lack of regulation of unsustainable resources must stop. We should not believe that sustainability branding can overcome basic economics. At some point this year, I think every organisation gave out a reusable bag or a reusable bottle. The problem, of course, is that this is inefficient if we do not re-use such bags or bottles often enough. The UK Environment Agency in 2006 estimated that a cotton bag requires reuse 131 times in the best case scenario to equal one single-use plastic bag. So, let us replace branding exercises with hard policy decisions.

Sir, we will always have the true believers who do everything they can to minimise waste. We must salute them. We would benefit tremendously from increasing their numbers. But for the rest of us, it is a price effect. I admit to failing to set an example in how I live. I may care about the environment but I drive, I fly and I use air-conditioning. I would do this less if the prices went up. To try to make amends I bought solar power, which is more expensive. I have tried to eat less meat but I cannot bring myself to eat insects just yet. I am only human but I am trying to be better.

Let us build a sustainable Singapore, without illusions on the nature of people and of markets. I support this Bill.

5.24 pm

Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is timely that we discuss the issue of waste management and resource sustainability today. The Prime Minister highlighted the importance of climate change during the National Day Rally. In fact, there is enough evidence to suggest that the threat is bigger and sooner than 50 to 100 years away.

Climate science is imperfect in its predictions but all their errors have been to consistently under-estimate the negative impact. If anything, we should be moving even faster to prepare for a warmer and more variable climate.

Climate change is a complex issue with many facets. For Singapore, we may think that as a small nation, what we do would not really have an impact on the global stage. But that is not to say that we can afford to ignore the consequences of our own actions. Climate change and rising seas are existential threats to Singapore. We need to do the right thing so that we can have the moral authority to voice out in international fora for bigger nations to also do their part to fight climate change.

The first issue I wish to touch on is e-waste. Minister Masagos Zukifli rightly pointed out and I quote "e-waste is very toxic, people underestimate the toxicity of the e-waste that we dispose of and for the longest time we were not processing it." According to a UN report, only 20% of e-waste is recycled; 80% of e-waste is dumped in landfills. But even for the 20% that is supposedly recycled, they are not actually recycled, but shipped overseas to be treated instead. This is a hypocrisy that many governments will not admit to because they are busy winning the green voters. But this comes at an enormous environmental cost to the importing countries and to their populations.

Prior to 2018, most of the world's e-waste ended up in China. However, China's National Sword policy kicked in in early 2018. The policy bans various types of plastic, paper and solid waste from being exported to China. It sent shock waves through the global recyclables market. Waste started piling up in exporting countries, even in parking lots. The changes resulted in waste being diverted to Southeast Asian countries, whose ports and facilities were ill-prepared to receive them in such high volume. This created massive challenges for their environment. As a result, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia begun to enact their own restrictions.

So, the National Sword has several important implications for Singapore. To the extent that we are unable to recycle our own waste and rely on exports, this creates a bottleneck in the system. Can the Minister assure us that Singapore has the necessary facilities to treat e-waste and will not be exporting our problems to the rest of the world? A second risk is pollution incidents resulting from the increased volume of waste being treated, particularly in Malaysia. Can the Minister also assure us that a pollution incident in Johor will not easily threaten our water supply?

My next point is on packaging. Reducing packaging waste should be a win-win for all. As a consumer, I am often amazed by the almost comical amount of packaging that can surround one small device. One computer mouse or one thumbdrive can be surrounded by packaging four to five times its size. This has consequences. We see increasing reports of fish or whales that are dying because their stomachs are full of plastic. According to the World Economic Forum, there will be most plastic than fish in our seas by the year 2050. Reducing waste would help producers save money while also saving the earth. Everybody wins.

So, while it is great that there is a requirement for producers of waste to submit plans to reduce, recycle or reuse the waste that they generate. I hope the Minister can go further by prescribing a hard limit on the amount of waste to be reduced. We do not seem to mandate reductions in the amount of packaging waste per dollar of product. Should we be doing more to move the needle and aggressively drive down the amount of packaging waste produced?

For example, when the US introduced fuel efficiency targets for US car-markers, they pushed for an aggressive improvement. They wanted to go from around 30 miles per gallon in 2011 to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Will the Minister consider mandatory waste reduction guidelines?

My last point is on food waste. It is another area that is causing a big concern. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, around 30% of the world's food production is lost or wasted annually. Apart from the economic and human cost, this has massive environmental impact as well.

In this Bill, the focus is on building managers to provide separate food waste disposal, to treat the food waste or send it to a licensed waste disposal facility. Would it be cheaper and more effective for the Government to provide this service in bulk through a regulated service provider and charge for this service? If this is instead done piecemeal privately, is there a risk of higher costs? Even worse, would we be creating a bigger carbon footprint if transport is not efficient?

Overall, I laud this Bill as a good first step as it makes it easier to extract usable bio-resources from our waste, which can then be used to produce biogas or electricity. But the same question applies here: can we not be do more to reduce waste?

In conclusion, as the father of two young children who could live to see the turn of the next century, I feel that have to ask ourselves if the measures in this Bill are necessary, but ultimately, not sufficient. Are we merely arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, while accelerating towards an iceberg? Yes, as a small country, our total waste is relatively small compared to the global total. We need to ask if we can do more to help the rest of the world reduce or deal with waste.

Technology and innovation are two assets that Singapore can leverage on. Can we encourage our companies to develop technologies to help to manage waste? These can range from better biodegradable materials to solutions to help manage waste at source, for example, distributed gasification system to treat waste locally at each HDB precinct. As the waste problem grows globally, mastering technology in this domain can create a competitive advantage for Singapore businesses looking to expand globally.

I remember past stories of companies being lauded for launching sustainable businesses, such as local food waste recycler IUT Global. However, many faded and shut down after a few years. Can we nurture national champions with deep expertise in managing waste in a commercially viable manner? As a nation, this is also an opportunity for us to take the lead on the international stage.

While climate change might be a divisive issue in some countries, or still seem distant to some people, waste is a more direct and tangible issue. That should make it easier to rally people to take action. Bold targets lead to bold actions – I hope the Minister can set us a target. And I would like to humbly suggest that Singapore should aim to move one step beyond zero waste to become a net negative waste nation.

Through a combination of diplomacy, commerce and technology, we can help address an existential crisis for Singapore and for the world. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.32 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Let me first declare my interest as Advisor to the Federation of Merchant Association, which represents SMEs especially micro and heartland SMEs.

Fighting global warming and environmental destruction is humanity's greatest test, and as the custodians of earth, our greatest responsibility. Sad to say, mankind has yet to pass this test or to rise up to our responsibility.

I am heartened by Singapore's affirmation of the Paris Accord. I am even more proud to know that when Singapore signs up for international agreement including the Paris Accord, we have every intention and ability to abide by our commitment.

Like many other things, unfortunately, Singapore is a price taker in the larger world. With our small carbon footprint, even if we cut emission to zero, the train on global warming has already left. Nevertheless, we have to do our right and fair share, even if it does not tip the global scale, because we are a part of humanity and we share humanity's burden.

At the same time, fighting global warming and resource depletion is a grueling marathon, one that will test on the resolve of successive generations. There are real trade-offs, impacting real lives, today. Therefore, we must be practical in implementing it, focus on the most impactful ones, instead of the most fashionable. For example, there is much discussions about banning plastic bags or straws, despite Singapore's unique ability to deal with the negative impact.

On the other hand, there are many other issues which are even more critical. For example, one of the largest usage of global energy is for heating and air-conditioning. And investing in better insulation and air-flow design is not just impactful in reducing emission, but it even pays off financially, factoring in the investment cost. In financial terms, it is Net Present Value positive. And even better so if Singaporeans can think about how to minimise the use of air-conditioning.

I hope more ground up support, especially from the public can be focused on these most impactful ideas to save our environment. Our efforts must be rooted on facts, impact and practicality. If we over-reach, we risk undermining public support from the broader population across successive generations.

And it is in this spirit that I would like to share feedback from the ground on how we can judiciously implement the good ideas that we have in this Bill.

First, the call to recycle large electrical and electronics equipment is a good move. These may not be a very large source of waste, but they contain very toxic components. I agree with the Government's effort to focus on larger sellers, get service providers to provide recycling service and to provide our businesses with sufficient time to adapt. The definition of larger sellers seems to be focused on larger retailers with more than 300 sqm space and this is a reasonable definition.

However, I would like MEWR to clarify whether large B2B sellers who carry a lot of volume directly to the businesses even though they do not have much retail space, do they qualify as large retailers? And whether large online sellers, such as Dell, Lazada, Alibaba, or those e-shops within these platforms, are they included in this? Because it is not fair to put all the burden on the retail sellers.

Second, reducing packaging is a good move. However, we must give careful thought on how we implement this, or we will see a noticeable increase in cost of living or reduce consumer choice.

One way to ensure careful implementation is to get the inputs from international environmental experts as well as major packaging companies, retailers and logistics players on what is practical and what can be reasonably done, because sometimes, there are real trade-off involved. For example, many fresh produce that we see in Singapore from Malaysia, they are pre-packed into smaller packs prior to them being sent to Singapore. However, if we take the view that we should reduce packaging and discourage smaller packs from being imported, then we have to do the bulk-breaking in Singapore. And given our high cost of labour, it will mean higher cost, which the consumers will end up paying for.

Also, for some brands that sell well in Singapore, there is ample scope for us to work with them to reduce packaging. But, for smaller brands, it may not be practical for Singapore to ask them to change the packaging just for Singapore because if we insist on doing that, we may end up reducing consumers' choices. So, we have to strike that balance there.

While I agree that may consumer products are over-packaged, we have to understand that companies have a nature desire to compete and differentiate, and that brings me to my final point about packaging which is when consumers speak with their wallets, businesses have no choice but to listen.

In fighting packaging waste, one of the strongest possible way for us to strike the right balance is for the Government to support, and if necessary, fund consumer ground-up efforts to change consumer preferences for simple but effective packaging.

Third, I am heartened to hear that we are targeting food waste. As a nation, we waste a tremendous amount of food. I recently met with the VWO, Food from the Heart. Through a fantastic logistics network driven by dedicated staff and volunteers, they do outstanding work to bring food to people in need – food that would otherwise be wasted. They have recently decided to do substantial collaboration with Kebun Baru to help our needy. And, for that, I am very grateful. And I think that, as a nation, our effort to reduce food waste will benefit a lot if we consult food-based organisations, like Food from the Heart.

Lastly, I hope that the Government can spur efforts to look another area beyond what is mentioned in the Bill today, and that is the area of fast fashion. Fast fashion clothings can last for a mere few months, but its impact can be long and destructive. And to compound the challenge, consumers have difficulty gauging the impact of their actions.

This is one clear area that our Government can work with environmentally conscious citizens. For example, if the Government can take the lead to work with other international organisations to help break down the environmental impact, perhaps by materials or by manufacturing process, this will help inform our passionate citizens who can then make a case to the rest of Singaporeans on the importance of moving away from fast fashion.

When I visit regions and countries like Japan and Northern Europe, I realise that they are very conscious of the negative impact of fast fashion. The key is public education and advocacy. I hope that, on this issue, with some sufficient hard work down the road, we can encourage Singaporeans to buy in, and be more thoughtful.

In conclusion, the central focus of the Bill of transforming waste into resources, is a wise move. It is a manifestation of our national spirit, of turning adversity into opportunities. I hope that the three areas that this Bill proposes will be the start of many more concrete and practical steps, covering more areas. And if we succeed in doing so in Singapore, we will not just live up to our duty as part of humanity, but also, over time, what we do in this small part of the world can also influence and inspire similar acts beyond Singapore. With that, I support the Bill.

5.41 pm

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as Director to NTUC Foodfare and Advisor to Singapore Food Manufacturers' Association.

Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Sixteen years from now, in 2035, our landfill Pulau Semakau will run out. Just a decade ago, Pulau Semakau was expected to last until 2045. But we have been producing so much waste over the last decade that we have shortened the lifespan of the landfill by another decade. This trend is alarming and a cause for concern.

Designating 2019 as Singapore's year towards zero waste is a first step. But we are clearly racing against time and we have to do more in a more comprehensive, realistic and sustainable manner.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill aims to be comprehensive as it encompasses plans to deal with food, electronic and packaging waste. I will focus on food waste in this speech.

As of 2017 only 16% of our food waste is recycled while food waste alone accounts for an estimated 10% of total waste generated in Singapore. In 2017, the NEA launched the two-year "Love Your Food @ Schools Project" where some schools, including Chongzheng Primary in Tampines, are fitted with machines that guzzle food waste and turn them into compost and then given to residents who manage various community gardens.

At Our Tampines Hub, we have two food waste digesters where up to 1.4 tonnes of food waste generated from the hawker centre can be recycled everyday into non-potable water and fertilizer which are also put to good use in our rooftop garden.

Over at SAF, food waste from some camps are being collected and treated to help generate energy.

A*STAR and Westcom Solutions has a food digester JTC's Pandan Loop Industrial Estate. It processes food waste into an odourless organic fertiliser and produce about a ton of fertiliser every month which they packaged and sold. All these show that NEA has worked hard on food recycling seriously over the last few years.

The Bill now mandates that large hotels, malls and industrial food developments need to treat food waste from 2024. Can the Minister elaborate: what can this food waste be turned into other than fertilisers, energy and animal feed? Is there a market for these products to be exported and sold? Do we have the technology and capacity to do this? How are we passing the knowledge to the industry players and building managers to help them ease into the new regulations? How much is it expected to cost them? And will it ultimately lead to a significant increase in rent or overheads? These business costs are still important to consider as they ultimately lead to a higher cost for end consumers.

At the national level, I think NEA has done a good job in tackling food waste. First, by working with schools to cultivate our students with good habits. Second are the on-going campaigns, such as "Love your Food. Waste Less. Save More." But the reality is tackling the root of the food issue means reducing all these food waste in the first place.

Today, we stroll through our social media feed and we inevitably see posts of glorious food – #foodporn. Perhaps, we could also start posting our empty plates with the hashtag "SG don't waste food".

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I also strongly support the e-waste framework. I am especially glad large retailers must now provide in-store collection points. I believe this significant increase in collection points nation-wide will surely yield better recycling rates for e-waste.

Sir, it is important that we act now to put in place a comprehensive waste management system in Singapore, a system that is sustainable and pragmatic. I support the Bill.

5.45 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to focus on the food waste part of this Bill. In preparation for this speech, I researched on some information regarding food waste in Singapore; particularly at the NEA website. And like Members who have spoken before me, I do find the food waste situation very worrying.

Firstly, I was very disturbed to learn that the amount of food waste generated in Singapore has increased at an alarming rate of 40% per year over the last 10 years. And this is expected to increase further with our growing population, economic activity and affluence. Despite earlier efforts to promote conservation of food, food waste is still mounting year by year.

The second worrying fact is that only 17% of the food waste that we generate gets to be recycled. In other words, the main bulk of our unconsumed food ends up mostly in our usual rubbish trash and is eventually sent for incineration. Whether from the food resource optimisation or from public health standpoint, the current state of affairs on food waste is not sustainable. We are not doing justice to our precious food source. I am glad that the Government is making policy moves now to reduce and manage food waste.

In my view, the key contributing factor to this situation is, firstly, the lack of awareness to prevent and reduce food waste at its source; and secondly, the lack of food waste treatment infrastructure in Singapore.

Sir, let me touch on the second point first, which is primarily addressed by this Bill, that is, to require mandatory food waste segregation by large food waste generators. The approach is to initially target commercial and industrial buildings that generate large amounts of food waste, such as large hotels, malls, as well as industrial facilities that house food manufacturers and caterers. I agree with this approach, as a start, essentially focusing on the big food waste generators where it can move the needle in terms of food waste recycling. The industry needs to comply with this new requirement by 2024.

While I support these new measures, I would also like to ask the Minister: how difficult would it be for the businesses to implement these regulations? Are the costs likely to be very high to the businesses? Can I also ask if there are already existing premises that adopt food segregation practices onsite? What are the results and benefits so far? For example, how successful have we been to recover energy from food waste? Beyond expanding the practice to the industrial and commercial spaces, does the Government intend to expand the practice of recycling food to residential areas as well?

Back to my first point with regard to the lack of awareness in the area of prevention and reduction of food waste, I strongly believe that more can be done. I read in some studies that, on average, about one-third of all the food produced for human consumption is not consumed but actually wasted. This is not only a waste of money for businesses and consumers, it is also costing the earth and worsening global warming.

When food is wasted, even more food is needed to be produced to meet the demand. Consequently, the resources used to cultivate, deliver and distribute the food will also go to waste.

Every one of us contributes to this wastage in some way: the food producers, the food businesses, as well as all of us individually – the consumers. Hence, an all-stakeholder coordinated approach at every stage of the food cycle is needed to make a significant difference.

I support the NEA's three-pronged strategy to reduce food waste, that is, firstly, to prevent and reduce food wastage at its source; secondly, to redistribute unsold and excess food; and thirdly, to recycle and treat food waste.

Whilst today's Bill would in a large way address the food waste recycling and treatment issues, more can be done in the area of prevention and reduction of food waste, and I hope that the Government can play a more instrumental role here and continue to look at more game-changing policy measures to reduce food waste, working closely with the industries and community stakeholders.

We have read about the many ways and ideas how we could reduce food waste. I am sure we will continue to come up with and discover more new ways. For example, with the advent of technology and data, we should leverage on more digital means to better match the supply and production of food with the demand and consumption of food. Often, there is over production of food due to misreading or misjudging of consumers' demand. If there are more digital channels to place order for food, mobile apps to plan our meals and so on, businesses and producers would be able to better right-size their production and reduce food wastage. Hopefully, this could lead to cost reduction, possibly benefiting consumers when there is sufficient competition.

Sir, the foremost priority here, hence, must be to minimise the food produced that is not consumed. If we can reduce food waste as a major thrust of our efforts, it is half the battle won. The other half of the battle would be to look at how we can reuse and recycle the food where possible.

Cutting food waste requires both system and regulatory changes, as well as lifestyle and cultural changes. For example, mooncake was just mentioned by Members – we tend to give and receive multiple boxes of mooncakes from one another. It is really a waste in most cases. Also, the 10-course dinners that we have – do we really need an eight- or 10-course dinner? Often, it would lead to more food waste, as well as over consumption – both undesirable.

Earlier in the year, I read in the news about this year-long drive as part of the Towards Zero Waste campaign where consumers are encouraged at food outlets to, firstly, order what we eat; secondly, ask for less rice or noodle if unable to eat that much; and thirdly, say "no" to side dishes that we will not consume.

While I applaud this worthy initiative, I have not seen this message reaching out to enough people. Many people that I saw at food centres continue to not practise the three suggestions mentioned. There has been actually no noticeable impact in my view. I urge the Government to do more and step up the campaign so that more people are conscious of this effort that we should do our part to reduce waste. Sir, with that, I add my support to the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor.

5.52 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their thoughtful comments, useful suggestions, at times, impassioned pleas and, above all, their unanimous support of the Bill. I need to apologise that after the Member talked about the 10-course dinner, Members would have to wait for a little while.

The questions posed by Members in many ways mirror the deliberations and considerations in our design of the regulatory framework. On the one hand, doing more and moving faster will allow us to better care for the environment as the threat of climate change is ever growing. Members like Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong have given various ideas that we can consider moving forward. On the other hand, we need to be mindful of costs to businesses and consumers.

As highlighted by Members Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Douglas Foo, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Henry Kwek and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, operating and compliance costs are key concerns for businesses, more so as we enter a period of slowing economic growth. Hence, we have adopted a pragmatic approach to achieve our environmental goals, while managing the impact on businesses and consumers. Let me outline this approach.

First, in developing the regulatory framework, we have worked closely with our economic agencies to consult over 250 companies and relevant stakeholders. Many gave us useful inputs which we have incorporated. For example, to minimise the reporting burden, NEA will centralise all reporting and submission of documents on one common online platform.

NEA will also develop online reporting templates and audit procedures that will streamline processes and reduce manpower needed.

In response to industry feedback, we have built in greater flexibility in the implementation of these regulations. For example, producers of non-consumer Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) can collect unwanted products from their customers within a reasonable amount of time after receiving their requests, instead of doing so immediately. The same flexibility is also given to retailers in providing the free 1-for-1 collection service when they deliver products to the customers.

Second, we have sought to minimise regulatory impact on smaller businesses. Government regulations often impact these businesses more, as they are less able to benefit from economies of scale. This is why, as asked by Mr Louis Ng, we have set thresholds to exclude smaller producers from joining a Producer Responsibility Scheme (PRS) or reporting on their packaging use.

Third, we have sought to keep our regulatory framework consistent with other jurisdictions. For example, our e-waste EPR framework has incorporated best practices adapted from the systems in Sweden and South Korea and is customised to suit Singapore's context. Our economy is an open one. We import most of what we consume. Many of the companies which will be covered by this Bill also have global presence, including in countries where EPR is implemented. This will allow them to adjust more easily to our EPR system and minimise business costs.

Fourth, we will provide sufficient time and support for companies to adjust. As Mr Desmond Choo has suggested, we will stagger the timeline for the regulatory requirements to come into effect. For example, producers of EEE who have exceeded the threshold will have up to six months to join the PRS, after they have registered and reported their put-to-market data to NEA. We are also working with industry associations to educate and assist companies with the mandatory reporting requirements for packaging waste and the implementation of their 3R plans. NEA also supports companies through grants. For example, NEA has co-funded 24 onsite food waste treatment systems at premises, such as Parkway Parade, Resorts World Sentosa and InterContinental Singapore Robertson Quay, under its 3R Fund.

Fifth, our regulatory framework must support the development of the Environmental Services Industry to take advantage of the circular economy. Besides ensuring environmental and resource sustainability, this will allow us to maximise economic benefits by developing the local recycling industry and allowing our companies to export their solutions overseas. At the same time, greater economies of scale and the development of new solutions will help to bring down costs at the systems level. According to a 2015 study by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey, adopting a circular economy approach could boost Europe's resource productivity by 3% by 2030 and generate cost savings of €600 billion a year.

Another 2015 study by the UK's Waste and Resources Action Programme found that a circular economy has the potential to create 1.2 to 3 million jobs in the continent by 2030. We believe that the Resource Sustainability Bill will open up new economic opportunities for Singapore companies and Singaporeans.

With these measures, we expect that companies will be able to cope with the new regulations. Similarly, as Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Anthea Ong have asked, we do not expect the cost that may be passed down to customers to be significant. A study on EU's EPR on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) showed that the average increase in the prices of products was about 2% after the regulation was introduced – a small fraction of the cost of the product.

Producers are unlikely to raise the retail prices of their products significantly, as this will affect their price competitiveness. Moreover, as we aggregate such waste streams and extract value from them, there is potential to bring down costs at the systems level.

I will now address specific points of clarification raised by Members on the three waste streams.

Firstly, e-waste. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the current e-waste collection and recycling landscape in Singapore. Based on NEA's 2016 study on e-waste disposal patterns, only 6% of our consumer e-waste is recycled. Thirty-five percent, comprising bulky e-waste, such as washing machines, is carted away by the deliverymen when new appliances are delivered. Twenty-four percent is traded in or re-sold; another 9% is donated; and the remaining 26% is simply thrown away. This is why we are putting in place a formal EPR framework to ensure that e-waste is properly collected and recycled.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the thresholds and coverage of producers. As I have explained earlier, we have sought to minimise regulatory impact on our SMEs. The threshold levels have thus been set to cover about 90% of regulated products that are put-to-market by weight. The remaining 10% of regulated products are sold by small producers with small individual market shares. We will monitor the implementation of the EPR framework and ensure that these thresholds remain relevant.

Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Christopher de Souza, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Henry Kwek asked how the regulatory measures will affect e-commerce in Singapore.

The regulations will cover all Singapore-registered producers, regardless of the channels through which they conduct their business. For example, laptops which Apple sells in Singapore through its online store will count towards its put-to-market tonnage. Similarly, retailers are obligated to offer a free 1-for-1 takeback when they deliver a product of the same type, even if the product is sold online.

However, it is difficult to impose our regulations on overseas suppliers of EEE. This is a challenge faced around the world, including established EPR systems in the EU. We will closely monitor developments in this area and consult the local industry further on ways to bring overseas suppliers on board.

Nonetheless, Members may be reassured that all consumers will have access to proper e-waste collection and recycling channels, regardless of where they buy their electronic products from. This includes the network of collection points set up by the PRS operator, and contacting the PRS operator directly for takeback. We welcome companies not covered by the regulatory framework to partner with the appointed PRS operator to conduct e-waste collection programmes.

Mr Louis Ng asked how the e-waste collection targets are set. The collection targets set by NEA are based on percentage of consumer products put-to-market by weight. In the first three years, the collection targets will be 60% of Large Household Appliances and 20% of the other consumer products put-to-market by weight. These targets were determined based on consumer e-waste disposal patterns in Singapore and referenced targets set by the EU in the early stages of their EPR implementation.

NEA will monitor the amount of e-waste collected and adjust the collection targets accordingly. As the EPR system is new, we will start off with lower targets and scale them up as the system matures. Over time, we will aspire towards the 65% e-waste collection targets set by the EU for all product categories.

As a transitional measure, penalties for missing collection targets will not be imposed on the PRS operator in the first three years. This is because the PRS operator will need time to build up their infrastructure and collection network to optimise collection, as well as raise awareness of the producers and consumers. Even in the EU, which Mr Louis Ng has cited, member states were given a few years to meet their targets.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the role that the informal sector will play to support the regulatory framework. As individuals are not regulated under the Resource Sustainability Bill, the rag-and-bone men, or karang guni men, will be allowed to continue in their trade and collect unwanted EEE products. In fact, NEA is seeking to integrate the informal sector into the e-waste collection network that will be established by the PRS operator.

This is important given that waste, particularly e-waste, contains hazardous substances and needs to be disposed in a proper manner. The tender documents for the PRS operator will specify that applicants must demonstrate an understanding of how the informal sector currently operates and develop a plan to integrate them into the collection networks. For example, the PRS operator could conduct training for the karang guni men or engage them as logistics provider in the collection network. The appointed PRS operator must follow through with their plans as part of their licence conditions.

Er Dr Lee also asked about the management of unwanted Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) in view of the policy to disallow the use of non-UL2272 certified PMDs on public paths from July 2020. NEA is supporting LTA to develop solutions to allow the public to dispose of unwanted PMDs safely and conveniently, and to ensure the collected PMDs are properly recycled. NEA is assisting LTA with the set-up of designated PMD collection points. When the Bill comes into effect, we will require all producers of PMDs to join the PRS.

Er Dr Lee also rightly highlighted the importance of growing our local e-waste recycling capabilities. Currently, there is sufficient recycling capacity for ICT equipment and televisions. Singapore faces limitations in recycling large appliances, such as refrigerators and washing machines. The EPR framework will play a pivotal role in developing the recycling industry, by financing and driving the demand for recycling services, and by aggregating e-waste into more viable volumes. This will encourage entrepreneurs to enter the market and set up recycling plants and facilities in Singapore. In fact, we are already seeing interest. Several recyclers, both local and overseas, have indicated interest to expand or set up facilities to recycle large household appliances, batteries and lamps. NEA has been working with the relevant agencies to support these interested companies.

The development of our local recycling industry will not just allow Singapore to meet our recycling needs. As Mr Desmond Choo has pointed out, it has the potential to create economic opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans. Take TES Singapore, a local e-waste recycler which has expanded to more than 30 locations worldwide, as an example. TES Singapore is currently building a new facility to treat lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles, which is a covered product subjected to EPR under the Bill. As the treatment process involves chemical extraction, new jobs for engineers with specialised skills in this field will be created.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the EPR framework for e-waste will, indeed, bring many benefits to Singapore. More importantly, it will drive resource sustainability by incentivising producers to redesign their products to last longer and for easier recycling. This helps shift mind-sets towards the circular economy approach and sustainable consumption, which Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Christopher de Souza have both emphasised the importance of.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now cover the mandatory reporting framework for packaging, including plastics.

Under this framework, companies that import packaged products or use packaging in the course of their business, will be required to submit their packaging data and their plans to reduce, reuse or recycle to NEA. This covers all packaging introduced along the supply chain, from manufacturing to repackaging, to door-to-door delivery and the point of sale. Packaging introduced by Singapore-registered companies through online platforms to the consumer market will also be captured. For a start, these requirements will apply to brand owners, manufacturers, importers of packaged goods, as well as supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $10 million.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked how this threshold was determined. As I have explained in my opening speech, the threshold has been set at more than $10 million in annual turnover for a start, to minimise the impact on micro and small enterprises. The reporting requirements will cover about 4,500 medium and large enterprises in Singapore who put packaging on the market. As we gain experience, we will review and adjust the exemption thresholds to ensure that these are meaningful and effective when we implement the EPR framework for packaging, including plastics, which will be put in place no later than 2025.

Er Dr Lee, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Ong Teng Koon asked if we should introduce reduction targets for packaging waste, including penalties for non-compliance. Our approach is to allow companies the flexibility to set their own targets for their 3R plans. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach, as the use of packaging is dynamic and varies across sectors and companies, which Mr Henry Kwek has also highlighted. Companies may have different approaches in implementing 3R initiatives which can help them save on costs. They also need time to build up their capability. This is also why we will not penalise companies for failure to fulfil their plans, but instead recognise those who do well and share best practices to level up all companies.

NEA will support companies in developing their 3R plans to reduce, reuse and recycle packaging. NEA is working with companies who have successfully implemented 3R initiatives under the Singapore Packaging Agreement to come up with best practices, potential initiatives and key performance indicators, or KPIs, to aid companies in developing their 3R plans. NEA is also working with the industry to develop a capability-building programme for companies that will include the sharing of best practices and recognition for companies’ zero waste efforts, which were also suggested by Mr Henry Kwek and Prof Lim Sun Sun.

We are also building up our local plastics recycling capability to better extract resources from plastic waste. Our vision is to close the plastic waste loop locally where feasible, especially given the tightening restrictions on the transboundary movement of recyclables which various Members have highlighted. NEA is currently studying recycling solutions and technologies, and assessing their suitability for adoption in Singapore. For example, this includes mechanical recycling to turn plastic waste into plastic pellets for manufacturing new products, or chemical recycling to turn plastic waste into chemical feedstock or fuel.

This will go hand-in-hand with the EPR framework for packaging waste that we will establish no later than 2025. The recycling facilities will allow Singapore to turn our plastic waste into higher value products locally, while the EPR will consolidate and ensure sufficient feedstock for the plants to operate in an economically viable manner.

I will now address the points raised by Members on the mandatory segregation and treatment of food waste.

Er Dr Lee and Mr de Souza asked about the type of buildings that will be covered under this framework. For a start, the requirement to segregate and treat food waste will apply to hotels, malls and industrial developments that are large generators of food waste. NEA is currently conducting food waste audits at commercial and industrial premises with food establishments. The information gathered from these audits will help determine the thresholds for large food waste generators.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the benefits of on-site segregation and treatment of food waste. While there are costs associated with the installation of on-site food waste treatment systems, businesses are able to reap cost savings from reduced waste disposal costs. Typically, the payback period of a one-tonne per day on-site food waste treatment system is five years. In addition, there are other benefits, such as a cleaner environment, increased value of dry recyclables due to less contamination by food waste, and potential resources generated through the treatment process. Grand Hyatt, for example, saves around $100,000 a year by treating its food waste into organic fertilisers for the hotel's landscaping purposes.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the options to treat food waste. Food waste can be converted into biogas and compost. Both are useful products and the choice would depend on factors, such as the availability of off-takers and economies of scale.

Er Dr Lee and Mr Liang have asked if the mandatory segregation and treatment of food waste will be onerous for building managers to implement. We have worked closely with relevant stakeholders in developing the food waste measures and will continue to support them in their implementation.

To help the industry better understand and comply with the requirements, NEA has published on its website a list of possible on-site food waste treatment systems that companies can consider using. Building managers of existing premises also have the flexibility to choose the treatment solution that best suits their operations, including off-site treatment at the upcoming Tuas Nexus.

We will continue to adopt relevant learning points from successful food waste segregation policies in overseas jurisdictions, such as EU Member States, Japan and Taiwan, that focus on requiring businesses to segregate food waste for separate collection.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Christopher de Souza asked if we intend to extend mandatory food waste segregation and treatment to residential areas. We have no plans to do so and we will focus our regulatory measures on facilities that are large generators of food waste. This is consistent with the practices in most other jurisdictions, such as the EU and Japan, where food waste segregation and treatment measures are targeted primarily at commercial and industrial premises. Nonetheless, we will continue to work with the community to identify suitable opportunities to reduce and recycle food waste.

As mentioned by Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Miss Cheng Li Hui, NEA has been actively promoting the reduction of food waste generation at source through campaigns and engagements in the communities. Everyone should do our part. As NEA's campaign tagline says: "Let's buy, order or cook just enough!" Mr Douglas Foo highlighted NEA's series of food waste minimisation guidebooks for food retail establishments, supermarkets and food manufacturing establishments.

Similarly, we have also developed a "Guide to Implementing Environmentally-friendly Best Practices for Events" for the public sector to reduce food waste, as suggested by Mr Dennis Tan. This guide has been shared with public agencies. We will continue to work with them to encourage adoption of the best practices when organising events.

The guidebooks share best practices and highlight technologies, such as smart bins that can measure, identify and track food waste through sensors and image recognition technology. One such system was developed by a Singapore start-up, Good for Food, which Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira mentioned.

As Ms Anthea Ong and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh said earlier, they both advocated having a Good Samaritan law, which could encourage the donation of excess food to charities. This is a useful idea and I have asked the SFA and NEA to conduct industry and public consultations to study this further. We should also learn from countries, such as the US, Canada and Italy, which have implemented such laws.

Our approach will have to strike a balance between managing food waste and ensuring that any food donated is safe for consumption, particularly in our tropical climate.

The Resource Sustainability Bill is a big stride that the Government has taken to catalyse the transition to a circular economy and enhance our climate, resource and economic resiliences. Tackling climate change in a resource-constrained future is such a massive challenge that our fight needs bigger weapons. The shift from a voluntary to mandatory approach in ensuring resource sustainability is not something that the Government takes lightly, but only after careful consideration and consultation. The Government cannot do this alone. We need businesses, organisations and individuals to come on board with innovative and effective solutions.

We are, therefore, heartened that many businesses here have taken the lead to implement circular solutions in their value chain. Fuji Xerox, for example, has adopted a closed-loop system where parts and materials are recovered and reused. This has allowed Fuji Xerox to save around 30% of new materials used in manufacturing their products. Nestlé Singapore has saved 2,000 tonnes of packaging used for its MILO® products by changing the packaging design and optimising production practices. Not only is this good for the environment, it has also helped Nestlé Singapore to reduce business costs.

We are also seeing more packaging-free grocery stores, such as UnPackt. These stores encourage customers to bring their own containers and allow them to buy what they need instead of a pre-packaged amount. They also offer more competitive prices, as going without packaging has reduced the cost of products by some 10%.

FairPrice has also started adopting similar practices. FairPrice Vivocity, the largest FairPrice store in Singapore, now offers packaging-free grains, nuts, spices and pasta for shoppers to buy loose quantities of these products. This is probably the "nude" zone that Mr Louis Ng is recommending supermarkets to have. We are encouraged by these efforts and welcome more businesses to embrace such practices and go "nude".

Another key stakeholder is our community. We are harnessing the strength of our youth and our community partners to co-create solutions.

Since March this year, MEWR, together with the National Youth Council, has been engaging our youth leaders on our environmental policies and programmes. Through their lens, we hope to better understand youth perspectives on climate change, environment and sustainability issues and empower them to lead ground-up initiatives. For example, the Climate SG Alliance, formed by 18 corporates, educational and civil society leaders, has been promoting education in schools on waste minimisation and educating the community on recycling right.

MEWR will also convene a Citizens' Workgroup, comprising Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds, to co-create solutions that will improve the way we recycle at home. The #RecycleRight Workgroup will kick off its first session on 21 September and we are looking forward to the ideas from the Workgroup.

We are also keen to co-create solutions to tackle the excessive consumption of single-use plastics. I believe this is an issue that has seized the hearts and minds of many Singaporeans, including, of course, Members of this House.

My Ministry and NEA are equally concerned. We have been monitoring how other countries manage their single-use plastics. Many have adopted regulatory measures to curb the generation of plastic waste. Plastic bag charges in jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Ireland, the UK and the Netherlands, have, indeed, shown a reduction in consumption of plastic bags.

Singapore's approach to addressing excessive consumption of single-use plastics, such as plastic bags, needs to take into account our unique urbanised, high-rise living context.

Most of the plastic bags that Singaporeans bring home from the shops and supermarkets are not "single-use". We reuse them for other purposes, such as carrying wet items, before eventually using them to bag waste for disposal. This has become a way of life for Singaporeans and ensured that our waste disposal is clean and hygienic. All our waste, including plastics, are safely incinerated. So, they do not cause the landfill problem that many other countries who are reliant on landfills suffer from. For instance, a single-use plastic bag that is used for, maybe, 30 minutes, as some say, but will be left in the landfill for more than 30 years. We remove any litter that enters our waterways with litter traps and flotsam removal craft and conduct beach and underwater clean-ups. All these measures prevent any litter, including plastics, from ending up in the sea and contributing to marine pollution.

We all share the goal of tackling climate change and protecting our environment. Nevertheless, Singaporeans have expressed differing views on how to deal with single-use plastics. A recent REACH survey on public sentiment towards disposable plastic bags showed that 9% preferred a ban, 21% a charge and 69% preferred greater public education to reduce usage. For now, the majority of Singaporeans seem to prefer an educational approach to encourage people to consume less.

The Government will continue to engage the community and businesses and listen to their views and feedback. We should take a pragmatic approach and find an inclusive solution that works for Singapore and Singaporeans.

This is why we have decided to set up a Citizens' Workgroup for Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds to come together to discuss and identify the way forward for us to collectively tackle the issue of excessive consumption of single-use plastics in Singapore.

I note that NTUC FairPrice will run a one-month pilot to charge for plastic bags at seven of its outlets as well as undertake a consumer sentiment survey to gain insights on consumer behaviour. The announcement has elicited strong reactions on social media. We urge Members of this House and the public to support NTUC FairPrice and the trial. I encourage other major supermarket chains, like Dairy Farm, Sheng Siong and Prime to do their part, too. The insights gained could also help inform recommendations made by the proposed Workgroup. We will consider all options and I welcome Members to share your views and ideas, too.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The Resource Sustainability Bill is a major milestone in Singapore's sustainability journey and a pivotal framework for climate and environmental protection. It will allow us to use our resources and grow our economy sustainably. It will also catalyse innovative circular business models and position our companies to seize opportunities in the region and beyond for waste treatment, recycling or re-manufacturing. While change can be catalysed strategically at the level of businesses, community and civic organisations, our individual efforts are important, too. We can all make small changes in our daily lives and contribute to protecting our environment. So, let us all be part of the solution to secure our collective future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

6.27 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for saying that we are going to set up a Citizens' Workgroup for the single-use plastics issue.

Very often, we keep saying we need the plastic bags to bag our trash and the other countries do not. But in the UK, where after introducing a plastic bag charge, there was a 80% decline in the use of plastic bags. They also use the plastic bag to bag their trash. So, it is similar to Singapore. I do not think we can keep using that argument. We also just said that we will support NTUC FairPrice for introducing a plastic bag charge. But, at the same time, we keep giving reasons why it is not going to work. I just hope we can have a single stand on whether we support the plastic bag charge or we do not support the plastic bag charge.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think I have just given the Member the information, particularly on the survey that shows that we do have differing views on this issue of single-use plastics, whether to charge for plastic bags or not. I have also given the Member in detail the various reasons why our context is unique. So, it is not an excuse that we do not want to charge for plastic bags but because people are reusing them. These are views from the ground. As I have said, we are equally concerned. So, we want to form this Workgroup, bringing people from diverse backgrounds, diverse views together. Let us work together and come to an inclusive solution on the way forward.

Ms Anthea Ong: I thank the Senior Minister of State for that response. Can I just check if the Ministry would be considering working with Singapore Exchange to integrate the reporting obligations that you have outlined in the Bill, with their sustainability reporting requirements?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: MAS continues to work with the financial institutions and of course, with Singapore Exchange on sustainability reporting requirements and we will continue to also provide our support and work together with them on this.

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. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].

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