Committee of Supply – Head L (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources)

1.00 pm

Climate Action for our Future Generation

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Just weeks ago, in December and in January, we were all experiencing some very big swings in weather. Our temperature was hitting the low 20 degree Celsius and there were also a few flash floods from heavy downpours. I would expect during the hot months, it is going the other way and we will experience very hot weather. Global warming, rising sea levels will affect all of us. Yes, we have spoken a lot about climate change. We have recycling of waste. We have tree-planting to green our environment. But there are areas where we are not doing enough.

We can still see litter around us. We can still see callous throwing of rubbish at void decks and other public areas. We see litter from plastic bottles to just about anything being dumped into the drains, clogging the water flow, and causing the breeding of mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches and more. So, while one group is doing all the good things to save our environment, there is another group just senselessly undoing all the good work. I hope the latter is the minority.

In Singapore, we may be too far away to realise the ice at the poles is melting away at a worrying rate. This is causing warmer weather and rising water. Marine species affected by climate change include planktons, which form the basis of marine food chains – corals, fish, polar bears, walruses, seals, sea lions, penguins and seabirds. And we must not think we can escape. Most scientists believe that global warming will bring about a new era of extreme and unpredictable weather.

Tropical storms and heavier rainfall may increase. Look at the hurricanes in the west. The impacts of climate change from rising temperatures, changes in precipitation, intensity of some extreme weather events, will have an impact on our health, too. These will affect the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the weather we experience. If nothing else can wake those who do not believe in these phenomena, I hope even if we escaped the floods, at least the chilly weather and howling winds will remind us of the climate change issues and the need to take responsibility in our environment.

I am pleased that we are designating 2018 as the Year of Climate Action. I would like to take this chance to remind Singaporeans that as individuals and organisations, they can easily pledge their own climate action on the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) website. The website will give a list of suggested actions we can take to be greener. I have pledged myself and I hope you will join me. It is a good reminder of what we can do for the environment.

I hope more Singaporeans will take responsibility for their environment this year. Whether it is not littering or taking green actions, it all starts from a mindset change. Let us pledge our climate action and persuade people around us to do so, and we can preserve the environment for future generations.

The Carbon Tax is meant to increase our energy efficiency. Can the Minister share what are our goals for energy efficiency? We should break the goal down at different levels. What part of that should households contribute? How can the community encourage energy efficiency? And for an individual household, what are the goals to work towards? Can we have an estimate of how much household utilities bills will be affected by the Carbon Tax? Although there are rebates from 2019 to 2021, how will the Government help lower-income families cope beyond 2021? How can we reach these households and give them easy, affordable ways to save electricity?

Energy saving is something that we should promote to all households. Perhaps we can also look into how we can help lower-income families by providing them with energy saving bulbs. It would certainly be welcome by these families as it would cut down on their electricity bills. Will the Ministry consider giving help to these families? May I suggest changing all bulbs of 1- and 2-room flats to energy saving bulbs? Do not just give vouchers or the bulbs. Can the Ministry go one step further, that is, install the bulbs for them with the help of some corporations? This is good corporate social responsibility (CSR). By doing so, the Ministry would know if the bulbs are installed or not, whether the bulbs could fit into old light fittings or not. Otherwise, a good scheme may not get its maximum benefit because of implementation on the ground.

Next, I want to touch on water conservation. We have done much in this area although I believe not all Singaporeans consciously show concern about water supply because there has not been a crisis to hit the message home. It also did not help that we have a transient foreign workforce who may not appreciate the importance of water conservation for our city state.

Under the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint, we have set a target to lower water demand for households to 140 litres per capita per day by 2030. I know we have the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme which helps consumers to make informed choices when they buy products, such as taps, flushing cisterns, washing machines and more. Retailers must put the new water efficiency labels on the products to help consumers make informed choices. May I ask what else are we doing, apart from the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme?

Saving water is not just for households. Our non-domestic sector also needs to look at how they can use water more efficiently. I believe they are expected to contribute to our water demand growth. Can the Minister share with us what are the initiatives that will be introduced to help businesses in managing their water demand and increasing their water efficiency?

Finally, I would like to touch on vehicular emissions. Singapore is one of the countries where we have taken commendable effort in controlling vehicular smoke emission. Hence, we are spared from the smog that we read about which occasionally engulfed the cities in several neighbouring countries. I am not sure if all motorists are aware that leaving their vehicle engines idling is an offence as I still receive feedback from residents very often.

Besides locally registered vehicles, we have an average of 20,000 foreign registered vehicles that enter Singapore daily. Are they adhering to our laws? Can I ask for an update on what other measures the Ministry is taking to further control vehicular emission?

In conclusion, we do not inherit Earth from the previous generation, we borrow it from the next. Unfortunately, it looks like we will leave a sick and coughing Earth to the next generation. We must urgently change our ways and reverse this trend as much as we can. So, let us grab the Year of Climate Action by the horns, though this year is the year of the dog.

Question proposed.

The Chairman: Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim. You can take your three cuts together.

Climate Action

Climate Action – Regional and Global Front

Climate Action – Collaborative Efforts

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, in the afternoon on 30 January this year, while I was having a meeting in Nee Soon, I heard unusual loud sounds of thunder. This was accompanied by a heavy downpour. Shortly after that, I started to receive Whatsapp messages and images from my grassroots leaders that quite a number of trees had fallen, a few fell onto vehicles while a few others were blocking road access.

I went out to take a look at the situation. I saw fallen trees and lamp posts, roads being blocked, slow traffic, panels of a covered linkway gave way. There were also many residents who had gone out to take a look at the situation. In the midst of the chaos, I saw a touching Nee Soon "kampung spirit", with residents coming out to help clear the trees and looking out if anyone got injured.

I went around to look at the situation and started to engage the agencies and residents. I saw worried faces among my residents. A few mentioned that they have never experienced such an incident before, in terms of the extent of the damages. One Town Council staff shared with me that he had never witnessed such damages in his more than 30 years' work in estate maintenance.

Others mentioned that Singapore's climate has changed, accompanied by worried expressions. I took the opportunity to share that all of them, including me, can play a part in mitigating the impact of climate change.

I am pleased to note that 2018 has been declared as the Year of Climate Action for Singapore. Can the Minister share with the House on the climate action goals that the Ministry is pursuing for 2018 and beyond?

Sir, climate action requires the collaborative efforts of the public, people and private sectors. What role can businesses and the general public play in Singapore’s climate action plan? What is Singapore doing on the regional and global fronts to contribute to climate action on a larger scale?

The Minister launched the Climate Action Pledge recently. I have taken my pledge. May I know how many people have taken the pledge thus far?

Climate Change and Coastal Areas

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, as a low-lying nation, Singapore is particularly susceptible to the effects of anthropogenic climate change, chief amongst which is sea level rise. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) commenced the Coastal Adaptation Study in 2013 and this was slated for completion in end-2017. But this has since been pushed to the second half of 2018.

It is important to consider the impact of rising sea levels, not only beaches and sea walls but also (a) intertidal coral reef zones, (b) sand and mud flats, and (c) mangroves. These zones are not only bio-diverse, but also provide ecosystem services, such as buffering from sea level rise.

Can the Government confirm whether the study is looking into protecting these parts of our coastal sea level rise which are, themselves, sensitive to sea level rise?

In view of the fact that Singapore is not merely an island nation but also a nation of islands, is the study looking into coastal protection measures on our offshore islands, such as Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and the Southern Islands? Are soft engineering approaches, such as planting coastal vegetation where they currently do not exist, being studied?

According to the second National Climate Change study, models reveal that by the year 2100, monthly rainfall total during the northeast monsoon may increase, at worse, by 42.9% under the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario, and by 67.5% under the RCP 8.5 scenario. Given that rainfall is a major hydrological input, is the Government taking these projections into account in its plans to mitigate floods in coastal areas?

The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng, please take your three cuts together.

Whole-of-Government Approach to Year of Climate Action

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, Minister Masagos declared 2018 as the Year of Climate Action. The public was invited to pledge now to fight climate change. Schools and organisations were invited to join in as well. Green groups were also invited to work alongside the Government to organise events and activities to raise awareness on climate change. This represented a strong effort by the Ministry to meet Singapore's Paris Commitment.

However, recently, due to public feedback, I raised a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) decision on the coal gasification plant on Jurong Island. The public felt that the Government does not seem coordinated on our climate change commitments. As such, I would like to ask to what extent the Year of Climate Action is a whole-of-Government initiative with alignment from the other Ministries? Has MEWR set certain targets to be fulfilled by each Ministry? Furthermore, how are the various actions and initiatives under the Year of Climate Action measured in term of impact?

Implementation of the Carbon Tax

Next, I am heartened by the Ministry's bold action to implement the Carbon Tax encouraging companies to consider environmental, and not just financial costs in their business decisions. The Carbon Tax is, undoubtedly, a milestone, an important pillar in our climate action.

1.15 pm

Since its announcement, details on the carbon tax may not be fully understood by the public. As such, can the Ministry share how the carbon tax will be implemented? Our carbon tax price of $5 per tonne is significantly lower than that of other legislations. I understand our pro-business stance but this may not accurately reflect the price paid by the environment. Could the Ministry share how they settled on that figure?

Furthermore, how did the Ministry opt for a Fixed Price Credit Based system, instead of a simple tax, or an Emission Trading System?

Coping with a Low-Carbon Economy

Next, with the impending implementation of the carbon tax and our move towards a low-carbon economy, companies may be concerned about difficulties in making the transition and increased business costs.

The myth that a sustainable development is bad for a country’s economy should be dispelled. It is estimated that meeting our climate change targets would generate additional investments worth $40 trillion globally by 2050. Decoupling emissions from growth provides a golden opportunity to stimulate economic growth by boosting research and innovation and creating new jobs. In any case, all of us, including businesses, have a moral duty to safeguard the environment for the benefit of current and future generations.

To ensure the benefits of a low-carbon economy can be fully reaped at all levels, how is the Government intending to help companies in Singapore prepare for the carbon tax and transition towards sustainable development?

Carbon Emission

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Under the Paris Climate Agreement, Singapore is committed to reducing our emissions intensity by 36% in 2030 compared to 2005 levels and also to stabilise our emission level. In line with this commitment, it is announced in Budget 2018 that, next year, we will introduce a carbon tax of $5 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. So far, we know that it will affect the emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power stations. The tax will also be applied upstream on large direct emitters, defined as those that emit 25,000 or more tonnes of greenhouse gases each year.

By that count, it was reported that between 30 to 40 emitters in Singapore will be affected. Each emitter is different and various industries have their own sets of needs and challenges. It might not be as easy for some industries to transit to clean energy. Over the long run, we have to ponder if a carbon tax is the most effective way to incentivise industries to reduce their emissions. What will the carbon tax revenue be used for?

Water Pricing and Policy

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, the old mantra of water scarcity and the danger of the tap being turned off as a result of a breakdown in relations with Malaysia are in need of an upgrade. Circumstances have changed, and the desire of earlier generations of leaders to diversify our water sources has proved to be a boon many Singaporeans are thankful for. The development of NEWater and desalination has contributed to this.

However, the pricing of such purification methods are not totally transparent to members of the public, unlike raw water. While the costs of these new methods of purification can be significant, I believe there is scope to share more details of pricing both upstream and downstream in order to drive home a message of the preciousness of water. I acknowledge that sharing such information with the public requires accounting for the cost of upgrading and building transmission networks because the price of water is only one component while there are other costs, including research and development (R&D). But that does not mean that it cannot be done. Such an approach will give members of the public greater understanding about why water tariffs need to rise and, hopefully, even moderate in future.

Water consumption trends for households are on a downward trend. I believe there is scope to lower our per capita domestic water consumption even further than the 140 litres per person by 2030. The Public Utilities Board's (PUB’s) water closet replacement project for flats built between 1987 and 1992 for residents in small flats on community assistance provides a foretaste of the significant opportunities available for a whole-of-Government approach to water conservation. While the initiative is provided free of charge, can we not look at extending such initiatives when major Housing and Development Board (HDB) upgrading exercises, such as the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), are carried out in view of the scale of benefits that can be achieved, potentially resulting in lower water consumption? A significant number of flats, for example, where toilets are completely renovated, can potentially host a variety of new water-saving features.

Can the Ministry also consider if there is scope to improve, finetune or incentivise the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) with a view to nudge consumers to choose appliances with the highest number of ticks? Mr Chairman, if every drop is precious, can more be done to alter consumption patterns? The opportunity provided by HDB upgrading may be a very useful entry point.

Water Conservation and Water Pressure

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, low water pressure is one of the issues I encountered in my estate visits. One resident shared that her family members have to take turns to shower despite having two bathrooms in the flat. She said that when one bathroom is occupied, the other is unusable due to low water pressure.

I filed a PQ in 2015 asking PUB to consider setting a minimum pressure for the supply of water to individual HDB flats. The Minister then replied that PUB is reviewing the issue. Last November, it was reported that PUB had finished with the review and concluded that it was not useful to stipulate a minimum pressure requirement across all residential units. It went on to say that setting a minimum pressure, I quote, "may result in fixtures not being able to achieve its water conservation objectives."

Sir, the low water pressure problem only affects units on selected floors with gravity feed water supply. Is the authority saying that we are only depending on these residents who happen to live on those floors to help achieve its water conservation objectives? The rest of the floors are enjoying adequate water pressure. Furthermore, setting a minimum water pressure does not mean people will waste water. There is a water valve outside each flat unit which the owner can adjust to control the water pressure to suit the needs of the household.

Last Saturday, on Singapore World Water Day, one of the pledges to save water is to take shorter showers. When water pressure is low, you end up taking a longer shower. In an answer to my PQ in 2017, the national average water consumption for households for that year was 11% lower than a decade ago and about 60% of households consume less water than the national average. These numbers do say a lot that most Singaporeans do play their part to conserve water. I urge PUB to review its decision and set a minimum pressure for the supply of water to individual HDB flats, for it is not right to expect selected residential units to be the poster boy for water conservation only.

Water Tariff Rate Outcomes

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, Cape Town is the second largest city in South Africa after Johannesburg. I have been there a couple of times. It is a beautiful coastal city, and has a population of four million, is a world-class cosmopolitan city with a vibrant night life.

But this city is running out of water. Earlier this month, Cape Town implemented new water restrictions. Residents are asked to curb water usage to 50 litres per day. A month earlier, their daily allowance was at 87 litres. If water levels continue to fall, it is predicted that the city will run out of water by 16 April, which has been named "Day Zero".

The last water rationing in Singapore happened 53 years ago in 1963, during one of the worst droughts on record, when appeals to the public to conserve water fell on deaf ears. That exercise lasted 10 months. In the years since, we have become conditioned to the comforts of modern living.

Can the Minister tell us what impact the hike in water tariffs last July have on consumption? Will they influence how the next wave of hike will take place this July?

Evidence suggests that the demand for water is relatively inelastic. If the point of raising the water tariffs is to recover costs, then what we have done may be enough. But if the point is to raise our awareness of the strategic value of water, we need to do more.

Borrowing the words of Mr Leong Sai Mooi, who was interviewed when he was 65, as he recounted the water rationing days of the 1960s, I quote him, "Back then, every morning, I worry that the tap would not work. It made me realise how important water was and never to take it for granted."

As I have suggested in earlier debates, will the Minister reconsider conducting an annual water rationing exercise island-wide to households and businesses, to build water, physical and mental resilience? Should we have our "Day Zero" campaign to drive home these points and change behaviour?

The Chairman: Mr Gan Thiam Poh, please take your two cuts together.

Water Sustainability and Resilience

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Chairman, weather uncertainties caused by climate change could result in prolonged dry spells. All of us would recall how the water level in the Linggiu Reservoir in Johor fell drastically in late 2016 and early 2017. Imported water from Malaysia is one of our four National Taps. This reservoir supplies over 60% of our water and is being threatened by climate change. Would the Ministry share its strategy to boost the water supplies from our other three National Taps? What investments and other measures does the Ministry have to enhance our water security and ensure that our water supply remains resilient to meet future demands and against climate change?

Our second National Tap comprise our local reservoirs and storm water runoff. With the increasing number of extreme weather conditions, from prolonged dry weather to heavy downpours resulting in flooding here, storm water harvesting is an obvious solution. Can the Minister share an update on what infrastructure investments we will be making to collect water during the heavy rains while mitigating the flooding at the same time?

The other two National Taps are recycled water, NEWater and desalination. Used water is also important. What are some of PUB's plans to further optimise used water management in Singapore? NEWater and desalination plants will meet up to 85% of our water demand by 2060. Would the Minister share updates on the operations of our current plants and the progress of the building of new plants? Desalination is a very energy-intensive process. Does the Ministry have plans to work with researchers to optimise the energy demands of desalination plants?

I am happy to note that PUB is expediting our pipe repairs and replacements to minimise water leakage. While unaccounted-for-water losses is among the lowest in the world at 5%, I hope the Ministry will continue to explore ways to reduce our losses further.

Last but not least, we must continue with our water conservation campaign. Public education remains as important as ever. We must also empower our citizens and residents and businesses to conserve water. Are we on track to reach our target of reducing water per capita from 148 litres to 140 litres by 2030? Can the Minister elaborate on new water saving designs and installations in our buildings?

The non-domestic sector is expected to account for about 70% of the future water demand. Hence, it is critical that we work with this sector to optimise water conservation. What plans does the Ministry have to incentivise businesses to invest in water saving measures and technology? Not only do companies which use a lot of water be required to submit Water Efficiency Management Plans (WEMP), companies with significant usage could also do so. Are there industry yardsticks by which companies can be compared against and assessed on their water usage efficiency? If so, what are the plans the Ministry has for these companies which are not optimising their water usage?

Leveraging Technology

Mr Chairman, Singapore is moving towards becoming a Smart Nation and, increasingly, we will be leveraging technology to conserve and optimise the management of water. Would the Minister elaborate in what ways technology is being used or would be used to optimise the way the Ministry and PUB operate? How can such use of technology benefit Singaporeans?

In our homes, the four biggest uses of water are for showers, washing in the kitchen, laundry and flushing toilets. How is the Ministry getting our households to leverage technology to conserve water for these household uses?

I am interested in the updates for a couple of PUB programmes which tap upon technology to help households conserve water. One is a trial by PUB to install smart water devices for 10,000 new homes. These devices provide real-time information on water consumption during showers. What has been the feedback on these devices and are the monitors effective in helping the families improve the management of their water consumption during showers? If so, can these devices be made available to all households in Singapore?

The second programme is a community project to replace the water closets in the homes of lower-income families with more efficient ones. The replacements are expected to help them save up to 10% in their monthly water bills. Has this project achieved its target of reducing the water bills of the selected families? If so, would the Ministry consider expanding the scope of this project? Is it possible for PUB to mandate the installation of only water-efficient water closets island-wide? I would like to ask if the Ministry would consider requiring the installation of such monitors for the kitchen sinks.

How is the Ministry incentivising businesses and organisations to optimise water use through technological adoption? Can the Ministry give us some examples of firms which have successfully leveraged technology to cut water consumption?

PUB had installed 320 sensors for real-time monitoring to detect leakages from our water supply network. What is the area coverage of these sensors and how reliable are they? What is the average response time to the detection of leakages and how many more sensors will be installed?

Last but not least, would the Minister share how we are leveraging technology to optimise the production and management of recycled water, NEWater and further boost potable water supply from seawater desalination?

Flooding Prevention

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, with climate change, Singapore is experiencing more unpredictable and sometimes intense and torrential rainfall. My constituency of Queenstown, which traditionally has been relatively safe from flooding, has in the past two to three years also experienced flash flooding more frequently. What are PUB's plans to mitigate flash floods in the face of this challenge?

1.30 pm

Would the Minister share an update on the progress of the works on the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal, which has been delayed by the difficult terrain, as well as the Stamford Diversion Canal and Stamford Detention Tank, which will protect our Orchard road shopping belt from flooding?

Last month, the Minister also mentioned that there were 73 locations undergoing drainage improvement works, with 22 more planned this year. In addition, he said that there were about 500 submissions for plans to do retention tanks for developments above 0.2 hectares, out of which only 158 have been completed.

What are the main challenges faced in these improvement works and the building of retention tanks? Is it expertise, is it manpower or component shortages? Would the Ministry consider increasing the intake of foreign specialists and workers to expedite the completion of these tanks?

The new generation of pervious or permeable concrete has improved properties. They are more porous and durable and facilitate drainage. Does the Ministry intend to work with the other Boards or organisations, like the Land Transport Authority (LTA) or the National Parks Board (NParks), to use more of these materials in our roads and pavements?

I also appreciate the Ministry's efforts to provide the public with timely alerts about flash floods through a wide range of communication channels, which include radio broadcasts, short message service (SMS) alerts and mobile apps, and LTA's Expressway Monitoring Advisory System (EMAS).

For the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) SMS alerts, I would like to request for subscribers to be allowed to select more than one chosen location for alerts on the water level in monitored drains and canals. This would be useful for people who need to monitor multiple locations due to their travel patterns.

Zero-waste Nation

Miss Cheng Li Hui: The National Recycling programme was started in 2001 with the commingled blue bins. It was a good start to encourage Singaporeans to start recycling.

However, as the recyclables are sorted out by the workers at the Material Recovery Facility and not by Singaporeans themselves when they recycle, is it time for us to up the game by progressively doing away with commingled blue bins and encourage Singaporeans to start sorting our own recyclables?

Key to the recycling effort also involves Singaporeans knowing what can and cannot be recycled and encouraging the knowledge and habit of sorting their own waste and unused items. In that sense, the recycling culture in Singapore lags behind some countries including Australia, Taiwan and Japan.

Waste management is typically perceived to be the responsibility of the Government. How can Singaporeans and businesses play a role in contributing to Singapore's vision of a zero-waste nation?

E-waste

Dr Chia Shi-Lu: Sir, I have previously asked about our effort to address e-waste. The Ministry mentioned last year that it is looking into a national e-waste management system. Can the Ministry provide an update on the plans to recycle the 60,000 tonnes of e-waste that we produce annually?

Only 6% of our household e-waste, which accounts about half of the total, is sent for recycling. How about the recycling rate for non-household e-waste? We would need a comprehensive legislative framework and national collection infrastructure. It is important to get the manufacturers, producers and importers of electrical and electronic goods involved in this process, so that we can work together to meet recycling targets. Our market may be very small but we can still contribute to the movement for zero-waste manufacturing through a system of incentives and taxes.

My constituency of Queenstown still has quite a large population of the karung guni men, and this informal sector, the rag-and-bone men of karang guni men could also be consulted and tapped upon in this new framework. I read recently about the rise of the new generation of karang guni men. These workers have had decades of experience and involvement in community recycling, going from door to door collecting from residents all over Singapore. They provide, and continue to provide, an important service and could continue to play a part in our recycling drive, especially as our population ages.

The Ministry may wish to consider a combination of incentives and fines to increase the level of cooperation from households. I hope that under the new framework, the set-up of collection points could be expedited. The locations should be highly visible, accessible and convenient. Are there plans to facilitate the recycling of larger items? Some residents have told me that much as they would like to recycle, after their neighbourhood karung guni man retired, they sometimes do not quite know what to do.

Tackling E-waste

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, like Dr Chia Shi-Lu, I have previously raised the issue of safe recycling or disposal of our growing volume of e-waste. I understand that 60,000 tonnes of e-waste is generated in Singapore each year and this number will only rise in the coming years. This is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently as e-waste pose both health and environmental problems.

I am glad that companies have stepped forward to promote the recycling of e-waste. But this is clearly not going to solve the problem.

The Ministry mentioned last year that it is looking into a national e-waste management system. Can the Ministry provide an update on the plans to manage e-waste and whether it can urgently establish a programme to ensure that e-waste is recycled or disposed of safely?

Microplastics

Mr Leon Perera: Mr Chairman, Sir, in marine sediments and waters, microplastics have been detected in four beaches and in seven mangrove habitats in Singapore. They bear potential risks to marine life and human health by transferring persistent organic pollutants (POPs) up the food chains and into marine organisms which we may consume.

Some argue that microplastics themselves should be considered POPs. Is the Government studying microplastic prevalence in locally-sourced and imported fish, and the extent to which coastal activities like recreational sports and shipping contribute to microplastic prevalence in coastal areas?

Primary sources include microbeads used in the plastic industry and in care products like toothpaste and exfoliating facial washes. Will the Government consider imposing labelling requirements or a ban on industrially-produced microbeads as in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK)?

What are the Government's plans to reduce overall plastic consumption, given that the secondary source of microplastics is the disintegration of larger plastics?

Reducing and Recycling Plastic Waste

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, 2018 has been declared as the year of climate action in Singapore. In 2015, 824,600 tonnes of plastic waste was generated but just 7% were recycled, a proportion roughly unchanged since 2001.

Plastic waste is the common type of waste disposed of at our incineration plants. It is well-known that single-use plastic disposables pose a serious environmental problem. At present, more than 40 countries tax or limit the use of plastic bags. Evidence shows that even modest policy interventions can have significant impact. In Britain, usage of plastic carrier bags fell by 83%, after the introduction of a plastic carrier charge. It may understandably be difficult to do away with plastic bags completely as we still need plastic carrier bags for everyday use like bagging our rubbish.

Countries which introduce charges for plastic carrier bags frequently have designated plastic refuse bags which people still have to pay for. Taiwan has just announced a blanket ban in single-use plastics, including straws, cups and shopping bags, by 2030. Prior to that, there is a progressive plan to make people pay for plastic products like plastic bags, straws, disposable food containers and disposable utensils in the interim.

MEWR has recently carried out a study of the lifecycle assessment of single-use carrier bags and disposable food packaging. Would the Minister share with the House its findings? Does the Ministry have any intention to roll out a progressive plan to reduce the use of plastic disposables in Singapore involving either the restriction or the banning of single-use plastic carrier bags, straws, disposable cups, containers and utensils? Has the Ministry studied the recycling viability of biodegradable plastic carrier bags in Singapore? And if they are viable, will the Government consider encouraging or requiring the use of such biodegradable plastic carrier bags? If so, perhaps the Government may consider asking the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) FairPrice to take the lead in using biodegradable plastic carrier bags.

The Chairman: Miss Cheng Li Hui, you can take your two cuts together.

Plastic Bags

Miss Cheng Li Hui: It was reported that, in Singapore, more than 822,000 tonnes of plastic waste were generated in 2016 but only 7% of that was recycled. These figures are alarming and calls for the introduction of a levy on the use of plastic bags to act as a disincentive to shoppers. Will NEA be imposing a plastic bag levy? How do they intend to reduce the excessive use of plastic bags in packaging?

In Singapore, we are not doing too badly because we reuse plastic bags to bag household refuse and the waste is incinerated and not directly landfilled. As a result, the concern regarding non-biodegradability of plastic bag does not really affect us. In any case, the excessive usage of plastic bags is still undesirable and wastage should be kept as low as possible.

NEA did a study on lifecycle assessment, cost and environmental impact of bags used in Singapore. Are the results available for sharing?

Food Waste Management

Last year, I spoke on the food waste management and the eco digester centre in our Tampines hawker centre and Chong Cheng Primary School. NEA recently launched a two-year "love your food at school" project in some schools. This project is good on two counts.

First, in the long run, Singaporeans involved in the project will be more aware of the importance of food waste recycling. Second, being part of the campaign also means consciously asking for smaller food portions if they are unable to consume much.

There are also many places with canteens, such as army camps, prisons, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) training centres and Home Team National Service (NS). For example, in military camps, daily meals are catered for our servicemen, which include active personnel and those who are back for reservist training. Some military camps also have canteens where servicemen could purchase food, notwithstanding the fact that meals have been catered for them. As such, whichever food contractors in camps prepare food based on the weekly forecast of servicemen, it is inevitable that there will be food waste generated. Therefore, perhaps a proper waste management system would be good. Let us be more conscious of our food wastage.

Food Delivery Services

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Chairman, Sir, there have been news reports about a food delivery app war in Singapore with tech companies Deliveroo, UberEats and Foodpanda ramping up their food delivery services here. It was reported in The Straits Times in November 2017 that Deliveroo created jobs for 4,000 riders and planned to create 3,000 more. Deliveroo and Foodpanda are also investing in delivery-only kitchens to create and meet demand. This is good news for the food and beverage (F&B) sector and consumers, but there are environmental costs and possible public health risks we need to tackle.

First, on environmental costs. The rapid growth of food delivery services in China have led to a crisis of mounting waste of food boxes, wooden chopsticks and plastic cutlery. The NEA's study of disposable food packaging materials and their environmental impact was supposed to be conducted and concluded in late 2017. Can the Minister share the results and implications of the study? Further, is NEA monitoring the waste produced by the growing food delivery services?

Second, on public health. Currently, NEA regulates food caterers through licensing and publishes guidelines for consumers ordering catered food for events. Catered food must come with a time stamp and delivered in hot boxes and insulated bags to minimise food poisoning risks. Food delivery services are now reaching a similar scale that could adversely affect public food safety. Is the Ministry planning to regulate food delivery services in the same manner as food catering?

Hawker Centres

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, since the Government's decision to resume building hawker centres in 2011, there have been concerted efforts by the Ministry, NEA and the hawker trade community to refresh and regenerate the hawker centre business. The Government announced its intention to build 20 new hawker centres by 2027 and appointed a Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee last year to look into improving the management of hawker centres and to sustain the trade.

Hawker centres are an integral part our everyday lives. It provides good and affordable food, common space for Singaporeans from all backgrounds to come together under one roof and it is very much a part of our national identity. I thank the Ministry and NEA for their determined efforts to overcome the many challenges and to re-energise this unique culture and heritage of ours.

The challenges are pretty daunting. Among others, how do we attract new entrants who are both passionate about the trade and see this as a viable profession? How do we game-change the operating model so that we can improve overall productivity and keep operating costs low? How do we inculcate gracious behaviour so that hawker centres will always be a pleasant place for all to dine and also, importantly, how do we ensure that the uniquely-Singapore culinary skills and tastes continue to be passed on?

I understand the Ministry and NEA have embarked on various efforts to rejuvenate the hawker centre scene. I would like to seek some updates from the Minister.

The Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee recommended to develop training opportunities and pathways for hawkers. Can I ask the Minister how has the response been? Due to the relatively high median age of 59 years old for existing hawkers, the hawker trade needed younger and new entrants into the trade to sustain. What have been done to improve the business operating environment for hawkers and to help the new entrants?

Improving productivity in hawker centres is a critical undertaking. The aim is to address manpower constraints and to keep costs competitive. However, many of the productivity initiatives would also require significant cash outlay upfront and may increase operating costs for the hawkers.

1.45 pm

I read at the NEA website of the Hawkers' Productivity Grant. Can I ask how has the utilisation rate been like? And how could we encourage more hawkers to tap on the grant to improve productivity?

Hawker centres can be more than just a place for good food. It can also be useful social spaces where we build a sense of community and belonging. How can NEA help inject more vibrancy into the hawker centres and encourage more fringe activities to be held at the hawker centres?

Finally, we read in the news about the differing views on the tray return practices and how it has not worked as well. Have NEA done a review and what plans does NEA have to improve the tray return rates in the hawker centres?

Mr Chairman, I am thankful that the hawker centre at my constituency will start construction this year and due for completion in 2020. I welcome NEA to try out the various new initiatives at our soon-to-be-built hawker centre at Senja estate.

Miss Cheng Li Hui: Early last year, the Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee submitted its recommendations to the Government with the view to improve hawker centres and promote the trade.

We love our food and hawker centres. I definitely do. Keeping the hawker trade alive and vibrant is thus important although operating a hawker stall has its own challenges. In view of that, the proposal back then was to introduce a few ways to sustain the hawker trade and to support the injection of new blood. Can the Ministry share what is the receptiveness of the public towards this programme, such as the number of people who enrolled or even dropped out along the way?

As in any trade and sector, the need to be productive is important but costly. I would like to know what is the uptake of the Hawkers' Productivity Fund. Is it sufficiently utilised and how many have tapped on it?

Anti-littering Campaigns

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Chairman, for several years, I have organised anti-littering exercises in my estate during the Clean and Green month. The intent was to highlight to our residents the need to be responsible for our environment and to keep the estate clean.

But each year, the team of volunteers kept picking up more and more litter. We found cigarette butts, used tissue, plastic bags, empty bottles, food containers, bottle caps and so on. One great source of irritation to many volunteers is dog poo left behind by pet owners who did not bother to pick up the dog poo.

Around my constituency, whenever there are any renovation works being carried out, I would also see plastic bottles left on the road by the workers of the contractors, plastic bags of drinks hanging by the trees and so on. To say the least, it is frustrating that the clean and green Singapore which I knew some years ago is no more. Even the volunteers for the anti-littering exercises seem to have gone down in numbers as they felt frustrated at the lack of progress.

Last year, NEA reported an increase in the number of summonses and more than 31,000 summonses were issued. With respect to NEA, it is not the number of summonses which we need to look at. The question is whether NEA has been effective in reducing the litter which is thrown on the roads and other public areas. Is NEA effective in keeping Singapore a clean city instead of a city which is being cleaned by our thousands of cleaners? How do we stand as a clean city when we compare ourselves with the habits of the Taiwanese or the Japanese? I would urge NEA to reconsider their entire programme of keeping Singapore clean. If the existing efforts of NEA have not resulted in a cleaner Singapore, then perhaps we should review our efforts.

May I urge NEA to push for more education in the schools on the need to keep our environment clean? I suggest that every cohort of secondary school students undergo an annual exercise to pick up litter. This will help them understand the difficulties of the cleaner and also instill in them the discipline of keeping the environment clean.

Can NEA consider imposing a mandatory Corrective Work Order (CWO) for every litterbug caught instead of imposing a fine? Sometimes, when I get residents who received summonses, they complained that they have low income and, therefore, cannot afford the fine. So, consider sending them for a mandatory CWO instead. For every foreign worker caught for littering, can NEA consider it as an adverse record when deciding whether to renew their work pass?

We need to combine our educational efforts with adequate punitive actions. This is to be fair to the rest of Singaporeans who take effort to keep their environment and Singapore clean.

The Chairman: Minister Masagos.

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Chairman, may I have your permission to distribute a handout to Members, and also to use slides to accompany my speech?

The Chairman: Yes, please. [A handout and some slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you. Since our Independence, Singapore has pursued sustainable development on a long-term basis, never compromising our environment for development or growth.

Mr Erik Solheim, Executive Director of the United Nations (UN) Environment Programme, cited us as a model for other countries. Our Pioneers cleaned up the Singapore River. They built sewers to improve sanitation. They resettled street vendors to hawker centres to clean up our streets. They built rubbish chutes to handle our waste efficiently. They planned carefully so that industries did not pollute our environment. Our Pioneers had the foresight and gumption to plan long term even if critical measures were difficult and unpopular. Their steadfastness left us this liveable environment we enjoy today.

They laid the foundation for the next generation to build on. Our clean waterways allow us to harvest stormwater on a large scale. Our sewer networks join up through the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS) to maximise NEWater production. Because we have always processed our sewage for safe discharge, NEWater was possible on a national scale and cheaper to produce.

Our hawker centres have evolved into vibrant social spaces. Pneumatic systems will transform waste collection, where sanitation workers would not see our rubbish from end to end. We can continue to be proud of our living environment.

I hosted 150 international environmental scientists and UN officials last month. Many have never been to Singapore. They were amazed by how Singapore can be an urban, clean and green city, all at the same time, and always looking new!

What our Pioneers bequeathed us has put us in good stead to tackle a bigger upcoming challenge: climate change. This is an existential issue for our planet. Singapore is vulnerable, from rising sea levels to increasing rainfall intensities to longer dry spells. I agree with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that we need to take climate action now, for the sake of our next generation. If the previous generation left us a clean and green city, we must make our legacy a sustainable city, as we pass on this treasured and precious land to our children.

At home, 2017 was the warmest non El-Nino year. We swung to the other extreme in the new year with a "January Singapore winter" and intense rainfall. On 8 January, half the month’s average rainfall fell over four hours in Singapore but little rain fell over Linggiu Reservoir. In February, high tides caused temporary flooding even without rain! With rising sea levels, we could experience more of such phenomena.

I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that the Government is coordinated in tackling climate change. As climate change cuts across various disciplines, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and supported by the National Climate Change Secretariat ensures whole-of-Government coordination. All public sector agencies are committed to taking climate action in 2018 and beyond. Last year, we launched the Public Sector Sustainability Plan, setting out targets to save electricity and water and green our buildings. We will do more by expanding our targets to include waste reduction and solar energy adoption.

The Government, however, cannot deal with climate change alone. Everyone needs to join forces to reduce our carbon footprint. This is why Singapore designated 2018 as our Year of Climate Action. We want to embed in Singapore’s DNA the instinct to care for the environment, like our national consciousness of conserving water. Because both are existential issues. This will ensure that Singapore remains the best liveable city for our children and the best choice for companies to base their businesses because we have a successful climate action policy and an active citizenry.

We must ensure our policies enable Singapore to tackle climate change as we prepare for the future. As a 17 February Economist article aptly puts it, and I quote "It is not droughts that cause cities to run out of water, it is bad policy".

Climate action is taken on two fronts. First, adaptation, to cope with the impact of climate change. We have and will continue to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, such as raising our coastal roads, enhancing stormwater systems and diversifying our water supply. All these will take time and, hence, we have started early.

These are large and long-term investments that must be premised on science. Hence, in 2013, we set up the Centre for Climate Research Singapore to deepen research capabilities on the weather and climate of Singapore and Southeast Asia.

Mr Chairman, the Singapore Water Story is one where we strive for sustainability through long-term planning and investing ahead of our needs. This approach is more critical with climate change, where we need to grapple with both extremes of drought and flooding.

Last year, I spoke about the Netherlands and Singapore, two countries with different water stories: the Netherlands with too much water, and Singapore, too little. Nonetheless, we both take our situations seriously. This year, let me speak about Cape Town and Singapore, two cities with similar water stories which have taken very different paths.

As Mr Seah Kian Peng has said, since 2014, a three-year drought has pushed Cape Town's water system to the brink. Its reservoirs stand at 26%. They are scrambling to build desalination plants starting from now. But these take time to build. Residents are bracing themselves for Day Zero, when their taps will be turned off and they are forced to queue to get their water rations.

For Singapore, there were concerns regarding Linggiu Reservoir, which supplements the flow of the Johor River, an important water source for both Singapore and Malaysia. Linggiu was full in 2014. But low rainfall, coupled with having to meet the abstraction needs of Malaysia and Singapore, depleted Linggiu to a historic low of 20% in October 2016, barely two years. Saltwater intrusions and pollution required Linggiu to discharge frequently during such a critical period.

While the stock level has gradually improved to 63%, it took more than a year, mainly due to good rainfall and the completion of the Johor River Barrage. But the stock level can drop again quickly, and it has dropped in the last few weeks. Should Linggiu Reservoir fail, it will pose major problems for both Malaysia and Singapore. Water is both a sensitive and strategic issue for the two countries. This is why it is often discussed when our two Prime Ministers meet.

What Cape Town experienced is not a remote possibility for Singapore. We must not wait for a crisis to take action. Our forward planning ensured that in 2016, when Linggiu was at its lowest, we did not burden our people with water rationing when others had to. The faith of businesses in our water supply was not eroded. Fortunately, the weather turned. But the next dry weather event can come any time, and it could even be longer. We must be ready. We must never believe that our problems are over.

Over the years, we augmented our water supply with weather-resilient sources – NEWater and desalinated water. This year, our third desalination plant in Tuas will come online. By 2020, we will have two more, taking the total to five.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about our used water plans. NEWater has allowed us to reuse water in an endless cycle and to keep the water within the system safe to drink.

Even with these investments, it does not mean that our water scarcity issue is resolved. It only allows us to stave off temporary water shortages. These sources are also energy-intensive and we do not want to be too energy-reliant in our drive to be weather-resilient. This is why PUB has always been exploring technologies to reduce energy consumption in desalination. There is promise in the use of electrochemical energy, waste heat and biomimicry. But it will take time to realise these benefits.

2.00 pm

The climate challenge is not all negative. For example, a carbon-constrained framework has prompted NEA and PUB to take a different approach when they were expanding their capacities. They are looking at leveraging the interconnectedness of water, energy and waste to yield the best outcomes for the smallest carbon footprint.

The upcoming Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS) Phase 2 is not just a superhighway to transport used water. It is a strategic infrastructure to boost our NEWater supply and water security.

We are taking it one step further. By combining the Tuas Water Reclamation Plant (TWRP) at the end of the DTSS and the Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF), the first in the world from ground up, we will employ the latest technology in combustion to synergise and maximise energy recovery. Effluent water from wastewater treatment will be used for cooling waste incineration equipment, reducing potable water demand. Through integration, we will save more than 200,000 tonnes of carbon emissions a year. This is equivalent to taking 42,500 cars off our roads. As an added benefit, when DTSS is completed, we will have land savings of 214 football fields which we can give to the next generation to use.

Water is entwined with our nation’s survival and our everyday lives. It is not enough that the Government pumps billions of dollars into infrastructure to ensure supply. Policies to manage demand are as important. The right pricing policy is needed to ensure good management of this precious resource.

We saw how subsidised water price led to high consumption in Cape Town, despite clear warnings of an impending water crisis. Pricing is, hence, critical to manage both production and consumption. It must allow for long-term investments and reflect the scarcity value of water. These principles shape our pricing policy, where we peg our water price to its Long-run Marginal Cost (LRMC). This has been our consistent policy. LRMC is not a theoretical price. We will actually have to pay it when we spend on infrastructure. Hence, we cannot subject the price of water to market distortions. There are commercial sensitivities to the specifics of our pricing. By not revealing them, we ensure market competitiveness and the best possible bids in tenders. Beyond market sensitivities, water is a matter of national security.

We must pay equal attention to water conservation. Prior to the drought, Cape Town was using 225 litres per person per day. Now, they are struggling to cut back to 50 litres. I am encouraged by the drop in Singapore’s household consumption from 148 litres in 2016 to 143 litres per person per day in 2017. I hope that this trend can continue.

I said last year that with the permanent additional Utilities (U)-Save rebates, 1- and 2-roomers will not see an increase in water bills even after the full price revision. At this lower consumption rate, many 3-roomers will also not see an increase when the rebates are applied. Water bills after the full price revision will still be within 1% of household incomes. The lower consumption, however, is not solely due to the water price. Our water conservation efforts like the mandatory water efficiency labelling scheme are bearing fruit.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about water conservation efforts. Our water conservation efforts are yielding results because Singaporeans have a national consciousness to conserve water. As part of PUB’s comprehensive outreach programme, many schools are inculcating this consciousness in our children through education and water rationing exercises. Similarly, Government agencies have committed to improve water efficiency by 5.1%, or 900,000 cubic metres a year, by 2020 under the Public Sector Sustainability Plan.

PUB started the water closet replacement project last year to help needy families save water with more efficient fittings. One thousand one hundred households have already benefited and saw a 10% reduction in water bills on average. This builds on HDB's HIP scheme, where participating households can replace their fittings with water-efficient ones. PUB will continue to engage other eligible households.

Mr Pritam Singh raised some suggestions on encouraging the take-up of water-efficient appliances, including offering rebates. According to PUB’s latest household water consumption study, more than half of the water fittings and appliances used by households are water-efficient models. This high penetration indicates preference for water-efficient products, especially as the price difference between products of varying water efficiency ratings is insignificant. PUB will continue to work with suppliers and retailers to introduce more water-efficient products.

As part of the Smart Nation push, we will also use technology to encourage behavioural change towards water conservation and enhance operational productivity. PUB will be embarking on the Smart Shower Programme. Up to 10,000 new homes will be equipped with smart shower devices under a demonstration project. These devices provide real-time feedback on actual water consumption during showers. A National University of Singapore (NUS) pilot involving 500 households showed water savings of five litres per person per day on average.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system. PUB has been conducting trials on AMR systems, to replace current meters that have to be read manually. AMR meters can be read remotely and provide higher-resolution water consumption data. Results have been encouraging.

Let me give Members one example. Ms Jacqueline Chan’s family participated in PUB’s trial in June 2017. Through a mobile app, the Chan family can track and take steps to reduce their daily water usage. They have also saved about 8,000 litres of water after being alerted by their app to a leak in their water closet. We will explore how this system can be implemented nationwide.

The non-domestic sector must also play their part. Companies can tap on the Water Efficiency Fund and the Industrial Water Solutions Demonstration Fund to support water-saving efforts.

PUB is collaborating with industry to use the data collected through the Water Efficiency Management Plans to develop sectorial water efficiency benchmarks and best practices. PUB has worked with the building sector, including offices, hotels and retail, to publish a best practices guide.

Growing and right-pricing our water supply go hand-in-hand with managing water demand. The sum of all that we do will prepare us for the future. For now, there is no need for national water rationing exercises. If we can get our policy right, we will avoid Day Zero.

Mr Chairman, with climate change, Singaporeans will experience more frequent, intense rain storms. Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked for an update on PUB’s plans to mitigate flash floods. I gave a comprehensive reply in this House on 5 February. PUB has set higher drainage standards since 2011, up to 45% capacity increase, but our drains cannot be built to accommodate every extreme rainfall event. This would entail massive land take and much higher costs. We have thus adopted a holistic source-pathway-receptor approach.

These complement continuous island-wide drainage improvement works. The works at Stamford Diversion Canal, Stamford Detention Tank and Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal will be completed in 2018. Work will commence at another 22 locations this year, adding to existing works at 73 locations.

As flash floods cannot be completely eliminated, we will help members of the public better cope by providing timely situation updates, including SMS alerts, about water levels. Those who wish to receive alerts from more than one water level sensor can write in to PUB.

Mr Leon Perera asked about coastal protection. Over 70% of our coastline is protected by hard walls or stone embankments. To protect against rising sea levels, we raised minimum reclamation levels by one metre in 2011, to at least four metres above mean sea level. We will build Changi Airport Terminal 5 at 5.5 metres above mean sea level. To address Singapore’s long-term protection needs, BCA is conducting a Coastal Adaptation Study to recommend a national framework.

Scientists also worry about pest and vector problems escalating with climate change. The concerted effort by all stakeholders in response to the 2016 Zika outbreak and our vector control actions contributed to the drop in the number of dengue cases in 2017, almost five times lower than in 2016.

However, we also observed a significant increase in mosquitoes caught in Gravitraps. We cannot become complacent. While we continue with premises inspections, everyone can play their part by practising the five-Step Mozzie Wipe-out.

Climate change may worsen the spread of mosquito-borne diseases, such as Zika and Chikungunya. We are studying how male Wolbachia-carrying Aedes mosquitoes can be used to suppress the mosquito population. We will conduct further studies this year to strengthen our planning for an eventual suppression trial.

Climate change can also affect other vectors, such as rodents and houseflies. I encourage all to do our part by practising good everyday habits, such as disposing our food waste properly at home and returning our trays in hawker centres, to prevent pests in our homes and communities.

Mr Chairman, besides climate adaptation, we also need to take mitigation action which is what we do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). One big focus is on energy efficiency for which we enhanced the Energy Conservation Act last year. We are using more solar energy. We have more green buildings with more stringent standards in energy efficiency.

Good transport policy will mitigate climate change. This is what the car-lite policy will do. By 2030, eight in 10 households will live within 10 minutes of a train station. We have frozen the growth of our car population starting last month. All these will reduce our fossil fuel use and carbon footprint.

Last year, I announced the new Vehicular Emissions Scheme to promote cleaner new vehicles. NEA enforces against smoky foreign vehicles at our checkpoints. We have tightened the turn-back limit since January this year. My Ministry is reviewing how to reduce vehicular pollution from older, more polluting vehicles. We will announce our recommendations in due course.

Our industries can do more to mitigate climate change. A KPMG study found that only 17% of local firms have carbon reduction targets.

The carbon tax is the latest component of our wide-ranging mitigation measures. Miss Cheng Li Hui asked whether the carbon tax is the most effective way to reduce emissions. Pricing will encourage companies to evaluate opportunities to switch to more energy-efficient technologies and more sustainable processes.

Recently, I spoke to Mr Jagadish, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SSMC, a semiconductor solutions company. I was told that they are committed to a 30% reduction in GHG emissions in their process design. As more companies, like SSMC, reduce their carbon footprint, whether through improved processes or when designing new investments, they also improve the Singapore brand premium and reputation for green practices. Across the world, young people passionate about our planet will demand this as consumers. An NEA poll showed that close to 70% of the public was supportive of a carbon tax.

2.15 pm

Mr Louis Ng asked how we decided on the starting tax rate of $5 per tonne, which we intend to raise to $10 to $15 by 2030. We aim to strike a balance between providing sufficient incentive for companies and Singaporeans to reduce their carbon emissions and giving them enough time to adjust. Our carbon tax will be applied uniformly without exemptions. Other overseas jurisdictions may have significant exemptions for particular sectors. This would lower the effective tax rate. Hence, our starting tax rate cannot be directly compared with those of other jurisdictions.

The carbon tax would apply to larger direct emitters – companies emitting 25 kilotonnes or more of GHG emissions a year. Around 40 companies, which account for about 80% of Singapore’s GHG emissions, will be affected.

We will introduce a fixed-price credits-based (FPCB) system where companies will purchase and surrender credits to pay the carbon tax. The FPCB system is akin to a carbon tax, but it will allow us and companies to build capability to operate in a linked market with other carbon pricing jurisdictions if we decide to do so in future.

Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about the tax revenue, while Mr Louis Ng asked about the Government’s support measures. The Minister for Finance has said he is prepared to spend more than what we collect in carbon tax in the first five years to support worthwhile projects. We will share more details later.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the estimated impact of the carbon tax on households. We expect it to be small, at about 1% of total electricity and gas expenses on average. The additional U-Save rebates will help households adjust. My Ministry will also work with the community to help households reduce their energy consumption. Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor will elaborate.

Mr Chairman, organisations and companies have begun leading the charge. The World Bank will stop financing upstream oil and gas projects from 2019. I am happy that ExxonMobil, a major investor here and a leader in energy efficiency, and one of the companies affected by our carbon tax, has recently pledged to take climate action on MEWR’s webpage. I quote Mr Gan Seow Kee, Chairman and Managing Director for ExxonMobil Asia Pacific, that ExxonMobil "is committed to reducing GHG emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, and supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs." Many firms, including many of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), have made their climate action pledges on MEWR's webpage. I am glad we are taking this journey together.

I will now touch on waste. Striving towards a Zero Waste Nation is another key focus of the Year of Climate Action. We must reduce, reuse and recycle more. A McKinsey study showed that to make one kilogramme (kg) of fabric, 23 kg of GHGs are produced!

We are running out of space to store our waste. If we continue business as usual, we will need a new landfill the size of three Gardens by the Bay every 35 years. Waste does not magically disappear when we throw it down our rubbish chutes!

Miss Cheng Li Hui asked how Singaporeans and businesses can play a role in Singapore becoming a Zero Waste Nation. Everyone must play a part. The Government will lead in developing infrastructure and frameworks, including legislation where required. But Singaporeans and businesses must participate. Beyond legislation, our people, companies and civic organisations can demonstrate leadership with ground-up efforts.

In Singapore, we have closed the water loop and achieved a circular economy in our water sector. We should apply the circular economy to the waste sector. The circular economy is also on the global agenda, where materials are reused and recycled for as long as possible. As a CEO of an African non-government organisation (NGO) said: "There is no such thing as waste, until it is wasted."

We will introduce the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) approach as a key strategy in waste and resource management. Traditionally, producers are only concerned about the design, manufacture and use of their products. The EPR approach extends their responsibility to include the proper recycling and disposal of their products at the end-of-life. Manufacturers and importers will take charge of the waste they had produced, rather than the society bearing the costs. By doing so, businesses are also incentivised to design products that last longer and can be more easily recycled.

We will start with e-waste. Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor will share more details on setting up a national e-waste management system using the EPR approach.

As we strive to be a Zero Waste Nation, we will turn brown into gold as we engage in urban mining, as we recover treasure from trash, as we grow and transform a vibrant environmental services industry with good jobs for Singaporeans and, most important of all, as we build a sustainable and liveable home for our children. Mr Chairman, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The measures that are implemented to tackle climate change are taken on two fronts. First, adaptation to cope with the impact of climate change. We will continue to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, such as raising our coastal roads, building seawalls, enhancing storm-water systems and diversifying our water supply.

Besides climate adaptation, we also need to take mitigation action to reduce emissions of GHGs. We are already using more solar energy. There are more green buildings with more stringent standards in energy efficiency. We have enhanced the public transport network and frozen the growth of our car population.

Last year, we announced the new Vehicular Emissions Scheme to promote the usage of new vehicles that are more environmentally-friendly. My Ministry is reviewing how to reduce pollution from older vehicles that produce more pollutants. We will announce our recommendations in due course.

The carbon tax is the latest component of the wide-ranging measures that we are undertaking to mitigate GHG emissions. It puts a price on carbon emissions to encourage the usage of technologies that are more energy-efficient and produce less carbon. Environmentally-friendly practices should be a part of the Singapore brand premium.

The measures that are implemented to tackle climate change are taken on two fronts. First, adaptation to cope with the impact of climate change. We will continue to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, such as raising our coastal roads, building seawalls, enhancing storm-water systems and diversifying our water supply. Besides climate adaptation, we also need to take mitigation action to reduce emissions of GHGs. We are already using more solar energy. There are more green buildings with more stringent standards in energy efficiency. We have enhanced the public transport network and frozen the growth of our car population.

Last year, we announced the new Vehicular Emissions Scheme to promote the usage of new vehicles that are more environmentally-friendly. My Ministry is reviewing how to reduce pollution from older vehicles that produce more pollutants. We will announce our recommendations in due course. The carbon tax is the latest component of the wide-ranging measures that we are undertaking to mitigate GHG emissions. It puts a price on carbon emissions to encourage the usage of technologies that are more energy-efficient and produce less carbon. Environmentally-friendly practices should be a part of the Singapore brand premium.

(In English): Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim asked what Singapore is doing on the regional and global front for climate action. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has identified the fight against climate change as one of the top priorities for the UN and for the international community. Singapore supports this.

In July, I will lead a delegation to the UN, where Singapore will undertake our first Voluntary National Review of the Sustainable Development Goals.

We will use our ASEAN Chairmanship to galvanise support for climate action. Singapore will convene a Special ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Climate Action on 10 July 2018, and a back-to-back expanded meeting with ASEAN and Ministers from China, Japan, Korea and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of the Conference of the Parties (COP) President and President-designate Fiji and Poland.

These will take place in conjunction with the Singapore International Water Week (SIWW) – CleanEnviro Summit Singapore (CESG) – World Cities Summit joint event. We will share experiences and reaffirm the region’s commitment to climate action and the Paris Agreement.

We will continue to plug ourselves into the global movement on climate change and work with partners to shape the international agenda. As the saying goes, “If we are not at the table, we will be on the menu”. To get a seat at the table, we must be credible. This means that Singapore must fulfil our international obligations and show leadership on climate action. Already we have been noticed. Christiana Figueres, the former Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, said in an article published locally in Singapore in Business Times: "Fortunately, Singapore is attuned to this urgent turning point. Its Year of Climate Action, backed by concrete steps in the domestic policy sphere, is the kind of leadership the region needs."

Let me conclude. To succeed in our climate action endeavour, the Government’s efforts alone will never be enough. All Singaporeans have a critical role to play. We do not want to mandate everything. Instead, Singaporeans must feel empowered to take climate action. This is akin to our Water Story, which was not just the effort of the Government, but that of generations of Singaporeans who partnered us for the greater good.

This is why we have designated 2018 as the Year of Climate Action. It is the start of our journey to raise the level of national consciousness to fight climate change. We will pass this consciousness from generation to generation. This will ensure our children do not end up facing a climate change crisis – higher sea levels, frequent swings between intense weather or pestilence. They should never have to face a water crisis like Cape Town.

I accompanied President Halimah for the launch of the Singapore World Water Day last Saturday. What struck me most was when two little girls, Alyssa and Abby, asked "What if this was our last drop?" Indeed, we must never let our children ask this, or “Why is our air so polluted?" or "Why is our sea level rising?” Our children are the reason why we need to take climate action – now.

Taking climate action now is how we shall pass to our children a Singapore that is a liveable city ever more, a city where thriving businesses have low carbon footprints, and a city with environmental solutions that are well sought after. We can do this together.

I now hand it over to the Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor.

The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Chairman, in the Year of Climate Action, MEWR will rally everyone to take action against climate change, this year and beyond. We hope all Singaporeans will join forces to ensure Singapore remains our best liveable home and a vibrant, sustainable city for generations to come.

Since the Year of Climate Action was launched in January, the video on MEWR's Facebook page has received over 160,000 views, and I am glad that more than 21,000 individuals have made Climate Action pledges online.

Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked what role businesses and the public can play in climate action. My Ministry will intensify engagement to galvanise action amongst NGOs, businesses, communities, households and individuals. Let me elaborate.

NGOs have always been passionate about sustainability, and many took the initiative to work together even before this year began. We will reinforce and support their ground-up efforts. I had a dialogue with NGOs in January this year, where we agreed that climate action collaboration and coordination across all stakeholders could be stronger. Arising from this dialogue, Ms Jessica Cheam, Managing Editor of Eco-Business, brought together NGOs and business leaders to form the Climate Action SG Alliance to advocate climate action and raise public awareness on climate issues. It will be chaired by Ms Cheam in her personal capacity. MEWR will support this ground-up initiative and I have agreed to act as the Advisor. We will also be launching a Climate Action SG Grant. NGOs and grassroots organisations can apply for this grant to defray some of the costs of organising programmes in support of the Year of Climate Action. Upon application, each eligible organisation can be provided with up to $5,000 on a reimbursement basis.

Many companies have reached out to us in support of the Year of Climate Action, with over 110 firms, including the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), SembCorp, City Developments Ltd (CDL) and Ricoh, making Climate Action SG pledges. Many of our SMEs have also pledged. These companies recognise it is possible to do good and do well at the same time. We hope more companies will voluntarily pledge and take climate action.

MEWR will support community efforts to educate the public about climate change and encourage climate action. Grassroots organisations can apply for both the new Climate Action SG Grant and the existing 3P Partnership Fund from NEA for environmental programmes. We will be launching a bulb replacement programme for 1- and 2-room HDB households to encourage the use of energy-efficient light bulbs to reduce energy use. NEA will also be organising an Energy-Saving Challenge this year to raise awareness about energy efficiency and conservation.

Community engagement in climate action is a challenging long-term journey that goes beyond 2018, but we will stay the course to get every Singaporean on board.

Last year, I outlined Singapore's overall waste management strategy and the three waste streams we are most concerned about: e-waste, food waste and packaging waste. As the Minister mentioned, we will focus on e-waste this year. Singapore generates about 60,000 tonnes of e-waste annually. That is like every person in Singapore throwing away 73 mobile phones every year! E-waste contains heavy metals and hazardous substances that can seriously harm the environment and public health, if not properly handled. Some heavy metals can also be extracted from properly recovered e-waste and reused, which is more sustainable than mining for virgin materials.

2.30 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about the e-waste recycling rate for businesses. As Dr Chia shared, based on the results of an e-waste study by NEA, currently around 6% of residents place their e-waste in e-recycling bins. We estimate the e-waste recycling rate by businesses to be higher, due to take-back arrangements that are usually in place between businesses, and manufacturers or importers. However, more needs to be done.

Mr Chairman, with your permission, I would like to show some slides, please.

The Chairman: Yes. [Some slides were shown to hon Members.]

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Louis Ng asked for an update on our national e-waste management system. MEWR will implement a mandatory e-waste management system by 2021 to ensure that electrical and electronic products are disposed of in an environmentally friendly way and allow for safe recovery of useful materials. For a start, this system will cover five main categories of products, namely, information and communications technology (ICT) equipment like mobile phones and computers, solar panels, batteries, lamps and certain large household appliances like refrigerators, air-conditioners, washing machines and dryers. Together, these products make up close to 90% of e-waste in Singapore and generally pose more harm to the environment if not properly treated.

Our e-waste management system will adopt the EPR approach, which is also implemented in other countries like Sweden and South Korea. NEA will set collection targets for manufacturers and importers to take back a proportion of the products they put on the market. They will be required to work with NEA-licensed Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), which will organise the collection, transport and proper treatment of e-waste, and help the manufacturers and importers achieve their targets.

For example, PROs will work with large electrical and electronic retailers to set up in-store e-waste collection points. All retailers must also provide free one-for-one take-back service for their products. Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about recycling larger e-waste items. Apart from the take-back service provided by retailers, Town Councils also provide bulky waste disposal service, which will ensure collected e-waste is properly recycled.

We will set collection targets in consultation with the industry and review them before implementing a penalty framework eventually. The European Union (EU) started with an overall collection target of four kg per capita in 2003. After 13 years, the target reached 45% of all electronic products sold on the market by weight. We will study the practices in other countries to design a cost-effective system. By aggregating e-waste and enabling more efficient collection and processing, there will be greater value captured from e-waste, which is one of the more valuable waste streams. This will help offset the cost of operating the e-waste system. We will consult relevant stakeholders to work out legislation and implementation details.

Some companies have already taken the initiative to implement voluntary e-waste management programmes. For instance, StarHub runs the REcycling Nation’s Electronic Waste (RENEW) programme in partnership with DHL Express and TES-AMM. I am pleased to see retailers like Courts, Gain City and Harvey Norman coming on board the RENEW programme. There will soon be e-waste collection bins in some of their outlets.

The mandatory e-waste system will help both the environment and the economy. EPR systems have generated new business opportunities and jobs in the e-waste management and recycling industries in other countries. In France, for instance, more than 3,000 e-waste recycling jobs were created since EPR was implemented in 2005. We will integrate and support smaller industry players so they can benefit from our national system, including the karung guni men who provide collection services.

Next, I will talk about food waste. I am glad that our food waste recycling rate has increased from 12% in 2012 to 16% in 2017, which is about 133,000 tonnes. We will continue to explore which food waste solution works best in Singapore. For example, around 90% of eligible stallholders participated in the food waste digester pilot at Ang Mo Kio, Block 628 hawker centre, which processed around one tonne of food waste a day for the past two years. Food waste digesters have also been installed in four of our new hawker centres. Digesters will be installed in two more hawker centres in Bedok this year, and in more hawker centres subsequently.

Miss Cheng Li Hui asked how food waste in military camps and Home Team premises is managed. To minimise food waste and food wastage, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) use weekly forecasts of meals required to ensure that the right amount of food is prepared. NEA works with both Ministries on food waste management initiatives, such as with the Central Manpower Base, on NEA's Food Wastage Reduction Outreach Programme.

Several army camps are also participating in NEA and PUB's food waste pilots, where source-segregated food waste is collected and transported to a demonstration facility at Ulu Pandan Water Reclamation Plant. There, food waste is co-digested with used water sludge to generate biogas.

Finally, I will touch on packaging waste. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about packaging waste produced by food delivery services. While NEA does not monitor this specifically, the total amount of packaging waste has remained fairly constant over the last few years and makes up around a third of the total domestic waste in Singapore. The voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement (SPA) has cumulatively reduced almost 39,000 tonnes of packaging waste since its inception in 2007. Building on this, we will put in place a mandatory reporting framework for packaging waste management by 2021.

Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Dennis Tan asked about our efforts to deal with plastic waste and, specifically, whether we will impose a charge or ban on single-use plastic bags. Unlike many of the countries that have imposed a ban or mandatory charge on plastic bags, we do not directly landfill our plastic disposables but incinerate them. Hence, we do not face the land and water pollution issues that plague those countries. Plastic bags are also necessary for responsible and hygienic bagging of waste in our moist, tropical climate. Unbagged household waste attract more pests like cockroaches and rats, creating serious environmental and health problems.

A recently concluded lifecycle assessment (LCA) study on carrier bags and food packaging, commissioned by NEA, found that every type of disposable bag, not just plastic bags, but also bio-degradable bags and paper bags, for example, impose different environmental impacts, whether it be carbon emissions, heavy water usage or significant land clearance. This is particularly so as we incinerate our waste and we do not directly landfill. Hence, imposing a charge or ban on disposable plastic bags and substituting them with other types of disposable bags is unlikely to improve environmental outcomes. The study concluded that consumers can generally reduce their environmental impact by using reusable bags and food containers instead of disposables.

In Singapore, a more sustainable approach is to tackle the excessive consumption of all types of disposables. We will step up engagement with stakeholders to cut down on the excessive use of plastic bags as well as disposables like single-use food containers. For example, Foodpanda is working on a trial where customers can opt out of disposable cutleries when ordering food. Zero Waste Singapore also launch an innovative Bring Your Own (BYO) Singapore campaign last year to incentivise consumers to bring their own reusable bags or containers to eateries and supermarkets to earn discounts or free gifts.

We will continue to support such efforts while holistically tackling the broader issue upstream by reducing all types of packaging waste at source. By 2021, we will mandate that businesses report on the type and amount of packaging they put on the market and their plans for reduction. We will start industry consultations this year.

Mr Leon Perera also spoke about microplastics, an issue receiving increasing international attention, which we are working on closely with our international partners. To ensure that Singapore does not contribute to marine litter and microplastics, we have stringent and comprehensive regulations to control pollution and manage waste. We enforce strict anti-littering laws and incinerate our waste and conduct cleanups of waterways and beaches to minimise marine litter.

Our island is also fully sewered and all used water is collected and treated to international standards before discharge. During used water treatment, microbeads, a form of microplastics, will be substantially removed as sludge and disposed of by incineration.

In addition, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) conducts regular food safety tests on locally-sourced as well as imported fish. During these tests, AVA monitors for chemical contaminants found in microplastics, which may affect the safety of the fish for consumption. AVA will continue to monitor this issue and introduce appropriate food safety measures, where necessary.

We agree with Mr Lim Biow Chuan that it is important to keep Singapore clean and we couple education with enforcement measures to tackle littering. In 2014, we doubled the maximum fine for littering offences under the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) to enhance deterrence. We have stepped up enforcement against littering over the years, issuing more than 32,000 tickets last year compared to around 26,000 in 2015.

I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for his suggestion to impose mandatory CWOs on all littering offenders. Generally, more callous littering offenders would be more culpable and liable for stiffer penalties. CWO, which is issued by the Court, is meant for more severe cases like recalcitrant litterbugs, and it would be excessive to impose on all littering offenders.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan may also wish to know that foreign workers convicted and fined more than $2,000 or jailed for littering-related offences may have their work passes revoked and banned from employment. The Public Hygiene Council (PHC) has been working alongside the Singapore Kindness Movement (SKM), to promote the values of picking up after ourselves and keeping our environment clean.

It is not sustainable to keep intensifying enforcement against littering. Instead, everyone should take ownership of the cleanliness of their homes and communities, and I hope that everyone can join us in our efforts to keep Singapore clean and litter-free.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked if we have plans to regulate new food delivery service providers like Foodpanda and UberEats in the same manner as food caterers.

Unlike food caterers, food delivery service providers are not involved in the preparation of food. Food catering involves the advance preparation of large quantities of food at the premises of consumers, while food delivery service providers generally transport smaller quantities of food from various eateries to customers for immediate consumption. These service providers, therefore, do not pose the same level of risk as caterers.

Food delivery service providers do have the responsibility to ensure that delivered food is not contaminated during delivery, and that the interiors of their delivery vehicles are clean and free of pests. Failure to do so is an offence under the Environmental Public Health Act. If there is food poisoning arising from malpractice during delivery, such as if the delivery person mishandles or deliberately tampers with the food, the delivery person can also be charged for possessing food which is unclean or unfit for consumption.

Given these, we have no immediate plans to introduce additional regulations over food delivery services. We will, however, continue monitoring the industry closely and, if necessary, tighten food hygiene requirements to maintain high food safety standards.

Finally, I will speak about hawker centres. Chairman, many Singaporeans have told me that hawker centres and the food they offer are what they identify with and miss most when they are overseas. The Government has invested significantly in developing and enhancing hawker centres over the years to ensure that we and future generations can continue to enjoy our unique hawker culture.

To achieve this, hawker centres undergo cyclical repair and redecoration works about once every seven years. In 2001, the Government also started a $420 million Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) and upgraded more than 100 hawker centres by the end of the programme in 2013. We announced in 2015 that we will build 20 new hawker centres by 2027, and since then, seven new hawker centres have opened, including three last year in Woodlands, Yishun and Jurong West and one in Pasir Ris this year. These naturally-ventilated centres have better layout with wider stall fronts, larger circulation spaces, family seating areas with lower tables for young children, and even spaces for performances and other community activities.

The remaining new hawker centres will be built in areas like Sembawang, Sengkang, Punggol, Bukit Panjang North and Bukit Batok in the coming years. We will continue improving the design of our hawker centres as we develop new ones and renovate existing ones to meet the changing needs of Singaporeans.

Besides hardware, we also continually seek new ideas to better manage our hawker centres. One way we are doing this is by implementing alternative management models for new hawker centres. We have appointed socially-conscious operators to manage our new hawker centres, tapping on their experience managing other F&B operations to enhance the dining experience for patrons. They introduce new concepts and ideas and improve operational efficiency while ensuring affordability of food.

These operators must also monitor food prices at their centres to prevent unreasonable price hikes, and ensure hawkers offer at least a few affordable entry-level meals. In almost all the new centres, more than 90% of the stalls offer such meal options at $3 or below.

We must also sustain the hawker trade by both attracting new entrants and supporting existing hawkers. The Government accepted the Hawker Centre 3.0 (HC 3.0) Committee's recommendations last year, which focused on addressing hawkers' manpower constraints, reducing their workload and improving productivity. Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the progress of these recommendations. I am pleased to say that we have made significant progress.

2.45 pm

We have opened up training opportunities and pathways for aspiring hawkers. NEA collaborated with the People’s Association (PA) to successfully launch the first season of the Hawker Fare Series of culinary classes for close to 100 participants from May to August last year. The second season has already started this year. NEA and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) also jointly developed an “Introduction to Managing a Hawker Business” course, and more than 100 students participated in the inaugural class last year. Four more classes will be held this year.

Two weeks ago, we launched the Incubation Stall Programme to give aspiring hawkers a chance to try out as a hawker. We have offered 13 incubation stalls in hawker centres across the island. Three stalls have been taken up so far, with another three applications received.

The Government has set aside about $90 million to enhance productivity in hawker centres through stall- and centre-level initiatives. This includes stall-level initiatives, like the Hawkers’ Productivity Grant (HPG), launched last year to promote greater use of kitchen automation equipment and help hawkers overcome manpower constraints and reduce their workload through greater productivity. Hawkers can be reimbursed 80% of the qualifying cost of equipment, up to a sum of $5,000, within three years. Fifty-eight hawkers have been awarded this Grant as of last month, such as Mr Tay Chen Boon, a 74-year-old hawker who has been selling popiah at Block 93 Lorong 4 Toa Payoh for the past 45 years. His new continuous feed vegetable cutter saves him almost two hours of preparation time daily, as he does not have to cut the vegetables by hand.

At the centre-level, the Government has funded initiatives like automated tray return systems (ATRS) and centralised dishwashing (CDW) services in existing hawker centres undergoing renovation. So far, we have introduced these initiatives to two existing hawker centres, working with the Hawkers’ Associations. We intend to roll out these systems in phases to up to 25 existing hawker centres over the next few years. We thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for expressing his support for these new initiatives at his upcoming hawker centre in Senja. These centre-level initiatives allow hawkers to focus on preparing and cooking their food, saving them time spent collecting and washing crockery or employing someone to do so. They also do not have to invest in the crockery as these are provided by the centralised dishwashing vendor. Taken together, these savings should offset the fees they pay for centralised dishwashing services. The Government also co-funds up to 70% of the operating costs of the initiatives for two years, to lower the initial adoption cost.

There has been much public discussion about the rationale and merit of encouraging tray return. We started encouraging tray return in 2012, primarily to ease the work of cleaners so that they can concentrate on cleaning tables, allowing for faster turnover of the tables which will benefit patrons. This also benefits hawkers as faster turnover means they can serve more patrons. Removing leftover food from the table addresses the bird nuisance issue and creates a cleaner, more hygienic dining environment. Returning trays with used crockery after meals is a small gesture of consideration for the next diner.

Some people have said encouraging tray return deprives cleaners of their job. That is not the case. Cleaners are not going to lose their jobs just because we become more considerate and return our trays. Cleaning is not an easy job that attracts many, especially locals. Cleaning companies cannot hire enough cleaners and existing cleaners have difficulties coping with clearing crockery and cleaning the tables, particularly during peak hours. By returning our own trays, we allow cleaners to focus on cleaning tables, improving productivity as well as the quality of their jobs. We are trying various ways to improve our tray return rates.

At the same time, we have piloted a project at Zion Riverside Food Centre and Adam Food Centre using behavioural "nudges" and visual cues to improve tray return rates. Under this project, cleaners encourage patrons to clear their own trays after meals, and they wear aprons displaying a message reminding patrons to return their trays. There are also posters on the tables with similar messages. The results at both hawker centres have been encouraging. At Zion Riverside Food Centre, the tray return rate increased by about 20%. These initiatives benefited cleaners at these centres, like 65-year-old Mdm Chin, a cleaner at Adam Food Centre who said she could concentrate on cleaning tables, making her job easier. NEA will roll out these initiatives to more hawker centres.

We have also piloted an ATRS with a deposit system at two of our existing hawker centres to "nudge" patrons to return their trays. We hope that, over the longer term, there is no need to have such a system, after tray return becomes second nature. In the meantime, we also plan to introduce behavioural nudges and cues at these two hawker centres to further reinforce the message. Mr Chairman, may I have your permission to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government has continually upgraded and improved hawker centres in terms of the design of the facilities, the way they are run and the approach to tendering stalls. This is done so that everyone can benefit as diners can enjoy affordable food, while stall holders have a clean working environment.

We also introduced productivity initiatives, such as CDW and ATRS, to help the stallholders address their manpower issues and reduce their workload. They do not take away work from the cleaners but actually make their work easier so that they can focus on cleaning tables, improving their productivity. Diners also benefit as they can access clean tables quickly, and enjoy a more pleasant, hygienic dining environment.

All these initiatives ultimately benefit all Singaporeans – diners, cleaners, as well as the stallholders.

(In English): Another recommendation of HC 3.0 relates to enhancing the vibrancy of our hawker centres as social spaces. NEA launched the "Vibrant Hawker Centres" programme last June to encourage individuals, teams, organisations or institutions to organise regular activities at hawker centres. The response has been enthusiastic, and some 19 events had taken place across 12 hawker centres in 2017.

Hawker centres will continue to prosper as a key part of our social fabric, if everyone plays their part – hawkers, private operators, and patrons like you and I. Together, we can continue enjoying tasty local food in our beloved hawker centres for years to come.

Chairman, to paraphrase the Minister for Finance’s words during the Budget Debate, when he was referring to Reserves: "We are stewards of our environment, just like Reserves, preserving and enhancing it for ourselves and for future generations, just as our forefathers had done for us." Everyone can play a part and benefit from Climate Action. We hope that what we do collectively helps reverse the global tragedy of the commons and ensures Singapore’s development remains on a sustainable path. No action is too small or inconsequential.

And for a start, I hope that all Members of this House, besides Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal, can lead by example and take the Climate Action Pledge online, and encourage your friends, families and constituents to do so. I can send you the quick response (QR) code if you wish, so that you can take the pledge. Together, we can build a liveable and sustainable environment now and into the future!

The Chairman: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I have three clarifications.

Firstly, is there a role that the karang guni man can play in EPR and, if yes, how?

Secondly, I am very happy to hear about the replacement of energy saving bulbs for 1- and 2-room flats. I would like to ask how this is to be implemented so that the bulbs are in the light fitting instead of lying around. Is there a plan to get the corporation to come in to help? And for those cases where the bulb does not fit into the old light fitting, is there a plan to change the light fittings?

Lastly, it is about anti-littering. I have four covered basketball courts in Khatib where basketballers from all over Singapore come every day to enjoy. However, at the end of the day, it looks like a war zone. How will the Ministry help in fighting this littering issue? Can we use gadgets, modern technology, to nab the culprits?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for her questions.

Firstly, for the karang guni man, as I have said, we think that the karang guni man will continue to have a role to play when we implement the EPR e-waste management system. They can provide convenient door-to-door collection of the used appliances and, where it cannot be reused, then they can actually send it to the recyclers through the PROs.

With regard to the light bulbs, we are working out the details, taking feedback from retailers, as well as with the community, NGOs and companies who may want to do CSR on how we can more effectively implement the replacement of the light bulbs for the 1- and 2-roomers.

Regarding littering issues in the basketball courts at Khatib, I am given to understand that the North West Regional Office staff from NEA are working closely with the Member's grassroots to address the littering problem at the courts. I think the issue is that there are multiple parties using the courts and it is very difficult to identify who the litterbugs are. But I know that closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras have already been installed. So, we will work closely with the grassroots to do this.

But at the end of the day, we need to ensure that people take ownership of the environment. If they use the courts, then they must take ownership and prevent littering. So, some kind of administrative process should be implemented so that we can identify who are the ones who are using the courts, too.

The Chairman: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mr Chairman, two clarifications for Minister Masagos. First, I am delighted that our per capita water usage has just gone down to 143 litres a day. I would like to ask if there is a target that we are aiming towards to make it more sustainable and, if so, by when.

My second clarification is: the Minister mentioned that if we get our policies right, there is no need for a Day Zero campaign. I certainly hope so. My question is: having a campaign, having a water rationing exercise island-wide, would this not nudge us, bring the entire population towards this goal and, in the process, also build our water, physical or mental resilience? So, I see a lot more benefits, I do not see any downside. So, I would urge the Minister to review this decision.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We thank the Member for the questions.

The first question is whether we will revise the target or do we have a target. Yes, we do have a target. We have a target of 140 litres per capita per day, as inferred by Mr Pritam Singh, by 2030. I am glad it is going down, and what we would like to see is that it will go down sustainably and not just episodically. So, over the next one or two years, we will watch this figure. We will put in water conservation efforts to help our residents, our citizens, to save water and then look at whether we need to revise it one or two years down the line. But certainly, there is a lot of scope for us to put in technologies, to put in measures that will, hopefully, get us better than 140 litres per day, as we targeted.

Secondly, on whether we should do a national water rationing campaign, right now, what we have started is a school-based water rationing campaign. We started with only about 10 schools. Now, a lot more schools have come on board. And even as we try to do this at both the primary and secondary schools, there are issues in ensuring that it is safe. Basic hygiene is still something we want to ensure, particularly the aged, and, in this case, they are very young. Let us go through that exercise and then, over time, not make a water ration exercise become a disaster for individuals. So, for the moment, let us just do this at the school level first and, over time, if there is ever a need for us to have that national consciousness tilt up again, probably we will need to do that. But not for now.

The Chairman: Mr Png Eng Huat.

Mr Png Eng Huat: Chairman, I have just got a question for the Minister. Water conservation affects all. The objective affects all. And the low pressure that is experienced by households affects only certain households on certain levels of an HDB block. So, for PUB to cite water conservation objective as a reason for not setting a minimum water pressure, to these affected households, it is a bit unfair because everyone else in the block is enjoying good water pressure. So, would the Minister be doing something about this or would be reviewing this?

3.00 pm

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The professional bodies, PUB as well as the industry, came together after the Member raised this issue in 2015 to actually see whether they need to revise the Code of Practice for Water Services (CP)48 to see whether we should actually put a minimum level. Water conservation issue is only one of them. There are many other issues ‒ how reticulation will be laid out, the kind of appliances that would be used, the sizes of the rooms, the number of people in the room ‒ fairly complicated. So, it is not just one factor. It is a number of factors. Therefore, the decision of this body of professionals, engineers, the industry, consultants, as well as PUB, finally decided that we should not put up a particular number. It is just not sound engineering-wise, and let the professional engineer (PE) set it out, design it at the start, and make sure it is right.

As a former Town Council Chairman, I have addressed some of these issues in the households who complained about the water pressure, and it can be done. You have to work with PUB, work with plumbers. Sometimes, it is a problem inside, sometimes it is a problem outside, sometimes it is the booster pump. There are many issues that we can try to address for the residents individually. It can be overcome.

The Chairman: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, just two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State whether she thinks that the state of cleanliness in Singapore, is it better today compared to five years ago? Second clarification: why does NEA feel that issuing a CWO is a more serious offence as compared to imposing a fine? When you impose a fine on a litterbug, he pays the fine, five minutes later, he forgets about it, but he walks away complaining that the Government is trying to make money out of him. But if you impose a CWO on a litterbug, you take one hour away from him, make him pick up litter, he will realise better the effect of the litter that other litterbugs have thrown on the ground, and the lesson will stay with him for a much longer period of time and, hopefully, that will deter him from littering again.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his questions. I am also pleased that he is extremely passionate about keeping Singapore clean. Asking me whether I think Singapore is cleaner now or not, I may not be the right person to ask. I might be biased. Actually, we have done some surveys. We had done a public cleanliness perception survey between late 2016 and early 2017 with 2,000 respondents. In the public cleanliness perception survey, it actually showed that 82% of the respondents said that they were satisfied with the overall cleanliness of Singapore ‒ hard as it may be for you. But it is a properly done survey, 2,000 respondents, 82%. But, of course, their satisfaction with different areas varies. So, they were most satisfied, for instance, with transport nodes, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations and so on. They ranked that as they were most satisfied in terms of cleanliness. Areas where they were not satisfied with, which I think we all have some idea of, would be like HDB void decks, F&B establishments, that is, the eating establishments, as well as places after public events. They scored about 59%. So, it varies. NEA does work on having more enforcement, for instance, at hot spot areas, and also getting volunteers to turn these hot spot areas into Bright Spots.

With regard to the efficacy, for instance, of enforcement, as I have said, we couple enforcement as a deterrence with education, and I agree with the Member that we need to start young, from schools. And that is what the Public Hygiene Council and Singapore Kindness Movement have done. If you look at enforcement, for the 30,000-odd littering offenders caught in 2017, for instance, about 5% are repeat offenders. So, there is a deterrent effect. Of those who have done CWOs before, repeat offenders are about 10%. So, there is some deterrence. As regards why not CWO on everyone, we also need to realise that there may be people who, for medical reasons, cannot do CWOs, for instance. CWO is actually harsher because, if it is a fine, they just pay. But CWO, they all have to take leave, they will have to go and do their CWO, and it may be in public places where they do not want to be seen.

The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Sir, firstly, I would like to thank Minister Masagos for his reference to the coastal adaptation study. I do not believe he touched on this particularly, but could he confirm if the study is also looking at parts of the coast, like intertidal coral reef zones, sands and mudflats and mangroves, as well as the islands like Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and the Southern Islands? Look at the climate change impact on those areas as well.

The second question is: are soft engineering approaches, such as planting coastal vegetation, if they do not exist right now, also being studied as part of MEWR's plans?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The answer is yes. When the coastal protection study is ready by 2018, we will see the details. So, the consideration will need to be made when we reinforce or increase the coastal protection that we will have to do over the years.

The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I have two questions, Sir. Can I ask if MEWR will be studying the issue of the usage of single-used plastic bags further, especially with regard to implementing the usage plan? It has been proven effective in other countries. It has resulted in the reduction of the use of plastic bags, which is exactly what MEWR's role is. So, I want to stress that we should look into that further and to stress also that this is not a ban on the use of plastic bags.

Secondly, does MEWR have data on the number of plastic bags used in Singapore? If not, does MEWR intend to collect such data so that we can measure the effectiveness of the current retailers' schemes?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have said, the lifecycle assessment study did show that for plastic bags, it has got the highest GHG emissions and energy used. But on the other hand, other disposable bags, for instance, biodegradable bags which are so-called more eco-friendly, also actually have some environmental impact in terms of production. Paper bags require lots of water to produce and, of course, there is this issue of land deforestation. We have to plant trees to produce paper pulp and so on. Another example with the oxo-biodegradable bag which actually is made of plastic additives that will help to accelerate the degradation of the bag and that is supposed to be more eco-friendly. But actually, because we incinerate our waste, including plastic, these oxo-biodegradable bags will still have the same environmental impact as plastic bags.

If we actually place a charge or ban, where we have a ban on bags, what will happen is that there will be substitutes for using other bags. So, what we are saying is that because we incinerate waste, we do not have the same issue as many of these other countries which actually land fill directly. But we agree that we should curb or tackle the issue of excessive use of such plastic bags and other disposables.

What we want to do is to tackle it at source. So, we will have mandatory reporting of packaging waste, as well as the waste reduction plans by businesses by 2021. In addition, we will work with the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and other organisations to raise awareness and encourage people to reduce their use of such disposables. In our new hawker centres, for instance, we have already disallowed use of disposable crockeries and so on for dining-in.

The Chairman: Last question. Dr Chia Shi-Lu.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu: Just a quick one for the Senior Minister of State. Could I just ask or clarify whether it is possible for someone who has been caught for littering, if he is unable to pay the fine, could he choose to take a CWO instead of paying a fine?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The CWO is actually issued by the Court. So, if they are repeat offenders, they go to Court and we do recommend CWOs. So, the Courts will decide on that. If they are first offenders and they cannot pay the fine, we will look at various ways to assist if we can.

The Chairman: Would the mover wish to withdraw the amendment?

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, Senior Minister of State and everyone in MEWR for taking great efforts to address all the issues raised. I would like to thank my Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Members for filing the cuts and speaking up passionately. And to all in this House, I would like to urge Members to take the climate action pledge if you have not done so. Let us take positive action to save the earth for our next generation. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,304,123,800 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $921,297,500 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.12 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]