Debated in Parliament on 3 Mar 2021.
Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.
Head L (cont) –
Madam, in my Budget debate speech I shared how proud I am of the intent clearly articulated in the Green Plan 2030 to forget a brave new green economy that will bring a host of new green jobs in green technology, in certain economies but also in green financing and common services.
I also spoke at length about how we can push on technological and business model innovation and collaborations so that we might lead the world, including by becoming the world's most sustainable hub for specific sectors for which we have a competitive advantage such as petrochemicals and shipping, as well as pushing forward on international and regional engagement, coordination and leadership, in particular, leading a collective ASEAN 2 degree path. The Green Plan and Budget also outline other areas, including energy efficient materials and the built environment.
To that, I also shared my optimism that given our development history in areas like engineering and process control, this time with some training and reskilling, our local workforce and can be the ones who benefit the most from this transition. This will help make climate change relevant and relevant to the broader community, not just a fortunate few and rally them to join in the conversation and more important action.
That that end, I would like to ask if a strategic review of the jobs and skills that will be in demand in the green economy has or will be done along with a review of the jobs, particularly local jobs that will be impacted directly or indirectly by the transition to the green economy. And let us put a plan against it and get ahead of the curve.
As many of my colleagues have stated, the importance of starting this in our schools to propagate the knowledge on sustainable development concepts as well as the science, in particular, material science, so that we will have an informed and empowered citizenry well before the green economy is truly upon us.
Mdm Chairman, while our enterprises develop and grow their revenues, they too must care for our society and planet. Now that we have a Singapore Green Plan 2030, we must drive our enterprises to weave in environmental, social and governance objectives.
In my maiden speech, I shared that we need to broaden our view of enterprises and entrepreneurs as having not only economic value but deep societal value at their core. In addition, I spoke about how enterprises are agents to societal changes and we need more companies be created with missions that value adds to our society and improves our societal well-being. This is possible and I call on the Government to implement ESG for SG, in other words, introduce an ESG mark with clear and appropriate indicators for environmental, social and governance that is applicable to Singapore and Asia. These benchmarking standards are needed so that our businesses can work towards concrete target setting. Investors want to do more with their money and create good social outcome goals.
An ESG mark will allow investors to make an informed decision while enterprises grow with accountability and sustainability. Implementation of an ESG mark can benefit individual consumers and B2B clients, very much similar to International sustainable food certification, such as Marine Stewardship Council and the Rainforest Alliance. An ESG mark will assist one to make conscientious decisions and selecting who he or she will support and patronise. By empowering the end consumer with more informed choice, we may drive supply chain upstream towards a greener and more impactful future. Such a mark could also assist regional and international efforts and benchmarking like how various Singapore standards have been adopted regionally.
ESG is not a new concept. It is widely embraced and accepted in finance and investment sector as key criterion in decision-making. For instance. It was reported that in Europe, many pensioners consciously chose asset managers with ESG capacities as their fund manager. Much can be learned about how it has been implemented and translated into different practice models for the various industries in Singapore.
I acknowledge that the ESG measurement tools are highly different for different sectors. As such, I propose that we need to have different set of indicators that is more targeted and relevant to sectors to make it more meaningful for enterprises, investors and consumers. In addition, we need to consider the nature of smaller enterprises that their growth and development are much different even though they belong to the same sector. For instance, a high-end fashion chain retailer versus heartline retailer within a retail sector uses resources that are vastly different skill and rate thereby impacting our environment very differently. Hence, there should be a tiered ESG measurement within the same sector to ensure that we account for new ones or smaller enterprises.
Apart from the above proposal, I recommend that we dovetail existing and future measurements, such as BCA Green Mark, Enabling Mark, PWM Mark as part of a larger ESG mark so the Enterprises have one clear benchmarking standard and investors and consumers have only one report to assess the companies from its peers.
We must further develop our brand equity that is trusted, sustainable and impactful. In fact, Singapore is growing as a wealth management hub. We could establish ourselves and ensure that the impact investment capital flows through our companies creating good and impactful jobs for Singaporeans and growing our economy in a sustainable and inclusive manner. I am cognisant of the fact that setting up a ESG mark can be complex and it takes time to develop one for each sector that is well accepted by the majority of companies.
With this in mind, I propose that we take a small step but incorporating a ESG component in the evaluation of Enterprise Grant schemes. This is a small step that is hand signal and encourage a commitment towards sustainable and socially impactful development.
Mdm Chairman, the green economy will significantly impact our SMEs. While larger companies are able to plan for this green future, SMEs might not have the resources to do so.
The Government has introduced the Enterprise Sustainability Programme to help enterprises, especially that of SMEs, to grow their green capabilities and benefit from the new opportunities in the green economy. Can the Government also consider support and funds to companies that want to trial or introduce new green technologies to their current business operations?
As the majority employer in Singapore, SMEs clearly need to play an outsized role in the green economy. What are the new roles that these SMEs would play in this new economic order?
The oil and gas sector has been a fixture in Singapore's economy for more than a century. From having oil storage facilities in the late 1800s to the first oil refinery in the early 1960s to becoming one of the world's most important oil and chemicals hub, Singapore's fortunes have always been somewhat tied to petrochemicals. The sector continues to generate a significant portion of our GDP. It also hires many workers. While there is no doubt that we will move to a low carbon future because of existential climate reasons, that transition is likely to be fraught with complexities.
First, we can simply shut the plants and go low carbon. But there will be massive loss of jobs in the oil and gas sectors and those supporting process sector companies. We will need to work with the oil and gas companies to adopt new technologies to transit to a low carbon future.
Second, it is not only just the oil and gas sector that faces intricate complexities. There are many other companies and their workers who depend on petrochemicals. For example, the logistics sector depend on an extensive fleet of delivery vehicles. The infrastructure and technology for them to transit to electric vehicles is still nascent. The future seems to be one where we seek to reduce carbon footprint progressively.
Even so, there can also be opportunities within the low-carbon space. New industries and research outfits might be set up or evolved to provide new investments and jobs. How can we better prepare our Singaporeans to take up such opportunities?
Mdm Chairman, in a recent interview with The Straits Times, I was asked about my thoughts as a Member of Parliament who advocates for climate change on the future of the petrochemical sector in Singapore.
My response was this: "If for any reasons, our petrochemical companies exit Singapore, it is quite likely that they move to a different location with even less robust carbon emission standards to minimise costs. A balanced approach will, therefore, be to acknowledge that Singapore provides essential manufacturing services, including petrochemicals to the rest of the world, and the way we discharge our duty to the world is to ensure that our companies achieve world-class efficiencies in energy and carbon."
On this note, can I get MSE to provide an update on the progress of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in July 2020 by Chevron, Pan-United, Keppel Data Centres and Surbana Jurong, with the support of Singapore's National Research Foundation regarding the aspiration and development of mature carbon capture, utilisation and storage technologies.
Leader.
PAPERCUTS