Debated in Parliament on 4 Sep 2019.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the presence of 31 individuals from our 3P sectors who are here in this House for the reading of this Bill.
Just last week, my Ministry launched Singapore's inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan, a critical achievement in this Year Towards Zero Waste. This is a limited print edition of the Masterplan. In the spirit of Zero Waste, you can access the Masterplan on our Towards Zero Waste website too.
The Masterplan draws on ideas and contributions from a vast array of our population. The Masterplan lays out our strategies and policies to close our resource loops via a circular economy approach and to achieve our vision of a Zero Waste Nation. The Resource Sustainability Bill will give effect to the policies and targets outlined in the Masterplan.
The Masterplan also marks an important milestone in Singapore's sustainable development journey over the last five decades.
Back in the 1970s, my family wrapped our household waste in newspapers. Food waste was manually collected in little buckets outside our homes and used as swill in our farms, and in return, we received some eggs. I am not sure how many people in this House remember that. From time to time, we experienced the waft of interesting odours.
Today, things are very different. Waste disposal is clean and hygienic and we make use of pneumatic technology to convey waste from our chutes to a collection point for subsequent disposal. "Clean and Green" has become synonymous with Singapore. And we have also demonstrated that environmental protection can co-exist with economic growth. Indeed, we were ranked Asia's most sustainable city in the 2018 Sustainability Cities Index and second in the 2018 World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index.
We have come a long way, but we must do more to ensure that the next generation continues to enjoy a liveable and sustainable home. Doing our part for the environment is even more critical now as we seek to address climate change. Someone has said that we should never argue about climate change – it always turns into a "heated debate", if you pardon the pun.
But climate change is no joking matter. As highlighted by the Prime Minister in his recent National Day Rally Speech, climate change is undoubtedly a massive existential challenge confronting our next generation. To tackle climate change, we need a paradigm shift – from the "take-make-throw" linear model to the circular economy where resources are used over and over again. Efficient waste disposal is necessary, but our goal must first and foremost be to reduce, reuse and recycle; in other words, zero waste. This is the core of the Resource Sustainability Bill.
What we produce, consume, and throw away all have an impact on the climate. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, Special Report released last year, current rates of human activity may lead to 1.5°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030. We must therefore change our current patterns of production and consumption to reduce emissions and limit global warming. Our zero waste efforts will play a key role. They will help cut down on carbon intensive activities along the supply chain, and reduce the amount of heat-trapping emissions we put into the atmosphere.
We face a second challenge. Global economic growth is driving resource consumption at an unsustainable rate. Studies show that we are at the limits of Planet Earth’s ability to fulfil our resource needs.
Take lithium, for instance, which is used in batteries for electric cars, laptops and smartphones. Demand for lithium has tripled in the last decade. Companies which rely on lithium to make batteries, along with cobalt and nickel, warn of impending shortages of such critical materials. The message is clear and ominous. If we do not change our habits, there will simply not be enough resources to sustain our way of life.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is to confront these challenges that my Ministry is working to build up a three-fold resilience for Singapore.
First, climate resilience. We must address the existential threats of climate change, especially rising sea levels, and cope with rising temperatures and extreme rainfall patterns. We are building up our knowledge of climate science to guide our actions to protect Singapore. We are also stepping up efforts to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Apart from how we transform our industry, transport and energy sectors to pursue sustainable production and consumption, our zero waste efforts are key.
Second, resource resilience. We must overcome global resource constraints, and ensure a safe and secure supply of critical resources such as water, food and other materials. Closing resource loops and turning waste into resource will reduce our vulnerability to global supply shocks. One way that this can be done is through urban mining. A research group from Tsinghua University in China has found that recovering resources like gold, copper and other metals from e-waste is 13 times cheaper than mining them. In the process we do not need to go back to nature to exploit and restore it. The World Economic Forum estimates that 50 million tonnes of e-waste, equivalent to 120,000 jumbo jets, are produced globally each year. Of this, only 20% is recycled.
Imagine the potential in urban mining where precious metals can be mined from e-waste, and energy from food waste. What more if NewSand can be "mined" from incineration bottom ash! We can then "save" Semakau and extend its useful life beyond 2035. Figuratively speaking, we can look at Semakau not as a landfill for trash but as a treasure island right in our very own backyard.
Third, economic resilience. For Singapore companies to continue to thrive in the future economy, they must adapt to the growing constraints on carbon and other resources. Globally, a number of businesses are already taking the lead to adopt a more circular supply chain. This could entail using recycled materials as raw materials, extending the life of products or recovering resources from products at the end of life. Unilever has introduced post-consumer recycled waste materials into products such as dishwashing liquid detergent bottles, with some of their brands using 100% recycled PET packaging. Similarly, automobile companies like General Motors and BMW are working with renewable-energy storage suppliers to create an aftermarket for end-of-life batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles.
These new business models will open new economic opportunities and create good jobs for Singaporeans. Preliminary studies have estimated that if Singapore recovers and reuses materials from e-waste, we can reap a net benefit of $40 million. This includes indirect benefits such as helping our companies export overseas and creating jobs.
Singapore must adopt a circular economy approach to build these three resiliences and sustain future growth. We must make every effort to close our resource loops and reuse our resources for as long as possible and this is not new to us. We have done so for water, and in fact, even for waste streams such as construction and demolition waste. This is the approach we must also take for other resources.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is in this spirit that we move this Bill. The Resource Sustainability Bill will, for the first time, put in place a systems-level approach that mandates key responsibilities to enable reuse and recycling nation-wide. This will complement and support the voluntary efforts of our people and private sectors.
The Bill will bring our regulatory framework upstream. It will send economic signals to producers such as manufacturers and importers to take into account the cost of environmental externalities. It also encourages innovation and the redesigning of products that require less materials, last longer and are more easily recycled.
The regulatory framework will also fund the recovery and aggregation of useful materials such as metals from e-waste, which makes recycling more viable. We will target the three priority waste streams of electrical and electronic waste, or e-waste, packaging waste including plastics, and food waste. Let me explain why we are focusing on these three waste streams.
E-waste generation is growing exponentially with rising affluence. Singapore generates about 60,000 tonnes of e-waste annually, yet very little is recycled. This translates to each person throwing away the equivalent of six mobile phones every month.
Such waste may contain heavy metals and other hazardous substances, and improper disposal may lead to the contamination of our environment and harm public health. Precious metals like gold are also being thrown away. We will introduce the Extended Producer Responsibility or EPR approach to e-waste by 2021, to ensure the proper handling and extraction of resources from e-waste. This will mandate producers of covered electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) to be responsible for the collection and proper treatment of their e-waste. All producers of covered EEE will need to register with NEA. Producers of consumer products which exceed the prescribed thresholds will need to join the Producer Responsibility Scheme (PRS) and finance the collection and recycling of e-waste. In return, the PRS operator will be responsible for meeting e-waste collection targets set by NEA.
To minimise the regulatory impact on smaller players, we have set thresholds to exempt smaller producers, which supply about 10% of the consumer products that are put-to-market in Singapore by weight, from joining the PRS. This means that producers of 90% of the consumer products put-to-market in Singapore will be subjected to the EPR framework. We will monitor the implementation of the EPR framework, and ensure that these thresholds remain relevant.
The next priority waste stream is packaging waste, including plastics. We generate large amounts of this – around a third of the total domestic waste disposed of in Singapore. Almost all of this packaging material is incinerated.
This ensures that the environmental impacts are managed effectively, and our packaging, including plastics do not end up in the sea, mangling creatures such as cute baby dugongs in Thailand. However, we ought to do more to reduce and recycle packaging. External forces are also changing the economics of the recycling industry. China’s ban on the import of plastic waste has shifted the trade patterns of plastic recyclables. As a result, our plastics recycling rate, which hovered around 10%, dropped to 4% in 2018. We cannot continue with business as usual. We can and must do more to better manage packaging, including plastics.
As a start, next year, we will implement mandatory reporting of packaging data as well as plans to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging, including plastics.
The requirements will apply, for a start, to companies with an annual turnover of over $10 million. This will cover approximately 4,500 medium and large enterprises in Singapore who put packaging on the market. Micro and small enterprises will be exempted. This reporting will focus management attention on the packaging that companies are placing on the market and spur reduction efforts that will save them costs. This will lay the ground for an EPR framework for packaging waste, which will be put in place no later than 2025, if not earlier.
Third, food waste is a major waste stream with high generation tonnage and low recycling rates. In 2018, we generated 763,000 tonnes of food waste. Of this, only 17% was recycled.
From 2024, we will make it mandatory for the owners and occupiers of commercial and industrial premises which generate large amounts of food waste, to segregate their food waste for treatment.
We will also require owners and occupiers of new buildings which are expected to be large food waste generators, to treat food waste on-site. In preparation for this, we will require developers of new buildings which are expected to be large food waste generators, to make provisions for on-site treatment of food waste in development plans submitted from 2021. These new requirements will ensure that food waste from large food waste generators is diverted for treatment or converted into useful products, such as compost and animal feed, instead of being incinerated.
This will also reduce odour and pest nuisances at the premises, and reduce the contamination of recyclables by food waste, allowing for greater resource recovery.
We will complement the regulatory frameworks with other measures. These include educational campaigns, co-creation efforts with the community and grants to support ground-up initiatives. For example, NEA launched the "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign in June as part of the Year Towards Zero Waste movement to reduce the excessive consumption of disposables and packaging and encourage the use of reusables. NEA has also launched the "Towards Zero Waste Grant" to support individuals, interest groups, NGOs, grassroots organisations and corporations to initiate or scale up waste reduction and recycling initiatives. A vibrant Zero Waste eco-system will encourage our citizens to reduce, reuse and recycle. Our regulatory measures will be key in incentivising producers to play an active role in building this Zero Waste eco-system with us.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now highlight the main elements of the Resource Sustainability Bill.
Part 3 of the Bill establishes the EPR framework for e-waste. Clause 8 requires producers, as defined in the Bill, to register with NEA in order to supply regulated products, and clause 12 requires large producers above prescribed thresholds to join a Producer Responsibility Scheme (PRS) before they can supply regulated consumer products.
For producers of regulated non-consumer products, clause 13 requires them to collect any of such products upon request by customers at no charge.
Clause 14 requires retailers to offer a one-for-one collection of an unwanted product at no charge when retailers deliver a product of the same type to a customer. Clause 15 requires large retailers to provide in-store collection of e-waste. Retailers are important stakeholders in this EPR framework for e-waste, and are often the interface with customers.
To ensure that e-waste is properly managed and disposed of, clauses 16 and 17 lay out restrictions on the collection and disposal of e-waste to ensure proper treatment.
The next part of the Bill, Part 4, establishes the mandatory reporting framework for packaging, including plastics. Clause 20 requires producers of specified packaging that fulfil the threshold criteria to report on the packaging they introduce onto the Singapore market. They will also be required to submit plans to NEA to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging under clause 21. As mentioned earlier, the threshold criteria will, for a start, be set at an annual turnover of above $10 million.
Part 5 establishes the mandatory segregation of food waste for treatment for buildings which are large generators of food waste.
Clause 25 requires occupiers of a prescribed building to segregate their food waste and dispose of it in a facility provided by the building manager, who will be obligated to provide such facilities under clause 26. Clause 27 requires the building managers of prescribed buildings to also ensure the treatment of all food waste.
Part 6 covers the requirements on operators of the PRS. They are fundamental in any EPR framework as they establish the network for public collection of the regulated waste and ensure that the waste collected is properly treated and recycled. Clause 28 will require operators of the PRS to be licensed. Clauses 30 to 32 empower NEA to determine the conditions of the licence and to take necessary actions to ensure effective operation of the PRS.
As NEA will be providing the licensee with certain information submitted by obligated producers for the purpose of the EPR, clause 36 makes it an offence for the licensee or former licensees to disclose any confidential information received from NEA. This will ensure the confidentiality of data to safeguard the interests of producers.
Part 7 contains the provisions necessary for the enforcement of the Bill. Clauses 37 to 40 empower authorised officers to request for information and documents from any person, and enter any non-residential premises to investigate or monitor compliance with the provisions of the Bill. Clause 41 penalises anyone who hinders an authorised officer in the performance of his or her duty.
Part 8 contains miscellaneous provisions necessary for the administration of the Bill. As a large part of the regulations is dependent on information furnished by the obligated persons, clause 42 makes the provision of any false or misleading information an offence. To safeguard information, clause 43 prohibits NEA from disclosing any confidential information or document except in accordance with the clause.
The penalties laid out in the Bill are in line with other similar legislation, such as the Energy Conservation Act and the Environmental Public Health Act.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear that business as usual in the way we produce and consume is not sustainable. The impacts of climate change and the carbon and resource constraints we face respect no geographical or national boundaries. The Resource Sustainability Bill is an integral part of our strategy to close resource loops through a circular economy approach to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Not only will it contribute to environmental sustainability, it will also help to build up the three resiliences – climate, economic and resource. Only by doing so can we create a sustainable Singapore of tomorrow and secure our collective future for our children.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to take a strong stance on global warming. We cannot afford to leave it to future generations to worry about. I am glad to hear that we are planning for both climate change and rising sea levels and doing our best to use resources sustainably. The Zero Waste Masterplan launched last week highlighted that we want to cut waste sent to the landfill by 30%. This is a worthwhile goal but a very big one. We will all need to pull together to achieve it.
I often hear Singaporeans say, "But we are such a small country, how can we make a difference?" Indeed, our carbon footprint is comparatively low compared to other larger countries. Our global emissions amount to about 0.1%.
But this effort can put us as a world leader on the international stage and, hopefully, we can inspire others to do their part. Actions from everyone add up. If everybody thinks tackling climate change is someone else's responsibility, then who will take responsibility?
This Resource Sustainability Bill, which aims to improve waste management in Singapore and support businesses to reduce and recycle their waste, is a step in the right direction.
The Bill does well to hold key producers of various types of waste accountable for waste management and reduction. I would like to ask: when businesses report how they will cut down on excessive packaging, do they have to meet a certain target? What will be the targets set? How will they be monitored? If companies do not meet the targets, what penalties will be imposed? We need ambitious targets to ensure that companies take this seriously but, at the same time, it should not be too onerous. Companies should not be unduly over-pressurised by this requirement. After all, doing business nowadays is not easy.
At the same time, the Government also needs to simplify reporting as much as possible and train companies accordingly. Will the new requirements raise the prices of goods? This is my concern.
Some eateries, hawker centres and fast food restaurants, for example, provide single-use plastic spoons and forks for customers having their meals on-site. Are these single-use items regulated as packaging? If not, that could become a loophole in the law.
Next, if the Minister can explain more on electrical and electronic waste. Given the expected increase in volume of e-waste, can our current e-waste recycling capability cope? What are the plans to grow this capability?
Next, on food waste. It concerns me that building managers will have difficulties implementing segregation and treating of food waste on-site, especially if occupiers of the prescribed buildings do not cooperate. This would be just like our HDB recycling bins, where just one uncooperative person can contaminate the whole bin.
Can the Minister elaborate, how massive is this exercise? How many buildings would fall within this category? How many NEA-operated hawker centres have such facilities at the moment? How would food prices at hawker centres, coffeeshops, schools and so on be affected? Are there local commercial buildings that have already adopted the practice of segregating and/or treating food waste on-site? What are their challenges, the results and benefits?
The law is mainly focused on businesses. But individual actions will make a difference, too. What I hope to see is this message trickling down to individuals. Nothing is too small or too little to combat climate change for our next generation. On this note, I would like to take this opportunity to once again call for a charge on plastic bags. The impact may be insignificant, as the Senior Minister of State alluded to in her reply to my Parliamentary Question recently. But I strongly believe that such a gesture will make people more conscious of what they do, how many plastic bags do they need and such consciousness will have knock-off effects on their daily lives and the consumption pattern. Certainly, we must stop consuming more than what we need. Reduce, reuse, recycle must be the norm of our society. Fighting climate change should not be the job of just the Government. Everyone has a role to play. And we have to do this seriously for the survival of our country and for our next generation.
I have mentioned recycling bins. Can we please do more to get all residents to use recycling bins appropriately? Are there plans to improve the heartland recycling network? Also, many depend on the "karang guni" man to dispose of our unwanted items. How will this new Bill impact their trade?
Another facet of our life is the PMDs. How are people to dispose of their PMDs? When UL2722-certified e-scooters coming into effect next July, at least 80,000 PMDs will be disposed of in the coming year. Can the Minister give some guidance on these areas? How will this be done?
Domestic helpers and foreign workers play a big role at home and at work when it comes to waste management. What is the Ministry doing to reach out to these groups? Sir, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Everyone has a duty to protect the Earth. The Bill stipulates that large companies must inform authorities how much single-use packaging they are using and how to reduce packaging. We must treat this matter seriously. But at the same time we must also be aware of price increases brought about by the new regulations.
The Bill also stipulates that food waste must be processed in a special machine. May I ask whether we are prepared for this change and how hawker centres, schools and military camps are going to cope? How are they going to train tenants of a building? We do not want it to be like our HDB recycling bins where just one person can contaminate the whole bin, causing all items inside to become unrecyclable.
Separately, will the new regulations affect food prices?
Talking about recycling in the HDB precincts, how will the new regulations affect the "karang gunis (rag and bone men)". Will they lose their trade entirely?
There are many people who are about to change their PMDs to the ones that comply with the UL2272 standard. May I ask how to dispose of these PMDs correctly?
Whether it is at commercial premises or at home, foreign workers and domestic helpers play a big role in waste management. Do we have plans to educate them on these new regulations?
(In English): We will continue to push on with more efforts to promote sustainability.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with climate change and sustainability increasingly a hot-button issue across the globe, it is timely to think about how we manage our waste as we set about building a sustainable Singapore.
The amount of solid waste disposed has increased exponentially due to our affluence, population growth and consumption habits. Singapore's only landfill, Semakau Landfill, is expected to reach capacity in just 16 years if we continue to generate waste at current rates. This is a ticking time bomb that needs urgency in tackling. I am, therefore, heartened to see efforts being dedicated towards that end.
The Resource Sustainability Bill we have before us is a timely addition to Singapore's waste management strategy by targeting the three main streams of waste in Singapore: electrical or electronic products and e-waste, food waste and packaging, and I support the Bill's aims to augment our waste management strategies. However, I would like to touch on a few topics related to circularity and resource sustainability, and I hope the Minister can clarify on how they will be addressed moving forward.
One, packaging reporting. There has been much coverage over the impact of packaging waste over our environment. However, our reliance on such single-use packaging has only continued to deepen despite efforts, such as the voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement. A main source of such packaging waste is made from plastic and, looking at the statistics over time, plastic waste disposed has gone way up from 540,800 tonnes in 2003 to 908,600 tonnes in 2018. As such, this House has unsurprisingly seen much debate over single-use plastics, including those used for packaging. However, data on the detailed use of such packaging does not seem to be tracked for now.
Therefore, mandatory packaging reporting seems necessary as a first step towards a framework to regulate packaging products. And such is the case under Part 4 of the Bill. Under clause 20 of the Bill, companies are required to submit a report relating to the specified packaging provided that they fulfil the prescribed threshold criteria. While it is not clear in the Bill itself, the Zero Waste Masterplan notes that the problem is on excessive packaging, and the initial aim of the framework is at producers of packaged products and supermarkets with a turnover of more than $10 million. This is a start, but I do have some concerns.
Singapore currently serves as a key market and a regional showcase for many companies and franchisees, be it home-grown brands or foreign brands. The packaging waste generated by many such companies can be substantial, including companies or businesses with not more than a turnover of $10 million.
Can I ask the Senior Minister of State why a revenue threshold was chosen in the reporting standard? The concern here is that by focusing on the bigger players, we may be losing sight of the SMEs or the smaller businesses who may be used to single-use plastics as they have no resources to work on alternatives. How will the Ministry help businesses below that turnover threshold limit their packaging, especially businesses that have always used much packaging, for example, food and other retail businesses?
This issue is important to get right, especially for currently small but fast growing companies, such as Grain and Wok Hey. Helping them with packaging standards at first will be more cost-effective than to have them switch over and comply with new standards at a later date.
Furthermore, since producers of specified packaging who fulfil the prescribed threshold criteria in any year – let us call it "T" – must, in year T+2, submit to NEA a report relating to the specified packaging that is imported or used in year T+1, it appears that there will be a two-year time lag in calculating the total amount of packaging reported. Therefore, the earliest this information will be reported will be in 2021, as noted in the news. In the meantime, how will NEA work to ensure that between now and 2021, the companies will actively work towards less packaging? Has there been any companies that have given information to the relevant agencies on this? Will this data be made public?
A clear benefit of releasing such data is to let relevant organisations use it for a Green Score system that allows companies to be judged on their efforts and targets to reduce packaging waste. This can incentivise companies to work towards reduction targets as an interim measure until NEA releases an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging companies.
Two, treatment of food waste. Mr Deputy Speaker, food waste looks to be a costly and big problem that we have yet to find an effective way to handle. The Singapore Environment Council indicated in a recent study that food loss contributes to an estimated $2.54 billion from farm to market within Singapore. Key waste statistics from NEA indicate that while food waste stands at 10% of all waste generated, recycling stands at 17% of the food waste generated in 2018. It is an improvement from 6% in 2003 but, evidently, more can be done to tackle the remaining waste.
However, our campaign against food waste seems lacklustre. The year-long Food Waste campaign is non-binding on citizens. In many Government and university events, anecdotes of good catered food going to waste as they are left unconsumed are a dime a dozen. Even as we must balance the needs between hygiene and waste management, the fact remains that food waste is a fundamental issue that requires bigger changes, indeed, an overhaul, to ensure that the loop can be closed and allow for effective regeneration of such resources.
In the news, there are reports of plans from PUB to treat food waste into biogas at Tuas Nexus and of urban insect farms supported by Enterprise Singapore that are targeted at the food waste issue as well. Such grandiose plans, however, will take time to integrate.
In the meantime, perhaps making consumption adjustments on major waste producers will see more immediate impact. As clause 4 of the Bill binds the Government on the provisions of the Bill, we could start from the Public Service to signal the seriousness that this Government takes in tackling a fundamental issue. How would the Public Service support efforts to reduce food waste internally? I have seen in a Straits Times Forum reply that SAF tries to keep food waste to a minimum. This could be extended to the whole of the Public Service, with a firm public commitment to lead by example and reduce food waste that it produces. This will send a good signal to the private sector and can even be a good way to reduce overheads in holding events, however slight.
Also, under the Bill, occupiers of a prescribed building or part of a prescribed building must segregate food waste. In addition to food waste segregation facilities, building managers of a new building must also provide treatment facilities. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what the expected use of food waste from new buildings will be, and if there will be enough off-takers of food waste slurry or compost.
Finally, how is the Ministry currently helping charities that collect food from shops or food outlets and deliver it to needy residents and, if so, perhaps the Senior Minister of State can share with us what are these efforts and whether more support can be extended to these charities as this would help support the food waste and packaging waste goals and such charities play an important role in helping us to achieve these goals.
Three, e-waste collection by individuals. Next, with the proliferation of digital devices, e-waste is increasingly a problem. Many households keep devices that no longer work, not knowing where to dispose of them. I am, therefore, concerned about how certain provisions in the Bill may adversely hinder certain current e-waste collection efforts.
Under the provisions of the Bill, public collection of e-waste will henceforth be prohibited unless they are operating a licensed scheme or have a written approval of NEA to do so. Any person who does so will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding S$5,000. Would these provisions within this Bill negatively affect well-intended public collection? How about the "karang guni" men who also provide collection services? I am of the view that NEA should encourage ground-up initiatives from members of the public, NGOs and small shops to enable such recycling in conjunction with industry stakeholders. Therefore, I hope that such written permission from NEA will be easy to obtain at little to no cost if they are doing such public collection with good intentions.
I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State how does the Ministry intend to enforce against retailers when they fall foul of the provisions of the Bill after it is passed and what recourse would the public have if retailers refuse to accept e-waste. What recourse can the public take to effectively report errant behaviour on the part of such retailers?
It was noted that by the Senior Minister of State in COS 2018 that through aggregating e-waste and enabling more efficient collection and processing, there would be greater value captured from e-waste and can help offset the cost of operating the e-waste management system. As the small but burgeoning e-waste recycling industry will be boosted by the introduction of this framework, I hope some insights and assurances can be given on regulating precious metal recovery from e-waste. At this point, how do we ensure that the export of our e-waste for recycling purposes, such that the Basel Convention is compiled with, and that the e-waste do not end up in a black market overseas? Given the potentially hazardous chemicals involved in recycling, what safety regulations are in place to ensure that such chemicals do not find themselves into the environment?
A case in point is Singapore-based Virogreen who had their import licence suspended for a year by Thailand’s Department of Industrial Works after police investigations. This was due to a batch of cargo with 96 tonnes of e-waste that was labelled as second-hand electronic appliances from countries, including Singapore, which found its way, according to Thai media reports, into their e-waste management plants.
Such news is disconcerting, as such waste exports have been a source of diplomatic tensions and we do not want to impact the environment of our neighbours adversely. Ministerial reassurances in this area will go some way to assuage concerns on the impact on our environment or that we may be exporting our e-waste problem away, to the detriment of our neighbours.
Four, marine pollution. Tackling the main streams of waste is key to minimise marine pollution that has impacted not just our shorelines, but also the shorelines and waterways of our neighbours. I wish to add my voice to support the recent Bangkok Declaration on combating Marine Debris that Singapore has adopted, but I hope we can do more on the preventative end.
A key source of marine pollution has been micro plastics. Singapore has not been immune from this source of pollution, with micro plastics in our own coastline found to be carrying toxic pathogens that cause coral bleaching and wound infections. To prevent more of such micro plastics from entering the environment and wrecking damage, I wish to ask the Senior Minister of State if she will consider a ban on primary micro plastic production and use. Such bans have been introduced in the European Union, to be enforced from 2020.
I believe that banning the production of micro plastics will send a good signal in our commitment to reduce the impact of micro plastics on our environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in closing, I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications and answers, and notwithstanding my concerns, I support this Bill.
Sir, Singapore is facing a problem with waste. When something is thrown away, it does not disappear – it has to be disposed of somewhere or somehow. After reducing the volume of unrecycled waste through burning which produces energy, we need to put the remaining ashes somewhere. Landfills serve this purpose but, as the name connotes, it fills land and land is not something we have in abundance.
We need to be good stewards of it – we cannot waste it. We have already used up substantial areas in Choa Chu Kang, Lim Chu Kang and Lorong Halus as landfills. Pulau Semakau is currently a key landfill and we cannot afford to waste it. The current 157-hectare plot that we are using in Pulau Semakau can hold approximately 6,680 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of ash. Last year, before incineration which reduces the volume by about 90%, we generated 15,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools of waste. Over the past 40 years, the amount of waste increased seven-fold, with food waste increasing 30% in the last 10 years. In fact, the current projected lifespan of Pulau Semakau is 2035 – 10 years earlier from previous estimates and only about 16 years from now. What we are aiming for is to prolong this for as long as possible. This Bill supports the endeavour by addressing electrical and electronic waste, packaging waste and food waste.
Part 3 of this Bill addresses electrical and electronic waste. It makes sure users have a way to recycle these products. Clause 13 requires producers of non-consumer products to collect upon request what was produced or manufactured.
Clause 15 requires large retailers to accept used products similar to those they sell in order to dispose of them.
Clause 14 requires retailers who deliver products to accept and dispose the old item. This would be especially useful for bulky electric products such as washing machines and fridges. Not only would this reduce the toxicity of waste going to our landfill, it will also be able to extract valuable minerals and materials from these used products, finding treasure in the trash. This will reduce the demand on mining and make these limited resources on the earth last longer.
In essence, we have a duty in Parliament to ensure we entrench a sustainable plan to protect our green environment, reduce plastic-usage, increase recycling, enhance upcycling. If done correctly, Singapore can be a global thought leader on this. It must be a united effort across all sectors of our society.
Collection is the first step and there is a need to encourage and promote collection. This is done by requiring operators of the responsible producer scheme to hit a target collection in clause 30(c) and by requiring them to promote awareness of electronic waste disposal in clause 30(d).
After collection, the waste needs to be dealt with properly. clause 12 requires producers to manage electric waste by becoming a member of a responsible producer scheme, which is regulated by Part 6 of the Bill. Furthermore, clause 17 makes it an offence for non-individuals to dispose regulated products as waste instead of through the licensed producer responsibility scheme, licensed waste collector or licensed e-waste recycler, or someone approved to collect e-waste. Even as the consequences are quite serious for non-compliance, would the Minister explain how will they work with and assist those arrested and affected understand how to comply with this legislation?
Furthermore, as this Bill addresses regulated products, would the Minister explain how this might affect e-commerce of electronic products and how are concerns that those required to accept or collect waste might become inequitably burdened by waste that they were not responsible for producing; that is, how are these concerns going to be addressed?
Besides electronic waste, another important source of waste that this Bill seeks to address is packaging waste. Part 4 institutes a reporting regime relating to packaging which requires producers of specified packaging to monitor its packaging waste and to think about ways to reduce, reuse or recycle packaging. These reports are to be submitted according to the years that the producers hit the prescribed limit.
The flexibility in such a scheme is good. It encourages producers to be aware of what they are producing, why they are producing it and how they can reduce it. Yet, on the other hand, producers figure out for themselves how to get to the end goal of reducing packaging waste, allowing them to prioritise what they are looking for in packaging, accommodating the variety of purposes packaging may serve for that product. For instance, drink powder sachets apportion the powder, make it portable, differentiate sachet contents and protects it from getting wet. Yet, on the other hand, more environmentally-friendly packaging such as paper-based packaging may serve similar functions instead.
Relating to recycling packaging, I have three questions. Firstly, does biodegradable plastic help our landfill problem or are they treated the same way as non-biodegradable plastic. If so, is it feasible to tweak our waste management system to better tap into the biodegradable ability of these biodegradable plastics? Second, what plans are there to increase our capability to recycle our own waste product, especially plastic waste. This is especially important since there are reports that recyclable waste is ending up incinerated. Thirdly, because trash can be treasures for a different product, how can Singapore tap into upcycling our waste and promoting a circular economy even though Singapore may not have a very big manufacturing sector ourselves?
The third kind of waste this Bill addresses is in Part 5, being food waste. Clause 26 requires building managers of certain kinds of buildings to provide their own food waste management facility within the premises. If that building is an existing building, clause 27(2) allows the food waste management process to be outsourced instead of being situated onsite but the food must still be segregated and treated. Although the building manager needs to provide such a facility, the duty is not left to the building's management alone. An occupier is compelled to make use of it through clause 25 which creates an offence for an occupier of such buildings to dispose food waste together with other types of waste if the food waste was generated in that building.
While compelled by law to manage food waste, processing food waste on-site may actually save cost for management. This is what happened in Our Tampines Hub (OTH) where only one garbage compactor truck is needed daily, compared to three previously, saving the management about $40,000 annually. Because food was not left exposed overnight, pest and rodent problems are minimised. Food compost are used as fertilisers and non-potable water used for cleaning the eco-digester, rubbish bins or bin centres.
Would the Ministry kindly elaborate on who are the intended prescribed buildings? Would they include shopping malls and hawker centres? Additionally, since there is great benefit in composting food waste, does the Ministry have plans to extend food waste management systems to residential estates or make such food waste management facilities accessible to non-occupants of the prescribed building?
Besides dealing with food waste through a food waste management system, there is a need to minimise food contaminating recyclable items. Perhaps the Ministry could consider requiring regular dustbins be situated near recycling bins so that the inconsiderate actions of a few will not hamper the recycling efforts of the majority. What is being done to increase recycling literacy and how effective has it been?
Sir, in conclusion, while we increase efforts to reduce packaging and recycle food and electronic waste, what we need is renewed mindsets. For example, is the measure of unusability whether something is old and faded rather than spoilt and inoperable? Instead of reusing old mindsets, maybe we should discard them to have new ones – new ones that help us be content with what we have; new ones that help us prioritise responsible disposal over personal convenience; new ones that promote conscientious stewardship of our landfill over more short-sighted enjoyment of the temporal, without caring about the future. We need to change the way we conceptualise, handle and create waste. This Bill provides the important infrastructural support for that change, and therefore, I support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, alarm bells have been ringing around the world about the Climate Emergency facing our planet. The Prime Minister addressed the Climate Emergency in his National Day Rally speech recently. Even before this Climate Emergency, Singapore has been facing a Waste Emergency for decades now. Already, our only landfill at Pulau Semakau had its lifespan shortened from 2045 to 2035. We only have 15-odd years left to solve this problem.
We knew about this emergency for a while and yet our responses have not been as strong as they should be. In laying the framework to compel producers of e-waste, packaging waste and food waste to reduce, reuse and recycle their waste, this Bill is good though late in coming.
There is a lot of discussion about the circular economy approach to addressing the problematic waste streams. The Zero Waste Master Plan is supposed to express the circular economy aspiration, to eliminate waste and to continually reuse resources in the production-consumption cycle. The target announced is to reduce the daily waste sent to Semakau by 30% by 2030.
Is this ambitious enough for the Waste Emergency we are facing? How much will this slow down the filling up of Pulau Semakau and extend its lifespan? What happens when Semakau is filled up eventually? Why not up the ante to halving the daily waste by 2030?
In addition to these general questions, I would like to discuss three aspects that I think are being neglected by the framework to be instituted by this Bill.
The first is that the treatment of the three waste streams does not address the issue of transnational waste cycles.
The second is that the treatment of the food waste stream is too focused on the waste itself and neglects the upstream causes of food waste, including the way we eat.
The third is that our public education approach is still stuck in the communication campaign model and neglects the more effective model of targeting problem areas smartly by social nudging.
The first issue is transnational waste streams. With regard to e-waste, the current framework targets producers of electronic and electrical goods with retail presence here in Singapore and also retail companies selling these goods. This is still based on the brick-and-mortar economy.
However, the trend is for consumers to order their electronic goods online. And it is not uncommon for small to medium-sized goods to be shipped from overseas these days through micro-retailers utilising online platforms to connect with consumers. How would the Extended Producer Responsibility framework apply to these micro-retailers and overseas producers? How would the e-waste from these production-consumption streams be audited and factored into the EPR system? These are not trivial questions as we should expect online shopping and transnational delivery to increase in scope and scale as technologies improve and society evolves.
The same applies to packaging waste. Online shopping and transnational delivery mean more packaging would be used to ensure goods are not damaged by extended shipping. The current framework targets producers of packaging and packaged produces with annual turnover of more than $10 million.
What percentage of packaging waste do these producers account for? Does this cover the growing online shopping arms of these producers? How about the growing field of micro-retailers and overseas producers selling to local consumers through online platforms?
The other major problem is the fact that we export 30% of our recyclable waste to countries including Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand for processing. Some of these countries are closing their doors to waste import, while there have been cases of waste dumping and e-waste pollution hurting local communities that give a bad name to countries that export waste like Singapore.
How can we ensure that our exported recyclable wastes are properly processed and recycled? What happens if we are not able to export the waste for recycling, for example plastic and packaging wastes, do we just incinerate them?
This is not just an accountability issue, but it is also about the integrity of the circular economy approach. If we are not ensuring waste materials get returned to the production-consumption cycle, but are simply trying to get rid of thrash to prevent Semakau from filling up, then we are not keeping to the true spirit of the circular economy.
Food waste also has a transnational dimension. The recent study by the Singapore Environment Council shows that one-fifth of total food in Singapore, over 390,000 tonnes of fresh produce, is wasted in the food supply chain. A significant portion, 144,000 tonnes are lost when imported food lands in Singapore. Why is this so and what can MEWR do to reduce this unnecessary wastage?
The second issue is that we need to go upstream to tackle the food waste, from tackling wastage in the food supply chain to the way the nation eats. We should deploy the circular economy approach here too in a whole-of-system manner.
I mentioned the significant amount of food lost in the importing food chain. One solution is to increase local production to supply food. To this end, the Government is targeting to increase local production to meet 30% of local nutritional needs by 2030. Increasing local food production will create other problems of food lost and wasted during the production process. MEWR should therefore look at this area and encourage the reusing of food lost during the production process as animal feed or their recycling into compost for farming.
The large-scale processing of food waste will also reap benefits. I understand that when the Tuas Nexus comes online in 2025, food waste and used water sludge will be co-digested to produce biogas for energy production. Does this mean the trade-off is that we will not be benefitting from composting food waste instead? Are the options for food waste treatment either co-digestion to product biogas or composting to produce fertiliser? If so, what are the calculations of MEWR in choosing co-digestion rather than composting, since the production of compost fertiliser could benefit local farming?
The current Bill targets commercial and industrial premises that generate large amounts of food waste to undertake food waste segregation for treatment. But given that half of the total food waste generated comes from residential households, should we not require the same undertaking for residential premises?
I understand from Minister Masagos' reply to my Parliamentary Question last month that a household food waste segregation pilot was conducted at Tampines GreenLace and the results were very promising, with 4,000 kg of food waste collected over three months. Residents even requested for the pilot to be extended. Given the success and the popularity of the pilot, and the fact that we are facing a waste emergency, should we not be bold and extend this now to all HDB estates?
The way we Singaporeans eat matter. We import 90% of our food and yet we consume in abundance with very little awareness of our food security issues. A lot of wastage is caused by near-expiry food being thrown away by both retailers and consumers. Yet, we have a not insignificant group of Singaporeans facing household food insecurity.
We need to encourage food donation to reduce food waste. I have spoken on this before, during the debate on the Singapore Food Agency Bill, the Government is in a good position to develop a National Food Support System to channel excess food to fight household food insecurity in Singapore and feed hungry Singaporeans. We should also legislate Good Samaritan laws to protect food donors and food distributors from criminal or civil liability for incidents arising from donated excess food.
The third issue is we have hit a green ceiling on education. We need to change our model from communication campaigns to strong and smart nudging using the social norms held by Singaporeans. Domestic recycling rates have remained stuck at 21%. The response by MEWR is to change the labels on the blue bins and paint the recycling trucks blue. We need to do better.
If we would identify a social norm that is blocking efforts to encourage domestic recycling and raising green consciousness across Singapore society, it is the norm of convenience. Convenience has become the norm that need no explanation when it comes to demand for Government and municipal services. To reduce littering, we make throwing rubbish convenient by placing green rubbish bins all over the city. To promote a hygienic environment, we make garbage disposal convenient by building rubbish chutes in each home or on each floor. Using the same reason or excuse, we refuse to consider banning or discouraging plastic bag usage, so that residents can conveniently bag their garbage to dispose.
Whenever a slight inconvenience is caused by maintenance or repair works, we apologise for it. That is why the blue recycling bin has hit a green ceiling, because the big bin conveniently placed at the foot of the block by the side of the road is a convenient bin to dump any rubbish indiscriminately. At the larger systemic level, we conveniently incinerate our rubbish when we can. We need to change this mindset of convenience. A true circular economy cannot have convenience as the dominant norm guiding our behaviour.
This is why I think the Government is mistaken in its reluctance to tackle single-use plastics as such despite the strong public calls to do it. It is not a populist move with little systemic impact. Yes, tackling single-use plastics will not have as much impact on reducing the waste streams filling up Semakau than the complex EPR systems being put in place. But it has tremendous educational value that will nudge Singaporeans to change their whole approach to consumption and disposal of waste.
Single-use plastics represent the epitome of convenience. For example, single-use plastic water bottles, instead of drinking from a cup that has to be filled and washed, one just has to open, drink and throw. When we tackle single-use plastics, we are not just tackling the plastic, we are challenging the idea of convenience and undermining its importance.
We do not have to ban plastic bags to do this. We need to nudge smartly. In some cities, authorities have mandated households to purchase and only use government-certified garbage bags for the disposal of thrash. This nudges citizens to think less of convenience and more of the cost of convenience and leads to overall reduction in the use of plastic bags.
We could also consider nudging household food waste segregation by mandating the use of Government-certified food waste bags with printed diagrams of what would be considered food waste.
Likewise, I remember the early days of our National Recycling Programme, when green translucent recycling bags were dropped at the doors of each household. On each bag, there were diagrams showing what items can be recycled and what cannot. The recycling bags were inconvenient, because it required residents to place items into the bag and bring it out to the lift lobby on a specified date every fortnight. It was also inconvenient as a system, because workers needed to go to each floor to collect the bags and bring them down to the truck.
But it gave those who would try to recycle purpose and a sense of achievement, and the green bags at home reminded everyone to recycle. Moreover, residents were encouraged and nudged when they can visibly see their neighbour recycle, bumping into the green bags of recyclables at the lift lobby on collection days. Neighbours can even gently correct recycling mistakes, since the bag was translucent. It promoted recycling as social behaviour and collective action, which is always more effective than to try to change individual behaviour.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are very far from our Zero Waste aspiration. The circular economy approach is the right one to adopt. The focus on e-waste, packaging waste and food waste is also a correct focus.
However, we need to pay attention to the growing transnational dimension of our waste streams to ensure our efforts do not go to waste. We also need to go more upstream to tackle the problem of food waste, reducing loss in the food supply chain and recycling food waste for compost to improve local food production. Lastly, we need to double down on education and get all Singaporeans to reduce, reuse and recycle as their second nature. We should do this by moving away from communication campaigns to social nudging, especially to shake up the norm of convenience at the heart of our problems.
This is not just about Semakau filling up, but it is also about how we see ourselves as citizens of this Earth, whether we should seek our own selfish convenience or to choose to protect Earth for the sake of our children. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill for this is critically necessary for the Zero Waste Masterplan to have any bite. This Masterplan has been eagerly anticipated by the community and was ceremoniously launched last Friday. In fact, I think even the Ministry was eager to get this going that the Bill was referred to as the Act in the Masterplan on the website when I checked in after the launch. I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for taking my feedback on that misunderstanding which has now been updated on the website and the Masterplan.
The Bill’s intent is to fortify the regulatory teeth needed to ensure sustainability in the consumption of resources, which our planet has a finite amount of. However, the Bill can and must do much more to reflect the urgency of the climate crisis which I would like to discuss. I would also like to take this opportunity with the Bill to urge the Government to take a bold and different perspective in solving food security challenge for our vulnerable groups as a critical climate change action.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not short of daily reminders that "yesterday would have been better" for taking actions against human-caused climate change. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, had warned in October 2018 that we only have 12 years, or 11 years now, for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 degrees celsius in order to limit climate change catastrophe per the Paris Agreement which we are a party of.
Closer to home, our waste generation has not reduced substantially at all. We generated 7.7 million tonnes of solid waste in 2018, only a 9,000 tonne or a dismal 0.1% decrease from the previous year. In 2018, we generated 763,100 tonnes of food waste, accounting for 10% of our total waste. At this rate, our landfill will run out of space in 2035.
Time is not on our side. Please allow me to propose further measures that must be implemented to signal the urgency.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, smart targets and goals. Having companies simply report on their plans to reduce, reuse or recycle products in the Bill is insufficient. Reporting obligations have no bite if it is not accompanied by waste production limits and recycling targets for producers. We must set SMART goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound so the producers can plan and prepare accordingly.
For example, the European Union Packaging Directive 2018 sets that by 2025, 65% by weight of all packaging must be recycled, with specific recycling targets for each material, such as 50% for plastic and 75% for paper and cardboard. By 2030, the target for recycled packaging is increased to 70%, including 55% for plastic and 85% of paper and cardboard.
Such reduction targets can be achieved with ingenuity. In 2018, Unilever launched a 3-litre bottle for their Omo laundry detergent brand in Brazil, with a formula at six times the concentration of the original, so it can be diluted in people’s homes. This has reduced the volume of plastic used by 75%. Companies must also inform customers about maintenance and repair services, environmental impacts and materials. Retailers should also actively inform customers of sustainable products. We can emulate the ambitious target setting and look to have companies report their progress on waste minimisation year-on-year via a measure of waste per unit of product output.
Second, we must encourage public accountability and corporate stewardship by mandating these reports to be made public. Currently, the Singapore Exchange listing rules already has sustainability reporting guidelines but with no specific metrics prescribed. If we would like to see resource sustainability as a core part of doing business, it would seem sensible to stipulate the targets above as a standard reporting requirement for all listed companies. I understand that the Hong Kong Stock Exchange had a recent consultation on ESG reporting to one, "require disclosure of significant climate-related issues" and two, amend the "Environmental" key performance indicators to require disclosure of relevant targets.
Third, to escalate the adoption of sustainability mindset and ensure affordability, we could incentivise producers and retailers with tax rebates, so that these obligations do not merely end in increased costs for reporting and collection, and the possibility of penalty – all of which will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. In China and Thailand, the EPR schemes introduced subjected companies producing non-biodegradable goods to taxes and offered tax credits as incentives for companies that used waste as raw materials.
Finally, if we want to reduce our resource footprint, we need to broaden the notion of sustainability. Singapore's Earth Overshoot Day for 2019 was 12 April 2019. This means that if the world consumed like us, we would be consuming three times as much resources as the earth can regenerate in a given year.
If we were to drive true resource sustainability we not only have to compel producers to reduce packaging, and have mandatory take-back programmes, we need electronics producers and retailers to be truly incentivised to extend product lifetimes, ensure maintenance and repair services availability. This is an area where legislation is fast moving in the EU. For example, in France, planned obsolescence of an electronic product is a criminal offence. There are also on-going discussions in the EU that expected product lifetime be labelled.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as we discuss these measures to address the climate crisis, we must not miss the tremendous opportunity to reduce and redistribute the phenomenal 763,100 tonnes of food waste generated every year can provide for a more climate-just outcome for the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore. Let me caveat this number as an estimate deliberation from the 2017/2018 household expenditure survey.
Let me illustrate why I think this is a tremendous opportunity and that the Zero Waster Masterplan must not be looked at in solo from the social challenges we have. Of the 763,000 tonnes of food loss a year, let us assume conservatively that half of them, or 382,000 tonnes, can be salvaged and redistributed. One meal, conservatively, uses 1 kg and, therefore, we will get about 382 million meals from the redistributable food loss. Each person eats 1,095 daily meals a year, which is to say, we can safely feed about 390,000 people a year. That means, Mr Deputy Speaker, this food loss every year could provide food security for all our vulnerable groups! I shared this in my speech during the debate on the Singapore Food Agency Bill as well. I know this is a simple calculation but I think we get the point.
Prime Minister Lee sounded a clarion call for Singapore to recognise the threat that climate change poses to us. We must never forget that for most of the world, Singapore included, the most vulnerable amongst us will be hit hardest. Climate change is already affecting rice production in the Mekong Delta. As temperature rises changes agriculture productivity and sea level rises, food availability will inevitably be affected. For the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore, any price increase is detrimental.
SG Food Rescue is a small group of individuals, and they have demonstrated that there is much in our food value chain that can be saved and redistributed. Its volunteers collect a staggering 1,500 kg of unsold fresh produce once a week from Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre. Sometimes, they collect twice a week for a total of 2,500 kg of unsold fresh produce. Five hundred to 700 kg of that goes to charities, namely, Free Food For All, Beyond Social Services and St Theresa's Home that feed the needy, while the rest is sent to a soup kitchen in Little India, Krishna's Kitchen. The soup kitchen processes the vegetables and turns them into meals to feed the hungry, especially migrant workers in the Little India area. About 200 kg ends up with a community initiative in Marine Terrace – just down the road from where I live – and one of the six public community fridges, benefiting low-income residents.
And we can do even more, and we need to do so urgently and systemically. We can shape food-loss-reducing behaviours by changing our food labelling policies and also enacting the Good Samaritan laws. In Singapore, "use by", "sell by", "expiry date" and "best before" all mean expiry date, according to the Singapore Food Agency. Products are not allowed to be sold or distributed in Singapore past that date. This is, therefore, a huge source of food waste.
In many jurisdictions, including United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, "use by", "best before" and "sell by" mean that after the food reaches its "use by" date, the quality and flavour of the food is lowered, but it could still be edible. Studies found that when a link between date labels, food waste and its environmental impacts is made, the willingness-to-pay for expired food increases, particularly for expired frozen or recently expired semi-perishable products.
Food that has gone past its "best before" date can be donated to charities so long as its within six months of the "best before" date. I am pleased to note that the Singapore Food Agency is exploring Good Samaritan laws to ease business concerns over the donation of excess food. I strongly advocate for the implementation of such laws which have been implemented in countries such as Italy and the United States, and have encouraged food donations and reduced food waste.
As I mentioned before, incentives to help drive corporate behaviours cannot be overlooked. We could consider extending the underused Business-IPC Partnership Scheme or BIPs to include donation of edible food that would otherwise go to waste to charities. When supported by the Good Samaritan laws, this is especially compelling for many businesses I know, like Samsui Supplies and Services, through the Company of Good, a corporate giving initiative by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre.
Mr Deputy Speaker, not only will such measures truly drive food resource sustainability, we could be relieving our financially strapped households of a huge burden. Based on the Report on the Household Expenditure Survey 2017/2018, comparing the expenditures on food and income, excluding CPF, of our lowest quintile Singaporeans, 49% of their income is spent on food.
Mdm Gopal, in her 70s, who lives in Toa Payoh, is one of them. She has zero income and survives on $500 per month from her SSO. As a beneficiary of Free Food For All, a charity that receives and redistributes donated food, she saves a minimum of $100 per month. Larger families are able to save much more.
We would also be freeing up scarce resources dedicated to our social safety net for other essential needs such as healthcare. Based on our estimates on how much it costs for programmes like Meals-on-Wheels and Willing Hearts, that provide more than 10,000 daily meals in total, close to $15 million could be redirected to other aspects of social support, especially as higher standards of living with higher temperatures mean that the basic needs of even our most vulnerable must also be constantly reviewed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, engaging the business community must be a top priority because sustainability is a future investment for economic growth, new market opportunities and job creation. Companies must be nudged out of their comfort zones into a greener and more innovative direction as we work towards building a circular economy. This Bill, and the Zero Waste Masterplan, is a step in the right direction but it is not enough, not with the fierce urgency of the climate crisis, and rightful ambition that we must have to be a leader in climate change mitigation.
And more than that, sustainability is also a social parameter to secure a more inclusive society. As urgent as addressing the looming threats of climate change by reducing significant food loss, is the need to solve the food insecurity problem of so many fellow Singaporeans by redistributing this food loss. If a small group of citizen volunteers like SG Food Rescue can move hundreds of tonnes of food loss every year to where they are needed most, imagine what we can do if we – Government, business and community – truly commit our will and resources to a national vision of getting all 400,000 people fed, and make climate change everyone's concern? I believe we can do this.
Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.55 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
Debate resumed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has had a long-standing commitment to sustainability. In fact, our journey towards sustainability started in the 1960s, when our late Mr Lee Kuan Yew laid down the foundations for a clean and green Singapore, even before it was trendy to be green. Even as we grappled with a fledgling economy and uncertain times, we consciously moved towards cleaner sources of energy, dedicated our resources to cleaning up our major waterways, as well as growing our Garden City. We must continue this legacy.
Sustainability is anchored in our ability to identify solutions that creatively minimise the trade-offs we have to make. And yet, allow us to achieve longer term goals in multiple domains. In Singapore, it is a commitment to balanced growth that benefits both the current and future generations, as well as a commitment to creating a high-quality living environment. Often, such sustainability solutions require that we are able to see different, seemingly disjointed parts of our economy and society function as part of an integrated, inter-connected ecosystem. Therefore, changes to the law to better manage how Singapore handles waste, and to help businesses that reduce and recycle electronic waste, packaging waste and food leftovers are a good first step.
Singapore is particularly vulnerable to global disruptions caused by climate change. The Amazon – a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming – has seen more than 80,000 fires break out so far this year. It is a 77% rise, compared to the same period in 2018. A change in weather patterns likely contributed to this. Urgent action is, therefore, needed.
While we cannot solve the Amazon problem, we can and still must play our part here in Singapore. The Resource Sustainability Bill is a good attempt to create a long-term solution to complement individual efforts in the 3Rs by placing more responsibility on businesses and producers in the supply chain to reduce, reuse and recycle. This aim is also in line with the Government’s international obligations and reflects our support for the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals which were adopted in 2015.
The Bill could also positively impact workers in providing new avenues for job creation. For example, more jobs would be created in supply chain management; or specialist fields, for instance, innovation and engineering in streamlining waste disposal, recycling processes and optimising packaging designs of products.
The next generation of our younger Singaporeans entering the workforce will also have very exciting opportunities to play an integral part in the national effort to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Labour Movement is currently working with tripartite partners to support our workers and young Singaporeans by ensuring skills acquisition training for new entrants and existing workers in the Environmental Services field.
However, we note that this Bill could also affect businesses negatively through changes to existing jobs and companies' processes. In the short term, companies could face increased compliance costs. This could be especially challenging in today’s global economy. This could potentially translate to cost-cutting measures felt by workers or consumers. In the longer term, companies may have to restructure their internal processes to reduce costs and promote innovation and sustainability.
So, I would like to check with the Minister how will the Ministry support businesses and workers through these short-term and long-term changes. Specifically, should there be extensions and/or staggering of timelines to encourage compliance by companies and time for workers to adapt? Do we expect to provide time also for workers to take on the necessary training? We should aim to enable workers to keep their jobs while ensuring that this process continues. In addition, we also cannot leave our SMEs behind. Can more assistance be provided to the smaller one who might struggle to afford the resources for compliance? Could grants be provided to smaller companies to help them comply? The Labour Movement will support workers through this transition. It is prepared to work with the Ministry to help our workers and companies adapt to this change.
I have some technical points of clarification that I would like to seek from the Minister.
First, section 7(3) appears to exempt any manufacturer of regulated products from being considered as "producers" and, therefore, subject to registration and/or licensed scheme requirements, if the regulated product was manufactured “for or on behalf of” a "Singapore-connected person". Section 19(2) is similar in the context of the use of "specified packaging". What examples are envisaged by this exemption? How would we know whether a manufacturer of a regulated product would specifically be manufacturing the product “for or on behalf of a Singapore-connected person”?
Are there estimates as to how many companies could feasibly take shelter under this exemption? On the face of it, it appears that many products supplied and manufactured in Singapore would generally be manufactured for or on behalf of Singapore-connected persons, that is, Singapore citizens/PRs or companies with a Singapore connection.
Furthermore, section 12(1)/(2) and section 20(1) make reference to the thresholds which the Minister may prescribe for regulated consumer products and packaging respectively. Can we have clarification on how the "prescribed threshold" will be determined? What are the criteria and how will these be determined?
As mentioned by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech, whilst we may not be able to halt climate change by ourselves, we all need to do our part to contribute to the global effort. Let us continue to strive for sustainability, not only because of the world we wish our future generations to inherit, but because we believe we stand to reap the rewards for doing so in a very tangible way. The Singapore Story is testament to our belief that economic growth and sustainability are themselves not mutually exclusive but are instead mutually reinforcing and beneficial. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as the Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Environment Council. I rise in support of the Bill.
Sir, Singapore is a small nation with limited land area and no natural resources. This has necessitated us to import resources in order for us to build up our infrastructure and built environment to allow for Singaporeans to live, work and play as they do today.
Likewise, 90% of our food is imported from outside of Singapore. This is in addition to the natural gas and liquefied natural gas that we import to generate 95% of our electricity. In other words, we are heavily reliant on supplies that we import to survive. There should be no illusions that we can survive in isolation.
Yet, we are victims of our own success. Our economic growth has caused Singaporeans to become affluent and we have developed a tendency to over consume. This over-consumption is not isolated to merely food but also other resources, such as electrical and electronic appliances. Statistics released by the Ministry places the amount of food waste per year at 763 million kg and the amount of e-waste per year at 60 million kg.
Sir, climate change, an issue which Prime Minister Lee spoke on extensively at the recent National Day Rally, will pose threats to the supply of resources, such as reduction of harvest yields and disruptions to transportation. It is inevitable that these will affect Singaporeans, given our need to import resources. As such, all of us must play our part and make sustainability a way of life in Singapore.
The Bill provides a good first step in encouraging the responsible consumption of resources and the proper disposal of e-waste and food waste among Singaporeans. It is also a good starting point in the creation of a sustainable eco-system to manage waste in Singapore.
Sir, I would like to raise some questions relating to the Bill at this juncture.
In relation to paragraph 15(1), it is stated that "large retailers must offer in-store collection of certain e-waste". With the proliferation of e-commerce, it is conceivable that e-retailers sell a comparable amount, if not more, in comparison to traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. How does the Ministry intend for these retailers to provide these physical collection points when they do not have any physical stores?
In addition, the stipulations of paragraphs 14 and 15 are likely to cause large retailers of electrical and electronic appliances to incur additional costs. Has the Ministry studied how it can help to offset some of these costs?
Sir, to help alleviate the burden on businesses, I would like to propose three measures.
First, the Government should consider providing grants or tax breaks. These grants or tax breaks can be given when businesses invest in infrastructure to promote sustainable practices, such as the setting up of in-store collection points and waste recycling centres.
Second, the Government can look into the possibility of renting industrial buildings to these retailers at subsidised prices if they are used for waste disposal processes, such as consolidation or sorting. We can learn from the state government of Victoria, Australia, which provides grants and funding for programmes contributing to sustainability, including infrastructure. In particular, one of the grants, known as the Resource Recovery Infrastructure Fund, aims to improve the collection, sorting and recycling of processed materials. It has allocated A$19.1 million since 2017. It has proven successful, with an estimated reduction in 900,000 tons of landfill waste per year. We can learn from the Victorian government in incentivising the creation of waste disposal infrastructure in our nation.
Third, the Government should set up an online National Registry of Producers and Regulated Products. This will not only help businesses in reducing costs associated with developing their own systems to monitor and track these products, but will also help the Government in aggregating data on a national scale. This will help it to identify ways in which schemes can be improved upon, and programmes introduced, in order to ramp up sustainability efforts.
It is not sufficient to simply assign the responsibility to businesses. The contributions of businesses in efforts, such as carrying energy-efficient appliances, promoting the purchase of these, providing attractive trade-in deals to incentivise consumers to use energy-efficient products, and setting up more e-waste recycling points are bound to aid in sustainability. However, the pursuit of sustainability should be a collective effort by Singaporeans from all walks of life.
There are drawbacks to imposing the bulk of responsibility on the retailers. First, this will result in rising business expenditures for the retailers. In turn, they will pass on these increased costs to consumers. This may disincentivise Singaporeans from procuring more energy-efficient appliances and keeping up with technological advancements. The former will definitely not support environmentalism, while the latter will create speed bumps in our drive to make Singapore a smart nation and a global tech hub.
Sir, I wish to make three proposals as to how we can take the provisions of the Bill further and work towards Singaporeans coming together to reduce waste and engaging in measures beneficial for the environment.
First, the Government should launch an education campaign aimed at educating businesses and consumers on how to properly dispose of various kinds of waste, including food and e-waste. The goal of this campaign is to ultimately ingrain sustainable practices into the subconscious of each and every Singaporean, in a similar fashion to how the proper separation of waste has become a given to most Japanese people. In addition, in relation to education pertaining to consumers and businesses, the Government should aim for the three following policy outcomes.
One, for consumers and businesses to make every conscious effort to fight climate change and engage in sustainable practices, such as using energy-efficient appliances and purchasing the right amount of food.
Two, for responsible consumption and proper disposal of waste to become second nature to consumers and businesses.
Three, for consumers and businesses to encourage others to adhere to sustainable practices, through whistle-blowing or otherwise, and to prevent the indiscriminate disposal of waste.
Second, the Government can provide tax breaks or grants to retailers who choose to engage in corporate social responsibility programmes, such as replacing the energy-inefficient appliances of low-income households with more energy-efficient models.
Sir, air conditioners and refrigerators which are energy-inefficient consume a great amount of energy. Low-income households are unable, rather than unwilling, to replace these. It would be beneficial if the Government can provide tax breaks for these companies as their actions will help not just the environment, but also our less fortunate.
Third, the Government can work with our supermarkets to ensure that food nearing expiry is not simply disposed of but is provided to the less well-off in Singapore.
The French Government passed a law in 2016 mandating that large supermarkets have to donate excess food to food banks and charitable organisations. If we had a similar initiative in Singapore, we can not only reduce the amount of food waste, but can also help those in need. Struggling households will greatly benefit from receiving this food, while we make strides in cutting down on waste. I would like to propose that the Ministry study the possibility of enacting similar measures.
Sir, in conclusion, while I stand wholly in support of the Bill, I believe that future legislation or initiatives should make more room for the inclusion of all those who reside in Singapore to contribute more to sustainability. I believe that the best solution to solving our issues pertaining to waste is to foster an environmentally-conscious society on all levels and across all sectors, in which the pursuit of reduced waste is a concept which is ingrained on a subconscious level in Singaporean businesses, people and Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as Board Director of the Singapore Environment Council.
In the face of scorching temperatures, environmental degradation and climate change, the Resource Sustainability Bill, an entirely new Bill to address these critical issues, is very welcome, indeed.
We in Singapore have become well-acquainted with the 3Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle – perhaps to the point that they have become somewhat trite and lost valuable traction. In truth, although many of us try hard to practise these 3Rs, it seems like broader structural factors and norms work against our best efforts.
Let me illustrate with one of my favourite Instagram accounts, that of Tabao Girl. This environmentally-minded young woman meticulously details the steps she takes daily to reduce her use of disposables. On most days, she succeeds remarkably with her inspiring arsenal of reusable cups, containers and cutlery, and enjoys her takeaway food like the rest of us.
But one day in July this year, she recounted in a post her distressing experience at a bakery while waiting behind another customer. She said, "When he was done paying, I was almost going to cry. First, the 13 buns, each in one plastic bag of its own. Then he wanted six buns in one bag and seven buns in another – and he wanted them double-bagged. Then he asked the cashier to give him one large bag to put everything into. In one bakery trip for 13 buns, there was a total of 18 – eighteen plastic bags – used in one single transaction."
I share her distress when I witness such scenes in bakeries, hawker centres and supermarkets. It seems that, as consumers, we have become so precious that food items must be individually packed for fear that they come into contact with each other. Heaven forbid that we allow our floss buns to defile our chocolate croissants! Indeed, I often find it difficult to advise service staff that I do not wish to have my breads individually packed and that I have no need for disposable cutlery. Many look at me with annoyance, as if I have disrupted their well-established work processes.
I do not fault these staff. The broader structural factors we all labour under are norms set in place by industries and consumer expectations which have been shaped as a result.
Companies are keen to win over customers and see offering individual packaging and free bags as good service. Consumers are, in turn, trained to expect and demand such provisions and this vicious cycle perpetuates itself countless times every single day. Over time, such norms and expectations result in mountains of trash and ingrain in our people wasteful habits that generate more rubbish than we can handle. These harmful norms and expectations exist not only in F&B but in virtually every industry.
I would, therefore, like to propose an alternative set of 3Rs that can take environmental sustainability at institutional and individual levels to a higher plane. In addition to reduce, reuse and recycle, therefore, I propose that we strive to reinvent, recalibrate and reward.
The Resource Sustainability Act will be an excellent initiative with regard to reinvention. By requiring that those who profit from the supply of products be responsible for collecting and treating these products when they become waste, companies will be more cognizant of downstream effects of their commercial activity. Hence, this will motivate them to invest more heavily in reinventing their products so that waste generation is minimised.
On the specific issue of e-waste that the Bill seeks to address, technology companies have for too long practised planned obsolescence to boost consumer demand. They design lifespans of products, such as smartphones and laptop computers, to be artificially short so that consumers are forced to ditch functional products and acquire new ones. Some devices are also designed to be difficult to repair, or with replacement parts that are tightly controlled by the company, thereby making it challenging to extend their lifespans through replacing faulty parts. Consumers find it far easier to buy a whole new device and junk the old one.
In contrast, consider the Dutch social enterprise Fairphone which produces smartphones with significantly less environmental impact. Fairphones are designed to be easy to open, repair and upgrade. For example, Fairphone owners can unscrew their phones and replace the cameras, thereby enjoying the latest technology without having to buy an entirely new phone. Their phones are designed to last for at least five years, more than twice the standard 24-month smartphone replacement cycle.
Examples such as Fairphone show us that resource sustainability is achievable through reinvention, especially if we introduce the right levers. In addition to the much welcomed Resource Sustainability Act, therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to consider introducing additional laws to combat the exploitative practice of planned obsolescence, as well as laws to strengthen consumers' rights to repair their electrical and electronic products.
The next "R" we must act upon is to recalibrate. It is time we recalibrate people's expectations for what constitutes excellent service and warm hospitality. When did we transform into a society where events must involve goody bags, bottled water and an oversupply of catered food? How did our homes start to be filled with conference swag – stuff we all get – that we dump into landfills after engaging in Marie-Kondo-inspired spring cleaning?
Thankfully, these norms need not be cast in stone. Collectively, we can forge fresh norms that help to advance resource sustainability. Conference organisers should dispense with goody bags, hotels can do away with small toiletries bottles and bakeries must discontinue this practice of wrapping buns in individual bags.
I was delighted to learn before entering the House today that Fairprice is starting a month-long trial to charge for plastic bags in various outlets.
Every industry can identify positive disruptions to enhance environmental sustainability. Once we create new norms, we recalibrate consumer expectations and break the cycle of wasteful product practices that seem to be more entrenched as we become more affluent.
Finally, the third "R" is to reward. Beyond punitive measures that clearly have their place in our eco-system, we must also consider introducing more schemes to reward companies and consumers for their efforts towards resource sustainability.
As the recent study by the Singapore Environment Council on building a circular food economy revealed, an estimated $2.54 billion of food loss occurs in Singapore from farm to market annually. This astounding loss must be addressed.
We need to introduce more incentive schemes for companies to invest in technology to extend the shelf-life of food items. We also have to encourage different players within the food supply chain to collaborate on practicable solutions to stemming food waste. We should also develop Singapore as a centre where we specialise in innovations to transform food waste streams into valuable by-products. By rewarding such investments, collaborations and innovations, we can steer companies towards greater resource sustainability.
Similarly, on the consumer level, we can introduce schemes to change consumer behaviour. Those who choose options with a smaller carbon footprint can be rewarded with loyalty points that translate into discounts. Similarly, consumers can be encouraged to reward companies that offer more green alternatives through rating and voting systems. Step by step, through actions big and small, we can shift mindsets and change behaviour for the better.
In conclusion Mr Deputy Speaker, I firmly support the Resource Sustainability Bill and urge companies and consumers to reduce, reuse and recycle, but also to reinvent, recalibrate and reward.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interests as the President of Singapore Manufacturing Federation, Vice Chairman of Singapore Business Federation, Vice President of Singapore National Employers Federation and Chairman of Sakae Holdings Limited. I rise in support of the Resource Sustainability Bill.
The Resource Sustainability Bill seeks to better manage three critical waste streams: electrical and electronic waste; packaging waste, including plastics; and, food waste.
Over the last few years, as sustainability took on greater prominence worldwide, I am happy to report that as a federation, the Singapore Manufacturing Federation (SMF) has through our various industry groups held numerous events and dialogues with the manufacturing community with a focus on the journey towards Zero Waste. In fact, the SMF has a function committee set up to advocate good practices specifically in the fields of health, safety, security and environment.
One of the cross-industry collaborative examples which I am proud to share is that for the first time, the packaging industry group and the food and beverage industry group jointly held the annual Packaging Council of Singapore Conference, titled "Journey towards Zero Waste".
However, while trade associations and chambers such as the SMF continue to champion the need for environmental awareness and conservation, it is clear that there are some speed bumps which we must address preliminarily. These take the form of the following: business priorities and increasing costs; support for the required reporting processes; and thirdly, education, outreach and enforcement.
Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, please allow me now to move into each of the three areas of wastes identified by this Bill and share with this House pertinent views from the industry players in the three sectors.
Under the Bill, E-waste, which encompasses electrical and electronic consumer equipment, large scale producers are required to fund a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) which will be responsible for organising e-waste collection and recycling. This move brings Singapore on par with numerous similar collection and recycling initiatives worldwide, including Japan's Home Appliance Recycling Law, the EU's Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive), the US state recycling laws on waste electrical and electronic equipment.
Many MNCs have taken it upon themselves to include waste management into their business strategy as part of their sustainability responsibilities. I agree that more can be done and more companies in Singapore need to take active measures to be on par with global standards. There are already a number of retailer-driven collection initiatives in place in Singapore. With the collection efforts being moved to the producers as well, there is optimism that we will truly be able to close the loop and have some materials recovered for future use by the producers.
Yet, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a legitimate and common concern for the industry – will there be any form of support, in terms of funding or subsidies, for the extra manpower or training of manpower for the required reporting processes detailed in this Bill?
I now move to speak on Packaging Waste. The Packaging Council of Singapore, or PCS in short, is an Industry Group of the SMF representing the local packaging industry, not just locally but also at the world and Asian levels of the packaging world.
Since five years ago, the PCS has been organising an Annual Star Awards to recognise outstanding packaging innovations, some of which have also won international acclaim. At this year’s awards held last month in August, Senior Minister of State for Health and Law Mr Edwin Tong graced the event as the Guest of Honour. In his keynote speech at the event, Mr Tong noted that many of this year’s winners displayed environmental awareness by innovating packaging materials and design with the use of recycled or more environmentally friendly products.
While there is still much room to improve in this particular industry, especially in relation to packaging materials for the food and beverage industry, I am heartened to see companies already creating packaging solutions for commercial use by utilising recycled materials such as crop waste and mineral stone instead of plastics. I am especially happy and proud to add that, of the 29 awardees of the awards this year, 20 were awarded to students from our local Polytechnics. This demonstrates that our young and our future are already gearing up for a future where sustainable materials should take centrestage.
The next steps for the packaging industry would be for companies downstream to adopt and use sustainable solutions and thereby further encouraging future innovations.
However, the use of such sustainable packaging may in some industries lead to increased costs. For some companies, and even some sole proprietors, such as those operating food stalls, the increase in such costs are not justifiable even if indeed in the long run, such options may prove to be more beneficial. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if there are plans to incentivise the use of more sustainable packaging materials or disincentivise the use of non-environmentally friendly packaging.
In addition, under this Bill, producers now have to report the amount of packaging put to market annually. While this will definitely give an idea of the packaging volume we are dealing with, packaging producers share the same concerns as their electronic and electrical counter parts in terms of support required for the additional manpower which I stated earlier in my speech. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The next area of focus of the Bill is that of food waste. In Singapore, food waste has grown by around 30% over the last 10 years. In 2018, 738 million kg of food waste was generated.
When food is wasted, there is a need to source for more food to meet demand, which results in increased costs. Resources that were used to grow and deliver the food is also wasted and more resources are also consumed to dispose of the waste.
In the Journey to Zero Waste, businesses play a major role. Adoption of smart storage and preparation processes reduces excess food production and wastage. In the food waste management strategy laid out in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015, the key goal is to Prevent and Reduce Food Wastage at Source. In this regard, a Food Waste Minimisation Guidebook for Food Manufacturing Establishments is now available from the National Environment Agency to help businesses with this goal.
It is undeniable that for food manufacturers, waste reduction and management is key, and this should be part of the long-term business operations for major companies. The SMF is committed to continue to hold dialogues to assist companies on this journey. Under this Bill, from 2024, commercial and industrial premises that generate large amounts of food waste must segregate and treat the food waste on their premises.
For food producers seeking to treat their own food waste, they do see that this is a way forward. However, the concern from local companies operating at scale is what resources will be made available in terms of equipment and training since waste treatment is quite a specific process.
In addition, the generation of waste from the food industry can also be attributed to the transportation process of the supply chain. In this context, may I ask the Minister if there are plans to better support the infrastructure for better standards in cold food chain management to reduce food loss and waste?
Mr Speaker, Sir, with the above, it is clear that the plank in the concerns of industry players are the immediate increased costs and resources available for them in navigating the sustainability journey. For some businesses, especially SMEs, the actual or perceived costs of changing their business model towards a more sustainability friendly model may indeed become the obstacle.
In this regard, may I ask the Minister if there are plans for the Ministry to help encourage financial institutions to give more "green financing" in the manufacturing sector? While the "green financing" concept is relatively known to the building sector, this does not seem to have gained traction in other sectors.
Further, the manufacturing industry would like to lobby for more support for SMEs to help secure loans when they raise their sustainability standards. This would also play a part in enabling the circular economy as expressed by the Ministry for the electronics and food manufacturing industries.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is welcomed because of the common consensus that this world does not belong to any one generation but always to the next. Yet, the concerns that I have raised above are indeed legitimate concerns especially in the current uncertain global economic climate.
As a strong advocate of Singapore's own brand of tripartite partnership that of the Government, the employers and the employees working as one, I am confident that the issues I have raised earlier in my speech can be overcome. Continued dialogues and cross-engagement amongst all three groups will be key. The Government looks to the employers for their support in achieving the objectives of a sustainable future. The employers look to the Government for direction and support and the employees look to their employers to learn how their own individual conduct in the office can affect the environment. The concerns, views and contributions of each individual group of the tripartite partnership must always be valued and should never be trivialised.
As a trade association, the SMF has already been working closely with the Singapore Environment Council, the SEC in short, on a couple of initiatives. The first is to help industries embed green culture and DNA by certifying them with the "Eco-Office" mark which helps employees in companies better understand the co-relation between climate change and their behavioural attitudes in the workplace.
Secondly, the SMF is also working with SEC to develop an "Eco-Manufacturing" certification label to ensure that environmental sustainability standards and capabilities are raised and embedded in companies. The Eco-Manufacturing initiative will encourage companies to continue to set higher standards in sustainability.
In concluding my speech, it is my heartfelt hope that with support from the Ministry, other trade associations and chambers will all come together and work together with the SMF in achieving a better future for our next generations.
PAPERCUTS