Resource Sustainability Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Let me first declare my interest as Advisor to the Federation of Merchant Association, which represents SMEs especially micro and heartland SMEs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as Director to NTUC Foodfare and Advisor to Singapore Food Manufacturers' Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].*

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